For $35 you can meet and mingle with those who support Lakewood’s Tom Wilbeck for McHenry County College Board.
On his invitation, Wilbeck stresses,
The event will be held at the London Club, which is across the street from 1776, on March 14th.
Details are below:
The top of the Jan. 30th Tribune article.
David McSweeney knows how to pick ‘em.
And Jack Franks has been a master of gaining publicity for virtually his entire 14-year legislative career.
McSweeney came up with the idea to reform the alternative revenue bond process and had a bill drafted.
The changes he proposes and Franks buys into would give the taxpayer s of McHenry County College a change at defeating ill-conceived projects like the minor league baseball stadium and the proposed health club at the ballot box, rather than paying higher taxes for a couple of decades if the revenue stream identified to pay off non-referendum bonds turns into a trickle.
For those who don’t dip into McHenry County Blog that often, alternative bonds are a method approved by a previous state legislature that allow government entities, such as Lakewood with its early 1990′s golf course purchase, to borrow money for projects without going to referendum.
The premise in Lakewood’s case was that golf course revenues would pay off the bonds.
And who came up with the projections?
It was a golf course management company with no skin in the game.
I feel so personally involved because I and other Lakewood homeowners paid 53% of the cost of an amenity which I have never used.
The alternative bond document forced subsequent village trustees to flay repayments off the hides of us taxpayers.
McHenry County College is now trying to do this in order to build a health club and classrooms.
That addition space will cost a lot more than the now-re-named RedTail Golf Course, although the price per homeowner, if muscled through by the MCC Board and the revenue projected by the health club operator company Power Wellness don’t pan out, would probably be far less than the $500 a year that I remember paying.
There is currently a way that taxpayers can force a referendum when a taxing district like McHenry County College decides to borrow money without asking voters for permission, but the number of signatures needed on a petition is virtually impossible to gather.
In MCC’s case, state law now says that signatures of 7.5% of the registered voters must sign the petition.
That’s 7.5% of 182,766 voters.
Multiply that out.
My hand multiplication tells me that’s 13,709 signatures.
A bit more than the 500 that Jack Franks had to gather to put the County Executive referendum on the ballot, so he can certainly understand the statutory hurdle of those wishing to stop their tax bill from going up because of alternative revenue bonds.
The McSweeney-Franks bill would lower the petition signature number to 5% of the voters or 500 signatures, whichever is less.
The legislative proposal would also increase the length of time to gather those signatures from 30 to 90 days.
That would at least give the taxpayers a chance if the junior college decides it wants to borrow over $40 million without asking voters’ permission.
Besides the Tribune article on Wednesday and mine on Tuesday, the Northwest Herald has one today.
While the Tribune did not make the McHenry County College connection, the NWH did in its first sentence:
“Legislation filed this week in Springfield could make it harder for McHenry County College to fund its proposed expansion.”
And, the sub-headline reads, “The locally sponsored legislation could affect MCC plans.”
The article even mentions RedTail Golf Course.
The Crystal Lake Park District regularly sells bonds without a referendum. That’s how the West Beach House was financed. There are two seats on the Park Board which have no candidates. Two write-ins could win, but candidates have to register their intention to run. Email me if you are interested.
And a commenter under the article “Patrick F” of Cary points out that the Cary Park District was planning to buy a golf course (its second) with bonds not approved by voters. (I believe he is mixing up the power that all park districts and other local tax districts that had non-referendum bonding in 1994–may be a year off. State legislation I actively opposed allowed those with unpaid non-referendum bonds to forever use the amount being paid back in the year in question to finance new borrowing without voter approval. That is how the Crystal Lake Park District is financing its new West Beach House.)
See articles summary of Tribune articles about what happened to Lakewood homeowners here:
Tuesday’s McHenry County Blog article (“McSweeney and Franks Send Shot Across McHenry County College’s Bow) about newly-introduced House Bill 983 can be found here.
The entrance to the Island Lake Village Hall.
Taxpayers in Island Lake are passing petitions to force a vote on whether the Village Board can sell bonds to build a new village hall,
One of them is Jot Ptak, who ran unsuccessfully ran for the Village Board in 2011 and is known nationwide for forcing the League of Women Voters to allow the Pledge of Allegiance at the debate between Joe Walsh and Melissa Bea.
Ptak told McHenry County Blog,
“Many of us are collecting more than enough petition signatures necessary to put this NO NEW VILLAGE HALL referendum on the ballot in November.”
The required number of registered voter signatures for referendum in Island Lake is 78.
The petition will be filed Monday.
The courthouse was re-named the “Government Center” by the McHenry County Board.
A press release from the McHenry County Board:
“The McHenry County Board is accepting applications from individuals interested in appointment to the McHENRY COUNTY PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION.
“Incumbents may apply for reappointment.
“A strong financial background is preferred with engineering and/or architectural experience desirable. One vacant position is available for a 5-year term to expire on September 1, 2017.
“Application forms are available at the County Board Office, Room 209, McHenry County Government Center, 667 Ware Road, Woodstock, IL 60098 (815-334-4221) or at the County’s website at http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/departments/countyboard/PDFDocs/AppointmentApp.pdf.
“Completed applications should be returned to the County Board office no later than 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11, 2012.
“If mailing your application, certified or registered mail is recommended. Mailed applications should be sent to the following address: McHenry County Board, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098.”
= = = = =
This reminds me of my most serious policy disagreement with my father, when he served on the McHenry County Board.
He told me over a weekend meal that the County was going to add onto the Courthouse using the non-referendum power of the County Building Commission.
I reminded him that one of the issues that got him interested in County politics was the County Board’s decision to build the new courthouse without referendum approval.
And, lest anyone be misinformed, the odds are very, very good that those making the appointments want someone who will do what the County Board wants.
A $417,000 “oops” will be considered by the McHenry County Board on February 15th.
The McHenry County Board constructed its new administrative building across the road from the jail, borrowing over $8 million without voter approval.
The finance folks thought that amount, plus interest, had been paid off, so budgeted zero for this year.
But, there was another payment due of $417,174.57.
Three days after it was due, the Bank of New York apparently contacted the county about the delinquency.
The payment was expeditiously paid.
Tuesday, the County Board will pass a resolution providing the paperwork for that final payment of the non-referendum borrowing.
No referendum was held to approve financing for the McHenry County Jail.
The McHenry County Public Building Commission is an under the radar group of people who have been known to issue non-referendum bonds.
That’s the way part of the present courthouse was financed.
In fact, avoiding the voters using this method led to the most serious policy dispute I ever had with my father.
He was on the county board and, as you might guess, my mother, he and I discussed politics and government when we ate together.
Dad told me the county board had decided to use the Public Building Commission to get the money to add on to the courthouse.
I pretty much went ballistic.
Not loud, but I probably did raise my voice when I said something like,
“You did what?”
You see, Dad had staunchly opposed building the new courthouse without a referendum. County board members has been unlawfully accumulating money for years to build it.
In 1967, the first year I was McHenry County Treasurer, I went to the budget meeting and pointed out that the zero balance the Finance Committee under Cary’s G. Watson Lowe leadership wasn’t what I thought would be in the bank on December 1st.
The committee members didn’t care, of course. So what if 10% of the taxpayers eventually got refunds of their county general fund taxes through tax protests of their planned unlawful action.
They had done it for years and just wanted to accumulate enough money to build a new courthouse.
As a private citizen,Dad had fought against building a new courthouse without a referendum.
I could not understand why he had decided that going around the voters was OK this time, but not then.
Let’s get back to the next McHenry County Public Building Commission meeting.
It’s on September 2nd at 3 PM in Room 210 of the Administration Building, also constructed without voter approval.
Among the items of new business is a “resolution to provide for closed (executive) meetings.”
Now, why would they be needing such authority?
To buy land on which to build a new edifice where politicians could have their names appear in bronze?
If so, which politicians have an edifice complex?
It has happened time and time again.
Uppity voters prevent elected officials from doing something they dearly desire.
Or uppity voters punish elected officials and those officials don’t like it.
What do the elected officials do?
They ask their state legislators to ask for the law to be changed so they can get their way, so they can thwart the will of the voters.
I first saw it happen my friend Forrest Hare was Algonquin Township Assessor. It was about 1971.
To set the stage, way back then, township government was the closest thing to direct democracy around. The people attending the annual town meeting actual set the budget.
Uppity township electors (that’s the fancy name for registered voters who attend township meetings) in Algonquin Township did the unthinkable. Hare’s allies directed the township board to do something the majority most definitely did not want to do. They put $500 in the budget (a large amount at the time) to sue McHenry County for discriminating against Algonquin Township taxpayers in the issuing of township multipliers. Algonquin Township property was assessed higher than property in other McHenry County townships.
In neighboring Nunda Township, uppity township electors from Porten’s Subdivision packed the meeting. They were really quite upset that the Nunda Township Road Commissioner would not repair their private subdivision roads.
Well, duh, they were private.
Regardless, that explanation did not wash, because the homeowners knew they were paying township road taxes.
In retaliation for the lack of road assistance, the town meeting’s electors replaced each line item in the township road commissioner’s budget with $1.
That pretty much killed the township road program for the coming year.
So, what did the township officials do?
They went to their statewide lobbying organization, the Township Officials of Illinois, and asked that the power to set the budget be taken away from voters who had gotten uppity.
I’m not sure, but I think that may have been the time when the title of the office of “Township Auditor” became “Township Trustee.”
So much for any legitimate claim that Illinois township government as a “direct democracy.”
One of the few remaining rights of township voters have is to approve borrowing for new township halls at a referendum.
This power was exercised with a vengeance the night of April 13th at the Huntley High School Gym. Over 700 residents showed up in person, proved they were registered voters and told the township trustees that they disagreed with their continuing efforts to build a new township hall or buy and remodel an old factory.
That effort by the township trustees came after Judge Michael Caldwell ruled that their efforts to build a township hall with money not approved by the voters was unlawful. And after the 2nd Appellate Court upheld Judge Caldwell.
Pam Althoff
Mike Tryon
Despite the tidal wave of opposition to building a new township hall in Grafton Township expressed at the Annual Town Meeting April 13th, State Senator Pam Althoff and State Representatives Mike Tryon and Mark Beaubien voted to allow township boards to to lease a township hall or senior center without referendum with funds that are not the proceeds of specified bonds.
Senate Bill 3010.
The bill was introduced before Judge Caldwell’s court decision. It’s sponsored by Bremen Township Supervisor and State Senator Maggie Crotty, a township supervisor, and State Reps. Dan Brady, Kevin McCarthy and Al Riley.
Before the Grafton Township Annual Town Meeting began.
Wouldn’t you think that having seen such an outpouring of public sentiment and with a $3 million township hall referendum on the fall ballot that the state legislators who represent Grafton Township would have voted against such a bill…even if they were allies of the losing side at the township’s Annual Meeting?
Later this week, the township trustees will be in court trying to get Judge Michael Caldwell to kick Township Supervisor Linda Moore out of office. They filed such a motion in response to her Separation of Powers suit.
Here’s the relevant language of the bill:
“Notwithstanding any provision of this Section to the contrary, any township may, by ordinance or resolution, build, purchase, or lease a township hall, a multi-purpose senior center, or a combined township hall and multi-purpose senior center within the township without referendum approval, if the building, purchasing, or leasing of the township hall, multi-purpose senior center, or combined township hall and multi-purpose senior center is paid or provided for with funds that are not the proceeds of bonds authorized under this Article.”
In the Senate the bill passed 39-4 on March 12th. Two months ago.
State Senator Pam Althoff, who represents Grafton Township, voted, “Aye.”
Senate Roll Call on Senate Bill 3010, which takes the power to borrow out of the ballot box and puts into the hands of Township Trustees. Click to enlarge in order to see the large number of state senators who did not cast a vote on this legislation.
The Roll of Honor of those voting against was small. Just four members:
16 state senators didn’t even bother to vote. Were they confused or just didn’t want to get on the wrong side of their local township officials?
Last Wednesday, the bill was on Short Debate in the House. Under that order of business only two people from both sides could speak.
It would not have mattered anyway.
The skids were greased.
98 voted in favor, 19 opposed.
House Roll Call on Senate Bill 3010. Click to enlarge if you want to see the state representatives in whom you might be disappointed.
I’ll list the friends of the taxpayers who voted against the bill:
So, much for Republicans being for having referendums before taxes are hiked.
I think it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Governor Pat Quinn will sign the bill. He has not stood up for the “pee-e-e-ple” in a pretty long time…maybe since becoming governor.
Can’t you hear the township trustees soon saying,
“Referendum? We don’t need no stinking referendum!”
The main article in the Chicago Tribune April 27, 2010. Note the artificial turf being laid which was financed by non-referendum bond money
“It’s just a little nothing bill.”
I can hear the words coming out of House Sponsor Roger Eddy to colleagues asking privately what the bill was all about.
Not that I know Eddy. I just know the process.
When you have an important bill, you minimize its impact.
And this is an important bill.
Eddy’s House Bill 6041 is a Tax Eaters’ delight.
School districts have been playing games with Working Cash Fund money for decades.
First, they create an emergency in their own minds. They know they can’t pass a referendum, so they pass an ordinance allowing them to issue bonds without voter approval…unless enough people sign a petition asking for a referendum.
This is called a “backdoor referendum.”
Often this is proposed in the middle of winter when taxpayers can’t go door-to-door collecting signatures.
As you might imagine, I and the democratic process prefer front door referendums.
Why should it be so easy to raise taxes?
It’s not easy to win election.
Which is more important?
I asked attorney Jim Rooney, whose appellate court victory the bill is intended to reverse, what was at stake. (I knew Rooney in a prior legislative life.)
“What’s at stake is the ability of voters to control whether a district goes into debt for building projects.
“You do have the operations and maintenance levy every year for ordinary maintenance and repair. It’s when you go into debt, you’re supposed to ask the people if they want to pay the interest and principal.”
In Cook County, about $150 million is at stake.
And the Tax Eaters are desperate to keep the money.
I can’t wait to see the roll call on this bill listed on the score card produced by National Taxpayers United of Illinois, Jim Tobin’s group.
In McHenry County, NOT ONE of our state representatives stood up for taxpayers.
Jack Franks, Mike Tryon and Mark Beaubien all voted for the bill to make it possible to spend Working Cash Fund money for capital or building purposes.
It zipped through 113-2. Only State Reps. Paul Froehlich and Betsy Hannig voted against it. Both are retiring at the end of the session.
Talk about being asleep at the switch.
Or in the pockets of school districts greedy enough to violate the law.
There was a warning issued by retiring Schaumburg State Rep. Froehlich:
“I see it as an amnesty bill. It’s giving amnesty to those school districts that didn’t follow the law.”
Amnesty not only for the spending of past money, but also for potential personal fines against school board members.
I didn’t mention that before. It not only allows this “money laundering”
Want to know how important the bill was to one school district?
The one featured in the excellent lead story of the Chicago Tribune by reporter Noreen S. Almed-Ullah is the Hinsdale High School District.
That board spend Working Cash Fund money to buy artificial turf.
Makes you wonder how the headline writer at the Tribune could possibly come up with the headline
SCHOOLS IN A SQUEEZE
The headlines below were more relevant:
Districts
skirt law
to fund
projects
and
Schools sell cash bonds
without going to the voters
I’ve never seen a Working Cash Fund proposal that I’ve liked.
Here's the process some school districts are using to "launder"m (as one unnamed school board member put it) their Working Cash Fund money so it can be spent on building projects. Normal repair should be paid out of the Operations and Maintenance Fund.
That’s because school districts have an unlimited number of bites at the apple.
They can drain their Working Cash Fund and immediately create another one.
The worst that can happen is that taxpayers will get angry enough to force a referendum.
If they lose such a referendum, they can immediately start over or decide to lay in the weeds until things quiet down again.
At tonight’s 7 PM Lakewood Village Board meeting, the following is on the agenda:
Motion to Approve Ordinance 2010-(04) – An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of up to $8,550,000 Waterworks and Sewerage Revenue Bonds (Sales Taxes and Revenue Sharing Receipts Pledge) and Alternate Revenue Source Bonds (In Lieu of Such Revenue Bonds) of the Village of Lakewood, McHenry County, Illinois, to Finance and Refinance Waterworks and Sewerage System Improvements.
It’s difficult to tell from what’s on the agenda, but, whenever I see the words “alternative revenue (source) bonds,” my memory starts twitching.
Another item of the agenda is the reason:
Motion to Approve Ordinance 2010-(03) – An Ordinance Abating Taxes Levied to Pay Principal of and Interest on Certain General Obligation Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source) Series 1998, of the Village of Lakewood.
Red Tail Golf Club Trailer Club House owned by the Village of Lakewood
Those “Alternative Revenue Source” bonds cost residents in the old part of Lakewood something like $500 a year during the 1990′s. The bigger homes paid a lot more.
They were issued to buy what is now called the Red Tail Golf Course.
When I, Roger Reed and Jim Bishop attended what we thought was the significant board meeting, we brought up three points.
Former Village Trustee Reed said that he didn’t think village government should be competing with private enterprise by being in the golf club business.
Attorney Bishop pointed out that golf courses throughout the area were in financial troubles and wondered why Lakewood would want to enter such a business.
I asked, “Is this ever going to cost me a dime?”
Board members assured me it would not because the borrowing would be a revenue bond, that is, it would be repaid from the revenue from the golf course.
But, later, some swifty bond salesman told the village board members that bonds backed by property taxes, as well as greens fees would come with a lower interest rate.
Big surprise there, right?
Or, as my 12-year old would say, “Dah?”
And the village board took the bait and issued revenue bonds backed by greens fees and, just in case – don’t you know? – if the greens fees weren’t enough to pay off the bonds, higher property taxes would fill in the void.
As far as I can figure out, the quest for a lower interest rate led the more current village board to agree to a similar arrangement a couple of years ago, when the sewage treatment plant was expanded.
Now, growth has slowed to a crawl and interest rates have fallen as well.
So, the question tonight is whether to pay off the current revenue bonds, backed by property taxes, just in case there is not enough sewer and water fees to pay off the current bonds, and issue new bonds—also with a property tax backup—but at a lower interest rate and stretched out 25 years, five more than originally.
And, the 1998 alternative revenue bond abatement?
With the economy the way it is, my guess is that the golf course tax will appear within next year’s Lakewood village real estate tax bill.
Going down the drain by an almost 2-1 margin is the attempt of the Marengo-Union Grade School District 165 School Board to hike its non-referendum borrowing limit by almost four times.
Details on the proposal can be found here.
Here are results that are as good as final. Adding in early and absentee votes will make no difference in the outcome.
| Precincts Reporting | 9/9 | 100.00% | |
|
|
|||
| YES | 665 | 36.48% | |
| NO | 1158 | 63.52% | |
Latest Posts
