According to an earlier JP posting, this blog has about a dozen regular contributers. If contributer equals supporter, then we must conclude that Danny has more!
Did Dan have anything to do with the illegal tax increase placed on our trash bill? the lighting and landscape fee increase? Prop C "clean water" fee? Increase development fees? Increase recreation fees? And, he wasn't his slobber all over the idea of getting the redevelopment tax increment.
Gil recently noted that the city took in $8 million more than they had before. Why the need to raise revenue even more?
Hey wait! If we are taking in $8 million more a year in three years we could have the $20 million we just borrowed!
How can Dan say in that mailer, "we must make sure not to let city expenditures outgrow income?" If that occurred, how would that be different than what we got? Can anyone explain how that statement makes any sense?
That was pure speculation about the people who post. Most visitors don't post.
Also, I am a former Danny supporter. The people on the list simply have not learned the truth, that Dan has turned to the dark side and become a tax and spend beaucrat.
Yeah, how terrible. More taxes for Encinitas residents. The nerve of suggesting the poor Olivenhain bourgeoisie pay taxes commensurately instead of being solely consumed with THEIR property values.
Real country feel, that contractor’s campaign signs littering every square foot of Loan Jack.
"Loan Jack" instead of Lone Jack, ha ha. That's funny, because it's true. . . The Lease Revenue Bond is factual proof that the city is not living within its means and DD's campaign literature should be put out with the yard waste.
City should not have punished Coast News for its No on A stance. Taking away the City Notices is unfair. Will they hold this over the head of every paper's editorial board?
Dan Dalager was screaming bloody murder about the NCT at the last Council Meeting. They were doing their job, reporting the facts about Council not pre-authorizing the production of a book reading, later justified as a "fund raiser," that cost more to produce than was brought in by donors, including an anonymous contributor of $11,000, right before an election. Smells fishy to me. Like getting around having to disclose what are essentially political contributions.
City Council wants everyone to take Council Member's deceptive words for everything, most of it decided behind our backs, in closed sessions.
Wow coool duuude, now your opinion was mere "speculation"? And let's further back away by saying "most don't post". Most don't POST!!! Eat red MEAT!!! Do what's RIGHT! See the LIGHT!!! Don't go WRONG!!! Vote DALAGER and LONG!!!
That's not my opinion of course, it's just mere speculation.
Hey rhyming asshole, who do you think you are!!! We feel like JP is allowed to back away from his words. Cause they're just words and you suck. We say Ban Dan. And we say Theresa doesn't Rhyme, but Brown makes us frown. OK, this rhyming thing is hard and gives us a headache.
JP does a service here. It's not spin, it's factually correct, with a big ol' pinch of heart and love for our community thrown in. I don't see where he's backing away from anything, either.
I think this person is one of the same ones stealing Teresa Barth's signs off private property.
Some D&D (dumb & dumber) supporter.
JP KNOWS most people who "visit" don't post. He can tell how many hits he's getting, see how many comments come in.
That great guy Tom Brown is a major developer who provides jobs to illegal aliens jobs that Americans just won't do. We should all be proud that a guy willing to bid on a job at "prevailing wage" can be so bold as to NOT pay his illegal employees the prevailing wage! Heck, they're illegal, right?
When will we read about this in the NCTimes? Does NC stand for No Country?
A dozen regular "contributors," was talking about "posters" here. There is no correlation between posters and supporters listed on Dan Dalager's bogus campaign literature that is "factually incorrect."
The Devil's in the details, Dan.
Not good to spin the city's financial health saying we are taking in more than we are paying out. If that were true, than why did you try to raise our fees re Prop C, before that, to put the fees illegally on our EDCO trash bills? Why did you try to raise our lighting and landscaping fees? Why would you not allow the bogus "revenue bond" go to a public vote, if the people are behind you?
Hey, that slogan sounds fine:
Dump Dalager; for family, home & hearth, vote for Teresa Barth!
I'm bullet voting for Teresa, but "God Bless America" is a schmuck, making comments he/she is not backing up, which is pure political crap.
First D & D try to smear Brown through that non issue about Brown's service in the special forces, (Dalager didn't serve at all) which the Coast News showed was in error. Now this. If someone had a question about this bs, they could have brought it up at a forum.
