If you don't support athletics at the schools that's one thing, but the facilities need work. Even at CSHS. Too cramped and not near enough space in the field house. It was built for a 3A school, big mistake when they opened CSHS. My son played sports at CSHS including football and we are far from having over the top facilities. And this bond won't get us to that level either. Go look at Allen, Mellisa, the Berry Center, etc... to see what excess is. I will vote yes 100% and I no longer have a kid in school. This is just providing what is needed, not providing top notch over the top facilities. It's a minor increase in property taxes that virtually no one will notice.
Asking a 3rd time? CSISD School Board Approves A Third Attempt To...
61,234 Views |
528 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by George Costanza
AG1996 said:
If you don't support athletics at the schools that's one thing, but the facilities need work. Even at CSHS. Too cramped and not near enough space in the field house. It was built for a 3A school, big mistake when they opened CSHS. My son played sports at CSHS including football and we are far from having over the top facilities. And this bond won't get us to that level either. Go look at Allen, Mellisa, the Berry Center, etc... to see what excess is. I will vote yes 100% and I no longer have a kid in school. This is just providing what is needed, not providing top notch over the top facilities. It's a minor increase in property taxes that virtually no one will notice.
Melissa, Berry Center , Allen lol… who needs to compare the facilities at Consol and CSHS to those when Navasota, Caldwell, Madisonville , Huntsville and Waller have better facilities than Consol and CSHS
I went back to see the breakdown of the 2023 bonds on the school ballot:
I find it interesting that Props A&B passed at a tune of close to ~$300 million and most everyone is OK with that, but the two associated with ~$52 million in athletic improvements failed by a slim margin. Props C & D were around 15% of the total ask.
Is it a fair question to ask why people vote against athletics? I'm genuinely curious.
- PROPOSITION A: General ($284,975,000) - passed by 69% for, 31% against
- Districtwide Safety & Security
- Renovations to Rock Prairie Elementary
- A&M Consolidated HS Additions and Renovations
- Phase II College Station HS Additions and Renovations
- Phase II Career and Technical Education Center
- College View HS Cosmetology Lab
- Middle School Playing Fields Renovations
- Central Office Additions and Renovations
- Transportation
- Technology Infrastructure
- Facilities Maintenance Improvements
- Land Acquisition
- PROPOSITION B: Technology Devices ($14,145,000) - passed by 62% for, 38% against
- PROPOSITION C: Football Stadiums ($38,475,000) - failed 47% for, 53% against
- Tiger Stadium Field House Additions and Renovations
- Tiger Stadium Renovations
- Cougar Stadium Renovations
- PROPOSITION D: Baseball/Softball Stadiums ($13,270,000) - failed 48% for, 52% against
I find it interesting that Props A&B passed at a tune of close to ~$300 million and most everyone is OK with that, but the two associated with ~$52 million in athletic improvements failed by a slim margin. Props C & D were around 15% of the total ask.
Is it a fair question to ask why people vote against athletics? I'm genuinely curious.
What needs to change is voters need to be educated about what is actually in this bond, and I really hope CSISD will do a good job of getting that message out this time. There is a lot of misinformation and over-the-top generalities being thrown out on this thread that are simply not true.CS78 said:Stupe said:Hornbeck said:
I seem to recall posting last time this came up, that they will just keep asking because there's no incentive for them to stop.
There were also people asking them to do it again.
So.... incentive to keep trying.
Did they actually change anything though? If voters are repetitively saying no then why not try to put together something that they might say yes to? If this guy was hired to get bonds passed then it seems like he's actually doing a bad job by refusing to adjust.
A lot of people are in a personal financial pinch right now. And it's only getting worse with every election. The result isn't going to change if they keep pushing the same thing.
This is not over-the-top Taj Mahal stuff as many have stated on this thread. This is about kids getting treated by trainers in hallways because they don't have adequate facilities, and in some cases dangerous conditions at the Consol stadium that has not been renovated in decades. It's about fields that are unplayable at times. It's not just football - this affects football, soccer, track, band, baseball, softball and I'm sure other students.
I really hope CSISD does a good job of documenting the needs in this bond, and when they do I hope some of you will realize you are just wrong and should frankly feel bad about some of the statements on this thread.
Finally, the tax rate went up 2% to cover the entirety of the bond proposals from last November, and if these pass it will not have to go up anymore. I get it - money is tight - it's tight in our house too, but we're talking about investing in not only the growth and enrichment of these kids, but their safety and well-being too.
And if you see it otherwise, we'll agree to disagree and vote your conscience in May.
They better get busy explaining then. A few line items in an article or on a ballot don't tell much of a story.
Maybe they should get kbtx to do a walk-through and show on camera what the conditions are like if they want people to understand how the facilities are now.
Few voters have been in the press box or the field house.
Maybe they should get kbtx to do a walk-through and show on camera what the conditions are like if they want people to understand how the facilities are now.
Few voters have been in the press box or the field house.
Completely agree on all counts.maroon barchetta said:
They better get busy explaining then. A few line items in an article or on a ballot don't tell much of a story.
Maybe they should get kbtx to do a walk-through and show on camera what the conditions are like if they want people to understand how the facilities are now.
Few voters have been in the press box or the field house.
Tailgate88 said:Completely agree on all counts.maroon barchetta said:
They better get busy explaining then. A few line items in an article or on a ballot don't tell much of a story.
Maybe they should get kbtx to do a walk-through and show on camera what the conditions are like if they want people to understand how the facilities are now.
Few voters have been in the press box or the field house.
Exactly.
Aggie said:chickencoupe16 said:dogowner said:
The kids clearly need new facilities,the impact on our taxes is tiny, and several people in this thread feel like they are getting one over on Biden and the evil overspending gubment by voting no on this issue.
Did I miss anything?
Has nothing to do with Biden and everything to do with CSISD's inability and unwillingness to properly maintain facilities. So yeah, you missed a bit.
Facilties don't last forever, they like anything else become dated and need upgrades and renovations.
It's really not due to neglect or failure to " properly maintain facilities"
How is Consol student growth and outgrowing the capacity of the current fieldhouse " failure to maintain facilities"
The softball and baseball fields are playable (obviously) so how is wanting to add turf to eliminate rainouts and lost practice time " failure to maintain facilities"
Consol's stadium did not become "dangerous" overnight but instead over years of poor maintenance.
Even more importantly, CSHS's field have supposedly had drainage issues from day one so then why have the contractor or engineer not been held liable?
And if the CSHS fields are playable, then I'm not voting to spend millions of dollars just to avoid rainouts. I am on record as saying that I could be convinced about the turf for the fields but rainouts are anything but convincing.
chickencoupe16 said:
And if the CSHS fields are playable, then I'm not voting to spend millions of dollars just to avoid rainouts. I am on record as saying that I could be convinced about the turf for the fields but rainouts are anything but convincing.
Makes you wonder how kids played ball for the last 100 years without turf. And we don't even get that much rain around here.
CS78 said:chickencoupe16 said:
And if the CSHS fields are playable, then I'm not voting to spend millions of dollars just to avoid rainouts. I am on record as saying that I could be convinced about the turf for the fields but rainouts are anything but convincing.
Makes you wonder how kids played ball for the last 100 years without turf. And we don't even get that much rain around here.
That last sentence is gonna need some clarification.
Compared to Southeast Asia in monsoon season? No. Not that much rain.
This past summer? No. Not much rain.
Yearly average? Usually plenty of rain.
If I'm remembering correctly there were 17 practice days lost because the field was not able to be played on. We're not talking about rain outs here.
I didn't say it had to be on a school campus. It should be a large athletic facility for all sports, for all CSISD high schools.
TLDR: I would take this more of a "I just want a little break" or "not right now" versus a vote against athletics.kraut said:
Is it a fair question to ask why people vote against athletics? I'm genuinely curious.
I do not think people are against athletics. I think there are many factors at play (Some things carry more weight with some people than others.)
One is that we are over taxed, and people just want a break. Once you get to a point where you are fed up with taxes and irresponsible government spending it is easy to say no to any increase. It doesn't matter if it's for infrastructure like schools and roads; it all starts to become a proverbial Taj Mahal even if it's needed.
Next, is the way the new superintendent was brought in and how he represents himself. The only thing I really know about him is that he was brought in because of his past success getting bonds approved. The only times I have seen him communicate with the general public is about getting bonds approved. To me, the message I get from that is getting bonds approved are the most important thing. Other people have spoken differently; however, I will let him speak for himself.
Related to the paragraph above, I have not (and many others have not) heard the superintendent speak about improving the quality of the education our children receive. What about raising the floor? Is there a plan to get every kid up to grade level standards academically? What about raising the ceiling? Is there a plan to get more kids scholarships to colleges, accepted to military academies, vocational school scholarships?
One of the best ways to improve the level of academics in high school is to invest in K 8 grade. The lower grades are where you can identify and address a lot of issues. Those teachers see more children who do not speak English and have issues and are not of the age or ability to even know how to ask for help. I have not heard the superintendent speak about improving the foundation (lower grades) of the education system in our district.
Since he doesn't communicate otherwise, I will assume. I assume his salary and raises are dependent on getting bonds passed versus improving the quality of academics. I have learned more about the condition of the school from TexAgs versus the superintendent. And it's to the point for me now, I think all he cares about is getting a bond passed.
Our town is filled with people who work in education and/or education related fields. How many people are retired or employed by A&M, TEEX, TEES, Agrilife, Health Science Center, Blinn, Bryan & College Station ISD….
This is why Props A & B passed with ease. Those were related to more directly to academics. With things like the CTE Center, it is easy to see the return on investment (look at what a plumber or mechanics now charge).
Remember there are a lot of people voting who do not have children in the schools. They may not have kids or are older and theirs are grown and graduated. They never step foot on any school's property. Other than the educational component; many are apathetic to athletics versus voting against. Coupled with high taxes and our cities speeding record, it translates to a no vote for the ISD athletic only bonds.
I have kids at AMCHS and attend baseball, football, and soccer games. They play CHS so I attend "away" games there. While we may not have the most luxurious facilities; nothing sticks out as dilapidated or third world. The only time I ever hear about how poor the facilities are is right before a bond election. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that there is no crisis or immediate need for a bond just sitting in the stands. Its like saying, I can wait a bit to buy a new car. My car has some dings, scratches and some miles on it but runs ok.
To me, it's not one thing; its everything. Its not about being against athletics. Its just being worn out with politics, taxes, work, and so forth. I would take this more of a "not right now" versus a vote against athletics.
You are correct. That's it.
Fair question and probably easy to answer. The two that passed are directly related to the academic education of students, the two that failed are not (although of great value to many persons.}kraut said:
I went back to see the breakdown of the 2023 bonds on the school ballot:
- PROPOSITION A: General ($284,975,000) - passed by 69% for, 31% against
- Districtwide Safety & Security
- Renovations to Rock Prairie Elementary
- A&M Consolidated HS Additions and Renovations
- Phase II College Station HS Additions and Renovations
- Phase II Career and Technical Education Center
- College View HS Cosmetology Lab
- Middle School Playing Fields Renovations
- Central Office Additions and Renovations
- Transportation
- Technology Infrastructure
- Facilities Maintenance Improvements
- Land Acquisition
- PROPOSITION B: Technology Devices ($14,145,000) - passed by 62% for, 38% against
- PROPOSITION C: Football Stadiums ($38,475,000) - failed 47% for, 53% against
- Tiger Stadium Field House Additions and Renovations
- Tiger Stadium Renovations
- Cougar Stadium Renovations
- PROPOSITION D: Baseball/Softball Stadiums ($13,270,000) - failed 48% for, 52% against
I find it interesting that Props A&B passed at a tune of close to ~$300 million and most everyone is OK with that, but the two associated with ~$52 million in athletic improvements failed by a slim margin. Props C & D were around 15% of the total ask.
Is it a fair question to ask why people vote against athletics? I'm genuinely curious.
I guess that some people think that in these tight ecomomic times of rising property taxes, interest rates, food costs, gasoline costs, etc., think that $52 million is too much to spend on sports?
Let all the schools use the new College Station high school's stadium and gym.
No need to build more.
People are scraping by right now.
No need to build more.
People are scraping by right now.
chickencoupe16 said:Independence H-D said:
Not necessarily discussing tournaments. But things like district track meets and playoff games. The district was unable to host those last year.
As far as the district proving to you that they can manage a construction project.....
If that was the case why won't you give new leadership an opportunity to prove to you that they can handle it?
Track meets and playoff games will not see a return on investment.
The new management will have a chance to prove themselves as I think 2 bonds were approved. Even if they didn't have new bonds to build with, they can do a good job of maintenance. But even then, a new superintendent does not mean the rest of the management changed.
Edit to add: did not mean to add that emoji
The ROi is seeing kids graduate that may not w/o sports in their lives, wheelchair athletes competing, special Olympians competing, junior high students competing, bands practicing and going to state championships, youth teams practicing and being mentored by high schoolers, etc.
TAMU1990 said:chickencoupe16 said:Independence H-D said:
Not necessarily discussing tournaments. But things like district track meets and playoff games. The district was unable to host those last year.
As far as the district proving to you that they can manage a construction project.....
If that was the case why won't you give new leadership an opportunity to prove to you that they can handle it?
Track meets and playoff games will not see a return on investment.
The new management will have a chance to prove themselves as I think 2 bonds were approved. Even if they didn't have new bonds to build with, they can do a good job of maintenance. But even then, a new superintendent does not mean the rest of the management changed.
Edit to add: did not mean to add that emoji
The ROi is seeing kids graduate that may not w/o sports in their lives, wheelchair athletes competing, special Olympians competing, junior high students competing, bands practicing and going to state championships, youth teams practicing and being mentored by high schoolers, etc.
No one is suggesting sports be abolished just that upgrades so that playoff games for other districts and track meets can be held are not worth it.
It's less about hosting track meets and more about replacing the surface on the track for our current (and future) CSISD athletes.
AGro99 said:
It's less about hosting track meets and more about replacing the surface on the track for our current (and future) CSISD athletes.
The post to which I replied claimed that, in part, track meets which CSISD would otherwise miss out on hosting would return a sizeable dividend to the local economy.
Regarding resurfacing the track, I don't know if it's necessary. But even if it is, I cannot vote (or couldn't last election) for that without voting for other things that I vehemently oppose, so I won't vote for it.
chickencoupe16 said:AGro99 said:
It's less about hosting track meets and more about replacing the surface on the track for our current (and future) CSISD athletes.
The post to which I replied claimed that, in part, track meets which CSISD would otherwise miss out on hosting would return a sizeable dividend to the local economy.
Regarding resurfacing the track, I don't know if it's necessary. But even if it is, I cannot vote (or couldn't last election) for that without voting for other things that I vehemently oppose, so I won't vote for it.
An a la carte version of these needs would be better. As it has been presented, it's all or nothing. It's the way the federal government does things. "Vote for what you like, we will add in some things you don't like as much or don't care about, but they get approved if you vote for the big item".
All of those for passage of this bond should put together a clear concise marketing plan to sell the bond. The only thing I ask is that you use your own money to do it.
legalbird said:
Let all the schools use the new College Station high school's stadium and gym.
No need to build more.
People are scraping by right now.
There is no proposal on the table to build more of anything. The proposal is to do much needed maintenance and upgrades to existing facilities.
Tax money is my money.doubledog said:
All of those for passage of this bond should put together a clear concise marketing plan to sell the bond. The only thing I ask is that you use your own money to do it.
Tax money is OUR money.Stupe said:Tax money is my money.doubledog said:
All of those for passage of this bond should put together a clear concise marketing plan to sell the bond. The only thing I ask is that you use your own money to do it.
Aggie said:JP76 said:
And have since 2010
Also Franklin rents their turf fields out as well
Franklin ranch is a complex built with oil money , it is owned by the ISD but that complex was built with the intention of hosting events year round .. baseball, softball, flag football, they have community events there.
Not same as comparing it to a single HS field
Who said a single field ?
At a minimum there would be 6 fields between the 2 high schools available for rental or is my math wrong ?
Like Veteran's Park?
Tailgate88 said:legalbird said:
Let all the schools use the new College Station high school's stadium and gym.
No need to build more.
People are scraping by right now.
There is no proposal on the table to build more of anything. The proposal is to do much needed maintenance and upgrades to existing facilities.
Shouldn't maintenance be part of the operating budget and not need bond election?
Sorry maintenance was not the best choice of words. Repairs is what I meant. Not standard day to day maintenance.
Part of "our" is "my" and I'm fine if they use my part to finance a marketing plan.doubledog said:Tax money is OUR money.Stupe said:Tax money is my money.doubledog said:
All of those for passage of this bond should put together a clear concise marketing plan to sell the bond. The only thing I ask is that you use your own money to do it.
Tailgate88 said:
Sorry maintenance was not the best choice of words. Repairs is what I meant. Not standard day to day maintenance.
I guess I equate the two as the same. There may be some municipal or accounting differentiation about which I'm ignorant.
A very small part... <0.01%Stupe said:Part of "our" is "my" and I'm fine if they use my part to finance a marketing plan.doubledog said:Tax money is OUR money.Stupe said:Tax money is my money.doubledog said:
All of those for passage of this bond should put together a clear concise marketing plan to sell the bond. The only thing I ask is that you use your own money to do it.
Here is more information on what is in these proposals. This was put out by CSISD before the November vote, but I believe the propositions (formerly C & D) remain the same for this vote.
I found these on the previous thread from last year (hat tip to tu ag for the original post).
https://texags.com/forums/35/topics/3407509
https://www.csisd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=1301524&pageId=93844469Quote:
PROPOSITION C - Football Stadiums - $38.475 million
The following projects will create equity between the stadiums at both of CSISD's comprehensive high schools, create capacity for projected high school growth, and greatly enhance the experience of our student athletes, fans and visitors.
A&M Consolidated High School Fieldhouse - $11.355 millionA&M Consolidated Tiger Stadium Renovations/Expansion - $20.100 million
- This project will include the addition of approximately 8,000 square feet to accommodate the growing population of student-athletes, as well as renovate the interior of the existing structure.
- The building addition would be located in the small parking lot due west of the current building and include a new and enlarged Sports Medicine facility (currently inadequate to treat all AMCHS athletes), baseball locker rooms and offices, concessions and restrooms for the baseball facility, and two classrooms.
- Interior renovations to the existing structure would create a freshman football locker room, relocation of the coach's office area to be able to monitor the weight room, weight room expansion and upgrades, and interior finish upgrades (paint, floors, etc.)
- Site improvements in the area will also be included in this project due to the field house addition and access between it and the baseball stadium.
College Station Cougar Stadium Renovations/Expansion - $7.020 million
- This project will increase the stadium capacity from 5,238 to 6,300 by adding additional seating on both the home and visitor side of the stadium, which will be needed with the increased student capacity of the school.
- New press box, concessions, and restroom structures will be constructed on the home side of the stadium to resemble those at College Station High School. The current concessions building, and other old structures will be removed.
- New home and visitor ticket booths will be constructed and both entrances will be renovated.
- This project also includes removal of the bleachers at the south end of the stadium, turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard.
- This project will increase the stadium capacity from 4,573 to 6,300 by adding additional seating on both the home and visitor side of the stadium, which will be needed with the increased student capacity of the school.
- Due to code requirements, additional restrooms will be added to accommodate the increased stadium capacity.
- Due to chronic water intrusion, this project includes 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.
This project also includes turfing of the north "D-Zone," resurfacing of the track, and adding a digital scoreboard.
https://www.csisd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=1301524&pageId=93844477Quote:
PROPOSITION D - Baseball/Softball Stadiums - $13.270 million
- Proposition D will allow CSISD to turf the baseball and softball fields and add LED lighting at both comprehensive high schools, resulting in more practice time, fewer delayed or canceled games, improved field conditions, and less facility and grounds maintenance.
- At the AMCHS softball stadium, this proposition would allow the district to expand the seating, build a new press box and ticket booth, as well as modify the sidewalks and parking to accommodate the improvements.
I found these on the previous thread from last year (hat tip to tu ag for the original post).
https://texags.com/forums/35/topics/3407509
Since I know many of you won't take the time to go back and read that other thread, here are some snippits:
Quote:
The facilities especially at Consol need major upgrades.
The field house at Consol is not big enough to house the entire football program. Right now you have quite a few kids whose locker is across the street and they have to go back and forth.
The pressbox , concession stands and ticket booths are the same as when the stadium opened in 1989.
Quote:
You don't have a clue about what you are talking about if you think that Consol has decent facilities.
Zero.
They need a lot of improvements if not a complete overhaul.
And I am saying that as a parent that has no kids at that school.
Quote:
A bunch of people that didn't have kids in school defeated the proposition. And before you blame the "purple parents" for that proposition failing, there was a huge push by CSHS parents and the booster club to get people to vote "yes" on those upgrades.
Just like there is for this proposition.
It's people like that who are holding the school district back.
Quote:
You need to request a tour. You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no NEW stadium. They are adding metal bleacher seating. They are fixing the press box and adding sq footage to the fieldhouse to accommodate the NUMBER of students that participate NOW. The training room is so small people lay on the floor on mats and in the hallways to see the trainer in the morning. They can't even put all of the kids in the fieldhouse as teams are spread out.
Quote:
What do the students have to say about facilities?
1:42-15:57
29:07-58:17
All who are being argumentative because you think palaces are going to get built should watch these videos.
Quote:
Complete night and day difference between Consol and CSHS.
To put in terms some of us older locals might understand....CSHS looks like a rich powerhouse 5A establishment (both school and athletics) and Consol looks like one of those lowly 2A establishment that is in the news every couple years for not meeting state standards in various areas. It's completely unfair.
And for the record I'm a huge football fan but I absolutely do not believe high schools should have some of these ridiculous luxury set ups we see around the state. I'm just asking for something that is at least a little nicer and more modern and something the kids can feel proud to play in . The contrast with College Station is beyond ridiculous.
Quote:
Someone said it perfectly - all tonight did was bring Consol up to TEA standards. Shameful. Consol parents are frustrated. It took an old lady falling through the rotted boards in the baseball stands in 2018 (and ending up hospitalized) to get new stands. These are the extremes that have to happen at Consol before anything is done. I don't care about your pity. Half the kids in this district have to go to Consol and their parents pay taxes too.
Quote:
As a new resident of College Station, I voted for all 4 bonds and I'm normally against most of them. I came from Cy Fair ISD. Way too much money in that district is used for the administration and support staffs and not the teachers or students. I don't have children in school any longer but have seen the facilities and infrastructure and its sad that people don't see the value in investing in the community at large. Not sure why there is such disdain for athletic facilities as I don't think they are shooting to build a college level complex for AMC just make it something that is reflective of the community. AMC facilities resemble something in Hempstead or Calvert and that is sad.
Quote:
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.
No, I wasn't implying the track meet would bring in dollars. I'm implying I like the ROI in the KIDS, not dollars.chickencoupe16 said:AGro99 said:
It's less about hosting track meets and more about replacing the surface on the track for our current (and future) CSISD athletes.
The post to which I replied claimed that, in part, track meets which CSISD would otherwise miss out on hosting would return a sizeable dividend to the local economy.
Regarding resurfacing the track, I don't know if it's necessary. But even if it is, I cannot vote (or couldn't last election) for that without voting for other things that I vehemently oppose, so I won't vote for it.
In the late 2010's Consol's track was decertified by the UIL - that meant it was not safe enough to hold meets on that track. But the kids had to keep practicing on it until it was fixed.