By Jim Levesque
The future of Katy ISD is in the hands of its tax paying residents again.
Voters will have their say Nov. 4 to approve or deny the school district's latest $748 million bond proposal that calls for, among other things, six new campuses—one high school, two junior high schools and three elementary schools—campus renovations and a new 12,000-seat stadium.
Bond history
Katy area residents are set to vote on a school bond for the second time in as many years after rejecting a much smaller $99 million bond proposal last November. Fifty-four percent of voters shot down that three-item proposal that called for construction of a $25 million agriculture facility, a $4.5 million science, math and technology project center and a 14,000-seat, $69.5 million stadium.
This year's bond proposal is the largest in the school district's history, topping the $459 million bond approved in 2010. Since 1994, the district has put eight proposals up for a vote, passing six that have totaled $1.58 billion.
The tax rate has only increased twice, topping out each time at 40 cents—a 2 cent increase—per $100 of assessed property value. The tax rate has stayed at the 40 cent mark for the last seven years, and school district officials expect a maximum of a half-cent increase if this year's bond is passed.
Officials have said there might not be any increase in the tax rate if this year's bond is approved, mirroring what happened in 2010 when a maximum increase of 4 cents was predicted but no increase was needed. A tax increase was avoided then because of the sale of bonds, an increase in taxable values through growth, by capitalizing on low interest rates in issuing new bonds and by refunding certain outstanding bonds, officials said.
Two of the last four bond proposals have failed. However, in November 2006, six months after residents for the first time voted down a school district bond, another bond put on the ballot was approved.
Trustees have worked to recreate such a turnaround at the polls again, said school board president Bryan Michalsky.
After the 2013 bond failed, trustees helped formulate a process to create a new proposal with the work of community volunteers. What manifested was a 227-person committee that in four months constructed a new bond proposal to put in front of voters.
The $748,118,930 proposal is vastly different from the plan rejected a year ago and aims to address a predicted growth in enrollment. The school district, which now has just more than 70,000 students, expects to top 80,000 in 2018.
The stadium
The hot-button topic in both the latest bond proposals is construction of a new stadium.
Most proponents and opponents of the 2013 bond proposal agreed the price tag of the $69.5 million 14,000-seat stadium, which accounted for about 70 percent of the total bond, was a major factor in how residents voted.
The new proposed stadium comes in at a price tag of $58 million. Among the cuts that were made from the original proposal is a smaller field house at $3.27 million, a 4,000-space parking lot at about $11 million and a 12,000-seat stadium—down 2,000 seats—at about $43.7 million.
District officials and supporters of the bond, including members of the One Katy Political Action Committee, point out that the cost of the stadium is just a small portion of the total bond—about 7.8 percent—and the facility will be used for much more than football games. They also said a new stadium is needed for a growing district.
"The stadium is the largest classroom in Katy ISD," said Shani Matheson, spokeswoman for One Katy PAC and member of the bond committee. "It's not just about football, it's the band, cheerleaders, drill team, soccer and much more."
Some have questioned why the stadium is included in a bond that mostly features items to build new schools and upgrade existing facilities. Members
of the Put Katy Kids First PAC, a group opposed to the bond, said a stadium at such an "astronomical" cost does not make sense and residents should have been able to vote for two different proposals—one that does not include the stadium.
"There is one option, that's it," said Cyndi Lawrence, Put Katy Kids First PAC president. "For a lot of people voting, it's all about the stadium. [The school district] wants the Taj Mahal of stadiums. It's just too expensive. If they truly wanted what's best for our kids' education, they'd mark that stadium down and look at less expensive options."
School officials and bond supporters said with seven high schools in the district and the addition of an eighth in the bond, another stadium is necessary to meet the needs of the increasing enrollment.
"Every item—and there are 63 in the bond—is piece of the pie, and if you take one piece out, the whole thing won't be a success," Matheson said. "The road to success is constantly under construction. If we take one thing out—a school, the stadium, the ag center—the entire school system will not be successful."
Officials said they are saving money by building a new stadium on land already owned by the district, and its location next to Rhodes Stadium will save on infrastructure costs.
Possible outcomes
If voters approve the bond, there likely will be an oversight committee, like in 2010 when the last bond was passed, to track the almost three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of projects to completion, ensure funds are being applied correctly and give updates to trustees, Michalsky said.
Trustees already have discussed forming such a committee to ensure financial transparency, he said.
If voters reject the bond proposal, it is back to the drawing board.
Tom Gunnell, the school district's chief operations officer, said officials would do their best to accommodate a growing enrollment with its current facilities. He said officials already have discussed many possibilities, and the "most preferred" options are adding more portable buildings for classrooms, rezoning enrollment areas to help alleviate overcrowding at specific schools and repurposing campus space: turning more rooms, gyms and common areas into classrooms.
Gunnell said if the district only purchased portable buildings to accommodate the expected 3,000-student increase next year, if would cost about $8 million.
The "least preferred" options that have been discussed are eliminating some extracurricular programs and implementing year-round school, Gunnell said.
"Every option is on the table," he said.
As for presenting another bond to voters, Michalsky said he does not think there would be enough time to get a proposal on the May ballot, meaning it would be another year before residents would vote on any new bond.
Exactly how a new bond proposal would be put together has not been decided, Michalsky said.
