63° F
36 Parents supporting the building of a new Eanes school district elementary campus on the River Hills tract in the current Valley View Elementary School attendance area will hold a community forum on March 9 at the Laura Bush Library. The group has collected approximately 800 signatures on a petition to provide a local elementary school for the western edge of the district.
Valley View parents Ian Ball, Scott Urdahl and Andrea Ramos said the area off of Cuernavaca Drive west of River Hills Road is one of the last areas in the district still growing. They say 496 new homes have been built in the area in the last 10 years. Those new homes sport an average appraised value of $800,000, adding a 40 percent increase to the tax base from the Valley View attendance zone, they said.
“We are focused on resolving three district issues,” Ball said. “We want to improve the safety of our young children being bused for such long periods of time each day. We want to make after-school programs more viable for our families, and we want to increase parent involvement at our school.”
Currently, students in the Valley View attendance zone are bused to the school, which is located an estimated six miles from the center of its residential base.
“The only option we see that solves all three of these issues is a new school on the River Hills tract,” Ball said. “That option would also provide some much-needed athletic facilities in the district.”
Ball said he and other parents are finding large community support for the idea within the Valley View attendance zone and quickly growing support in other areas of the district. He said that the district’s ability to continue to provide the kind of exemplary education it has become known for will depend on strong strategic planning to provide flexibility for quickly changing learning environments in the future.
“The days of lectures and note taking are over,” he said. “I don’t think anyone knows what learning will be like, even in the near future.”
He said the district will have to provide flexibility in classroom configuration and in adapting to changing attendance populations to stay ahead of the game.
“Locating elementary schools near students’ homes benefits everyone,” he added. “For our youngest students especially, eliminating lengthy commutes fosters student achievement, extracurricular participation, parent achievement and safety.”
He said that providing a neighborhood school and repurposing the Valley View campus sets off a domino-effect addressing a number of district concerns, including providing suitable permanent space for special student populations, adding needed administration space for instructional training, and freeing up Valley View gym and playground facilities for Forest Trail Elementary School students.
To keep EISD excellent, we can’t afford not to pursue the new elementary/repurpose option. EISD must provide adequate and appropriately located facilities to maintain the excellence which attracts students to the district. A new elementary school to serve the Western portion of the district will accelerate construction of new homes thus expanding the tax base and increasing student enrollment. Repurposing the existing Valley View and central administration buildings to provide suitable space for the 19+, TLC, and CDC programs will demonstrate EISD’s commitment to excellence for special student populations. Creating space for centralized training will allow for training throughout the school year (as opposed to front-loading all training the week before school starts) thereby improving the effectiveness of training which directly benefits students. Centralizing evening community education will save on after-hours personnel and utility costs. The tax impact of bond funds to construct a new elementary school and accomplish repurposing (about $25M) would be about $80 per year for the average home—that’s less than a quarter per day. In addition, this plan would save $1.8M on Eanes renovations, eliminate the need for some $3.5M in bond funds originally slated for Valley View, and save on the costs of new construction for space needs identified by the administration. Constructing a new elementary school and repurposing the existing Valley View and central administration buildings will create M&O efficiencies. A new elementary school will be energy-efficient and unlikely to require any significant M&O expenses for ten or more years. Relocating programs currently housed in deteriorating and energy-inefficient portables to the existing Valley View and central administration buildings would likely reduce M&O expenditures in addition to providing more suitable space for the 19+, TLC, and CDC programs. For more information, see the website http://www.newvalleyview.com and attend the community forum at 6:30 pm on March 9 at Laura’s Library.
Here’s another way to “increase student enrollment”: Start serving the children who are already living here and paying taxes in the district. Who are we trying to “attract” to the district? More transfer students? Eanes ISD wants more district tax dollars to build schools to educate transfer students? No thank you. This district needs to stop accepting transfer students and close an elementary. Eanes needs to take a long hard look at the necessities vs. the desires just as we do in our individual homes. For example, we decided that our children need private school since they cannot access a quality education in Eanes. Yes, we are one of the 72% who live in the district, pay property taxes and private school tuition for our children while the district educates transfer students. Like many of our neighbors, our family won’t approve a single penny until Nola Wellman and the current board is long gone.
