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


dotted line for web
promo
dotted line for web

San Marcos CISD voters will decide on May 11 on two bond issue propositions totaling about $77 million to pay for new, expanded and renovated facilities.

Proposition 1

New facilities

$12,700,000: Pre-Kindergarten campus
$5,070,000: Phoenix Learning Center
$13,600,000: Student activity complex

Renovations and additions

$4,100,000: Mendez Elementary
$7,600,000: Miller Middle
$5,860,000: Goodnight Middle
$800,000: Support Services

Renovations

$5,500,000: Hernandez Elementary
$1,700,000: De Zavala Elementary
$1,650,000: Districtwide security upgrades

Prop 1 total: $58,580,000

Proposition 2

$18,400,000: Football stadium

Prop 2 total: $18.4 million

Grand total: $76,980,000


dotted line for web
promo
dotted line for web

Email Email | Print Print

--

16 thoughts on “Interactive: What $77M in San Marcos CISD bonds will buy you

  1. I wish Prop 1 had been broken into three separate props just like you have it outlined here with one for new buildings, one for additions and one for renovations and upgrades to bring about compliance.

  2. I spoke to one of the committee members about that at TMT this past Saturday. He told me one of the factors is that having one pot of money allows you to shift funds around from one school project to another. If the Goodnight project goes over budget they can take a little from some of the other projects to complete Goodnight. If the bond is more broken out your hands are tied by exactly what the voters approved.

  3. SMsince95 — “If the bond is more broken out your hands are tied by exactly what the voters approved.”

    . . . exactly what the voters approved. Let me type that again, . . . exactly what the voters approved. This is how it is supposed to work! No bundling!

    I can also state if the football stadium project goes over budget they can take a little from some of the other projects to complete the football stadium.

    One issue I have about the football stadium is that our Rattlers have a huge advantage over their opponents by playing at Texas State. Think about it, our team is playing on a college football field right now. What better way to prepare them to play in college? If the community really wants to help the team, show up and fill up Texas State’s stadium for all our high school games. That is motivation for our young men on the field!

  4. Ellie, there are many opportunities to attend presentations by folks more elequent than me. Check out the link above or the Facebook page at http://www.Facebook.com/yesmatters and I think you’ll find ways to get face to face with those with good answers. I have kids in the ISD so I may be biased. Both bonds will cost me about $133/yr. I have visited several campuses and was at the school board meeting when they did a campus by campus detail of what repairs were needed. I can sure understand the appeal of having the bond broken out into more detail. I imagine there are many who would not vote for the Student Activity Complex. My feeling is there is enough good, important stuff in the main proposal to justify it. As to the stadium, I was mixed. We’re not that big into athletics at my house. What I’m told is holdng games on Thursday causes a lot of schedule disruption and that players, fans etc still have to go to school on Friday after a late night of football. Not huge, but it’s a factor. We do have a sweet deal, financially, with the TxState stadium but I doubt it will last forever. I say go ahead and bite the bullet now while interest rates are low and build the stadium.

  5. Well said, SMsince95. I’m not sold, especially on the stadium, but I get where you’re coming from.

  6. There is a bond presentation at the SMCISD Admin Building on Thursday 4/25 at 6:30pm. And then there is a League of Women’s voters event at the Activity Center on Tues 4/29 at 7pm.

  7. SMsince95 – that is exactly what the school officials are hoping – that you will think that there is enough in Prop 1 for you to vote YES. By not breaking down the bond into several choices, the taxpayers don’t have any control over which projects are done first or best. Much like when the elementary schools were built, Bowie was built as planned and is in good shape, but money became short to do Crockett and Travis so cuts were made in size and quality. Same could be true with proposition 1 – we could end up with a top of the line Athletic Activity Center and minimum updates to the other items depending on real costs (not estimated costs).

  8. Hate to break the news to you Mary, but there is no legal control over how general obligation bond money is spent, no matter what the proposition says.

    But, I don’t have a dog in the hunt, don’t pay taxes to that district.

  9. Mary – speculating on the intent of those that crafted the bonds is not all that relevant. I know a few of the people and I saw the typical forces at work – athletics vs academics. I think we have a fair blend with this proposal. I urge those with concerns to follow the links I’ve posted above and attend one of the public meetings.
    It is fairly well agreed upon in our community that the schools are a liability. There is no single solution so we will have to chip away at the problem incrementally. Providing well maintained campuses with reasonable levels of comfort and energy efficiency is not asking too much in my book.
    If your house is worth $100,000 both bonds will cost you $5.84 per month.

  10. You can find some very detailed information here: http://www.smcisdbond.com/what-s-proposed.html I didn’t bother to look up who owns that website but I’m guessing it is someone from the PAC that was formed to get the bonds passed. There is a nearly 700 page facility assessment. It doesn’t detail exactly which of the issues will be addressed but it does show the state of some of the older schools that clearly need work. It is mostly pictures so don’t let the page length scare you off reading it.

  11. The LWV Forum (Monday 4/29, 7pm @ Activity Center) is not a debate. There will be a 5 minute presentation from each candidate with no Q&A. Then there will be a 20 minute presentation from Superintendant Mark Eades followed by Q&A from the audience. There will be refreshements afterward with time to speak to the candidates and Mr. Eades.

Leave a Reply

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

:)