AISD Bond - 2017

[lzppjb]

Do those of you who live within the AISD zone typically vote For or Against their bonds?

A couple months ago, they released their new Facilities Master Plan: https://www.austinisd.org/fmp

Basically, they need something like $4 billion to get all the schools and facilities up to snuff. They know they can't ask for that all in one bite, so they are trying to ask for it in smaller bond packages every 5 years or so.

Right now, they are working on the first package, which they hope to agree upon on June 19, and get before the voters this November. They're aiming for $900-950 million, and doing so without raising the tax rate.

Over the next 2 years, AISD will be paying the State that same amount of $900 million through recapture (aka Robin Hood). The only way to make sure money stays in the district is with bonds.

Here is the list of projects the FABPAC is considering for the first bond:

http://i.imgur.com/n5GWP0O.png

http://i.imgur.com/QbXmHML.png

These are screenshots of the Materials from the May 24 meeting: https://www.austinisd.org/advisory-bodies/fabpac/meetings

Bowie HS is looking at a major renovation, including additional classrooms (multi-story), athletic wing, fine arts expansion, cafeteria expansion, and possibly even a parking garage.

Austin High and Anderson High are also on the short list of high schools looking at major renovations in this first bond package.

I know this isn't highrise-related, but it's Austin-related, and important to our community. Would love to hear any insight y'all may have, or rumors/info you can share.

[smt1]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local-education/how-big-will-the-austin-school-bond-package-get-trustees-decide/EHkCtzUxyPGFFwgnHM0IyM/

[brando]

Who knows if it will pass. The people who come out and vote in odd years are those are are much more tuned into local politics.

The Travis County Courthouse bond failed in 2015 by less than 1,000 votes.
The City of Austin Low Income Housing bond passed in 2013 after previously being voted down.

[lzppjb]

Bowie High School Phase I

http://i.imgur.com/5RtqGlZ.jpg

Austin High School

http://i.imgur.com/PV23Hv2.jpg

https://www.aecomconnect.com/AISD/bondscenario.html

[Novacek]

I'm not sure I like AISD spending so much on new facilities while enrollment is decreasing, but I'm inclined to vote in favor of it just to stick it to the legislature, if nothing else.

Though I think I'm voting against the county bond. Most of the money is coming from Austin and the other cities, and none of it goes to city residents.

[eskimo33]

I tend not to vote for them because over the last couple of years AISD has commissioned a couple of reports about various things, and it seems like most of them say that the district needs to do a better job managing their bond money(at least that is what a good friend told me)and nothing seems to change.

[eskimo33]

Plus quit spending money on damn athletics and focus on teaching!

[lzppjb]

Plus quit spending money on damn athletics and focus on teaching!

Kids play sports. It will not and should not stop. With that being said, do you think they should be placed in small locker rooms where staph infections are likely? Bowie has outdated locker rooms. The football team has 2 or 3 guys sharing a locker. Just a couple years ago, a staph infection spread through the team in the middle of the season. And that's at one of the newer high schools in the district! Only Akins is newer.

Athletic fields get worn out. They have to be replaced. If not, kids get injured. Have you ever run on a turf field with the seams all jacked up? ACL tears waiting to happen. You'd rather that happen?

BTW, AISD does concentrate on teaching. The latest tests show that the district is not only above average in results in Texas, but in the nation. And that's with a majority of the students being economically disadvantaged, or English is their second language.

AISD is not the district spending $70 million on a football stadium, like in Katy. AISD spends so little on athletics compared to a lot of districts, especially those surrounding us.

In this bond, they actually decreased a lot of athletic spending that was originally wanted so they could appease voters like you. House Park is in disrepair, but instead of spending $10 million on it, which covers all projects needed, they cut it down to like $2 million and put the rest on the back burner.

[lzppjb]

I tend not to vote for them because over the last couple of years AISD has commissioned a couple of reports about various things, and it seems like most of them say that the district needs to do a better job managing their bond money(at least that is what a good friend told me)and nothing seems to change.

Maybe. I haven't seen this report. I do know that the last couple of bonds have had projects come in under budget and on time. There have been funds left over each time that can be carried forward to cover other projects that pop up.

[lzppjb]

I'm not sure I like AISD spending so much on new facilities while enrollment is decreasing, but I'm inclined to vote in favor of it just to stick it to the legislature, if nothing else.

Though I think I'm voting against the county bond. Most of the money is coming from Austin and the other cities, and none of it goes to city residents.

You're right. It's a little crazy to think that a district that is shrinking overall would need new facilities. It's just that the growth pattern is weird. East Austin is shrinking in terms of kids, but SW, SE, and NE Austin are growing with kids.

Akins is overcrowded, and there are tons of houses/apartments being built in their zone. The new HS, which is not being funded with this bond, will eventually go out there. It'll be needed.

Bowie is overcrowded. Bowie was built to hold 2,400 kids and has been well above that its entire existence. AISD projects Bowie to peak around 3,100 in 2021 or so, then drop back to a steady 3,000. That's bigger than they are currently. Their reports say that Bowie has enough classroom space to make it work, but the common areas are what needs work. The band hall is not nearly big enough. Same with orchestra. The theater is in bad shape. The lunch room is way too small. Same with the athletics wing.

I wouldn't be against combining Reagan and LBJ. They are so close together, and both are under-enrolled. But the communities will be up in arms.

[wwmiv]

I went to LBJ. I'd be incredibly saddened if it were combined with our rival school, Reagan.

[eskimo33]

Maybe. I haven't seen this report. I do know that the last couple of bonds have had projects come in under budget and on time. There have been funds left over each time that can be carried forward to cover other projects that pop up.
Neither have I, (as I stated) but the next time I talk to him I will ask him where he got his information. It would do me some good to read it and draw my own opinions.

[eskimo33]

Kids play sports. It will not and should not stop. With that being said, do you think they should be placed in small locker rooms where staph infections are likely? Bowie has outdated locker rooms. The football team has 2 or 3 guys sharing a locker. Just a couple years ago, a staph infection spread through the team in the middle of the season. And that's at one of the newer high schools in the district! Only Akins is newer.

I did find a Statesman article saying that Bowie might be at risk of staph infections due to inadequate ventilation. I did not know much about staph except that it is a side effect of surgery so I looked up some information. “Staph is a common bacteria that lives on approximately 30% of the population’s skin and it’s usually spread between people through close skin contact or sharing contaminated objects such as towels or razors.” Sounds like a sanitation issue, and yes having a bigger locker room would help but so would better ventilation. So maybe they do not need three football teams, or maybe a better ventilation. Both of those would be cheaper than building a new athletics wing.

[eskimo33]

Athletic fields get worn out. They have to be replaced. If not, kids get injured. Have you ever run on a turf field with the seams all jacked up? ACL tears waiting to happen. You'd rather that happen?

I have only played on grass, so we never really had that problem with the seams.
I would not wish injury upon anyone, however that is a risk that you take when you play sports. ACL tears happen whether it is on a pro field or a high school field.

[eskimo33]

BTW, AISD does concentrate on teaching. The latest tests show that the district is not only above average in results in Texas, but in the nation. And that's with a majority of the students being economically disadvantaged, or English is their second language.

I was not meaning to sound like I was disparaging the teachers, that was not my intent.
You are correct, AISD does score better (way better actually) than the national average, and to some extent Houston and Dallas according to the national report card. However, Dallas and Houston (according to AISD pier cities) also score better than the national average. On a side note, I have no idea how the national report card scores are made. Maybe some blend of 4th and 8th grade math and reading scores?
https://www.austinisd.org/budget
Pages 83, 94

[eskimo33]

AISD is not the district spending $70 million on a football stadium, like in Katy.


AISD spends a greater percentage of their overall budget on athletics than pretty much any school in the DFW metro area, Houston, San Antonio, Katy (even with their giant stadium), El Paso (although just barely) and they consistently have the lowest paid teachers in Urban districts in the state.
https://www.austinisd.org/budget
FY 17 budget page 413 for athletics and page 43 for teacher salaries

[eskimo33]

AISD spends so little on athletics compared to a lot of districts, especially those surrounding us.

I am not so sure that this is a fair comparison, all athletic programs have a fixed cost regardless of school size. To me, it would make sense that most of the surrounding school districts (which tend to be smaller) would have to spend a greater percentage of their budget just to have the facilities.

[lzppjb]

AISD spends a greater percentage of their overall budget on athletics than pretty much any school in the DFW metro area, Houston, San Antonio, Katy (even with their giant stadium), El Paso (although just barely) and they consistently have the lowest paid teachers in Urban districts in the state.

This is not true. Please provide proof.

AISD coaches are some of the lowest paid. The stadiums are barely kept up. There is very little spent on athletics by AISD. To say we spend more of our budget than the DFW metro? Where sports are king? Houston and Katy, too? I don't see it. I don't know where you got your numbers. I'd like to see them.

[lzppjb]

I have only played on grass, so we never really had that problem with the seams.
I would not wish injury upon anyone, however that is a risk that you take when you play sports. ACL tears happen whether it is on a pro field or a high school field.

Grass is frowned upon now in Austin because it wastes water. It can be damaged easily (i.e. mud) and takes forever to fix.

Turf fields are a greater up front cost, but save money over the life of the field. Your argument that basically "shit happens" when you play sports, is weak at best. Yes, ACLs and other injuries happen. But they don't have to happen because of neglected fields.

[wwmiv]

This is not true. Please provide proof.

AISD coaches are some of the lowest paid. The stadiums are barely kept up. There is very little spent on athletics by AISD. To say we spend more of our budget than the DFW metro? Where sports are king? Houston and Katy, too? I don't see it. I don't know where you got your numbers. I'd like to see them.

Why not go find the numbers yourself, since your claims are also based on the same data (that neither of you have posted nor provided links to).

[lzppjb]

Why not go find the numbers yourself, since your claims are also based on the same data (that neither of you have posted nor provided links to).

First one: Dallas ISD

2017-2018 Athletics budget: $8,816,660
2017-2018 Total budget: $1,419,184,253
.62%
https://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001475/Centricity/Domain/78/2017-2018%20Proposed%20Budget%20Book_June%20Board%20Meeting_6_14_17_FINAL.pdf

Austin ISD

2017-2018 Athletics budget: $4,037,680
2017-2018 Total budget: $1,300,445,162
.31%
https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/FY2017_Austin_ISD_Official.pdf

I have found total budgets for Houston ISD and Katy ISD, but I haven't located their Athletics expenditures yet.

[wwmiv]

:tup:

San Antonio ISD:

https://www.saisd.net/admin/finance/SAISD_Web_Posting_of_ADOPTED_Budget_2017-18%206-19-17.xlsx

(FYI: this link is a forced download .xls spreadsheet)

It doesn't have a specific category for Athletics, but I'm going to assume that athletics is some portion of the "co-curricular/extracurricular activities" line-item.

That would put the maximum athletics expenditures at $11,095,884 out of $594,638,217, a 1.87% share. The reality is probably that only a portion of that line-item is athletics related. Even if half that amount is athletics, that would still be .93% (still much higher than Austin's ISD).

[lzppjb]

Not a budget, but this is the breakdown of the proposed AISD bond. .57% for Athletics.

http://i.imgur.com/UcofVvY.png

[lzppjb]

:tup:

San Antonio ISD:

https://www.saisd.net/admin/finance/SAISD_Web_Posting_of_ADOPTED_Budget_2017-18%206-19-17.xlsx

(FYI: this link is a forced download .xls spreadsheet)

It doesn't have a specific category for Athletics, but I'm going to assume that athletics is some portion of the "co-curricular/extracurricular activities" line-item.

That would put the maximum athletics expenditures at $11,095,884 out of $594,638,217, a 1.87% share. The reality is probably that only a portion of that line-item is athletics related. Even if half that amount is athletics, that would still be .93% (still much higher than Austin's ISD).

That's exactly what I'm finding. Houston, Katy, Fort Worth...they all lump Athletics in with extracurricular activities (which also includes Fine Arts).

[lzppjb]

I was going off the eyeball test. I follow HS sports pretty closely. I help run a forum for 6A Texas Football. I have an idea what districts pay their coaches, what districts have amazing facilities, etc. Austin lags behind badly.

[eskimo33]

You are right I should have cited my sources, they all came from this years AISD budget. I will go back to my original posts and do so.
https://www.austinisd.org/budget

[eskimo33]

That's exactly what I'm finding. Houston, Katy, Fort Worth...they all lump Athletics in with extracurricular activities (which also includes Fine Arts).

My numbers for athletics came from page 413 of the FY 17 AISD budget, as did the rest of the stats I quoted (minus the national report card, as it came from both the AISD budget and the national report card). The AISD has athletics broken out as its own line item.
https://www.austinisd.org/budget

[eskimo33]

This is not true. Please provide proof.

AISD coaches are some of the lowest paid. The stadiums are barely kept up. There is very little spent on athletics by AISD. To say we spend more of our budget than the DFW metro? Where sports are king? Houston and Katy, too? I don't see it. I don't know where you got your numbers. I'd like to see them.

austinisd.org/budget
FY 17 budget page 413 for athletics and page 43 for teacher salaries

[wwmiv]

Okay, but where are you getting the numbers for your comparison claims that Austin spends more than peer cities on athletics?

[lzppjb]

Those numbers are 2014-2015, but that's ok for this exercise.

According to that chart, only Manor and Del Valle spent less percentage-wise than Austin on Athletics. That doesn't account for Del Valle just completing a major overhaul of their stadium with a state-of-the-art indoor practice facility.

If we're going to compare with other large districts, then off the top of my head those would be:

Dallas ISD
Houston ISD
Northside ISD (San Antonio)
Northeast ISD (San Antonio)
San Antonio ISD
Fort Worth ISD
El Paso ISD
Katy ISD
Cy-Fair ISD
Fort Bend ISD

[lzppjb]

I'd have to do more research, which I'm not really willing to do, but 2014-2015 could include some costs that aren't normal.

In 2015, that flood ruined House Park's field and it had to be replaced with emergency funds before the 2015 season started. I don't know what budget that is captured on.

[eskimo33]

Izppjb, I was not meaning to start an in depth conversation about the budget but merely answering the question asked.
Having said that, I am glad that we had the discussion because it made me do research which helped further my understanding of the bond. No one will ever agree on everything, but a healthy discussion based on hard facts is always good.

[Flatiron]

Kids play sports. It will not and should not stop. With that being said, do you think they should be placed in small locker rooms where staph infections are likely? Bowie has outdated locker rooms. The football team has 2 or 3 guys sharing a locker. Just a couple years ago, a staph infection spread through the team in the middle of the season. And that's at one of the newer high schools in the district! Only Akins is newer.

Athletic fields get worn out. They have to be replaced. If not, kids get injured. Have you ever run on a turf field with the seams all jacked up? ACL tears waiting to happen. You'd rather that happen?

BTW, AISD does concentrate on teaching. The latest tests show that the district is not only above average in results in Texas, but in the nation. And that's with a majority of the students being economically disadvantaged, or English is their second language.

AISD is not the district spending $70 million on a football stadium, like in Katy. AISD spends so little on athletics compared to a lot of districts, especially those surrounding us.

In this bond, they actually decreased a lot of athletic spending that was originally wanted so they could appease voters like you. House Park is in disrepair, but instead of spending $10 million on it, which covers all projects needed, they cut it down to like $2 million and put the rest on the back burner.

Theres more to education than athletics. Stop being a bully.

[austin242]

Bowie does not need a Parking Garage. It is a waste of Money. People Need to ride the Damn BUSSES already provided. All the students are so privileged already they can drive to school when they could just ride the bus like at most other schools. Bowie is the most spoiled school in the whole city. That is $50,000,000 wasted. For that price, they could get their own personal light rail system from circle c to the school, with one stop at Escarpment, La Crosse, and the other at Bowie. I will be Voting it down just for that alone. I went to Bowie from 2012-2013. Locker Rooms are fine at bowie. We shared lockers. People didn't clean their stuff (which is why they get staph) Locker Rooms were of sufficient size. The football team is just too big. Only 9th graders shared lockers. The theater needs to be renovated. It's way too small.

I would rather just see a New High School Built somewhere in South Austin. Then Both Akins and Bowie would no longer have the problems of Over Crowding. Bowie wouldn't have to spend money on a new marching field across the street. Akins wouldn't have to add a new wing every few years because they had 50 classrooms in portables. Bowie wouldn't have parking problems (which it shouldn't have in the first place). Someone said that they appropriate bond money very poorly. That is clearly the case. As a former student of A.I.S.D I believe they need to sort out their priorities.

[lzppjb]

Theres more to education than athletics. Stop being a bully.

You confuse me. How am I being a bully? Where did I say there was not more to education than athletics? All I'm doing is responding to eskimo's comment that they shouldn't spend so much on athletics. I'm pointing out that AISD doesn't, in fact, spend that much on athletics in the grand scheme of things. And yes, I'm passionate about it. I'm not trying to be a bully. I'm asking for facts to back up the statement.

[lzppjb]

Bowie does not need a Parking Garage. It is a waste of Money. People Need to ride the Damn BUSSES already provided. All the students are so privileged already they can drive to school when they could just ride the bus like at most other schools. Bowie is the most spoiled school in the whole city. That is $50,000,000 wasted. For that price, they could get their own personal light rail system from circle c to the school, with one stop at Escarpment, La Crosse, and the other at Bowie. I will be Voting it down just for that alone. I went to Bowie from 2012-2013. Locker Rooms are fine at bowie. We shared lockers. People didn't clean their stuff (which is why they get staph) Locker Rooms were of sufficient size. The football team is just too big. Only 9th graders shared lockers. The theater needs to be renovated. It's way too small.

I would rather just see a New High School Built somewhere in South Austin. Then Both Akins and Bowie would no longer have the problems of Over Crowding. Bowie wouldn't have to spend money on a new marching field across the street. Akins wouldn't have to add a new wing every few years because they had 50 classrooms in portables. Bowie wouldn't have parking problems (which it shouldn't have in the first place). Someone said that they appropriate bond money very poorly. That is clearly the case. As a former student of A.I.S.D I believe they need to sort out their priorities.

I agree that the parking garage is a weird piece to this.

I don't agree that expanding Fine Arts and the Athletics wing is a waste. But we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[eskimo33]

You confuse me. How am I being a bully? Where did I say there was not more to education than athletics? All I'm doing is responding to eskimo's comment that they shouldn't spend so much on athletics. I'm pointing out that AISD doesn't, in fact, spend that much on athletics in the grand scheme of things. And yes, I'm passionate about it. I'm not trying to be a bully. I'm asking for facts to back up the statement.

Your passion did come across as somewhat aggressive, but I find that education in general and sports specifically tend to arouse a lot of passion out of people (so no worries).
To beat the proverbial dead horse here; I am not sure that one can truly say that ASID does not spend "that much on athletics" when the teaching staff is some of the lowest paid in the area and they spend more on athletics than pier cities. I know it is 2015 data, but that is the data AISD itself has chosen to use and publish for the point of comparison.
Either way, I am not sure that Izppjb or myself are going to change our minds on this, and in my opinion that is okay. :)

[Novacek]

and they spend more on athletics than pier cities. I know it is 2015 data, but that is the data AISD itself has chosen to use and publish for the point of comparison.


Again, where is the data for this claim?

You keep repeating it, and failing to deliver.

https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/FY2017_Austin_ISD_Official.pdf

page 407 ("the data AISD itself has chosen to publish") shows it spending _less_ than other local districts, not more (though those aren't true peers).

[wwmiv]

Again, where is the data for this claim?

You keep repeating it, and failing to deliver.

https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/FY2017_Austin_ISD_Official.pdf

page 407 ("the data AISD itself has chosen to publish") shows it spending _less_ than other local districts, not more (though those aren't true peers).

Less in percentage, more in absolute spending. I think that's the confusion causing factor.

[eskimo33]

Again, where is the data for this claim?

You keep repeating it, and failing to deliver.

https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/FY2017_Austin_ISD_Official.pdf

page 407 ("the data AISD itself has chosen to publish") shows it spending _less_ than other local districts, not more (though those aren't true peers).

Novavek, I misquoted the page number, the page should be 413 not 407. Student Group 91 - Athletics and Related Activity, at the bottom of the page shows what I am referring to. Once again apologies about the page numbers.

[Novacek]

So I think the devil is in the details here. What's the "related" in that line? Cause it sure ain't the athletic department itself (which is listed as less than $5M of that $12M).

[wwmiv]

Novavek, I misquoted the page number, the page should be 413 not 407. Student Group 91 - Athletics and Related Activity, at the bottom of the page shows what I am referring to. Once again apologies about the page numbers.

That page shows mostly equivalent figures with Austin in the cluster at the middle of the pack. Only Corpus is an outlier in the "too much" category and only Aldine and Houston are outliers in the "too little" category. The rest are all substantially similar.

[Texas Jeff]

Not a budget, but this is the breakdown of the proposed AISD bond. .57% for Athletics.

http://i.imgur.com/UcofVvY.png

That pie chart is a little misleading. It makes it look like only a tiny part is for athletics, but it does not include any money spent on schools for athletic renovations.

The "athletics" part is the House Park renovations, which for me would be welcome, but the chart under-represents the total dollars being spent on athletics in the bond.

I am really undecided on this election. Some good stuff and some pet projects. AISD needs to gradually renovate all of their campuses, but does not need all of the "urgent" projects.

[lzppjb]

That pie chart is a little misleading. It makes it look like only a tiny part is for athletics, but it does not include any money spent on schools for athletic renovations.

The "athletics" part is the House Park renovations, which for me would be welcome, but the chart under-represents the total dollars being spent on athletics in the bond.

I am really undecided on this election. Some good stuff and some pet projects. AISD needs to gradually renovate all of their campuses, but does not need all of the "urgent" projects.

You're right about how they group expenses. Expanding the athletics wing at Bowie, for example, is not considered "athletics" spending. It's called an expansion of the common areas. This phase includes fine arts and athletics. The next phase would include the cafeteria. They consider it expanding the campus as a whole in order to meet standards for a 2,900 capacity.

A third party looked at all the facilities and said they need just over $4 billion to address each problem area. They pared that down to a quarter of what's needed. These are what their metrics show to be the most urgent projects. I wouldn't say they are doing all of the urgent projects.

Athletics expenditures requested, but not happening in this bond:
- AISD wants to put 1 turf practice field on every HS campus, as well as lights.
- House Park press box and other various renovations not included in proposition
- Burger Stadium renovations and press box
- Nelson Field renovations
- Anderson HS gym expansion

That's just off the top of my head.

I agree with you that AISD needs to renovate all of their campuses. I believe that's their goal over time. The main expenditure in this bond is actually money going to repairing problems at every campus (leaking roof, HVAC, etc.). They want to renovate all schools that need it, but as you said, have to do it gradually. They decided to address the campuses that are either in very bad shape, or are dealing with major overcrowding.

[Texas Jeff]

Thanks for the response. What I meant was that there are projects in this bond that are not needed.

Some examples:

LASA and LBJ are being split into two campuses, so that LASA can expand to somewhere around 2,000 students. So they took Eastside's campus for that purpose. Eastside gets a new building as compensation. This means we will spend $80 million so that we can have one tiny high school (Eastside, at 800 kids), another tiny high school (what is left of LBJ, maybe 800 kids) and a new expanded LASA.

That means that you have one more set of coaches, band directors, admins, support staff to support a new high school so that LASA can grow. Ten years from now, AISD is projected to have fewer kids in high school than they do now, but may have two more campuses than they do now (proposed new Eastside plus the new Southwest HS).

As an example, today you are paying 11 high school football coaches and tomorrow you may be paying 13 coaches to coach a smaller population. To me, that does not make sense. They should be thinking about consolidating or adjusting population to a smaller number of campuses, and putting money into each campus to bring them all up to modern standards.

LASA, by expanding, may be a lower rated school than it is today. If you assume that the top 5% of kids are at LASA today, and LASA expands while AISD shrinks, then you may have the top 11% of kids attending LASA in ten years. LASA's ratings will drop compared to other magnets across Texas, and all of the other high schools ratings may drop because they contributed more kids to LASA. I am assuming that those extra 6% of kids were helping the ratings of their "home" schools" but might lower the ratings of the "top" kids currently at LASA.

They could have moved LASA to Eastside, combined the current Eastside and LBJ and put all of the new Eastside money into the LBJ and current eastside campuses. But ... politically it would have been tough to academically segregate those schools.

The Mueller folks want a school, so there is a "Northeast MS" in the bond for Mueller. There is plenty of middle school capacity in East Austin, but it's not in Mueller. But, Mueller has voters and so a middle school in Mueller helps pass the bond. Will we close other middle schools around Mueller and move those kids to the new school? I predict all will remain open.

Bowie is overcrowded but it is going to peak and drop down. Crockett is not crowded. Bowie has a lot of transfer students from Crockett. If overcrowding at Bowie is a problem, why not just move some transfer students back to Crockett? I know Bowie is considered to be a "better" school than Crockett, but why not spend the money to repair or replace Crockett and make it a better school, taking some pressure off of Bowie?

I'm sure Bowie needs some repairs but how many high schools in Texas have a parking garage? I looked and could find only one example.

I'm picking on those projects as examples and there are others I could have named, and also some good projects in the bond.

There is no guarantee that the people who get a benefit this time will turn around and vote for others to get a benefit in the next election. I wish they would have mapped out the entire thing with specific times to call for replacement of all of the schools, with approximate tax rates along the way to ensure that long term this was all sustainable and that the entire district would eventually get an uplift.

I feel they partially did that and they did set up a rough map to follow, but some "special" projects did get in the bond with no guarantee that those that were not included would see their school upgraded in the future.

[lzppjb]

Thanks for the response. What I meant was that there are projects in this bond that are not needed.

Some examples:

Awesome. I was hoping you'd provide examples. I wanted to know how you viewed the bond.


LASA and LBJ are being split into two campuses, so that LASA can expand to somewhere around 2,000 students. So they took Eastside's campus for that purpose. Eastside gets a new building as compensation. This means we will spend $80 million so that we can have one tiny high school (Eastside, at 800 kids), another tiny high school (what is left of LBJ, maybe 800 kids) and a new expanded LASA.

That means that you have one more set of coaches, band directors, admins, support staff to support a new high school so that LASA can grow. Ten years from now, AISD is projected to have fewer kids in high school than they do now, but may have two more campuses than they do now (proposed new Eastside plus the new Southwest HS).

As an example, today you are paying 11 high school football coaches and tomorrow you may be paying 13 coaches to coach a smaller population. To me, that does not make sense. They should be thinking about consolidating or adjusting population to a smaller number of campuses, and putting money into each campus to bring them all up to modern standards.

LASA, by expanding, may be a lower rated school than it is today. If you assume that the top 5% of kids are at LASA today, and LASA expands while AISD shrinks, then you may have the top 11% of kids attending LASA in ten years. LASA's ratings will drop compared to other magnets across Texas, and all of the other high schools ratings may drop because they contributed more kids to LASA. I am assuming that those extra 6% of kids were helping the ratings of their "home" schools" but might lower the ratings of the "top" kids currently at LASA.

They could have moved LASA to Eastside, combined the current Eastside and LBJ and put all of the new Eastside money into the LBJ and current eastside campuses. But ... politically it would have been tough to academically segregate those schools.

A couple of things in response...

I'm not certain LASA will have athletics. They very well could, but I just haven't seen it mentioned. If you have, can you please provide a link? I'm not saying you're wrong.

I agree that the high schools in East Austin are shrinking fast. It doesn't make sense to have 3 of them open (now 4 with LASA). But I don't think Eastside can be combined with LBJ. They serve two different parts of the city, and aren't all that close. I'd be ok with combining Reagan and LBJ since they are right next to each other. But the problem is always political. People will howl over the "injustice" of their school being closed.

It's a tough problem with lots of landmines.

Also, the Eastside new campus deal is combined with the East Austin neighborhood wanting the old LC Anderson campus renovated and used. Eastside is moving into that campus after it's renovated. Your point still stands, though.


The Mueller folks want a school, so there is a "Northeast MS" in the bond for Mueller. There is plenty of middle school capacity in East Austin, but it's not in Mueller. But, Mueller has voters and so a middle school in Mueller helps pass the bond. Will we close other middle schools around Mueller and move those kids to the new school? I predict all will remain open.

I agree with you on this one. This is an example of a project in this bond that is an attempt to curry favor in order to get the votes needed. It's Politics 101.

Bowie is overcrowded but it is going to peak and drop down. Crockett is not crowded. Bowie has a lot of transfer students from Crockett. If overcrowding at Bowie is a problem, why not just move some transfer students back to Crockett? I know Bowie is considered to be a "better" school than Crockett, but why not spend the money to repair or replace Crockett and make it a better school, taking some pressure off of Bowie?

I'm sure Bowie needs some repairs but how many high schools in Texas have a parking garage? I looked and could find only one example.

Actually, the Bowie campus is closed to those transfers now. I believe they initiated it last school year. There are no more majority-to-minority transfers allowed into Bowie. And Crockett sent few transfers to Bowie compared to Akins. If you take away Akins and Crockett transfers, Bowie is a lot closer to the 2,400 physical capacity of the campus. Even with the transfers frozen, they still see Bowie peaking around 3,100 in a few years, then shrinking back to a steady 3,000. That's still more than they have now. They're holding steady currently between 2,800-2,900 with transfers.

They also think having LASA closer to South Austin, and able to accept more students, will take pressure off Bowie. A majority of LASA students are from south of the river. Many Bowie students attend LASA instead. They are expecting even more to transfer to LASA.

Bowie does need repairs and expansions, but I'm with you on the parking garage. I'm not sure where that one came from. It just popped up on their vision, and I'm not sure who came up with the idea. I know they are more than bursting at the seams with regard to parking. They don't just fill their spots. They have people parking on grass, on the concrete around the school that was not made for parking, along Wolf Trap, and they fill the church parking lot next door. I know someone here said just make them take the bus, but let's be realistic. Kids will drive. And this neighborhood seems to be able to afford having a car for their kid. And they see Bowie getting more crowded.

I will say that this expansion of Bowie is another political bone to get votes. SW and SE Austin have been in a battle for years now over the new HS. SE Austin won and will be getting a HS sometime in the future. The large, wealthy voting bloc of SW Austin had to be appeased in some way. This is what the board came up with.

There is no guarantee that the people who get a benefit this time will turn around and vote for others to get a benefit in the next election. I wish they would have mapped out the entire thing with specific times to call for replacement of all of the schools, with approximate tax rates along the way to ensure that long term this was all sustainable and that the entire district would eventually get an uplift.

I feel they partially did that and they did set up a rough map to follow, but some "special" projects did get in the bond with no guarantee that those that were not included would see their school upgraded in the future.

I think they're being pretty calculated about this concern. They didn't give Bowie everything in this bond. They're saving some for a future bond. They are doing that for other areas of town as well. It'll help with that problem you mention, which is a legitimate one, of people getting theirs and not voting for others to benefit.

[lzppjb]

I just realized something re: parking garage. It probably stems from the SOS impervious cover regulations.

I think I read that Bowie was allowed at ~40%, but now that they are going to change things up, they have to adhere to the new regulations, which is something like 25% cover. That's why they purchased the two neighboring lots. The expansions planned so far are over existing parking lots, so it doesn't add or take away. But I remember speaking with a man that works for AISD with their construction projects at a community meeting this summer. He mentioned something about the existing drainage areas near the existing parking lot are going to have to be redone. Perhaps they will be losing spaces due to these new regulations, and that's what spurred the parking garage idea.

I'm going to ask the trustee of the zone Bowie is in and try to get some answers.

[Texas Jeff]

I'm not certain LASA will have athletics. They very well could, but I just haven't seen it mentioned. If you have, can you please provide a link? I'm not saying you're wrong.


My information that they will have athletics comes from some information from the LASA principal that LASA was seeking a "comprehensive" high school:

http://www.lasahighschool.com/?PageName=%27PrincipalsCorner%27&Page=%27Article%27&PrincipalsCornerID=16838

You have to read way down the page to get to this statement from the principal, here is an excerpt:

--

What does it mean to be a comprehensive high school?

It means that a school has the full complement of UIL fine arts, athletic and academic offerings. In other words we would still have a band, orchestra, theater and choir for fine arts as well as sports, journalism, robotics, etc

Wait. If we become our own campus, what happens to UIL?

In Texas, magnet schools that wish to compete in UIL must do so at the highest possible level. In this case that would be 6A. However, like any other school that wants to move up or down in their assigned UIL area we can petition the schools in our assigned district as well as the district we would like to be in. If all of the schools vote for the move, then we can play in the district we petitioned to enter. This vote is good for two years and the school must repetition every time for the district it wants to be in.

Seriously, do you think LASA could field a football team?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes! If we were sitting at between 1400 and 1600 we would have the numbers to field a team. I’m not saying that would be nearly as good as our current teams that allow for the most athletic from both schools to come together. I’m just saying we could field a team.

--

That reads like LASA is fully intending to support a football team, other athletic teams, a band, an orchestra, a full compliment of UIL actitives. This is a cost adder to what AISD is paying now, since now they share these facilities with LBJ.

LBJ will now need a robotics teacher, since now LBJ and LASA share a robotics program. Or LBJ students will no longer have access to a robotics program.

Is there any information showing that LASA, as a result of getting their own campus, would opt out of any UIL activities so that they do not increase the cost to the distinct? I assume they will have these activities (and the new Eastside as well) because I am not aware of any high school in Texas that does NOT have UIL activities. I assume they will have them and they will need coaches and directors for these activities.

BTW, I support these types of activities -- LBJ has a fine orchestra and band program and their athletic teams frequently win the Austin district. But I would rather give these coaches and teachers a raise and hire fewer of them in bigger schools than have more of them at tiny schools.

LASA would have to compete in class 6A, which means they would be playing football with schools like Bowie, Westlake, Lake Travis. Pure magnet schools have to compete at the highest UIL level. Schools with enrollments almost twice as large and much larger and more committed athletic programs.

Even if the school had no UIL activities, they still need another set of principals, support staff, bus routes, landscapers, physical plant support, and so on. It's just more expensive to support a set of small sites versus fewer, larger sites.

If this plan is approved by voters, I predict that the new Eastside will show up at the next bond planning committee to say that they were shocked to find out that they don't have a softball or baseball field at their new home, and LASA will show up to say that they were surprised to find out that the old Eastside campus is in need of a lot of repair. LASA parents are pretty involved, and will push for more money to improve their campus. Eastside parents will make an equity argument, and push for more money for their campus. And some projects at other campuses may not make the cut for the next bond proposal.

[Texas Jeff]

I just realized something re: parking garage. It probably stems from the SOS impervious cover regulations.


I can understand why they would do that, but in an era where property taxes are as high as they are and Robin Hood is taking so much and Crockett has space for students -- this limitation should just mean we get creative to solve the problem rather than building a parking garage, in my opinion. I do feel for students who can not park on campus at their school, but I feel there are cheaper options.

SOS is a government ordinance. Bowie is a government property. I would be very disappointed to learn that the school district spent taxpayer money on property adjacent to Bowie just to leave it empty to comply with SOS. I hope this is not the case.

If Bowie needs more parking spaces and SOS is the limiting factor, then Bowie and the City of Austin and Austin ISD should work together to find the cheapest possible solution. Of the top of my head, I can think of these solutions:

* Give Bowie an exception to the rule, as a government building.

* Move students to Crockett to free up parking.

* Give out student parking passes until you are out of passes, then stop giving out passes. Student passes could be given out based on seniority or grades or some other factor. Students who get better grades might get on-campus parking. C students ride the bus or negotiate for rides from their A student friends.

* Give parking pass priority to students who agree to bring another student with them.

* If no SOS waiver is possible, remove part of the parking at Burger Center, then use the savings to add parking at Bowie.

Those are all options that I feel are cheaper than building a parking garage at Bowie.

[Texas Jeff]

OK, one more post about the Bowie parking garage idea and I'll stop for today. When googling around this afternoon in the rain, I discovered that Bowie offers reserved parking spaces for seniors for a cash payment:

https://1.cdn.edl.io/OPERaJQrdXfIBTc9TdFoWHI0w73Snb1CLHQN0rqKrdZlf3qU.pdf

The seniors get a reserved, numbered space on campus. Which they then paint to match their personality:

https://www.littlethings.com/painted-senior-parking-spaces/

So, for the entire year, no one else can park in that space. This is an incentive for parents to buy a space for their kid, so that they can paint it. If parking space is at a premium, the campus should not be reserving spaces.

[drummer]

OK, one more post about the Bowie parking garage idea and I'll stop for today. When googling around this afternoon in the rain, I discovered that Bowie offers reserved parking spaces for seniors for a cash payment:

https://1.cdn.edl.io/OPERaJQrdXfIBTc9TdFoWHI0w73Snb1CLHQN0rqKrdZlf3qU.pdf

The seniors get a reserved, numbered space on campus. Which they then paint to match their personality:

https://www.littlethings.com/painted-senior-parking-spaces/

So, for the entire year, no one else can park in that space. This is an incentive for parents to buy a space for their kid, so that they can paint it. If parking space is at a premium, the campus should not be reserving spaces.

Most high schools do that same sort of thing, so I don't see it going away. However, I'm not sure how high schools in dense areas handle this (downtown areas, for instance). Bowie is a bit unique given that it's not in a high-density area, but it is limited on room so a larger surface lot isn't in the cards.

[Echostatic]

This is an old, old thread. There hasn't been a post in two and a half years. But, being an AISD student myself, I felt the need to update it. This is the most effort I've ever put into a post on this forum, but whatever, I've been into the construction of schools for a long time. This is just the culmination.

As we all know, the 2017 Bond passed. It was pretty much a landslide, at 72-28. Most of these projects have been under construction for a solid year or two now, and some of them are really impressive.

High Schools

Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders
Budget: $70M
Proposed Capacity: 1,015

The 2017 Bond funded a Full Modernization of Ann Richards. The existing campus dates back to the 1950s and was designed as a middle school. Construction on the new campus started in March 2019 and is expected to complete in December 2020. This one makes me a little jealous. Or maybe that's just me being trans. Happy day of visibility, y'all!

Renderings of the new school:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Main-Courtyardx2500-1140x684.jpg
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ARS-Main-Entry-Renderingx2500-1140x621.jpg

Site progress from early February:
https://i.imgur.com/GbCv8ap.jpg

Bowie High School
Budget (for both Phases): $91M
Proposed Capacity: 2,900

The 2017 Bond funded Phase I of the Bowie HS Full Modernization. Phase I consists of a three-story parking structure with rooftop tennis courts. The rooftop tennis courts will replace the existing ground-level courts, as Phase II of the Bowie Renovation will be built on their site.

Construction on the garage started in June 2019, and completion is expected in June 2020. This project has been posted about in the South Austin Projects thread multiple times.

Here are renderings of the garage:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Bowie-HS-Parking-Garage-1140x641.jpg

Here is progress as of late February:
https://i.imgur.com/JOYuvLz.jpg

Eastside Memorial Early College High School / International High School
Budget: $81M
Proposed Capacity: 800

The 2017 Bond funded a shuffle of some East Austin high schools. Eastside Memorial and International High Schools will be leaving their current Johnston Campus, and moving to a new campus on the site of the Old Anderson High School. The existing school on that site was closed in the 1970s and demolished in late 2018.

The new Eastside Memorial campus will be something unlike any other school in the district. AISD really outdid themselves here. The main school tower is four (!) stories and will also hold the relocated International High School. Construction on the new campus started in December 2018 and is expected to be complete by July 2021.

The existing Johnston Campus will receive $4M of renovations before the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA) moves there in 2021.

Here are some assorted renderings:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/eastside_render1s-1140x642.jpg
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/eastside_render2s-1140x642.jpg

Here is current site progress from the same angle as the second rendering:
https://i.imgur.com/WCLsCFv.jpg

LBJ Early College High School
Budget: $26M
Proposed Capacity: 1,842

The existing LBJ Campus is split between LBJ High School and LASA. When LASA leaves the LBJ campus in 2021, it will be significantly renovated.

There's not going to be any significant construction, but there is a rendering of the renovated entrance, and it's pretty good looking.
https://i.imgur.com/ZLyruP9.png

Middle Schools

Blazier Relief School

Technically, this is an elementary school. But I don't like to categorize it like that. So sue me. Blazier's attendance zone will be home to huge new developments in the next decade, with some already under construction. This school will offer Grades 4-6 a separate campus than the K-3 kids at the old Blazier site.

Construction started in May 2019 and should end by August of this year. This will likely be the next school to open in the district. Frankly, I think it looks ugly as hell.

Renderings:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Blazier-Relief-School-Exterior-Entrance-1140x482.jpg
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Blazier-Relief-School-Interior-1140x641.jpg

Current site progress:
https://i.imgur.com/gwwHKi3.jpg

Murchison Middle School
Budget: $24M
Proposed Capacity: 1,700

The expansion of Murchison will make it the largest middle school in AISD by capacity. For a period of over a decade ending only last school year, Murchison had the highest enrollment of any middle school in the city, and it's been the most overcrowded for much longer than that.

The new expansion will house the 6th grade in their own three-story wing. Currently, the entire 6th grade is housed in portable classrooms. Construction started in June 2019 and is expected to end in January 2021. Some roofing will also be replaced at an additional cost of $1.5M.

Rendering of the 6th grade wing:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Murchison-MS-Exterior-View-1140x641.jpg

Construction progress, with the portable classrooms in shot:
https://i.imgur.com/gzAnSh9.jpg

New Northeast Middle School
Budget: $61M
Proposed Capacity: 800

This is the long-awaited Mueller school. A design hasn't been finalized yet, but should be around October of this year. Construction should start in January 2021 and finish in August 2022. It might seem odd to build another school while AISD is losing students, but this will accompany the closing of at least one of the 1950s Northeast Austin Middle Schools.

Elementary Schools

Brentwood Elementary School
Budget: $36M
Proposed Capacity: 696

Brentwood Elementary will undergo a partial renovation, partial rebuild. This solution allows students to remain on-site during the modernization. Given that Brentwood had the lowest FCA score of any school that wasn't literally falling apart, this rebuild is probably a good thing. Construction will start in April 2020 and wrap up by August 2022.

Rendering:
https://i.imgur.com/iPXNUcg.png

Casis Elementary School
Budget: $35M
Proposed Capacity: 870

As one of two schools to have severe structural damage discovered in 2016, Casis will be fully rebuilt. The new school will be one of the largest Elementary Schools in the city. Construction started in March 2020 and is expected to be completed in August 2022.

Rendering:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Casis-Exterior-1140x581.jpg

Doss Elementary School
Budget: $43M
Proposed Capacity: 870

With one of the tightest schedules of any 2017 Bond project at 1.5 years, the demolition and reconstruction of Doss is expected to be completed by July 2020. Unlike most other rebuilt campuses in the bond program, the existing school couldn't be preserved through construction. For the 2019-2020 school year, Doss students were moved to the Lucy Read Pre-K Campus in portable classrooms.

The new campus will be the largest elementary school in AISD by floor area while still meeting impervious cover restrictions.

Rendering:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Doss-Four.jpg

Construction progress (Murchison can be seen in the background):
https://i.imgur.com/VD465kV.jpg

Govalle Elementary School
Budget: $33M
Capacity: 522

Phase I of the project was completed in February of 2020, marking the third school opening of the 2017 Bond Program. Phase II will be completed by August, with demolition of the previous Govalle Elementary complete by June 2020. This one got less publicity than other bond projects, but it's the oldest school to be rebuilt so far.

https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AISD-GOVALLE-Aerial-1140x641.jpg

Menchaca Elementary School
Budget: $33M
Capacity: 870

Menchaca was the first school to open as part of the 2017 Bond. The modernized campus is formed by two buildings with a shared skybridge. The buildings form a courtyard, "creating direct links between the outdoors and learning environments." Sounds pretentious to me. Demolition of the former Menchaca Elementary should be wrapping up in April.

https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Men-One.jpg

New Southwest Elementary
Budget: $36M
Proposed Capacity: 522

This is a relief school for the heavily overcrowded Kiker and Baranoff Elementary Schools. New construction south of SH 45 filled Kiker to 155% capacity and Baranoff to 120%. That's bordering on absurd.

The new school draws inspiration from the Hill Country. By that, I mean it looks like a mansion, shingled roof and all. Frankly, this design makes me want to go back to Elementary School. They have two skybridges connecting the second floor of the main building to the administration wing. They have an observation deck looking over the Hill Country. They have another nature inspired courtyard. Maybe it's a South Austin thing.

Rendering:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/New-SW-1-1140x575.jpg

The real beauty of the bunch, the construction photos:
https://i.imgur.com/j8CXbub.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/z9tfUft.jpg

Norman Elementary School
Budget: $25M
Proposed Capacity: 486

Sims Elementary is closing and moving to a shared campus on Norman's site. For the time being, Norman is sharing a campus with Sims on their property while Norman gets modernized. This would probably be more awkward if these weren't elementary schoolers.

Construction started in April 2019 and is expected to finish in January 2021.

Rendering:
https://i.imgur.com/PmSjt1j.png

Construction progress:
https://i.imgur.com/P24NXjJ.jpg

Sanchez Elementary
Budget: $25M
Proposed Capacity: 580

This is the same situation as Norman/Sims, but a few miles south and much more controversial. Metz Elementary is closing, despite only being built 27 years ago. Sanchez will be fully renovated to support both schools. Sanchez will share Metz's campus for the 2020-2021 school year. Even though these are still elementary age kids, this one might be a little awkward.

Construction on the modernized Sanchez/Metz starts in May 2020 and should be complete by August 2021.

Rendering:
https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Sanchex-Exterior-Wst-Entry--1140x641.jpg

T. A. Brown Elementary School
Budget: $31M
Capacity: 522

T. A. Brown was the second school to open as part of the 2017 Bond Program. The original school was probably what led to the bond in the first place, as the sudden closure of the campus after severe structural damage was discovered in 2016 got loads of publicity.

Construction stretched from November 2018 to January 2020, when the school reopened after its closure in late 2016.

https://austinisd2017bond.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TA-Brown-Exterior-Entrance-2-1140x641.jpg

[lzppjb]

I hate that my old middle school is getting replaced. Porter was a heck of a school, but they replaced it with the girls school.

[lzppjb]

Page Architects gave a Zoom presentation last Friday on Bowie's plans for Athletics and Fine Arts.

Zoom: https://pagethink.zoom.us/rec/share/x8VaBpTs_EVLTZHj6XzYRY0sEY7paaa81SMdrPAPzx6APmm3XfVK2qPdh2iAcdpp

Password: 9i#RC6?&

Some floor plans and renderings:

https://i.ibb.co/r29Gkpc/bowie1.png

https://i.ibb.co/Wz4ZpmC/bowie3.png

https://i.ibb.co/QQRmZGm/bowie12.png

https://i.ibb.co/h9mKf6V/bowie13.png

https://i.ibb.co/8r8SvR9/bowie14.png

[lzppjb]

I have no idea why those are so blown up.

[Echostatic]

If there's one thing I've learned since joining this forum, it's that image resolution is one of the most frustrating things on the internet.

[Echostatic]

These are a bit dated, but photos of the new Eastside Memorial campus from August 14th

https://749064.smushcdn.com/1036452/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Arch-Aerial_Cadence-McShane_Eastside-Memorial_2020_07_28-2-scaled.jpg?lossy=1&strip=1&webp=1

https://749064.smushcdn.com/1036452/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Arch-Aerial_Cadence-McShane_Eastside-Memorial_2020_07_28-1-1140x641.jpg?lossy=1&strip=1&webp=1

[Armybrat]

I hate that my old middle school is getting replaced. Porter was a heck of a school, but they replaced it with the girls school.

I was on the faculty at Porter 1969-70. Milford Davis was the principal at that time.

[lzppjb]

I was on the faculty at Porter 1969-70. Milford Davis was the principal at that time.

Just missed my mom, then. She went to Porter, but was already at Crockett in 69-70 (c/o '71).

[lzppjb]

W8yY4Z2E3J4

[eskimo33]

Any thoughts why they chose to construct the tennis courts on the top level (besides the obvious temp/wind etc comments) on the top level? It seems, that maybe, by having it a level below the roof; the court would have shade from the sun and a high temps. Although, automobile exhaust might be an issue; outside of peak commute times, maybe not?

[KevinFromTexas]

I think it's an impervious coverage issue. I remember them citing that reason. There's a creek that flows behind Bowie (I don't remember which) but the terrain back there is pretty rocky and steep. My brother and I do some mountain bike/trail riding back there. I could see flooding being an issue in some spots.

[lzppjb]

Any thoughts why they chose to construct the tennis courts on the top level (besides the obvious temp/wind etc comments) on the top level? It seems, that maybe, by having it a level below the roof; the court would have shade from the sun and a high temps. Although, automobile exhaust might be an issue; outside of peak commute times, maybe not?

It's entirely an impervious cover issue.

Bowie needed to expand. But the SOS requirements made it impossible. AISD had to buy 2 adjacent tracts of land, and smartly design the expansion just to get in under the limit.

The 8 tennis courts were once on the north side of the school. That area is now going to be a new athletics building (2 gyms, weight room, offices, etc).

The old gym and locker rooms are going to be renovated for fine arts.

There were also parking requirements. So they added parking without increasing impervious cover, and saved some by putting the courts on top of it.