Freeport's Five-Year Road Plan Is Changing Again. Taxpayers Should Be Asking Why.

August 11, 2026 | Freeport, IL

Presented by Brian Keller

FOR THE PEOPLE | F4F NEWS

Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication

Joshua T. Atkinson

Chairman | Fighting4Freeport

Monday night's Committee of the Whole meeting raised new questions about Albertus Airport — and even bigger ones about what happened to the street improvement plan taxpayers were sold.

Freeport taxpayers were given a five-year plan.

It identified streets. It established priorities. It projected millions of dollars in improvements from 2025 through 2029. And it gave residents a roadmap for where their increased tax dollars were supposed to go.

Monday night, that roadmap suddenly looked considerably less certain.

The Freeport City Council's August 10 Committee of the Whole meeting lasted just 46 minutes. Only six of the city's eight alderpeople were present, with representatives from the 5th and 7th wards absent. No residents spoke during the opening public-comment period.

The council spent much of the meeting discussing two issues: a proposed license agreement involving city-owned property surrounding Albertus Airport and a potentially significant change to Freeport's 2027 street improvement program.

Both deserve taxpayers' attention.

But the street discussion raised a particularly important question:

What happened to Freeport's five-year road plan?

A Five-Year Plan That Keeps Changing

For the past several years, the Miller administration has promoted a five-year roadway improvement program covering 2025 through 2029.

This wasn't simply a list of streets the city hoped to repair someday.

The plan assigned projects to individual years, established priorities and provided estimated costs. It gave taxpayers something tangible to look at while the administration made its case for additional revenue to address Freeport's deteriorating infrastructure, including the city's 1% local sales tax increase.

Now the city is considering suspending the previously outlined 2027 program for a year and redirecting available resources toward two major projects: Walnut Avenue and Cottonwood Street.

City estimates currently put reconstruction of Walnut Avenue at approximately $8 million and Cottonwood Street at approximately $2.6 million.

Meanwhile, the previously recommended 2027 street program totaled approximately $3.8 million and included work on Greenfield Drive, Winneshiek Street, Garden Street, South Carthage Drive and Revere Street.

Those projects could now be pushed back.

Fehr Graham's Darin Stykel, who is serving as Freeport's contracted Public Works Director, spent considerable time Monday describing the deteriorated condition of Walnut Avenue before asking council members what they believed the city's priorities should be for 2027.

And that's where taxpayers should start asking questions.

Why are priorities being established again when Freeport already had a five-year plan?

Plans Can Change. Taxpayers Still Deserve an Explanation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing a capital improvement plan. Infrastructure deteriorates. Emergencies happen. Construction costs change. Grant opportunities appear. A responsible city government has to be able to adjust.

But there's an important difference between modifying a long-term plan and effectively rebuilding that plan year after year.

Freeport residents were shown a roadway program extending through 2029. They were told which streets were expected to receive improvements. And additional tax revenue was promoted as necessary to address the city's infrastructure needs.

Mayor Jodi Miller has since secured a third term. The additional 1% sales tax was approved. The city has also implemented its tax on prepared food and beverages.

Taxpayers therefore have every right to ask what changed.

If the original five-year plan is no longer financially or structurally realistic, say so. If priorities have changed, explain why.

If streets originally scheduled for 2027 are being pushed into 2028—or temporarily patched in hopes of extending their useful lives another five or ten years—identify those streets and tell residents when they can now realistically expect permanent improvements.

Many throughout the Freeport community saw and heard the plan. May not have liked it but accepted it. Continue to pay the increased local taxes and saw justification in that plan. Their street was on the list to finally be redone. Now, they may have to settle for 10 year “Band-Aid” instead.

A five-year plan should provide predictability. Otherwise, it isn't much of a plan.

Sellers: Get Back to the Original Plan

Alderman-at-Large Joy Sellers appeared willing to support prioritizing Walnut and Cottonwood but made clear she wanted the city to return to the original street program afterward.

Stykel responded that returning to the plan was a goal.

He also discussed making temporary improvements to some streets to potentially extend their useful life another five or ten years.

That creates another legitimate question.

If temporary repairs can realistically extend those streets for another decade, were they properly prioritized when the five-year program was originally created?

And if those repairs cannot buy that much time, what will delaying reconstruction ultimately cost taxpayers?

Those are questions that should be answered before projects disappear from one year's spreadsheet and reappear somewhere else.

Simmons Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

Third Ward Alderwoman Rachel Simmons then said what nobody else in the room appeared willing to say.

The discussion had turned to outside funding for Walnut Avenue and the possibility that a larger reconstruction project could require the city to acquire residential properties.

Simmons said:

"We can all agree that Walnut St. is a very busy street. It impacts everyone that drives/travels here. So if there's a grant that will pay for it and also cover the purchase of the homes — everyone on this floor laughed — however, when that was the case within the 3rd Ward, you saw interest and you went for it. So why not do the same for Walnut?"

The alderwoman was pointing out an uncomfortable difference.

The 3rd Ward includes portions of Freeport's east side and Black community, where city projects have previously involved the acquisition and demolition of residential properties.

Simmons was essentially asking: Why was acquiring homes an acceptable consequence when the project affected residents in the 3rd Ward, but the prospect suddenly seemed laughable when discussing another part of Freeport?

Stykel and City Manager Rob Boyer deflected by explaining that federal funding for Walnut would come with federal construction requirements and standards.

Boyer put it simply:

"You use their money, you got to build to their standards."

That's an important consideration. But it doesn't answer Simmons's underlying question. Nor does it tell taxpayers which option actually represents the better deal.

What would Walnut cost under the city's proposed approach? What would rebuilding it to the applicable federal standards cost? How much federal funding could Freeport receive? How many properties would potentially need to be acquired under each option? And what would Freeport taxpayers ultimately pay?

