Neighbor wrote on May 13, 2008 6:38 AM:NCTD sold an extra $34M in bonds when they were building the Sprinter. This extra $34M was sold to the Board as an income stream as the interest that NCTD was going to earn was going to be greater than the interest that NCTD would pay out to bond holders. Surprise, surprise, NCTD spent the money, they won't disclose on what, and now they lose money on this deal each month. The school Board should just say NO! The residents of San Marcos should tell the Board that this plan is insane.

No End In Sight... wrote on May 13, 2008 7:43 AM:Unbelieveable. This is truly "Robbing from Peter to pay Paul". It is putting your house payments on a credit card ! If the School District wants to earn money, good for them, but not by floating MORE bonds which have to be paid by each and every taxpayer. The School Board is also going after a School Improvement Bond - just like the one they passed on the late 1990s, to improve what they borrowed the LAST Bond Issue money for. Borrow, borrow, borrow. There seems to be no end in sight as to the lengths the School District will go. They really have no oversight and the public doesn't know what is coming.

Huh wrote on May 13, 2008 8:03 AM:Just a few days ago was an article about how the City of San Marcos is in decent financial shape despite the economy, primarily because of some outside-the-box thinking (and actin) when it comes to generating revenue. It invested in income generating property which no one can deny has been very benefical. People complained then just as "No End" is complaining now. This venture by the school district is only risky if the money earns an average of less than 5% on the money invested, which would be unprecedented. Even the most conservative established investiment funds earn more on average than 5%. If it earns more than that, which it should easily (of course, there are never guarantees) then the district is at a huge advantage (saving the taxpayers potentially millions). In my view the risk is small and the upside is great.

Investor wrote on May 13, 2008 9:02 AM:While I certainly don't know all the details to this I can tell you that this could be a very wise move. Don't jump to conclusions until you've done the research. This is not a new idea in the investment world. It's sound financial planning given the right circumstances.

Resident wrote on May 13, 2008 9:11 AM:I have never known this district to be anything other than ultra conservative. This board is not made up of risk takers. During the last election the public wanted the district to deal with this problem. They did. Good job.

ToNoEndInSight wrote on May 13, 2008 9:28 AM:Maybe you should go to the board meetings to see how the board operates. I have gone a couple times. I listen to the audio of the meetings. Some do their work, others don't.

To the school board wrote on May 13, 2008 10:51 AM:what are retirees too good to use neighborhood clinics?

to NoEndInSight wrote on May 13, 2008 11:45 AM:Your statement is inaccurate, this bond is very different than a facilities bond and will actually save the district and tax payers millions per year right out of the general fund. If you want to blame someone, blame the Unions and past boards (including regrettably some still serving on the board) for pushing this district into having to deal with this huge debt in its future (which is now) with no plan. The past boards and administrators are to blame and have sold out this district and forced the current board to deal with its fallout all to maintain "good relations" with the Unions. Maybe that why the oldest, longest serving, and most union entrenched board member is the only one that voted against it.

Good Idea wrote on May 13, 2008 3:12 PM:While this may be a new concept for school districts, it has been used for years to fund pension obligations. If the District does nothing, this money will have to come out of the General Fund in much greater amounts as the years go by. That will definitely impact the classroom. As individuals, many of us invest per paycheck in mutual funds/stocks, leaving our money and dividends to accrue. Some years are good and some, not so good. Through the power of dollar cost averaging, though, many of us come out way ahead without having to "time" the market. Simplistically, it looks like that is what San Marcos is going to do. It's a good strategy for families and looks to be great for SMUSD especially if they invest in a solid company with a high historical rate of return like CALPERS.

mike in LSM wrote on May 13, 2008 4:09 PM:If the Board adopts this plan, they should make certain to include sufficient funds to cover those currently working. Otherwise, we will be in a never-ending cycle of paying future dollars to fund current and past liabilities for this benefit for those now working.

Taxpayer wrote on May 13, 2008 5:08 PM:If this will save money in the long run and its invested in calpers what is the problem. Most financial planners will tell you that this is a great time to get in the market to be ready for the upside.

To Mike wrote on May 14, 2008 1:26 PM:At the end of the article, it states that:
"Those reductions, reflected in the $177 million shortfall, included new rules stating that employees hired after July 1, 2007, are not eligible for retiree health benefits and the district has a maximum contribution cap of $11,265." It sounds like this problem has an endpoint as employees hired after 7-07 won't get retiree health benefits.

Good Grief wrote on May 16, 2008 3:12 AM:Does the word arbitrage mean anything to you? These people are incompetent, they've spent themselves into oblivion giving away the farm to Pia's Union. Remember when they wrote a $250,000 check to force the "retirement" of Superintendent Brand because he told them they had to stop the fiscal bleeding. Nice going, these board guys are junkies addicted to overcrowded classrooms and overcrowded schools cramming the cattle in to get their per head payments. This will end in bankruptcy.