Because of the outrageous length of these 40 year bonds our children will be hurt as they will be the ones paying for them on the back end.

The MDUSD, “Where Children Come First”?

As you know, the district has issued $50 million in Capital Appreciation Bonds, where interest and principal will be deferred for up to 24 years. Such a deferral results in compounded interest, where in this case, will cost $145 million to pay off the $50 million. This is much more expensive than issuing a conventional bond.

So how did Isom get to $1.87 billion?…by assuming deferred payment bonds over a 40 year maturity. That maturity is the longest period allowed under the law, which results in a huge amount of compounded interest…the longer the maturity, the more costly the bond (ever heard of “TIME VALUE OF MONEY”?).

Further, I adjusted the $1.87 billion downward in hopes that the remaining $228 million to be issued will have 30 year maturities instead of 40 years. I also assumed, like Isom, that Capital Appreciation Bonds would be issued in the future, because the district has already done so and in order to keep the disrict’s promise to voters of not exceeding tax assessments of $60 per $100k, it must issue Capital Appreciation Bonds. (BTW, the tax rate has been exceeded and for this year we are paying $61.20 per $100k.)

So are these numbers Rumor…I WISH! I challenge this district to prove Isom wrong. I challenge this district to prove me wrong. So you think making the public aware of the district’s own estimates of the cost of 2010 Measure C is hurting children? What’s hurting our children today is that they will pay these bonds back when they mature in 2030, 2035 and beyond. Please note that the cost to pay off a bond can be found in each bonds’ official statement. All of MDUSD’s bonds ever issued can be found at http://www.emma.msrb.org. I encourage all parents to read the bond’s “official statements” so you can see in black and white how much each bond costs. All of our children should be taught the valuable concept of “Time Value of Money”. Such a concept is critical so they can one day, after the age of 18, make important decisions like voting for bonds, taking out a mortgage loan or car loan. You took quite a leap of accusing me of hurting children…I hope you can take another leap and attend the next board meeting urging the district to stop hurting our Community by issuing Capital Appreciation Bonds. It is not too late to mitigate the overall costs of the 2010 Measure C.

As you know the $1.87 billion quoted by the paper was provided by John Isom who was hired by the District to calculate this number when Dr. Lawrence realized he didn’t know the overall estimated cost of the bond when he was asked by the CCTimes editorial board. And as you also know he was asked this question because he was asking the CCTimes for an Endorsement of Measure C.

So now we quote that figure and Gary Eberhart and company tell us we are wrong. Okay. It absolutely makes complete sense that MDUSD provides numbers and then refutes those who use those numbers. Where are the new numbers? Why hasn’t John Isom done a new calculation if Gary is so sure HIS hired consultant’s numbers are wrong?

That begs some additional questions:

Why hasn’t John Ferrante responded to any of the email requests sent by Alicia Minyon regarding information that falls under the purvue of the BOC?

Where is the Christie White audit? Will the 2010MC BOC review the findings?

Where is the annual report for the 2010MC BOC?

Why hasn’t her correspondences been made public record as they are required to be?

Why hasn’t the District fessed up and explained to the community that they broke their promise and our tax rate has now exceeded the $60 cap?

Why hasn’t the District told us why they chose to exceed the $60 cap rather than sell those outrageous bonds that John Isom said would have cost taxpayers $1.87 billion?

Why hasn’t the District told us how much they discounted the $59mil worth of bonds that they did sell as originally planned with 20 plus years deferred?

I am sure that Alicia’s numbers are predicated on the fact that the District has changed their original intent of deferring payment in leiu of breaking the political promise of a $60 cap. So man up and tell us that. Those of us who opposed the bond wanted that truth in the first place. In fact, other than the fact that it means they lied to the voters to get the measure passed, it is the better course of action and always has been.

The District doesn’t just deserve oversight, oversight is mandated by law. Rumor and innuendo – REALLY? The CC Times and Alicia Minyon are now hurting the children?

Someday I hope this District will be led by people who understand what is required to obtain public trust and confidence and will be courageous enough to actually address what is truly hurting our children without always needing to blame it on someone, or something, else.

It’s not surprising that the community has concerns about the financial management of the district. The community looks to their community newspaper to provide accurate information regarding the district and that same newspaper continues to maintain that the cost to repay 2010 Measure C is over $1.8 billion. Then there is Alicia M. who purports to be a tax expert of some kind and she maintains that the cost to repay 2010 Measure C is in excess of $1 billion. Can either source substantiate their figures? I sure would like them to back up their claims and show their work. The district deserves oversight, but spreading rumor and innuendo is only hurting the children, not fixing any problem.