From FBN: Should Developers Kick-in Land on School Start-up Costs?
This OP/ED piece, by Mary McGarr from a neighboring school district (KISD), seemed to strike a nerve with a local county commissioner (Mr. Meyers) and some community activist in a thread started to prompt discussion and support for requiring that mega-developers, wanting schools as a sales draw in their communities, should donate (or significantly reduce the cost) of the land that they often purchase at agricultural prices. Read more below or click the title link for the full piece and thread:
Require Developers To Donate Land For Katy Schools
Mary McGarr
"Watchdogs"
As everyone knows by now, I think our school district should require developers to donate land if they want schools built in their subdivisions before most of the homes are sold.
The precedent was set in Katy ISD in 1992 with the building of Edna Mae Fielder Elementary School. The Cinco Ranch Development Corporation donated the land for this school to the school district. The school built on the land cost $4,951,000 initially.
The Cinco Ranch Development Corporation needed a school in Cinco Ranch in order to entice prospective home buyers to come to the area. The school district had never built schools in areas where there were not children living in the attendance zone already.
I would have to say that the investment by the Cinco Ranch Development Corporation was a good one for them as well as for the school district‘s taxpayers.
-------------------
Comment: Could this type of plan work here in the Sienna Plantation area or even statewide if our local representatives got involved?
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Wednesday, October 25, 2006
14 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Comments from the thread:
1 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Oct 17, 08:55 am
Mary,
I’m sure you won’t find any homeowners or taxpayers resisting such a suggestion in our district either. It has been discussed here too but the powers that be, the ones who really run this county and the districts (and for that fact the state) decide for us.
Maybe parents/voters/taxpayers need to unite in a new consumer movement that turns the current lack of progress around in this state. A recent judicial watch group (Texas Watch Foundation) ranked our state and its court system as one of the most consumer unfriendly (see http://www.texaswatch.org/media/news8100606.htm for more).
If the developers are really interested in attracting families then they should contribute. At least the larger corporations that can afford it should, or offer the land at cost. After all many of the Houston developers are only paying agricultural prices and not full market value, which is passed onto us often with county help.
This is a good idea Mary and one whose time has come. Instead of taking from a community and moving on, the land donation could be seen as a long term investment and one that would really work mutually for families and corporations. A very consumer friendly act in a state that has been rated very poorly by many.
_________
Chris Calvin, Ph.D.
Co-chair Committee for Responsible Development-Mo-City Grp.
Sienna Plantation
Missouri City, TX
2 The Umpire - Oct 17, 10:19 am
A reasonable idea whose time has come (again)... the questions is, is anyone at KISD (or elsewhere) listening?
But, Dr. Calvin, let’s be careful that the language we use doesn’t sound too much like “From each according to his abilities…”
3 Susan - Oct 17, 10:40 am
There is only one way to accomplish this very good idea. It must be passed into law by the Texas Legislature and signed by the governor. School districts have no power to require developers to donate land and developers will not make a decision unilaterally that will make the homes cost more in their subdivision than they cost in other areas. The cost of the land must be passed on to home buyers either in the price of the home or in the form of an assessment of some sort. This is only fair.
Pressure to tackle this problem must be exerted by individual voters on their elected representatives to the Texas House and Senate. With the election only a few weeks away, this is an opportune time to voice your concerns to your representatives. If you don’t know who represents you, you may find out here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
more:
4 Robert Cocheu - Oct 17, 12:49 pm
Susan,
While the major method that is being discussed here would require a law change, there is one thing that can be done immediately to effect this situation. County commissioners are required to approve all new plats (read developer street and lot designs). If a developer wants a platt approved, then he must show responsible infrastucture to support the development. That would include schools, police/fire protection, etc. If he cannot demonstrate that, then no approval by the county.
5 Susan - Oct 17, 02:37 pm
Robert,
Which county commissioners do you predict would stand up to the developers? Would the county judge?
My sense after 30+ years in Fort Bend County is that the only hope of getting the megadevelopers to shoulder their fair share is through the Texas legislature. Plus, then you have equality in application. Your suggestion would allow the county commissioners to approve one developer’s plat and reject another. Also, a state law mandating this would help all the fast growth districts in Texas, not just those in Fort Bend County.
6 anon - Oct 17, 03:49 pm
Why not a combination of several of the suggestions above. Why can’t school boards only place them in the big developments with “at cost” agreements or do like Sugar Land did and place them somewhere else. The big developers want those schools as ad amenities for sales. It seems one could work on this at several levels and I do agree with Susan. I don’t think the current commissioners who accept contributions from so many of the larger dev. companies are going to hold them to it. Working on several levels might be the best approach, but it seems school boards do have some impact on where the schools get placed. They have to be willing to stand up though.
Who knows what can be accomplished with enough voter and taxpayer pressure
and-
7 Susan - Oct 17, 05:04 pm
anon,
In the past, some FBISD school boards have attempted to stand up to developers—with mixed results. When Garcia MS was built, they needed to build it in New Territory, but the developer decided that he wanted to make a killing on the land and asked a ridiculous price, so the BOT declined to pay it. The residents of NT (most of them new to Fort Bend) went nuts! They came to board meetings and screamed bloody murder and threatened to throw all the “bum” school board members out. They wanted a MS where they wanted it and they wanted the rest of us to pay for it. The BOT at that time resisted the pressure. At other times, the BOT would give in. The truth is that most parents do not always think rationally when things involve their own children—-and I have been included in that group myself a time or two (he he). IMHO, the only true solution is to get a law through the state legislature mandating that megadevelopers contribute to the construction of schools. The cost would be passed on to home buyers, of course. With all the development state-wide, there have to be some legislators willing to sponsor this—even though the ones in Fort Bend have not been interested in it in the past.
8 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 17, 10:05 pm
It will never happen in Texas. The requirement for developers to donate the land for the schools (sometimes they have to subsidize construction) is common in other states.
The main problem that can be fixed quicker is the power the school board has. The board should not have spending power. It is just bad. Let the administration run the district like a business and control costs. The way things are run here why even have a superintendent, just have the board run the daily operations.
9 Susan - Oct 17, 10:55 pm
Mr. Feinberg,
I am sorry but I do not see how individual school boards and/or school administrators can control developers. Could you please explain? Other than the example that I gave earlier where FBISD refused to pay the price that the NT developer wanted and built a school in a location farther away from where it was needed—and then paid to bus students to it, I don’t see what power they have.
And I think it is possible to get this type of legislation passed if parents and taxpayers unite and demand it of our elected officials. If our elected representatives refuse to listen to us, we should vote them out.
10 bob - Oct 17, 11:26 pm
As subsequent history has demonstrated the building of Edna Mae Fielder Elementary School on land donated by a developer was no precedent, but rather an exception based upon the real estate market of the time.
I think that the idea of requiring developers to donate land or funds in some fashion is interesting and worth pursuing, but I agree with Susan that it must be passed into law by the Texas Legislature. The school district would be ill-advised to require an assessment on each home in a newly constructed area to pay for the schools that must be built as this would likely be subject to Robin Hood funding formulas so that if a district was slated to receive $100 million from the state and managed to raise $10 million through assessments on newly constructed homes, then the state would reduce its contribution to $90 million. The result would be higher new home prices and not a bit more money to buy land or build new schools. Any proposed remedy at the county level would also have to be checked carefully to make sure it did not run afoul of state funding rules.
Let’s look at an example of an “actual” versus a “manipulated” capacity. Suppose you have a school with four classrooms which can each hold 25 students. The “actual” capacity would appear to be 100 students. But, let’s say that the state or the federal government mandates that students with a certain condition of which two live in this school’s attendance zone, must have a class size no greater than 5 students per class. So the “manipulated” capacity of this school would be 80 students (3 classrooms of 25 and 1 classroom of 5), but since you only have two students with the “certain” condition, the “manipulated actual” capacity would be 77.
It is not the school district that decides or “manipulates” the capacities. These are governed by state and federal laws which must be followed. If people want this changed then they should seek to change the laws.
It is important for the public to understand that choosing to wait until students arrive before building schools in which to educate them would have serious consequences. It would likely subject students and teachers in existing facilities to a constant state of overcrowding and massive rezoning every year. This practice would have a negative impact on the quality of education offered in KISD.
11 Al Thompson - Oct 18, 12:10 am
Bob,
Don’t forget that building schools before there is a population to support them places an undue burden on the taxpayers who must fund those schools. It seem’s that no one remembers the housing market slump from 83-87 in which there were virtually no new homes were built in Fort Bend. Seeing neighbors transfered in their jobs unable to sell their $80k homes for more than $30k makes gambling people’s tax dollars on future home growth seem pretty foolish. I for one would never vote for a bond referendum that built schools before the neighborhoods were built.
The only way to get a law passed in Austin would be to first limit the contributions from the developer lobby.
12 Andy Meyers - Oct 18, 12:13 am
Some facts may help regarding various comments on this editorial.
Counties have no authority to levy impact fees for roads that are outside a new subdivision, although cities do, and counties cannot require developers to donate land for schools. Counties have no authority regarding schools. School districts have that authority.
