cslifer said:

---

It is standard wording required by law, BUT, if the bond is not passed the debt service portion of the budget goes down lowering your taxes. So by voting yes you may not be voting for a tax increase, but you are definitely voting against a tax decrease.

---

Please explain how going deeper into debt will lower my taxes in the long run? (Given that the interest rates now are at near record highs)

cslifer said:

---

I am not sure how you took that to mean taxes would go down by going deeper into debt.
Often the way bonds are pitched is that taxes won't go up with this bond, because a previous bond is getting paid off at around the same time.
So far as interest rates go, they aren't anywhere near record highs. Look, I'm not voting for this bond but when we speak against it we need to use real facts, otherwise people completely dismiss your argument.

---

I understand with the debt.. We are just kicking the can down to road to the next generation. Some day some one will need to pay it off.. (or not).

Todays interest rate is about 7% which is nearing the 1990s rate of 8% (though it is less than Jimmy Carter's rate of the 70s at 12% if you want to go back that far). I know they don't pay 7% on bonds..

Today's mortgage rate is in the 7% range, unless the Fed had a secret meeting the interest rate is still 5.5, which is what the issued bonds will likely be much closer to.

I think we can all agree that the fed rate was 0.05% in April 2020. So compared to that, a 5.5% is relatively high.

The wife and I early voted today at the utilities center and I was pleasantly surprised at how many people were in there. Granted it's the last day to early vote and it was the lunch hour, but there was more of a line than I normally see on election day.

Interview with Dr. Harkrider

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/05/01/college-station-isd-superintendent-discusses-bond-election-district-restructuring/

Watched the very abbreviated interview at 10. Reminded me of my post when he was hired - highlighting his prior job success at bond issues.

"Keep putting it on the ballot, it'll pass one of these years…" seem to be the strategy.

Hornbeck said:

---

"Keep putting it on the ballot, it'll pass one of these years…" seem to be the strategy.

---

And so we have come full circle.

Why fixate on one bread crumb (economic impact)? Why not maintain focus on a holistic conversation? Anyone whittling it down to one singular talking point and then tearing down the whole bond over that issue is being intellectually dishonest.

claydeezy said:

---

Why fixate on one bread crumb (economic impact)? Why not maintain focus on a holistic conversation? Anyone whittling it down to one singular talking point and then tearing down the whole bond over that issue is being intellectually dishonest.

---

Assuming that you are replying to me and/or cslifer, we focused on the economic talking point because it was the point that pudge made. If you want to talk about it wholistically, go ahead. I have already done so on this thread and in my own thoughts and determined to vote no on the bonds.

cslifer said:

---

Not even close. The playoff game justification always comes up for some reason. The economic effect of some high school playoff games is likely statistically insignificant in a city of this size.

---

just like the tax impact of this bond to the individual homeowner

instead, let's
talk about my home's tax value going up 30%!

But we are too busy debating LEDs….

I agree it sucks property values keep going up, but that is only part of the reason for high tax bills. The second part being the rate which of course increases when you borrow 10s of millions of dollars.

Just ask what CSISD charges for hosting on their fields. Also ask what Franklin , Mumford , etc charges for using their 'turf' fields when weather prevents use of natural fields. Then you can figure out how much potential money can be made through rentals when you go with turf. Does it justify the selling point being made on this thread?

Cost of using turf fields for baseball has gone down quite a bit recently. They are still a very much a luxury but many more available now. It used to be normal for a series on a turf field to run $3k or more, now some are charging as low as $5/600 per game.

I'm wondering how Franklin, Mumford etc. Got those turf fields. Did they take out huge bonds?

Would seem that smaller schools like that would have less resources than CSISD.

cslifer said:

---

Not even close. The playoff game justification always comes up for some reason. The economic effect of some high school playoff games is likely statistically insignificant in a city of this size.

---

What is the economic benefit from the visitors to playoff games to the CSISD coffers that would contribute to paying off CSISD debt? Concessions and field rentals?

Hornbeck said:

---

I'm wondering how Franklin, Mumford etc. Got those turf fields. Did they take out huge bonds?

Would seem that smaller schools like that would have less resources than CSISD.

---

My understanding that most of Franklin's improvement were generated from gas and oil revenues in the area. New schools, new community park.

Independence H-D said:

---

Yeah, it's a horrible thing for community to invest in their best natural resources. Our children should not be invested in at all.

Keep this up and eventually our school system will be as beautiful and successful as Hearne.

---

LOL. Hearne has a new field.

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/03/05/new-hearne-isd-stadium-unveiled-public/

And I believe they almost have their state accreditation back.

Hornbeck said:

---

I'm wondering how Franklin, Mumford etc. Got those turf fields. Did they take out huge bonds?

Would seem that smaller schools like that would have less resources than CSISD.

---

i know back 10-15 years ago they hit gas well on school property or next to it. I thought a lot of the facilities where built back when gas wells where going in all over the county

If I'm not mistaken CSISD spent $36,000 last year having to play on area fields other than their own. That'll add up quick.

Pretty sure Mumford has no debt. Pete ran a tight ship and the district has been lean and fiscally conservative under his watch. I framed the ticket booths when the complex was built. I can't remember exactly but I think the money came from either well's' that the district held mineral rights to or from donors who had wells come in. Maybe someone else can chime in on that aspect. Since the fields were built they have been redone once a year or 2 ago. If the numbers did not make sense to rent them for playoffs in regards to wear, then they definitely would not be doing it.

While a significant amount of money, it won't add up quick enough to pay off the debt, or even come close for that matter. Also we have to remember that these fields require maintenance and.....replacement! How do you think that replacement will be funded? I am going to go out on a limb and guess another bond.
If this was a money making or even break even proposition the district would be screaming it from the rooftops. The fact they haven't done that answers the rental/money making question.

Independence H-D said:

---

If I'm not mistaken CSISD spent $36,000 last year having to play on area fields other than their own. That'll add up quick.

---

How many field rentals was this ?

Independence H-D said:

---

If I'm not mistaken CSISD spent $36,000 last year having to play on area fields other than their own. That'll add up quick.

---

After a quick Google search, construction of a turf field costs on average $780k. Grass costs $610k. Knowing that the current grass field requires repairs, let's budget half of the new construction costs ($305k) for that to repairs. So the difference is $475k. If College Station spent $36k on field rentals every year, it would take a little over 13 years to see a return on investment.

But another Google search tells us that the average field lasts 8-10 years. Let's call it 9 years. Over 9 years, turf field installation costs $151k more than rentals. At this number, I'm actually ok with voting yes on the bond BUT...

The amount of repairs to the existing field should be closer to ZERO if, as claimed, the erosion issues have existed from the beginning as the contractor or engineer should be on the hook for it. Now we need 22 years of rental costs to pay off the field which will need replacement ever 9 years.

But we can't pretend we don't need a new field and the cost is not zero, you say. I agree. But that is the fault of the district and I will not vote to give money to an organization that could not adequately manage the first construction just so they can bungle an even more expensive second project which will then lock us into to replacements every decade.