Can we revisit the CSISD Bond Discussion (signs are up, voting day approaches)

49,717 Views | 456 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by woodiewood1
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Election Code allows for "communication from the district that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure. It is permissible to use political subdivision resources to produce explanatory material about."

It seems like sharing factual information is a good idea and good use of some resources. I'd rather people, whether for or against, vote based on facts rather than emotion and advocacy.
Captn_Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

Im sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant financially benefit from contracts that could be awarded to a company they own. A contractor paying for the signs and his company later doing work for the ISD.

Im all for parents fighting for what they think is best.
All contracts that would be awarded for construction or otherwise will need to go through the competitive bid process required by state law.
SARATOGA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If it FAILS, perhaps some research/focus groups/townhall meetings or similar could be done to find out why......perhaps it is simply a statement on "no more taxes" from homeowners beaten up every year by the appraisal district SPECULATING on the value of property not for sale....

But perhaps, as I stated in the premise of the thread, or 350 million dollars it might be worth looking at building a new school actually south of town, actually ahead of the growth, and not dumping more money into an OLD building that is 1.5 miles from the other school.
billydean05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will vote against all of these bond packages. My family have lived in College Station our whole lives and have spent tens of thousands of dollars of school taxes for College Station schools. We have used College Station schools for a total of three years of school and plan on sending our children to private school.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"But perhaps, as I stated in the premise of the thread, or 350 million dollars it might be worth looking at building a new school actually south of town, actually ahead of the growth, and not dumping more money into an OLD building that is 1.5 miles from the other school."

Not seeing the equivalency here ... the bond package is for a heck of a lot more than just updating Consol. Also, if you go back and watch board meetings from the spring, the district hired a company for a facilities analysis and it was determined that Consol hasn't reached the point of functional obsolescence.
Ragnar Danneskjoldd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

So who is paying for these mailers? They look like they are coming from the school district, AKA, the taxpayer. They dont come out and say "vote yes" but they definitely push hard that direction and they contain biased and debatable information. Seems to be skirting the edge of the law?

If they are being privately funded, then why does it contain the CSISD logo?

It all comes off as shady. I don't remember seeing this type of push on previous bonds.

*Please excuse the stains, I had to retrieve it from the trash.





The distrrict is not lowering its tax rate, the state is. The district is trying to eat up tax savings for homeowners before it gets to them and hope they dont notice. Really scummy and misleading flyer, honestly. They all do it, get their messaging from TASB- funded by your tax dollars, to develop messaging to trick people into further tax raises that go back to TASB in dues. Quite a system they've worked out.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

So who is paying for these mailers? They look like they are coming from the school district, AKA, the taxpayer. They dont come out and say "vote yes" but they definitely push hard that direction and they contain biased and debatable information. Seems to be skirting the edge of the law?

If they are being privately funded, then why does it contain the CSISD logo?

It all comes off as shady. I don't remember seeing this type of push on previous bonds.

*Please excuse the stains, I had to retrieve it from the trash.







It's not that hard of a concept to grasp - it's not shady. Either you want to add 2 cents back or you don't.

There is a PAC for the bonds. It's definitely the graphics from the district but is it possible the PAC paid for the postage?
GrimesCoAg95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Prop 4 is a big part of the savings on that. We should all vote for it.

As for school bonds, they are a tax increase during a time when property taxes are rising.

I do wonder if school districts could cut tax rates to the point of avoiding recapture. I may not fully understand recapture, so if someone does please chime in.

Then when a school district needs to pass bonds, the tax rate is low. Why collect extra if you just send it to the state.

I did see that Keller ISD and Spring Branch ISD have voted/are not sending the payments.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My wife teaches at one of the schools that needs improvements as part of Prop A. They are basic necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. not city of college station stupid spending on Taj mahal city halls, Taj mahal fire stations, I <heart> Aggieland Instagram internet point getters, or buying part of a dying mall)
Expert Analysis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did they ever show any timelines on when these improvements would be made if passed?

I have not seen any discussion on the $80 mil worth of bonds that passed in 2021. That work is still going on with renovations at Consol not finishing until 2025.
In 2021 the Consol field house renovations did not pass. That prop had $5 mil value. That prop is now $38 mil for this cycle with additional stadium renovations at both schools. A missed opportunity to get the field house work done at cheaper rates but maybe a blessing that it can be done bigger and better now with the plan to stay at 2 high schools for least 10 more years.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91_Aggie said:

My wife teaches at one of the schools that needs improvements as part of Prop A. They are basic necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. not city of college station stupid spending on Taj mahal city halls, Taj mahal fire stations, I <heart> Aggieland Instagram internet point getters, or buying part of a dying mall)

I agree, many renovations are needed. The CSISD has bundled the necessary and the wanted renovations in one package. Let the voters decide on what is necessary, that is the democratic way.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Expert Analysis said:

is now $38 mil for this cycle with additional stadium renovations at both schools.


For me, this is a big hang up. Why do they need millions of dollars at CSHS? It's not old enough. Either they screwed up the first time or it proves the "thirst will never be quenched" theory. Unfortunately the kids at consolidated will suffer because people aren't happy hearing that the new big fancy expensive school needs MORE MORE MORE also.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just a question. I have no dog in this fight

How old does a school have to be before it's not new anymore? Because CSHS is over a decade old. My oldest played playoff games there in '12. And honestly, the stadium was undersized then compared to other places we were playing. Not taj mahal types, just other 4A/5A stadiums.
UmustBKidding
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Schools need maintenance, schools need expansion but not planning and deferring maintenance until it becomes necessary to pass a bond to catch up is borderline irresponsible.
My issue with the cshs expansion is its original design with an open air area means it has plenty of room and infrastructure for continued needs but half the volume is useless open space that we get to spend to ac and heat. I know its fun to keep up with the jones of frisco, katy and the like but practical spaces win out over the long run.
I wish we also knew what amount of our money the district is spending to promote passage of the world will cave in if it all does not pass bond issue.

aggiepaintrain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
who is in charge of facilities at A&M Consolidated
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"For me, this is a big hang up. Why do they need millions of dollars at CSHS? It's not old enough."

Are you talking just athletics or otherwise? The school is already over capacity, but at least they were wise enough to originally build the common areas large enough to accommodate additional student and classroom growth.

On the athletics bond, CSHS accounts for about 1/5 of the bond and it's to "increase the stadium capacity from 4,573 to 6,300, additional restrooms, funds to repair existing pressbox exterior walls and to replace the roof of the pressbox, Concrete around the visitor's baseball and softball concessions area will be replaced due to extensive heaving, turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard."
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Expert Analysis said:

Did they ever show any timelines on when these improvements would be made if passed?

I have not seen any discussion on the $80 mil worth of bonds that passed in 2021. That work is still going on with renovations at Consol not finishing until 2025.
In 2021 the Consol field house renovations did not pass. That prop had $5 mil value. That prop is now $38 mil for this cycle with additional stadium renovations at both schools. A missed opportunity to get the field house work done at cheaper rates but maybe a blessing that it can be done bigger and better now with the plan to stay at 2 high schools for least 10 more years.
Because the scope of the project changed. This new addition is 8000 sq feet. The $5M was no where near that. They were going to extend the training room out along the Welsh street side.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
George Costanza said:


Are you talking just athletics or otherwise? The school is already over capacity, but at least they were wise enough to originally build the common areas large enough to accommodate additional student and classroom growth.

On the athletics bond, CSHS accounts for about 1/5 of the bond and it's to "increase the stadium capacity from 4,573 to 6,300, additional restrooms, funds to repair existing pressbox exterior walls and to replace the roof of the pressbox, Concrete around the visitor's baseball and softball concessions area will be replaced due to extensive heaving, turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard."


Honestly, if we're over capacity then lets build the 3rd school. Keeping school and class sizes down are two of the best places to spend money. Too many kids get lost in the system when things get too big. Bring consolidated up to standard, don't waste a penny increasing CSHS, build a modest 3rd school.

On athletics, ive been to some fairly big games at CSHS and honestly ive always been a little ashamed at the crowds when I was there. Maybe that's changed? Are we CONSISTENTLY running standing room only on BOTH sides? If not, then don't waste the money.

Why do we need things like digital score boards? Has anyone considered that always spending money on expensive junk may not psychologically be the best for our children? Keeping things basic can actually be a good thing. They don't always have to have the latest and greatest. Thats how we end up with entire generations that think they deserve $80k SUVs and fancy houses, their first job out of school. A little adversity is actually extremely good in the longterm.
UmustBKidding
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am interested in the potential capacity issues in the light of school vouchers potentially on the horizon. I know most in the district are vehemently opposed to them, and existing charters have mixed track records. But you look at some places that have marginal public programs, parents have really taken to charters and they have proven to produce results that throwing money at existing programs have not. Im not saying local programs are bad but they have restrictions that prevent them for being effective that charter schools aren't. I see cases where the space constraints could become surpluses and charters would require huge expansion.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

Expert Analysis said:

is now $38 mil for this cycle with additional stadium renovations at both schools.


For me, this is a big hang up. Why do they need millions of dollars at CSHS? It's not old enough. Either they screwed up the first time or it proves the "thirst will never be quenched" theory. Unfortunately the kids at consolidated will suffer because people aren't happy hearing that the new big fancy expensive school needs MORE MORE MORE also.


There appears to be a "what's in it for me" aspect to passing bond packages. A bond package with only money for AMCHS doesn't get the automatic support from CSHS parents. Have to add enough bling for the CSHS parents to back the bond. It is all a big political game to "buy enough votes" to pass the bond package.

I've seen it in other districts where parents on one side of town voted against a bond package because there was a perception that their school wasn't getting any/enough and the big ticket. Next election, those parents were out in force supporting the new bigger package because their school was getting upgrades.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UmustBKidding said:

Schools need maintenance, schools need expansion but not planning and deferring maintenance until it becomes necessary to pass a bond to catch up is borderline irresponsible.
My issue with the cshs expansion is its original design with an open air area means it has plenty of room and infrastructure for continued needs but half the volume is useless open space that we get to spend to ac and heat. I know its fun to keep up with the jones of frisco, katy and the like but practical spaces win out over the long run.
I wish we also knew what amount of our money the district is spending to promote passage of the world will cave in if it all does not pass bond issue.




Is it irresponsible though, or a result of school finance in Texas? School districts have an operating budget and operating tax rate. If they bring in too much over some $/student amount set by the state, they have to kick that over to the state. Thus the operating $ are a finite resource. Putting maintenance into a bond shifts it to a different pool of dollars, freeing up $ on the operating budget to do things like pay teachers.

Also, is it irresponsible to build a school to the size you need now with plans to expand when needed or better to build a school significantly larger than needed because you might need that space at some point in the future. Keep in mind, your utility bills and maintenance bills are going to be larger to cover all that underutilized space.
woodiewood1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
George Costanza said:

"For me, this is a big hang up. Why do they need millions of dollars at CSHS? It's not old enough."

Are you talking just athletics or otherwise? The school is already over capacity, but at least they were wise enough to originally build the common areas large enough to accommodate additional student and classroom growth.

On the athletics bond, CSHS accounts for about 1/5 of the bond and it's to "increase the stadium capacity from 4,573 to 6,300, additional restrooms, funds to repair existing pressbox exterior walls and to replace the roof of the pressbox, Concrete around the visitor's baseball and softball concessions area will be replaced due to extensive heaving, turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard."
Why would concrete walls need repair and a roof replaced after just ten years? Was the materials and/or workmanship when it was built bad?
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

George Costanza said:


Are you talking just athletics or otherwise? The school is already over capacity, but at least they were wise enough to originally build the common areas large enough to accommodate additional student and classroom growth.

On the athletics bond, CSHS accounts for about 1/5 of the bond and it's to "increase the stadium capacity from 4,573 to 6,300, additional restrooms, funds to repair existing pressbox exterior walls and to replace the roof of the pressbox, Concrete around the visitor's baseball and softball concessions area will be replaced due to extensive heaving, turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard."


Honestly, if we're over capacity then lets build the 3rd school. Keeping school and class sizes down are two of the best places to spend money. Too many kids get lost in the system when things get too big. Bring consolidated up to standard, don't waste a penny increasing CSHS, build a modest 3rd school.

On athletics, ive been to some fairly big games at CSHS and honestly ive always been a little ashamed at the crowds when I was there. Maybe that's changed? Are we CONSISTENTLY running standing room only on BOTH sides? If not, then don't waste the money.

Why do we need things like digital score boards? Has anyone considered that always spending money on expensive junk may not psychologically be the best for our children? Keeping things basic can actually be a good thing. They don't always have to have the latest and greatest. Thats how we end up with entire generations that think they deserve $80k SUVs and fancy houses, their first job out of school. A little adversity is actually extremely good in the longterm.


3rd school would add operational overhead compared to an expanded 1st and 2nd school, not to mention the costs of land acquisition and removing property from the district tax roles.

Athletics facilities compete to host post season games, which brings in additional revenue. Doing a bond to increase capacity and add digital scoreboards can increase the number of postseason games. Keep in mind, bond money and operating money are separate piles, and given the restrictions in Texas, anything that increases revenue can help balance a tight operating budget. Also, digital score board likely drive more revenue from sponsorship at the games compared to a static sign.
happyinBCS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am voting tomorrow and will vote against the CS school bond proposals.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

There appears to be a "what's in it for me" aspect to passing bond packages. A bond package with only money for AMCHS doesn't get the automatic support from CSHS parents. Have to add enough bling for the CSHS parents to back the bond. It is all a big political game to "buy enough votes" to pass the bond package.
That statement isn't just a load of crap. It's so ridiculous that it's laughable.

CSHS parents were actively pushing the last bond that would have gotten a bunch of improvements to AMCHS. There were signs all over Castlegate, Indian Lakes, and the numerous different neighborhoods off of Baron supporting it. They were even telling people at the booster club meetings to tell parents at sporting events to vote "yes" on the bond.

Contrary to what you and a couple of other posters on here believe, there is no "us against them" attitude among parents. We all have friends with kids at both schools and we want them all to have the best facilities that they can get.
We want them winning unless they are playing each other.
The only time we root for one over the other is if they are competing against each other.

At a playoff game a couple of years ago we were watching and listening to the AMCHS game while AT a Cougar playoff game and cheering for them.

It's the "I don't have a kid in school, so why should I pay" crowd that is to blame if it doesn't pass.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

I've seen it in other districts where parents on one side of town voted against a bond package because there was a perception that their school wasn't getting any/enough and the big ticket. Next election, those parents were out in force supporting the new bigger package because their school was getting upgrades.
That may be the case in other districts. It's not the case here.
turfman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's amazing that every proponent of improving athletic facilities at a school district claims it will greatly increase revenues from playoff games, tournaments, etc. There are only so many of these activities to go around. If you have every district, from small Mumford to the Franklin complex to the proposed improved CS facilities banking on increased bookings, someone is going to have less than projected income. I just read where a CS bond proponent stated that the improved facilities would bring in an estimated $400,000 per year on tournaments and playoff games. Someone needs to examine those numbers.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stupe said:

Quote:

There appears to be a "what's in it for me" aspect to passing bond packages. A bond package with only money for AMCHS doesn't get the automatic support from CSHS parents. Have to add enough bling for the CSHS parents to back the bond. It is all a big political game to "buy enough votes" to pass the bond package.
That statement isn't just a load of crap. It's so ridiculous that it's laughable.

CSHS parents were actively pushing the last bond that would have gotten a bunch of improvements to AMCHS. There were signs all over Castlegate, Indian Lakes, and the numerous different neighborhoods off of Baron supporting it. They were even telling people at the booster club meetings to tell parents at sporting events to vote "yes" on the bond.

Contrary to what you and a couple of other posters on here believe, there is no "us against them" attitude among parents. We all have friends with kids at both schools and we want them all to have the best facilities that they can get.
We want them winning unless they are playing each other.
The only time we root for one over the other is if they are competing against each other.

At a playoff game a couple of years ago we were watching and listening to the AMCHS game while AT a Cougar playoff game and cheering for them.

It's the "I don't have a kid in school, so why should I pay" crowd that is to blame if it doesn't pass.


Perfectly said and 1000% agree.
pudge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One more small item, the scoreboard at Consol's softball field was installed my first year as head coach in 2006. It has been repainted and a module replaced in 17 years of service and the brand of scoreboard, while a great & reliable company, is not used much in Texas anymore and I'm sure parts are getting hard to find.
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pudge said:

One more small item, the scoreboard at Consol's softball field was installed my first year as head coach in 2006. It has been repainted and a module replaced in 17 years of service and the brand of scoreboard, while a great & reliable company, is not used much in Texas anymore and I'm sure parts are getting hard to find.
so raise the money and buy a new one?
cslifer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does it still work? Parts hard to find is very different than parts no longer available. Why should we throw away a functioning scoreboard and pay tax dollars for a new one just because parts can be a bit hard to find? By that logic I should sell my perfectly functional tractor because it is old and I occasionally have to spend some time finding parts instead of Napa having everything I need.
SARATOGA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But if "repairs" to your tractor cost $35,000 and a NEW tractor could be bought for $35,000 then doesn't logic say to buy a new tractor ?

I'm not opposed to the money, or spending it to benefit the kids. What I am opposed to is throwing new money after sunk costs on an expired facility when a new facility could be had for the same or less.

Its a catch 22. There is an OLD school, a NEW (er/ish) school. If the bond was for a new school, the people would come out of the asbestos to question what is wrong with AMCHS. Try and repair it and you have people (like me) saying "why not just build new ?"
cslifer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If he had said "it is broken and it is cost prohibitive to fix it" I would agree with you. But he didn't say that, he said parts are getting harder to find and that not many places in Texas use that brand scoreboard any more. Neither of those sound like reasons to replace it.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
BCSWguru said:

pudge said:

One more small item, the scoreboard at Consol's softball field was installed my first year as head coach in 2006. It has been repainted and a module replaced in 17 years of service and the brand of scoreboard, while a great & reliable company, is not used much in Texas anymore and I'm sure parts are getting hard to find.
so raise the money and buy a new one?
CSHS did that for a scoreboard and were told "no" by the school district.
Captn_Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Could be a Title IX issue. If you get a new scoreboard for one gender sport, you'd need the ensure that the other gender sport has the same quality. Booster clubs get turned down quite a bit all over the country because of this. Baseball/softball is where it surfaces most frequently.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.