I don't think Brown is paying anyone less than prevailing wages if he has mainly had contracts for schools and govt. entities. In those cases it is mandated that prevailing wage must be paid.
Starting hate rumors sounds like something one of Christy Guerin's relatives or operatives would do, to me.
Robert Hall was the owner of the Hall Property, but Bruce Hall could be a son, or relative. Lots of Halls, probably, though.
Dan got the City to buy that, also probably arranged in closed session, and importantly, through a bogus lease revenue bond thru San Dieguito Water District, who consistently loses out because City Council, including Dalager, sits as its Board of Directors.
The Hall Property purchase should not have been financed thru the revenue stream of the SDWD ratepayers. Creative financing, is not in the best interests of the citizens. Our city Council needs to have full disclosure, be honest and above board. People would have supported the Hall Property Park if allowed to vote, too.
Uh...not sure what is going on here. My blog post get anywhere from 15 to 60 comments while my daily unique hits average at 300-800. Does that clear things up?
MORE SPIN!!!!! We believe those 10 thousand hits could've been from the same people that poasted, but they just didn't post every time. We read this and like it and so we re-post it...
Most don't POST!!! Eat red MEAT!!! Do what's RIGHT! See the LIGHT!!! Don't go WRONG!!! Vote DALAGER and LONG!!!
That's not our opinion of course, it's just mere speculation.
Brown is a major dirt contractor and President of the San Diego A.G.C. (look it up). He's proud to have personally driven some of the the bulldozers that graded a lot of New Encinitas!
Sure Brown has hired some illegals over the years, but heck, who hasn't? There's work to be done.
And yes he's paid some fines or had other issues relating to these practices, but really that's just part of the business, right?
How else does one make enough money to afford a mega McMansion in Olivenhain?
Get real! Have you demanded papers from your gardener lately? Trabahar man.Are
The total should adds up to 200%, if everyone voted twice. Those predictions by previous poster don't make sense, adding up to 166%
Remember, though, we don't have to vote twice. Many will be bullet voting for Teresa.
Our prediction, based on the outcomes of Props A and C, letters to the editor, this blog, newspaper articles, public's dissatisfaction with incumbents, and distrust of many current government officials and practices:
Teresa Barth: 57% Tom Brown: 43% Dan Dalager: 41% Doug Long: 33% Paul Martens: 12% bullet voters: 14%
Yeah the same Hubbard that has jumped year in and year out to help our collective communities even before we were one. He gets contracts because his bids are low and his crew completes their jobs on time.
Bruce Hall is the son of Robert Hall, the same Robert Hall that sold the city 40 acres at 18 million and which is now very conservativly worth 45 million. Boy did we get ripped off on that deal?
No, it was a good deal, but it should not have been financed through the "revenue stream" of the SDWD ratepayers.
That is a conflict of interest. If people wanted a park, we would have voted for it, too. Give people a chance, Gil, to exercise our freedom to vote for bonds.
If people didn't want the park, then Robert Hall could have developed it, perhaps as R-3? Or maybe just about 40 million dollar homes? It's easy to speculate, now. But the City, representing the people, should have begun the EIR right away, not the demolition, thereby breaking the law.
I know at least two names on Dalager's list of supporters who told me privately that they will not be voting for him. I asked why they signed the list. To avoid any bad repercussions they told me. And everyone says Dan is such a nice guy.
In fact Bruce Hall is the son of Robert Hall. He lives in a house on Rubenstein Avenue abutting the Hall property. At one point the city released a map showing this property as part of the Hall project. When this was pointed out, Kerry Miller said it was a mistake. Or was he trying to sneak in a viable entrance to the property, which the project still lacks?
Hey, we all got a huge increase in our equity over the last six years, not only the city on the Hall property. It's called luck, not intelligence. When all the costs are added up, we will see how good an investment it was. Decontamination? A possible $15-25 million. Viable entrance? The city's lowball estimate 4 years ago was $6 million, now probably $10-12 million. Remember costs are rising too, as that was the reason to rush the lease revenue bonds for the fire stations and public works yard. And the minimal development of the park itself was estimated around $19 million in May. If this includes pesticide remediation and a new entrance, will there be enough money to buy grass seed?
The Bonds for the Hall Property and the recent Bond sale were not financed solely from any revenue stream from any water district or any sewer district. Nowhere in any Lease Revenue Bond sold by this city is repayment stated as coming from any utility district. The only property encumbered by the bonds is the Hall property and the new Library. THIS IS A FACT.
