Freeport is Locally Regulated...And it Shows

Freeport citizens are being told how important home rule is because it allows for "local decisions by local people."  With home rule the Freeport City Council has great latitude to, purportedly, solve uniquely local problems.  But how does it work in real life?

In the following instances local regulation appears to be failing miserably.  But don't expect any city council members to acknowledge a problem, they prefer to pretend this blog doesn't exist and that I'm just a lone wolf, one of the ways local leaders seek to marginalize any voice of dissent, much less attempt a public refutation thereby enlightening their constituencies. 

Home rule, in reality, means that the Freeport City Council answers to no one at no time.

Anyway,  this past May, I posted on this blog about the lack of consideration for pedestrians when the new parking lot was constructed at the northeast corner of  Stephenson Street and Walnut Avenue.  A "curb cut",  an entrance for cars to cross the sidewalk, was made on the well used pedestrian route of  Stephenson Street.  Here is a picture of this curb cut.    

One of the motivations behind the new Chicago Avenue "streetscape" was pedestrian safety and accessibility, both very worthy community goals.  However, if anything goes when it comes to curb cuts for cars, those goals are already lost.

And what about curb cuts in residential areas?  Are there any zoning or other mechanisms by which these are regulated?  Maybe that doesn't sound too important to you at this point, perhaps it would matter more if your neighbor decided to make a curb cut and concrete much of their front lawn while a creating a parking spot a mere feet from your home.

Take what has happened in the 1200 block of Lincoln Boulevard for instance.  A homeowner there decided that they wanted a curb cut in the front of their house, never mind the fact there has never been a curb cut on on the south side of the 1200 block of Lincoln Boulevard and the curb cut was not created for access to a garage.  The residents of this block all have alley access for their garages.

So, evidently, you can create your own curb cut, as this homeowner has obviously done.  Here is a picture.

So City of Freeport officials, this is acceptable under current Freeport zoning and building permit ordinances?  Can someone concrete their entire front lawn and create head in parking for half a dozen vehicles? 

What about the lost parking places?  Doesn't this mean that property owners, in a de facto sense, own the street parking in front of their property.  If I can turn the street side of my house into one long curb cut, denying my neighbors use of street parking, how can it be said that I don't "own" the street?

Disclaimer, I do not personally know the homeowner in question.  However, this is definitely an issue the city council needs to take up before one of their neighbors, or yours, does something similar.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook, 2022

tutty.baker@gmail.Com

Ethics and Business Conduct in Winnebago County

My schedule doesn't allow me to watch much television but I do manage to see a morning news show or two from Rockford broadcasters.

Recently I've noticed a political advertisement airing for Republican Esther Joy King featuring Winnebago County Sheriff, Gary Caruana,  pitching for his fellow Republican candidate in full uniform and standing in front of a county owned police vehicle.

Here is a screen grab from the commercial in question.

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 purportedly guarantees "Free and Equal" elections so units of local government in our state generally have ethics ordinances or policies against using taxpayer supported assets for purely political purposes.  Sheriff Caruana's behavior illustrates that these policies are often little more than window dressing, such is the obvious case in Winnebago County.

Winnebago County has an "Ethics and Business Conduct Policy" that is suppose to be reviewed by employees and officers and they are to "certify that they will not engage in conduct or activity that may raise questions as to the organization's honesty, impartiality or reputation or otherwise cause embarrassment for all employees of Winnebago County."

Apparently Sheriff Caruana did not read the policy very carefully in his annual certification as the Ethics and Business Conduct Policy purportedly prohibits county property from being used for political purposes.  Following is the actual language of the policy.

So I'm curious as to what "Strictly Prohibited" means to Winnebago County officials and while their Ethics and Business Conduct Policy reads well, it ends up that it has no teeth.  The Sheriff  knows he can't be punished so he just moves forward, scoffing at any public concern. 

So what good is the policy Winnebago County Board?

I did send an email to Winnebago County States Attorney J. Hanly this morning asking it to be viewed as a formal complaint,  I will file a certified complaint if need be.  Taxpayer supported property should never be showing up in political commercials or being used for clearly political purposes. 

