I honestly don't think they have decided. I found out during 8th grade night for the freaking band. They had kids from Grisham, Canyon Vista and Pearson Ranch. The only thing that makes sense are those kids who go to Purple Sage that are split between Grisham and Pearson Ranch.

It's amazing how such a highly regarded district like RR has the issues you mention at Westwood. Meanwhile, McNeil looks like a run down prison and the new construction that won't be finished for years doesn't fix the core issues.

The new bond does include substantial improvements to McNeil.

But to your point, it is amazing how far gone some of the campuses get before improvements are made.

JAW3336 said:

---

As long as the values continue to increase at the highest rate. If that slows then they will have to increase the rate.

---

Are assessed valuations out of line with market values in WilCo? The ISD doesn't do the assessments, that's up to the appraisal district. If the assessed values don't come in where expected, the ISD could propose additional taxes (assuming they aren't already at caps) or issue new bonds to raise revenues, but those would have to be approved by voters.

It's also worth noting that recent state cuts to property tax rates have been passed along with lower levels of state funding for education. The ISD's can close the gaps by raising more or spending less. Someone gets the short end either way.

The good thing about rising property values is that you can always sell, but lower priced alternatives will almost always be in less desirable locations with even worse schools.

That's the sorest point of all. Poor McNeil.


But hey, let's make RRISD a destination district

ATXAdvisor said:

---

JAW3336 said:

---

As long as the values continue to increase at the highest rate. If that slows then they will have to increase the rate.

---

Are assessed valuations out of line with market values in WilCo? The ISD doesn't do the assessments, that's up to the appraisal district. If the assessed values don't come in where expected, the ISD could propose additional taxes (assuming they aren't already at caps) or issue new bonds to raise revenues, but those would have to be approved by voters.

It's also worth noting that recent state cuts to property tax rates have been passed along with lower levels of state funding for education. The ISD's can close the gaps by raising more or spending less. Someone gets the short end either way.

The good thing about rising property values is that you can always sell, but lower priced alternatives will almost always be in less desirable locations with even worse schools.

---

My value is in line with market, assume the rest of the area is also. I'm just saying they are banking on the values rising at a significant rate, otherwise they will have to raise the tax rate, which I don't think is voted on. I think it is set by the school board.

JAW3336 said:

---

ATXAdvisor said:

---

JAW3336 said:

---

As long as the values continue to increase at the highest rate. If that slows then they will have to increase the rate.

---

Are assessed valuations out of line with market values in WilCo? The ISD doesn't do the assessments, that's up to the appraisal district. If the assessed values don't come in where expected, the ISD could propose additional taxes (assuming they aren't already at caps) or issue new bonds to raise revenues, but those would have to be approved by voters.

It's also worth noting that recent state cuts to property tax rates have been passed along with lower levels of state funding for education. The ISD's can close the gaps by raising more or spending less. Someone gets the short end either way.

The good thing about rising property values is that you can always sell, but lower priced alternatives will almost always be in less desirable locations with even worse schools.

---

My value is in line with market, assume the rest of the area is also. I'm just saying they are banking on the values rising at a significant rate, otherwise they will have to raise the tax rate, which I don't think is voted on. I think it is set by the school board.

---

School district can levy the tax (up to certain limits) but it must be approved by voters per the Texas Constitution. Robinhood has made it very ineffective to raise the tax rate due to the amount of any tax increase that is subject to recapture.

Article VII, section 3 of the Texas Constitution permits the Legislature to authorize districts to levy and collect "an ... ad valorem tax ... for the further maintenance of public free schools, and for the erection and equipment of school buildings therein; provided that a majority of the qualified voters of the district voting at an election to be held for that purpose, shall approve the tax." TEX. CONST. art. VII, 3(e). 3

See also TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN . 45.0031 ( a) (Vernon 2006) (requiring a district to demonstrate to the attorney general a projected ability to pay with a tax rate not to exceed $0.50 per $100 of valuation any proposed tax-supported bonds in addition to, with a limited exception, all previously issued bonds)

The west side is fully in support of this bond.

SteveBott said:

---

The opposition last time all came from the Westwood area. This year they get their share of candy.

---

They actually had their share of candy in the last bond (it's all the same candy) but were to focused on other things to see that. As a result, Westwood is way behind on upgrades.

ATXAdvisor said:

---

I don't live in WilCo, but have been part of many of the same debates in Eanes ISD. Biggest issue, that most don't get, is that ISD's are being increasingly forced to pay for more Maintainance & Ops items (i.e. HVAC) through debt issuance because these taxes aren't recaptured by Robinhood.

Dan Patrick brags about cutting education funding and spins it as fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, Texas education rankings hover near the bottom of the country.

