001[Music] All right, welcome everybody to our workshop Tuesday, August 19th, 2025, a little about 5:00 p.m. Uh, declaration and quorum. Seven members present. Thank you'all for being here. Uh, item C, hearing of citizens. During this time, we will hear from citizens who registered to speak prior to the meeting in accordance with the board operating procedures. Open meetings act prevents us from responding to speakers regarding items not on the agenda. Comments related to items on the agenda may be discussed during deliberations on that specific agenda item. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person. Those needing an interpreter may have up to six minutes. Each person has one opportunity at the microphone regardless of minutes used. Unused minutes may not be acred by another speaker. The executive assistant will time the comments and alert the
002president when time has expired. Board asks those addressing the board refrain from derogatory comments. Our first uh our only speaker for the workshop is Miss Heather Green. Where Yeah. Good evening. As much as I'd like to suggest that if you would vote to approve intermediate and middle school plan 5, I would promise that I would stop signing up to speak. Y'all are not voting this evening and we can pretty much assure that I will be here next month too. So that said, on behalf of Castlegate, I we do want to thank you for creating the option of plan five. We appreciate the board and district listening to our traffic concerns and addressing this issue. In the same vein, two weeks ago, you expressed a desire to truly understand values and priorities. To be very clear,
003my neighbors prioritize traffic considerations as well as geographical proximity in time and distance to area schools over other issues. We are very concerned about all being funneled along Victoria and the significant increase in traffic as well as the negative ancillary ancillary negative effects that we discussed two weeks ago. We care about our kids being able to use the recently developed shared youth p youth path along Greens Prairie. Moving us negates the purpose of these improvements. We care about the infrastructure in our proximity to PT and Welburn because we know that Google Maps does not accurately depict the reality of our experience. We do care about the Fitch Victoria intersection and that it is a daily challenge. Traffic and preventing additional negative impacts to neighborhood infrastructure is our biggest priority. We love that plan 5 addresses
004these issues and seems to fulfill the goal of minimal changes while impacting the least amount of people. One aside, and please know that this is my own heart and I'm not speaking on behalf of the neighborhood at this point, is that I am concerned that plan 5 does not go far enough. I do fear that it fails to consider growth in newer neighborhoods beyond the next six years that could be addressed now. There's always uncertainty and we can make educated guesses. Also, I would love a little bit of credit for not naming neighborhoods. So returning to the positives of plan five these the first has been covered plan five addresses our traffic concern second is the title one status in most of these plans that we are talking about only four to 5% percentage points
005in of change in terms of SCS students in both plans three and four a consequence is that one school under each drops below that critical 40% threshold and will lose vital funding plan five does allow stu schools to retain these important funds additionally while plan 5 does increase the number of SCS students At some schools, it's still that small 4 to 5%. The fundamental composition of schools does not change, and we do agree that the additional funding is a bonus that schools can further utilize. Third, and most briefly, plan 5 does balance the student populations at each school. This seems to satisfy concerns of the board regarding increased opportunity for student involvement. Finally, we would like to really encourage and increase communication between schools, district teams, and the community. When any individual school has a
006need, we should encourage communication so that the community can meet and fill gaps in all schools, not just our own schools that we're zoned to, whether it's through an Amazon order or physical presence and involvement. So many are already working toward this goal. Allow us to be allin, too. Thank you for continuing to allot time to this important discussion. >> Thank you. >> That'll bring us to item D. We're going to open up public hearing for our tax rate. Miss Wilson. Good evening, Mr. Hor, Dr. Hark Rider, members of the board. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to kind of discuss the tax rate. I kind of wanted to start out by just starting out with our certified property values and to show you where we've been. You can kind of see that there
007was only a growth of 2.6% in property certified property values this year. Mostly that was because of the homestead exemption from 100,000 to 140,000. So you can see that that really kind of made up that difference there. uh even though that that is on the ballot for November, um the comproller had us go ahead and submit those numbers as if it had passed. And so we're working off the 140,000 homestead exemption. To go a step further, you can kind of look at the uh taxable property values. These are the comproller values. You can kind of see the growth over the years. This is our T2 values and how we receive a lot of our funding for the school district. And you can kind of see what we've done in the past and see what we're
008affected this year. Some of this plays into account when you're looking at your compressed values. And so when you only grow 2.6, you're not going to compress that value as much as we have in the past. And I also think the homestead is falling into that as well. We're where in previous years when we've had an increase in homestead exemption. They've taken that out of the equation when they're figuring out the compressed. This year they added it back. So uh it's not as much of a value to a homeowner to have the compression because of that fact. Uh here's some historical tax rates. We're still at a historical low. Three years ago, we hit the lowest at 9622. We went up a little bit. Last year that was because of the bond sale. Uh and
009this year, we're requesting to go up just a tad bit more again because of that final bond sale. And I can show you just a little bit further. Uh when you look at the total tax rate, you're looking at two separate tax rates for a school district. You're looking at general and operating. That's what we call our maintenance and operation tax rate. and you're looking at what funds the debt service fund which is your interest in seeking tax rate. There are two complete tax rate. One really does the day-to-day operations for the school district and one pays that debt from those bonds that we have sold. If you want to look at a comparison over the year, this is what each one has done. If you look at the yellow, you're looking at the maintenance
010and operation tax rate for historical information and then the debt service is the black number. We decreased in about 2021 to 263. So 263 cents on our interest in seeking, which is your debt service account, uh in 2021. That stayed steady over those years and that it only went up when we were selling those bonds from that previous bond program. Uh to dive just a little bit further, I know this is some craziness, is when you look at a maintenance and operation tax rate, you're really looking at two different pieces of a maintenance and operation tax rate. There's two different tiers in there. There's one that's called the maximum compressed rate. And I talk about that often because that's really set by Texas Education Agency. The other tax rate is what our voters approved. So
011the first five pennies the board can approve and then the next three pennies go to our voters to approve. And we've got eight pennies. So we have all of our golden pennies. We don't have our copper pennies yet. And we can kind of talk about those copper pennies later on in our board meeting tonight when we're talking about our excess revenue. And that's when we take into account if we were to go into the copper pennies then that's when we'd have to send a portion of that back to the te to Texas Education Agency. Right now we don't have those pennies. We just have the golden pennies. Does that make sense to everyone? But there's two tiers when you're setting your tax rate. So the tier the tax rate this year would be 6963 for
012maintenance and operation compared to 6969 in the previous year. So because of that compression that did decrease just a tad bit. I just want to show our cups again. This is something that we have to do annually. It's in our first rating that we talk about this. And so really I just want to point out even though our values go up, that does not mean the district gets any additional money. Uh our cup is set by um our cup is set by our student makeup. And then after we set our student makeup, we get our funding based on our funding formulas. When you slide in your local value, the the rest of your cup is filled with the state value. If on that last screen, if your local value exceeds what your formula said they're
013going to pay you for, that's when it's recaptured. That's when you send money back to the Texas Education Agency. And again, that's what we'll talk about a little bit later tonight. So, a few things I want to bring to your mind. We had talked about this earlier when we were going through the budget process. It's just some of the legislation that is affecting our tax rate this year. Uh, Senate Bill 4 increases that homestead exemption from 100 to 140. Senate Bill 23 increases the over 65 and disabled homestead exemption from 10 to 60,000. Both of those rates, even though it has to go to voters in November, are included in these rates per our comproller. It affects that maximum compressed rate calculations and it's less compression. And then the frozen property values will affect our
014school district as well. I do want to just kind of put something on the horizon so that you can keep in mind because this is really going to affect our school district in the next school year. And even though we still have not increased our tax rate the full two pennies that we told our voters that we would would keep us a cap, this could affect us because the legislation has come in and said businessal property exemption from 2500 to 120 for to $125,000. Okay. So when you take when you take into these homestead exemptions, thank goodness we had sold our last debt uh by the deadline. So we are held harmless to that 140,000. We're talking about debt service. When we sell our next set of bonds, we're not going to be held harmless.
