Me (not your real name), Deb Haring wrote "100% of the bond committee members voted to put thru the $748 million dollar bond"... Is this true or false? The split vote was 80/20 but you can call it 75/25 if you like... What is the outcome of a 75/25 vote? One bond or two?
And as a followup, "Which is a better possible tax rate increase, 1 cent or 4 cents?"... I think the goal of the Bond Committee was to get the most for the kids with the least impact to the taxpayers... That's exactly what we did... Were you in a group that wanted more stuff and a higher rate? Just wondering because you can't get much lower than zero to 1/2 cent...
When people get this stadium chip off of their shoulder they may actually realize that we, the taxpayers, the adults, have let our students down by forcing them to attend schools like cattle, eat brunch instead of lunch and get to attend their seventh choice in an elective class because the schools are too crowded to get in the first six...
Me - 10 years ago
To Deb Haring. I take issue that 100% voted to have one bond. Do you remember the clickers? The test vote and then the actual where it was records as 20% but later when they went back to the screen and lingering votes were counted it was 25% of the predisposed pro bond crowd and recall that this was after Carmichael's weekend marathon where out of the blue one groups idea to keep it under a penny tax increase became the central focus and well then after cutting here and adding there for his plan to only then be able to discuss splitting it to two bonds made no sense. Like letting you eat a wonderful meal and dessert and then inform you that if you want you can have your meal for free if you try a few more entrees and provide feedback, a predetermined outcome yet 25% of the people still would throw out a loot of that work for the one penny and split the bond out into two with the stadium standing alone.
I can tell you what, after this one fails, the next one with no stadium will sail through and pass with no problems. I know this is not the plan, but a likely outcome.
R U Kidding - 10 years ago
Alfonso. I see your are confused or kidding? Okay, the committee did hit the mark of being a sliver under the Allen stadium and yes they can do what they want when this bind DOES PASS but they have been good stewards thus far and produced stellar students AND athletes alike. Besides not to be a jerk about it but if we don't pass this darn thing they will delay our schools, use more trailers and eventually find the money to build the stadium just like they found it for STEM and two schools since the last bond that failed. Let's move on already.
Alfonso Arastu - 10 years ago
Help me with this math homework question. $750,000 to PBK for additional plans, land at over $4 million and $58 million for the construction. So how does this equal less than the $60 million that the district up by Dallas spent and can't use (same architects, too, right)? I thought they were really strict in making sure they can position this is not the most expensive stadium in the country but they felt we would not call them out when they leave out the price of the land?
So,make no mistake it WILL be the most expensive stadium in the country for high school, but it will also build a real sense of pride for our football team!
Home of Champions - Go Tigers.
Looks like college is soon to pay players for marketing their images so let's hope KISD and the players can capitalize on this attention and get some televised games and make some money for the players, their families and some for the district. Maybe in a few years after they are paying the college crowd to play the best of the best here in Katy can get paid at the high school level!
Don't hide it, be proud. If it is going to be the costliest high school stadium let's embrace it and unite behind it. I would be happy to get the national attention so why not be sure to spend just a few bucks more than the folks up by Dallas.
Vote YES!
Tony THomas - 10 years ago
Jay, I cannot answer for the district as to how they developed the original bond proposal but if I had to, I would say that they asked each department within the district what they thought their needs were going to be over the next few years based on the growth that Katy ISD is experiencing and going to continue to experience over the foreseeable future. If I were to further speculate, I would say that these departments put together a list of items and services that they felt would best service the district. That they developed their lists based on true needs and for no other reason, that they were hired, elected or appointed to their respective positions because they have a better than average grasp on how to operate that department. But, this would be speculation on my part. What is not speculation, but is my opinion, is that at some point you have to put some faith in those who are in those positions. I am not saying to blindly follow and believe everyone does everything for the right reasons because that would be naïve, but put some trust in these people.
There were items that were on the original proposal that did not make the final cut that I wanted and there are some things on the final proposal that I did not want, but as a package it is a very good bond in my opinion.
I do not have an issue with anyone who votes against this bond if they do not believe in what it represents as a whole, what I have issues with is when individuals state that they are not going to vote for it because it does not specifically address one item that they think it should.
Jay, you say the district “found” the money for the STEM center. It also was able to handle the budget from the 2010 bond in an efficient enough manner that they never had to increase our taxes at all despite the fact that we, the voters had approved the bond which projected a 4 cent tax increase. Plus they were able to build two additional elementary schools with the money that was saved. Sure the economy and other factors aided in this, but at the end of the day the district did what they said they were going to and more.
It is my belief after months of meetings and thousands of questions being asked and answered that this bond id in the best interest of our kids and our community as a whole and I will be voting for it and urging others to do so as well. If you decide to vote against it, I have zero problem with that.
Jay Beauchamp - 10 years ago
Tony, you cut almost $300,000,000.00 out of a bond ask of over $1Billion. One question. How can a district feel so entitled that they asked for over $300,000,000.00 then outside volunteers were okay with when they live, eat and breath this every day. To miss the mark by $300,000,000.00 (that is THREE TIMES the entire last bond - you know, the one the district "found" the money for the STEM project for immediately after it failed)! Speak to this. What did they need so bad they were willing to encumber us with 4 cents tax before ending up with 1 cent?
Tony Thomas - 10 years ago
The fact that there is so much discussion and passion about this bond is a great thing, it means that our community cares. I can tell you this, the committee cared when making the decisions that we did, at least those that I was grouped with. The committee did not rubber stamp anything, we cut almost a quarter of a billion dollars from the wish list that we were given, that is billion with a "B".
