McHenry County Blog

This is the third part of my article on the MCC MAP meeting Tuesday night

The McHenry County College Promise, Todd McDonald told me, has already completely processed 650 high school graduates.

Another 170 or so await a report from the U.S. Department of Education to see if they are eligible for Free Application for Federal Student Aid. This FAFSA process takes 3-4 weeks, so high school grads who haven’t started the process yet probably won’t get an answer in time for classes to start.

“What a nice problem to have,” Ally said.

Telling me that college enrollment was up 55%, MCC Board President George Lowe observed,

A woman asked if the extra students wouldn’t cost more money, perhaps, she suggested, more than the resulting extra tuition.

Ally made two responses that I caught:

• “Our goal should be to have fuller classes running.
• “We’ll run extra sections with adjunct faculty.”

Part-time teachers are a LOT cheaper that the full-timers.

Suggestions from the tables that I jotted down included “hybrid classes.” That was defined as half in the classroom, half online.

I think it was the same table that said this about state financial assistance:

“We were hopeful that state funding might increase…but not too hopeful.”

It’s good to have a sense of humor.

Taking photos while taking notes makes it difficult to link the two. The table with the sense of humor is either above (the last one to report) or below:

Lowe took the floor at the end of the meeting and pointed out that state financial assistance had gone down from 23% to 7.9% over the last sixteen years.

That 23% was less than what the committee that led the 1967 junior college referendum effort presented to taxpayers.

The state told the organizers that it would provide one-third.

With a ten-cent referendum rate request, the committee told voters that

• the state would pay one-third
• the students would pay one-third and
• the taxpayers would pay one-third.

Obviously, the state junior college promoters lied.

Note, however from the pie chart that while the taxpayers now pay 59.6%, almost twice what voters were told their share would be, students do not pay the 33% that was presented in 1967.

Tuition brings in 29.3% now.

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.

This is the second part of a three-part article on McHenry County College’s MAP meeting Tuesday. Part 1 in here. The Northwest Herald’s take, complete with shifting headline emphasis, is here.

My notes have “one cent sounds like nothing.” The “referendum” word was used.

Referring to the Property Tax Cap, Ally said,

“It’s costing the college millions of dollars each year.”

Ally impressed me with the increase in reserves that have been built up since he took office.

But his Tax Cap comment led me to reflect how differently those in government see the Tax Cap from those who are the taxpaying base.

We consider those millions “lost” to government as “savings” for us.

We know that government can spend every dollar it manages to pluck from our pockets (and from our children’s).

Factoring in the recently signed four-year faculty contract, Ally presented the chart you see above.

Coupled with the “look what just a penny increase in the tax rate will bring in,” it seems to me that the presentation was skewed toward a tax hike before the fund balance target begins to dip under the weight of the new faculty contract.

But the people at the tables didn’t bite.

One table mentioned how surprised they were at how much a penny would raise, but didn’t go so far as to recommend that taxes be raised. I think it was the one pictured above.

Questions were taken from the floor.

Kurt Begalka from the Northwest Herald asked whether increasing expenses would result into dipping into reserves.

“Not yet,” Ally replied.

“Reserves should not be used for ongoing expenses,” he continued. “That’s just not sustainable.”

Ally noted that health insurance costs were growing faster inflation. The college’s attempt to control costs resulted in employees paying 25% of the cost of insurance (50% for dental and visual) “to form a true partnership.”

I asked the total annual cost for an employee and was told that for a family it would be about $5,000. The college is self-insured, which means whatever the college cost of the health care plan the taxpayers foot the bill.

Later Begalka, at whose table I sat, pointed out that employees at many private enterprises pay 100%.

Ally said college enrollment this year is “the perfect storm.

Part 3 will address enrollment tomorrow.

That’s the number I counted sitting at tables.

21 women and 10 men.

There were about 60 at the first meeting.

I continue to believe that spending $137,750 on this project is unmerited. St. Louis referendum tax hike facilitator UNICOM-ARC is the main beneficiary.

There were only two of us at our front and center table. Naturally, we were encouraged to move to tables where there could be more interaction.

One lady invited us over, saying there were too many college people at her table.

