Remarks by Mark Bonne
59 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 3
- Play at 1:30:47
“Thank you. I'd like to ask Director Haggerty to do a little more detail on when we, as a council, agreed to fund this program originally. Was it as a re-program originally? Or was it as part of some larger expansion?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 1:32:55
“Thank you. So that makes sense to me. In June, I was in the hospital. And if it was earlier than that, I might have even been in a coma. So I've missed a few things. Can I ask the legal director, if I were to make a motion to lay this over indefinitely, what is the mechanism to eventually bring it back?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 1:33:47
“Okay. In that case, I... I'm going to make a motion to lay this over for 90 days. Rather than vote yes or no, vote it up or down. I think the net effect is the same. The money doesn't get spent until it comes back. And if the council chooses to reallocate it for another purpose, we can. But if not, then it can come back. after presumably we've approved the budget and for reconsideration at that time.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 1:49:44
“Thank you. I just want to reiterate the, we've had the question come up about whether this is duplicative of what our PS 205 might already be doing, but we've also asked the question of staff previously why rps 205 isn't funding it or at least contributing to the funding of it and we basically have gotten you know arms in the air we don't know and now tonight we're being told by an employee of rps 205 and a member of this council that that essentially RPS either ignored the proposal or took a pass on it, which, I mean, I think this is an argument in favor of a layover. RPS is a public body…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:09:12
“Before I vote, I'd like to know the reason for the abstention and the reason for switching that to a yes vote.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:09:37
“I'm presuming the alderwoman... believed she had a conflict. Yes, I'd like to know if she had a conflict, why she now thinks she doesn't have a conflict.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:10:30
“And what was the basis for your abstention originally?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 31:36
“Thank you. Yeah, I have some questions on item two. I don't recall that we've been given, and maybe we have, The 70% of the hotel and motel tax that currently goes to Go Rockford, what is that equal in dollars? And how much more in dollars would Go Rockford be receiving at 75%?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 32:27
“And if we approve this tonight, does that go into effect immediately? When is the effective date?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 32:48
“So the beginning of next month. The exemption for Go Rockford to not be bound by Legend's global labor agreement with the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. Can somebody explain what sort of the rationale is for that? I assume that. It has to do with size of events. But I would also assume that Go Rockford might be using the new stage there and essentially, even though an event may be community or regional, may still be Taking my time up. I'm sorry. Apologies. I can continue. Thank you, Madam Mayor. In other words, if it's not sized, why would, I mean, I can understand…”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 35:23
“For what and how does it how is it invoked in?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 36:40
“It's good to hear. Thank you Is there any I know there's language in the proposal about The requirements for Legends Global can submit up to 10 annual events yearly, and there's language about an agreement that will be worked out with Go Rockford, but I'm curious as to why we're not talking about any sort of required level of programming that we would be expecting in return for the additional $140,000 annually. Is that something that would still be worked out?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 39:18
“So in the agreement that would eventually be signed, we could have some court sort of required volume of programming if we want to and can figure out how to describe that, articulate that?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 40:03
“Is it, I can't think of another time where we have, I'm sure there probably is one, but where we have approved funding. So if we were to approve this tonight, we're approving funding that would start the beginning of next month. But then the language that the city of Rockford and Go Rockford will develop a formal agreement outlining Go Rockford's responsibilities, why would that come in the future after we've already approved the funding? Why is that not coming now?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 40:55
“I know it was stated at committee that Legends Global or Rave isn't interested in this smaller scale, non-ticketed programming, but I'm a little concerned about all the fingers in the pie and if Davis Park is going to be successful. Who's ultimately responsible? I think the answer is we are since we own it, but Is it out of the question to make this simpler and have BMO, Rave, Legends solely responsible for all of the programming with expectations that it's not just ticketed events? and not have the additional component of Go Rockford involved with a increase in its take of the hotel motel…”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 42:54
“Also, this has been covered before, I think, too, but for many years, the park district was part of the equation. The park district was maintaining the park. The park district didn't want to continue to do that. Where are we with how the park is going to be maintained? Are we doing that on an ongoing basis and contracting that out? How is that working?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 45:41
“And our last meeting approved the public hearings of the Tourism Improvement District. Is that public hearing date set yet? And if so, when is it?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 47:06
“more than twice, at least twice as long as probably any of our labor agreements ever were. It is more than twice as long as the extensions we gave to the recently to the Arts Council and the Chamber of Commerce to go from one to three years, longer than the term of a US Senator. I'm just wondering what was the rationale for needing to renew it two years before it actually expires and renewing it for that long, because I assume we could approve the funding increase as an amendment to the existing contract without extending the contract, correct?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 49:10
“Thank you. I've got some other thoughts, so I'm going to hold them for now. Thank you for the additional information.”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 59:55
“If we send it back to committee, does It goes back on the agenda, but there's no requirement that it advance to council in two weeks from committee, because otherwise we could just lay it over for two weeks. I mean, are we sending it back? Is sending it back to committee essentially laying it over indefinitely?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 1:00:57
“And if we do it this way, when it returns to council, this does not take away the ability to lay it over on the two aldermen.”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 1:01:12
“Yeah, I mean I agree. I don't think the cakes really baked on this yet and and I and it's not because Davis Park doesn't need to succeed. We've got a huge investment there and it does needs to succeed, but I think that you know, I just think that this Eight years is extraordinary. I don't you know, I I don't know how much the general public thought is going to give to it, but I think the chattering class in Rockford views this as our former mayor trying to feather the nest of Go Rockford on his way out the door, even though he's already gone. And I just don't think we should... rush this…”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 1:07:09
“Thank you. So I think the advantage of the motion to send it back to committee versus laying it over, if we lay it over for two weeks, what typically happens is individual aldermen talk with go Rockford and or city staff. And then we come back and we vote. But we're all going out getting information individually. And it might not all be that all of us aren't then privy to unless we share it when we come back to council. But by sending it back to committee, it allows for more discussion. around the horseshoe with everybody hearing the same things. And I think that's why this is preferable to a…”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 1:24:19
“Third ward alderman's question and the answer now, now I'm confused about the reason for the amendment. If we're going to be approving the program for one year, my understanding was that this amendment would be to reduce funding in the second year of the program. But we're not approving a second year of the program?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026
- Play at 1:25:17
“OK. My understanding of this before the amendment was submitted was that it was $300,000 in the first year and $300,000 in the second year. It's $300,000 for one program year that straddles two fiscal years?”
City Council · Sep 8, 2026