The comment section under articles about McHenry County College’s plan to borrow $42 million to build a health club and health sciences classrooms has brought forth some interesting comments that I would like to share more broadly. Add yours, too.
- Steve Willson critique of $42 million project, plus all relevant slides presented to the MCC Board:
- Discussion by the MCC Board 12-11-12
So, here they are:
Tutty Baker, 2012/12/09 at 9:25 am
Most all of the Community College Districts in northern Illinois are carrying an inordinate amount of debt. In most cases, the public is completely unaware how much these “educational” institutions have put the public on the hook for.
The public really needs to start pressuring the General Assembly to limit the ease with which public bodies can borrow huge sums of money.
This won’t be easy, the banking lobby has basically controlled the Illinois Legislature for a couple of decades now.
And just look at all of the wonderful results the bankers’ lobby has brought us fine citizens of the Prairie State.
Tutty (The Stephenson Blumdoggle)
Mark, 2012/12/09 at 5:36 pm
Here’s the org chart of leaders who would be impacted by or involved with a new Health and Wellness Center.
http://www.mchenry.edu/finance/FY2012CAFR.pdf
- Lena Kalemba – Director of Health and Wellness
- Angelina Castillo – Asst VP of Human Resources
- Larry West – VP for Administration Services
- Becky Smith – President
Board of Trustees
- Dennis Adams, Vice Chair, McHenry, Term ends 2013
- Cynthia Kisser, Wonder Lake, Term ends 2017
- Carol Larson, Harvard, Term ends 2013
- Linda Liddell, Crystal Lake, Term ends 2017
- Mary Miller, Chair, Crystal Lake, Term ends 2015
- Ronald Parrish, Woodstock, Term ends 2015
- Barbara Walters, Secretary, McHenry, Term ends 2013
- Paola Rueda, Student Trustee, Term ends April 2013
http://www.mchenry.edu/board/boardoftrustees.asp
If you are getting stonewalled in your FOIA, let your elected official know that.
M. Maule, 2012/12/09 at 10:32 pm
Vicky Smith- not Becky Smith. Just saying.
Mark, 2012/12/09 at 5:40 pm
MCC seems to be calling this a health science education facility.
Steve Willson, 2012/12/09 at 8:01 pm
Keep reading over the next couple of days, Mark.
The first key point is that MCC is trying to disguise a marketing proposal by firms with a conflict of interest as a “feasibility study.” The conflict of interest makes any conclusions the firms reach inadmissible.
The second key point is that the building is about 2/3 classroom and 1/3 health club. But the program they want to expand is a nonstarter and they have a huge amount of unused classroom space now. So the whole project is ill considered.
The third key point is that MCC is trying to get around a referendum and sell these bonds without the voters’ permission.
Mark, 2012/12/10 at 12:58 am
The timeline presented in mid-September indicates the consultants want the MCC Board to approve $42 million in non-referendum bonds before the end of December. Click to enlarge any image.
The Power Wellness PowerPoint presentation we are discussing is dated September 18, 2012?
The $50,000 feasibility study was approved by the MCC Board October 25, 2012.
In which case the PowerPoint predates the approval of the feasibility study?
Maybe MCC doesn’t have the results of the feasibility study yet?
When does Power Wellness present the results of the October 25, 2012 feasibility study to the MCC Board?
Tuesday Dec 12th?
At the very least the Power Wellness PowerPoint should be easy to find on the MCC website…can’t locate it at all on the MCC website…lousy transparency on MCC’s part.
Chelsea McDougall of the The Northwest Herald has written a few articles on the subject.
MCC envisions partners for health sciences facility
http://www.nwherald.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/10/17/r_dl1mohctrrgoxrsw85dfwa/index.xml
“MCC authorizes expansion study” Fri Oct 26, 2012.
http://www.nwherald.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/10/26/r_xjmbvtqhrinbdn99pm9mq/index.xml
Elena Ferrarin of the Daily Herald wrote an article Oct 26th.
MCC to study $42 million health sciences center
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121026/news/710269693/
In the Daily Herald article, debt certificates are mentioned as a possible funding source.
Debt certificates.
What exactly is a debt certificate?
A bond?
The Village of Lakewood is also talking about “debt certificates” and “public private partnerships”.
http://159.89.184.83/2012/12/05/lakewood-village-president-lays-out-need-for-new-village-hall/
Is this some sort of trend to obtain taxpayer financing.
This is the business plan for the $42 million proposal.
Mark, 2012/12/10 at 1:21 am
In the last slide, the Preliminary Business Plan, what is the LEED Premium?
The cost to receive LEED certification…meaning the cost for a piece of paper?
Do the “Viable funding options without referendum” include either upfront taxpayer funding, or funding backed (guaranteed) by taxpayers?
Funding backed by taxpayers prompts the thought of the failed the baseball stadium…was that funding backed taxpayers, meaning the taxpayers were on the hook if the project went south?
Do many or most of these “public private partnerships” involve public backing of private financing?
Stephen Willson, Submitted on 2012/12/10 at 5:00 pm
Mark, the “funding option without referendum” is the same kind of financing Lakewood used for its infamous golf course.
They are know as “alternate revenue bonds.”
The college will hire a “consultant” (guess who!) who will opine the project is likely to be self-supporting and then issue bonds backed by property taxes without a referendum.
When the project turns out NOT to be self-supporting (like Lakewood’s golf course), the taxpayers will be on the hook
Mark, 2012/12/11 at 10:33 am
No suggested financing option involves voter approval.
Is there ever a reason in the public interest to issue bonds backed by taxes without a referendum?
It should not be legal to approve bonds backed by taxes without a referendum to build community college buildings, golf courses, baseball stadiums, or anything else.+
“Public private partnerships” doesn’t convey the message “non referendum bonds backed by taxpayers.”
Mark, 2012/12/11 at 10:44 am
Would the $8 per credit hour student infrastructure fee, be a new fee to help finance this this project?
What are debt certificates…are they bonds?
Cal Skinner, 2012/12/11 at 10:56 am | In reply to Mark.
They are a name for money borrowed by a public body without a referendum. The money must be repaid from tax district revenue, but have the advantage to taxpayers to not being capable of forcing up tax rates if the tax district officials can’t find the money to make payments.
Because there is more risk to the borrower, interest rates on debt certificates are generally higher than those on bonds.
Steve Willson, 12/11/2012 at 11:50 pm
Phase One Feasibility Study steps are outlined here.
I’m amused that the board is increasing funding to make it a “true” feasibility study.
Doesn’t that mean they’re admitting what they had before wasn’t a true feasibility study?
But it CAN’T be a true feasibility study as long as they Power Wellness because that firm that has an obvious conflict of interest.
No matter what they get back, the results will be suspect because Power Wellness has a strong financial interest in a positive answer.
Next, Health care is NOT growing, at least not here in McHenry County.
The fact is that the federal government is putting tremendous pressure on health care providers to keep costs down, and that means reduced personnel, which is why health care employment actually FELL in McHenry County between 2009 and 2011.
You’ve read my report.
There will likely only be a couple of hundred job openings per year in health care in McHenry County for junior college grads.
Training people for nonexistent jobs is absolutely cruel.
The college should work with local employers to figure out how many jobs there are likely to be for their graduates, what those jobs are, and train these kids for real jobs, not some pie-in-the-sky figment of their imagination.
And I’d still like to know why they need more classroom space when their current facility is under-utilized.
I was there yesterday afternoon at 1:00 and the parking lot was less than half full.
I would guess that my estimate of 60% to 70% utilization of classrooms was actually generous.
But they don’t need to guess.
They can generate the numbers.
They simply refuse to do so.
Tim Stratton, Submitted on 2012/12/11 at 12:22 pm
Cal, pretty good description of what a Debt Certificate is.
I would just like to add a few observations.
Debt Certificates are really just an installment purchase borrowing.
They are payable from “any and all lawfully available funds of the district”.
That means certificate holders are entitled to any funds of the district such as tuition, revenues from the operation of programs and facilities, etc. There is no separate tax levy so technically the issuance of Debt Certificates will not “raise taxes”. In fact, the statute prohibits a tax levy to pay the Debt Certificate.
That being said, money is money and monies spent to service debt payments on this particular project is money not available for other things. I read somwhere where a commenter was saying the College was using a “loophole” to do the project without the consent of the voters.
That comment by the poster was inaccurate and misleading.
He can question the need for the project but Debt Certificates are specifically authorized by statue to allow local governments to borrow money for a term of not to exceed 20 years by a simple majority vote of the Board. This is not a loophole. My Wester’s dictionary defines loophole as:
“a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.”
Debt Certificates are not a loophole, they are specifically authorized in very clear language. Nothing ambiguous about that.
Tim Stratton
Former MCC Trustee
The risks listed do not include that the public might figure out how little information was considered before the MCC Board went on to Phase Two. They do include possible rejection by voters at the polls.
jeffthorsen, 2012/12/11 at 5:45 pm
Hi Tim
I would like to talk to you about this if possible. Be nice to see you again. Give me a call at 815-245-9204….that goes for Stephen too.
Steve Willson, 2012/12/11 at 9:36 pm
Mr. Stratton, while debt certificates are one option, the board has focused on issuing “alternate revenue” bonds, like the bonds issued by Lakewood for their golf course.
These are general obligation bonds, payable from a property tax levy separate from the Education Fund, so MCC could use this option and NOT cut into their operating revenues.
Steve Willson, 2012/12/11 at 11:50 pm
I’m amused that the board is increasing funding to make it a “true” feasibility study.
Doesn’t that mean they’re admitting what they had before wasn’t a true feasibility study?
But it CAN’T be a true feasibility study as long as they Power Wellness because that firm that has an obvious conflict of interest.
No matter what they get back, the results will be suspect because Power Wellness has a strong financial interest in a positive answer.
The $42 million would buy space for these purposes.
Next, Health care is NOT growing, at least not here in McHenry County.
The fact is that the federal government is putting tremendous pressure on health care providers to keep costs down, and that means reduced personnel, which is why health care employment actually FELL in McHenry County between 2009 and 2011.
You’ve read my report.
There will likely only be a couple of hundred job openings per year in health care in McHenry County for junior college grads.
Training people for nonexistent jobs is absolutely cruel.
The college should work with local employers to figure out how many jobs there are likely to be for their graduates, what those jobs are, and train these kids for real jobs, not some pie-in-the-sky figment of their imagination.
And I’d still like to know why they need more classroom space when their current facility is under-utilized.
I was there yesterday afternoon at 1:00 and the parking lot was less than half full.
I would guess that my estimate of 60% to 70% utilization of classrooms was actually generous.
But they don’t need to guess.
They can generate the numbers.
They simply refuse to do so.
Mark, 2012/12/12 at 11:27 am
These are the new credit hours that are projected by the consultants.
Community Colleges, municipalities, park districts, local school districts, conservation districts, and other local taxing districts should not be allowed to issue tens of millions of dollars of public debt, be it in the form of bonds, alternate bonds backed by taxpayers, debt certificates, or other financial instruments, without referendum.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s in the best interest of taxpayers.
Issuing public debt without referendum means special interests such as underwriters (middleman between taxing district and investors), bond counsel (attorneys), bond ratings agencies, transfer agents (bank or other financial institution that tracks principal and interest payments to bond owners), architects, construction management firms, and other firms profit with no vote on the measure by taxpayers.
Referendum is a more effective method of transparency in approving tens of millions of dollars of public debt, as apposed to board approval without referendum.
Mark, 2012/12/12 at 12:03 pm
Is there a method to force the MCC Board to go to referendum to obtain any desired financing (alternate bonds, debt certificates, etc.) for the project?
The consultants say these factors are driving the decision.
Tim Stratton, 2012/12/12 at 12:24 pm
Mr. Wilson, I am aware of what an Alternate Revenue Bond is.
Alt Rev Bonds are indeed General Obligation Bonds but they are intended to be paid primarily from pledged revenues or funds other than a tax levy.
They do however, contain a “back up” or “alternate” property tax levy that only gets levied in the event the revenues from other sources fall short to pay the bonds.
There are serious consequences to the issuer of the bonds if they ever have to access that tax levy.
These bonds are again, not a loop hole, as was previously claimed above.
A loop hole is a way to evade a statute.
In this case Alternate Rev
Hardly a loop hole.
Again, criticism of the project is fair.
Distortion of the facts is not.
Mike Barnes, 12/12/2012 at 2:58 pm
The campus appears more empty this week because it is finals week.
Try to find a parking spot on a Tuesday in the middle of the semester.
Then you will see it is crowded.
Steve Willson, 2012/12/12 at 4:19 pm
Lakewood’s Red Tail Golf Course Club House, purchased with revenue bonds which could not be repaid without forcing real estate taxes up.
Mr. Stratton, there are NO serious consequences for a government that issues Alternate Revenue bonds and then relies on property taxes.
They get their project, they get their operating revenues, and the taxpayers get higher taxes.
And if you don’t believe me, ask the people of Lakewood about the golf course they paid for for 20 years.
And hiring a “consultant” with an obvious conflict of interest IS a loophole, and I know that, because I served on the advisory committee that wrote the law for Alternate Revenue bonds.
It was intended for non-home rule cities to get cheaper financing for things like their sewer systems, not for community colleges to build health clubs.
Steve Willson, 2012/12/12 at 4:40 pm
Here are the consultants estimates of income and expenses during the first three years of operation.
In fact, Mr. Stratton, I had a LONG conversation with an attorney from Chapman and Cutler about exactly what constitutes an independent consultant when the Marengo Park District sold Alternate Revenue Bonds recently.
The “consultants” for the college put together a 26 slide PowerPoint sales presentation and called it a “feasibility study.”
This was no feasibility study.
Feasibility studies are performed by independent parties, not firms that want more business.
Feasibility studies have hundreds of pages of data to support their projections.
This 26 slide presentation had zero data to back up their ludicrous claims that the health club and the new program would be self-supporting.
Further, the history of the College strongly contradicts the claim that the expanded health program could be self-supporting from tuition alone.
The College relies on tuition for 25% of its budget, but somehow this program will be self-supporting?
As a bond analyst, I wouldn’t buy these bonds WITHOUT a property tax back-up, because I would regard the probability of the program being self-supporting as close to zero.
@Mark-why did you pick those individuals as people impacted by the new building?
I would pick a completely different set.
Curious what your rationale is.
Would the Director of Health and Wellness would be involved in the health club?
Lena Kalemba – Director of Health and Wellness
reports to
Angelina Castillo – Asst VP of Human Resources
whom reports to
Larry West – VP for Administration Services
whom reports to
Vicky Smith – President
Mr. Wilson, I AM a bond attorney.
First, you are incorrect, there are consequences for an issuer to issue Alternate Revenue Bonds and levy the tax in lieu of the revenues.
This would tank the issuers rating with Moody’s, S&P, etc. and make it very difficult and expensive for them to borrow money again.
That is a pretty serious consequence.
Second, Alternate Revenue Bonds are not counted as “debt” under state law—unless you actually levy the property tax.
Again, if they levy the property tax that puts that whole borrowing on the debt side of the equation for the issuer.
Third, and most importantly in my mind, any issuer that issued the bonds and then levied the tax would be committing political suicide because surely the voters would hold them accountable.
Alternate Revenue Bonds are a good tool to allow a responsible issuer to finanace a project that the community supports.
Alternate Revenue Bonds are subject to a 30 day petition period in which objectors can go out to the community and attempt to collect signatures against the project. If ten percent of the registered voters say no, then the project dies or the issuer has the chance to take it to the full community.
As for your comment about being on the advisory committee and telling us what the “intent” of the law is–that’s great.
However, I can only conclude that the intent of the law is to precisely allow for the Alternate Bonds to be used in such a manner because the law says they CAN be used in that way.
As for the consultant, you are confusing concepts here.
The consultant that the College is using for the projections you have been discussing here is NOT the type of consultant the Alternate Revenue Bond statute contemplates–moreover, in some instances they can merely rely on a prior audit for the coverage, however 30 ILCS 350/15 says that if revenues to support the debt are not demonstrated in an audit then a feasibility analyst having a national reputation shall so certify.
There are also certificates and reports that are signed and misprepresenation of the amounts could be considered to be a violation of SEC securities regulations.
I’m pretty sure most people would consider a securties law violation a pretty big deal too.
No one is going to sign off on a bond deal with a fluffy report.
When an exact dollar amount is set for the bonds then a feasibility report is done and that is certified.
It will be THAT feasibility report that is used for bonds–not some preliminary report that they are talking about now.
I just laid out FOUR consequences that most people would probably agree are pretty severe.
If you don’t like the project fine.
You should take it upon yourself to go out and organize 10% of the voters to sign your petition and you can stop it–or better yet, run for the Board.