The Bonds will be paid by any revenue generated by the Hall property and the new Library that reaches the General Fund. If there is an insuficient stream from these two properties, the defecit will be made up by the General Fund. Obviously, in the periods before there is any revenue from these sources it will come from the General Fund. FACT.
The General Fund receives it's revenue from many sources. FACT.
"If the water and sewer districts are not solely backing the Bonds, Why have our rates gone up so much?"
Now therin lies a question. Let's discuss it in detail after the election is over and the Coastal Meeting on the 14th is past.
There are answers, a lot of you will hate them, call me a lackey of the dark side, but it will be the truth as I understand it. When we start to discuss it make sure you have your records for water and sewer going back to 1993 so we can follow yearly, the rate progression.
Sad to say, but previous city finance manager Benson "cheated" on some cost-sharing that should have been charged to various utilities. This was not illegal. He had that right. Now with his departure and more equitable accounting practices, many districts have been SHOCKED by the catch-up increases. Many want to blame it on the bond issues but that is NOT the culprit. FACT.
(but you can count on a slog of bloggers trying to convince everyone that it's the bonds and that I am blind to the outright "thievery" by city councils and staffs.)
I'm off to the desert tomorrow to plant more crops and tend to those growing. Be back Tuesday in time to vote.
Remember to vote folks, you owe it to your city, state and country and yourself. No excuses. Go to the Polls or mail in your absentee ballots.
Actually there will be a revenue stream from both the Hall property and from the Library. It will not be enough to pay the bond service so the city will have to tap the general fund. The general fund is made up of existing tax revenue, NOT new taxes. Read my previous post and try to absord all of it not just a few sound bites to try to make it sound like I am wrong.
My quote was, "If there is an insuficient stream from these two properties, the defecit will be made up by the General Fund. Obviously, in the periods before there is any revenue from these sources it will come from the General Fund. FACT"
In my meeting with Jay Lembach yesturday I did not ask the question exactly as you phrased it, "If the water district rate payers aren't going to be stuck with any new costs, why is the WATER DISTRICT involved in this at all?
I don't have time this morning to make a second trip to the finance department but remind me when I get back and I will try to get a more definitive answer to your question.
As to your final question, "WHY DO WE HAVE TO SPECULATE. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A COUNCIL THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS AND EXPLAINS IT TO THE PEOPLE?"
I think the learning curve is slow and steep on lease revenue bonds. I don't completely understand all the nuances but I'm trying to learn and get up to speed.
And no it is not free money. The General fund will be impacted by the bond debt services.
Currently, our debt service ratio is 6.09%(2007). It is expected to grow to 8.94% with the new bond issue. It is projected to drop to 5.48% by the year 2016. FACT.
Encinitas is considered a "strong credit" by the major rating agencies. For strong credit a DSR of 15 to 20% is considered healthy, below 10% is considered extremely healthy. FACT.
For comparison, what % of your monthly income goes to service YOUR debt. For most families it is more than 8.94%. FACT
This is a very financially healthy city from a debt service ratio standpoint. FACT
Gil is factually wrong. He needs to go back and look at the "Joint Exercise of Power Agreement" that created the the Encinitas Public Financing Authority (EPFA). Under this agreement the city itself has no financial liability, but the participating agencies do. FACT. It is the San Dieguito Water District that is the participating agency and has the obligation of debt service for the Hall property lease revenue bonds. FACT. If there is not enough money in the general fund, then the money must come from the SDWD as specified in the agreement. FACT. The Hall property has never generated a penny and seems unlikely in the near future to ever generate a penny in a revenue stream. FACT. That leaves the rate payers of the SDWD to pick up any shortfall. FACT. The State Supreme Court decision in July 2006 has made it illegal to use agency money transfers to pay for unrelated expenses. FACT. The newest lease revenue bonds did not use the SDWD as the the participating agency, but the library itself. That means the library is the revenue stream. FACT. It looks like fees and services at the library will be very expensive. OPINION.
The council should learn from this. Gil should agree that someone on the council should be out there clearing the air, not always Gil. How is it that none of the council are willing to have real public dialogue?
Gil most people I know agree with the point, "This is a very financially healthy city from a debt service ratio standpoint." We also have a good credit rating.
The rating only means that creditors can expect that we can pay back the bonds. The rating doesn't measure the wisdom of using the credit. As for a debt ratio that doesn't really mean much does it.
Don't forget, Investment on credit can be good. Investment with cash is better. We could have paid cash. Why hold on to Quail Gardens now. YOU KNOW there was backroom decisions over that. Why not sell that property before the real estate market completely tanks.
SDWD ratepayers were used as a revenue stream for the initial revenue bond to purchase the Hall property. Gil is wrong on that. The park itself was not used to secure the revenue bond.
This second lease revenue bond, does attempt, improperly, to use the future library, itself, as a revenue stream source, allegedly to secure the bond. James Bond has complained at Council Meetings, more than once, that this isn't a good idea as the City does not own a portion of the land that the library will someday (we hope) sit on. The County does.
Realistically, the revenue stream is the General Fund. That is why both of these bonds, legally, should have been designated General Obligation Bonds, and the people should have been allowed to vote. Our understanding is that there was an exception for water and sewer utilities, that fees could be raised, or bonds secured by these agencies without going to a public vote.
But to use these "constructs" as a way to get around giving people a chance to vote is plain wrong. In Dan Dalager's case, he and his wife got to "vote" by choosing to finance their home thru a 30 yr. mortgage. Council has disallowed us to have a say in this matter, and has ignored our objections, always harping on the fact that we have a good credit rating.
Our good credit rating would be one more reason that people would have likely been willing to vote for the bond to purchase the Hall Property, or for money, now, to develop it. We were robbed of our right to vote by spin and deception.
Also, it doesn't make sense for the library to secure debt that is going to pay for development of the Hall Property and the fire McMansions, and purchasing and refurbishing the Mossy Property.
To us it seems that legitimately, that money should be going directly to completion of the library. All the rest could come out of the General Fund, as it is, now, anyway.
FACT: General Fund financing should equal General Obligation Bond. Simple. Lease Revenue means there is some other revenue stream, NOW, not some projected late fees from the library, etc.
That's hogwash, Gil.
I read my sample voter's ballot. Dan Dalager tells a direct untruth in his statement printed there, that the Library IS on time and on budget.
FACT: Dan Dalager spins the truth, is not being honest with us or himself.
FACT: Gil is wrong about the SDWD revenue stream, but is right that he doesn't understand lease revenue bond financing. It's complicated so that lawyers and consultants and lenders make their fees, and the citizens are told they don't get to decide.
Half those people are old friends of Danny and don't have a clue. They just think Dan is all about the Park.
ReplyDeleteHalf the rest are Ecke and associates. Hubbard is an interesting one. Same Hubbard that is always somehow getting all those public works contracts?
Is Bruce Hall the same guy that sold us the Hall property?
Rob Machado. Huh?
According to an earlier JP posting, this blog has about a dozen regular contributers.
ReplyDeleteIf contributer equals supporter, then we must conclude that Danny has more!
Let us see.
ReplyDeleteDid Dan have anything to do with the illegal tax increase placed on our trash bill? the lighting and landscape fee increase? Prop C "clean water" fee? Increase development fees? Increase recreation fees? And, he wasn't his slobber all over the idea of getting the redevelopment tax increment.
Gil recently noted that the city took in $8 million more than they had before. Why the need to raise revenue even more?
Hey wait! If we are taking in $8 million more a year in three years we could have the $20 million we just borrowed!
How can Dan say in that mailer, "we must make sure not to let city expenditures outgrow income?" If that occurred, how would that be different than what we got? Can anyone explain how that statement makes any sense?
If didn't know that Dan was full of crap I would be a support too. It is not their fault that they believe, Dan IS a nice guy.
ReplyDeleteThat was pure speculation about the people who post. Most visitors don't post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am a former Danny supporter. The people on the list simply have not learned the truth, that Dan has turned to the dark side and become a tax and spend beaucrat.
Yeah, how terrible. More taxes for Encinitas residents. The nerve of suggesting the poor Olivenhain bourgeoisie pay taxes commensurately instead of being solely consumed with THEIR property values.
ReplyDeleteReal country feel, that contractor’s campaign signs littering every square foot of Loan Jack.
...0r the plumber. Lord. Symbolic, or what?
--R
"Loan Jack" instead of Lone Jack, ha ha. That's funny, because it's true. . . The Lease Revenue Bond is factual proof that the city is not living within its means and DD's campaign literature should be put out with the yard waste.
ReplyDeleteCity should not have punished Coast News for its No on A stance. Taking away the City Notices is unfair. Will they hold this over the head of every paper's editorial board?
Dan Dalager was screaming bloody murder about the NCT at the last Council Meeting. They were doing their job, reporting the facts about Council not pre-authorizing the production of a book reading, later justified as a "fund raiser," that cost more to produce than was brought in by donors, including an anonymous contributor of $11,000, right before an election. Smells fishy to me. Like getting around having to disclose what are essentially political contributions.
City Council wants everyone to take Council Member's deceptive words for everything, most of it decided behind our backs, in closed sessions.
Booo!
Suddenly JP has spin!!!
ReplyDeleteWow coool duuude, now your opinion was mere "speculation"? And let's further back away by saying "most don't post".
Most don't POST!!!
Eat red MEAT!!!
Do what's RIGHT!
See the LIGHT!!!
Don't go WRONG!!!
Vote DALAGER and LONG!!!
That's not my opinion of course, it's just mere speculation.
Hey rhyming asshole, who do you think you are!!!
ReplyDeleteWe feel like JP is allowed to back away from his words. Cause they're just words and you suck.
We say Ban Dan. And we say Theresa doesn't Rhyme, but Brown makes us frown.
OK, this rhyming thing is hard and gives us a headache.
JP does a service here. It's not spin, it's factually correct, with a big ol' pinch of heart and love for our community thrown in. I don't see where he's backing away from anything, either.
ReplyDeleteI think this person is one of the same ones stealing Teresa Barth's signs off private property.
Some D&D (dumb & dumber) supporter.
JP KNOWS most people who "visit" don't post. He can tell how many hits he's getting, see how many comments come in.
Don't go wrong
ReplyDeleteDitch Dalager,
Lose Long.
For family, home & hearth,
bullet vote
for Teresa Barth
That great guy Tom Brown is a major developer who provides jobs to illegal aliens jobs that Americans just won't do. We should all be proud that a guy willing to bid on a job at "prevailing wage" can be so bold as to NOT pay his illegal employees the prevailing wage! Heck, they're illegal, right?
ReplyDeleteWhen will we read about this in the NCTimes?
Does NC stand for No Country?
A dozen regular "contributors," was talking about "posters" here. There is no correlation between posters and supporters listed on Dan Dalager's bogus campaign literature that is "factually incorrect."
ReplyDeleteThe Devil's in the details, Dan.
Not good to spin the city's financial health saying we are taking in more than we are paying out. If that were true, than why did you try to raise our fees re Prop C, before that, to put the fees illegally on our EDCO trash bills? Why did you try to raise our lighting and landscaping fees? Why would you not allow the bogus "revenue bond" go to a public vote, if the people are behind you?
Hey, that slogan sounds fine:
Dump Dalager;
for family, home & hearth,
vote for Teresa Barth!
I'm bullet voting for Teresa, but "God Bless America" is a schmuck, making comments he/she is not backing up, which is pure political crap.
ReplyDeleteFirst D & D try to smear Brown through that non issue about Brown's service in the special forces, (Dalager didn't serve at all) which the Coast News showed was in error. Now this. If someone had a question about this bs, they could have brought it up at a forum.
I don't think Brown is paying anyone less than prevailing wages if he has mainly had contracts for schools and govt. entities. In those cases it is mandated that prevailing wage must be paid.
Starting hate rumors sounds like something one of Christy Guerin's relatives or operatives would do, to me.
Bossypants Guerin, Dalager and Long are all in the same camp.
ReplyDeleteHope that people tell their friends and neighbors. Don't buy into the jive, the spin, and the political favortism.
Vote for Teresa Barth.
Robert Hall was the owner of the Hall Property, but Bruce Hall could be a son, or relative. Lots of Halls, probably, though.
ReplyDeleteDan got the City to buy that, also probably arranged in closed session, and importantly, through a bogus lease revenue bond thru San Dieguito Water District, who consistently loses out because City Council, including Dalager, sits as its Board of Directors.
The Hall Property purchase should not have been financed thru the revenue stream of the SDWD ratepayers. Creative financing, is not in the best interests of the citizens. Our city Council needs to have full disclosure, be honest and above board. People would have supported the Hall Property Park if allowed to vote, too.
Uh...not sure what is going on here. My blog post get anywhere from 15 to 60 comments while my daily unique hits average at 300-800. Does that clear things up?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I just checked my stats. This blog got 10,455 hits in the month of Oct. so obviously most people just read and don't post comments.
ReplyDeleteMORE SPIN!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe believe those 10 thousand hits could've been from the same people that poasted, but they just didn't post every time. We read this and like it and so we re-post it...
Most don't POST!!!
Eat red MEAT!!!
Do what's RIGHT!
See the LIGHT!!!
Don't go WRONG!!!
Vote DALAGER and LONG!!!
That's not our opinion of course, it's just mere speculation.
huh?
ReplyDeleteI'm voting Brown and Pablo.
ReplyDeleteBrown is a major dirt contractor
and President of the San Diego A.G.C. (look it up). He's proud to have personally driven some of the the bulldozers that graded a lot of New Encinitas!
Sure Brown has hired some illegals over the years, but heck, who hasn't? There's work to be done.
And yes he's paid some fines or had other issues relating to these practices, but really that's just part of the business, right?
How else does one make enough money to afford a mega McMansion in Olivenhain?
Get real! Have you demanded papers from your gardener lately?
Trabahar man.Are
you reading us No Country Times?
Wow everytime J.P. puts up a new post some drunken Dalager supporter comes out of the woodwork within minutes. A paid stalker???
ReplyDeleteEcke ranch has been a mecca for illegal aliens for over 50 years but pundits call him a hero.
ReplyDeleteRemember when the illegals were rioting because Ecke was ripping them off?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who votes for "pablo" Is a clueless as Dalager.
ReplyDeletelove the dialog, but really now, To we have to call someone an asshole because they post they are voting for Long and Dalager?
ReplyDeleteDalager 52%
Barth 42%
Long 41%
Brown 27%
Martens 4%
Don't go wrong
ReplyDeleteDitch Dalager,
Lose Long.
For family, home & hearth,
bullet vote
for Teresa Barth
where'd you get the poll numbers?
ReplyDeletenot poll numbers,
ReplyDeletejust predictions
The total should adds up to 200%, if everyone voted twice. Those predictions by previous poster don't make sense, adding up to 166%
ReplyDeleteRemember, though, we don't have to vote twice. Many will be bullet voting for Teresa.
Our prediction, based on the outcomes of Props A and C, letters to the editor, this blog, newspaper articles, public's dissatisfaction with incumbents, and distrust of many current government officials and practices:
Teresa Barth: 57%
Tom Brown: 43%
Dan Dalager: 41%
Doug Long: 33%
Paul Martens: 12%
bullet voters: 14%
Yeah the same Hubbard that has jumped year in and year out to help our collective communities even before we were one. He gets contracts because his bids are low and his crew completes their jobs on time.
ReplyDeleteBruce Hall is the son of Robert Hall, the same Robert Hall that sold the city 40 acres at 18 million and which is now very conservativly worth 45 million. Boy did we get ripped off on that deal?
No, it was a good deal, but it should not have been financed through the "revenue stream" of the SDWD ratepayers.
ReplyDeleteThat is a conflict of interest. If people wanted a park, we would have voted for it, too. Give people a chance, Gil, to exercise our freedom to vote for bonds.
If people didn't want the park, then Robert Hall could have developed it, perhaps as R-3? Or maybe just about 40 million dollar homes? It's easy to speculate, now. But the City, representing the people, should have begun the EIR right away, not the demolition, thereby breaking the law.
I know at least two names on Dalager's list of supporters who told me privately that they will not be voting for him. I asked why they signed the list. To avoid any bad repercussions they told me. And everyone says Dan is such a nice guy.
ReplyDeleteIn fact Bruce Hall is the son of Robert Hall. He lives in a house on Rubenstein Avenue abutting the Hall property. At one point the city released a map showing this property as part of the Hall project. When this was pointed out, Kerry Miller said it was a mistake. Or was he trying to sneak in a viable entrance to the property, which the project still lacks?
Hey, we all got a huge increase in our equity over the last six years, not only the city on the Hall property. It's called luck, not intelligence. When all the costs are added up, we will see how good an investment it was. Decontamination? A possible $15-25 million. Viable entrance? The city's lowball estimate 4 years ago was $6 million, now probably $10-12 million. Remember costs are rising too, as that was the reason to rush the lease revenue bonds for the fire stations and public works yard. And the minimal development of the park itself was estimated around $19 million in May. If this includes pesticide remediation and a new entrance, will there be enough money to buy grass seed?
The Bonds for the Hall Property and the recent Bond sale were not financed solely from any revenue stream from any water district or any sewer district. Nowhere in any Lease Revenue Bond sold by this city is repayment stated as coming from any utility district.
ReplyDeleteThe only property encumbered by the bonds is the Hall property and the new Library. THIS IS A FACT.
The Bonds will be paid by any revenue generated by the Hall property and the new Library that reaches the General Fund. If there is an insuficient stream from these two properties, the defecit will be made up by the General Fund. Obviously, in the periods before there is any revenue from these sources it will come from the General Fund. FACT.
The General Fund receives it's revenue from many sources. FACT.
"If the water and sewer districts are not solely backing the Bonds, Why have our rates gone up so much?"
Now therin lies a question. Let's discuss it in detail after the election is over and the Coastal Meeting on the 14th is past.
There are answers, a lot of you will hate them, call me a lackey of the dark side, but it will be the truth as I understand it. When we start to discuss it make sure you have your records for water and sewer going back to 1993 so we can follow yearly, the rate progression.
Sad to say, but previous city finance manager Benson "cheated" on some cost-sharing that should have been charged to various utilities. This was not illegal. He had that right. Now with his departure and more equitable accounting practices, many districts have been SHOCKED by the catch-up increases. Many want to blame it on the bond issues but that is NOT the culprit. FACT.
(but you can count on a slog of bloggers trying to convince everyone that it's the bonds and that I am blind to the outright "thievery" by city councils and staffs.)
I'm off to the desert tomorrow to plant more crops and tend to those growing. Be back Tuesday in time to vote.
Remember to vote folks, you owe it to your city, state and country and yourself. No excuses. Go to the Polls or mail in your absentee ballots.
Perhaps Gil will bring his information on Benson.
ReplyDeleteGil writes, "The Bonds will be paid by any revenue generated by the Hall property and the new Library."
ReplyDelete$30+ million dollar pay off from late fees and soccer mom bake sales, Gil?
There IS NO REVENUE STREAM being created! That is why this is not on solid legal ground. FACT.
Gil,
ReplyDeleteIf the water district rate payers aren't going to be stuck with any new costs, why is the WATER DISTRICT involved in this at all?
They are involved. FACT.
What I don't get and you seem to understand is why the Water District is involved, but yet, you seem to think they have no financial stake?
Biggest question of all. WHY DO WE HAVE TO SPECULATE. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A COUNCIL THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS AND EXPLAINS IT TO THE PEOPLE?
I don't get why Gil keeps point out, "The only property encumbered by the bonds is the Hall property and the new Library."
ReplyDeleteWhy does this matter? Seems like the general fund is going to be impacted by this liability big time. It is not free money, right?
Actually there will be a revenue stream from both the Hall property and from the Library. It will not be enough to pay the bond service so the city will have to tap the general fund. The general fund is made up of existing tax revenue, NOT new taxes. Read my previous post and try to absord all of it not just a few sound bites to try to make it sound like I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteMy quote was, "If there is an insuficient stream from these two properties, the defecit will be made up by the General Fund. Obviously, in the periods before there is any revenue from these sources it will come from the General Fund. FACT"
In my meeting with Jay Lembach yesturday I did not ask the question exactly as you phrased it, "If the water district rate payers aren't going to be stuck with any new costs, why is the WATER DISTRICT involved in this at all?
I don't have time this morning to make a second trip to the finance department but remind me when I get back and I will try to get a more definitive answer to your question.
As to your final question, "WHY DO WE HAVE TO SPECULATE. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A COUNCIL THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS AND EXPLAINS IT TO THE PEOPLE?"
I think the learning curve is slow and steep on lease revenue bonds. I don't completely understand all the nuances but I'm trying to learn and get up to speed.
And no it is not free money. The General fund will be impacted by the bond debt services.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, our debt service ratio is 6.09%(2007). It is expected to grow to 8.94% with the new bond issue. It is projected to drop to 5.48% by the year 2016. FACT.
Encinitas is considered a "strong credit" by the major rating agencies. For strong credit a DSR of 15 to 20% is considered healthy, below 10% is considered extremely healthy. FACT.
For comparison, what % of your monthly income goes to service YOUR debt. For most families it is more than 8.94%. FACT
This is a very financially healthy city from a debt service ratio standpoint. FACT
Gil is factually wrong. He needs to go back and look at the "Joint Exercise of Power Agreement" that created the the Encinitas Public Financing Authority (EPFA). Under this agreement the city itself has no financial liability, but the participating agencies do. FACT. It is the San Dieguito Water District that is the participating agency and has the obligation of debt service for the Hall property lease revenue bonds. FACT. If there is not enough money in the general fund, then the money must come from the SDWD as specified in the agreement. FACT. The Hall property has never generated a penny and seems unlikely in the near future to ever generate a penny in a revenue stream. FACT. That leaves the rate payers of the SDWD to pick up any shortfall. FACT. The State Supreme Court decision in July 2006 has made it illegal to use agency money transfers to pay for unrelated expenses. FACT. The newest lease revenue bonds did not use the SDWD as the the participating agency, but the library itself. That means the library is the revenue stream. FACT. It looks like fees and services at the library will be very expensive. OPINION.
ReplyDeleteGil, FACT - City hall isn't open today.
ReplyDeleteFACT - Jay Lembach holds back reports. You must ask the right questions to get those reports.
The council should learn from this. Gil should agree that someone on the council should be out there clearing the air, not always Gil. How is it that none of the council are willing to have real public dialogue?
ReplyDeleteGil most people I know agree with the point, "This is a very financially healthy city from a debt service ratio standpoint." We also have a good credit rating.
The rating only means that creditors can expect that we can pay back the bonds. The rating doesn't measure the wisdom of using the credit. As for a debt ratio that doesn't really mean much does it.
Don't forget,
Investment on credit can be good. Investment with cash is better. We could have paid cash. Why hold on to Quail Gardens now. YOU KNOW there was backroom decisions over that. Why not sell that property before the real estate market completely tanks.
Yeah,
ReplyDeleteIf things are so peachy why does the finance department keep the cards so close?
SDWD ratepayers were used as a revenue stream for the initial revenue bond to purchase the Hall property. Gil is wrong on that. The park itself was not used to secure the revenue bond.
ReplyDeleteThis second lease revenue bond, does attempt, improperly, to use the future library, itself, as a revenue stream source, allegedly to secure the bond. James Bond has complained at Council Meetings, more than once, that this isn't a good idea as the City does not own a portion of the land that the library will someday (we hope) sit on. The County does.
Realistically, the revenue stream is the General Fund. That is why both of these bonds, legally, should have been designated General Obligation Bonds, and the people should have been allowed to vote. Our understanding is that there was an exception for water and sewer utilities, that fees could be raised, or bonds secured by these agencies without going to a public vote.
But to use these "constructs" as a way to get around giving people a chance to vote is plain wrong. In Dan Dalager's case, he and his wife got to "vote" by choosing to finance their home thru a 30 yr. mortgage. Council has disallowed us to have a say in this matter, and has ignored our objections, always harping on the fact that we have a good credit rating.
Our good credit rating would be one more reason that people would have likely been willing to vote for the bond to purchase the Hall Property, or for money, now, to develop it. We were robbed of our right to vote by spin and deception.
Also, it doesn't make sense for the library to secure debt that is going to pay for development of the Hall Property and the fire McMansions, and purchasing and refurbishing the Mossy Property.
To us it seems that legitimately, that money should be going directly to completion of the library. All the rest could come out of the General Fund, as it is, now, anyway.
FACT: Gil is factually incorrect.
FACT: General Fund financing should equal General Obligation Bond. Simple. Lease Revenue means there is some other revenue stream, NOW, not some projected late fees from the library, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's hogwash, Gil.
I read my sample voter's ballot. Dan Dalager tells a direct untruth in his statement printed there, that the Library IS on time and on budget.
FACT: Dan Dalager spins the truth, is not being honest with us or himself.
FACT: Gil is wrong about the SDWD revenue stream, but is right that he doesn't understand lease revenue bond financing. It's complicated so that lawyers and consultants and lenders make their fees, and the citizens are told they don't get to decide.