A letter to the editor on the details of a $153.6 million dollar bond issuance by Harper Community College appeared in the December 18th, 2008 issue of the Schaumburg Review. The author, Michael J. Victor from Schaumburg, detailed a number of critical issues about the bond that needs to be addressed by the trustees of Harper College.

1. Transparency. 

“Spending $150 million is going to require significant due diligence by the trustees of this district.”

Mr. Victor calls into question why the Harper College board originally asked for $300 million but then dramatically reduced their request. Was this a political play where the legislators ask for a huge amount up front and then fall back on a much smaller amount to look fiscally conservative?

Also, how many years is the $153.6 million dollar bond for? There is no mention of the bond length on either the Harper Campus Master Plan, the PATH report, or Harper’s No-Tax-Rate-Increase Referendum FAQ page. How can taxpayer’s be sure that this won’t lead to tax increases if there isn’t adequate transparency?

Transparency should be an integral part of all of Harper College’s financial expenditures designated for the $153.6 million bond issuance. 

2. Tax and expenditure limitation.

“As there was no active organization to balance Harper’s expensive campaign we are now faced with the tax burden that should have actually been a much-needed tax decrease.”

With property taxes rising fast, a slowing housing market, and the national economy souring, Harper College passed up an opportunity to lower taxes. Harper College’s own referendum website explained “If the referendum passes, Harper’s tax rate next year will not increase.”  But what about in 2010? 

In the 2007-08 fiscal year, local taxpayers paid the lion’s share of Harper College’s budget with $59.8 million in property taxes going to Harper College while only $41.6 million of the budget came from student tuition and fees. Of the $132,905,739 in revenue for Harper College in 2007-2008 $78,284,023 (59%) came from taxpayer sources.

The $153.6 million bond, which is more than a 23% increase from the 1999 ask, is going to be paid back largely by property taxes. Without firm Tax and Expenditure Limitation legislation or ordinances being passed, the advertisement of the “No-Tax-Rate-Increase Bond Referendum” would be a dubious argument to make. Previous bond ordinances, including a $124.8 million bond referendum in 1999, were defeated in part because it would raise property taxes.

The State of Arizona has adopted tax and expenditure limitations (TEL’s) for community colleges. The same type of model legislation is needed locally to protect taxpayers and ensure that Harper keeps its “No-Tax-Rate-Increase” pledge.

3. Harper College’s President search.

“I hope when they hire a new president, they hire someone who’s not an educator, but rather a businessperson who understands what a budget is and who knows that the district does not have a credit card and needs to stay within the taxes the district collects.”

The hiring process for a new President at Harper College should be closely monitored by the public. The previous Harper President was controversial and came under fire frequently. The former Harper President, Bob Breuder, had one of the largest public administrator compensation packages in the State of Illinois at over $277,000 in total compensation in 2005-06.  

Linked is Victor’s letter to the editor “Harper spends Big“ in the Schaumburg Review:

Great observations Mr. Victor! Let’s hope Harper’s Board answers these challenges.

No related posts.