Put those numbers side by side and let taxpayers see the difference.

Because Simmons's point deserves more than awkward silence and deflection.

If Freeport was willing to acquire and demolish homes in the 3rd Ward, then the city should explain why property acquisition is being viewed differently when considering options for Walnut Avenue.

That doesn't mean homes on Walnut should be demolished.

It means residents throughout Freeport deserve the same consideration when City Hall decides whose property may have to give way for the city's next grant opportunity, infrastructure project, or “strategic plan”.

But What Happens to the Rest of the Plan?

That's the question that shouldn't disappear after Monday night's meeting.

The original five-year program didn't end with Walnut Avenue. It included projects throughout Freeport extending through 2029.

If Walnut and Cottonwood consume the resources originally intended for the 2027 program, what happens in 2028? Does the 2027 list simply move back one year? Do the projects originally scheduled for 2028 move into 2029? What happens to the streets already scheduled for 2029? And where do rising construction costs fit into all of this?

Taxpayers shouldn't have to reconstruct the city's capital plan themselves by comparing old spreadsheets with new ones.

If the five-year program has changed, the administration should publish an updated five-year program showing exactly what moved, what remained, what was completed and what taxpayers should now expect through 2029.

A Walnut Avenue Bike Path Raises Another Concern

The discussion also went beyond pavement.

Stykel advocated for eliminating street parking along Walnut Avenue and incorporating a bike path as part of a future reconstruction.

During final public comment, resident Renee B., who said she lives near Walnut and Empire, explained why an idea that may make sense on an engineering drawing can look considerably different to the people who actually live there.

She described the area as "not a safe area" and raised concerns about residents who work late being forced to park on surrounding side streets and walk back to their Walnut Avenue homes at night.

She also pointed to another potential complication if property acquisition becomes necessary.

Many of the homes that could be affected are rentals, she said, and some are controlled through companies whose actual landlords can be difficult to locate.

Those concerns aren't necessarily reasons to abandon improvements to Walnut Avenue. They're reasons residents need to be part of the discussion before a conceptual engineering proposal becomes the city's final plan.

Meanwhile, Another Deal Is Developing at Albertus Airport

Before the road discussion, Stykel presented a proposed license agreement involving approximately 185 acres of city-owned land surrounding Albertus Airport.

According to city documents, Freeport publicly sought bids for mowing and maintaining the property in 2026 but received no qualifying responses. City staff then began pursuing an alternative.

The proposal would allow Steven Hasselman and Colton Asche to mow the property, produce hay and control weeds and thistles under an agreement extending to October 2036.

There would be no licensing fee paid to the city. Instead, Hasselman and Asche would receive access to the taxpayer-owned property for hay production while assuming responsibility for specified mowing, vegetation management and related expenses.

The city estimates performing the mowing and required spraying internally would cost approximately $18,500 annually, excluding equipment upgrades.

During Monday's meeting, Stykel explained that the length of the agreement reflects the investment required to fertilize and improve the property enough to eventually produce a profitable crop. He also explained that maintaining the vegetation is important for controlling wildlife around the airport's active runways.

The actual agreement provides significant protections for the city. Among them are liability, automobile, workers' compensation and umbrella insurance requirements; indemnification provisions; safety requirements; and restrictions preventing the licensees from simply assigning or sublicensing their rights to someone else without city approval.

The agreement also requires the licensees to provide equipment, labor, fuel and other materials associated with their operations at their own expense. Those provisions answer several of the questions For the People raised before Monday's meeting.

The discussion, however, created another.

Who Is Maintaining the Airport Property Right Now?

During his presentation, Stykel disclosed that the current airport manager has been maintaining the property.

That deserves clarification.

If the property is already being maintained, what specifically would change under this agreement? And what happens to the equipment taxpayers have already purchased for airport maintenance?

Over the past two years, Freeport taxpayers have invested substantial money in equipment, including a tractor/mower intended for maintaining airport grounds.

If the airport manager is already performing this work using city-owned equipment, taxpayers should be shown exactly which responsibilities would transfer to the licensees and what city employee time and equipment would consequently become available for other work.

That's particularly important when an estimated $18,500 annual cost avoidance is being used to justify the arrangement.

The agreement may ultimately make excellent financial sense for Freeport. But taxpayers should be able to see the math.

Stykel also reminded the council that moving the agreement forward at the August 17 City Council meeting will require a two-thirds majority vote.

"Kind of Burning Them"

Then came one of the stranger comments of the evening.

While discussing the airport property, Stykel mentioned the possibility of Public Works spreading leaves there.

He referenced difficulties obtaining compost permits and then said:

"That's why we ended up kind of burning them."

Kind of?

The disposal of leaves collected throughout Freeport became an issue after it was discovered that leaves were being transported to airport property and burned.

Monday night's comment didn't clarify what occurred.

If the leaves were burned, say they were burned.

If something materially different occurred, explain what happened. The city has done little publicly to address the issue over the past year, and describing the practice now as "kind of burning them" only creates more questions.

For the People

Monday night's meeting wasn't dramatic. There were no shouting matches. No packed council chambers. No marathon debate.

But sometimes the most important questions in local government emerge from exactly these kinds of meetings.

Freeport taxpayers have been asked to contribute more because the city needs to invest in infrastructure. They were shown a five-year road plan explaining where those investments were expected to go. If that plan is changing, City Hall shouldn't simply replace one spreadsheet with another.

Show taxpayers what was promised.

Show them what has actually been completed.

Show them what is being delayed.

Show them where the money is going.

And explain why the plan changed.

Because a five-year plan that gets reinvented every year isn't much of a five-year plan.