The McHenry County Conservation has found a way to get more money than it would have been able to otherwise.
It will still be within the tax cap’s limit, but until Senate Bill 345 was passed, the amount MCCD was allowed to charge would have gone down.
That’s because the Conservation District has bumped up against its referendum-approved tax rate.
Now, it can stay the same as last year.
Here’s what the Senate bill signed by Governor Pat Quinn said:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the levies authorized by Sections 21-110 and 21-110.1 of the Illinois Pension Code shall not be considered new rates; however, nothing in this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly authorizes a taxing district to increase its limiting rate or its aggregate extension without first obtaining referendum approval as provided in this Section.
Let’s take a look at who voted for the bill.
First the unanimous Senate roll call (51-0), on which State Senators Pam Althoff and Karen McConnaughay voted in favor. State Senator Dan Duffy did not vote.
Senate Roll call on Senate Bill 356.
Next, the House roll call, which shows the bill passing 66-49.Locally, only now-retired State Rep. Tim Schmitz (replaced by Steve Andersson) voted in favor. Jack Franks, David McSweeney, Mike Tryon and Barb Wheeler voted against the bill.
The House roll call on Senate Bill 345.
= = = = =
Thanks to the Northwest Herald for alerting me to this development.
Everyone remember the mortgage crisis of 2008-2010 , when credit was locked up, real estate prices crashed, and it looked like the end of the world as we knew it in terms of financial institutions?
Here are prices of land purchases by MCCD during that time period.
(YEAR)……ACREAGE……PRICE……PRICE PAID PER ACRE……
(2008.) 150. $2342279 $15615
192. $2,561,854. $13342
35. $853825. $24705
90. $623073. $6898
74. $737010. $10000
35. $855822. $24237
15. $330585. $22397
6. $119625. $21457
161. $1,571,860. $9774
95. $614640. $6500
106. $2,722,175. $25793
280. $3,470,623. $12375
30. $447885. $15000
47. $683310. $14376
106. $2,838,031. $26688
33. $848583. $25714
128. $2,223,399. $17431
53. $634625. $11974
2009 8. $124000. $15500
25. $395000. $15800
5. $113500. $25000
100. $2,000,000. $20000
32. $1,327,305. $41847
45. $1,000,000. $22123
201. $2,600,000. $12986
55. $1,072,880. $19422
4. $60000. $150000
1. $150000. $168,539
7. $162600. $25015
14. $361250. $25000
( price per acre is correct, discrepancies are due to rounding of acreage numbers).
Susan instead of copying a whole document just write where you found it and we can look it up.
I had to FOIA the purchase prices of land between 2005-2015.
Then I had to write down the prices, and calculate price-per-acre by hand.
You can FOIA the same information and perform these calculations.
It will be interesting to see the reasons why such a big disagreement between the house (66 to 49) and the senate (51 to 0) votes.
I appreciate David McSweeney’s and Mike Tryon’s vote against this law for a possible tax increase.
This is not the time to keep pushing taxpayers for more.
Fix what we have first.
Larry: Simple answer?
Representatives have to run for office every other year and as a consequence pay more attention to the current attitude of voters.
Senators with a six year term only need to pay attention to how they vote the year before they run again.
Althoff needs to be gone!
However,for that to happen we need a solid conservative candidate to step forward.
Voter. That is the second time I have noticed you writing a suggestion to a poster on how to post.
You are a child and do not have the experience, wisdom or education to tell anyone anything; least of all posters like Mark or Susan.
Their intelligent in depth analysis and research have been both necessary and brilliant.
Your childlike short attention span isn’t even a consideration for those of us who appreciate their work on behalf of The People for no remuneration other than the idea they may make an impact.
You are tolerated here.
Not respected.
Remember what we worked on so many months ago?
Give respect to get respect.
You may want to consider your rude posts and apologize to these particular two and then apologize in general to all you have, once again, attempted to bully.
You are very much in need of education and training in how to interact with others.
You know what?
Never mind.
Susan and Mark: Your work is appreciated and the posting form you choose is also appreciated.
I apologize for any offense given by myself or others here on this site.
I pray you continue your form and content of posting.
Priest, go to hell, your opinion of me I really do not care about.
I know how much work it is to post things and Mark and Susan do put a lot of time in so Susan and Mark I wrote my comment to help you out not to put you down.
I have had nice conversations with many but you Priest are a jerk.
I call it like I see it. To call yourself Priest is very offensive to many as your actions prove you are not a Priest.
Tut tut child.
I’m certain your parents are unaware of your online activities.
If they were I’m certain they would train you.
I pray you appreciate their hard work to keep you alive, provide you with electricity, a bedroom and a computer to sling your vitriol.
Since they are clearly busy it falls to others to attempt to train you in how to act in society.
To date you have shown promise, actually furthered conversations and then backslid into threats and bullying.
On balance you have not improved but remained fundamentally unchanged.
All children think those who hold them accountable are “jerks”.
I pity you.
It is the one and only thing you have going for you in our interactions.
If I took you at your word you would have been brought in front of your parents long ago for your threats and bullying.
As it stands I will continue to watch you with interest and hope for behavioral improvement.
MCCD spends twice as much per family as the average open space district and three to four times as much as neighboring open space districts.
They own eight times as much land, relative to population, as the national standard set by the Department of the Interior and their own national organization.
The fault lies with the County Board.
They appoint nothing but cheerleaders to their boards and committees.
They need to start appointing taxpayer watchdogs, skeptics who will make these bodies justify their expenditures instead of lobbying the County Board for more, more, more.
Is this “Priest 1” or “Priest 2?”
Duncan, now I get it he is ASKING for a Priest l.o.l.
BTW, Nice work, Susan.
I’m so glad we have you and Mark out there digging into the numbers.
If you have more on years after 2009, I look forward to seeing them, even if they don’t paste in the prettiest way on Cal’s site because all the formatting is stripped out.
I would be especially interested in your analysis of the data, that is, if you would highlight detail about any outliers and compute the average prices MCCD paid each year and compare those number to what farm land was going for in the County during the same time periods.
Keep up the good work!
There are two people posing on this blog as “PRIEST”
But, yes very funny Voter…lol…lol…lol…
Yes, keep bringing the factual information!
Bring the Truth no matter how much of a maze they make it.
Thank you for all you do & explain.
What a hopeless mess.
Its hard to listen
When you Preach. @ Priest.
Bless me Father for I have sinned once again~LOL