Jack Franks Wants Personal Staff

Got some emails from McHenry County Board Chairman and still State Representative (and double dipper) Jack Franks through the Freedom of Information Act last week.

Just in case you missed this one because of the Christmas holiday, it is posted again.

Guess what one of the first ones I examined said.

No.

Read it yourself below:
franks-chairman-transistion-communications-specialistadmin-support-travel

Jack Franks

Jack Franks

So, it looks as if Franks wants a press agent.

He calls it a “communications specialist.”

And he wants “Admin Support for Chairman.”

Wonder what’s that person(s) going to do?

Franks also wants to know about travel expenses.

And he apparently wants his own parliamentarian in addition to the Assistant State’s Attorney who now plays that role.


Comments

Jack Franks Wants Personal Staff — 78 Comments

  1. You wanted this job, so get off your Kees tee and DO the job!!

    Stop clowning around!!

  2. NO Jack-at THIS job, you actually HAVE to WORK!

    This ain’t Springfield!

  3. Cal you are obsessed with Jack.

    Is this something you need to seek help for?

    There must be better things to cover than this issue.

  4. AZ what are you talking about look at the past chairman he was never there on a routine basis.

    Rather, Joe practiced law at his office in Crystal Lake, attended court hearings in Woodstock and other task of a lawyer.

    This job was not designed to be full time.

    That is what the administrator was used for so that the Chairman does not have to do the day to day task.

    There will be an adjustment period as the roles are defined.

  5. I believe the point of this post is that a newly elected Board chair who campaigned on the promise to cut taxes is immediately planning to INCREASE taxes to pay for employees to attend to his personal benefit,
    at taxpayers expense, BUT WILL PROVIDE NO VALUE TO TAXPAYERS.

    McHenry County mean property tax rate is 3.66% of fair market home value. That is stunningly high compared to everywhere else in America.

  6. Hopefully someone will post the budget and actual expenses of the current County Board Chairman, Joe Gottemoller.

    Then compare Joe Gottemoller budget and actual expenses to the the above post regarding Jack Franks.

    It appears that Jack Franks want more money and personnel to support the County Board Chair than Joe Gottemoller received?

    That will be justified in the zero based budget?

    +++++++++

    Democrat State Representative Jack Franks observed Democrat State Speaker of the House Michael Madigan for 18 years.

    Watch the Michael Madigan movie to learn how Michael Madigan gained power.

    http://www.MichaelMadigan.com

  7. are there any emails where ‘Cut 10’ is mentioned?

    It’s not on this list.

  8. Obviously Franks is trying to create a Imperial Chairmanship.

    He doesn’t just want to be a Chairman who oversees the Board, he wants to have a hand in the day to day operations.

    He wants to “run McHenry County”.

    We will see if the Board has enough backbone to stop him.

  9. @mike: when are you planning to take down your campaign posters?

    These aren’t even the small ones on a wire frame; they’re attached to metal posts!

  10. Not that I want to give “air time” to it but I hope you discover the identity of the poster whose libelous rantings were immediately deleted.

  11. Michael Madigan is the Chair of the Democrat Party of Illinois.

    From January 16, 1998 through April 7, 2005, Michael Madigan chaired PACs contributed $384,476 to the Citizens for Jack D Franks PAC.

    The breakdown:

    Friends of Michael J Madigan – $22,517 from January 1, 1998 through April 7, 2005.

    Democrat Party of Illinois – $361,959 from August 31, 1998 through November 10, 2004.

    That included payroll / mileage for the following:

    John Bartman, Marengo – $9,190

    Michael Cassidy, Chicago – $6,664

    Dave Clarkin, Springfield – $94

    Tobias P Crins (Tobias Crins), Richmond – $6,299

    Jill Edelblute, Chicago – $6,462

    Matthew Erwin, Vernon Hills – $57

    Nora Hernandez, Chicago – $111

    Levin – $490

    Christopher Maley, Auburn – $4,973

    Sally Mangiaracina, Springfield – $102

    Martin Morris, Chicago – $177

    Kirk G Mottram (Kirk Mottram), McHenry – $7,568

    Noonan (Michael or Patrick?) – $120

    Jessica Palys, Marengo – $8,565

    Geoff Periard, Springfield – $7,039

    Nathan Schmitt, Woodstock – $5,670

    Peter T Senechalle (Peter Senechalle), Chicago – $2,156

    Mark Walsh, Chicago – $1,877

    source: Illinois State Board of Elections records for the Citizens of Jack D Franks PAC, committee ID 13681

    ++++++++

    The Citizens for Jack D Franks PAC was closed as of December 31, 2005.