It is natural to only want to pay for what your own children will directly benefit from, but school finance, when it comes to bonds, is as local as politics get. If we don't invest in education, we'll spend a lot more on the consequences down the road.

Voting in bond elections is a good start, as normally these elections are decided by < 20% of the electorate. Even better, get involved in the budget discussions with your local school board.

---

Voting down the last bond resulting in putting off some needed expansion. Economic conditions have changed (trumps tariffs, increasing labor prices) and the price of those needed expansions went up considerably. Plus, the Fed keeps raising the interest rates, so the bond will ultimately cost more too, double whammy.

SteveBott said:

---

The state has dramatically reduced public school funding. From somewhere of 60% to 40% in the last 15 years. They crow about not raising taxes every election.

But we still pay. Our property taxes are some of the highest in the nation. CO and CA? Try 1% or less.

Don't get me started on title insurance.

---

Yeah, CA is not the best example there Steve. Low property tax rates (but higher property values) combined with higher than Texas sales tax and a state income tax.

SteveBott said:

---

I've lived in CA as well. Many family there now. Prop 13 is your friend. Aunt pays 1978 taxes on a Westwood purchasetat 70k and the home is worth north of 10 million. She is retired so personal income tax is negligible.

What do we pay? 2.25 to 3.5% on property. It's a wash.

---

So what you are saying is that because of a weird quirk in CA property tax law that the assessed value is what you paid for it, people who have lived in CA in the same house forever and have little income pay little taxes. And that is proof of what? Certainly not the typical California resident.

Quote:

---

The west side is fully in support of this bond.

---

The Westwood side, maybe....but there are a lot of people slated for McNeil/RRHS that are upset the new HS was taken out at the last minute.

Ok. The FAR WEST side is in support of this bond

All in all...it'll pass this time.

Curious what the plan will be going forward, with all the new growth in the district.

BTHOB-98 said:

---

chipotle said:

---

ATXAdvisor said:

---

While I completely understand and sympathize with those that are burdened with higher tax rates, if I read the bond info correctly for RRISD, this bond won't increase the tax rate at all. If property tax increases are primarily coming from property value increases, isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

---

I think what I read a few will and I think it's too convenient that the county can just put their finger in their mouth and up in the wind to determine a "value" that suits them.

---

What chipotle is talking about here is really the biggest issue to me. Its just pull it out of a hat.

Also, what I would like to see if more fiscally responsible decisions. Where spending $76 million on technology. Round Rock High School gives everyone a Dell laptop to take home every night. Every Child. Is that really necessary for education? Not for most of the kids at Round Rock High its not. People can afford to have a computer at home. Its not that expensive.

Plus there is no explanation on the "Capital Renewal" section. $127.0 Million*? Listing things like "replace HVAC and Electrical and plumbing systems." Where? What is actually broken? Replace Turf field at High Schools and Kelly Reeves. My kids play football. What Turf Fields need to be replaces?? They just tell you that this needed to happen and take advantage of the fact that no one knows if they really does.

Finally the main thing that frustrates me is make high school #6 "Shovel Ready Design". Were not even getting a high school out of this which is what is really needed. (There were were 1,000 freshman that entered Round Rock this year. There will be 1,000 next year and so on. eventually it will be 4,000+ kids) They will be back in a few years asking for another bond to actually build the high School. WE NEED SCHOOLS NOW!! Put that in the bond. I will vote for that. $508,000,000 and we will get ONE elementary school out of it. It is glut I tell you. Loss of focus on what really needs to happen.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VuuQtm8fwgQYmoPmSj1m4xj6WuIU_Dhw/view

---

RRHS has a bring your own device option where you can opt out of having one of their laptops. How many text books does a RRHS get these days... very few since they all have access to a computer and the text books are online.

All that maintenance is in there because the state raids the non-bond tax revenue.

They aren't building the HS with this bond because that was one of the complaints about the last bond that failed. Specifically, they complaint that the previous bond was to expand capacity at RRHS to over 4K students, and to justify the new HS, the board said they had too many kids are RRHS and really wanted it smaller (~3500) as they were finishing up and opening a new wing of classrooms (building 15). So which is it... need more HSs now because RRHS is over crowded and shoor RRHS capacity was expanded to a couple hundred students more than it has now.

The tax payers voted against every bond package last time. Didn't matter if it was the bond for more technology, the bond for maintenance, or the bond for new schools... they voted them all down. Didn't matter to the Westwood area taxpayers that the last bond inlcuded funding to complete phase 4 of their master plan to add much needed space there. There were some very vocal people against it and a lot of people,went along with voting it down without really looking at what was in it. And they voted 3 bonds down over what was essential 2 key issues.

Charpie said:

---

I will say that there were two things that stood out to the parents I spent time with last time.

1. The need for the new high school.
2. The need for different board members.

---

100%

Quote:

---

They aren't building the HS with this bond because that was one of the complaints about the last bond that failed.

---

People aren't against the new high school. It's really the opposite.The issue was the size of the previous bond, and the location of where the new HS will be.

From talking to the committee lead, she justified changing the bond package at the last minute (removing the HS, and appropriating the funds elsewhere), "because even if it was approved, we couldnt guarantee the location". To which I answered, 'so what'. Get it passed, then we'll figure that out. Dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

But it's par for the course from this board.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Back to the Bond:

Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. I have a close friend who was involved with the Bond package, and have followed this very closely, because it was possibly going to affect where my kids went to school.

There were three bond proposals floated to the community.

One of the bond packages was 521 million, which included a much needed High School #6. Predictably, compared to the other two....That is the bond that garnered the most support. Then the board approves a very similar 508.5 million dollar bond, but they removed the high school, and shuffled those funds towards other district needs.

This infuriates me. Continually the board (and Flores) pulls a bait and switch. It's a hallmark of his tenure. They did the exact same thing with the re-zoning a couple years ago, and the last bond package that was approved.

In general, people dont typically pay close attention to these bond packages. But they do in RR, because the way these are routinely handled.

---

Those 3 proposed bond packages were all very similar. They only difference by how completely they funding district priorities, HS #6 being one of them. Ask your friend why the bond committee had 3 proposed packages funding HS6 to varying degrees and only the largest proposed package fully funding construction for Hs#6. The board selected an amount between the lowest two proposed packages, probably because that matched the "no change in bond tax" they wanted to use. Keep in mind the last bond failed because in part because "it raises our taxes". That and "the last bond that passed was to increase capacity of RRHS and now they are saying we need a new HS because RRHS is too big, even though it is below the increased capacity that was presented to pass the last bond.

This was bond package #1 and #2:

(*#3 only incuded design work for the new HS)

Quote:

---

Package #1: $521.7 million

• $125.4 million for Districtwide projects
• $253.1 million for Growth projects (Including a new high school)
• $143.2 million for Capital Renewal and Replacement projects

---

Quote:

---

Package #2: $586.7 million

• $125.4 million for Districtwide projects
• $318.1 million for Growth projects (Including funding Westwood High Phase 4, McNeil High Phase 2, and a new high school.)
• $143.2 million for Capital Renewal and Replacement projects

---

It included a new High School. Now we're approving a bond package over 500million, but removed the New High School.

Charpie said:

---

I was one of those Westwood parents who *****ed and moaned at the last bond proposal.

I will be supporting this bond for two reasons only.

1. Maintenance money for Westwood. My daughter is in Color Guard and athletics. The girls locker room hasn't had hot water for showers since school started. The volleyball and cross country coaches have continued to put in work orders to get the water issue fixed, but there is "no money."
2. Finishing off the master plan for Westwood. My daughter, and every other math student, has math outside in portal buildings. I'm sorry, those kids are sitting ducks for anyone who wants to do something malicious at Westwood.

The ISD loves to brag about the academics at Westwood, yet its the most run down school in the district. With 57 national merit scholar semi finalists, its time to take care of this school.

---

I've pointed this out to Charpie in the past, but that last bond that she was against inlcuded that same money to finish phase 4 of the master plan.

The WW master plan as originally proposed would have been completed years ago. The district funded the first parts with a bond and then waited years before going back for more, probably due to the economic down turn. The last approved bond funding part 3, but part 4 was slated for the failed '17 bond and now the '18 bond.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I wonder if the HS was removed, to appease areas that might have put up opposition for it.

---

Bingo.

Sorry...bad phrasing on my part.

Not opposed to the school itself, but the location. (ie. I'm voting it down if it's not where i want it)

I was pretty shocked when it got removed. The first person I heard it from was Charpie, on Texags.

It was THE priority. Then within a day or two...gone.

It is what it is now, but I'm really curious to see their next steps once this bond is passed.

Charpie said:

---

And you all should know, the proposed site for HS #6 (Pearson Ranch area) is being met with a ton of resistance from the east side.

---

Same way the west side was against the east side location for the swim facility. Btw, RRISD had agreements with RR and the local YMCA. RR was going to kick in more to the swim facility to make it bigger, enough to host bigger swim meets while the Y was going to handle day to day operations of the facility. RRISD swim teams would have first dibs on practice times, but then the rest of the time was going to be open swim under Y management with RR bringing in meets for additional operating revenue.

RR already has the resources to bring in major tourneys for the outdoor facilities at Old Settlers Park and the indoor facilities on Chisholm trail. Adding another venue wouldn't have been a problem.

BTW, this bond also masks the locations of some of the other new facilities. School district already owns land they were going to build the ES on, but the new proposal includes looking at other land options. That is the real lesson the board took away from the failed bond. If they don't tell people where things are going to go, then maybe the east side west side crap about who gets more will not kill the bond.

I think you're right about that.

In the long run, doing it this way, is exactly why so many areas are up in arms about the bonds now. There is this feeling like the board/district will pull the rug out from underneath them at any moment.

JAW3336 said:

---

ATXAdvisor said:

---

JAW3336 said:

---

As long as the values continue to increase at the highest rate. If that slows then they will have to increase the rate.

---

Are assessed valuations out of line with market values in WilCo? The ISD doesn't do the assessments, that's up to the appraisal district. If the assessed values don't come in where expected, the ISD could propose additional taxes (assuming they aren't already at caps) or issue new bonds to raise revenues, but those would have to be approved by voters.

It's also worth noting that recent state cuts to property tax rates have been passed along with lower levels of state funding for education. The ISD's can close the gaps by raising more or spending less. Someone gets the short end either way.

The good thing about rising property values is that you can always sell, but lower priced alternatives will almost always be in less desirable locations with even worse schools.

---

My value is in line with market, assume the rest of the area is also. I'm just saying they are banking on the values rising at a significant rate, otherwise they will have to raise the tax rate, which I don't think is voted on. I think it is set by the school board.

---

A large part of the "no bond tax increase" is because they reorganized a bunch of older debt. They used increased property values the last few years to pay down debt service rather than dropping the rate. Texas law requires bond taxes to go to paying bonds. They can either pay then early or lower the rate when faced with rising property values. It is separate from the school district operating budget property tax, which is subject to state confiscation if you become "too rich".

AgGrad99 said:

---

This was bond package #1 and #2:

(*#3 only incuded design work for the new HS)

Quote:

---

Package #1: $521.7 million

• $125.4 million for Districtwide projects
• $253.1 million for Growth projects (Including a new high school)
• $143.2 million for Capital Renewal and Replacement projects

---

Quote:

---

Package #2: $586.7 million

• $125.4 million for Districtwide projects
• $318.1 million for Growth projects (Including funding Westwood High Phase 4, McNeil High Phase 2, and a new high school.)
• $143.2 million for Capital Renewal and Replacement projects

---

It included a new High School. Now we're approving a bond package over 500million, but removed the New High School.

---

And added back in WW and McN? Can't imagine why they would appease the voting segment that killed the last bond issues.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I was pretty shocked when it got removed. The first person I heard it from was Charpie, on Texags.

It was THE priority. Then within a day or two...gone.

It is what it is now, but I'm really curious to see their next steps once this bond is passed.

---

If this one passes, they will spend the next year or two finding a location, designing the building, doing the site surveys (might want to check for caves) and then have another bond. It probably doesn't really change the timeline of the new HS (if they are really going to look at different locations) if the next bond passes, but there is risk of the next one failing.

I can only hope:
1) they have looked at their bond service burden and noticed another drop in a couple more years that provide cover for the next one
2) they spend the time to get a better picture of what the next one will costs and don't start a project only to find a cave with an engaged species.


The board has been raked over the coals due to the time and cost overruns at McN, which are largely the result of discovering the cave with an endanger creepy crawly in Travis County. Dealing with the needed agreements to get the go ahead were a substantial part of the delay and cost overruns.

H.S. #6 will either be in the Pearson Ranch area or off of A.W. Grimes. Those are the only two current options that the admin is looking at. I don't think that the west side gives a crap where it is. RR High is the greatest impacted school st this point.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I think you're right about that.

In the long run, doing it this way, is exactly why so many areas are up in arms about the bonds now. There is this feeling like the board/district will pull the rug out from underneath them at any moment.

---

It is very frustrating.

Charpie said:

---

H.S. #6 will either be in the Pearson Ranch area or off of A.W. Grimes. Those are the only two current options that the admin is looking at. I don't think that the west side gives a crap where it is. RR High is the greatest impacted school st this point.

---

Right. They already own the land for High School 6 and 7.

Either spot should be fine for shifting out of RRHS. West of I35 and N of 1431 already goes to Stoney Point. Just shift that south to grab Sendero Springs and more of the Walsh MS kids and you can relieve some of RRHS zoning.

Problem is, those are the same parents who pitched a fit about rezoning Walsh MS resulting in the district leaving walsh Ms severely overcrowded (~12 portables last I counted) even after building a new MS.