"Concerned", the groups that I was part of were given information as to why cost were up as well as any other information that we asked for. We might have had to wait until the next meeting to get it, but it was always provided.
I take most comments with a grain of salt because I know that people are passionate about this issue and unfortunately, many are not well versed as to the time and energy that the committee put into this, but I do take exception to "Interested Party" making the comments that we were made up of people "picked with a tilt toward favoring anything the district asks of them" and "after all how many general public would take the months of time to be part of something they were not in favor of from the get go". I can tell you that I went into this with a lean towards cutting as much fat as possible and getting the best bond possible for my kids and all the other kids in the district. There were more than a handful of people in my group that were for the absolute bare minimum. Through hours of meetings over months, we cut out, put back, slashed here and there to come up with a bond that we felt was the right bond. Not everyone got everything that they wanted, but that would be impossible. We were given every right to vote no on each and ever item. The system is not perfect, but it is what we have and if you wanted your voice to be heard during these meetings then it was heard. I do have issue with those who did not speak out during the meeting but now want to complain.
"Interested Party", you are absolutely welcome to your opinion just as much as I am and everyone else, but I do find it ironic the you use the name Interested Party when you have the opinion that people would not be part of something that they were not in favor of from the get go. It is called being a concerned citizen, wanting to get involved to be part of the decision making process and to make sure that your voice and those of your neighbors are being heard. Vote for the bond or vote against the bond, but please be sure that you are taking into account everything that this bond will do for our community, our children and ultimately our home values.
Concerned Bout Expenses - 10 years ago
It is unethical that KISD would present numbers to the bond committee at the beginning, tell same committee that NOTHING can be changed/take it or leave it, then ON THE LAST DAY say, we (KISD) READJUSTED OUR ESTIMATES and are using lower bond costs/rates and now YOU (committee) CAN include additional projects and it won't cost so much.
Carmichael was asked why were projects being included that NO groups had passed to put in, and he said it was to make people 'happy' that wanted lots of projects and some of those projects didn't get in by a couple of votes. Carmichael was then asked about projects that were voted in by a couple of votes and why there weren't being excluded then, he just smiled.
I think most of the committee could care less about a stadium (in the beginning) but the district kept cramming it down our throats and it was the 'elephant in the room', etc.. Mr. (not Dr.) Frailey, the elephant in the room is KISD's own doing. Try being upfront and honest with the people that believe in our kids AND schools. Put ALLL the info on the table and let the community decide and we would have ZERO problem borrowing two billion dollars!
Robert Willeby - 10 years ago
I was in the room. I was in the room every time there was a meeting...
Keith Carmichael had the benefit (and maybe the misfortune) of being the whipping boy for everyone with a comment that didn't have the guts to stand up for themselves in a meeting full of community members.
Knowing what went on in the three super groups gave him a distinct advantage to understand the dynamics of the overall group. There were people who wanted everything, those who wanted the lowest amount possible and those who wanted to make sure there wouldn't be a tax rate increase. He openly stated this and still gave us the option to continue if we chose to do so. I fell within the last two categories.
I can tell you that from my perspective (and many that I worked with during this process) had we ended up with an $800mm bond and a $.04 cent tax rate increase there would have been little to no support for the package.
If you and Hockley are saying that we, those in that room the final night of voting, were not given the option to 1) accept the compromise or 2) continue in a super group - going over the remaining items, line-by-line - then I'll just come right out and call you both liars. Someone says they have video, then run it because that is exactly what transpired.
When we all stood to accept the vote for Carmichael's proposal, did you sit down? Did Hockley? Nope. No one sat down indicating that they were fine with it. ONE person objected and retracted his objection when he realized that we had a 99.9% go vote.
I know that my super group front he meeting before had Technology at $70mm (my number was $40mm) and in my opinion that was $30mm too much... The others had it at something like $45mm and $50mm... The compromise was only able to be set to $50mm because there were items we hand already green lighted (passed by the super groups) and the district reviewed those numbers and returned them back into the budget.
If you're so in tuned with the details, tell me what pork or pet projects were added back into the package - Cinco upgrades, security, lighting, shade structures? I can tell you without question, the technology budget not being reduced from the start is what caused many projects to get yellow flagged.
deb haring - 10 years ago
100% of the bond committee members voted to put thru the $748 million dollar bond after 4 months of excruciating debates. Yes, 100% of the members! If someone felt they were being "sold out" in the process, they should have had the courage to stand up and voice their opinion in the room full of their peers. Those 4 months were difficult and everyone was encouraged to have a voice and express their opinions. We made decisions that will impact our children and our community. People are coming to Katy and we need to be ready. Let's focus on stretching our dollars as far as they can go. The road to mediocrity is a wide and well-traveled road.........greatness is a much less traveled road. I choose greatness for our community.......that's why I gave up 4 months of my life! I vote YES.
Voting NO - 10 years ago
J Stockdick. A shame to see our kids wait another year for schools over 7.78% of the total now isn't it?
Interested Party - 10 years ago
Seems to me this committee was a couple hundred ladies and gentlemen with good intentions but many who were picked with a tilt toward favoring anything the school district asks of them, after all how many general public would take the months of time to be a part of something they were not in favor of from the get go. So, what would one expect such a committee to end up recommending? As one person said below, ironic that almost $300,000,000 of waste was cut out by even these folks. I daresay a commoner like the rest of us might find it right to cut out another $300,000,000, or so. What say you?
Chuck - 10 years ago
Mr. WILLEBY. While I don't know you I must say you either were not in the same meeting as I and Mr. Hockley, who I do not know, either, but he is certainly right. Rev. Carmichael who did such a classy job for the district sold his soul to them and made a fool of himself when he took to the podium and talked to the committee as if they were schoolchildren themselves not capable of making the final decision on their own 4 month journey. I appreciate his role and he is a good man. I was shocked he was manipulated so and feel sorry for the committee members who feel this was not at the urging of the District handlers. THE FINAL BOND WAS NOT THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE. IT WAS MOSTLY THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE BUT IN THE END ALL THE PORK AND WASTE AND EXTRA WIGGLE ROOM THE DISTRICT NEDEDS FOR THEIR PET PROJECTS WAS SAVED BY THIS TRAGIC EVENT.
Krycek Simpjion - 10 years ago
The taxpayers want to know the percentage of students that graduate from junior high and high school before we decide on any new schools. Also, the school district should focus on cirriculum instead of a stadium. I don't care if these kids can catch a ball, I want to know that they can read, write and speak in complete sentences. Since only 10% are college bound the rest of the students should at least be able to add and subtract.
School taxes should be called at $1000 per homeowner. The rest of the money should be paid by the parents who have children attending the schools. That way the parents have a much more vested interest in thier childs school work and outcome. And taxpayers / homeowners that no longer have kids attending school aren't burdened with increased costs.
I will vote no on any new schools or stadiums. More buildings does not improve the students ability to learn.
Robert Willeby - 10 years ago
Robert Hockley, the first FACT is that the committee was given the opportunity to either proceed with Carmichaels proposal or go through the package line-by-line as one large group. The consensus was to move forward with his combo plan.
JD - 10 years ago
The district tries to make a big deal out of how the bond proposal is supposedly the product of a 200-plus-member group of citizens. But the information used by that group of citizens was carefully cherry-picked by the district. With VERY few exceptions, they were given only a yes/no option on each component. There was no discussion of why things cost what they did, or how that cost could be brought down - in fact, one of the early meetings included a presentation warning them not to try to compare costs with construction by other districts, claiming it wasn't really possible to do that.
One of the district's "poster child" campuses for overcrowding - King Elementary, in the northern part of the district where, according to the research firm hired by the district, massive growth is coming - will only be relieved by one elementary school over the next five years. There was another proposed, but it wasn't hammered into the committee's collective heads like some other projects (which were, of course, approved).
This isn't about the needs of students - it's about a pointless and ultimately destructive game of one-upsmanship with other districts.
Reggie - 10 years ago
While I see that much of the opposition is to the stadium, which I see will cost more than it would have on the failed bond from last year as they took out the cost of many of the things that they will put in the stadium as they have very right to do if this bond passed and left off the money they already paid the architect or what they could sell the land for (it has value for the district even if they don't build a stadium on it) and they said construction costs are up so much that it will cost more than the failed one even with fewer seats...
I ask why this was not split put as it seems most of the people would vote for schools even if there is a lot of pork in that bond as several folks on the committee have shared they feel there is.
Is it wise to possibly see this bond fail simply because the District who people on the committee tell me were not allowed to have a formal discussion on the initiative aspect until the tail end when they were already molded into which times they felt they had to cut to stay below a one cent potential increase that they would have to basically start over if the stadium could be split out.
And who is taking about the $250,000,000+ of items the committee cut. If we are to trust the district as voters when a committee made quick work of cutting out a quarter of a BILLION dollars of items the district felt were of such importance they were willing to put us four cents instead of one cent in debt then why do we trust they will allocate the funds the way they and the committee tell us they will? THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
Robert Hockley - 10 years ago
Okay, so who is going to refute this FACT? Please use FACTS to prove this wrong. After months of work done by volunteers, albeit it many had spouses, kids, or themselves are relying on KISD for their paycheck why did Mr. Carmichael get up and testify that he spent his prior weekend pouring out his sweat over this package with the CFO and together they totally changed up a decent amount of the hard work each group had done by on some items where there were two of three of the red, white and blue teams left that either opposed or favored an item and even a few where all three tables opposed or favored an item he threw that work aside and instead saying he would save everyone a lot of time had a better plan - at the last of the decision making meetings. This quite simply defies what a committee was in place to do. Does anyone refute this occurred? You do know this was video and audio taped. The committee was made to be a pawn at the end of the process. So, you take 200 people, many with district ties and others who took the trouble to volunteer and tell them that not even their bond positive mentality was good enough that Mr. Carmichael felt the calling to undo what so many worked so hard to do and call it an effort to save time and move on to celebrate. This is the biggest tragedy of the whole process - to deny the committee to have their true voice heard after all that work and instead shove the bond the district used their Chairman to perform the dirty work of keeping those pet projects and other items intact when it would have taken no more than maybe an hour or two to actually have a bond that the committee truly did come up with. Shame on KISD for treating the committee this way.
Concerned Bout Expenses - 10 years ago
Stadium? I was on the bond committee and we were NOT allowed to make any changes to the 3 options (which only addressed the number of seats). Other districts are doing more for less.
Technology? I have zero idea why the committee voted to ALLOW the head of tech for KISD to GET $90,000,000.
New Schools? Yes of course they are needed. But why is the costs so high and just keep going up for construction? We were provided zero information on why these schools are 20%-30% more expensive since the last ones built.
Do you need more questions asked?
J Stockdick - 10 years ago
I served on the Bond Committee. We worked very hard at really deciding what was needed for our district. I know a lot of people are concerned about the stadium, but in reality, the stadium is only 7.78% of the bond package. We have put together what we think is the best for the district and our students. If we delay building the stadium for another 3 years it will cost us about $19MM more. Please keep in mind this is a dual stadium concept. It is estimated to bring in over $500K in additional revenue through ticket sales, concession sales, advertising and facility rentals.
David Ammerman - 10 years ago
Dear Voter - You are not being coerced into buying a stadium. This district needs another stadium due to the number of high schools and junior highs it must accommodate for football, track, marching band, soccer, etc. Without enough stadiums to accommodate these important activities, our kids and their families spend more time on the road. The bond committee agreed with your assessment that there is no need for a really large stadium. I disagreed because without a large stadium, we will not be able to qualify for hosting playoff games. These extracurricular activities are far more important than most folks realize. These activities teach our kids how to work together and make decisions in real time without knowing everything. It teaches them how to solve problems that they've not solved before. Do you think the world hires expensive Americans for our engineering and math skills? No. They hire us for our ability to make decisions. I know. I've been an expat working around the world for many years.
David Ammerman - 10 years ago
There have been so many studies done on this topic that I now accept it as fact: Better school systems yield better communities which develop better school systems ... and so on and so on. The value of everyone's property in Katy has increased way more than the investment (taxes) going into our excellent school system. The ROR is better than most investments any of us own - especially savings accounts. I wish the bond requested had been larger, but this is a well-debated (200 folks!) and agreed to amount, so who am I to quibble? And, KISD has some of the sharpest financial minds I've seen in school systems (or financial institutions) husbanding our money very well! I'm glad they work for us.
DSJ - 10 years ago
To Voter- bond COMMITTEE asked that question. But it would cost 9-11 million per campus to make those changes. Not 1 million. You have to add parking, bathrooms, ADA improvements, etc. And most schools do not have the Land to do that. Taylor for example. They would loose all their other feilds, tennis courts and outdoor space. Hardly fair and with 7 campuses to make that change to it more then exceeds the cost of the new scaled down stadium.
DSJ - 10 years ago
RJ- bonds cant hire bus drivers. They can only be used for capital improvements like buildings etc. But, this bond does add busses to the district and make improvements to South Transportation which includes a day care facility. KISD bus drivers can get childcare for $2/day which is a great recruiting tool. If we have this option at all our bus barns it helps recruit drivers. No one wants to be a bus driver these days, but Katy just gave them a $2.50cent raise effwctive sept 1 to help recruit more drivers. They now make $16.25/hour. Katy is doing a lot to help get more drivers. But its a national shortage.
Wayne Webb - 10 years ago
First, we have to pass this bond issue. We have to educate young people, and educating costs money. I served on the bond committee. It is a great compromise, but well over a hundred people from throughout the district worked on, argued about it and agreed upon it.
My biggest concern about the bond issue is the stadium—the bond issue without it isn’t particularly controversial. I’m going to vote for it. I hope and pray that stadium fans get out and vote, and I hope and pray that people who recognize the value of education will vote for it, too.
Ed Sarlls - 10 years ago
It's more about an additional stadium than a bigger stadium. It is not possible to schedule all 7 teams this year and 8 teams in two years into one facility. Since another stadium is needed, it makes sense to expand it some from the existing one to accommodate larger crowds for our most active schools and for playoffs and band competitions.
Ed Sarlls - 10 years ago
Good question on the Dynamo comparison. What does their "infrastructure" include? If that is included in the Katy ISD construction cost (seats, press box, restrooms, concessions), they are nearly the same:
BBVA $60M construction + $20M infrastructure = $80M / 22000 seats = $3636/seat
KISD $43.7M construction / 12000 seats = $3639/seat
It is a different scale and different type of design so there are other considerations, too.
Note that the Bond Committee scaled down the stadium project allocation to $19M less than what the district requested.
Voter - 10 years ago
Just one question. Why is KISD forcing us all to vote against schools so we can simply stand up and not be intimidated or coerced into voting for their stadium? They claim the current stadium sold out twice in the last three years. I was at all 3 of those games and it was NOT sold out. 75% of the games sell less than 20% of the seats including the band and other seats the district inflates the ticket sales with. How about $1M per high school to add a thousand bleacher seats and have a good old fashioned home team advantage at the campuses?
RJ - 10 years ago
$748 million and still not reinstating the school bus service we lost recently. Explain.
Ken Trannel - 10 years ago
Why did they ask for $99,000,000 for technology but when asked by the committee how much they really needed they said $30,000,000 would do? The committee at least saw through that and cut tech spending into less thanh all what was asked for and they almost totally scrapped safety and security when they learned it was all about safety of the buildings and not of the students and teachers!
Jermaine Jones - 10 years ago
The new Dynamo pro soccer field cost $60MM. This stadium $58MM. Plus, how much did that land cost, or better yet, what is the fair market value of the land today and why is that not a cost nor the $750,000 they already paid PBK (the same folks that designed the now closed 2 year old most expensive stadium in high school football in Allen, TX)?
