Althoff Defends Conservation District Tax Hike Bill

Commentary from State Senator Pam Althoff:

Senate Bill 3341 gives McHenry County Conservation District more budget flexibility

Pam Althoff at the Crystal Lake Independance Day Parade.

Pam Althoff at the Crystal Lake Independance Day Parade.

Improving fiscal management in Illinois has always been a top priority for me.

I continue to fight for long-term budget solutions and sound fiscal practices, which is why I supported Senate Bill 3341—legislation that increases budget flexibility for the McHenry County Conservation District (MCCD).

In response to concerns about how Senate Bill 3341 would affect taxes in McHenry County, I can assure you the intent of this legislation is not to allow the McHenry County Conservation District to increase taxes, but rather give MCCD more financial flexibility in developing and maintaining property for the purposes of conservation and recreational use.

Senate Bill 3341 does three main things—it corrects an issue recently discovered by an attorney for the McHenry County Conservation District, allows MCCD to set up refunded bonds, and provides MCCD more flexibility in opening up conservation sites to public access.

All conservation districts have the ability to issue non-referendum bonds up to the statutory debt limit of .575%.

However, as McHenry County is the largest conservation district in the state, it has a debt limit of 1.725% in state statute.

Twenty years ago, MCCD received the authority to ask voters, by referendum, to issue bonds. Recently, the McHenry County Conservation District received an opinion from the bond counsel that there needs to be clarification on the intent of the statute, which is to allow MCCD to issue non-referendum bonds up to .575%, just like every other conservation district, and then ask for voter approval to issue referendum bonds that would increase the debt limit above .575%, yet below 1.725%.

By not considering the counsel’s opinion to make the change, as specified in Senate Bill 3341, the McHenry County Conservation District would be penalized for asking for voter approval to issue bonds.

This legislation corrects that and ensures that MCCD retains its good government principles.

While some believe this legislation is comparable to “an identity thief pulling a cash-out refinancing from your home and keeping the cash for themselves,” the better comparison would be “paying down the principal on your mortgage and refinancing to get a better rate long term.”

Senate Bill 3341 passed both the Illinois House of Representatives (91-23-0) and the Senate (48-0-0) this year and awaits final approval by the Governor.

= = = = =
The bill is on Governor Pat Quinn’s desk.

Here is the link to Governor Pat Quinn’s email account:

https://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx

Tell him what you want him to do–sign or veto it.


Comments

Althoff Defends Conservation District Tax Hike Bill — 31 Comments

  1. If you are having any trouble understanding Pam’s letter, here are some helpful definitions from the Voters’ Guide to Political Terms:

    improving fiscal management: raising taxes

    long-term budget solutions: raising taxes

    sound fiscal practices: raising taxes

    budget flexibility: raising taxes

    good government principles: raising taxes

    intent: opposite of actual effect

    penalized for asking for voter approval: being turned down by voters

    paying down the principal: borrowing more so the principal never goes down

  2. How are taxpayers to interpret this statement: “SB 3341 expands the Districts Authority to incur additional debt” ?

    ADDENDUM TO THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED DECEMBER 16, 2014 Relating to the issuance of MCHENRY COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS $108,215,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2014

    Please be advised that the above-referenced Official Statement is hereby amended by adding the following footnote in the Section entitled “Financial Information — Legal Debt Margin”:

    (4) The Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 3341 on December 3, 2014 (“SB 3341”).

    SB 3341 expands the District’s authority to incur additional debt by

    (a) authorizing the District to issue non-referendum bonds for the development of real property all or a portion of which was acquired with referendum-approved bonds and

    (b) providing that referendum-approved bonds and bonds issued to refund or continue to refund referendum-approved bonds do not limit the ability of the District to issue non-referendum bonds within its .575% non-referendum debt limit.

    The Governor has yet to act on SB 3341, and the District can give no assurance whether SB 3341 will become law. Even if SB 3341 becomes law, the District has no plans to issue any bonds in the next six months.

    /s/ David Brandt

    President, Board of Trustees
    McHenry County Conservation District,
    McHenry County, Illinois

    Date of this Addendum: December 8, 2014

  3. How should taxpayers react to this statement by MCCD Treasurer from the June 19,2014 Finance & Administrative Committee minutes?:

    “10.0 FINANCIAL PLANNING

    “Treasurer Krautstrunk stated he was concerned about the recent Moody’s downgrading of the District’s debt rating to Aa1 and especially of the assigned ‘negative outlook’ by Moody’s.

    “He stated that the ‘negative outlook’ meant that Moody’s expected another downward step for the District within their rating system at some point in the future.

    “Treasurer Krautstrunk said that this reinforces his opinion that the District should not be expending any funds for new acquisitions of land and that all available funding should be designated toward the ‘existing’ needs of the District.”

  4. Rating Action: Moody’s downgrades Mchenry County Conservation District, IL’s outstanding GO to Aa1; assigns negative outlook Global Credit Research – 30 May 2014

    Affects $132.9M GO debt

    New York, May 30, 2014 — Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded McHenry County Conservation District, IL’s outstanding General Obligation Unlimited Tax and General Obligation Limited Tax rating to Aa1 from Aaa.

    The Aa1 rating applies to $124.3 million of GOULT debt and $8.6 million of GOLT debt outstanding.

    The unlimited tax debt is secured by the district’s general obligation unlimited tax pledge which benefits from a levy that is unlimited as to rate or amount.

    The limited tax bonds are secured by the district’s debt service extension base (DSEB) levy, which is limited in amount though benefits from an unlimited rate.

    A negative outlook has been assigned.

    https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Mchenry-County-Conservation-District-ILs-outstanding-GO-to–PR_300777

  5. Rating Action: Moody’s assigns Aa1 to McHenry County Conservation District, IL’s $111M GO Refunding Bonds, Series 2014; outlook negative

    Global Credit Research – 12 Nov 2014

    Aa1 and negative outlook applies to $131.9M of GO debt

    New York, November 12, 2014 —

    Moody’s Rating

    Issue: General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014; Rating: Aa1; Sale Amount: $110,970,000; Expected Sale Date: 12-01-2014; Rating Description: General Obligation

    Opinion

    Moody’s Investors Service has assigned a Aa1 rating to McHenry County Conservation District, IL’s $111.0 million General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014. Concurrently, the Aa1 rating and negative outlook is maintained on the district’s outstanding general obligation unlimited tax (GOULT) and general obligation limited tax (GOLT) debt.

    Proceeds of the Series 2014 bonds will currently refund the district’s Series 2005A bonds and advance refund the district’s Series 2007 bonds, both for expected net present value savings.

    The Series 2014 bonds, as well as the district’s outstanding GOULT bonds, are secured by the district’s general obligation unlimited tax pledge, which benefits from a dedicated property tax levy that is unlimited as to rate or amount.

    The outstanding GOLT bonds are secured by the district’s debt service extension base (DSEB) levy, which is limited in amount though benefits from an unlimited rate.

    SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE

    The Aa1 rating reflects the district’s large tax base that has experienced significant declines in equalized assessed value (EAV); healthy reserve levels and solid financial management; pressured property tax revenues directly tied to EAV declines; and high debt as percent of operating revenues.

    The negative outlook reflects that continued declines in EAV will pressure finances as the district has reached its maximum allowable statutory operating tax cap.

    https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-Aa1-to-McHenry-County-Conservation-District-ILs-111M–PR_312723

  6. Thank you to Steve and Susan!!

    I do hope we have enough County Board members who can understand what you have written (unfortunately we have a majority of very dim bulbs on the Board) and vote down any budget for MCCD which includes any money for their Police force!

    The State spends money harvesting deer, why do we need a separate police force to protect the deer?

  7. Here are acreage owned by MCCD past decade:

    2005-19,728
    2006-19,991
    2007-20,701
    2008-22,121
    2009-23,226
    2010-23,878
    2011-24,783
    2012-24,910
    2013-25,022
    2014-25,189
    2015-?

    Total Assessed Value of our taxable property (assessed value is 1/3 of actual value. Multiply by 3 to get actual value of properties in this county taxing district).

