McHenry County Blog

The Chicago Tribune dipped into what some call the “Buy a Visa” program on its front page Sunday.

At one time, the McHenry County SportsPlex was the featured project.

There was no mention of the Lakewood, Illinois, property on which projects qualify for the Federal EB-5 program.

Under the program foreigners seeking the American dream can invest $500,000 in an area of high unemployment and get a Visa.

The investment must create ten jobs or the deal is off, however.

There are four projects in the Chicago area being shopped around. All but one are nursing homes, which one might note, will not create many high paying jobs.

The areas in McHenry County where entrepreneurs can try to raise cash through the EB-5 program can be seen below.

Concerned Citizens Against Irresponsible Government Spending, the folks who are opposing the McHenry County SprotsPlex in Lakewood report that WGN-TV is going to run a story on it tonight at 9 PM.

Lakewood Village President Erin Smith was interviewed for it last Friday.  Interviews were also conducted with the opponents.

This morning I played photographer’s assistant on Pleasant Valley Road.

I held up the remote controlled flash.

Antonio Olivo is doing a story on things immigration, including the financing of the Lakewood SportsPlex complex with EB-5 “buy a visa” program money that is scheduled to finance the development.

Larry Larson and Al Stenstrom have been researching the financing mechanism and apparently have found something that interested the Tribune to interview them a couple of times and send a photographer to take their photo.

The photographeer had them stand near some signs on Pleasant Valley Road in front of Larson’s magnificent property.

Take a look at his back yard with a dammed up Laughing Creek running through a pond.

He has a covered bridge over one part of the water.

No wonder neighbors to the proposal have signs in front of their homes.

The group even lists how each county board member voted on its web site, “Stop the McHenry County SportsPlex.”

There’s a page addressed to Lakewood residents.

The Tribune photographer was off to the McHenry County Jail to take pictures of the cell blocks were illegal immigrants are housed.

Finance Committee Chairman Marc Munaretto began the debate over whether to provide the developers of the McHenry County SportsPlex three more months to round up people to loan them money.

Mary McCann took up the cause of those living off Hamilton Road, one maintained by township government.

Kathy Bergan Schmidt commented on traffic congestion.

“The only real major change is that they’ll (fix the intersection).

“That’s not going to cut it,” the Democrat said.

She said she had looked at the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Five-Year Plan. “Within the next five years, the only think…is to resurface.”

“Given the state of the Illinois economy or lack thereof,” she wasn’t so sure even the resurfacing would occur.

She asserted that it was “time we brought the infrastructure first.”

She also pointed out that the SportsPlex’ promise of jobs talked in terms of Full-Time Equivalents.

“FTE’s don’t mean full-time jobs,” she observed.

Gaining the floor, Munaretto explained that Lakewood is “working as well as it’s able to accommodate the residents.

He pointed out that failure would mean “the loss of Recovery Fund bonds in McHenry County.”

Munaretto then dropped this tidbit:

“The EB-5 funding program seems to be fully subscribed.”

His conclusion?

“If we don’t extend, it doesn’t mean this project is going away. It just means it will start a year or two later when the EB-5 (financing kicks in).”

Wonder Lake’s John Hammerand, also a member of the Finance Committee said that the County Board wasn’t “showing good faith.”

The SportsPlex developers didn’t live up to their side of the agreement.

“Now, they’re here begging for an extension. The reason we’re here is that they didn’t sell the bonds.”

Finance Committee member Tina Hill, in whose District 5 the SportsPlex will be located, implied that the contract did not say “on this date we will withdraw.”

She tried to explain away the conflict as a “difference of agreement.”

“The audience has heard of bureaucratic double talk?” Hammerand interjected.

The SportsPlex resolution before the County Board contained the following language:

“ WHEREAS, Section 3 of Resolution R-201004-12-093 (passed April 20, 2010) did state that the Bonds must close no later than September 30, 2010 and in the event the Bonds did not close by September 30, 2010 the Allocation shall expire and revert back to the County…”

“We put a date in these agreements for a specific reason,” Ersel Schuster said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know a date certain.”

Speaking to the merits of the project, she contented,

“This would be an absolute gridlock for the region.”

“I lived on Route 47 in the 1960′s. It was supposed to be widened to four lanes. It’s fifty years later.”

She spoke of the “insatiable appetite” that municipalities have for “grabbing and grabbing” and leaving “the rest of us picking up the bill for it.

“I take great offense that we made the “Summertime Blues” list (see Lakewood’s SportsPlex Makes “Summertime Blues” Critique of Pork), a screwball list.

Schuster moved that consideration be postponed until the next County Board meeting, but her motion was defeated in a voice vote.

District 5′s Paula Yensen, a Democrat, announced she was changing her vote from “Yes” to “No.”

She express two concerns:

1. “a lot of questions being left unanswered as far as viability goes”
2. “the 47 corridor and whether the volume can take that kind of vehicle capacity”

“In my district, District 5, people are having a difficult time making their mortgage payments.”

She added that while Crystal Lake, Huntley and Woodstock might have vacant ball fields, in the “Village of Lake in the Hills we’re over capacity.”

The SportsPlex gained enthusiastic support from Crystal Lake’s Barb Wheeler.

First, however, she mused over the conflict between a fear of traffic and the desire for more jobs.

She told of her family’s spending time at the Schaumburg Soccer Fest and having worked with EquityOne to get the multi-use facility built. She bought gas there and ate meals, improving the local economy.

“McHenry County is a great family neighborhood. When it comes to practice time, we can’t find a time in Barrington or Ridgefield.”

“Environmentally, this is going to be a fantastic facility.”

“This is a private facility,” someone from the audience interj

“Excuse me, you’re done,” McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler said.

Munaretto defended free enterprise.

“This is still America.”

Right after Munaretto’s defense of private enterprise, Ersel Schuster said,

“It’s being sold as something for the community and it is not. It is private.”

Then Tina Hill spoke.

“I assume it will cost me some votes in the next election,” she said as she sat before about 100 of her constituents, all of voting age.

She said she was going “to vote my conscience.”

When the vote was held it passed 15-8.

The eight voting “No” on the SportsPlex question were Yvonne Barnes, Randy Donley, John Hammerand, Jim Heisler, Mary McCann, Kathy Bergan Schmidt, Ersel Schuster, Paula Yensen (in whose district the project sits).

= = = = =
Other articles that might be of interest:

County Board Gives SportsPlex, Baseball Stadium, Wonder Lake Dredging More Time to Borrow Money

Citizens Speak Against SportsPlex, Lakewood Officials Support

Lakewood Approves McHenry County SportsPlex

Lakewood Explains SportsPlex

The McHenry County Board vote was 15-8 to extend the date to December 31st for the McHenry County SportsPlex, which will be straddle Pleasant Valley Road on land that is to be annexed to Lakewood once the developers buy it.

According to County Board Chairman Ken Koehler’s count, ninety-two people signed in to speak against the SportsPlex, the only stimulus loan for which there was audience participation. Three supported it on the sign-in sheet.

The comment period was dominated by opponents to the Lakewood development. All were from the neighborhood, although one woman was from two miles west on Pleasant Valley Road.

But, first Lakewood Village President Erin Smith got to make her pitch.

“We are pretty far along in this process.

“There are ongoing discussions about traffic,” she explained. “ I spent almost three hours with 100 residents (one recent night).

“I understand the residents do not want development in their areas,” she continued, but explained that the use is “consistent with the 2020 plan,” plus existing boundary agreements.

Of all the possible uses of the property, Smith argued that this “has the most gentle impact to surrounding neighbors.”

She noted that the SportsPlex proposal is “not only promises to increase jobs, it is required for the private funding, private equity with no taxpayer dollars at risk.”

Bob Saiz led off the opposition.

“I highly doubt the economic benefit.”

Charles Russell was next.

After noting that not much about the SportsPlex is on the the Village of Lakewood’s web site, he pointed to its “Frequent Asked Questions” web site page.

“The Village of Lakewood admitted they have no answer to the questions.”

Jim Vaccaro spoke of a letter from Al Stenstrom that had been sent to all county board members.

“This has so many holes in it that it could be referred to as a ‘Swiss cheese’ project.”

Referring to the EB-5 investments to be made by foreign investors seeking a faster path to citizenship, Vaccaro observed,

“If (the jobs don’t show up), the developer keeps the money and the (visitors) go home.”

Sharon Bills, who has two special needs children, expressed her concern about the increase in traffic of over 1000 vehicles.

“I had a brother who was hit (by a car),” she explained.

“My concern’s that it has encroached into a residential area.” She characterized it as “a hodgepodge development in three sections,” while asking for disapproval of the bond extension.

“I represent a large number of registered voters,” letter writer Al Stenstrom said to County Board members.

He pointed to the 110 people in the board room and said twice as many could not make it to today’s meeting.

Then he asked,

“Who does not feel that this can succeed?”

Most of the people in the audience raised their hands.

Len Tripoli also referred to Lakewood’s Frequently Asked Questions, which he pointed out said the Lakewood proposal cannot be compared with the sports complexes in Orland Park, Barrington and Libertyville.

He pointed out that the McHenry County SportsPlex will own their own teams.

He contended “independent research into attendance and job creation has not been done.”

Light pollution was the topic of Steve Lynn.

“We’re going to be sitting on our decks looking at that great glow in the sky.”

Joe Villarrealo moved from Schaumburg to get away from congestion.

“I’m afraid we’re going to end up like Schaumburg,” he said. “I want serenity.”

He added, “They say they’re going to bring in teams. It’ll have nothing to do with our kids.”

Villarrealo added that he had checked with Huntley and Crystal Lake.

“Crystal Lake doesn’t want it built.”

He said Crystal Lake had 8 empty soccer fields.

“We don’t need another 20-some fields unless they’re going to bring in teams from the outside.

“It’s total overkill, like going after an ant with a bazooka.

“I believe Lakewood is getting bad information. Lakewood’s trying to get revenue out of this and it’s going to end up costing them.”

Lindy Sander is the neighbor who lives two miles west of the proposed facility.

“The $18 million question is, ‘Is this proposal realistic?’

“We fully realized a long time ago that that corner is going to be developed.”

She then asked for a show of hands of those supporting development of what is the intersection of two state highways. About half raised their hands, she reported.

“To stretch this another mile down Pleasant Valley Road and down Hamilton is not in the best interests of the residents.

‘”It is the McHenry County Board’s job to protect (the county’s ambiance), the country living we fight for.”

Kathy Francis was next.

She was “concerned about the funding model.”

She supported development at the corner, but warned that the environmental damage “will be irreversible.”

People “know they can’t get home at night. Please let us delay the vote,” she requested.

“How many signatures would you need on a petition to show the majority of citizens don’t want this SportsPlex?” she asked, but Koehler indicated she should not expect an answer during comment time, that it was not a debate.

The comments had reached the thirty minute time allowed by the Rules, so the Chairman asked if there were a motion to extend it. There was and it passed on a voice vote.

Next up by Keith Kamper, a 19-year resident.

He argued there were “far too many questions to go forward on this thing.”

Kamper then cited statistics form Barrington’s, Libertyville’s and Orland Park’s sports complexes.

He pointed to “16 full-time jobs in the three sportsplexes.”

Next in line was former Lakewood Village President Julie Richardson, recently appointed as a village trustee.

She pointed out that the board was “not here to consider the merits. We have jumped through every hoop we possibly could.”

What was being considered by the board was “exactly the same as when yo approve it.

“We really believe this will be an environmental showcase.

“We have the chance to improve greatly the traffic flow in this county.”

“Put yourself in our shoes,” Keri Decard pleaded.

“How would you feel?

“Don’t do to us what you would not do to yourself.”

= = = = =

Tomorrow – What the County Board members said during debate.

The Lakewood village board unanimously approved economic incentive and annexation ordinances that allow the $40 million, 165 acre McHenry County SportsPlex to proceed.

The result is three happy guys, Lou Tenor, EnRico Heirman and Jack Porter, plus a plethora of consultants who pretty much answered every question thrown at them.

A zoning hearing started at 6 at the Lakewood-owned Red Tail Golf Club with over 120 people in attendance at its peak.  Less than half that number lasted until the midnight hour when about ten minutes of voting approved all the paperwork.

Besides the consultants, village officials and staff, most in attendance were people objecting from the neighborhood.

Lakewood, trying to garner more revenue, has moved aggressively in the last two months to annex property along the western side of Route 47 up to the northern leg of Route 176.

Adjoining property owners are not happy.  That includes those who will be living next to baseball fields, plus those south of the area in unincorporated Colleens Cote.

Subdivision board member Peggy Keegan put it this way,

“You’re putting a ghastly complex in the middle of a corn field.  If it doesn’t succeed, you have a Motorola, you have a Sears Complex.”

“We feel all of this was done behind our backs,” Tom Balboney, also a resident from the subdivision, said.

An earlier supporter of the project had talked of his father’s having pointed to where Woodfield would be built.

Balboney said that’s why he had moved out here, to get away from places like Woodfield.

“We all feel this was done behind our backs,” he concluded.

Earlier Colleen’s Cote resident Catherine Francis had accurately observed,

Colleens Cote's Kathryn Francis told of the Blandings Turtle and blue birds she had on her property south of the property being annexed for ball fields.

“This feels to the residents as a moving train.  Suddenly you are in our back yard.  Venues could come in that would invite people that we wouldn’t want.  There has been no discussion about our safety.

“Are you telling us you want to do this to us for a half a million a year (in new revenue to Lakewood)?”

Village President Erin Smith told neighbors that their concerns would be taken into consideration.  Concerns included traffic on Hamilton and Pleasant Valley Roads, noise and light pollution.

It took two hours for the project’s consultants, choreographed by attorney Tom Zanck, to finish their testimony.

Traffic Engineer David Miller explained the new intersection that will result once Pleasant Valley Road is relocated south so it is opposite the south leg of Route 176.

No longer will motorists see a sign that asks, “got mulch?”

Once completed, there will be an elaborate entryway.

There will be ball fields all over the place.

A selling point to the proposal was its environmentally sensitive design by Jack Porter, who developed the Sanctuary of Bull Valley in the City of Woodstock.  High quality wet lands like Lighting Creek are being completely avoided.  The cold water creek, which contains the Iowa darter, a little perch, will be crossed by a boardwalk.

The boardwalk will be part of a trail system that will be available to the general public.  The

developers will charge those participating in tournaments, but don’t plan to do the same for family, friends, coaches, etc.

Porter touted the development as “an opportunity to stimulate the Northwest Quarter of the village.”

He described it as “a public-private partnership” that would never have happened without the support of Dick Durbin, Melissa Bean, Pam Althoff and the village board.

500 construction jobs will be created and under terms of the EB-5 financing, which, as former village president candidate John O’Hara put it,

“We’re selling visas to foreign residents.”

The Federally-approved financing device allows foreigners to invest $500,000 in a project like the SportsPlex and get a visa, as long as enough jobs are created.  For the amount of money involved, there must be 353 Full-Time Equivalent jobs created.

O’Hara summarized the financial arrangement like this:

“So, there’s no taxpayer risk for the EB-5 bonds, no taxpayer risk for the Recovery Zone Bonds.

“So, the only risk for the taxpayers is the off-site improvements.”

Village President Smith replied, “That’s right.”

The $18 million in county board-approved Federal stimulus bonds is being used “only as a start-up mechanism.”

It was also described as “a bridge loan.”

The off-site improvements include a promise by the village board to provide sewer and water to the property.  Current Lakewood sewer and water lines are about two miles away, so it may be cheaper to build on-site treatment and water facilities.

“The village has made a commitment to provide sewer and water,” Village Administrator Catherine Peterson explained.

A man asked why the SportsPlex was not being built on the east side of Route 47.

Porter replied there were three reasons:

• “the availability of land (on the west side of the road)”
• “it’s in the center of the county”
• “it would be in the village of Crystal Lake (if it were on the east side of Rt. 47)”

Financial information for the private enterprise was not revealed.

Stressed several times was

“This is all equity financing.”

Eventually, $36 million is being sought from E-5 financing, while $4 million in equity is being sought elsewhere.

= = = = =
More illustrations here.

You will remember that details about the McHenry County SportsPlex have been dribbling out a little bit at a time. Some residents have been upset enough to distribute a broadside, which I publishes here. (We found it after coming back from a visit to Independence Hall in Philadelphia and Thomas Jefferson’s plantation of Monticello. What appropriate timing.)

I noticed that signs have been prepared as well, but I have only seen this one on Route 47.

As one who has watched public police roll-outs for decades, it seems to me the village should have been done two newsletters ago.

So far, no mention of the SportsPlex has been made in any official publication to residents/taxpayers. Really strange.

I’ll be reading this explanation of the Village official’s viewpoint as I am posting it this Monday morning.

Before I start, I can tell you I want to know who has how much money invested in the SportsPlex and ownership interest in this project, if any of my money as a Lakewood property owner is at risk.  [I've now read the part where the financing for the golf course that cost residents $500 a year for the better part of a decade is said to be nothing like that of the SportsPlex.]

The county board didn’t care to make that public, if anyone knows, even though the Federal stimulus package is involved.

I do not want Lakewood to end up owning a huge building, if the promoters are unsuccessful, so if that is part of the backup plan, something like a demolition bond ought to be included.

First is a cover letter from Village President Erin Smith, who now has enough allies on the board to do anything she can convince them of.

July 14, 2010

Dear Residents:

Erin Smith

During the past several months, there has been some discussion about a sports complex within the vicinity of Illinois Routes 47 and 176.

This includes land that was recently annexed into our community. While no formal proposal has yet been submitted, the Board of Trustees and I believe it is now appropriate to address some of the most frequently asked questions we’ve heard.

I have enclosed a document that provides a summary of the most frequently asked questions. As new questions are received, we will update this document and post an updated version on our Village website at: http://village.lakewood.il.us

We anticipate that the sports complex will be considered at our meeting on July 27, beginning at 6:00 p.m. [no location indicated, but the golf course club house where regular meetings are held, it seems to me, is way too small], and I urge residents to attend the meeting and learn more about this proposal. As always, I encourage you to contact me directly at erin.smith.lakewood@gmail.com or (815) 356-8005 with any questions or concerns regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Erin Smith, President
Village of Lakewood

Lakewood Sports Complex Frequently Asked Questions

Updated Last on July 9, 2010

1. What is the sports complex and where will it be located?

While no formal submittal has yet been made, we believe that the sports complex will include about 160 acres of land that consists primarily of outdoor sports fields for baseball, softball, and soccer. There will also be an indoor facility of approximately 125,000 to 150,000 square feet. It will include basketball and volleyball courts as well as a restaurant and retail space.

There is also a five (5) acre outlot that is proposed to be developed as a gas station/retail complex.

The exact location of the complex has not been finalized, but it will likely be located on the west side of Route 47, south of the northwest leg of Route 176. The gas station and retail complex will likely be closest to Route 47, with sports fields extending west along Pleasant Valley Road. More information regarding the land and location of buildings and fields will not be available until we see the first formal proposal for a planned unit development (PUD).

2. Will my taxes be raised if the sports complex fails?

It is essential for our residents to understand that the Village of Lakewood will have no responsibility or liability for payments if the sports complex fails.

While references are being made to the Sears Centre or Libertyville Sports Complex, these comparisons are not relevant.

In both of these instances, the facilities were financed using General Obligation or Alternate Revenue Bonds, which require that property taxes are pledged as a revenue source if the enterprise revenues do not cover the debt payment.

This financing model has never been considered for the proposed sports complex in our community. The sports complex financing is entirely private.

3. Is it possible that our taxes will be raised as they were to pay for RedTail Golf Course?

In order to maintain open space and support property values throughout the community, the Village of Lakewood made a decision to purchase and operate RedTail Golf Course using Alternate Revenue Bonds. As the owner, the community is ultimately responsible for the payment of debt if the operating profit cannot cover this obligation. The final payment for RedTail Golf Course will be made in 2011. As stated earlier, the Village of Lakewood will not own, operate, or be responsible for any payment relative to the proposed sports complex.

4. Will there be any economic incentives for the developer?

As all of our residents know, residential and commercial development is at a virtual standstill throughout our country, and it requires creativity and partnerships in order for projects to move forward.

As is often the case when communities are negotiating with commercial developers, we are discussing both a waiver of certain fees we would normally charge for development and a formula for sharing revenues produced by the development.

These are revenues that would otherwise not be available for our community, including:

• sales taxes,
• parking fees,
• entertainment taxes, etc.

We are also willing to partner with the developer to seek grant funding for infrastructure or unique environmental aspects of the project.

No cash contribution from the Village of Lakewood is being considered.

5. Are there any other risks to the Village of Lakewood related to this project?

The Village Staff has and will continue to invest a significant amount of time and resources to supporting the development phase of this project. There is certainly an opportunity cost associated with this time investment, as residents may find that there are days when there is a delay in responding to non-urgent resident requests. We believe that this time investment is worthwhile in the end, as commercial development at this major intersection is essential to maintaining essential services and public infrastructure without a future increase in property taxes.

A second risk is that the project will fail, leaving a vacant building and land behind. This is land that could easily be redeveloped by another land owner in the future. We believe this is an unlikely scenario, as the business plan for the sports complex has been vetted by several independent consultants and financial institutions, including Stern Brothers.

6. Did McHenry County contribute $15 million in financing to this project?

McHenry County received $27.5 million in federal bonding authority for private projects under the $789 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The bonds are meant to encourage lending for shove-ready projects by giving investors a 45 percent refund of the federal taxes payable on them.

The McHenry County Board chose to dedicate $18 million of its allocation for this project.

Private investors will choose of their own volition to purchase these bonds, and McHenry County will have no obligation or responsibility for repayment.

7. Has there been an investment of foreign funds into this project?

Another funding source will come from a federal financing program called employment based fifth preference, or EB-5.

The program, created in 1990, offers permanent resident status to foreign investors who fund businesses that create or save jobs.

It is simply a unique investment tool that the developers have identified to help fund their project, and the use of EB-5 funds for this project has no bearing on the deliberations by the Village of Lakewood.

8. What benefit is there for the Village of Lakewood?

The recent annexation of about 565 acres of land was consistent with our boundary agreements with neighboring communities, our Comprehensive Plan, and our Facility Planning Area.

It brought four (4) existing businesses into our community and will help to grow and diversify our limited sales tax base.

The proposed sports complex is also consistent with these underlying documents and has the potential to significantly increase our General Fund revenues. It is also likely that ancillary projects (i.e. restaurants and retail) will develop to support the sports complex.

Finally, the proposed sports complex will be built incorporating best environmental management practices and provide a template for sustainable development within our community.

Not only will it generate new sources of revenue which are essential to our long term sustainability, but it does so by creating a destination that is consistent with our vision for our community.

9. How can I learn more about the proposal?

We anticipate that the proposal will be considered at our meeting on July 27, beginning at 6:00 p.m.

10. Should I be concerned with the statements that were included on a flyer that was placed in my mailbox recently?

Since the flyer was sent anonymously, it’s not possible for us to follow up with the person(s) who have expressed these concerns. Nor is it possible to understand the basis of their misinformation.

= = = = =

Previous articles that might be of interest:

$18 Million Federal Stimulus Request for $40 Million Route 47 & 176 Lakewood Recreational Complex on County Board Finance Committee’s Agenda Tuesday

Concept Drawings of the Proposed McHenry County Sportsplex in Lakewood

May Letter Outlines $5 Million in Direct and Indirect Lakewood Financial Assistance to Sportsplex Developer Lou Tenore

So, You Want to Know More about the Lakewood SportsPlex?

Lakewood Village President Erin Smith Endorses Ken Koehler for County Board

First Electric Newspaper Finds Potential Snag in Lakewood SportsPlex

Chicagoland Foreign Investment Group Sends SportsPlex Investment Letter

Investment Bank Announces Commitment to SportsPlex, If

Thoughts on “Money in the Bank”

Lakewood SportsPlex Proposal Getting Curiouser and Curiouser

Lakewood Gains New Economic Development Tool

Lakewood Seeks to Annex 540 Acres, including Route 176 & 47 Golf Courses & SportsPlex Site

Judge Michael Caldwell Gives Lakewood Green Light to Grow to Route 176

Former Village President, Republican Activist Win Lakewood Trustee Spots

Big Zoning Doings in Lakewood Tuesday Night

Lakewood Annexes Past Route 47 Up to Route 176

Village of Lakewood Summer Newsletter, Anti-SportsPlex Flyer Arrive

Pete Gonigam’s First Electric Newspaper reported it first, but he didn’t have the map you see below.

What you see in orange is the new area within McHenry County designated by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Development as “Targeted Employment Area under the Alien Entrepreneur Visa Program.”

The yellow sections on the map are already so designated.

So, what does it mean?

Under the irreverently coined “buy a visa” program, foreigners with $1 million to invest in an approved job creation enterprise may obtain entry to the United States of America.

However, if the economic development occurs within a “Targeted Employment Area,” the required investment decreases to $500,000.

As you can see two townships—Riley and Chemung—previously were eligible for the smaller “entry fee.”

With the expansion of the Woodstock Greenwood Township section, whose northern edge is Ware Road (the street between the McHenry County Jail and the Administrative Building), to include the rural part of Dorr Township, Lakewood gains a potential source of investment for its part of the intersection of Routes 47 and 176. So does Woodstock as it expands southward toward Route 176.

The rural Dorr Township area was eligible because the census tract had an unemployment rate of 14.2% is 153% of the national average of 9.3%. (An area must be at least at the 150% level.)

Note that the connection is at a point. Only the edges of the census tracts touch. (See black mark on map.)

A January 6th letter from Lakewood Village President to Warren Ribley, Executive Director of the DCCA, states that “the proposed project” will employee “800 temporary and 400 permanent individuals.”

It references a January 7th letter to Village Manager Catherine Peterson from New York City attorney Stephen Yale-Loehr.

He delivers an affirmative answer as to whether the census tract can be designated a “Targeted Employment Area for EB-5 (the name of the “buy a visa” program) purposes.”

He points out his co-authorship of “Immigration Law and Procedure, the leading 20-volume immigration law treatise,” plus his teaching immigration law at Cornell Law School.

He has been a member or in a leadership position in the American Immigration Lawyers Association EB-5 Investors Committee since 1996.

And he says why this particular census tract, which contains the area proposed for the SportsPlex is eligible for a Targeted Employment Area designation.

DCCA apparently agreed with Yale-Loehr’s logic. That’s what DCCA Research Manager Edwin R. Taft’s February 16th letter indicates.

The December 1, 2009, letter you see below was given to McHenry County officials on January 29, 2010, according to the date stamped on it.

The Chicagoland Foreign Investment Group, known for short as the EB-5 company, pledges to provide funding up to $27 million to McHenry County SportsPlex ”for construction and operation of the sports facility complex to be constructed in McHenry County.”

“The funding is contingent,” the letter from Taher Karneli says, “ upon the $8 million in equity to be raised by the equity group as well as several factors relating the the EB-5 Program and the requirements of various Federal laws that govern the program.”

The letter goes on to point out that the money supplied is intended to repay the financing provided by bonds issued through McHenry County.

One of the factors alluded to might be a necessity to broaden the investment mission of the EB-5 entity. This was discovered by Pete Gonigam of the First Electric Newspaper.