Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Or I could continue to vote no and see these bonds fail because voters seem to agree with me.

---

I'd bet over half those voters would change their mind on the vote if they actually saw the facilities.

---

Maybe. I watched the video the district put out and wasn't moved. Perhaps the video wasn't a good representation?

Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Or I could continue to vote no and see these bonds fail because voters seem to agree with me.

---

I'd bet over half those voters would change their mind on the vote if they actually saw the facilities.

---

If you and everyone else who wants to improve the sports facilities at consul will start a go fund me page or another type of fundraiser to help offset the cost, then I will contribute.

Ok. I'll ask....

Is there a limit to the number of "items/props" that a bond can have ? I mean if you're voting in an off-cycle local election presumably these are the reasons that you showed up (and cause there isn't an #VotingApp).

But something like:

PropA: Renovate AMCHS Lunchroom
PropB: Junior High Fields
PropC: Improved Technology Access
PropD: Get rid of the mold and rats
PropE: Build a new fieldhouse
PropF: Build a new Theatre
PropG: Build new tennis courts
PropH: Fix the press box at AMCHS
PropI: New baseball stadium at CSHS

ETC
ETC
ETC.

I think you get my point, but its honesty how I think it makes sense. It doesn't force voters to vote for the things they want that are lumped in with the things they don't want. It is the TRUE and SPECIFIC voice of the people on each item.

Yes the electronic ballot might be pretty long, but its a simple/quick choice yes or no so I don't think total time would be effected, and again, you'd be giving the School District specific marching orders on a project by project basis and a complete and specific understanding of what the voters are FOR and AGAINST, rather than items they are forced to swallow to get something they want.

(and I'm totally fine with districts ending up with specialties.....as in wow this district clearly thinks that basketball is important and that district clearly thinks that performing arts is important.....because it was reflected in how the people voted....and if your kid wants to do something, you can decide to move over there etc.)

I mean part of the problem at the Federal level is that hundreds of items from legislators and their commitees get rolled up into giant Omnibus spending packages that are passed a few times a year, and its 4000 pages of stuff, and voting for or against opens the door to the rhetoric and mudslinging and accusations due to a few specific things that might have been important to constituents from a district or state. Its terrible and not "representative" at all....it just continues the same pattern over and over again.

I'd think in a local election we could have more leeway for specifics items for or against. That is the benefit of local elections for local issues.

They put it on the ballot in an off year, because the majority of folks voting already have their taxes frozen, and won't care…..

What is stopping the booster club from raising funds to build all of these items?

A few thoughts on this thread from a member of the bond committee and someone involved with the local softball/baseball community:

The softball/baseball community is united on this issue and wants Consol to be updated as the bond detailed. There is no purple v. maroon on this issue.

There was "limited" marketing from the district on why voting for Prop C & D was advantageous for the community.

The district did not want the story of the fields told through pictures and videos, which I believe hindered additional yes votes.

The new Super has a baseball background and evidently experience getting athletics bonds passed. We will see what he does from this point.

This is not about building a taj mahal or keeping up with others. It is about safety/risk management, fiscal responsibility, athletic performance and development, and meeting basic competition space requirements for a district that prides itself on "excellence".

In no way do I want to be taxed, however, this is a simple cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the very minor change in our taxes. Having lived in several states, across different university towns, it is easy to see where a lot of our (high) tax $ goes locally and it helps our kids. C & D should have passed.

Finally, while the discussion surrounding the status of many things at Consol are accurate and I would argue sad, the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

Purple Palace?

Purple Palace video 1

Vote Yes video/photos

Videos are worth a watch.

Prop A was 10x prop C
this was personal

gbennett said:

---

the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

---

Why is that the case? What was done wrong the first time? And who is being held responsible for the problems?

gbennett said:

---

Finally, while the discussion surrounding the status of many things at Consol are accurate and I would argue sad, the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

Purple Palace?

Purple Palace video 1

Vote Yes video/photos

Videos are worth a watch.

---

I could be convinced on turf fields because they reduce the need for water, fertilizer, mowing, and more. However, many of those problems are because the school hasn't been maintaining the fields properly for years. The bullpens are the most glaring example and would look 100x better with a little RoundUp. As far as the CSHS field, if the erosion has been a problem from day 1, why isn't the design team in the hook to fix it?

All those videos did was show me that the bond money would be spent on a project that will have issues from the start and won't be maintained by the district.

Watched the videos. Now I wonder why the groundskeepers at CSISD aren't all fired.
Why haven't they kept them up?
Why would new fields be kept up any better?

Serious questions. That seems like a groundskeeping / upkeep problem.

tu ag said:

---

Watched the videos. Now I wonder why the groundskeepers at CSISD aren't all fired.
Why haven't they kept them up?
Why would new fields be kept up any better?

Serious questions. That seems like a groundskeeping / upkeep problem.

---

It's either a maintenance employee problem, a lack of funding for maintenance, or both. Every year, my baseball coach would have us do maintenance (replace zip ties on the windscreen, weed the infield, recut the edges). He would mow the field on days we ran. There was no irrigation system, so he would come on weekends and move sprinklers around the field.

And yeah, our field could have been a lot better but it also could have been a lot worse if we didn't take care of it ourselves.

At consol soccer coach called office and asked if the were ever going to mow. So they called central office and were told they no longer mow unless a ticket is generated. If you wonder why all csisd school grounds look awful, may they have not entered a ticket.
Total bs

Understand what you are saying, but the issues at the CSHS baseball field are much bigger than groundskeeping

CS78 said:

---

gbennett said:

---

the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

---

Why is that the case? What was done wrong the first time? And who is being held responsible for the problems?

---

Don't think it is wise for me to respond specifically on this, wasn't involved with it but do know many, many people have made the design problem known from day one.

CS78 said:

---

gbennett said:

---

the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

---

Why is that the case? What was done wrong the first time? And who is being held responsible for the problems?

---

Because…..that's not my job. Folks always like the cool new sh&$ but don't understand how all the cool old stuff is still cool.

Hint: it's because old people knew what was right, and just made it happen.

gbennett said:

---

Cannot comment on the design team and other issues you brought up but just because it was a problem created earlier doesn't mean we don't figure out a way to resolve it. The bond would have done that.

---

You clearly have a hand in things and bring a good deal of knowledge to this issue and I really appreciate your post. If major dirt work is truly necessary to solve the erosion issues, then I understand a bond. What I cannot understand are the many issues that exist but point to CSISD not being a good steward of our tax dollars.

Why was CSHS not built with turf to begin with? It existed then, wasn't much if any more expensive than now, and had the same benefits. Why are the bullpens so grown up? Why can't the fire ants be killed like I did to two mounds in my backyard just this weekend?. And, of course, the question of why the contractor, engineer, or other are not liable to fix the erosion issue.

I get that sometimes a clean-slate is needed and actually better financially but history leaves me to conclude that the new facilities will be run into the ground to save maintenance costs and just before impact, those responsible run to the taxpayers to bail them out with another bond.

These last several posts highlight a huge problem with school finance in Texas … there are basically two different budgets: 1. Interest and sinking; ie: bonds for buildings, etc and 2. Maintenance and operations.

They can build whatever voters approve, but when the Texas legislature hasn't increased state spending per student in 5 years and limits property tax revenue increases to 2.5% per year, it leaves districts between a rock and a hard place.

gbennett said:

---

Finally, while the discussion surrounding the status of many things at Consol are accurate and I would argue sad, the baseball field at CSHS is in the worst shape of the four fields.-by far.

Purple Palace?

Purple Palace video 1

Vote Yes video/photos

Videos are worth a watch.

---

To come on this forum and hint that you are unbiased is laughable. Maybe you need to video the facilities at Consol and compare the two fields to get an accurate picture of which one is the worse.

Still no answer on why someone cant raise the funds for this....

Quote:

---

They can build whatever voters approve, but when the Texas legislature hasn't increased state spending per student in 5 years and limits property tax revenue increases to 2.5% per year, it leaves districts between a rock and a hard place.

---

This is just irresponsibility at the top. If its unable to be maintained, then they need to dial it back and suggest something more doable. It's obvious the taxpayers arent big on voting for these kinds of "improvements".

Curious, for those in the know about these types of things... is there enough padding in props A&B to where you can pay for everything listed there AND use remaining funds to cover some of the most glaring issues that were presented in C&D? Is that sort of thing legal? I'm just a creative who is wired to think outside of the box to solve problems, so be kind!

chickencoupe16 said:

---

gbennett said:

---

Cannot comment on the design team and other issues you brought up but just because it was a problem created earlier doesn't mean we don't figure out a way to resolve it. The bond would have done that.

---

You clearly have a hand in things and bring a good deal of knowledge to this issue and I really appreciate your post. If major dirt work is truly necessary to solve the erosion issues, then I understand a bond. What I cannot understand are the many issues that exist but point to CSISD not being a good steward of our tax dollars.

Why was CSHS not built with turf to begin with? It existed then, wasn't much if any more expensive than now, and had the same benefits. Why are the bullpens so grown up? Why can't the fire ants be killed like I did to two mounds in my backyard just this weekend?. And, of course, the question of why the contractor, engineer, or other are not liable to fix the erosion issue.

I get that sometimes a clean-slate is needed and actually better financially but history leaves me to conclude that the new facilities will be run into the ground to save maintenance costs and just before impact, those responsible run to the taxpayers to bail them out with another bond.

---

My apologies, only was allowed to post 5 times in 24 hours. Major dirt work is definitely needed. I don't know much about the districts ability to be good stewards of tax $ so someone else should comment on that. The cosmetic and other minor things you describe are well managed during the season from what I can tell. Still, the needs for the kids, coaches, programs associated with Prop C & D aren't really a taxpayer bailout type of deal in my opinion. Turfing the four fields actually decreases the need for maintenance substantially and would allow the district to focus on other areas. Most of the items you (and we) have listed with the fields go away with turf. Thanks for being open to these thoughts.

Quote:

---

Everyone has a set of eyes to see the problems - there's no need to lobby, drive wedges, or make up theories.

---

Have you ever gone back and read your own posts?

I'm being serious. You consistently post things that are maroon vs purple. I specifically remember you making a post that blamed CSHS parents for stuff that Consol didn't get and the last proposition failing.

And that was either you being completely uninformed or lying.

This debate has always been about a comparison between the two campuses. I'm not comparing Consol to Bryan, so yes it's going to be "maroon vs purple". There are only two traditional high schools in this district. It was the district who started maroon track/purple track vernacular before they mixed the schools with different zoning patterns about 5 years ago.

My focus has primarily been about the conditions of the two high schools. I have previously stated the biggest mistake made by the district was not updating Consol immediately after CSHS opened. Everyone is informed about the differences between the campuses if you have HS students - you can see the differences with your own eyes. No one has to drive a message, lobby, or lie. These are common conversations among parents at Consol since 2012. Consol parents are well informed because many have been at school board meetings for 11 years asking for changes. The campus has not been maintained or updated properly - that is not a lie.

Time will march on and eventually kids will graduate out, but a new set of parents will take the place of the old ones asking for updates. I hope the disparities get fixed for the youth of this community because I know the zoning can change, and when a neighborhood gets unexpectedly rezoned to Consol the uproar like we saw in 2018 will return. One thing that is certain the zoning will change whenever a 3rd school is needed and it will be dereliction of duty if Consol hasn't been sufficiently renovated when that day comes.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) - In a workshop Tuesday, College Station ISD Superintendent Tim Harkrider suggested he'd like to ask voters again to pass bonds to help support new athletic facilities in the school district.

"Those needs are still there," he said to school board members. "It's just a tough market. There were 65 failed propositions in the state, 31 of those dealt with athletics or Fine Arts or natatoriums. So it's not just a College Station issue. It is trying to get anything outside of just classroom core instruction stuff passed that is difficult right now."

Harkrider said he'll ask the planning committee to meet again in January to look at suggestions and come up with a plan to possibly seek another bond election in May of 2024.

"I think there's a lot of momentum with the school district and with the support of public education here in College Station ISD, I think we need to go out and get it," he said.

The two bonds that were successfully passed on November 7th were more focused on educational, security and technology needs on all campuses.

Together, A & B are the most expensive bond packages approved in the district's history.

Both bonds associated with athletics that were voted down last Tuesday night would have also increased taxes. Each failed by less than a thousand votes.

"It's definitely gettable," said Harkrider.