From Terri Rybicki:
D46 Tax Hike Narrowly Avoided — But the Real Story May Be Just Beginning
The immediate crisis at Prairie Grove CSD 46 appears to be over. A filing issue that could have significantly increased property taxes was corrected before bills went out, according to the McHenry County Clerk’s office.
But focusing only on the avoided tax spike misses the bigger picture.
Because when you follow the timeline—and the money—this situation raises longer-term financial questions that have not yet been clearly answered.
A Sudden Shift in Strategy
In November 2025, District records show a relatively straightforward plan: do not abate the 2023 bonds and instead levy within the allowable CPI cap.
Then, within weeks, that approach changed.
At the December 3rd finance meeting—attended by 3 school board members , Superintendent John Bute legal and financial advisors the village trustee Werner, and Village President David Underwood—the conversation appears to have shifted direction. By December 16th, the Board approved abating both the 2021 and 2023 bonds.
A rapid pivot like that typically follows new information or revised assumptions.
The question is: what changed?
Understanding What Was Actually at Stake
The 2023 bond is not a typical bond—it is an Alternative Revenue Bond.
These bonds are structured with a key assumption:
- They are repaid primarily using a non-property tax revenue source
- Property taxes act as a backup
Importantly, Alternative Revenue Bonds are structured so the community does not have a direct vote or approval, unlike traditional bonds that often require voter authorization. In effect, these bonds allow the District to commit to long-term financial obligations without a public referendum.
In simple terms, the District is relying on future revenue to cover the obligation—so taxpayers don’t have a direct say—but they remain ultimately responsible if the revenue does not materialize.
Public sentiment has been clear: the community does not want the lithium battery farm. Yet, it appears that the potential of this project was factored into decisions when the initial bonds were issued and later when abatement was approved. That raises questions about whether the bond strategy relied on a revenue source that the community opposes.
The Battery Farm and Solar Farm Questions
Public discussions have pointed to the proposed Monarch Grid lithium battery facility as a possible source of that alternative revenue, given projections of substantial annual payments.
To date, no publicly available document definitively confirms that this project is formally tied to repayment of the 2023 bond. However, the timing of decisions and overlapping involvement of school and village leadership has led to ongoing public questions about whether the two are connected.
Another layer to consider: the District’s need to place a solar farm on school property. Was that factored into the Alternative Revenue Bonds and the battery farm assumptions? Could these different energy projects have been considered as part of the revenue strategy? The public record does not make this clear, but it is a critical question for residents who want to understand the financial planning behind these long-term obligations.
The PJM ComEd Queue and Earlier Eolian Meetings
The story may go back even further. In March 2021, Eolian submitted a project into the PJM ComEd queue, signaling their intent to develop large-scale energy infrastructure in the region. This queue placement represents the first step in securing transmission approval and a potential revenue stream from electricity generation.
Then, in 2024, Eolian reportedly met with the McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeals, Village President, and village administrator . While the public record of these discussions is limited, the involvement of municipal leadership and the ZBA in private meetings about a major energy project adds context to the 2025 financial decisions. It suggests that conversations about potential revenue sources and project approvals were already happening well before the District made its bond abatement decisions.
In other words, the foundations for a revenue-backed strategy tied to the battery project may have been laid years before the bonds were abated, raising additional questions about transparency and community input.
The Timeline That Nearly Triggered a Tax Spike
What happened next is critical—and easy to overlook:
- The County Clerk identified ambiguity in how the abatement documents were prepared, making it unclear whether one or both bonds were being abated.
- In January 2026, a verification was sent to the school and was signed and returned to the County.
- In March 2026, a follow-up inquiry was sent again to the school for clarification. A response was submitted that appeared to confirm only partial abatement, which would have left the 2023 bond levy active.
This sequence resulted in what has been described as a potential “ghost levy” of approximately $943,700.
The issue was ultimately corrected before tax bills were finalized—but only after multiple opportunities for miscommunication.
The margin for error was narrow.
Two Very Different Futures: 2044 and Beyond
The 2023 bond obligation extends to approximately 2044. The long-term impact depends on whether the anticipated revenue source materializes.
Scenario 1: The Battery Project Moves Forward
- Alternative revenue could cover bond payments
- Property tax reliance could remain limited
- The December abatement decision may prove beneficial for taxpayers
Scenario 2: The Project Does NOT Materialize
- The bond still must be repaid
- Property taxes become the fallback funding source
- Future boards may be required to levy taxes to cover the obligation
Could the District pay off the bond by 2044 without the battery farm?
It is unclear. Without a large, alternative revenue source, the District would likely need to rely on property tax revenue or other funding mechanisms to meet obligations. Paying off the bond entirely without the battery farm would likely be challenging and could require higher levies or other difficult financial decisions in the coming decades.
A Larger, Unanswered Question
This leads to a broader question now being raised in the community:
Is any of this connected to the abrupt resignation of former Superintendent John Bute?
At this time, there is no publicly confirmed explanation linking these events. However, the timing—between significant financial decisions, administrative complications, and a leadership change—has prompted ongoing public interest and scrutiny.
Where This Leaves Residents
This is no longer just about a single tax year.
It is about:
- Long-term obligations extending to 2044
- Assumptions about future development revenue
- Execution errors that nearly had immediate consequences
- The fact that voters did not have a direct say in the 2023 Alternative Revenue Bond
- The community opposition to the lithium battery farm, which appears to have been considered in the bond decision-making process
- The District’s solar farm plans—raising the question of whether multiple energy projects were factored into the bond assumptions
- The early PJM ComEd queue and Eolian meetings with municipal leadership, which may have influenced the District’s financial strategy
- And the level of transparency surrounding these decisions
The Bottom Line
The tax increase may have been avoided this year.
But the outcome of the strategy behind it will not be known for years.
If the projected revenue arrives, this may be seen as a calculated and effective financial decision.
If it does not, taxpayers may eventually bear the cost—just on a delayed timeline. Without the battery farm or a similar revenue source, paying off the bond in full by 2044 would likely be challenging and could require higher levies or other funding solutions in the future.
Until clearer answers are provided, several questions remain:
- What changed between November and December?
- What revenue assumptions justified the bond abatement?
- How secure are those projections?
- How does issuing an Alternative Revenue Bond without a community vote affect long-term taxpayer risk?
- Why was a revenue source opposed by the community apparently factored into these financial decisions?
- How did the District’s solar farm plans factor into the Alternative Revenue Bond strategy and battery farm assumptions?
- How did earlier Eolian meetings and the PJM ComEd queue submission influence the District’s financial strategy?
- And how, if at all, do these events relate to leadership changes within the District?
- Who invited The village President to the Dec. 3rd school finance committee meeting and why?
For now, the issue is resolved.
The story is not..
