Viewer - Live chat: Mt. Diablo Unified School District issues, Wednesday, July 28 2010, 11 a.m.

Live chat: Mt. Diablo Unified School Dis...

Wednesday July 28, 2010

10:57

CCTModerator:

Good morning, readers.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 10:57 CCTModerator

10:57

CCTModerator:

We'll begin our live chat on the Mt. Diablo school district shortly.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 10:57 CCTModerator

11:01

CCTModerator:

We've been covering this story for a little bit. Here's a Matt Krupnick article: "Mt. Diablo solar decision could leave Chevron in the dark"

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:01 CCTModerator

11:01

Matt Krupnick:

Good morning. This is Matt Krupnick, a reporter at the Contra Costa Times.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:01 Matt Krupnick

11:02

CCTModerator:

Welcome, Matt.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:02 CCTModerator

11:02

[Comment From Kathy, Walnut Creek Kathy, Walnut Creek : ]

Is there a way to monitor this money will only go to upgrades? And is there any relief for Senior Citizens on fixed income. Continuing tax increase.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:02 Kathy, Walnut Creek

11:03

Theresa Harrington:

The district is establishing a bond oversight committee that will track how the money is spent. There is a senior exemption.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 Theresa Harrington

11:03

Gary Eberhart:

Hello

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 Gary Eberhart

11:03

Peter Scheer:

Good morning. This is Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 Peter Scheer

11:03

CCTModerator:

Also: Theresa Harrington's "Mt. Diablo trustees approved bond for ballot without knowing which projects were needed."

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 CCTModerator

11:03

CCTModerator:

Welcome, Theresa and Peter and Gary.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 CCTModerator

11:03

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary Eberhart posted on his blog that Greg Rolen does not have the poll results. This is inconsistent with what has been disclosed in the paper. Which is it?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:03 Joe Smith

11:04

Gary Eberhart:

Joe, if that was a question for me, I stand behind what I posted yesterday.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:04 Gary Eberhart

11:05

Gary Eberhart:

That said, the poll is out there and we can get it, we just need to locate it. Someone has a copy.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:05 Gary Eberhart

11:05

[Comment From Joe SmithJoe Smith: ]

You stand behind the fact that Greg Rolen doesn't have the poll results?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:05 Joe Smith

11:05

Gary Eberhart:

That is correct joe

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:05 Gary Eberhart

11:06

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Hello

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:06 Doctor J

11:06

Gary Eberhart:

excuse spelling errors please, I am not the best typist and I will do my best to keep up.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:06 Gary Eberhart

11:06

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Good news on the Chevron decision. There has been entirely too little transparency on the spending resulting from Measure C.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:06 NG Parent

11:06

[Comment From Linda LozaLinda Loza: ]

Gary I am sure you can obtain a copy from Alex Evans at EMC Research.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:06 Linda Loza

11:07

Gary Eberhart:

Hello

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:07 Gary Eberhart

11:07

[Comment From Joe SmithJoe Smith: ]

That seems inconsistent with what has been reported to have been said by Theresa.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:07 Joe Smith

11:07

[Comment From Sheila IskinSheila Iskin: ]

What is the current status of the oversight committee?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:07 Sheila Iskin

11:07

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

Hi Gary,

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:07 Sheila Iskin

11:08

[Comment From Jen B Jen B : ]

Per the 7/22 article, can the District now detail how they will go about selecting providers for solar power? On what basis will they compare firms to Chevron?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:08 Jen B

11:08

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

What are the district's current plans for putting out an RFP for the solar project? It was a good decision on the district's part to avoid a sole-source award.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:08 Tom Kelly

11:08

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Hello

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:08 Brett Illers

11:08

[Comment From Doctor JDoctor J: ]

and inconsistent with his letter to Theresa

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:08 Doctor J

11:08

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

They have no basis for comparison without a proper bid

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:08 Brett Illers

11:09

[Comment From Joe SmithJoe Smith: ]

Theresa, can you comment on what Greg Rolen has sadi to you about the pool results.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:09 Joe Smith

11:09

Gary Eberhart:

Jen. We will develop an request for quotation (RFQ) and that will outline how a vendor will be selected. We should have that in August sometime.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:09 Gary Eberhart

11:10

Matt Krupnick:

Gary, the superintendent said a request for proposals would go out on Aug. 2. By "request for quotation," are you referring to the same RFP?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:10 Matt Krupnick

11:11

Gary Eberhart:

We hope to have a RFQ for the Board to approve sometime in August. Responders will have 30 days (I believe) to submit proposals. We will then chose the top responders and interview them to determine who can provide the best price and service to the district.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:11 Gary Eberhart