015So that we'll have to take on those new values. And so we could be looking at a possible increase in tax rate for the debt service in the future. Then to throw a few more kinks in that uh they have this other thing where they changed the interest in syncing to say is the tax rate would provide the minimum dollar amount required to be paid to the service the district's debt. So basically what that is saying is if I pose a tax rate that is higher than my required tax rate to pay my current debt on the books they could reduce my hold harmless amount. So, what they're doing for me right now on the hold harmless is if my uh value from a 100,000 to 140 that 40,000 they're holding me harmless and they're
016making sure that I get state revenue to cover that loss in funding from debt that I had already sold. So, what they're saying is if I pass a tax rate that's higher than that, they're going to come decrease that amount a little bit. Okay? So, that's what we're many districts are faced with. We're in the early stages and so exactly how they'll figure that if they'll use two T two T2 values, if they're going to lose, you know, we're still in the early stages and we don't know how the game's going to be played. So, we don't know at this point how it'll affect us completely. Okay. But I did want to bring that up. Some >> Can I just ask real quick on the um on the previous one because so the majority of
017our um last bonds you already have gone out and sold those, right? So we those will be held harmless. How much do we have? >> Close 100 million. >> About 100 million of it. So that part we would um potentially not be getting the revenue that we were used to getting be because of because of um the homestead changes. >> Yes. So when we go to tax on that value, that value will be a little bit less than it would have been. Okay. And we've already kind of taken into effect some because when we passed these bonds, we were at 40,000 homestead exemption. we went to 100 and then you know so we've already taken some of that into account so we're still behind the eightball and then when you take in some of this
018new legislation like this one from 2500 to 125 there's a lot of school districts that even though they promised their voters only two pennies they're going to have to go above that because they keep losing the value that they anticipated u thank goodness we're not in that point right now but it's something I just want to put on your radar when we come together next year that that might be somewhere we're at as we lose additional property value. Okay. And so, um, if we wanted to exceed this, it would take 60% of our members. We could exceed I would lose the homes hold harmless amount and then we could pay down debt at that point. This is something I don't suggest we do. I think we just raise enough taxes right now to pay our
019current debt. Uh there's another thing that I want to bring to your attention that has come um I it came on my radar about February and to some point it's something that happens here in College Station ISD or in Brazes County because we are we are a huge population of apartment complexes and so sometimes we have cart apartment complex dispute values and we end up having to lower our property values. Okay. uh this is out of the ordinary right now. So what happened is they let those litigations stack and so values were being disputed all the way back to and they have settled settled them settled them all in 24 and 25 not all of them but a huge majority of them. These litigations span back to 2018. If you think all the way back
020to 2018, and if you've serving on the board, you would hear us say things like, uh, we collect taxes on this year's value. However, we get our T2 values on our previous year values. Just if if you're on the board at that time, that rings a bell with you. If not, don't worry about it. The kicker is because of that and because it switched in 2018, I will get none of that money back because doesn't qualify. I lost it all. Okay? So 2019 on what we will do. So right now I just want to kind of explain a few things. When I say value loss, that is value times the tax rate. That's already taken into account. That's how much value I have lost. I lost $164 million in 2024. Uh this new person came
021on to the appraisal district in July of 24 and he started settling all of these litigations. And so that's how much value we lost. In 2025 up to now, I have lost $86 million in value. So if you kind of see some of these tax rates, you kind of understand what has that done to College Station. Technically, we collect more than 100%. This previous year, we only collected 97% of our tax role. And no, I know we have a wonderful taxpayers. I am not saying that our current taxpayers are not paying their bills. This is all due to the litigation. And so basically what that means is when I looked at the February, I think it was February, I noticed we were upside down on our delinquent taxes. And because these these, you know, like
022you might have a $30 million tax bill, they go ahead and pay their taxes. And so they pay their taxes for 2018, we settle in 2025. Therefore, we refund their taxes that they got settled. There was one on the road that was $4.5 million that was settled that we had to pay them back. So, that's what's been coming off our delinquent taxes and that's what we've been faced this year. And it's not just it's kind of just a storm when they all go when they're all settled at one time. It just hits us at one time. And so, that's really what we've been going through this year. Uh, as you also are aware, I changed our property value tax attorney that does our property value studies. When I started seeing all of this, I needed
023someone to get in there and take good care of us. And so, that's what we did several several months ago. They're working on it right now. So, they're going back and doing property value studies. Of course, we can't do 2018, but we can start with 2019 and move forward. We're hoping to recoup some of that maintenance and operation taxes that we lost. But any value adjustments that happen in that year, so like if they went if we went down in value, we wouldn't have to do this, but now we do. So, it's going to be kind of offset. So, we won't be 100% whole. In addition to that, it takes us about 7 and a half% to collect on that money for them to do the property value. So, we're completely out that money. Then
024on top of all that debt service, the only money we get because we're a property wealthy district is our um EDA money in a sense. That's our hold harmless money. So that's for homestead exemption. So if you think about it, these big apartment complex don't qualify for that. So, I'm going to lose 100% of our debt service money that we we lost from these settlements. Does anybody have any questions? We're not the only That's what I was going to say. >> We're not the only ones that are faced with this and we've got a long ways to go. So, if you look at the certified valued right now that's still in pursuit. That's a beat. 1 bill795 million of certified value. So, that's total value. So, it's don't that's total value that still in dispute
025that they're working on those cases. Now, um we're going to try to get as much of it back as we can and so you're going to see some of that come in and I'll keep you updated as we see those property studies come in and us try to recoup that money. The positive about an ISD versus a county or a city and they're all faced with this. Everyone right now is faced with this and they're they're all a little u worried because they don't get anything back. we have a chance to recoup because you remember that cup what we don't get in local value we make get made up by state now we're not going to get made a a 100% whole but we're going to get a portion of that money back a city
026or county does not get that back they're completely at a loss and so those are some of the things that we're faced with right now >> so what do we do I know it sounds like you're going retroactively to try to get us money back moving forward is the the company you've hired do they help us moving forward how do we combat this so we don't get in this keep staying in this situation there is a new person at the appraisal district that is working on all of these cases and he's staying on top of it. And so that's really what happened. He started that position was vacant for a long time and they let all the the cases stack and he started July of 2024. So he's trying his best to stay on top
027of this. And then I work with Lacy Harris. She's our attorney. I work with her constantly just where we are on our property value studies. How much you know, you know, and then not only that, she's really good about sending emails. I think the one thing that took me off guard on this whole thing is in February, I was asking the questions and I had to find out versus someone come to tell me, Heather, you need to plan on this. Heather, you probably need to set that debt tax rate a little bit higher because you're going to only collect 97% when we're typically I usually estimate about 99%. And so those are things that were kind of missed because of the fact that we just weren't alerted that this was going on until we found
028out from the upside down delinquents. >> Yeah. The biggest issue is yes, seven years of stacking. That's not common. You know, a year or two is is typically pretty common. So it stacked up for so many years and then it all hits you within two cycles. Then it stopped that then it's a it's a bigger pill to swallow at that point in time. >> So um with that being said, we're we are staying on top of it. the CAD is staying on top of it. We're having quarterly meetings right now. We've set it up with all they call us the big five. But anyway, so they uh we are having quarterly meetings uh with the Pride office and just staying on top of what's going on, what should we expect. Uh many many months ago,
029I even got the um Pride board meetings. If I had to find out that away what was coming and going, I I would go sit in a board meeting. So, um, we've been watching this, but I wanted to bring it to your attention because typically I probably wouldn't increase the debt service tax rate. I'd hold it 263 and I'm not asking for much, but we're going to take it to closer to what that tax um, TNT is calculating. So, the truth in taxation, it's clo is calculating a little higher than 279, but I think we need to take it to at least what that's calculating at the 279 to protect the school district because we have these litigations to come. You're also going to see in the financial statements that we're going to have to
030dip into fund balance a little bit this year because we weren't anticipating that in the debt service account. Not in the INS, not in the maintenance operation, but the debt service account. We were anticipating to receive those taxes and we didn't. And so you're going to see a little bit of shortage in that account because of the impact. >> Will we make it up >> the next year? Is that kind of the plan with this tax rate or >> that is my dream. However, you got to take like with this new legislation, I cannot raise the tax rate. If I raise the tax rate, I'll lose the whole harmless list. So, we're kind of stuck in there. So, that's why I said we'll take it to the highest as we can for truth and taxation
031or really close. It's like, you know, 0 number. Um or we would take it at least that high. But 279 is where I was I'm suggesting us take the tax rate to try to recoup. But then we don't know, like I said, we've got to see how the TEA is going to calculate where they're going to start taking my hold harmless. And we've got to kind of watch that to see how it would calculate. Um, when we originally set the tax rate, we had or when we originally put the notice in the paper, we had to go off of current law. And that's what we had at current law. But now we got the new property values. And because now we have templates figuring the new current law that was just passed, then those are
032the new rates that are coming out. >> So other than we hired somebody, have there been any procedural or policy changes at the appraisal district >> other than >> to deal so this won't happen again? >> Other than we're all watching, there hasn't been that I'm aware of. I know um the meeting we one of the meetings we had last week was with the county judge and and each school district as well as the cities and everyone's watching their boards are watching um now and that was the first time they had gotten together. So >> yeah, it does seem like we we the school district could at least track they could tell us how much value is in dispute at any one time, right? Maybe >> and and we can >> they're not going to
033tell us. Maybe we have to. >> Yeah. The truth in taxation takes a lot of that into account, but it only takes the current year. So, or like the previous year, it only looks at like 2024 when we're figuring 2025. It doesn't look at the other. It's just gotten so behind that it's just a snowball. >> So, you've touched on this a little bit, but just to be clear, because there was an amount that we said when we were going out for bond that we might have to raise the INS tax rate. So where where are we with this new um rate that we're looking at? >> How many pennies have we have we reached? >> Okay, so when we had our original tax rate is 27 263. We said two pennies. So 283. This
034is 279. All right. So this is kind of what it looks like. I kind we probably already mentioned this. It was 6969 to 6963. That was due to the maximum compressed rate compression. And then if you look at your INS tax rate, it was 276. It's going to 279. I do want to point out that this is going to be a decrease in how much people are going to pay on their home section based on an average home sale. Our average market value in College Station is $498,000 which seems crazy to me. But with that average and it only went up $2,000. So that's only I mean it was $496 last year. It's 498 this year. But if you figure that in the difference and then take the homestead adjustment into account, taxpayers are going
035to be paying less money than they did in the previous year. Any other questions? All right. If there's no questions, we will call it uh we'll move to public comment. Anyone? All right. Then we will >> I'll make a comment. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Almost. Whatever. Go ahead, man. So, so this is another prime example. I always tell people when you talk about school finance, it's like that Spider-Man meme where everybody's pointing the finger at each other. And so the Texas legislature has created this system where because the controllers's office fails at what they're supposed to be doing, the school district or the county or the city or whatever is left in this situation. And until the there's a wholesale change with the way school finance, entity finance in Texas is done at the
036legislative level level. This kind of stuff is going to keep popping its head up and it's just I'll get off my soap box. >> Well, and to your point, Josh, not to cause a panic, but if you look back at the 0809 crisis that happened in this country financially, a major player was inflated appraisals of homes and that's what led to a significant downfall. So, >> All right. We will close the public hearing. >> We'll move to item E1, consideration, discussion, and possible action related to the 2526 tax rate. >> Okay. I'm going to bring this up again so we can kind of look at what we're looking at. We're looking at 6963 for maintenance and operation and INS of 279. And Mr. Mr. Hork, if it's okay with you, may I make the recommendation
037to the tax rate because it has to be read a certain way. >> Okay. So, it is the administrative recommendation that the board of trustees of College Station Independent School District approve the resolution to adopt a maintenance and operation tax rate of 6963 and an interest and see syncing tax rate of 276 for a total of 9753 and the property tax rate be increased by the adoption of the tax rate of 9753 which the tax rate will effectively be raised by 1.9% and will raise taxes for maintenance and operation for on a 100,000 homes uh approximately 1809. I move that we approve the resolution to adopt a maintenance operation tax rate of 6963 and an interest and syncing tax rate of 276 for a total of 9753 and the property tax rate to be increased
038by the adoption of a tax rate of 9753 which the tax rate will effectively be raised by 1.9% and will raise taxes for maintenance and operations on a $100,000 home approximately $189. 9 cents. >> But you can you just look at interest again one more time >> because I say it wrong. I'm sorry. >> 279, not 276. >> Oh, okay. It was Okay. Do you want me to say it all over again? >> Yes, it needs to be. >> It needs to be Okay. >> 279 is what it should be on here. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Um, I move that we approve the resolution to adopt a maintenance operation tax rate of 6963 and an interest and syncing tax rate of.279 for a total of n753. and the property tax rate be increased by the adoption
039of a tax rate of 9753, which the tax rate will effectively be raised by 1.9% and will raise taxes for maintenance and operations on a $100,000 home approximately $189. >> I second motion by Miss Eigy, second by Dr. Payne. Any further questions or comment? I do want to make one quick comment just obviously to Josh's point, this is so complicated, right? And so thank you for all your work you do to um to to figure these numbers out and present them all to us all all the details. I appreciate it. I also I love the graph that shows that our tax rate has continued to either go down or or be basically flat. And that really is what this board has done and previous boards have done. Even while we're going out and doing uh
040you know significant bonds, significant improvements um to our facilities. I we work hard to keep that tax rate um manageable as best we can under the circumstances for our community. right now a couple of things affecting this out of our control a little bit, but um I mean I think it's a it's just a teeny tiny increase that that really taxpayers won't see because of the reduction in the the homestead exemption or the increase in exemption. >> All those in favor say I. >> All those opposed. Motion carries 70. Thank you, Miss Wilson. Appreciate it. uh brings item two consideration discussion possible action related to the naming of Tazby delegate and alternate for 25 TA Texas Association School Boards Delegate Assembly. Just going to ask it out loud. Who wants to do it? >> I
041think I was going to be the alternate. So, >> you want to be the what? >> The alternate. >> Alternate. >> Yes. >> Okay. Like I said last time that I would do it with uh Miss McAdams kind of giving me some pointers. So she's been our representative for a while I think. >> So you're a delegate. >> Who's delegate? >> Delegate. >> Which one? Actually >> Oh, sorry. I I I was saying that I thought last time I said I was willing to do it if Miss McAles would uh kind of give me some support along the way. So >> and and same with me. I mean, I um enjoy the the process and I think you learn a lot about and meet a lot of folks from other folks other districts across the
042state, but I don't want to hold anybody else back from from from doing the role. So, I'm happy to do it, but also share. >> I need a motion. >> What do you think, Kim? You want to try it or not? It's a >> I I don't want I mean, if you still have a strong desire to do it, I don't really want to take it from you. I I have a willingness to serve, but like >> y'all want to go out in the parking lot, figure it out, >> but really and truly like happy to let you rem if if uh Kristen really wants to be your alternate, then she could be, you know, learning from you, too. So, I'm good with that. >> I'm willing to I am willing to keep doing it.
043>> All right. Whoever wants a motion, >> I move that uh Miss McAdams be named our TASB delegate and that Miss Wilson be the alternate for the 2025 Texas Association School Boards Delegate Assembly. >> Second >> motion by Mr. Ben, second by Miss Eigy. Further comments or discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. 70 bring uh we're skipping item three for a later date. Uh is that does not apply. Item four, consideration discussion of policy CFB local. Miss Wilson. >> All right. So if you look at CFB local, it really talks about the capital capitalization threshold for classifying individual capital assets. And as you know, inflation's been crazy. And our current um board policy says $5,000. The federal government has changed their policies for unified guidance for a
044fixed asset threshold for equipment from 5,000 to 10,000. And I would like to suggest that college station follow suit. This will just basically we'll keep up with any asset that I call movable by asset. So if there's something less than 10,000 and we're worried about theft, we're going to tag that asset. We're going to manage that asset anyway. This would just be from capitalization thresholds and it would help us kind of balance those federal grants out as well. Are there any questions? >> Is there any negative to doing this? >> Um, it'll be a little bit of work on the business office right now because we're kind of capitalized at 5,000 to 10,000, but there shouldn't be a lot of negative. No. >> What do you mean? I'm not sure what I mean. That's >>
045Yeah, >> here here's kind of my thoughts on it. Um, everything has increased. Um, the 5,000 number just kind of like everything else. I mean, we talked about home insurance or home prices, things like that. Everything's gone up. So, we're just adapting to what the industry and the realistic timelines and pricing is. So, I think I think that comes into play. And we're not voting tonight. This is just pres presentation, but I think that's the main gest behind it. But I I think like what Miss Wilson was saying, the negative is we keep it as is. It's just delaying pushing. So, >> and we have two sets of financial statements. So, we have a governmentalwide financial statement and then we have a governmental funds financial statement. uh on those financial statements, it does list capital
046assets on the balance sheet account. And so you do have that on your governmentwide financial statement. You'll see where we have capital assets there. So you might lose a little value there, but we're not talking about a lot of items and a lot of money. So I can't see where there would be a huge effect. But for governmental funds, which we run our day-to-day business on, we don't capitalize unless it's in a proprietary fund. So, >> any other questions? Okay, that brings us to item five, consideration discussion of policy CH local. >> Okay, so this is another change that we're uh bringing tonight. That's a possible change for the future, but I wanted to kind of get your thoughts on it. When you look at our policy, it says any single budgeted purchase of goods
047and services that cost 50,000 or more regardless of whether the goods or services are competitively purchased shall require board approval. If you look at school districts our size, most of them say 100,000. New KY, nope. They don't bring anything to the board. Like if you look at some of the other districts, they might say anything for 200,000 or more you take to the board. Uh what we're suggesting is to move it to 100,000 from 50,000 to 100,000. uh our our guidelines this year, the legislations did come in and say on uh 44.034, I believe it's the Texas Education Code where we're moving assets from 50,000 to 100,000. So, we used to have to bid out any asset that was 50,000 or more or have a purchasing cooperative or or or have some sort of competitive
048mechanism to that. They move that to a 100,000. So, that's another reason why I think it might be a good time for us to look at this board policy as well. Uh, that does not mean we're not going to get quotes and we're not going to competitively bid things. It's just there's a lot of time taken into account when an asset I mean when a purchase goes 50,000 and then there's sometimes where we need to make a purchase but we can't make that purchase in a timely manner because we need to wait till a board meeting comes together to make a purchase. And again, items are increasing and so a lot of times software costs a little over $50,000 and we're we're having to kind of wait to get that down to a board agenda.
049>> Do you have any idea what that number is? Like how many say we're we're between 50 and you know 99,000 in the past? >> No, sir. >> No ballpark or anything. >> Just curious. >> Yeah. And I was wondering, would it make any sense or be worth it for us to at least have um be be some awareness of what they were, right? Even if we weren't having to approve them, but at least kind of just maybe in transmitt or something that these were >> we could we could keep up with that and send it in a transmitt. >> As a business owner, I know time is money. So if this allows the district to lock in at a better price and not have to wait for us to meet, I would support it
050because yeah, stuff can change from week to week, the current way our world is. >> So I this make makes sense to me. >> Also, with the changes in I think it was Senate Bill 12, uh we cannot have board meetings prior to 5:00 p.m. starting September 1. So, if we had something that was a rush, trying to get you guys up here in the evening, sometimes you're busy and trying to get a quorum is be a little bit more difficult as well versus more flexibility in the morning or during lunchtime. >> Yeah, that'd be kind of my thought is if if we make this change to CH local, if we could just add some language that says, you know, we'll receive a report on any of those types of items or something. >> Okay,
051>> that'd be nice to have just Okay. Any other questions? >> I mean, there's trucks cost $100,000 now. So, Simac buys one, I want to know about it. >> That's right. >> He probably will tell on himself, too. >> Thank you for your time. >> All right, that brings us to item six. Add provision to District of Innovation Plan. the schools week. [Applause] >> Good evening, Dr. Hark Rider, board of trustees. We are coming to to kind of discuss um a client alert we got from our attorneys on August 8th about Senate Bill 12. There's several caveats within Senate Bill 12, but I'm specifically speaking on the caveat for grievances. Um it the new guidelines would go into effect September one um if we went with the new guidelines. However, our attorneys have sent um
052guidance that we are able to exempt through the district of innovation plan and if we exempt ourselves, we will maintain our current grievance policies. Um some of the changes that the new guidelines would impact it would be filing requirements. Um currently the grievances are filed within 15 days of the incident. The new guidelines would be 60. The concern is if we receive a grievance um 60 days outside of the event, we worry about the investigation um at the campus level and at every level thereafter. It also says that the board can appoint a subset of board members for level three grievances, meaning the entire board does not have to hear level three. I will say um we've had a couple level threes and I will say that the biggest thing that the parents want is
053your full attention and the ability to get in front of all board members. Um based on that feedback, we would like to retain the fact that the full board would hear level three and that would not be possible with new guidelines. The new guidelines also allow parents to skip the administrative team at the campus level um and go straight to central office. We understand the evidence, the thorough nature and everything they have in their investigation on the lowest level investigation. It's most accurate. it's immediate and they have access to that. Our concern is removing the administration from that process um does not allow us to have the most accurate investigation for parents through these processes. This does not we want parents to have access to any answers they have when they have concerns. they don't
054have to go through the grievance process. But the grievance, the new guidelines for the grievance through Senate Bill 12, it does cause some concern because if you look at the timeline overall, it could delay them getting answers their concerns. Um, and if we have to make changes, we have to intervene. Um, it it could potentially delay that process. So, we would like to stay with our current griev grievance process. So just so I heard you correctly, this would allow people instead of handling it at the lowest level to come straight to the district. >> Yes sir. >> Whenever um I hear from uh parents, students, anyone who has a concern, always encourage them to start at the lowest level. I can't imagine uh as you pointed out just skipping that if nothing else for the
055sake of of bringing it to the attention of the school and giving them the opportunity to uh deal with that. Um I think a lot of parents do that and that's uh that's the right thing to do in my opinion. So I can't imagine the other big concern would be 60 days. I mean people's memories are not very good anyway. Um I you know that opens up a lot of issues to me of filing a grievance two months after an incident. >> Yes sir. >> One of our legislative priorities was uh you know more local control and I think this is another situation where legislation is is stepping into local policies and telling us how we need to handle our interaction with with parents, community members, whoever may have a grievance. Our policy has been
056in place here for years. It works fine. Uh we hadn't had any issues with it and like Sarah said, you know, our parents uh would like to be in front of all of you and but the 60-day timeline's problematic for a lot of reasons. Uh I think it's a situation where what we're doing is not broken uh and doesn't require fix. >> I I think for accuracy of investigating and I know as a board member if there if we have a problem, I would want it fixed way before a 60-day timeline. Um, so I I would agree we need to stick with what we have because it seems to be working. Parents are being heard >> and I agree with all that as well. All those reasonings. Um, I'd say the only thing, and we
057talked about this a few months ago when we were looking at this, um, policy is really just making sure as a district that we have this information accessible to um, our parents, you know, so when there is an issue, they do know the process and they do know that there is a timeline, you know, that they they have a pretty limited window that they need to um, do something about it. going to the to the lowest level, you know, going to the campus is the first start and they should be able to direct them, you know, to the next level. So, can you remind me where besides the policy because this is in policy, but we also have kind of some procedures and steps on on our website. Is that true? >> Yes, ma'am, we
058do. And I will say Senate Bill 12 requires digital access to the form. So, it actually we will actually be working on accessibility to that form should parents need it. um whether it be through a QR code, but it is required that it be in um an accessible place for parents. Um we don't ever want to make make our processes or forms hidden. Um and we will work on that. Currently, you can uh request agreements form at the campus level or at the district office level, but it's also um located on our digital platform. >> I just Googled CSISD grievance process. It popped up. >> Yeah. The other thing to keep in mind for perspective and historical having, you know, been here for a year, uh, even if they don't, now I get there's legal
059limitations, um, of what people can and can't do legally, but not once have I ever seen the district ignore anyone and just say, "Hey, oh, it's day 16. We're not going to deal with this issue." So, um, I get the the concern of maybe the different timeline, but never once have I seen this school district ignore a parent who's brought anything up. So, I will say timelines have been missed. Um, I'll be very upfront with that piece. Um, when the timelines are missed and it's not timely, um, there is a concern uh of that grievance. Do we um shut off access? Absolutely not. We've had I had um just today someone missed the timeline. I've invited them to come up and have a conversation. Um, but those parameters are set for district and how we
060work and the efficiency in which we work um for those grievances. This is also one of the few times we normally bring policy changes to workshop and then approve them the following month. However, this is timeline specific. So September one, we've got to have a decision. So it's on workshop. You guys can think about it. We'll get through this meeting and then there is an action item on the regular board meeting and but that's why we received the guidance that we could DOI and then the September one timeline. It makes it a little bit more uh we've got to do it sooner rather than later. And you do have a side by side in front of you that shows you um our current or historical guidelines and what those new guidelines would include. Any other
061questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Goulsby. Brings item seven, discussion of elementary boundary plans six and seven and intermediate middle school boundary plan five. Miss Wilson Mr. Hart, Dr. Hark Rider, board of trustees, this is just another look at what we proposed the previous month to get additional feedback now that you've had time to digest it a little bit. So, this is plan six that we proposed last month. We kind of have some upclose um maps that could be viewed that were sent out in case you had any questions or what some of those adjustments were. In addition, we have uh these are just some of the upclose areas that we had talked about in the previous month. So, you can kind of see that in um you can actually see the street names. Here is
062just one more of the uh southern part of the school district. And then plan seven, the only thing that really moved on plan seven is that little pocket by Coffee Road at the bottom uh going into Greens Prairie Elementary School. And that was mainly just to make that adjustment to pull those kids over. Um because that elementary is right by that neighborhood. And so from talking to Mr. being you had just mentioned several times that you would prefer kids not go past an elementary school to get to an additional elementary school. So that's some of the adjustments for plan seven. And then that's the one little copy bridge. Of course, we brought this to your attention last month when we talked about economically disadvantageous percentages, but I put it in the slide deck again so
063you would have that information tonight. and I'll move on. Uh this is the intermediate plan five where we made the adjustments north part of town and you can kind of see these are the adjustments to those numbers. And then here's just an uplose look at what those neighborhood adjustments would be. Again, if you see the dark gold lines, those are the old um uh old boundary lines. And then of course the green and the blue and the yellow would be the new boundary lines. uh economically disadvantaged adjustments here on both of those plans and then I'll leave it with questions. >> Yes, sir. These are all based on the demographer numbers at the time. And so I do want to point that out. One other thing we want to do uh for the September board
064meeting is just take our numbers as they currently are. and Transfinder, our current transfinding uh our current transportation software will allow us to take our current students, put these maps in that system and make sure we can verify those numbers one more time before we move forward. Uh it'll tell us down to how many kinder, first, second grade are at those campuses so that we can verify that our demographers are on par with the numbers before we make a final decision. They also can look at economically disadvantaged students in the software as well. Do I have any questions? >> It's not so much a question, but I guess a comment. Um, I know it's really hard because we've been doing this and we're looking at elementaryaries. We're looking at intermediates and middles at the same
065time. And sometimes that's that's two different levels of schools and it can get confusing. So just for the sake of of what I'm about to say, I'm going to put elementary boundaries aside and and focus a little bit on this intermediate and middle school thing. Um had some time to process some things. Um been hearing from a lot of people on that. And I, you know, one of the things that I'd like us to think about is the fact that, um, there was a point in time where a group of people had to make some hard decisions about our high school boundary lines. Um, and we like to brag now that our high schools are both amazing high schools and that you can go to either one of them and have great opportunities. Um, and
066I love that and I think that that's true. And I think that it's true partly because groups of people made really hard decisions at a point in time and it was painful. um in the short run, but in the long run, it has served our district and our students really well. And I feel like that's a little bit of where we are with our intermediate and middle schools right now. Um my my kids just went through intermediate and middle school. So from 2017 to last year, I had kids in them. And so our friends were in those schools. And so hear me when I say this, like I'm not saying that Cypress Grove and CSMS are bad schools or are in a bad situation. if all of our attendance was even across those schools, like
067the numbers, um, and we were serving kids well, I think we'd be in a place where we could say maybe we don't take action. Um, but that's not the situation. We have a disparity in just the basic attendance numbers. And it it drives me to want to say, hey, is it time to do something? Um, but I've struggled a little bit when I look at at the plans because, you know, the question has come to been asked to this board. Do we do we consider SCES numbers? Um, and if you look at plan three, and I'm just going to speak to middle school because intermediate middle, it move shifts a little bit, but you know, plan three moves kids, but it doesn't really significantly shift the SCES imbalance. Plan four shifts. Sorry, >> I can
068wait for you all to get to that, but >> Sorry. >> I mean, plan four shifts those numbers in a way more significant. Is this the middle? This is the middle. >> Okay. Um >> do you want intermediate? >> No, no, no. This is fine. But um plan four shifts those um a lot more in the direction that we would want them to be. I know that it's been pointed out maybe some things that we don't love about that plan. Um but then we had plan five presented to us. Um and and I struggle with it because I feel like it takes it in the opposite direction. Um and I know that SCS numbers are only one thing to consider. Um there's lots of things. Title one funding, keeping neighborhoods together, um traffic considerations, there's
069um growth area. I mean there I could sit here and name 10 different things that matter. So I'm not going to sit here and say that that's the only thing that we consider. Um but one of the things that I've been concerned about is um making sure that we as a district and board make the right decision for the long run of our community on this. And um I I don't like what I'm about to say because I I'm not like a let's kick the can down the road person. Uh but I have had some time to kind of go should we pause a little bit? Um I know we our inner our elementarymentaries are a little more pressing because we have elementarymentaries that are over capacity. Um but can we take a little bit
070more time um to look at these plans um and maybe even some additional plans? Can we actually have a committee of community stakeholders like we've done in some past resonings? Um, and if if we get went through that process and we came back and we said, you know, whichever one of these is the right one, then I would feel more comfort as a board with going down that road. Um, but I do I know that hear me on this too. I really do appreciate the work that this administration has done on this. I know you guys have put a lot of time into it. Um, I'm just feeling a little bit of a hesitation about moving quickly forward on this. Um, when it it's hard for me to feel like either of these plans is
071just right. So, I guess that's where I am a little bit and would love to hear what the rest of you guys are thinking. >> I would >> Oh, go ahead. >> I would just say that this is quite a bit different than the high school reasonzoning. Uh, a lot if my my recollection is is correct and and y'all correct me if I'm wrong. Uh a lot of the um angst caused by that was the fact that it was um done in the spring for the coming fall. Well, this is going to be you know a year in advance basically. Um the second thing being that there was no grandfathering and I think the administration has indicated that uh they're they're open to some type of of grandfathering which I think is really important for
072those students. Um, and so, uh, I I I agree on the concern between four and five in those, uh, economically disadvantages percentages. Um, that is it's very eye opening to see it in in that format. Um, but I think you know that combined with how far in advance we're doing this, the potential for grandfathering and if we if we kick the can down the road, all of a sudden we're it's got to be, you know, up for the upcoming year or whatever it might be. So, that's kind of the flip side of how I see that. But, I agree with you all. >> And I agree. I I don't think we're critical yet on these campuses. Um, I'm very comfortable with where I sit on the elementary plan when we discuss that more. But I
073also think if we're talking about opening up our district to out of district transfers, I personally would like to see how that impacts us and where our current numbers stand and then people I think know we've been talking about it. I don't think it'll be a surprise if we have to come back and start talking about it again or form a committee. But I'm fine at this point not acting on intermediate and middle just to get a clearer picture. Um, but I also do appreciate the work that you guys have done. Um, but I would be comfortable not moving on these yet because I don't feel like we're to a point that it we absolutely have to. >> Yeah. And I'll add, I mean, I um came here tonight not happy with any of those
074three plans either. You know, I I um I know this is hard and I am sitting here willing to make hard decisions. I I mean I think I mean this is one of the hardest things our board does and and and our district does, but as I've said many times, I think we have um reaped the benefits of a boundary adjustment that does consider the socioeconomic status of of our campuses. I don't think that was initially what my understanding this that was not initially what was driving us this process. it is the capacity and that you know and that still is important but as you said it's not as you know desperate at the at the middle schools at the moment but I am not comfortable for example moving forward with plan five with such
075a huge gap in the so socioeconomic balance between between the campuses. Um, so do I want to necessarily put it off? But maybe that's the best answer because I also think um I mean I was okay with not having a committee to to do this, but I think in I at this point I recognize some of the benefits that having more perspectives than just the you know than the seven of us and the administration really looking at at at these different plans and really representing all of the neighborhoods. I mean, we are we're representing all neighborhoods here, but you know, we just don't have that same perspective as a as a larger committee would have. So, um, while I don't want to necessarily put it off air, I think that may be the best a
076good suggestion for the intermediate middle school. >> So, I'm I'm a little confused on the statement there. Austin, how many how much um community input did we get in our surveys? How many responses? if you know that off top of your head. >> 1,200. Okay. So, it wasn't just the district and it's not just us. Seven is all I'm trying to get at. And I'm not making a decision either way. I'm just saying I wrote at the top of my paper here, too many variables. There's a ton of variables in this whole thing. And we get it. Um, you know, the elementary piece, uh, the district talked to the demographer, came up with five plans. They figured out what the best three I think were. I think is what y'all presented maybe or four three
077plan. Yeah, something like that. Y'all presented that. We took more feedback because we presented at the board meeting. I think that was two months ago, three months ago, whatever. Um and then on the middle school and intermediate that was presented. Those were not favorable. I think everybody in the community, all of us were not in favor of those. So y'all came back and had plan six and seven I believe on elementary redone based on community feedback and then I think plan five was added for intermediate middle school or maybe four and five. Yeah. So all based on community feedback demographer going back looking at it looking at the maps talking to y'all. So, a lot of variables there, but there's a lot of other variables outside of us as a school district with the vouchers
078coming into play next year. Um, I think two months ago, 3 months ago, I sat up here and said, "I'm all about opening the district enrollment wise. It's the only way I can see combating what the legislature has done. Gives us an opportunity to shine." Um, and so with that being said, my personal opinion is that we that I I think we don't move on the intermediate middle school. I agree with Miss E. I agree with all y'all on that. There's no sense and and I don't think we're kicking the can down the road because there's too many variables that can happen in the next year or two years because like Mr. Ben said, there's there's some grandfathering involved. So this isn't going to change over one year. It's just not because we have those
079options. And so with the vouchers possibly opening the district up for enrollment, I think those are pluses for us as a school district. I think elementary wise plan 7 is is attractive because it's the least amount of movement, but it makes sense. Um it appears I wrote appears to be the best option for the overall district and student experience and expectations. Um whether I'm right or wrong, I don't know. That's just kind of my appearance of of what I'm reading and seeing. So, um I guess I'm getting that yes, this was not done lightly and no, we didn't bring a formal committee together and maybe we do that for the intermediate middle. That makes sense. Um but we also had like Mr. Dunson said 1,200 responses that we read every single one of them and
080we've read every single email we've gotten. I know we have. I do think um having set not on a uh boundary committee but on a couple of bond committees before I was on this board um I think there is a different process when you have a group of community stakeholders in a room able to talk together and ask questions and look at different options. That's a really different feedback process than um an online thing. That's I mean we asked people for feedback on the specific plans we laid we laid out. Um, and that's a little bit different than asking for feedback on what do we think is the most important thing when we are drawing boundaries. And so it's just it's a different it's not that we didn't ask for feedback and I I don't
081mean to imply that and I know uh Mr. Dunson spent a lot of time working on that and we've read through a lot of those ourselves. Um, but it's a different process when you get people in a room that can talk through the pros and cons to something and and can just bring different perspectives. So >> I 100% agree. The reality is the people we have primarily heard from are the specific neighborhoods that would be moved, right? And the and the wonderful thing about our campuses and our district is really nobody wants to be moved, right? They want, you know, that that they are no matter seems like what school they're at. So that's who we hear from. And I think a a while we've gotten lots of feedback, I don't think um I think
082a committee would bring more voices. It would bring more voices to the table. Keep in mind to all of your points of bringing this up. We're never going to reach a consensus. There's no way we're going to get a group of people. We're not going to get 1,200 people to agree. We're probably not going to get I mean setting the bond planning committees, we couldn't agree on some of that stuff and has to work through the process and all that. So, um I we we do read the emails. I appreciate when people come and speak and voice their opinion. Um because it shows they care and they're engaged, which is a good thing. Um but it's going to be really hard to you. You're never going to reach a consensus. And to be honest, that's
083what we're here to do. Um we are here to vote on what we think is best when you take in that input. I'm all for taking people's input in. Um again, always take notes when people speak. Try to reply to every email. Um, but it is a difficult situation and I'm a little hesitant to kick the can down the road when I I don't know Mr. Stewart's here, but he's got a mobile office and I'm worried the guy can get it around his hallways cuz he's always dragging his laptop around when you go through. I mean, we've been in those schools, Kim, our kids are same age. Um, so if you haven't been in those schools in a while, um, I can tell you that, you know, some are a lot more crowded. Um, but
084to to I think everyone's point, um, I would send my kids to any any school in this district. Um, and and you and I live in some of the neighborhoods that we're talking about. If I could do anything about traffic for any of the people that speak or email, I would do it in a heartbeat. Um, but that's one that I can't control. >> Yeah. Ju just to follow up on Dr. Payne's comment. I mean, I know we received an email from a a parent and I looked at it and literally I think his kids were zoned currently for AMCMS and and the on any of the options because he's three houses down from where the line is currently drawn. His kids's going to get reszoned to to CSMS or Welburn or wherever. And and
085those those things This, as everybody has noted, this is not a fun process, but those things are going to happen. And when you've got so many more kids in a couple of the schools and the opportunities that they have and the disadvantages that that creates for another school, um, you know, I mean, it's not the end of the world if if this is put off for a year or whatever it might be, but it it's it it has effect on on those kids that are in those schools right now. So, >> and I agree. I don't I don't like the idea of waiting a long time or anything like that. Um, I I guess I'm trying to figure out how do we how do we do some more work on this? I guess I'm just
086sitting here being honest and saying I'm not quite in a place where I think plan three or four or five is looking right. So, you know, and maybe it's not next year. Maybe it's maybe it's we need to work on it this year. Um, still. So, I I I 100% agree with you. um Josh that and and Darren like we've walked through the the schools and we know that the imbalance of the attendance makes a difference. So I don't really want to wait around and do nothing but I'd like to ask how we could do more. >> Time's becoming critical because kind of like Josh said, we're working a year ahead of time by design. So, two things. Anyone affected has an entire school year to prepare and then our team has the entire year
087to make sure we're staffed properly, nothing's rushed. The worst thing we can do is get in a hurry and then we're scrambling at the end of this year into next year trying to inform people, get people grandfathered because you're you're talking about affecting a lot of kids and then us at the campus level figuring out who what kids would like to be grandfathered, who has siblings, all of there's a lot of moving parts. So that's concerning to me on intermediate middle. I can bring you three more options next month and I think we're going to be in the same situation. and we're going to talk around it. Again, we we just got to get to a comfort level. Uh I don't have an issue with a committee. I think for this year, we're too far
088along. It's not going to be productive. We don't have enough time to do it right. And I think that's the biggest deal. We want to we want to do it right. Uh Austin had some thoughts. We've got six and seven and five blown up maps that we could put out to get more community feedback. as well as Austin wanted to take a deeper dive into those that are filling it out. What neighborhoods do they live in? Where their kids go to school? What's important to them on reszoning and could gather additional information to bring in September or we stick we're going to bring you enrollment numbers. Uh it'll be pretty solid by the time we get past Labor Day to you guys and show you a sidebyside of demographer numbers versus where we are right
089now to see if there's any number one hot spots that we're concerned about or campuses that we felt like we're going to be heavy and they're not. Maybe they're a little bit lighter this year. I think we're chasing about 50 kids below the demographers numbers right now. So, we're in a pretty good shape based on demographer numbers of where we are as a district right now as far as those registered with us today. I think we're at 1488 if those that have registered recently once they become uh enrolled. So, you know, there's different options we can do intermediate middle school. Uh like I said, I I can bring you more options uh brand new options next month, but I think October is the drop dead date that we have to have a decision to move
090forward. Otherwise, our team's scrambling and it's not going to be rolled out the way we want it to be rolled out. >> Is the October elementary for sure with the middle school and the intermediate or can >> Does it matter? I'm I'm pretty comfortable based on individual conversations with you guys and where we are that six or seven and preferably probably seven because we're only talking one road goes into Greens Prairie. They're basically the exact same plan minus that that I think the board seems pretty comfortable with seven and we can move forward with that ahead of time and then take some extra time with >> middle school >> middle if that's what you guys would like to do. >> I do want to reiterate Darren's comment like we are in CSISD and we're very
091lucky like I didn't buy my house based on the elementary or the middle school or the intermediate school that we were going to go to. It was just being in CSISD. So, I do think we need to keep that in the forefront of our mind. >> And I agree with that because I'm I'm a little different situation than y'all because my kids went were dual language proud dual language parent and they went to all title schools um and got amazing educations. And so, I'm not I'm I'm answering seeing all the same emails, but I'm probably not getting as hit up as some of y'all are that live on that side of town. And I agree, Dr. Hark rider. We could come up with more plans, but geographically where the our community is growing and where
092some of these schools are located, I think it's going to be almost impossible unless we start busing just huge neighborhoods all around, which we've talked about is something we really don't want to be doing is busing kids past schools. So, I don't think we're ever going to achieve really even numbers. Um, but I think the fact that we've achieved it at the high school per se is a testament to our district that our high schools are competing equally on fine arts athletics and the numbers are more balanced there that this is just going to be something we're going to have to make a decision on that's probably not going to be um a comfortable decision for all. But um but we have amazing all of our schools are amazing amazing students, teachers, administrators. So um
093but um and I'm comfortable with plan seven on elementary. I think I I really do feel like we've we've done a lot of work on that. So, >> I'm also I can speak from our leadership team. We're comfortable sitting tight with intermediate middle school for another year. And if we're going to look at out of district transfers as a as a school district, that gives us the opportunity to keep up with enrollment this entire year. Look at what out of district transfers look like. Figure out grade levels of where we're wanting to go. if we're wanting to go to K8, establish what those feeder patterns from our standpoint would be and then next fall we would have a cleaner picture of what new enrollment looks like because remember next year too this is the moving
094part that sitting tight necessarily is not a bad idea. How does vouchers affect CSISD? We don't know. I mean that is a wild card that we don't have any idea. Will it? Yeah, I think it's going to affect us in some form or fashion, but I think taking out of district transfers is that we could offset that and not if not improve and in my opinion, we would improve our enrollment numbers. So, I think there's a lot of factors into the difference between when the high schools went through this when you're talking about the age group and the speed of which it had it happened. There were death threats to board members and staff members and things. So, I appreciate the civility. Uh, you know, the emails we do get, the the speakers that do
095come. Um, you know, everyone's trying to be reasonable and present their case, which again, I appreciate. Um, but I do appreciate the civility. Uh, I'm sure the aged groups that we're talking about definitely factors into that. Um, but but clearly, um, things have been handled smoothly where we're getting we're getting important feedback and we're trying to make a good decision. Um, you want to go? Well, I'm going to first on the on the middle school. I mean, again, not I will clearly say I'm not comfortable with um plan five and the SCES differences because I mean I think one reason yeah, we have had great schools is because of hard work that previous boards did, hard decisions um to set boundaries. You know, I I've shared with a couple people my my children were redistoned
