MCC Capital Program Goes from $42 Million to $63 Million to $35 Million to $22 Million

Under the current proposal, a stand alone building would be constructed on the northwestern edge of current buildings. It would cost extra to connect it to the current complex. Old labs and current health science rooms would be re-purposed.

Under the current proposal, a stand alone building would be constructed on the northwestern edge of current buildings. It would cost extra to connect it to the current complex. Old labs and current health science rooms would be re-purposed.  About 100 parking spaces will be lost.

Former McHenry County Board President Ron Parrish is quite pleased with what administrators offered up Thursday night to solve the science and health science facility deficiency.

Ron Parrish

Ron Parrish

“Wonderful,” was his first comment after the presentation by newly-installed President Clint Gabbard.

“This is a nice response to the last ten times we’ve discussed it.”

“I’m sorry it took a year and a change in leadership,” he said in a not to subtle slap at former President Vickie Smith.

“You absolutely have my 1000% support.”

The administration was sent back to the drawing board when potential donors balked at contributing to the $35 million project, which did not have unanimous board support.

The most recent proposal–the $35 million one–was approved on a 4-3 vote with Parrish, Karen Tirio and Chris Jenner in opposition.

“I believe out financial supporters will applaud loudly.”

Cost of building the unconnected science addition would be $921,928, according to Pepper Construction, which indicated that the estimate was pretty solid because the firm is currently building two such college facilities and “the lack of creativity in the design.”

Walsh, Molly facing left talking

Clint Gabbard

Clint Gabbard

The question the administration tried to answer, Gabberd said was, “What does it cost to create the space for our labs to be modern and efficient?”

After the proposal was outlined, Trustee Molly Walsh observed that was the “critical space.”

“I would agree and you’ll get a chance to see what that will cost stripped of everything else,”Trustee Cynthia Kisser added.

She noted that one of every fourteen students would utilize the new space.

Gabbard pretty much apologized for the administration’s slow learning curve.

“You guys have been telling us [what to do].

“We were having a heard time listening.”

Karen Tirio

Karen Tirio

Trustee Karen Tirio asked a key question:

“How do we plan on paying for this?”

The answer was in three parts:

  • 1/3 from cash on hand
  • 1/3 from donations
  • 1/3 from students (instead of a $10 per semester hour user fee, students would pay $5)

“That’s early thinking,” Gabbard said.

Parrish noted that the Ambutal on Route 31 would not be adequate because of the distance from the main campus and the fact that students would be taking other courses at the main campus.

Jenner, who participated by phone, had criticism that the meeting was not being recorded and live streamed, but concluded–without being able to see the handouts–that it “sounds like we’re going in the right direction.”

Cynthia Kisser

Cynthia Kisser

“Duly noted,” Board President Mike Smith said, pointing out that no votes were to be taken.

Kisser advocate for space for students to congregate in the new building.

That could be accomplished by building a covered walkway from the rest of the campus complex to a lobby, costing $718,000, and/or lengthening the building so hallways could be made wider in the middle (cost about $272,000).

She noted that under the proposal the Board would be “jettisoning completely more student space.”

There was discussion of paying for LEED certification or going in that direction without paying the for the designation.

The parking lot where the new science building would be constructed.

The parking lot where the new science building would be constructed.

Toward the end of the discussion, Gabbard observed, “This is a great plan to raise money on.”

The cost estimates are below:

Pepper Construction cost estimates.

Pepper Construction cost estimates.


Comments

MCC Capital Program Goes from $42 Million to $63 Million to $35 Million to $22 Million — 5 Comments

  1. The MCC administration lacks any credibility.

    They have proposed at least four or five different major capital projects in the last few years, all of them “necessary” and supported by bought and paid for consultants’ opinions.

    Now we’re supposed to be pleased that the current iteration is “only” $22 million?

    Why should we believe ANYTHING they propose?

    The new plan is a 73,000 square foot addition – SEVEN TIMES the space the current science labs occupy.

    The U of I rebuilt lab space for about $325 per square foot. To fully remodel the existing labs at MCC should cost around $3.25 million.

    If they need to be 50% bigger, it should cost $5 million.

    THAT simple option has NEVER been considered.

  2. The MCC administration lacks any credibility. They have proposed four or five major capital projects in the last few years, all of them different, yet all of them the one thing MCC absolutely needed, a contention “proven” each time by bought-and-paid-for consultants’ opinions.

    Now we’re supposed to be pleased that the current iteration is “only” $22 million?

    Why should we believe ANYTHING they propose?

    The new plan is a 73,000 square feet – SEVEN TIMES the space the current science labs occupy!

    The U of I rebuilt lab space for about $325 per square foot. To fully remodel the existing labs at MCC should cost around $3.25 million.

    THAT simple option has NEVER been considered.

  3. Steve Wilson,

    I totally agree, the MCC administration follows the lead of the MCC Board of Trustees.

    The Board of Trustees totally lack any credibility.

    You point out the consultant’s opinions that were bought and paid by taxpayers of McHenry County.

    To get access to these funds the trustees voted to approve the funding.

    So at the end of the day, this falls on the trustees.

    Oddly many of the members on this board have you to thank for their elected position.

    If the simple option is to remodel the inside of the building, then have one of your elected officials make a motion at the next Board of Trustees meeting.

    Then it has to be followed and they will have funded yet another opinion.

    Finally, the building looks to be paid primarily by “user fees.” 1/3 is free money from donors, but I wonder who has this money in the community and let the new President find that money.

    If President succeeds at getting these donations, then no need for the taxpayers to even be considered.

    With the other 1/3 coming from the true users of the building.

    I find this as being great.

    I wish they would keep the $10 fee, so 2/3rds would come from the students and the other 1/3rd from donations.

    Then take that money they have squirreled away and either quit complaining about “deferred maintenance” or if possible give it back to the taxpayers.

  4. I’m confused.

    Only 2-3 months ago, $15 million of the financing required for the project was sourced from donations.

    Now only a third (or $7.3 million) is targeted to come from donors.

    Why did more than half of the estimated donors disappear?

    Why isn’t this number still $15 million?

  5. There are many unanswered questions!

    Like why wasn’t this live streamed like their other meetings?

    MCC IS NOT BEING TRANSPARENT! (like that’s news)

    Looks like someone got to Parrish.

    He’s caved! Very disappointed in him and someone should tell him you can’t support something a thousand percent!

    He REALLY wants to convey he’s onboard with the spending.

Leave a Reply

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