Stephanie Click - 10 years ago
Here's the exemption info: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/exemptions/age65older_disabled_faq.html
Stephanie click - 10 years ago
Reggie, please vote yes! Seniors are locked into their school tax rate! You won't pay a penny more if you are over 65. Keep your property value high & don't spend a cent in the process!
Reggie Chisholm - 10 years ago
I am over 70 and retired, living on a fixed income, no kids in school for the last 35 years and I feel I am being charged for something I don't use at all. In fact I only had kids in school in the Katy area for 4 years. Something needs to be done to give seniors some more relief on their taxes since we don't have kids in school anymore and living on a fixed income. I will vote no on anything that raises taxes. I don't know what the answer is, but it needs attention.
Me (not your real name), Deb Haring wrote "100% of the bond committee members voted to put thru the $748 million dollar bond"... Is this true or false? The split vote was 80/20 but you can call it 75/25 if you like... What is the outcome of a 75/25 vote? One bond or two?
And as a followup, "Which is a better possible tax rate increase, 1 cent or 4 cents?"... I think the goal of the Bond Committee was to get the most for the kids with the least impact to the taxpayers... That's exactly what we did... Were you in a group that wanted more stuff and a higher rate? Just wondering because you can't get much lower than zero to 1/2 cent...
When people get this stadium chip off of their shoulder they may actually realize that we, the taxpayers, the adults, have let our students down by forcing them to attend schools like cattle, eat brunch instead of lunch and get to attend their seventh choice in an elective class because the schools are too crowded to get in the first six...
To Deb Haring. I take issue that 100% voted to have one bond. Do you remember the clickers? The test vote and then the actual where it was records as 20% but later when they went back to the screen and lingering votes were counted it was 25% of the predisposed pro bond crowd and recall that this was after Carmichael's weekend marathon where out of the blue one groups idea to keep it under a penny tax increase became the central focus and well then after cutting here and adding there for his plan to only then be able to discuss splitting it to two bonds made no sense. Like letting you eat a wonderful meal and dessert and then inform you that if you want you can have your meal for free if you try a few more entrees and provide feedback, a predetermined outcome yet 25% of the people still would throw out a loot of that work for the one penny and split the bond out into two with the stadium standing alone.
I can tell you what, after this one fails, the next one with no stadium will sail through and pass with no problems. I know this is not the plan, but a likely outcome.
Alfonso. I see your are confused or kidding? Okay, the committee did hit the mark of being a sliver under the Allen stadium and yes they can do what they want when this bind DOES PASS but they have been good stewards thus far and produced stellar students AND athletes alike. Besides not to be a jerk about it but if we don't pass this darn thing they will delay our schools, use more trailers and eventually find the money to build the stadium just like they found it for STEM and two schools since the last bond that failed. Let's move on already.
Help me with this math homework question. $750,000 to PBK for additional plans, land at over $4 million and $58 million for the construction. So how does this equal less than the $60 million that the district up by Dallas spent and can't use (same architects, too, right)? I thought they were really strict in making sure they can position this is not the most expensive stadium in the country but they felt we would not call them out when they leave out the price of the land?
So,make no mistake it WILL be the most expensive stadium in the country for high school, but it will also build a real sense of pride for our football team!
Home of Champions - Go Tigers.
Looks like college is soon to pay players for marketing their images so let's hope KISD and the players can capitalize on this attention and get some televised games and make some money for the players, their families and some for the district. Maybe in a few years after they are paying the college crowd to play the best of the best here in Katy can get paid at the high school level!
Don't hide it, be proud. If it is going to be the costliest high school stadium let's embrace it and unite behind it. I would be happy to get the national attention so why not be sure to spend just a few bucks more than the folks up by Dallas.
Vote YES!
Jay, I cannot answer for the district as to how they developed the original bond proposal but if I had to, I would say that they asked each department within the district what they thought their needs were going to be over the next few years based on the growth that Katy ISD is experiencing and going to continue to experience over the foreseeable future. If I were to further speculate, I would say that these departments put together a list of items and services that they felt would best service the district. That they developed their lists based on true needs and for no other reason, that they were hired, elected or appointed to their respective positions because they have a better than average grasp on how to operate that department. But, this would be speculation on my part. What is not speculation, but is my opinion, is that at some point you have to put some faith in those who are in those positions. I am not saying to blindly follow and believe everyone does everything for the right reasons because that would be naïve, but put some trust in these people.
There were items that were on the original proposal that did not make the final cut that I wanted and there are some things on the final proposal that I did not want, but as a package it is a very good bond in my opinion.
I do not have an issue with anyone who votes against this bond if they do not believe in what it represents as a whole, what I have issues with is when individuals state that they are not going to vote for it because it does not specifically address one item that they think it should.
Jay, you say the district “found” the money for the STEM center. It also was able to handle the budget from the 2010 bond in an efficient enough manner that they never had to increase our taxes at all despite the fact that we, the voters had approved the bond which projected a 4 cent tax increase. Plus they were able to build two additional elementary schools with the money that was saved. Sure the economy and other factors aided in this, but at the end of the day the district did what they said they were going to and more.
It is my belief after months of meetings and thousands of questions being asked and answered that this bond id in the best interest of our kids and our community as a whole and I will be voting for it and urging others to do so as well. If you decide to vote against it, I have zero problem with that.
Tony, you cut almost $300,000,000.00 out of a bond ask of over $1Billion. One question. How can a district feel so entitled that they asked for over $300,000,000.00 then outside volunteers were okay with when they live, eat and breath this every day. To miss the mark by $300,000,000.00 (that is THREE TIMES the entire last bond - you know, the one the district "found" the money for the STEM project for immediately after it failed)! Speak to this. What did they need so bad they were willing to encumber us with 4 cents tax before ending up with 1 cent?
The fact that there is so much discussion and passion about this bond is a great thing, it means that our community cares. I can tell you this, the committee cared when making the decisions that we did, at least those that I was grouped with. The committee did not rubber stamp anything, we cut almost a quarter of a billion dollars from the wish list that we were given, that is billion with a "B".
"Concerned", the groups that I was part of were given information as to why cost were up as well as any other information that we asked for. We might have had to wait until the next meeting to get it, but it was always provided.
I take most comments with a grain of salt because I know that people are passionate about this issue and unfortunately, many are not well versed as to the time and energy that the committee put into this, but I do take exception to "Interested Party" making the comments that we were made up of people "picked with a tilt toward favoring anything the district asks of them" and "after all how many general public would take the months of time to be part of something they were not in favor of from the get go". I can tell you that I went into this with a lean towards cutting as much fat as possible and getting the best bond possible for my kids and all the other kids in the district. There were more than a handful of people in my group that were for the absolute bare minimum. Through hours of meetings over months, we cut out, put back, slashed here and there to come up with a bond that we felt was the right bond. Not everyone got everything that they wanted, but that would be impossible. We were given every right to vote no on each and ever item. The system is not perfect, but it is what we have and if you wanted your voice to be heard during these meetings then it was heard. I do have issue with those who did not speak out during the meeting but now want to complain.
"Interested Party", you are absolutely welcome to your opinion just as much as I am and everyone else, but I do find it ironic the you use the name Interested Party when you have the opinion that people would not be part of something that they were not in favor of from the get go. It is called being a concerned citizen, wanting to get involved to be part of the decision making process and to make sure that your voice and those of your neighbors are being heard. Vote for the bond or vote against the bond, but please be sure that you are taking into account everything that this bond will do for our community, our children and ultimately our home values.
It is unethical that KISD would present numbers to the bond committee at the beginning, tell same committee that NOTHING can be changed/take it or leave it, then ON THE LAST DAY say, we (KISD) READJUSTED OUR ESTIMATES and are using lower bond costs/rates and now YOU (committee) CAN include additional projects and it won't cost so much.
Carmichael was asked why were projects being included that NO groups had passed to put in, and he said it was to make people 'happy' that wanted lots of projects and some of those projects didn't get in by a couple of votes. Carmichael was then asked about projects that were voted in by a couple of votes and why there weren't being excluded then, he just smiled.
I think most of the committee could care less about a stadium (in the beginning) but the district kept cramming it down our throats and it was the 'elephant in the room', etc.. Mr. (not Dr.) Frailey, the elephant in the room is KISD's own doing. Try being upfront and honest with the people that believe in our kids AND schools. Put ALLL the info on the table and let the community decide and we would have ZERO problem borrowing two billion dollars!
I was in the room. I was in the room every time there was a meeting...
Keith Carmichael had the benefit (and maybe the misfortune) of being the whipping boy for everyone with a comment that didn't have the guts to stand up for themselves in a meeting full of community members.
Knowing what went on in the three super groups gave him a distinct advantage to understand the dynamics of the overall group. There were people who wanted everything, those who wanted the lowest amount possible and those who wanted to make sure there wouldn't be a tax rate increase. He openly stated this and still gave us the option to continue if we chose to do so. I fell within the last two categories.
I can tell you that from my perspective (and many that I worked with during this process) had we ended up with an $800mm bond and a $.04 cent tax rate increase there would have been little to no support for the package.
If you and Hockley are saying that we, those in that room the final night of voting, were not given the option to 1) accept the compromise or 2) continue in a super group - going over the remaining items, line-by-line - then I'll just come right out and call you both liars. Someone says they have video, then run it because that is exactly what transpired.
When we all stood to accept the vote for Carmichael's proposal, did you sit down? Did Hockley? Nope. No one sat down indicating that they were fine with it. ONE person objected and retracted his objection when he realized that we had a 99.9% go vote.
I know that my super group front he meeting before had Technology at $70mm (my number was $40mm) and in my opinion that was $30mm too much... The others had it at something like $45mm and $50mm... The compromise was only able to be set to $50mm because there were items we hand already green lighted (passed by the super groups) and the district reviewed those numbers and returned them back into the budget.
If you're so in tuned with the details, tell me what pork or pet projects were added back into the package - Cinco upgrades, security, lighting, shade structures? I can tell you without question, the technology budget not being reduced from the start is what caused many projects to get yellow flagged.
100% of the bond committee members voted to put thru the $748 million dollar bond after 4 months of excruciating debates. Yes, 100% of the members! If someone felt they were being "sold out" in the process, they should have had the courage to stand up and voice their opinion in the room full of their peers. Those 4 months were difficult and everyone was encouraged to have a voice and express their opinions. We made decisions that will impact our children and our community. People are coming to Katy and we need to be ready. Let's focus on stretching our dollars as far as they can go. The road to mediocrity is a wide and well-traveled road.........greatness is a much less traveled road. I choose greatness for our community.......that's why I gave up 4 months of my life! I vote YES.
J Stockdick. A shame to see our kids wait another year for schools over 7.78% of the total now isn't it?
Seems to me this committee was a couple hundred ladies and gentlemen with good intentions but many who were picked with a tilt toward favoring anything the school district asks of them, after all how many general public would take the months of time to be a part of something they were not in favor of from the get go. So, what would one expect such a committee to end up recommending? As one person said below, ironic that almost $300,000,000 of waste was cut out by even these folks. I daresay a commoner like the rest of us might find it right to cut out another $300,000,000, or so. What say you?
Mr. WILLEBY. While I don't know you I must say you either were not in the same meeting as I and Mr. Hockley, who I do not know, either, but he is certainly right. Rev. Carmichael who did such a classy job for the district sold his soul to them and made a fool of himself when he took to the podium and talked to the committee as if they were schoolchildren themselves not capable of making the final decision on their own 4 month journey. I appreciate his role and he is a good man. I was shocked he was manipulated so and feel sorry for the committee members who feel this was not at the urging of the District handlers. THE FINAL BOND WAS NOT THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE. IT WAS MOSTLY THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE BUT IN THE END ALL THE PORK AND WASTE AND EXTRA WIGGLE ROOM THE DISTRICT NEDEDS FOR THEIR PET PROJECTS WAS SAVED BY THIS TRAGIC EVENT.
The taxpayers want to know the percentage of students that graduate from junior high and high school before we decide on any new schools. Also, the school district should focus on cirriculum instead of a stadium. I don't care if these kids can catch a ball, I want to know that they can read, write and speak in complete sentences. Since only 10% are college bound the rest of the students should at least be able to add and subtract.
School taxes should be called at $1000 per homeowner. The rest of the money should be paid by the parents who have children attending the schools. That way the parents have a much more vested interest in thier childs school work and outcome. And taxpayers / homeowners that no longer have kids attending school aren't burdened with increased costs.
I will vote no on any new schools or stadiums. More buildings does not improve the students ability to learn.
Robert Hockley, the first FACT is that the committee was given the opportunity to either proceed with Carmichaels proposal or go through the package line-by-line as one large group. The consensus was to move forward with his combo plan.
The district tries to make a big deal out of how the bond proposal is supposedly the product of a 200-plus-member group of citizens. But the information used by that group of citizens was carefully cherry-picked by the district. With VERY few exceptions, they were given only a yes/no option on each component. There was no discussion of why things cost what they did, or how that cost could be brought down - in fact, one of the early meetings included a presentation warning them not to try to compare costs with construction by other districts, claiming it wasn't really possible to do that.
One of the district's "poster child" campuses for overcrowding - King Elementary, in the northern part of the district where, according to the research firm hired by the district, massive growth is coming - will only be relieved by one elementary school over the next five years. There was another proposed, but it wasn't hammered into the committee's collective heads like some other projects (which were, of course, approved).
This isn't about the needs of students - it's about a pointless and ultimately destructive game of one-upsmanship with other districts.
While I see that much of the opposition is to the stadium, which I see will cost more than it would have on the failed bond from last year as they took out the cost of many of the things that they will put in the stadium as they have very right to do if this bond passed and left off the money they already paid the architect or what they could sell the land for (it has value for the district even if they don't build a stadium on it) and they said construction costs are up so much that it will cost more than the failed one even with fewer seats...
I ask why this was not split put as it seems most of the people would vote for schools even if there is a lot of pork in that bond as several folks on the committee have shared they feel there is.
Is it wise to possibly see this bond fail simply because the District who people on the committee tell me were not allowed to have a formal discussion on the initiative aspect until the tail end when they were already molded into which times they felt they had to cut to stay below a one cent potential increase that they would have to basically start over if the stadium could be split out.
And who is taking about the $250,000,000+ of items the committee cut. If we are to trust the district as voters when a committee made quick work of cutting out a quarter of a BILLION dollars of items the district felt were of such importance they were willing to put us four cents instead of one cent in debt then why do we trust they will allocate the funds the way they and the committee tell us they will? THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
Okay, so who is going to refute this FACT? Please use FACTS to prove this wrong. After months of work done by volunteers, albeit it many had spouses, kids, or themselves are relying on KISD for their paycheck why did Mr. Carmichael get up and testify that he spent his prior weekend pouring out his sweat over this package with the CFO and together they totally changed up a decent amount of the hard work each group had done by on some items where there were two of three of the red, white and blue teams left that either opposed or favored an item and even a few where all three tables opposed or favored an item he threw that work aside and instead saying he would save everyone a lot of time had a better plan - at the last of the decision making meetings. This quite simply defies what a committee was in place to do. Does anyone refute this occurred? You do know this was video and audio taped. The committee was made to be a pawn at the end of the process. So, you take 200 people, many with district ties and others who took the trouble to volunteer and tell them that not even their bond positive mentality was good enough that Mr. Carmichael felt the calling to undo what so many worked so hard to do and call it an effort to save time and move on to celebrate. This is the biggest tragedy of the whole process - to deny the committee to have their true voice heard after all that work and instead shove the bond the district used their Chairman to perform the dirty work of keeping those pet projects and other items intact when it would have taken no more than maybe an hour or two to actually have a bond that the committee truly did come up with. Shame on KISD for treating the committee this way.
Stadium? I was on the bond committee and we were NOT allowed to make any changes to the 3 options (which only addressed the number of seats). Other districts are doing more for less.
Technology? I have zero idea why the committee voted to ALLOW the head of tech for KISD to GET $90,000,000.
New Schools? Yes of course they are needed. But why is the costs so high and just keep going up for construction? We were provided zero information on why these schools are 20%-30% more expensive since the last ones built.
