[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6236596,"mediaKeyId","3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468","parentId",3355842,"title","Board awards road‑program bids, approves resurfacing contracts and schedules bridge inspections","audioSeconds",187,"startMs",2853000,"endMs",3040000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468&start=2853&end=3040","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468/thumbnail_2853000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6236596/Sugar-Grove/Kane-County/Illinois/Board-awards-roadprogram-bids-approves-resurfacing-contracts-and-schedules-bridge-inspections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236596-b6fad0cebaf3647c7eeb3bb496667138/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188265&Signature=UsByh52elkk1BvMBVba4g9jhTBcwSYU6vB~JcFFmGPhYn3BA8BdV2gVQ-q0H237XkGF5-pEQ1BqwHNXD7VJrLY27zpz8ZGasTal5Hmwzee9b6MtGLQKj~W4aDslDsa7GX542dMM4PJhTz4DyFFU~086y3oAzlujsH2rMPK9fD~Ck33MWKpAWIulV50YAwBuoIq1xomFEdaZsE7h7hIYQW-bHPrR-LJo08hSJKcgPOIo9TFoZNyGg4dWIJUINkqWjrOI4CPm-kUVB5lqMy6oEE3mpmeXLM16cLe-qUnelyfXnf8IBAJNbJVlf~1t15ROHuCvt0FR19k~vd-XW0ghB7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Sugar Grove, IL","date","2025-05-16T15:33:02Z","article","The board approved bid awards for the village’s 2025 road program and considered multiple resurfacing projects and related supplemental agreements.

Public works staff summarized the annual program that includes repairs and ADA work on local streets (Veil/Stanley, Stanley Road, Calkins, Yolaine Street) and paving in coordination with townships on Kedeka Road. Staff said bids opened April 10 and the recommended contractor (Builders) was the lowest responsible bidder at approximately 2.2% under the engineer’s estimate; staff recommended awarding the contract and noted the project is included in the adopted budget. Trustees asked about potential change orders and staff said quantities were estimated conservatively and they did not anticipate significant change orders.

The board also reviewed bids for a separate resurfacing and culvert replacement project (Westfield/West Wheeler Road). Staff said that bid came in about 31.8% under the engineer’s estimate due to aggressive competition; the project will be funded in part by surplus closeout of TIF 1. Trustees asked whether additional roads (such as Dugan Road) were scheduled for resurfacing and staff confirmed Dugan is programmed for next year under a different jurisdictional program.

Staff briefed trustees on the village’s annual bridge‑inspection requirement under Federal Highway Administration rules; Sugar Grove has three bridges that are due for inspection this year and the inspection frequency depends on age and condition. Trustees received the status update and no action was required on the inspections at the meeting.

Finally, staff presented a supplemental agreement to close out the village’s MFT (Motor Fuel Tax) program for 2024 after receiving final state allotment; staff explained the supplemental resolution is an annual housekeeping measure to reconcile final MFT dollars with the state.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Village of Sugar Grove Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Trustees approved multiple bid awards for the annual road program and specific resurfacing projects, heard that bids came in below engineer estimates, and were briefed on the village's annual bridge‑inspection schedule required by federal guidelines.","taxTitle","Sugar Grove, Kane County, Illinois","taxId",54128,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6236599,"Trustees debate social‑media policy after insurer counsel recommends a closed forum",96,4094000,4190000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468&start=4094&end=4190","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468/thumbnail_4094000.jpg","/articles/6236599/Sugar-Grove/Kane-County/Illinois/Trustees-debate-socialmedia-policy-after-insurer-counsel-recommends-a-closed-forum","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236599-2b31fafb3864275bf7063f582e9ffbce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188265&Signature=OOR259pT327lH5wxU~PRcxcXi9KOReP~hgdQpMIqf5kEPwRt5GMPB72d58XYdr83Fl7mfItxeUdIHriQA0x-CCRDiYakd6Xp4h7VAQfBG2KeFTyVkqFYVbmZIC9zWA5lyFDmcYs2gc2HtVXLVM1kZNW5U-WsqAHDYo4Q1u0wzhMA3o5RTQ8INvN-l0-nr3tsYpT1WUBn~-c8okObVgXsWao8cOlkJ9nIOszKhhJY3ilAvSkKtDNRshZB53tsk78R8swHIRc7FSD~XyXGIVGLDOf8GD3whneuDw5Pz~rgBLYlX9M-Vj1xLxSTNS2qR3aj1GV6GOE2sH3xS4zFS0XymQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Village staff asked the board to revisit the village’s social‑media comments policy. The item followed a prior change that had restricted public comments on village posts; staff and counsel summarized options including a closed forum (no public comments), a limited public forum (strict removal rules), or effectively opening comments with minimal moderation.

