I opened this thread thinking it was going to be something ENTIRELY different! Yes, the site was approved with the building pushed back over 500 feet from the front, but I assumed that would be the outcome as there really wasn't anything else that could be done. The story here is in how all of this came to pass. I have been called was names, told I was uninformed, wrong, spreading misinformation, etc. and but I think I had a pretty good grasp on the situation overall and most people that "called me out" challenge me with "feels" and emotion not facts.
I still maintain the problem from the beginning was a lack of planning and due diligence followed by a lack of communication by the district. I think the city staff bears some culpability as well in not communicating well with P&Z (see below) when plans changed, but still overall the district created the problem and then played the victim. In the end it works out as there is no other solution, but a LOT of blame is being heaped on the city when it should not be. Council and P&Z were essentially ambushed by a problem they did not create. Here is a summary of the problems:
1. This site is not an ideal location for access, physical location, and cost. See BISD PDF from Aug 2020 where they discuss that at the time of purchase, the district was under contract for Marino Rd for a transport hub and listed this site as a host of alternate locations with primary use being schools and a transport hub as an alternate.
2. The sale of the property is misrepresented. The BISD letter states Blinn held the land for over 10 years and then it has been stated on social media that it sat for sale over a year and "no one wanted it." Both untrue. Blinn bought that land at the end of 2015 and when the district approached them about it, they listed it on a govt auction site for under 30 days where BISD submitted the only bid. No realtors, no signs, no public notice. Based on other land around there at the time, 4.5mil also seems steep. Especially if the back half cannot be used effectively. It has been acknowledged the back of the land sits in a flood plain and has transmission lines, but somehow this was missed on the front end purchase.
3. The "crisis of time". Transportation has needed a new facility and been promised one for at least 5 years since I was on the board. The district CHOSE to start building a new school on top of the old transport hub without having a replacement or solid plan in place. Transportation officials complained about this almost 2 years ago because I got phone calls asking for ideas and being told what a bad idea it was. Now all of a sudden, the school can't be built because transportation is in the way. Whose fault is that? (Hint, the districts planning). A better solution all around would have been to use Leonard Rd for a school and keep transport hub where it is.
4. Budget. The voted-on bond in 2020 shows 65mil for a new school, transportation hub, fence at the stadium and a half dozen other projects. Just the 2 buildings are now projected at 80 plus the land at 4.5. Money here means money elsewhere not spent. On FB, I stated the project was $40mil. A board member berated me and said I was spreading "misinformation" about cost and false information. She stated it was $30mi. She then posted the Bond Steering Committee Document with the estimated construction price at $35mil and the land as a separate line item. They paid $4.5mil for the land… so $39.5 mil total for this project.
I was told I don't support kids, employees, bus drivers, etc. We talk about supporting kids and transport staff? Transportation said they needed 20 to 25 busses 18 months ago and the bond has new busses listed (but not a set number). They are getting 11. Things get cut to make up for more expensive buildings.
5. Bait and Switch. A lot of the discussion here has been around the bait and switch the district pulled with the plan. I and others have stated the facility was meant to always be at the back with a future school or retail up front (not retyping all the reasons why this would be beneficial to have a school up front). I have been challenged over this and told I do not know what I am talking about and accused me of spreading misinformation for stating the district was "moving the building around."
The district plays the victim stating that everything was approved by city staff ahead of time before the purchase and P&Z just yanked the rug. The truth is what I have been saying all along: the facility was meant to be at the back from the very beginning. That is the assumption staff worked on and P&Z was expecting. There is a KBTX article from Sept 2021 with a quote from Dr Whitbeck where she discusses putting a school on the front of the property. "We will have about half of that land left over. It can be used for a potential school, even up to middle school size," said Whitbeck. Then in October 2021 the proposals being used with City Staff showed the facility in the back. KBTX had a story this week where they referenced this document which showed the front being left open. Dr Carrabine stated this was done before a feasibility study showed the back area could not be used. My question is how in the hell did this all go unnoticed during a due diligence period? How did almost 6 months pass before someone realized the back is a flood plain and can't really be used?
This is where the breakdown on the city side occurred. Apparently after the study by the district, sometime around January / February 2022, the district let the City planning office know about the issues but P&Z but was never brought into the loop. They were still operating under the assumption the front would be used for a school, retail, etc. so when the district brought forth the rezoning plan in August, it caught them off guard. Why the land wasn't rezoned before purchase as a contingency to the sale is also beyond me. To prevent something like this in the future it has been suggested that a BISD board member be involved with P&Z as part of the planning committee.
So again, I see no alternative but to move forward on the current property and location on said property as there really isn't an alternative. Doesn't mean the process hasn't been a disaster. Poor planning and execution led to a crisis of the district's making and now they are playing victim and blaming the city. Non-central location, overpaid land that can only be partially used, over budget building, way behind schedule (they went to P&Z in Aug 16th, 2022, so at most the city has contributed to a 6-to-7-week delay), building a self-proclaimed "legacy" building while still not addressing pay / hours / affordable insurance for drivers etc. Then sending out an email to all parents where the district could play victim and blame the city for the current situation when they are the ones that created the situation. That is why I felt compelled to call out the hypocrisy of the situation.
You are right, BISD does deserve better: the employees, including bus drivers, and students. We as tax payers deserve better too. I am just not calling out the City.
