Why I am voting NO to the $180MM Harper College Referendum

Harper College $180MM referendum-"No, Not This plan."

Here's a taxpayer's perspective on why we should not vote Yes. The facts show that the referendum is not "well thought out and responsibly planned" as the Daily Herald believes.

It is also "very convenient" that the Harper College Trustees have timed this appeal to coincide with the end of the payments for the last large spending program.

In the last three weeks I’ve engaged with the Trustees’ spokesperson to better understand the work of the college’s Task Force and consultants. They have replied to my questions. And so I believe the Trustees have not made their case to taxpayers to borrow $180MM in two years' time. Here’s why:

1. $117MM is for construction projects. But they have not prepared any annual cash outflow projections. If they haven’t projected construction spending yet, how do we know what is needed and when? What if $50MM is not needed until 2025? It’s not clear.

2. $63MM is to “maintain and replace infrastructure at $6.3MM annually over ten years.” Maintenance is not a capital budget item paid for by bonds (that's like paying for groceries with a home equity loan). It’s not clear how much of the $63MM is maintenance versus replacement. But it is clear that $31.5MM is not needed until 2025 or later.

3. The HarperYES messaging is about “three priorities,” but when I asked how priorities were decided, I was told “the three priorities are equal in importance.” Really? That’s more of an admission the projects have NOT been prioritized, just categorized. Lack of prioritization is not acceptable, it’s a lack of consideration for taxpayers. It's not clear, is it?

4. What is clear is that the projects conveniently happen to equal the amount of debt we are about to pay off. That is also NOT prioritization but an assumption that we don’t mind spending another $180MM. That’s presumptuous.

In 2016 taxpayers in Palatine District 15 voted down an ill-prepared plan to borrow $130MM. The reason “No, not this plan” was because its shortcomings were exposed. That rejection was very wise because the new D15 Board has worked hard to develop other plans at substantially lower cost.

In my view, we should again say “No, not this plan.” And the Trustees have enough time to go back, prioritize spending and prepare proper plans before they ask us to support them. They just have not made the case in 2018.