11:11

Peter Scheer:

Have the bonds authorized by Measure C already been issued? In the current financial climate I think it's an open question whether there will be buyers for this debt.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:11 Peter Scheer

11:11

Gary Eberhart:

RFP and RFQ in this case are the same thing.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:11 Gary Eberhart

11:12

Gary Eberhart:

No bonds have been issues to my knowledge.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:12 Gary Eberhart

11:12

Gary Eberhart:

I am trying to keep up. If I miss a question, I am not ignoring you. Just retype it.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:12 Gary Eberhart

11:13

Gary Eberhart:

Dr. J. I can't answer for Rolen

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:13 Gary Eberhart

11:13

[Comment From Doctor JDoctor J: ]

Gary, why didn't Rolen give all the emails to Theresa in a timely manner ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:13 Doctor J

11:14

[Comment From Brett IllersBrett Illers: ]

Why are you using an RFQ process which often has no firm bidder numbers an RFP would be a far better solution because it contains actual numbers whereas an RFQ does not.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:14 Brett Illers

11:14

[Comment From Tom KellyTom Kelly: ]

San Ramon Valley Unified went through an open bid process for the 3.5 MW project they are going with. A consultant developed a strong RFQ/RFP that resulted in a number of strong proposals that included a performance guarantee on the PV output and a maintenance contract that covered the 16 years of the bond payoff.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:14 Tom Kelly

11:14

Theresa Harrington:

Here is what Greg Rolen wrote on June 23:
"Unfortunately, upon reconsideration the district must reject the legal authority upon which you rely. Based on the information you provided the polling results were not provided to a 'majority' of the legislative body. Consequenty, Government Code section 54957.5 is inapplicable. Assuming arguendo, that section is applicable it provides that it does not include any writing that is exempt from disclosure because they are writings not maintained by the district in the ordinary course of business and the interest in withholding these documents clearly outweighs the public interest in dislosing them. (See previous discussion.)"

Our attorney called Rolen to dispute his claims, saying the documents are public record and the government code section he cites does not apply, since it refers to draft documents. I also called to ask why he claimed it was not in the public's interest to disclose the results. He did not return my calls or the calls or our attorney.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:14 Theresa Harrington

11:16

[Comment From Doctor JDoctor J: ]

Gary, he's the Board's lawyer. You are his boss.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:16 Doctor J

11:16

[Comment From Joe SmithJoe Smith: ]

Gary, you can't comment for Rolen? Are you or are you not his boss?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:16 Joe Smith

11:16

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Theresa please comment on the statements about Greg Rolen not having the poll results. Gary keeps dodging the question.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:16 Joe Smith

11:17

Gary Eberhart:

The Board does not review every correspondence that Greg Rolen publishes. No, I can't comment for Greg Rolen.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:17 Gary Eberhart

11:17

Peter Scheer:

Given California's financial rating, the continuing budget stalemate, and the absence of revenue associated with these bond expenditures, I think there is a decent probability that Mt Diablo will not be able to sell these bonds at all. The bond market may impose the fiscal discipline that the school district resists. Same thing happened to Greece.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:17 Peter Scheer

11:17

Gary Eberhart:

How am I dodging the question. I don't have the answer.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:17 Gary Eberhart

11:18

Theresa Harrington:

It is possible that Greg Rolen does not have the poll results. However, he can certainly get them, as Peter Scheer pointed out. They are accessible to the district and have been in the possession of some board members and the superintendent.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:18 Theresa Harrington

11:18

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

an RFQ and RFP are very different an RFQ contains no contractable pricing quotes whereas an RFP contains actual pricing

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:18 Brett Illers

11:18

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

Have to second the comment from Brett. An RFQ/RFP is a much better approach than simply using an RFQ.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:18 Tom Kelly

11:19

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Tom you are correct In my experience when I run an RFP for any schools project including solar I get substantially lower bids than if the process is not put out to bid.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:19 Brett Illers

11:19

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary, does the board employ Greg Rolen? If so can the board demand that he disclose the poll results or not? If not, what the hell is the command structure down there at the Dent center?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:19 Joe Smith

11:19

[Comment From Jen B Jen B : ]

Has the District secured California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebates for multiple schools? At what level rebate? For how many schools?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:19 Jen B

11:19

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, didn't a District committee commission the poll as indicated by Linda on the parents blog ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:19 Doctor J

11:19

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary if you don't have the answer can you make a public pledge to find the answer and post the complete and full poll results in the next say 2-3 days?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:19 Joe Smith

11:20

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

There are buyers for the district's bonds - I don't think that's really an issue.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:20 Tom Kelly

11:20

Gary Eberhart:

The Board can direct Greg Rolen to turn over poll results if he has them.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:20 Gary Eberhart

11:20

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

I would like to hear the answer to Peter Scheer's question.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:20 Linda Loza

11:20

Gary Eberhart:

The bond committee commissioned the poll, not the district.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:20 Gary Eberhart

11:21

Gary Eberhart:

Joe. As I stated on my blog, I will publish the poll results if I can get them and I will try to get them. 2-3 days? I will try but I cant promise that since I dont have the results in my possession.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:21 Gary Eberhart

11:22

[Comment From Rich Howard Rich Howard : ]

I teach at Sequoia Middle School. Last May, my principal gave staff a list of planned Measure C improvements. This differed from the site plan that was posted on the district web site. That differed from the district wide site plan that the Contra Costa Times had obtained. Yesterday, I checked the district's web site and could find no individual school plans. Yesterday, I read in the paper that Sequoia Middle School won't be getting their stage which is an A.D.A. and safety issue. Is this new Measure C elusive plan etched in stone?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:22 Rich Howard

11:22

Gary Eberhart:

Linda, I didn't see a question from Peter.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:22 Gary Eberhart

11:22

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

It was not the CUES committee Gary. It was the Local Funding Planning Committee. We were still meeting on district property.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:22 Linda Loza

11:23

Peter Scheer:

If any Board member, in his/her official capacity, has had the polling results, then they are public records of the school district under the Public Records Act. They may still be subject to some exemption, but they are not categorically outside the scope of the Act.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:23 Peter Scheer

11:23

Theresa Harrington:

Rich, I would like to clarify that Sequoia may still be getting a stage. But it is unclear because the online lists do not include much detail. Hellena Postrk told me she had spoken to Pete Pedersen and that he agreed to add it. The problem is, a new list hasn't been released to the public.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:23 Theresa Harrington

11:24

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Just to follow up on the comment from Peter, given the extraordinarily long term of the bonds, and the pressure that the debt service will put on the district's assessed valuation base, it is very possible that investors will resist. Gary, does the district have a plan for what to do if the bond issue requires a higher rate to get placed? If the attitude is "issue at any cost", we could end up paying a much higher rate to account for the added risk premium.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:24 NG Parent

11:24

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Linda and Gary, I don't think the CUES committee had even been formed at that time, had they ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:24 Doctor J

11:25

Gary Eberhart:

NG Parent. It is very difficult to answer questions that are so hypothetical. To your question is the district to issue the bonds at any cost, no.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:25 Gary Eberhart

11:26

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

When will MDUSD parents and taxpayers find out exactly what is being funded by the Bond?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:26 Sheila Iskin

11:26

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

I hope the district has reserved the CSI rebate. It recently fell to $0.15/kWh and the program was suddenly suspended by the CPUC until it can figure out how to distribute the remaining rebate funds. Can you confirm that the district got their reservation in before the cutoff (July 9)?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:26 Tom Kelly

11:26

[Comment From Jen B Jen B : ]

Gary can you advise whether the District has already secured California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebates for multiple schools? If so, at what level rebate and for how many schools?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:26 Jen B

11:26

Theresa Harrington:

Gary, you told me yesterday that you would be wiling to ask voters if they would like to reverse the current bond structure and instead opt for a new tax rate that could be paid off sooner, for a lower overall cost. Have you spoken to Superintendent Steven Lawrence about this?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:26 Theresa Harrington

11:28

Gary Eberhart:

We have a basic list of projects and types of work that will be funded. We have an excellent history of ensuring that bond funds are well spent and that school site needs are met. We have an excellent history of working with our bond oversight committee and taking their recommendations seriously

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:28 Gary Eberhart

11:29

Gary Eberhart:

I can confirm that we were able to submit the CSI on time and we are in at $0.19/kWh

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:29 Gary Eberhart

11:29

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

The CUES committee had been formed but sat dormant, for lack of a better description. The conversation had always centered around switching to the CUES committee and changing venues after board approval to go forward with the bond.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:29 Linda Loza

11:30

Gary Eberhart:

Theresa,

I have not spoken to the Supt. about it. I did have a discussion with Greg Rolen and he is researching the issue.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:30 Gary Eberhart

11:30

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Gary, the question on rates may be hypothetical, but it is quite typical for bond issuers to consider that question in advance. In other words, they ask themselves, BEFORE trying to place a bond issue: "What rate are we willing -- and able -- to pay if rates move against it." That is simple contingency planning, and responsible issuers do that. A small increase in the rate, when nominal rates are this low, can have a dramatic impact on total debt service costs.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:30 NG Parent

11:30

[Comment From Rich Howard Rich Howard : ]

Gary, does this mean that the bond oversight committee has flexibility in determining what work is to be done?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:30 Rich Howard

11:30

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

Are all 12.6mw at .19 or only 1.5mw. The presentation on 6/22 was not clear

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:30 Linda Loza

11:30

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

That is good you were able to get the .19 rebates did the district put up the money to reserve or was it put up by a third party?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:30 Brett Illers

11:31

Gary Eberhart:

NG. We have a long history of acting extremely responsible in matters of bond sales. We have excellent bond counsel and we will execute all bond sales responsibly. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:31 Gary Eberhart

11:32

Theresa Harrington:

Gary, you also told me yesterday that you disagree with the estimates of Jon Isom, the district's financial consultant, which show that the total cost of the bonds as currently structured could amount to $1.87 billion by 2052. What is your estimate of the total cost?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:32 Theresa Harrington

11:32

Peter Scheer:

Bond counsel have already been selected? Was that a competitive bidding process?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:32 Peter Scheer

11:32

Gary Eberhart:

Rich. Yes, as long as we meet the legal requirement to spend the dollars on project types that were voted on by the voters.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:32 Gary Eberhart

11:33

Gary Eberhart:

Linda,

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:33 Gary Eberhart

11:33

Gary Eberhart:

Brett,

The district put up the money.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:33 Gary Eberhart

11:34

[Comment From Guest Guest : ]

Gary and Linda, who first contacted the polling company about the poll and when did that happen ? Wasn't one of the purposed of the poll to determine whether or not a bond or parcel tax would be pursued ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:34 Guest

11:34

[Comment From Cindy Cindy : ]

Why would the district go back to reverse the way the bond was structured? There was ample information and a lot of opposition to the bond that spelled out the terms in no uncertain manner. The bond still passed with 60% of the vote. Is this a good use of resources at this time? I agree that the financing was not great, but the vote passed by a large margin.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:34 Cindy

11:34

Gary Eberhart:

Linda,

my understanding is that all solar will receive $0.19

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:34 Gary Eberhart

11:34

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

I still don't buy the fact that Greg Rolen or a board member does not have the poll results. Is Paul and Linda the keepers of the poll results? Is that why they have been so quite?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:34 Joe Smith

11:34

[Comment From Jeff Shepherd Jr Jeff Shepherd Jr : ]

The district needs put more money in the schools

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:34 Jeff Shepherd Jr

11:35

Gary Eberhart:

11:34. I don't know the answer to the question.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:35 Gary Eberhart

11:35

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

Will the district use its CREBs allocation for the solar projects rather than the local bonds?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:35 Tom Kelly

11:36

Gary Eberhart:

Joe,

I don't know the answer to your question. Why is there so much interest in the poll. What do you think it will show?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:36 Gary Eberhart

11:37

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Good to hear please dont let the proposed contractors push you up against the deadline to make a decision you can file several extensions.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:37 Brett Illers

11:37

Gary Eberhart:

Tom,

We may use CREBS. There is actually less of a market for CREBs than bonds, so we will have to see which yields the best for the kids in the district

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:37 Gary Eberhart

11:37

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, wouldn't the answer to 11:34 really nail down whether the poll was commissioned by the district or not ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:37 Doctor J

11:37

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

The pollster attended the LFPC meetings. A poll was conducted in Nov regarding the parcel tax and at the end of February for the bond measure. The results were available in early March.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:37 Linda Loza

11:37

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

In my experience, the district informs parents about impending construction at their school site at a PFC meeting. I'm just curious to know when the district be posting a list of scheduled improvements. I would also like to know who determines what projects get put on the "build" list or the "will not be built" list. Does the responsibility fall to the oversight committee or is it the board, or will you be getting any kind of weigh in from the community outside of the Oversight Committee?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:37 Sheila Iskin

11:38

Gary Eberhart:

The poll was not commissioned by the district

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:38 Gary Eberhart

11:38

[Comment From Rich Howard Rich Howard : ]

Gary, will Measure C funds be used to purchase commercial property? If so, for what purpose and what approximate amount?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:38 Rich Howard

11:38

[Comment From Cindy Cindy : ]

Gary- There are a lot of good questions being asked and I really appreciate your taking the time here to answer them. Do you think the district and board should hold a community meeting on this issue? There is obviously enough interest on the subject.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:38 Cindy

11:38

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Gary, I don't know about the "long history" of MDUSD bond sales, but there is considerable evidence that the thinking, planning and analytics leading up to this particular bond issue were not all that exemplary. I'm sure you can understand why taxpayers might have questions about the decision-making around this bond issue, when the numbers behind the Measure C plan were constructed so quickly and the uses of the funding have prompted so many, many questions. As residents, we will have to live with this obligation for a very, very long time.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:38 NG Parent

