Pam Althoff
In a comment under Pam Althoff’s defense of the bill to allow the McHenry County Conservation District to borrow money without referendum approve, bond analyst Steve Willson, a resident of Lakewood, offers the following glossary.
He calls it a “Voters’ Guide to Political Terms.”
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
= = = = =
If you want to express your opinion to Govenror Pat Quinn on whether he should sign or veto the bill, you may send him at email at the address below:
https://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx
If Quinn does not sign or veto the bill, it will automatically become law sixty days after passage.
This bill is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.
1. It presupposes a level of fiscal rectitude on the part of an agency that didn’t think twice when acquiring property in the teeth of a runaway market.
2. It’s a slap in the face of taxpayers by creating an impression that they’re either too stupid or inattentive to see that they’re losing another bit of control over their government.
3. To say that the bill is merely meant to conform MCCD’s borrowing authority to that of other districts is unconvincing. If there’s a need to “conform”, then why were we allowed to not do so in
the first place?
4. Borrowing to obtain a lower interest rate makes sense, but to not say what will be done with the resulting bond premium “windfall” is a deal killer. Would voters, if given the chance, have allowed MCCD to simply pocket that money?
This bill is a mere symptom of a much deeper problem.
We are in desperate need of property tax reform, and until we enact a system that directly ties taxes to fair market value and is capped, whether the market goes up or down, people won’t own their homes, they’ll just be renting them from the government.
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
If someone walked into your house and took your money without your permission, and you knew who did it, what would you say and you.
Maybe you would say, “Stop, thief,” and call the police.
State Senator Pamela J. Althoff, state Senator Karen McConnaughay, and state House Representative Michael W. Tryon are all sponsors oh Senate Bill 3341 (SB3341) in the 98th General Assembly to allow the McHenry County Conservation District to take more of your property tax money without your direct permission.
The McHenry County Conservation District is governed by a board of seven trustees appointed by the Chairman of the County Board and with the consent of the County Board.
The McHenry County Conservation District Executive Director is not elected.
The entire Conservation District organization falls under the McHenry County Board.
By the way, the McHenry County Conservation District Executive Director is also vice-chair of Chicago Wilderness.
Here are the changes Senator Althoff, Senator McConnaughay, and Represenative Tryon are proposing.
“Section 5. The Conservation District Act is amended by changing Sections 15 and 15.1 as follows:”
“(b-5) For the purpose of development of real property, all or a portion of which has been acquired with
referendum-approved bonds, a district located entirely within McHenry County may incur indebtedness and, as evidence of the indebtedness thus created, may issue and sell bonds without first obtaining the consent of the legal voters of the district.
Development, for the purposes of this subsection (b-5), shall mean the improvement or maintenance of existing trails, parking lots, bridges, roads, picnic shelters, and other improvements, adding or improving access to conservation areas or district facilities to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, demolition of unnecessary or unsafe structures, and the stabilization, revitalization or
rehabilitation of historic structures.”
“The following do not in any way limit the right of a district to issue non-referendum bonds under this Section: bonds heretofore or hereafter issued and outstanding that are approved by referendum, as described in this subsection (d); refunding bonds issued to refund or continue to refund bonds approved by referendum; and bonds issued under this Section that have been paid in full or for which provisions for payment have been made by an irrevocable deposit of funds in an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on those bonds to their respective maturity date.”
Now this next sentence deletes some text, and adds new text.
Current law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds for acquisition or development of real property, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
Proposed law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds as described in this Section, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
deleted text: “…for acquisition or development of new property…”
added text: “…as described in this Section…”
http://www.ilga.gov > Bills & Resolutions > Senate – Bills > 3301 – 3400 > SB3341 CONSERVATION DISTRICT-DEBT > Full Text > Senate Amendment 001
Senate Amendment 1 was filed by Pamela J Althoff on March 17, 2014.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800SB3341sam001&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=80571&DocNum=3341&GAID=12&Session=
Through this legislation, state Senator Althoff, state Senator McConnaughay, and state House Representative Michael W. Tryon are making it easier for the McHenry County Conservation District to obtain your money without your direct approval.
