Comments on: Mt. Diablo district to begin solar projects in June

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:06:20 +0000

Interesting article on the conviction of a School Board Trustee for “conflict of interest” in awarding contracts to someone he had prior business with. http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_17910472

By: Wait a Minute

Wait a Minute — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:29:17 +0000

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.

By: Linda

Linda — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:35:46 +0000

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.

By: Wait a Minute

Wait a Minute — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:29:17 +0000

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?

By: Hell Freezing Over

Hell Freezing Over — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:49:58 +0000

http://urbanfuturesinc.com/urban-futures-company-directory.asp

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.

By: Linda

Linda — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:12:42 +0000

Anonamom,

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.

By: anonamom

anonamom — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:18:30 +0000

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.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:14:04 +0000

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: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=3784&mtgId=300

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:42:54 +0000

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

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:31:03 +0000

The board expects to approve a “Measure C Coordinator” position on Tuesday: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=3725&mtgId=300
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.