11:39

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, were you at the March Buttercup meeting with two other board members and the Supt ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:39 Doctor J

11:39

[Comment From Guest#2 Guest#2 : ]

Why are Doctor J and Joe Smith so concerned with the poll results? I am having a hard time understanding the implications they are trying to get at.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:39 Guest#2

11:39

Gary Eberhart:

Sheila. I'm not sure what the time line is for releasing a list of projects.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:39 Gary Eberhart

11:40

Gary Eberhart:

Rich,

I'm not sure what you mean by commercial property? We have no need to purchase any property.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:40 Gary Eberhart

11:40

[Comment From Lucy Lucy : ]

Since the district did not disclose (1 how much the bond would cost in the long term (2 the data they used to determine the strategy and 3) specifically which projects would be funded by the bond, can that negate the outcome of the election?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:40 Lucy

11:41

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

Gary if the poll was not commissioned by the district who commissioned it?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:41 Linda Loza

11:42

Gary Eberhart:

Cindy. I have always said that I am willing to meet. I offered it again yesterday on my blog. If there is interest in getting together to meet to discuss the issues, I would be happy to find a good location and set it up. Just e-mail me and I will set it up.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:42 Gary Eberhart

11:43

Matt Krupnick:

Gary, what are your feelings on the district's long-running discussions with Chevron Energy Solutions, and particularly the meetings at the superintendent's home? And did you attend those meetings?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:43 Matt Krupnick

11:43

Gary Eberhart:

Lucy,

I do not agree with your assertions.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:43 Gary Eberhart

11:44

Gary Eberhart:

Linda,

The election committee funded the poll. That is my understanding. The district did not pay for the poll

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:44 Gary Eberhart

11:45

Peter Scheer:

Has the district already selected bond counsel and an underwriting bank(s) for this bond issue--and, if so, was that done through a competitive bidding process?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:45 Peter Scheer

11:45

Theresa Harrington:

Peter, the board entered into a contract with bond counsel Matt Juhl-Darlington & Associates on April 13. Matthew Juhl-Darlington gave $5,000 to the Measure C campaign on May 10/

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:45 Theresa Harrington

11:46

[Comment From Guest#2 Guest#2 : ]

Can someone please tell me why the poll results are so pertinent at this point? The bond passed, no matter what the polls said.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 Guest#2

11:46

[Comment From Guest#2 Guest#2 : ]

Thanks Gary, You have always made yourself accessible, but I was envisioning the Superintendent and the other board members too.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 Guest#2

11:46

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary if there is nothing to hide in the poll then why did Greg Rolen say, "the public interest in withholding it outweighs the need to release it?" (See Theresa's post above if you don't believe me)

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 Joe Smith

11:46

Gary Eberhart:

The meetings with Chevron were extremely productive. We were able to take their proposal from the district receiving $6 million over 30 years to the district receiving well over $100 million in 30 years. I would call that a success. At the end of the day, we still feel that we can do a little better and that is why we are competitively bidding the project.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 Gary Eberhart

11:46

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

CREBs, paid back from a combination of energy savings and CSI rebates, could result in a positive cash flow for the district's general fund while reducing some of the concerns around the cost of servicing your local bond. CREBs have to be paid off in 15-16 years.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 Tom Kelly

11:46

[Comment From voter voter : ]

was there an election committee before the outcome of the poll? does that make sense?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:46 voter

11:47

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, I know there is a delay on the posting of questions. I am owed an answer on the Buttercup quesion. Also, while the District may not have paid for the poll, I believe it did commission its taking and later the CUES decided to pay for it. Isn't that right ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:47 Doctor J

11:47

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Yes, Linda. Remember that the Measure C committee had access to far more funding than the parcel tax committee had in 2009. They could afford all kinds of marketing that was not available to the parcel tax backers.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:47 NG Parent

11:47

Matt Krupnick:

What are your feelings about the meetings being held at the superintendent's home, and did you participate?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:47 Matt Krupnick

11:47

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, Did Chevron ever pay for any meals for you or give you any gratuities ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:47 Doctor J

11:48

Gary Eberhart:

Guest #2. at every point during the process to move towards solar, the board will hold public board meetings and the public will have ample opportunity to provide input. I hope that there is a ton of input during the process.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:48 Gary Eberhart

11:49

Gary Eberhart:

Joe,

I did not come on here to answer for Greg. I can't answer for others, only myself.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:49 Gary Eberhart

11:51

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

The LFPC found a donor to pay for the poll but the decision to pursue a poll took place at in the LFPC meeting and the results were viewed in the LFPC meeting. (obviously the board had final approval of going forward with the poll)

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:51 Linda Loza

11:52

[Comment From Jim Jones Jim Jones : ]

Given the deadlines imposed by the CSI program once you have reserved rebate funds (i.e. must complete construction by X date), has the District hired unbiased energy consultants to provide bidders with highly accurate/detailed data for each school site to help expedite the RFQ/RFP process and ensure vendor selection in a very timely manner to build these sites - on time? Who are the District's energy consultants?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:52 Jim Jones

11:52

[Comment From Guest #3 Guest #3 : ]

It is a wonder that Gary would make himself available on this or any other blog. Don't you people realize that the sitting board cannot micro manage everything that goes on in the district.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:52 Guest #3

11:52

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary, I'm not asking you to answer for Greg. Please forgive me I thought that you and the board are his boss, not the other way around.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:52 Joe Smith

11:52

Gary Eberhart:

Matt,

I was an a meeting at the Supt. house. It was held there due to convenience. Both Paul and I were headed home from work at the time and we were able to stop by for the meeting and didn't have to drive to the district office (well out of our way) and then back to our respective homes. The way it was portrayed in the newspaper as a secret meeting is pretty far fetched. We met there for convenience. In retrospect, I'd rather that we didn't, but I can't changed what has already occurred. So what does it mean? Nothing. We met there in our continuing effort to get the best deal possible for kids and the district. That is all we were doing there. You are looking for smoke where no fire is burning.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:52 Gary Eberhart

11:52

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Why was the solar term of 30 years used? Was there extended warranties on the panels and components? Also do you know what utility escalators where used for figuring out the savings?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:52 Brett Illers

11:54

Gary Eberhart:

Jim,

I am not sure. I don't believe that we have hired a consultant. Remember, we already did one RFQ process in the spring of 2009, so much of what we need has already been completed.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:54 Gary Eberhart

11:54

Theresa Harrington:

Peter, the board approved a bond underwriting team consisting Stone & Youngberg, George K. Baum & Company, and Brandis Tallman LLC on April 27. It approved their contracts May 11.
On May 25, Stone & Youngberg and George K. Baum and Co. each gave the campaign $25,000; and Brandis Tallman LLC gave the campaign $15,000.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:54 Theresa Harrington

11:55

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

Linda L: back on June 7th, Theresa H. reported on who funded the bond campaign. The big donors were construction, carpenters and bond underwriters. Seems to me, that they had a vested interest in profiting from the passage of Measure C. And in fact, Juhl Darlington and Stone Youngberg will be profiting from their donation and the passing of Measure C. The article is from http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2010/06/07/who-donated-to-measure-c-campaign/.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:55 Sheila Iskin

11:55

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, I think I have three unanswered questions now: 1. Buttercup 2. commission of poll and 3. Chevron buying your meals or giving gratuities. I would appreciate an answer to each of those as you indicated at the start today.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:55 Doctor J

11:55

[Comment From anonymous 925 anonymous 925 : ]

who cares where a meeting was held? A meeting is a meeting even if it was held at the bowling alley.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:55 anonymous 925

11:56

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

Gary if the board had the final go ahead with the poll being taken. I would submit to you that the results of such poll are indeed public record and not owned by some "off the books" CUES committee.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:56 Joe Smith

11:56

Gary Eberhart:

Brett,

As I have said, until we have the final proposal that we will move forward with, we can't accurately determine the district's savings

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:56 Gary Eberhart

11:56

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, Did Greg Rolen get the board to hire his attorney friend from Chico as the bond lawyer, and his expertise is not bonds, but school administrative law ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:56 Doctor J

11:57

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Gary I undrerstand I was just wondering how chevron was projecting the proposed savings.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:57 Brett Illers

11:58

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

But Gary you have been quoting an escalation figure of between 5.5 and 6.7 all along when the industry average for projecting future energy costs is 3%. That is a huge difference in savings

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:58 Linda Loza

11:58

[Comment From Guest Guest : ]

What i do not understand is why these are the questions being asked. If wrongdoing was done then file a suit. If not then shut up and move on. This is a waste of time.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:58 Guest

11:58

[Comment From Enough Please! Enough Please! : ]

There are enough serious questions for Gary to answer without the inane ones about Buttercup and meetings at the Superintendent's house. I came here to get answers to real questions. I am not sure why this game of gotcha is important to some.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:58 Enough Please!

11:59

[Comment From Dog Dog : ]

DrJ - did you see what someone just posted about you at mdusd.blogspot?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:59 Dog

11:59

Peter Scheer:

Well, a law firm that gave money to the bond measure campaign should be the last law firm considered for the job of bond counsel. Same for the bond underwriters. At minimum, these firms and others should be subject to a competitive bidding process to protect tax payers.

I'm troubled by the appearance of a "pay to play" culture governing selection of contractors, consultants, legal, banking and other services for this huge project. This is similar to the culture of pay-to-play that has recently been exposed in CalPERS' selection of investments.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:59 Peter Scheer

11:59

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, I think the bond lawyer donated $5000 to the bond passage before his appointment, didn't he ? Or was it after his appointment ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 11:59 Doctor J

12:00

Gary Eberhart:

Typically solar providers fiddle with long term power cost escalation percentages to come up with the savings that they want to sell us on. We understand that and we will do our own savings calculations as soon as we have a final proposal.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:00 Gary Eberhart

12:01

Theresa Harrington:

Dr. J, As posted above, bond counsel Matt Juhl-Darlington gave $5,000 to the Measure C campaign on May 10. The board appointed him April 13.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:01 Theresa Harrington

12:01

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

No, what as it ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:01 Doctor J

12:01

[Comment From Cindy Cindy : ]

Peter- Theresa's timelines show that the donations were given after the organizations were hired. Are you saying that they made the donations as payback for getting the jobs?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:01 Cindy

12:02

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Linda you are correct I have figured for the last 11 years all major PG&E tarrifs that schools are subject to (A10, A6 and E19) and the escalation is right around 3.68% over 20 years it is around 3.12%

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:02 Brett Illers

12:02

[Comment From Guest #3 Guest #3 : ]

Thank you for your time Gary. This blog seems to be going no where fast! Most of people on blogs are only negative and really don't want to hear Mr. Eberhart's answers. I think one hour is enough of this.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:02 Guest #3

12:02

Theresa Harrington:

Gary, if you get the poll, will you also forward it to the Times?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:02 Theresa Harrington

12:02

[Comment From Brett Illers Brett Illers : ]

Thank you for your time Gary

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:02 Brett Illers

12:02

Peter Scheer:

The board should rescind the appointment and request competitive bids for the bond work. The financial savings will be significant.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:02 Peter Scheer

12:03

[Comment From NG Parent NG Parent : ]

Gary, I hope you don't ignore Linda's question on some of the assumptions used in the solar analysis. As all of us who work with spreadsheets know, small difference in assumptions can have enormous impacts over 40 years. The larger question here is why we would use a 40+ year bond to finance solar infrastructure that is unlikely to last even half that time. They used to call that "paying for a dead horse", but now it is called typical public finance for our district.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:03 NG Parent

12:03

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

The govt. energy cost source provided by the district at the 6/22 meeting supports 3% increases not 6.7%

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:03 Linda Loza

12:04

Gary Eberhart:

I was hopeful that there would be a number of people who were here to get there questions answered. I'm sure that people have questions given all of the misinformation that is out there. We are here trying to serve the students. It is much more difficult given the campaign of misinformation. People who have questions can e-mail me or call me. I am always available, or at least I try to be.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:04 Gary Eberhart

12:04

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

The board must become more transparent. I think Gary being on here is a good first step. I do want to see the unadulterated poll results though.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:04 Joe Smith

12:04

Gary Eberhart:

Linda, I do not use 6.7%.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:04 Gary Eberhart

12:05

Gary Eberhart:

I have a few more minutes, then I have to get back to work.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:05 Gary Eberhart

12:05

Matt Krupnick:

Gary, can you clarify what you mean by misinformation?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:05 Matt Krupnick

12:05

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary, what is your position with the Supt on getting a Strategic Plan ?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:05 Doctor J

12:05

[Comment From Adrian Callens Adrian Callens : ]

Dr J, I have been watching you on the other blogs. Who are you? If you are someone with any credibility then identify yourself. You have a lot of information but hiding behind Dr J does not help your credibility

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:05 Adrian Callens

12:06

[Comment From Joe Smith Joe Smith : ]

How about a firm commitment to post those poll results?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:06 Joe Smith

12:06

[Comment From Guest#4 Guest#4 : ]

Joe Smith- You haven't answered the question of why the poll results are so important.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:06 Guest#4

12:06

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

Gary, thank you for taking the time today to answer some questions. Could you please host a public meeting. This is a very difficult venue to hold a conversation. I appreciate your time this morning.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:06 Sheila Iskin

12:07

[Comment From Tom Kelly Tom Kelly : ]

Most responsible PV vendors today will use a conservative estimate for electricity escalation knowing that overstating the savings does not work in their favor. SRVUSD used a pro forma that showed several different scenarios with different assumptions. Even the most conservative assumptions demonstrated that the PV project (using Qualified School COnstruction Bonds - which will be available again in September) were a great deal for the district.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:07 Tom Kelly

12:07

Gary Eberhart:

Joe, i am not going to answer questions over and over

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:07 Gary Eberhart

12:07

[Comment From Rich Howard Rich Howard : ]

Gary, I also want to thank you for the time. I understand the community's need to examine the entire Measure C ballot process here. I hope the community will also understand that it's even more important to see what work is going to be done in our schools. Is all of it needed? Is the work done correctly? Does district maintneance have to come back and fix what the contractors did improperly? To me that's more important than the Buttercup Pantry.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:07 Rich Howard

12:07

[Comment From Cindy Cindy : ]

Thank you Gary for putting yourself out there. Thanks Theresa, Matt and Peter for joining in.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:07 Cindy

12:07

[Comment From Adrian Callens Adrian Callens : ]

I also want to know why the poll matters. If it was done legally isnt the fact that the voters chose important enough

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:07 Adrian Callens

12:08

[Comment From Guest#4 Guest#4 : ]

The poll issue won't die because its results led to the Board's decision to place a bond on the ballot and to the structuring of the bond. That decision touches every taxpayer in MDUSD. It is worrisome to hear some Board members say they never saw the full results of the poll or, if they did, that did not keep the report. Even more worrisome is the General Counsel's statement that the public does not have the right to see the results. Someone outside the district paid for a poll that the district/Board used to win voter support for a tax initiative. This isn't so much about the poll as it is about the willingness of Board members and the district to communicate openly with members of the community. Release the poll results and this issue will go away so more important ones can be addressed.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:08 Guest#4

12:08

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

Our current PG&E expenditures are $3.5 million annually and are increasing 6% per year. Some of that $3.5 million per year is gas, but the solar system will save at least $1.5 million per year and that reduction increase by 6% per year.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:08 Linda Loza

12:08

[Comment From Jim Jones Jim Jones : ]

Gary - How do the students feel about helping their schools go green, saving into the future and seeing solar power a reality on campus? Is their input/opinion being seriously taken into consideration by the District? In what ways? Do you see their education around solar power important as well?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:08 Jim Jones

12:08

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

n May 19 MDUSD parent blog

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:08 Linda Loza

12:08

Gary Eberhart:

The ultimate poll was done, it was the election. Despite all of the negative information that was out there, 60% of those who voted chose to support our school kids.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:08 Gary Eberhart

12:09

[Comment From Guest#4 Guest#4 : ]

I did not write the 12:08 post. Joe Smith probably did.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:09 Guest#4

12:09

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

Your words Gary from the MDUSD Parent blog on May 19. My message above was cut off.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:09 Linda Loza

12:09

Gary Eberhart:

Thanks to everyone who participated. Have a great day. Good bye

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:09 Gary Eberhart

12:10

[Comment From Adrian Callens Adrian Callens : ]

Gary, will we be seeing more information on the mdusd blog now that you have started posting again?

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:10 Adrian Callens

12:10

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

To Jim J: I think Solar sounds like a good idea on the face of things, but I haven't heard of, or seen a description for keeping the solar panels safe from vandalism.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:10 Sheila Iskin

12:10

[Comment From Guest#4 Guest#4 : ]

Joe- The bond passed as it was presented. Get over it already! There was a lot of negative info out there very intelligently presented by Linda as well as others and it still passed. Get over it please!

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:10 Guest#4

12:11

Theresa Harrington:

Thanks to Gary and Peter for participating. We will look forward to seeing the poll results.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Theresa Harrington

12:11

[Comment From Linda Loza Linda Loza : ]

The solar isn't the problem it is the lack of clear information

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Linda Loza

12:11

[Comment From Doctor J Doctor J : ]

Gary's failure to answer my questions speaks volumes about the truth

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Doctor J

12:11

Matt Krupnick:

Thanks, everyone. Good discussion.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Matt Krupnick

12:11

[Comment From Sheila Iskin Sheila Iskin : ]

To Gary, the voter pamphlet did not have an opposing argument for Measure C printed on it, and in my conversations with other voters, they did not understand the true cost of the measure, which was not laid out in the "for" argument.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Sheila Iskin

12:11

[Comment From Guest#5 Guest#5 : ]

Sorry Guest #4. I'm 12:08 and not Joe Smith.

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:11 Guest#5

12:12

[Comment From Adrian Callens Adrian Callens : ]

Dr J you did not answer my question

Wednesday July 28, 2010 12:12 Adrian Callens

12:12

[Comment From Guest#4 Guest#4 : ]

Doctor J- I don't think I want any part of your "truth"