How much will it actually cost the district to operate?? We are failing to analyze the actual costs. If we add the additional square footage what will it cost to operate? Even if a building is solar and energy efficient there are still serious operational costs. You have to remember that we are not losing a facility we are gaining a facility. This after the district stated at the last School Board meeting that they expect enrollment to drop by 300 district wide.
At the moment we have over 400 out of district transfers in our schools- 200 of which are in 5 of the elementary schools excluding BridgePoint. The school board justifies filling elementary classes to the max by saying we need the money to operate.
Plus- how the cost of a new elementary went from 33m to 21m by just saying they will drop the number from 650 to 550 for students makes no sense at all. Where are the true numbers and cost analysis?
Also- I think most of the school board members may know and already understand that in this current economic climate we can’t afford more facilities. I wonder how long after those who promise new schools are re-elected will they suddenly come out and say- actually we can’t afford it.
Just do the analysis so everyone can see it.
Here’s the real motive for the new school – “That option would also provide some much-needed athletic facilities in the district.”
Disagree. Don’t need more athletic facilities, artificial turf, lights, and M&O expenses. Need new administration and board instead.
What can we afford – Do you include the children of EISD teachers in your transfer student numbers?
“Transfer Students Question” – I am not “What can we afford” but I’ll try to answer your question regarding transfer students. Last year, the district reported that during 2008, Eanes ISD served 604 out of district transfer students. Of the 604 students, 459 were “non-employee” transfers and 145 were “employee” transfers. Also, it is important to note that Eanes ISD only allows the children of full-time employees to transfer in (as I understand from reading board policy) which appears to exclude the children of lower-wage part-time employees.
You say 600 students in 2008, and We Can’t Afford says we are down to 400. If roughly 15o are students of teachers, then we are at 250 and half of these (according to We can’t afford it) are in elementary – so 125 spread between 5 elementary schools?
I exclude them- in my mind they are in district students.
The majority of non employee out of district students are in our elementary schools. These students are used to fund operating costs due to the loss of funds from Robinhood- roughly close to 2.5m is brought in with transfers. So- your public school is now sort of a private school for out of district students.
The catch is that we fill empty spaces in our elementary schools and we have lots of them in the district’s mind. Your class size could be 18 or 19 but instead bump to 21 or 22 because of transfers. The response is- we need the money to operate.
My question is- how many more will we need to operate if we build a new school??
Also- do the math- how did Dr. Wellman reduce the cost of an elementary school from 33m to 21m just by reducing the capacity from 650 to 550?? Ask any builder and they will tell you they would love to have her secret for construction cost cutting because it would make them a lot more money.
I am simply asking the taxpayers to do the math, ask the questions, look at the comparisons. Do you want to fund operation costs or teachers? Could we operate better with 5 elementary schools by adding on to EE and BC, remove the transfers and redistrict VV kids to BC and elsewhere?
The wants of a neighborhood are respectable BUT in this economy the focus must be on the total financial health of the district- simply what can we afford? buildings or teachers??
“Transfer Student Questions” – If you want accurate numbers for the transfer students for 2009-10, you’ll need to ask the district for that information. Otherwise your “calculations” are just a guess. The Eanes ISD superintendent will be able to provide you with specific transfer numbers by campus as well. The 2008 information that I provided earlier in response to your question is official district data for that year. If you obtain the 0fficial district data on 2009 transfer students by campus (non-employee and employee), please share with the public.
The quest for a west-side (or any location) elementary cannot be considered in a vacuum. If we could sell off Valley View for enough to pay for another elementary, that all the equity and convenience arguments are relevant.
Meantime, every EISD voter needs to read board minutes or attend some meetings and understand that we need to start cutting our operation expenses this spring (if we want to cut administrators–who are on multiple year contracts–rather than teachers next year). As “affluent” as we are, we can’t afford to add square footage, staff, or additional maintenance expenses. We must make cuts either before or after we blow through the reserve we’ve been spending down the last several years to sustain our current level of spending. Had we built a second high school ten years ago we would have gone bankrupt because Robin Hood wasn’t changed for about six more years and we couldn’t have afforded to run two high schools. School financing is going off that same cliff, and yet we’re talking about floating a record bond issue to fill a lengthy wish list of non necessities at a time when we’re imminently going to have to eliminate necessities (and probably some of those administrators slated to move to Valley View). Wishing it were different won’t change things. And despite political campaigns, state finance is in a ditch and I don’t think most people predict meaningful relief next session.
We need some solid folks to step forward and run for the board. Sound financial planning and sanity is desperately needed.
Instead of relocating the central administration staff to a larger facility, the district should reduce the bloated central administration staff and their salaries as well. (50% increase in the central administration staff salaries since Nola Wellman began working as superintendent.)
http://www.keepeanesinformed.com/eanes_isd_administrative_salaries_increase_-_nola_wellman.htm
Get Real: Most people who have children that play sports would argue that there is a huge lack of community playing fields in the area. The fact is that a portion of the land where a new school would be built has been set aside for a possible multi sport complex. The district put out an RFP asking for proposals for the development of a multisport complex and a long term lease on approximately 50 acres of the land. This has the benefit of bringing needed facilities to the community and offsetting the infrastructure costs for a new school.
What can we afford: You have some valid concerns regarding the question of M&O costs. The administration also needs to analyze the M&O costs associated with not consolidating the many services that would utilize a repurposed Valley View or Administration building. Are M&O costs really lowered by operating many separate facilities rather than consolidating? We actually would be losing facilities (current 19 Plus, TLC and AEP), not just gaining as you state. You go on to state: “Could we operate better with 5 elementary schools by adding on to EE and BC, remove the transfers and redistrict VV kids to BC and elsewhere? The wants of a neighborhood are respectable BUT in this economy the focus must be on the total financial health of the district- simply what can we afford?”
If your intention is purely economic, then why do you state unilaterally that the Valley View community should be split apart and sent elsewhere. If you truly believe that the focus should be on financial health of the district, we should look at which school should be closed. Why not close Eanes, since in your mind the wishes of the community are not as important as the finances? Doesn’t it make more sense to save the 15 – 33 million in renovation costs and move those students “elsewhere”? Of course the answer to this is that the community would not have it. The Cuernavaca community will no longer accept being treated as second class in this district. The long tradition of ignoring this part of EISD must end with this bond proposal.
Get real? Sports don’t rule the world and should never take priority over the classroom education. We can’t afford a new school or another athletic complex. It’s too bad the district administration has chosen to pit neighborhoods against each other as a strategy to push this bond through. How about we all take a walk in the real world. Distinguish between needs and wants, then do the math and vote ‘No’ for any bond loaded with wants while continuing to neglect our basic classroom needs.
“Now is the time to act” — Eanes ISD is a public school district, not a town. If those who have “children who play sports” want even more sports fields, then those individuals should raise the money and fund a private community sports arena. Take a look around; Eanes has plenty of fine sports facilities. Athletics has indeed been the district’s priority for far too long. Any bond that includes a sports center or indoor football field will FAIL just as it did in 2006. The expense and maintenance costs of a “multi-purpose athletic center” cannot be justified. Especially when many children in this district cannot be appropriately educated in Eanes ISD and must seek private school. Time to cut way back on athletic spending and increased M&O and fund teachers and academic programs instead. And speaking of “second-class citizens” there is a “long tradition” of ignoring children with special needs in this district as well and those students are forced right out of the Eanes ISD schools. Take a number.
Programs should be put at the VV Campus- I have no argument there. I am concerned with the number of transfer students within our elementary schools and the need for an entirely new campus. Just look at the numbers of non employee kids at each campus. The largest numbers of transfers are at Barton creek, Forest Trail and Valley View. If all of the transfers were removed and you look at capacity numbers and shift some boundary lines- where do the numbers then fall? What capacities are then needed at Barton Creek?? Valey View?? Eanes?? Cedar Creek?? Forest Trail??
From the Cuernavaca area to Barton Creek Elem it is the same distance that many travel to attend Eanes Elem from the depths of Westlake Drive and Rollingwood. I do not want to ignore the Cuernavaca community- it simply must be looked at with the entire district in mind.
If we must raise 1m a year for 20 teachers from EEF funds and have over 500 out of district transfers to fund 2.5m in operations costs- how do we think we can afford more campuses??
Just take a look at the numbers- especially the transfer numbers. If the Board does the financial analysis and it works out great but right now it appears their math is a bit funny.
The need for another elementary in the River Hills/Cuerny area has been well-known for 15 years. Over 12 years ago the EISD administrators moved the attendance zones in this area from Barton Creek Elem to Valley View Elem for reasons that remain unclear but were perceived by the parents of the re-zoned children as economically and socially discriminatory and arbitrary. Thoughtful readers should recognize that the area known as “Cuerny” has more economic diversity (read “poor folks”) than any other area in EISD. It has long been suspected by these residents that the rich folks in EISD don’t want to rub elbows with their social and economic inferiors and used their considerable influence to segregate the children of these less-desirables at Valley View Elem, over 6 miles distant. If someone doubts these assertions, then perhaps you should have spoken to former VVE Principal Betty Courtney, who was visibly angered by the move to re-zone the “Cuerny” students to her school during her final year at EISD before retirement. Or, perhaps you should know that during a break at a EISD public forum in 1996 discussing the re-zoning, the EISD Superintendent, a Mr. Phillps, callously replied to my question saying that “the decision has been made, your kids will be bused to Valley View,” essentially telling me that the fix was in. Politics in education, what a country!
The district has already put out an RFP for a sports complex? Without approval from the people who will have to pay for it? What is up with that?
I also agree that schools should not be pitted against one another. As a parent of an elementary student I am fine with being told we must move schools if it is the best economic interest of the district. Right now we have serious issues when it comes to funds. We have pending lawsuits against our district that once lost will result in some expenditures and changes. We also will have a decrease in property values as the homes that are currently being sold are struggling with lower appraisals versus their sales prices and homes that are no longer selling for what they were once valued. The economic times need to play out a bit more before we go raising taxes to increase what we have in teh district. We need to fix what we have and hold tight- then re-evaluate in a few years once the dust has settled. Austin is always behind the national economic trend- we have not bottomed out fully yet.
Take a number and Taxpayer: Here is a link to the RFP
http://www.eanesisd.net/departments/business/purchasing
The potential sports complex at River Hills Rd. would be both funded and maintained by private funds, not taxpayer dollars.
When did the board deliberate this RFP in open session so that the public could be informed? Yet another example of Eanes ISD keeping the taxpayers in the dark.
“Now is the time to act” … I would appreciate knowing how you found out about this RFP and how you learned of the plans to move the proposed sports complex from a bond project to a privately-funded project?
Thank you for providing a link to this request for proposals. I’ve only read news reports about the sports complex included as part of the bond proposal. When did the administration/board switch gears on this? Was leasing the land to a private company iever discussed in an open board meeting or during one of the many community forums? The taxpayers are in the dark on this one (but I guess that’s nothing new). I doubt this is going to be a free ride for Eanes taxpayers. What will the usage fees be? Will the public schools have any jurisdiction to set caps on usage fees, or is this just another ’sky’s the limit’ scheme supporting athletics. I urge every Picayune reader to read the request for proposal found at the link provided by poster #19.
Long range plans are necessary for EISD to be one of the top school districts in the immediate area, much less the state. After reading a number of complaints from the regular bloggers I am now convinced that they don’t feel that our district is excellent. I challenge them to have a vision for the future and have a plan in place for the eventual economic recovery.
What can we afford? – Since you bring up Bridgepoint, why do you think they had the largest growth over the last decade? Why are there no transfer students? First class facilities located with the attendance zone attract families. The construction of Bridgepoint was a wise use of taxpayer dollars that has provided an excellent return on investment in terms of students, tax base and prestige. It is a formula that should be replicated. Additional students would likely be attracted to move to the Valley View attendance zone—we have homes for sale at all price points and many lots ready for development.
You agree that repurposing Valley View is preferable to building new facilities. I am glad that we agree on the need to support special populations, free up much needed space at the high school, rid the district of the numerous eyesore portables, support the staff, and support the teachers so the students can benefit from an improved teacher base.
Dianna Pharr – The enrollment (including 2009-2010) trends including transfers and all kinds of information are listed on the Nov 2 board study packet. http://www.boardbook.org/apps/bbv2/temp/3460AD2F-B9B0-6556-E84EE92C591BE018.pdf It shows five straight years of increased in-district growth. The information shows growth of 192 in-district students last year; a growth rate of 2.8%. It also shows a decrease of 48 out of district students. If we experience two more years of the same growth, there would be no need for transfers. Ironically, the economy could bring back some private school students, even with obvious facility issues.
All – I understand that a lot of you have certain issues that have driven you to be upset with the school district. I hope that you can take a step back and look at the overall benefits to the district as a whole.
“Long Range” – The district’s data that you posted does not reflect the in-district students who have been forced from Eanes ISD. I hope that you can take a step back and acknowledge that this district is pushing district children out and replacing them with out-of-district students. I realize that this is likely not an issue that has affected you or your children directly and therefore, your understanding will require that respect of the experiences of many families and children in the district who have first-hand knowledge of this treatment. And by the way, these families include many in the Bridgepoint school zone where many children with special needs must attend private school. And the shiny facilities were not the problem.
@Long Range ———> The reason that Bridge Point has grown is related to the availability of land for housing including single family and most recently, apartments along 360 near BP. Thus, the increase in enrollment. Take a drive along Westlake Drive, Peninsula, and Highlands? Really pretty lots and views. Many of the residents along Westlake Drive enroll their children in private school and become part of the 72% of the Eanes ISD residents do not have children enrolled in the district.
I’m hearing some good arguments for a new elementary, but I am very concerned about the costs and potential costs related to expanding the administrative offices into the existing school. Why do we need to do that? Why not just sell that school to pay for the new one? Bureaucracy will grow to fit its shell. Can someone explain why we need a bigger central administration in our small school district? I’m reading every day about school districts on the verge of bankruptcy. Taxpayers can only do so many bail outs.
I agree that one day a school off of Cuernavaca should be built, just not right now. Our current reliance on transfers proves that we do not need another large new school. BridgePoint was full from day one. It was needed. I do not believe a new school will be able to be filled immediately. Build it and they will come does not always work. As things change we should consider it but not at this time.
Districts all over the country that have overbuilt are closing campuses because they must choose between operating a two schools and cutting teachers or operating one school and having enough teachers.
Take note of the 15billion short fall our state is going to have this next year. How far will they need to cut back, how will it impact education across the state?? There are more factors to consider than just what is happening in Westlake.
As I have said before, if the board will do the full financial analysis, show the public the cost of adding a school versus shutting a school, redistricting and adding on to Barton Creek. How does this impact everything in the district?? not just the elementary schools but the middle, high and admin.
Or maybe we should cut costs at the Admin level. Some of the wish list that they have put forth for a district of 7k is crazy. I am not sure what size District Dr. Wellman came from but obviously it is one where they had more admin space and personnel. Do we need this same amount here??
Hopefully this great debate will open the eyes of the taxpayers.
Two suggestions:
1) Eanes ISD should fund teachers first and EEF should fund administrators. Imagine …
2) Move the Eanes ISD central administration into portables.
“Take A Number”….. The RFP was announced and explained in a board study session. I believe it was Feb. 3rd. To my knowledge a sports complex on the River Hills site was never considered for the bond. I believe the onle new athletic facility that has been considered for the bond is the covered practice field/student activity center at WHS.
Like “Take a Number” I was confused (still am) by all the proposals (bond or not) for mega-athletic facilities in this public school district. There are just so many proposals flying around indoor football fields, swimming centers, elevated running tracks, gigantic new weight rooms, and now yet another “sports complex” on district land. So the district wants a new elementary school so that the “sports complex” will be built. No wonder the administrators are pushing for a bond proposal to build a new elementary school. It always comes back to athletics doesn’t it?
