Highway Chief Accuses Predecessor of Playing Favorites With His Own Neighborhood

Mike Abts' Letter to Mark Wissing

Dear Mark, 

At the beginning of our respective campaigns for Geneva Township Highway Commissioner, I clearly recall you saying to me that, no matter what happens, there will be no hard feelings. So, I was a bit surprised to initially find out about the letter you emailed to me from individuals who you must have blind copied on the email. The blind copying and the subsequent publication of the letter in an online community newspaper demonstrate that your interest isn’t meaningful dialogue but rather an attempt to cause me public embarrassment. As this letter will indicate, I have no reason for embarrassment. 

Absent your publication of your letter, I would have not bothered to respond. This response, which will also be published, will educate the few who may have read your letter about my decision making process regarding the issues you raise and other important undisclosed facts. 

Your letter focuses on Old Kirk, the township road upon which you live and the decisions that I made regarding Old Kirk Road in the first six months of my tenure as Geneva Township Highway Commissioner that countermanded your decisions as previous Geneva Township Highway Commissioner. Your letter fails to provide the context for the "issues" you raise. I'll do my best to provide that information. 

You state in your letter that I cancelled "remaining culvert repair work” on Old Kirk Road. I did not cancel any remaining culvert repair work, simply because I was not aware that there was any remaining culvert replacement work to be completed. My ignorance in this matter may be attributed to you ignoring my attempt to communicate with you after your election loss about Road District business under your watch.

I am aware that you had performed culvert work in Old Kirk Road right of way in the waning days of your term. This came to my attention during my inspection of the road system just before l took office on May 20th. I discovered the double culvert you installed at a cost of $6,660 for your personal field entrance in front of your home at taxpayer expense. The double culvert and the associated French drain are unlike anything designed and built elsewhere in the township road system.

I also discovered the new culvert for your personal driveway. A review of Road District records indicates that these new culverts in the right of way in front of your residence were ordered, constructed and paid for by the taxpayers 30 days after your election loss and twelve days before I took office.

I also see from the records that the Road District paid to replace all of your neighbors' driveway culverts on Old Kirk Road at a cost of $30,477 when past practice in other instances was to have the private property owners pay for the installation of their own culverts. It appears every culvert near your home on Old 
Kirk Road was replaced by you at taxpayer expense.

I simply cannot see any remaining culverts in the vicinity of your home that require replacement. I need to say, however, after viewing historical photographs of the culverts on Old Kirk Road; I am not presently convinced that any of the culverts that you replaced actually needed replacement. If there are culverts that you legitimately believe to require immediate attention, please let me know. 

You next state that I cancelled the Old Kirk Road pavement and shoulder repair work (repaving) that had been awarded by you in the 11th hour of your term. You are right; I did cancel that contract. My decision to do so was based upon several factors.

l became aware of the repaving contract shortly before taking the oath of office as Highway Commissioner. I became curious about the repaving contract only after I learned that you signed the contract on the last business day of your term and that the contract expended about 28% of what was to be my yearly highway budget. While you may have been within your right as Highway Commissioner to award the contract on the last day of your term, I frankly expected the common courtesy of being allowed to set my own agenda and budget and the discretion to expend the funds that I was entrusted with by the voters. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

After learning of this expenditure, I went and inspected the pavement of Old Kirk Road. It simply did not appear to me to require repaving. I did note a couple of small areas that could stand some spot patching and the condition of some of the driveway aprons, but those did not justify repaving the entire 1/2 mile length of the road in front of your home.

Nonetheless, in an attempt to make a completely unbiased decision, l contacted the Kane County Engineer who assigned a County Division of Transportation engineer (P.E.) to accompany me on an inspection of Old Kirk Road to determine whether it actually was in need of repaving. The County's P.E. had the same opinion about the lack of need for repaving; so I cancelled the repaving contract. I viewed it as an unnecessary expenditure of $81,040.00 of taxpayer dollars. The cancellation of the contract does not mean, however, that I do not 
intend to patch the road as indicated or repair driveway aprons. 

