Well, our distrcit has decided to ask voters to give them another $92 million to correct mistakes for projects passed with the $207 million bond (which we haven't paid off yet) passed back in 2006. Now, after several attempts to see what voters might allow them to get (by putting out different amounts/requests--4+ times) through an out-of-cycle bond election which the district will pay for and stiff the taxpayer later. It now went from $251 million to $92 million. The board could have chosen to postpone this out of cycle bond election to November 2013 to do a better job of getting their message out to the community (and save some taxpayer money) but instead chose shove this bond down our throats. Their figures don't tell you that by the time, this bond is paid back (about 40yrs), Cibolo, Schertz, and UC will have paid double ($100+ million) the amount--and we haven't even paid off the the 2006 bond. The projects listed on their website covers projects in all areas on the Cibolo side but even residents in those communities should be careful because when they bond is put on the ballot--it will not contain any specific information on how that money will be used--meaning the district can use it on anything they want and you the taxpayer can't say anything. Don't know about you but 80+% of my yearly tax bill already goes to SCUCISD. I recently found out that UC, Schertz and Cibolo had a combombined debt of $450 million and the SCUC ISD Board is trying its best to bankrupt the cities and its citizens. The board which is led by David Pevoto who has obviously has little education when it comes to finances. He and some of his collaborators are skillfully trying to pass this bond without giving its citizens all the details. The text for this upcoming bond (May 2013) is so vague so that it gives the district a lot of space to spend the money where it wants. The board says your taxes will only go up about .03 per $100 but several accounts have confronted the board about that figure and indicate that your schools taxes will go up between .44-.55 cents per $100. Yo do the math. It has also instructed a contractor to start infrastructure work on a site (in Cibolo) where it plans to build a school and then use try to use this bond to pay them. Clearly--a under the table effort which keeps the citizens in the dark.

Let me begin with the 92 million that they are asking for is accomodate the demands of growth. Currently 9 of the 14 schools in the district are at or over capacity. The new elem will relieve overcrowding at Sippel and Wiederstein elem, that are over 300 studsents over capacity combined. Additionally, the wing at Steele will get about 800 students out of portables at that campus. The reason that the major projects are on the Cibolo side of the district is because for the last several years that is where most of the growth has been. Look at the demographer reports posted on the district website and look at housing starts and sales, its all been in Cibolo. Does it make sense to build a unneeded school in Schertz and then spend thousands of dollars a month to bus kids across the district to fill it?

The open house forums served their purpose quite well. Instead of asking for the approx 250 million for projected needs over 8-10 years the district learned of the communities discomfort to obligate funds for projects that were so far in the future that their need cannot be certain. So the decision was made to dial it back to what was considered a absolute need for the next 3 years. If you look at the bond proposition it appears to be pretty clear where and how the money will be spent.

The bonds of the district are just like your mortgage, and most mortgages run 30 years and the total paid back over time will be between 2-3 times the original amount. As for the total debt, yes, it is a very large number. However, on a per capita basis the debt load is much lower than many comparable districts. SCUC ISD is one of the 100 fastest growing districts in Texas, if the bond is not passed where do you propose to put the kids? Portables? Spending 70K per portable and then disposing of it and replacing it in 15 years or so is not a good use of taxpayer money is it?

The increase of .03 in the tax rate would bring us up to the tax rate that the taxpayers agreed to when we approved the 207 million in 2006. Through a increased tax base and good financial management the district was able to avoid the final tax increase that was approved by the voters in that election. All districts in Texas are constitutionally limited to a maximum I&S tax rate of .50 cents per 100, the bondunderwriters would not be willing to underwrite and sell the bonds if it would push the district over the constitional limits.

I can understand the frustration of being asked to pay more in taxes, I'm with you there. However, unlike cities which can charge developers and builders impact fees to offset the costs created by growth and development school districts cannot. Lets be sure to thank our legislators for protecting the developers and builders from paying their fair share. The outstanding performance of our schools is a part of what attracts great companies like Sanjel and Amazon which, over the longer term, will help keep our overall tax rate down. Please consider voting FOR the bond election.