So are we now contemplating not one but two sports complexes; one at WHS and another off of River Hills?
Any bond with a major sports facility will surely fail. We need a bond that is a facilities, maintenance and basic needs bond. Nothing over 50m maybe even less than that. We have bonds valuing 30+m that will be retiring soon which Dr. Wellman refers to as free money or it won’t cost anything. However, it still costs us something just no more than we are paying currently. We should only issue a bond for that amount or a bit over to keep any tax increase minimal. Our taxpayers are strained and need to feel that their money is being spent appropriately in order to feel confidant in passing bonds. Right now- this is not the case.
I would suggest that the comments section of the Picayune is not the place to become informed about all of the goings on within the district. If you are concerned on any of these issues and/or want your voice heard you can attend Bd Mtgs, Study Sessions, email the trustees, call Dr. Wellman, read the meeting minutes, listen to the audio recordings, read the wealth of documentation on the EISD website – the list goes on. It’s very easy to complain and critique – instead, become part of the process – the opportunities are available to you.
As for the sports projects, there are several – some under bond consideration, some not. The covered practice facility, weight room and activity center at WHS is under consideration for the bond as are improvements to the fields and tracks at both middle schools. The sports complex on the River Hills site is to be built and maintained by private organizations. The proposals will be judged by how well they address the needs of district residents and students. I don’t believe this development is tied at all to having a school on the site either now or in the future and the district is under no obligation to accept any of the proposals.
If you review the current bond projects being contemplated, you will certainly find sports related items but they pale in comparison to the other projects. To suggest the whole thing has been cooked up to deliver sports facilities is to me an uninformed and irresponsible comment. Anyway, Austin, Texas is not the place to live if you have issues with large amounts of money being spent on school sports. It comes with the territory and I doubt any of us will change that.
“Get Informed” The comments section of this community newspaper is a great venue for information and discussion. After all, you just jumped in and added your two cents.
You may not believe that the district’s desire for more athletic facilities is tied to proposed elementary school but clearly many people disagree with you and their opinion is not “uninformed or irresponsible”. The district business is our business and with all due respect, we will be gather information, discuss and form opinions on our own terms, not yours. And your final admonishment to “love it or leave it” is not at all reflective of hoping that others will become “part of the process”.
“Part of the process”:
This section is indeed a source of good discussion and opinion. What I am saying is that there is also a lot of misinformation or confusion of facts and data that sometimes get passed off as fact in people’s comments. This is not limited to this story or issue. I am simply encouraging people, in addition to reading newspapers and opinions, to gather their own information firsthand and was pointing out the various options available to do that for those that are unaware. It is clear from several people’s comments that they do feel uninformed about some of these issues and that things are happening that they wish they knew more about. My intent was suggestive rather than dictatorial and of course was not meant to infringe on any desire or right you have to gather information and form opinions as you see fit.
My final comment was not “love it or leave it” – those are your words not mine. As you clearly point out, opinions are fair game here and mine is that there is a history of strong desire among constituents to play and excel at sports and have first class sports facilities. While that overall sentiment is likely to remain, there is certainly room to influence the degree to which this results in public expenditure. I do see now that my original words did not convey my thoughts accurately.
I’ve accessed more credible information from the Westlake Picayune comment sections than the Eanes website and board meetings. The true details of our district business is only discussed in closed session, and the Eanes website posts the administration’s spin without substantiating documentation. I am also grateful for the website keepeanesinformed.com This resource shares the public documents that illustrate the school district’s priorities and actions that aren’t found anywhere else. I hope the Picayune will continue to post public commentary as these different points of light help to illuminate the entire story.
Gathering information “first hand” from the district is much harder than it may appear. Accessing the district spin is easy; obtaining the truth is tricky. I also appreciate those citizens who pushed for transparency in this district and now those of us who come after need to continue that effort. The Picayune and its comment section are an important part of the process. It’s clear that many district parents and taxpayers are no longer willing to accept the historical priority of athletic spending at any cost. And trust me on this: talking to Nola Wellman is not the solution. When the public school board won’t represent the people, and when the administration plays “hide the ball”, we must depend on our local media as a resource for information and communication.