Part of the Bay Area News Group

Mt. Diablo district to begin solar projects in June

By Theresa Harrington
Friday, March 18th, 2011 at 6:55 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

Ensuring that the public will embrace the Mt. Diablo school district’s 51-site solar project after construction begins could be a daunting task.

And Pete Pedersen, who is managing the project, admitted to the Measure C Bond Oversight Committee on Thursday that he loses sleep thinking about it.

“At 3 in the morning, I’m trying to create a vision about: ‘How bad can this be?'” he said. “What things do I need to be thinking about now that are going to be happening next March? If there needs to be a 500-pound gorilla who says, ‘no,’ it’s got to be me right now. Out of all the projects that we’ve ever worked on, this — PR-wise — is just challenging. There are a million different ways it can go bad.”

Here’s the list of 17 sites in Bay Point and Concord that will receive solar panels over the summer, during the first phase of construction:

District maintenance and operations yard: $807,701
Dent Center: $2 million
Bel Air Elementary: $898,014
Cambridge Elementary: $1.1 million
Concord HS: $2.9 million
Delta View Elem: $1.3 million
El Dorado MS: $1.4 million
El Monte Elem: $826,321
Monte Gardens Elem: $1 million
Mt. Diablo HS: $3.7 million
Olympic HS: $847,046
Rio Vista Elem: $737,937
Riverview MS: $2.3 million
Shore Acres Elem: $35,540
Sun Terrace Elem: $1.1 million
Westwood Elem: $653,518
Wren Avenue Elem: $706,449

Site plans showing the location of solar panels on each campus are at This is a new website the district has launched to answer the public’s questions about how it is spending its $348 million 2010 Measure C bond money.

On Tuesday, the Mt. Diablo school board boosted its payment for solar panels to SunPower Corporation by $1.8 million, bringing the total cost of its project to about $67.4 million.

Trustees also added $55,000 to their engineering costs, for a total of $88,600.

The district expects to save more than $3 million a year in electricity costs after the project is completed in April, 2012. District officials are also excited about reducing their carbon footprint and using the solar project to teach students about resource conservation.

But it’s the short-term shock that the solar structures could cause that is worrying Pedersen. He’s been making the rounds at schools, drawing up plans in an attempt to put the panels in places that would be least obtrusive.

At some elementary schools, however, this is proving difficult. At Monte Gardens Elementary, some people suggested putting the panels over the lawn, he said.

“Then, a year later, the grass may not get any sun. It’s dead,” he said. “And you’ve got a mud pit.”

To prevent this from happening, Pedersen said he worked with the principal to fit the panels — which sit atop carports or shade structures — between asphalt and grass on the campus.

Cambridge Elementary’s space is so small that the district may have to put solar panels on district land that is jointly shared with the city in an adjacent park, Pedersen said. This may also be the case for Meadow Homes Elementary, which isn’t in the first phase.

He said Mt. Diablo HS was also problematic because of shade that would be cast onto the panels. So, they will be spread throughout the campus.

At El Dorado MS, the district plans to “tuck” the panels around the blacktop, he said.

Other schools in future phases that are problematic are Mt. Diablo Elementary in Clayton and Valle Verde and Walnut Acres in Walnut Creek, he said.

“At Mt. Diablo Elementary there’s very little room,” he said. “If we’re going to make our production numbers to offset cost, we’re having a real problem.”

Valle Verde and Walnut Acres have active parent groups that are concerned about safety around the “big poles” holding up the structures, he said.

“You’re trying to preserve the turf,” he said. “You don’t want to displace the Little League or the Soccer League. And you think you’ve made everybody happy… until we put these things in, and all the people you thought were happy are unhappy. So, we’re a little anxious. So, we’re trying to think: ‘What can we do to reach out to the community?'”

First, he’s meeting with the administrators. But some members of the committee said he also needs to meet with parents and to ensure that the administrators know about the website and make their communities aware of it.

Pedersen and his staff said they’re willing to make presentations at schools and have already done that at some sites. The team has also created brochures to be passed out to the phase 1 schools, outlining the project.

Committee members said the information should also be distributed with parent newsletters and at school open houses.

“We just need to keep our eye on the prize,” Pedersen said. “Every dollar we save with this goes to the kids. To me, environmentally, it’s great. But if I can free up $3 million a year, as a principal, I could tolerate a little eyesore.”

Pedersen said the first phase would be easiest, since school won’t be in session.

“The construction of phases two and three, when school is in session,” he said, “that is a little more difficult.”

Is your school community happy with the district’s solar plan for your site?

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

92 Responses to “Mt. Diablo district to begin solar projects in June”

  1. Another MDUSD Mom Says:

    I have sat down personally with each Board member except Lynne Dennler. I have written numerous emails to both current and former Board members and current and former Superintendents. I have been in small meetings with each of the last three Superintendents and have had the opportunity to speak to them directly. I have had long telephone conversations with current and former Board members. I have spoken at Board meetings but find it more symbolic than helpful.

    For three years we have asked for a strategic plan and better communication. I believe strategic planning is finally getting started. Will it be more than goals and objectives, I hope so. Will it include community input, I hope so. Will it be embraced and championed by our Superintendent, I hope so. At the most recent Measure C oversight committee a member of the committee asked the District to compile a list of the parents who are resonsible for communication at each school site and everyone one said, “yes, that would be great lets do it.” The person on the committee who requested the list has asked for that same information on every committee I have ever seen her on and, to my knowledge,the list has never once been compiled. This is a list that would be essential for good communication and especially for a parcel tax campaign but no matter how many times the request is made, or who it is made to, it does not matter, it never gets done. If communication was important the list would be important. All a Superintendent needs to do is to tell the Principals that he needs that contact information by Friday and the list could be completed in an afternoon.

    I do believe the Board wants what is best for our kids. The disconnect comes with execution. I think they hired the wrong Superintendent. I think they played too big a role in the solar project and too little a role in the Measure D campaign. They do not have a vision for helping the Superintendent lead this district and there is NO plan.

  2. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Leaky roof update from Pete Pedersen: “Highlands has a leak in the hallway next to Rm 10, Glenbrook has a leak in the library, Diablo View has a leak in the Activity Center, Mt. Diablo El has a roof leak in the Main Office and there is a leak at Oak Grove in Rm A-1.”

  3. Linda Says:

    I think Gary reads this blog. He added a survey to his site. What would be your three highest priorities for the District and what one thing is being done well. Go take the survey.

    1. Strategic Planning – I would source parents in the District and find a volunteer experienced facilitator. I would then engage stakeholders through a series of surveys and communities meeting to really talk about and define a quality education. Through the SP I would make sure the District developed a clear vision, mission, and goals. I would ask the Board to embrace the SP and use it as a guide in all decision-making. I would ask the Superintendent to unveil the plan to community members through a series of community meetings.

    2. I would fire the Superintendent and hire a leader. This is not a flip remark. The board did not hire the kind of individual with the skills they said they wanted. We will never see improvement or change without a dynamic leader. I would rank this Board decision as the most disappointing to me.

    3. Restoring trust and confidence – Now that you have a good plan (#1) and a new Superintendent (#2) you can begin to restore trust and confidence by carrying out the plan that was developed with buy-in and input from all stakeholders with the mission to provide a quality education for our kids. The details and definition of a quality education will most likely cover the issues that concern stakeholders like student learning and engagement, safety, teacher quality, funding, morale, etc…. Then it would be time to pass a parcel tax.

    4. BoardMath. It is working well because both teachers and students are excited about the program.

  4. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Not all teachers are excited about BoardMath. Some say it takes a lot of extra time because they have to develop questions themselves and tailor them to their students. However, it does seem to be effective.
    Those who object seem to think they don’t need it because what they are already doing is working and is less time-consuming.
    There seems to be some resistance to the “one size fits all” implementation of BoardMath and Curriculum Associates testing.

  5. anonamom Says:

    Well we can be pretty sure he reads Mister Writer and Claycord, since they put their heads together and started a new blog on Monday for “positive comments only” for District suggestions. He should thank them for the idea:

    or you can find it under the “Stop Whining” story on Mister Writer. It may be worth noting that they are both pretty supportive of the Board in general.

    I have a lot of suggestions, but unfortunately come up short in the “positive-play nice” column.

  6. Linda Says:

    I could see where some would not like the program however I loved watching the students do Boardmath and it is hard to argue with the success. Testing… not part of my number 4. I was less concerned with answering number 4 than I was with numbers 1-3.

  7. Theresa Harrington Says:

    anonamom: It has been suggested to me that it might be a good idea to start a post about waste in the district. A special ed aide spoke at the March 15 board meeting about wasteful spending she’s seen.