    The Supporters of Jack D Franks PAC was opened January 27, 2006.

    From September 21, 2007 through March 15, 2016, PACs chaired by Michael J Madigan contributed $20,912 to the Supporters of Jack D Franks PAC:

    Democratic Majority – $3,684 from February 3, 2012 – December 14, 2015.

    Democratic Party of Illinois – $16,629 from September 4, 2010 – July 10, 2012

    Friends of Michael J Madigan – $600 on September 21, 2007.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    The contributions from PACs chaired by Michael J Madigan tot he Supporters of Jack D Franks PAC included pay / mileage for:

    Kylie Kelly, Chicago – $249

    Christopher Kessler, Mundelein – $138

    Laura M Duszynski (Laura Duszynski), Des Plaines – $47

    +++++++++++++++++

    The contributions from the PACs chaired by Michael J Madigan to the Supporters of Jack D Franks PAC also included contributions for:

    – Vote Builder Software

    – Accudata Software

    – voter files

    – postage

    – printing

    – telephone polling

    ++++++++

    Explanation of four PACs chaired by Michael J Madigan:

    13th Ward Democratic Organization – To support political goals of the members of the 13th Ward of Chicago. Michael Madigan is Precinct Committeeman of the 13th Ward of Chicago (Chicago has 50 wards) which is in the 22nd State Representative District (Michael Madigan is State Representative for the 22nd District, first elected in 1970, taking office in 1971).

    Democrat Majority Fund – To elect candidates to the State House of Representatives. Michael Madigan is the Speaker of the House, the #1 position in the State House of Representatives.

    Democratic Party of Illinois – To elect Democrat candidates to public and political office.

    Friends of Michael J Madigan – Te elect Michael J Madigan.

  12. Re: Walkup: and “We will see if the Board has enough backbone to stop him.”

    I guess that excludes Walkup as he has already caved on the tax increase.

  13. @LookB4ULeap,

    Franks is a currently a double dipper by virtue of drawing two government salaries simultaneously, and he will become one again when he starts receiving his legislative pension while drawing a salary from McHenry County.

    I’m not aware of Cal ever drawing two govt. paychecks at the same time, or drawing a govt. pension while also drawing a govt. paycheck, but I could be mistaken.

  14. This is a very serious subject and deserves serious discussion.

    The question we will be facing over the next few weeks and months is what the role of a Chairman who is elected at large is and does that differ from one that was elected by the other Board Members as in the past.

    In the past the Chairman was a first among equals.

    Does that change under a popularly elected Chairman so that he is “Lord of the Flies”?

    Time will tell, and I will definitely be counted as opposing any expansion of the traditional role for the Chairman.

    As to the supposed “tax increase”, we can debate, and hopefully will this year, whether or not local government should take the ‘new growth’.

    As with the CPI’s, no one questioned that in the past.

    Unlike the CPI, which is felt uniformly, not taking new growth gives people who construct something that wasn’t there before, a one year pass which actually causes everyone else’s taxes to go to cover the increase infrastructure costs occasioned by the non tax paying new growth.

  15. Re: Walkup

    It’s kind of illogical to assume that the Chairman role wouldn’t continue to change given it has already changed as the chairman no longer has a vote.

    Provided there are adequate checks on the chairman by the board, I don’t see why an evolution of the position would be such a contentious issue.

    Sure, new processes are scary, but much of the opposition thus far from ex-board members like Ersel Shuster to how to reorganize the structure of the board is merely partisan hackery.

    Shuster et al fail to consider that we need to lay new rules given some of the old rules no longer apply.

  16. Was there a pitch by Jack Franks or anyone else during the voter elected county board chair referendum, that the role of the County Board Chair would change, if the referendum passed?

  17. “Unlike the CPI, which is felt uniformly, not taking new growth gives people who construct something that wasn’t there before, a one year pass which actually causes everyone else’s taxes to go to cover the increase infrastructure costs occasioned by the non tax paying new growth.”

    This is a good explanation for a portion of the harm caused by TIFs to property taxpayers,except with TIFs:
    * do it for 23 years, then another 12 years
    * TIF applies to existing structures as well as ‘new growth’
    * there is no elected official who is tasked with protecting the taxpayers from this sort of ‘replacement’-taxation.

  18. Previous blog posts, including the following, stated new growth of $80,000 was added to the levy of $44,351,303, resulting in a levy of $44,431,303.

    http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/2016/12/26/over-80-comments-on-county-board-tax-hike-article

    The levy is extended at the tax rate determined by the county clerk.

    The tax rate for any particular property taxing district is the same for all parcels, be they new growth or not new growth.

    The new growth parcels have a hiked EAV whether or not a new growth levy is applied.

    Hiked new growth EAV for any particular parcel results in hiked property taxes for that parcel, given all other external factors remain the same.

    So the new growth parcels pay hiked property taxes whether or not a new growth levy is applied.

    So there is not a pass to new growth parcels if new growth levy is not taken, because the new growth parcel EAV was hiked, then multiplied by the same tax rate used by every parcel in the district, resulting in hiked taxes for that parcel?

    ++++++

    There may be hiked government costs resulting from the new growth that justify hiked new growth levy.

    But that’s a different issue than asserting new growth parcels receive a one year pass.

    There is no pass because new growth parcel EAV was hiked?

    +++++++

    There may be a missing piece to the above story which results in the free one year pass.

    If so, please explain.

  19. There was never a discussion that the new Chairman should have expanded powers because popularly elected, although that argument will undoubtedly be raised.

    The recently signed law will give the Chairman a vote to break ties.

  20. As to taxes, it was always argued that taking the CPI was not a tax increase as it only allowed the taxing body to keep up with inflation.

    If the CPI is not taken, it is s tax reduction as the dollar doesn’t buy as much.

    The County has lost ten million dollars by not taking CPI’s which has been a tax savings to the taxpayers.

  21. Giving the chair more power was not the intention of voters; the Executive Chair referendum failed.

  22. Josewhales: exactly.

    Jack has NO need for an assistant, or staff, or a promotional front man.

    If he’s so wonderful, let HIM prove it!

    It’s a part-time job at best.

    If he’s unable to perform as a part-time employee, what the hell did he run for?

    Not saying the other guy was any better, but come on-Jack Franks is the epitome of Springfield foul-ups!!

  23. THIS IS IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM ABSOLUTELY DUMBSTRUCK BY WALKUP’S COMMENT!

    HE VOTED FOR THE RULES FOR THE NEW CHAIRMAN!

    NOW WE ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THEM BEFORE WE HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE RULES!!

    Welcome to Alice in Wonderland – Wonderland being the County Board!

    Did Walkup get one of those prescriptions for the funny looking cigarettes?

  24. Mike Walkup said he would devote full-time to the post, if elected.

  25. Haven’t found who originally posted the following yet, but it is incorrect.

    “Unlike the CPI, which is felt uniformly, not taking new growth gives people who construct something that wasn’t there before, a one year pass which actually causes everyone else’s taxes to go to cover the increase infrastructure costs occasioned by the non tax paying new growth.”

    Newly-constructed properties are put on the tax rolls. They and other previously assessed property in McHenry County would all get a slightly lower tax bill had the County Board not raised its tax take by $80,000.

  26. Mike Walkup writes,

    “Unlike the CPI, which is felt uniformly, not taking new growth gives people who construct something that wasn’t there before, a one year pass which actually causes everyone else’s taxes to go to cover the increase infrastructure costs occasioned by the non tax paying new growth.”

    Newly-constructed properties are put on the tax rolls.

    They don’t get “a pass” after they are put on the tax rolls.

    And they would have to be on the tax rolls in order for the county to tax them.

    They and other previously assessed property in McHenry County would all get a slightly lower tax bill had the County Board not raised its tax take by $80,000.

  27. Just what the he!! Does one need a Fed lobbyist?!

    They cost money!

    Who is he plan on paying off?

    He is in a county seat not Springfield !

    He best learn to bring it down about 10 notches as he is under a microscope here he can’t run behind maddymans skirt and hide now.

  28. Michael Walkup is a Looser as Everyone who Follows Him.

    The Chicken Farmer who cannot mow his Lawn Lost the Election so Boo Hoo.

  29. Once again Cal,

    This is Not about Jack!

    It’s Clearly about Michael and his own shortcomings

  30. Yeah, Michael, Like you the board member stopped him with your vote to raise everyone’s taxes with your last vote.

  31. Northwest Herald

    Franks Asks County For 2 Advisory Referendums

    June 6, 2014

    by Kevin Craver

    “I can promise you I am not running for county chairman in 2016.

    This has nothing to do with me.”

    – Jack Franks

  32. It pleasures me to see how much it bothers you so called republicans that Jack is our first Elected county board chairman.

    Great work Jack!

  33. The article did start off about Jack Franks’ desire to have personal assistants.

  34. No Cal, that’s what you want the article to be.

    Reposting the same garbage you FOIAed in your continued quest to obstruct and ruin Franks shows your true colors.

    Drumming up false controversy over 80k wasn’t about saving the taxpayers money, it’s about poking Franks because you can point to a tax increase, no matter how small.

    You probably cost the taxpayers 80k a year with your FOIAing practices.

    What if people were able to FOIA ever last little document about you at the county building?

    I wonder what they would find?

  35. I’d be in some minutes.

    That’s for sure.

    Surely, you don’t argue that Jack Franks did not run on a campaign to cut, rather than raise taxes…which is exactly what he allowed by putting that levy increase on the Board’s agenda.

  36. Right after the Spring primaries, when Franks was gearing up to run, the county was hit with an unbelievable set of FOIA requests.

    They wanted every single email from every single staff and board member over long period of time.

    Under the law, they had to narrow those requests, which they eventually did, but it caused staff to spend a lot of time in responding and resulted in bupkis being revealed.

    I do however, disagree with the focus here on the $80K as being a “tax increase”.

    Once we had voted in November to take the new growth for the rest of the county, it made zero sense to suddenly reverse course and allow one township to benefit because they didn’t get their figures in on time.

    This had to be done before the end of the calendar year.

    We are going to have plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Franks going forward, I am am already critical of his manipulation of the Board Rules to consolidate committees that we were already going to consolidate and try to take credit for some sort of great “reform”, but the Algonquin Township new growth tax was not one of them.

    I would have brought it forward for a vote as well and would have had to vote on it myself.

    That’s why you had 19 Members, including many who are in the “anti tax faction” vote for it.

    We can argue about whether government should take new growth or not and that will be a good discussion going forward, but once you start to do it, you have to be uniform in its application.

    Meanwhile, we will be able to again forgo the Valley Hi Levy this year.

    We can do that every other year without losing the ability to levy for that facility so expect to see that happen at a minimum. We may also be able to figure out a way to rebate some of that to the taxpayers.

    Only about half of the current surplus came from the property tax levy, however, so we can’t do anything about that portion.

    Again, this will not be Franks’ doing but expect him to claim full credit.

    You may now begin the ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the issues.

    Happy New Year.

  37. One township does not benefit because they didn’t get their figures in on time.

    The EAV of the Algonquin Township new growth parcels was increased.

    So, Algonquin Township new growth parcels would pay hiked property taxes irregardless if the county hiked its levy request for Algonquin Township new growth parcels.

    When McHenry County hikes its levy request for Algonquin Township new growth parcels, the levy increase goes to all parcels in the McHenry County property taxing district, not just Algonquin Township new growth parcels.

    If that is not correct please explain.

    Not to just parcels

  38. @walkup

    Yes, I agree with Chico Esquela…..when are you going to take down your political signs Mr. Walkup?

    The election was over almost 2 months ago and still they remain, how irresponsible of an elected official that is running our government!

  39. Jack Franks is apparently changing the role of the county board chair.

    The subject deserves more scrutiny, for instance, comparing the topics in the post to the immediate previous County Board Chair, Joe Gottemoller.

    The idea of the voter elected county board chair referendum that passed on March 18, 2014 was for the voters to elect the county board chair, rather than the board members electing one of their own as county board chair.

    While promoting that referendum Jack Franks did not indicate there would be changes to the role of the county board chair.

  40. “Once we had voted in November to take the new growth for the rest of the county, it made zero sense to suddenly reverse course and allow one township to benefit because they didn’t get their figures in on time.”

    Mike, I have a hard time understanding what you mean when you say that Algonquin Township would benefit because they were tardy with their assessment rolls.

    Can you explain how Algonquin Township (either taxpayers who live there or the public bodies therein) would specifically benefit if the County didn’t “take the new growth”?

  41. Re: Walkup

    Nails it on the head concerning the 80k.

    Re: Cal

    Surely you can understand the nuance of governing wherein one can be a tax fighter while uniformity instituting public policy.

  42. The $80,000 that was levied by the McHenry County property taxing district for Algonquin Township new growth was a County tax hike to all parcels in the McHenry County property taxing district.

    If it was not, please explain.

  43. What’s disturbing is the failure to understand the basic impact of the $80,000 levy increase as demonstrated by the comments here and starting with the Finance Chair, Mr. Skala, from the audio at the meeting.

    I wonder how many board members voted in favor of the resolution because they thought that someone was getting a free ride since that’s how Mr. Skala framed the issue in the meeting?

  44. @walkup I have emailed and Facebook messaged Mr. Walkup, and contacted the County regarding Mr. Walkup’s signs over the past month, with locations included.

    There is a large one on US 20 in Union (by Donley’s) and smaller ones on Greenwood Rd. North of 120 (buried in snow now).

  45. Hmmmmmmmmmmm….

    like his special ‘assistant’ down in Springpatch!???

  46. This is really scary!

    Why?

    He was voted to represent us!

    How the H can he represent us when he actually writes B.S. such as this?

    Mike Walkup on 12/28/2016 at 10:21 am said:

    “Once we had voted in November to take the new growth for the rest of the county, it made zero sense to suddenly reverse course and allow one township to benefit because they didn’t get their figures in on time.”

    That statement is complete and utter B.S.!

  47. Again, the concept of taking vs not taking new growth can be fairly debated.

    Both Cary and MCC did not do it this past year.

    The time to debate that, however, is not after it has already been voted on for almost all of the county and only one township is left that hasn’t been voted on due to the tardiness of that township in submitting their figures.

    You don’t take new growth for some people and not for others.

    That should be obvious.

    When it comes time to set the new levy for the next fiscal year, we can, and probably should, have that discussion.

    Also I think we should have those votes before, rather than after, the Fall elections, where applicable.

    I will be asking the county staff and Chairman to prepare a presentation on that at one of our upcoming COW’s.

    Hope to see some of you there.

  48. New growth for any given township is levied to all parcels in the county.

    It’s not as if new growth for Algonquin township, is levied to only Algonquin Township new growth parcels, or only Algonquin Township parcels.

    The only reason for the county to levy for new growth for Algonquin Township, is if the county wants more money from every single parcel in the county.

    If that’s not correct, please explain.

    ++++++++++++++

    The new growth parcels will pay hiked property taxes as a result of the hiked assessment.

    That’s because the property tax rate for the McHenry County property taxing district is the same for all parcels.

    The hiked assessment is independent of the county levying for new growth.

    The decision to levy for new growth, comes after the assessor hikes the assessment.

  49. Actually there is more to the following statement.

    “The only reason for the County to levy for new growth for Algonquin Township, is if the County wants more money from every single parcel in the county.”

    +++++++

    New growth is hiked assessment / EAV to a parcel resulting from improvements to the parcel.

    +++++++

    When new growth occurs in a parcel, and property taxing district levy remains the same, every other parcel in the property taxing district receives a fractional decrease in their taxes as a result of new growth.

    +++++

    A justification for a property taxing to hike the levy to account for new growth, is if the property taxing district’s costs are hiked due to the new growth.

    But, the County provided no such justification when hiking the levy in the name of Algonquin Township new growth.

  50. The following example is for illustration purposes only, not as a suggested strategy, and the illustration is not realistic because assessed value / EAV would not remain constant from one year to another for a given property taxing district.

    In a given property taxing district, such as the County property taxing district;

    If assessed value and EAV were the same as the previous year;

    If the County property taxing district were only to levy for new growth and were not to levy for any other kind of increase such as the follow;

    If the County levied the same for bonds as the previous year;

    If the County did not take a levy increase equal to or less than, the lesser of CPI or 5%;

    The non new growth parcels would pay the same property taxes to the County property taxing district;

    and the new growth parcels would pay hiked property taxes.

    ++++++++++

    That allows one to grasp that the hiked levy for new growth can be offset by the hiked levy for new growth parcels, from a non new growth parcel perspective.

    In such a situation, the County property taxing district receives hiked revenue.

    ++++++++++

    Any dollar levied by a property taxing district, irregardless of the type of levy (the lesser of CPI or 5%, bonds, new growth) is spread among all parcels in the property taxing district via the tax rate.

    There is only one tax rate for all parcels in the property taxing district.

  51. Correction.

    That allows one to grasp that the hiked levy for new growth can be offset by the hiked assessed value / EAV for new growth parcels, from a non new growth parcel perspective.

  52. And finally, why did Jack Franks put a resolution on the agenda to hike property taxes of every parcel in the County property taxing district, when he campaigned to lower property taxes 10%.

  53. A property taxing district taking new growth for some parcels and not others is perfectly acceptable.

    Once again, let’s look at the math.

    The levy on new growth is added to the overall levy for that property taxing district (in this case the County).

    The levy is sent to the County Clerk.

    The County Clerk performs the following calculation (we’ll keep it simple):

    Levy for the entire property taxing district / Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) for the entire property taxing district = Tax Rate.

    Every single parcel receives the same tax rate.

    ++++++++++

    Think about that process.

    One big levy.

    One big EAV.

    One big Tax Rate.

    ++++++++++

    There is only

    1 big Levy / 1 big EAV

    for the entire property taxing district that determines the

    Tax Rate

    for every single parcel in the property taxing district.

    +++++++++

    Next, to determine the property tax of any given parcel to any given property taxing district;

    (EAV – Exemptions) x Tax Rate = Property Tax due from parcel to property taxing district.

    +++++++++

    Think

    +++++++++

    The County levying for new growth in Algonquin Township results in an increase of the County levy.

    Only one levy goes to the county clerk which calculates one tax rate for all parcels, and that tax rate is multiplied by each parcel’s EAV to determine each parcel’s property tax due to the County.

    There is no separate levy for Algonquin Township new growth that goes from the County to the County Clerk.

    Thus the County Clerk doesn’t calculate a special tax rate for Algonquin Township New Growth.

    Thus the new growth parcels pay the same tax rate as all other parcels in the district.

    +++++++++

    Repeat in a different way.

    ++++++++++

    There is only 1 big levy that gets sent by the McHenry County property taxing district to the County Clerk.

    That one big levy is divided by the one big EAV to produce tax rate.

    Levy / EAV = Tax Rate.

    That Tax Rate is used by every single parcel in the McHenry County property taxing district.

    ++++++++++++

  54. No thanks.

    Looks like your boy, Walkup, did the job already.

    Plus, it’s way more fun to watch the standard bearer of the McGOP eat the party from within.

    Nice job Cal – you are a real mensch.

  55. Walkup still does not understand.

    And since you agree with Walkup, you don’t understand.

    and since Jack Franks hiked the taxes of every parcel in the county when he said he would lower the property taxes by 10%, Jack Franks does not make sense.

    And the only reason you are here is to promote Jack Franks and discredit Cal Skinner.

    Which means the blog must be effective or you wouldn’t be here.

  56. Here is what Walkup and Moderate does not understand.

    “You don’t take new growth for some people and not for others.”

    – Mike Walkup

    ++++++++++++++++

    There is only one tax rate for all parcels in all townships for the County property taxing district.

    The only difference if the county were to not levy one township for new growth, is the tax rate in all parcels in all townships would not hiked to reflect new growth in that one township.

  57. Every time the words “capture new gowth,” “levy for new growth,” etc. are uttered, if that is done, the result is the levy is hiked, which hikes the property tax rate of every parcel in that property taxing district, which hikes the property taxes of every parcel in that district.

    That may be justified if the property taxing district has hiked costs due to the new growth.

    A portion or all of the property tax hike may be offset in non new growth parcels because hiked EAV occurred in new growth parcels.

    But the bottom line, the only reason new growth should be levied, is if the property taxing district wants more money.

    Levying for new growth results in the property taxing district receiving more money from every parcel in the property taxing district.

    If new growth is not levied, then each parcel sends no money to the property taxing district in the name of new growth.

    If new growth is levied, then each parcel sends money to the property taxing district in the name of new growth.

  58. I’m not speaking for Franks or Walkup, but it sure seems Walkup understands the process you detailed above.

    First, you tried to peddle a narrative that the board members shouldn’t vote on the 741 pages of proposed business because it was tooooooo much.

    Gasser proved you wrong in saying he read every page.

    Then, you tried to peddle a narrative that Franks was breaking the ruleS of the board, the same rules the board approved of.

    Walkup voted for said rules, proving you in the wrong.

    Now, you are complaining about $80k, the same $80k Walkup voted for, proving you in the wrong.

    What you and Cal haven’t laid out is what the alternative should be, because it seems that we would be in the same place irrespective of if Franks or Walkup won.

    So, what you are really complaining about is that a Democrat is the Chairman and not a Republican.

    In reality, this $80k adjustment has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with politics.

    Pure and simple.

    And irrespective of what the general consensus is, Skinner is willing to tear down The McGOP if that means striking at Franks.

    So, I don’t have do discredit him as the standard bearer for the McGOP, he’s doing a good enough job himself!

  59. Neither you nor Walkup understands the process.

    “You don’t take new growth for some people and not others.”

    – Mike Walkup

    +++++++++

    Explain why the County should not take new growth for some people and not others.

    +++++++++

    Posting 741 pages a few days before a board meeting is unacceptable.

    Just because Gasser was able to plow through it does not make it acceptable.

    Have repeatedly posted a more sane approach is to introduce items one meeting.

    Then vote on the items 2 weeks later.

    That allows board members and the public ample time to review materials.

    +++++++++

    Jack Franks campaigned to reduce the property tax levy by 10%.

    One of his first actions as county board chair is to hike the property tax levy by $80,000.

    That makes no sense.

  60. And Jack Franks campaigned on zero based budget, meaning justify all expenditures.

    All we know about the $80,000 is:

    Revenue: OCA 990005-7020 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Property Taxes $80,000.

    Expenditure: OCA 990700-6810 Non-Dept. Capital Projects – Fd Bal. Enhancement $80,000.

    So what more precisely is the purpose of the $80,000.

  61. Except in my precinct, I have not been the standard bearer for the Republican Party since 1998 wheb I last ran successfully for State Representative.

    I have attempted to hold office holders feet to the fire, regardless of party on McHenry County Blog.

  62. You have called for the resignation of Precinct Committeeman, have advocated for at least 7 candidates for State Rep in the county and now are crafting a narrative against the newly elected chair.

    That’s beyond a precinct.

  63. Who other than Moderate considers Cal Skinner the standard bearer of the McHenry County Republican party.

    The claim is only made to bolster Jack Franks’ positioning, and he’s only in the predicament he’s in because he says one thing than repeatedly does another.

    – Campaign pitch in 1998 is that he’s limiting himself 3 term as state rep but once elected in 1998 serves 9 terms.

    – In 2014 states he will not run for County Board Chair in 2016, then runs for County Board Chair in 2016, and is elected as County Board Chair in 2016.

    – In 2016 his central campaign pitch is to cut property taxes in property taxes in all McHenry County property taxes districts by 10%, yet once elected, in the very first month, puts a resolution on the agenda to hike county board taxes.

    – In 2016 campaign for County Board chair states he will release his plan to cut property taxes 10% in each property taxing district in McHenry County by 10%, yet once elected, he takes the oath of office on December 5, 2016, yet still has not released his plan.

    – etc.

  64. Moderate comes to a private citizen’s blog and complains about what that citizen blogs about.

    Truly stupidity on a rampage in that poor little snowflake’s mind.

  65. Cindy,

    I thought you said no one cares what I say.

    You sure seem too pumpkin.

  66. The County Clerk’s web site says the following is the question on the ballot:

    “Shall the extension limitation under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law for the City of Harvard, McHenry County, Illinois, be increased from the lesser of 5% or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index over the prior levy year to 15.7% per year for 2018?”

  67. Moderate?

    I never said I didn’t care.

    There you go again putting things in people’s posts.

    I contend that you are a nitwit; and you certainly like to prove me right.

    You used the wrong to in your last sentence.

    Here’s a hint:

    Substitute the word also for too.

    Now, your sentence makes no sense.

    But, then again, neither do you!

  68. Mark? Everyone knows what Moderate is.

    That’s why we have to let them know that we aren’t buying any of their bullcarp.

    It’s called push back.

    They need to be confronted instead of letting them think they are doing anything to upset any applecarts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *