McHenry County Blog

The following has been received from the office of Jim Bishop, attorney for Dan Ziller, Jr., et al, in their successful case against the Grafton Township Board’s attempt to build a new township hall without voter approval:

The Illinois Appellate Court officially ended the legal battle of the stalled Grafton Township Town Hall project. No negotiations with respect to settlement are either appropriate or necessary.

The Appellate Court ended all speculation with its Decision of September 18, 2009, ruling in favor of the Grafton Township residents that filed suit against Grafton Township Officials, the Appellate Court ruled that there must be a the then Township Supervisor, John Rossi and the other Trustees.

The Appellate Court has ruled that the issue must be placed on the ballot for the vote of the residents of Grafton Township at the November 2010 General Election. The referendum will determine whether the project to construct a new township hall, estimated to cost in excess of $5 million, will proceed.

For more than seven months, the residents of Grafton Township have pleaded with, and finally sued, the Grafton Township Board of Trustees to delay the construction until a referendum could be placed on the ballot concerning this important matter.

Over a period of many months, the Grafton Board of Trustees refused to halt the project necessitating the litigation.

The Appellate Court sided with the residents on all issues in the Court’s 12 page published Opinion.

Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore, who has been steadfastly opposed to the Town Hall construction project, has been continuously thwarted by the actions of the majority of the Trustees, which led to the recent resignation of Township Attorney, Joseph Gottemoller.

The continued refusal of the majority of the Grafton Township Trustees may well lead to additional litigation against the Township in order that the residents may see certain financial and other documents relating to various expenditures over the past 4 years.

James Bishop, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the “town hall” litigation has recently filed a Freedom of Information request with the Township Clerk, Dina Frigo, and has indicated that should the Trustees continue to refuse to provide such financial documentation, another lawsuit will be forthcoming.

Among financial documentation sought by Bishop are annual

• Township audits for the years 2006-2009, 
• monthly bank statements, check registers, 
• contracts relating to the sale of the existing township property, 
• contracts and other documentation. 

By law, the township is required to respond to Bishop’s FOI request early next week.

= = = = =
Seen at the Grafton Township meeting when attorney Joe Gottemoller rendered his resignation are, from left to right, Township Clerk Dina Frigo, Township Trustees Rob LaPorta, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon. Trustee Barbara Murphy has her back to the camera. Township Supervisor Linda Moore was medically indisposed. If you wish, you can read Gottemoller’s parting advice to the board.

An all-female panel of Illinois’ Second Appellate Court ruled today that McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Michael Caldwell was right when stopped the building of a new Grafton Township Hall which was approved without public notice or vote by Supervisor John Rossi and his four-member township board.

In the too little, too late category was a September 17th letter from the four Grafton Township trustees’ attorney, Jim Kelly, offering to settle the suit in exchange for next year’s fall referendum on the subject.

Grafton Township taxpayers Dan Ziller, Richard and Tamera Lueth, Tom Halat, Frank Kearns and Township Supervisor candidate Linda Moore filed the original suit.  Moore withdrew from the suit when she was sworn into office.

Justice Ann Jorgensen delivered the opinion with Justices Susan Hutchison and Mary Seminara-Schostok concurring.

Jorgensen and Seminara-Schostok were in Crystal Lake recently attending the Nunda Township Republican Picnic.  They are both appointed justices running for their first ten-year term. 

Justice Susan Hutchison is a resident of Crystal Lake. 

Crystal Lake attorney Jim Bishop represented the winning side.
= = = = =
The photo is from the Nunda Township Republican Picnic.  You see McHenry County Republican Party Chairman and State Rep. Mike Tryon posing with Jorgensen and Schostok.

Sometimes my almost 12-year old uses the term

That’s supposed to make it all better.

Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t.

While Jim Kelly, the attorney for Grafton Township Trustees, used more lawyerly like language, that was his message to McHenry County Circuit Court Judge Michael Caldwell.

He told the judge that the trustees had been trying to comply with the judge’s instructions to start over with the issues in question. The way the trustees interpreted what Caldwell ordered was that

if they gave proper notice at a township board meeting, they could go ahead with the financing, letting contracts and building of the new town hall.

Kelly said his clients were trying to follow the judge’s instructions in placing three items on last Thursday’s meeting to get the new $5 million (cost including interest) township hall off the ground.

“You said to start over at base one. That’s what they did,” Kelly explained.

“That’s (a misunderstanding). If it isn’t authorized at the April township meeting (it isn’t proper),” Caldwell explained.

So, the judge was referring to the necessity of the electors to approve the construction of a new building at the annual town meeting, while the trustees were trying to cure what the judge concluded was the lack of adequate notice at the meeting of the township board when it approved borrowing money.

“That was not my intention,” Caldwell said. “The annual township meeting was ‘base one.’

“I’m not going to remove the injunction.

“The individual members of the township board are enjoined from

• approval of a building
• construction
• approval of debt

The trustees have appealed the original injunction. Kelly said he would include the one about the agenda in the same appeal.

Bishop questioned whether Kelly could represent the board, since he had not been appointed by newly-sworn in Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore. Kelly replied that it was not proper to consider that question at this hearing.

The township trustees rejected Moore’s nomination of Richard Flood to be township attorney to replace Kelly, whom Moore had dismissed when she took office last week.

There was also questions about whether the township as a corporate entity or the trustees should be the defendant. The injunction, the judge pointed out, was against the trustees as individuals.

Plaintiff attorney Jim Bishop wanted to put the question of whether the township is allowed by law to borrow money for more than ten years without a referendum. The debt certificates issued with inadequate public notice were repayable over a 20 year period.

State law in 60 ILCS 1/85-10(b) states,

“A township may construct a township hall under contracts providing for payment over a period of time of not more than 10 years.”

But the hearing Thursday morning didn’t go in that direction.

Attending the hearing were plaintiff taxpayers Dan Ziller, Sr., Rick and Tammy Lueth, Frank Kearns and Linda Moore. None of the trustees showed up.

More than 100 residents have filed a petition asking for a referendum in the fall 2010 general election, but Township Clerk Dina Frigo has not yet filed it with the county clerk.

= = = = =
If you are interested in this article, you might be interested in

The Skunk, the Meerkats and the Elephant – Part 1

The Skunk, the Meerkats and the Elephant – Part 2

The Skunk, the Meerkats and the Elephant – Part 3

We last left the Grafton Township melodrama the court hearing on Dan Ziller, Jr.’s request for an injunction to halt the building of a Grafton Township Hall.

The weekend before Judge Michael Caldwell ruled against the township, my computer’s hard drive crashed, putting me out of business for a week.

The township trustees seeking to build the town hall, which will cost over $5 million (including interest) over a twenty year period, apparently didn’t take the judge seriously.

Here’s what they put on the agenda:

• Approval of building/ construction of Township Hall at the Halagus Road property.
• Approval of an Ordinance authorizing and providing for an installment agreement for the purpose of paying for the cost of building and equipping a facility for use by the Township and authorizing and providing for the issue of $3,500,000 Debt Certificate.
• Approving and ratifying Ordinance No. 07-1708-0, an Ordinance authorizing and providing for an installment purchase agreement for the purpose of paing for the cost of building and equipping a facility for use by Grafton Township and providing for the issue of $3,500,000 in Debt Certificates.

Ziller’s attorney Jim Bishop went to court today.

Because newly sworn in Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore dismissed Township Attorney Jim Kelly when she took office Monday, re-elected Township Trustee Betty Zirk and newly-sworn in Trustee Jerry McMahon, who was elected with Moore’s support, hired Kelly with their own money to represent their position that the township hall should be built.

The two trustees, plus ex-Township Supervisor John Rossi were in the courtroom.

Moore, who because she is now township supervisor, was added as a defendant in the suit.

Previously, she was on Ziller’s side of the case.

After arguments from both attorneys, Caldwell enjoined the township board from taking up the three contested three items on the agenda.

They were “tap dancing around” his previous order was the way the judge put it.

He told the trustees that any violation could result in their being held in direct criminal contempt of court.

There is a wild card in this deck.

Now that Moore is a defendant, what is to stop her from agreeing with those asking the township hall not be built.

I image Moore might be asking some lawyer other than Bishop that question at some point.

There was a township board meeting tonight.

It will be interesting to find out what happened, don’t you think?

In the midst of this chaos, what would happen if an opponent of township government found some lawyer to draft a petition to abolish Grafton Township?

After all, it would only take a couple of hundred signatures to put the question on the ballot.

I would point out that in Southern Illinois township government does not exist, but road districts do. I assume the men who are road commissioners down there are elected like township road commissioners are up here.

If Grafton Township were voted out of existence, county government would take over the assessing and other township duties.

How do you think people watching this township board that wants to build a township hall that will cost them over $5 million without asking their permission would vote?

Just asking.

= = = = =
Dan Ziller, Jr., is in the head shot on the top right of the article.

Grafton Township Trustee Betty Zirk is seen explaining the new township hall at the annual meeting. Fellow Trustee Jerry McMahon is seen below in a photo taken at the annual town meeting.

Below the township map is Linda Moore posing with Milford Brown, a candidate for the Huntley Fire Protection District at Moore’s Huntley Expo booth. You can see her campaign theme:

I ventured into the courtroom of McHenry County Judge Michael Caldwell yesterday to hear arguments over whether the Grafton Township Board should be allowed to build a new $3.5 million (plus over $1.5 million in interest) township hall and garage on Haligus Road in Lake in the Hills.

Regular readers will remember newly-elected Township Supervisor Linda Moore narrowly beat one-term incumbent John Rossi on that issue.

Yesterday was the hearing to decide whether the preliminary injunction should be made permanent.

Prior to the Republican primary election in which Moore won, township electors filed a petition asking for a referendum on whether or not to build a new town hall.

Two days after the primary election, the township board scheduled, then, canceled a meeting.

After the April 7th general election, the annual town meeting was held at which the tie vote of 70-70 resulted on a motion to build a new township hall. Because of the tie vote, the motion was announced to have failed.

A second vote to authorize the board to enter into construction contracts passed 70-64, as six new township hall opponents had left the meeting between that vote.

With the original judge in the case, Maureen McIntyre, out of the courthouse, her work was assigned to Caldwell.

Township Attorney Jim Kelly tried to convince the judge that Township Moderator Scott Breeden’s ruling that the 70-70 tie vote did not fail by arguing that those abstaining should be counted with those voting in the affirmative. Township Clerk Dino Frigo testified that 159 electors and 18 visitors signed into the meeting.

He had Frigo testify that Township Road Commissioner Jack Freund, his wife and another person had not voted.

Objectors’ attorney Jim Bishop asked,

“Were electors told by anyone if they did not vote that they would be considered in favor of that resolution?”

Frigo:

“The voters were there to vote.”

Bishop:

“Were electors told by anyone if they did not vote that they would be considered in favor of that resolution?”

Frigo:

“The moderator did not tell them that.”

Later Bishop referred to the argument that abstentions should be counted in the affirmative as “nonsense.”

There were also intriguing arguments punctuated by Clerk Frigo’s not being able to find anything in the minutes saying that either the township board or the electors at an annual town meeting had voted to build a new town hall.

Bishop:

“Is there any other reference in these minutes to the construction of a township hall?”

Frigo:

“I can’t find anything.”

(I would have liked to be able to show you a picture of her flipping through the pages of the minutes in her unsuccessful attempt to find any reference to the township board or electors’ having approved the building of a new township building, but, as you know, cameras are not allowed in McHenry County courtrooms.)

The 2007 annual meeting minutes said the purchase of land and the building of a “site” had been approved.

Township Attorney Jim Kelly tried to rehabilitate (my term, not his) the minutes by eliciting from Frigo what Frigo should have written.

He argued Frigo had made a scrivener’s error.

Counsel for Dan Ziller, Jr., Jim Bishop successfully objected, pointing out the minutes were the official record of the 2007 meeting.

Judge Caldwell observed there had been adequate opportunity to correct the minutes.

Kelly made the same attempt to get the motion on the court record with Township Supervisor John Rossi, who made the (apparently mis-reported) 2007 motion everyone (mainly township officials, it seems) at that meeting supported.

He was apparently ready to use Township Trustee Betty Zirk, but decided to forego the opportunity after not gaining traction with Frigo and Rossi.

The judge ruled that the minutes represented what happened at the 2007 annual meeting.

Bishop argued that township citizens would have no idea that a vote on building a township building would be taken on the July 17, 2008, regular township board meeting at which debt certificates for $3.5 million were authorized.

“No individual could determine that construction of a township hall would be discussed,” he said.

Bishop:

“The agenda didn’t at all indicate the construction or purchase of a new (township hall, did it)? There is not such a reference, is that correct?”

Frigo:

“Yes.”

Bishop:

“The purpose of an agenda is to advise the public as to what will occur at a meeting?”

Frigo: “

I believe so.”

Bishop also put forth that the referendum 109 electors petitioned for in February of this year would have to be held prior to construction of the township hall.

Kelly’s argument was that the statute governing debt certificates (the Local Government Debt Reform Act and the Omnibus Bond Act which incorporated that law) gave the township board the authority to build a new town hall.

I don’t want to misstate what he said, but it seemed to me that it was the public notice of the regular township meeting, although not stating that approval of a new township hall would be on the agenda, was adequate and legally sufficient.

Judge Caldwell wanted to know whether Dillon’s Rule had been violated. Dillon’s Rule says that local governments can’t do anything they are not authorized by state legislation to do.

“The real question is (whether) they have acted lawfully?” he said.

Kelly said the acts he cited gives the township board the power to construct a new township hall.

“There’s no regulation that you give the narrative of what’s in each ordinance (on the agenda),”

he said in rebuttal to Bishop’s argument that the public had no notice of the approval of a new township hall.

Kelly did admit that “in 2007 the electors voted on it, albeit not in a clear manner.”

Commenting on Bishop’s argument that

“the electors’ authority trumps the authority of the township board,”

Kelly said,

“That’s just not the case.

“If they want to have a referendum, God bless them. The clerk will put it on the ballot for the next general election.”

Kelly then said,

“That bond before you requires no additional taxes.”

I would refer you to this “Message of the Day” for a rebuttal which Bishop was not able to pry into the record.

“Taxes will not be raised above the Tax Cap,” Kelly continued.

“What was the function of the vote at the town (meeting)?” Caldwell asked.

“It is was advisory,” Kelly replied.

“Mr. Bishop’s clients” requested it.

In his conclusion, Bishop rebutted Kelly’s argument that because the project had already started ($288-300,000 has been spent of which $99,000 was for the 3 acre site, according to Rossi’s testimony), that it should be allowed to continue.

The case cited was supported the argument that the doctrine of laches should apply, but Bishop argued it concerned a situation where everything had been out in the open, not the situation with the new Grafton Township Hall.

“They don’t have the underlying authority to build a township hall,” Bishop said.

“There are no notices applying,” Bishop stated.

“(This is) the biggest thing this township has ever done.”

Regardless, Kelly argued the court the township had such authority and the court had no authority to enjoin this “legislative action” of the township board, even though early on Caldwell had suggested the township lawyer had waived that argument by not bringing it up at the first hearing before Judge McIntyre.

A ruling will be announced next Monday.

= = = = =
The top photo shows the vote when Scott Breeden was being elected moderator of the Annual Town Meeting.

Breeden and Grafton Township Clerk are shown counting the vote that ended in a 70-70 vote tie.

Grafton Township Clerk Dina Frigo’s head is seen next to some of her testimony.

Below are Dan Ziller on the left and Dan Ziller, Jr.,on the right. Both attended the session.

Below Frigo is seen reading the entire 2008 Annual Town Meeting minutes. She testified that she has not yet finished a preliminary draft of the 2009 Town Meeting minutes.

A drawing of the town hall can be found near the bottom of the story.

Besides Frigo, Rossi and Zirk, Linda Moore’s successful running mate for township trustee, Jerry McMahon, was present in the courtroom in support of the new township hall.

When the Illinois Department of Natural Resources announced that the McHenry Locks connecting the lower Fox River to the Chain of Lakes would be closed Mondays and Tuesdays, along with fewer hours the rest of the week, Crystal Lake attorney Jim Bishop got activated.

He produced a petition aimed at the McHenry County Board that said,

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the McHenry County Board and the Fox Waterway Agency to join with us to protest the recent actions of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES whereby the locks maintained on the Fox River, at the William G. Stratton/Thomas A. Bolger Lock & Dam will be closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, commencing May 1, 2009 and other operating hours reduced during the 2009 summer boating season.

The closure of the locks will have a substantial negative effect on many businesses adjacent to the Fox River which depend upon summer boat traffic for a substantial part of their annual income.

The reduction in gross income of those businesses will result in a substantial loss of general sales tax revenues to McHenry County, the municipalities affected and the State of Illinois.

The closure of the locks will greatly affect the recreational activities offered by the Fox River to thousands of boating enthusiasts.

Bishop told me that the county board members he has contacted are receptive to his message and that McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler is going to propose a resolution to the McHenry County Council of Governments.

If you would like to print a copy of the petition, you can find it here.

Grafton Township’s Annual Town Meeting seemed to have the 140 electors providing a mixed message:

• A motion to approve building a new township complex failed by a vote of 70-70 (ties fail).
• A vote to let the contracts to construct the building passed 70-64.

Right then, I figured only a court case could stop the building of a new town hall and garage because all of the current and newly-elected township trustees, even incoming Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s running mate Jerry McMahon, were visibly in favor of the proposal.

After McHenry County Circuit Judge Maureen McIntyre entered her Temporary Restraing Order April 16th at attorney Jim Bishop’s request, she observed that, having seen the pleadings, the attached affidavits and exhibits, the plaintiffs had

• “a protected interest” and were
• “likely to succeed on the merits of their complaint.”

You can read the Temporary Restraining Order issued April 16th yourself by clicking on the images below. That action will enlarge them; same with other images.

That doesn’t sound too good for the folks that want to build a new township hall, does it?

Let’s examine what was presented the judge.

There were minutes from the April 10, 2007 Annual Town Meeting in which

“Moderator Kelly called a motion to grant authority to the township board to purchase real estate property for the purpose of constructing a new Township site.” (Emphasis added.)

No mention of authorizing the construction of a new building.

Note that the word “site” is used. Under no use of that word I have ever heard does “site” mean “building.”

A year late on April 8, 2008, the only mention on the subject is the following:

“Dan Ziller, Sr., requests the following be placed in the official record:

“Any sale of property, any negotiations or transactions (Road District/township) the public must be notified.”

The question of constructing a new building was put to the electors this year and it failed 70-70.

While the motion asking whether to let the construction contracts was passed 70-64, it seems to me that approval of building a new town hall has to come before letting the contracts.

As Bishop told me,

“Somebody’s got to approve that.”

So far, nobody has, except the township board.

On top of that, a petition has been filed requesting a referendum on the question. That was on February 27, 2009, and not a word was mentioned of it at the town meeting.

The suit, with lead plaintiff being unsuccessful write-in candidate for township trustee Daniel G. Ziller, Jr., asserted that a new township hall may not be constructed without referendum approval at the polls.

Bishop says it is “mandatory that the township clerk shall file the petition for the referendum at the next general election.”

That would be in November, 2010, guaranteeing a large turnout.

So, where are things now?

The so far successful suit asserted that the “Electors,” not the township board have the power to regulate “the use of corporate property” and further

“requires a township desiring to build a town hall and when said town must borrow money and issue a bond for that purpose, Electors must present the issue to an Annual Meeting of Electors and authorize a referendum on the bond issue.”

In other words, no approval by the Electors at a town meeting or in a referendum, no authorization for the township board “to enter into contracts for the construction of a town hall as required by statute.”

Of course, no referendum was conducted.

Indeed, Rossi stressed that in bold face type in his post card to voters, which you can see here (click to enlarge the image and click here to see my analysis of its contents, especially his claim that one can pay off $3.5 million without people’s paying more taxes than they otherwise would have paid).

But, Rossi and his township board plowed ahead with his plans and Moore started asking the question

seen on her banner at last weekend’s Huntley Chamber of Commerce Expo.

Opposition to the new $3.5 million (plus over $1.5 million interest) township hall and garage, of course, was made the cornerstone of Linda Moore’s narrow, 30-vote victory over one-term incumbent John Rossi.

The Temporary Restraining Order entered by McIntyre will prevent the board from letting contracts to build the new township hall.

The next court date, at which Bishop will try to convince the judge to make the restraining order permanent, will be held Monday, April 27th.

Other plaintiffs are Richard F. Lueth, Tamara Lueth, Thomas Halat, Frank Kearns and David Moore.

Here’s what it will look like.

The 1,500 foot tower that BMB Communications Management’s John Maguire, Jason and Ron Bradshaw want 3.6 acres of McHenry County College land to build upon.

BMB proposes to pay the college a definite $5 million and maybe as much as $6 million.

People from virtually every place in McHenry County into surrounding counties and Wisconsin will be able to see it.

The lights will radiate 30 miles at night, “if you’re looking for it,” as Maguire put it.

Maguire is a good salesman. He disarms potential opponents by agreeing that if he were in their place he would be concerned.

Think pilots.

Bob McCormick, a pilot and structural steel worker in college, pointed out the Eiffel Tower is two-thirds the size of the proposed tower.

“If the business plan fails, it’ll be pug ugly,” he said after pointing out that the World Trade Center had been “taken down by two airplanes.”

“It’ll be like the Motorola plant in Harvard, the empty stores in Crystal Lake.”

He revealed that most pilots fly 600 and 800 feet above the surface. Because of O’Hare, other traffic has to go at low levels to avoid commercial planes.

“The problem with the tower lighting, those lights appear in a field of lights, he explained later.”

Other extremely high towers are in the middle of nowhere where they are easy to see, he said.

“With the local airport, we’re not going to get that done. With the local pilots’ support, we won’t get that done,” Maguire replied

“I know that.

“You’re going to get a whole lot of bites at this apple.”

Maguire brought in two experts to answer the technical questions, radio engineer Alan Kirschner and Professional Engineer Ernest (Ernie) Jones.

Both seemed competent, having worked on some of the biggest tower projects in the country.

Kirschner displayed this slide, which seems a bit out of focus, but makes the point about the value of the MCC site.

FM stations or potential stations that now reach 200,000 or so listeners would be able to reach about 3 million people within the blue circled area.

And radio is all Maguire talked about tonight until after I told him that people without cable television were thinking they might get better over the air reception, if his tower were constructed.

Would television stations be able to send a signal from his tower?

“Not unless they (the TV stations) pay,” the entrepreneur told me.

But he said that having learned that Rockford’s and Chicago’s TV signals faded out in McHenry County, “I’ll go call those TV stations now that I know.”

And there will be “no limitation on the number of stations, except structural capacity,” which I think he said was 11.

I also asked Maguire if cell phone companies could locate their equipment on his tower.

The answer was “Yes,” which just might explain why T-Mobile dropped its request for a cellular tower in Crystal Lake’s Ken Bird Park.

Trustee Scott Summers asked if there were any other uses, suggesting Defense, Homeland Security and several others.

“Any use imaginable,” Maguire replied.

“Would it be possible for the college to share in those revenue streams?”

“No.”

Summers also said he felt “strongly about the money com(ing) to the college,” rather than the college’s foundation.

After I made the same point in the 3 minute public comment I was allowed after all the questions by board members (who have been talking about the matter since February 28th of last year), Board President George Lowe said,

“I think the board agrees.”

I also suggested that the board should not make a final decision the Thursday after next at its regular board meeting.

I feel strongly that a deal of this magnitude needs time to percolate among the citizenry.

Should the sixth million go by the wayside, if BMB doesn’t find a fifth broadcaster within five years, for instance?

Who knows how long this economic slump is going to continue.

Two citizens were forthright in their support. One was Jim Bishop, who handled legal work for the zoning for the other towers next to McHenry County College and engineer Loren Burkett.

The last question was probably the most incendiary.

The closest resident to the tower speaking, Jerry Welsh, said,

“This is going to be a beautiful terrorist target. How are you going to protect it?”

Macguire seems resigned to the possibility.

“If someone wants to (blow out one of the three support legs), there’s no way we can stop it.

“How can we protect anything?” he continued philosophically.

“We can put cameras on it, but we’ll just get to see him blowing it up.”

Earlier board member Donna Kurtz asked how close various infrastructure was.

The answers were:

• 1,000 feet to the railroad tracks
• 1,100 feet to the nearest MCC building
• 700 feet to Route 14
• 200 feet to the Com Ed high power lines

P.E. Jones stressed that the tower was being designed to prevent a catastrophic layout collapse, seen above.

Of the three candidates on the ballot for the April 7th MCC board election, only one attended the meeting. Mary Miller, a trustee up for re-election was one absent.

Only challenger John Darger was there.

He pointed out that local residents could have a win-win outcome or a lose-lose outcome. In the lose-lose scenario, the college would have sold off land that it needed and the FM radio stations would be blasting “slock across our landscape.”

“I’m not hostile to the idea,” he said, noting he was just trying to show both sides.

Darger had more than three minutes to contribute, but was cut off by Board President George Lowe, as he was saying that he would like to see the college have a radio station of its own.

Safety concerns were raised, most prominently by Board member Summers.

A former Armed Forces radioman Mike Toyler commented, “This amount of power is nothing. This will not impact life safety or (cause) biological concerns.”

= = = = =
The images are referenced in the text of the article except for the two schematic drawings of the tower. The one on the left shows how it will sway in the wind. The triangle is a view from either above or below. In any even the tower will have three legs.

Here’s what it will look like.

The 1,500 foot tower that BMB Communications Management’s John Maguire, Jason and Ron Bradshaw want 3.6 acres of McHenry County College land to build upon.

BMB proposes to pay the college a definite $5 million and maybe as much as $6 million.

People from virtually every place in McHenry County into surrounding counties and Wisconsin will be able to see it.

The lights will radiate 30 miles at night, “if you’re looking for it,” as Maguire put it.

Maguire is a good salesman. He disarms potential opponents by agreeing that if he were in their place he would be concerned.

Think pilots.

Bob McCormick, a pilot and structural steel worker in college, pointed out the Eiffel Tower is two-thirds the size of the proposed tower.

“If the business plan fails, it’ll be pug ugly,” he said after pointing out that the World Trade Center had been “taken down by two airplanes.”

“It’ll be like the Motorola plant in Harvard, the empty stores in Crystal Lake.”

He revealed that most pilots fly 600 and 800 feet above the surface. Because of O’Hare, other traffic has to go at low levels to avoid commercial planes.

“The problem with the tower lighting, those lights appear in a field of lights, he explained later.”

Other extremely high towers are in the middle of nowhere where they are easy to see, he said.

“With the local airport, we’re not going to get that done. With the local pilots’ support, we won’t get that done,” Maguire replied

“I know that.

“You’re going to get a whole lot of bites at this apple.”

Maguire brought in two experts to answer the technical questions, radio engineer Alan Kirschner and Professional Engineer Ernest (Ernie) Jones.

Both seemed competent, having worked on some of the biggest tower projects in the country.

Kirschner displayed this slide, which seems a bit out of focus, but makes the point about the value of the MCC site.

FM stations or potential stations that now reach 200,000 or so listeners would be able to reach about 3 million people within the blue circled area.

And radio is all Maguire talked about tonight until after I told him that people without cable television were thinking they might get better over the air reception, if his tower were constructed.

Would television stations be able to send a signal from his tower?

“Not unless they (the TV stations) pay,” the entrepreneur told me.

But he said that having learned that Rockford’s and Chicago’s TV signals faded out in McHenry County, “I’ll go call those TV stations now that I know.”

And there will be “no limitation on the number of stations, except structural capacity,” which I think he said was 11.

I also asked Maguire if cell phone companies could locate their equipment on his tower.

The answer was “Yes,” which just might explain why T-Mobile dropped its request for a cellular tower in Crystal Lake’s Ken Bird Park.

Trustee Scott Summers asked if there were any other uses, suggesting Defense, Homeland Security and several others.

“Any use imaginable,” Maguire replied.

“Would it be possible for the college to share in those revenue streams?”

“No.”

Summers also said he felt “strongly about the money com(ing) to the college,” rather than the college’s foundation.

After I made the same point in the 3 minute public comment I was allowed after all the questions by board members (who have been talking about the matter since February 28th of last year), Board President George Lowe said,

“I think the board agrees.”

I also suggested that the board should not make a final decision the Thursday after next at its regular board meeting.

I feel strongly that a deal of this magnitude needs time to percolate among the citizenry.

Should the sixth million go by the wayside, if BMB doesn’t find a fifth broadcaster within five years, for instance?

Who knows how long this economic slump is going to continue.

Two citizens were forthright in their support. One was Jim Bishop, who handled legal work for the zoning for the other towers next to McHenry County College and engineer Loren Burkett.

The last question was probably the most incendiary.

The closest resident to the tower speaking, Jerry Welsh, said,

“This is going to be a beautiful terrorist target. How are you going to protect it?”

Macguire seems resigned to the possibility.

“If someone wants to (blow out one of the three support legs), there’s no way we can stop it.

“How can we protect anything?” he continued philosophically.

“We can put cameras on it, but we’ll just get to see him blowing it up.”

Earlier board member Donna Kurtz asked how close various infrastructure was.

The answers were:

• 1,000 feet to the railroad tracks
• 1,100 feet to the nearest MCC building
• 700 feet to Route 14
• 200 feet to the Com Ed high power lines

P.E. Jones stressed that the tower was being designed to prevent a catastrophic layout collapse, seen above.

Of the three candidates on the ballot for the April 7th MCC board election, only one attended the meeting. Mary Miller, a trustee up for re-election was one absent.

Only challenger John Darger was there.

He pointed out that local residents could have a win-win outcome or a lose-lose outcome. In the lose-lose scenario, the college would have sold off land that it needed and the FM radio stations would be blasting “slock across our landscape.”

“I’m not hostile to the idea,” he said, noting he was just trying to show both sides.

Darger had more than three minutes to contribute, but was cut off by Board President George Lowe, as he was saying that he would like to see the college have a radio station of its own.

Safety concerns were raised, most prominently by Board member Summers.

A former Armed Forces radioman Mike Toyler commented, “This amount of power is nothing. This will not impact life safety or (cause) biological concerns.”

= = = = =
The images are referenced in the text of the article except for the two schematic drawings of the tower. The one on the left shows how it will sway in the wind. The triangle is a view from either above or below. In any even the tower will have three legs.