fair use copyright for the purpose of public education claimed
The Illinois General Assembly recognized a long time ago that unless they wrote a statute requiring local units of government to inform their constituents on important issues, they wouldn't do it. Therefore when it comes to public expenditures and taking on local debt public notices are almost always required to be published. Numerous examples abound.
However, the City of Freeport, by virtue of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and a population of 25,000 or greater, is what is known as a home rule unit of local government. Local units of government that are not home rule operate under the legal parameters of "Dillon's Rule" and have only the power specifically granted to them through Constitutional or Statutory authority. Illinois' home rule units are freed from Dillon's Rule and do not need state constitutional authority or general assembly approval through statute in order to approve legislation (and taxes). Many of these issues are foreclosed to non home rule units. As a matter of fact, home rule units have the ability to act in direct contravention of Illinois' statutes--including those that require public notice as the Freeport City Council recently proved, although members of the council were probably not aware of how they were exercising home rule.
At the March 11th Freeport City Council Committee of the Whole agenda item #10 was a "Discussion Regarding Infrastructure Bonds", the electronic version of the agenda contained a link to a "timeline" and to a copy of the "Preliminary Official Statement" a legal document required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Discussion on this issue began just after the 1 hour 21 minute mark with Manager Crow highlighting the timeline and technical considerations and telling the council the money ($2.72 million of money Freeporter's have yet to earn) will be used for roads and that "we" as if he is member of the council, will need to suspend the rules at the April 1st council meeting and the pass the ordinance in one reading. Alderman Peter McClanathan stated that they intended to use two-dollars from the last capital improvement increase on our water bills to pay back the bond and also listed a few of the roads that would be repaired, However, Tutty has not yet found an official list of what streets will be worked on and the subsequent bond ordinance does not list any. Of course the Committee of the Whole voted unanimously to move the issue forward after just four and a half minutes of discussion. Below is the link to the video of the meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEUsko3Wj5A
At the April 1st Freeport City Council meeting the issue was now numbered as Ordinance #2019-21 and sure enough City Manager Crow asked the Freeport Council to suspend the rules and put a debt issue through on first reading. The city council has behaved like this for years on bond issues. The excuse is always the same, that they need to move right now to lock in "lock in the rates". All the while ignoring the fact that municipal bond rates have been anything but volatile for the past decade. Manager Crow as well as Alderman McClanathan both justified suspending the rules because they alleged this bond issue had been discussed for "months" and "extensively" (without specific citation) prior to the two meetings written of here. Once again, it was claimed that this money was being borrowed for road repairs although the ordinance still does not mention any specific streets. Meeting minutes mention specific streets but meeting minutes, unlike ordinances, are not legally enforceable. Manager Crow also alleges that two-dollars of the capital improvement fund will be used to retire this debt. However, while it might be this city manager and city council's intent to retire the debt using this money, future managers and councils do not have to abate the property tax this general obligation bond creates. This ordinance is not binding upon future councils or even this council if they want to change their mind and fund this bond in another way. So in reality, the Freeport City Council is borrowing $2.72 million of money Freeporters have yet to earn without a legally enforceable specific purpose stated anywhere within Ordinance or Official Statement beyond "road improvements". All together with the issue of suspending the rules and voting on the ordinance, both of which passed unanimously, the council spent a total of less than three-minutes discussing and asking questions regarding an issue which indebts their constituents. Here is a link to the video of that council meeting with this issue beginning at the 32:40 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH83yGaX1ng
So with less than eight-minutes of public discussion, and no real pertinent questions from the council, such as the current level of debt outstanding, the citizens of Freeport now have $2.72 million dollars in new debt placed directly upon their shoulders without a legally enforceable purpose beyond "road improvements". All the while the public is paying an attorney to sit up front and remain silent. Tutty will put his legal knowledge of Illinois home rule against any local attorney.
With out home rule none of this would be legal. First off, without home rule, general obligation debt can not be taken on without a referendum. Secondly, there is a statute in Illinois known as the Bond Issue Notification Act (hereinafter referred to as BINA). Here is a link to BINA.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=514&ChapterID=7
BINA requires any governmental unit which wishes to sell non-referendum general obligation bonds to publish notice and to hold a public hearing. Because BINA does not preempt home rule powers. The City of Freeport can not be legally compelled to follow BINA--- a statute which was put in place to notify and provide transparency, therefore protecting the public's right to know what their elected officials are doing on their alleged behalf.
In their defense, there is no way for the Freeport City Council, and perhaps even their attorneys, to know just how much they are reliant upon home rule powers with this debt issuance. Local lawyers simply rely upon bond counsel and the attorneys for the bond house looking to sell the bonds. Local attorneys don't write the ordinance, the bond house does and if a local attorney even reviewed this ordinance package they did a very poor job. And the big bond houses that write the ordinances are great at keeping all the ways home rule authority is used out of the ordinances. It wasn't always like this. In the past, Freeport bond ordinances included specific denotations to where home rule was being used. Here are photos of excerpts from previous City of Freeport general obligation debt issuances.
Obviously, City Manager Crow, working hand in hand with the bond house, appears very comfortable in limiting the amount of knowledge the Freeport Council is privy to requiring their very liberal use of home rule powers. And if the City Council is in the dark, how can the public or the local newspaper be expected to know what's going on?
At the March 11th Freeport City Council Committee of the Whole agenda item #10 was a "Discussion Regarding Infrastructure Bonds", the electronic version of the agenda contained a link to a "timeline" and to a copy of the "Preliminary Official Statement" a legal document required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Discussion on this issue began just after the 1 hour 21 minute mark with Manager Crow highlighting the timeline and technical considerations and telling the council the money ($2.72 million of money Freeporter's have yet to earn) will be used for roads and that "we" as if he is member of the council, will need to suspend the rules at the April 1st council meeting and the pass the ordinance in one reading. Alderman Peter McClanathan stated that they intended to use two-dollars from the last capital improvement increase on our water bills to pay back the bond and also listed a few of the roads that would be repaired, However, Tutty has not yet found an official list of what streets will be worked on and the subsequent bond ordinance does not list any. Of course the Committee of the Whole voted unanimously to move the issue forward after just four and a half minutes of discussion. Below is the link to the video of the meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEUsko3Wj5A
At the April 1st Freeport City Council meeting the issue was now numbered as Ordinance #2019-21 and sure enough City Manager Crow asked the Freeport Council to suspend the rules and put a debt issue through on first reading. The city council has behaved like this for years on bond issues. The excuse is always the same, that they need to move right now to lock in "lock in the rates". All the while ignoring the fact that municipal bond rates have been anything but volatile for the past decade. Manager Crow as well as Alderman McClanathan both justified suspending the rules because they alleged this bond issue had been discussed for "months" and "extensively" (without specific citation) prior to the two meetings written of here. Once again, it was claimed that this money was being borrowed for road repairs although the ordinance still does not mention any specific streets. Meeting minutes mention specific streets but meeting minutes, unlike ordinances, are not legally enforceable. Manager Crow also alleges that two-dollars of the capital improvement fund will be used to retire this debt. However, while it might be this city manager and city council's intent to retire the debt using this money, future managers and councils do not have to abate the property tax this general obligation bond creates. This ordinance is not binding upon future councils or even this council if they want to change their mind and fund this bond in another way. So in reality, the Freeport City Council is borrowing $2.72 million of money Freeporters have yet to earn without a legally enforceable specific purpose stated anywhere within Ordinance or Official Statement beyond "road improvements". All together with the issue of suspending the rules and voting on the ordinance, both of which passed unanimously, the council spent a total of less than three-minutes discussing and asking questions regarding an issue which indebts their constituents. Here is a link to the video of that council meeting with this issue beginning at the 32:40 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH83yGaX1ng
So with less than eight-minutes of public discussion, and no real pertinent questions from the council, such as the current level of debt outstanding, the citizens of Freeport now have $2.72 million dollars in new debt placed directly upon their shoulders without a legally enforceable purpose beyond "road improvements". All the while the public is paying an attorney to sit up front and remain silent. Tutty will put his legal knowledge of Illinois home rule against any local attorney.