    2004-$7,705,547,977
    2005-$8,564,661,998
    2006-$9,423,490,174
    2007-$10,155,920,376
    2008-$10,526,644,418
    2009-$10,435,583,432
    2010-$9,727,481,075
    2011-$8,842,348,966
    2012-$7,907,055,158
    2013-$7,189,697,681

    General property tax revenues collected by McHenry County Conservation District:

    2005-$12,154,306
    2006-$12,146,911
    2007-$12,743,793
    2008-$13,351,739
    2009-$17,536,668
    2010-$18,115,161
    2011-$18,427,173
    2012-$18,920,946
    2013-$19,286,175
    2014-$19,519,137

  8. Pam, you are dead wrong on this one.

    MCCD has more than a reasonable amount of land, let them pay down all debt before incurring anymore.

  9. Now we have what fellow racehorse handicappers know as Past Performances, and we need to handicap the race.

    Before Ms Althoff’s bill, this horse (MCCD) would not have qualified for this race (The ‘We trust you with an expanded credit line for a whole lot more taxpayer money’ Handicap).

    ‘MCCD the horse’ is entered courtesy of Ms. Althoff’s political power.

    Will this horse win? Will it run ‘with heart’ (behave honorably and ‘giving its all’ with the trusted custody of other peoples’ money)?

    Past performance can be indicative of future performance.

    1. Property taxes collected by demand of MCCD have risen every year 2005-2014. ($7,364,831 more in 2014 than in 2005).

    2. Assessed value of taxed citizens’ property LOWER in 2014 than in 2004 and every year after. ($8,564,661,998 value in 2005,$7,189,697,681 in 2014).

    3. Acreage owned has risen each year from 2005-2014. (Horse keeps buying land with other peoples’ promissory oats).

    Handicapper assumptions: This MCCD horse is a maiden (never won a race) when it comes to running with heart.

    It runs because the owner enters it in races and it has no choice.

    Can it be rehabilitated?

    Sure, with the right trainer and grooms and jockey, it could be a winner.

  10. (MCCD) Legal Debt Margin Calculation as of March 31, 2014

    Assessed valuation as of December 31, 2013: $7189,697,681

    Debt Limitation (1.725% of assessed valuation): $124,022,285

    Less debt outstanding applicable to limit General Obligation Bonds: ($127,550, 000)

    (Installment Contracts): ($4,800,000)

    Legal Debt Margin as of March 31 2013: ($8,327,715)*

    (that means MCCD has incurred debt, using all homeowners’ homes in the county as collateral, of $8,327,715 OVER the statutory legal limit of debt they are allowed to incur.)

    HAS MCCD STOPPED BUYING LAND AFTER MARCH 31 2013, KNOWING THEY ARE IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY 1.725% of ASSESSED VALUE OF HOMES THEY ARE USING AS COLLATERAL?

  11. Not buying your story Pam.

    Your retirement is long overdue.

    You & Tryon are NOT looking out for the people of McHenry County, obvious by this and countless other past stunts you’ve pulled over on us. We have your number.

  12. Pam’s comments are absolutely indicative of what an alert and active public may offer the political process.

    Between Cal’s Blog, which is the catalyst and venue for local engagement, and the brilliant comments of posters like Susan, Pam has been forced to respond.

    Interesting though Pam’s perspective is the true measure of whether it is valid is the public discourse.

    Pam is a public servant.

    She has learned, through her involvement in Springfield, fighting the Establishment’s desire for oligarchy gets her nowhere politically with the political class.

    The few in the Statehouse who call themselves the Common Sense Caucus are rare in their character.

    It is far more common to see good people like Pam begin to conform to a baser desire for more power and acceptance among their coworkers.

    I commend Cal for his venue and the poster’s here for their intelligent engagement and arguments.

    People like Susan are perfect expressions of Jeffersonian debate where the good ideas and ideals will eventually overcome the horrors an unchecked government will wreak upon their people.

    Keep up active and intelligent engagement and McHenry County will reap the benefits of the efforts of the few.

    Twas ever thus.

    The masses are unengaged, uninspired, uninterested and completely self involved but they will eventually hear good messaging of their own self interests.

    God Bless the Watchdogs.

  13. Cal, Susan posted some useful information on MCCD’s taxes and acreage.

    It would be interesting to know how much other conservation districts spend and how much land they have, whether more or less than MCCD.

    I found two conservation districts by searching online: Macon and Boone Counties.

    Are there others?

  14. I pulled up the 2014 Illinois Community Recreation Facilities & Park Lands Inventory published by the Office of Recreation & Park Resources at the University of Illinois.

    The average Forest Preserve/Conservation District operating budget is $32 per capita.

    MCCD has an operating budget of $19,519,137.

    McHenry County has a population of 307,409.

    That’s $63.50 per capita, or about twice the state average.

    The average conservation district also has about 30 acres of land for every 1,000 people in their county.

    MCCD has 81 acres for every 1,000 people, or 2.7 times as much land as the other districts.

  15. Thanks Steve, I am always impressed with your ability to simplify an issue and bring out the true meaning of the hype long term elected officials speak to talk down to the common person.

  16. Once again Pam has illustrated that she’s not just a pretty face, but an idiot with little concern for the people she SERVES!

    The “Consternation” District is out of control and engaged in empire building.

    Not that that’s anything new; one merely has to look at their past purchases of land in flood plains, etc. that could not be developed, was already protected as wetlands and see the exorbitant prices paid to realize that.

    Who are their friends making out like bandits at the public’s expense?

    Perhaps that explains why we have so much more land compared to other conservation districts?

    More friends to reward.

    I think it may have been Ben Franklin who said to “watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.”

    Has anyone else noticed that our MCCD police are so busy writing speeding tickets out on the county and state highways that they haven’t the time to check out and lock up the district properties at night?

    No, they have to have solar powered gates to handle the task.

    How much did those cost us? What was the rationale?

    Dollars and sense (plenty of dollars to spend, but maybe not much in the way of sense used in the spending).

    Maybe MCCD can give Pam a job when she’s done with this term.

    We need somebody to replace that phony!

  17. When asked to vote for a departmental budget, every elected official should ask, “How do we determine how much is enough?”

    If the department head can’t explain how to answer that question objectively, he or she should be replaced with someone who can.

    Averages aren’t the be-all and end-all, but they are a good place to start.

  18. Ms. Althoff,

    In response to your statement:

    “While some believe this legislation is comparable to “an identity thief pulling a cash-out refinancing from your home and keeping the cash for themselves,” the better comparison would be “paying down the principal on your mortgage and refinancing to get a better rate long term.””
     
    I have an opinion, and I want to justify that opinion with facts.

    My request to you, if you truly want the will of the people heard by Quinn as he decides whether to veto this bill, is to use your power with the NW Herald to print your opinion as well as some opposition argument, with supporting arguments attached, and the link to Gov, Quinn email for veto or not of this bill.
     
    I do not believe the principal on the mortgage on my house created by MCCD borrowings enabled by Senate Bill 3341 will ever be paid down.

    Here’s why:
     
    1. In 2005 MCCD had over $88.5 million debt. In 2014, MCCD had over $132.3 million debt (which is higher than statutory maximum allowed.). The Annual Report comments speak to the expectation that property values will begin to rise in 2015 and therefore allow the debt cap to lift, allowing more freedom to accrue more debt.  

    1.a. Compare and contrast property values to debt: Assessed value of taxable McHenry County property 2005 was $8.56 billion. Assessed value 2013 $7.19 billion. 
     
    MCCD borrowed money and spent money more and more throughout all the intervening years that our homes declined in value.

    MCCD took in $12.15 million property taxes in 2005. MCCD took in $19.52 million in property taxes in 2014.

    From 2006 through 2014, MCCD’s total tax taken from County taxpayers has risen, even as home values declined to below 2004 values, even as population recently declined, and even as the statutory borrowing limit was exceeded in 2013, even purchasing more land while claiming insufficient funds to manage land already owned.
     
    2.  Based on the following statement, and language of demurring Trustees and Executive Director, I believe that financial advice to cool it on spending will continue to be ignored by those empowered to borrow and spend.

