McHenry County Blog

Finance Committee members considering award of Stimulus Bond authority. Seen from left to right are Tina Hill, John Hammerand, Dan Ryan and Lyn Orphal. Chairman Marc Munaretto is to Orphal's left.

The McHenry County Board’s Finance Committee decided to award millions of dollars of Federal Stimulus Bond authority on a “first come, first served” basis.

The first two private entities in line were sports related.

One was Mark Houser’s EquityOne’s baseball stadium, to be located in Woodstock after the McHenry County College Board’s efforts to provide taxpayer-backed bonds failed.

The second was a new proposal for a McHenry County SportsPlex located in Lakewood.

Both received support from the municipalities in question.

But, in taking a “first come, first served” approach, along with the attendant publicity, the county board was telling other potential job creators they need not apply.

The SportsPlex' field layout. Click to enlarge.

Last Friday Lakewood Village President Erin Smith issued a press release announcing that the financing could not be obtained in time to meet the December 31st deadline imposed by Federal law.

And, so, McHenry County lost the opportunity to see the money used for job creation.

While the SportsPlex did not drop out early enough to allow the subsidized interest loans to be re-directed, the baseball stadium did.

Sage Products, a provide job creator, got money to put on a addition.

One can only wonder if there were other successful manufacturers in McHenry County who were deterred from applying by the “First come, first served” loan allocation approach.

Actually, it wasn’t raining as I drove to Woodstock for the McHenry County Board’s Finance Committee meeting Tuesday.

“Historical.  If an existing company, balance sheet and profit & loss statement for the last three fiscal years.  Include accountant’s opinion letter and any schedules and notes to financial statements.”

“*The entity that will own and operate the stadium will be a start up company that will have no historical financial information.”

Yesterday, I started a three-part article about what MCC might do to regain public trust in order to get support for the baseball stadium that four of its board members (George Lowe, Barbara Walters, Mary Miller and Carol Larson) desire so ardently.

With the public relations disaster that McHenry County College has managed to create, it seems to me that the board has to start from scratch.

That’s what I told Northwest Herald General Manager and Executive Editor Chris Krug before the McHenry County Economic Development Corporation’s dinner last Thursday night.

Admit that the college will be irreparably harmed if it proceeds without starting the process over.

Everyone who thinks the college can pass a referendum, please raise your hand.

Anyone who thinks Mary Miller is not going to be challenged if she runs for re-election next spring, let me know.

And, if you want to run, let me know.

Needless to say, people are organizing to support some opponent of this consistent baseball stadium supporter. In laying her hands on the goodness of the baseball stadium, Miller touted her credentials as a CPA.

Now I know why we don’t let CPA’s run government.

Earning the designation obviously does not guarantee analytical ability on public policy issues.

Here’s how Miller was quoted in the April 26, 2006, board minutes:

“Ms. Miller(‘s) refer(ring) to her CPA standing and stat(ing) that all the figures are in order for us to go ahead with this.”

So, why was a re-do of the numbers necessary after Economics Research Associates savaged Mark Houser’s EquityOne presentation she avowed was ”in order?”

In a Freedom of Information request, I asked for any documentation to back up her professional judgment.

Needless to say, there was none.

I was told to look at an analysis of construction costs by PMA Consultants, the same outfit that advised Huntley School District 158 that it needed a 55-cent tax rate hike.

PMA’s analysis of construction costs speaks not one sentence about whether the baseball team receipts will pay off the cost of the bonds to build the stadium.

And, that, of course, is the real issue in this fight.

Show me a written analysis of the numbers and maybe I might regain the respect I used to have for the designation “C.P.A.”

So, start the process over.

What does this mean?

Do you know there were two baseball promoters who wanted to build a stadium in Crystal Lake?

One was making real progress in Harvard until the McHenry County College Board decided to ink a sweetheart deal with Pete Heitman, a buddy of Equity One’s Mark Houser.

A fresh starts demands that competing promoters be given a fair shot.

Such presentations should be at public hearings, where both the public and the board get to ask questions.

We can hear how much money each group is willing to put up.

How does each propose to pay for the stadium?

What will the amount of public subsidy be, if any?

Harvard’s group, by the way, plans to pay for its own stadium; Heitman’s wants us to bet on the success of his scheme.

There’s absolutely no reason for secrecy.

And, speaking of secrecy, the public has a right to know who the investors are.