With out home rule none of this would be legal. First off, without home rule, general obligation debt can not be taken on without a referendum. Secondly, there is a statute in Illinois known as the Bond Issue Notification Act (hereinafter referred to as BINA). Here is a link to BINA.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=514&ChapterID=7
BINA requires any governmental unit which wishes to sell non-referendum general obligation bonds to publish notice and to hold a public hearing. Because BINA does not preempt home rule powers. The City of Freeport can not be legally compelled to follow BINA--- a statute which was put in place to notify and provide transparency, therefore protecting the public's right to know what their elected officials are doing on their alleged behalf.
In their defense, there is no way for the Freeport City Council, and perhaps even their attorneys, to know just how much they are reliant upon home rule powers with this debt issuance. Local lawyers simply rely upon bond counsel and the attorneys for the bond house looking to sell the bonds. Local attorneys don't write the ordinance, the bond house does and if a local attorney even reviewed this ordinance package they did a very poor job. And the big bond houses that write the ordinances are great at keeping all the ways home rule authority is used out of the ordinances. It wasn't always like this. In the past, Freeport bond ordinances included specific denotations to where home rule was being used. Here are photos of excerpts from previous City of Freeport general obligation debt issuances.
Obviously, City Manager Crow, working hand in hand with the bond house, appears very comfortable in limiting the amount of knowledge the Freeport Council is privy to requiring their very liberal use of home rule powers. And if the City Council is in the dark, how can the public or the local newspaper be expected to know what's going on?
Another limitation which applies to non-home rule municipalities that the City of Freeport can completely ignore is the statutory debt limit. Currently this limit is 8.625% of their current assessed value. The photo below is taken from a book used by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education and titled Home Rule and Intergovernmental Cooperation and Conflict.
fair use copyright claimed for the purpose of public education.
Tutty wonders if any members of the Freeport City Council have an inkling of the current debt load that they've placed squarely on the shoulders of Freeporters throughout the past two decades, and if they have a clue, without asking Manager Crow, where to look. Tutty will tell you that it is well over the 8.625% that non-home rule municipalities are legally limited to, and this is very dangerous, especially if municipal bond rates increase dramatically or the City of Freeport loses home rule powers. Of course Manager Crow is doing his best not to inform the Freeport Council or their constituents how home rule powers are being used.
Throughout the country many people are upset that some people support "Democratic Socialism". Here in Freeport it is just plain socialism there is nothing democratic about using home rule authority to sneak a public debt issue through without so much as public notice and with less than ten-minutes of public discussion with nary a pertinent public question from any member of the Freeport City while they all vote in unison.
So where is the Stephenson County Republican Party on the obvious socialism of Freeport City government. Are either of our Republican members of the Illinois General Assembly going to propose a statutory debt limit for home rule units or create a preemption in BINA so home rule units must follow this statute as well?
Where do you stand Representative Chesney and Senator Stewart? Are you comfortable with City Manager Crow and the big bond houses keeping yourselves and fellow Freeport constituents completely in the dark about how they are using home rule to create debt that we have yet to earn the money to pay back?
More on the City of Freeport's 27-year history on the abuse of home rule will be forthcoming.
As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker tutty.baker@gmail.com
Where do you stand Representative Chesney and Senator Stewart? Are you comfortable with City Manager Crow and the big bond houses keeping yourselves and fellow Freeport constituents completely in the dark about how they are using home rule to create debt that we have yet to earn the money to pay back?
More on the City of Freeport's 27-year history on the abuse of home rule will be forthcoming.
As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker tutty.baker@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment