(We are in the process of revamping the website.  Hopefully all the links are working in the meantime.)

 06-21-2008 New Cedar Creek High School

We received the following e-mail from one of Bastrop taxpayers:

At the June board meeting it was revealed that the new school is $1.4 million dollars in the red.  There will not be a central library for the students.  Teachers will not be assigned to a classroom of their own.  I think it's time the citizens of Bastrop who are paying for this school see the plans and find out why the public is not being given the facts. 

Remember the Board projections of what was needed to EITHER remodel the current high school or build another?  Remember that the voters finally voted to remodel the current high school and that was supposed to take care of the students for a number of years.  Before that project was even completed, the Board took advantage of the apathy of voters to research questions (assuming they even vote) and the new laws.

As explained back then, the spin the Board put on the election was that "you can vote for all this and still lower the tax rate."  Everyone said "Great" and with all the money thrown at this by the PAC, it passed.  Rather than paying about $1.27-$1.29, you're paying a tax rate in excess of $1.50 this year.  You see they compared apples to oranges and no one questioned them.  Well, a few of us did but couldn't get our message out.

So now the school is already in the red.  The people that will be using it don't want it located where it's at.  And Superintendent Emanuel said at the Community Forum the Board held earlier in June that the projections as reported earlier indicated the elementary school needed this year and the 2-3 more in the next few years weren't going to be needed.

Is the new high school needed?  Why do away with the library?  Why not do away with the stadium and its artificial turf (which has been shown to injure players)?  After all, a separate bond proposition will build a new one separate from the schools.  Can't the players use that?  Is it more important for a few people to play and others watch than to have our students come out of high school having learned to read?

Much emphasis is placed on the teacher - student ratio, the relationship and other factors involving the teachers and students.  If so much emphasis is stated, shouldn't it be followed through with actions?  Or is it all lip service to sound good? 

The only way the School Board will listen to the public is if the public puts pressure on it.  And that means hundreds of individuals at every Board meeting.  Hundreds of individuals calling the Board members on a daily basis - day after day.  A few can be dismissed as "malcontents."

The Board - even with the change in Board members - for some reason has always assumed it knows more than the parents who send their children to school, the voters who elected them and the teachers and other employees who work for it.

We have no radio stations or tv stations to voice our opinions on and to get the word out.  The newspaper is great about voicing the BISD position but no so much about the other side.  It takes money to mail out flyers, take out ads in the paper and use other media to get the word out.

It's going to take organization by those that live in Cedar Creek in particular to stop the current plans, to change the location or to have any affect on the School Board.  And that takes money.  Can it be done?  Probably. 

But not unless there are far more people involved than vote at our local elections.

A least that's my opinion ~ webmaster

05-21-2008 Rollback election - what is this?

After an article appeared in today's Austin Statesman, we received an email asking if Bastrop ISD is going to have an election to raise taxes.

That's not a question we can answer and, as the 2008-09 budget has not yet been presented, we doubt that BISD can answer it either.

The article in the Austin Statesman was entitled: "Voters may be asked to raise taxes for schools.  If increase is rejected in election, rate would roll back."

In Austin the school district needs to raise the rate beyond the $1.04 maximum that the Legislature put in place to give raises, etc.  In order to do this, it has the ability to set a higher rate, which could be as high as $1.17, according to the Statesman.  If the voters in November reject the increase, the operations tax rate would roll back to $1.04.

Basically a "rollback" election says that the Legislature gave you relief but we're taking it away because we can't make ends meet.  If you don't like it, go vote to retain the $1.04 rate that the Legislature made as a maximum.  School districts know that few turn out to vote.

Remember that election last year where the School Board told you, the taxpayer, that you could vote for this huge bond proposal and still get your rates lowered?  Did they tell you that the difference would only be pennies from one year to the next (the law one year to a different one the next - comparing apples and oranges)?  Or did they tell you that the rate difference would be closer to 25 cents or so (the difference with the passing of the bond proposal and if it failed)? - and, oh, by the way, if we decide we can't meet the expenses of our annual budget, we can come back and RAISE the tax rate above the maximum that you thought was in place and you'll be paying pretty much what you were BEFORE the Legislature helped you out!!

Will BISD lower expenses, perhaps not giving raises to teachers one of our newly elected School Board members stated are already being paid more than the average across the state?  Or by not giving administration raises?  Or perhaps the administration might take a cut in pay?  We really doubt that.  Or will they be able to submit a budget that fits in the $1.04 tax rate maximum?  We sincerely hope that's the case.  Right now it's a matter of wait and see.

What is a rollback election? (Source: Texas  Comptroller of Public Accounts)

Rollback elections are so named because they are retroactive.  The Texas Property Tax Code requires school districts to adhere to several important steps in the tax rate adoption process:

05-11-2008 Results of the May 10th School Board election

Did you vote?  It's not likely.  The total number of votes cast for Place 3 was 1,813.  For Place 4 there slightly fewer at 1,798.  The only thing that can be said is that at least this number did vote.  In Elgin a few years ago they held a school board election and a candidate won with 19 votes - no, not by 19, but with 19.  His opponent had 11.

With this attitude toward our local politics whether school, city or county, it's no wonder that the local community has little say in what goes on.  It's because the community gave no voice at the ballot box.  We have a very large turn out for Presidential politics and, while every vote counts, one lone vote in one community has little impact over all. 

In our local politics that one lone vote has a huge impact.  Doesn't it make you wonder with all the complaining about taxes and other local problems that so few vote?  It's understandable that many can't make the meetings due to work or family schedules - especially the county commissioners who meet at 9 am on a Monday morning,  but one would think that once or twice a year the local voters could go to the polls and make a difference.  Maybe the problem is indifference.

These are the results as given on the BISD website:

The following is the headline article from the Saturday March 1, 2008 Advertiser.  It's an attorney on the BISD advisery committee that is questioning the cost.  Remember that BISD did not have any plans for these projects prior to voting to put the bond election before the public.

3-1-2008 BISD stadium price doubted

The Bastrop Advertiser

by Terry Hagerty
Staff Writer

Bastrop school district voters were promised a new athletic stadium for about $17 million in a bond election in Spring 2007.

The stadium passed along with two separate items considered by voters - $65.7 million for a new high school in Cedar Creek and $15 million for a performing arts center.

But a member of the citizen advisory committee for the stadium is questioning the accuracy of the price tag for the stadium and whether a "quality stadium" can be built for $15 million-$16 million.  (the cost of land for the stadium was about $1 million, hence the overall ticket of $17 million.)

The stadium will be on 37 acres located at 755 (south) Texas 21, about 2.5 miles south of Texas 71 and is due to open in fall 2009.

Turner Gassaway, a Bastrop attorney who serves on the Design and Development Committee for the stadium, said he has only seen two planning documents from Pfluger Associates, the district's architectural advisors on the project.

He gave The Advertiser a document titled, "Conceptual Design Budget (for a) Steel Stadium," which tallies $21.4 million.

He said the other planning document the committee saw was mostly a concrete stadium, estimated to cost approximately $24.5 million.

While Gassaway acknowledges a final stadium design is under discussion - including the document he gave The Advertiser - he claims Pfluger Associates initially underestimated construction costs by as much as $5 million - $6 million.

He claimed the district purposefully underestimated the stadium's cost in order to keep the total of the three bond proposals under $100 million.

District says $16 million stadium "doable"

On Thursday, Henry Gideon, the district's chief operations officer challenged Gassaway's figures, including the document which he said contains "discussion" figures subject to multiple changes.

Gideon emphasized the district "can build" the stadium's steel support structure and aluminum seating for approximately $16 million, plus the other items presented in pre-election publicity.

On Friday, Sean Conner, a Pfluger Associates architect working on the stadium project, seconded Gideon's figures.

"We can build a stadium for the budgeted amount," Conner said, referring to the 416 million figure.

Gassaway countered, "Tell them to show you the planning document when they say they can do it for (the bond election amount)."

The English/Spanish brochure the district put out before the bond election states, "The projected costs for the centralized multi-purpose athletic stadium, and the land purchase, are $17,000,000."

Under the heading "Anticipated Scope of Work," the brochure lists bleacher seating for 8,000 and an athletic field for football, soccer, track, UIL marching band competition and Naval Junior ROTC.

concession facilities, public restrooms, athletes' locker rooms and parking lot are also included.

Gideon said in the leadup to the bond election - including at school board meetings - district officials made it clear that they were building a stadium with the capacity to be evenutally expanded to 12,000 seats.

"They are now doing what I consider an (information) spin," Gassaway said.  He challenged the district to produce meeting minutes to reflect that the district made it clear to voters beforehand that there would be added costs, and potentially another bond election, to expand the stadium.

"It's difficult to go back to voters to approve more money," Gassaway said.

___________________________

As I attended those meetings from the first of the discussions of a bond election (Dec. 2006) through the voting for the bond election (Feb. 2007), no plans were presented in those meetings (as happened in prior bond elections and which can be seen on this website) and there was no discussion of coming back to the voters for more money.  At  the Dec. 2006 board meeting the possibility of a $102+ million bond issue was mentioned.  At a later meeting one board member stated that he didn't think the total should be more than $100 million as the voters just wouldn't go for it.

Remember that each May we have an election to vote for (hopefully) new School Board trustees.  This impacts your taxes, growth in the county and many other aspects of life that have nothing to do with teaching our district's students.  Do you vote?

~webmaster

 11-07-07 Roll back taxes

Is this a term you've heard before?  It's probably one you'll hear in the future.  The listing below is from website

http://www.texasisd.com/cat_index_12.shtml and gives the results of many counties in the state that put a roll back tax on the ballot. This gives them an increase over the state mandated maximum tax rate.  In BISD, the current rate is $1.04 for the yearly budget (M&O) and $.461 for the building of facilities.  By law the $1.04 tax rate is at the maximum and the building rate can only go to $.50.  That's currently less than 4 cents that rate can go to build those new school buildings that the demographics indicated would be needed.  Are you ready for another tax hike?

San Antonio: 4 area districts reject tax boost
Voters in four area school districts sent a clear message Tuesday, shooting down efforts to raise their property tax rates above a state-mandated limit and delivering a victory to anti-tax activists. "I think the districts tried to mislead the voters and that never works out well," said Bob Martin, president of the Homeowner-Taxpayer Association of Bexar County and a vehement opponent of the proposed tax rate. "They were calling a tax hike a rollback, which wasn't true." [ View Article ]   Nov 7, 2007, 08:35

Redwater and Maud school districts pass rollback taxes
Independent school districts in Redwater and Maud, Texas, passed rollback tax rates during Saturday’s election. Redwater approved a rate of $1.17, while Maud approved $1.2208. [ View Article ]   Nov 7, 2007, 08:30

Leonard, Sam Rayburn ISD tax increases pass; Bonham ISD proposal falls short
BONHAM — Fannin County voters turned out in larger numbers than expected Tuesday for consolidated elections on proposed Constitutional Amendments and school tax rate increases.  Sam Rayburn ISD and Leonard ISD voters OK’d higher tax rates, while the Bonham ISD proposal failed. County Clerk Tammy Rich said she is proud of the number of Fannin County voters who turned out to vote. Rich provided the following list of total votes, including early voting.Bonham ISD tax election approving the ad valorem tax rate of $1.25005 per $100 valuation in Bonham Independent School District lost 533-411. [ View Article ]   Nov 7, 2007, 08:19

School measures approved
Voters throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area were generous to their school districts, which asked for millions of dollars to support a range of projects, from laptops for students in Irving to construction of new campuses in northern suburbs. [ View Article ]   Nov 7, 2007, 08:15

Marion: District voters weigh in on election day
Marion ISD voters shot down the district’s request for a tax enhancement on Tuesday. More than 63 percent of voters rejected the proposed rollback with 215 against and 122 in favor of the $1.31 per $100 valuation rate. [ View Article ]   Nov 7, 2007, 07:45

Harleton voters to decide on tax rate rollback today
The final day to vote in the Harleton Independent School District rollback election is today.The election is to approve an ad valorem tax rate of $1.255 per $100 valuation for Harleton ISD for the current year, a rate that is $0.13 higher per $100 valuation than the school district rollback tax rate. [ View Article ]   Nov 6, 2007, 07:45

Guenther: Schools can't break their addiction to higher taxes
Remember the big school property tax cut you were supposed to get? Your local school district might be about to take it away. Last year, the Legislature passed a plan that used the state's new business tax and part of the state's $14 billion budget surplus to buy down the property tax rates for day-to-day operations to $1.00. [ View Article ]   Nov 5, 2007, 08:38

Betty Brown: Property Tax Relief is Eroding
In recent weeks, opinion pages in newspapers across the state have been filled with commentaries asking what has happened to the property tax relief that homeowners and businesses are supposed to be receiving. An article in the Austin American-Statesman on October 22 entitled “What happened to the tax cut?” is indicative of this trend.   Nov 5, 2007, 08:35

Taxing choices - Palestine
PALESTINE — Voters in two local school districts — Palestine Independent School District and Elkhart ISD — are being asked to cast their votes for some big issues on election day Tuesday. Board trustees in both districts request that their constituents OK a 13-cent rollback rate, with EISD attaching a $12.3 million bond for a proposed new high school. PISD is requesting the extra almost $2 million in funding for the purpose of providing raises for all district teachers and employees; EISD hopes to use the funds to supplement the facility costs of the proposed new high school. [ View Article ]   Nov 5, 2007, 08:15

Hubbard ISD set for Election Day
Voters in Hubbard Independent School District will have a chance to weigh in on several issues Tuesday with regard to the future of their school district.  On the ballot are three issues: a possible rollback of the tax rate, a bond package for a three-phase new construction project, and a refinancing of a debt to lower the interest rate on a previous construction project.  A proposed tax rate of about $1.36 per each $100 of appraised property value is one issue on the ballot. Of that, $1.17 will go for maintenance and operations, and nearly 19 cents will go toward paying off existing debt. Since this rate exceeds the state-allowed maximum of $1.04, the voters must approve it on the Tuesday ballot.  [ View Article ]   Nov 5, 2007, 07:45

Excelsior ISD
A successful rollback election would provide between $50,000 and $60,000 in additional revenue for the district, which has 87 enrolled students, according to Johnny Lewis, EISD superintendent. The district's rollback rate is $1.04 per $100 valuation, and if voters do not approve the proposed tax rate of $1.17 per $100 valuation, it will automatically rollback to that rate. The extra revenue will be used for repairs throughout the district. Election day voting will be at the Excelsior School library. from Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel   Nov 5, 2007, 06:53

Timspon ISD
Timpson ISD voters will vote "for" or "against" the proposed tax rate of $1.26 per $100 valuation. Dr. Leland Moore, TISD superintendent, said the $1.26 tax rate is an 11-cent reduction from last year's $1.37 tax rate. The revenue will produce about $400,000 in additional aid for the district. An unsuccessful district rollback election will require the tax rate to be rolled back to $1.13 per $100 valuation. If the rollback election does not pass, some school programs may be cut. Election day voting will be at the Timpson High School gymnasium. from Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel   Nov 5, 2007, 06:51

SHELBY COUNTY ROLLBACK ELECTIONS:
Dr. Ray West, Shelbyville ISD superintendent, said if the rollback election is successful, an additional $400,000 will be provided to the district. The district recommended a combined tax rate of $1.22 per $100 valuation. If the election is not successful, the tax rate will automatically roll back to the combined district rollback rate of $1.11. Last year, the district tax rate was about $1.31 per $100 valuation. The additional money that will be provided if the election is successful will fund several areas, including salary increases, maintenance, transportation and curriculum. Election day voting will be at First Baptist Church in Shelbyville. from Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel   Nov 5, 2007, 06:48

High Island district needs the money
It’s going to be painful, but voters in the High Island Independent School District should tack another 13 cents on to the district’s tax rate.  This is a strange election. It’s a rollback election that isn’t really a rollback.  The confusion stems from the Texas Legislature’s reforms to shift some of the burden for financing public schools to the state. With the new state taxes, school districts were supposed to lower their property tax rates dramatically.  About 10 percent of the districts in Texas couldn’t really do that. Most of these are small, rural districts with relatively small operating budgets. High Island’s school district, for example, has 220 students and an operating budget for $2.5 million.  [ View Article ]   Nov 2, 2007, 08:36

Canutillo ISD stands to gain in tax election
Canutillo ISD is calling an election (Nov. 6), which will result in the total tax rate being reduced from $1.66 per $100 of valuation to $1.39 per $100 of valuation. This total sum, if approved by the voters, will consist of a $1.10 tax, which income is dedicated to maintenance and operations and a 29-cents rate, which income is dedicated to interest and sinking fund or bond indebtedness for bonds previously authorized by the voters. If Canutillo ISD taxpayers approve the proposed rate, it will not mean a tax increase. In fact, the tax rate will be 27 cents lower than last year's tax rate. And, Canutillo ISD will gain in additional funds about $1 million in local revenue and over $2 million in state revenue for a total of about $3 million in 2008 and about the same amount in 2009 [ View Article ]   Nov 2, 2007, 08:33

Early voting
Today is the last day for voters living within the boundaries of three Shelby County school districts to cast their early votes in the districts' rollback elections.  The board of trustees at Shelbyville, Timpson and Excelsior ISD's have all proposed district rollback elections in order to allow voters to decide if they want to provide additional funds for the districts.  Election day is Tuesday, and the polls will be open from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. for anyone who has not voted early.  Dr. Ray West, Shelbyville ISD superintendent, said if the rollback election is successful, an additional $400,000 will be provided to the district. [ View Article ]   Nov 2, 2007, 07:40

Marion ISD hosting forum on upcoming rollback
Tonight is the last chance for Marion ISD residents to get informed about the rollback election. MISD will hold a last public forum at 7 p.m. today in the secondary school cafeteria, where voters can ask questions about the Nov. 6 election and find out more information about the proposed tax rate.
[ View Article ]   Oct 31, 2007, 07:45

Palestine ISD To Host Public Forum
The Palestine Independent School District will offer a public forum at 6:30 p.m. Thursday in the Palestine High School cafeteria to discuss the Nov. 6 rollback election. [ View Article ]   Oct 31, 2007, 07:45

 8-20-07 Non-teaching salaries

The Superintendent of Schools makes a salary of $148,557 a year.  Check the rest of the non-teaching salaries for BISD for a total of $9,845,186.47.  We asked for a list of the non-teaching salaries.  This does not include any additional amounts, stipends, etc., that any position might be entitled to.

.

 8-1-07 Friends of BISD PAC and the Texas Ethics Commission

Back in May, BISD held a bond election.  A PAC was formed to support this election.  On April 12, 2007, the Treasurer of that PAC, Tandra Dickey, filed a nomination of treasurer along with the report due 30 days before the election.  The information that appears on that report can be found here.

Unfortunately for the PAC the laws of the state of Texas require that a treasurer be nominated and the information filed with the appropriate authority (in this case, BISD) before contributions or expenditures exceeding $500 can be made.  The PAC accepted a $10,000 loan, accepted approximately $32,300 in contributions and spent about $2,300 before filing this nomination.

A complaint was filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.  An Order and Agreed Resolution was filed July 26, 2007.

The sanctions portion of this order reads as follows:

"After considering the seriousness of the violation described under Sections III and IV, including the nature, circumstances, and consequences of the violation, and after considering the sanction necessary to deter future violations, the commission imposes a $1,000 civil penalty."

  The full wording of the Order can be found here.  It should be noted that the reports needed to be filed in connection with PACs all have the necessary requirements in clear language.  It is very clear that this appointment be filed before collecting or spending contributions.

 6-30-07 BISD holds back information

The Bastrop Advertiser

The Editor's Uneasy Chair

by Davis McAuley

In recent months it's gotten harder for the public and this newspaper to follow and understand what the Bastrop school district and its governing board of trustees is doing or contemplating.  What the board has decided is pretty clear, but the thinking which led up to it all sometimes remains murky.

It's an odd development, given that trustees just persuaded voters to approve new borrowing authority to the tune of some $98 million to build a second high school and other facilities.  It's a lot of trust they asked for.  Every resident will enjoy the benefit and share the (tax) burden, one way or another.  And on May 12 voters said, okay, borrow the money and build for our common future.

But for the last few months, the flow of basic information about many aspects of school decision-making, operation and spending has been curiously restricted.  Each month the district publishes an agenda for the upcoming school board meeting, with supporting staff reports, administration recommendations for action and supporting data.  Every trustee gets a copy prior to each meeting.  For many years this monthly digest of operating reports and pending business was also widely available -- ahead of the business meeting -- both to the public who cared to know and to the news media.

This newspaper got a copy for the asking, and one was delivered to the Bastrop Public Library for public inspection.  But no more.  Now all that is available prior to board meetings is the formal agenda itself, that is, a dry, often sketchy legal description of the reports and business which will come before trustees as information or for some kind of decision at the next public meeting.

By reading the board packet and listening carefully to what transpired when trustees actually met, an attentive citizen (or reporter) could glean a pretty good idea of what was going on most of the time, ideas that were under consideration, who was pushing what efforts and what issues were in dispute for one reason or another.  But hiding the board packet from outside eyes changed a lot.  A big chunk of basic information was suddenly no longer available.

And it severely limits the ability of ordinary folks to take an active part in the discussion of public school affairs in Bastrop, the most costly public business carried out in this county.  We can praise or blame the result afterward, but the ability to make fair judgments and the opportunity to influence decision-making for the better is seriously undermined.  In effect, the public voice is muted, except for disappointed or angry remonstrance after the fact.  That includes this newspaper, its reporters and its readers.

As a newspaper, we can live -- unhappily -- with that kind of situation.  When the law is no help, as is sometimes the case, we've done it before with stubborn, unresponsive school boards, city councils, police departments, county judges and other boards with public responsibilities.  We know how.

But my experience is that it's not a happy situation from any point of view.  At the best the public is poorly served.  In general it's an uncomfortable, awkward way to govern and a deeply flawed approach to administering public affairs.  It breeds hostility and suspicion, not civility, cooperation, amity and a focus on common goals.

And a reply to this line of criticism which says "trust us, we're good guys following good legal advice" (I've heard this, though not quite in so many words, more than once recently) always suggests a lack of candor, however sincerely uttered.

Stay tuned.

Well said.  We were never able to obtain a copy of the board packet either before or at the meeting. 

The board says "trust us", then spins information it gives out to give a totally false impression of the facts.  The board says "trust us", then limits information to the public - including omitting all discussion from the minutes.

The board says "trust us", then puts out bond propositions doubling our bond debt and never holds a public hearing.

The board says "trust us", and gives away land previously purchased with bond money for a county park - without holding a public hearing.

And the board wonders why it can't build public trust.  Perhaps the board is too busy saying "trust us" to listen to the public. ~ webmaster

6-25-07 Advertiser's front page headlines

The below the fold headline in Saturday's Advertiser reads: 2007-08 BISD tax rate to drop 11 cents.  Wow! We voted in all that building and still get a break!  Actually the headline should have read: Tax rate to rise .217 cents instead of .235 cents.  The newspaper and the school district continue to compare the tax rate for these bond propositions to last year's (under the old law) rather than what the tax rate would be with and without the bond propositions for this year. 

The second headline on the paper comes at the very bottom of the paper: Eventual BISD tab: $462 million.  Now the paper prints something that might have made people think twice about the bond propositions.  We reported this tab based on an open records request back on March 2.  What a legacy to leave our children.  No one has yet said how the future schools will be built.

5-28-07 More spin or just general lack of knowledge?

Through one source in Austin, I had the new constitutional amendment to help the elderly and disabled homeowners with property taxes explained to me when it was first announced.  I was told, as I've placed it on this website, that the new tax rate set by the local school districts this year would be the new ceiling for the elderly and disabled that have homesteads on their property.  This would mean that with no new bond propositions our new tax ceiling rate would be about $1.292 per hundred.  Instead the tax ceiling would be whatever it was last year or, if over $1.527, it would come down to that.

After the passage of the amendment it was stated in the Austin paper that the property taxes on the elderly and disabled would be cut by one-third which was different than the explanation I'd received.

I then e-mailed the Comptroller's office for further clarification.  As you can see from the explanation below, the actual tax rate is used in conjunction with the 2005 and 2006 tax rates as well as the actual dollar amount of the ceiling.

To figure your new ceiling, you need to know the dollar amount of taxes you paid when the freeze was placed on your taxes, i.e. probably the year you turned 65 or filed your disability with the appraisal district.  Assuming that amount to be $1,000 for ease of numbers, the formula for BISD would read:

For those that filed this exemption in 2006, the new formula would be $1,000 x .94143 = $941.43 (new tax ceiling)

For those that filed prior to 2006, the new formula would be $1,000 x .93866 = $938.66 x .94143 = $883.68 (new tax ceiling)

Had the bond propositions failed, the new tax ceiling would have been about $796.55 and $747.69 respectively.

The method to figure the tax ceiling for the elderly and disabled is different than first explained to us but it still indicates that this group has been hurt by the passage of these propositions.  And BISD said the taxes wouldn't go up for this group.  That's what happens when fuzzy math is used - or was it spin?  Or lack of knowledge?  And what happened to the 2005 bond proposition money that was supposed to get rid of the overcrowding at BHS?  Were the Superintendent's remarks after the passage of the bond propositions lies - or spin - or lack of knowledge?

 5-13-07 Bastrop ISD's senior citizens lost out on this one.  Your taxes won't be going down - it'll cost you hundreds over the next years!

With some $33,000 in campaign funds and the Superintendent out right lying to us on BISD's website, what else could we expect? 

Note in the article below from the BISD website that Mr. Emanuel state "...the most important issue for 2007 is providing relief to the overcrowding conditions at the current high school."  Does no one remember that there was a bond election in 2005 for renovations to the high school to increase the size to 3000?  That will be finished this summer.

And where will the funds come from to build the new elementary school next year?

  05-07-07 - Who has contributed money to the Vote Yes PAC?

Did you see the full page ad in Saturday's Advertiser?  Wonder where the money for it, the signs and the two mass mailings came from?  Friends of BISD PAC has spent more than $33,000 according to the reports it has filed with BISD.

In addition to contributions from Bartlett Cocke, American Constructors and Pfluger Associates, there is listed a $10,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce.

The bond proposition was dated February 20, 2007.  Note the number of contributions received even before that date.  The first appears to be the Chamber of Commerce with a contribution of $10,000 and another $10,000 loan on January 24th, almost a month before the election was called.

See the full list of contributions and expenditures by the Friends of BISD PAC here.

In looking through the names on the committee that came up with these propositions and the names of the largest contributors to the PAC, it appears to us that those names belong to business people in town that will profit from more people moving into the area or from companies that will make money from building new schools.  As you look through the names, note any you see from the elderly, disabled, disadvantaged, or just payday-to-payday average working family.  Also note that this PAC was getting loans and contributions, even from BISD Board Trustee members BEFORE this election was approved at the February 20, 2007, board meeting.  

  05-04-07 - Channel 8 interview with BISD - spin?

Bastrop ISD asks voters for $97.7 million
Updated: 5/1/2007 4:37:55 PM
By: Veronica Castelo

The district predicts enrollment will jump from 8 to 9 thousand
students during the next 2 years. School board leaders are
proposing $97 million in three separate bonds to help prepare for the growth. (check the enrollment given by the district with the DeskMap information given them in December, 2006.)

The district said residents won't see a property tax increase if the bonds pass. Opponents argue passing the bonds prevent taxes from going down even further. ($1.527 isn't an increase over 1.297?)

Why does BISD have to compete with other schools so that it won't be "embarrassing" not to have huge football stadiums and nice performing centers?  Perhaps these other districts have more money than our district has.  We always thought it was the aim of a school district to educate the students - not provide them with state of the art extracurricular activities for the community to attend.   Perhaps the community could provide these with private funds if that is what is wanted.  We'd rather have a home to live in than fancy buildings for the kids to play in and so that others won't be "embarrassed."

Also, the BHS renovations include upgrades to the football stadium.  Will the new high school also have a stadium - in addition to a new "state of the art stadium"?  How much is the maintenance cost going to be to have full time maintenance staff take care of these.  Renovations to BHS also includes a cafetorium with dressing rooms, etc., so surely those are in the plans for a new high school - in addition to the new "state of the art performing arts auditorium."  What will be the maintenance cost for these as well?

These bond propositions put the proposed tax rate just a penny under the maximum it can be.  Where is the money coming from for the upkeep on all the new facilities, as well as teachers, supplies and other necessities - along with new school buildings needed in the near future according to BISD.

The demographics at BISD can be checked either at the BISD website (4.17 MB .pdf file).  The same information is available on this site taken from the DeskMap information given BISD or can be seen here (4.17 MB .pdf file) .

Note the photo above with the indication that BHS is "badly overcrowded".  When paying your property taxes this year, note that you are paying for a 2005 bond proposition to upgrade BHS to 3000.  Those renovations will be finished this summer.  If the high school is "badly overcrowded" with these renovations, perhaps BISD did not spend our money wisely.  If it is still overcrowded, was that money wasted? 

The next question should be: Is BISD not telling the truth again and it isn't overcrowded or was that money wasted?  In either event, it begs the question: should we trust BISD with more of our money? ~ webmaster

  05-01-07 - Early voting has started - how will you vote?

Early voting is from April 30 through May 8.

To vote on the constitutional amendments, go to the second floor of the courthouse annex.  There has been nothing in the Advertiser about these amendments.  The lady at the BISD voting area I talked with yesterday morning knew nothing about any constitutional amendments or where to go to vote on them.

Early voting will be at Bluebonnet, Cedar Creek, Emile, Lost Pines, Mina, and Red Rock Elementary Schools from 7:30 am - 4 pm.  Bastrop Intermediate, Cedar Creek and Bastrop Middle Schools and Bastrop High School also from 7:30 am - 4 pm.  For the Bastrop ISD Service Center (the Administration building located next to Mina Elementary) the hours are 7:30 am - 5 pm.

For Friday, May 4, and Tuesday, May 8, the last day of early voting, the hours at the Bastrop ISD Service Center will be from 7 am - 7 pm. 

  04-28-07 Potential tax relief for seniors will be negated by BISD bond

Vote for the BISD bond proposition and hurt our seniors - see letter to editor.

  04-20-07 - What are the boundaries for the new high school?

We have received information that north of Hwy 71 will go to BHS and south of Hwy 71 will go to the new high school.  How does this affect you? 

And speaking of lack of information... how does the lack of information, misinformation and downright wrong information coming from BISD affect you?

We don't know anything about the new high school and what facilities will be there.  "Just give us the money and we'll build you a good school" is basically what we've been told.  Do you trust the BISD Board to do this?

We're told that this can be done basically "for free."  Wow!  When was the last time you heard a statement like this from a politician and it didn't hurt your pocketbook.  What BISD - and others - are doing is comparing last year's tax rate (under changes in a new law) of $1.622 to what the proposed would be - $1.527.  And what do you know...that is less.  Hey!  Maybe we can have all these expensive goodies without it costing us anything.  In fact, it's gonna cost us less!

But wait... no politician of any kind has EVER given us anything for nothing.  In this case it's WRONG information.  You don't compare last year's numbers under a law that is changing things.  You compare what it would be WITH the bond propositions passing - $1.527 - with what it would be if it FAILS - or $1.292.  Now the picture begins to emerge!

BISD isn't telling you it's going to cost you $.245 cents MORE.  How would that sound when in the past it's had trouble putting across a 4 cent increase?

Now how much do you trust BISD to build that high school, the auditorium (that will be across the street from BHS where the kids living north of Hwy 71 can walk across the street to it), the stadium (that who knows where it'll be - but it'll be in addition to the one at BHS and the new high school)?

And they'll hurt our elderly and disabled in the process....

That's our thought - what's yours?  Be sure to read the letters and comments on this election.

  04-17-07 - "Vote Yes" mailing - who is paying for this?

We received a 5 1/2 by 8 1/2 postcard urging us to vote yes in the upcoming election.  Have you wondered who paid for these?  In the May, 2003 election, an open records request elicited the information as to the people contributing to the "For the Children" campaign.  As you can see in that election they were all businesses - engineering, construction, home construction, brokers selling the bonds - all those that would make money from the passing of a school bond proposition.  Who is contributing to this campaign?  It's expensive to put together a professionally printed card and mail that to the homes in the district. 

Note that this card states:
As an example, the owner of a $100,000 home will see a DECREASE in monthly taxes of $6.73 and a yearly decrease of $80.75 from 2006-07 to 2007-08. [emphasis included in original]

This is not a true comparison.  It doesn't matter what you paid last year.  The comparison is what you would pay this year if the bond propositions fail and if they pass.  That's a difference between a rate of $1.292 and $1.527 - then you can see why they are using this erroneous comparison.  That same $100,000 home will have a tax bill of $1,098 if it fails and $1,298 if it passes.  That's an INCREASE of $200.

Now you can see why BISD and the Vote Yes group are using this comparison and spinning and misleading the voters.

  03-31-07  BISD brochure explaining the bond election

If what the school board puts out to the public is technically correct, does that make it right?

The brochure published and mailed out to the voters states as follows under FAQ:

"I am a senior citizen and am concerned about my taxes.  Will my taxes increase?

No!  The passage of the bond proposal will add no new taxes on claimed homesteads of taxpayers age 65 years or older.  School taxes on resident homesteads are frozen in the year that a taxpayer turns 65 years of age and will not increase as a result of this school bond election."

Technically, in a way perhaps, that is correct.  Actually there will be NEW taxes added in that you would have had a tax rate of about $1.292 and if this passes the rate will be $1.527.  What they aren't telling you is that NO ONE will have a tax increase this year - bond proposition or not.  The Legislature lowered the school tax rate over a two year period and everyone will get a decrease this year.  The tax rate for 2006 was $1.622.  The highest the tax rate can now be is $1.54 ($1.04 for the maintenance budget and $.50 for debt service). 

Without a bond proposition to consider this year, the tax rate would have been $1.292.  If the bond proposition passes, it will be $1.527.  That's a considerable difference to have to pay this year and next year, and the year after, and the year after that.....when you have a fixed income.

The problem lies in the fact that many elderly and disabled had their tax ceiling frozen at a higher rate than the $1.292.  If the bond proposition passes, the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes will be paying either what their current ceiling is or the $1.527, whichever is lower .... not the $1.292 it would have been. 

The school board cannot in good faith say "Senior citizens your taxes won't go up!" because they will.

.... This of course assumes the constitutional amendment will pass.  But does anyone honestly think it will fail? And without the passage of the constitutional amendment (as of the writing of the brochure), the school board is technically accurate in what it states.  It just doesn't mention that amendment and its affect on the elderly.  It also is under no legal obligation to do so but it would be helpful in the light of giving out total information if it were to do so. ~ webmaster

*************

The brochure also states:

l Due to House Bill 1 Legislative Tax Compression approved by the Legislature in year 2006, the District's 2007-2008 Maintenance and Operations tax rate is projected to decrease to $1.04.

l Due to House Bill 1, property owners within the District will still see a tax decrease next year (year 2007-2008), even with the 2007 Bond Program.

Yep, everyone is going to see a decrease.  It will either be from $1.622 to $1.527 or to $1.292 depending on whether this passes.

It's a bit confusing with their terminology of current year, next year and the use of the school year term.  Our taxes are based on the calendar year.  The school board uses school year term, i.e. 2007-2008.  In the brochure "Current Year - 2006-2007", is our last year when the tax rate is considered.  "Next Year - 2007-2008" is our current year of 2007. 

When the brochure lists the "Current Year 2006-2007", it is the school year currently in effect as of today but the taxes it lists in the table of $1.622 for "Current Year 2006-2007" is what we paid last year in 2006.  No where in the brochure does it state what your taxes would have been this year if the bond didn't pass.  It only compares it to last year's rate which, of course, is the more favorable way to look at it.  They can quite accurately state a decrease.  It's just misleading because they don't state what the decrease would be without the bond proposition would be for 2007.

And the board can't understand why the community has a problem with trust.