What's Not to be Happy About Poway's Budget Surplus

At last night's city council meeting, the staff presented a report on the closing of the fiscal year, and lo and behold, they have an almost $5 million surplus.  Normally, that would be an occasion for giving a lot of high fives and chest thumping, but I want to take a closer look at a few items before going into celebratory mode.

1.  The City got about $1.5 million more from the RPTTF fund than they had expected. The RPTTF fund is the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund.  When the redevelopment program ended, the property taxes from parcels in the redevelopment area didn't immediately revert back to the normal distribution pattern. The County still collects those property taxes, but they are put into a special pot called the RPTTF fund.  The county assessor first has to pay out a certain amount of money to pay off old redevelopment bonds and other contractual obligations of the old redevelopment agencies, and then, after those are paid, the property taxes are distributed in the same proportion and to the same entities as regular property taxes. 

The proceeds from the sale of redevelopment properties goes into the RPTTF, but mostly it is property taxes. And property taxes are for keeping the City running, for paying for safety services, and salaries of the administrative and legislative department and the city employees who maintain our streets and parks, etc.  Almost all  of the money that the City has "set aside" for the Cafagna center has come from RPTTF funds. In other words, the city is setting property taxes that normal go to fund the general operation of the city and using it for a major building fund. Remember, the city is  charging a big chunk of the departmental operating expenses on to our water and sewer bills as cost allocations. See what is happening? Our water and sewer bills are taxed to pay for the running of the city, which frees up some of our property taxes to be "set aside" to pay to build the Cafagna Center.

2. Because the swimming pool was closed, the City had lower operating costs. I'm sure the City saved on their water bill too. Oh, I forgot, we are paying a part of that bill too. The city has (as of one year ago) begun to pay the raw water costs of water used at city facilities, but water rate payers pay the costs of treating and delivering that water to city facilities. Do we get a bit of that surplus for our share of already paying for treating the water that didn't go into the pool this year?

3. About $820,000 of the surplus was for selling the Big Stone Lodge property to the Poway Housing Authority.  There are several things wrong with this transaction. One, the City bought the Big Stone Lodge property for a park. They told the state they bought it for a park when they submitted their Long-range Property Management Plan. And the State let the City keep the property when redevelopment was dissolved because they bought it for a park. The City could have also kept the property as a site for affordable housing if they had wanted. If they had done that, the City wouldn't have been able to take $820,000 from the housing fund and transfer it to their general fund and use it for the Cafagna Center or to buy down their unfunded pension obligation. Their are three losers on this- south Poway loses a great location for a much needed passive park, the housing fund lost almost a million dollars, and south Poway our riparian corridors are endangered by development. 

I suspect the City wants to find a place for veterans housing, after they bungled the proposal on Twin Peaks. So, now they plan to take a much needed park site from south Poway to compensate. Of course, we will have the opportunity to have some say about this, but really, we don't.  The decisions are made without our input. 

From Poway's Long-range Property Management Plan that was submitted to and approved by the state:

It is going to be difficult to find spots for parks in the future. And there will never be another opportunity to preserve this part of our heritage if the parcel is used for housing.  So, I am not celebrating the almost $5 million surplus. I'm mourning the loss of a great location to build a park and preserve part of our heritage.

The Best California Voter’s Guide Ever

Voter's Edge is the most awesome, fantastic, California voter's guide ever.

From Voter's edge website:

About Voter’s Edge California

Welcome to Voter’s Edge California

Voter’s Edge California (VEC) is a joint project of MapLight and the League of Women Voters of
California Education Fund (LWVCEF).* Voter’s Edge California is a comprehensive, nonpartisan
online guide to elections covering federal, state, and local races in the state of California.

With Voter’s Edge California, voters can:

• Access their full, personalized ballot by entering their address.

• Get in-depth information on candidates, measures, and who supports them.

• View candidate biographies, top priorities, answers to questions, photos, policy videos, endorsements, and detailed information about who funds their campaigns.

• Browse unbiased explanations of ballot measures; find out who supports, opposes, and funds them.

• Check where, when, and how to vote, including information on their local polling locations.

• Keep track of their choices to make voting easier.

• Share information about the election with friends and family.

*The LWVCEF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization and never advocates. The League of Women Voters of California does operate a separate nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization that advocates on issues and sometimes makes recommendations on ballot measures.

Voter's Edge has this awesome tool that you can use to figure out who to vote for on your entire
ballot. I'm going to walk you through how to use it.

First, start on this page and type in your address and zip code, and hit the
"Find my ballot button".  

Voila! Your whole ballot appears. You can start at the top with the first 2 candidates for Senate
(Blue arrow) , or you can jump ahead to Measures (red arrow).
I am going to continue with the candidates. Click on "compare candidates".

You've got links with lots of information: "About this Office", "News", "Videos", same candidates
even have questionnaires in a link.  If you decide who to vote for you can click on "my choice" and
your choice will be saved.  The candidates chosen in this demonstration are not necessarily
MY candidates, I picked a random candidate.

 I had to use the back arrow to go back to the ballot selections after I compared candidates.
There might be a better way, but that seemed to work for me.

Here are two judges who are running for San Diego County Superior Court.  The red arrow is
pointing to a very useful resource that I always use to pick judges for SD Superior Court.
I am thrilled that it is on the VotersEdge site and all I have to do is click on
"Judicial Candidate Evaluations" to find out how the San Diego Bar rated these two candidates.
This is not a political rating, it is about their qualifications to be a judge.

 

When you finish the candidates, you will get to the Propositions. This is where VotersEdge
really shines. Seriously, you can throw out all of the campaign mailers. The information on
VotersEdge is far more complete and informative. So click on a proposition and take a look.

 

Here is the information to Proposition 8, Kidney Dialysis Clinics. I'm clueless about this one. 

So  I am going to look at the "Easy Voter Guide " first. This measure would  regulating
how much clinics can charge for dialysis treatments. Next I am going to look at the Pro and Cons.
And then I will look through the Measure and Details. 

The pro and cons. 

And more arguments for or against.

If I really want to, I can read the proposed legislation, but I rarely want to do that.

Now comes the really good part. Who supports the measure and who opposes it and
who gave money.  When I first look at propositions, I actually start with who supports it
and who gave money.  That is like the Cliff Notes for me.  I usually can tell if I align
with or against various groups.  This measure is supported by unions and the
California Democratic Party. It is opposed by Healthcare companies
that won't be able to charge as much for kidney dialysis treatment. 

I can look at more information about where the money came from 

and I can read various opinion pieces (pro and con) on the proposition. 

This is a very complete look at Prop 8. I think I have more than enough good
 information to decide if I am for or against this measure. 

When you have finished selecting all of the candidates and ballot measures.
You can click on the "MY Choices" tab, and print or email a summary.
Or you can mark your mail in ballot from the list. 

This is such an awesome tool, because everything you need to mark your ballot is right
here on the Voter's Edge site.
The only thing you might want to do is check out the South Poway Votes
resources for Poway mayor and council candidates.
We have links to both SPV and GVCA questionnaires, forum videos,
John Riley project videos, and the candidates own webpages. 

You can also join the discussion on SPV if that interests you.
We would love to see you there.

The Problem Isn't That We Didn't Speak Up

I've been re-listening to the forum videos and one of the things that kindof pops out is the incumbents surprise that the candidates are criticizing the Poway Road Specific Plan. I heard John Mullin (and other candidates) state that there were many meetings over several years, and then ask why we didn't speak up back then.  Well, Mr Mullin, and Mr Grosch and Mr Vaus, we DID speak up then. We filled out sticky papers with our concerns and posted them along with many others, but when they staff compiled them into a report, our concerns weren't addressed.  By the time the final PRSP meetings were held, the developers were attending the meetings and those were the voices that were listened to, not ours.  The plan was changed to accommodate them, not us.

The problem is not that we don't speak up. The problem is that we are not listened to. Let me give another example. At the August 21, 2018 council meeting, newly appointed councilmember Caylin Frank proposed that the City buy the Metate parcel from the developer and make it into a park.  Four speakers addressed the council in opposition to this plan which they viewed as bailing out the developer. No speakers spoke in favor of the proposal. The council did not listen to the speakers. Without even taking a vote, Mayor Vaus decided to follow through with Caylin Frank's proposal and have the staff look into buying the site from the developer who tried to get it rezoned.

On September 19, 2018, a closed session was held between the city and the developer for property negotiations.  There has been no known purchase agreed upon, but there has been no notice that negotiations are closed either.

In addition to the speakers who were in opposition, I wrote a letter  to the council and submitted it before the August 21, 2018 meeting. My letter was also in opposition to the City's purchase of the Metate parcel from the developer. In my letter I asked the Council to address 4 issues related to the Metate parcel- 1) why wasn't the larger part of the Metate parcel deeded to the city after the lot split 2) why weren't the open space easements properly recorded and what does the City need to do to get them properly recorded on both Metate parcels 3) why doesn't the City's GIS site show that these parcels are part of the South Poway Cornerstone? and 4) how is it that the developer said he talked to the City and that the City told him there were no constraints to development when there is a long written history of constraints?  

It has been almost 8 weeks since I sent that letter. I have heard nothing back from the city manager, any member of the city staff or any council member. It isn't that people do not speak up about issues. Some people do speak up, but they are ignored.

I've heard the incumbent council members claiming they are the most accessible council ever.  They are all up for having a chat over a cup of coffee. I've had chats over coffee with council members. They smile and look concerned and DO NOTHING.  One of the reasons I formed the South Poway Votes facebook group is because I hoped our voices might be heard if we were "out there" in a more public way.  Maybe we will be heard if together we were a little louder.  But, instead of listening to us, or even acknowledging our concerns, they councilmebers responded by becoming  more entrenched, combative and defensive.  Reports came back to me that councilmembers were warning people to stay away from SPV, and not to associate with me.  All of the  incumbent candidates were invited to answer SPVs weekly questionnaire. All declined to participate, except John Mullin who answered one question and then dropped out. Yet, every  Councilmember candidate answered GVCA's  questionnaire.  Why do the incumbents want to answer our queries in private, but they are willing to answer GVCA's in public?

I want to take the moment to thank those candidates who were willing to answer SPV candidate questions. Thank you for acknowledging that our input and concerns are legitimate and that those of us who live in South Poway are an important and valid part of this community.  Hopefully, if you are elected, you will not forget this.

Oh, and to the incumbents who are still boasting about your accessibility and responsiveness, I'm still waiting for a response to my letter.

Who Caylin Frank Represents

On June 19th, Mayor Steve Vaus and Councilmembers Barry Leonard, John Mullin and Dave Grosch appointed Caylin Frank to fill the vacant council seat. There are a couple of reasons why the Council ignored 15 other applicants and chose Mrs Frank, who lived in Poway for less than 3 months on the day she was appointed.  One reason is because Mayor Steve Vaus and the other councilmembers really don't want an honest-to-goodness district 4 resident to get on the Poway Council.   Caylin Frank's appointment, gives her an incumbency advantage that could help her get elected in the November election and edge out any of the long term activists in south Poway in 2020, when district 4 finally will get to choose their own district representative.

But there are other reasons the Vaus and his agreeable councilmembers chose Caylin Frank. She has political connections. Caylin's mother is Christy Guerin, former mayor of Encinitas, and later, aide to Brian Bilbray. Kristin Gaspar, who also began as a Encinitas councilmember and after only 2 years in office became a county supervisor has been stumping for Caylin before she was even selected in fill the vacant seat.  Another big supporter in Tony Krvaric, who sees Kaylin as a rising star in his party. By rising star, I think he means that with enough money from developers, he might get her to higher office pretty quickly, just like Kristin Gaspar.

Caylin has other politically connected friends, and they just threw a big fundraiser for her on Wednesday, September 26th at the Waterfront Bistro, on Kettner Blvd., in San Diego.

The Waterfront Bistro was probably a lot more convenient location to hold the fundraiser than say, a Poway location, because Caylin's friends are not from Poway. Steve Vaus is listed as a member of the host committee, but most of the others are aides to Kristin Gaspar, or political consultants with downtown offices. Many have current or previous experience working for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer. Some belong to a chamber of commerce group called San Diego Young Leaders and others belong to the Lincoln Cub, a conservative political group that supports increased development.  Some names, like Gaspar aide Dustin Steiner have popped up in news articles defending Frank's appointment in Poway. Frank has her supporters, they just are not Poway people.

Brian Pepin, the event chair (yeah, that is what is says) does live in Poway, although he is a fairly new resident, having moved here shortly before the Metate petition hit the ground. If you don't remember Brian Pepin's name, let me refresh your memory. Brian Pepin was the consultant for the Sacramento developers who wanted to rezone the Metate property so that 50 houses could be built there. Brian was on the scene when an NBC news crew covered the Metate neighborhood's reaction to the proposal for rezoning the parcel.  He got in his talking points: 

 "This is part of the beauty of Poway."The developer says the project is a reasonable proposal that would blend with the community.
"This wouldn't affect the hillside at all. It's a modest- sized parcel. We're not talking about 1,000 homes, we're talking about up to 50 on this corner lot,” Brian Pepin said.
Pepin is working with the land's owner on the housing development initiative. He also lives in Poway.
"Right now, someone could come in here and build a very large project here. We think the proposal that we're bringing to the voters allows people to have a say in what happens here."

