PUSD Superintendent to Address Bond Controversy at Board Meeting

Poway Unified has been under fire for a bond that could end up costing the district nearly $1 billion.

Poway Unified Superintendent John Collins is expected to address the controversy over a bond that could end up costing the district nearly $1 billion during Monday's 6 p.m. board meeting, a district spokeswoman said.

The district has been under fire since an  that a $105 million bond could end up costing the district nearly $1 billion to repay. While the district issued a statement two days after the report, board members have not responded to requests for comment. Collins is expected to talk about the controversy during his allotted time for superintendent comments at Monday's meeting, though the bond itself is not on the agenda.

The meeting begins at 6 p.m. Monday at the , 15250 Avenue of Science, San Diego.

The meeting room will have seats to accomodate 150 people, PUSD spokeswoman Sharon Raffer said, and members of the public will be able to address the board during the "C" portion of the agenda. Those who want to speak will need to fill out a speaker slip, which are usually available on a table just outside of the meeting room door in the lobby. Speakers typically have three minutes to address the board.

The board agenda also includes a vote on a new contract with the Poway School Employees Association and tax bonds for Community Facilities District No. 6 (4S Ranch).

The full and abbreviated agendas are attached.



Clariece Tally August 21, 2012 at 04:03 AM
Ok we all survived the biggest sale pitch ever. Apparently the Board feels that because they were able to finance 24 new buildings we should just be freakin' thrilled that the last bond was 9.1 to 1. We were treated to a PowerPoint of pretty new school buildings. Thank you to Marc Davis who made the most telling statement - had the Board included a "call" feature (which would have cost around $100M) we would be able to refinance this mess at a far lower rate. The school board attempted to repeatedly blame the taxpayer for the fact THE BOARD chose a 9.1 rate of return. Thank you to Vance Schraeder (sic) for pointing out the average bond rate was at or around 4.
Clariece Tally August 21, 2012 at 04:04 AM
Second, this is not a "political" agenda. That's a weak argument from those who realized that the school board was irresponsible.
han san August 21, 2012 at 05:19 AM
Clearly the board & supperintendent had already predetemined mind that they wanted to do the project, although the voters, already denied it several times. Eventually, the state that changed the rule for passing, who knows if they participated in crafting the new rule. The truth is most voters did not know the actual impact, they got sucked under the umbrella "for the benefits of the children education", really?.
Joe St. Lucas August 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM
I haven't looked this up yet, but do any of the school board members live in an area that will get hit w. this later, or are they in mello-roos or other "exempt" areas?
Joe St. Lucas August 21, 2012 at 04:10 PM
The taxpayers approved a measure that "they thought" was going to extend the prop u bond at a $55/$100,000 payback rate. That was the direction that THE BOARD should have followed. Instead, THE BOARD got some financing ignoring the rate. Read the prop c "without an estimated increase". This is fraud since this will be nowhere near the "$55 rate", this is gross mismanagement of our money, perhaps senior abuse since many of us will be living on fixed incomes when this hits and will probably lose our houses to back unpaid taxes. Of course THE BOARD is in CYA mode.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »