Comments on: MDUSD and SunPower to strut their stuff at Northgate event

By: Alicia

Alicia — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:58:07 +0000

@13 g.. while I recognize all your hardwork, Linda has worked very hard to make this district a better place. Perhaps we can call a truce.

By: Linda L

Linda L — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:47:46 +0000

G,
To me there has been a logical progression to the information in the power point and the Superintendent’s memo. The four power point presentations and the presentation attached to the agenda are all the same. I believe the power point from the study session was revised after input from the session.

My last paragraph of my earlier post was out of line. It isn’t the first time I have spoken out of turn and it won’t be the last. I am so frustrated with this District and in so many ways. There is so much that needs changing… big issues like strategic planning and restoring trust and confidence. Two items that would make such a huge difference when it comes to Board decision making. To waste one moment of time on censure language or Board decorum retreats is indicative of a Board that has truly lost its way.

I am just as frustrated at the underlying notion that everything is a conspiracy when it comes to some of the posts on this blog. Sometimes there are great comments and exchanges of information and ideas and other times it is fraught with theories of conspiracies that really don’t get us anywhere.

This bond structure has been a problem since day one. Because there are no more low interest CREBs and no more 2002 bonds to refund anytime soon, the District will either further break the $60 cap or they will sell CABs. From the best that we can tell, those CABs would have to be a longer term than the CABs previously sold, making them far more costly. So here is the deal… what do you want to have happen? The bond is not going away.

By: Alicia M.

Alicia M. — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:29:58 +0000

I’m not an expert on school funding…but I’ve always wondered why schools are not funded based on actual expenses, rather than ADA. Under this scenerio, if solar were installed to save $3 million off PG&E, the state could just lower the district’s funding by $3 million. However, this would eliminate the incentive for solar on schools.

By: Alicia M.

Alicia M. — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:20:49 +0000

Jim – Your concerns are valid. Based on the Sunpower contract, the performance guarantee and prepaid maintenance is about $5 million.

By: Alicia M.

Alicia M. — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:10:39 +0000

I’ve reviewed the Bond Resolution, and have the following questions. Perhaps the Board could address the following:

1. Please justify a negotiated sale vs competitive sale. The Resolution mentions that a negotiated sale is being pursued because the munipal marketplace is complex. Please be specific and explain how it is so complex that a negotiated sale is warranted. Further, explain how a negotiated sale is in the taxpayer’s best interest when a competitive sale is generally known for having the lowest interest cost.

2. If staff is recommending Option 3, please explain why the Bond Resolution addresses capital appreciation bonds.

3. Fees are not to exceed 75 basis points (0.75%), please break out these fees and explain how these fees compare to the prior 2010 Measure C cost of issuances and justify/reconcile any increases.

4. Please inform the public whether you are issuing the bonds pursuant to the Government Code 53506 and/or 15140. Both these codes have different maturity terms, maximum interest coupon rates, and discount rates. The Board Resolution should provide such information.

5. Section 12, in my opinion, is a poor practice to give full discretion to any district officer, without needing board approval, to do whatever to issue the bonds. This raises the risk of errors and/or that significant changes to terms be made without public knowledge. There are still very important decisions to be made prior to issuance and the public should know about these critical steps, including that the official bond statement be approved by the board prior to issuance.

6. Further, the credit enhancement can be very expensive, and its purchase should be justified to the Board and public…rather than giving any officer full discretion to make such a purchase when the cost benefit may not be justifiable.

By: Alicia M.

Alicia M. — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:25:19 +0000

@G – You are right in that the Preliminary Official Bond statement should be provided as an attachment to the Agenda. I don’t see how the Board can vote on the Preliminary Official Bond statement without providing it to the Public ahead of time for public comment. I hope at least the Board received a copy.

Also, the purchase agreement with the underwriter should be attached to the Agenda.

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 05:08:03 +0000

Linda L,

WTF? Where do you get off treating G like that? Why don’t you take a long walk off a short pier you turncoat?

By: g

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 04:29:54 +0000

Jim, I think that info is alluded to in their contract. From one of SunPower’s (SPWR) recent prospectus’ I noted: “our solar panels have not and cannot be tested in an environment simulating the 25-year warranty period. As a result of the foregoing, we may be subject to unexpected warranty expense, which in turn would harm our financial results.”

I also note that very recently they have been “settling” and paying up on their several “contract/breach of warranty” lawsuits– very probably with our taxpayer contribution.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:15:50 +0000

Can anyone refresh my memory on how much the MDUSD solar deal relies on guarantees from SunPower for performance of the products, maintenance, replacement etc? I know that the company is under the same intense pricing pressure that has pushed so many solar manufacturers into bankruptcy. As European government subsidies disappeared due to the current financial crisis there (where SunPower does a lot of their business), and Chinese companies with lower costs take market share, it becomes a question of how much longer they can sustain their current losses. It probably helped to move their manufacturing to the Philippines (after Rep. George Miller toured their subsidized CA factory!), and it certainly helps to be owned largely be a French oil company, but still, companies can cut loose a subsidiary if it remains a money pit for too long. I hope we aren’t counting on them for too much.

By: g

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:19:33 +0000

LindaL, the power point from 4/2 and the one from 4/16 are NOT the same–therefore any person who studied and depended on information on one, may be asked to vote on the other. Their option numbers are not the same, the dollar amounts are not the same. Lawrence’s letter has nothing to do with the presentations except to lay out yet another difference for those who may have mistakenly depended on it for clarity. I know the board members have on many occasions said “I didn’t read this or that or whatever”! I try to point out discrepancies, hoping they will notice and pay attention.

It takes a great bloody EGO to tell someone who has worked very hard trying to keep on top of this to “get lost” and “get out of (your) way”.

Surely no one would take personal financial advice from you?