My only point here is that there is no loophole here as was suggested.
Debt Certificates and Alternate Revenue Bonds are both allowed.
It seems like you don’t like the fact that the College has options to finance this project that do not require a direct referendum.
That is a legitimate opinion to have, but it is one that goes to what should be allowed under the statute not what IS allowed under the statute.
Comment at 12/13/2012 at 11:33 am
“Alternate Revenue Bonds are subject to a 30 day petition period in which objectors can go out to the community and attempt to collect signatures against the project.”
-Is the same true for debt certificates?
“That is a legitimate opinion to have, but it is one that goes to what should be allowed under the statute not what IS allowed under the statute.”
-That hit the nail on the head.
The state statutes allows non-referendum bonds and debt certificates for this project.
The state statutes should be changed.
They should be subject to referendum.
I would call that a legal loophole in that it’s a way to approve bonds without direct voter consent in the form of a referendum.
But if you don’t like the term legal loophole I’m sure we can think of all sorts of other terms.
The state statutes and constitution in Illinois, moreso than most states, or maybe all states, has been changed many times to benefit special interests.
Many state laws and constitutional amendments in Illinois were passed to favor special interests and not the public at large.
Which is one reason the state is in such dire financial condition.
One of the most egregious examples is legislation resulting in increased or more favorable public PreK-12 teacher and administrator pensions in 38 of 40 years from 1971 – 2011.
But there are plenty of other examples.
Which of course is another topic.
Citizens in Illinois have good reason to be suspicious of state government.
Most citizens, unless they are in the bond industry, or involved with bonds on a regular basis, have no clue how the bond industry in Illinois benefits special interests.
Four points, Mr. Stratton.
First, it would tank the rating. False. Lakewood is triple-A because they paid their bonds, despite the fact that the golf course was a huge money loser. The rating agencies value that GO pledge.
Second, it would count as debt. MCC has virtually no power to issue debt without this method, so how exactly dos “counting as debt” hurt them?
Third, political suicide. Mr. Stratton, when Lakewood issued their bonds, I’m sure they believed the golf course would succeed. And I’m sure the MCC board believes, too. They have faith, Mr. Stratton. Faith, of course, is belief without evidence. They’re wrong, but they don’t believe their committing political suicide. They’re true believers!
Fourth, securities law violation. The SEC didn’t prosecute Lakewood, and they certainly won’t prosecute MCC if the bonds are repaid from property taxes rather than operating revenues. No, Mr. Stratton, these are straw men.
As for your last point, you are clear.
To a lawyer, there are no loopholes, and intent equals whatever you can get away with.
Just like there are no loopholes in the tax code, and ever tax break is taken exactly the way legislators intended.
Alternate bonds are issued all the time based on the opinions of investment bankers who are only paid if bonds are sold.
The Lakewood bonds were sold based on an opinion of their financial advisor, who only got paid if bonds were issued.
The Marengo Park District is issuing Alternate Revenue bond right now, and the feasibility opinion is being given by their underwriter, who only gets paid if bonds get sold.
That was not the law’s intent, Mr. Stratton, no matter how many ways clever bankers and lawyers have found a way to bend it to their customer’s desires.
I think the deans would have a bigger stake in this since it would greatly expand academic programs in health and science.
Grants and the foundation would also be involved.
Marketing, public safety because there is a new building to keep secure, food services with new people.
Really, everyone on that chart would be impacted and have a stake in this.
They also have a new CFO according to board reports. Mr west resigned.
Mr. Wilson, I will not respond to your personal attacks.
However, I will respond to a couple of your claims.
First, Lakewood never tapped the property tax to pay their bonds.
Do your homework.
Those bonds were not paid from the ad valorem property tax levy. They were paid from other sources.
Second, of course, the SEC would not come after them since the veracity of the feasibility report was never challenged and was a legitimate report.
Third, if there was such an outrage over what happened in Lakewood why haven’t all the incumbents been ran out of office? My opinion is, Mr. Wilson, you are a vocal minority and would probably object to any project.
Again, I challenge you to get elected to a board and serve your community, as I have done with my previous service to the College.
Attempting to sully the college and insinutate there is some underhandness or attempt to skirt the state laws in this matter is not productive and does not serve anyone, including yourself, well.
My experience in local govenrment has demonstrated to me that people tend not to take people who exaggerate what is going on too seriously at the end of the day.
Objectors to this, or any other project, don’t need to overstate what is going here.
Object on the basis that you believe the project is not the best interest of the College and leave the sensationalism to others.
If it is bad project the facts are all anyone needs to stop it.
There was great debate about the baseball stadium project and that process worked itself out in the end. This will too.
I suggest if you think the law needs to be changed call Senator Althoff and Rep Tryon and see if they will float a bill.
But again, accusing the College of using a loophole when they are in fact following the law is distracting to the point you are trying to make and takes away from your legitimate argument on the project.
Let’s try to get to the truth here regarding these allegations about MCC.
First of all Mr. Willson is 100% correct that any report from Power Wellness is worthless.
Of course they will come back and say that it needs to be done.
What Mr. Willson should have done is looked at Power Wellness’ other facilities and one is at a Junior College.
It is beautiful and failing.
he attendance is going down every year on that health club.
A feasibility study is a valid document, but it must not be done by someone with a conflict of interest.
I have used them in the past and you know up front what they will say.
If they disagree with you, they tell you and you move on.
To be clear they do not lie, they believe in their reports and support their positions with facts.
They try to be conservative because their opinions are often brought up in public forums where they have to defend them.
A board should use professionals that do these types of studies to help make their decisions.
Maybe a two corroborating reports should be enough to move forward with board approval.
Where Mr. Willson is wrong is in saying that our Board cannot and should not make these decisions.
I do not want the mechanic down the street making these decisions or the attorney in Harvard deciding this, any more than the farmer from Hebron.
These people have run for office some with incredible life experiences and we are lucky and priviledged that they are making these decisions.
o decision is full proof and if Mr. Willson says he is always right on his decisions I can guarantee you he is not.
They know the College, will make the most educated decisions that we can expect based on what is needed.
As a board, ego does not get in the way, hopefully.
That is why the President has a board, because that position is one of ego and a very vain postion that needs proper checks and balances.
The board is that check and balance.
Regarding the term “back door referendum”.
It is a bogus term.
NO ONE, can say without a doubt that something will succeed or fail.
When Lakewood made that decision, golf was booming.
It did not work out, but a referendum is not needed.
Any taxing body that believes it has enough revenue to cover its budget and purchases should be allowed to move forward.
No taxing body is without its in fighting and issues.
The CLPD board, MCC Board, and so on and so on are making responsible decisions with their power.
They are educated, conscientious people doing their best, with the best interests of the public and the body they are representing at heart.
Who is best qualified to make these decisions?
Look at our FEDERAL government, something like healthcare or social security seems to simple to solve. Take the best minds from around the country, bi-partisan, and solve the issues.
Same goes for global warming and so on.
Yet, we do not do that. We allow private interest groups (the public) to have a say and screw things up (NRA, Pro-Choice, Pro-life) so the politicians make the decisions and the public elects them.
We elected these people, so we need to let them do their jobs.
Any candidate running has earned that right.
I have talked to some of these board members and they are trying to make the best decisions possible.
They are acutely aware of the colleges needs and what the college means to the County.
To so many in this county, the College means nothing to them.
They do not know the importance of it.
If everytime money was going to be spent and we went to a referendum, nothing would ever get done.
What if they (the board) approve a budget for $67 million and revenues turn out to be $52 million?
The deficit is covered by the tax payers.
Are we saying that it is impossible to elect qualified board members?
Is he saying that all people elected to the board have bad intentions towards the electorate?
I agree that this $42 million deal is not the right one.
Board members do not think it is the right one either.
Only the President thinks so.
But that does not change the fact that if it was the right deal, the board should be able to do it with all the right data.
They need to find the right deal that DOES help the college and if the info shows that it will not cost tax payer dollars and they move forward, then so be it.
If it fails, it fails……..everything and anything is possible.
So what are the alternatives?
Not try?
Be paralyzed by fear?
So, you make the best educated decision you can for the right reasons and you live with the
consequences.
If you do this enough in life, more times than not you will come out on top.
Golf was not doing well when Lakewood bought the golf course.
Attorney Jim Bishop was at the meeting and said something to the effect, “Don’t you know golf courses are having trouble all over McHenry County?”
And, it was a developer who sold the golf course.