Village of Jackson approves final special-assessment resolutions after public hearings on Ridgeway, Chestnut and Hickory projects

The Village Board of the Village of Jackson on Sept. 9 approved two final resolutions levying special assessments for reconstruction projects on Ridgeway Drive/Chestnut Court and Hickory Lane, following a public hearing at which homeowners pressed the board for detailed breakdowns of charges.

Board members voted to adopt Resolution 25-25 (Ridgeway Drive and Chestnut Court reconstruction) and Resolution 25-26 (Hickory Lane reconstruction) after staff explained how assessments were calculated and after residents raised concerns about lateral footage, sidewalk charges, approach materials and lawn restoration.

Jack (village staff) told the board the Ridgeway/Chestnut assessments included two components: sidewalk work and storm-sewer (sump pump) connections. "The sidewalk on Ridgeway Drive... were assessed at the additional 1 foot of sidewalk width, at the sidewalk square footage price of $6.60 a square foot," Jack said. He said properties without an existing sidewalk were assessed for a full 5-foot width and that properties located within the A and R pipeline easement were not charged for sidewalk. On sump-pump connections, Jack said, "Those that were not hooked up were then assessed at $60 a linear foot for hooking up to their property from the main." Jack also said properties previously connected were not charged for a new connection.

Residents at the public hearing described widely varying bills. James Davis (Ridgeway Drive) thanked the board for revisiting the original assessments: "First, I'd like to thank you for going back to the original assessment." Chad Riverman (Ridgeway Drive) asked the board to verify whether his property had been previously tied into the storm system; Riverman said his assessment rose by about $1,200 and argued he should not pay for pipe beyond the easement line because he believed he was already connected. A Hickory Lane resident said her lateral assessment was initially $4,200, then rose to about $7,600 after reassessment; she said staff later reduced the charge and that she sought clarification on a shared "$17.72" charge she was asked to pay and whether utility work by We Energies or Miller Pipeline would be billed to property owners.

Board members and staff responded to the specific points raised. Jack said he would review inspection records where residents claimed they were previously connected and that some assessments were recalculated after field inspection; he cited one example where recalculation reduced an assessment by about $770 in favor of a property owner. On streetlights, Jack said he saw no record of replacements tied to the Ridgeway project and noted streetlights are not typically special-assessed. On lawn restoration, Jack said the contractor is responsible under the contract to water restored turf until it achieves at least 80% growth and that retainage remains on the contract pending final items.

The board approved Res. 25-25 (motion by Trustee Engelhardt; second by Trustee Kurtz) and Res. 25-26 (motion by Trustee Engelhardt; second by Trustee Olson). Both motions passed with the board saying "Aye" and no recorded opposition.

Next steps: staff said it will review inspection records for disputed hookups, perform field reviews of ditch grading, and follow up with affected property owners. The resolutions take effect as adopted by the board; assessment statements are based on the final calculations presented to the board and mailed under the village process.

Affected homeowners may seek additional record review through the Village of Jackson public-works office.