    (MCCD Treasurer from the June 19,2014 Finance & Administrative Committee minutes):

    “10.0 FINANCIAL PLANNING

    “Treasurer Krautstrunk stated he was concerned about the recent Moody’s downgrading of the District’s debt rating to Aa1 and especially of the assigned ‘negative outlook’ by Moody’s.

    “He stated that the ‘negative outlook’ meant that Moody’s expected another downward step for the District within their rating system at some point in the future.

    “Treasurer Krautstrunk said that this reinforces his opinion that the District should not be expending any funds for new acquisitions of land and that all available funding should be designated toward the ‘existing’ needs of the District.”
     
    3. Based upon the following statement in official statement of MCCD New Bond Issue 2014, I cannot interpret any other way than literally the MCCD  President’s statement:

    “SB 3341 expands the District’s authority to incur additional debt …”
     
    ADDENDUM TO THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED DECEMBER 16, 2014 Relating to the issuance of MCHENRY COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS $108,215,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2014

    Please be advised that the above-referenced Official Statement is hereby amended by adding the following footnote in the Section entitled “Financial Information — Legal Debt Margin”:

    (4) The Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 3341 on December 3, 2014 (“SB 3341”).
    SB 3341 expands the District’s authority to incur additional debt by

    (a) authorizing the District to issue non-referendum bonds for the development of real property all or a portion of which was acquired with referendum-approved bonds and

    (b) providing that referendum-approved bonds and bonds issued to refund or continue to refund referendum-approved bonds do not limit the ability of the District to issue non-referendum bonds within its .575% non-referendum debt limit.

    The Governor has yet to act on SB 3341, and the District can give no assurance whether SB 3341 will become law. Even if SB 3341 becomes law, the District has no plans to issue any bonds in the next six months.

    /s/ David Brandt
    President, Board of Trustees
    McHenry County Conservation District,
    McHenry County, Illinois

    Date of this Addendum: December 8, 2014
     
    3.a. Incurring additional debt through cash-out refinancing means my mortgage on my home incurred by “identity thief” (someone empowering himself without my permission to borrow money in my name, with my assets as full pledged collateral) will never be paid off.

    When a surplus accrues, there will be another cashout refi, extending the debt further into the future.

    3.b. Did the identity thief have my permission because I voted yes on a referendum to borrow a specific amount of bond debt in 2005?

    Well, maybe that is what the law says, that a bond referendum is actually permission for a perpetual line of credit that may be extended into the future by the taxing body, and forever be reflected in property tax rates and home values.

    If so, I believe future Borrowing Referendums should include that language as a warning, like they have on cigarette packages.
     
    4. I’m imploring this taxing body to cool it on the spending (and borrowing) because while I do hold conservation of nature as a value, at each analysis I ask myself: At what cost?

    Our property taxes for 2013 were 3.68% of home values. This causes home values to continue lower, as unfavorable comparisons are made by potential homebuyers to the rest of America which has average property tax rates around 1.25% of home value.

    Another anchor holding down property values here is that to qualify for a conforming $200,000 mortgage loan on a home at the national average property tax rate of 1.25%, a borrower would need to prove income of around $50,000—but  in McHenry County at our tax rate of 3.68%, a borrower would need annual income of around $68,000 to qualify for the same conforming loan.

    Is conservation of land (or any other value) truly good if it is never held up to scrutiny with the question: “At What Cost?”
     
    5. It doesn’t look like this taxing body (for one) has the self discipline to restrain its own spending within legally stipulated amounts.

    SB 3341 will grant a technical mechanism to bypass those statutory borrowing caps by facilitating cash-out refis.

    Please leave the taxpayers one of the few remaining defenses we have left to us against the unrestrained borrowing and spending by taxing bodies empowered to encumber our homes with debt.
     
    Susan Handelsman Woodstock IL
     
     

  19. I want to be clear about something here: I started the day with no strong opinion of the Conservation District.

    My only experience with them was a couple of years ago when they spent a couple million dollars building a bridge over Rakow Road that actually made the bike trail less safe.

    So I did what I always do in this type of situation: looked up some basic numbers from MCCD and other districts.

    Specifically I wanted to know how much they spend, how much land they own since that is their basic function, and how many people they serve so I could compare MCCD to other districts.

    I didn’t use calculus.

    I didn’t use quantum physics.

    The most complicated math I used was division:

    I divided expenditures by population, and land owned by population.

    Anybody can do this kind of analysis, and our elected officials should demand this type of data from the staff or do these types of calculations themselves.

    The numbers speak for themselves:

    our Conservation District spends much more than the average and owns much more land than the average.

    Does this necessarily mean they are spending too much?

    No, but it’s a very big red flag.

    It means the Conservation District has a higher responsibility to justify its spending.

    It means, as I wrote in an earlier post, that they have a responsibility to explain, objectively, how to determine how much is enough:

    how much money, how much land.

    By the way, “Always more” is not an objective answer.

  20. Pam Althoff, tax-and-spend “public servant”.

    What does she get in return?

  21. Scam by Tryon as well.

    He didn’t call it for a vote before the election indicating it was dead.

    Then ….. Surprise!

    These crooks need to go.

    We need to open the books, do some digging and see how many crooks there are scamming us.

    Enough is enough.

    Many thanks to all who dug up the numbers and facts.

    Now that needs to get to all voters, but I’m sure memory will be fading by the next election.

  22. Althoff is a tax-whore ……. and she can’t be rehabilitated.

    She must be defenestrated ASAP before she causes more harm.

    She’s a lying rat ….so typical of the slimy, leech-political class … like Mikie Tryon, Jacko Franks & Co. ….. birds of a diseased feather who must be isolated and destroyed like any SARS carrying fowl.

  23. Unfortunately, MCCD Trustees are not elected, but appointed by the county board.

    This makes them further removed from the voters than school / park / village / etc. board members.

    Would any county board members support my appointment to MCCD trustee?

    My platform would be that MCCD owns too much land and is holding too much cash — like most other McHightax County local bodies of government.

  24. Probably not, Chris, but maybe you should run for county board president in 2 years to clean up the parasites on the county board sucking U.S. taxpayers dry!

  25. From State Senator Pamela J. Althoff’s Thursday, December 18, 2014 press release.

    “Recently, the McHenry County Conservation District received an opinion from the bond counsel that there needs to be clarification on the intent of the statute, which is to allow MCCD to issue non-referendum bonds up to .575%, just like every other conservation district, and then ask for voter approval to issue referendum bonds that would increase the debt limit above .575%, yet below 1.725%.”

    Where is that opinion?

    Someone should obtain a copy via FOIA.

    Is the bond counsel Lynda Given of Chapman and Cutler?

    Here is the URL to the existing Conservation District Act.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=858&ChapterID=15

    The Conservation District Act does not mention McHenry County.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=858&ChapterID=15

    It does mention this.

    “(b) A district that is entirely within a county of under 750,000 inhabitants and contiguous to a county of more than 2,000,000 inhabitants and that is authorized by referendum as provided in subsection (d) of Section 15 to incur indebtedness over 0.575% but not to exceed 1.725% shall have a board consisting of 7 trustees, all of whom shall be residents of the county.”

    And this.

    ” A district that is entirely within a county of under 200,000 inhabitants and contiguous to a county of more than 2,000,000 inhabitants and that is authorized by referendum as provided in subsection (d) of Section 15 to incur indebtedness over 0.575% but not to exceed 1.725% may acquire an interest in real estate by condemnation only if approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total number of trustees authorized for that district; such a district may exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of any portion of any interest in real estate acquired by it by any means within 2 years of acquiring that interest, provided that a public hearing on the exchange, sale or other disposition of such real estate or interest therein is held prior to such action.”

    And this.

    “No district shall become indebted in any manner or for any purpose, to any amount including existing indebtedness in the aggregate exceeding 0.575% of the value, as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue, of the taxable property therein; except that a district entirely within a county of under 750,000 inhabitants and contiguous to a county of more than 2,000,000 inhabitants may incur indebtedness, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate not exceeding 1.725% of that value if the aggregate indebtedness over 0.575% is submitted to the legal voters of the district at an election and is approved by a majority of those voting on the proposition as provided in Section 15.1.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *