BY JOHN KRAFT & KIRK ALLEN S. Jacksonville, IL. (ECWd) – The Village of S. Jacksonville, IL. has been in a lawsuit for the past 5 years or more in relation to their alleged over billing of resident of the Laborer’s Home Development. Jacksonville Affordable Housing LP v. Village Of South Jacksonville (Morgan County Case
BY JOHN KRAFT & KIRK ALLEN
S. Jacksonville, IL. (ECWd) –
The Village of S. Jacksonville, IL. has been in a lawsuit for the past 5 years or more in relation to their alleged over billing of resident of the Laborer’s Home Development.
Jacksonville Affordable Housing LP v. Village Of South Jacksonville (Morgan County Case 2016-MR-58)
According to WLDS, Mayor-elect Tyson Manker discovered this lawsuit while researching various issues prior to his term of office beginning.
Here is what we know at this point in time:
- In 2015, the Village was notified of improper billing
- A lawsuit was filed in 2016 alleging the Village of South Jacksonville, IL. had been overcharging residents of the Laborer’s Home Development for its water and sewer
- Since the lawsuit was filed or sometime afterward, the Village has not billed those residents for sewer
- Since that lawsuit was filed or sometime afterward, the remaining residents of the Village have paid increased bills – and were never fully informed on why their rates were increasing
- There is a meeting of the whole this evening to discuss further rate increases
From the Original Complaint:
- There are 33 meters in JAH, and the sewer is charged based on those 33 meters
- Between 2006 and 2015 JAH was charged for a per-user basic charge, and also a metered rate for sewer, which resulted in an overcharge. During the period of Jan 1 through May of 2015, the overcharge was $34,972.40
- In 2015, a meeting was held and Plaintiff’s representative was supposed to meet with the VOSJ to determine how to repay Plaintiffs the sum of $361,458.16 for the gross overcharges
- No payments were forthcoming
- There was a discrepancy between what the ordinance stated would be charged and what was actually charged
From the Amended Complaint:
- This amended complaint included more detailed overcharges, with more detail on the dates
- Plaintiff’s are seeking $361,458.16 plus prejudgment interest
We will provide an update on this situation in the coming weeks.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *