LF4T
Dedicated to Educating Residents of Lake Forest About How Our Government Works and Advocating for Good Governance.
LF4T
Dedicated to Educating Residents of Lake Forest About How Our Government Works and Advocating for Good Governance.
City’s Legal Committee Threatened with Disbandment
June 6
Recent efforts by the Lake Forest City Council to dissolve two community-oriented boards have sparked robust community response and heightened conversations about oversight and transparency in local government.
At the April 21st City Council meeting, Mayor Randy Tack proposed, and Council members voted in agreement, to eliminate the Legal Committee and the Parks and Recreation Board. The mayor cited a light workload for both committees and suggested that the committees’ activities were meaningless. Second Ward Alderman Ted Notz concurred, emphasizing the importance of not wasting residents’ time. Both committees have existed for a number of years; Parks and Rec for at least 30 years and Legal for approximately 20 years. Both committees are made up solely of volunteers, being vetted first by the Lake Forest Caucus Committee, then recommended to the mayor who then may or may not choose to nominate them for approval by City Council. (The mayor has full authority to nominate all City Committee members, whether recommended by the Caucus Committee or not.)
This unanimous affirmative vote on April 21st was the first reading of the proposal to eliminate these committees. The proposal needed a second reading and another affirmative vote before the committees were formally eliminated. Thus, many concerned community members attended the May 5th Council meeting and voiced strong opposition to disbanding the Legal Committee. Art Mertes, a Legal Committee member, told the Council that they offer “a useful check and balance…adding rigor and inquiry” to managing the City’s legal affairs. Other residents joined Mertes in urging the Council to reconsider their votes. Former State Senator Susan Garrett noted that Lake Forest residents “…place a high value on government oversight and transparency” and praised the volunteer Committee’s legal expertise.
The League of Women Voters of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff also voiced concerns. In a letter dated May 7, they stated that the council moved quickly on the decision with limited public notice, stating that “democratic government requires timely communication” and that residents must have meaningful opportunities to participate in local governance.
In response to public outcry, the council voted unanimously to table the proposal rather than immediately disband the Legal Committee. While this delays the decision it does not permanently resolve it, and the Council could revisit the issue in the future.*
This debate highlights a broader concern about the balance between efficient governance and meaningful community oversight. For many, the volunteer Legal Committee represents an important layer of transparency and oversight, ensuring informed legal scrutiny within the City’s decision-making process. Public involvement in government decisions is key to the success of our democracy. Residents are watching how well the Lake Forest City Council upholds this tenet.
*Note: the Parks and Rec Committee was unanimously dissolved on May 5th upon the second reading. The Parks and Rec budget is the largest of the City’s Enterprise Funds.
-LF4T
Remember To Vote Today!
Mar 18
Caucus Executive Officers are up for election. Nominees for President, Vice President , Treasurer, Secretary, Fundraising, Internal Communications and External Communications are being presented as an entire slate.
There is no opportunity to vote for each officer individually this year, nor has that been the case in the last several years, so Caucus members will again choose between “yes” or “no” for all seven.
Remember, these seven people will guide the Committee throughout the next year. Several of those on the ballot today took part in decisions that alienated a significant portion of residents, among them the defeated Caucus Preservation Act, which would have gotten rid of the general membership’s ability to vote on the Committee’s recommended candidates for public office.
Although efforts have been made to reassure residents that their votes - and their voices - are important, there is still work left to be done and we are still in the same situation we were in last year.
Vote Today at Gorton Center, 2 pm to 8pm. Bring your ID
Caucus Executive Committee Vote, Tuesday March 18
Mar 15
On Tuesday, March 18, registered voters are called to Gorton Center and asked to vote on the Committee’s Executive Officer slate. This vote is in-person only.
In fits and starts, the Committee has reached out to the community over the past year to mend its fractured relationship with a significant number of residents. Last spring the Executive Officer slate was not affirmed at the first vote. The Caucus Executive Committee then declared that vote non-binding and its intention to install its officers without an affirmation vote. This followed the recent tradition of leaders who, in 2022, declared that the general membership’s vote against the Committee’s recommended mayoral candidate Randy Tack was non-binding, and then in 2023, presented the Caucus Preservation Act to do away with the general membership’s vote altogether. But last spring, a group of concerned citizens stepped in and made a legal inquiry challenging the Committee’s decision. The Committee agreed to hold a second vote and, in a break with past leadership, then-presidential candidate Joe Oriti promised to modernize the bylaws via an Ad Hoc Committee and present those bylaws to the community for a vote during his term in office. The public accepted this gesture to restore trust and at the second vote, the officer slate was approved.