Legal counsel and staff reported that IRMA (the village’s liability insurer) advised that a closed forum carries the least exposure. Counsel said that the Illinois attorney general’s public access counsel promotes greater openness where feasible, creating a policy trade‑off: greater openness increases public engagement but also raises legal and moderation risk, particularly when staff cannot monitor the page 24/7.

Trustees raised several practical concerns: weekends and off‑hours posts that could spread false emergency information, the absence of continuous monitoring, and the subjective nature of content moderation decisions. One trustee asked whether Facebook’s own content‑policy enforcement could be relied upon to remove posts that violate platform rules; staff said reporting remains a village responsibility and that Facebook does not proactively police individual municipal pages for all content.

Several board members suggested technical mitigations before any change in comment policy: a prominent “how to contact” linkage on the village Facebook page that routes public input to a village email or request portal; automated acknowledgement replies; and an email alias that forwards public comment submissions to staff and trustees. Staff offered to research examples from other municipalities and return with options, and trustees scheduled continued discussion for the May 20 meeting.

No vote was taken; trustees asked staff to return with detailed policy options that clearly define which categories of posts would be removed and to estimate monitoring workload and any staffing implications.","The board revisited a social‑media comments policy after IRMA (insurance) advice favored a closed comment policy to reduce liability; trustees and counsel discussed options ranging from closed forum to limited public forum with strict rules and monitoring obligations.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6236604,"Police say automatic license‑plate readers help investigations; village to relocate cameras and face higher recurring fees",610,3410000,4020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468&start=3410&end=4020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468/thumbnail_3410000.jpg","/articles/6236604/Sugar-Grove/Kane-County/Illinois/Police-say-automatic-licenseplate-readers-help-investigations-village-to-relocate-cameras-and-face-higher-recurring-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236604-f5bb0548669f8c4731c2d4b92cf6e452/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188265&Signature=Pyuun8QEj2BaKeuMw-K717klM9NtMTZ2ldayNbXoS80ZX~~EYEjp9PwYHGz626zZh5zZFy8dRS~oOv-BvZuzjL2q5B9LY-58TGhprnIy93cUA3JRxFBI0y6JdfozMKfdg8OCDxtzM9EQ2-gWdUujyHcW8e44dPpA16fBLCHnQFlZzvfzD2H1zEDJgNzXjD0UKFPjGuS9HE9inytV4NCFPc8BuiAgTQN8CWtQ9qyg3wUYtuNETYtX9fYggCkTaDVnSIOL7mNP2ykJF0AIrXnLpqiYoPa9L9IA2wtTxMARwKTqu0KHKhMbbeGhzA7HszbsNgydRhL7igQFchcRHrmv8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sugar Grove Police presented an update on the village’s automatic license‑plate reader (ALPR) program, including the status of temporary and fixed cameras, operational results and recurring costs.

Chief Rollins (Sugar Grove Police) said the village initially installed temporary cameras in 2024 and operates seven cameras now, with plans to convert temporary units to four permanent fixed locations once permitting and site agreements are complete. One remaining fixed installation has required additional permitting with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT); staff located a privately owned parcel near a state route to place a camera without an IDOT permit, subject to a property agreement and possible future relocation if the property develops.

