My comment about being played like a fiddle meant that what you proposed (accelerated sale) is, I believe, what Pedersen/Lawrence wanted, and would have suggested very soon anyway. The coalitions “idea” to accelerate was not novel, and was already being discussed behind closed doors at Dent.

Getting them to only do CIBs is going to be the hard part. The big “soft cost” talking heads have a lot of influence.

You should note that the district currently has the right to sell the remaining bonds as capital appreciation bonds with or without the coalition. As you know, this can cost the Community at least $1 billion or more, and I think it’s worth approaching the Board to avoid such a situation that may lead to a future financial crisis of unknown proportions.

I’m not particularly concerned as to the timing that the bonds are sold…only that conventional financing is sought.

While I understand that the consequence is our taxes going up, I believe in the long run, it is better for our Community and the district.

Also, my position on this is separate from the fact that the district, in my opinion, has not spent all Measure C funds in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, I’m in support of the remaining bonds being issued using conventional financing conditioned upon compliance with Proposition 39. Yes, you all may think that the remaining bond proceeds may be misspent…however…the district can sell, right now, the remaining bonds as CABs with or without the public’s approval.

Furthermore, my position of conventional financing is under the assumption that it is feasible. I’m assuming the Board will seek independent legal counsel as to whether it may deviate from ballot language. I’m assuming that legal counsel will give such an opinion on the record and in a public forum. I’m assuming that the County Controller will also ascertain feasibility of this impending sale. I’m assuming that the County Treasurer together with the Controller will review projections supporting the estimated tax increases for reasonableness. I’m assuming that projections are more accurate that those used to determine the highest best estimate disclosed in the June 2010 ballot.

Furthermore, assuming it is legal for the district to sell conventional bonds, it may do so only up to a tax rate of $60 per $100k (therefore, the district should not present combined 2002/2010 figures in its financing options). The 2002 Measure C tax rate levy is irrelevant in this scenerio as the law allows, PER MEASURE, a district to sell bonds up to an amount that results in a $60 per $100k levy. Therefore, I would only be in support of conventional financing up to an amount not to exceed $60 per $100k. Would this be $227 million? I don’t know, and the amount left to issue is dependent upon current assessed valuations and projections made in good faith.

Further, please see the Christy White audit report that discloses total bond proceeds raised and subtract that amount from the voter approved $348 million. Ms. White’s numbers tie out to the official bond statements found at http://www.emma.msrb.org. I believe you are looking at both 2002 and 2010. However, for the tax rate for 2010 Measure C, you should only refer to the 2010 election Series A, B, C & D.

That’s really sad, considering, based on SARC reports probably 1 in 10 average high school students can’t write a proper sentence, fill out a simple application form or make change for a $20 without a calculator, so they won’t even qualify to get one of our construction jobs.