This year the expected vote on modernizing the bylaws will not happen. Oriti disclosed that there were many proposed changes and the Committee believed that these should be considered carefully before proceeding, along with the issue of previously undisclosed costs. Current Caucus presidential candidate Regina Etherton is now assuring the public that the bylaw project started under Oriti will continue deliberating changes.
This is generally a sound course of action unless there is a crisis of public trust. In this case, there is a significant amount of lingering distrust centering around two key issues: binding bylaws and what occurs if the general membership does not affirm one or more of the Committee’s recommended candidates for public office. Without resolving these items, the general membership is left wondering if this system is legitimate and if their participation is truly welcome, despite assurances that it is. Prior statements from Caucus Committee members saying that the Caucus was previously run on social norms, not bylaws, and that the public votes were pro forma and ceremonial, reinforces that distrust.
The bylaws will not be up for a vote on March 18. The officer candidates will be. Etherton could build on Oriti’s statements and pledge to bring at least these two key issues for an amendment vote this fall and to conduct her term in office as if they were already in place.
That would set an example for incoming Committee members and a roadmap for the next year.
Please Vote:
Tuesday March 18
Gorton Community Center
2:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Caucus Committee Postpones Bylaw Changes
Feb 22
On February 11, 2025, the Lake Forest Caucus Executive Committee announced it will not present amended bylaws to the community for a vote next month.
The expressed reasons are two-fold: insufficient time for review by the Executive Committee and insufficient funds for outside counsel review.
Residents were never informed the original timeline was too ambitious.
The Ad Hoc Committee was fully formed October 10th last year and met regularly for four months to discuss and propose bylaw amendments. A primary goal of the Ad Hoc Committee was to submit a letter with recommendations to the Executive Committee by January 31st. They met that deadline.
The February 11th communication to residents from the CaucusCommittee did not fully explain the incremental need for more time. Nor did it provide a revised date for completion. This delay increases concern that new bylaws codifying residents’ binding voting rights in Caucus decisions might never be adopted.
In the Fall of 2023, some current Executive Committee Officers were proponents of the Caucus Preservation Act (CPA), a bylaw amendment intended to eliminate residents’ voting rights — and ability to participate — on Caucus recommended candidates. They helped guide the CPA to a public vote and would surely be aware of the timeframe needed from the outset.
Residents were never informed of costs associated with producing bylaw amendments.
The Caucus Committee says that it needs $10,000-20,000 for attorneys to look over changes to the bylaws. If the Caucus did not have sufficient funds to complete the Ad Hoc Committee’s project, it could have, rather easily, solicited contributions from many residents closely following this important work. This leaves the public wondering if the money will be prioritized to see this project through to completion. Again, several members of the Executive Committee have experience with presenting bylaw amendments and should have been aware of the costs.
The Ad-hoc Committee and the Focus Group did their part.
The Ad-hoc Committee met many times to craft bylaw changes, the Focus Group assembled and provided their input, Joe Oriti(Caucus President) and Regina Etherton (Caucus Vice President) involved themselves in the process, and the Ad-hoc Committee finalized their recommendations…only to have the Caucus Executive Committee provide their decision to postpone.
The Caucus Executive Committee did not honor its word, can resume not honoring our votes, and continues to represent Lake Forest residents without full acknowledgement that the bylaws are binding.
- LF4T
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
Nov 12
There’s a saying in real estate about location being everything, and that’s at the forefront of a developing project on the west side of town. This time it’s not a new condominium development, it’s the construction of a cell tower in the West Lake Forest Train Station parking lot, adjacent to Waukegan and Everett Roads. Key (and quite debatable) considerations are:
1) This particular location, as opposed to other, more discreet sites
2) Overall compliance with City Code re: telecommunications facilities
3) The tower’s effect on property values and the general public’s welfare
Residents throughout Lake Forest have reported inconsistent and spotty cell phone service for some time. Switching cell service providers won’t necessarily help. Residents would welcome enhanced service, either through thoughtful placement of a cell tower or the addition of antennas. Objections to this cell tower is not a NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) complaint. It is a call from residents asking that their fellow citizens who sit on the Plan Commission and City Council fully represent residents’ interests and concerns.
