45° F
6 Eanes school board members are banking on district voters agreeing with them that option number one of a three-option Nov. 2 bond proposal finalized Tuesday includes only essentially important needs (see story on front page). They are also banking on voters viewing that option as worth its dollar value, which alone would be by far the highest in the district’s history. The board is likely offering the other two options with slimmer hope of getting them approved. But we applaud the board for seeing the merit of being honest with voters and offering them options.
The board could not afford to risk getting essential needs approved had it offered an all-or-nothing bond proposal that likely would be close to $100 million, or twice the amount of the highest voters had approved previously. Voters would certainly have balked. It’s still difficult to predict how voters will view this bond issue, but at least the essential option now has a chance for approval.
Even the most fiscally conservative residents likely see the merits of some items included in non-priority options two and three. Who wouldn’t like to have an elementary school closer to the areas along Riverhills Road and Cuernavaca Drive instead of bussing young children to Valley View Elementary School? Who wouldn’t like to have a swimming and diving facility that the entire community could also use? Who wouldn’t like to see our athletes, bands and other student groups not have to be drilled out in the hot Texas sun? But the reality is that many people are still uncertain about paying existing taxes and about keeping their jobs, not to mention their homes.
The argument school district official are making is that bond money is not subject to recapture by the state under the “Robin Hood” school finance system. But the cost of operating new facilities will adversely impact budgets forever, and it is not something that taxpayers can afford to ignore.
In the coming months leading up to the bond election, district officials must make certain voters understand that the essential option is in fact just that. As for the other options, officials must provide accurate estimates on what increased maintenance and operating costs of all of the new facilities being proposed will cost taxpayers on their annual tax bill. Only then will voters be able to even consider approving them.
What happens when the money voted for essential items in bucket 1 is then re-alocated to the wish list items in buckets 2 and 3. It’s happened before and will happen again, because the way our bonds are written apparently makes that practice lawful. The needs will remain unmet when the ’scope is redefined’ by our board to fund the wants.
Among many meritorious items in proposition 1 is a world of pork! At $80+million. it is our largest bond ever without any major building projects, and a look at the line items quickly reflects why–we’re apparently still adding turf and a lot more to the middle school fields ($2 million+), the 19+ replacement, sorely needed, allocates only 6,000 sq.ft. to the kids and 30,000 sq. ft. to administration and records. As badly as we need some of these projects (I’ve heard the HCMS track is a disaster), I can’t sign that blank check any more. The administration estimates that most of the proposals are m & o neutral are as fantastic as when we were told we could run two high schools as cheaply as one. Stand up for our district and oppose these bonds until we can elect a board to provide some real oversight in May! Then, if they come up with a plan to balance the budget and cut the pork off this bond, which would do Congress proud, I might be able to once again support capital improvements. Until then, we’re just throwing good money after bad.
It’s called a “change of scope” and the board has the authority to disregard the promises they made before the bond election. Therefore after the bond is approved, the board can delete items and add others as they wish. In fact, the board did change the scope of the 2006 bond to include the multi-million dollar fields of artificial turf in front of WHS. Nola Wellman reminded the board of their option to “change the scope” of the bond … after the fact. It happened in 2006 and it will happen again if any of the three bonds is approved. This board is TASB-trained to represent the wishes of Nola rather than the public. Before any bond can pass, we need new leadership.
I hope the Picayune will report on the issue brought up by “Deja Vu,” which is that the board can (and has in the past) change the scope once the bond is issued to do anything they want with it. Remember the 2006 bond to take care of maintenance and safety issues that the board turned into a funding source for new practice fields, HD video cameras, a half-million dollar batting cage, etc. Voters beware. You could vote for Prop 1 hoping for new roofs, air conditioners, wheelchair ramps, etc. and end up with an air-conditioned football field.
“Taxpayer,” hoping that Ed Allen and the Pic will report on the issue of redirecting the scope of the Prop 1 bond expenditures by the EISD Board is like hoping it will snow for a week in WLH in August; it ain’t gonna happen. While I like Ed and his local weekly gazette, the Picayune stance on any controversial news item is usually very muted, cautious, non-confrontational and circumspect. (Good example: the Pic coverage of the unlamented Mark Urdahl administration’s antics during 2006-2008.) Ed Allen is a pragmatist and knows that the Pic cannot afford to offend, period. We are a small community and any newspaperman knows that, like my maternal grandmother would have said, “don’t soil your own nest.”
Even the local print monopoly rag, the AAS, is unlikely to cover such a topic, so deep runs the fear of “stepping on bigger toes” and not “getting invited to the dance.” Sigh, Austin is still a small town in many ways.
Nola Wellman stated in a meeting that the original reason for looking at a new bond was because of the serious needs on the Eanes Elem campus. So why is Eanes Elem not in Bond proposal one that has been deemed critical needs??
We have many needs across the district but some are more serious than others. There are gas lines on the roof of Eanes Elem that are exposed, sewage issues in classrooms due to a failing system and many other problems. This should have been on Bond 1 not on Bond 2 with a new school. As much as the Eanes taxpayers believe in Bond 1 it should fail. We need critical needs not wants. A new school is a want. There should be no additions to any schools until a full redistricting evaluation is completed. Forest Trail families should start paying attention because they have quietly begun to mention what will happen if a new school is built- a redistricting that includes Forest Trail in order to fill the new VV which will be in an undesirable location for transfer families to reach.
We need to vote on true numbers, true needs and bond oversight. Vote down the 3 bonds and make them do their homework.
Also- check out how Lake Travis and AISD have both hired in house architects and engineers to reduce the soft costs in bonds. 30% of our bonds are soft costs- just do the math- what is 30% of 80m??