Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McHenry County Board to ask voters about home rule; wording tweaked after debate
Summary
After debate about scope and consequences, the board edited referendum wording and approved a nonbinding question about home rule and county-executive government for the November ballot; a separate referral (13b) failed.
The McHenry County Board voted July 21 to place a nonbinding referendum on the November ballot asking voters about home-rule status and a county executive form of government, after amending the proposed ballot language.
Member Shorten successfully moved to remove the phrase "large scale" from the ballot language describing residential developments, arguing the original phrasing could be misunderstood. "The latest version of that bill was not about large scale residential developments; it was about residential development," Shorten said during debate. The board adopted the amended wording by voice vote and later approved the nonbinding referendum question (item 13c) on a roll call.
Speakers during public comment and members during debate raised concerns about whether home rule would restore local zoning authority over state‑preempted energy projects; multiple residents urged alternatives such as litigation to challenge state preemption rather than structural government changes. Costa Iftikha, a Richmond Township resident, told the board that "math brought the developers here, not home rule," arguing land economics and transmission access, not municipal status, drives solar development.
The board split votes on related items: item 13b failed, while the nonbinding item 13c passed. Members who supported the measure framed it as a way to gauge public sentiment before pursuing further steps; opponents warned a home-rule change could centralize power and increase costs.