“The following do not in any way limit the right of a district to issue non-referendum bonds under this Section: bonds heretofore or hereafter issued and outstanding that are approved by referendum, as described in this subsection (d); refunding bonds issued to refund or continue to refund bonds approved by referendum; and bonds issued under this Section that have been paid in full or for which provisions for payment have been made by an irrevocable deposit of funds in an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on those bonds to their respective maturity date.”
Now this next sentence deletes some text, and adds new text.
Current law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds for acquisition or development of real property, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
Proposed law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds as described in this Section, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
deleted text: “…for acquisition or development of new property…”
added text: “…as described in this Section…”
http://www.ilga.gov > Bills & Resolutions > Senate – Bills > 3301 – 3400 > SB3341 CONSERVATION DISTRICT-DEBT > Full Text > Senate Amendment 001
Senate Amendment 1 was filed by Pamela J Althoff on March 17, 2014.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800SB3341sam001&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=80571&DocNum=3341&GAID=12&Session=
Through this legislation, Senator Althoff is making it easier for the McHenry County Conservation District to obtain your money without your direct approval.
The Illinois public should be very wary of non-referendum bonds, and referendum bonds for that matter.
“The following do not in any way limit the right of a district to issue non-referendum bonds under this Section: bonds heretofore or hereafter issued and outstanding that are approved by referendum, as described in this subsection (d); refunding bonds issued to refund or continue to refund bonds approved by referendum; and bonds issued under this Section that have been paid in full or for which provisions for payment have been made by an irrevocable deposit of funds in an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on those bonds to their respective maturity date.”
Now this next sentence deletes some text, and adds new text.
Current law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds for acquisition or development of real property, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
Proposed law: “Before or at the time of issuing bonds as described in this Section, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
deleted text: “…for acquisition or development of new property…”
added text: “…as described in this Section…”
http://www.ilga.gov > Bills & Resolutions > Senate – Bills > 3301 – 3400 > SB3341 CONSERVATION DISTRICT-DEBT > Full Text > Senate Amendment 001
Senate Amendment 1 was filed by Pamela J Althoff on March 17, 2014.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800SB3341sam001&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=80571&DocNum=3341&GAID=12&Session=
Through this legislation, Senator Althoff is making it easier for the McHenry County Conservation District to obtain your money without your direct approval.
The Illinois public should be very wary of non-referendum bonds, and referendum bonds for that matter.
Non referendum general obligation and limited bonds to issue new debt should be illegal in Illinois, as is the case in many other states.
Right now, taxing districts can issue non-referendum bonds without voter approval be a board vote and issuing a “bond issue notification act” aka BINA in a local newspaper.
Often, the practice receives scant coverage in the newspaper.
Since most taxing districts have no watchdog, the practice receives scant attention by the public.
Many times no public comments are made at the board meeting.
BINA notifications typically appear in tiny print in the Legal Notices section of the newspaper.
The online version of BINA notifications in many local newspapers typically vanish a few days after being posted.
Non-referendum general obligation and limited bonds are illegal in many states.
They should be illegal in Illinois.
It doesn’t end with the authorization to issue the bonds.
There are all sorts of ways all sorts of special interests groups can make generous profits on referendum and non-referendum bonds issued by taxing districts in Illinois.
So even in the case of refunding and refinancing existing bonds, such special interest groups are often making generous profits.
Another bond game is money is shuffled around from one “fund” aka account to another within the taxing district accounting structure, and new money appears in another account, and one such example is refunding / refinancing bonds where new money magically appears.
You would be surprised how many taxing districts on your property tax bill issue non-referendum bonds.
Which brings up another point.
The McHenry County Conservation District is not a taxing district.
It’s part of the county.
The county is the taxing district.
That’s the structure of all Conservation Districts in Illinois.
Many counties have another form of government to protect public land, called a Forest Preserve District.
Conservation Districts and Forest Preserve Districts are different units of government in Illinois.
Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, and Will, have Forest Preserve Districts, not Conservation Districts.
Whatever the real reasons and intent for more money by the McHenry County Conservation District, it comes at a bad time for taxpayer approval, which is probably why they are not asking for taxpayer approval.
Property values are down.
Economy in Illinois is worse than most of the nation.
Legislative benefit hikes, have hiked pensions, in the 18 pension funds in the Illinois Pension Code.
Legislative retiree healthcare hikes, have hiked retiree healthcare.
Bond debt is high in many taxing districts and the state as a whole, see above.
Collective bargaining agreement hikes, have hiked salaries and perks, in taxing districts and the state.
Hiking salaries, hikes pensions.
Administrator contracts have been hiked.
In other words, the cost structure of government is high in Illinois in many taxing districts and the state.
The average taxpayer hasn’t a clue.
And most taxpayers that have a clue haven’t done anything either, for various reasons, such as they are part of a special interest group that benefits directly or indirectly from the hikes, a friend or family member or neighbor benefits from the hikes, they or a friend or a family member or a neighbor relies on government assistance, they or a friend or family member has someone in the public schools (which are amongst the worse offenders both locally and at the state and federal level).
Due to all this, you will be seeing a lot more attempts to issue non-referendum bonds in Illinois.
You cannot expect your state legislators or governor to solve these problems.
They created the problems.
They are tied to special interest groups which is pretty much whom controls the legislative process in Illinois, in cahoots with the politicians.
There are some well intentioned local politicians that have their hearts in the right place, but don’t have a clue about fiscal responsibility or how the above really works.
Pay attention to how locally elected officials vote on non-referendum bonds and what they say about legislation to increase debt, in this case, the McHenry County Board members.
Watchdog a taxing district.
If every taxing district and state agency had just one watchdog, it would make a difference.
The more watchdogs, the bigger the difference.
How about a Watchdog Community Organizer.
That would make a difference.
Here is the other change to the Conservation District Act in SB 3341.
First we’ll have the original text, then the revised text, deletion, then the addition.
Original text (text to be deleted in CAPS:
“(e) Before or at the time of issuing bonds FOR ACQUISITION OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL PROPERTY, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
Revised text:
“(e) Before or at the time of issuing bonds AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, the district shall provide by ordinance for the collection of an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes authorized by this act, sufficient to pay such bonds and the interest thereon as the same respectively become due.”
http://www.ilga.gov > Bills & Resolutions > Senate – Bills > 3301 – 3400 > SB3341 CONSERVATION DISTRICT-DEBT > Full Text > Senate Amendment 001.
Senate Amendment 1 was filed by Sen. Pamela J. Althoff on 3/17/2014.
Revised text has addition in CAPS.
If you keep voting for people whom allow the issuance of non-referendum bonds, the practice will continue.
Here are probably the key words in the legislation.
“…may issue and sell bonds without first obtaining the consent of the legal voters of the district.”
State Senator Pamela J Althoff, state Senator McConnaughay, and state House Representative Michael W. Tryon all believe it is a good idea for the McHenry County Conservation District to issue and sell bonds without first obtaining the consent of the legal voters of the district.
All the Board members of the McHenry County Conservation District whom do not speak out against the measure also apparently believe that it’s OK for the conservation district to issue and sell bonds without first obtaining the consent of the legal voters of the district.
The members of the McHenry County Conservation District (appointed by the McHenry County Board) are:
David Brandt, President (Wonder Lake).
Kent Krautstrunk, Vice President (Crystal Lake).
Bona Heinsohn, Treasurer (Harvard).
Brandon Thomas, Secretary (Huntley).
Stephen Barrett, Trustee (Trout Valley).
Peter Merkel, Trustee (McHenry).
David Kranz, Trustee (Woodstock).
Here’s how it all works.
The McHenry County Conservation District trustees are appointed by the Chairman of the elected McHenry County Board.
The Chairman of the McHenry County Board is elected by the McHenry County Board, whom elect a peer for the position.
The McHenry County Board members are elected by the public.
So the McHenry County Board members are the elected officials in that food chain.
They should also be held responsible for the McHenry County Conservation District issuing non-referendum bonds.
At the very least they could voice their opinion in favor of or against the measure, so the public knows where they stand and can vote accordingly.
The elected members of the McHenry County Board are:
District 1: Yvonne Barnes, Andrew Gasser, Anna May Miller, Robert Nowak
District 2: James L. Heisler, Kenneth D.Koehler, Donna Kurtz, Carolyn Schofield
District 3: Joseph Gottemoller, Donald Kopsell, Nick Provenzano, Michael J. Walkup
District 4: Sue Draffkorn, John D. Hammerand, Bob Bartens, Charles “Chuck” Wheeler
District 5: Tina Hill, John Jung Jr., Michael Skala, Michael Rein
District 6: Michele Aavang, Diane Evertsen, Mary T. McCann, Larry W Smith
Does anyone really expect any of the county board members to speak out on this?
Give me a break!
They don’t care and the election is over.
The new is the same as the old.
Board members email addresses from County website. I suggest cut-and-paste Mark’s data and email to all Board members.
kdkoehler@co.mchenry.il.us, dmkurtz@co.mchenry.il.us, jxgottemoller@co.mchenry.il.us, cdschofield@co.mchenry.il.us, nxprovenzano@co.mchenry.il.us, dckopsell@co.mchenry.il.us, SXDraffkorn@co.mchenry.il.us, mjwalkup@co.mchenry.il.us, ymbarnes@co.mchenry.il.us, rcnowak@co.mchenry.il.us, algasser@co.mchenry.il.us, JLHeisler@co.mchenry.il.us, ammiller@co.mchenry.il.us, lwsmith@co.mchenry.il.us, dxevertsen@co.mchenry.il.us, MTMcCann@co.mchenry.il.us, cswheeler@co.mchenry.il.us, TRHill@co.mchenry.il.us, jdhammerand@co.mchenry.il.us, rmmartens@co.mchenry.il.us, mxrein@co.mchenry.il.us, mraavang@co.mchenry.il.us, JPJung@co.mchenry.il.us, mjskala@co.mchenry.il.us,
Mark and Susan, your comments would get more readership if you weren’t so long winded.
It seems the pick-pocketing of the tax paying public will never cease in the state of Illinois.
Thanks, Susan. Let them know that we are going to run them out of town for the shenanigans they have been pulling!
I also question why Tina Hill has not resigned!
Our County Board is a huge joke.
Why would she give up a job that pays so well and requires little work?
Well Done?
Because she has personal problems that she needs to address.
Did you read what the NW Herald put out about her yesterday?
She clearly should be ashamed to take a paycheck.
Your attitude, like many in comments all of the internet these days, speaks to losing hope.
Defeatist attitude may be a flip and funny way to retort.
I get that you are saying it’s ironic.
But hold on here.
Keep your love of freedom, your love of your fellow citizens, and your fighting spirit.
And never never never give up.
OH, and they buried the article.
Here it is http://www.nwherald.com/2014/12/29/mchenry-county-board-member-tina-hill-pleads-out-on-dui-charge/ajflpuh/
Please read that and tell me that this is NOT a good reason to man the pitch forks and drive her from office!
Cindy,
I was using sarcasm in my comment. It has nothing to do with personal problems. Cronyism must end. I totally agree she, as well as others on the board, should be VERY ashamed to take a paycheck!
Well Done?
I understood your comment completely.
I was speaking to the troops.
Where is our integrity if we continue to put up with this?