Here is the guts of the new language in the McHenry County township abolition by referendum House Bill 4637 successfully sponsored by State Rep. David McSweeney.
The bill, of course, will be in the Governor’s court at some point.
ARTICLE 24. DISSOLUTION OF TOWNSHIPS IN cCHENRY COUNTY
(60 ILCS 1/24-5 new)
Sec. 24-5. Scope. The method of dissolution of a township
in McHenry County under this Article shall be in addition to
any other method of dissolving a township provided by law or
otherwise.
(60 ILCS 1/24-10 new)
Sec. 24-10. Definition. As used in this Article, “electors”
David McSweeney
means the registered voters of any single township in McHenry
County.
(60 ILCS 1/24-15 new)
Sec. 24-15. Dissolving a township in McHenry County.
By resolution, the board of trustees of any township located in McHenry County may submit a proposition to dissolve the township to the electors of that township at the election next following in accordance with the general election law. The ballot shall be as provided for in Section 24-30.
(60 ILCS 1/24-20 new)
Sec. 24-20. Petition requirements; notice.
(a) Subject to the petition requirements of Section 28-3 of
the Election Code, petitions for a referendum to dissolve a
township located in McHenry County must be filed with the
governing board of the township, the county board of McHenry
County, and the McHenry County Clerk not less than 122 days prior to any election held throughout the township. Petitions must include:
(1) the name of the dissolving township;
(2) the date of dissolution; and
(3) signatures of a number of electors equal to or
greater than 5% of the total votes cast in the township in
the preceding election that is of an election type
comparable to the election for which the petition is being
filed; all signatures gathered under this paragraph (3)
must be signed within 365 days prior to the filing of a
petition.
(b) The proposed date of dissolution shall be at least 90
days after the date of the election at which the referendum is
to be voted upon.
(c) If a valid petition is filed under subsection (a), then
the McHenry County Clerk shall, by publication in one or more
newspapers of general circulation within the county, not less
than 90 days prior to the election at which the referendum is
to be voted on, give notice in substantially the following
form:
NOTICE OF PETITION TO DISSOLVE (dissolving township).
Residents of (dissolving township) and McHenry County are
notified that a petition has been filed with (dissolving
township) and McHenry County requesting a referendum to
dissolve (dissolving township) on (date of dissolution)
with all real and personal property, and any other assets,
together with all personnel, contractual obligations, and
liabilities being transferred to McHenry County.
(60 ILCS 1/24-25 new)
Sec. 24-25. Ballot placement. A petition that meets the
requirements of Section 24-20 shall be placed on the ballot in
the form provided for in Section 24-30 at the election next
following.
(60 ILCS 1/24-30 new)
Sec. 24-30. Referendum; voting.
(a) Subject to the requirements of Section 16-7 of the
Election Code, the referendum described in Section 24-25 shall
be in substantially the following form on the ballot:
–
Shall the (dissolving
township) be dissolved on (date
of dissolution) with all of ————–
its property, assets, personnel,
obligations, and liabilities being
transferred to McHenry County?
YES…NO
————————————————————-
(b) The referendum is approved when a majority of those
voting in the election from the dissolving township approve the
referendum.
(60 ILCS 1/24-35 new)
Sec. 24-35. Dissolution; transfer of rights and duties.
When the dissolution of a township has been approved under
Section 24-30:
(1) On or before the date of dissolution, all real and
personal property, and any other assets, together with all
personnel, contractual obligations, and liabilities of the
dissolving township shall be transferred to McHenry
County. All township funds of the dissolved township shall
be used solely on behalf of the residents of the geographic
area within the boundaries of the dissolved township.
(2) On the date of dissolution, the dissolving township
is dissolved.
(3) On and after the date of dissolution, all rights
and duties of the dissolved township may be exercised by
the governing board of the receiving unit of local
government solely on behalf of the residents of the
geographic area within the boundaries of the dissolved
township.
(4) The governing board of the receiving unit of local
government shall not extend a property tax levy that is
greater than 90% of the property tax levy extended by the
dissolved township for the duties taken on by the receiving
unit of local government. This property tax levy may not be
extended outside the boundaries of the dissolved township.
In all subsequent years, this levy shall be bound by the
provisions of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law.
(5) All road districts wholly within the boundaries of
the dissolving township are dissolved on the date of
dissolution of the dissolving township, and all powers and
responsibilities of each road district are transferred to
McHenry County except as provided in paragraph (6).
(6) The county board of McHenry County shall give
written notice to each municipality whose governing board
meets within the boundaries of a dissolving township that
the municipality may make an offer, on or before 60 days
after the date of dissolution of the dissolving township,
that the municipality will assume all of the powers and
responsibilities of a road district or road districts
wholly inside the dissolving township. The notice shall be
sent to each municipality on or before 30 days after the
date of dissolution of the township. Any eligible
municipality may, with consent of its governing board, make
an offer to assume all of the powers and responsibilities
of the dissolving township’s road district or road
districts. A municipality may offer to assume the powers
and responsibilities only for a limited period of time. If
one or more offers are received by McHenry County on or
before 60 days after the date of dissolution of the
dissolving township, the county board of McHenry County
shall select the best offer or offers that the board
determines would be in the best interest and welfare of the
affected resident population. If no municipality makes an
offer, the powers and duties of the dissolving township’s
road district or road districts are retained by McHenry
County. The receiving unit of local government that assumes
the powers and duties of the dissolving township’s road
district or road districts shall not extend a road district
property tax levy under Division 5 of Article 6 of the
Illinois Highway Code that is greater than 90% of the road
district property tax levy that was extended by the county
n behalf of the dissolving township’s road district or
road districts for the duties taken on by the receiving
unit of local government.
Section 20. The Illinois Highway Code is amended by adding
Section 6-140 as follows:
(605 ILCS 5/6-140 new)
Sec. 6-140. Abolishing a road district within Lake County
or McHenry County with less than 15 miles of roads. Any
township in Lake County or McHenry County shall abolish a road
district of that township if the roads of the road district are
less than 15 centerline miles in length, as determined by the
county engineer or county superintendent of highways. A road
district is abolished on the expiration of the term of office
of the highway commissioner of the road district facing
abolition following the determination by the county engineer or
county superintendent of highways of the length, in centerline
mileage, of the roads within the road district to be abolished.
On the date of abolishment: all the rights, powers, duties,
assets, property, liabilities, obligations, and
responsibilities of the road district shall by operation of law
vest in and be assumed by the township; the township board of
trustees shall assume all taxing authority of a road district
abolished under this Section; the township shall exercise all
revenue, the township shall assume the powers, duties, and
obligations of the road district. The township board of
trustees may enter into a contract with the county, a
municipality, or a private contractor to administer the roads
added to its jurisdiction under this Section.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.
If McHenry County has to pick up the tabs for any debts and obligations, shouldn’t McHenry County voters get a say on it? Seems like if you can just schluff off your responsibilities on the rest of the county, and now that cost is dispersed among more people then you’d be better off, but the person outside of the township being abolished would be worse off. Why should county taxpayers be responsible for what an individual township did when many of the people in the county live outside of the township and had no responsibility or say-so in the township’s matters?
Didn’t Franks tell a newspaper that an IGA could be worked out as they hash out the details? How will an IGA work when the unit must be abolished after 60 days? Wouldn’t the entire transition have to occur within 60 days? There wouldn’t be any township employees after that point, right?
What happens to elected officials if a township abolishes itself? Will they still get paid the yearly salary? Will they have to be paid until the end of their term? Who will pay them if the township is abolished? Will this open up the possibility of lawsuits?
Why is McSweeney using the state to force a 10 percent cut on local governments? How is it conservative to micromanage local governments?
I think McSweeney has jumped the shark again. The guy seems to really enjoy chasing headlines. Ask him a policy question on FB or Twitter and watch him ignore you… He has no idea what he’s doing. Another clown!
Didn’t he pull the bill on 11/29?
It would seem to be dead.
It can’t be revived again until the next session.
Am I missing something?
Re: “The guy seems to really enjoy chasing headlines. ”
He is a protege of the Liar Franks.
Don’t see how this bill will land on the Governor’s desk as long as the Franks’ Protege has a motion to reconsider on the table.
I say the same thing KnowExtremist.
The bill died with the 100th GA.
The process has to be started all over again when the 101th GA is sworn in next month.
lol that’s a rather silly concept. Bill passes both chambers and sponsor decides “no i dont like this” so all of a sudden it dies?
no pal, you voted on it! No taksey backsies (at least that’s how it should be).
It should go to the governor and he should veto or sign it.
But thanks for reminding us of that.
McSweeney did file some kind of motion to reconsider the bill or something like that just two days after he bragged about it passing and even put out a press release to celebrate it passing. Just another example of what a clown mcsweeney is.
He’s probably such a Gasser hater because people call Gasser GASBAG and mcsweeney knows he’s the biggest gasbag of them all.
He feels slighted…
Cal, it would be interesting to see if one of your commenters would provide information on what debt is owed
By each one of our 17 townships.
The only debt of which I am aware is that to repay what is left of the $1 million, plus interest, borrowed by Dunham Township voters for road purposes.
The current session has not ended.
I thought this counties townships are all flush with $$$$$?
Hell isn’t it Jack wants the extra $$$$$ to buy more votes?
Perhaps Cal can tell us what the motion filed on the last day of the session does here.
An American, you make such absurd assumptions that you sound like a gasbag. You’re worried about township debt and everyone in the county having to pay it off. The debt stays in the original township. Everyone in McHenry County lives in a township. Did it bother you at all when the entire county population paid for all the millions of dollars of road installation done on all the subdivision roads in unincorporated areas? But you’re worried that these people, who never paid to maintain their roads, might not have a say so? You seem to suffer from reverse psychology, among other things. Get some facts and then you can spout off.
Sorry, I cannot.
Debt outstanding based on latest reports filed with the State Comptroller:
Chemung $906,398
Dunham $579,100
Greenwood $154,574
Hebron $369,373
Marengo $154,502
Total $2,163,947
All other Townships showed zero.
McHenry County reported their outstanding debt at $ 85,748,432.
The McHenry County Conservation District reported indebtedness of $95,370,000.
Relative to the premise that MCDOT can take over Townhip road maintenance – do you really think they will do any better than what they did with the non-dedicated roads fiasco?
Literally hundreds of meetings consuming thousands of hours in public sector employee time and the result was?
Forget about the Township issue until we have solved the fire / police / teacher pension juggernaut that is eating close to 30 cents of every tax dollar!!!
Now that every State office is controlled by the Democrats and they have a super majority in the House and the Senate, I fully expect higher taxes and fees to expedite the out-migration of what is left of the conservative base.
Stay in Illinois and enjoy the Venezuela of the north.
While perusing data at the State here are few other numbers:
Crystal Lake indebtedness was $45,042,661.
Village of Algonquin indebtedness was $ 25,346,553.
City of McHenry indebtedness was $45,767,182.
Maybe we should be looking at handing the municipalities over to the Townships? 🙂
Comparing a some rural road maintenance to the abolition of the biggest township in the county is ridiculous, first of all. Nearly 90 thousand people live in Algonquin Township. I don’t see unincorporated areas in the news constantly for lawsuits costing tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars either, unlike Algonquin Township.
Second, I’m not familiar with the circumstances of what you speak of. Don’t assume I’m for this or against that based on some hokey whataboutisms. Maybe I’d be against it. You don’t know. Obviously what you’re talking about wasn’t that big of news or is old news. Off the top of my head though, I’d say it’s fair for unincorporated roads to be paid for by some unit — not sure if it should be the township or county though. One difference between McSweeney and myself is I think we should think about consequences and not rush things through just to make headlines.
Third, if the county decided to take care of the subdivision roads, does that mean the county board made a decision to do so? Meaning there would have been actual representation for everybody in the county? Could you explain how exactly did the county acquire ownership of the roads you speak of? Were they forced to, by state law, like McSweeney’s bill would do? Were they forced to because a single township told them to, like McSweeney’s bill would do? Or did the county board agree to do so? Under this plan, the county would take up the responsibilities based on a referendum passed by a township. Didn’t most county board members say they were AGAINST this bill?
Fourth, it sounds like you’re complaining about the rural roads being taken care of by some unit of government. If that’s the case, shouldn’t you be mad about this Algonquin Township/mcsweeney bill fiasco? Sounds like you’re trying to pull a to quogue logical fallacy argument on me based on what you’re assuming I think about an issue that I’m not even familiar with, while it appears you are actually the one acting inconsistently.
McSweeney is a clown. The guy asked to reconsider support for a bill that he voted for and sponsored, two days after issuing a press release taking credit for it. So how good of a bill is it? All I’m doing is asking questions, which you think is more worthy of criticism than poorly thought out legislation.
I applaud McSweeney. These township loiterers make me ill.
Thumbs up for McSweeney!