At a special session of the Village of Shorewood Public Works Committee, trustees heard more than two dozen appeals from property owners contesting the village's new streetlight operations special charge and directed the finance department to recalculate assessments for many corner lots based on the shorter street frontage or a 40-foot reference point.

The appeals hearing focused on whether the charge was applied correctly to individual properties, not on whether the village should impose the charge in the first place, Village Attorney Baer told the committee. "The purpose of the appeal process," Baer said, "is correction of errors and how the charge was assessed." He advised the committee to look for unique or nonuniform lot characteristics that would make an individual assessment unjust or unreasonable.

Why it matters: the special charge is billed by linear feet of street frontage on streets served by village-owned lights. For some corner lots that have one long frontage and one short frontage, the charge calculated on the address side produced totals far above what adjacent noncorner properties pay, driving appeals from homeowners worried about equity and long-term costs.

Village Manager Rebecca Ewald said the charge followed a Board decision to pay for a villagewide streetlight replacement and that the committee's role at the appeal hearing was limited to correcting assessment errors. "The infrastructure of our street lighting has been failing for the past decade," Ewald said. "We made the decision to move forward and replace our street lighting here in Shorewood." She noted the costs were the reason the village used a dedicated special charge rather than roll the full cost into the general tax levy.

The committee repeatedly approved motions directing the finance department to recalculate the charge for individual properties using the shorter of the two street frontages shown in the village's mapping or, in several cases, to apply a 40-foot measurement that trustees described as a community minimum comparable to most noncorner lots. For example:

- At 904 East Glendale Avenue, appellant Robin Creer told trustees she is a corner lot owner who had been charged on a 132-foot frontage for an annual assessment of $588.72; the shorter frontage is 40 feet (annual assessment $178.40). Trustee McGovern moved to have finance recalculate the charge using the shortest distance; the motion passed. Creer said she was "a corner lot, and I can just say it is significantly higher than properties around me."

- At 1020 East Glendale Avenue, appellant Katie Nowe asked that corner lots be assessed using the shorter side; trustees directed finance to use the shorter side (Marlborough) for that property.

- Several other properties whose appeals were granted or adjusted by motion included 1007 E. Kensington Blvd., 1300 E. Longwood Place, 1555 E. Olive St., 1603 & 1605 E. Glendale, 2419 E. Marion, 2535 E. Lake Bluff, 2729 E. Capitol Dr., multiple North Downer Avenue properties, and others; in most cases the committee approved recalculation using the shorter frontage or the 40-foot measure.

Not every appeal succeeded. The committee denied an appeal for 4075 North Downer Avenue after discussion. For a curved or pie-shaped lot at 3536 North Shepherd Avenue, trustees verified nearby frontages and directed finance to use a 65-foot measurement after review of the village map.

Trustees discussed the trade-offs of alternate methods. Baer and trustees noted that the special charge must bear a rational relationship to the cost of providing streetlight service and warned that shifting to a method such as using every corner lot's shorter side across the board could create subsidies and alter the distribution of costs among property owners. "If you flip it to the side and you charge for only 40 feet, then who's picking up the difference for the rest?" Baer said. Trustees acknowledged there are no perfect solutions; each method creates winners and losers.

The committee also emphasized that appeals are meant to address uniformity and clerical or mapping errors or unique lot features that make a property exceptional. Baer referenced the ordinance's appeal language and the standard that adjustments be "just and reasonable." He said refunds would be instituted by the finance director if recalculations showed overcharges.

What happens next: finance staff will recalculate the assessments for the properties the committee directed for review. If the recalculation reduces a property's assessed charge, the village's finance director was instructed to institute refund procedures. Trustees and staff also noted the village board could revisit the ordinance and the overall methodology as a policy matter for a future meeting and the next assessment cycle.

Public commenters and appellants repeatedly urged a villagewide fix rather than case-by-case appeals; several suggested the board consider a community minimum or a residential/commercial class split as used in other municipalities. Baer and trustees said such policy changes would be for the village board to consider in follow-up debates and possible ordinance amendments.

The committee adjourned after resolving the listed appeals and directing staff on recalculations. Finance will notify property owners of any adjustments and refunds if errors are confirmed.