Highland's $38 Million "Back Door Referendum"

 At Wednesday night's meeting of the Highland Community College Board of Trustees, the board will consider an "AUTHORIZATION AND DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANNING, DESIGN AND PERMITTING FOR THE FUTURE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE  OF THE SPORTS BUILDING (BUILDING S) according to the board's posted agenda.

The authorization will allow HCC to borrow $38 million for the project.  Below is a photo of the document trustees are being asked to approve.

Thirty-eight-million dollars is a big pile of money to borrow from the residents of northwest Illinois without much greater public input than the college has afforded inhabitants of Carroll, Jo Daviess, Ogle and Stephenson Counties, the couties that comprise the district of Community College District #519.

It's hard not to think the secretiveness was intentional on the part of HCC.  Clearly their goal has been to create a new facility and have known since the first discussion of this project that it would be dependent upon the college borrowing a huge sum of money from us, those that reside in the college's service area.

The college's pencil pushers and bean counters also knew such a massive borrowing would only be  possible through a legal process often called a "back-door referendum" whereby they can borrow the money but they have to publish a notice and allow 30-days for the public to gather a certain number of signatures of registered voters throughout the district to force the board of trustees to hold a referendum on the project.

Since making this issue known in the community many have asked "why can't they do this or that instead?" Many have good ideas on what the college could or should look like.  It is our community college and should be about serving the region, not only vision of the board of trustees.

However the board board of trustees and college employees have been pushing their vision for much of 2025 despite what others throughout the four-county area may think.  There has been no efforet to guage public opinion that I know of.  If HCC is going to spend $38 million on something, what do you think it should be?  If you live in the district it belongs to you as much as it is the elected, but temporary, board of trustees.  However the trustees appear to think it belongs to them and it's simply up to provide funding for their visions...practical or not.

Something that caught my attention was a sentence in HCC board meeting minutes from July 16 and under "Old Business" which read "If the College was proceeding with construction in the second half of 2026, the project bidding process would begin but that would be before the 30-day bond petition period would end,  which could also be problematic."

To the best of my knowlege this is the only time the possibility of using a back door referednum has been mentioned in recorded meeting minutes.  I am also troubled that the Highland Community College Board of Trustees would consider a possible referendum on the issue as "problematic."

They either have a plan that most of us will like and will accept or they don't.  The only reason to fear a referndum is if the board thinks their plan might not be accepted by the actual owners of the college, the residents of northwest Illinois.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook

2025

Stephenson County/Freeport Need Leaders With Vision

 Angela Kay Larson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Rockford Chamber of Commerce was a guest on the morning news show on WQRF-39 and WTVO-17 today.  She was there to discuss the upcoming Midwest Aerospace Conference (MAC) which her chamber is helping to sponsor.

Ms. Larson touted the fact that the Chicago Rockford International Airport is currently the 14th largest cargo airport in the United States.  She stated, in paraphrasing, the area is fortunate to have the needed infrastructure, interstate, rail and the like to make the airport successful and help local businesses market their products.

Let's agree that Freeport needs its larger neighbor to the east, much of the economic activity  here is directly attributable to Rockford.  If Freeport has any plans of future prosperity we can not continue to ignore the potential benefits of having a proven international airport within 25-miles.

Freeport and Stephenson County should be expoiting our proxemity to the Chicago Rockford International Airport, which means we need to look at the major connecting roadway between here and there, U.S. Route 20.

Currently U.S. 20 is a limited access freeway around Freeport, becoming an expressway with cross traffic at grade from just east of Freeport to just west of Rockford where it once again becomes a limited access freeway.

Have any local officials written to the Illinois Department of Transportation about the potential of making the entire stretch from Freeport to Rockford a limited access freeway?

If Freeport is to have a robust economic future we can not continue to make the trip between here and Rockford longer.  Many of us are old enough to remember when their were no stop lights between the two municipalities, first came Pecatonica Road and then Winnebago corners.  How much longer before growth necessitates a stop light at Ridott corners?

Such a project requires years of planning and will not come without some complaining and  headaches, however such a highway would be safer and much more effecient for businesses and every day commuters.  Allowing greater marketibility for existing and potential residents and businesses of Freeport and Stephenson County.

Personally, I don't believe it is in our best interest to ignore the enormous economic potential the Chicago Rockford International Airport could have on Freeport and Stephenson County.