    Here’s what she said: “I’ve been here a long time and I’ve watched the money leak out of the bottom of the barrel for so long.”

    The district sent her to a $250 training in Richmond for a program that only lasted one semester and required three different work books, she said. The district spent $16,000 on trash can holders at her school, she added. Fences are also a problem, she said.

    “Read 180 didn’t even get working til this year,” she continued.

    “There’s so many places where the money’s leaking out,” she said. “These books are in boxes in a room at Clayton Valley HS. They haven’t even been opened. I work with the kids and that’s what it’s about — educating the kids. Kids need people to teach them and they need to be taught how they can learn. I don’t want you to cut special education. Those kids are so needy and the only place they have is at school for some of them.”

    Have you seen wasteful spending in the district?

  8. anonamom Says:

    They’ve been wasting money? Seriously though; when you have a 1-8 ratio of employees to students, with each, from the newest clerk to the Superintendent clawing to “get theirs-keep theirs” not one of them has the time to watch over the other guy’s shoulder, and each is trying to impress someone up the ladder. All the while, the Board is watching that merry-go-round spinning out of control and have no idea where the Stop button is. Right hand/Left hand syndrome.

    In hindsight, $5million at Holbrook seems a shame, but… about that same $$amount at Willow Creek which houses NO students AND which is getting a boat-load of solar,is a crime.

    I could pick a facility, and look closely for waste, and potential waste, and probably do it well (IF and only IF I had no agenda but to “prevent waste”.

    However I couldn’t begin to stand back and see what is happening internally at some 50+ different facilities and neither can they, because even though they may say that’s their job and their goal, they all have some different agenda pulling at them too.

    We really do need to put a ton of stuff on hold and get a “truly independent” “non-local” auditor team in there for a few months. The district neither wants it nor can afford it (in more ways than one)—so maybe it actually is time to call the State.

  9. Doctor J Says:

    Gary’s survey is pathetic — not only is it not statistically valid, it totally misses the point of his call for a Strategic Plan THREE YEARS ago. There is only one priority — develop a Strategic Plan with ALL STAKEHOLDERS which will identify and prioritize the most pressing issues of the district, not just from special interests but from everyone. To ask for ideas in a monkey survey is just simple minded, and doesn’t allow for the give and take of development of a Strategic Plan. Gary is just looking for an escape from this unkept promise of THREE YEARS ago for which he has taken ZERO action. A REAL Strategic Plan will identify and prioritize the needs of the district. Actions will then be taken to accomplish them. The one consultant that should be hired is a Strategic Plan consultant to shepard the process.

  10. Linda Says:

    LOL… or you could do it that way.

  11. Dan Says:

    Theresa and others,

    Linda Mayo responded to one of my questions about where the list of double dippers was by saying that the list was given to all board members during closed session. She went on to say she’s not sure why Cheryl Hansen says she doesn’t have it. So either Linda or Cheryl is lying/misinformed about this issue. I personally would like to see the list of double dippers.

  12. Doctor J Says:

    @Dan, perhaps you should ask Linda for a copy of the list. The reason the Supt handed it out in closed session was to prevent its public distribution. Secrecy in government breeds corruption.

  13. Wait a Minute Says:

    There can be no doubt that corruption is breeding in the MDUSD.
    Like I said above, when a board member (Gary Eberhard) is employed (after being trrained on MDUSD funds as a solar “expert”) by a family (Schreder family) with lucrative contracts with the MDUSD, thats inherent corruption.
    When the Superintendent (Steve Lawrence) is having gratuties lavished upon him while discussing a no-bid contract with Chevron for the $70 MILLION solar, thats at least inherent corruption.
    When another board member (Sherry Marsh) is employeed by Chevron and is overseeing the superintendent who is discussing the no-bid contract with Chevron, thats inherent corruption.
    And I agree with Dr. J, not releasing the list of double dippers obviously shows that they have something else to hide from the public.
    Maybe the Grand Jury needs to investigate the reasons behind that decision too.

  14. Anonacommunitymom Says:

    Wait a Minute, when Sherry Whitmarsh ran for the BOE we all knew she was employed by Chevron. If I were Sherry, I would not want to be a part of the MDUSD BOE because of people like you and your comments, which have no merit or facts. This community is what is killing the MDUSD.

  15. Another MDUSD Mom Says:

    “This community is what is killing the MDUSD.”

    Are you kidding?
    Do you believe that as parents, employees, and taxpayers we shouldn’t have a concern about the behavior of our Board?

    Maybe all these allegations are a coincidence but the behavior should be questioned. MDUSD Board members need to understand the role of a Board member. We have elected these individuals to be trustees of OUR district. They are to hire and manage the Superintendent, direct the vision and mission of the District (which should be student learning), and they are to oversee the District’s fiscal solvency.

    Many in the community do not have confidence in their collective ability to successfully perform these tasks.

    They should not be taking classes to become a solar expert regardless of what they do (or want to do) for a living. They are not to have their hands into the day to day operations of the District. Let an employee become the expert and keep the Board relationship with the day to day operations at arms length. They need to do the job the were elected to do starting with a strategic plan.

  16. Wait a Minute Says:

    You don’t get it Anonacommunitymom.
    As a board member, Sherry is a TRUSTEE.
    The word is based on the fact that the public is entrusting the board to provide professional and ethical OVERSIGHT.
    As a trustee, Sherry hired and is responsible for supervising the superintendent.
    When her superintendent was meeting with and accepting gratuties from Sherry’s employer while discussing a no-bid contract for $70 million, Sherry herself is now automatically responsible for either a lack of supervision or condoning the superintendent’s unethical behavior.
    You can be an apologist for this all you want but it doesn’t change these basic facts.

  17. Doctor J Says:

    Which names do you associate with TRUSTee ?
    Gary Eberhart ?
    Linda Mayo ?
    Sherry Whitmarsh ?
    Lynne Dennler ?
    Cheryl Hansen ?

  18. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Dan, During the March 8 meeting, Trustee Whitmarsh mentioned that the list of retirees had been made available to trustees during closed session. Hansen wants the list to be made public.

    “I had asked that we look into whether it’s rumor or fact,” she said. “There’s always this discussion that we have employees who have retired and are coming back. I’m constantly hearing that we look to either dispel that rumor or substantiate it wilth some facts. That also is a cost to the district.”

    She wanted to be able to tell the public how the district justifies this and whether the rumor is true.

    Board President Gary Eberhart asked staff to “prepare a list of folks that are working on post-retirement contract, and a rationale for why it makes sense.”

    Superintendent Steven Lawrence said: “We do have that. We put it together. Many of the positions are funded out of school site funding.”

    He mentioned one position at Oak Grove Middle School funded out of QEIA funds, which will “go away.” He said the only ongoing position is Pete Pedersen, “who’s overseeing our bond.”

    Since the district has failed to provide this list to the public, I have sent an e-mail to Julie Braun-Martin requesting it, but haven’t heard back.

  19. Anonacommunitymom Says:

    Waitaminute, so do you know for a fact (and provide links) that the BOE did not say something to Dr. Lawrence regarding this with Chevron? If he was reprimanded, should we know that? There are HR laws, privacy laws, etc.. You are assuming something and that is where you are wrong. Did Chevron get a contract, NO NO NO NO NO and NO. When you are reprimanded at work, does everyone else get to see and read the report? NO NO NO and NO

    I only see 3 of you who see things this way, many more of us in the community do discuss all this and we see if differently.

    I seem to be the only one bothering anymore to try to respond to the 3 of you, but now I am done. Enjoy yourselves, you are only hurting the children and students.

    Did you have a conversation with Sherry on this? Just curious, because some of us have.

  20. Doctor J Says:

    @Anonacoummunitymom, you forgot that some of the Board members participated in at least some secret meetings at Lawrence’s house with Chevron, and there were also lunches, golf, etc. These were exposed by the investigative reporters of the CCTimes. Some of the Board members were not advised of these meetings before they occurred. I asked the Board members and Lawrence to make full written disclosure of ALL contacts with Chevron to the public — never happened to my knowledge, just a small dribbling of information where they had already been exposed. Thus, Chevrongate.

  21. Long-time Board Watcher Says:

    Anonacoummunitymom, while only a few people may still be posting comments about the private meetings and outings the Superintendent and two (or three) Board members had with representatives from Chevron in the lead-up to the Board decision to take on the multi-million dollar solar project, lots of us believe the Superintendent and those Board members stepped over both a legal and an ethical line in the matter.

    I have no quarrel with district staff and Board members meeting with experts on any subject important to MDUSD. As overseers of a public agency funded by taxpayer dollars, they just need to be open about it. And, for a project that will cost millions of dollars in contractor costs, they need to talk to more than one contractor, including ones that don’t pay for their golf games.

    Ironically, Chevron may have been the best contractor for the solar project. But the secrecy of those meetings and outings captured the attention of the press and then the public, raising suspicions that an open process would have calmed. Chevron did not get the contract because it is on record as preferring no-bid contracts and did not submit a proposal for the MDUSD project.

    As for any reprimanding, public or private, Gary Eberhart has always been vocal both in praising and criticizing staff. If he’d found fault with how the Superintendent interacted with Chevron, he would have said so. We are left to assume that he was OK with the lack of transparency in this matter.

    I’m not sure how it is “hurting children and students” to hold our elected representatives accountable for their decisions about our tax dollars.

  22. Wait a Minute Says:

    Stating that anyone bringing up facts are “hurting children and students” is no more than a lame attempt by the EberMarsh, Mayo, Strange, Lawrence apologists to “flip the script” as they say in the business.
    Its really nothing more then blaming the victims.
    It is the real owners (the children/students/parents/residents) of the MDUSD that have been betrayed by a few narcissists in power.

    These narcissists have done so much damage to the reputation and governing performance of the MDUSD that any objective person realizes that it will take a serious clean-up effort and much time to even begin to repair the damage that they have done.
    Lets be obvious, a much needed parcel tax probably has no chance of passing after all the public scandals that these “leaders” have been exposed on. That doesn’t even include other potential scandals yet to surface like this “double dipper” list of re-hired retirees that they seem so desperate to avoid disclosing.

    Of course Chevron did not get the job. That was DOA as soon as it broke into the press.
    Maybe Sherry and the others are busy telling there supporters that everything is OK and under control but come election time most people will see right through that charade.

    And lastly, did Lawrence get a slap on the wrist reprimand from the BOE? If he did it was probably only done as a way to deflect some of the blame away from the same BOE complicit in the scandal.

    We will only get the truth when a Grand Jury or other OUTSIDE agency does an investigation and reports back to the public. Only then will those responsible begin to be held truly accountable.

  23. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I recall that former Superintendent Gary McHenry was reprimanded by the board for approving legal contracts without taking them to trustees. The district sent out a press release about the findings after an outside firm was hired to conduct an investigation.
    The current board has the power to ask for an investigation of Lawrence’s actions. It can also inform the public about reprimands, if it wishes.

  24. Anon Says:

    Are there any computer generated images of what these solar panel arrays going to look like? I remember a colleague saying she had seen one of Concord High and it wasn’t attractive at all.

  25. Jules Says:

    Check out the solar panels at DVC in their parking lot. I was told this is what they would look like at our school, YVHS. We are happy with the plan for YV.

  26. Linda Says:


    Not only are the solar structures unattractive there are a lot of them on the various school sites. On some sites they are scattered all over the campus. The District continues to insist on speaking in terms of what we will save over 30 years (at least they stopped talking about 40 years of savings.) The performance guarantee and maintenance contract is only for 20 years… why is that? The rfp drafted by the District asked for a 20 year warranty on the solar panels and a 10 year warranty on the invertors (the most expensive part to replace). With the current investment/commitment both in the public and private sector with respect to renewable energy sources, this technology will be obsolete long before the 30 year district savings forecast and most certainly before we finish paying off the bond in 2052. I suspect the technology will change over time and our huge solar panels will become antiquated structures that we will pay to have torn down.

    I understand the argument for solar but if we are going to move forward we should proceed in a manner that is realistic about the savings. The presentation that was made to the Board on June 22 has a huge number of calculation errors. If you fix all of those errors and look out over 20 years instead of 30, solar will NOT save us more than the $88,000,000 it is costing. In addition, this $88,000,000 does not include additional change orders and it does not include any portion of the $11,000,000 staff budget allocated for Measure C. I have asked for a financial analysis of this project, similar to what SRVUSD provided their community, for over a year now and have yet to see anything.
    What this project does is to simply convert bond dollars into general fund dollars at a PREMIUM cost to the community. At best solar will be fully up and running in April 2012, that is assuming no additional approval or construction delays.

    I truly wish the District had taken this past year to work hard on restoring trust and confidence including the substantial completion of a strategic plan. Then I believe they could have been in a good position to pass a parcel tax this year and start receiving $7.5mil per year in July.

  27. Doctor J Says:

    I think we ought to get a facial picture of Gary and make it into a sticker, and affix one to every post of the solar panels so we can give credit to Gary. It certainly won’t detract from the ‘beauty’ of the panels.

  28. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Anon: Here is a computer-generated image:
    As Jules notes, Pete Pedersen said the panels should look similar to those at DVC. You can also check out the panels being put up by the Contra Costa County Office of Education next to the Pleasant Hill public library. However, these are taller than the MDUSD panels will be.
    Pedersen said high schools are generally happy with the solar plans because they have large parking lots in which to place the carport structures. MDHS was the only exception he noted.

  29. Doctor J Says:

    Wow, Theresa, single posts to hold up those large panels. Impressive. I wonder how they will hold up to those winds we had last week ?

  30. Doctor J Says:

    $11,000,000 staff budget allocated for Measure C ?????? I thought Measure C prohibited “administrative” costs ?

  31. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The posts are problematic. Pedersen said he has been meeting with principals, going over the designs, asking: “What can you live with?” and “What can you not live with?”
    “We ask every principal to sign in writing that they’re okay with this,” he said.
    However, sometimes the designs aren’t exactly the same after the engineers finish them, he said.
    “Now we’re getting back with a post right in the middle of a principal parking spot,” he said. “The last thing I want to do is lose credibility with the site administrators and have it look like a bait and switch.”

  32. Doctor J Says:

    The whole solar project has been a bait and switch. If all of this information and detail had been available to the public before the vote, it would have never passed. Siberia for any principal who doesn’t sign off.

  33. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The board expects to approve a “Measure C Coordinator” position on Tuesday:
    Although the staff report says the position is budgeted within Measure C, it doesn’t say how much the coordinator will earn.
    The Oversight Committee also wasn’t given a breakdown of the staff.

  34. Doctor J Says:

    These “double dippers” sure know how to scratch each other’s backs. Where is the public interest law firm when you need them ?

  35. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Board also expects to approve a $5,000 contract for Isom Advisors (the bond advisor) to annually review dislosures.
    Although Isom is based in Walnut Creek, his W-9 form is signed by someone else (illegible) under the firm name “Urban Futures,” based in Orange, CA:

  36. anonamom Says:

    Interesting to me, is that Isom was already publicly discussing/advising re the Bond within weeks of the election. Frankly, these days a company won’t come to lunch for $5K, so I’d say it’s another hand-shake good-buddy deal to aid in the “appearance” that the people’s interests are being protected.

  37. Linda Says:


    Isom was advising MDUSD before the election. Isom provided the detailed analysis for the District to give to the CCTimes that said the bond would cost our community $1.87 billion.

  38. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Urban Futures has an office in WC according to their website, and recently aquired ISOM – see the “news” link on their site – the link above is staff directory.

  39. Wait a Minute Says:

    1.87 BILLION!
    What I want to see is an honest cost-benefit ratio on this boondoggle over the 40 years that the taxpayers will be saddled with this?
    I wonder how many dollars per taxpayer within the MDUSD this costs?

  40. Linda Says:

    Wait a Minute,
    In all fairness, Gary has repeatedly claimed that Isom’s numbers are wrong. The thought being that if you don’t sell all the bond early and at one time there will be less deferred interest and less cost to the taxpayer. They are also using low or no interest CREBs which are bonds specifically intended for public entities to purchase energy alternatives. The problem is that CREBs have annual payments. I have asked how the district will pay the debt service on the CREB bonds. I can only see two choices either with general fund dollars or Measure C money… I haven’t received a direct answer yet, just that Gary hopes that they would not have to use money from the general fund.
    If Isom’s analysis is wrong I would like to see a new analysis. Seems only fair since the taxpayers are financial partners in this deal.
    I also believe the District’s fragile financial state is going to have an effect on their ability to sell the remaining bonds and the more difficult to sell the higher the cost to the taxpayer.

  41. Wait a Minute Says:

    I would tend to believe ISOM over Gary. Afterall ISOM is apparently a succesful business whereas Gary, well thats another story isn’t it?
    In any case, if Isom’s analysis is wrong then why were they hired again?

    How this all plays out will take some time but in any case a real cost-benefir analysis is necessary and proper and I’ll bet its still a boondoggle.

  42. Doctor J Says:

    Interesting article on the conviction of a School Board Trustee for “conflict of interest” in awarding contracts to someone he had prior business with.

Leave a Reply