Aurora committee reviews draft policy limiting risky attractions, shifting liability to vendors

Brian Caputo, the city’s chief operating officer, walked the Rules, Administration & Procedures Committee through a draft administrative policy that would standardize how the city handles “special attractions” at community events. Caputo said the draft groups attractions into three buckets — permissible, prohibited and "other" items that require individual review — and lists examples ranging from bounce houses and petting zoos to mechanical bulls and fireworks.

Caputo said the policy’s core approach is risk transfer: vendors must provide supervision and carry insurance, typically general liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate along with umbrella and workers’ compensation coverage. "The vendor is responsible for providing the insurance," he said, adding that vendors generally must "name the city as an additional insured, non-primary, noncontributory." He told the committee a pre-event evaluation form and a project manager checklist would accompany the policy.

Aldermen asked whether volunteer supervision would be acceptable and how the city would manage smaller neighborhood events. "Can volunteers do this? There’s matters of training," Caputo said, adding that in many cases trained vendor staff are preferable. Alderman Burrow flagged safety concerns about a bike path crossing a state highway as an example of issues advisory boards sometimes address and asked whether the advisory board would solicit public input on safety matters; staff confirmed the board reviews walkability and trail safety.

Committee members and law department staff also discussed paragraph 13 of the draft, which would require the law department to review donation agreements when an alderman provides funding to a third party that in turn provides a special attraction, to ensure the city is not taking on unreviewed liability. Deb Lang from the law department noted staff have sponsorship templates and can craft donation language intended to limit city liability.

The item was presented for consultation only and no vote was taken. Staff said the approach seeks a middle ground: not a blanket prohibition on activities such as bounce houses but a predictable, legally reviewed process intended to reduce the city’s exposure while allowing events to proceed. The committee did not set a final timetable; staff asked members to send further questions and said they would circulate the draft forms for additional review.