096um and we went um got moved into a school that had 77% low SCES sounds like we have some elementaryaries with that um in in our current plans. And you know, we moved in there and changed that number to the 43%. Still above the average for the district at that time, but um I think it was a positive for our family and my neighborhood and a positive for that campus. Much I mean there was more involvement. There's lots of data that says, you know, that there's more involvement from parents who um when they have a little more free time and a free money or extra money. Um and I believe it is one of the reasons we have um it it's something special about our district. And in fact, in the other resoning efforts, one
097of the first things that the the boards did was actually go out to the community and before they even had any discussion on plans or a committee, it was asked what are the important criteria for when we are going to adjust the boundaries and that's where FC local came into play based on what our community had said was important. So, um, and it's important to me. I hear it from a lot of people that it's important and I and so I am going to continue to say I think we should at least make a more of an effort to get those numbers closer than plan five does. I just like I said last time we met there are neighborhoods that we could look at and and move that are contiguous with um CSMS and Cypress
098Grove. And I think we have not seen those those plans. And so I think maybe either we look at other options very quickly here, right, if we feel comp if we feel that we really need to do something now or I would be um also willing to go back and and get a committee to more, you know, take some more time with it and which would take another year. >> Which neighborhoods are you referring to? >> Say again. >> Which neighborhoods are you referring to? I I mean I listen part of this is we haven't got into the um into the nitty-gritty of it here, right? You know, we've the administration has um there, you know, we I mentioned Mission Ranch last time, right? Or some neighborhoods in that area that could that could be
099that could be moved. Um, I know they're they're, as I said last time, they don't have a ton of intermediate middle school kids now, but they're still a growing they're a growing neighborhood. There are other I mean, again, I don't want I want to rely on the administration. I think there are other options out there that they could look at. So, >> so >> I'm going to and let go ahead and say since we've been talking about my feedback on plan seven for elementary has been it seems very hard for me to approve a plan right now that in really three years after it goes into you know into effect we have yellow on the capacity numbers again and that's um you know yellow meaning that one of our campuses at least one is now
100over capacity. And I just and I again I know this is hard. Um and there's no perfect plan out there. It's never going to be perfect, but I really think um there's got to be an option that we in three years from when it goes into effect that we don't have a a campus over capacity. That's my biggest concern with the elementary at the moment. >> I would remind you it would be four years and that's a guesstimate. Those are not hard numbers. We don't we don't have a crystal ball of what numbers are going to look like in 2930. >> Are you talking about Pebble Creek? >> Yeah. I mean, if it goes into effect 2026, then we show 27 28 29 it is over capacity at 642 kids. And I'll say the other
101thing with it is that plan is there's a big disparity still between capacity at some campuses. We have that, you know, We're projecting to have one at 679 at Creek and then we're projecting to have campus still under 500 students. >> Right. >> The point of the reasonzoning wasn't to have equal enrollment at all campuses. That was never the gist of what we were doing. You were trying to aliate the three campuses that potentially were going to be over within a year. It wasn't to distribute kids evenly at every single campus. And just I'm asking clarifying. You said there's neighborhoods you think should move, but you also said we should rely on what they're presenting. So, are there neighborhoods you want to see moved or what what is >> I I have to believe that
102there is a um better option for to to meet to get closer to the criteria that we've been talking about, the criteria that's in FC local, um which of course is more balanced capacity but also closer on our socioeconomic numbers. that again if you >> so again so do you have some in mind that's what >> oh I'm I do not I I but I it has to be out there it has to be done be able to be done we have on average about 40 just over 43% low SCEs percentage right so technically all three of these schools if you know could be uh a title one school right we can get closer than than plan five. >> We are closer on plan four and community feedback was not in favor of it or
103plan. >> I understand the issues with four being primarily the to me the real issue with Castlegate even though in many ways it could be a nice move to CSMS and Cypress Grove because it is a a nice a larger community that could move. The traffic issue is is very very real and um >> so you like plan four out of all this. >> No, but the traffic issue is not um I think I I think Castlegate that that problem is very real. I don't know >> how we we come up with ways to help that. I don't know if we have an option and >> I know it's not under really our control is the problem as you said Dr. it it's at least possible that some of the feedback for plan 4 plan
1044 to me felt a I mean we are peacemealing things a little bit and and I understand why and we don't have >> oh sorry I'm talking about plan four here the one right because I thought that was where we were we're okay and I know we don't have specific feeder patterns that's impossible here so I'm not trying to suggest that we're we're going that direction. But um it to me it seems possible that that a lot of the feedback from plan 4 was that we're kind of taking pieces of a number of places and and pulling them together as opposed to maybe considering larger areas that are around those. So, I I'm not the demographer and I haven't gotten to look at all the things that you guys have, but I I don't know
105if that's helpful, but I feel like that might have been part of part of the issue with plan 4 um is that we're kind of picking pieces of things as opposed to keeping kids together that are in elementary schools. >> I think too, can you Heather explain that money we get for low ecois doesn't go away if a if a campus is not a title campus. It's districtwide money. And I think some people don't understand that. So, did I speak correctly to that? >> Yes, you did. We'll get the same pot of money. It's just distributed to campuses differently. So, you might have a campus that has higher uh economically disadvantaged will get additional money than a campus that has lower will get less, but we don't get any more money because we have more
106title one campuses based on number of students. Um I will say on plan seven u there is one campus that is right at 500 in a few years and there's one campuses that is close to the capacity of Pebble Creek. Uh I did look at those neighborhoods around there's 100 kids though. So if you take from one and put it in another now you throw another one off. And so that's kind of when you're looking at some of these numbers it's like you've got to methodically take a neighborhood. And if you have a neighborhood that's close, it might have a 100 elementary kids. And if you move it out of this one to this one, now you just took that one that's 581 to 498 and this one to 581. So, so you look at
107some of that when you're looking at it and it it's not a perfect um puzzle a lot of times. Another thing with uh Pebble Creek, yes, we looked to feedback and we were looking at uh trans traffic because I think that was a lot of the traffic patterns there with movement of some of those kids. And we can make some adjustments now or we can allow those to stay a little bit longer kind of monitor it. And there's some campuses that are close to that Pebble Creek that could absorb some kids easily without making a full adjustment to all the plans. And so that would with plan 7 kind of buy some time with the neighboring campuses around there to kind of so that it wouldn't be something like we're coming back and moving everything
108down. We've got some huge pockets of kids that we're transporting from the north part of our district to the south. And some of those are our Pebble kids that we've got to relieve. And I think in that area, if I remember right, there are 100 kids right now or pretty close to it that are in the north area that we're busting down to Pebble when we've got to relieve th those kids. And so that's a huge relief right off the bat to that campus. But it does move the economically disadvantaged students. But when you look at all the kids in an area, you hate to then not take these and bust them somewhere else. And so it's it's just part of it. >> How many numbers are just floating in your head at all times?
109>> I just hope I get them out of the in the right category. >> All right. Good. >> Okay. You I didn't know if you say anything. All right. Appreciate That will bring us to a journ.