PUSD's Prop C: The Naysayers Were Right

Last week, Voice of San Diego investigative reporter, Will Carless, published a piece on on a creatively financed PUSD school bond: "Where Borrowing &105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools".  Carless lays out the details of the last bond sale authorized under Prop C, a school bond approved by the voters in 2008. PUSD financed $105 million through a capital appreciation bond (CAB) that will be paid off in 2051. The payments do not start for 20 yrs, although interest continues to accrue. The bond payments will eventually be about $50 million/yr., which is almost half the amount being financed. Unless we have massive inflation or massive new construction in the older areas of the district, we're screwed.  And not just us. Our kids and grandkids, and great grandkids are going to end up paying almost a billion dollars for this bond.

Carless' article created a lot of buzz. The article was reprinted in the Chieftain, as was a followup article by Carless. Poway Patch ran a blurb and an editorial piece (here and here).  PUSD released a statement in response to Carless' article.  I have some things to say about the bond sale, but I am not going to rehash everything that was in Carless' article or other articles. I am going to focus on some issues and nitty gritty details that are part of what I like to call "the bigger picture".

Mello-Roos, SFID, Prop Y, Prop U and Prop C
Many years ago, a developer in California could not build a housing development if the local schools were overcrowded. Then, the  California legislature allowed developers to form Mello-Roos districts to pay for the new schools. Home purchasers in Mello Roos districts pay yearly fees to pay for the bonds that built the schools in their areas.  PUSD has 14 Community Facility Districts (CFD, aka "Mello-Roos" districts) that were formed between 1987 and 2006. (There are possibly more formed between 2006-2012).  There are no Mello-Roos districts in the City of Poway. In 2000, PUSD decided the older schools in the district needed some upgrades. PUSD formed a School Facilities Improvement District (SFID), a type of CFD, from the older developments in Poway and PQ and RB that were not in a Mello-Roos district. PUSD put a school bond, Prop Y, a $156 million bond on the ballot. Prop Y got 62.93% yes votes, but it needed 67% to pass.

In Nov, 2000, California voters passed Prop 39, which allowed school bonds to pass with 55% voter approval. These bonds were capped at an amount that could be paid for by a tax rate of $60/ $100,000 of assessed valuation.  And, uh, there had to be a citizen's oversight committee.

PUSD could not get a $156 million school bond measure passed in 2000 because it required a 2/3 majority to pass, but in 2002, a $198 million bond measure passed with 57.4% of the voters approval. PUSD promised not to exceed a tax rate of $55/ $100,000 of assessed valuation. Prop U was supposed to pay for expanding and renovating 24 schools, but in Feb, 2008, PUSD asked SFID voters for $179 million more to finish the job.  Great job by the oversight committee, eh? Prop C passed with 63.9% approval.

Prop C misinformation
Personally, I think PUSD planned 2 bonds all along. I am sure there were cost overruns, and for some reason PUSD decided to improve every school in the district during a time of high labor and high materials costs.  Prop U + Prop C allowed the district to sell  a total of $372 million in bonds. A $372 million bond would still have required a 2/3 majority to pass, but by breaking the amount into 2 smaller bonds, PUSD could get them passed with 55% approval.

Another reason I believe they planned 2 bonds all along is because PUSD claimed that they were renovating the oldest schools first, but, in fact,  they didn't. For example, Valley School was one of the schools that did not get renovated until after Prop C passed, even though it was older than some of the schools that were renovated first. Why? Perhaps because voter approval of school bonds was more iffy in the Valley school boundaries, so Valley renovations became contingent on passing a second bond.

It is just my opinion that PUSD planned 2 bonds from the get go, but it is a fact, not an opinion that PUSD and the citizen group, "Yes on C" headed by Sabrina Butler, misrepresented Prop C to the voters. The Yes on C group  repeatedly presented Prop C as an "extension" of Prop U, instead of a separate bond measure.  They also said that it would extend Prop U "for 11 yrs". People were led to believe that if they extended the first bond measure for a few years, we could finish the job. It is kind of scary to to imagine why the well educated people of Poway didn't realize that borrowing $179 million a few years after borrowing $193 million was going to be like extending the first bond for a few years.

SDCTA
The San Diego County Taxpayers Association is not a citizen watchdog group. Far from it. Back in 2008, I blogged about the SDCTA board of directors and their vested interests in Poway School bonds. As it turned out, I missed a few connections.  April Boling is currently on the SDCTA executive committee. In the past, she has been president and held other board positions. Boling is hardly nonpartisan. She has served as campaign treasurer for several local Republican candidates and PACs She was also campaign treasurer for Steve Vaus' successful Recall Rexford committee. Apparently she was also the "contact person" for the "Friends of Poway Unified School District", a 527 political organization advocating for school bonds in Poway in 2002 (Prop U) and in Nov 2007 (Prop C).

SDCTA supported both Prop U and Prop C. Here is how SDCTA summarized the fiscal impact of Prop C:

Fiscal Impact:
Passage of this bond proposal will generate revenue from five issuances over an 11-year period between 2008 and 2019, totaling $179 million. Poway residents would continue to pay $55 per $100,000 of assessed property for an extended period, through 2044, under this proposal. The average assessed value of a home in Poway in 2000 was $200,000. The District has experienced an average assessed value increase of 9.36 percent annually over the last four years. As of March of 2006, the average assessed value of a home in the District is $337,401; therefore a homeowner can expect to pay an additional $185 a year in property taxes.
Table 1 outlines the projected increase in assessed value during the life of the bond. 

The interest rate on any bond, which is established at the time of the bond issuance, cannot exceed 12% per annum. The total debt service of this bond proposal is estimated to be $497.4 million; $179 million principle plus $318.4 million in interest.

The SDCTA projections are irresponsible. Housing bubbles don't last forever. Maybe they were planning on revamping Poway Rd with 5 story buildings or something, but the outrageous growth rates from 2008 to 2012  turned out to be way off. And it throws off all the calculations for the rest of the bond payback period. Currently, assessed valuation in the PFID is closer to $20 billion than to the projected $25 billion.  That shortfall ripples through the entire payback period, making it impossible to payback the loans at the promised tax rate.

Will Carless' article pointed out that PUSD won't even start paying back the $105 million bond until 20 yrs from now. Here is the chart that shows the payments from the audit report on PUSD's website:

From 2034 to 2052, the yearly payments on this bond will be about $50 million/yr. Currently, taxpayers in the PFID are paying about $11 million per year.  That means the assessed valuation of properties in the PFID need to more than quadruple in the next 20 yrs. Either that, or the tax rate will have to quadruple.

So why did PUSD structure a bond so that we don't start paying it off until 20 yrs into the future? Because, we will be paying off other bonds until 2034. The $105 million bond was the last bond sale of Prop C, but it wasn't the first. PUSD issued $74 million Prop C bonds in 2009. They are also CAP bonds.  According to the Jan 2012 audit report, PUSD does not plan to pay back those bonds until 2018.

Look at the period between 2028-2032. The repayment amount is over $107, million, or about $21 million/yr. Assessed valuation would have to almost double in the next 16 yrs to meet those payments. That will be difficult, because of the slowed economy, because most of Poway and the PFID is "built-out" and because Prop 13 limits increases in assessed valuation to 2%/yr. for properties that are not resold. We might be in trouble, paying off the bonds well before 20 yrs from now.

From the chart, you can see that the payments for the Series A Prop C bonds don't begin until 2018. I think that is because we will still be paying off Prop U bonds until then. One series of Prop U bonds will be paid off in 2017, another in 2027, and the last Prop U series will be paid off in 2032. The last Prop U audit report on PUSD's website, dated June 30, 2007, shows Prop U bond payments through 2032.

The chart for the Prop U bonds is slightly different than the one for the Prop C bonds in that it lists the years as fiscal years. Therefore 2012- 2017 is a span of 5 yrs in the Prop U audit, whereas it would be 6 yrs in the Prop C audit. I am hoping that some of these Prop U bonds were refunded, because I don't think we will be able to manage both the Prop U and Prop C bond payments between 2018-2033.

The bottom line is that the voters approved the sale of $377 million in bonds that were to be paid back over an almost 50 year period. It doesn't seem unreasonable that $377 million would generate over a billion dollars in interest over 50 yrs. While it doesn't seem unreasonable, it does seems stupid to have agreed to finance the bonds over such a lengthy period of time.


The Citizen's Oversight Committee
I'm not sure exactly what they are overseeing. The Prop C oversight committee members are Andrew Berg, Ramon Ruelas, Chrissa Corday, Bill Bonner, Lee Dulgeroff, Kathy Frost, Jerry Ricks, Roger Moyers, and John Strula II. They had meetings. Here are the minutes of their last meeting. It appears the committee and the district spent their time congratulating each other on what a successful job they have done. There is not a single word from anyone on the committee as to how this impossible financing becomes possible.

What Really Sucks
Prop U and Prop C paid for some new schools, some new buildings and modernizing of some portables. I know that Valley School got some old portables from Poway High. The district also spent money on technology equipment. There is no way in hell that those portables, refurbished or not will last until 2051. Technology is pretty much outdated the minute it is bought. Certainly, computers and other tech stuff won't last until 2051. So what will happen when the portables rot and the computers are dinosaurs? The fact that the tax rate on the current bonds may double or quadruple in future years is not going to endear the voters to another bond to replace aging portable classrooms.

The Contractor
Echo Pacific Construction did most of the contract work for Prop C. The district used a lease/leaseback agreement to avoid public bidding. New projects that came along, like astroturfing the sports fields were considered amendments to existing contracts. Echo Pacific Construction figures into an ongoing investigation of bidding issues at several other school districts. They know how to play the game to get the contracts. I am not insinuating that anything illegal was done in the PUSD contracts. I am just saying that they are involved in an investigation. And that they have close ties with several influential people in the community.

The Politics
There was opposition to Prop C.  A few libertarians (from outside of Poway) organized the  ballot statement in opposition to Prop C. The issues were pretty much related to the government-is-too-big theme. A local, grassroots group,  South Poway Residents Association (SPRA) studied the issue, polled their members and voted against endorsing Prop C.  They issued a press release with their reasons for opposing Prop C. I think one of the biggest issues is that they worried that their taxes would double in order to pay for the 2 separate propositions. Unfortunately, SPRA was belittled for their position and they were told that they didn't care about "the kids".

I blogged about Prop C here, here and here in 2008.  I received a phone call from a woman who was on the "Yes on C" committee and who happened to be a lawyer. She accused me of putting up illegal signs in Rancho Penasquitos and she also threatened to sue me over my blog. I put up no signs regarding Prop C anywhere. I should have reported her to the county bar association. I have no idea how she even got my phone number. Imagine what might have happened if we had had a sane and reasonable discussion of how we would pay back these bonds?

The point is, people did bring up issues. There were other voices that demeaned and disallowed our concerns. The Poway City Council members all endorsed Prop C, according to news accounts. When there was an empty seat on the council, Merrilee Boyack proposed that it be filled by Sabrina Butler, whose main credential was that she was the leader of the  "Yes on C" group. Now Merrilee Boyack is apparently very upset about the bond issue and is posting on facebook about it and sent out  "scathing emails". Where was Boyack when Prop C was proposed back in 2008? It is all too obvious that those who are currently making the most noise about the Prop C CAB bonds are people who support Steve Vaus for council, and see the opportunity to hang this mess around the neck of Jeff Mangum, a former school board member who is also running for council. Neither Boyack nor Vaus complained about the bonds back in 2008 or paid any heed to the voices that expressed concerns. I would not be surprised if Boyack and Vaus and Vaus supporters show up at the next school board meeting for a little kabuki theatre. It worked so well before. Remember the Rexford firetruck story? Color me jaded, but I have doubts about the genuineness of those who are just now complaining about the school bonds.

In retrospect, there are probably many lessons to learn from the whole bond mess. Maybe if the political process in Poway was more inclusive, we would be able to make better decisions. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Endorsements and the Rexford Recall

The Rexford recall gang has a full page ad in this week's  Poway News Chieftain.  The ad says, "Add your name to the list of thousands of Poway residents and business owners including Sharon Cafagna, Mayor Don Higginson, Councilmember Merrilee Boyack, Sue Herndon, Chic Hume, Nazem Agha, Steve Vaus, Howard Lomas, Bill Racicot and others who support the Recall of Rexford and the election of a replacement."

My first thought when I saw this ad was,  "Who is paying for this?" My second thought was who in the samhill is .....well, let's just say I wasn't familiar with at least one of those names. But google is my friend and now I know who they are.

The recall group has  opened an office on Poway Rd and is sending out paid signature-gatherers.

It's crunch time. They have about 3 weeks to go and I don't think they have enough signatures yet.

The signatures are due Feb 10th, but in order for them to be counted and certified for the June election, they need to get them in around the end of January. A financial report is also due at the end of January, but it will only include expenditures through Dec 31st, so we may not know who is paying for the ad, the little office the group has opened on Poway Rd or the paid signature-gatherers until the next reporting period.

In the last few weeks, councilmember Merrilee Boyack has come out of the closet and exposed her rather significant role in the recall. Around Christmas, she sent out an email telling folks that she had set up a Kool-Aid booth a recall table in front of her house. And, if people couldn't make it to her house to sign, she'd send her son over to their house to get their signature. Could he be one of the paid signature-gatherers? Not that that would be illegal, or anything. But it would be interesting to know.

During the public comment portion of last Tuesday's city council meeting, Vaus and Boyack performed a little one-two punch on Rexford although Rexford had already wisely left the room before Vaus spoke.

During the public comment period, Steve Vaus, the leader of a movement seeking to have the 69-year-old councilwoman recalled from office, said the evidence is overwhelming that she demanded a firetruck be stationed near her home during the fire even as other Poway homes burned.Rexford has adamantly denied the claims in the past.“I recently got a call from someone you spoke to shortly after that 2003 fire,” Vaus said. “And way back then, you told the truth. You told that person you asked for a firetruck and got it — in fact, they said you took great pride in having a truck at your house. Do you remember that conversation?”

Like well choreographed kabuki theatre, Boyack then spoke her lines.

“I was the person that spoke to Mr. Vaus about that. Within a week of the Cedar fire, I was having a conversation with Betty and she personally told me that she had gotten a firetruck to protect her home and her neighborhood. I’ve been surprised that she has denied it. That makes no sense to me because she told me she had done that. … I know that to be fact.”

Rexford's husband then went berserk and called everyone a liar. Mayor Higginson (who recently revealed that he enjoys the the recallers livening up boring city council meetings) was obliged to tell Paul Rexford to sit down and STFU or he would have him kicked out.

I suspect the recallers are trying to poke a stick in Betty's eye and provoke a response so they can get a little attention in the press.  Maybe smoke out a few recalcitrant folks to sign their recall petition.

So, exactly where do I stand on the recall?

I did not support Rexford for re-election in 2006. I would love to see someone else on the council. Not just anyone, mind you, but someone who reaches out to the whole community, not just to one or two people or special interest groups.  The recall is also the best opportunity to get a fresh new face on the council. That is something I think Poway desperately needs. Despite my hope to see Rexford (and pretty much everyone else on the council) replaced, I will not join in the recall.

It's not because I'm opposed to recalls. I'm not. In fact, my husband and some of my friends were involved in a recall of Cafagna and Higginson some years back. The primary issues of that recall were a proposed amphitheatre in the industrial park and higher flood insurance premiums for the Pomerado Rd residents.  When those two issues were hot, the signatures poured in. When the council axed the amphitheatre and solved the insurance problem, tempers cooled and the recall drive fizzled.

The Rexford recall is a whole different animal from that recall. In my opinion, the Rexford recall seems particularly vicious and personal. I was appalled when the recallers served Rexford with the recall papers in the home of her dying son, who was in hospice care.  That just crossed the line of human decency.  Steve Vaus also asked folks who supported the recall to send email messages to Betty while she was at her son's side. Really, couldn't it have waited a week or two?  Or was the intent to try to upset her at a very vulnerable time in the hope that she would hysterically resign and pave the way for the council to appoint a replacement?

Betty Rexford is serving her 16th year as a councilmember. When she ran for re-election in 2006 she was endorsed by a whole bunch of people and newspapers. The Poway News Chieftain endorsed her in 1998, 2002, 2006. Now they have asked her to resign.  Likewise the SDUT and North County Times endorsed her in 2006 (and other years) but have now asked her to resign. Did those newspaper endorsers not know Rexford very well when they endorsed her? How fickle to ask someone who really hasn't changed at all to step aside so an appointment can replace them after they told the voters to vote for this person 3 yrs ago. I think they need to check the quality control criteria in their endorsement departments.

Merrilee Boyack also endorsed Betty Rexford in 2006. Now Boyack says she had a conversation with Betty Rexford after the 2003 Cedar Fire and Betty bragged to her that she got a personal firetruck. She claims that Betty abused her position as a councilmember. And yet, Boyack asked the voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006, 3 yrs after the purported phone conversation. If Boyack thought Rexford had abused her position on the council, why did she ask the voters to re-elect her? That's not ethical.

Why has Boyack waited 6 yrs to make the conversation about the firetruck public? Was it something she never would have revealed, if, say, Betty had voted to make Boyack mayor instead of voting for Higginson to replace Cafagna? One wonders.

My personal opinion is that all those people (and newspaper editors) who successfully convinced the Poway voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006 should just learn to live with the consequences and be a little more careful with your endorsements in the future.

And speaking of endorsements, what's up with endorsing someone before everyone has had a chance to throw their hat in the ring? I mean, if you haven't seen all the candidates, and you are endorsing, then it pretty much looks like you are really shilling for that candidate because you have them on a leash and they are YOUR candidate, YOUR proxy, YOUR lapdog, YOUR protege. Whatever you want to call it, it is a signal to everybody that you expect to have power and sway over that candidate's decisions.

Last month, Carl Kruse, flanked by Bruce Tarzy and Merrilee Boyack,  announced he was going to run for re-election in 2010.

Kruse was appointed to the City Council in May to fill the remaining 18 months of Councilman Don Higginson’s term. Higginson had been appointed mayor that month to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mayor Mickey Cafagna in April.

At the time, Kruse said he intended only to serve for 18 months, but just weeks later, he said he wasn’t sure what he would do. Yesterday, during a news conference in front of city hall, Kruse said things have changed in the city and he viewed next year’s election as being pivotal to Poway’s long-term future.

My guess is that "what's changed" is that Bruce Tarzy is a little unsure that some known or unknown candidate, that he doesn't own, might get elected in 2010. So, just to be safe, he convinced Kruse to run despite the fact that Kruse's "not running" was a big factor in his appointment. 

Boyack also endorsed Kruse and Sabrina Butler (who was expected to announce her candidacy). But, lo and behold, things changed and Butler has stated that she isn't running and will not accept an appointment to the council.  In a very strange twist of logic, Merrilee also announced that she will not endorse Higginson if he runs. 

Boyack said she would not support Higginson's bid for re-election because he had said he would not run again after being appointed to mayor, and she wants to hold him to his word.

OK, let me get this straight. Carl Kruse is appointed to the council, based partly on his assertion that he will not run for re-election. Kruse changes his mind and runs for re-election.  Boyack endorses him. She doesn't "hold him to his word" because "things changed." But before Higginson can pull the same trick, Boyack announces that she will not endorse him if he does, because she wants to "hold him to his word." But Carl doesn't have to be held to his word because....because...because...why?  This is one I really, really don't get. If you do, please post a comment and help me out here.

I'm not endorsing anyone for 2010...yet. I'm not "not endorsing" yet either. I'm going to wait until all of the candidates have announced and revealed at least a little bit about themselves and their philosophies. I'm really ready for some new faces on the council and I hope all the people who take the time and effort to run, get a fair chance to introduce themselves to the voters before the power elite throw their weight around by endorsing. I would also advise the voters to ignore the endorsements of those who change their minds a few years later and want us to throw out the person they told us to elect. Enough! Bring on the candidates and let us make up our own minds.