Does Freeport Need More "Recreational" Paths?

With zero notice to the Freeport City Council or the public at large, a plan for new "recreation path extensions" was presented to the Council at their last meeting at their  September 16 meeting.

How this actual plan originated is anyone's guess, it was first talked about by a handful of local officials two years ago but it never really saw the light of day publicly until last month.

This is the map that was presented to alderpersons by City Manager Rob Boyer.

The red lines indicate where the proposed new routes would be located.  As can be seen, they are concentrated exclusively on the far southwest and far west sides of Freeport.  

The problem with this map is just what manager Boyer wrote in his memo to the council, he referred to the item being financed specifically as "additional City recreation path extensions."

Residents of Freeport are in dire need of transportation enhancements that can be used to conduct commerce within our city.  Isn't it more important for economic development that we use limited public funding to aid in commerce over recreation? When was the last time anyone at city hall talked about constructing pedestrian tunnels or bridges so people could actually walk or bike to points of business without taking their lives' in their hands.  

If City Manager Rob Boyer wants to spend $3 million in Illinois Transportation Enhancement money along with a $1 million local match, the project needs to be more about transportion for commerce than recreation.  This project will do very little to provide an alternate way for students and faculty to access the Highland campus, too far from residential population centers; or to safely cross Stephenson Street or Park Avenue.  What entity will maintain and police the "recreation path?" 

Another important curiousity; when and where did the Freeport City Manager, the interim Executive Directore of the Park District and the President of Highland Community College meet to discuss this proposal?  Who instructed Fehr-Graham to draw the maps? The item was on the City Council agenda on September 16, (Resolution #2024-101), the Freeport Park District agenda on September 17, (Resolution #24-0917) and the Highland Community College agenda on September 24 as agenda item #X-D-2.

Why are three unelected local officials apparently drawing up Freeport transportion plans without any obvious input from the community at large?  To their credit and with much criticism, a few members of the Freeport City Council questioned the plan.  

A siden note,  this issue could be potentially problematic for the HCC Board of Trustees.  If the board is financing transportion enhancements in Freeport,  will the junior college kick a $100k per year into transportion projects within the other three counties that make up HCC's tax base?  Population wise, Freeport represents only about 25% of the college district.

In other municipalities transportion proposals are the result of figuring out what the public needs and wants through public meetings and bona fide studies.  Here in Freeport, three unelected officials appear to be deciding how transportion dollars should be spent, unfortunately for the public at large, other than a few Freeport City Council members, their boards appear to be in lockstep with this method of operation.

Why even elect boards and commissioners in Stephenson County when all decisions, especially those as important as transportion, are obviously decided by a few people in a back room and the majority of thier boards, elected for oversight, simply defer. 

Is this actually a service to the public?

More trasportation issues to come.

As always, yours in honesty,  John Samuel Cook, 2024

It's Home Rule, It's Home Rule, It's Home Rule

A couple of Freeport officials, Mayor Jodi Miller and First Ward Alderman Tom Klemm, recently took it upon themselves to draft letters cementing their support for a one-percent  home rule sales tax increase within the City of Freeport.  The Mayor's letter is posted on the City's Facebook page and Alderman Klemm's is available.  I will provide copies if requested.

What I found odd was that niether official used the term "home rule" even once.

Let's be clear, this tax, without home rule power, would have to go to referendum.  For both Mayor Miller and Alderman Klemm to avoid using the term "home rule" had to be a conscious decision.  Why would either avoid this straight up fact?

Alderman Klemm wrote about his 17-years as First Ward Alderman, but he didn't talk about all the times he voted to use home rule to issue general obligation debt or create a tax without the consent of his constituency.  I am pretty sure Alderman Klemm can name numerous city council members that have voted to use home rule to borrow money or create a tax on the rest of us and then moved out of town, if he needs help with names, I can assist.

Mayor Miller wrote about "our shared responsibility to make Freeport a better place to live work and play".  I don't know, I think if the Mayor wants to "share" the responsibility then she needs to share the decision making process as well.  As it works now, nine-people, not necessarily committed to Freeport for the long haul, make all of our tax and spend decisions without any binding consent from the governed.  It's been like that for more than 30-years.  Not one dollar of debt or taxes has been decided by referendum, it's all been home rule decisions by the Freeport City Council, often made by people that have simply left Freeport.  Now these decisions have had consequences, the Mayor wants us to "share" the responsibility for their decisons.

I am of the opinion we've dug a hole with home rule that we can not escape unless we keep digging.  But that's another post or two.

If I was in charge I would follow the template Rockord has been using.  Rockford is not home rule, losing that power by referendum in 1983.  Rockford last had a referendum for a 1% road sales tax in 2021.  The ordinance is written with a sunset clause, meaning it ceases after five-years unless reauthorized by voters.  In this, a non-home rule way, Rockford officials can be held accountable for how the money is utilized.  The referendum passed in Rockford in 2021 with almost 80% or the vote (Rockford Register Star, Feb. 24, 2021).

One part of Mayor Miller's letter must be addressed and clarified once and for all.  Here is that segment:

quote

close quote

Clearly Mayor Miller, Alderman Klemm and other City officials are oblivious to the fact that minus a sunset clause there is no way for the city council to lock down the uses of the revenue genereated regardless of what the ordinance says.

Perhaps acting City attorney Aaron Szeto of the Rockford law firm, Sosnowski/Szeto is just as oblivious when it comes to home rule units and their ordinances.  A  brand new city council could be just a little more than a year away and a new council could do whatever they want to with this revenue stream.  What's a more, a citizen can not go to court to enforce a home rule ordinance and be successful. 

According to the book, "Home Rule and Intergovermental Cooperation and Conflict" that's used by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, "A home rule municipality can decline to follow its own ordinances."  The Courts have held that they "cannot handle matters which in effect are attempts to overrule decisions of a legislative body based upon alleged failure to follow requirements imposed by that body on itself."  Below is the pertinent page of that book. 

So I would like to hear from any city council member that thinks that this ordinance somehow has the ability to control the actions of any future city council, or even this city council a couple months from now. 

Practically every Freeport ordinance ends with these two clauses:

a) All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are repealed insofar as they conflict.

b) If any section, clause or provision of this Ordiance is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such invlaidity shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, and this City Council hereby expressly declares it would have enacted this Ordinance even with the invalid portion deleted. 

So I expect that acting City Attorney Aaron Szeto is full well aware that City officials are misrepresenting the ordinance in question when they claim that it will forever tie this home rule sales tax to specific purposes.  They lack the ability to legally handcuff themselves or their predecessors with home rule.  The present ordinance is only as good as the next ordinance in home rule units of government, that's the law.

So please Attorney Szeto, ask Freeport officials to stop misrepresenting that they somehow have future authority over the revenue produced by a proposed home rule sales tax ordinance.

Once again, if I was in charge the public would have accountability.  We would have a referendum, We would share in the decision making as well as the responsibility if approved.  We would have a sunset clause so you could hold the Freeport City Council accountable for how the the home rule revenue was expended.

How else can we honestly hold Freeport City officials accountable?  Suggestions, thoughts or complaints are welcome.

As always, yours in honesty, 

John Samuel Cook 

2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com