21 Jan 2021 Board Meeting Agenda

Item H1 – Public Participation in Board meetings
I appreciate the progress in expanding access to citizens during public comments at Board meetings. As a side note, I am also pleased to learn in our weekly board update of the progress in getting cost estimates to index Board meetings once they are posted on the RRISD website. Both of these actions are movements toward my new favorite mantra as put forward by Trustee Vessa, “radical transparency.”

Item H2 – Proposed Budget
I am surprised to see a discussion item about raising the M&O tax rate by a penny. I also see a mention of lowering the I&S tax rate by a penny. My understanding is this is not a one-for-one (no impact) “swap”. The 2019 Texas Legislature sought to reduce the property tax burden and increase state funding for public education in HB3 and accomplished both. Local ISD’s who choose to turn around an increase the taxes on their property owners will now be fully accountable to their voters as voters will be unable to blame the state for any frustration with the tax rate. I am not clear on why this is being proposed. Does this seek to increase the overall tax rate (thus, the amount of taxes) on property owners? Why? At the 14 Jan 2021 meeting, the trustees were presented with a $3.4M proposal to award $500 retention bonuses to all employees. At the 36:00 mark, I stated that since I have been a trustee for less than two mos, this was a vote in which I needed to rely on the administration and my more tenured colleagues to advise me not on whether this expenditure was warranted, because it clearly is, but whether it was fiscally responsibly. I received unanimous consensus that it was a fiscally responsible expenditure. When I see a request to increase the tax rate three days after being assured that a $3.4M expenditure is fiscally responsible, I will have many questions.
Lastly, it’s reasonable to conduct a productive audit (as I have called for in a separate message board post) prior to any proposal of increasing the tax rate.

Item H3 – Enrollment Pilot Program for Out-of-District Students.
Can I get some information on what this is about? Community members are asking for information from me about this and I have nothing to offer. My understanding is that the children of staff members who reside outside of RRISD are able to transfer into RRISD. I also understand that RRISD is the regional education center for students who are hearing impaired for a region in Texas that goes beyond the RRISD footprint. Is this about any of these transfer students or other students we allow to transfer? I would appreciate more information about this discussion item sooner rather than later and for this information to be posted along with the agenda so that the community can monitor what will be discussed.

Item J1- Approve Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $50M to tear down and re-build CD Fulkes Middle School.
In its current condition, the CDF MS facility falls short of my expectations and the expectations of our community. This project has been the center of much concern for me for several years. At the Oct 2018 Bond Open House held at CDF MS, I asked the RRISD COO what would happen to the facility if the bond passed…would it be renovated or torn down and rebuilt at a far higher cost. He replied that that would be a decision for the board of trustees. Since then I have attended every Facilities Committee meeting and every school board meeting (most of which I was not a trustee, I was a citizen in attendance). The option to add on to and significantly renovate CDF MS (including bringing it into TEA compliance) was never presented to the board for consideration. There are pros and cons for both options but only one was ever explored and presented since the Nov 2018 bond election.

I am also concerned that the GMP of this project is $50M. RRISD last built a new MS in 2017, Pearson Ranch MS, for $39M. In addition, Georgetown ISD just built Wagner MS in 2018 for $39M. The only explanation that has ever been offered for this $11M cost escalation is inflation and building on a “brown” lot (already has structures on it) vs building on a “green” (no existing structures on it).
I am also concerned that the scope of this project expanded beyond what the Citizens Bond Committee Middle School Subcommittee ever discussed, considered or asked for. CDF MS student body peaked in 2018 at 797 students and has declined ever since. Current enrollment is 705 students. CDF MS is land locked with no where to build new residences. Yet at some point, the scope of the project increased to a 900 student facility. Why? Is there a plan to rezone RRISD students away from other MS’s and enroll them at CDF MS? Is there a plan to otherwise increase the enrollment at CDF MS? Why did the scope expand with no explanation, justification or board approval?
Over the last few years, the discussion around addressing the substandard CDF MS facility was pretty consistent…the facility falls short of our expectations for all students and desperately needs addressing. But in 2020 (18 mos after the 2018 Bond passed) talk of the track/football field being unsafe began to circulate. Was the track safe for the last several decades but became unsafe in 2019 or 2020? In my opinion, if a track is ever deemed to be unsafe, it should be addressed immediately and fixed, not kept as justification to tear down a school and rebuild it for $50M.
And let’s not forget the beloved, historic theater. The scope of what the CBC MS subcommittee wanted was to include this beautiful theater as part of the new school. Instead, this GMP carves off the theater as a separate structure. Sadly, turning it into a viable, usable facility now relies on a future bond or millions of dollars from elsewhere. This is beyond the original scope and this decision is extremely disappointing to me.
In closing, I assume that this Board will approve this GMP at this meeting since it was originally placed as a consent agenda item for the 17 Dec 2020 meeting. My ask is that we all learn from this. Over scoping of projects is problematic. It increases cost and erodes confidence from CBC members in the process. It also creates skepticism in the community about our commitment to fiscal responsibility. The Board should be open minded and seek and evaluate options, not just be a rubber stamp to a single proposal. I won’t pretend that the process leading up to this project was acceptable.