Asking a 3rd time? CSISD School Board Approves A Third Attempt To...

57,089 Views | 524 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by welborn
Cartographer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maintenance and construction are two different things.

I'm not sure how you hold people accountable for something that occurred over a decade ago. If you can explain what sort of accountability would satisfy you, then we can have a discussion.

We have to have bonds to fix the issues.

Vote No if you want to. I hope the majority will vote yes.
chickencoupe16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cartographer said:

Maintenance and construction are two different things.

I'm not sure how you hold people accountable for something that occurred over a decade ago. If you can explain what sort of accountability would satisfy you, then we can have a discussion.

We have to have bonds to fix the issues.

Vote No if you want to. I hope the majority will vote yes.


You likely don't hold them accountable 20 years later but you can tell my why you didn't at the time. And yes, personel have changed, so maybe the same mistakes won't be made with this bond but the refusal to address the mistakes and instead cry for handouts to fix them makes me think it unlikely. I won't vote to give my money to an entity that historically cannot use it properly.
aggiesed8r
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have a question. I see it stated that the tax rate will remain stable (not the same). Does that mean your valuation can still be increased thus increasing tax burden? A rate is multiplied by a valuation. If rate stays the same, valuation (appraisal) can increase still despite homestead exemption.
Cartographer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wrong thread but yes. This is how our taxes will continue to increase on an annual basis.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiesed8r said:

I have a question. I see it stated that the tax rate will remain stable (not the same). Does that mean your valuation can still be increased thus increasing tax burden? A rate is multiplied by a valuation. If rate stays the same, valuation (appraisal) can increase still despite homestead exemption.
Essentially some old bonds are expiring so their budget to pay them off is going away UNLESS this new one is approved. So it will stay at x amount of dollars to pay off debt if approved instead of x-y when the old bonds expire.

Basically I equate it to a car payment. Let's say I'm paying $300/month for a car and it is about to get paid off so I'll keep $300 a month extra UNLESS I buy a new car and continue to pay $300/month. That is how they are using the "unchanged" tax rate argument. Their old bond is about to be paid off so now they want a new one to pay off.


(at least that is how I understand it).
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
George Costanza said:

Question: What construction at CSHS wasn't done right and/or fixed by the original contractor? Not saying it wasn't, but I'm not sure what you are referencing.

Comment: CSHS will be pushing 15 years old next year since its construction and it seems about the right time for things to need to be replaced and repaired in a massive commercial complex (its basically a small town of 2,500 people on 61 acres) with significant development around it since it was built. Everyone complains about the condition of Consol at its age before the last two bonds, but then some folks turn around and complain about the current school district leadership (who are mainly Consol grads and parents btw) not allowing CSHS to fall into that same condition?

BTW: CSHS was built two superintendents ago and, other than maybe board member McAdams, there is an entirely new administration team and board of trustees since then.



That is completely disingenuous. There may be Consol grads on the board but their kids go to CSHS. If board members are from here it is likely they graduated from Bryan or Consol as those were the only two high school in this area 15+ years ago. Both schools are represented on this board.
jopatura
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiesed8r said:

I have a question. I see it stated that the tax rate will remain stable (not the same). Does that mean your valuation can still be increased thus increasing tax burden? A rate is multiplied by a valuation. If rate stays the same, valuation (appraisal) can increase still despite homestead exemption.


You will pay more if your tax value goes up, but the school district can only get a fixed amount per the legislature. If values go up too much, the extra money goes back to the state as part of recapture. The school district doesn't get to save that extra money or use that extra money on this project, it just eventually funnels into the surplus.

The only way to try and keep some of that money local is to have bonds for earmarked projects. You're not going to get out of paying those taxes either way.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KidDoc said:

aggiesed8r said:

I have a question. I see it stated that the tax rate will remain stable (not the same). Does that mean your valuation can still be increased thus increasing tax burden? A rate is multiplied by a valuation. If rate stays the same, valuation (appraisal) can increase still despite homestead exemption.
Essentially some old bonds are expiring so their budget to pay them off is going away UNLESS this new one is approved. So it will stay at x amount of dollars to pay off debt if approved instead of x-y when the old bonds expire.

Basically I equate it to a car payment. Let's say I'm paying $300/month for a car and it is about to get paid off so I'll keep $300 a month extra UNLESS I buy a new car and continue to pay $300/month. That is how they are using the "unchanged" tax rate argument. Their old bond is about to be paid off so now they want a new one to pay off.


(at least that is how I understand it).
This is true.. If I may sum it up...
Borrowing money is not free, no matter how you spin it. (unless it is from family).
Your options are raise taxes or cut expenses or pass the debt on to your kids.
Of course you could stay out of debt to begin with.

Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
KidDoc said:

aggiesed8r said:

I have a question. I see it stated that the tax rate will remain stable (not the same). Does that mean your valuation can still be increased thus increasing tax burden? A rate is multiplied by a valuation. If rate stays the same, valuation (appraisal) can increase still despite homestead exemption.
Essentially some old bonds are expiring so their budget to pay them off is going away UNLESS this new one is approved. So it will stay at x amount of dollars to pay off debt if approved instead of x-y when the old bonds expire.

Basically I equate it to a car payment. Let's say I'm paying $300/month for a car and it is about to get paid off so I'll keep $300 a month extra UNLESS I buy a new car and continue to pay $300/month. That is how they are using the "unchanged" tax rate argument. Their old bond is about to be paid off so now they want a new one to pay off.


(at least that is how I understand it).


Yes, but now that you have paid off your $300/mo car, you have an additional $300/mo in your "car" budget. You can use that to repair your older, paid off vehicle that needs new brakes and struts so it is safe for your kids to drive.
Cartographer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good analogy but in this case, that 300 can only go into maintenance costs which exclude major replacements. So you can fix the brakes but you can't save up for a new transmission.

If you want a new transmission by state rules, you have to finance it.

Maintenance =\= capital improvements
Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is debt and there is debt.

Loading $10000 on a credit card to take a vacation is debt.

Funding a $40MM bond for capital construction is debt.

One is bad. The other is how large businesses and municipalities fund large construction. No one pays cash. It's not realistic. It's also not good monetary policy.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mathguy64 said:

There is debt and there is debt.

Loading $10000 on a credit card to take a vacation is debt.

Funding a $40MM bond for capital construction is debt.

One is bad. The other is how large businesses and municipalities fund large construction. No one pays cash. It's not realistic. It's also not good monetary policy.
The other difference is that for credit card debt you spend your own money.
For capital construction debt you are spending someone else's money (more or less).
Mr.Short-termMemory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
doubledog said:

Mathguy64 said:

There is debt and there is debt.

Loading $10000 on a credit card to take a vacation is debt.

Funding a $40MM bond for capital construction is debt.

One is bad. The other is how large businesses and municipalities fund large construction. No one pays cash. It's not realistic. It's also not good monetary policy.
The other difference is that for credit card debt you spend your own money.
For capital construction debt you are spending someone else's money (more or less).
Every dollar spent by the government is someone else's dollar.

As mentioned above, the school districts are limited in how they can budget, how they can spend, and how much they can have in surplus before it goes to someone else. Comparing it to an individuals personal spending and savings is apples and oranges.

Not a criticism for anyone trying to compare school district debt to individual, but I just don't think there is a way to compare. The way the legislature has school district financing set up is confusing and unfair (to the "wealthy" districts), among other adjectives. And it will get worse in the coming years with the push to "get rid" of property taxes without any discussion of how to pay for the things that current property tax does.
iisanaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have no direct stake in this vote since I live in Bryan, and my kids are in Bryan. However, I beg those who are genuinely seeking information to do a deep dive into Texas school finance law.

In an ideal world, Texas schools could approach infrastructure upgrades, repairs, new construction, etc. like families and businesses with good financial sense.
But it doesn't work like that. As several have mentioned, the REAL problem is in Austin. Until our representatives fix the bond problem, public schools will continue to have to play the bond game. If you ask any school official, they likely will tell you that they hate it as much as the voters. Not only do they have to continually go into debt, but they have to beg the approval of the voters to do it.

I am not saying that voters should rubber stamp any and all bonds. I am asking that voters look at the issue for what it is and quit trying to insinuate that districts should work within the framework as the private sector and individuals/families. It is disingenuous to say that you would only vote yes if districts would structure things in a manner that is not legal/in accordance with school finance regulations. If you are willing to at least acknowledge what they legally can and can't do, then a legitimate conversation can happen.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is completely disingenuous. There may be Consol grads on the board but their kids go to CSHS.

I'm not sure how my factual statement was disingenuous and your second statement is incorrect.
damiond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
government debt

higher taxes

no respect for the will of the people the first two times so they try to slide it through in a low turnout election

these bonds are a liberal wet dream

not only do these bonds need to be rejected a third time

the school board that allowed this abomination needs to be voted out
ct95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't understand the stance that this will not be a tax increase when the propositions voted on last fall had the final sentence in each proposition literally state, "This is a property tax increase."

Here is the link to the sample ballot including all four CSISD bond propositions.

2023 General_Special sample ballot - 10-2-2023.pdf (brazosvotes.org)
Mr.Short-termMemory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
damiond said:

....

higher taxes

.......

these bonds are a liberal wet dream

......
Addressing these two issues:

...It is estimated that these projects will not increase the tax rate.

It seems to me it's more a wet dream for future CSISD athletes and high school football, baseball, and softball fans. The repair and upgrade to the facilities are overdue in some areas and will bring them up to par in other school districts in the area.

ETA: I do not have kids currently in CSISD.
ct95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In the final two sentences of that report, they intentionally said it is not estimated to increase taxes three times.

"Based on estimates provided by Hilltop Securities, the district's financial advisor, it is estimated the full $53,470,000 could be funded within the original $.02 increase projected for the November 2023 election. It is estimated that these projects will not increase the tax rate."

That is a huge red flag to me and it gives them cover to increase taxes and not be held liable for stating something false...
Mr.Short-termMemory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ct95 said:

I don't understand the stance that this will not be a tax increase when the propositions voted on last fall had the final sentence in each proposition literally state, "This is a property tax increase."

Here is the link to the sample ballot including all four CSISD bond propositions.

2023 General_Special sample ballot - 10-2-2023.pdf (brazosvotes.org)
The Texas Legislature added this required language, regardless of the impact on CSISD's tax rate. The language is mandatory.
ct95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mr.Short-termMemory said:

ct95 said:

I don't understand the stance that this will not be a tax increase when the propositions voted on last fall had the final sentence in each proposition literally state, "This is a property tax increase."

Here is the link to the sample ballot including all four CSISD bond propositions.

2023 General_Special sample ballot - 10-2-2023.pdf (brazosvotes.org)
The Texas Legislature added this required language, regardless of the impact on CSISD's tax rate. The language is mandatory.

Correct, Texas legislature required that language to be added because it's factual.
George Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"This is a property tax increase."

By state law that sentence has to be on every bond proposition whether it's correct or not. The idea behind is that even if it wouldn't increase taxes from what they currently are, if the proposition failed taxes would go down as other bonds are paid off.
Clucky
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have seen signs all over town, and I received two ads in the mail - one of which was a pretty large piece which I know isn't cheap. It seems like someone hired an agency to come up with this whole campaign, since it failed twice. My question is - who is paying for the promotion of this?
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
reading those itemized gripes makes it even more comical. looks like a bunch of stuff a booster club should pay for.
Mr.Short-termMemory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BCSWguru said:

reading those itemized gripes makes it even more comical. looks like a bunch of stuff a booster club should pay for.


Booster club? Paying for capital improvements? I don't know what booster club you're affiliated with, but none I've seen in the high school level can do much more than a cookie cake and some foam seat cushions for the aluminum seats.

Unless you're just gaslighting, which is possible.
Independence H-D
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BCSWguru said:

reading those itemized gripes makes it even more comical. looks like a bunch of stuff a booster club should pay for.


Making some common sense arguments here I see.
4lilmonkeys
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BCSWguru said:

reading those itemized gripes makes it even more comical. looks like a bunch of stuff a booster club should pay for.
Everything Tiger Club has paid for since 2017, with the exception of the current school year.

https://www.amctigerclub.com/supporting-athletics

I can't find the same information on Cougar Club's site, but I'm sure it's there. They raised over $250,000 to support ALL sports, including $12,000 in scholarships per the infographic at the bottom.

https://www.cshscougarclub.com/

Like school districts, booster clubs also have rules in regards to how and where they can spend their money, I believe they come from UIL.

https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/guidelines-for-booster-clubs
damiond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[Give your opinion but we are not going to allow name calling or insulting terms on this board. -Staff]
JMac03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Voted FOR both today.
damiond
How long do you want to ignore this user?

what are the odds we have to do this a fourth time if this fails three times in a row
wasntme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
damiond said:


what are the odds we have to do this a fourth time if this fails three times in a row
Let's hope that it passes, and then you won't even have to worry about that!
claydeezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
iisanaggie said:

I have no direct stake in this vote since I live in Bryan, and my kids are in Bryan. However, I beg those who are genuinely seeking information to do a deep dive into Texas school finance law.

In an ideal world, Texas schools could approach infrastructure upgrades, repairs, new construction, etc. like families and businesses with good financial sense.
But it doesn't work like that. As several have mentioned, the REAL problem is in Austin. Until our representatives fix the bond problem, public schools will continue to have to play the bond game. If you ask any school official, they likely will tell you that they hate it as much as the voters. Not only do they have to continually go into debt, but they have to beg the approval of the voters to do it.

I am not saying that voters should rubber stamp any and all bonds. I am asking that voters look at the issue for what it is and quit trying to insinuate that districts should work within the framework as the private sector and individuals/families. It is disingenuous to say that you would only vote yes if districts would structure things in a manner that is not legal/in accordance with school finance regulations. If you are willing to at least acknowledge what they legally can and can't do, then a legitimate conversation can happen.


Thanks for sharing this information. Have had it explained to me by district personnel and it gave me a migraine. Complex and broken system, and districts are stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to do what they think is best to provide the best for our kids.

The amount of plain ignorance on this thread about the reality of the situation and what you can/can't spend bond money on is staggering. We need more informed posters like you. Thank you.

Either way, y'all get out and exercise your civil privilege to vote!
agaberto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A special election for two bonds, nothing more, that voters rejected twice before.

Bad school board.
Mr.Short-termMemory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seeing a need the school district has, and the only way to provide for the need is through a bond; restructure options on bond and be persistent to get the need, which will remain a need if not passed, addressed - good school board.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.