San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas


STAFF REPORT

San Marcos CISD Superintendent Mark Eads is recommending that a proposed new football stadium and swimming complex be separated from a larger bond package comprised primarily of new and renovated schools. If the school board goes along, voters would be asked for permission to borrow a total of $81,280,000 in two separate ballot questions:

  • $55,580,000 for construction of pre-Kindergarten and Phoenix Learning Center buildings; renovations or additions at three elementary and two middle schools; a new student activity complex at the high school; and expansion of the Support Services transportation/maintenance facility.
  • $22,700,000 for a new stadium and an acquatic training center. Current proposals for both athletics facilities have been scaled-down considerably: from $26.6 million to $18.4 million for the stadium and from $11.44 million to $4.3 million for the Aquatics Training Center.

Other capital improvement needs identified in a facilities study commissioned by district administrators — $3.5 million for a new administration building and $3.3 million for districtwide technology improvements — would be funded by tapping into the school district’s savings.

Trustees must call an election by March 1 to appear on the May 4 ballot alongside two school board seats up for re-election. Eads outlined the recommendations in a Feb. 18 letter to trustees:

San Marcos CISD superintendent’s recommendation on May bond package by

Email Email | Print Print

--

13 thoughts on “Eads recommends breaking bond proposal in two

  1. Better, I still think that they need to seperate the ” Pre-K ” idea of expanding the obviously failed Federal Head Start program any more than it has already been mistakenly expanded in our country. If it is broken, quit spending on it, statistics show no improvement in student achievement despite all the money being spent on this social program. Possibly it is time for new ideas, like parent accountability for their lifestyle choices???? JLB 🙂

  2. JLB…Failed Head Start? Really? I think there are plenty of studies to show the success of Head Start. It would benefit you greatly to spend a day at any of our local Head Start operations to show how beneficial they are to children’s learning!

  3. The Heritage Foundation has lots of info on Head Start! Think about Obama use of ” Emperical Evidence” to inform policymaking to begin with. Good article by David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., 10-22-2010. Almost all of the LBJ ” Great Society” entitlement programs are failing, miserably. I say we let those that like to continue funding failed programs do so , with their money,not mine! Expanding fialed ideas does not make them any better, just more costly to taxpayers. Plain and simple, leave the Pre-K in the bond and it may very well fail, such a shame, their are other infrastructure needs that should not have to suffer along with a doomed “Head Start” social program..JLB 🙂

  4. Head Start is a failure by most quantitative measures. The most comprehensive study of Head Start to date, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that “By the end of 1st grade, there were few significant differences
    between the Head Start group as a whole and the control group as a whole. . .”
    One part of the study that is noteworthy and yet rarely reported is that several sub-groups were actually hurt by participating in Head Start: “White children in the 4-year-old cohort experienced unfavorable impacts on several teacher-reported social-emotional measures in the 1st grade year and one unfavorable impact on parenting in the kindergarten year. Within the 3-year-old cohort, children of parents with moderate depressive symptoms experienced sustained negative impacts of Head Start in the cognitive, social-emotional, and health domains and mixed impacts in the parenting domain through 1st grade. These children were less likely to be promoted to the next grade, as reported by their parents. This group is of particular concern because the unfavorable impacts were found across domains and methods of assessment.”

  5. 1.) Patrick, The Sports Center is an indoor, air conditioned facility for soccer, band, and other sports that currently practice outside in the heat.
    2.) Please help to make everyone aware that they have only one chance to speak on the bond proposals before board on Monday, February 25th at 6:00. The location has been changed to Dorris Miller Middle School cafeteria.
    3.) Remember that SMCISD has been running a deficit of around $1M in the last two school years. We are short on funds to pay for the programs we have in the facilities we are currently paying $10 million / year for from previous bonds. The question needs to be asked how the maintenance and new programs will be paid for.
    4.) Mr. Eades has not gone far enough. These need to be split out into seven separate bond proposals so the public can have the opportunity to decide the merits of each.

  6. I agree, this proposal MUST be broken up more, the unfunded infrastructure costs should certainly be considered. More focus needs to be placed on preventative solutions , rather than rewards programs for those gaming the system via irresponsible reproductive practices. Ascertaining both parents ( whether on birth certificate or not ) of children and directly connecting the financial responsibility, through 18 years of the childs life, needs to be the new norm ,thereby disallowing the intentional avoidance of financial responsibility by deliberately not getting married in order to gain benefits from taxpayers. This shell game with taxpayers money must be ended. Reward the responsible parents, not the irresponsible ones! We all know that the system is broken and must be repaired, beginning with earned rewards to replace the existing failed entitlement programs that LBJ legislated to ascertain a ” Taxpayer funded ” voter base for the DNC. JLB 🙂

  7. So, if I understand this, $39.3 million of the $78.28 million is for sports-related activities. Correct?

  8. You were yelling that the process is a mockery because they allowed two pro-bond people to speak consecutively. Seemed like a reasonable supposition that you are against the bond, or most of it.

  9. @themercurynews “yelling” try again, maybe article will cover desecration Open Meetings Act – all on tape (including my advocacy)

    Again, you report untruths. I’ve been quite outspoken PRO the administration building on social media. I get it Brad you don’t like me. At least cover the TRUTH in your reports.

  10. Just in case it does not make it to Brad’s report

    They shuffled the names of people and move them out of order and make Pro vs. Con and alternate speakers –

    They cut time of speaker to 2 minutes and allow others to speak for 5 mintues

    They won’t allow folks to sign up earlier in the day, no they have to arrive right on the dot and sign up

    Only 30 minutes to speak total for an important bond measure and tell us to come next time

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)