Oswego Village Hall | LinkedIn
Oswego Village Hall | LinkedIn
Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met June 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
CALL TO ORDER
President Ryan Kauffman called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Board Members Physically Present: President Ryan Kauffman; Trustees Jac Cooper, Jennifer Hughes, Rachelle Koenig, Karin McCarthy-Lange, Karen Novy, and Andrew Torres.
Staff Physically Present: Dan Di Santo, Village Administrator; Jean Bueche, Asst. Village Administrator; Tina Touchette, Village Clerk; Jason Bastin, Police Chief; Curt Cassidy, Public Works Director; Andrea Lamberg, Finance Director; Rod Zenner, Development Services Director; Joe Renzetti, IT/GIS Director; Kevin Leighty, Economic Development Director; Phil Tartaglia, PW Deputy Director/Engineer; Maddie Upham, Asst. to the Village Administrator; Lisset Padilla, Communications Manager, and Jim Murphy, Village Attorney.
PUBLIC FORUM
Public Forum was opened at 6:02 p.m. There was no one who requested to speak. The public forum was closed at 6:02 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
F.1 2025 Community Survey Presentation
Administrator Di Santo addressed the Board regarding the 2025 survey. This is a random survey done every two years. This is the 4th time ETC Institute has conducted this survey for the Village.
Board, staff and ETC discussion included: increase in satisfaction in short-term and long-term; affordable housing has been a nationwide thing; typical for a fast growing community to have traffic flow issues; national survey is done every two years; police department is 10%+ above the national average; pedestrian accessibility and water rates are in par with other communities; trash services more than 20% above the national average; code compliance is 10% above the national average; management of Village finances has the biggest increase; demographics is one of the questions in the survey; ETC does additional outreach, if needed; surveys were mailed out and available online; 49% male and 51% female responded to the survey; age was even across the board; survey noted traffic flow, congestion and management of finances are the top overall priorities; Oswego’s traffic is larger because we are fast growing; generational differences; survey included a question on how long they lived in Oswego; wondering how the data skewed from living here a longer or shorter amount of time; future planning; had 300 responses from outside the survey sample; will need to tabulate those responses separately; trends that are coming; have not done any data on the open ended questions; need more staff review of answers; opportunities to fill a gap; open ended question comments are listed as verbatim; if someone took the time to write a comment, then the information should be included in the survey results; a question on whether they understood their taxes/fees was not included in the survey; only asked whether they were satisfied with taxes; Kendall County has a high tax rate; needed to be careful about leading questions; Oswego’s taxes are one of the lowest in the State; survey proved the value of Oswego’s staff; exceptional services from staff; police department and public works always great services; transparency and openness went up; we know traffic is a problem; need to get Wolfs Crossing widened;
Wolfs Crossing has gone from a 30 year project to a 20 year project; hoping to get the project down to 10 years; percentage of responses from renters was 80%; average income is 33% more than the State; if it’s a richer community, you get more positive responses; national average is based on all types of incomes; not missing any significant blind spots; affordable housing and traffic flow scored the lowest; questions for this survey are different than the questions for the Comp Plan; survey information will feed into the Village’s strategic plan; will be reviewing the strategic plan over the summer; new development quality response percentage was lower; people need to understand that just because a development went up quickly, doesn’t mean they are cheap.
ETC was asked to report back on the following:
1) Breakdown of how the survey was submitted
2) Breakdown on living here a longer or shorter amount of time
3) Difference between renter versus homeowner responses
Staff was requested to do the following:
1) AI analysis on open ended questions
There was no further discussion.
F.2 Discuss Possible Changes to Water Tap-On Fees for Residential Development
Administrator Di Santo addressed the Board regarding water tap-on fees. Oswego has always tried to strike a balance that ensures that residential developers pay their fair share of the impacts they have on Village infrastructure, while at the same time basing fees on market realities as not to discourage development. Water tap on fees are charged on any new connections onto the Village water system for residential and commercial users. The fees are deposited into the water and sewer capital fund and pay for capital projects such as our future connection to Lake Michigan water. In 2007, during the housing boom, the Village Board passed Ordinance 07-40, which increased residential water tap-on fees from $4,000/unit to $5,000/unit and increased commercial water tap on fees from as low as $1,500/unit to $3,750/unit. The commercial water tap-on fees have not changed since 2007, following guidance from the former Oswego Economic Development Corporation suggesting keeping the fees flat as an economic development incentive.
In 2010, feeling the impacts of revenue loss caused by the housing crisis of the Great Recession, the Village Board again discussed raising residential water tap-on fees. There were two schools of thought on the Village Board – raise the fees to $12,950/unit or to $7,200/unit. Out of concern for raising fees too high and stopping all growth, the Board passed Ordinance 10-25 that increased residential water tap-on fees to $7,200/unit. In 2015, with development still at a halt following the Great Recession, the Village joined with SD308 and the Fire, Library, and Park District to commission a study on reducing development fees to encourage a rebound of residential development. The study’s main focus was on Development Impact Fees and land/cash fees, and not specifically on water tap-on fees. Following the study, the Village Board passed Ordinance 15-68, which reduced residential water tap-on fees to $2,200/unit. At the time, that amount was determined to be the minimum needed to keep the water system fully funded, but the costs associated with switching water sources were not accounted for. In 2023, with the switch to Lake Michigan water on the horizon and knowing that our current residential water tap-on fees were low compared to nearby communities, during two Committee of the Whole discussions staff recommended considering increases to residential water tap on fees. During a water rate discussion on April 8, 2025, the Village Board directed staff to bring back a discussion on increasing residential tap-on fees, with a focus on comparisons with the other fast-growing towns of Yorkville and Plainfield.
The Village’s current residential water tap-on fee is $2,200/unit for all housing types (single-family, townhome, and apartments), regardless of bedroom count. These fees are low compared to Yorkville’s current fees ($6,761 - $7,555) and their recently approved fee increases out into 2028 ($9,761 - $10,555). Oswego’s fee is also less than Plainfield’s fee for single-family homes and townhomes ($3,305), but more than their $0 fee for apartments.
Water tap-on fees should be considered as part of the total fee structure associated with development (impact fees, building permit fees, etc). Oswego’s single-family total fees are higher than Yorkville’s current fees, but lower than Yorkville’s 2028 and Plainfield’s current fees. Oswego’s townhome total fees are lower than Yorkville’s current and 2028 fees and Plainfield’s current fees, and Oswego’s apartment total fees are lower than Yorkville’s current and 2028 fees, but higher than Plainfield’s current fees.
Comparative chart information:
| Single-Family | Water Connection | Total Fees | Difference |
| Oswego (current) | $2,200.00 | $23,870.57 | - |
| Yorkville (current) | $7,555.00 | $21,920.15 | $1,950.42 |
| Yorkville (2028) | $10,555.00 | $24,920.15 | ($1,049.58) |
| Plainfield (current) | $3,305.00 | $27,917.00 | ($4,046.43) |
| Townhome | Water Connection | Total Fees | Difference |
| Oswego (current) | $2,200.00 | $15,057.16 | - |
| Yorkville (2+ bed
current) | $6,761.00 | $19,963.48 | ($4,906.32) |
| Yorkville (2+ bed 2028) | $9,761.00 | $22,963.48 | ($7,906.32) |
| Plainfield (current) | $3,305.00 | $18,161.00 | ($3,103.84) |
| Apartment | Water Connection | Total Fees | Difference |
| Oswego (current) | $2,200.00 | $13,176.94 | - |
| Yorkville (2+ bed
current) | $6,761.00 | $19,615.33 | ($6,438.39) |
| Yorkville (2+ bed 2028) | $9,761.00 | $22,615.33 | ($9,438.39) |
| Plainfield (current) | $0.00 | $11,401.00 | $1,775.94 |
The impact of what an increase to water tap-on fees would mean to water rates is difficult to determine at this time. If the Village Board approves a new tap-on fee this summer, it would generally only apply to newly annexed or new developments approved after that date since development fees are typically frozen for 5 years on newly annexed developments. As entitlements, engineering, and earthwork take time, it may be 1 to 3 years until we start seeing new developments paying these fees and many developments take 2-10 years to fully construct and pay all their fees. The true impact of a fee increase will not likely be seen during the current water rate planning horizon that stretches until 2031. Staff recommends that a decision is made on water tap-on fees prior to approving new water rates this fall.
Board staff discussion included: got less money starting in 2010 because people stopped building; compared nine other towns in 2023; current comparison was only with Yorkville and Plainfield; want to stay competitive but not too high; Plainfield is not planning on increasing fees; they are already on Lake Michigan water; can always revisit the fees to make sure we are staying within the market; comfortable with the $3,000 increase; concerned about increasing fees to commercial developments; new water rate structure; paying more with larger water meters; fee increase is only for new construction and not current construction; hoping the increase will keep water rates lower; will have another conversation about water rates in August; won’t see the increase applied until after 2031 (5-10 years from now); increase will take effect upon Board approval; should do the increase sooner rather than later; current residents are already taking on the burden; new residents should be taking on some of the burden; concerns with the commercial side; percentage of buy-in costs for larger commercial businesses; affordable housing is not going to happen on its own; have to attract it; can move forward with residential, look at comps for commercial, or leave commercial alone; we need more commercial businesses; increase would be on all single family, townhomes and apartments; developers like the ease of our fee structure; they want surety and consistency; need to communicate why we are doing the increase; staff didn’t look into commercial; staff did a market analysis and increased the residential across the board; connection fees are per unit. Consensus was provided by the Village Board to increase the residential water tap-on fees by $3,000 and not increase for commercial. Staff will bring back an agenda item for Village Board approval and vote. There was no further discussion.
CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3429762/2025.06.10_Committee_of_the_Whole_Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up