Can someone explain to me why, after putting together a committee, with several subcommittees, the city council chose to recommend a community center instead of some of the infrastructure improvements that were ranked much higher?
Upcoming Bond Election and CAC recommendations
7,873 Views |
48 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by atm86
Where are you seeing this? Not saying it didn't happen, but I was under the impression that the council hasn't even called for a bond election yet, let alone decided what was going to be on it from the committee's list.
Are you sure they weren't getting more information about all the projects the committee looked at?
Are you sure they weren't getting more information about all the projects the committee looked at?
They haven't chosen anything yet. They are still getting recommendations from the committees.
I think it was in reference to this: CSTX Blog
A community center was discussed during last week's workshop meeting simply because that was one of the proposed facility projects reviewed and ranked by the citizen committee. That presentation focused on options for the police department, a seventh fire station and a community center. The council did not give staff any direction regarding those projects; they merely asked questions.
Look for much deeper discussion and specific direction later this month. If a bond election is to be called, a decision on projects for the ballot must be made soon.
-jgs
Look for much deeper discussion and specific direction later this month. If a bond election is to be called, a decision on projects for the ballot must be made soon.
-jgs
That's good to know.
I'm still not sure why, though, the council even focused on that option, when there were several other, more desired projects that were recommended. Why bring it up at all? Just drop it.
I'm still not sure why, though, the council even focused on that option, when there were several other, more desired projects that were recommended. Why bring it up at all? Just drop it.
quote:The council is doing what they are supposed to do - they are reviewing ALL of the recommendations sent to them from the bond committee. The community center did get added to the bond list for council's consideration by the committee - it just didn't rank as high as the others. The city council will weigh these rankings, but it is ultimately the council's decision as to what gets put on the bond.
That's good to know.
I'm still not sure why, though, the council even focused on that option, when there were several other, more desired projects that were recommended. Why bring it up at all? Just drop it.
When you say there are other "more desired projects" on the list, I guess it depends on your definition of desired. If "desired" means "needed by the city", then you are correct. If "desired" means "wanted by the people that actually show up at public meetings held by the bond committee", then you are wrong. From what I understand, the public that actually showed up at the bond public meetings were mostly represented by a large group of seniors that are pushing for a community center.
That said, I can't imagine the council putting it on the ballot.
When I see 7 or 8 other projects that their committee and subcommittees rated as higher priorities for the city, but they still wanted that project presented as an option, it, to me, part and parcel the same bogus mindset that has beset our CC for years. At least, those other projects should have had an appropriate presentation. I would assume that the CC requested those 3 projects be highlighted and discussed in more detail for a reason. This community center shouldn't even be considered if it isn't in the top 25% of recommended projects after previously being voted down.
I am sure you are correct in that they are listening to the people that show up to the meetings, but they should listen to the community members that made up their committee, as well as the city, as a whole, based on the previous election in 2008 ( I cannot believe it has been that long ago ).
I am sure you are correct in that they are listening to the people that show up to the meetings, but they should listen to the community members that made up their committee, as well as the city, as a whole, based on the previous election in 2008 ( I cannot believe it has been that long ago ).
Put everything on the ballot SEPARATELY.
I'm sick of these huge bond elections where all sorts of carp gets lumped together. I will continue to vote against every bond if they continue to feed us this garbage.
I'm sick of these huge bond elections where all sorts of carp gets lumped together. I will continue to vote against every bond if they continue to feed us this garbage.
My concern continues to be the shell game played regarding raising taxes. In 2008 voters were told there would be no tax increase if they voted for certain items. Those items were subsequently passed. Then last year (interestingly, the year just before they decide to make a run at another bond issue) taxes were raised to the tune of 12.09% ($53.08 on a $200,000 home), in spite of rising tax revenue from both property and sales taxes. Why? The stated reason was "inflation", but a look at page 110 of the city's 2014-2015 Approved Annual Budget may suggest otherwise:
quote:
In November of 2008, voters approved $76,950,000 in GOB authorization for streets, traffic, a new fire station, the Library expansion project, and parks and recreation projects including an addition at the Lincoln Center and the Lick Creek Park Nature Center. In FY14, $13,690,000 in General Obligation debt was issued and $12,045,000 in CO (certificates of obligation) debt for General Government Capital projects was issued. The amount of debt issued in FY14 is intended to cover the needs in both FY14 and FY15. Therefore, it is not anticipated that debt will be issued in FY15 for capital projects. (italics added)
Each year, an analysis is done to determine what resources are needed and if refunding and call options are available and in the best interest of the City. It is not known at this time whether refunding will be done in FY15. The following section contains a schedule of requirements and a summary of requirements for all GOBs (general obligation bonds) and COs. The detailed information for each individual GOB and CO is found in Appendix H.