So I am of the hope that local leaders understand that we cannot completely sustain ourselves and then act accordingly.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook

2025

Andrew Chesney and Child Sex Abuse

Five years ago a local man of prominence was arrested on charges related to child pornography.  Andrew Chesney, then our state representative-- not one to resist any potential big media exposure--quickly issued written statements to Chicago media outlets.

Representative Chesney, now state Senator Chesney wrote the following:

"The crimes (he) stands accused of our heinous.  I denounce him in the strongest terms.  My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.  May their voices be heard and may justice be quickly served."

Fast forward five-years and Senator Chesney has not said a word about the Epstein Files.  

The state senator either "denounces" sex crimes against children in  all forms or he simply picks and chooses which horific events will get him the most and easiest press coverage.

If Senator Chesney's "thoughts and prayers" are honestly "with the victims and their families" why hasn't he protested the moving of Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice to sex crimes against children to a different and assumed more comfortable federal prison?  The families of Epstein victims have spoken out on the move but Andrew seems to have lost the ability to hear.

If Andrew Chesney is truly interested in the "voices (of victims) be heard" and wants "justice quickly served" why has he completely ignored the issue of the Epstein files?  He appears not to be that interested in the sexual abuse of children if the facts may implicate his hero.

The state senator has proven himself to be Stephenson County's most vocal hypocrite, and not just on the issue documented above, all the while touting something he calls "northwest Illiniois values."  Perhaps Andrew Chesney will be willing to expound upon those values as they related to child sex abuse.

As always, yours in honesty, 

John Samuel Cook

2025

Public Hearings are Well Kept Secrets in Stephenson County.

 A recent article in the Village Voices predicted that difficult financial decisions were on the horizon for the Stephenson County Board.

Ironically, in the same Village Voices there was a large legal advertisement providing notice that a public hearing was to take place in regard to public subsidies being granted for "the development of a fueling station/convenience store, along Highway 20" near Lena, by increasing the size of the Northwest Illinois Enterprise Zone.   Enterprise zone status grants developers numerous tax breaks (incentives) for developments within the zone.  

Before the Enterprize Zone is expanded, the public, which has to make up for any tax dollars local units of government forego through tax incentives, deserves much more in the way of  authoritative answers.

By publishing this legal notice in Village Voices without any other formal notice to the members of the Stephenson County Board and the Freeport City Council, it appears as though the "Enterprise Zone Advisory Committee" wants this proposed project to remain very much in the dark.

First, why was this notice published in a newspaper that likely doesn't circulate 100 newspapers in the zip code where the public hearing was held?

Second, why didn't Andrea Schultz Winter, not inform the Stephenson Board of the public hearing when she appeared before the county board the night before said public hearing?  She specifically   talked about the project as if it was a done deal.  Ms. Schultz Winter told the county board, "you will see an agenda item on your agenda next month asking for approval from the county board for a boundary amendment to the Northwest Illinois Enterprise Zone to add two parcels into the enterprise zone to help facilitate some development outside of Lena."

My personal opinion is it's very disrespectful to the entire county board and their constituents for Ms. Shultz Winter to completely fail to inform the board, and the cameras, that there was going to be public hearing on the very topic within 14 hours of her presentation to the Stephenson County Board.

There are numerous public questions that need to be answered prior to any unit of local goverment granting approval to this proposed project.  Why does the developer need tax incentives in the first place when this project will surely be very profitable for investors without public subsidy.

Has there been any actual studies about what a new business would do to other, already established and non-subsidized local businesses?

Is there water and sewer on site?  Will there be a car wash or anything similar, resulting in gallons of untreated waste water flowing into the Pecatonica River watershed.

I'm sure there are other pertinent questions members of the Stephenson County Board or Freeport City Council would of had at this public hearing--had the Enterprise Zone Committee not done their best to make sure it remained an open secret within their ranks.

Not only did Ms. Shultz Winter present to the Stephenson County Board but also to the Freeport City Council Committee of the Whole on October 15, three days before the public hearing.  Again, she referred to the project which was subject to the already noticed public hearing, yet did not tell the Freeport City Council that there would be public hearing where they could show up and have their questions heard and made part of the public record.  This is what Ms. Shultz Winter told members of the council, "we continue to work on an enterprise zone boundary expansion for a future development that will happen outside of Lena, again the enterprise zone is an incentive zone that the partnership administers." 

Again, I believe this is terribly disrespectful to the citizens of northwest Illinois and their elected representatives.  Clearly the Northwest Illinois Enterprise went out of their way to keep the vast majority of people in the dark about an alleged public hearing in the very few days preceding said public hearing.  Clearly the committee is going through the legal motions while violating the spirit of Illinois' statutes that are meant to guarantee public participation in tax giveaways.

Sometime after the public hearing this past Friday the Northwest Illinois Enterprise Zone Committee must of met and requested the expansion of the enterprise zone to the Freeport City Council.  Later the same day the agenda was released for the coming Monday night city council meeting and it includes a first reading of Ordinance 2024-57, An Ordinance Amending the Boundaries of the Joint Northwest Illinois Certified Enterprise Zone.

That was sure quick...and obviously planned.

Why the official secrecy City Manager Rob Boyer and Stephenson County Board Chairman Scott Helms?  Clearly both of you also kept the public hearing a secret from your council and board respectively.  Why did you two men do this?

I want to know, Freeport City Council and Stephenson County Board, how you and the public can trust leaders that do their best to keep other duly elected representatives in the dark?  These two men are going to expect duly elected representatives to vote on tax incentives, costing the public they represent real dollars, while doing their best to obstruct the same elected representives' access to pertinent information regarding the proposal to be voted on.

That's all...for now.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook  2024  

Email tutty.baker@gmail. com

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

Mayor Jodi "Home Rule" Miller

 At a the October 2nd meeting of the Freeport City Council discussion centered on whether to allow the city's voters to vote on a sales tax proposal or continue the practice of using home rule to increase the sales tax in Freeport without a referendum.

Republican Mayor Jodi Miller seemed dead set against the referendum idea, arguing that by the home rule referendum passing in 2022, the council now has carte blanche authority from residents to do whatever the hell the Mayor and the city manager want and it's up to the city council to give them a rubber stamp.

Video of the meeting is available on YouTube or the City of Freeport's website.

A ridiculous analagy made by Mayor Miller during the discussion went like this:

"Just imagine, if a referee of a football game didn't want to make the hard calls, just pretend that for a moment, didn't want to make the hard calls and left it up to the fans in the stadium."

With all due respect Mayor Miller, the citizens of Freeport are not fans at a football game.

If you want to look at us, your constituentcy, as "fans in the stadum" know this, these fans own both the participating teams, the whole damn stadium and we're even the ones paying the referees' salaries.

This is our football game, not Mayor Miller's.  We are the ones underwriting the football game, not the Mayor. In the Mayor's analogy the fans are subordinate.  Therefore, she must believe that because they have home rule powers the public should just get in line and pay up.

So lets talk socialism.  The only thing local Republicans and their leader have been doing publicly is bashing Governer Pritzker and President Biden on social media.  All the while ignoring how their party brethren at the local level continue to use home rule worse than any tax and spend liberal could.  Genuine principles and values are demonstrated, not talked about or posted on Facebook.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me is that it appears Mayor Miller is doing more to represent the city manager than the residents of Freeport.  Thus far she has not asked the finance department to come up with an alternative budget, one without this proposed tax increase.  Nor has she asked for other financial alternatives and what the positives or negatives of those would be, with home rule there are plenty of alternatives.  Please watch the Youtube video from the October 2, 2023 Freeport City Council meeting, you will get a much better idea of where the individual members of the city council stand on using home rule.

How would Mayor Miller and and the city manager govern in a non-home rule unit of government?  How could they possibly run Stephenson County, any school district,  or any size of municipality without their home rule bag of tricks?   Is our city manager even qualified to be a city manager in an Illinois' municipality that is not home rule?  Feel free to answer the questions contained herein Mayor Miller but please do so in writing.

Look around at the results that home rule as brought us--treating residents as "fans in the stadium"--nothing more than casual observers, has come at steep cost, figurative and literal, to the City of Freeport and her residents, this needs to change soon.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook

2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com 

The RISE Grant and Tonight's City Council Consent Agenda

 There has been much talk around Freeport City Hall regarding something being called a RISE grant from the State of Illinois and how it will be used in Freeport.  The City hosted two public "open houses" on February 15, regading a "Freeport Economic Revovery Plan" to be "Funded by the RISE Grant" according to the open house announcement.

Looking down the consent agenda for tonight's Freeport City Council meeting I ran across a payment to Fehr-Graham in the amount of $15,000 attributable to the DCEO RISE GRANT DWT with the acccount number 205-268-6315.  Below is picture of this page of tonight's  consent agenda with this item underlined.

So using the account number, I went back to the appropriations ordinance, approved by the City Council last December,  to look at the corresponding fund this payment was being pulled from.

What I found has only led to more questions.  Below is a picture of the appropriations ordinance regarding this RISE grant.

What I find troubling is that the account shows a negative $22,500 for last year.  What's the explanation for this number being there?  I'm no CPA but I  know numbers in an appropriation ordinance mean something.  I also suspect, although I am no CPA that somewhere within the appropriations ordinance this negative $22,500 should show up as a postive in the same amount lest the city council approved layout is not balanced.  The public and council should know if the appropriations ordinance was written unbalanced.

How much of this $75,000 grant is left?  What has it been used for thus far?  What percentage of these grants actually go into projects and what percentage in engineering fees?

Any member of the Freeport City Council can ask for an item to be removed from the consent agenda for full council discussion.  I would like to see that happen in the case illustrated here.  That negative $22,500 needs explanation and the public, as well as the city council, need to know exactly what they've gotten for the $15,000 Fehr-Graham is billing us for in regards to this grant.

Surely, Mayor Miller or City Manager Boyer should be able to explain both of these issues to the satisfaction of the City Council withou too much effort or time.

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook
2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com

Another Home Rule Sales Tax Proposal--Same Tired Justifications

 I watched with interest the discussion regarding Freeport streets and how to fund the repairing of the same at the Committee of the Whole meeting of the Freeport City Council on February 12th this year.  The video of the meeting is available on YouTube.

Second ward alderman James Monroe appeared to speak in favor of using home rule to raise Freeport's sales tax yet again, the substance of what Mr. Monroe said is below and quoted verbatim.

"It's something that has to be addressed and we have to figure a path forward and the only way to do that is to work to together and to continue to push forward, to continue to execute on a plan and and that's the only way it ever gets done.  It's just like a business, and we're looking at this from a standpoint, and this is why earlier--the conversations--because a tax increase only gets us part of the way there; the conversations with the Greater Freeport Partnership and the growth of Lamm Road TIF district and other TIF districts in the city, other economic zones is the important piece because bringing new blood, new money in the community, new jobs will fund all this."

This is basically the same argument that has always been used by City officials when they want to use home rule to raise the sales on the rest of us living in the city...or at least on those who have no choice and lack the ability to purchase goods and services outside of Freeport.

In the fall of  2009 the administration of Mayor George Gaulrapp proposed a sales tax increase at the same time the Wal-Mart and Menard's shopping complex was under construction.  Mayor Gaulrapp using the same justification, went so far as to tell the public that once these new mega-stores "come on line" this new tax "will go away."  My alderman, Tom Klemm, should remember this as plain as day.

The fact is, as stated in the prior post, "The increases in Freeeport's home rule sales tax has literally paralleled Freeport's decline."  There is an anolagy somewhere about doing the same things over and over expecting different results if my recall is correct.

Another issue I will take with Mr. Monroe's statement is where he stated, "It's just like a business."  Really?  I've worked my whole life in the private sector;  vegetable farms, manufacturing, service and distribution industries and retail, from ma and pa outfits to a Fortune 100 company and I've yet to see a private sector business that can just conjure up revenue as the City of Freeport can with home rule powers.

If Mr. Monroe can point out a business that can simply raise it's bottom line by placing an involuntary tax upon its own shareholders, I'd be interested in hearing more about that business.  If the company I work for sells considerably less product this year than last and they are short of revenue they have to make adjustments on the expense side of the ledger.  An Ivy League degree should not be needed to understand this simple business truth.

Freeport households have to behave as businesses do, very few of us have the ability, skills, or time to magically increase the stream of money coming into our homes.  If a household's expenses continue to outstrip its revenue, something has to give. 

While we citizens can do little to nothing to raise our incomes the Freeport City Manager, Mayor Jodi Mill and the Freeport City Council have little problem using home rule to pick our pockets without so much as an official public hearing much less a referendum.

How does Rock Falls,Sterling, Dixon and even Rockford mangage without home rule powers to instantly increase their revenue when the money pot runs dry?

Have Freeport administrations simply lacked or are lacking, whether mayoral or city manager, in the managereial skills of these other communities?  Or have they simply become reliant on the get out jail free card that home rule gives them, knowing they can finance every decision regardless of how poor a decision it was?