Do you need more questions asked?
I served on the Bond Committee. We worked very hard at really deciding what was needed for our district. I know a lot of people are concerned about the stadium, but in reality, the stadium is only 7.78% of the bond package. We have put together what we think is the best for the district and our students. If we delay building the stadium for another 3 years it will cost us about $19MM more. Please keep in mind this is a dual stadium concept. It is estimated to bring in over $500K in additional revenue through ticket sales, concession sales, advertising and facility rentals.
Dear Voter - You are not being coerced into buying a stadium. This district needs another stadium due to the number of high schools and junior highs it must accommodate for football, track, marching band, soccer, etc. Without enough stadiums to accommodate these important activities, our kids and their families spend more time on the road. The bond committee agreed with your assessment that there is no need for a really large stadium. I disagreed because without a large stadium, we will not be able to qualify for hosting playoff games. These extracurricular activities are far more important than most folks realize. These activities teach our kids how to work together and make decisions in real time without knowing everything. It teaches them how to solve problems that they've not solved before. Do you think the world hires expensive Americans for our engineering and math skills? No. They hire us for our ability to make decisions. I know. I've been an expat working around the world for many years.
There have been so many studies done on this topic that I now accept it as fact: Better school systems yield better communities which develop better school systems ... and so on and so on. The value of everyone's property in Katy has increased way more than the investment (taxes) going into our excellent school system. The ROR is better than most investments any of us own - especially savings accounts. I wish the bond requested had been larger, but this is a well-debated (200 folks!) and agreed to amount, so who am I to quibble? And, KISD has some of the sharpest financial minds I've seen in school systems (or financial institutions) husbanding our money very well! I'm glad they work for us.
To Voter- bond COMMITTEE asked that question. But it would cost 9-11 million per campus to make those changes. Not 1 million. You have to add parking, bathrooms, ADA improvements, etc. And most schools do not have the Land to do that. Taylor for example. They would loose all their other feilds, tennis courts and outdoor space. Hardly fair and with 7 campuses to make that change to it more then exceeds the cost of the new scaled down stadium.
RJ- bonds cant hire bus drivers. They can only be used for capital improvements like buildings etc. But, this bond does add busses to the district and make improvements to South Transportation which includes a day care facility. KISD bus drivers can get childcare for $2/day which is a great recruiting tool. If we have this option at all our bus barns it helps recruit drivers. No one wants to be a bus driver these days, but Katy just gave them a $2.50cent raise effwctive sept 1 to help recruit more drivers. They now make $16.25/hour. Katy is doing a lot to help get more drivers. But its a national shortage.
First, we have to pass this bond issue. We have to educate young people, and educating costs money. I served on the bond committee. It is a great compromise, but well over a hundred people from throughout the district worked on, argued about it and agreed upon it.
My biggest concern about the bond issue is the stadium—the bond issue without it isn’t particularly controversial. I’m going to vote for it. I hope and pray that stadium fans get out and vote, and I hope and pray that people who recognize the value of education will vote for it, too.
It's more about an additional stadium than a bigger stadium. It is not possible to schedule all 7 teams this year and 8 teams in two years into one facility. Since another stadium is needed, it makes sense to expand it some from the existing one to accommodate larger crowds for our most active schools and for playoffs and band competitions.
Good question on the Dynamo comparison. What does their "infrastructure" include? If that is included in the Katy ISD construction cost (seats, press box, restrooms, concessions), they are nearly the same:
BBVA $60M construction + $20M infrastructure = $80M / 22000 seats = $3636/seat
KISD $43.7M construction / 12000 seats = $3639/seat
It is a different scale and different type of design so there are other considerations, too.
Note that the Bond Committee scaled down the stadium project allocation to $19M less than what the district requested.
Just one question. Why is KISD forcing us all to vote against schools so we can simply stand up and not be intimidated or coerced into voting for their stadium? They claim the current stadium sold out twice in the last three years. I was at all 3 of those games and it was NOT sold out. 75% of the games sell less than 20% of the seats including the band and other seats the district inflates the ticket sales with. How about $1M per high school to add a thousand bleacher seats and have a good old fashioned home team advantage at the campuses?
$748 million and still not reinstating the school bus service we lost recently. Explain.
Why did they ask for $99,000,000 for technology but when asked by the committee how much they really needed they said $30,000,000 would do? The committee at least saw through that and cut tech spending into less thanh all what was asked for and they almost totally scrapped safety and security when they learned it was all about safety of the buildings and not of the students and teachers!
The new Dynamo pro soccer field cost $60MM. This stadium $58MM. Plus, how much did that land cost, or better yet, what is the fair market value of the land today and why is that not a cost nor the $750,000 they already paid PBK (the same folks that designed the now closed 2 year old most expensive stadium in high school football in Allen, TX)?
Here's the exemption info: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/exemptions/age65older_disabled_faq.html
Reggie, please vote yes! Seniors are locked into their school tax rate! You won't pay a penny more if you are over 65. Keep your property value high & don't spend a cent in the process!
I am over 70 and retired, living on a fixed income, no kids in school for the last 35 years and I feel I am being charged for something I don't use at all. In fact I only had kids in school in the Katy area for 4 years. Something needs to be done to give seniors some more relief on their taxes since we don't have kids in school anymore and living on a fixed income. I will vote no on anything that raises taxes. I don't know what the answer is, but it needs attention.