So, the number of non-college people and non-members of the organizing committee there were at the tables had to be pretty slim.

Moderator Steve Weskerna kicked off the meeting. He asked us to pretend we were McHenry County College trustees.

The topic was finances.

Acting CEO Ron Ally, the college’s finance guy this century, gave a power point presentation that I thought unfair at only one point.

He compared a 4.2% increase in property taxes to a 1.1% increase in tuition to 1% increases in enrollment and a whole list of expenses.

You can look at the slide above (click to enlarge any image), which compares

a one penny (per $100 of assessed valuation) increase in property tax rate bringing in $962,305
to
a $1 per hour tuition increase yielding $112,794.

I learned one compares comparables to comparables.

So, from an “issue framing” point of view, I thought the presentation was slanted toward raising taxes.

More on finances tomorrow.

On the same day that McHenry County College had its credit rating upgraded from AA3 to AA2 by Moody’s, MCC President Walt Packard presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Ron Ally.

Packard noted that MCC is one of only five community colleges in Illinois to achieve that recognition.

He added that the college has the third longest tenure for receiving the award.

= = = = =
MCC President Walt Packard is on the left, Ron Ally on the right.

On the same day that McHenry County College had its credit rating upgraded from AA3 to AA2 by Moody’s, MCC President Walt Packard presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Ron Ally.

Packard noted that MCC is one of only five community colleges in Illinois to achieve that recognition.

He added that the college has the third longest tenure for receiving the award.

= = = = =
MCC President Walt Packard is on the left, Ron Ally on the right.

I read the minutes (click to enlarge) of the October 4th McHenry County College meeting last week and was struck with the misrepresentation of the public comments made.

Here’s what the minutes say about Barry Glasgow’s scathing criticism of the baseball stadium:

“Mr. Glasgow spoke about the need for a nursing program.”

Yes.

He did mention that, but he also talked about not seeing anything in the MCC mission statement about entertainment.

He talked about the baseball team promoter having virtually no risk.

Here’s part of what he said, none of which made the minutes:

“If they don’t have of their own money in it, they have no risk.

“We’re at risk for $45 million.”

He talked faster than I could write, but I did get these question:

”Did they give a five-year prepaid lease?

“Are they putting anything where their mouth is?

“The reality is we need a nursing system.

“It would be nice to have a baseball stadium.

”Do we have their personal guarantee?

“Is it an LLC (limited liability corporation [which it is]) and they can just walk?”

I guarantee the nursing program portion of his comments was not the most significant part of this former investment banker’s presentation.

I spoke after the Committee of the Whole meeting where Equity One’s Mark Houser was questioned on the expansion project.

Please compare my notes with what ended up in the minutes.

The minutes:

“Mr. Skinner congratulated the board for being more transparent, and then asked several questions of the board.”

My notes:

1) You’re getting more transparent. The type of discussion you have had tonight you should have been had in March.

2) To prove you are being transparent I ask for copies of the 4-page cash flow statement and the GANT chart present tonight be made available tonight. (They weren’t. I had to file a Freedom of Information request. It took 11 days to get them.)

3) I asked for the feasibility study, which I had already been refused 4 times. No dice.

4) I suggested if the college really wanted to be energy efficient, they should be building their gyms and offices using Solarcrete.

5) I asked if there would be an arcade in the baseball stadium that could suck up student’s money. I was told there would not be.

6) “Does the license factor in the extra interest cost on the $10 million stadium?” I asked. I got the feeling this was a question that had not even been considered. Because the stadium is not a governmental function, the college cannot issue tax-free bonds to finance it. Taxable bonds, of course, bear a higher interest rate.

7) “Are you and other MCC officials going to get free or discounted tickets?” was my next question. The reaction from Mary Miller was pretty much “Of course not.” But neither my question nor her and others’ negative reactions show up in the minutes. I pointed out that some park district that own golf courses let current and retired members play free.

The question had arisen in the discussion of the building project about how high the contingency fee should be. Ron Ally, the top finance guy, favored raising it from 5% to 10%. I pointed out that the Jefferson Wells forensic auditor of the Huntley construction projects said he raised his eyebrows when construction costs are higher than 5% of estimates and recommended the college stick with the 5% figure.

9) I asked if the board members knew about the allegations I’d read in a newspaper article that were made in a Wisconsin suit against baseball promoter Heitman. I heard one “Yes” and one “No.”

10) Finally, I asked why MCC was not offering to eliminate phosphorus on all of its property, including the farmland they want zoned for 50% impermeable coverage. I told them of a presentation made at the Crystal Lake Kiwanis Club about row crops being grown without phosphorus. I did not recommend the source of nutrients –pig farms–be allowed near MCC, but I used it as an illustration that it could be done if the college really wanted to protect Crystal Lake’s watershed.

I could go back to my notes for the others who made public comment and show how deficient the minutes’ representation of them are, but why bother?

Transparency is obviously not the goal of the person who edited these minutes.

I read the minutes (click to enlarge) of the October 4th McHenry County College meeting last week and was struck with the misrepresentation of the public comments made.

Here’s what the minutes say about Barry Glasgow’s scathing criticism of the baseball stadium:

“Mr. Glasgow spoke about the need for a nursing program.”

Yes.

He did mention that, but he also talked about not seeing anything in the MCC mission statement about entertainment.

He talked about the baseball team promoter having virtually no risk.

Here’s part of what he said, none of which made the minutes:

“If they don’t have of their own money in it, they have no risk.

“We’re at risk for $45 million.”

He talked faster than I could write, but I did get these question:

”Did they give a five-year prepaid lease?

“Are they putting anything where their mouth is?

“The reality is we need a nursing system.

“It would be nice to have a baseball stadium.

”Do we have their personal guarantee?

“Is it an LLC (limited liability corporation [which it is]) and they can just walk?”

I guarantee the nursing program portion of his comments was not the most significant part of this former investment banker’s presentation.

I spoke after the Committee of the Whole meeting where Equity One’s Mark Houser was questioned on the expansion project.

Please compare my notes with what ended up in the minutes.

The minutes:

“Mr. Skinner congratulated the board for being more transparent, and then asked several questions of the board.”

My notes:

1) You’re getting more transparent. The type of discussion you have had tonight you should have been had in March.

2) To prove you are being transparent I ask for copies of the 4-page cash flow statement and the GANT chart present tonight be made available tonight. (They weren’t. I had to file a Freedom of Information request. It took 11 days to get them.)

3) I asked for the feasibility study, which I had already been refused 4 times. No dice.

4) I suggested if the college really wanted to be energy efficient, they should be building their gyms and offices using Solarcrete.

5) I asked if there would be an arcade in the baseball stadium that could suck up student’s money. I was told there would not be.

6) “Does the license factor in the extra interest cost on the $10 million stadium?” I asked. I got the feeling this was a question that had not even been considered. Because the stadium is not a governmental function, the college cannot issue tax-free bonds to finance it. Taxable bonds, of course, bear a higher interest rate.

7) “Are you and other MCC officials going to get free or discounted tickets?” was my next question. The reaction from Mary Miller was pretty much “Of course not.” But neither my question nor her and others’ negative reactions show up in the minutes. I pointed out that some park district that own golf courses let current and retired members play free.

The question had arisen in the discussion of the building project about how high the contingency fee should be. Ron Ally, the top finance guy, favored raising it from 5% to 10%. I pointed out that the Jefferson Wells forensic auditor of the Huntley construction projects said he raised his eyebrows when construction costs are higher than 5% of estimates and recommended the college stick with the 5% figure.

9) I asked if the board members knew about the allegations I’d read in a newspaper article that were made in a Wisconsin suit against baseball promoter Heitman. I heard one “Yes” and one “No.”

10) Finally, I asked why MCC was not offering to eliminate phosphorus on all of its property, including the farmland they want zoned for 50% impermeable coverage. I told them of a presentation made at the Crystal Lake Kiwanis Club about row crops being grown without phosphorus. I did not recommend the source of nutrients –pig farms–be allowed near MCC, but I used it as an illustration that it could be done if the college really wanted to protect Crystal Lake’s watershed.

I could go back to my notes for the others who made public comment and show how deficient the minutes’ representation of them are, but why bother?

Transparency is obviously not the goal of the person who edited these minutes.