Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public hearing opened on proposed Woodland Road special assessment; resident asks why nearby parcels were excluded

Village of Harrison Board · May 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Village of Harrison opened a public hearing on a proposed special assessment to extend water and sewer to service the Farmer’s Field Shelter; resident Fran Madder questioned why some Manitowoc Road parcels were excluded. Staff said excluded parcels cannot yet be served by utilities and would be assessed later and that assessments for large parcels can be deferred under state statute.

The Village of Harrison board convened and opened a public hearing on a proposed special assessment to install water and sanitary sewer to service the Farmer’s Field Shelter and adjacent parcels. The motion to convene the hearing passed unanimously.

Fran Madder, who identified herself and gave a local address, said she noticed that some properties along Manitowoc Road were not included in the assessment while nearby Woodland Road parcels were assessed, and asked why her sister’s parcel had been included despite appearing similar to excluded lots. “I noticed that on the assessment, there were properties along Woodland that were not included in the assessment,” Madder said, and asked whether there was logic behind the differing treatment.

Staff (identified in the transcript as Chad) responded that parcels along Manitowoc were excluded because they cannot currently be served by utilities; those parcels would be assessed later when utilities are extended to those vacant parcels. “The properties along Manitowoc were not included because they will not be able to be served by this project until utilities get into those vacant parcels,” Chad said. He added that staff did not want to assess owners twice and that parcels receiving laterals to the property line as part of another development would show service and thus could be included or treated differently.

Staff also cited a state statute that defers assessments for properties over 35 acres until development occurs; in such cases owners pay a connection fee when they later hook up. Staff outlined a typical administrative payment-deferral option of up to 10 years for assessments unless a well or septic system fails during that period. Staff noted that removing laterals from the current project would require recalculating assessments across the remaining parcels.

Madder and trustees discussed the possibilities of a deferment or reallocation of costs if laterals were not installed now; trustees emphasized that delaying lateral installation could shift costs onto other property owners and that installing laterals now could be cheaper for owners than paying higher costs later. No final decision or board vote on deferral or assessment recalculation was recorded in the excerpt.

The hearing record included references to published notice in the Post‑Crescent and assessment materials included in the board packet. Staff invited affected property owners to present concerns during the hearing; the transcript excerpt ends after a discussion of deferral mechanics and cost implications.