Pepin also wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the Chieftain:

Better future for PowayAs San Diego County’s housing crisis continues to drive middle class families out of the region into neighboring states, a Poway property owner is proposing to build 50 single-family homes in south Poway at prices starting below the median home price of $734,000.
His proposal is straightforward: The current signature-gathering effort will allow Poway residents to vote on a 7.7-acre privately-owned piece of land in south Poway on the corner of Metate Lane and Montauk Street. The lot could presently be developed with a large home, church or a number of other additional uses.
The owner of the parcel has proposed up to 50 single-family homes that will match the character and zoning of the surrounding neighborhood. Poway law requires that the property owner go to the voters with his request to change the zoning to match the adjacent neighborhood (from “rural residential” to “residential single-family”). The owner, Kraig Clark, is following the city’s rules and gathering signatures in order to give Poway residents a voice in this November’s election. His partner, Todd Lutes, has reached out to nearby residents and community groups and plans to hold a town hall meeting this summer.
Unfortunately, in today’s world of fast-moving social media, there have been a number of rumors and misrepresentations about the proposal that aren’t true: it won’t remove any hiking trails and it sits on a mostly flat lot with no soil problems.
Instead, this proposal will provide an answer for couples hoping to raise a family in Poway and others who want an opportunity to call this wonderful town their home.
A website with more information on the proposal can be found at www.abetterpoway.com.
Brian Pepin

Poway(Editor’s note: Pepin is a political consultant working for the landowner.)

It was no rumor that the Metate parcel had soil problems. Plenty of city documents identified the problems. Half of the parcel was also part of the South Poway Cornerstone, an area of important protected biological resources that is part of Poway's sub area habitat plan.

Thankfully, the people of Poway refused to sign the petition to rezone Metate. The developer and Brian Pepin could not get enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, even with signature gatherers who lied and impersonated city employees.

The story doesn't end here. The Sacramento investors bought the parcel at about 10 times what the previous owner paid for it. It is unlikely that they can sell it for anywhere near what they paid for it.
But, don't worry, new city council appointee Caylin Frank had a plan to help them out. On August 21st, Caylin Frank proposed that Poway buy the Metate parcel from the developer, and perhaps make a park there. Caylin proposed this solution without talking to anyone who lives near the Metate parcel or  anyone who was involved in the No on Metate Rezone effort.  At the August 21 council meeting, several members of the public spoke in opposition to buying the parcel and bailing out the developer. At least one other person (me) sent a letter in opposition to buying the parcel. Nevertheless the council decided to meet with the developer and make an offer anyway.

At the last council meeting on September 18, 2018, the council met in closed session to negotiate a price for the Metate property.

The council and the negotiating parties (did they come or did they have someone represent them?) did not come to an agreement. We do not know any details.  

What we do know is the Caylin Frank is not representing us, the people of Poway. She is pretty much ignoring that we even exist. The people she is beholden to are people like Brian Pepin and the downtown consultant and the political machine that got Kristin Gaspar elected.  If we want to have control of our future, we need to start making OUR voices heard. Choose wisely this November. 

Is it a Charity or a Scam?

I'm on the DO NOT CALL registry but that doesn't stop people from calling me and asking me to donate some money to their police and firefighter charities. Some of these charities are not really charities, they are businesses. They give a small amount of money to some fire department somewhere and keep 90 percent or more of the money they bring in. It's legal, but deceitful to pull on people's heartstrings for profit.  It is up to us to check out these businesses and find out just how charitable they really are. We have both federal and state laws that regulate non profits and charity fundraisers and require reporting that reveals how much of the money that is taken in gets donated to the charity.

Carols by Candlelight is the name of a Christmas concert put on by Steve Vaus. It is heavily promoted as a charity event that benefits Rady's Children's Hospital.  Carols by Candlelight is not a nonprofit with a 503(c)(3) with an IRS tax number, that would allow donors to take a deduction for their donation. Nor is Carols by Candlelight (or Steve Vaus Production) registered in the State of California's  database of charitable organizations or fundraising entities that  comply with the State of California's registry and reporting requirements. Some years ago, when Steve Vaus sent emails to me and my friends, asking us to be angels and donate thousands of dollars to his Carols by Candlelight production, the implication was that those donations would be tax deductible. But they were not. And because they are not, I was unable to find out how much of my donation would end up being given to the charity and how much would end up in Steve Vaus' pocket.

The Carols by Candlelight concerts are held on 2 days in December in Escondido's Center for the Performing Arts. The concert hall has 1500 seats. Ticket prices for this year are $69-$87. You can also buy "hero tickets" for active duty military and first responders for $25 each.  Ticket sales could potentially could bring in between $200,000- $250,000 gross.

Every year, Steve Vaust starts soliciting for donors for Carols by Candlelight. Donors can give $15,000 for Title Sponsorship (previously it was $25,000), $10,000 to underwrite band costs, $5,000 to underwrite travel expenses; 2,500 for hospitality plates; $1500 to underwrite stage decorations and $1,000 to underwrite raffle expenses. It is unknown how much money is donated by these Christmas angels. In addition, there is a raffle or auction, and items are likely donate. Currently, this years Carols by Candlelight already has 8 Sponsors and 3 Media Sponsors listed, although I do not know how much each one contributed. The total amount donated to Carols by Candlelight is not public information because Carols by Candlelight is not a nonprofit charity.

Nevertheless, Vaus is sure to look for any extra bucks he can get.
In 2012, Steve Vaus, who was then a candidate for Poway council, applied for a grant from California  Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA).  CMFA arranges bond financing for capital projects. They charge a fee for issuing the bonds, and a portion of the fees that they collect are returned to the communities they serve by giving out grants to other non-profits in the community.  Steve Vaus applied for $5000 to buy tickets for veterans to attend Carols by Candlelight. Vaus could have given the tickets away for free, but he would rather get CMFA and others to pay for them.

On Nov 2, 2012  CMFA, sent a letter to Mona Durney, Executive Director of Carols by Candlelight, and enclosed a check. for $5000.

The check was made out to Carols by Candlelight. On Dec 12, 2012, Valerie Brown, of RB United, sent a letter to CMFA, confirming the receipt of the $5000 check for Carols by Candlelight.  Why was the donation sent to RB United? Perhaps, because RB United was a 501 (c)(3), a real, honest-to-goodness nonprofit, the type that CMFA can legally give money to.

So who is RB United? This is from their webpage:

We began as two separate but related organizations: RB United and ReBuild RB.

RB United formed as a non-profit partnership of the RB Community Foundation, the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce, and The San Diego Foundation to assess and handle the community’s needs in the immediate aftermath of the 2007 Witch Creek fires.  ReBuild RB was created as a 501(c) (3) public charity to serve the survivors of the 2007 Witch Creek Fires, with 90% of all funds collected by Rebuild RB going directly to individual fire victims.

Our two organizations merged in 2009 into a single local non-profit agency capable of applying for grants and seeking underwriting for emergency preparedness and community improvement projects.  We maintain the website name ReBuild RB, but operate under the umbrella name RB United.
During our first two years, RB United served 527 fire families in the communities of Rancho Bernardo, Poway, Rancho Santa Fe, Escondido, and Ramona; coordinated 274 events with 10,000+ total attendees; collaborated with 130 organizations and businesses; and leveraged almost $1.2 million for fire recovery efforts (against an outlay of approximately $250,000 from The San Diego Foundation’s Disaster Board)

In  2012, RB United morphed into 4 Community Solutions. In addition to helping fire victims, and a neighborhood emergency response group, they collaborated with the City of Poway to put on the Poway Days Parade.  They $5000 donation from CMFA should have been reported on this 2012 tax form, but I could not find it. Nor did I  find the words "Carols by Candlelight".  I have no idea what happened with that money.

It is quite the irony that Steve Vaus was funneling donations to his for profit charity through a nonprofit intended to help fire victims. In 2009, Vaus, a political unknown in Poway politics, spearheaded a recall of Councilwoman Betty Rexford. One of his more vitriolic claims is that Rexford misused a firetruck and had it sent to her neighborhood while other Poway homes burned.  A subsequent city report verified that the fire department had acted appropriately when it sent a truck to Rexford's neighborhood to mop up hot spots.

In 2013, 4Community Solutions 990 tax form mentions a community parade and community concert. I doubt this is Carols by Candlelight, but who knows? I've called Valerie Brown, the person who prepared these tax returns, but she has not yet responded to my questions.

The first time the words "Carols by Candlelight appears on 4Community Solutions tax forms is in the 2014 tax year.   It looks like Carols by Candlelight was given $59,492 that year, the majority of all of 4Community Solution's expenses which totaled $64,472. From this tax form, there is no way to tell how much money was donated to Carols by Candlelight and there is no mention of giving money to the charity, Rady's Hospital.  I was hoping the person who filled out these forms would inform me of how much money was actually donated to the charity, but these tax forms do not provide that information.

In 2015, 4 Community Solutions filed a fictitious business statement in San Diego County. They were "doing business as" Carols by Candlelight and a bunch of other entities.

That same year 4 Community Solutions listed $48, 046 given to Carols by Candlelight on their 990 tax form.  Note that Carols by Candlelight is described as a "Community wide" concert. It almost sounds like a whole community was the beneficiary instead of ticket holders, doesn't it? By this time 4Community Solutions had changed from being a charity that helped fire victims to a fiscal sponsorship nonprofit.  According to 4Community Solutions website, fiscal sponsorship involved  some accounting and tax services and insurance and lending their nonprofit status to "unincorporated nonprofits".

Carols by Candlelight is not an unincorporated nonprofit. It is just the name of an event. It was never a nonprofit.  I do not know why 4Community Solutions thought it was appropriate to let Carols by Candlelight use their non profit tax ID number.  And 4Community Solutions is not the only entity doing business as Carols by Candlelight. Steve Vaus' sole proprietorship, Steve Vaus Productions is also doing business as Carols by Candlelight. The lines between 4Community Solutions, Carols by Candlelight and Steve Vaus Productions are all very murky.  While 4Communityt Solutions nonprofit tax ID number is prominently displayed on the Carols by Candlelight webpage, the donation links go to Steve Vaus Productions. A friend of mine, with a heart for veterans ordered 500 worth of tickets from the Carols by Candlelight in 2017. The bank statement from the credit card showed that the money went to Steve Vaus Productions. My friend was fooled by Carols by Candlelight webpage into thinking that his donation would be tax deductible. It isn't.

There is also a question about what happened to  all of the other incoming assets and expenses from the concert. Ticket sales alone should have brought in several hundred thousand dollars.  Steve Vaus wasn't performing for free and neither were the other singers and musicians. His production company was likely also paid. Where is the accounting and tax record of those expenses?  How much in donations came in via money given to Steve Vaus Productions, a sole proprietorship owned by Steve Vaus? Which donations and expenses belonged to 4 Community Solutions and which belonged to Steve Vaus Productions? Did Steve Vaus take a tax deduction on his personal income tax for the contribution to Rady's? Where were all of the income and donations reported?

The 2016 tax return for 4 Community Solutions is not online. The 2017 return has not yet been filed.

I am waiting for the answers to those questions from Valerie Brown, of 4 Community Solutions. She took down my questions and promised to get back to me today, but she did not call. The  4Community Solutions website has been down since I began inquiring about their sponsorship of Carols by Candlelight. Almost all of the previous online information has been removed.  The person who was listed on the tax forms and the IRS forms as the chief board member told me he has not had anything to do with the group for many years. The one question I really want to know is how much did Carols By Candlelight take in, how much were the expenses, how much did Steve Vaus, his family members and his production company get, and how much was the gross profit that was given to Rady's Children Hospital.

Knowing that many of the donations that came in were given to Steve Vaus Productions, I also have a question about the reporting of those donations on economic interest forms filed with the City of Poway. Every year, each member of the city council (and certain the employees) must file  form 700, Statement of Economic Interests. Schedule A-2 of form 700 is titled "Investments, Income, and Assets of Business Entities/Trusts. Every year from 2012-2016, Steve Vaus has listed Steve Vaus Productions as an owned business entity.  Vaus has indicated that his sole proprietorship is worth $100,000 to a million dollars, and his gross income is over $100,000.  Some of this income is likely from the Carols by Candlelight concert.

In 2012 and 2014, Vaus reported no gifts. In 2013, 2015 and 2016, Vaus did report gifts, but I did not see any of the donations from Carols by Candlelight donors on the list.  If people bought tickets for veterans and paid money to Steve Vaus Productions, that donation should be listed on Steve Vaus' Form 700.

Where did the Carols by Candlelight donations from Edco, SDG&E,  Poway Toyota, Kristin Gaspar's husband and others go? 4Community Solutions or Steve Vaus Productions?  Shouldn't Steve Vaus be reporting these donations as gifts on his Form 700? How do we know how much Edco gave to Steve Vaus. How much of that donation ended up at Rady's and how much ended up in Steve Vaus' pocket. Will Vaus recuse himself from discussion and voting on Edco's next contract?  Vaus was not on the council when they voted to give Toyota millions of dollars to move across the street, but it can't hurt for Toyota to have a friend at city hall for the next deal. And what might Kristin Gaspar's husband want from Steve Vaus? Maybe a patronage position for a friend of theirs?

Although Carols by Candlelight is now touting a borrowed nonprofit IRS number on their webpage, unlike true nonprofits, they do not report what percentage of all of the money collected goes to the real charity, Rady Children's Hospital. The do not report how much goes into Steve Vaus' pocket.  I do not recommend donating to Carols by Candlelight until they comply with the nonprofit and charity fundraising reporting laws. You can always donate directly to Rady's Children's Hospital and take a tax deduction.

Update:
I sent an information request to California Municipal Finance Authority. asking for dates and amounts of money they have given to Carols by Candlelight. This is from the response sent to me by John Stoecker of California Municipal Finance Authority.

Caylin Frank, Kristin Gaspar, Steve Vaus and Carols by Candlelight

On June 18th, at a special council meeting,  four Poway Councilmen picked Caylin Frank to be the interim city councilmember, filling Jim Cunningham's seat until a replacement could be elected in November.  Caylin Frank's appointment was an insult to the people of Poway because Mrs. Frank had moved to Poway less than 3 months before her appointment. She didn't know the people she was chosen to represent, and they had no idea who she was.

Caylin Frank's appointment was also an insult to the 14 other candidates who filled out applications, and gave presentations before the council that night.  None of their efforts mattered, because, by all appearances, the council had chosen Frank long before the evening's charade began.

I was not surprised Caylin Frank was chosen because I had heard rumors that Mayor Steve Vaus had found someone to appoint to the council.  But I wasn't the only one who got a heads up.   County Supervisor Kristin Gaspar seemed to know all about it, too.

On June 10th, Caylin Frank and Steve Vaus attended an event for Kristin Gaspar at Second Chance Beer Company.  In a video from the event that was posted on County Supervisor Kristin Gaspar's facebook page, Mrs. Gaspar can be heard  introducing Steve Vaus, and then introducing Caylin Frank:
"… Caylin's going to be a fantastic councilmember.  I want you to get to know her and help support her. This is her baby over here.  So you can imagine, I can really relate to her. "

Maybe Gaspar can relate to Frank because both of them are mothers of young children. Or maybe it is because they are both from Encinitas.  Frank's mother, Christy Guerin, was once mayor of Encinitas. Christy Guerin resigned that position to work for Brian Bilbray.  Her daughter, Caylin, got an intern  job with Bilbray for a while too. Kristin Gaspar also served on the Encinitas council. She was elected in 2014. Two years later, she ran for, and won an election for county supervisor. That is a super fast climb up the ladder for a political newbie. Maybe that is also how she relates to Caylin Frank. With Caylin's appointment to the Poway Council as a steppingstone, she, too, may have plans of moving up to a higher office, especially with the help of political insiders.

Caylin Frank has one solid Poway connection-  Steve Vaus. Vaus and Frank were facebook friends before she was selected to be the interim councilperson, representing Powegians she did not know.  Frank worked (and still works) as an aide to county supervisor Bill Horn. So Caylin Frank, Kristin Gaspar and Steve Vaus would have spent time together at Sandag meetings in addition to hobnobbing at campaign events for each other.

Vaus and Gaspar are also campaign donation buddies.  Vaus donated $350 to Gaspar's 2016 supervisorial campaign and Gaspar has already kicked in $100 for Vaus re-election.  Vaus started collecting donations in January, long before the nomination period began.   Gaspar also spent $2500 of her 2016 campaign dollars on Vaus'  so-called "charity fundraiser", Carols by Candlelight.  The code on the expenditure form is "MTG" which means "meetings and appearances".  By all appearances, it seems as if Gaspar used campaign funds to buy tickets to Vaus' gala production, Carols by Candlelight.

Carols by Candlelight is billed as a charity production put on by Steve Vaus. The website says that the net proceeds from Carols by Candlelight go to Rady Children's hospital.  But how much of Gaspar's $2500  donation ended up in Steve Vaus' pocket, and how much actually went to the charity  is not public information.

Back when Vaus was running for council in 2009, I wrote about his 'for profit" business, Carols by Candlelight. Vaus had sent me emails and hit me up to "be an angel" and  donate to the production of Carols by Candlelight. He was asking for thousands of dollars in donations back then, without disclosing how much money from the event went into his pocket, and how much went to the charity.

So, here we are,  9 years later. Vaus is still asking for thousands of dollars in donations: $15,000 to be a title sponsor; $10,000 to underwrite the band costs; $5,000 to underwrite travel costs of the performers; $2,500 for plates of food for the performers; $,1500 for stage decorations and $1,000 to underwrite raffle expenses. Vaus seems to be really raking in the donations now, compared to the lean years before he was on the Poway council. Some of the 2017 donors, who could benefit from  pleasing the mayor, include  Edco, Toyota of Poway,  and SDG&E. There is also a donation from a company owned by Paul Gaspar, Kristin Gaspar's husband.  Those Gaspars sure do like to give money to Steve Vaus.

There is something else on the Carols by Candlelight page which caught my eye.  Vaus now claims he is a nonprofit company with a nonprofit number. In the lower right hand corner of the Carols by Candlelight page, it says "Qualified 501(c)(3) Taxpayer Identification number 26-1722021. 4Community Solutions-dba Carols by Candlelight 18402 W Bernardo Drive San Diego, CA 92127.   But that nonprofit number is not for Vaus' company, Steve Vaus Productions, the company he names on his statement of economic interest forms filed with the City of Poway.  The nonprofit number Vaus is using belongs to a charity located in Rancho Bernardo called 4 Community Solutions.
4 Community Solutions was formerly called RB United and was set up to help fire victims.

4 Community Solution's website no longer seems to load. But before it went down I took screen shots of some of the pages.  I have also downloaded the groups 990 IRS forms. Carols by Candlelight appears to be the biggest chunk of money on those 990 forms. But nowhere on those forms is there information that all nonprofits have to disclose- how much of the money went to the charity and how much went for salaries and expenses and whatever else Vaus spent it on.

It is also uncertain how much money is collected by sale of tickets and from donations that people do not request a tax deduction for. Note that on Carols by Candlelight's webpage, all of the live donation links are directed to Steve Vaus, not 4 Community Solutions, the non profit, whose number Vaus has displayed and claimed is doing business as Carols by Candlelight.

Clicking on this donate button

gets you to this form:

Notice that the donation goes to Steve Vaus Productions, not 4 Community Solutions.
I looked up Steve Vaus Productions in guidestar. It is not listed as a nonprofit.
Steve Vaus Productions is no longer listed in the state of California corporation database, although, I do believe it was incorporated in California at one time. So maybe it is incorporated in another state.  Or maybe not.

I have contacted some of the purported officers from 4 Community Solutions, as I am trying to find out more about how this nonprofit has allowed Vaus to conceal how much money goes to the charity and how much money goes into his pocket.  They first person I contacted told me he had never heard of 4 Community Solutions or Carols by Candlelight. And yet this man who is an investment advisor was listed as the chief officer on 4 Community Solutions website before it quit loading and on fairly recent tax returns. I am still in the process of contacting other officers whose names are listed on the tax forms. So far, I am not getting any responses. But I will keep you posted when I do hear from them.

Note: Caylin Frank has claimed that Kristin Gaspar was referring to Caylin's applying to run in November election, not her upcoming appointment in the video, but I'm not buying her story.

Update (Sept 19, 2018): Apparently Kristin Gaspar spent another $2500 of her campaign donations on Carols by Candlelight tickets on 2 occasions. This form covers expenditures in early 2016.  That brings her total spending on Carols by Candlelight to $5000.

Update 2 (Sept 19, 2018) The Carols by Candlelight page   and the 4 Community Solutions webpages have both been changed since this blog was posted. Carols by Candlelight no longer has the "click to donate" button, instead all donation links open an email addressed to Steve Vaus.  The language about 4 Community Solutions has changed slightly on Carols by Candlelight:

Vaus is still implying that 4 Community Solutions and Carols by Candlelight are the same thing. In fact, Carols by Candlelight does not have a nonprofit number. It is not a registered nonprofit.





 .

Poway's 47%

Dear Poway Homeowners,
You are getting screwed. Bigtime. And no, I am no referring to the PUSD bond fiasco. It's your sewer bills.

OK, you are not ALL getting screwed. Around 47- 50% of you are are paying substantially higher sewer rates than other Poway sewer users pay. It's been that way for more than 30 years. Maybe 40.

It is kind of a well kept secret. If you were to search The City of Poway's website, you would find a link to the City's water/sewer rates and fees , but you won't be able to find the real sewer rates for single family residential listed anywhere on the City's webpage.

Poway water/sewer customers have 4 line items on their bills: 1) water basic service, 2) water consumption, 3) sewer basic service and 4) sewer consumption.  The basic service fees are a fixed fee, based on the size of your water pipe and/or your type of service (residential, commercial, industrial, etc). The water consumption charge is based on how many units of water you consume. The sewer consumption charge is much more complex. And convoluted.

Most properties in Poway don't have sewer meters. The sewer consumption is calculated a bit differently for each category of user ( residential, multi-family, commercial, etc.) For example, multi-family housing are pegged for sewer flow equal to 85% of their water use for that period. Commercial properties sewer consumption is figured at 90% of their water consumption. Single family residential properties sewer use is calculated at 85% of the average from the lowest use during the 3 previous winter periods.

In the charts below you can see that the sewer rate is $3.16/unit  for apartment houses, churches and schools. It varies from $3.16 to $6.40/ unit  for commercial and industrial customers.

For single family residential customers, the City actually uses a tiered charge pricing format instead of a rate. The charges increase as use increases, sortof. Look at Tier 2. The house that uses 6 units, and the house that uses 12 units both are charged $40.98. There was twice as much flushing and showering going on in the house that used 12 units, but they paid the same fee as the house poured half as much water down the drain.

For some reason, the city calculates everyone's sewer commodity fee as a rate, except for the single family residential category. The true rates you pay are hidden in the City's chart. I've calculated the actual rates in the chart below. The results are a bit surprising.

The rates in the chart vary from $1.76/unit to $23.23/unit. If someone uses more than 57 units, their rates are even lower. If someone uses 0 units of water, they still have to pay a sewer charge of $23.23.
My sewer use is calculated at about 10 units.  I pay $40.98, which comes to about $4.00/unit. The person who uses 51 units pays just under $2.00/unit. How can it be fair to charge higher rates to those who use less? What a nice break for those who consume a lot of water!

How did it happen that almost half of the residential single family homes are subsidizing the other half? Originally, everybody paid the same fixed sewer charge. Then, the fixed sewer charge was tiered to make it more fair. Then, a fixed charge was separated from the tiered charge. So now, we pay a fixed charge (basic service fee) and a tiered charge (consumption fee). As sewer charges increased, people who used very little winter water, got hit with large, disproportionate bills. In 2006, the City paid a consultant to study the sewer rates. The consultant (RFC) found that if the City used a uniform rate, ratepayers in Tiers 1, 2 and 3 would enjoy a savings of 22% to 44%. Those in Tiers 4 through 7 would pay 2% to 51% more. Guess who complained and convinced the council not to charge a uniform rate for the sewer?

Funny thing,  those very same folks went apoplectic about 2 years ago when the city imposed a multi-tiered  conservation water rate. The difference between that water rate structure and the current sewer charge structure is that with the conservation water rate structure, everyone paid the same rate for their first x number of units of water, and the same rate for their next y units of water, etc. People were only charged higher rates for the water usage beyond each tier.  The people who used a lot of water said it was unfair. The council heard them, and changed the water rates back to a uniform rate. Well, almost uniform. Now, everybody pays the same rate for their first 199 units and more for their next z units. I never really got why everyone screamed that it was unfair  if we did not all pay the same rate, but then they were OK with charging people more for their 200th unit and beyond. Was it about fairness or advantage?

Speaking of advantage, at a council meting and at the recent candidate's forum, Councilmember Cunningham proposed that the excess money in the sewer fund be used to lower water rates. Really? First the City overcharges the low water user on their sewer bills and then the City wants to take the extra money to lower the water bills of the big water users who are no longer paying conservation rates. Freaking unbelievable.

I have been complaining about the unfair sewer rates for years. Every councilmember is aware that the low water users are being screwed. All of the councilmembers are OK with it, including the one who puts a quote from Ghandi on her emails. Not one councilmember has made any effort to change the way Poway charges for the sewer.  It certainly says something about the way "they serve the community" to me.  I have no respect for those who would charge the low water users more per unit just because they can, and because it pleases their more advantaged friends.  The situation will not change until enough of the low water users become more aware and make enough of a ruckus to demand the change. Will you help make a ruckus?

Poway's School Bonds By The Numbers

Will Carless's revelation in the Voice of San Diego, Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost 1 Billion: Poway Schools broke on August 6, 2012. Carless wasn't actually the first to write about the Poway bonds. A retired  reporter and current blogger from Michigan, Joe Thurtell, wrote about Poway's bonds back in May, 2012 (here, here and here). In a May 12th piece titled "CAB scam in Poway", Thurell had this to say about PUSD's ballot disclosure for Prop C:

The nicest thing I can write about the language used by Poway schools in San Diego is that it was shrewdly phrased. But when framed with the ‘no new taxes” promises flung out by bond supporters, the bond proposal amounts to a brazen lie.
Whether they put down “yes” or “no” on the 2008 ballot proposal, voters in the Poway school district in San Diego could not have known that the “legal interest rate” on some of the bonds they approved would amount to an eye-popping, wallet-ripping 2200 percent.
Nowhere in the ballot language was it spelled out to voters that the majority of the debt that was approved would be in the form of Capital Appreciation Bonds with interest rates so usurious that CABs were banned in one state — Michigan — when the monstrosity was exposed.
Neither promised “mandatory audits” nor “independent citizens’ oversight” captured the reality for citizens — that these pernicious instruments of debt could only fulfill the promise of “no new taxes” if property values increase by hundreds of percent.
 Nor were voters made aware that there is no escape from this hall of financial horror. A term of the bond official statement states that they may not be re-financed to better terms.

Last Monday, August 20th, the PUSD Board of Education carved some time out of their regular monthly meeting to respond to the furor over the Prop C school bonds. The district prepared a powerpoint presentation and later posted it on their website. All of the current board members (Andy Patapow, Linda Vanderveen, Marc Davis, Todd Gutshow and Penny Ranftle), former board member Jeff Mangum and Superintendent John Collins stand by the decisions to borrow $105 million that will cost almost a billion dollars to repay and won't be repaid until 2052, and cannot be refinanced.

The district's position, as I surmise it, from the powerpoint file:  The schools in the newer areas of the district that are paying Mello-Roos fees are much nicer. They wanted to get some equity in the buildings in the district, so they put all of the non-Mello-Roos properties into a School Facilities Improvement District (SFID).  (SFID= a Mello-Roos for-the-rest-of-us.) Twice the voters in the SFID  failed to approve  bond measures.   After a statewide voter measure (Prop 39)passed,  lowering the percent needed to pass a school bond measure from 67% to 55%, PUSD was finally successful in getting a bond passed in the SFID. Prop U ($198 million) was approved in November, 2002. It was supposed to provide enough funds to renovate all 24 schools within the SFID, but unprecedented and unforeseen increases in building materials made it necessary for PUSD to ask the voters in the SFID to approve another bond measure, Prop C ($179 million), in February, 2008.

Oh wait, let me change that. According to former PUSD trustee Jeff Mangum, it was the voters, not the school board that passed Prop C. Well, yes it was, but it was the school board that worded the ballot measure, and promised not to raise taxes. The ballot statement said that the estimated cost of Prop C would be $16 per $100,000 of assessed valuation (av)  bringing the total cost for Prop U plus Prop C to $55/$100,000 av. Yes, that is what the bond measure said. At the board meeting, Supt. Collins also pointed out that there was some small print in the measure that said the final maturity of the Prop C bonds might be either 25 yrs or 40 yrs after the last issuance of bonds and that the maximum interest rate could not exceed 12%. I did read that back in 2008, and as a result, I questioned PUSD trustee Todd Gutshow about it (see below). My concerns were strong enough to keep me from voting Yes on Prop C in 2008.

In their powerpoint presentation, the district also pointed out that the total cost of borrowing the $376,998,406 will come to $1.6 billion, which is  $4.2611 for every dollar borrowed.  Passing the bond measures allowed the district to capture $92,523,994 in state building funds, which is a pretty cool thing.  So, the district added the state funds and $73,556,321 in "other district capital facilities funds (creative use of mello roos funds? redevelopment money?) to the principal amount of the bonds, for an amended payment ratio of 2.9579, which is really, really not a cool way to frame this. First of all, the state funds were not "free", they were paid for by us, the taxpayers. Secondly, neither the state funds nor the other district funds were borrowed money, so to throw those figures in and then to recompute the return on borrowed money is completely misleading, in my opinion.

There was one page in the powerpoint presentation that had some new (to me) information. Apparently PUSD told the San Diego County Taxpayer Association (SDCTA) that they planned to use capital appreciation bonds (CAB) for Prop C. The president of SDCTA, Lani Lutar,  confirmed this in a tweet, but she added that the estimated total cost was to be under 500 million.  In a  comment on Carless's article, Lutar said that SDCTA will soon be issuing a policy brief on CABs, but that they oppose them for bond terms greater than 25 years.

It is important to note that under certain market conditions, limited use of shorter term CABs may result in a lower cost to taxpayers in comparison to other financing mechanism, so CABs should not be written off under all circumstances. Will Carless was incorrect in his response post. We regularly ask for financing and debt cost information as part of our review process. Our analysis included the total debt cost that was provided to us by Poway in 2008. SDCTA's current policy on CABs is as follows: SDCTA opposes the use of Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) with maturities greater than 25 years as a financing mechanism for General Obligation bonds because of the increased debt burden on taxpayers. CABs with maturities of 25 years or less should only be pursued if it can be demonstrated that its use will result in less debt service than other financing instruments. Other financing options that should be compared to the potential use of CABs include voter approved bond reauthorization or additional voter approved tax increases. Defensible assumptions for growth in assessed value shall be used for development of any proposed financing method.

Apparently Lutar's group missed the small print that said the Poway bonds might be issued for a 40 year term.

PUSD may have let SDCTA in on their expected use of  CAB bonds, but SDCTA did not share that information in their report recommending approval of the Prop C bonds. I saw nothing in the ballot statement about these CAB bonds, nor anything in the literature from the Yes On C committee.  Nor did Todd Gutshow mention it in the email conversation we had prior to the bonds passing (see below).  Why not? Why was the CAB financing such a secret?

In fact, PUSD had already issued a  CAB bond in October, 2006, several years before Prop C was even on the ballot.  The bond was issued for $3,080,766.  It was part of the series B bonds for Prop U. The payback (final accreted value) amount will be $19,050,000. That is almost a 6-to-1 payback. This bond can not be redeemed prior to maturity in 2013. But who knew?

In addition to underestimating the true cost of renovating 24 schools, PUSD grossly overestimated the growth of assessed valuation in the SFID. These are the figures that SDCTA included in their report, but the figures likely came from PUSD:

Poway, PQ and RB make up the SFID. Most of those areas are already "built out". There would be minor growth in the Poway Industrial Park, but even that was mostly built out. In fact, the census bureau found that the City of Poway lost population between 2000 and 2010. Where was the 5-8% growth from 2008 to 2015 going to come from?  Back in 2008, I asked Todd Gutschow about this and some of the other details in Prop C (my questions are in black. Mr. Gutshow's responses are in blue):

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008

1. What EXACTLY is planned for Valley School?  Are there 2 plans for Valley- one if Prop C passes and one if it doesn't?   Newly constructed classrooms? More portables? Newer portables?  

There are two plans for Valley. Much of the planned renovations for Valley will take place using funds from Prop U. If Prop C passes, additional work will be done. I do not know exactly what is included in either plan. As soon as I have that information, I will get it to you.  

2. How old are the portables at Valley? 

3. Are the new portables that have recently been brought over for the preschool NEW or are they old?      In other words, how old are they? 

4. Have they been moved from other campuses that were renovated?    I suppose this sounds like I am asking if Valley is getting north Poway hand-me-downs.

 It is my understanding that these portables were used at Poway High School. I do not know how old they are, but will find out.  

5. Can Prop C money be used for district buildings (lease or remodel?).That is, can it legally be used for these purposes?  

It is my understanding that Prop C money cannot be used for building, leasing, or renovating the district office or other district administrative sites. Further, there has never been any discussion of using Prop U or Prop C funds for district offices. However, I need to verify what the language of the proposition allows from a legal standpoint (which I understand is the nature of your question).  

6. According to SDCTA info, Prop C will cost the taxpayers $497 million. If I had seen that earlier, I might have blogged about how a $40 million shortfall snowballed into a $500 million tax measure.  http://www.sdcta.org/Uploads/Documents/PropC.Poway_1.pdf  

I am a little surprised by your statement about the cost of repaying Prop C bonds. Any long-term borrowing (like a mortgage) always results in interest payments that are significantly more than the principal borrowed. The exact amount of interest will not be known until the bonds are issued. Also, I am not sure where the $40M shortfall number comes from. I realize that there have been several shortfall numbers floating around in the newspapers and various district materials, but the shortfall for the originally planned Prop U work is about $90M to $100M.    

There are some issues I still do not understand. According to the graphs on this document, assessed valuation is expected to grow by 7-8% during the next 3 yrs. That seems to me to be an overly optimestic  projection.  

Actually, 7% – 8% is reasonable based on the increases that we have seen the pass two years. According to the County Assessor, the 2007-08 assessed value for San Diego County grew by a little over 9%. I cannot find the growth for PUSD; however, generally, PUSD is a bit higher than the County in general. Even with market values falling, there remains a significant gap between the current assessed value and market value. As homes are sold or remodeled, the assessed value is up dated. I believe this will continue even with the current real estate situation.  

7. If Prop C did pass, and assessed valuation did not grow by 7-8% - if, in fact, it grow by 2% or less for the next 3 yrs, how does that affect the taxes the taxpayers will have to pay to pay off the bonds?  

If the assessed value base does not grow according to the estimates, then the district will not issue bonds. The district will only issue bonds when the assessed value base grows sufficiently to allow the combined payment for Prop U and Prop C to remain below $55 per $100,000 of assessed value. The district is 100% committed to keeping the combined tax for Prop U and Prop C below the $55 per $100,000 rate. By managing the timing of the bond issuances, the district controls the tax rate needed to repay the bonds. The district expects that Prop C bonds will be issued over the next 10 to 12 years, but that time could be extended if the assessed value base does not increase as expected. In the mean time, the district will borrow money using a bridge financing arrangement. The proceeds of the future bond issuances will be used to pay back this bridge loan. This mechanism allows the district to perform the work now (keeping the cost lower) while keeping its commitment to the taxpayers to maintain the tax rate at or below $55 per $100,000.  

8. Could taxpayers have to pay more than $55/$100,000 av?  

Legally, the tax rate under Prop 39 cannot exceed $60 per $100,000 AV. The district would not be able to issue bonds that would require a larger tax rate.  Prop U and Prop C are separate Prop 39 ballot propositions. Thus, it would be legal to increase the tax rate to $60 per $100,000 AV for each of them. This would make it possible to have a tax rate of $120 per $100,000.  Even though the maximum rate is much higher, the district’s plan for bond issuance, as I stated above, will keep the combined tax rate for both Prop U and Prop C at or below $55 per $100,000. The district will not issue bonds that would require the combined tax rate for both Prop U and Prop C to go above $55 per $100,000.  

9. More than $60/$100,000 av?Legally is there a limit? I know the limit for a bond proposition is an $60/$100,000 of estimated assessed valuation. But if the estimates are way off, what happens?  

As I stated above, under Prop 39, bonds cannot be issued until the actual assessed value base is sufficiently large to keep the tax rate at or below legal limit.  

10. If Prop C passes, and the district borrows money now- eventually they will have to pay back the loan. The assessed valuations may not be anywhere near projections, and 11-14 yrs from now the interest on the bonds could rise substanially. So, legally, even though PUSD said it is not their intent- is it still possible that taxpayers will be paying off both Prop U and Prop C bonds simultaneously- and for way more than $60/$100,000 av?  

The first part of your statement is correct. Prop U and Prop C bonds will be paid off simultaneously at some point. Right now, almost all of the Prop U bonds have been issued and the tax rate is approximately $44 per $100,000. Thus, it would be possible to use the remaining $11 per $100,000 to issue and pay for a portion of the Prop C bonds. As the Prop U bonds are paid off and/or the assessed value base increases, additional Prop C bonds will be issued. Interest rates on bonds are fixed. They cannot rise once the bonds are issued. Thus, bond repayment amounts are fixed once the bonds are issued. This sets the amount of tax that must be collected each year to fund the bond payments. This allows the district to issue bonds only if a tax rate of $55 per $100,000  or less generates enough tax revenue to fund the new issuance plus any other outstanding bond issuances.  

11. From SDCTA: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. What is the projected interest rate on the bonds  that went in to the projected $497 million payback? What is the possible payback amount if the bonds were issued at 12 % ?  

I do not know the exact model used to estimate the bond repayment. I will have to check on this for you. 

So, as it turns out, PUSD did issue bonds that will cost the taxpayers more than $55/ $100,000 of av. We are currently paying $55/$100,000 right now and we haven't even paid off all of the Prop U bonds yet.  Just how much will it cost you? I haven't seen an all-in-one debt chart that includes both Prop U and Prop C debt service.  I had to improvise a bit, and I may need to revise later if I find more bonds that need to be paid. My figures are pretty consistent with the projection that Supt Collins used.

Debt Service Payments

2012    about    $11 million.

2021    almost   $22 million

2027    approx. $33 million.

2031    over      $45 million

2051    almost   $55 million

Assuming that the assessed value of your home and the other homes in the SFID, have the same relative value in the future as they do today, you would pay about twice what you are paying now in 2021, three times as much in 2027, 4 times as much in 2031 and 5 times as much in 2051. The owner of a house assessed for $300,000 currently pays  $165. that would creep up each year. By 2021 it would be $330, by 2027 it would be $495, by 2031 it would be $660 and by 2051 it would be $825.

My assumption is unlikely. In fact, it is absurd. All of our assessed valuations won't stay the same, relative to each other as they are today. Houses that sell will be reassessed upward. Properties that are not sold can be reassessed 2% (from Prop 13) yearly unless the purchase price exceeds the resale price- then they can be reassessed downwards. Periods of inflation would also drive up the assessed value and it would make the school tax payments less onerous because the dollars would be worth less. We bought our house in Poway 36 years ago. It was a new house and it cost $36,450. There were periods of inflation and there were a few recessions since then, although none so steep or so severely affecting housing prices as the period we just went through. Nevertheless, I think it is likely that the total assessed valuation in the SFID will increase and that inflation will make that $55 million payment not seem as huge as it seems today.  

The people who will be hit quite severely with the increased school tax payments will be new homeowners and businesses who purchase property in the district in a future time of rising prices. They will pay higher property taxes because of Prop 13 and they will pay a larger proportionate share of the school tax because the Prop 13 assessed valuation is based on the purchase price of their homes. It will be a double whammy. 

I am grateful that Todd Gutshow even responded to my request for information back in 2008. Todd and I plan to get together soon and talk about how things have turned out. One of the things I am concerned about is what is going to happen when the portables at Valley school crap out. And what the district intends to do to make sure the building stay in tip top shape for as long as it takes to pay for them. 

I also wanted to know why the district moved forward to buy a new headquarters with some money they had in another fund AFTER they issued a CAB bond in 2006 for $3 million.  We have to pay back $19 million, in 2031 for that bond. That is more than 6 times the amount borrowed. And it is not re-financeable. It seems like we had already dug ourselves in a hole in 2006, and we just kept digging. Why was the school board so optimistic that Prop C would not raise the tax rate on the bonds?

I will keep you posted.