North Aurora proposes $1.5 million initial water-impact fee for Aurora Packing under tentative agreement

Steve (staff member) told the Village of North Aurora Committee of the Whole on April 21 that village staff and Aurora Packing have reached a tentative agreement on a water-impact fee after several years of negotiations.

The agreement would require an initial payment of $1,500,000 from Aurora Packing at the time the agreement is executed, with a recheck of actual usage after the first full year of operation to calculate any additional impact charges, Steve said. He told the board that Aurora Packing’s projected average daily use rose from earlier estimates of about 231,000 gallons to roughly 347,000 gallons, and that the company’s projected maximum day use increased from 338,000 gallons to approximately 508,000 gallons — about the capacity of the village’s East Side Water Tower, which holds 500,000 gallons.

The fee is intended to reflect capital and operational impacts unique to a large water user, including additional wear on wells and the need for extra storage and treatment capacity, village attorney Kevin Bridal said. Bridal said the village’s engineering consultant calculated the fee using a formula tied to system capacity and risk to average-day service for residents.

To balance business continuity and system protections, the draft agreement includes monitoring and staged benchmarks rather than an immediate shutoff for modest exceedances, Steve said. The board described two examples in the draft agreement: a provision to revisit the fee if annual average usage exceeds a stated benchmark (reported in the meeting transcript as “15,000 gallons on average for a year”) and a trigger tied to single-day usage that would allow more urgent action if usage exceeded the company’s max day by 30,000 gallons (the board described that figure as producing about 538,000 gallons on a max day).

Don Zico, facilities manager at Aurora Packing, said the earlier estimate that was presented to the village had been miscommunicated. "It was misrepresented as 10%. What it should have been was 10% per cattle," Zico said, explaining how the company’s operational projections changed as it scaled cattle throughput.

Trustees asked how the village would use the collected funds. Steve said the money would be added to reserves and help pay for capital improvements such as the larger water tower the village is building; village staff and consultants have recommended a larger storage capacity, at one point considering a 750,000‑gallon tower and later a 1,000,000‑gallon option. Steve and Bridal also noted a separate, broader master water study by the village’s engineers is nearing a preliminary report and will recommend long‑range storage and source improvements for the next 20–30 years.

Village staff emphasized operational protections in the draft agreement, including advance notice procedures in the event the village must throttle or temporarily shut service because of a water main break, fire or other emergency; staff said in practice the village had shut Aurora Packing down once previously for a day during a main break and would provide advance calls whenever possible. Bridal said the agreement and the new village code provisions for high water users will be used as a model for future large users.

No formal action was taken at the Committee of the Whole meeting; trustees expressed support for the approach and asked staff to continue finalizing the agreement.

The village will monitor Aurora Packing’s usage in the coming year and return to the board after the full-year data are available to determine any second‑year adjustments to the impact fee.