There is a projected 11% decrease in the FY15 ending fund balance when compared to the FY14 year-end ending fund balance. This is due to an increase in the anticipated debt service payments in FY15. (italics added)
Looks like the council decided to kick this can down the road to next year.
http://cstx.gov/index.aspx?page=3957
http://cstx.gov/index.aspx?page=3957
quote:
UPDATE: At its Aug. 13 meeting, the city council decided to forego a bond election and fund various transportation projects and the design of a new police station with certificates of obligation. The FY16 budget will include funding to research options for a community center. Projects not funded this year through COs such as the construction of new police and fire stations and a community center could be part of a November 2016 bond election.
Does anyone know which "various" transportation projects they are proceeding with this year? Or is that yet to be decided?
Pretty sure this means that CSISD will have a bond election this year, I know they wanted one. They don't like to have them the same year since can provoke people to actually look into what they are proposing. This also lets the counsel and staff choose their pet projects without much recourse from the citizens. Also allows them to spend money for design and when the citizens say they want something different for the police station they can say we already spent $1M designing it this way so if we change it will all be wasted.
That said I have heard that the Police chief does not think a lake or causeway is requirement for a police station. My understanding is that he wants facility that is designed for growth up to what would be needed to support a city of 300,000. Of course this makes sense so he probably will be terminated for injecting logic into college station proceedings. I would love for him to address distributed stations since it seems unrealistic to have a single station with >1/4Mil population. In addition having a discussion why COCS has to have their own dispatch and its associated cost and inefficiencies would be good. Also would be good for the city to enumerate their plan for reuse of the existing police station. Very hard to repurpose a jail but at times I think it would be a good location for P&Z.
That said I have heard that the Police chief does not think a lake or causeway is requirement for a police station. My understanding is that he wants facility that is designed for growth up to what would be needed to support a city of 300,000. Of course this makes sense so he probably will be terminated for injecting logic into college station proceedings. I would love for him to address distributed stations since it seems unrealistic to have a single station with >1/4Mil population. In addition having a discussion why COCS has to have their own dispatch and its associated cost and inefficiencies would be good. Also would be good for the city to enumerate their plan for reuse of the existing police station. Very hard to repurpose a jail but at times I think it would be a good location for P&Z.
quote:I see what you did there.
Very hard to repurpose a jail but at times I think it would be a good location for P&Z
A bump for a question...
anyone on here able to explain the difference between certificates of obligation and having a formal bond offering?
why would the city council choose to postpone the bond offering until next November - with the Presidential election cycle? The only thing I can think of is that they think that, in order to get their pet project of a community center, they have a better chance of passing with greater turnout than if folks are coming just for the bond election.
Thoughts?
[url=http://blog.cstx.gov/2015/07/28/city-council-weighs-bond-election-project-funding-options/][/url]
City Council planning
anyone on here able to explain the difference between certificates of obligation and having a formal bond offering?
why would the city council choose to postpone the bond offering until next November - with the Presidential election cycle? The only thing I can think of is that they think that, in order to get their pet project of a community center, they have a better chance of passing with greater turnout than if folks are coming just for the bond election.
Thoughts?
[url=http://blog.cstx.gov/2015/07/28/city-council-weighs-bond-election-project-funding-options/][/url]
City Council planning
There is a reasonable explanation here of bonds vs certificate of obligation
http://www.tml.org/legis_updates/legis_update052512b_debt_finance
The citizens probably need to be ready to get signatures to get it put before the voters.
I don't think the community center has anything to do with it. The city and CSISD have a gentlepersons agreement to hold bond elections in opposite elections. When people see together they want to spend 300M or so and taxes will go up they start to question things and that is not a good thing for politicians. It also makes it hard to keep track of who's project is causing taxes to go up. It's actually COCS's turn but the CSISD demographer report indicating when they have to have the intermediate and middle school on the ground says they need to start construction sooner than expected and would need to issue bonds this cycle. They pretty much told the council awhile back they intended to place a bond in this cycle. This is IMHO the reason COCS is not having a bond election and decided to issue certificates of obligation instead. None of these items are the urgent needs (natural disaster repairs, unexpected/extraordinary expenses) that most cities reserve their use for. But since they are preempted and are not well versed in saving up to pay for things they move forward with debt.
http://www.tml.org/legis_updates/legis_update052512b_debt_finance
The citizens probably need to be ready to get signatures to get it put before the voters.
I don't think the community center has anything to do with it. The city and CSISD have a gentlepersons agreement to hold bond elections in opposite elections. When people see together they want to spend 300M or so and taxes will go up they start to question things and that is not a good thing for politicians. It also makes it hard to keep track of who's project is causing taxes to go up. It's actually COCS's turn but the CSISD demographer report indicating when they have to have the intermediate and middle school on the ground says they need to start construction sooner than expected and would need to issue bonds this cycle. They pretty much told the council awhile back they intended to place a bond in this cycle. This is IMHO the reason COCS is not having a bond election and decided to issue certificates of obligation instead. None of these items are the urgent needs (natural disaster repairs, unexpected/extraordinary expenses) that most cities reserve their use for. But since they are preempted and are not well versed in saving up to pay for things they move forward with debt.
Nothing like raising taxes between $134 and $200 on an average College Station home in the middle of a recession/depression. It's time for big government schools to find a way to pay for their expensive habits another way.
I'll be voting NO and campaigning hard against any tax increase.
I'll be voting NO and campaigning hard against any tax increase.
Interesting the Community Center Design also is getting allocated money as well....
I'm not seeing a recession/depresson as of late. Home values are way up, mortgage rates are still low and the number of people moving into the area continues to climb...
Considering the overcrowding in the intermediate and middle schools currently, I will be voting yes to the school bond election while carefully monitoring in hopes that we aren't building excessive over the top facilities - but that does happen...
Considering the overcrowding in the intermediate and middle schools currently, I will be voting yes to the school bond election while carefully monitoring in hopes that we aren't building excessive over the top facilities - but that does happen...
CSISD only builds over the top facilities. Am not sure if they direct it all of it or if their design build guys (Pepper Lawson) drives some of the craziness. On one of the latest elementary school builds their surveyor from out of town was in a CE friend of mine office getting information on meets & bounds, benchmarks etc. I asked him why he was doing all this work for some out of town low bid subcontractor. He indicated he was hoping that they would get to bid on the work. I asked if PL ever solicited bids from them (local and in business since the 60's) and he said never. I told him to kick the dude out or tell him he was welcome to stay at his standard billing rate.
The new elementary school every two years needs to stop. Town is growing I understand, but they need to build larger when they build and keep it sane. They just expanded Cypress, did work on AMCMS, CSMS maybe they should have done more or skipped it and done additional schools earlier.
CSISD also needs to address their strategy in regard to feeder schools. The public has stated they want kids to flow together through high school and this will put us with three Intermediate & Middle schools and two high schools. Is the third high school their plan year after next?
The new elementary school every two years needs to stop. Town is growing I understand, but they need to build larger when they build and keep it sane. They just expanded Cypress, did work on AMCMS, CSMS maybe they should have done more or skipped it and done additional schools earlier.
CSISD also needs to address their strategy in regard to feeder schools. The public has stated they want kids to flow together through high school and this will put us with three Intermediate & Middle schools and two high schools. Is the third high school their plan year after next?
quote:
Is the third high school their plan year after next?
quote:From what I have heard, once the third middle school is built, one of the three will be split as far as students going to high school. I.E. half will go to CSHS and half to AMCHS. So you will go to school with kids K-8 and then only see half of them in 9-12.
Is the third high school their plan year after next?
I wish we would have just gone the Allen ISD route...one super-high school.
quote:From what I understand, they don't want a super high school because it's harder to compete in sports with the large big city high schools. They'd prefer smaller high schools for academic and sports reasons.
I wish we would have just gone the Allen ISD route...one super-high school.
So, honest question, are the two high schools combined capable of supporting the number of students being fed to them by three middle schools?
From my understanding, CSHS has room to expand with another wing - it will be the big school one day.
The elementary schools are built to all be somewhat equal -but the newer ones are larger than the older ones and have more flex space.
It does amaze me that the amount in the bond for the third middle is more than Bryan spent on Rudder... of course, it could be materials pricing. Construction prices have changed.
I do find it hard to believe the current overcrowded int/middle schools will be brought up to speed with only $3.63 million though.
The elementary schools are built to all be somewhat equal -but the newer ones are larger than the older ones and have more flex space.
It does amaze me that the amount in the bond for the third middle is more than Bryan spent on Rudder... of course, it could be materials pricing. Construction prices have changed.
I do find it hard to believe the current overcrowded int/middle schools will be brought up to speed with only $3.63 million though.
quote:Allen is a little smaller than C.S. in terms of population and they don't seem to have any trouble competing in athletics. In my opinion, they want multiple, smaller high schools so more kids play sports. I am not saying saying this is the only reason, but it does play a role.quote:From what I understand, they don't want a super high school because it's harder to compete in sports with the large big city high schools. They'd prefer smaller high schools for academic and sports reasons.
I wish we would have just gone the Allen ISD route...one super-high school.
quote:Allen is a suburb in the DFW Metroplex. Apples to oranges with CS.quote:Allen is a little smaller than C.S. in terms of population and they don't seem to have any trouble competing in athletics. In my opinion, they want multiple, smaller high schools so more kids play sports. I am not saying saying this is the only reason, but it does play a role.quote:From what I understand, they don't want a super high school because it's harder to compete in sports with the large big city high schools. They'd prefer smaller high schools for academic and sports reasons.
I wish we would have just gone the Allen ISD route...one super-high school.
I'm not opposed to them building a gold plated fleet of buses - I just don't want my PROPERTY TAXES to go up in order to pay for it. Let them get it from lottery revenue, liquor tax, tobacco taxes, the PUF or sales tax on school supplies. I'm just not voting for higher property taxes and will campaign hard against it.
They need good busses in order to execute their don't bus them unless the FED will pay them to do it. Not sure if its still this way but when they were deciding what group of elementry schools would attend which intermediate/middle school it was actually influenced by bus routes. You would think that makes sense send people to the closest school to minimize bus use time and over head. But does not work that way. They were required to provide bus service for anyone over 2miles from their school. But if they were over some other threshold (10M?) the Fed would compensate them for the bus cost. So Pebble Creek ends up at AMCMS/Oakwood because its over 2M to any of the intermediate/middle schools but if we send them to the one far away the fed will cough up some cash. Does not matter it is 45+ minutes from pickup to drop off we get cash.
Just know if it makes sense to a logical person that is not the way to works for government entities.
Just know if it makes sense to a logical person that is not the way to works for government entities.
quote:Looks like utility rates are going up to pay for police raises.
I'm not opposed to them building a gold plated fleet of buses - I just don't want my PROPERTY TAXES to go up in order to pay for it. Let them get it from lottery revenue, liquor tax, tobacco taxes, the PUF or sales tax on school supplies. I'm just not voting for higher property taxes and will campaign hard against it.
quote:That makes perfect sense.
Looks like utility rates are going up to pay for police raises.
From the comments in The Eagle
cityofcs: Eagle staff made quick corrections to the online story, which is appreciated very much. But it bears repeating: The council did not vote Wednesday to increase the electric rate to pay for police raises. In lieu of increasing the tax rate, the council is exploring other ways to generate enough revenue to boost PD salaries -- one of the short-term options being discussed is increasing the percentage of reserve dollars that could be transferred from the Electric Fund to the General Fund. If done, it would not impact a CSU customer's monthly bill.
-Jay Socol, Communications Director
cityofcs: Eagle staff made quick corrections to the online story, which is appreciated very much. But it bears repeating: The council did not vote Wednesday to increase the electric rate to pay for police raises. In lieu of increasing the tax rate, the council is exploring other ways to generate enough revenue to boost PD salaries -- one of the short-term options being discussed is increasing the percentage of reserve dollars that could be transferred from the Electric Fund to the General Fund. If done, it would not impact a CSU customer's monthly bill.
-Jay Socol, Communications Director