Rollins summarized operational data for the most recent 30‑day window: “We’ve had 21 searches on the system … and 2,960 hits,” meaning records in the ALPR database matched plates that passed the village cameras. He said the system is used for investigative leads including stolen vehicles, Amber Alerts and persons of interest; officers receive alerts but “you still can't just take action based solely on the information.”

On pricing, Rollins said initial year costs included setup and $2,500 per camera annual fees when the village purchased cameras in 2023. He told trustees that Flock has raised subscription pricing for new cameras to $3,000 per camera per year and $3,500 for mobile units; the company waived relocation installation costs for the village if the village finalizes moves in the current month. Rollins said squad cars also have ALPRs as part of fleet systems and that the ALPR database is refreshed typically every 24 hours (with immediate overrides for active alerts like Amber Alerts).

Trustees pressed staff on monitoring and moderation of data and on how many “hits” translate into actionable work for officers. Rollins said staff filters lower‑level results and pushes higher‑priority alerts to officers, and acknowledged the need to balance alert volume with patrol resources.

Staff said the village initially budgeted $10,000 for year 2 of the program (covering multiple cameras) and that increasing vendor rates will raise the village’s recurring costs. The board did not make new budgetary commitments at the meeting but was informed of the higher subscription rates and the planned relocations.","Sugar Grove police described expanded use of automatic license‑plate readers (vendor: Flock), operational benefits and privacy safeguards; the village plans to relocate temporary cameras to fixed sites, waive installation fees this month, and faces increased annual subscription costs per camera.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6236609,"Board approves annexation amendment and final plat for two Hannaford Farm lots",1572,1198000,2770000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468&start=1198&end=2770","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468/thumbnail_1198000.jpg","/articles/6236609/Sugar-Grove/Kane-County/Illinois/Board-approves-annexation-amendment-and-final-plat-for-two-Hannaford-Farm-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236609-b4d223ce725028192d588c9033ab1f33/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188265&Signature=GuFI2kzxF45MurMwhvFss7YRN6CmFC8VlLEI1aSPpOBbep9plz2SFcfuMq3fNWIvDgJuieOgjpnUkU5Vum2x3YrP3b58gAzwjDan7c028zldDly6GEuECmh7LBCq6TIMuGxV0uAO33~GnjD2z5GWiaVEvqWxIL534s9jVEiO9jIGyyZ2PEeHnOxKdqHuy04yqOxWLs2~ni1HFEGMrGgYeN7O~QP8XtCLlcNn6oj9TOuY1EULFsIb0Pv3kqbGvGcpH6waenAPWktY5SfoFM-PePI-QTQK0qeVQVvblnf9W4uoMlLB~Yo-sHaLZPlvEzWAYpytDiS83g9ixg1A~ma5bg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Village staff told trustees the village had received fee‑in‑lieu (FILO) payments for Lots 80 and 81 in the Hannaford Farm subdivision. The prior developer went bankrupt during construction, leaving public improvements incomplete; the FILO payments allow reimbursement for necessary public infrastructure work when the lots seek building permits.

Staff said that because the annexation agreement must be amended when the FILO payment is received, the statute and the annexation agreement required a public hearing before amending the agreement. The board opened the public hearing, took no public comment, closed the hearing and then considered the ordinance amending the Hannaford Farm annexation agreement for Lots 80 and 81.

Trustees moved and seconded approval of the annexation‑agreement amendment; staff described the item as “housekeeping” and recommended approval. During discussion trustees corrected a typographical error in the public hearing date on one form and adopted a motion to amend the date before finalizing the vote.

In a related item staff presented a final plat of subdivision submitted by the property owners seeking to combine Lots 80 and 81. Planning Commission reviewed the plat on April 16 and recommended approval. Staff noted a few clerical corrections that would be made on the final recorded plat, including updating certificate dates to 2025 and correcting a reference from “United City of Yorkville” to “Village of Sugar Grove.” Trustees approved the resolution adopting the final plat.

Staff said approvals of the annexation amendment and the final plat follow standard village practice for similar lots in Hannaford Farm and that the costs to complete public improvements will be reimbursed from FILO funds when building permits are issued.

Trustees did not raise substantive objections and asked staff to correct clerical items prior to recordation.","The board opened and closed a required public hearing, approved an ordinance amending the Hannaford Farm annexation agreement tied to fee-in-lieu payments for Lots 80 and 81, and approved a final plat combining those lots; staff said clerical corrections to the recorded plat will be made.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6236614,"Sugar Grove mayor issues written veto, halts flag resolution pending appeal",86,1083000,1169000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468&start=1083&end=1169","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3355842-0971f06a708d11e32e1ddd58f945b468/thumbnail_1083000.jpg","/articles/6236614/Sugar-Grove/Kane-County/Illinois/Sugar-Grove-mayor-issues-written-veto-halts-flag-resolution-pending-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6236614-402e8209fbfe5fd473ff0dc82a853be8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188265&Signature=ivlCCHa~JpfSZVF8xvMocGHIPxSyF-AV5rzO272QY7Y7uQlz-C8z3nnYLoRZG8bpxipRa~-Ygp8UaV73ZyZT7qw2EuEIBcKWvhC2lmSX9KEb~Lqfk1Of1nJjJbP2k9NU5WqaX8tGle7ELEMKBzkF8vrNDEqsZAz1Yf9N3b4SSkcvhO5P3O6qshkI1bhPlhZc4Uw3qU4tvL6fkdTwNLUInhFMoFC61mefQGJzVgdLvOcjMYGddim8f~RQGMvP1M8yPJAo9nuLFziDtkkLfxRIAgIt9QeL9uZbKuYxYJrJ2TNC6q3vOnY-lQ6pkgZcUAoBE9zPGEmrp-W09-z27PNhKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sugar Grove Village President Sue Stilwell issued a written veto of a recent resolution related to a flag matter and told the board “no further action regarding the flag shall proceed until the pending appeal is heard and resolved.”

The veto drew immediate procedural questions from trustees and legal counsel about whether the filing of an administrative appeal automatically stayed all subsequent transfer- or action-related proceedings. Trustee Heidi Lundy asked counsel to advise whether the board could take action on an item not on the published agenda and whether the veto required placement on a future agenda. Legal counsel said the matter raised complex procedural issues and described it as “an issue of first impression,” saying there is “not a lot of case law out there” about appeals followed by subsequent actions and vetoes by a change in administration.

“Respect for law and process demands this be done,” Stilwell wrote in the veto, adding the action was necessary “to uphold the village code, protect the rights of all parties, and reaffirm that decisions must follow lawful process, not political or private interest.”

Counsel explained that, under relevant statutory requirements discussed at the meeting, a vote to overturn a veto requires a supermajority and would be scheduled for the next meeting of the body. Counsel also said some courts and access counselors have litigated related open-meetings and appeal questions but that the current facts presented gray areas that lack controlling precedent.

Trustees debated parliamentary procedure on whether the mayor’s comments could be heard at this meeting or should wait for the president’s report or the next agenda; one trustee said personal statements are permitted but formal actions must follow agenda procedures. Several trustees asked that counsel provide a written opinion for the record and requested the item be handled on the next meeting’s agenda so staff and trustees could prepare.

No substantive final legal determination was made during the public portion of the meeting; trustees and counsel agreed the procedural question of whether the appeal stayed subsequent actions merits further review and likely formal placement on a future agenda.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the discussion; trustees signaled they would place any vote overturning a veto on a subsequent meeting as required by statute.","Village President Sue Stilwell issued a written veto of a board resolution concerning a flag action, and trustees and legal counsel debated whether subsequent actions were stayed by an administrative appeal; counsel described the question as an issue of first impression.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board awards road‑program bids, approves resurfacing contracts and schedules bridge inspections

Trustees debate social‑media policy after insurer counsel recommends a closed forum

Police say automatic license‑plate readers help investigations; village to relocate cameras and face higher recurring fees

Board approves annexation amendment and final plat for two Hannaford Farm lots

Sugar Grove mayor issues written veto, halts flag resolution pending appeal