Kendall County Times

Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met June 24.

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; Alejandro Hardaway, Management Analyst; and Jim Murphy, Village Attorney.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum was opened at 6:04 p.m. There was no one who requested to speak. The public forum was closed at 6:04 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS

F.1 Discuss Possible Changes to Economic Development Incentive Award (EDIA) Eligibility & Program Criteria

Director Leighty addressed the Board regarding the incentive award program. The Village Board adopted an Economic Incentive Policy in September 2014 which aimed to provide guidance and direction to the development community for evaluating financial incentive requests. One of the financial incentives offered at that time was the “Façade Improvement Program” which incentivized property and business owners to make physical improvements to the facades of downtown buildings. The 2014 policy outlined several public goals for the program including the attraction of desired types of businesses downtown and expansion of the local tax base. Due to minimal interest in the façade improvement program, the Village Board adopted a revised policy in August 2018 that is still in use today. The Economic Development Incentive Award (EDIA) program offers more flexibility than its predecessor by allowing for additional types of improvements including internal renovation projects. Eligible applicants may qualify for up to a $40K match-based award and they must be a new or existing business located in Oswego’s Downtown TIF District. According to the eligibility and program criteria for the EDIA program, applicants must “contribute to and enhance Oswego’s dynamic downtown” by identifying “real property improvements that are permanently affixed to the property”.

Based on the original intent of the program, the Village Board has historically been supportive of applications which:

1. Enhance the overall value of real estate which positively contributes to the downtown TIF district (i.e., generate TIF increment); and

2. Improve marketability of downtown properties should they become vacant (e.g., second gen kitchen infrastructure, fire suppression systems, ADA accessibility, etc.)

A few examples of recently completed projects that fulfill these goals include My Sisters Lil Donut Shop (25 S. Madison), Freddie’s Off the Chain (11 S. Madison), and Nash Vegas Saloon (61 Main). In each case, substantial improvements were made to upgrade the building’s tenant spaces, which in turn made the properties more valuable and marketable. Alternatively, applications that proposed work considered to be “general maintenance” were only permitted to apply if they also included functional improvements, otherwise they were discouraged from applying altogether.

To serve as a starting point for a discussion on possible changes to the program, staff presented the current eligibility criteria to the Economic Development Commission and sought feedback to be conveyed to the Village Board. More specifically, feedback was sought for more adequately clarifying eligible expenses under the EDIA program and what types of improvements should be included. The Commissioners discussed the topic at its Special Economic Development Commission meeting on June 9th and provided a consensus for various considerations:

1) Agreed with the original intent of the program to incentivize permanent and functional improvements that enhance real estate in the downtown area.

2) Suggested additional consideration be given to property improvements which enhance overall beautification of the downtown, including certain types of “general maintenance” items.

• Enhancing the appearance of the downtown area is important for helping advance economic development.

3) Suggested that not all maintenance-related items should be eligible for funding.

• Eligible general maintenance items should be for beautification purposes only and thus should be visible from the property’s right-of-way.

• Discussed making roof improvements (including replacement) completely ineligible for funding.

4) Suggested a list of examples of eligible and ineligible expenses should be included in the Eligibility & Program Criteria.

• General maintenance expenses deemed eligible should be listed.

• Eligible maintenance improvements should be capped at a max dollar amount.

Based on the 6/9 EDC meeting discussion and previous EDIA applications received, staff suggested eligible maintenance-related expenses not exceed a $5,000 total grant award (which would require a minimum project cost of $10,000). The following is a summary of the list of eligible, partially eligible, and ineligible expenses pursuant to the EDC’s feedback:

Eligible:

• Building additions (external construction of new structures on existing property, new building construction on undeveloped lots, etc.)

• Electrical work (e.g., conduit, wiring, new permanent lighting fixtures, etc.)

• Installation of permanent kitchen infrastructure (grease traps, triple compartment sink, mop sink, hood system, etc.)

• Internal building renovations (new walls, structural improvements, etc.)

• Life safety and accessibility improvements (fire suppression/prevention systems, widening doorways and installing grab bars/railing/ramps in accordance with ADA or Illinois Accessibility Code, etc.)

• Plumbing improvements (installation/relocation of plumbing fixtures, enhancement of existing permanent fixtures, etc.)

• Public infrastructure improvements (water main upgrades/replacement, sewer line upgrades/replacement, installation of stormwater detention, sidewalk improvements, etc.)

• Signage (on-site signage permanently affixed to ground or building on subject property including awnings)

Partially Eligible (limit applies):

• Landscaping (new installation of native trees, plants, and other similar landscaping items)

• Masonry work (tuckpointing, brick/stone work, mortar repair, etc.),

• Painting and/or substantial cleaning of building (exterior only)

• Parking lot improvements (sealcoating, striping, patching, replacement, etc.)

• Window and door repair or replacement (exterior only, does not apply to accessibility improvements)

Ineligible:

• Painting and/or substantial cleaning of building (interior only)

• Roof repairs (including replacement)

• Temporary property and building improvements (including temporary/removable fixtures, furniture, equipment, etc.)

• Window and door repair or replacement (interior only, does not apply to accessibility improvements)

Board and staff discussion included: eligible versus not eligible; how electrical fits into the “seen by the street”; scorecard and evaluations would be helpful; how short term investment will be seen as long term investment; appreciate the work done by staff and the EDC; what the grant should be used for; how do we want the businesses to be more appealable; more shopping in the downtown; don’t like the definitions of eligible, not eligible and partially eligible; only improvements to the property; roof should be allowed; they should apply for what they need; we don’t do a “but for” analysis; don’t have funds to help everyone; get the structure itself up to sellable or a livable facility; support the program, but need clarity on it; if it stays after the business closes, then it should be allowed; reviewing of applications; whether it is the incentive that brings business here; the process will help identify what we can help them with; new development versus current structures; age of property should be considered when determining eligibility; can’t evaluate based on needs; program is only for the downtown TIF District; staff evaluates each application request and requires detailed financials, budget, scope of work, and invoices; grant capped at $40,000 and they only get 50%; how many times a business can apply for the grant; haven’t had a business apply multiple times for multiple projects; create uniformed requirements for what the downtown should look like; wanting to make sure all parts of the downtown are served; how the community sees us and how we are handling the program; how do we get downtown businesses to have value in the downtown; strategic plan discussions will address the bigger picture of the downtown; started as a façade program; went many years where no one applied; hate to limit and stop a business from coming in; whether to create two different programs: 1) façade, 2) long-term improvements; shouldn’t allow something that could fall apart in a year; staff reviews and addresses any concerns with quality; not excited about signage and should only be what goes with the building; signage is an important element; some businesses have signs on the awnings; what about signage repairs; whether businesses can be fined for not upkeeping parking lots; sealcoating needs to be done every year; 30% of parking lots in the downtown are owned by the business; can revisit after strategic plan discussions; like the EDC suggestions; how much it would cost to rebuild an entire row of buildings; recent repairs on one of the buildings cost $80,000 for tuck pointing, roof repairs, and the awning; it cost $4 million to do new streetscape around the Reserve at Hudson Crossing south building; complaints about the wooden awnings; staff reached out to see if the businesses would change the awnings; some said yes and some said no; this program is making a difference in the downtown; application review and discretion is on the staff level.

Staff was directed to do the following:

1) Move masonry work from partially eligible to eligible

2) Move painting and/or substantial cleaning of building (exterior only) from partially eligible to eligible

3) Move window and door repair or replacement (exterior only) from partially eligible to eligible

4) Move roof repairs from ineligible to partially eligible

5) Cap partially eligible projects at $5,000

There was no further discussion.

F.2 Discussion of Dog Park Operations and Location Considerations

Director Cassidy addressed the Board regarding the current dog park at Public Works. The Oswego Dog Park opened in FY2023 as a ~1.5-acre facility at the PW facility and was initially well-received. Since that time, participation has gradually declined. At the beginning of the current year, the Village eliminated the annual dog park fee due to the anticipated closure from the upcoming PW facility expansion, resulting in 41 new registrants. There are currently 133 active card holders, a decline in the peak total number of unique users since the dog park’s inception of 451. Current operational expenses are minimal, consisting of approximately two hours of weekly Public Works maintenance ($3,220 annually) and about $100 per year for supplies, with limited administrative time required for registration. Additional facility costs, such as repairs and card access, have remained low. While there are several dog parks within Oswego subdivisions, it is unclear if these are accessible to non-residents, and no alternative facility information has been provided to current users. The Park District was approached about taking ownership of the Village equipment to open their own dog park, but they declined. The dog park equipment including the obstacles, dog waste trash can, the tops of the shade sails, benches and tables can all be relocated. This represents roughly $18,225 in equipment and obstacles. The fact that the fence and sail posts are cemented in concrete in the ground presents a challenge of removal and new location reuse. Assuming the ability to relocate the access system (roughly $5,483), the Village could save $23,208 in dog park amenities.

If the Village Board is interested in keeping the dog park operational, staff suggested the following three Village owned sites to be considered for relocation:

Board and staff discussion included: keeping the dog park, but moving it; why did people stop using it; number of card swipes per day averaged between 2-27; where is the best place to move it; having a communication plan; current dog park is too small; only gain a small amount by moving it to the police department; Public Works was initially picked because of the parking available, monitoring and access to water, and the ability to do maintenance in sections; police department parking is limited; need to build a new parking lot at the police department; losing valuable space at the Venue; will need to close the dog park if there is an event at the Venue; could get more parking at Hunt Club; asking Kendall County for additional access from the road; the reason for permits is to make sure dogs are vaccinated; could eliminate fees and build a water fountain later at Hunt Club; asking Park District about an intergovernmental agreement for one of their properties, or if they can give us land; Hunt Club seems the easiest, but people could complain that it is all the way on the other side of town; like the separation of small dogs to large dogs; like the police site because it is centrally located and near residents; walking paths; maintenance concerns; not many parking spaces at the police site; secure lot will have limited parking because of new evidence garage being built; police department will need to build another parking lot for their future growth; how we tell people about the relocation of the dog park; focusing on Hunt Club and possible Park District property; County denied access from Collins road; tree nursery on the back side of the Hunt Club site. Board consensus was to keep the park.

Staff directed to do the following:

• Provide the demographics/map on current permit holders

• Send a survey to the current permit holders

• Contact the Park District about property they may have

There was no further discussion.

CLOSED SESSION

There was no closed session.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3441675/2025.06.24_Committee_of_the_Whole_Minutes.pdf