Since the turn of the century Freeport has been bleeding profusely for a number of  reasons, while all Freeport elected officials do is cling to the status quo.  It is past the time that Mayor Miller and City Manager Bloyer do the hard job of governing that's required in 2024 and bring our expenses in line with present revenue the same way practically every other Freeport business, household or public body has to do it....the home rule card has been played far too often to what appears to be the detriment of Freeport and its citizens.

There will be more to come on this issue.

As always, yours in honesty

John Samuel Cook

2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com

Pedestrians...Freeport's Second Class Citizens

There has been so much talk about the condition of Freeport streets the last few months.  I agree they are terrible, however, as a city we need a much broader conversation on our transportation needs.  Thinking we can tax our way out of this ongoing dilemma (the condition of Freeport streets have been a topic for at least the last three decades) is laughable.  The increases in Freeport's home rule sales tax has literally paralleled Freeport's decline.

One common misconception is that "everyone" or that "all" of us use Freeport roads equally.  In talking to his fellow city council members at the most recent committee of the whole meeting, alderman James Monroe said that "all of us are affected by them (bad streets)...we all drive on these horrible roads."  That's not a true statement.  Many Freeport housesholds have no automobile and have little care about the condition of Freeport streets.

Writing extensively on transportation issues in the 1990s and living in Freeport without driving a car for more than 20-years has given me a unique perspective.  I've come to the conclusion that driving a vehicle is the most goverment subsidized activity most people partake in, gas and road use taxes don't come close to covering the cost of automobile travel upon society, they never have.  Hence, those that choose not to drive are forced to subsidize those that do.  Just look at the $2.00 road fee on your water bill, despite the fact that many residents don't even have off street parking;  or the proposed sales tax hike to fix Freeport streets.  Those that, for whatever reason, don't drive must pay the aforementioned taxes all the while being treated as second class citizens.

Just take a look at the recent snowstorm and the two weeks of heavy snowpack that followed.  There were numerous places in Freeport, at both private and public parking lots, snow was pushed on to sidewalks leaving them impassable for pedestrians...despite an ordiance purportedly in place to prevent such actions.  Here are just two examples:

Yes, there is a sidewalk underneath that huge mound of snow along the east side of the 100 block of North Walnut Avenue.  What's particularly egregious about this pile of snow is that, despite a city ordinance prohibiting such activity, numerous Freeport police officers had to see this mountain of snow as they use the alley right across the street, to enter and exit the police station parking lot.

Here is another pile of snow plowed from a private lot onto the sidewalk on the east side of Locust Avenue, near the foot of Lincoln Boulevard.  As a matter fact, pedestrians coming from the west on Lincoln wishing to get downtown, had no easy route to the foot of Main Street, they had to climb over the snow piles the plows had pushed up.

Larger intersections are as much, or more of a challenge for pedestrians, as the islands they rely upon to keep them from getting killed are never cleaned of snow and ice in Freeport, just the opposite, they are used to collect the snow. (the picture below was taken after much of the snow had melted)

We spend thousands of dollars in equipment and manhours hauling snow from downtown when it's not much of an impediment to vehicle or pedestrian commerce.  Couldn't some of these resources be used where the need is more urgent?

Despite being taxed heavily for "roads" those in Freeport without cars have a very difficult time conducting the necessary commerce that many Freeport drivers take for granted.  Freeport drivers can expect to have the roads cleared of snow and ice while Freeport pedestrians can  expect the snow and ice to be plowed up becoming obstacles for them to overcome...if they're young and healthy enough to contemplate a winter walk in Freeport.

Freeport is a small enough town that it should be easy to conduct at least some commerce by foot.  However, in the newer parts of Freeport pedestrian accessibility appears to have  never been contemplated, despite the city council spending huge sums on "transportation" projects and looking to spend yet more.

A common problem cited by Freeport employers is the lack transportation for their workforce.  Many people taking Freeport's entry level jobs do not have their own cars.  I'd like to see the mayor or any member the city council walk from Farm and Fleet to Starbucks, it's only a short distance. I can cite dozens, if not a hundred short distance walks that are darn near impossible for anyone without youthful athleticism.  Just try to walk to the nearest neighborhood elementary school in any weather and consider what pedestrians, many of them children, are up against.

If people can conduct more business by foot it is is good for all involved.  Walking is good for one's health, not driving saves money for the individual and the community. Freeport taxpayers have paid for numerous recreational walking trails, however we need a much greater emphasis on improving our infrastructure to make walking for commerce--point A to point B trips--possible and more inviting to all Freeport residents and visitors.

While the 2024-2026 City of Freeport Strategic Vision and Goals, as adopted by the Freeport City Council, plainly states "Whether you drive a car, use Pretzel City Transit, a ride-share or taxi, ride a bike, or walk, getting around Freeport is easy." I'd like to see Freeport Mayor Jodi Miller and the Freeport City Council begin working to make their certified statement something beyond fiction.

As always, yours in honesty

John Samuel Cook

2024

tutty.baker@gmail.com

The Stephenson County State's Attorney and his Walnut Acres Dance

 At the last Stephenson County Board meeting on April 20th Stephenson County State's Attorney Carl Larson was asked about an Illinois statute which applies to Illinois's county run nursing homes.  The part of the statute the State's Attorney attempted to address is this paragraph, 55 ILCS 5/5-21001(9).

"Upon the vote of a 2/3 majority of all the members of the board, to sell, dispose of or lease for any term, any part of the home properties in such manner and upon such terms as it deems best for the interest of the county, and to make and execute all necessary conveyances thereof in the same manner as other conveyances of real estate may be made by a county. However, if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

The last clause of this statute is what is pertinent to Stephenson County's present situation, as a matter of fact, State's Attorney Larson cited the last clause verbatim to the Stephenson County Board.  Again, that clause is, "if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

You may view Mr. Larson's presentation at this YouTube link, it begins at 18:57.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2bhIYW5M8g&t=1260s

Mr. Larson goes on quite a stretch of illusionary legal reasoning in an attempt to bifurcate the building from the legal entity.  Please watch the video where he attempts to define the words "erect"  and "nursing home" in a blatant attempt to mislead the Stephenson County Board and the public at large regarding plain as day Illinois Statutes.

Clearly our State's Attorney Larson desperately needs a lesson on statutory construction as determined by the Illinois Supreme Court.

I am in possession of an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that states, "A primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislative intention.  In seeking the intent of the legislature, courts consider not only the language used but also the evil to be remedied and the object to be attained.  Furthermore it is well settled that, in the absence of statutory definitions indicating a different legislative intention, the courts will assume that words have their ordinary and popularly understood meanings" Citations have been removed, however anyone can copy and paste the quoted material and find this opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Clearly, in passing this statute, the General Assembly wanted to ensure that if the electors of a county had supported a county "home" through a bond sale approved at referendum, the county board acting alone could not pull the rug out from underneath something the public has willingly supported with their tax dollars and votes for decades.  

In my opinion, the statute was meant to give the future of county homes--that had been supported by past bond issues courtesy of referendums--to the public at large and not the county board.

I would be interested in seeing a written response from State's Attorney Larson as to what problem he thinks the General Assembly was trying to remedy in the statutory clause  he recited to the county board above?

I believe this clause is enforceable by any citizen of Stephenson County with a simple action in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for a couple hundred dollars.  I'd go in pro se on this issue just to see the State's Attorney turn himself inside out attempting to tell the court the statute in question means something beyond its plain and reasonable meaning.

Another problem with our State's Attorney.  Why is he twisting himself into a pretzel on behalf of the Helms' cabal?  I like to think that a state's attorney does the public a greater service by making sure that the real power stays vested with the people and not the few citizens who happen to be county board members.  I think it would be more prudent for Mr. Larson to side with the public over the board.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion whether or not we continue to maintain a county nursing home.  However, I believe that is a decision that should rest with the voters of Stephenson County and not the Stephenson County Board.

What's more important is Illinois Statutes demand that the public weigh in via referendum before a county home is disposed of or sold.  I welcome a written response from State's Attorney Larson.  It will be much less stressful for him to discuss this here rather than in front of a court, but I just might be down for some fun, I've got nothing to lose but a couple hundred dollars.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook

2023

Freeport Needs a Water and Sewer Commission

Freeport's water and sewer system is a public utility.  The funding and expenses must be kept separate from the City of Freeport's other financial books.  The users of this most important public utility deserve to know how it is being run and who it is that is making long term, publicly expensive decisions.

Prior to 2017 and City Manager Lowell Crow, Freeport utilized a  Water and Sewer Commission which would handle all things regarding our public utility.  The Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners consisted of five people, the members of the commission usually had plumbing, construction or engineering experience.  Here is a picture from City ordinances as the paragraph appeared in the 1980s.

In the writer's opinion this system worked very well and provided much more in the way of transparency for us, the owners of the public utility as well as the Freeport City Council.  As it stands now all decisions have already been made somewhere behind closed doors prior to arriving on the City Council agenda.

At present, there is a plan for the largest buildout of water and sewer in the history of Freeport, in to the Forrestville Valley School district south of the Titan Tire plant.  A plan that would not be any where near economically feasible had Covid relief money not dropped from the sky.  How feasible it will be for present users of the water and sewer system to maintain such a buildout without numerous new users, no one knows for sure.  There has been no independent feasibility study of any type conducted.

So where did Freeport water and sewer rate payers (and by extension the Freeport City Council) first learn that this massive buildout was being proposed? The July 12, 2021 meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the Stephenson County Board, that is where it was first made public.

Meeting minutes from this meeting make it clear that this proposal, and the plan to spend Stephenson County's American Recovery Plan Act dollars on the project, originated behind closed doors within the Greater Freeport Partnership.

One question to the Stephenson County Board.  Why ask the citizens of Freeport to subsidize another school district with our public utility?  Forrestville Valley will reap industrial property without the added cost of new students.  And the school board in Forreston can close their one school in Stephenson County, at German Valley, without so much as a telephone call to the Chairman of the Stephenson County Board.

Why can't this money be used to help construct a treatment plant on site?  Titan already treats their own.  Why is there only one solution on the table?

There are many more issues beyond this one confronting rate payers of Freeport's (not Stephenson County's) water and sewer system and the Freeport City Council.  We need and deserve much greater transparency when it come to our only but most important public utility in Freeport. 

I urge the incoming Freeport City Council to bring back the Water and Sewer Commission,  appoint competent and qualified commissioners and begin to examine the functionality of our public utility from top to bottom.  

As always, yours in honesty,

John Samuel Cook

2023

How About Legislating Some Ethical Values?

Do you think the board of directors of a major corporation would ever tolerate their CEO being married to the finance director of the company they oversee for shareholders?  Clearly such a situation would be rife with moral, ethical and perhaps legal pitfalls. 

Right off the bat spouses are always going to look out for their spouse first as their individual livelihoods are dependent upon each other.  Secondly, its too easy for the CEO and  finance director to collude virtually undetectable as they'd be living together as husband and wife.  Third, if one of them is partaking in potentially illegal conduct, the other one has every reason in the world to help hide their matrimonial partner's misdeeds.  Fourth, being married protects spouses from having to testify against each other in any matter, a marriage is its own legal entity.  Anyone can increase this list.

Below is a picture that was posted on  Illinois State Senator Andrew Chesney's Facebook page  along with the County Board Chairmen of Jo Daviess, Stephenson, and Ogle Counties in northwest Illinois.  The Senator's post bears his signature hashtag #nwILLINOISvalues.

It just so happens one of those county board chairman happens to be married to the elected county treasurer.  Scott Helms, the Stephenson County Board Chairman is married to Stephanie Helms the Stephenson County Treasurer.

Has any member of the Stephenson County Board even thought about the ethics of this arrangement?  Has any of them formally requested the Stephenson County State's attorney look into the potential legal pitfalls of this arrangement?

If this was two democrats doing this in Stephenson County Senator Andrew Chesney would literally screaming from the hill tops and authoring legislation prohibiting full time elected county officials' spouses from serving on  the county board that is charged with oversight.  Scott Helms is overseeing his wife's department.

I wonder if the bank where Mr. Helms works would consider having a president of the institution being married to the bank's comptroller?  Would Mr. Helm's employer consider that ethical?  Or do they, like most organizations, have an ethics policy preventing this type of unethical behavior?

So please Senator Chesney, prove you care about real values and honest ethics in northwest Illinois.  Sponsor legislation that would prohibit the spouse of a full time elected county official from running for the county board?  Maybe the local Republican party can talk about more than national issues on their Facebook page being we seem too struggle  with ethical behavior right here in Stephenson County.

Senator Chesney and the full Stephenson County Board should be doing everything in their power to avoid even the mere appearance of unethical behavior.  However Republicans around here seem willing to stick their heads in the sand when it's their own practicing questionable behavior.  

Stephenson County is desperately in need of higher ethical standards.

As always, yours in honesty

John Samuel Cook, 2023

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