The HUGE school bond package....is it REALLY for the kids? (Houston: lease, how much)

[Austin97]

is there any city of austin stuff or RRISD? I looked at the ballot and there were just a few items on it from lake travis, bee caves etc.

[hillcountryheart]

Originally Posted by Austin97

is there any city of austin stuff or RRISD? I looked at the ballot and there were just a few items on it from lake travis, bee caves etc.

I don't think there are any issues for COA or RRISD, but check:

Travis County - Sample Ballot Archives

[scm53]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I don't get to vote in this AISD election. But I would vote against it because there is no evidence that AISD knows how to justify, obtain, and spend bond money.

Amen, brother. I early voted - against all four. For one simple reason - the presence of items on this ballot that are nothing more than deferred maintenance items. It is a simple management principle that debt is issued for capital improvements - items with a long life, not maintenance which should be funded out of the operating budget. What they are doing would be like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

If the AISD board is so financially illiterate that they can't grasp the fundamental principle of the sound use of debt, then they won't get my concurrence to issue more.

I know. I hate children, don't care about our future generations, ...

[ImOnFiya]

Originally Posted by scm53

If the AISD board is so financially illiterate that they can't grasp the fundamental principle of the sound use of debt, then they won't get my concurrence to issue more.

I know. I hate children, don't care about our future generations, ...

By now, everybody knows that!

I voted early for all the bonds. The schools are very crowded. Just as this Statesman article clearly illustrates:

[hillcountryheart]

Originally Posted by scm53

Amen, brother. I early voted - against all four. For one simple reason - the presence of items on this ballot that are nothing more than deferred maintenance items. It is a simple management principle that debt is issued for capital improvements - items with a long life, not maintenance which should be funded out of the operating budget. What they are doing would be like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

The school districts around the state have been handcuffed by the Legislature in two ways: 1) by taking a cut in direct funding and 2) by having the state lower the maximum ad valorem tax rate by almost 20%.

But the districts can still issue bonds. If they could raise their operating budget (by an increase in the ad valorem rate with voter consent), I'd say that would be the better idea, but they can't.

Texas is pitifully stingy at funding schools.

[steve78757]

I have a child in AISD and will be voting against the bonds. I don't doubt some of the money is needed, but these proposals are poorly thought out and the estimates are wildly off base. It seems rushed for a May election, and we all know why. I'll be happy to vote yes in a year or two if they come back with something more reasonable.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

The schools are very crowded. Just as this Statesman article clearly illustrates:

You mean as this selectively designed Statesman graphic clearly illustrates? A school makes the chart when it is 1% over capacity, yet has to be 35% under to make it in the other direction? I hope everyone can see the obvious manipulation of the data there. Wonder what it would look like if we had every school that was at 90% of capacity vice 65% on there?

But let's just take the data that's presented. Why do we have adjacent schools with such disparities? O Henry at 110% and Martin at 57%. Murchison at 120% and Lamar at 59%. Travis Heights at 111% and Dawson at 64%? Why is McCallum at 102% with over 1,700 students while the adjacent Reagan only has 866 enrolled? How can anyone make a cogent case that in total, AISD's facilities are effectively managed when there is such a glaring failure to move attendance zones to better utilize ALL facilities?

Look, I get tired of being the curmudgeon. But there has to be some reality based thinking injected into this. The taxpayer is fatigued by every taxing entity in Travis County showing up, predictably, with forecasts of imminent doom if we don't approve their ever so small tax increase. The Statesman had a great article last year on the cumulative effects of years of increases. This year, AISD will be back to raise the rollback rate, ACC will ask for bonds as will the city. There has to be a point of no. The sky won't fall in if AISD addresses the issues the Statesman raised when they refused to endorse this package. Come back with a better plan - not one that was rushed because AISD wanted to beat the other horses to the trough.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

The school districts around the state have been handcuffed by the Legislature in two ways: 1) by taking a cut in direct funding and 2) by having the state lower the maximum ad valorem tax rate by almost 20%.

But the districts can still issue bonds. If they could raise their operating budget (by an increase in the ad valorem rate with voter consent), I'd say that would be the better idea, but they can't.

Texas is pitifully stingy at funding schools.

All that would be fair if AISD was efficiently managing the O&M funds they currently have. There is plenty of evidence they aren't. Another one - until 2011, AISD issued paper checks vice direct deposit. Who worked for an employer with over 10,000 employees that was still issuing paper checks in 2011?

The AISD board has the financial acumen of a bunch of Ace Cash Express customers. No soup for you!

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

The school districts around the state have been handcuffed by the Legislature in two ways: 1) by taking a cut in direct funding and 2) by having the state lower the maximum ad valorem tax rate by almost 20%.

But the districts can still issue bonds. If they could raise their operating budget (by an increase in the ad valorem rate with voter consent), I'd say that would be the better idea, but they can't.

Texas is pitifully stingy at funding schools.

why does the rate need to increase?

Property values are going up like crazy and new people are moving here. Why does the rate also need to increase?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by scm53

Amen, brother. I early voted - against all four. For one simple reason - the presence of items on this ballot that are nothing more than deferred maintenance items. It is a simple management principle that debt is issued for capital improvements - items with a long life, not maintenance which should be funded out of the operating budget. What they are doing would be like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

If the AISD board is so financially illiterate that they can't grasp the fundamental principle of the sound use of debt, then they won't get my concurrence to issue more.

I know. I hate children, don't care about our future generations, ...

I think it is worth mentioning one legitimate reason for paying for maintenance items with bond money. The property tax paid to repay bonds is not subject to Chapter 41 (Robin Hood).

A corporate finance officer would not issue bonds to repair a roof or air conditioning system. But a Texas school district might choose to do so because the alternative is to pay for the new roof with M&O (maintenance & operations) funds. Those funds ARE subject to Chapter 41. That's another reason school districts subject to Ch 41 will buy computers and text books with bond money.

If a Ch 41 school district loses 47% of its M&O funds to Robin Hood, that means a $2000 computer costs $3000 or so with M&O money vs. $2000 of bond money.

AISD is considered "property wealthy" and sends a significant amount of money back to the state. In 2012 AISD sent 12% of its total budget back to the state for recapture. AISD should be motivated to shift as much spending to bonds as legally allowed.

School districts cannot necessarily operate like private enterprises because their revenue and spending is highly influenced by state law.