This tower could reach a height of 160 feet and have a base so big that at least 12 parking spaces are needed to accommodate it. The tower will become a focal point of the West Lake Forest business district, even with a brick wall to enclose the base. In the original Oct. 9th packet, City Staff proposed this one location as the ONLY feasible place for this tower. Many questions arise as to why.
While complaints of poor service have surfaced, no follow-up survey of residents was performed. A Change.org petition, opposing construction of the tower in the West Lake Forest Train Station parking lot, is currently circulating in the community and has received over 600 signatures. Apparently many residents are not happy with this project.
The Oct. 9th packet contains no meaningful discussion regarding placements at other sites in Lake Forest, including on the west side. It simply indicates that “Various options have been explored with a priority given to the potential of locating antennas on existing structures in the area. The buildings in the area do not provide sufficient height to improve service. Without clear benefit of an installation, telecommunications providers are not willing to make an investment in the area and the community’s needs will not be met”. The City’s water tower is located on the west side and would meet the height requirement. There is no mention of a feasibility study or discussion as to why the water tower wouldn’t be a better location.
Statements in the Oct. 9th packet also fail to mention compliance with other parts of the City Code. These Code sections state that “Personal wireless service facilities should be located and designed to minimize any adverse effect they may have on residential property values and to minimize the impact of the site on the surrounding neighborhood.” (Section 159.153(C)(1)) and “Sites should be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening.” (Section 159.153(C)(2)).
In addition to questionable Code compliance, the packet statements also imply that the telecommunications companies are hitting the City with a “take it or leave it” proposition. In effect, if we don’t agree to this location, we won’t get anything at all. Without a more detailed synopsis of the discussions City Staff have had with these companies, residents are left wondering if City negotiators caved on seeking alternative solutions and how well residents’ best interests were considered and conveyed.
Plan Commissioners and aldermen should be as concerned with the aesthetics of the west side as they are of the east side. It is doubtful that a 150-160 foot cell tower in the East Lake Forest Train Station parking lot, adjacent to homes, the downtown business district, and the Library and Gorton Center, would be considered.
A new packet of information was released on the evening of November 8 (Click to view Packet), in which City staff attempt to provide additional justifications for the tower at the West Side Train Station. The new packet is 75-pages, and concerned residents are given just five days to sift through it, compare it with the old, and process the changes.
So if you are interested in learning more, both from City Staff and residents, attend the Plan Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 13th at 6:30 pm at City Hall and/or look over the provided packet and comment on it.
- LF4T
Lake Forest Caucus Annual Meeting Vote
Oct 28
Last Tuesday night, the Caucus Committee held a meet and greet for their recommended School Board candidates. Each candidate also gave some brief remarks. A similar event will be held this coming Tuesday, October 29, for the Mayor and City Council candidates in the Stuart Room. In prior years the Committee offered voters the ability to meet candidates for all elective offices at the Annual Meeting and each candidate gave a short speech on stage at the Hughes Auditorium at Gorton Center. Voting on the Committee’s recommended candidates was also held on the same day, starting even before Caucus members met and heard what the candidates had to say. Having the candidates available to Caucus voters before they voted for or against a candidate is a welcome change. Asking people to come to Gorton three different times in eight days needs to be reconsidered.
Most of the candidates for elective city offices are well-known to the community. Four of the five are incumbents. Current Mayor Randy Tack is seeking a second term, along with Pete Clemens, John Powers, and Richard Walther. Ward 3 Aldermanic candidate Nick Bothfeld is the only new face in the lineup. Bothfeld has served on the Gorton Center Board, but has not served on a board or commission that oversees any City services or processes.
Anne Geraghty Helms leads off the slate for D115. She was originally elected to the D67 School Board in 2021 and was selected by the current D115 Board to fulfill the final year of Marcus Schabacker’s term last spring. Rob Silvay, an insurance executive, joins her as the other candidate from Lake Forest. Two candidates from Lake Bluff will be chosen by VOTE Lake Bluff on November 12 and 13. Historically, these VOTE Lake Bluff candidates join with the Lake Forest Caucus candidates to form a four person slate.
Greg Adamo heads the D67 slate. He was also chosen by the current D67 Board to fulfill the last year of the unexpired term of Alice LeVert. He is joined by Timo Berger, a former Lake Forest Parks and Recreation Board Member, Jerry Lavin, a retired Deerfield High School teacher, and Lori Fitzgerald, an IT consultant.
You can visit the Lake Forest Caucus website for all of their full posted biographies. Having this background information is helpful, but it is not the only information Caucus members need in order to make informed yes or no decisions. Here are just a few questions voters may still have for the School Board candidates:
- What is your position on public education in general, and on our local publicschools in particular?
- What do you see as the role of a board member?
- What do you hope to accomplish as a member of the D67 or D115 board?
- What would you change about our local schools?
- What do you want to preserve?
- Are you satisfied with school curricula? If not, what would you like to see addressed?
- What do you see as the role of the school superintendent and other administrators? How do you envision working with them as a board member?
- Are you aware of the Illinois School Code? Have you read it? Are there portions of the Code with which you disagree? If so, please explain.
- Would you agree to comply fully with state mandates that you may not agree with?
- Have you ever served on any board? How would you work to build consensus?
- Are you aware that board members are required to be trained on the Open Meetings Act, the Freedom of Information Act and Sexual Harassment, and would you be willing to complete this training and other Illinois School Board sponsored training sessions for board members?
Aside from the few articles we found on the D67 candidates from 2021, we were not successful in sussing out a lot of additional information. We did find that Lori Fitzgerald ran for the D67 School Board in 2021. She and her running mate, Taylor Cottam, ran against the Caucus slate. The Chicago Tribune ran this quote from Fitzgerald and Cottam’s letter, released to the public after neither of them won a seat on the board in the April 6, 2021 election:
‘“We are very proud of the grassroots support we garnered and that we were able to openly and respectfully discuss our objections to radical educational initiatives and the political indoctrination taking place in our local schools,’ a portion of the letter read.”
Caucus members may want to personally ask similar questions of candidates for Mayor and City Council on Tuesday. Some of these might be:
- What do you see as the role of Mayor/City Council member?
- What do you hope to accomplish in this office?
- What would you change about Lake Forest?
- What do you want to preserve?
- How would you work to build consensus on the City Council?
- Taxes are of growing concern to residents of Lake Forest. The City has recently completed the Artificial Turf Fields, purchased an office building in Conway Farms and is embarking upon an extensive remodel of only a portion of that building. The City is already at or very near its self-imposed debt limit. Should any projects beyond what the City is already committed to be considered? If so, why?
- Some residents feel the City Council does not fully consider residents opinions. How would you address this issue?
- Are you in favor of preserving Lake Forest’s historic character? How would you resist the lure of doing what other local communities are doing in order to keep Lake Forest’s unique?
- Would you agree to comply fully with state mandates that you may not agree with?
There is still time for ALL candidates to answer these and other questions. Perhaps the candidates can answer these questions and the Committee can post the answers on the Caucus website. It is not the job of the general public to conduct extensive interviews at a casual meet and greet, where time and place restrictions limit constituent/candidate interactions. Gathering and presenting information, the type that would allow the public to make informed decisions on their recommended candidates, is the job of the Caucus Committee.
We can only vote as we see fit, but providing more information will give us greater confidence as we decide whether to accept or reject the Committee’s recommended candidates. Voting begins on Wednesday, October 30 at Gorton Center from 2 pm until 8 pm. Hopefully, Caucus members will arrive on Wednesday with enough information to decide between voting “yes” or “no” for each candidate.
- LF4T
BACK IN SESSION
Oct 6
Lake Forest Caucus Committee focuses on elective candidates
School buses are once again winding through the streets of Lake Forest, and so, too, is the Caucus Committee’s focus on interviewing candidates for School Boards D67 and 115, along with candidates for City Council and Mayor. Identifying these candidates started early in the summer by subcommittees, and now the full Committee of 43 is proceeding to interview and vote on who to recommend to Caucus members at this fall’s Annual Meeting.
This year, all candidates for public office need to have their official paperwork and signed petitions submitted between November 12 and November 18. This new directive differs significantly from past years, when these items were due between December 1 - mid December. It puts added pressure on the Caucus Committee to receive briefings from the Mayor and School Superintendent, while also interviewing candidates for four D67 slots, two D115 slots (the other two slots will be filled by VOTE Lake Bluff), four aldermen positions and one mayoral position. It also spurred the Committee to move the Annual Meeting date to late October, rather than the first Tuesday in November, in order to have their recommended candidates voted on and approved by the general Caucus members and give sufficient time for candidates to submit their paperwork.
In addition to managing the interview and voting processes, Caucus President Joe Oriti is making good on his promise to form an Ad Hoc Committee to modernize current Caucus Bylaws. Melanie Rummel and Kent Novit, who each have served on local school boards and as Aldermen, along with having extensive understanding and knowledge of our community and Caucus history, are co-chairing this important endeavor. Forty-three residents stepped forward to be on the Committee. Rummel and Novit are committed to interviewing all 43 for a small, Ad Hoc group and are placing the remaining interested parties into a larger Focus group. The smaller Ad Hoc group, made up of six-to-ten people, will work on the actual wording, etc. and then present changes to the Focus group for review. We look forward to knowing who will be part of these groups very soon.
Notwithstanding this progress, the revisions to and subsequent approval of the Caucus Bylaws will not be completed by the October 30th Annual Meeting vote. We ask the Caucus Committee for a commitment, in writing, to honor the general membership’s majority votes on recommended candidates and to be prepared to recommend alternative candidate(s) in the event of one (or more) of these candidates being rejected by Caucus members. This would go a long way in re-establishing the community’s faith in the Caucus structure that was severely eroded when the general members’ votes were brushed aside as being “advisory” on two previous voting occasions. The Caucus Committee has always encouraged the public to vote; the public also has the right to know whether their votes will be honored.
THE PROPOSED NEW POLICE STATION: QUESTIONS & MORE QUESTIONS
July 15
The following questions are compiled from various submissions to LF4T. Some were selected for relevancy, some as a reflection of what people understand about the project, and some for how often the question was asked. We encourage you to attend or Livestream the meeting tonight.
FINANCIALS
- The 1925 W. Field Court building was appraised in 2022 for $12.5 million. The 2023 tax assessment is $8 million. On its face, the $3.5 million purchase price seems like a deal, but is it ultimately cost effective when loss of tax revenue, retrofitting costs and future maintenance fees are factored in?
- What are the yearly maintenance costs?
- The building has over 98,000 sq. ft, twice as big as needed (projected need = approx.. 49,000 sq ft.), and more than a third larger when all “nice to haves” are included (approx. 59,000 sq. ft.). What other buildings were considered and rejected? Although another building’s purchase price might be higher, would a smaller building, even one with all “nice to have” options, cost less to retrofit and maintain?
- How do newer police stations in peer communities compare to this plan in terms of size, needs, nice to haves, etc.? How does the City intend to pay for this project? Is a tax increase needed to support this initiative?
- If the Capital Improvements levy is increased to pay for the new Police Station, will that increase exceed the Property Tax Cap as it stands today? If the cap can’t be exceeded, will other Capital Improvements need to be delayed to pay for this specific project? If so, which ones?
- How would increased debt affect the City’s AAA bond rating?
- How does the City’s Home Rule status figure into this decision?
- Will City Council hold an advisory referendum to gauge public support?
- City Manager Jason Wicha said the City may be able to lease the unused part of the building to other public safety agencies. Which agencies?
- It’s going to cost us $24-28 million to retrofit roughly half the space for our police force’s needs. Are these other agencies going to pay for their own retrofit to meet their needs?
- Will the current police station need to be remodeled or retrofitted to accommodate the expansion of the fire department into the vacated space? If so, what is that cost?
- How are personnel and staffing needs changing over the next 10-30 years? How much will it cost the City for the added personnel?
- The artificial turf athletic fields were originally estimated at $8-10 million. The final total cost was $16 million. How reliable is the $32 million total cost estimate for the new building?
- Is the new building satisfactorily hardened, especially on the exterior, for a public safety building versus office space? If not, what are the costs associated with that? Are those costs incorporated into the $24-28 million dollar retrofit costs?
- In the July 1 Minutes to the Special Council Meeting, Wicha said the worst-case scenario would be that the City buys the building for $3.5 million and re-sells it. The office space market is slow right now. How much money yearly would the City lose on maintenance costs plus lost tax revenue?
CITY PRIORITIES
- Why was the needs assessment commissioned after the City found a building to purchase?
- Why was constructing artificial turf athletic fields prioritized over a new police station, if the need for the station is so critical?
- November 13, 2023 Finance Committee Minutes indicate replacement of the Recreation Center was planned for Fiscal Year (FY) 2029, and a new police station for 2031-2032. Why was the Rec Center prioritized over a new police station?
PUBLIC SAFETY AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
- Has there been an increase in crime in Lake Forest that justifies the need for an expanded police force and larger facility?
- The proposed purchase moves the station nearly three miles west and close to the City’s western limit. Are there public safety standards that establish how to evaluate locations for police stations geographically, population-wise, response times, visibility, with respect to traffic patterns, etc.? How does the West Field Court location compare to these standards?
- In an intensive emergency, where all personnel are needed, what would be the changed response times for area schools, churches, and shopping districts?
- Where in the strategic plan or community survey has the idea of a police station relocation been proposed to residents?
- Were other locations considered?
- Has the City considered other alternatives, such as a police sub-station, that would minimize costs, increase police presence across the City, and address space considerations?
OLD/NEW BUILDING AND RETROFIT
- Was refurbishing the existing building considered, at least for a shorter term of ten to twenty years? If so, what are the estimated costs associated with that project?
- Are there examples of other suburban communities that have successfully converted office buildings into police stations?
MISCELLANEOUS
- Who owns the building currently? What is the history of ownership?
- Have we done enough due diligence to move forward with this purchase?
- This building has been vacant for some years. Why has the City given itself just 90 days for due diligence? Why not provide more time to consider such a large, expensive undertaking?
- The Council and residents attending the meeting have only had 15 days to consider the information presented on July 1. The minutes were posted on Saturday, July 13. The vote is on July 15. Would more time for public comment be helpful before going forward with this project?
- Why wasn’t the Concord Group assessment made public? What were their results?
-LF4T
City Council to Vote on Another Capital Improvement
July 13
Up for final vote this Monday night at the City Council Meeting is the purchase of a $3.5 million dollar commercial office building and property at 1925 West Field Court to be retrofitted into a new police station.
City Council approved entering into a Sale and Purchase Agreement, with a 90-day due diligence period, at their April 15th meeting. The 90-day deadline is closing in, so City Council needs to make a decision on Monday as to whether to proceed with the contract, reject it, or negotiate an extension of the due diligence period. Total estimated costs to purchase and renovate West Field Court are $27.5-32.5 million. These figures are not an active bid, but the results from a Space Needs Analysis prepared by an outside consultant. You can review the complete timeline at the end of this document if you want to know more. This whole process took place during 2024 which is a tribute to Lake Forest City Council's and Staff's goal oriented drive after a priority is identified.
However, questions still remain. How will the City pay for this project? We don't know for sure, but possibly through a combination of increased taxes, another bond issue, current funds on hand and federal or state grant funding. We also want to highlight that due to the City’s Home Rule status, City Council is not obligated to put a referendum on the ballot if a tax increase is needed for Capital Improvements, although they may ask for an advisory referendum if taxes are needed for other expenditures.
The key issue here is whether City Council is being profligate with Lake Forest's taxing and borrowing resources. Good leadership involves making choices among projects subject to constraints. Was the artificial turf field behind Deerpath Middle School (and the $16MM allocated to it) more important than safety and security in Lake Forest? If the City knew of this need, why wasn’t the artificial turf project delayed? At the April 15th City Council meeting Mayor Tack said this new Public Safety building had been on Lake Forest's Long Range Capital Improvements list for 8-10 years. Jim Preschlack said he was happy that City Council was (finally) addressing this need. So the question remains: why wasn't the new Police Station prioritized?
This tax and bond issue is very important. Tax increases make living in Lake Forest less affordable and often price longtime residents out of the community.
Bond issuance removes financial flexibility. And due to its Home Rule status, Lake Forest residents don't get a say in prioritizing competing capital improvements. Monday’s meeting is the best opportunity for taxpayers to let Council members know what they think of the project.
Yesterday the City posted a project summary and addressed some of the common questions residents have been asking. Additionally, the following timeline, pulled from various Council and Committee meeting minutes, may help in understanding how a new police station became the City’s top priority.
There is a lot to consider about this project. Aldermen, Mayor Tack, and/or City Manager Jason Wicha are available to answer questions. Residents who wish to weigh in on this matter need to send their comments to City Council by Monday afternoon or attend the meeting Click to Comment. Later this weekend, LF4T will also post questions submitted, heard, or overheard from residents about the project. Click for Emails
The City Council meeting is on Monday, July 15, 2024 immediately following the 6:30 pm Finance Committee Meeting at Council Chambers, City Hall, 220 E Deerpath.
Out of town? Livestream it from the “Agendas, Meetings and Minutes” page. Click for Livestream
Here is the Timeline:
• November 13, 2023
Finance Committee Minutes state that “Over the next five year[s] $71 million in projects are not funded. Included in FY29 is the replacement of the Recreation Center.” The following paragraph notes “The replacement of the Public Safety Building is not listed as a current project and would fall in years 7 or 8.” That is, the Public Safety Building was initially planned for the early 2030s.
(p. 5, “Priority 1 NF – Priority 1 FY25 Projects That Cannot Currently be Funded). Click to view
• March 4, 2024
During his Comments, Mayor Tack noted that the Community Survey presented to the City Council on 10/6/23 indicated that public safety was cited by 95% of respondents as “a very important factor when choosing to live in Lake Forest.” He declared the City needed to make the plan for a new police station a priority and to begin to explore opportunities to create one. He said that due to “unique market conditions” the project would be better done "now instead of in the future.” (CC Video, 8:18-11:08 Click to view. Agenda Click to view. Community Survey results Click to view)
• March 11, 2024
Finance Committee Executive Meeting for FY 25 included the addition of a Police Facility Needs Assessment, “a noted change from the November [2023] Capital Workshop.”
(Finance Committee Minutes, 3/11/24 p.2, V. Operating Department Summaries, B. FY25 Budget Presentations, i. Capital Improvement Plan and Five-Year Forecast Update) Click to view
• April 15, 2024
Approval is requested for a purchase contract of $3.5 million for an office building at 1925 West Field Court, with a 90-day due diligence period to better assess the building’s suitability for retrofitting it into a new police station and to understand the police force’s long-term, 30 year space needs. City staff presented the reasons for needing to move urgently on the project. Highlights include:
Cost: The market for office space is not competitive right now. 1925 West Field Court was appraised at $12.5 million in 2022. Comparatively, the $3.5 million purchase cost saves the City millions.
Location: Moving the current police station away from the City’s geographic center was addressed. It was noted that the police do not need to be centrally located because there are cars constantly on patrol. City staff said it is favorable that 1925 West Field Court is near the municipal building where patrol cars are refueled and maintained. Another plus is that current zoning allows for this type of use. It was also stated that “The presence of the Police Facility [in the office park] will be low key but could be significant in attracting new tenants to the park due to an increased sense of security.”
Council approved entering the purchase agreement with a 90-day due diligence period. They also immediately approved contracts with FGM Architects for a police station space-needs analysis and with the Concord Group for a building and site assessment. Council members then discussed various aspects of the project before the meeting was adjourned. Viewing the video of the meeting provides the most comprehensive overview of what was discussed. (CC 4/15/24 Minutes, New Business. Read the Minutes or view the Video of this meeting on the City website.) Click to view minutes, Click to view video
• July 1, 2024
City Council held a workshop to discuss the costs and look at possible plans to move forward with this expansive undertaking. FGM Architects presented its Space Needs Analysis and assessed the long-term thirty-year “must have” space needs at 49,394 sq ft. Adding in “nice to have” items boosted the space required to 59,692 sq ft. West Field Court offers 98,304 sq ft. The estimated remodeling costs are $24-28 million (in addition to the $3.5 million purchase price.) A building and site assessment from the Concord Group also was presented. The businesses cross-referenced each other on cost estimates to avoid duplication. Slides of the needs analysis from FGM and the Concord Group can be viewed here Click to view. The minutes for this meeting can be found attached to the July 15 City Council agenda, starting on page 50. Click to view
-LF4T
Simple Things
May 29
It’s a straightforward process…
1) Recommend a candidate. 2) Have members vote. 3) Honor the results.
That is the process. It’s something most Caucus Committees have done since 1956 when the Caucus legally adopted its bylaws. Until they didn’t ...
- In 2022, the Caucus General Membership (Lake Forest registered voters) did not affirm the Caucus Committee’s recommended mayoral candidate, so the Committee threw out the result and endorsed their candidate anyway, claiming they had the right to do so. Many Lake Forest residents voiced their concerns over the disregard of our historic Caucus’s bylaws—bylaws that have been in place long before the current Caucus Leadership was elected.
- In 2024, the General Membership voted down the proposed slate of Executive Committee Officers, but Caucus Leadership ignored that vote and attempted to install them anyway, until residents threatened legal action.
Current Caucus leaders now claim that our Caucus is in peril. They say those who ask the Caucus to preserve its rules and operate in accordance with those rules are the problem.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Residents fighting to have their votes honored are not the problem.
The current Caucus Leadership has not always adhered to the very bylaws they are charged with upholding. Many members are looking for leaders who commit to abiding by their institutional rules and accept the will of the general membership. Leaders who promise to earn back the membership’s trust and respect the importance of the members’ votes.
The General Membership vote on May 30th will seat Caucus Leadership moving forward. Choosing our Executive Leadership is important. Your vote matters!
Vote: May 30, 2:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at Gorton Community Center.
Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant
May 22
My wife Laura and I joined LF4T at the beginning of this year after living through the political divisiveness that began in our town in Nov 2022 when current Mayor Randy Tack was NOT endorsed by the registered voters of Lake Forest. Since then, LF4T has tried to bring transparency back to LF politics in general and our Caucus system in particular. As LF4T developed a voice, and gratefully a following, accusations began flying from establishment partisans.
Some of those attacks specifically label LF4T as a left-wing politically oriented organization. Moreover, and let me be clear, in our opinion national politics and party should not be brought into Lake Forest. But to set the record straight, although we don't think it's relevant, Laura and I are life-long Republicans.
We are as conservative as they come. We believe in Individual Freedom, Limited Government, The Rule of Law, Human Dignity, Free Markets, Fiscal Responsibility. Those are our values. We don't accuse anyone of being against these things, and we respect your choice to hold whatever values you choose.
Further, we do not think national partisan politics has a role to play in local issues. Lake Forest politics should not have any Red or Blue jerseys. In fact, this is the genie that the founders of the Caucus championed against. They didn't want partisan politics to infest Lake Forest so they created ONE party, The LF Caucus.
The Caucus has done a very good job in LF for decades. They veered from the narrow path in the 1990s and have had some sloppy driving of late when the Committee ignored two votes against their recommended candidates. Then they tried to eliminate the ability for general members of the Caucus (LF registered voters) to have a vote AT ALL with their so-called "Caucus Preservation Act” to change their bylaws, which they lost.
We appreciate the tireless volunteer hours that the Caucus Committee puts in to vet and staff the Commissions and Committees that do the work to run our town. But there needs to be oversight by the voters. Votes should be binding.
Finally, in the past, the Committee wanted and welcomed public input but it doesn’t seem so in recent years. Their dismissal of community input and constructive public opinion is of major concern. All residents bear the consequences of Caucus recommendations and decisions. The Committee should want our objective help.
In an environment of growing mistrust, sunshine is the best disinfectant. That is the mission of LF4T and Laura and I will fight for it and for you with everything we have.
Thank you for reading about what is motivating us.
Geoffrey Luce
-LF4T
Lake Forest On Topic Podcast
