Government
McHenry County Board Rejects Binding Home Rule, Sends Advisory Questions to November Ballot
Thursday, July 23, 2026
The McHenry County Board on Tuesday night declined, 1 to 17, to put a binding home rule question in front of voters. Minutes later it approved an advisory version of the same question, 13 to 4 with one abstention. An advisory question about local zoning authority over energy projects and residential development had already passed minutes earlier, 17 to 1.
The practical result for a Marengo voter: your November 3 ballot will carry two countywide advisory questions. Neither one changes any law by itself, no matter how the vote comes out. The question that would have changed things, binding home rule paired with an elected county executive, is dead at the board, and short of a voter petition or a new board vote in the next few weeks, the earliest it could return to a ballot is November 2028.
Twelve Minutes, Three Votes
The board took up the three ballot questions a little over an hour into Tuesday's meeting, after a public comment period that ran long enough that the board voted to extend it, most of it about a proposed animal cruelty ordinance elsewhere on the agenda. Two commenters urged the board to reject both home rule questions. From the first motion to the last tally, the three questions took about twelve minutes.
The zoning question came first, and it was amended on the floor before the vote. As drafted, it asked whether the General Assembly should repeal state laws that prevent the county and other local governments from exercising full zoning authority over commercial solar, wind, and battery energy storage facilities and "large-scale residential developments." Mike Shorten of District 4 moved to strike "large-scale," arguing that the stalled state housing bill the question responds to was aimed at residential development at any scale, so the question voters will see asks about residential development generally. The amendment passed on a voice vote, and the amended question passed 17 to 1. The county had not yet published the text as adopted when this article went to press; the resolution directs the county clerk to certify the ballot question by August 26.
The binding home rule question failed 1 to 17. It reached the floor without the endorsement of either committee that reviewed it; it had failed in the law and government committee and been tabled by administrative services. Pamela Althoff of District 6 cast the only yes vote. Joseph Gottemoller of District 4, who at the board's July 16 discussion had argued hardest for bringing home rule forward, telling colleagues he was "tired of ... being treated like second class citizens," also voted no. That was not a change of heart: at the same July 16 discussion he said he would leave the choice between the binding and advisory routes to the board. "I'm in favor of 13C, not 13B," he said Tuesday before the vote, referring to the items by their agenda numbers, and in the advisory debate minutes later he argued for hearing residents' opinion before the county goes any further.
The advisory home rule question then passed 13 to 4. Carolyn Campbell of District 3, John Collins of District 2, Michael Skala of District 9, and Gloria Van Hof of District 2 voted no. Larry Smith of District 8 abstained; the board's electronic voting system records exactly three responses, yes, no, or abstain. Van Hof was the only member to vote no on all three questions.
The Sticking Point Was the County Executive
The board's July 16 committee of the whole had already telegraphed Tuesday's outcome. The sticking point for most members who spoke was not home rule itself but the county executive office the binding question was legally required to carry with it. Under the Illinois Constitution, a county can only get home rule by electing a chief executive countywide, so the binding question had to bundle the two.
Campbell argued at that discussion that the package amounted to "home rule status under the guise of local control," and that what was really being proposed was an elected county executive form of government that "unleashes unlimited taxing authority." Skala argued that home rule would not fix the county's Springfield problem, since the legislature could simply rewrite the rules around it, and summed up the county's position this way: "I'm coming to the baseball game without a glove, without a ball and without a bat ... It sucks." He voted no on both home rule questions.
Collins had called the advisory version a "very expensive opinion poll" at the July 8 committee meeting, in the Northwest Herald's account. At the July 16 discussion he argued that a board that believed in the change should ask the real question, saying the claimed urgency made no sense if the county was willing to wait years for a binding vote. On Tuesday he voted no on both.
What an Advisory Question Does
Nothing, by itself. An advisory question is a formal poll. The results bind nobody, and no ordinance, tax, or office changes as a result. Supporters of the advisory route argued it gives residents time to learn what home rule means before being asked to adopt it, and gives the board a reading on whether a binding question is worth pursuing later. The floor case was partisan as well: Gottemoller said Cook County's Democratic machine should have to live under the laws it passes for McHenry County, and Terri Greeno of District 5, who said she personally opposes home rule, pointed at Governor Pritzker's mandates and said residents deserve the chance to decide.
If you want the full picture of what home rule is and what a binding version would and would not do, our explainer from earlier this month covers it.
How Every Member Voted
Votes from the board's electronic vote display, photographed during the meeting. Chairman Michael Buehler presides but by rule votes only to break a tie, under both state law and the board's own rules, and none of the three votes was tied.
Members are listed by district, and Marengo's two districts are in bold. Most Marengo addresses vote in District 8; the parts of the city in Riley and Coral townships, on the south side, vote in District 9.
| Member (District) | Zoning Advisory | Binding Home Rule | Advisory Home Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kunkle (1) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Sullivan (1) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Collins (2) | Yes | No | No |
| Van Hof (2) | No | No | No |
| Campbell (3) | Yes | No | No |
| Hendricks (3) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Gottemoller (4) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Shorten (4) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Greeno (5) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Krieger (5) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Althoff (6) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Kamienski (6) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Sager (7) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Thomas (7) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smith (8) | Yes | No | Abstain |
| Von Bergen (8) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Kearns (9) | Yes | No | Yes |
| Skala (9) | Yes | No | No |
What Happens Next
The two advisory questions go to every McHenry County ballot on November 3, including every Marengo precinct. State law required the board to act by August 17 to make this ballot, and its August meeting fell one day past the deadline, which made Tuesday the last regular chance. A binding county home rule question can only appear at a general election in an even-numbered year, and a board resolution is not the only path: state law also lets voters force the question onto a general election ballot by petition, with as few as 500 signatures certified through the circuit court. On paper the window for this November has not quite closed. Petitions are due in early August, and the board could in principle act at a special meeting before the August 17 cutoff. After a 1-to-17 vote, neither is likely, and the realistic earliest for a binding version is November 2028.
The nine board seats whose terms end this December will be decided on the same ballot as the two questions.
Marengo's own status does not change either way. The city is not a home rule community, and nothing on this ballot would make it one.
Marengo Weekly attended the July 21 county board meeting by video stream and reviewed the county's recording, the board's electronic vote displays for agenda items 13.a, 13.b, and 13.c, the posted agenda and its resolution attachments, and the county board roster published on the county website. The chairman's tie-break-only voting role is set by state law (55 ILCS 5/2-3007) and the county board's rules (Article II, Section 5.4, as revised May 19, 2026). The binding question's committee outcomes are as stated on the record at the board's July 16 committee of the whole, in the chairman's summary and by members of both committees; the committees' own minutes were not yet posted at press time. The voter petition route for a binding question is at 55 ILCS 5/2-5005. The Marengo district split is from the county's published GIS boundary data, cross-checked against precinct-level results in the county clerk's official 2022 canvass. The adopted text of the amended zoning question had not been published by the county at press time; we will confirm the certified wording, which is due to election authorities by August 26. Committee history and statutory citations are as documented in our July home rule explainer. Quotes from the July 16 committee of the whole and the July 21 meeting are from the county's YouTube streams of those meetings and were verified by ear against the recordings before publication. The Collins "opinion poll" quote is from the Northwest Herald's July 9 report.
