McHenry County Blog

There’s some interesting interchange about the competence of McHenry County College President Vicky Smith going in comments below recent stories.

They related to this opinion piece by Steve Willson:

Found in an email from Steve Willson:

The real reason the lame duck MCC board will extend Smith’s contract at their last meeting can be explained quickly and easily using a simple 4×4 grid.

In short, this is a payoff, a naked grab for taxpayer money.

The lame duck board wants to see Smith get a big going away present, like Packard got, if the new board decides her style of leadership (recommending consultants with conflicts of interest; overseeing falsified responses to FOIA requests) is not compatible with their goals.

I just wish the [Cynthia] Kisser, [Mary] Miller and [Linda]Liddell would just come clean about their real reason and say flat out,

“We want to stick the taxpayers with a big bill if the new board jettisons Smith as we expect.”

Cover stories that Smith met the old board’s goals so the new board should be stuck with her for two more years don’t hold water.

Brent Steffans says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 12:56 pm

Really, what a bunch of horse crap.

“The lame duck board wants to see Smith get a big going away present, like Packard got.”

This statement proves this site is nothing more than an opinion based blog.

What board member would give Smith a major contract as a “going away present like Packard got.”

Everyone knows that Packard did something wrong internally.

Smith hasn’t done anything wrong internally.

People might not like the idea of expanding the college, but that is no reason to fire the President.

In the end the President can not expand the College.

For everything this blog blames on the President, they continually fail to forget the Board as the FINAL SAY ON ALL DECISIONS.

NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Stephen Willson says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 2:59 pm

Mr. Steffans, you are half right and 100% wrong.

You are right, the President cannot do this alone. It takes the connivance of the board.

But if recommending consultants with obvious conflicts of interest to provide opinions based on falsified evidence isn’t “something wrong internally”, I don’t know what is.

If overseeing a department that responds falsely to FOIA requests isn’t doing “something wrong internally”, I don’t know what is.

If purposely keeping your own institutional research department away from all studies about expanding the college isn’t doing “something wrong internally” then I don’t know what is.

If hiring a big Chicago law firm to fight FOIA requests, to try to find reasons to keep things secret instead of saying, “We will release any information requested UNLESS there is a legal reason not to” isn’t doing “something wrong internally” then I don’t know what is.

As for the 100% wrong part, please dispute my logic: IF the lame duck board does nothing, no hurt no foul.

The new board can choose to keep Vicky or not.

But IF the lame duck board EXTENDS Vicky’s contract, it could cost taxpayers an additional $300,000.

Tell me EXACTLY where I’m wrong, please.

Show me the flaw in my reasoning.

Explain how there are other options and outcomes.

Brent Steffans says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 4:16 pm

Half right and 100% wrong equals 150%.

Normally percentages are out of 100.

However, my goal is not to stir up a hornet’s nest with the above comment.

If the college used their own IR department, everyone would discredit the results.

Everyone discredited the results of the external study done by NIU’s research group relating to jobs/occupations that was mentioned in the NWHerald a month ago.

I think I recall the NWHerald said the study was worthy of lining a bird cage, a comment in my opinion not needed in the article.

I would like to also say that comment completely showed bias and an example of bad journalism on behalf of NWHerald.

In the end it was the Board that selected the study was done by an organization that may have a conflict of interest.

The Board voted and the Board approved this, not the President Vicky Smith.

She has no authority, only the Board has authority to authorize.

I would like to thank you for mentioning the FOIA requests.

I honestly have to read more about these requests.

So I searched the IL Attorney General and Federal Government sites on information relating to such subjects.

However it appears that internal documents and trademarked documents are unable to be FOIA.

So until the study results are brought forward to a Board meeting, then it appears it can not be FOIA.

However, like I mentioned I do not have a full understanding of what is not allowed or allowed to be FOIA.

I did find out that well locations are not FOIA able?

I found that interesting as a side note.

If you would like to rebut me on this then show me the exact document from the Attorney General or Federal site that shows what can and can not be obtained and where specifically MCC is violating the FOIA.

I am not calling you out, but please educate me on this subject.

There is nothing wrong with hiring a Chicago law firm.

Again if they (MCC) is violating federal law, then it should be easy to document the exact violation as it is written WITHIN the law.

In the end Vicky’s work is done on behalf of the Board.

Again the Board approved everything; she is doing what her board wants and has directed her to do.

So why not extend the contract?

If she has done what the Board wanted, I am assuming she is then performing her duties fully.

Again she can not sneeze without board approval.

I can understand how the current Board has a better understanding of Vicky’s job performance than the newly elected members.

However, I have mixed feelings when a meeting is call after 4PM on a Friday to discuss her contact at a special meeting.

This should have been on the normal agenda and not a special last minute agenda.

I believe Vicky’s contract should be extend.

I don’t see any wrong in her actions, but I don’t like last second meetings.

It stinks like Obamacare with lame ducks.

The only way this could cost the tax payers $300,000 is if she is negligent of her duties as President and requires immediate termination.

In the end, I believe there are a lot of “Chicken Little’s” in McHenry County.

The taxes are raising, the taxes are raising.

I understand there are people who are upset with a possible expansion.

However, the college does provide education at a fraction of the cost of NIU/UIUC/UIC.

Health care and manufacturing are the two biggest employers in McHenry County.

If you want to lower the unemployment rate, get people off from food stamps, invest in education.

Invest in education where the jobs are available.

However, the Board has not brought anything forward in their meetings.

So I believe this “Chicken Little” atmosphere is a little overblown.

I am looking forward to hearing how the college justifies expansion, what they are going to do, how the community is going to benefit, and then how they are going to pay.

I look forward to seeing their side (MCC) and what is may cost me as a taxpayer.

In the end Vicky works for the Board and the Board does not work for Vicky.

Brent Steffans says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 4:16 pm

Half right and 100% wrong equals 150%.

Normally percentages are out of 100.

However, my goal is not to stir up a hornet’s nest with the above comment.

If the college used their own IR department, everyone would discredit the results.

Everyone discredited the results of the external study done by NIU’s research group relating to jobs/occupations that was mentioned in the NWHerald a month ago.

I think I recall the NWHerald said the study was worthy of lining a bird cage, a comment in my opinion not needed in the article.

I would like to also say that comment completely showed bias and an example of bad journalism on behalf of NWHerald.

In the end it was the Board that selected the study was done by an organization that may have a conflict of interest.

The Board voted and the Board approved this, not the President Vicky Smith.

She has no authority, only the Board has authority to authorize.

I would like to thank you for mentioning the FOIA requests.

I honestly have to read more about these requests.

So I searched the IL Attorney General and Federal Government sites on information relating to such subjects.

However it appears that internal documents and trademarked documents are unable to be FOIA.

So until the study results are brought forward to a Board meeting, then it appears it can not be FOIA.

However, like I mentioned I do not have a full understanding of what is not allowed or allowed to be FOIA.

I did find out that well locations are not FOIA able?

I found that interesting as a side note.

If you would like to rebut me on this then show me the exact document from the Attorney General or Federal site that shows what can and can not be obtained and where specifically MCC is violating the FOIA.

I am not calling you out, but please educate me on this subject.

There is nothing wrong with hiring a Chicago law firm.

Again if they (MCC) is violating federal law, then it should be easy to document the exact violation as it is written WITHIN the law.

In the end Vicky’s work is done on behalf of the Board.

Again the Board approved everything; she is doing what her board wants and has directed her to do.

So why not extend the contract?

If she has done what the Board wanted, I am assuming she is then performing her duties fully.

Again she can not sneeze without board approval.

I can understand how the current Board has a better understanding of Vicky’s job performance than the newly elected members.

However, I have mixed feelings when a meeting is call after 4PM on a Friday to discuss her contact at a special meeting.

This should have been on the normal agenda and not a special last minute agenda.

I believe Vicky’s contract should be extend.

I don’t see any wrong in her actions, but I don’t like last second meetings.

It stinks like Obamacare with lame ducks.

The only way this could cost the tax payers $300,000 is if she is negligent of her duties as President and requires immediate termination.

In the end, I believe there are a lot of “Chicken Little’s” in McHenry County.

The taxes are raising, the taxes are raising.

I understand there are people who are upset with a possible expansion.

However, the college does provide education at a fraction of the cost of NIU/UIUC/UIC.

Health care and manufacturing are the two biggest employers in McHenry County.

If you want to lower the unemployment rate, get people off from food stamps, invest in education.

Invest in education where the jobs are available.

However, the Board has not brought anything forward in their meetings.

So I believe this “Chicken Little” atmosphere is a little overblown.

I am looking forward to hearing how the college justifies expansion, what they are going to do, how the community is going to benefit, and then how they are going to pay.

I look forward to seeing their side (MCC) and what is may cost me as a taxpayer.

In the end Vicky works for the Board and the Board does not work for Vicky.

Stephen Willson says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 4:57 pm

Mr. Steffans, I personally submitted an FOIA request for average class size and received a response saying that information is not available.

How do you decide you need to expand if you don’t know average class size?

But, as it turns out, it’s in their annual report.

I submitted an FOIA request for classroom utilization and was told the data is not available.

As before, how do you decide you need to expand if you don’t know the extent to which you are using your current resources?

But, again, the answer was false.

I was told personally by a board member that the data I requested is regularly in their board packets.

And when a reporter asked Vicky Smith the same question, the answer was . . . 45%!

Beyond that, I must disagree with your entire contention that Vicky Smith is blameless in all of this.

She is not an innocent bystander, she is fully complicit.

She helped to hire a firm that projected 3% annual growth in enrollment for the next 40 years.

It was based on false and limited data.

Quite literally, they made an eighth grade math mistake in saying McHenry County population grew 74% over 20 years, that’s 3.7% per year.

And when I say eighth grade, I checked the eighth grade math textbook at D-47.

They ignored the fact that every single elementary district in the County is experiencing declining enrollment, that there are 20% fewer 3rd graders in McHenry County than high school seniors . . .

Well, I could go on and on, but I already did, in open letters to the board and in letters to the Northwest Herald.

My research can be found on this web site.

Finally, she supported hiring a firm with an obvious conflict of interest — Power Wellness — to put together a phony “feasibility study” to justify building a 120,000 square foot expansion to the campus that would nearly have doubled classroom space and would have included a 30,000 square foot health club, a la Health Bridge in Crystal Lake.

I have written about this extensively in open letters to the board that were posted on this site.

So, again, to argue that all this is the fault of the Board exclusively and that Vicky Smith was completely uninvolved in all this is just wrong.

Either she was part of it, in which case she is guilty, or she was not involved, in which case she was derelict.

Either way, I think she should go.

Brent Steffans says:

Submitted on 2013/04/19 at 5:11 pm

Mr Wilson,

I believe if the college is going to expand their offerings, they need to justify the current room usage issue.

45% usage across the college may not appear to justify expansion, but you can teach nursing classes in an automotive class and vice-versa.

I would like to see the college show the community exactly what is needed, why, and why the current space can not grow with the college.

If the information is found within Board Packet then the Board member who told you this, should be able to point out exactly what Board meeting and page this information is available.

Just because a Board member told you, doesn’t always mean they are accurate.

In the end Vicky works for the board.

The board should be able to answer all of these questions you present.

I don’t mind seeing how Vicky works with 3 new board members.

If these 3 new members change the direction of the board, then Vicky’s direction should change with them.

Stephen Willson says:

04/19/2013 at 5:32 pm (Edit)

Last week the lame duck board posted their plan, late on Friday afternoon, to extend Vicky Smith’s contract for 27 more months — through June 2015 — at a “special” meeting.

The lame duck board’s action was a despicable act of Chicago style politics, and it can cause nothing but mistrust on the part of the new board members, of their remaining peers and of Vicky Smith.

More than 80 people showed up, God bless them, to protest this naked attempt to saddle the new board with an administrator they may not want.

The first thing the lame duck board did when all those people showed up at their last meeting was . . . Postpone action, hoping people would leave, not come back, and the board could carry out its action in near secrecy.

The ONLY thing that can result from extending Vicky Smith’s contract now instead of letting the new board decide is to cost the taxpayers $300,000 or more to buy out Vicky Smith’s bloated contract. (See my previous email.)

So I was not shocked when yet another meeting agenda was posted late on THIS Friday afternoon, indicating that, once again, the lame duck board will try to vote to extend Vicky Smith’s contract – as their final action! They do not care if they cost the taxpayers money.

They do not care if they poison relations with the new board members.

They are blatantly thumbing their noses at the voters.

But who should be surprised?

When Cynthia Kisser ran for office in November 2011, she was asked by the Daily Herald if she would support a tax hike. She responded,

“In these tough economic times, and in light of the recent state income tax increase, any future tax increase at the county level should be avoided, and we should focus on wise financial management and developing new sources of funding.”

It took her four months to do a 180 and to vote for a 9.9% property tax hike.

She was also asked how she would manage the need for more space at MCC. She responded,

“An exciting way to meet this challenge is by fully utilizing emerging technologies to develop more quality ‘distance learning’ options…. We can also continue to partner with the community to provide work-study and off-site education in specialized fields.”

But as a board member, she has consistently voted in favor of doubling classroom space at MCC at a cost of $42 million despite the fact that current space is used an only 45% of each school day, and to fund that expansion with bonds without giving the citizens of McHenry County a chance to vote on the issue.

She voted to raise tuition to cover a horrendous budget error, despite the fact the College is sitting on a huge fund balance, a stash of taxpayer money they have built up over the years by taxing more than they needed.

So, this is business as usual.

But, no matter what this lame duck board does, “business as usual” is about to change.

I do not believe the new board members will EVER engage in these types of actions.

A Wonder Lake poster on McHenry County Tea Party named Kelly Liebmann is urging taxpayers to email the McHenry County College Board in opposition to the Trustees’ plan to renew MCC President Vicky Smith’s contract on Tuesday night before three newly elected Board members are sworn in.

The email address is mcctrustees@mchenry.edu for those who wish to comment on the situation.

She also suggests calling two of the  holdover Trustees:

• Linda Liddell at 815-455-8060
• Cynthia Kisser at 815-728-1990

Steven Willson, who was intimately involved in the election campaigns for Tom Wilbeck and Chris Jenner sent this email:

“To Vicky Smith and the Trustees of McHenry County College:

“Dear Ms. Smith:

“Please make sure that my email reaches all the trustees, as they do not have individual email addresses on the McHenry County College web site, nor is your email listed on your web site.

“I am writing to express my outrage.

“That the board should consider offering, and that you should consider accepting, a contract where there has been no prior official board action or public notice that any negotiation was under way, is appalling.

“That you should accept a contract that is subject to approval at a special board meeting called with the minimum notice possible, posted after 5:00 p.m. on a Friday for the following Tuesday, is a travesty of the democratic process.

“That the board agenda permits no public comment, unlike the agenda for every other board meeting, shows utter contempt for the citizens of McHenry County.

“There is no emergency that requires action by the outgoing board.

“The only reason for the lame duck board to act now, to handcuff the new, incoming board, one week before they take office, is blatant fear that a new majority is emerging that does not support you.

“Do you really want to put yourself in such a position?

“Show some guts, show some class, and refuse the contract.”

Stephen Willson

This is a continuation of Stephen Willson’s critique of the $42 million health club/classroom expansion proposed by the McHenry County College Board.

Proposition 7: The program won’t raise tuition or property taxes.

Response: False. The program will raise both tuition and property taxes.

The proposal includes an $8 per hour “student infrastructure fee” for ALL students, an increase of 9% in order to finance this project, which will be used by only a small fraction of the College’s students.

This revenue is NOT a result of the new project at all, it’s just a price increase for all students. Calling this a “fee,” rather than a tuition increase is disingenuous at best.

The projected tuition for THIS program covers all operating costs despite the fact that tuition covers only 25% of the budget for all of MCC’s other programs.

If MCC can run this program so cheaply, then why aren’t all their programs paid solely from tuition?

Why do they need any property taxes?

The answer, of course, is that it is not possible.

There is not a community college in the nation where tuition covers more than a third of college operating costs.

No evidence is provided to explain this discrepancy.

The budget also projects millions of dollars from students and local families buying memberships at the big, new health club, with revenue growth rates of 45% and 30% in years two and three.

There is absolutely no evidence in the marketing presentation to support this conclusion.

Nor is there any discussion of competing local fitness centers or any evidence presented that there is substantial unmet demand for fitness centers in the Crystal Lake area, or that this facility will have any sort of competitive advantage.

The projections imply the new health club will take thousands of members away from competing area health clubs, such as Health Bridge.

Given how little the current health club at MCC is used, MCC’s own history contradicts this conclusion.

In short, taxpayers will be on the hook for the budget shortfall and the mortgage payment.

The annual debt service on a $45 million bond issue (which includes money to pay interest for the first two years) would be $2.7 million per year at current interest rates.

Proposition 8: MCC will not ask the voters to raise taxes.

Response: MCC wants to sell property-tax backed bonds without a referendum.

The marketing presentation shows “alternate revenue” bonds being sold before the middle of next year.

“Alternate revenue bonds” are the same kind of bonds Lakewood used for their infamous, taxpayer supported golf course.

“Alternate revenue bonds” were designed to help communities fund capital projects for self-supporting utilities such as water and sewer systems.

The law was never intended for speculative programs such as this.

How can MCC plan to sell such bonds when there is obviously a very large risk that taxpayers will end up footing the bill?

The answer is that all they need to sell such bonds without a referendum is the opinion of a consultant that the program is likely to be self-supporting.

MCC has already found a consultant willing to issue a positive opinion, an opinion for which

• the consultant will bear zero financial liability,
• a consultant that has an obvious conflict of interest,
• a consultant with a strong, vested financial self interest in saying such the proposed program will be successful.

= = = = =
The following are running for the three open spots on the McHenry County College Board:

• William Scott Alford, Wonder Lake, received December 19
• Chris Jenner, Cary, received December 26, 2012
• Carol Larson, Harvard, received December 17
• Erik Sivertsen, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Mike Smith, Village of Lakewood, received December 17
• Molly Walsh, Crystal Lake, received December 21
• Barbara Walters, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Arne Waltmire, McHenry, received December 17
• Thomas Wilbeck, Lakewood, received December 26, 2012

Incumbents are Carol Larson and Barbara Walters.

Rest assured I shall ask each whether they will vote to sell bonds without asking voters for permission first.

= = = = =

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here.

See Part 4 here.

This is a continuation of Stephen Willson’s critique of the $42 million health club/classroom expansion proposed by the McHenry County College Board.

Proposition 5: There is a need for additional classroom space.

Response: MCC has plenty of unused capacity and demand is unlikely to grow.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, MCC stated they do not know the extent to which their current physical plant is used.

This is an incredible admission, but if true, how in the world can they claim they need more space?

Further,

• physical survey evidence and examination of classroom capacity data,
• total semester hours earned and
• (declining) average class size

(all available in their annual report) show existing classrooms are empty 33% or more of the school day, proving that MCC has substantial unused classroom capacity.

There simply is no need for more classroom space.

Further, the Census Bureau projects that the number of 18-34 year olds will decline over the next ten years, a projection born out by the fact that there are 20% fewer third graders in McHenry County schools – MCC’s freshmen in ten years – than there are high school seniors.

So MCC is likely to need less space, not more.

None of this is addressed in the so-called “feasibility study.”

Proposition 6: The County NEEDS a big, new government-run health club.

Response: I don’t even know what to say to that.

MCC’s proposal calls for spending $42 million for a 120,000 square foot building.

That is $350 per square foot, which every local business person knows is more than three times the going rate for commercial space.

According to MCC, 28% of the space in this building will be used for a new and improved fitness center for its students.

In other words, almost $12 million of the projected cost will go towards building a new Health Bridge-like club.

MCC already operates a vastly under-utilized fitness center.

Based on several observations at various times on various days, the fitness center usually has only a handful of students in it.

It operates at less than 20% of its capacity.

Yet the new fitness center will be at least five times the size of the current fitness center.

Further, there are more than twenty fitness centers already in operation in McHenry County.

Why should taxpayers subsidize a fancy new health club that will compete with private enterprise?

= = = = =
The following are running for the three open spots on the McHenry County College Board:

• William Scott Alford, Wonder Lake, received December 19
• Chris Jenner, Cary, received December 26, 2012
• Carol Larson, Harvard, received December 17
• Erik Sivertsen, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Mike Smith, Village of Lakewood, received December 17
• Molly Walsh, Crystal Lake, received December 21
• Barbara Walters, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Arne Waltmire, McHenry, received December 17
• Thomas Wilbeck, Lakewood, received December 26, 2012

Incumbents are Carol Larson and Barbara Walters.

Rest assured I shall ask each whether they will vote to sell bonds without asking voters for permission first.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here.

See Part 4 here.

This is a continuation of Stephen Willson’s critique of the $42 million health club/classroom expansion proposed by the McHenry County College Board.

Proposition 3: But Centegra’s new hospital in Huntley will create a lot of jobs.

Response: Centegra will fill those jobs before MCC’s new program produces graduates.

Centegra Hospital plans to open a new 128 bed hospital in Huntley in 2016. MCC’s own timeline for this project shows their new, expanded program opening the winter semester of 2015.

The first students will graduate from the proposed new program after Centegra has finished its initial hiring.

Proposition 4: MCC’s students can work in the surrounding counties.

Response: Other area community colleges all have their own health sciences programs.

When challenged to justify a program that is projected to produce students far in excess of local demand, MCC President Vicky Smith said, “There will be jobs not only in McHenry County, but in Kane, Cook, Boone and Lake Counties. We would have some programs that no other community college has in our surrounding area.”

This is false.

Every neighboring community college has a health sciences program.

Elgin Community College offers certificate and degree programs in

• nursing (RN),
• nurse’s assistance,
• lab technology,
• phlebotomy,
• histotechnology,
• surgical technology,
• radiography,
• dental assistant, and
• physical therapy.

They have about 1,000 students in their programs.

Harper College has eleven different programs with over 1,000 students.

Rock Valley Community College offers programs in nursing, dental hygiene, surgical technology and respiratory care.

It is unrealistic to expect surplus graduates of an ambitious program at MCC to find jobs in neighboring communities.

The marketing presentation does not address other area community college programs at all.

= = = = =

The following are running for the three open spots on the McHenry County College Board:

• William Scott Alford, Wonder Lake, received December 19
• Chris Jenner, Cary, received December 26, 2012
• Carol Larson, Harvard, received December 17
• Erik Sivertsen, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Mike Smith, Village of Lakewood, received December 17
• Molly Walsh, Crystal Lake, received December 21
• Barbara Walters, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Arne Waltmire, McHenry, received December 17
• Thomas Wilbeck, Lakewood, received December 26, 2012

Incumbents are Carol Larson and Barbara Walters.

Rest assured I shall ask each whether they will vote to sell bonds without asking voters for permission first.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here.

See Part 4 here.

Municipal bond analyst Stephen Willson, who has been critical of both the proposal to expand the Crystal Lake Library and the massive expansion of McHenry County College, has written a critique of the College Board’s plan to build a $42 million health club and classroom expansion. That will start today and continue until the 1,500 word document is completely posted and accessible by internet search engines.

An Open Letter to the Public Concerning McHenry County College

MCC’s Proposal

MCC plans to spend $42 million on a new 30,000+ square foot health club, similar to Health Bridge, and to add 90,000 square feet of classroom space for an expanded health and wellness program. According to MCC, they will attract 1,400 new students and accomplish all this without a tuition increase or a property tax increase.

MCC plans to use “alternate revenue bonds”, which are payable from property taxes, in order to avoid a referendum.

On October 25, MCC agreed to pay Power Wellness $50,000 to perform a “phase 2” feasibility study. Power Wellness has an obvious conflict of interest and should never have been hired.

Is there a documented demand for this huge new project, and is it likely to be self-supporting? Let’s examine the facts.

Proposition 1: MCC should offer degree programs in health services.

Response: MCC already offers health programs that have flat enrollment.

MCC already has programs for occupational therapy, emergency medical technician, health and fitness education, nursing assistants, and nursing, with about 780 students in total.

Enrollment in existing programs has been essentially flat for the last few years.

Yet MCC projects that the new project will nearly TRIPLE enrollment in health programs with zero evidence.

Has MCC been turning students away from their existing programs? No.

So why should we believe demand will increase by 1,400 additional students?

MCC’s own flat enrollment history and Census data contradict such a conclusion.

Proposition 2: Health care employment is growing rapidly.

Response: Not in McHenry County.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 9,815 health care jobs in McHenry County in 2011.

The number of health care jobs increased by just 35 in 2009, and decreased by 34 in 2010 and by 50 in 2011.

The federal government is placing extreme pressure on health care providers to curb expenses.

Projections assuming zero growth (faster than the last few years) and 3% annual growth (the long run average) indicate there will likely be only 350 to 400 job openings each year in health services in McHenry County in future years.

Only half of these jobs will require a junior college degree; the rest require either no degree or a more advanced degree.

So there will likely be around 175 to 200 job openings each year for the 2,100 students that MCC projects.

The “phase one” marketing presentation does not address the availability of health care jobs for junior college graduates at all.

= = = = =

The following are running for the three open spots on the McHenry County College Board:

• William Scott Alford, Wonder Lake, received December 19
• Chris Jenner, Cary, received December 26, 2012
• Carol Larson, Harvard, received December 17
• Erik Sivertsen, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Mike Smith, Village of Lakewood, received December 17
• Molly Walsh, Crystal Lake, received December 21
• Barbara Walters, McHenry, received December 26, 2012
• Arne Waltmire, McHenry, received December 17
• Thomas Wilbeck, Lakewood, received December 26, 2012

Incumbents are Carol Larson and Barbara Walters.

Rest assured I shall ask each whether they will vote to sell bonds without asking voters for permission first.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =

See Part 1 here.

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here.

See Part 4 here.

The comment section under articles about McHenry County College’s plan to borrow $42 million to build a health club and health sciences classrooms has brought forth some interesting comments that I would like to share more broadly.  Add yours, too.

• Steve Willson critique of $42 million project, plus all relevant slides presented to the MCC Board:
  • Part 1 is here.
  • Part 2 is here.
  • Part 3 is here.
• Discussion by the MCC Board 12-11-12

So, here they are:

Tutty Baker, 2012/12/09 at 9:25 am

Most all of the Community College Districts in northern Illinois are carrying an inordinate amount of debt. In most cases, the public is completely unaware how much these “educational” institutions have put the public on the hook for.

The public really needs to start pressuring the General Assembly to limit the ease with which public bodies can borrow huge sums of money.

This won’t be easy, the banking lobby has basically controlled the Illinois Legislature for a couple of decades now.

And just look at all of the wonderful results the bankers’ lobby has brought us fine citizens of the Prairie State.

Tutty  (The Stephenson Blumdoggle)

Mark, 2012/12/09 at 5:36 pm

Here’s the org chart of leaders who would be impacted by or involved with a new Health and Wellness Center.
http://www.mchenry.edu/finance/FY2012CAFR.pdf

• Lena Kalemba – Director of Health and Wellness
• Angelina Castillo – Asst VP of Human Resources
• Larry West – VP for Administration Services
• Becky Smith – President

Board of Trustees

• Dennis Adams, Vice Chair, McHenry, Term ends 2013
• Cynthia Kisser, Wonder Lake, Term ends 2017
• Carol Larson, Harvard, Term ends 2013
• Linda Liddell, Crystal Lake, Term ends 2017
• Mary Miller, Chair, Crystal Lake, Term ends 2015
• Ronald Parrish, Woodstock, Term ends 2015
• Barbara Walters, Secretary, McHenry, Term ends 2013
• Paola Rueda, Student Trustee, Term ends April 2013

http://www.mchenry.edu/board/boardoftrustees.asp

If you are getting stonewalled in your FOIA, let your elected official know that.

M. Maule, 2012/12/09 at 10:32 pm

Vicky Smith- not Becky Smith. Just saying.

Mark, 2012/12/09 at 5:40 pm

MCC seems to be calling this a health science education facility.

Steve Willson, 2012/12/09 at 8:01 pm

Keep reading over the next couple of days, Mark.

The first key point is that MCC is trying to disguise a marketing proposal by firms with a conflict of interest as a “feasibility study.” The conflict of interest makes any conclusions the firms reach inadmissible.

The second key point is that the building is about 2/3 classroom and 1/3 health club. But the program they want to expand is a nonstarter and they have a huge amount of unused classroom space now. So the whole project is ill considered.

The third key point is that MCC is trying to get around a referendum and sell these bonds without the voters’ permission.

Mark, 2012/12/10 at 12:58 am

The Power Wellness PowerPoint presentation we are discussing is dated September 18, 2012?

The $50,000 feasibility study was approved by the MCC Board October 25, 2012.

In which case the PowerPoint predates the approval of the feasibility study?

Maybe MCC doesn’t have the results of the feasibility study yet?

When does Power Wellness present the results of the October 25, 2012 feasibility study to the MCC Board?
Tuesday Dec 12th?

At the very least the Power Wellness PowerPoint should be easy to find on the MCC website…can’t locate it at all on the MCC website…lousy transparency on MCC’s part.

Chelsea McDougall of the The Northwest Herald has written a few articles on the subject.

MCC envisions partners for health sciences facility
http://www.nwherald.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/10/17/r_dl1mohctrrgoxrsw85dfwa/index.xml
“MCC authorizes expansion study” Fri Oct 26, 2012.
http://www.nwherald.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/10/26/r_xjmbvtqhrinbdn99pm9mq/index.xml

Elena Ferrarin of the Daily Herald wrote an article Oct 26th.
MCC to study $42 million health sciences center
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121026/news/710269693/

In the Daily Herald article, debt certificates are mentioned as a possible funding source.

Debt certificates.

What exactly is a debt certificate?

A bond?

The Village of Lakewood is also talking about “debt certificates” and “public private partnerships”.
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2012/12/05/lakewood-village-president-lays-out-need-for-new-village-hall/

Is this some sort of trend to obtain taxpayer financing.

Mark, 2012/12/10 at 1:21 am

In the last slide, the Preliminary Business Plan, what is the LEED Premium?

The cost to receive LEED certification…meaning the cost for a piece of paper?

Do the “Viable funding options without referendum” include either upfront taxpayer funding, or funding backed (guaranteed) by taxpayers?

Funding backed by taxpayers prompts the thought of the failed the baseball stadium…was that funding backed taxpayers, meaning the taxpayers were on the hook if the project went south?

Do many or most of these “public private partnerships” involve public backing of private financing?

Stephen Willson, Submitted on 2012/12/10 at 5:00 pm

Mark, the “funding option without referendum” is the same kind of financing Lakewood used for its infamous golf course.

They are know as “alternate revenue bonds.”

The college will hire a “consultant” (guess who!) who will opine the project is likely to be self-supporting and then issue bonds backed by property taxes without a referendum.

When the project turns out NOT to be self-supporting (like Lakewood’s golf course), the taxpayers will be on the hook

Mark, 2012/12/11 at 10:33 am

Is there ever a reason in the public interest to issue bonds backed by taxes without a referendum?

It should not be legal to approve bonds backed by taxes without a referendum to build community college buildings, golf courses, baseball stadiums, or anything else.+

“Public private partnerships” doesn’t convey the message “non referendum bonds backed by taxpayers.”

Mark, 2012/12/11 at 10:44 am

Would the $8 per credit hour student infrastructure fee, be a new fee to help finance this this project?

What are debt certificates…are they bonds?

Cal Skinner, 2012/12/11 at 10:56 am | In reply to Mark.

They are a name for money borrowed by a public body without a referendum. The money must be repaid from tax district revenue, but have the advantage to taxpayers to not being capable of forcing up tax rates if the tax district officials can’t find the money to make payments.

Because there is more risk to the borrower, interest rates on debt certificates are generally higher than those on bonds.

Steve Willson, 12/11/2012 at 11:50 pm

I’m amused that the board is increasing funding to make it a “true” feasibility study.

Doesn’t that mean they’re admitting what they had before wasn’t a true feasibility study?

But it CAN’T be a true feasibility study as long as they Power Wellness because that firm that has an obvious conflict of interest.

No matter what they get back, the results will be suspect because Power Wellness has a strong financial interest in a positive answer.

Next, Health care is NOT growing, at least not here in McHenry County.

The fact is that the federal government is putting tremendous pressure on health care providers to keep costs down, and that means reduced personnel, which is why health care employment actually FELL in McHenry County between 2009 and 2011.

You’ve read my report.

There will likely only be a couple of hundred job openings per year in health care in McHenry County for junior college grads.

Training people for nonexistent jobs is absolutely cruel.

The college should work with local employers to figure out how many jobs there are likely to be for their graduates, what those jobs are, and train these kids for real jobs, not some pie-in-the-sky figment of their imagination.

And I’d still like to know why they need more classroom space when their current facility is under-utilized.

I was there yesterday afternoon at 1:00 and the parking lot was less than half full.

I would guess that my estimate of 60% to 70% utilization of classrooms was actually generous.

But they don’t need to guess.

They can generate the numbers.

They simply refuse to do so.

Tim Stratton, Submitted on 2012/12/11 at 12:22 pm

Cal, pretty good description of what a Debt Certificate is.

I would just like to add a few observations.

Debt Certificates are really just an installment purchase borrowing.

They are payable from “any and all lawfully available funds of the district”.

That means certificate holders are entitled to any funds of the district such as tuition, revenues from the operation of programs and facilities, etc. There is no separate tax levy so technically the issuance of Debt Certificates will not “raise taxes”. In fact, the statute prohibits a tax levy to pay the Debt Certificate.

That being said, money is money and monies spent to service debt payments on this particular project is money not available for other things. I read somwhere where a commenter was saying the College was using a “loophole” to do the project without the consent of the voters.

That comment by the poster was inaccurate and misleading.

He can question the need for the project but Debt Certificates are specifically authorized by statue to allow local governments to borrow money for a term of not to exceed 20 years by a simple majority vote of the Board. This is not a loophole. My Wester’s dictionary defines loophole as:

“a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.”

Debt Certificates are not a loophole, they are specifically authorized in very clear language. Nothing ambiguous about that.

Tim Stratton
Former MCC Trustee

jeffthorsen, 2012/12/11 at 5:45 pm

Hi Tim

I would like to talk to you about this if possible. Be nice to see you again. Give me a call at 815-245-9204….that goes for Stephen too.

Steve Willson, 2012/12/11 at 9:36 pm

Mr. Stratton, while debt certificates are one option, the board has focused on issuing “alternate revenue” bonds, like the bonds issued by Lakewood for their golf course.

These are general obligation bonds, payable from a property tax levy separate from the Education Fund, so MCC could use this option and NOT cut into their operating revenues.

Steve Willson, 2012/12/11 at 11:50 pm

I’m amused that the board is increasing funding to make it a “true” feasibility study.

Doesn’t that mean they’re admitting what they had before wasn’t a true feasibility study?

But it CAN’T be a true feasibility study as long as they Power Wellness because that firm that has an obvious conflict of interest.

No matter what they get back, the results will be suspect because Power Wellness has a strong financial interest in a positive answer.

Next, Health care is NOT growing, at least not here in McHenry County.

The fact is that the federal government is putting tremendous pressure on health care providers to keep costs down, and that means reduced personnel, which is why health care employment actually FELL in McHenry County between 2009 and 2011.

You’ve read my report.

There will likely only be a couple of hundred job openings per year in health care in McHenry County for junior college grads.

Training people for nonexistent jobs is absolutely cruel.

The college should work with local employers to figure out how many jobs there are likely to be for their graduates, what those jobs are, and train these kids for real jobs, not some pie-in-the-sky figment of their imagination.

And I’d still like to know why they need more classroom space when their current facility is under-utilized.

I was there yesterday afternoon at 1:00 and the parking lot was less than half full.

I would guess that my estimate of 60% to 70% utilization of classrooms was actually generous.

But they don’t need to guess.

They can generate the numbers.

They simply refuse to do so.

Mark, 2012/12/12 at 11:27 am

Community Colleges, municipalities, park districts, local school districts, conservation districts, and other local taxing districts should not be allowed to issue tens of millions of dollars of public debt, be it in the form of bonds, alternate bonds backed by taxpayers, debt certificates, or other financial instruments, without referendum.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s in the best interest of taxpayers.

Issuing public debt without referendum means special interests such as underwriters (middleman between taxing district and investors), bond counsel (attorneys), bond ratings agencies, transfer agents (bank or other financial institution that tracks principal and interest payments to bond owners), architects, construction management firms, and other firms profit with no vote on the measure by taxpayers.

Referendum is a more effective method of transparency in approving tens of millions of dollars of public debt, as apposed to board approval without referendum.

Mark, 2012/12/12 at 12:03 pm

Is there a method to force the MCC Board to go to referendum to obtain any desired financing (alternate bonds, debt certificates, etc.) for the project?

Tim Stratton, 2012/12/12 at 12:24 pm

Mr. Wilson, I am aware of what an Alternate Revenue Bond is.

Alt Rev Bonds are indeed General Obligation Bonds but they are intended to be paid primarily from pledged revenues or funds other than a tax levy.

They do however, contain a “back up” or “alternate” property tax levy that only gets levied in the event the revenues from other sources fall short to pay the bonds.

There are serious consequences to the issuer of the bonds if they ever have to access that tax levy.

These bonds are again, not a loop hole, as was previously claimed above.

A loop hole is a way to evade a statute.

In this case Alternate Rev

Hardly a loop hole.

Again, criticism of the project is fair.

Distortion of the facts is not.

Mike Barnes, 12/12/2012 at 2:58 pm

The campus appears more empty this week because it is finals week.

Try to find a parking spot on a Tuesday in the middle of the semester.

Then you will see it is crowded.

Steve Willson, 2012/12/12 at 4:19 pm

Mr. Stratton, there are NO serious consequences for a government that issues Alternate Revenue bonds and then relies on property taxes.

They get their project, they get their operating revenues, and the taxpayers get higher taxes.

And if you don’t believe me, ask the people of Lakewood about the golf course they paid for for 20 years.

And hiring a “consultant” with an obvious conflict of interest IS a loophole, and I know that, because I served on the advisory committee that wrote the law for Alternate Revenue bonds.

It was intended for non-home rule cities to get cheaper financing for things like their sewer systems, not for community colleges to build health clubs.

Steve Willson, 2012/12/12 at 4:40 pm

In fact, Mr. Stratton, I had a LONG conversation with an attorney from Chapman and Cutler about exactly what constitutes an independent consultant when the Marengo Park District sold Alternate Revenue Bonds recently.

The “consultants” for the college put together a 26 slide PowerPoint sales presentation and called it a “feasibility study.”

This was no feasibility study.

Feasibility studies are performed by independent parties, not firms that want more business.

Feasibility studies have hundreds of pages of data to support their projections.

This 26 slide presentation had zero data to back up their ludicrous claims that the health club and the new program would be self-supporting.

Further, the history of the College strongly contradicts the claim that the expanded health program could be self-supporting from tuition alone.

The College relies on tuition for 25% of its budget, but somehow this program will be self-supporting?

As a bond analyst, I wouldn’t buy these bonds WITHOUT a property tax back-up, because I would regard the probability of the program being self-supporting as close to zero.

This is Part 3 of Stephen Willson’s biting critique of the McHenry County College Board’s decision-making process that consultants hope will lead to the issuance of $42 million in bonds without a public vote. Interspersed among his comments are the essential slides presented before Board members decided to approve Phase Two at the cost of $50,000. The images are what the Board saw before deciding to move ahead on what is called “a public-private partnership.”

They’re obvious questions that would occur to any business person who was thinking of investing millions of dollar of his or her own money rather than taxpayers’ money, and anyone could gather the evidence to answer the questions in a matter of a few hours with Google and a handful of phone calls.

Second, MCC has an institutional research department! They have the expertise on staff, but chose to pay consultants with obvious conflicts of interest tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

MCC plans to fund this project with bonds backed by property taxes, and to issue the bonds by using a loophole to avoid a referendum.

Unless you, as community leaders, act, MCC will succeed.

If you don’t want your taxes to go up, I urge you to read this letter and to act on it.

The facts presented here are independently verifiable, and they do not support MCC’s proposal.

• Training students for jobs that will not exist is a cruel hoax on our youth.
• Trying to pass off a marketing presentation as a feasibility study is a hoax on the people.
• Spending millions of dollars on an unneeded program is a hoax on the taxpayers.
• Purposely seeking a loophole to issue debt without a referendum is a hoax on the voters.

A Call to Action

Decisions about large new government programs should be based on facts. It is my hope that by writing this letter, I will encourage community leaders to consider the facts, to think about the issues, and, above all, to speak up and act.

• I urge MCC to either rebut my facts or kill the project. Silence is a disservice to the public.
• I urge community leaders to call members of the MCC Board and express your opinion.
• I urge community leaders to write letters to the editor to inform the public.
• I urge the Northwest Herald to publish serious investigative articles if it wishes to be taken seriously. “He said, she said” reporting will not do. Hard questions must be asked of the administrators at MCC and articles must present independently developed facts to readers, not just information provided by MCC or conclusionary opinions.

I urge all of you not to remain silent. You are community leaders. I ask you to LEAD.

Unless you act, your taxes will go up.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen Willson
Lakewood, Illinois

= = = = =
The MCC Board will meet tonight. One of the subjects will be this proposed health club.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 is here.

This is Part 2 of Stephen Willson’s biting critique of the McHenry County College Board’s decision-making process that consultants hope will lead to the issuance of $42 million in bonds without a public vote. Interspersed among his comments are the essential slides presented before Board members decided to approve Phase Two at the cost of $50,000.  The images are what the Board saw before deciding to move ahead on what is called “a public-private partnership.”

The slide show provides

• no information on whether current facilities are sufficient to meet student demand,
• no evidence that there is substantial unmet demand by students for the proposed classes,
• no evidence of sufficient demand by employers for graduates of the proposed programs,
• no justification for building a government operated health club,
• no discussion of competing health clubs or health classes,
• no explanation of a competitive advantage for the proposed health club or evidence to support projected membership.

Paying Power Wellness and Wight $50,000 to tell MCC whether or not to build a big new health club makes as much sense as paying the local Ford dealer $50,000 to advise you what new cars you need.

You know the answer you’re going to get!

Sadly, a consultant was never even needed.

First, the questions that should have been asked and answered don’t take a rocket scientist!

More tomorrow.  (The College Board will meet tomorrow night. One item of discussion will be this $42 million project.)

Part 1 is here.

Part 3 is here.

A statement for the McHenry County College Board from Stephen Willson is found below.  Willson is the man who punched holes big enough to drive a bulldozer through the billion dollar (with interest) proposal to completely revamp the MCC campus over the next forty years.

He pointed out that there are fewer third graders in McHenry County schools than seniors, which means the 3% annual growth rate assumed by college officials was apparently picked out of thin air.

Now Willson analyses the plan to build was appears to be mainly a nursing training facility, plus occupational, physical and respiratory therapy,  And, oh, yes.  Twenty-eight percent of the building will be for a fitness center to compete with private enterprise.

Remarks concerning the MCC Health Sciences Facility

Northwest Herald, October 17, 2012, “MCC envisions partners for health sciences facility”

“McHenry County College is looking to expand its health and wellness programs with a $42 million building and is looking to private-sector partners to help pay for it.”

The college’s board of trustees will vote on a second-phase feasibility study Oct. 25. The study, if approved, will examine whether a public-private partnership will work to create a health sciences facility. It will look into possible sites for a building and identify potential financial partners and funding sources.

College officials maintain that a public-private partnership – specifically partnerships with those in the health care field – would pay for the project without going to voters or raising tuition.

“I’m not saying we would never, but none of the discussions this far have addressed [a tuition increase], as well as a referendum,” said Laura Brown, the college’s vice president of institutional advancement. “We are not going to a referendum.”

“Any private entity has to augment or supplement our educational focus,” Brown said.

For the college’s share of the partnership, it could leverage debt or employ alternative revenue bonds to be repaid with revenues generated by the project – namely from tuition from an estimated 1,400 new students and 25,000 incremental credit hours each year.

Additionally, students taking health sciences programs likely would see additional classroom fees.

A phase one study concluded that expanding those programs – specifically occupational, physical and respiratory therapy, and other health and wellness curriculum – would require a 120,000-square-foot building, 67 percent of which would be used for classroom spaces and 28 percent for a fitness center.

If the board approves the phase two study, it will hire Addison-based firm Power Wellness for $50,000. The board asked Power Wellness also to explore existing buildings and facilities in the county as potential sites for the expansion.

Fact 1.  There is no demand for a program of this size.

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that there are approximately 350 job openings annually in the “health care and social assistance” sector in McHenry County.

This includes jobs that require an advance degree, such as doctors and registered nurses, and jobs that do not require any degree, and jobs in the “social assistance” subsector.

So the annual number of job openings in the health care field in McHenry County that will require a two-year degree is probably half of this, or about 175.

As it is possible to obtain a two-year degree at other institutions in the area and as the job force is fairly mobile, the number of annual job openings available to graduates of the proposed program is probably no more than 100.

Yet MCC projects that they will have 1,400 students in this program, or 700 graduating per year.

If they are correct, then this program is a cruel hoax on the students who enroll expecting to be able to find jobs in health care in McHenry County, as only perhaps one in seven will find a job.

Fact 2. The program cannot be self-supporting.

Assume the College is correct and the program generates 25,000 incremental credit hours. At the current tuition rate of $90 per credit hour, the gross annual revenue would be $2.25 million.

But the annual mortgage payment on a $42 million is $2.7 million or 120% of the projected tuition. This is before one teacher is hired or the electric bill is paid.

MCC, like most schools, spends about 67% of its budget on personnel and less than 10% on mortgage payments. Thus, less than 20% of tuition money, or perhaps $450,000, would be available to pay the $2.7 million mortgage payment.

Fact 3.  28% of the building is for a health club.

There are more than 20 health clubs in McHenry County now. It does not make sense for MCC to build yet another taxpayer subsidized competitor for local private businesses.

Fact 4.  $42 million divided by 120,000 square feet is $350 per square foot.

This makes MCC twice as fiscally responsible as the Crystal Lake Library, but this is still more than three times the going rate for finished commercial space.

Fact 5. MCC plans to use “alternate revenue bonds” in order to avoid a referendum.

This law was written so that municipalities could obtain lower interest rates on borrowings for utilities with proven track records, such as water and sewer systems, NOT speculative projects such as this.

I know because I was on the advisory committee that helped to write this legislation.

If MCC seeks to use a loophole to do an end run around the voters and burden the taxpayers, I personally will lead the effort to put the bond issue on the ballot.

Further, I will personally fund a class action suit on behalf of the taxpayers alleging fraud in the issuance of such bonds because there is no institution, no corporation, that will be willing to enter into a 30 year contract to guarantee revenues sufficient to pay for this building.

I will sue MCC’s attorney if he issues an opinion that such bonds are legally issued.

I will sue bond counsel for concurring in such an opinion.

I will sue the financial advisor, the feasibility consultant, and the underwriter.

So, in conclusion, I urge the Board NOT to waste more taxpayer money by giving $50,000 to yet another consultant who is hired to deliver

• a pre-determined,
• made-as-instructed,

endorsement of this speculative white elephant.