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook, 2022
tutty.baker@gmail.com

Using Home Rule to Keep the Poor Poor

In the early aught years the City of Freeport was considering ways to pay for storm sewer repairs.  The city council authorized a study to determine an equitable way to divvy up the cost of the public infrastructure.

Here is an excerpt of city council meeting minutes from 2003 discussing this study:

Purportedly the study was done in order to "determine a fair and just method" to pay for the work.

What happened to this study?  It was basically thrown out as a "fair and just method" was of no interest to the Freeport City Council.  This would be way too much like property taxes wherein those with the most would pay the most.  But why worry about equity when you're home rule and can basically create any tax on a whim of the city council?

As far as I can tell, please correct me if I'm wrong, 2003 was the last time the Freeport Council held a public discussion on distributing the cost of public infrastructure equitably.  Despite adding more and more blanket fees to our water bills, equity among ratepayers has never been a priority with any city council of the past nineteen years.  Again, if there is something in city council meeting minutes to prove me wrong, please point it out, I enjoy being wrong if public enlightenment is the end result.

So what started out as a $2.00 "storm water fee" in the early part of this century we now have blanket fees totaling $43 on every residential water meter regardless of of any other factor, other than water and sewer service.  No consideration is given for parcel size, impermeable areas or other important factors.  If you pay for water water service (not even own a car or property) you must pay these fees to keep this most important public utility hooked up.

In my personal situation, like many other Freeporters, I have an undersized lot, it's only 68 feet by 68 feet.  I have a one stall garage and I share a driveway.  Why Freeport City Council should I pay the same in these fees as people whose garages won't even fit on my little lot?  Clearly it requires more water and sewer service infrastructure, road infrastructure; as well as the larger the lot and building the more storm water run off produced.  Equitable?  Anyone?

Had these fees been placed on property taxes over the past two decades I would of paid far, far less, this a provable fact.  As a matter of fact if property taxes were used instead of this $43 per water meter the vast majority of Freeport homeowners would pay much less than the $516 annually these fees generate per residential water meter.  Also, property taxes on a home address are deductible from federal income tax if you itemize and Illinois property tax payers always get an income tax credit.  The fees we're paying in the present are gone forever with no future tax credits.  If I'm telling fibs the city manager, mayor or any city council member should be able to easily prove me wrong with a few simple mathematical calculations. 

Also, the smaller the parcels the less infrastructure and maintenance required.  In Feeport's older, established neighborhoods the lots and houses are more compact, meaning less infrastructure and maintenance is needed per water meter.  If an overlay map was done showing where the majority of the money from these fees originates, I'm guessing it would show these fees are basically borne by Freeport's poorest families,  as that's where water meters are more concentrated.  Again, if I'm wrong, do the overlay map and prove it.  Nothing should be as transparent as to how our public utilities are being financed and exactly who among us is financing them.

And then we have the single mother I know that rents half a duplex where each unit has it's own water meter.  As a waitress she struggles to make ends meet,  yet she pays the same fees as someone that lives in a mansion on more than an acre out on Barberry Circle.  Will Mayor Miller or someone on the Freeport City Council look my friend in the eye and tell her how equitable the City's tax structure is with home rule?

Another issue with above, the City is collecting double fees from one parcel, with only one parcel worth of infrastructure requirements, from two separate renters of this duplex.  Again, people that are using far less benefits of infrastructure and maintenance are paying beyond their fair share.  It's simply the law of physics.

And why, pray tell,  should temporary tenants be forced to pay for the long term infrastructure needs?  Doesn't this only serve to benefit the property owner, i.e. landlord?  Poor people are getting their water shut off and having to pay big fees to get it turned back on not because they can't afford the water bill but they can't afford to pay off all the home rule bonds tied to these fees.  Pathetic leadership in my opinion.

This is one of the largest reasons home home rule needs to go.  There has been absolutely no effort made by former or current mayors, city managers or city council members to wield the home rule power equitably among citizens.

They brag about using home rule to keep property taxes low, yet they never say who are the beneficiaries of this policy.  Clearly it is Freeport's wealthy elite, the landlords and campaign contributors because it sure as hell is not the residents of Freeport.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook 2022

Will grant all the  space needed for any rebuttals.  tutty.baker@gmail.com 

Jim Gitz, Lobbyist For Home Rule

This past Tuesday the League of Women Voters held a public forum with former Freeport Mayor Jim Gitz as the presenter on the upcoming home rule referendum.

While the event was purported to be a "pro-con" event, the former mayor assured it was all pro for home rule and all con against home rule.  Furthermore, he provided very little attribution and was often misleading.  At the end he congratulated himself for sparing the crowd from "legalese".  However you cannot have an informative or effective  discussion on home rule without discussion about Illinois Statutes and case law.

But former Mayor Gitz did not want an informative or effective discussion, his goal was to convince Freeport voters that home rule must be maintained.  That was obvious when early in his presentation he eluded to the "severe" debt limit the Freeport City Council would be subject to if they were not home rule.  Right now, Freeport has no debt limit whereas non-home rule municipalities are subject to a debt limit of  "8.625% of their current assessed valuation." 

The following photo provides attribution to the above paragraph, it's from the book "Home Rule and Intergovernmental Cooperation and Conflict" and is used by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education to educate Illinois' attorneys.

If 8.625% of a municipality's assessed value is all that "severe" as Freeport's former mayor claimed, why hasn't Rockford, Dixon, Rock Falls, Sterling or even Lena complained that they can't indebt their citizens to a greater degree?

How high is Freeport's debt load at present?  Although the Freeport City Council recently used home rule to borrow "up to $2.5 million" on an ordinance's first reading after less than a month of discussion, not one City Council member asked what our total bonded indebtedness was at present.  Remember, half the city council is up for election early next year.

The former mayor also suggested we'd be having referendum on top of referendum if home rule is repealed by Freeport voters.  How?  Wasn't it former Mayor Gitz himself that vetoed a budget because the city council wanted to increase the home rule sales tax by one-half of a percent?  Didn't our mayor, at that time, say that using home rule to raise the sales tax was an improper use of this power and such a decision should go to referendum?  Do I need to pull and picture those meeting minutes?

Also, when are the citizens of Freeport entitled to a say so on tax and spend issues?  Despite a plethora of city council created taxes and a mountain of debt (I suspect well beyond the legal limit if Freeport was not home rule) not one decision was made by voters.  Every tax created and every dollar borrowed was the result of a decision made by the Freeport City Council, not the taxpayers, yet it is only ever the citizens that are accountable for these actions, city council members can simply leave Freeport, which some council members of the not so distant past have done.

"Property taxes will go through the roof" is another popular refrain made by those that wish to retain home rule power.  However, like Jim Gitz, they all evade the most important fact.  Stephenson County is a "tax cap" county as voters approved the "Property Tax Extension Limitation Law" (PTELL) years ago.  This law limits the amount property taxes can be raised by units of local government.  As a home rule unit, The City of Freeport is the only taxing body wholly contained in Stephenson County not bound by PTELL.  Without home rule, the City will have do the hard work of staying within a budget established by taxpayers, not the eight of them.

Most of his presentation was based upon his claim that all of the taxes created under home rule would disappear.  Former Mayor Gitz offered no citation to support this claim.  Well, I'm here to tell you that Jim Gitz and all his lawyerly credentials do not get to make such decisions and it's not like Jim Gitz hasn't misled the public and city council in the past to get his own way.  So those that want to use the argument that these home rule taxes, legally created at the time the ordinances creating them were passed, will "go away" had better provide some proof to back that claim.  So far, I have seen nothing, only hyperbole from those wanting to to retain home rule.

It's also often claimed that these home rule sales taxes are paid by people other than Freeporters, however, there is nothing to support that claim.  If anyone knows how much of these sales tax dollars come from elsewhere than they would know exactly how much business our high sales taxes drive north to Wisconsin.  I'll bet there are plenty more Illinois license plates in Monroe at this moment than there are Wisconsin plates in Freeport.  That's not an accident or dumb luck.  If it can be known with any type of accuracy how much is coming in and where it's coming from, then it should be known how much is being driven out too.

I asked our former mayor that if we repealed home rule this November couldn't the city council place it back on the ballot "in two years".  To which he played dumb.  That's the lobbyist in him, if a fact disrupts an underlying claim, pretend you're not familiar with the fact.  

The loss of home rule would require the Freeport City Council to do what every other unit of local government in northwest Illinois has to do, budget and govern.  Home rule has allowed the Freeport City Council to evade the hard work of governing as they've used home rule as a "get out of jail free card" every time things got tough throughout the past 30-years.  Borrow more money and create a new tax to pay for it, that's been the method of operation since 1992.

Next up, how home rule is used to bury the poor in charges while subsidizing the wealthy.

As always, yours in honesty

John Samuel Cook

2022

A Former Freeport Mayor and Home Rule

This coming Tuesday the League of Women Voters of Freeport will host a community forum titled "Home Rule--Pro and Con", the presenter for the event will be former Freeport Mayor, Jim Gitz.  

First I must thank the LWV of Freeport for hosting these types of events.  There is no relevant media operating in the City of Freeport.  Without the LWV we would be left with political advertising as our only source of information on candidates for office and other important issues of public concern and choice.

Former Mayor Gitz's credentials alone assure he knows much about the vast powers home rule bestows upon local government.  Without the former mayor I would know far less about the home rule issue.  

Back in 2002 and 2003, during the Jim Gitz administration, I was attempting to inform the community about how City Hall was planning on using home rule.  At that time I was banned from the pages of the Journal-Standard and there was no social media.  However, the Rockford paper was owned by a different company and gave me the space to write about what the headline writer called abuse of home rule in Freeport in their Sunday edition.  Here is a picture of that article which was published on June 1, 2003.

Our former mayor then penned his own guest column which was published the following Sunday wherein he justified the use of home rule powers to get around state statues that were written to protect taxpayers.  This was the exact issue where I learned that the Bond Issued Notification Act is not binding upon home rule units (see previous post from July 20).  Following is Mayor Gitz's  column.

Of course the huge bond issue was approved by the City Council, probably on a single reading but I don't have 2003 meeting minutes at my finger tips.

The projects funded by this huge bond issue were never my intended point.  The process was.  There was no formal notice and no public hearing regarding this massive debt issuance against our collective credit much less a referendum which would be required if we lived any other municipality in Stephenson, Jo Daviess, Carroll, Ogle, Lee, and Whiteside Counties.

Whenever a municipality uses home rule as an end run around Illinois Statutes which require published notice and a public hearing prior to the adoption of ordinances which create general obligation debt, is plain and simple abuse of home rule powers.  And the the City of Freeport has done this regularly for the past 30-years, including in the past 90-days.

Let's also not forget the fact that with home rule it only requires eight city council members to increase our debt and tax burden exponentially and then they, as individuals, can simply move out of Freeport leaving the rest of us with the debt and taxes they thought necessary.  This has happened.  Long term debt and taxation issues deserve and need a much better public hearing if the public is to feel included and accountable for where we are as a community.

I will give any current or former city council member, or anyone else for that matter, who wishes to rebut my opinion, that skirting public disclosure statutes is an abuse of home rule power, all the space they need or want to make counterpoint.

I do look forward to former Mayor Gitz's presentation, while I won't dare speak for him and haven't asked him, I'm pretty sure his outlook on home rule will be quite different as a civilian attorney than an elected mayor; the latter having to worry about budgets and promises while still portraying the ever elusive "progress".

One more side point, while I often and publicly disagreed with Mayor Gitz on various issues over the years, I believe he always tried his best under not very favorable conditions to do what he thought was proper.  Furthermore, we do agree on many issues but those are no fun to write about.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook
2022

Free and Equal Elections....In Freeport?

With the home rule question coming up on the November ballot for Freeport voters it is important citizens be on the look out for our money being improperly used to sway the vote...there is history here.

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 Article III, Section 3, states that "All elections shall be free and equal."  And because every elected local official in office is sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions it must be true, right?

However, if those local elected officials that are sworn to uphold our laws and constitutions sit on their hands and do nothing when there are blatant violations of election laws, the 1970 Illinois Constitution means nothing.

In the not so distant past, most of the players are still alive, local movers shakers showed a propensity to interfere in the election process, using public money as if an election issue funded by public money could ever be "equal" while those in power pretended nothing was wrong here.

