McHenry County Blog


Archive for the ‘Referendum’

Dorr Township Not Like Grafton, Supervisor Says

March 11, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Barry Lamb, Bob Pierce, Dorr Township, Dorr Township Citizens Planning Committee, Gerry McMahon, Grafton Township, Huntley, Huntley School District 158, Jane Collins, Joseph Evanoff, Larry Oakford, Legat Architects, Mark Andersen, McHenry County, Referendum, Salt Dome, Soil Borings, Steve Kaiser, Sue Brokaw, Ted Andersen, Thomas Thurman, Township Garage, Township Government, Township Hall, Vivian Sodini

Dorr Township Attorney Mark Saladin and Supervisor Bob Pierce

“Filled to capacity” is how one person in attendance last night at the Dorr Township meeting.

The Dorr Township Hall meeting room is small, so that meant about 25 residents were present.

The biggest news was that Supervisor Bob Pierce was granted permission to enter negotiations for the purchase of land, which he said would not be purchased without having a special meeting to get elector approval.

Note that a special meeting is not the same as the annual town meeting, which is usually the best attended meeting of the year.

Pierce said residents “would be surprised.”

Steven Kaiser makes his points.

“Dorr is the fourth largest township with the smallest hall!” he observed.

Legat Architects was also hired to provide “pre-referendum services.”

Public comments came early on with Steve Kaiser, a member of the now-disbanded Dorr Township Citizens Committee, asking about why “soil borings” was changed to “architects.”

Those March 9th soil borings were not presented to the board by the Road Commissioner Tom Thurman because he wanted to seek assistance interpreting them.

With trustees and audience members putting in their two cents about whether the minutes reflected what had occurred at the previous meeting, the exchange got heated.

“This is not going to become another Grafton Township,” Township Supervisor Bob Pierce said.

During the Public Comment section, the Supervisor and Trustees questioned former members of the Dorr Citizens group who presented the petition to rebate taxes. Questions asked included -

1.       How the $1 million number was determined? The officials were told the citizens thought that was the rebate needed to allow a responsible amount to be left over after paying for modifications to garage site and building. After the $1 million rebate, $1.75 million would remain for needed work.

2.       Do you know how difficult and expensive it could be to track down all current and former residents to distribute rebate? Resident Jane Collins explained that in Bourbonnais (a Kankakee County Township) the amount which could not be returned had been given to charitable organizations, after a citizen-initiated motion at an annual town meeting.

Dorr Township Board and attorney

The citizens who proposed the rebate were also asked they thought about the McHenry County Conservation District’s building a visitor center.

Such an argument reminds me of how Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon once listed local governmental entities that had built new administrative facilities—the Huntley School District, the Village of Huntley, McHenry County—as justification for a new Grafton Township Hall.

Township Road Commissioner Tom Thurman suggested some members of the Citizens Committee had “a hidden agenda.” He also said, “We know more than…” the Citizens Committee about what needs to be done.

“You don’t listen to us.”

That prompted a resident Larry Oakford to stand up to chide Thurman, saying his “demeanor is unseemly” and that comments about a hidden agenda were inappropriate. The man also asked about making use of existing space.

Trustee Mark Andersen said the board had been real conservative and was trying to “not drop a bomb on taxpayers.”

The board admitted it had been gradually accumulating funds so they wouldn’t have to go to referendum.

Citizen reading report at the Dorr Township meeting

Everyone knows how hard it is to pass a referendum, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

“The burden is on you to provide a justification about what you do,” Collins suggested, adding that some would say they had been borrowing from the taxpayers without their knowledge and permission since 2002, that what the referendum proposes is a way to pay back some of that loan to the taxpayers.

Thurman said the officials know how to do their job, that citizens shouldn’t be telling them how to do it.

Sue Brokaw, who is bookkeeper and does the General Assistance for Pierce, told the audience they should come to the levy meetings, and so they could do something before the township gets the money instead of complaining about it now.

Board members admitting they had discussed the three building project items “individually” before the meeting.

Vivian Sodini, member of the Dorr Planning Committee, asked why the trustees hadn’t taken the time before last night’s meeting to discuss the details of the recommendations with the committee.

Trustee Joseph Evanoff replied that they didn’t need to because, “We can read.”

When it was revealed that the architects had never been given our report, but had been given a scornful letter written by the one member of the citizens planning committee who thought our only job was to look for land, the audience was stunned. That same member, Ted Anderson, also interviewed architects with Trustee Barry Lamb.

Dorr Township Hall

In discussing one petition question citizens had submitted, it was revealed that the 600 ton capacity included for a new salt shed was based on faulty information. The needed amount being about 4,000 tons, that number was inserted in the question.

“You should have the entire year’s supply” at the start of the season, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

The board decided to put that question to the electors of the annual township meeting.

Members of the disbanded Dorr Township Planning Committee will be allowed make a presentation to electors at the annual meeting, provided they clearly specify they are doing so as electors and not members of the committee.

The meeting will probably be at the High School on South Street in order to hold a larger number of attendees.

Supporters of building a new township hall were also in attendance.

Dorr Township Officials Apparently Planning New Township Hall

March 03, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Dorr Township, Legat Architects, Marc Rohde, Referendum, Township Hall

McHenry County Blog has obtained a February 5, 2010, letter to Dorr Township Trustee Barry Lamb, Sr., from Legat Architects’s Marc Rohde.

Dorr Township Garage Additiion drawing by Legat Architects

Included was a conceptual plan of an expanded highway garage at the current location, but the attachments tell a much more interesting story:

  • Conceptual Design Plan – Highway Garage
  • Referendum Planning Information
  • Referendum cost Information

Silly me. I didn’t know architects were in the referendum business.

But, apparently Legat is.

It touts

  • the 2005 $105 million Woodstock Unit 200 bond referendum
  • the 2000 $24 million Huntley School District 158 bond referendum and
  • the 2002 $19 million Huntley School District 158 bond referendum

That’s only the McHenry County part of a Chicagoland list of 20 referendums totaling over $1.3 billion.

There’s more:

Under “Referendum Planning” is

“A hands-on community engagement process brings together experts in each building type, along with communications and graphics specialists, to create responsive referendum campaigns. Clients range from K-12 school districts and community colleges to park districts and municipalities”

Under “Referendum Consulting Services” appears

“Our senior consultants, ranging from past village presidents to former school superintendents, have extensive referendum to help districts:

  • Develop board/administrative consensus to reflect community need.
  • Integrate pre-referendum strategies with the design process
  • plan and schedule timelines for a successful referendum campaign
  • Develop leadership of a citizens’ committee
  • Create communications strategies and increase public confidence
  • Analyze voting strategies including election day activities

And,

“Our in-house communications and graphic design specialists offer a full range of serves, ranging from 3D presentations to press releases to custom print materials such as direct mailers, posters, and signs.”

“In the last ten years, Legat Architects has assisted education institutions in securing $1.137 billion referendum dollars to fund major building programs.”

Included services?

  • Referendum consulting
  • Master planning
  • Conceptual designated
  • Cost estimating
  • Community presentation facilitation
  • Video fly-throughs
  • Graphic designated
  • Grant writing

And what’s the price?

Dorr Township Hall

Legat says $8,000 will do for starters, plus what appears to be 15%, but I don’t speak architect billing.

How big is the envisioned project?

Here’s the recommended option:

“Option 3 – Upon review of the Township Office site plan, we also feel it is feasible to add on the required space to the existing building, without the need to purchase additional property. As with the previous option, the proposed Highway Garage could be built on the existing site.”

And farther down,

“There is enough room on the current Township Office site to add on the needed spaces, so there is no additional land costs involved. The building can be added onto and renovated at a much lower cost than rebuilding it all new. Finally, the location remains unchanged.”

Oh, yes.

Legat says it will make a “final” presentation to the Dorr Township Board.

That’s after the “Kick-Off / Goal Setting Meeting,” which is just part of “pre-referendum” services.

At least Dorr Township is not trying to avoid a referendum as the Grafton Township Board members did.

Lawrence County Voters Approve County School Sales Tax Hike

February 06, 2010 By: Cal Skinner Category: Daily Record, McHenry County Repubilcan Cat Tax, Paul Powell, Philip B. Benefiel, Referendum, Roger Eddy, Roscoe Cunningham, School Referendum, School Sales Tax, Smell the meat a cookin', Sumner Press

In Southeastern Illinois lies the County of Lawrence. I subscribe to the Sumner Press and saw the ad you see below:

The required referendum passed 1,557 to 1,385, according to Daily Record.

Money collected from the new tax will be distributed to all local school districts in proportion to the number of students in each district.

Once bonds are issued, the tax cannot be abolished until the bonds are paid off.

That, of course, means never.

Two Thursdays before the election (January 21, 2010), one of the local school superintendents wrote this letter to the Sumner Press:

Dear Editor:

Our elected school board members are obligated to assure our community the best possible school systems and facilities, all without excessive burdens on taxpayers. To balance our educational needs and costs is a difficult task.

On February 2, voters of Lawrence County will decide whether a 1% hike in sales tax on certain items (not the most essential) is the best solution to provide much needed improvements and upgrades to our school buildings and facilities.

The referendum on a County School Facility Sales Tax is the result of legislation sponsored by State Representative Roger Eddy and passed by our Legislature which, if approved by our voters, gives us a chance to assure needed improvements to our school facilities (including Lawrenceville High School) and for retiring bonds for Unit 10 construction, without raising taxes on essential items such as groceries, medical drugs and appliances, licensed vehicles, agricultural supplies and machinery, and without raising property taxes.

As taxpayers, we have created a Capital Development Fund which will pay 60% to 70% of the cost of such needed improvements and construction. But if we do not have the necessary “matching funds” (30 or 40% of the costs), our tax money is left on the table for other communities to obtain the facilities we need. The proposed sales tax on other items will provide the needed matching funds.Please attend the Public Forum at the Lawrenceville Central Christian Church this Thursday, January 21, at 5:00 p.m., to hear Rep. Eddy and school officials explain the effect of your vote. Please be an informed voter.

Our community needs, and cannot afford to lose, the educational upgrading and facilities this proposal will provide. I urge a “Yes” vote.

Sincerely,

Philip B. Benefiel

Can you see why I wrote my former legislative colleague, now Publisher Roscoe Cunningham and told him the superintendent was “math impaired.”

I wrote,

“He apparently thinks a one percentage point increase in the local sales tax is the same as a ‘1% hike in sales tax.’ (See letter posted online: ‘On February 2, voters of Lawrence County will decide whether a 1% hike in sales tax on certain items (not the most essential) is the best solution to provide much needed improvements and upgrades to our school buildings and facilities.’)

“Really!

“Let’s assume the local sales tax is 6.25%. If so, dividing one percentage point by and a quarter percentage points would yield a 15% sales tax hike.

“Politicians lie all the time about political issues, but wouldn’t you think a school superintendent would tell the truth?

“Or, doesn’t he really know the difference?

“I don’t know which is worse, deliberate deception or not knowing enough about percentages to get out of junior high school.

“Wishing we lived closer together and enjoying your now self-identifed weekly views of the world.”

And he published it with this reply,

“Cal, you are too hard on Supts. Seaton and Steagall. Each is a straight arrow. Antecedent on the numbers isn’t clear.

“We yet remember and appreciate the skill with which you skewered the ‘bad guys,’ across the aisle, in the General Assembly.

“Local GOP, to use Paul Powell’s line, ’smell the meat a cookin’,’ are confident that either McKenna, Dillard or Ryan will win November 2.

“See you in Springfield for victory celebration.

“Best to you and family,

“roscoe”

I can’t wait for school districts to try this in McHenry County. Rest assured that every county board member who votes to put such a referendum on the ballot will think my McHenry County Republican Cat Tax campaign was mild.

Leitmotif of the Grafton Township Kangaroo Court – Part 2

December 14, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk, Gerry McMahon, Grafton Township, Grafton Township Hall, Grafton Township Supervisor, Grafton Township Trustee, Jim Kelly, John Rossi, Linda Moore, Michael Caldwell, Referendum, Robert LaPorta, Second Appellate Court., Tammy Lueth

Yesterday, McHenry County Blog started outlining what was mentioned about the court-determined illegal actions of the prior board–three of whose members were re-elected–in notes of the 7:30 PM to 12:15 AM Grafton Township board meeting last Thursday night.

Moore Looking Left Profile almostThe topic kept coming up in the discussion of the motion to add Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s name to that of newly-elected Trustee Gerry McMahon on the list of board members censured who have been censured.

Trustee Rob LaPorta, clearly the leader of the board majority, was among those to comment on the township hall lawsuit during the debate to move the censure resolution from the bottom to the top of the agenda:

“We were forced to hire an attorney because our names were on the lawsuit.”

McMahon returned to the court action brought by Grafton Township citizens, directing his comments to Moore:

McMahon right profile talking Censure 12-10-9“You started all of this by encouraging all this litigation against the township.

“You hurt the township. You should resign. You do not have a clue how to run a township.”

“We have to take responsibility for the decisions we make,” Moore replied.

Grafton Barbard Murphy looking right 12-10-9“I admit I don’t think I made a good decision.

“Get over it.

“I don’t take kindly to your accusations,”

Barbara Murphy then said.

The reply from Moore,

“We can’t made decisions based on our legal (advice) alone. Just because a lawyer makes a recommendation doesn’t (mean it’s right).

“You believe what Mr. Kelly told you to do. Now, it turns out not to be the right thing to do.”

Grafton LaPorta faccing right smilingI have over four pages of notes on LaPorta’s reading of the condemnation resolution, but he was reading so fast, they are incomplete. After looking over the text sent to me by Trustee Rob LaPorta, I don’t see anything concerning the new township hall except Moore’s termination of Kelly as township attorney and her refusal to present his bill for payment.

But, my guess is those items stimulated the censure movement.

Lueth, Tammy looking left at podium with minutes 12-10-9When it got to public comment time after the censure and paying of bills Tammy Lueth, a plaintiff in the suit to invalidate the board’s decision to build a new township hall, came to the podium with a stack of agendas and minutes.

“I’ve been through all the agendas for the last four years.”

She told of the decision at the annual meeting to approve the new township hall.

“You weren’t right.

“You took it upon yourself to appeal (Judge Michael Caldwell’s) decision. The Appellate Court ruled you guys didn’t do what you should have done.

“You spent more time bickering about $400 in chamber of commerce fees (than you did when it) took you six minutes to approve land acquisition.

“That was all brought about by the former supervisor (John Rossi) and some trustees.”

She added that she had to spend $12 in a Freedom of Information Act request to get minutes which ought to be on the web site.

Cutting Lueth’s comments short was McMahon, the only current trustee who did not vote for the new township hall and land acquisition:

“You’re into your three minutes.”

Zirk, Betty looking right and upTrustee Betty Zirk, one of the three remaining trustees who supported the new township hall, pointed out the rules on the specificity of agendas changed in 2007.

“Now we have to be very specific,” she said.

McMahon returned to the undercurrent of the meeting:

“On some points you are right. What (attorney Jim) Kelly said to us was that he thought it was winnable.

McMahon looking a bit right over glasses 12-10-9“I’ve learned my lesson…

“I think you opened a can of worms and you hurt the township.”

McMahon then offer his opinion on the chances of passing the court-ordered referendum during next November’s general election:

“We can’t win a referendum. We will never get the PR out.”

The official part of the agenda when the discredited deal was next on the agenda.

Read about it tomorrow.

Referendum on New Grafton Township Hall Set for November, 2010

August 25, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Dan Ziller Jr., Dina Frigo, Frank Kearns, Grafton Township, Grafton Township Hall, Haligus Road, John Rossi, Lake In the Hills, Linda Moore, Referendum, Rick Lueth, Tammy Lueth, Tom Halat

A fight has been between Republicans who want to borrow about $5 million to build and finance a new Grafton Township Hall on Haligus Road in Lake in the Hills and those who don’t.

On the one side was insurgent Grafton Township Supervisor candidate Linda Moore versus incumbent Township Supervisor John Rossi.

Moore won the Republican primary by 30 votes, using the argument that taxpayers should be allowed to vote on whether to put themselves in debt for a new township building.

In July, after pretty much all the fireworks were over, the Northwest Herald editorialized against a new town hall. (Lots of links to what happened during the fight–the township meeting with its tie vote, the court case, etc.–in the link in the preceding sentence.)

February 26th citizens including Dan Ziller, Jr., filed a petition with Grafton Township Clerk Dina Frigo requesting a referendum on the township hall issue.

The question was

“Shall Grafton Township borrow in excess of Three Millions ($3,000,000.00) dollars to build a township hall and issue bonds for the building?”

The cost is probably $3.5 million to construct the building, plus another $1.5 million or so for financing, but you and voters will get the idea.

Finally, Frigo has filed the petitions with McHenry County Clerk Kathie Schultz.

The referendum will be on the ballot November 2, 2010.

Assuming that township building proponents (all the township board, except Moore) are willing to wait for the results of the citizen vote and abide by those results, healing can begin within the Republican Party and citizenry in Grafton Township.

Those who passed the petition can be seen above. From left to right, they are Frank Kearns, Dan Ziller, Jr., Tom Halat, Tammy Lueth and Rick Lueth

= = = = =
The top photo is of Grafton Township Supervisor candidate Linda Moore at the Huntley Home and Business Expo.

The bottom photo shows the Grafton Township Trustees voting at the annual township meeting to approve the construction of a new township hall.

Cary Grade School $17 Million Referendum Support Materials

January 23, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Bond Referendum, Cary, Cary Elementary School District 26, Referendum, Tax Hike, Working Cash Fund

Here’s what the school administrators gave the District 26 school board members before they voted 4-3 to ask for $17 million in Working Cash bonds. Remember this contains no outside analysis. I made my general comments on my dislike of Working Cash arrangements in this article. I welcome and will publish any comments or analysis anyone wishes to make. (The first one took less than an hour to appear at the bottom of this article.)

Voting to put this tax increase on the ballot were board members

  • Board President Craig Loew
  • Stephen Bush
  • Julie Jette
  • Dave Ruelle

Opposed were

* Chris Jenner
* Randy Lawrence
* Julie Lehman

District 26’s explanatory material, which was not posted on its web site prior to the board meeting, follows:

To: Board of Education
From: Brian Coleman, Superintendent
Date: January 20, 2009

Re: Recommendation for Issuing Working Cash Bonds

Our goal in District 26 is to provide a safe and caring educational environment for students with high expectations for learning while striving to remain within the limits of available recourses.

Due to the collaborative work of parents, teachers, administration, and the Board of Education, a high majority of our students continue to meet and exceed District and State expectations for achievement.

District 26 has always made the learning needs of our students the top priority. Through our focus on power standards and the collection of achievement data, we are now, more than ever, able to focus and fine tune our curriculum and instruction to meet the learning needs of each child.

The District maintains safe and secure facilities for students to learn and interact. We have worked to extend the life of many of our facilities so that funding could be used to provide educational services and materials to students. Some buildings are now in need of major improvements in order to maintain the safe and secure environment needed.

The Board and administration have also worked to bring the needs of our programs into alignment with the resources available. The Board adopted a deficit reduction plan to work toward aligning expenditures with revenue in an effort to close the deficit gap. The District has completed an initial analysis in a zero-based budget process to determine the essential activity and funding necessary to sustain program levels and to determine potential savings in the delivery of these programs.

The District has worked to control its expenditures. The revenue available to District 26 for funding educational programs often falls short of what is needed. Due to several factors, including the tax cap and funding shortages of mandated programs from the state, District 26’s revenue has not kept pace with the expenses required to educate its students.

The revenue recommendation which was presented by the administration at the January 20, 2009 Board of Education Meeting, provides the best solution for both the District and the Community. If approved, the District Administration is committed to this plan and to ensuring its effective execution.

We have developed a plan that would provide the District with ongoing funding to support the District’s educational programs and needed facility improvements while having the least amount of impact to the taxpayer.

(See attached Power Point presentation and recommendation)

Cary Consolidated School District 26
Excellence in Education 2009 to 2013

Strategic Initiatives

• Upgrade classroom & District technology to improve curriculum delivery and student achievement.
• Provide a safe learning environment through facility and grounds capital improvements.
• Restructure District finances to move capital expenditures from the operational funds to the Capital fund and establish a sufficient fund reserve to minimize short term borrowing.

Classroom & District Technology

• Align classroom technology capabilities with new curriculums to effectively deliver the curriculums to students.
• Staff professional development to use new technology.
• Update District infrastructure in school buildings and administration office.
• Replace outdated equipment and software.

Faculty & Grounds Capital Improvement Improvements

• Replace roofs at Three Oaks and Deerpath Schools.
• Capital projects/ life safety projects including:

parking lot repair or replacement, sidewalk repair or replacement, exterior maintenance of buildings, and building HVAC system updates and replacements.

• Replacement of older busses.
• Early childhood/Preschool center Summary of Outstanding Bond Issues

Summary of Outstanding Bonds Issues

(Click to enlarge any chart or table.)

Restructure District Finances

• Remove capital expenditures from operational funds.
• Provide District a sufficient level of funds on
hand to eliminate/reduce short term borrowing.
Projected savings, using an estimated annual
cost of $130k, of $420k through 2013.
• Utilize savings to provide services/materials to
students rather than paying interest to banks.


Projected Fund Balance w/out Referendum

With $10 Million Capital Bonds


With $17 Million Bond Issue


Recommendation

With $17 Million Bond Issue

• Working Cash Bond for $17 Million be placed
on the April 7,2009 ballot

• If approved
– $10 for capital improvements.
– $7 Million to remain in Working Cash Fund.

• All uses of funds require Board of Education
action.

Possible Impact to Homeowners


0.05 rate structure increase costs an additional $2.4 million in Interest Costs.

Based on a $300,000 house, the 0.05 increase would cost $123 more than the 0.09 for the life of the issue.

Charge to Homeowner

Option 1 – $17 Million – $.05 Tax Rate Increase

CARY COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 26
McHenry and Lakes Counties, Illinois
Estimated Total Debt Service/Tax Rate
Financing Plan for Potential Referendum
INCREASE TAX RATE BY 5 CENTS

(Remember, these images can be enlarged a lot by clicking on them.)

Option II – $17 Million – $.09 Tax Rate Increase

CARY COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 26
McHenry and Lakes Counties, Illinois
Estimated Total Debt Service/Tax Rate
Financing Plan for Potential Referendum
$17 MILLION
INCREASE TAX RATE BY 9 CENTS



Ballot Question

Shall the Board of Education of Cary Community Consolidated School District Number 26, McHenry and Lake Counties, Illinois, be authorized to issue $17,000,000 bonds for a working cash fund as provided for by Article 20 of the School Code?

Cary Grade School $17 Million Referendum Support Materials

January 23, 2009 By: Cal Skinner Category: Bond Referendum, Cary, Cary Elementary School District 26, Referendum, Tax Hike, Working Cash Fund

Here’s what the school administrators gave the District 26 school board members before they voted 4-3 to ask for $17 million in Working Cash bonds. Remember this contains no outside analysis. I made my general comments on my dislike of Working Cash arrangements in this article. I welcome and will publish any comments or analysis anyone wishes to make. (The first one took less than an hour to appear at the bottom of this article.)

Voting to put this tax increase on the ballot were board members

  • Board President Craig Loew
  • Stephen Bush
  • Julie Jette
  • Dave Ruelle

Opposed were

* Chris Jenner
* Randy Lawrence
* Julie Lehman

District 26’s explanatory material, which was not posted on its web site prior to the board meeting, follows:

To: Board of Education
From: Brian Coleman, Superintendent
Date: January 20, 2009

Re: Recommendation for Issuing Working Cash Bonds

Our goal in District 26 is to provide a safe and caring educational environment for students with high expectations for learning while striving to remain within the limits of available recourses.

Due to the collaborative work of parents, teachers, administration, and the Board of Education, a high majority of our students continue to meet and exceed District and State expectations for achievement.

District 26 has always made the learning needs of our students the top priority. Through our focus on power standards and the collection of achievement data, we are now, more than ever, able to focus and fine tune our curriculum and instruction to meet the learning needs of each child.

The District maintains safe and secure facilities for students to learn and interact. We have worked to extend the life of many of our facilities so that funding could be used to provide educational services and materials to students. Some buildings are now in need of major improvements in order to maintain the safe and secure environment needed.

The Board and administration have also worked to bring the needs of our programs into alignment with the resources available. The Board adopted a deficit reduction plan to work toward aligning expenditures with revenue in an effort to close the deficit gap. The District has completed an initial analysis in a zero-based budget process to determine the essential activity and funding necessary to sustain program levels and to determine potential savings in the delivery of these programs.

The District has worked to control its expenditures. The revenue available to District 26 for funding educational programs often falls short of what is needed. Due to several factors, including the tax cap and funding shortages of mandated programs from the state, District 26’s revenue has not kept pace with the expenses required to educate its students.

The revenue recommendation which was presented by the administration at the January 20, 2009 Board of Education Meeting, provides the best solution for both the District and the Community. If approved, the District Administration is committed to this plan and to ensuring its effective execution.

We have developed a plan that would provide the District with ongoing funding to support the District’s educational programs and needed facility improvements while having the least amount of impact to the taxpayer.

(See attached Power Point presentation and recommendation)

Cary Consolidated School District 26
Excellence in Education 2009 to 2013

Strategic Initiatives

• Upgrade classroom & District technology to improve curriculum delivery and student achievement.
• Provide a safe learning environment through facility and grounds capital improvements.
• Restructure District finances to move capital expenditures from the operational funds to the Capital fund and establish a sufficient fund reserve to minimize short term borrowing.

Classroom & District Technology

• Align classroom technology capabilities with new curriculums to effectively deliver the curriculums to students.
• Staff professional development to use new technology.
• Update District infrastructure in school buildings and administration office.
• Replace outdated equipment and software.

Faculty & Grounds Capital Improvement Improvements

• Replace roofs at Three Oaks and Deerpath Schools.
• Capital projects/ life safety projects including:

parking lot repair or replacement, sidewalk repair or replacement, exterior maintenance of buildings, and building HVAC system updates and replacements.

• Replacement of older busses.
• Early childhood/Preschool center Summary of Outstanding Bond Issues

Summary of Outstanding Bonds Issues

(Click to enlarge any chart or table.)

Restructure District Finances

• Remove capital expenditures from operational funds.
• Provide District a sufficient level of funds on
hand to eliminate/reduce short term borrowing.
Projected savings, using an estimated annual
cost of $130k, of $420k through 2013.
• Utilize savings to provide services/materials to
students rather than paying interest to banks.


Projected Fund Balance w/out Referendum

With $10 Million Capital Bonds


With $17 Million Bond Issue


Recommendation

With $17 Million Bond Issue

• Working Cash Bond for $17 Million be placed
on the April 7,2009 ballot

• If approved
– $10 for capital improvements.
– $7 Million to remain in Working Cash Fund.

• All uses of funds require Board of Education
action.

Possible Impact to Homeowners


0.05 rate structure increase costs an additional $2.4 million in Interest Costs.

Based on a $300,000 house, the 0.05 increase would cost $123 more than the 0.09 for the life of the issue.

Charge to Homeowner

Option 1 – $17 Million – $.05 Tax Rate Increase

CARY COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 26
McHenry and Lakes Counties, Illinois
Estimated Total Debt Service/Tax Rate
Financing Plan for Potential Referendum
INCREASE TAX RATE BY 5 CENTS

(Remember, these images can be enlarged a lot by clicking on them.)

Option II – $17 Million – $.09 Tax Rate Increase

CARY COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 26
McHenry and Lakes Counties, Illinois
Estimated Total Debt Service/Tax Rate
Financing Plan for Potential Referendum
$17 MILLION
INCREASE TAX RATE BY 9 CENTS



Ballot Question

Shall the Board of Education of Cary Community Consolidated School District Number 26, McHenry and Lake Counties, Illinois, be authorized to issue $17,000,000 bonds for a working cash fund as provided for by Article 20 of the School Code?

B-b-bumpy Road Ahead in Bull Valley

November 04, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ann Kaiser, Annexation, Bull Valley, Forced Annexation, McAndrews Glen, Open Space, Referendum

One of the tiniest ballot issues in Illinois concerns whether the Village of Bull Valley in McHenry County shall forcibly annex two farms totaling 200 acres.

It used to be that you needed to surround an unincorporated property to be able to force it into your municipality. Somehow that law got amended and now all you need is six contiguous properties to grab a much larger parcel.

To distribute the proceeds of a will, the Ann Kaiser Estate is trying to get 40 clustered homes on 1-acre lots surrounded by 80 acres of open space, complete with open to the public horse and hiking trails, zoned on her 120-acre family farm. The village allowed McAndrews Glen to put half-acre lots on 90 acres just down the road and around the corner from the farm. And Inland Real Estate has just been given straight 3-acre zoning.

Although surrounded by straight 3-acre zoning on the west and south (in the village itself) and across an agreed upon boundary—Ridge Road—with McHenry, where there is 1-acre zoning, the village officials are insisting on 5-acre zoning.

The village refuses to negotiate. It won’t even allow the petition to be re-considered by the village planning or zoning folks.

It just sends its lawyers to court to defend the indefensible.

The only recourse to the continuing lawsuit, which the Estate lawyer says will be taken to the Supreme Court, was to pass a petition to allow the voters to decide on the annexation in a referendum.

I passed the petition, getting about 50% more signatures than necessary.

Village officials refused to accept the petition. Attorney Bob Wagner, a former Crystal Lake mayor, had to go to court to force the village’s law firm to accept the paperwork.

“Bull Valley is not Mayberry,”

were his words.

The issue is a tough sell, with the village mothers and fathers and their support group selling “Open Space.”

Politically-minded folks know that selling emotion is easier than selling logic.

Our literature featured a recommendation from the Village Engineer:

“The Engineer cannot recommend bringing into the Village an additional 1.6 miles of roadway without a source of revenue to maintain them.”

And you know the old adage that you can tell where a person spends his money what his priorities are?

Since 2001, Bull Valley has spent over $500,000 on legal fees and, according to its Licensed Professional Engineer, $47,000 was spent on repaving.

In 2006, the Village Engineer recommended spending $367,300 a year on a repaving program.

I researched monthly expenditure reports for a number of years and discovered that Bull Valley’s road maintenance program consisted of pot hole patching since 2001. Usually under $1,000 a year.

The village spends much, much more on salt each year–$15-20,000.

So you can imagine that the sign’s “B-b-bumpy road ahead” message you see on the sign stuck a nerve.

Caution!
B-b-bumpy
road ahead

www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

The truth hurts.

Signs like the ones you see above (with

Township
Roads
are Better
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers
They were stolen and, just coincidentally, I am sure, most places white yard signs promoting “Open Spaces” showed up across the road and even right next to where the stolen sign had stood.

The three 4X4’s you see in this story were stolen, although evidence of the the theft of one at the edge of a lovely new subdivision in the neighboring City of Woodstock, posted with the owners permission, remains.

A lot of our little ones saying,


To Free up More $
for Roads!

Vote NO
on Annexation!
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

and

To Vote Less $
for Lawyers!

Vote No
on Annexation!
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers


got stolen, too.

At a Country Club Road site, the Bull Valley thieves left the $3 steel-tipped, German-made plastic stakes bought at Blaine’s Farm and Fleet.

This is the first time I have utilized the internet in a campaign.

Our web site, Bull Valley – Roads or Lawyers, certainly was worth the effort.

Today, the villagers are voting, driving past signs saying,

Growth
does NOT
pay for itself

Vote
NO
on annexation
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

Do I think my side will prevail?

Nope.

Emotion almost always trumps logic.

Reflecting on how much fun I have had on this referendum campaign, I’m wondering if I should change my mind on Con-con. After all, it might end proposing initiative and recall.
.
.
.
Nah.

B-b-bumpy Road Ahead in Bull Valley

November 04, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ann Kaiser, Annexation, Bull Valley, Forced Annexation, McAndrews Glen, Open Space, Referendum

One of the tiniest ballot issues in Illinois concerns whether the Village of Bull Valley in McHenry County shall forcibly annex two farms totaling 200 acres.

It used to be that you needed to surround an unincorporated property to be able to force it into your municipality. Somehow that law got amended and now all you need is six contiguous properties to grab a much larger parcel.

To distribute the proceeds of a will, the Ann Kaiser Estate is trying to get 40 clustered homes on 1-acre lots surrounded by 80 acres of open space, complete with open to the public horse and hiking trails, zoned on her 120-acre family farm. The village allowed McAndrews Glen to put half-acre lots on 90 acres just down the road and around the corner from the farm. And Inland Real Estate has just been given straight 3-acre zoning.

Although surrounded by straight 3-acre zoning on the west and south (in the village itself) and across an agreed upon boundary—Ridge Road—with McHenry, where there is 1-acre zoning, the village officials are insisting on 5-acre zoning.

The village refuses to negotiate. It won’t even allow the petition to be re-considered by the village planning or zoning folks.

It just sends its lawyers to court to defend the indefensible.

The only recourse to the continuing lawsuit, which the Estate lawyer says will be taken to the Supreme Court, was to pass a petition to allow the voters to decide on the annexation in a referendum.

I passed the petition, getting about 50% more signatures than necessary.

Village officials refused to accept the petition. Attorney Bob Wagner, a former Crystal Lake mayor, had to go to court to force the village’s law firm to accept the paperwork.

“Bull Valley is not Mayberry,”

were his words.

The issue is a tough sell, with the village mothers and fathers and their support group selling “Open Space.”

Politically-minded folks know that selling emotion is easier than selling logic.

Our literature featured a recommendation from the Village Engineer:

“The Engineer cannot recommend bringing into the Village an additional 1.6 miles of roadway without a source of revenue to maintain them.”

And you know the old adage that you can tell where a person spends his money what his priorities are?

Since 2001, Bull Valley has spent over $500,000 on legal fees and, according to its Licensed Professional Engineer, $47,000 was spent on repaving.

In 2006, the Village Engineer recommended spending $367,300 a year on a repaving program.

I researched monthly expenditure reports for a number of years and discovered that Bull Valley’s road maintenance program consisted of pot hole patching since 2001. Usually under $1,000 a year.

The village spends much, much more on salt each year–$15-20,000.

So you can imagine that the sign’s “B-b-bumpy road ahead” message you see on the sign stuck a nerve.

Caution!
B-b-bumpy
road ahead

www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

The truth hurts.

Signs like the ones you see above (with

Township
Roads
are Better
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers
They were stolen and, just coincidentally, I am sure, most places white yard signs promoting “Open Spaces” showed up across the road and even right next to where the stolen sign had stood.

The three 4X4’s you see in this story were stolen, although evidence of the the theft of one at the edge of a lovely new subdivision in the neighboring City of Woodstock, posted with the owners permission, remains.

A lot of our little ones saying,


To Free up More $
for Roads!

Vote NO
on Annexation!
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

and

To Vote Less $
for Lawyers!

Vote No
on Annexation!
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers


got stolen, too.

At a Country Club Road site, the Bull Valley thieves left the $3 steel-tipped, German-made plastic stakes bought at Blaine’s Farm and Fleet.

This is the first time I have utilized the internet in a campaign.

Our web site, Bull Valley – Roads or Lawyers, certainly was worth the effort.

Today, the villagers are voting, driving past signs saying,

Growth
does NOT
pay for itself

Vote
NO
on annexation
www.BullValley-RoadsorLawyers

Do I think my side will prevail?

Nope.

Emotion almost always trumps logic.

Reflecting on how much fun I have had on this referendum campaign, I’m wondering if I should change my mind on Con-con. After all, it might end proposing initiative and recall.
.
.
.
Nah.

Harvard Referendum Details Made Public

August 11, 2008 By: Cal Skinner Category: Diane Evertsen, Harvard School Board, Referendum, Ruck Pate Architecture, Solar Crete

In the “field report” made by Diane Evertsen after she attended the Harvard School Board meeting to complain of the district’s having rented Harvard Junior High School for use by the Mexican Consulate for four days, she revealed that a referendum was pending.

Now Jenn Wiant of the Northwest Herald has spelled out the details in an article.

$20.7 million for an elementary school. The vote was 6-0.

Estimated cost – “$42.50 a year for each $100,000 in assessed property value.” $100,000 in assessed value would equate to a $300,000 home.

There is another sentence, however, that makes me wonder if that $100,000 really refers to actual value. Here’s that sentence:

“’ The citizens, parents and staff of the Facilities Task Force made it very clear to us that they wanted us to keep the cost of the proposed school to less than $100 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home,’ Superintendent Lauri Tobias said.”

Notice that the school superintendent does not say for a home assessed at $200,000, which would be worth $600,000, because assessments are one-third of market value.

There was no press release on the district’s web site, so no way to find out over the weekend.

22 acres of land will be donated by Dan Hereley through the Evelyn Hereley Trust. It’s off Marengo Road.

Barrington architect Ruck Pate will use a design used previously. My guess is that it will not be built out of energy efficient Solar Crete.

  • About

    This is a journal of news and opinion designed to bring to light matters of public interest and to encourage public participation in the governmental process.

    Emphasis will be on McHenry County, but Illinois state news will be covered. Articles and photos are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without explicit written permission.