A lot of information has been circulated promoting the issuance of $11.7 million in bonds for Clarendon CISD. But as voters head to the polls this Saturday, May 4, it’s important that everyone understands some very important issues that have not been addressed.
General questions about the tax burden and the overall impact of the bond proposals were covered in the editorial printed in this week’s Enterprise and labeled “Part One” online. A closer look at each proposition is warranted, however.
Remember, as a voter, you can mark your ballot “for” or “against” any one or all three of these propositions. That’s up to the individual. As you consider each one, here are some facts that have not been presented by the out-of-town marketers of the bonds.
PROPOSITION A
Proposition A asks for $1.8 million for safety and security upgrades at the school as well as two new buses. We all want our schools to be safe. Everyone can agree on that. But we must be reasonable and prudent, and we don’t really want to see our kids in a “maximum security” education compound.
Information was distributed a couple of weeks ago that basically says anyone can get into the high school and go anywhere anytime. That is totally not true. The high school is secure. The district says it wants to have a secure vestibule to receive visitors before they enter the building, and they want to add something onto the front of the 1908 landmark high school. What’s that going to look like? More on that later, but why destroy the most architecturally interesting part of the entire Clarendon CISD campus when there are other ways to address this issue.
The high school has vestibules on the north and south sides. If you really want a super secure way to check-in high school visitors, simply make them enter through the Administration Building just a few feet away. The handful of visitors needing to access the high school elevator (and there’s only one despite promises from the out-of-town marketers to fix the “elevators”), can be given a pass to get in the front door. That fixes the security issue for zero dollars.
Regarding transportation, the school proposes buying two luxury travel buses at a cost of about $400,000 each. That seems extravagant. Those in favor of it want our kids to roll up in style ready to compete, but our athletic teams seem to perform very well rolling up in a yellow school bus. The district does need new buses, but we don’t need the top-of-the-line buses. And furthermore, the school has money in the bank they could use for buses.
PROPOSITION B
This is the big one. Proposition B asks for $6.9 million in improvements at Bronco Stadium including accessibility improvements, new home and visitor bleachers, a new press box, and $3.3 to 3.5 million for the field house and to renovate restrooms and the concession stand. Consider each of these carefully.
Most local folks haven’t spent much time in the visitor stands and don’t really care about those. Based on places we’ve had to sit in other towns, it is apparent other schools don’t care much about visitor comfort either. If we need to make some accommodations for ADA, that’s one thing, but entirely new visitor stands will cost us about $500,000 according to numbers mentioned at board meetings.
On the home side, the school wants to spend about $900,000 to get rid of the new press box (about 15 years old) and existing seating and install the big metal bleacher/press box combo structures that all the cool schools have now. That is wasteful and unnecessary and will destroy part of the character of Bronco Stadium. Those home stands are built into the contour of the hillside and are literally part of the stadium. Groups of folks congregating behind the last row of seats to visit and watch the game will be a thing of the past. And what happens to the concrete step that we all grew up with in front of the stands? It’s a safe place where little kids can act “grown up” by sitting by themselves with their friends to watch the game or cheer with the cheerleaders. It’s almost a rite of passage when you’re finally old enough to go sit there. Are we ready to give that up? We’ve already lost our “H.” Let’s not sacrifice anymore traditions.
We need better accessibility for the stadium, no doubt. But ramping, walkways, and handrails can be installed and accessible seating can be added to the home stands on the front and back rows without spending anywhere near $900,000.
We also need new restrooms, and our concession stand can use some attention. Renovating or expanding the field house is also needed. The school, however, is very vague on what it wants to do with $3.3 to $3.5 million. It might renovate, it might expand, or it might build a whole new facility just beyond the west endzone. We just don’t know for sure, and they can’t tell us. More on that later. One thing we do know, however, is that Memphis is building a nice new 5,000 square-foot, $2.4 million field house right now without a bond and didn’t have to mess with their existing stands to do it. How’d that happen? They had a family who left the school about $200,000 and they took out a loan for the rest. Oh, and they did some ramping and sidewalks a few years ago to deal with ADA issues. Easy peasy.
Also, go look at the south rock wall of Bronco Stadium, especially from the entrance to the concession stand. It’s clear that some stone conservation work is needed pretty quickly, but that’s not part of this $6.9 million request. The school says they might be able to address it… if there’s money left over.
PROPOSITION C
The final question before voters asks for $3 million for a new vocational ag building. This is the only proposition that actually goes to improving education, but some folks are not entirely convinced that a new facility is warranted. What exactly will we get for $3 million? More on that later. The school’s case wasn’t helped last week, when the out-of-town marketers gave year-old photos to the bond’s social media team, which showed the ag shop as a disorganized mess with trash on the floor. After an uproar, new photos were quickly taken to show what the new teachers have done with the place. The school also says the cinderblock walls of the ag building are deteriorating, but no pictures of that have been posted. If the walls are in such bad shape, then why does the school plan to keep the ag building for storage? Tear the thing down if it’s that bad. Also, the out-of-town marketers like to point out that the ag building – and the field house for that matter – were built in 1961, like that’s the worst thing ever. Buddy, I’ve got news for you, 90 percent of our entire school campus was built in 1961 or earlier, but school administrations have done a pretty darn good job keeping things up.
MORE ON THAT LATER…
Many voters are curious about what exactly the school will or won’t build if the propositions are approved. What will things look like, where will they be, what features will they have? Overall, the school doesn’t have renderings, drawings, or even sketches. They say they don’t want to spend the money on the architect if voters aren’t going to approve the project. If the voters approve the bonds, the architect will get to work and have something to look at in a few months. But how are voters supposed to know what they are considering without a clear picture? What if the voters say yes, and then the architect comes back with something that looks like Fido’s ass ? It’s too late to turn back then.
For decades after the 1960s campus was built, Clarendon CISD followed a similar architectural style when adding on or building new buildings. The addition to the home economics room and cafeteria expansion, the E-Wing addition, and the Band Hall all very much looked like they belonged on the CCISD campus. Likewise, the renovation of the high school in 1990 was very careful to maintain the historic look of the 1908 building. But then starting in the late 1990s with the new Bronco Gym, we started getting pretty free. The gym looks like nothing else on campus, the weight room building was next and was an entirely different color of metal from the trim on the gym, and then what became Laura’s Legacy Center was completely different again. (Sidenote: The LLC sitting unused with a sun-damaged sign is a disgrace to the memory of Laura Hommel and is a good example that we should do a better job of taking care of what we already have.) The architect who expanded and renovated the administration building blended three or four styles to try to make it all make sense and then scabbed it on to the north end of the high school. Most recently, the south entrance of the high school was closed in with a vestibule of a yet another design.
So given all that, “What’s it going to look like?” is a very valid question. Taxpayers and alumni all ought to get to see what’s being proposed before it’s decided.
Overall, the bond propositions feel rushed. Voters only found out what was being proposed within a few weeks of the measure being put on a ballot, and very little notice was given when community meetings were held before the board pulled the trigger. There needs to be some community input on these issues. Talk to parents and find out what’s important to them about their kids’ education. What would they like to see? What can we do to make our kids more successful in the classroom, more successful in college, and more successful in life? Two out of three of these bonds don’t even come close to addressing those questions. Supporters of the bond want you to vote “yes” because “our kids are worth it.” Our kids are priceless, but there is nothing wrong with saying “no” to requests for things that aren’t needed or are too expensive. Parents all know that; we do it all the time.
Vote “no” this Saturday. And then let’s start over with a conversation about what we need and what we want to do to give our kids the best opportunities for a quality education.
Editorial Part 1 available here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.