Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Sewer Ownership Oakview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakview residents press Lisle trustees on water, sewer ownership and service disparities; trustee says legal issues are nuanced
Summary
A public commenter alleged long-term neglect and asserted the village owns water and sewer mains, claiming deeds are missing and accusing officials of a 54-year 'cover up.' A trustee later cautioned that a cited 1972 court case is nuanced and suggested legal analysis of current options.
During public comment at the Village of Lisle Committee of the Whole, a resident from the Oakview area criticized the village's handling of water and sewer services, alleged unequal treatment compared with annexed properties, and claimed that deeds for infrastructure are missing.
A commenter (identified in the transcript as a resident from Oakview) said longtime residents were being denied services while recently annexed or nonresident properties were receiving connections. The speaker asserted, "We have pipes that are 54 years old... There is something for some people, but the rest of us can't have it. That is a 2 tier system." They also claimed Illinois American "owns nothing" and that there are no deeds at the county for certain mains, adding: "There has been cover up in this village for 54 years."
Earlier in the public comment period, Mr. Schrull asked a separate question about how many "B boxes" are allowed on a property and questioned final inspections on certain projects after the village moved to online permits; the exchange was recorded as public comment rather than a Q&A with staff.
At the end of the meeting Trustee Seidlak (recorded in the transcript as offering clarification) addressed a legal point raised earlier in the meeting about a 1972 court case. She said the case "hasn't been overruled or overturned" but cautioned that the 1972 decision's holding related to base-rate calculations and that statements about ownership of infrastructure were dicta. "The case itself is good law. But, the holding of the case had to do with how base rates were calculated. It wasn't specifically the holding of the case wasn't, hey, they own the infrastructure. That was... dicta," she said. She supported obtaining current legal analysis of options and said she would continue to support that approach.
There were no formal motions or votes on water or sewer policy at the meeting. Trustee Seidlak said she would follow up with staff to determine whether additional legal analysis or agenda consideration is warranted.
Ending: The resident comments and the trustee's clarification leave open the possibility of staff-commissioned legal analysis; the board did not take formal action at the meeting.
