The following new language in Senate Bill 3341 passed 48-0.
It was sponsored by State Senators Pam Althoff and Karen McConnaughay.
7 (b-5) For the purpose of development of real property, all
8 or a portion of which has been acquired with
9 referendum-approved bonds, a district located entirely within
10 McHenry County may incur indebtedness and, as evidence of the
11 indebtedness thus created, may issue and sell bonds without
12 first obtaining the consent of the legal voters of the
13 district. Development, for the purposes of this subsection
14 (b-5), shall mean the improvement or maintenance of existing
15 trails, parking lots, bridges, roads, picnic shelters, and
16 other improvements, adding or improving access to conservation
17 areas or district facilities to comply with the Americans with
18 Disabilities Act, demolition of unnecessary or unsafe
19 structures, and the stabilization, revitalization or
20 rehabilitation of historic structures.
14 The following do not in any way limit the right of a
15 district to issue non-referendum bonds under this Section:
16 bonds heretofore or hereafter issued and outstanding that are
17 approved by referendum, as described in this subsection (d);
18 refunding bonds issued to refund or continue to refund bonds
19 approved by referendum; and bonds issued under this Section
20 that have been paid in full or for which provisions for payment
21 have been made by an irrevocable deposit of funds in an amount
22 sufficient to pay the principal and interest on those bonds to
23 their respective maturity date.
Here’s the roll call:
The bill that allows the McHenry County Conservation District to sell bonds without first asking for voter approval.
State Rep. Mike Tryon is the House sponsor.
Another Agenda 21 success story!
Voters need to remember that the Conservation District has its own Police department!!
Stick it to the taxpayers every chance they get.
With the rhino pushing it .
remember her name for the future.
A government of wolves.
Reply from Althoff office to my email (below reply, questioning this need to raise non-referendum funding):
From: Pamela Althoff
To: Susan Handelsman
Sent: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 8:29 am
Subject: RE: McHenry County property taxes
It is by referendum…it permits the MCCD to ask you, the voter, whether you approve of the new request by residents to include historic building preservation as part of their mission.
It is not an increase unless YOU allow it to be so.
It is the governmental dialogue with the voters….kind of the response to you can’t fight city hall…but you can and you should have a voice and not just let us, the electeds, make that decision for you. It is not in place unless you permit it to be so.
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:53 AM
To: Pamela Althoff
Subject: McHenry County property taxes
What is your rationale for spearheading another project inflicting higher tax burden for McHenry County homeowners?
Our mcHenry County property taxes are roughly 3% of home value.
National average property taxes as a percentage of home value are roughly 1.1%.
15 year mortgage interest rates are lower than my Seneca Township, McHenry County IL property taxes as percentage of home value.
You presented no rationale, that I could find, as to why the need for more Conservation District funding is more compelling than honoring any obligation to protect the needs of property tax paying homeowners.
Where is the cost /benefit analysis of your project?
It is frightening that your logic jumps directly from your desire for more tax money, to equating desire with need, to justifying need with entitlement.
Are you making the argument that the money you want to extract from taxpayers will improve the taxpayers’ quality of life enough to compensate for the pain it will cause?
Did you ever consider that if the Conservation District is too big and expensive to support with current funding, you could cut down the size and scope of the Conservation District such that it would live within its means?
Susan Handelsman
Woodstock resident
Susan, it looks like Ms. Althoff didn’t answer ANY of your questions.
Typical.
Thank you for sharing her NON-answer with us.
Cal posted a week or so ago a Tweet Althoff sent back in 2009 after she had a town hall conference call.
Here it is:
Pamela Althoff (@pamelaalthoff)
10/30/09, 2:44 PM
Callers were adamant government should focus on cutting state spending and holding off on new programs until any tax hikes are considered.
WOULDNT THIS APPLY TO RAISING TAXES FOR OUR COUNTY ON MCCD?
this should give you a view of the adamant callers in 2009, it’s worse now!