Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Service Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hampshire holds public hearing on proposed expansion of White Oak Ponds Special Service Area
Summary
Residents pressed the village on fairness and potential tax impacts as officials presented maps, parcel counts and levy modeling for a proposed expansion that would add 69 parcels to SSA No. 10 (White Oak Ponds). Staff said petition rights and future public hearings remain part of the process.
The Village of Hampshire opened a public hearing July 17 on a proposed expansion of Special Service Area No. 10 (White Oak Ponds), with finance staff and the village engineer detailing which homes would be added, how levy calculations change and what residents can do to object.
Finance director Lori Lyons laid out the fiscal picture, saying White Oak Ponds was designated in August 2001 and the proposed expansion would add 69 parcels (68 taxable). Lyons cited the village’s modeling showing the added parcels’ net taxable value of about $5,082,198 and projected that, under the current levy, the combined EAV change would yield a tax rate near 0.08129. “With the proposed expansion…those 68 properties will share…$4,131,” Lyons said while explaining the proportional EAV calculation.
Why it matters: the expansion would spread the cost of maintaining four detention facilities and associated stormwater work to additional properties that engineers conclude benefit from the ponds’ outfall and controlled release. Residents argued the expansion was unfair to some neighborhoods and worried about higher taxes.
At the hearing, several residents recounted past flooding and asked why their streets were being included only now. Resident Dominic Festo said he feared an increase in his bill and told the board he was “under the impression… I’d be paying $53 more a year” if the addition moves forward. Village staff acknowledged frustration about historic maintenance and said bringing maintenance work in‑house has cut some costs but cannot guarantee rates will never change in response to major future events.
Village engineer Paulson explained how drainage and recent pipe improvements work together with the detention basin. “The basin has a controlled release rate…if it was full, it would take about 5 days to drain down,” Paulson said, describing how outfalls and a restricted structure limit peak flow downstream.
On legal process, the village attorney told attendees the petition mechanism under county/state law remains available: 51% of affected voters can file an objection petition and halt the addition. “You are correct that 51% of the affected parties’ voters can sign a petition and stop the process,” the attorney said, and staff encouraged residents to review materials and meet with village staff before any final vote.
Board members and staff said SSAs are reviewed annually as part of the budget process, and that if maintenance needs decline over time levies can also be lowered; staff agreed to provide historical abatement examples ahead of a formal decision. The board closed the hearing after extended public comment and said no final vote would occur that night; the chair encouraged residents to follow up with staff and noted the formal objection and petition timelines set by law.
What happens next: the village will post supporting documents and continue outreach; a formal vote on whether to adopt the expansion is scheduled for a later meeting after the statutorily required notice/objection period and any petition activity.
