McHenry County Blog

For the second time, District 5 Republican non-incumbents have joined forces to put out a mailing.

You can see the first combo here and the one in the mail below.

The back of the mailing features Skala:

The two incumbents running for re-election are John Jung and Tina Hill.

The four Republicans home to defeat Democratic Party incumbent Paula Yensen.

When I got the mail today I noticed a piece from District 5 GOP candidates Mike Skala and Mike Rein.

Wow, I thought, they surely have a bad mailing list.

After I got inside, I figured out there was no address on the piece.

Skala ran first in the Republican Primary Election and Rein ran fourth, edging out incumbent Virginia Peschke.

Incumbents Tina Hill and John Jung ran in between.

The four GOP candidates divided up the precincts and passed out literature for all four.

Hill told me District 5 was the only one where the Republican County Board candidates were running a coordinated campaign.

Now, I’m wondering.

The piece from Skala and Rein tout

• Lower taxes
• Policies that promote business and jobs
• Fiscal accountability and balanced budgets
• Transparency
• Protection of natural resources

And, there’s a nice quote from Senator Pam Althoff:

“A blend of experience veterans an new ideas is a benefit to government, and Mike Skala and Mike Rein can provide new ideas.”

On the back are maps showing where people can vote early, plus an endorsement from State Rep. Mike Tryon.

The following email was sent to Cary Park District Executive Director Dan Jones by Michael Rein:

Dear Mr. Jones:

Having had the opportunity to discuss the possibility of the Cary Park District purchasing Chalet Hills Golf Course with many park district residents, I offer the following:

Virtually all those I have spoken with have concurred that for a variety of reasons, it is inappropriate for the Park District to purchase a business, albeit a golf course.

With the exception of some residents of Chalet Hills, virtually all others feel it is inappropriate for a unit of government to compete with entrepreneurs, investors and other entities that typically would purchase a golf course.

Owning a golf course that a small percentage of area residents would utilize, raises the scope of recreation provided to a level that a local park district need not provide.

Certainly a sufficient number of both public and private courses exist within that area that residents can utilize.

Several residents have raised concerns regarding area privately owned courses having to compete against publicly owned courses and question where this will stop.

Where there are some things that a populous can better accomplish working together such as parks for children and programs for seniors, at what point does it all stop?

If the Park District concerns itself with golf, should it not too provide (underwrite) other adult recreational activities such as sky diving, scuba diving and perhaps motocross?

How about a shooting range?

Many feel such a purchase is speculative at best, and creates an unnecessary fiduciary risk to property owners.

One only has to consider the numerous golf courses within fifteen or so miles of Cary that have been and are currently in foreclosure.

Most conflicting, is the fact that commissioners, have the ability to golf for free.

Certainly it would be reasonable for commissioners to play for free if they were representing the Park District at an event or perhaps a round or two per year, but carte blanche!

This seems to be a conflict of interest, and impropriety!

At the last meeting, one commissioner stated the Park District had not increased their levy. The amount has been the same for the past twenty years!

Where this may be true regarding the percentage of the value of real estate that governmental bodies such as the Park District collect, although value of much of the real estate in the Park District has depreciated to values of nearly two decades ago, entities such as the Park District continue to enjoy revenue based on the peak values of 2006.

This is evidenced by the fact that the levy is independent of real estate value trends, and do not take into consideration the decline of value in property over the same period.

Vis-a-vis, although real estate values in many areas of the Park District territory now are at levels from nearly two decades ago, the Park District and other governmental bodies collect revenue based on peak values of 2005/2006 along with annual percentage increases allowed under Illinois law.

Another concern expressed by numerous residents, is the fact that property owned by a governmental entity will be removed from the tax roles with the burden then distributed among privately owned real estate resulting in yet another increase in the amount of real estate taxes paid.

As an area Real Estate broker in the Cary area for over thirty years, I have had the opportunity to interact with many property owners, or perhaps a more appropriate term, is property owners who are about to be Foreclosed on, and no longer will be property owners.

It is my observation the vast majority of those losing their homes, were at one time were typical Cary area residents with middle class jobs, retirement accounts and children who they have assisted with their education through their savings and often with home equity loans.

These people now found themselves unemployed or underemployed.

They have exhausted their savings doing ‘the right thing” making their mortgage payments as long as they can, and now find themselves living literally day to day, about to to be homeless and without health insurance.

Certainly real estate taxes have been a significant drain on family budgets.

Not only for all the aforementioned reasons, but at a time when we find so many of our neighbors living in a state of crisis, seeking public assistance from sources such as area food pantries, it seems unconscionable that a taxing body that represents a significant portion of our real estate tax bills would, rather than looking for ways to reduce their levy, put area property owners at risk of increased taxes!

Should it be necessary to cover a loss incurred due to ownership of yet another golf course, regardless of the price?

At the Park District meeting last week one commissioner stated that there was not time for an advisory referendum, that a decision had to be made very soon.

I question why there would not be time, for if there is a buyer from the private sector for the golf course, should that buyer be competing with a governmental entity?

If not, why not let the bank currently holding the property continue to have a receiver run the course until such time as a referendum can held?

Respectfully,

Michael Rein
Cary Park District Resident

John Jung and Tina Hill, two of three Republican incumbents are positioned to be re-nominated in today’s primary election, but the third is in fifth place with 44% of the vote counted.

Newcomer Mike Skala holds first place.

Long-time member Virginia Peschke ran first the last primary election, even though she waited until less than two weeks before the election to put out signs.

I didn’t see any signs this year, but didn’t foray far into District 5 at the end of the campaign.

In any event newcomer, Michael Rein is leading her by 8 votes, so this is going to be a nail-biter.

= = = = =

With all of the precinct of McHenry County Board District 5 reporting, but early and absentee votes not having been folded in, newcomer Michael Rein is edging out veteran Virginia Peschke by a mere 26 votes.

Woodstock District 5 challenger Michael Rein relies to the Questionnaire of the Alliance of Land, Agriculture and Water below.

ALAW County Board Candidates Survey: 2012 Primary Election

A. Land Use

1. Do you agree that new development should be located where infrastructure exists, to minimize the extension of new roads, utilities and services, and protect farmland andwater recharge areas? Agree

2. If elected, will you support permanent protection of agricultural land and the
agricultural industry in the Count?  Yes

3. Do you agree or disagree that new rural development costs more for the extension of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer and services) than it brings to the County in taxes and that those extra costs are assed on to the existing taxpayers?  Agree

B. Water Resources

1. Would you oppose any land use change that would exceed a locally recharged
aquifer’s capacity?  Yes

2. If elected will you enforce use of the SARA – Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Areas map developed by the County Water Resources Department, as a determining factor in every land use change decision?  Yes

3. Do you support redistributing groundwater from water-rich areas to areas that have over drawn their groundwater?  No

4. In your 0pinion, will McHenry County ever be able to get Lake Michigan water?  No

C. The Role of Count Government

1. Should the county provide support services to municipal governments, for example issuing and enforcing municipal building permits, administering and enforcing the Storm Water ordinance?  No

2. Do you support a county housing program where the county purchases, constructs, remodels, rents, sells homes throughout the count and in municipalities?  No

3. Do you support a county bus program, where the county takes over responsibility for established service between select cities and townships?  Yes

4. Should the county health department report to the county board as opposed to an independent board of directors?  Yes

5. Do you think county government should increase expenditures and the scope of its activities, which will increase taxes to its residents? Yes

Transparency and Commitment

1. County board records indicate that the average number of meetings necessary for attendance by a County Board Member is 8. This includes two full board meetings a month and two meetings a month for each committee (generally three) the member is assigned. Are you able and willing to make the commitment to represent your constituents to this extent? Yes

2. During the last primary election 32 candidates for county offices voluntarily filled out the ALAW initiated Statement of Economic Interests BEFORE the election. This form is now required once you are elected, but we need to know before we elect you. Will you follow suit and file yours with us now? (Form attached with mailing instructions.)  Yes

3. Do you agree that all scheduled county meeting agendas and minutes, including committee and sub-committees, should be posted on the County web site?  Yes

4. Would you have voted to raise the county board members salaries? No

5. Would you have voted to increase the real estate tax levy by 1.5% thus increasing the amount of real estate tax collected by the county by $1.1 ml.?  No

E. Short Answer. Only the number of words indicated will be published in the response report. (please add a page if you need more room, but remember that we can only print the number of words indicated and reserve the right to edit your response for that reason. Thank you.)

1. If you are elected to serve the residents of McHenry County, what external state and local
agencies do you think are important for the county to liaison with and how would you make sure that information is flowing both ways with that agency? If you are currently serving and are an appointed liaison, please tell us what agency you are assigned and how you accomplish effective two-way communication. (50 words)

I think the biggest thing that does need to be addressed is working with our local municipalities about finding ways to keep our groundwater from depleting. Finding programs that work even if its small steps those steps need to be taken just like recycling bins started.

2. By protecting agricultural lands and soil resources, groundwater and its natural recharge can also be protected. What will you do to provide that protection? (50 words)

Providing protection is of utmost importance to our groundwater because without it there is no life to any living thing. I will make sure, the County Board, stay on top of and looking forward to, preserving the groundwater we have and are going to be using in the future.

3. Most municipalities in the county have their own economic development commissions or committees. Economic development has to occur where there is existing infrastructure. The county funds the private McHenry County Economic Development Corporation ($635,985. for the 2009-2012 term) to create development in the county outside of municipalities. Is this a good investment of taxpayer money? (50 words)

I think that there needs to be better over-site ofthe EDC. That goals and planning for the future could be a good asset to the county. However, if the EDC is not producing and being effective than it is not a good investment to the taxpayers.

4. Do you think Fleming Road, Alden Road and other county roads that do not serve highly developed commercial areas, need to be widened and “improved” at this time? (50 words)

No those roads do not need to be widened. The footprint of those roads needs to remain as they are. However those roads need to be repaired as needed and to try to make them last as long as possible from future repairs.

5. What weight should you as a county board member give the opinions of citizens affected by zoning decisions, special use permits and road projects? (50 words)

I think that all the weight should be given to the citizens that are affected by the zoning, permits and road construction. Our county board must always listen to our citizens to help guide us in our decisions.
6. What in your background qualifies you to serve the public as a county board representative and what do you intend to accomplish if elected to the County Board. You may also use this space to provide additional information regarding any of the “yes / no” answers given above. (100 words)

My background of being a Marine Corp Vet, v.p of multi-million dollar construction business, and currently running my own small business gives me a diverse understanding of what the real world is. I will bring common sense solutions to problems whether they are small or of a larger scale. McHenry County must be effective and efficient in all aspects going forward for future generations. I have the leadership, fiscal responsibility and integrity to balance McHenry County growing population in our urban areas but preserving the wide open farmland and conservation areas.

Maybe it’s not tea leaves.

Maybe it’s newspaper clippings to which I should allude.

In any event, the first two McHenry County Board endorsement editorials got me thinking.

McHenry County’s paper of record has suggested dumping

• Board Chairman Ken Koehler in District 2 and
• incumbent Nick Provenzano in District 3.

There is one commonality and that is their having taken part in the secret meeting about district lines that the Illinois Attorney General rules violated the Open Meetings Act.

The two were on opposing sides on the tax hike issue with Koehler leading the majority, while Provenzano vote against levying the maximum amount possible.

That brings me to my first thought.

Five members took part in that secret remap meeting.

One, Marc Munaretto, is not running for re-election.

The other two are on the ballot, however:

• Tina Hill
• John Jung

Both are in District 5.

There are five people running in District 5′s Republican primary election.

Listed in ballot order, they are:

• John Jung, Jr.
• Tina R. Hill
• Virginia D. Peschke
• Michael Rein
• Michael Skala

Will the Northwest Herald refuse to endorse both Jung and Hill?

No more reason to endorse four people for the four spots than there is to vote for four candidates, if only one, two or three turn you on.

Both Hill and Jung also voted to raise tax bills as much as the law allows, as you can see in the article linked to below.  Hill switched her vote to help  break a tie vote on a motion to keep taxes constant.

Will its editorial board say, “We can only recommend three”?

And that brings me to my second reading of the tea leaves.

By not endorsing strong incumbents in District 2 (Koehler) and District 3 (Provenzano) and, maybe only three Republicans in District 5, could the folks at the NWH be setting the stage for endorsing at least one Democrat in Districts 2, 3 and 5?

There are, of course, already Democrats in District 3 and 5,

• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Paul Yensen

Yensen was on the side of the taxpayers on the levy vote.   Schmidt wasn’t.

In District 2, there are two Democrats running.  The first is Jim Kennedy, who was defeated by John Jung in District 5 two years after Yensen defeated Jung.

The second is Ridgefield businessman (The Framery) and almost lifetime resident Jim Roden, who seems poised to run as the “anti-Koehler.”

I’m leaving out District 4, the one that has northern McHenry Township, plus Richmond and Burton Townships in the northeast corner of McHenry County.

A hard-charging Democrat has filed, Mary Margaret Maule.

There are GOP six candidates running there.  None were involved in the secret meeting.

The only one who voted for the tax hike who is running for re-election is Sue Draftcorn.

= = = = =

See “Who Voted to Raise Your County Taxes?“

Driving to the Marengo Business Expo on Saturday my political eyes could hardly avoid the two large political signs on the stretch of Route 47 where it shares space with Route 176.

First was one for District 5 incumbent Tina Hill.

Next was one for District 5 incumbent John Jung.

That night, I attended the McHenry County Young Republicans candidates’ forum for District 52′s three aspirants for office.

And, there I saw something out-of-context.

Although it was to be a debate among Kent Gaffney, Danielle Rowe and David McSweeney, there was this face I recognized as I walked into the MCC auditorium, I couldn’t place him.

Then, he helped me out by handing me the palm card you see below:

It’s clean, crisp and with a four-letter last name easy to comprehend. I note that one both sides of the card, Rein gives his web site address: www.VOTE FOR REIN.com.

Good marketing.

Something that I guess I should not be surprised to see coming from a chiropractor.

There are five people running for four slots on the Republican ballot:

• Tina Hill
• John Jung
• Michael Rein]
• Michael Skala
• Virginia Peschke

The incumbents are Hill, Jung and Peschke.

The four winners to challenge Paula Yensen in her first bid for re-election. Yensen beat Jung in the general election four years ago.

Saturday night’s crowd of candidates also gave opening statements.

And, as on Friday, some targeted like a laser beam on the tax hike issue. (See also Part 1 and Part 2.)

But before beginning, let me remind you of those incumbents who voted to increase the tax levy so much that the tax take from property owners will be as high as allowed by state law.

Those running for re-election are in boldface type.

• Robert Bless
• Scott Breeden
• Sue Draftcorn (a switch)
• Mary Donner
• Jim Heisler
• Tina Hill (a switch)
• John Jung
• Donna Kurtz
• Mary McCann
• Pete Merkel
• Anna May Miller (a switch)
• Marc Munaretto
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ken Koehler

Michael Stanard, running for a spot on the GOP primary ballot drew the first slot to speak and said, “I would [have]voted against an increase in the tax levy.”

District 6 incumbent Diane Evertsen of Hartland Township said, “I voted against an increase in the tax levy. This is exactly the wrong time.”

Coral Township’s Shawn Green, also running in District 6, gave the same message: “I did not support the Board’s decision to increase the tax levy.” While he suggested the levy will have to be increased from time to time, “now is not the time to do it. With no new construction, the slightest increase will lead to an increase in taxes.”

Rachel Smith of Wonder Lake, another District 6 challenger, pointed out she knew the estimates of the average homes tax increase was $8, but

“$8 can help feed my family for a week if I go to Aldi’s.

“The government needs to live within its means.”

Marengo Alderman Corey Brackmann, also running for a District 6 Republican slot, said he didn’t think raising the levy at this time was a good idea.

He pointed out that he had “voted against the proposed increase in the City of Marengo.”

District 5 aspirant Michael Rein of Woodstock added this thought [remember all of this is in the opening statements]:

I also think the tax levy should not have [been] raises. ”

He urged voters to look at how his opponents had voted the last two years, not just this year.

“People who voted against the tax levy also voted to increase their [own] salaries,” he added.

[See

McHenry County Board Votes on Salary Hikes

Voting "No" were

• Virginia Peschke
• Kathy Bergan Schmidt
• Ersel Schuster
• Paula Yensen]

“I was opposed to the increase in the tax levy,”  said David LaGue, the only farmer on the ballot in District 6.

“Workable alternatives [exist].”

He added that it wasn’t a good idea when when the economy was doing poorly.

Huntley School District 158 Board President Mike Skala agreed with everyone up to that point.

“I would not have supported the tax increase,” he said. “I led the effort to keep our levy flat.:

[Afterwards, I asked what that meant. Skala explained that his Board was abating taxes that were levied in order to keep the tax bill flat.

When I asked if that meant the school district could take a 4.5% increase for 2013, he admitted that was the case. (The 4.5% would consist of the 1% CPI increase allowed this year by the Property Tax Cap, plus the 3% allowed next year.)]

Michael Stanard, challenger in District 6, explained,

“I’m in favor actually of reducing the levy.

“The only way for the government to get smaller is to take the money away.

District 6 incumbent Ersel Schuster voted against hiking the tax levy as well. She said that there “should be an outside audit” to identify items that could be cut.

McHenry County Board incumbent Ersel Schuster voted against the tax hike.

She said there “should be an outside audit” to identify unneeded expenditures.

Missing from their forum were

• District 5 incumbent Tina Hill
• District 5 incumbent John Jung, Jr.
• District 5 incumbent Virginia Peschke
• District 6 aspirant Michele R. Aavang
• District 6 incumbent Mary McCann
• District 6 non-incumbent J. Vincent Ranzino

Those who voted for the levy hiking taxes on this year’s bills are in boldface type. The others who did so are mentioned in the articles.

The Young Republicans provided a public service Saturday night by sponsoring a candidates night for McHenry County Board candidates in District 5 and 6.

The Friday night counterpart for District 2, 3 and 4 candidates, on the other hand, had three incumbents who defended their maximization of the tax take from taxpayers.

Only $8 a household was the best defense.

Four incumbents skipping the Saturday night’s affair (tax hikers in boldface type):

• Tina Hill – District 5
• John Jung – District 5
• Virginia Peschke- District 5
• Mary McCann – District 6

There only incumbents from Districts 2, 3 and 4 who missed the Friday night meeting were County Board Chairman Ken Koehler from Crystal Lake and Wonder Lake’s Draffkorn.  Both voted for the tax hike.

I wondered if the absence of those who voted “Yes” for big levy was because the tax hike question asked of District 2, 3, and 4 candidates the night before.

To their credit two of those from District 2 who voted to maximize the tax take, Jim Heisler and Donna Kurtz attended and gave their defenses.  Koehler also voted for the one and one-half percent tax hike, the most allowed by the Property Tax Cap.

In District 3, Mary Donner, who also supported maximizing county taxes, was in attendance defending her vote.

Of the incumbents absent in District 5, Jung supported the tax hike and Hill did not.  Peschke did not cast a vote.

In District 6, incumbent Mary McCann was the only incumbent missing.  She supported the tax hike.

So, when the same question was asked of candidates in District 5 and 6 as was asked of those from District 2, 3 and 4, there was no one on the stage to defend the maximum extraction of taxes possible from us taxpayers.

Do I sense an issue that might have some traction?

= = = = =
The roll calls that might interest you on the tax hike:

Who Voted to Raise Your County Taxes?

Until the end there was no primary election in the Republican Party for District 6.

But toward the end of filing, previously announced candidate Huntley School Board member Mike Skala was standing in the McHenry County Clerk’s Office near the counter where business is transacted.

And, almost at the last minute, he filed his petitions so he could be last on the ballot.

That position is definitely worth extra votes when there are a lot of people on the ballot.

Whether it makes much difference where there four people to be elected from a list of five is debatable.

In any event, here is the order that the GOP candidates will be on the ballot:

• John Jung, Jr.
• Tina Hill
• Virginia Peschke
• Michael Rein
• Michael Skala

The four who make the cut will face incumbent Democrat Paula Yensen.