When I was at the Crystal Lake City Council meeting looking at the staff reports on various proposals, you know what I found?

Petitioners must reveal everyone who has a beneficial interest in their properties.

The college must demand the same information from those with whom it signs leases.

I was pleased that Krug agreed.

Part 3 tomorrow.

Yesterday, I started a three-part article about what MCC might do to regain public trust in order to get support for the baseball stadium that four of its board members (George Lowe, Barbara Walters, Mary Miller and Carol Larson) desire so ardently.

With the public relations disaster that McHenry County College has managed to create, it seems to me that the board has to start from scratch.

That’s what I told Northwest Herald General Manager and Executive Editor Chris Krug before the McHenry County Economic Development Corporation’s dinner last Thursday night.

Admit that the college will be irreparably harmed if it proceeds without starting the process over.

Everyone who thinks the college can pass a referendum, please raise your hand.

Anyone who thinks Mary Miller is not going to be challenged if she runs for re-election next spring, let me know.

And, if you want to run, let me know.

Needless to say, people are organizing to support some opponent of this consistent baseball stadium supporter. In laying her hands on the goodness of the baseball stadium, Miller touted her credentials as a CPA.

Now I know why we don’t let CPA’s run government.

Earning the designation obviously does not guarantee analytical ability on public policy issues.

Here’s how Miller was quoted in the April 26, 2006, board minutes:

“Ms. Miller(‘s) refer(ring) to her CPA standing and stat(ing) that all the figures are in order for us to go ahead with this.”

So, why was a re-do of the numbers necessary after Economics Research Associates savaged Mark Houser’s EquityOne presentation she avowed was ”in order?”

In a Freedom of Information request, I asked for any documentation to back up her professional judgment.

Needless to say, there was none.

I was told to look at an analysis of construction costs by PMA Consultants, the same outfit that advised Huntley School District 158 that it needed a 55-cent tax rate hike.

PMA’s analysis of construction costs speaks not one sentence about whether the baseball team receipts will pay off the cost of the bonds to build the stadium.

And, that, of course, is the real issue in this fight.

Show me a written analysis of the numbers and maybe I might regain the respect I used to have for the designation “C.P.A.”

So, start the process over.

What does this mean?

Do you know there were two baseball promoters who wanted to build a stadium in Crystal Lake?

One was making real progress in Harvard until the McHenry County College Board decided to ink a sweetheart deal with Pete Heitman, a buddy of Equity One’s Mark Houser.

A fresh starts demands that competing promoters be given a fair shot.

Such presentations should be at public hearings, where both the public and the board get to ask questions.

We can hear how much money each group is willing to put up.

How does each propose to pay for the stadium?

What will the amount of public subsidy be, if any?

Harvard’s group, by the way, plans to pay for its own stadium; Heitman’s wants us to bet on the success of his scheme.

There’s absolutely no reason for secrecy.

And, speaking of secrecy, the public has a right to know who the investors are.

When I was at the Crystal Lake City Council meeting looking at the staff reports on various proposals, you know what I found?

Petitioners must reveal everyone who has a beneficial interest in their properties.

The college must demand the same information from those with whom it signs leases.

I was pleased that Krug agreed.

Part 3 tomorrow.

Doing some filing this past weekend, I found McHenry County College President Walt Packard’s October 25, 2007 “Information Report” entitled,

“Next Steps
with Health, Wellness, Athletic Complex (HWAC)
and Land Purchase”

He offered four options, the first and third of which seems to be the one being followed.

The first option suggests proceeding with the zoning, continuing to request 50% coverage and accepting the Best Management Practices language…”with or without Gilger.”

This option—with Gilger—is expected to be accomplished at Tuesday night’s Crystal Lake City Council meeting.

The second option suggests proceeding with the HWAC without the stadium.

Certainly, there is no indication this course of action is being followed.

The third option on Packard’s list is headed,

“Proceed with HWAC and stadium (with or without Gilger)”

either in Crystal Lake or “another location.”

What I find instructive are the subheads beneath:

1. require updated feasibility study
2. require updated third party review
3. review of study/third party review by Board
4. release of both documents to public (if studies demonstrate this continues to be a worthwhile project)
5. would allow Crystal Lake City Council to adopt revised Watershed Ordinance

The second and third points have been accomplished. Economics Research Associates have prepared a so-called third party review. That it does not include any market analysis beyond that of EquityOne’s Mark Houser will probably be considered irrelevant by the MCC board majority of George Lowe, Barbara Walters, Carol Larson and Mary Miller.

I would assume that there is an updated feasibility study by Equity One that ERA reviewed, but I haven’t examined it.

The ERA “analysis” is posted on the college web site and due to be discussed by ERA’s David Stone with the board on Tuesday, March 25th.

There is no indication that the public will be able to participate as more note takers.

And, of course, the Crystal Lake City Council has adopted the Watershed Ordinance.

So, how long after ERA makes its presentation do you think it will take to approve submitting the minor league baseball stadium to the Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission?

Will that action be approved on March 27th?

If it is, it would surprise me not at all.

= = = = =
After I wrote this story, the Northwest Herald posted a story Monday with no byline which is headlined,

“New: No comeback foreseen for baseball stadium“

It quotes MCC Board President George Lowe thusly:

“I’m not sure where the baseball thing is going. I think it’s pretty much a dead issue.”

That quote fights a bit with my story above, doesn’t it?

The story also favorable mentions the feeble feasibilty study, a do-over, by Economics Research Associates which I wrote the first of many articles on Friday. It is entitled,

“MCC’s Version of Fantasy Baseball”

No mention has been made yet by the NW Herald of my discover that MCC is being secretly approached by a company about locating FM radio and TV tower(s) on its property.

The project would require a reported 38 acres, I have been told.

= = = = =
MCC President Walt Packard is seen in the top picture and the middle one. Behind Packard in the second photo is MCC Board President George Lowe. Economics Research Associates David Stone in the bottom shot.

Doing some filing this past weekend, I found McHenry County College President Walt Packard’s October 25, 2007 “Information Report” entitled,

“Next Steps
with Health, Wellness, Athletic Complex (HWAC)
and Land Purchase”

He offered four options, the first and third of which seems to be the one being followed.

The first option suggests proceeding with the zoning, continuing to request 50% coverage and accepting the Best Management Practices language…”with or without Gilger.”

This option—with Gilger—is expected to be accomplished at Tuesday night’s Crystal Lake City Council meeting.

The second option suggests proceeding with the HWAC without the stadium.

Certainly, there is no indication this course of action is being followed.

The third option on Packard’s list is headed,

“Proceed with HWAC and stadium (with or without Gilger)”

either in Crystal Lake or “another location.”

What I find instructive are the subheads beneath:

1. require updated feasibility study
2. require updated third party review
3. review of study/third party review by Board
4. release of both documents to public (if studies demonstrate this continues to be a worthwhile project)
5. would allow Crystal Lake City Council to adopt revised Watershed Ordinance

The second and third points have been accomplished. Economics Research Associates have prepared a so-called third party review. That it does not include any market analysis beyond that of EquityOne’s Mark Houser will probably be considered irrelevant by the MCC board majority of George Lowe, Barbara Walters, Carol Larson and Mary Miller.

I would assume that there is an updated feasibility study by Equity One that ERA reviewed, but I haven’t examined it.

The ERA “analysis” is posted on the college web site and due to be discussed by ERA’s David Stone with the board on Tuesday, March 25th.

There is no indication that the public will be able to participate as more note takers.

And, of course, the Crystal Lake City Council has adopted the Watershed Ordinance.

So, how long after ERA makes its presentation do you think it will take to approve submitting the minor league baseball stadium to the Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission?

Will that action be approved on March 27th?

If it is, it would surprise me not at all.

= = = = =
After I wrote this story, the Northwest Herald posted a story Monday with no byline which is headlined,

“New: No comeback foreseen for baseball stadium“

It quotes MCC Board President George Lowe thusly:

“I’m not sure where the baseball thing is going. I think it’s pretty much a dead issue.”

That quote fights a bit with my story above, doesn’t it?

The story also favorable mentions the feeble feasibilty study, a do-over, by Economics Research Associates which I wrote the first of many articles on Friday. It is entitled,

“MCC’s Version of Fantasy Baseball”

No mention has been made yet by the NW Herald of my discover that MCC is being secretly approached by a company about locating FM radio and TV tower(s) on its property.

The project would require a reported 38 acres, I have been told.

= = = = =
MCC President Walt Packard is seen in the top picture and the middle one. Behind Packard in the second photo is MCC Board President George Lowe. Economics Research Associates David Stone in the bottom shot.

Economics Research Associates staffers Richard Starr and David Stone sent a February 26, 2008, introductory letter to McHenry County College President Walt Packard.

It asserts they will expound on the “reasonableness and achievability” in something they allege is a 3rd party analysis of the baseball stadium and Health, Wellness and Athletic Center proposal.

However, the ERA analysts admit no market analysis exists to show that using characteristics of Camden, New Jersey, and Fargo, North Dakota, baseball stadiums are even a tiny bit reasonable.

Remember geometry?

Accept the assumption, even if they are false assumptions, and everything flows from them.

With the wrong premises, logic will lead to incorrect conclusions.

It happened in city X, in city Y, so it could happen in Crystal Lake.

And when the bonds can’t be repaid, the board members will say,

In ERA’s initial 3rd party review, the authors talked about projected attendance in terms of “capture rate.”

On page 9 of the first review, it says ERA recommends further verification of the projected 52.3% capture rate.

I can’t even find the term in the second report.

So what is a “capture rate?”

If the population of the market area is 300,000, a 50% capture rate would mean than annual attendance is estimated to be 150,000.

The first report

“..assumes the team will achieve capture rates comparable to the highest captures in the Frontier and Northern Leagues.”

There is no reference to “capture rate” in the second report, but it is still a relevant concept.

The first report puts it in terms of the market place, but the second ignores the market.

Five teams in Chicago market have capture rates ranging from 5.9% to 52.6%, according to page 9 of the first report.

When you take the market out, use of the terms “reasonable and achievable” in nonsensical. Just because it is reasonable and achievable somewhere else doesn’t mean it will happen in Crystal Lake.

In ballpark feasibility studies, all revenue streams flow from attendance.

ERA looks at other teams, but, as ERA points out, “It is not known if the other teams’ reported figures represent paid or actual attendance.”

Remember, it is common practice for teams to give away tickets as promotional items.

So, ERA is reporting unaudited numbers. No one, except maybe the investors, look at gate receipts.

Take ERA’s minor league attendance figures with a grain of salt, maybe piles of salt the size that should have been stockpiled for this winter.

Likewise, ERA’s comments on audience attendance growth from year to year need to be closely examined.

In the last paragraph on page 6, ERA states,

“The assumed 30 percent attendance growth over the first five years…is fairly aggressive, but achievable, particularly considering the relatively low projected attendance rate for 2009.”

What team has achieved that attendance growth rate without expanding its stadium?

River City’s Rascals, located in suburban St. Louis on the Missouri side of the river, had a stadium built specifically for the Frontier League team. It has been around the longest.

River City’s average daily attendance in the first year (1999) was 3,611. In 2007, the comparable figure was, 2,095. (The 2007 figure is right in the table on page 5.)

That’s a 42% decrease.

So, where’s the growth found?

How does this fit into the “reasonableness and achievability” predicted by Economics Research Associates?

It doesn’t.

It isn’t even mentioned.

Let’s examine three of the Frontier League teams that ERA considers comparables. Look at the attendance figures for 2005, 2006 and 2007 on page 5.

Not one team cited in the ERA report is shown growing at the rate projected by MCC baseball promoter Pete Heitman.

It’s not even close. No wonder the table isn’t lined up so one can easily figure that out.

Here are daily attendance figures for 2005, 2006 and 2007 for three of the teams listed.

Suburban St. Louis Gateway Grizzles went from

3,619 to
4,235, then decreased to
4,086.

In Washington, PA, Wild Things attendance for the three years were essentially flat:

3,197
3,251
3,317

Suburban St. Louis River City Rascals:

2,379
2,387
2,095

Obviously none increased 5% a year over the two-year period.

How about Rockford?

That’s close by.

You should know that a new stadium for Rockford was financed completely with private money, opening in 2006.

One would assume that the incentive not to lose money (or make money) would be stronger for entrepreneurs than for elected officials. Elected officials, of course, can keep coming back to the taxpayers to get non-referendum taxes; investors can’t…or maybe they can, if they are Pete Heitman.

Average daily attendance that first year in the new stadium was 2,463, higher than 2,065, an increase of 398 per game.

The stadium cost $7 million. It cost $17,588 to garner each new fan (on a daily basis).

The second year in the new stadium, attendance did not go up much—twelve fans per game.

In any event, that’s not support for an increase of 5% per year by Heitman…

Let alone EquityOne’s Mark Houser’s forecast a 10% increase in attendance during its second year. (See page 5.)

At least Rockford’s new stadium was financed completely with private money.

They weren’t using other people’s money, like the MCC team.

No wonder ERA didn’t emphasize Rockford’s problem.

There is no example of any team anywhere (unless major, major capital improvements have been put in) that has the attendance growth and, therefore, the revenue growth as sustainable as the promoters’ plan suggests.

Taxpayers have a 20-year repayment obligation, so why do the ERA consultants concentrate on the first five years’ performance, which history shows are a team’s best years?

Why has ERA ignored the next 15 years?

ERA does conclude,

“…we would not expect for this to continue indefinitely, as attendance would stabilize and potentially decrease (after the five-year projection period). This would directly affect the growth of team and facility revenues” (see top of page 7).

Heitman has attendance increases every year for 25 years, a minimum of 5% per year.

ERA hints that a 5% attendance increase is unrealistic–even as soon as the 6th year–but refuses to point out how this will negatively affect the ability to repay the bonds…which it will.

In fact, ERA doesn’t address anything beyond fifth year as far as financing goes, other than to say that attendance might decrease (see top of page 7).

Internet fantasy baseball would cheaper and probably as much fun.

More tomorrow and the days to follow.
= = = = =
Senior Economics Research Associates staffer Richard Starr appears on top. Below is associate David Stone.

Below, baseball promoter Pete Heitman appears above his buddy Mark Houser in the pictures in this article.

Economics Research Associates staffers Richard Starr and David Stone sent a February 26, 2008, introductory letter to McHenry County College President Walt Packard.

It asserts they will expound on the “reasonableness and achievability” in something they allege is a 3rd party analysis of the baseball stadium and Health, Wellness and Athletic Center proposal.

However, the ERA analysts admit no market analysis exists to show that using characteristics of Camden, New Jersey, and Fargo, North Dakota, baseball stadiums are even a tiny bit reasonable.

Remember geometry?

Accept the assumption, even if they are false assumptions, and everything flows from them.

With the wrong premises, logic will lead to incorrect conclusions.

It happened in city X, in city Y, so it could happen in Crystal Lake.

And when the bonds can’t be repaid, the board members will say,

In ERA’s initial 3rd party review, the authors talked about projected attendance in terms of “capture rate.”

On page 9 of the first review, it says ERA recommends further verification of the projected 52.3% capture rate.

I can’t even find the term in the second report.

So what is a “capture rate?”

If the population of the market area is 300,000, a 50% capture rate would mean than annual attendance is estimated to be 150,000.

The first report

“..assumes the team will achieve capture rates comparable to the highest captures in the Frontier and Northern Leagues.”

There is no reference to “capture rate” in the second report, but it is still a relevant concept.

The first report puts it in terms of the market place, but the second ignores the market.

Five teams in Chicago market have capture rates ranging from 5.9% to 52.6%, according to page 9 of the first report.

When you take the market out, use of the terms “reasonable and achievable” in nonsensical. Just because it is reasonable and achievable somewhere else doesn’t mean it will happen in Crystal Lake.

In ballpark feasibility studies, all revenue streams flow from attendance.

ERA looks at other teams, but, as ERA points out, “It is not known if the other teams’ reported figures represent paid or actual attendance.”

Remember, it is common practice for teams to give away tickets as promotional items.

So, ERA is reporting unaudited numbers. No one, except maybe the investors, look at gate receipts.

Take ERA’s minor league attendance figures with a grain of salt, maybe piles of salt the size that should have been stockpiled for this winter.

Likewise, ERA’s comments on audience attendance growth from year to year need to be closely examined.

In the last paragraph on page 6, ERA states,

“The assumed 30 percent attendance growth over the first five years…is fairly aggressive, but achievable, particularly considering the relatively low projected attendance rate for 2009.”

What team has achieved that attendance growth rate without expanding its stadium?

River City’s Rascals, located in suburban St. Louis on the Missouri side of the river, had a stadium built specifically for the Frontier League team. It has been around the longest.

River City’s average daily attendance in the first year (1999) was 3,611. In 2007, the comparable figure was, 2,095. (The 2007 figure is right in the table on page 5.)

That’s a 42% decrease.

So, where’s the growth found?

How does this fit into the “reasonableness and achievability” predicted by Economics Research Associates?

It doesn’t.

It isn’t even mentioned.

Let’s examine three of the Frontier League teams that ERA considers comparables. Look at the attendance figures for 2005, 2006 and 2007 on page 5.

Not one team cited in the ERA report is shown growing at the rate projected by MCC baseball promoter Pete Heitman.

It’s not even close. No wonder the table isn’t lined up so one can easily figure that out.

Here are daily attendance figures for 2005, 2006 and 2007 for three of the teams listed.

Suburban St. Louis Gateway Grizzles went from

3,619 to
4,235, then decreased to
4,086.

In Washington, PA, Wild Things attendance for the three years were essentially flat:

3,197
3,251
3,317

Suburban St. Louis River City Rascals:

2,379
2,387
2,095

Obviously none increased 5% a year over the two-year period.

How about Rockford?

That’s close by.

You should know that a new stadium for Rockford was financed completely with private money, opening in 2006.

One would assume that the incentive not to lose money (or make money) would be stronger for entrepreneurs than for elected officials. Elected officials, of course, can keep coming back to the taxpayers to get non-referendum taxes; investors can’t…or maybe they can, if they are Pete Heitman.

Average daily attendance that first year in the new stadium was 2,463, higher than 2,065, an increase of 398 per game.

The stadium cost $7 million. It cost $17,588 to garner each new fan (on a daily basis).

The second year in the new stadium, attendance did not go up much—twelve fans per game.

In any event, that’s not support for an increase of 5% per year by Heitman…

Let alone EquityOne’s Mark Houser’s forecast a 10% increase in attendance during its second year. (See page 5.)

At least Rockford’s new stadium was financed completely with private money.

They weren’t using other people’s money, like the MCC team.

No wonder ERA didn’t emphasize Rockford’s problem.

There is no example of any team anywhere (unless major, major capital improvements have been put in) that has the attendance growth and, therefore, the revenue growth as sustainable as the promoters’ plan suggests.

Taxpayers have a 20-year repayment obligation, so why do the ERA consultants concentrate on the first five years’ performance, which history shows are a team’s best years?

Why has ERA ignored the next 15 years?

ERA does conclude,

“…we would not expect for this to continue indefinitely, as attendance would stabilize and potentially decrease (after the five-year projection period). This would directly affect the growth of team and facility revenues” (see top of page 7).

Heitman has attendance increases every year for 25 years, a minimum of 5% per year.

ERA hints that a 5% attendance increase is unrealistic–even as soon as the 6th year–but refuses to point out how this will negatively affect the ability to repay the bonds…which it will.

In fact, ERA doesn’t address anything beyond fifth year as far as financing goes, other than to say that attendance might decrease (see top of page 7).

Internet fantasy baseball would cheaper and probably as much fun.

More tomorrow and the days to follow.
= = = = =
Senior Economics Research Associates staffer Richard Starr appears on top. Below is associate David Stone.

Below, baseball promoter Pete Heitman appears above his buddy Mark Houser in the pictures in this article.

When I had my computer replaced, the beginnings of a story on the Northwest Herald’s cautioning of the McHenry County College Board restrictions on the First Amendment got forgotten.

You may remember that MCC Board President George Lowe got quite disturbed at

1- my taking flash (and apparently other) pictures of board members in their dimly lit board room

and

2-my informing him that he did not have the power to limit photography all by himself. (Specifically, I told him he would have to pass a resolution.)

Needless to say, what Lowe is really upset about is my blowing the whistle on the board’s trying to sneak through a baseball stadium without any public discussion.

You may remember that McHenry County Blog broke the story on Sunday, March 12, 2007.

There had been no mention of a baseball stadium at MCC anywhere else before then.

The MCC Board had been discussing the idea since at least September 2006, but dared not share the possibility with the public.

No public involvement.

The board gave away the store to Mark Houser’s Equity One when MCC President Walt Packard signed an incredible $70,000 document on September 27, 2006. It promised,

”At the completion of the feasibility study and independent review, if the College elects to proceed with the project, the College will contract with EquityOne or it’s (sic) assigns to develop the project on the College’s behalf.”

Forget about bidding out or even seeking alternative vendors for significant parts of the baseball stadium and building addition work.

The MCC board even agreed to pay Houser $400,000 more to Houser to, it seems to me, make certain the public would never find out the details of the no-bid spending.

And, no competition would be considered…even from a Harvard group with private financing.

Houser’s buddy and business associate, baseball promoter Pete Heitman, would get that 20 year plum.

And the board was not even smart enough to require that the names of the minor league baseball team investors be revealed to the public.

Or maybe they deliberately didn’t want the taxpayers to know.

After all, knowing those names might go a long way toward explaining the board’s stubborn support of the scheme.

The baseball stadium idea is so far off the educational mission as to have cost the college a million dollar contribution from Crystal Laker and former teacher Geraldine Cowlin.

That money was to go for scholarships for students who could not afford to attend MCC.

Many of use marvel at school referendum rhetoric from tax hike supporters couched in

In MCC’s case, I wish I could hear such rhetoric from the board majority.

How can a scheme that has cost “the children” $1 million in scholarship money be “for the children?”

Sorry for the digression, but every time I think about the board’s scheme to pick our pockets with its baseball stadium scheme, my blood pressure goes up.

Guess this article is too long already. I’ll continue it tomorrow and finally get to the Northwest Herald editorial.

= = = = =
At the top is a photo of McHenry County College Board President George Lowe. Three images of the McHenry County Blog story that first revealed that MCC was planning a baseball stadium are on the upper right. Next is the picture of a smiling Mark Houser from EquityOne leaving the board room, obviously in a very good mood. Below the rendering of the privately financed minor league baseball stadium planned for Harvard is a photo of MCC’s favored baseball promoter Pete Heitman.

When I had my computer replaced, the beginnings of a story on the Northwest Herald’s cautioning of the McHenry County College Board restrictions on the First Amendment got forgotten.

You may remember that MCC Board President George Lowe got quite disturbed at

1- my taking flash (and apparently other) pictures of board members in their dimly lit board room

and

2-my informing him that he did not have the power to limit photography all by himself. (Specifically, I told him he would have to pass a resolution.)

Needless to say, what Lowe is really upset about is my blowing the whistle on the board’s trying to sneak through a baseball stadium without any public discussion.

You may remember that McHenry County Blog broke the story on Sunday, March 12, 2007.

There had been no mention of a baseball stadium at MCC anywhere else before then.

The MCC Board had been discussing the idea since at least September 2006, but dared not share the possibility with the public.

No public involvement.

The board gave away the store to Mark Houser’s Equity One when MCC President Walt Packard signed an incredible $70,000 document on September 27, 2006. It promised,

”At the completion of the feasibility study and independent review, if the College elects to proceed with the project, the College will contract with EquityOne or it’s (sic) assigns to develop the project on the College’s behalf.”

Forget about bidding out or even seeking alternative vendors for significant parts of the baseball stadium and building addition work.

The MCC board even agreed to pay Houser $400,000 more to Houser to, it seems to me, make certain the public would never find out the details of the no-bid spending.

And, no competition would be considered…even from a Harvard group with private financing.

Houser’s buddy and business associate, baseball promoter Pete Heitman, would get that 20 year plum.

And the board was not even smart enough to require that the names of the minor league baseball team investors be revealed to the public.

Or maybe they deliberately didn’t want the taxpayers to know.

After all, knowing those names might go a long way toward explaining the board’s stubborn support of the scheme.

The baseball stadium idea is so far off the educational mission as to have cost the college a million dollar contribution from Crystal Laker and former teacher Geraldine Cowlin.

That money was to go for scholarships for students who could not afford to attend MCC.

Many of use marvel at school referendum rhetoric from tax hike supporters couched in

In MCC’s case, I wish I could hear such rhetoric from the board majority.

How can a scheme that has cost “the children” $1 million in scholarship money be “for the children?”

Sorry for the digression, but every time I think about the board’s scheme to pick our pockets with its baseball stadium scheme, my blood pressure goes up.

Guess this article is too long already. I’ll continue it tomorrow and finally get to the Northwest Herald editorial.

= = = = =
At the top is a photo of McHenry County College Board President George Lowe. Three images of the McHenry County Blog story that first revealed that MCC was planning a baseball stadium are on the upper right. Next is the picture of a smiling Mark Houser from EquityOne leaving the board room, obviously in a very good mood. Below the rendering of the privately financed minor league baseball stadium planned for Harvard is a photo of MCC’s favored baseball promoter Pete Heitman.