Let's go back 20-years ago when there was much debate within   Freeport over building a new library.  Some residents only wanted library money used (they have their own tax) and didn't want city government to supply any money stating the City of Freeport had enough to worry about.  This group especially didn't want any long term public debt for the new library.  Without home rule library bonds have to go to referendum.

The group called themselves the "Freeport Good Government Group."   FGGG took on the herculean task of collecting signatures of 10% of Freeport registered voters in order to force an advisory referendum regarding a City Council resolution to contribute funding.

Despite too many underhanded shenanigans to mention here by those in power in an effort to keep the question off the ballot, a judge finally decided the group's petitions had merit and ordered the advisory question to appear on the primary ballot.  The final court order was entered on February 27 with the primary election occurring in less than three weeks, on March 19, 2002.

Suddenly, in the middle of March within a week of the vote, all kinds of advertising began showing up.  Freeport voters received a direct mailing stating that the City's money to build the new library was "here now" and claiming there would be no long term debt as part of its construction.

It seems that a mere six days before the primary a political action committee was created calling itself  "Freeport Forward."  Here is some of the public record as it still appears on the Illinois State Board of Elections website.

So the next logical question is where did this Freeport Forward PAC originate from and where did their money come from?  Fortunately the ISBE website will tell us that too.  Here is some of the report.

Notice that more than $8600.00 came from the Freeport Downtown Development Foundation, an entity completely supported by taxpayers.  Following is a majority of the PAC's expenditures.  The FDDF is now part of the Greater Freeport Partnership.

It also needs to be mentioned that the president of Freeport Downtown Development Foundation at that time was also the publisher of the Journal-Standard.  Note that the newspaper received more than $6400 for political advertising.

The PAC also paid for a direct mailing to Freeport voters all of this paid political advertising pitched misleading information about a referendum 10-days away.  There was no time to publicly rebut or counter the misinformation being spewed with the help of taxpayer dollars.  The money was not,  nor never was "here now" and the Freeport City Council did end up using home rule to borrow money over 30-years to help pay for the new library.  

Freeport voters were lied to with their own money, pure and simple.

And not one local elected official, despite being sworn to uphold the Illinois Constitution and all that includes seen a thing even after it was brought to their attention.  Free and equal elections....where?

Notice the address of the Freeport Forward PAC, 101 West Stephenson Street,   At that time that address was the Fifth/Third Bank.  The direct mailer was postmarked using the bank's postage meter.  The vice president of the bank in March 2002 is the present chair emeritus the Greater Freeport Partnership.

Maybe that's what leadership means in Freeport, make your underlings accountable forever while avoiding any personal responsibility now and in the future for themselves.

Let's be on the lookout for public money, our tax dollars, being used to campaign for or against any election initiative.  Elections cannot be "equal" if public dollars are financing any side. 

Freeport/Stephenson County elected officials have never had a problem with such blatant constitutional impropriety before, why would it concern them now, it's not like anyone has ever had consequences.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook
2022

  

Home Rule and Associated "Negativity"

Freeport officials seem to  constantly be lamenting on the "negativity" of Freeporters.  

And why shouldn't we citizens of Freeport be negative?

For 50-years the Freeport City Council, with little to no input from citizens, has used home rule powers to build the city they wanted.

Every single tax and spend issue in the City of Freeport has been decided by the Freeport City Council.  Despite an astronomical amount of public  debt (well beyond the legal limit for non-home rule municipalities) as well as a plethora of home rule created taxes there has not been one binding referendum.  All tax and spend decisions have been made  by the Freeport City Council, completely excluding the public that must pay the consequences of often poor decisions.

Not only has home rule permitted the Freeport City Council to borrow money without a referendum.  Home rule even allows the city council to get around statutory protections put in place for the public that require public notice when borrowing money from citizens.  That's right they can borrow money without even providing formal notice or a public hearing.

Non-home rule units of government are bound by the Bond Issue Notification Act (BINA) 30 ILCS 352/.  Under BINA any "governmental unit" that proposes to take on public debt must first provide published notice as well as a public hearing.  Because BINA does not specifically pre-empt home rule powers, it is not binding upon home rule units.  Therefore, the Freeport City Council simply ignores this clear and concise Illinois Statute.

Perhaps former city council member Peter McClanathan, who just happens to be running for judge in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court can explain to the public how this was proper use of home rule powers. 

Why hasn't another former city council member, Andrew Chesney, who currently serves as Freeport's state representative and is running for state senator, not made a proposal to make BINA binding on home rule units too?

Both gentlemen should be able to explain their position on using home rule for a city council to avoid the public notice requirements of BINA.  They've both taken part in approving bond ordinances that used home rule to bypass the BINA requirement, so I would like to hope that men in their positions could speak to the specific issue at hand.

With home rule there is absolutely no city council accountability to the public at large.  In 2003 a huge issuance of public debt was passed on first reading after suspending city council rules.  More than half of the Freeport City Council that approved this 30-year bond issue is either dead, or has moved out of Freeport, leaving the rest of us to retire the debt they thought necessary. 

I asked that very question in an article in the Register-Star way back in 2005.  I'm still waiting to hear a coherent response from any Freeport City official charged with representing the public.

Is it any wonder Freeporters have a bad taste in their mouth?  And wouldn't citizens be more likely to have a better attitude if it was some of their decisions which got Freeport to this point?  But it hasn't been...at all.  The public has been kept out of every major tax and spend decision because of home rule. 

Please, anyone, explain how home rule has been anything more than "Get out of Jail Free" card for the Freeport City Council while the public at large pays the the price.

As always, yours in honesty.

John Samuel Cook

Urban Planning Anyone...

Has anyone else noticed the new sidewalks recently constructed around the site of the demolished former Freeport City Hall?

Often in the role of pedestrian Tutty notices impediments to walkers and wheelchair users that appear throughout our city.  Some of these obstacles are huge, others not so much, but let's agree that we should try to not put anymore potential obstacles in the path of those that wish to use sidewalks to get from point A to point B.

Here are a couple of pictures of the recently installed sidewalk.

What Tutty wants to know is  who allowed a curb cut on Stephenson Street so cars can enter and exit this lot from Stephenson Street, just a few mere feet east of the intersection of Walnut Avenue?  Who permitted this curb cut and what is the process for being granted a new curb cut where one previously did not exist?

At one point you could walk down the north side of West Stephenson Street and not have to worry about cars crossing your path outside of marked intersections.  The southside of West Stephenson Street has been a pedestrian nightmare for decades, with bank and other drive throughs populating this stretch, in many cases motorists are blind to pedestrians until they are upon the sidewalk.

So whose idea was it to put a curb cut for cars at this location on Stephenson Street?  What is the process for getting approval for a curb cut...is there even one Freeport City Council?

I don't know if Freeport is in need of a genuine urban planner or just a few people that look beyond the convenient.  Clearly if Freeport wants to be known as a pedestrian friendly city, there is much work to do and one of the first should be an adequate permitting process for when cars are going to be allowed to cross pedestrian thoroughfares. 

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker tutty.baker@google.com 

Enterprise Zone Shenanigans in Northwest Illinois

 At the the April 11th meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Freeport City Council the assembled members listened to the presentation from Greater Freeport Partnership executive director Mark Williams on, according to the agenda, "Update on Enterprise Zone for Meadows Shopping Mall Property and Helm Group Technology Center Building Expansion". 

Enterprise zone status for these properties would give the owners significant tax benefits.

During his presentation Mr. Williams stated that a "public hearing"  would take place on "the 19th".  Mr. Williams even provided times, 8:30 and 9:00 am, saying each of the two proposals would have separate public hearings.  Here is a YouTube link to the committee of the whole meeting.  Mr. William's presentation starts at minute mark 23;21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbhtgn9A7Uw

Tutty immediately began looking for the published legal notice Mr. Williams told the city council was forthcoming during his presentation, however, Tutty was unable to locate any such published legal notice.  Tutty then contacted the City of Freeport Clerk and the Stephenson County Clerk and Recorder on April 29th asking if they knew anything of a public hearing.  Neither had any more information than Tutty.

So Tutty reviewed the Illinois Statutes surrounding expansion of Enterprise Zones in the state.  Sure enough a public hearing is required.  Here is the pertinent part of the Illinois Enterprise Zone Act Tutty refers to:

The directions for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for local Enterprise Zone boards to follow mirrors the state statute and is also shared here:

Now, at tomorrow night's Freeport City Council meeting, Ordinance #2022-21 and Ordinance #2022-22 are on the agenda for 2nd reading approval to add the Meadows and Helm property to the Enterprise Zone but there has yet to be a public hearing conducted pursuant to Illinois Statutes.  

Why Freeport City Council and Stephenson County Board?

Why Freeport City Council and Stephenson County Board have you deferred all oversight, perhaps unlawfully, over the Enterprise Zone to the Greater Freeport Partnership?

The Enterprise Zone Statute is very clear, "The municipality or county must hold a public hearing on the proposed changes as specified in Section 5"

The "municipality or county" is to provide such public hearing but here in Freeport we have to keep the public in the dark at all costs.  And in this case, at bar attorneys are sitting back and letting the Freeport City Council be misled on their statutory authority of oversight. 

Why else is the Stephenson County Board (and apparently the Stephenson County State's Attorney) as well as the Freeport City Council completely ignoring the rules on public participation in the decision making process?

Are there any competent attorneys on the public dole that can explain why the Stephenson County Board and Freeport City Council are allowed to completely bypass the statutory structure of Enterprise Zone operation?

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker  tutty.baker@gmail.com 

Equity....Freeport Syle

 "The City Manager and Mayor/City Council each have responsibility to ensure the strategic vision and goals are carried out and the entire community is equitably served"

The above sentence is contained in the City of Freeport's strategic plan as approved by the Freeport City Council.  It is available on the City's website for those that want some entertaining reading.  Tutty hopes to discuss this plan more going forward.

Tutty's stuttering returns whenever a City of Freeport official utters any variation of the word "equity".  Tutty has long held that most of the fees placed on our water bills are totally and completely inequitable.  Why should those of us that live on undersized lots pay the same in storm water and road fees as those that have garages that are too big to even fit on our undersized lots?

The physics themselves cry inequity.

Furthermore, and Tutty can prove it, if these fees would have been put on property taxes over the past twenty-plus years.  Most Freeport home owners would have paid much less...and, unlike these add on fees, property taxes can be written off income taxes for those that itemize.

While no one likes these fees, what would you think if you knew that the City of Freeport was  granting some of the utility's consumers with a pass?

Well consider yourself informed.  For whatever reason the Freeport Park District does not pay these fees on any of their metered sites, and haven't been for an unknown amount of time.

Here is a photo of a Freeport Park District water bill.

By contrast, here is a photo of a Freeport School District 145 water bill from the same month in 2020.

Because the D145 is paying these add on fees the City Council can't very well say they're giving a break to taxing bodies.  So why is the Park District getting a free pass?  This amounts to a lot of real money that the rest of us with water meters must make up.  The Park District has numerous metered sites.

Another problem for the City Council is that the Illinois General Assembly, in their wisdom, knew that when it came to public utilities that local municipal officials might give their cronies sweetheart deals while the rest of the public, those marginalized people without clout, would pay through the nose.  In light of these facts a law was passed known as the "Public Utilities Act 220/ILCS 5/."

The Public Utilities Act states right off the bat that "The General Assembly finds that the health, welfare and prosperity of all Illinois citizens require the provision of adequate, efficient, reliable, environmentally safe and least-cost public  utility services at prices which accurately reflect the long-term cost of such services and which are equitable to all citizens."

Unlike many statutes in Illinois the Public Utilities Act preempts the City of Freeport's home rule powers by clearly stating, "The provisions of this Article are a limitation of home rule powers under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

The above facts scream for an official investigation by our State's Attorney or the Illinois Attorney General.  Why is the Illinois Public Utilities Act  apparently not applicable in Freeport, Illinois?

Did former city council member Peter McClanathan, who now wants to be a circuit court judge know about this sweetheart, and potentially unlawful deal?  What about State Representative Andrew Chesney?  Both men were on the Freeport City Council when the Water and Sewer Commission was dissolved on a single reading, ultimately giving the City Manager complete control of water and sewer service.

How many other Freeport water and sewer users are getting these fees waived?  Tutty could learn about the Park District because they are subject to Freedom of Information laws but the city manager could be waiving these fees for multiple users while the rest of us are none the wiser.

If Stephenson County State's Attorney Carl Larson does not have the courage to investigate this issue because it involves his Republican friends and candidates for higher office, he should appoint someone from the outside that does.  The State's Attorney is either enforcing Illinois statutes on the public's behalf or he is purposefully ignoring the statute creating irreparable harm to the rest of the system's end users.  There is no grey area on this issue.

Monday night the Committee Whole of the City Council meets to consider a Memorandum of Understanding with the Freeport Park District.  Nothing should be entered into with the Freeport Park District until the Freeport City Council  and the public at large understand the back room dealings that took place for us to arrive in this situation..

And this is a City Council and administration that think they are trustworthy enough to deserve the retention of home rule powers.  Give us a break.

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker, tutty.baker@gmail.com

How Engaged Are You? Home Rule Referendum Coming

Tutty's been looking over the City of Freeport's Strategic Vision and Goals 2020-2022.  This document  was approved a few months back by the Freeport City Council.  You can peruse what's often called the "strategic plan" by copying and pasting the web address that follows:
https://cityoffreeport.org/city-documents/documents/2019/StrategicPlan2020_2022.pdf

The page Tutty's looking at today is page five with the heading "Diverse and Engaged Citizens" partially pictured below.

Let's agree that Freeport is a fairly diverse community but much beyond that the rest of this paragraph seems to be little more than make believe.  The opening sentence, written in the first person,  purports that "We are an inclusive, diverse and growing community comprised of engaged citizens."

In the next two sentences the author switches to third person and states "Freeport is a community where everyone can participate.  Citizens are well informed of positive momentum and challenges facing the community, empowered as part of the solution."

Just those three sentences are too much for Tutty to take without stopping and elaborating.
While Freeport is diverse, and Tutty has always appreciated that attribute, we are not a "growing community" nor is city government "inclusive" by nearly any measure.  In Tutty's opinion there is little hope of finding a "strategic" solution when the foundation is being built on fiction.

Citizens of Freeport are engaged, but not in the happenings of local government and their taxes and municipal debt.  Freeporters are too engaged in trying to carve out a living or support their addictions.  All those gambling machines don't feed themselves. 

Some are trying to pay  all the fees on the water bills.  Tutty digresses but can any city council member explain why someone that does not have a car, lives on an undersized lot without off street parking, pay the same amount in the "Road Improvements" fee as someone that has four cars and a garage too large to fit on the first person's undersized lot?
Will any city council member, the mayor, or city manager explain how this is equitable?   

Where does the Freeport City Council get the idea that "Freeport is a community where everyone can participate"? 

For the past 30-years the city council has been using home rule powers to exclude the public from the decision making process every time they can.  There has not been one binding referendum on a tax or spend issue in the last 40-years despite a plethora of local taxes and a mountain of public debt in Freeport.  The Freeport City Council has even used home rule to get around formal notice (publishing) and public hearing requirements required of non-home rule units regarding taking on debt.  They borrow from us, and don't even tell us.  How is that engaging the public Freeport City Council?

If the Freeport City Council really wants public engagement they would want to eliminate the largest block to public engagement these past several decades

How do citizens become well informed in a town and county that has virtually no credible media, unless, of course, it's high school sports.  Who covers what the Stephenson County Board, the Freeport City Council and other units of local government are actually doing on our alleged behalf.  The Journal-Standard and local radio are little more than a bad joke foisted upon Freeporters by media businesses more interested in collecting advertising fees than increasing public enlightenment.

Five Freeport City Council members will be up for reelection one year from now.  However, prior to that, the home rule question will be on the November general election ballot.  Let's pay attention to which city council members really want a "community where everyone can participate" or remain a home rule city where only a handful of elected officials make all the tax and spend issues and while only leaving the public with the bills for their decisions/

As always, yours in honesty, Tutty Baker tutty.baker@gmail.com