Next you allege in your letter that l replaced the 25 mph speed limit signs that you installed on Old Kirk Road and Cherry Lane, with 30 mph signs. You are again correct. The basis for my decision is straightforward. In the week before your term ended you awarded two contracts to replace and install new signs in your neighborhood on both Old Kirk Road and Cherry Lane. Both contracts indicated the work had to be done "ASAP!” Illinois laws require that township speed limits be changed only after speed studies are conducted, the County Board approves the speed limit change and the County Engineer approves the placement of the speed limit sign; none of thìs process could have been accomplished in the last week of your term and my subsequent research indicated that you failed to 
follow the process as required by the laws.

Failure to conduct speed studies and obtain County Board and County Engineer approval created an unenforceable speed limit and a liability issue for the Road 
District. Therefore I eliminated that possibility by removing the unapproved 25 mph speed limit signs and reinstalling the original 30 mph signs. 

You also complain that I removed “No Parking” signs from Old Kirk Road and Cherry Lane. You are, in part, right again. The No Parking signs in question said “No Parking Anytime "and "No Stadium Parking." if you look closely at the sign replacement contract for your neighborhood that you awarded in the last week of your term, you will see that you had one of the "No Stadium Parking” signs removed under your own order. My decision process for the remaining sign removal was simple. In my view, the "No Stadium Parking" was redundant since "No Parking Anytime” signs seems to cover all parking prohibition situations, stadium or otherwise.

The Illinois Department of Transportation's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices advises against confusing and/or redundant signage. Further, the placement of these signs was not approved by the County Engineer as required by law and there was no ordinance passed authorizing the "No Parking” zone; making its enforcement impossible. Consequently, I removed the signs about which you complain. I was surprised, however, to see that one of the "ASAP!" contracts you entered into in the last week of your term provided for the replacement of all of your neighbors' fire identification signs at taxpayer expense. As far as l can determine, that is a first in the history of the Road District and not authorized in the law. 

Regarding your complaint that no Old Kirk Road right of way was mowed this summer by the Township, you again are correct. I was Highway Commissioner for less than a week before I received the first of a series of varied complaints from your Old Kirk Road neighbors.

Amusingly, the complaint was (after seven days in office) that I had let the grass get too high at the south intersection of Old Kirk Road and Kirk Road; vegetation growth that occurred during your watch. The complained-about vegetation was cut within 48 hours of receiving the complaint. Regarding mowing the right of way in front of residences, my view is that in those residential areas adjacent to township roads, the adjacent property owners with pride of ownership will mow the right of way and pick up litter along their property just as the property owners in the City of Geneva or Batavia do on the city street right of way in front of their homes. 

Concerning your snow plowing complaints and keeping in mind that Old Kirk Road is a dead end residential side road, the following are the time periods and dates that snow plowing and salting were conducted this snow season:

November 25 - PM Sait 
December 8 - Daytime Plow & Salt 
December 9 - AM De-icing 
December 11 - PM Plow & Salt 
December 13 - PM Salt 
December 14 - AM & PM Salt & Plow 
December 15 - PM Salt 
December 16 - AM De-ìcing 

As you are well aware, like any other citizen, a simple telephone call from you to the Road District regarding a legitimate hazardous road condition will get a timely response. If you are reluctant to speak with me or your former assistant Sheri personally, have a neighbor call me and I will personally address your Old Kirk Road snow plowing concerns. 

You state that you and your neighbors pay high taxes and want to know why your road work isn’t being done. l think I have adequately explained my decisions, only you can explain the "high" taxes ... you levied them. Under my administration of the Road District, Old Kirk Road work will be treated like any 
other road work in the township. You and your neighbors deserve no less but also deserve no more than any other township resident residing on a township road; all will be treated equally. 

In conclusion, I do not care if, as you wrote, the paving contract "had been budgeted, funded, publicly bid and came in under estimated cost." The $81,040 that it would have cost to repave Old Kirk Road is not Mike Abts', Mark Wissing's or the Road District's money. It belongs to the taxpayers of Geneva Township. I would not be a good steward of taxpayer funds if I spent $81,040 on any project that was not necessary.

Mark, I think it beneficial for us to put the campaign and the election behind us, give up the vitriol and get on with our lives. We are both capable of conducting our interactions as gentlemen, with class and dignity. Let's move on. l hope you agree. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and your family. 

Yours truly,


Mike Abts,
Township Highway Commissioner

Related Articles

• Predecessor Warns Township Road Chief of Danger on Old Kirk, Cherry Lane