In the first of three scheduled work sessions, the AISD Board of Trustees on
Monday aired some of its most pressing concerns about an upcoming bond issue –
namely, will the bonds properly accommodate growth in the district, support the
district’s instructional programs, and redress inequity between facilities? And
even if taxpayers become convinced the bonds are necessary, can they afford
it?
A year’s worth of work and study by a board-appointed, citizens’ bond advisory
committee yielded a report in June, in which some $370 million in renovations,
new construction, land acquisition, security improvements, and technology were
identified. Committee chair Mel Waxler said that the committee’s report does
not constitute a recommendation for a bond package as such, but merely
identifies needs, and the costs associated with those needs.
And indeed, “immediate needs vs. future needs” is likely to emerge as one of
the major flashpoints of the bond issue debate. In the committee’s view, nine
new schools – six elementary, two middle, and one high school – should be
built. Of those, four schools – three elementary and one middle school – are
proposed for Southwest Austin.
Two members of the committee, Max Woodfin and Gavino Fernandez, did not sign
off on the final report, partly because of that proposal. Woodfin has said that
he is not convinced the figures on projected growth for that area of town are
completely reliable.
So, expect this question to be roundly debated in the coming months: Will new
schools in Southwest Austin merely take care of the population growth already
in motion, or just promote more land development in the most environmentally
sensitive areas of town and push Austin’s borders halfway to Buda?
Much of this debate will swirl around trustee Melissa Knippa, whose Southwest
district includes the Circle C subdivision. (Knippa lives in Old Shady Hollow,
however, not Circle C.) She said Monday that she wants the bond effort to
reflect “a defensible method of recognizing growth.” And, she added, she would
like new schools to be designed so that they can open without having to use
portable buildings. (Bailey Middle School, the last school to be built with
1990 bond funds, opened in 1993 in Knippa’s district with portable buildings on
the grounds.)
Many board members said they want to stay focused on curriculum and
instruction, not just bricks and mortar, to ensure that new and renovated
facilities truly support the activity that is supposed to be taking place
within them. They hope the bond will achieve equity between “haves” and
“have-nots.” And finally, several members expressed the desire to fully educate
the public before an election is held.
How much time will the public get to consider a bond package? At the next work
session, scheduled for September 6, trustees will consider the “strengths and
challenges” of a December bond election, as well as the “strengths and
challenges” of putting the election off until the spring or even the fall of
1996.
N.B.: The August 28 trustees meeting has been canceled, because it conflicted
with the district’s “Back to School Night.” n
This article appears in August 25 • 1995 and August 25 • 1995 (Cover).