Commissioners have general platting authority regarding lot sizes, roads, drainage and water and sewer within a subdivision but no authority regarding school sites, fire station
sites and the like. We require the developers to donate all right-of-way and build all roads, including major thoroughfares traversing the subdivision, to donate all land and right-of-way for drainage systems and detention ponds, and provide evidence of adequate water and sewer service within the subdivision development. That is the extent of our platting authority. And we can not sit on plats and not approve them because by action of state law plats are deemed automatically approved 60 days from submission.
No member of Commissioners Court has received or accepted a contribution from a real estate development firm.
I serve on H-GAC’s Legislative Committee and the Conference of Urban Counties Policy Committee and both have taken on the development and real estate community by attempting to get legislation giving counties more subdivision authority, particularly the authority to levy impact fees for roads and drainage that are outside a new subdivision, but that are impacted by that subdivision. We have been spectacularly unsuccessful in at least the last 5 legislative sessions because of an effective real estate/development lobby and because a number of state senators and representatives are developers, are in the real estate business, or are attorneys who represent real estate interests.
As a private property-rights advocate I am in favor of very limited authority for counties relating to private property.
It is probable that some school districts or an association of school districts may have attempted to get legislation allowing school districts to levy impact fees on new subdivisions or to require developers of new subdivisions to donate land for schools, but have been as unsuccessful as counties.
State courts have consistently held that the burden is on the governmental entity, cities in most cases, that levy an impact fee to prove how much a new development actually impacts roads and drainage outside the subdivision. In cases that have been decided, the actual proportion of the road or drainage attributable to the new subdivision is much less than one would expect. Under existing law, a city can only levy an impact fee on new development, not existing development, even if existing development has the greatest impact on roads, etc. The same will probably hold true for impact fees for schools, if such legislation is every enacted.
13 anon - Oct 18, 06:32 am
“No member of Commissioners Court has received or accepted a contribution from a real estate development firm.”
Andy,
I respect the fact that you are willing to post in here and take on questions. Many politicians would not, but I do have to address your comment quoted above. As you know, saying no one on the commissioners court accepts contributions from development companies (firms) is very misleading. As you and I both know if you download the finance reports for this and subsequent years from http://www.brazosriver.com (for free) or seek them out through FOIA requests from the county you will find many individual company executives from development companies on yours and Bob Heberts list of contributors and Prestage is involved in the development biz (please correct me if this information is incorrect, but provide support too back up the claim. I have a copy of several of the finance reports for the last few years and they are pretty easy to get too). One company executive listed on yours concerned me the most.
Please be completely honest when posting such misleading statements or may I suggest you withhold such claims.
Thanks again for participating and providing some advice. I hope you and the other commissioners will continue to fight for the ability to help school districts control costs and benefit all our children. Land kick-in is one big way the developers can give back to a community (not just take)!
14 PAanon - Oct 18, 08:30 am
Ditto anon13: Maybe Mr. Meyers and Mr. Hebert could start another consulting firm to shelter those contributions, along with some other unexplainable rerouting of monies in other MUDs. It amazes me that these officials need to brag about “being honest” when they don’t know what it means. And, as if that weren’t enough, drive around and take a gander at the political signs in these official’s yards prior to an election—it will give you a really good idea how they are connected and to what! Now is a good time—with some of these old geezers who already have a ceiling on their taxes, I find it interesting as to why they care about the bond issue, for instance! Alas, they have a business that might suffer if they don’t show their cards! They couldn’t care less about education or safety (just construction) with that bond money!
PA
15 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 18, 08:38 am
Susan.. I never said the Boards have power over the Developers. It is the other way around. Either way.. The school boards here have too much power and decision making. The board should be advisory and not in control.
It should not be legal for a Developer to support a school board candidate and then go to the board to sell land. Often times the Developer chooses the location of the school and determines the price. There is way too much conflict of interest.
The system is corrupt and must change.. But I don’t see it happening here in Texas.
16 Susan - Oct 18, 08:53 am
The only hope we have to change the system is for parents and taxpayers to unite and DEMAND that our legislators deal with this. There are fast growth districts across the state and even in more rural areas, megadevelopers are building master planned communities to attract retiring baby boomers. People in these rural areas would be natural allies in this issue. Groups that could be used to spread the word include PTA’s or PTO’s, senior citizen groups and teacher’s organizations. We cannot allow our representatives to stonewall us on this and then re-elect them.
The current system is just wrong. We encourage people to move into Texas from other states and other countries and then tax people who have been living here forever to purchase land and build schools to house them while the megadevelopers laugh all the way to the bank.
17 PAanon - Oct 18, 08:59 am
Ditto Feinburg too! Corrupt—an understatement—it filters down from Perry to the locals. There is much conflict of interest, even in homeowners’ associations—they have it all wrapped up. With the help of the management companies, they can hide anything. There are people who are supporting these expensive issues, that I have seen out there, who have no other visible means of income or support and they don’t have a ___ to ___ in (I’m not kidding—some of them have no jobs and no incomes), yet they are pounding the pavement to get this and other bonds voted in. Why? This person doesn’t have the income to pay what we are already assessed. It really makes me wonder if there aren’t some who are exempted for helping with the bond initiative or in some other payment-type conflict of interest. Some of these things are so hard to prove, but they are happening out there—these people wouldn’t be so religious about their involvement if they weren’t getting something out of it; certainly paying higher taxes isn’t their reward!
PA
18 anonymous - Oct 18, 09:17 am
“The system is corrupt and must change.. But I don’t see it happening here in Texas.”
Matthew & PA,
I’m pretty tired of their word play too, it is disingenuous. We need to look at states that allow kick-in and use them as a model. I think Ms. McGarr should bring this battle to FBC school districts. I would gladly support her and push to get the local supt. to endorse such an effort. Perhaps Dr. Mitchell, Tim Stubenrouch, Dr. Jenney, Bob Brown, Dr. Chambers & Dr. Randle of the Fort Bend Business-Education Task Force could stump for such an effort. I think they would find wide spread support on this concern.
Andy could even help steer this effort (it is a good political opportunity to gain real grass-roots support). If a few of the mega-developers got behind this it may even stand a chance (and it sure wouldn’t hurt their PR & community standing, hint, hint)...
19 Andy Meyers - Oct 18, 09:42 am
anon
The statement made was that Commissioners take money from many real estate development firms. That statement is incorrect, as we can accept contributions from individuals and partnerships only. To my knowledge, I have received contributions from two individuals who are executives with real estate development companies. One is a small contribution and the other is from an individual who has been a friend for many years. I do not think that two constitutes “many”.
PAanon and others imply, without any substantiation, that members of Commissioners Court are doing something unethical. To do so while hiding behind a fake name is equivalent to a “Poison Pen Anonymous Letter” and I cannot take them seriously.
My contributors support me because of my position on issues, which position has not changed since I first ran for office – particularly low taxes and protecting private property rights. My position benefits all taxpaying property owners, homeowners as well as real estate developers.
Some commenting on this web site and some blogs continue to state or imply that Commissioners are doing something wrong by accepting campaign contributions but never offer any specifics of wrongdoing. They should either back up their accusations or retract them and apologize to the public officials they falsely accuse. Their assumption of wrongdoing on the part of Commissioners does not count only facts.
Members of Commissioners Court who do not vote the way other county elected officials and/or employees want (meaning authorizing spending more of your tax money) find that they have opponents recruited and supported by those other county elected officials and employees. In recent years, other elected officials and/or employees have targeted three members of Commissioners Court and have taken out two. I’m the only one who survived their efforts. So, I will continue to accept campaign contributions in order to have at least a fighting chance of defeating my next opponent who, like my previous two opponents, will most likely be recruited and supported by other elected officials and the Chairman of Fort Bend EDC.
20 anonymous - Oct 18, 10:49 am
Please Andy, you are not talking to a crowd gathering at the local Wal-Mart. This is the very justification used over the Florida monies now being investigated by the US Justice Dept. and the Delay ethics charges.
“The statement made was that Commissioners take money from many real estate development firms. That statement is incorrect, as we can accept contributions from individuals and partnerships only.” Meyers
Again misleading as well as off topic. The post you referenced was general and the comment directed at the commission (how do you judge many?). They are well documented and not easy to refute, so please try to convince someone else. I have seen the reports.
When are you and the commission going to support Ms. McGarr’s efforts. You can do so as individuals or public figures. That is the focus of this thread.
Thanks for participating as always. More politicians (insiders) should take part in public debate such as this, but please don’t attempt to redirect the thread or defend the out of state contributions.
As for your last statement:
“So, I will continue to accept campaign contributions in order to have at least a fighting chance of defeating my next opponent who, like my previous two opponents, will most likely be recruited and supported by other elected officials and the Chairman of Fort Bend EDC.”
Well Andy that begs the question what is the reason for taking campaign contributions from an FBEDC committee member? That seems very contradictory of what you are trying to portray here on this and other threads. Also if you do not take anonymous public comment seriously then why are you responding? This reminds me of a city council session I attended whereby the mayor insisted on knowing everyone in the room when he was backing the opposition business owners effort of some very unpopular land use. Mr. Meyer, you give speeches and respond to people in public forums all the time without knowing their names.
What is your position on kick-in by developers, whether they give to you or not, in Mary’s OP/ED piece and will you support taxpayers/voters/residents in this endeavor????
21 kaymc - Oct 18, 11:13 am
You may not agree with him, but at least Meyer was brave enough to face a hostile “crowd” here and give you his opinion.
Why give grief to the only commissioner willing to stick his neck out and explain his position? That only encourages the rest to keep their mouths shut and watch from the sidelines or risk ridicule.
I appreciate that Andy is willing to engage in public discussion of the issues.
22 anonymous - Oct 18, 11:37 am
Actually kaymc I’m very glad that he does come out and participate (as included in my posts). Hopefully the discussions will have an impact on some of the commissioners practices. Perhaps more will participate, but they should be able to answer the questions of the taxpayers/voters too. Remember it is public service for which I believe they just got a 17% self voted on raise.
Additionally, I would like to see them reconnect with the base of their party and even work across lines to accomplish something like the suggestion made by Ms. McGarr. This would do much in my eyes to repair some of the damage from the party of family values (of which I’m a member).
I think Mr. Meyer has been invited to help get this effort on track and perhaps he could help lead it with the Fort Bend Business-Education Task Force. I know many families/parents from all parties could get behind this even in an election year.
Remember they work for us, not the other way around!
23 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 18, 02:24 pm
Andy says
“To my knowledge, I have received contributions from two individuals who are executives with real estate development companies.”
What you just admitted to is illegal in many states. Your hand is getting greased by people who control the land developers. It is unethical and this practice is just wrong. You are one of MANY that accept money from land developers; I mean the executives that run the company.
If you vote on issues concerning the land developer which an executive of that company donated to your campaign then I am afraid in my opinion you should be thrown in jail. Unfortunately I don’t see it happening here in Texas, there is too much complaisance here.
Just because it is currently legal does not make it ethical. I wish everyone would stop confusing the two!
24 anonymous - Oct 18, 03:48 pm
So true Matthew. Lawyers would have us believe that anything legal is ethical but then you head down that slippery slope not to look back as has caught so many of our politicians recently. I think voters are fed up. I think if more people took an interest and downloaded the finance reports (and knew who was on them like the Fla. company that gave to all of our commissioners) we would see different behavior.
I still want to see Mr. Meyer lead this effort on the kick-in on school land. What better leader than someone who has friends in the biz and is a former industry insider.
What do you say Andy?
25 jamie - Oct 18, 06:17 pm
Mary,
You say that schools should not be built until the students who would inhabit them are present and living in the district and that these students would be accommodated in existing facilities. We will have about 9000 new students moving into Katy ISD over the next three years. Could you please provide specifics as to how you would recommend that Katy ISD accommodate these students and their teachers while they are “waiting” for their schools to be built.
26 anonymous - Oct 18, 06:32 pm
Jaime,
From your question are you implying that some plan can’t be worked out to balance this out? Aren’t you on record supporting the latest KISD bond issue? Why wouldn’t you support this cost saving initiative that could help districts keep up with the rapid growth and seek commitment from the mega-developers?
Please respond if possible.
27 jamie - Oct 18, 08:26 pm
Matthew,
Could you please explain what you mean by running the school district like a business?
What specific costs would you cut?
28 jamie - Oct 18, 08:36 pm
Anonymous and Mary:
What I am saying is that Mary should explain how this plan would work out since she is the one suggesting that we should cram students into existing schools until we have enough of them to completely fill a new school at which point we would build the school. On the face of it Mary’s plan would not be prudent because it would negatively affect the quality of education offered. As Susan pointed out playing chicken with developers can be a dangerous game.
What say you Mary? What is your plan for the 9,000 additional students that will pour into KISD in the next three years? Where would you have the district put them and their teachers while they “wait” for their schools?
29 bob - Oct 19, 12:20 am
Al,
The Katy ISD bond referendum is not about building schools before the neighborhoods are built. Which is better for the quality of education offered- some undercapacity while a new school fills up or overcrowded schools all over the district? And if we let the quality of education offered deteriorate, then property values are going to deteriorate as well. I would argue that insisting that KISD make sure that every school is over capacity before contemplating building a new school places an undue burden on an already overburdened public school system and that is a foolish gamble.
There will be an economic downturn someday, but the answer is not to bury our talents in the ground and crouch in fear. What if all companies and entities behaved that way? What would become of our economy?
I would support Mary and the other Watchdogs if they went to Austin to try to get some kind of law passed that would require developers to donate land for schools.
30 anonymous - Oct 19, 04:43 am
“What say you Mary? What is your plan for the 9,000 additional students that will pour into KISD in the next three years? Where would you have the district put them and their teachers while they “wait” for their schools?”
Jaime,
You sound like someone who isn’t willing to try, besides the devil is always in the details. My concern is that you are one of these hired bond supporters with a motive for seeing an effort like this fail (marketing people). In our district now we cram students into t-shacks waiting for new schools to open in mega-developments. I’m not sure what the difference would be. The problems seem to follow the growth regardless. I’m sure the experts, when crafting this legislation, would come up with a better formula than the current wait for a crisis format. This approach would help save taxpayers/voters/families/schools potential millions of dollars. As the article points out it was done with early land grants by our founders as set-asides.
Please answer my earlier question?
31 PAanon - Oct 19, 12:50 pm
Hired bond supporter-yes, that’s what I believe is happening in KISD. That would explain why the unemployed I’ve observed pushing the bond, seem to have more than I, a working person, have, yet they aren’t going to work each day-they just wander around putting up signs for the bond and arranging bond meetings at neighborhood clubhouses and for PTAs and PTOs to support with the monies already donated to them by the taxpaying parents who will be dipped again. I get it now. And what about all of the hours that many, many parents volunteer-does anyone realize how many dollars that provides? I say stop building schools until they can handle what they already have, please.
PA
32 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 19, 04:26 pm
Jamie Asked
“Could you please explain what you mean by running the school district like a business?
What specific costs would you cut?”
I am not qualified to provide specifics other than to say there is a lot of waste. I don’t have to see the numbers to know this.
Just keep costs down and maximize profits.
For example. I am sure it costs more to maintain and move those portable classrooms around than it would be to just build another wing on the school. I think we are burning money building schools. Just expand what you have. Each new school requires an entire admin staff that costs a lot per year.
The school boards need to get a spine and tell the developer if they want the school in their community they have to donate the land or help with construction.
33 jamie - Oct 19, 06:40 pm
Matthew,
First of all, I want to thank you for making a sincere effort to respond to my queries rather than launching into a personal attack that sheds no light on the issue at hand.
“Just keep costs down and maximize profits. For example. I am sure it costs more to maintain and move those portable classrooms around than it would be to just build another wing on the school. I think we are burning money building schools. Just expand what you have. Each new school requires an entire admin staff that costs a lot per year.”
Portables do cost more to maintain in the long run. That is why KISD is proposing to add 10-classroom additions to two schools with funds from the bond package which will go before the voters on November 7. It is more difficult to double the size of an elementary school which is what would be required 5-6 times over to accommodate the 9,000 students expected to arrive in the next three years. For one thing, there is the issue of land There is likely not enough land available in the area of the existing school. For another thing, KISD would be committing to additional fuel costs to bus students in new neighborhoods to schools in existing neighborhoods. In addition, you have the problem of trying to have lunch periods for 2060 students. Lunch would probably have to go from 8am to 3 pm so that the cafeteria could accommodate all these students. Finally, there is a reason that we pay the additional money to hire a principal and additional staff to run smaller schools. It is better from an educational standpoint. Some would say that 1030 students per elementary is too much, but KISD has accepted that there needs to be some degree of economy.
“The school boards need to get a spine and tell the developer if they want the school in their community they have to donate the land or help with construction.”
It is not a question of spine. To my knowledge the school board has no authority to force the developer to do anything. If someone knows different then please come in with the statute that gives school boards the authority to force developers to donate land.
“I am not qualified to provide specifics other than to say there is a lot of waste. I don’t have to see the numbers to know this.”
How do you know there is a lot of waste? If we are going to run something like a business then we have to talk numbers.
Thank you again.
34 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 19, 10:03 pm
Your welcome Jamie.
“It is not a question of spine. To my knowledge the school board has no authority to force the developer to do anything. If someone knows different then please come in with the statute that gives school boards the authority to force developers to donate land.”
This is why these decisions should not be with the boards, why they should not have spending power. Like any business negotiation ‘no’ is a powerful word. A savvy superintendent could do good to the bottom line.
As I said before other states require developers to donate the land or help with construction. Would I like to see it happen here? Sure.. I just don’t think it could happen in Texas with the system we have in place.
Until then.. Just say “No” to the developers.
35 Andy Meyers - Oct 19, 10:52 pm
Matthew Feinberg
I consider your statements that I am unethical and that I should be thrown in jail if I vote on issues concerning real estate developers, meaning I have violated the penal code, to be libelous.
Your statements are not supported with any facts; they are unwarranted, unjustified and gratuitous.
I demand a public apology from you and that you refrain from libeling me.
anonymous
You tell me that I am not talking to a crowd at Wal Mart. Based on the comments to this article it is apparent I am talking to a number of people who have no idea what they are talking about. They should become informed before making comments.
Please go back and read my comments. It is charges that I am unethical or have violated the law made by someone hiding behind a fake name, a cowardly act if I ever saw one, that I consider a Poison Pen, Anonymous Letter, which I cannot take seriously. No one at any public meeting has accused me of being unethical or of violating the law and if they did at least they are there in person facing me.
What votes do you believe I have cast that benefited only real estate developers?
I will be very involved in the 2007 legislative session working on the following legislation:
1.Preventing unfunded mandates. About 62% of the county’s expenditures are required by state unfunded mandates or statutes. Every state legislator voted for unfunded mandates in the last legislative session while claiming they did not vote for a tax increase. A vote for an unfunded mandate is a vote to increase local property taxes.
2.Requiring landowners/developers to help pay for roads and drainage that is not within their property or development, but that directly benefits them, either though impact fees or some type of direct participation.
3.Changing the statute that allows county court reporters, whose salaries are set by the District Judges, to own and thereby sell their “work product” to the county, defendants, and plaintiffs for additional compensation earning them over $250,000 per year in many cases.
4.Changing the statute that allows owners of commodities to render the value of their inventory on two different dates providing them an opportunity to avoid property taxes and shifting the tax burden to residential properties.
5.Changing the statute that allows cities to make limited purpose annexation thereby allowing the cities to tax citizens outside their city limits while providing the citizens no services.
6.Changing the statute that allows cities to determine the routes of major roads that are outside their city limits, but within their extraterritorial jurisdiction.
7.Changing the statutes that dictate to local governments how they are to spend fee revenue. Local control of local government is best in my opinion.
There is additional legislation that I will be supporting that would enable local governments to reduce expenditures and thereby reduce taxes. There are less than 10 members of the 254 Commissioners Courts in Texas who work to influence state legislation that would reduce expenditures and thereby allow for the reduction of taxes. My efforts in this regard are in addition to the 50+ hours per week I put in at my Commissioner’s job.
Frankly, I don’t care for someone making public, unfounded, unwarranted, and unsubstantiated charges that I am unethical, am in someone’s pocket, have violated the penal code, or done something that is improper. Unfortunately, the Internet allows unprincipled cowards to make such charges about public officials while hiding behind a fake name so they do not have to accept responsibility or be held accountable for their actions.
36 anonymous - Oct 20, 07:00 am
“I demand a public apology from you and that you refrain from libeling me.”
Andy,
What a surprise that you are threatening a taxpayer who claims your voting on projects that may benefit some of your contributors is libel. I agree with Matthew and believe it is wrong, whether legal or not, and Matthew made his distinction between legal and ethical in his posts and qualified them as opinion. You are taunting him and picking on someone with less money to defend in such an action. You are a public figure and should know better. He is entitled to his opinion of you, and your effort to provoke him I find highly objectionable and insulting to every voter in this county.
As far as your pro-developer votes, just look at the lighting ordinance that was changed to accommodate the developers that you pushed through and I’m sure if we exam the record there are many others. And we all just love watering the judges cattle (another wise use of taxpayer money). You may not be as big a receiver of their contributions as others on the commission, but you are splitting hairs now and making threats! You better expect some voter resistance when you make such claims!
I might add that you are also off topic! Get in front of this issue and lead the kick-in by developers, not the threats!!!
“Please go back and read my comments. It is charges that I am unethical or have violated the law made by someone hiding behind a fake name, a cowardly act if I ever saw one, that I consider a Poison Pen, Anonymous Letter, which I cannot take seriously. ”
These clams by you are false. Matthew is not hiding behind a pseudo-name or standard online login and no one has accused you of breaking a law. The distinction you continue to make! What you have done is reinforce using pseudos by going after him. Why would anyone post in the open to expose themselves to you or your backers attacks???
“7.Changing the statutes that dictate to local governments how they are to spend fee revenue. Local control of local government is best in my opinion.”
As for number 7 under normal circumstances I would support local control, but not with this commissioners court with so much EDC influence. Additionally you voted to give yourself a 17% pay increase, how is this wise spending of taxpayer money?
It is you who owe an apology to a voter and taxpayer who lives in this county and to the group for not staying on topic!
Answer this question: Are you going to help get your backers and others on the commissioners court to support, in the legislature, kick-in to the schools on land (at cost or reduced) which would save school districts millions that could go directly to other academic areas and the students progress?
If you think my response is defaming in anyway then I encourage you to file a case against me or anyone in here you like. I give Mr. Dunn my permission to e-mail you my contact info. and remind you that FBN does not allow “libelous” posts (therefore none must exist on this thread).
It might also be said that you better go after all the millions who participate in the accepted mode of pseudo-logins in open discussion forums!
I believe you owe Matthew and the other voters/taxpayers in here an apology. You work for us, and Andy, a frivilous lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money, not one of those many benefits you all remind us that you are doing for us!
Mr. Dunn please allow this post to move forward and convey who I am and any contact information to Mr. Meyer the public servant so that he can pursue any legal course he may choose too.
Thanks for participating Mr. Meyer. Please answer the question above!
37 Susan - Oct 20, 08:10 am
Matthew,
You have inferred that an elected school board is less likely/able than a single superintendent to stand up and refuse to pay inflated prices for land from developers. I disagree with your logic. There have been superintendents in FBISD (and elsewhere) that were extremely close to the EDC and business powers. It is much easier to influence a single unelected person who has all the power to decide something than to influence 7 people who must stand for election every 3 years. That is why many taxpayers seek to vote for BOT candidates who do not simply “rubber stamp” all administration requests. Until/unless the Texas legislature does the right thing on this issue, I would prefer to take my chances with a board of 7 disparate individuals.
BTW – I am shocked that “intheknow” has not weighed in on this issue…..
38 golampson - Oct 20, 08:10 am
Now, now Andy your true colors are starting to show.
39 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 20, 08:32 am
“I demand a public apology from you and that you refrain from libeling me.”
I can’t be libeling you. You are a public figure running for public office and my opinions of the laws and your record are just that. I will say it again. It is unethical to take money from developers and then vote on anything involving them or their companies. period. It is not illegal at this point. but it should be. And yes.. I believe jail time is warranted if you break the law.
Andy.. I hope enough people see your reply and see what you really are. A out of touch self centered politician. In my opinion you don’t deserve any public office.
My name is Matthew Feinberg. I don’t hide behind fake names. If you know anything about me you will know that your comments are a waste of time. People have the RIGHT to post anonymous, like it or not. The last time someone tried to sue me they got taken to the State Supreme Court at great expense.
What is wrong with the public officials here in Texas? I keep hearing I don’t have a right to my opinions or don’t have a right to speak out because I disagree with them. There is more corruption here than I ever saw in New Jersey.. And we invented political corruption.
Andy.. I will do my best to make sure you are not elected. You do not have my support.
This is getting off toppic. I am sorry.
40 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 20, 08:34 am
Susan.. I am on your side. We just have different opinions.
FBISD just hired an outsider to run things.. I am confident he will be great in what he sets out to do.
41 intheknow - Oct 20, 09:44 am
Susan—I’m in total agreement with your assessment above re it’s much better to have elected board members with oversight than a single, non-elected individual. (Don’t faint) :)
Re having developer’s “kick in.” I agree that no one can “force” developers (at this time and likely without legislative action) to donate land, services or anything else. It would be great if some organization (like the Texas Association of School Boards) would lead an effort to move Legislation through with some requirements. But I don’t realistically see that happening in our lifetime.
However, there are many things the school District, in conjunction with other local entities could do to “encourage” such participation. For example: 1) City/County officials could make it a policy or local statute that developers of master planned communities must have school district approval to include “future school sites”on the plats that get approved by City/County entities. Developers use these plats to sell homes to unsuspecting buyers—and most would likely be shocked to know the touted “future school sites” are fictional. If the proposed school is not in the district’s long-range plan and/or the District does not approve it, the developer could not produce a plat indicating a future school site at the designated location. (Several local developments, including Sienna, Riverstone and Tel Fair) are selling homes based on plats that show future school locations that FBISD has absolutely NO plans to build at this time. That’s misleading at best.
The requirement for getting approval to designate a future school site on their land use plan, would be that they immediately donate the land to the district for future use.
2) The local business community and the District could use carrots instead of sticks. Here’s one idea – I’m sure there are much smarter folks out there who could come up with others…Developers could be given school naming rights (within the framework of some guidelines) if they agree to donate the land to the district. The local Chamber and EDC could give out awards and kudos—good PR for developers is meaningful.
3) The district could put someone in place who is actually a good negotiator to work out deals with developers well in advance. Instead, we seem to generally wait until just before a school is desparately needed, the area is almost completely built out, land values have escalated and we then go, hat in hand, to a developer to ask what they’d be willing to let us have the land for.
One more thing—there is a thing called eminent domain. I don’t think the District would have to use it too many times before developers started seeing the wisdom of being good citizens in this regard.
42 Susan - Oct 20, 11:00 am
Matthew,
I do hope you are right and things go well for FBISD. However, I am just a little jaded from watching other “outsiders” become corrupted by the power of controlling the multimillion dollar budget. It seems that it takes a rare bird not to be seduced by it.
43 Andy Meyers - Oct 20, 02:26 pm
anonymous
“I’m surprised that you are threatening a taxpayer…”
I made no threat; I insist people not make unwarranted and unsubstantiated charges about public officials in a public forum.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; they are not entitled to their own “facts”.
Re-read my comments to Matthew Feinberg and please point out where I claimed that he was hiding behind a fake name.
“As far as your pro-developer votes, just look at the lighting ordinance that was changed to accommodate the developers that you pushed through and I’m sure if we exam the record there are many others.”
Even the sponsors of the original “Lighting Ordinance” agreed that it was unworkable. In addition, some of the developers were considering a suit challenging the “Lighting Ordinance”. My efforts were to work out a compromise all could live with and retain the “Lighting Ordinance”. I succeeded. Had I wanted to kill the “Lighting Ordinance” to help my supposed buddies all I had to do was explain to the developers the basis on which they could successfully challenge the ordinance. They would have won the suit and the ordinance would have gone away forever.
OK, you are now 0 for 1, please point out another of my supposed pro-developer votes.
“It is you who owe an apology to a voter and taxpayer who lives in this county and to the group for not staying on topic…”
I was responding to the unsubstantiated and unwarranted charges made against me. Exactly how is that not on topic? Who did I attack with unsubstantiated and unwarranted charges for which I should apologize?
Commissioners Court will not be raising the salaries of county elected officials for 4 or 5 years, so the average annual increase in our salaries will be about 3-4%, which is not unreasonable.
It is a myth that the EDC controls Commissioners Court. Commissioners have an understanding that we will support our cities in whatever way we can. We believe that is what we are supposed to do. When the Commissioners grant a tax abatement to attract a business to Fort Bend, we do so at the request of one of our cities not at the request of the EDC. The only time I remember that the EDC made a direct request of the Commissioners, which was to acquire the Southwest Houston Airport in Arcola, the Commissioners rejected their request, which would not have happened if the EDC controlled Commissioners Court.
Some people disagree with my principles, policies, and votes and they express their disagreement without charges of me being unethical or that I should go to jail and that is fine with me. I am not shy about engaging those who disagree with me in an effort to explain my reasons for voting the way I do. One can disagree without being disagreeable, however.
44 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 20, 06:26 pm
Sorry but off topic again. This will be my last post regarding this matter.
Andy says
“I was responding to the unsubstantiated and unwarranted charges made against me.”
Andy.. Andy… Andy.. You are a pubic official. If you are going to cry every time someone says something about you then I am afraid you will be very very busy. I made no charges against you. I gave a simple opinion… period. It is my right and I will continue to use my rights regardless of what you think.
Here is something to read.. I know your Right minded brain can’t handle this type of input.. so please read it slowly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
45 bob - Oct 20, 08:47 pm
I do not know about FBISD, but Ms. McGarr is writing about Katy ISD which has included money in the current bond package to buy land, if needed. As has been stated, there is currently no way to force developers to donate land for schools; but if one of the plans put forth pans out, then Katy ISD will not have to spend the money to buy the land. If no relief is forthcoming, then Katy ISD has prudently planned to be able to buy the land. School districts cannot be responsible for the false advertising of future school sites by developers.
There is a timeline for site selection of schools that varies depending on whether they are elementary, junior high or high schools. There are many factors affecting the placement of the school, not the least of which is demographics. Coordinating the development and land donation process would require very careful choreography.
Assuming that there is something to negotiate, perhaps school districts would benefit from hiring negotiators to make deals with developers. Of course, that would be an additional cost.
School districts would be wise to avoid using eminent domain. As it is, some people balk at paying the taxes necessary to fund good schools. When the district or anyone else starts contemplating taking land from people by force, there is going to be a fight.
46 Parent - Oct 20, 10:48 pm
Many of you engaged in this discussion seem to be quite knowledgable of the school system. I want to take the opportunity to ask a question. How is that students who are not even zoned to our overcrowded schools are allowed to attend? I have heard of several and most recently a business acquaintance called and told me about her neighbor’s son who “got in with the wrong crowd,” and is using drugs. She needs to get him out of the high school he is zoned to. She plans to enroll him in Kempner High School. My response was “he probably won’t be allowed to go there, he isn’t zoned to Kempner.” Her reply, “oh his mother has already talked to the school, he can go to school there.” (The family lives near Westheimer/Hwy 6)Two students who graduated from Kempner High School last year also lived out of the area; a female student resided off Memorial and Hwy. 6 and a male student lived in apartments north of I-10 off Hwy. 6. Many current students claim to be Alief residents. If we do have “open campuses” then that should be addressed immediately since our schools are overcrowded. Is this “open campus” policy limited to certain schools? If so who makes this decision?
47 jamie - Oct 20, 10:58 pm
Anonymous,
“From your question are you implying that some plan can’t be worked out to balance this out?”
I would fully support any effort to encourage the Texas legislature to pass a law requiring developers to donate land for schools, but that is not what my question is. In her piece, Mary suggested that schools should not be built until the students who would inhabit them were present and living in the district. Considering that KISD is expected to receive an 9,000 additional students in the next three years, Mary needs to explain where she proposes to put these students while they wait for their schools. I sincerely doubt that Mary’s idea would be beneficial for the quality of education in Katy ISD. The district has a responsible plan and a responsible method for paying for it. The district has fully briefed the community on its plan. Mary disagrees, but she has yet to explain to the community how her plan would work. Mary, could you give us the specifics on how you would accommodate these 9,000 students in existing schools while they wait to have their schools built?
“Aren’t you on record supporting the latest KISD bond issue?”
Yes, I support the Katy ISD bond issue because it responsibly meets the needs of existing schools while preparing for growth. Mary is on record opposing the latest KISD bond issue. What is your point?
“Why wouldn’t you support this cost saving initiative that could help districts keep up with the rapid growth and seek commitment from the mega-developers?”
As I said, I will support any responsible effort to try to require developers to donate land. If you are referring to Mary’s idea of housing 1-6 elementary school’s worth of students in existing facilities while they wait for their school’s to be built, then I would have to say that Mary has not properly shown that such a plan could be implemented while maintaining the quality of education currently offered in Katy ISD.
“I’m sure the experts, when crafting this legislation, would come up with a better formula than the current wait for a crisis format. This approach would help save taxpayers/voters/families/schools potential millions of dollars. As the article points out it was done with early land grants by our founders as set-asides.”
The land market is not what it used to be. We are not living in the 18th century anymore. Are you suggesting that the government should try to use eminent domain to encroach on people’s rights by taking their property from them against their will?
I am still waiting for an answer from Mary about how her plan to put all these additional students in existing facilities would work.
48 Susan - Oct 21, 07:18 am
Parent,
My child graduated from Kempner and I am aware of the problem of students who do not live in the district transferring in. It has to do with state law. Public schools must accept all students whose parents or legal guardians reside within the attendance zone of that school. So, many savy parents who want to get their students into a better school will file legal papers giving guardianship to someone who resides near a desirable district/school. The student is technically supposed to live in the appropriate district, but many just file the papers claiming to be living with a district resident but do not acutally do so. Other schools have this problem—Clements used to have a lot of students who lived in Greatwood or Houston, but some friend or relative in First Colony was assigned guardianship.
49 anonymous - Oct 21, 07:30 am
“The land market is not what it used to be. We are not living in the 18th century anymore. Are you suggesting that the government should try to use eminent domain to encroach on people’s rights by taking their property from them against their will?”
Jaime,
You start off by saying you would support such a legislative effort and then put up road blocks to it. I see you flip-flop on this several times in your post. This is why I doubt your sincerity. Requiring set-aside land is not using eminent domain. As for the KISD bond election and the immediate use of a policy like this I don’t have an opinion. I have reviewed the bond materials from several sites and it looks like it is filled with millions of expenditures for non classroom building.
That being said I would have to say we are not the experts that would hammer out a long-term solution to kick-in by the mega-developers who profit off school placement in their communities. All we can really do is bring pressure to the boards, legislature, etc. to get the ball rolling.
It would be my hope that you are not a bond stumper and willing to join forces with people like myself and Mary, Matt, ITK, Susan etc. to begin this process, not attempt to sabotage it. If we agree on kick-in as a broader issue then it could be accomplished.
Andy,
Narcissistic tendencies are well documented among some politicians. I’m sure your perspective, IMHO, of your efforts in office are quite different from mine or others in the public. So I will leave it to you to continue to paint your own record in what ever way you like. I do think the Florida corporate contributions you and the other commissioners accepted , that are now under investigation by the justice dept. should be returned. According to the record that had not occurred.
As for this thread, I really wish you would stop diverting it to your issues and focus on the topic of “land kick-in” and even join and help get some legislation going on this (you already said you are involved with state legislation so this wouldn’t be a stretch).
ITK,
I appreciate your effort to brainstorm and bring a wealth of info to this discussion. I especially like the info on the schools and maps that often mislead. That was our experience. I hope you stay involved and help push this forward.
Thanks!
50 Andy Meyers - Oct 21, 01:18 pm
anonymous
We are not debating some abstract issue, we are discussing my vote on matters. My “perspective” as you characterized it is the factual reason I conducted my self and voted the way I did. You can either accept that fact or not, but you do not get to substitute your “opinion” or “perspective” for facts.
As to requiring developers to “donate” land for schools or to contribute to building schools, I have the following observations.
In every legislative session since I assumed office in 1997 a number of County Judges, Commissioners and I have sought legislation that would give counties additional authority to deal with rapid new development in our counties – impact fees for roads and drainage that were outside a subdivision but impacted by the subdivision, “Development Agreements” with developers, similar to what cities already have, permitting counties to work with developers to ensure adequate infrastructure and facilities needed to support the development, including schools and parks. were provided for, Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), similar to what cities already have, to facilitate the “Development Agreements”, and other legislation relating to lot size, green space, etc.
