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

October 20th, 2010
School district to negotiate for old McCoy's headquarters


San Marcos CISD Trustees President Kathy Hansen, left, and Superintendent Patty Shafer, right, at this week’s school board meeting. Photo by Sean Batura.

News Reporter

San Marcos CISD trustees voted unanimously Monday to enter into negotiations to buy McCoy’s Corporation’s old headquarters.

The property under consideration includes a 13,861-square-foot building and a 32,414-square-foot building, both of which sit on 5.14 acres at 1200 Interstate-35 North, according to San Marcos CISD Trustees President Kathy Hansen. Trustees plan to use the property to house the school district’s central office, curriculum department, child nutrition department, and technology department.

“By housing these departments together, we feel efficiency would be increased,” Hansen said.

The Hays Central Appraisal District assessed the property’s value at $1,478,800, which includes $283,680 for land and $1,195,120 for improvements.

After emerging from the closed executive session with San Marcos CISD trustees, McCoy’s representatives declined to comment on the matter. Elected government officials conduct property negotiations in secret, as allowed by law, and make their final decisions in open session.

McCoy’s Corporation made education news in August, when it joined other businesses in making donations to “Project Stuff the Bus,” a school supplies drive intended to equip needy students in San Marcos CISD. McCoy’s Corporation maintains a new headquarters at 1350 Interstate-35 North.

Email Email | Print Print


0 thoughts on “School district to negotiate for old McCoy's headquarters

  1. Voters rejected spending more money on administrative offices when the district tried to pass a bond for that purpose. I doubt sentiment has changed, so now they appear ready to go around the voters. I would be all for an administrative office if the district did a better job educating the children, but a new administrative office for SMISD is like painting the garage while the house burns.

  2. I’m inclined to agree. Money issues aside, there just seem to be far more important issues for our administrators to focus their attention on. The negotiations, setting up the new place, moving everyone/everything – it all seems like a huge distraction from the task of getting a qualified superintendent on-board and improving our schools.

  3. The purchase price would be just the beginning. I bet there will be a LOT of extra money required to bring those buildings into the shape SMCISD would desire.

    Now that more SMCISD taxpayers are thinking about the quality of education our children are receiving (thanks to the ACC hubbub), I believe many of us would sure like to see SMCISD concentrate more energy on K-4 education, versus administration building activities.

  4. Reminds me of the Titanic crew rearranging the deck chairs while the ship sank – is this really the best time to buy more facilities and property?

    Old Bowie Elementary
    Old Bonham Elementary
    Bus lot on Wonder World at IH 35
    …any others???

    The bond election many years ago was no slam dunk. Voters were promised that once our new schools were built the SMCISD would sell their vacant properties to reduce the debt burden (and lower the tax rate). We were also told that M&O (maintenance and operations) funds formerly spent on aging facilities could be spent on improving teaching and learning.

    I would appreciate a more thorough explanation of why we need to spend $1.5 Million on anything other than what happens in the class room. A unanimous board vote suggests that all 7 trustees are well versed in and supportive of the need for this expenditure. We need phone numbers and emails as well as addresses to send certified mail to our elected representatives who are making this decision.

    Forget the deck chairs – HELP US, we are sinking!

  5. I agree with John McGlothlin and others here, I was one of those voters who voted NO for administrative offices but voted yes for the new high school and other school campuses, nothing has changed since then, the money should spent on more productive ways to educate the students, not on fancy offices for the administrators.

  6. very true- admin offices were soundly defeated. maybe they think we forgot?
    or maybe, like the commissioner’s court, they don’t think we the voters understand how best to spend our money, so they will decide for us!
    David Chiu knows what’s best for the people. Don’t worry about a thing, ya’ll.

  7. And voters were told many years ago by Hollywood Montenegro that the Lamar campus was too old and riddled with asbestos to be utilized as a neighborhood school.
    (I was trying to understand why we keep building schools further out in the middle of nowhere when we have walkable sites like Lamar and Bonham)
    All these years later, it houses the Pride School and admin offices.
    They also told us the old high school was beyond repair and we would need a brand new facility.
    It is now Goodnight and the student day care center.

  8. Thanks for making me feel old Chris, I went to both those schools in their prime; and Campus Elementary if anyone remembers it.

  9. “By housing these departments together, we feel efficiency would be increased,” Hansen said.
    I think that technology (oh, like, telephones and computers) would be just as efficient and a hell of a lot cheaper.

  10. Pingback: QUOTE CORNER - San Marcos Local News

Leave a Reply

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