Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Sewer Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents criticize village water/sewer financing and rising taxes during public comment
Summary
Several residents used the public-comment period to accuse the village of unfair water/sewer financing for Oakview, raise concerns about a $7.1 million transfer into a construction fund, and urge tax relief for seniors; trustees pointed to existing senior exemptions and encouraged residents to contact the tax office.
During public comment at the June 15 Committee of the Whole, multiple residents raised sharp concerns about the village’s approach to water and sewer financing, tax increases and the allocation of prior funds.
An Oakview resident who did not give a name said residents were treated unequally when mains were financed years ago and alleged the village charged between 14% and 18% over 20–30 years. The commenter also alleged the village had used ‘‘wheeling money’’ from the water/sewer fund to extend mains into unincorporated areas and that some builders received favorable terms, which the speaker called "asinine." The speaker said Oakview residents would receive no help from the village.
Laurel Myers, who said she has lived in her house for 52 years, echoed fiscal concerns and said her village taxes rose about $500 this year; she also cited a projected 45% increase in water rates over three years as a hardship for seniors. Myers said many seniors could be priced out of their homes without relief.
Trustees responded by pointing to existing tax tools and staff resources: Trustee McQuillin noted a senior-citizen exemption and a means-tested senior freeze and advised Myers to contact the tax assessor’s office to confirm eligibility. Mayor Mullen said staff’s intent in presenting policy proposals was to "learn from what happened" previously and not to return with an "outrageous" financing plan.
A commenter also claimed that $7.1 million referenced previously had been moved into a water-sewer construction fund rather than returned to the original account. That assertion was raised as a matter of public concern and the commenter suggested referral to the state’s attorney; the board did not take formal action on that request during the meeting.
These issues were raised during public comment only; no motions, ordinances or formal votes addressing water/sewer financing or tax relief were taken at the meeting.