For the most part we have been unsuccessful because of the powerful Real Estate/Developer Lobby and because a number of state reps and senators are either in the real estate development business themselves or are attorneys who represent the real estate interests. In 2005, we were able to get authority for counties to create a TIRZ, although they do not have the same powers a city-created TIRZ has.
I am a private property rights and free market politician, so I am reluctant to vote to force anyone to do something they would not do voluntarily. However, I do believe that if public money is being used to build/improve roads and drainage that will increase the value of land or of a development that the landowner/developer should contribute to the costs of those improvements. My approach is to work with the developers through a “Development Agreement” to provide the necessary infrastructure and facilities as some cities do now.
Based on my past experience, I do not believe you will be successful in getting legislation to require developers to contribute land or money to building schools in their subdivisions. I think the approach we are taking of getting some type of voluntary “Development Agreement” may get you at least part of the way there.
It is going to take more than commenting on the Internet. The effort should be led by the policy makers – the members of the School Board – as well as the Superintendents. Parents and activists must join in lobbying their state reps and senators, testifying before committees in Austin, and writing letters to Committee Chairmen, Committee Members and your area delegation advocating for your cause.
51 anonymous - Oct 22, 07:31 am
Thank you Andy for the response. As for your voting record, I’m glad you have the facts on it and continue to keep the public informed. I do find it interesting that you claim to be a politician who supports the Friedman school of thought (considering his theory doesn’t require governments). I always find it fascinating when politicians working in government support such a level of privatization. Although some privatization is good I think authentic government oversight is needed to protect the public as is contained in most oath of offices (a good example is all the recorded corporate scandals, of course gov’t officials need watching too, don’t you agree?). I do wonder why you all haven’t returned the PBSJ contributions and why their was no response to watering the judges cattle post (see http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2003/county-to-pay-56000-yearly-to-rent-judges-house-agrees-to-water-cattle and http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/1903/florida-firm-investigated-over-contributions-gave-money-to-commissioners).
As for, “it is going to take more than commenting on the Internet. The effort should be led by the policy makers – the members of the School Board – as well as the Superintendents. Parents and activists must join in lobbying their state reps and senators, testifying before committees in Austin, and writing letters to Committee Chairmen, Committee Members and your area delegation advocating for your cause.”
I believe I’ve asked you to lead or help get this going. The members posting to this forum don’t have to agree on all topics, just that this is worthwhile. Having a county public servant head it would get this moving towards the action side in your response post above. What say you and the others? I know several of the posters have a pretty good contact list (in the thousands) that could be put to good use on just such an issue.
Let me know.
Thanks Bob for making these threads available to the public!
52 jamie - Oct 23, 08:44 pm
anonymous and all
I would support any plan that would help school districts require or encourage developers to donate land. I think that it is inappropriate to use this issue, as Mary has done in the past, to try to paint school districts as irresponsible. As Andy and many others with more experience than me have pointed out, it is going to be very difficult to get the legislature to require developers to donate land in the current political environment. These last two statements are not flip-flops or roadblocks on my part, but an effort to acknowledge the challenges inherent in trying to get anyone to give something up for the public good.
To use this issue to hold a district’s bond initiative hostage is irresponsible because the district can do nothing to effect change on such short notice. The best a district can do is try to negotiate with developers. I would be willing to participate with Mary and others in trying to support Katy ISD in making these efforts in the future.
As for the Katy ISD bond, 82% of the money would go to the classroom (I include air conditioning and heating work as classroom expenditures). The other 18% includes items such as land for future schools (without land you cannot have schools and cannot have classrooms), new buses and parking space for those buses (buses are needed to get the students into the classrooms), and safety & security. The non-classroom expenditures also include money for items like the Mayde Creek natatorium (about 2.5% of the bond) and baseball complex renovations which must meet ADA code requirements (less than 1% of the bond). The Watchdog$ have claimed that each of these last two items can be done for less than half of what was estimated by the district, but they have yet to publish the specifics such as the vendor, the vendor history and the bid specifications. As I see it, if the Watchdog$ have a way to do the work cheaper while maintaining the safety, quality and durability of the structure, then they should share that information with the school board so that we can all save some money.
Today, we heard that 11,880 Katy ISD students spend part of their day in portables (it may be one period or all day depending on the circumstances). What further evidence does Mary need that KISD needs a bond to build more schools?
53 anonymous - Oct 24, 04:48 am
“I would support any plan that would help school districts require or encourage developers to donate land.”
Now we just need Andy and the other participants to volunteer and then we can look at a possible meeting then, right?
54 Mary McGarr - Oct 24, 01:24 pm
So many comments regarding my Commentary that the Fort Bend Now has been kind enough to print. None of you would believe how difficult it is for the Watchdog$ to obtain media coverage. We don’t have $21,000 Democratic liberal consultants on call to push our stuff.
I wrote commentaries for a month, and then left on a two week vacation, so I apologize for not responding promptly to all of the comments.
Dr. Calvin, thank you for the words of support. Your credentials suggest that you know whereof you speak.
In response to The Umpire, if KISD is listening to this discussion, you can be certain the only thing they are doing about it is dreaming up ways to spin what is said here to their advantage.
Susan—is right. It should be the Legislature’s job to fix the problem of partisan/developer school grabs. The Watchdog$ are in the process of advocating just such legislation as well as a lot more. It would appear that while no one was paying attention, school districts (using our tax dollars) got their associations (TASA, TASB, et al) to create legislation that allows them to run roughshod over the taxpayer, and we need to stop that effort.
For example, a few years ago, if school districts built schools before they were needed, they had to pay a fine to the state of $250 per student under the capacity of a school. That used to stop a lot of this nonsense that is going on. That provision just disappeared, and we can all imagine why.
Robert—name me one County Commissioner, or one School Board Member who will deny a developer his plans. They just don’t do that any more. Money talks. No getting around that fact.
Matthew—turning over spending to a school district’s administration (which is pretty much what has happened in Katy ISD already) means the end of life as we know it! If you think they’ve got their hands in your pocket right now, just wait! Please rethink that position.
bob—The real estate market at the time Edna Mae Fielder Elementary was built was at the beginning of the Cinco Ranch boom. Ninety-five per cent of the growth in KISD was south of the freeway, and even then they were lying about that. For political reasons they were building schools north of the freeway. Also I don’t think I suggested that anyone assess homeowners for school costs. I said that such a practice was used in other states. It’s just an idea I threw out.
As for your comment on capacities, I have to disagree. The school district DOES manipulate capacities, and no one can convince me that they don’t.
I no longer believe much of anything our school district tells us.
You also state that waiting to build schools before the kids are living here would have “some serious consequences.” This statement is typical of KISD scare tactics. I just told you that such was the practice until 1995 when Leonard Merrell came here. Funny, there weren’t any “serious consequences” then! And as I’ve already pointed out, the district DOES wait for the kids to come. Bond money was touted and asked for in bonds for Williams Elementary in 1994, 1996, and 1999 but the school didn’t open until 2000 because the Cinco Ranch didn’t build houses when they told the Demographer they were going to.
It is wrong to equate expensive schools with a quality education. James E. Williams, for whom the aforementioned school was named, once said, and I quote, “Good teachers can teach under a tree.” He was absolutely right.
It’s the teacher and the curriculum that make the quality school, not the building in which they are housed.
Jaime—I’m glad you are so sure that 9,000 students will be moving into our school district in the next three years. No one yet including Dr. Guseman our Demographer, has been able to predict within 9% plus or minus how many students we will have. Which Crystal Ball company are you using?
The 11,880 kids in portables statement on Ed Hendee’s show yesterday morning caught Mr. Hendee’s notice. He pointed out, and justifiably so, that to have 11,880 students being housed in portable buildings would be a clear indication of the lack of prudent planning, management and preparation for the future by the superintendent. I would have to agree if there are indeed 11,880 students in portable buildings.
However, I’m guessing that in creating these statistics on portable buildings, the District has used the flawed number of “15” as being the number of students per portable building classroom. There are no less than 22 students per elementary portable classroom (and times 2 since there are two rooms per portable) and more like 35 students in secondary portables (times 2) and those portables are used for five, six or seven class periods. So yeah, they may be parading 50,000 kids through portable buildings every day, but that doesn’t mean that 11,880 of them have a portable building where they attend school all day. The district has 167 portables that are used by students in 44 schools. That’s not very many per school, and knowing the facts paints a very different picture of the “overcrowding” in our schools. Obviously the devil was in the details.
I must also point out that because of these same flawed numbers the district is asking for bond money for twenty portables when if they would use the realistic numbers of 44 to 70 students per portable instead of the misleading “30” they would only need 10 portables.
Our district has been yelling wolf about the need for new schools for years. I’m just suggesting that questions be asked and actual facts be sought.
I appreciate all the comments—even if they did get a bit off subject. It’s nice to see most people can discuss a subject without name calling and spin.
As I often like to point out, even the dissenting side of a Supreme Court decision gets to have its side printed and studied without being treated like outcasts.
55 Mary McGarr - Oct 24, 01:39 pm
The article about which all of these commentaries are written had half of it left off. The other half is posted below. To read more of my commentaries, please go to www.katycitizens.org or www.radiofreekaty.com
Here is a list of KISD’s currently held undeveloped properties and what the District paid for them. (Source: KISD Open Records Request) Cinco Ranch Site
The entire Cinco Ranch High School complex land was purchased on August 29, 1996. The purchase included both the acquisition of 130.875 acres, at a cost of $19,250 per acre, and 31.577 acres, at a cost of $5,000 per acre for a total cost of $2,677,228.75. Acquisition of the 31.577 acre parcel was required as part of the overall transaction and was foreseen as a potential support service [bus barn] site for the District. Due to the diminishing ability to easily access the site [and no proof of that inaccessibility has been offered to the public in an open meeting], the Board felt that it would be appropriate to consider the sale of the property. The Board approved the recommendation to declare the 31.577 acre parcel as surplus on January 23, 2006. The property was advertised for sale, bids were received and opened on April 10, 2006, and Falcon Ranch Associates bid $14,750.00 per acre. Ultimately, the transaction did not occur per the conditions of the contract. [No public indication as to the failure of that transaction as well as any information regarding the viability and acceptability of the other bids has been provided to the public in an open meeting.]
Broussard Site
Acreage of .975 acres was purchased in 1913 in the James Conner survey, A-157, Fort Bend County. The property is located south of Katy, southwest of Katy Flew Ellen (Cross-over Road) and Gaston Road intersection. There is no plan for use identified by
the school district. The total purchase price was $1.00.
Green Trails Park Site
Acreage of 10.0923 acres was purchased in 1995 and includes all of the unrestricted Reserve A – Section 11, of Harris County. The property is located east [sic] of IH-10 on the southwest corner of Kingsland Blvd and South Greenhouse Road. There is no plan for use of this property. [The property was originally intended as an elementary site for a school to relieve Nottingham Country Elementary.] The total purchase price was $395,500. Cost per acre was $39,188.29.
Morris & Cummings Site
Acreage of 131.3381 and 28.79 for a total of 160.2 acres was purchased in 1983 and 2005 and includes A229500A-295 of the Morris & Cummings, Tract 2, Fort Bend County. The property is located south of Katy on Gaston and Katy Road at Green Busch Road. The planned use of the property is for high school # VII and Stadium # 2. The total purchase price was $2,068,447. Cost for the two purchases would have been of differing amounts, but averaging the two, the cost per acre was $12,911.65.
Clay Road Site
Acreage of 31.9396 was purchased in 2001 and includes W.C.R.R. Comp Survey, Abstract 906, Section 21, Block 2 in Harris County. The property is located south of Clay Road and west of Greenhouse Road. The planned use of the property is for a junior high school. The purchase price was $1,391,288. Cost per acre was $43,559.97.
Wood Creek #1 Site
Acreage of 30.272 acres was purchased in 2003 and includes a portion of the Wood Creek Reserve Subdivision. The property is located within the Wood Creek Reserve Subdivision between Katy Flewellen road and FM 1463 south of I-10. The planned use of the property is for a junior high school. The purchase price was $1,598,310. Cost per acre was $52,798.30.
Morton Ranch Site
Acreage of 16.298 acres was purchased in 2003 and includes a portion of the Golbow tract. The property is located west of and adjacent to Morton Ranch Junior High. The planned use of the property is for an elementary school. The purchase price was $709,927. Cost per acre was $43,559.15
Seven Meadows Site
Acreage of 12.2853 acres was purchased in 2003 and is part of the La Patillo Survey A-307 in Fort Bend County. The property is located on Gaston road and Seven Meadows Parkway at the intersection south of Fry Road and west of the Grand Parkway. The planned use of the property is for an elementary school. The purchase price was $722,452. Cost per acre was $58,806.22.
Firethorne Site
Acreage of 13.491 acres was purchased in 2005 from the William Ames Survey, Abstract 104 in Fort Bend. The property is located on the northeast corner of Firethorne Road and South Firethorne Road on FM 1463. The planned use of the property is for an elementary school. The purchase price was $734,564. Cost per acre was $54,448.45. [The reader should note the fact that the representative of the developer of Firethorne, Wayne Meyer, was a member of both of the 2006 bond committees, and is a frequent critic of the Watchdog$.]
Bhandara Property Site
Acreage of 47.2 acres was purchased in 2005 from the H.T.&C Railroad Co. Survey, Abstract 452. The property is located on the northwest corner of Clay Road and Katy Hockley Road. The planned use of the property is for an elementary school and a junior high school. The purchase price was $849,600. Cost per acre was $18,000.
Cross Creek Ranch Site
Acreage of 123.09 acres was purchased in 2006. No indication given as to the legal description of the property or its actual location. The planned use of the property is for a junior high school and a high school. The purchase price was $4,000,425. Cost per acre was $32,500.
--and I'm sure more will be forth-coming (you can add your comments here or at FBN).
One question: Where is Mr. Meyers answer to the anon challenge to lead this issue towards legislative action?
and:
56 anonymous - Oct 25, 05:27 am
Mary,
I want to thank you for getting back and responding. The information in post #55 are the kind of facts needed to support a legislative effort (or even a local one). I’m not terribly surprised that Andy has remained silent and not picked up the gauntlet to help lead this effort. A very natural process and outgrowth of just such a public discussion.
Mary, would you be interested? Even as diverse as the background and opinions of this group are could you also get involved in this effort locally or even on a statewide push?
Andy, we’re waiting! Pick up the glove. . .
57 Robert Cocheu - Oct 25, 06:22 am
Mary,
Thanks for the response. Basically my point was that commissioners and school board memebers work for us, not the developers. maybe a good spanking at the polls is what they all need to get the point across. Until we realize that the job of schools is to educate our children, not sell homes, social engineer, or any of the other things that tend to occur in districts that think all the money belongs to them, we will be in this position for a very long time.
58 jamie - Oct 25, 08:23 am
Mary and all
“It is wrong to equate expensive schools with a quality education. James E. Williams, for whom the aforementioned school was named, once said, and I quote, “Good teachers can teach under a tree. It’s the teacher and the curriculum that make the quality school, not the building in which they are housed.”
Katy ISD schools are not more expensive than surrounding school districts. In fact, they are average in terms of cost per square foot in the Houston area and they cost less per student than other area districts. When are the Watchdog$ going to correct the misinformation about school construction costs on their website?
I agree with you that good teachers are a key ingredient in providing quality education, but I am sure that Mr. Williams did not mean for his comment to be taken literally. We do need quality and economical buildings to facilitate the learning process. How will we attract and keep quality teachers if we have poorly maintained facilities and poorly equipped facilities? The bond provides for both well maintained and well equipped facilities in a responsible manner.
“You also state that waiting to build schools before the kids are living here would have “some serious consequences.” This statement is typical of KISD scare tactics. I just told you that such was the practice until 1995 when Leonard Merrell came here. Funny, there weren’t any “serious consequences” then! And as I’ve already pointed out, the district DOES wait for the kids to come.”
We know that the district waits for the kids to come. We have about 3000-5000 of them spending all their day in portables right now and another 7000-9000 spending part of their day in portables. Are you suggesting that we should pack them tighter before building additional schools? You were a teacher. Do you think that would be a good thing from an educational perspective? If we do not maintain our existing schools and ensure that new schools are built so as to avoid more overcrowding at existing schools, then our educational standards will suffer. When the quality of education goes down, the value of our property will follow suit. This is not a scare tactic. It is a fact. We will get what we pay for.
“The school district DOES manipulate capacities, and no one can convince me that they don’t.”
You have not shown that KISD has a problem with being under capacity AND you have not addressed the question of classroom capacity versus actual capacity. Just because a school has 40 classrooms that can fit up to 35 students in them does not mean that the school has an actual capacity of 1400. There may be class sizes that are mandated by the state and/or federal government to be below 10. There may be some specialized classes that only have 5-15 students. Both of these scenarios, and I am sure there are many more, would decrease the actual capacity of the school. Opinions and feelings aside, this is not capacity manipulation. It is reality.
“turning over spending to a school district’s administration (which is pretty much what has happened in Katy ISD already) means the end of life as we know it!”
I agree with you that the elected school board should oversee the finances. The Board selects a superintendent to run the district and keep them abreast of the finances. Based on the recent bond rating upgrades and the management of money going toward maintenance, operations and construction (cost of KISD schools are at the average in Houston) as well as the education offered in KISD, I would have to say that the Board and Dr. Merrell are doing an excellent job of ensuring that we receive the best value for our tax dollars. I would add that term limits are a bad idea because then the administration is in total control. If the taxpayers do not like the way the school district is being run, then they can elect a new board.
“None of you would believe how difficult it is for the Watchdog$ to obtain media coverage.”
Really? Mary, you have published articles in the Katy Sun regularly. Chris Cottrell has appeared on Edd Hendee’s show on KSEV and was apparently interviewed by other stations as well. Much of the talk radio circuit is participating in erroneously painting KISD with the same brush as other school districts. A.D. Muller, a political consultant, has been quoted in the Chronicle. I think that the Watchdog$ are doing a fine job of obtaining media coverage.
“We don’t have $21,000 Democratic liberal consultants on call to push our stuff. “
On your website Campaign Strategies, a group hired by KIDS to help promote the bond, is described as a “Montrose based campaign strategy group”. Contrary to the Watchdog$ campaign spin, the Katy ISD bond is not a liberal versus conservative issue. This is fundamentally a question of values. Are we willing to pay the price necessary to ensure that the quality of KISD schools can be maintained? Good, sensible, conservative Republicans like Bill Callegari, Glenn Hegar and Dr. John Zerwas have agreed that this bond should pass. They understand that it is vital to the future of KISD. Bond supporters understand that if this bond fails, then it could lead to declining property values. This is no scare tactic. It is the reality of the situation.
If you had a job that needed to be done and the best person available to do the job was a liberal Democrat, would you hire that person for the job? What does the fact that Campaign Strategies is a consultant group, based in the Montrose area, that has worked with liberal Democrats have to do with the merits of the bond? You are right that we should stop the name-calling and spin and just discuss the merits of the issue at hand.
59 anonymous - Oct 25, 09:37 am
“If you had a job that needed to be done and the best person available to do the job was a liberal Democrat, would you hire that person for the job? What does the fact that Campaign Strategies is a consultant group, based in the Montrose area, that has worked with liberal Democrats have to do with the merits of the bond? You are right that we should stop the name-calling and spin and just discuss the merits of the issue at hand.”
Jaime,
In our district we have so much growth that we have risked burning out our bond rating. You all are at least able to construct less per square foot than in our system because of efforts by groups counter-balancing the bond marketing and stumpers. You don’t won’t your district in the situation ours is currently in with out of control growth and a lower bond rating. I would also suggest that you check some of the contribution lists of the conservatives you tout and see if contractors, vendors and others who benefit from the passage of these bonds are on their lists. We’ve found that to be the case in our district quite often.
Finally, I would still hope no matter which end of the KISD bond vote you are on that you could join a committee formed from this discussion and lead by one of our county commissioners (if he ever picks up the glove) to push this issue before local and state reps if needed (kick-in by mega – developers on school land. Remember this is the topic of the thread).
Just as a side note some of you may get a kick out of this link and PR/Marketing group selling their services online to defeat grass-roots movements (How unamerican. Trying to kill debate in a community before it even begins.):
http://www.gcastrategies.com/
60 jamie - Oct 25, 10:01 pm
Mary and all:
I am ready to work with any group that is trying to help districts require or encourage developers donate land for schools.
Mary, in your recent article in the Katy Sun you insinuated that the district only built one of the four elementary schools promised in the 1994 bond and that Dr. Merrell had spent the money on other projects. Let’s set the record straight. Here are the number of schools promised with each of the bonds and the schools built with that money.
1994- 4 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools (Hayes Elementary 1995, McRoberts Elementary 1997, Alexander Elementary 1998, Katy JH 1995, Beck JH 1996)
1996-2 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 1 high school (Williams Elementary 2000, Creech Elementary 2000, McMeans JH 2000, Cinco Ranch HS 1999)
1999-3 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 1 high school (King Elementary 2001, Schmalz Elementary 2001, Kilpatrick Elementary 2003, Cinco Ranch JH 2001, Morton Ranch JH 2003, Morton Ranch HS 2004)
2002-5 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 1 high school (Exley Elementary 2004, Franz Elementary 2004, Rhoads Elementary 2004, Rylander Elementary 2004, “Wood Creek Reserve”-elementary 28 2007, Seven Meadows-elementary 29 2007, Beckendorff JH 2004, Seven Lakes HS 2005 with ninth grade center)
In the 1994 bond three of four elementaries were built with the bond money as planned. In the 1996 bond one of two junior highs were built with the bond money as planned. You should be very familiar with this information Mary since you were on the board when these bonds were put together and I am sure that you attended all the meetings. Dr. Merrell did not arrive in the district until mid-1995 and he did not have the current facilities and construction management team assembled when the 1996 bond was planned. The teams that gave us the information for the 1994 and 1996 bonds are the same groups that gave us 10-year roofs for Katy Junior High and McDonald Junior High (1991). Some of the same groups made the decision to build the Mayde Creek pool. In fairness to them, they were not used to rapid growth. They fell short in their cost estimates. Did they misuse construction cost data in the way the Watchdog$ have? We do not know, but let’s say that they did the best they could.
For the 1999 and 2002 bonds Dr. Merrell had much of the current team in place. He had charged Peter McElwain with putting together a long-range facilities plan. He knew that it was important that the district use the bonds as stated. All the schools listed in the 1999 bond were built. In the 2002 bond the building plan had to be adjusted due to unforeseen demographic changes (4 year projections). KISD had more elementary age students coming into the district and less secondary age students. As a result plans were made to build an elementary school, in lieu of a junior high school. I am sure you would agree that KISD should not build a school (whether it is Williams Elementary or Junior High # 11) until the demographics support it. This is one of the key tenets of prudent facilities planning. It would not be smart for the school district to build a school just because it was on the bond package if the demographics did not support the building of the school.
“I’m glad you are so sure that 9,000 students will be moving into our school district in the next three years. No one yet including Dr. Guseman our Demographer, has been able to predict within 9% plus or minus how many students we will have. Which Crystal Ball company are you using?”
You are misusing statistics. That 9% figure is for five year predictions, but we are not talking about five year predictions and anyway as we have seen the school board can alter the plans, if necessary, to properly meet the needs of the community. I acknowledge that demographic projections are part art and part science, but on a year to year basis, Dr. Guseman has been within 1-2%. Besides, the district does not have to sell the bonds if we do not need the buildings. This will be up to the elected Board. There will also be a bond advisory committee reviewing the process if the bond passes. Do you use a crystal ball?
“a few years ago, if school districts built schools before they were needed, they had to pay a fine to the state of $250 per student under the capacity of a school. That used to stop a lot of this nonsense that is going on. That provision just disappeared, and we can all imagine why.”
To what “nonsense” are you referring? We have 11,880 students who spend part of their day in portables. About 3000 of these students spend their entire day in portables. The law you cite sounds like it was a bad law that punished proactive school districts who were trying to plan for the future. Don’t you believe that we have enough state regulation?
“The real estate market at the time Edna Mae Fielder Elementary was built was at the beginning of the Cinco Ranch boom.”
Exactly. It was the “beginning” of a boom. A house in Memorial Parkway in 1993 sold for $59,000. Is that happening today? No. You cannot buy land that cheap now. To expect developers to gladly donate this land because the district talks tough is unrealistic. This is no reason to fail a bond.
Robert,
If we want the schools to confine themselves to whatever we think is “education”, then we will first have to change the laws and the current interpretation of the Constitution. The schools are only doing what they are told and it costs a ton of money to do it. Giving someone a “spanking at the polls” will do no good unless you change the laws that the schools have to follow. The money that school districts receive in the form of taxes is to be used to meet the district’s obligations under the law and obligations to the community. If we do not like everything that school districts are tasked with doing, then we ought to change the law rather than punishing school districts for following the law.
Anonymous,
“In our district we have so much growth that we have risked burning out our bond rating. You all are at least able to construct less per square foot than in our system because of efforts by groups counter-balancing the bond marketing and stumpers.”
First of all, KISD has a responsible debt management plan with conservative assumptions as far as interest rates and growth of the tax base. That is not to say that a recession would not hurt all of us, but we cannot just stick our head in the sand in fear. Secondly, KISD was constructing schools in a fiscally responsible way before the Watchdogs arrived on the scene so it would be incorrect to give the Watchdogs credit for KISD’s fiscally responsible approach to long-range facilities planning.
As for developers contributing to the coffers of politicians who also happen to support the Katy ISD school bond, this would not surprise me in the least. Like the conservative Republican politicians who support this bond, the developers recognize that the passage of this bond is vital if the Katy ISD community is to continue to prosper economically. They understand that the failure of this bond could have a negative impact on property values. What I do not understand is why the Watchdogs cannot or will not accept this notion. Why do the Watchdogs want to jeopardize KISD’s quality schools and quality communities? This bond will cost a taxpayer living in a home appraised at $165,000 an additional 12.3 cents per day. What are the Watchdogs thinking? What is their plan for KISD if they succeed in failing this bond?
I have nothing against grassroots organizations. I only ask that they tell the truth and avoid spin and demagoguery.
61 bob - Oct 25, 10:36 pm
I ran across this quote that I think is on target.
“Instead of getting in the way of the school district’s ability to serve the community, all this wonderful civic energy might be better spent addressing the problem of diversifying the tax base itself, rather than starving the school district that relies upon it. “
This came from…
http://www.polimom.com/2006/09/08/katy-taxes-and-the-bond-thing
If the Watchdogs are truly interested in cutting our personal taxes, this is where their energy should go – into getting businesses to come here.
I like the idea of a group getting together to help the district negotiate with developers.
62 anonymous - Oct 26, 05:10 am
“I have nothing against grassroots organizations. I only ask that they tell the truth and avoid spin and demagoguery.”
Who’s spin Jaime. You sound too much like an insider defending those companies that will directly benefit from the public gifts fo these bonds.
“I am ready to work with any group that is trying to help districts require or encourage developers donate land for schools.”
I’m glad you’re willing to help but we are still waiting on Andy to live up to his own action challenge from one of his posts above. The glove is still on the ground Andy!
See this lawyer cartoon link:
http://www.lawyer-jokes.us/modules/news/article.php?storyid=102
. . . =-) (of course JK, it's for you and your associates)
Yes they should kick-in the land.
ugg boots
ugg outlet
kate spade sale
coach outlet store
sac longchamp
rolex watches
ray ban sunglasses
ugg outlet
true religion outlet
ugg boots
2017.7.26
Post a Comment
<< Home