by Michael Robinson: The Uvalde Hesperian

 Top Picture credit: https://www.utopiaisdbond.com/

  Uvalde Hesperian: How would a new school building enhance the District’s ability to serve and educate the students?

  Superintendent Derry: The bond proposal’s first priority is construction of a new “Main Building” at an approximate cost of $30 million.  This building would replace the current “Main Building” which was originally constructed in 1927.  It would also replace the current cafetorium and kitchen facilities and increase the seating capacity of the current cafetorium from approximately 150 to approximately 300 .  It would also include a full size stage.  This would better accommodate school banquets, awards presentations, plays, etc.  (For more information on additional services provided by a new “Main Building” please see the answer to “Why double the size of the school when the number of students remains basically the same. Is the district expecting a sizable enrollment increase in the near future?”)

   The additional $28 million is to be used for future projects within the next 10 years.  The two primary areas of focus would be construction of a Career and Technical Education facility to house a classroom, the agricultural engineering program shop facilities and remodeling of the original gymnasium.

   Utopia ISD received a grant from the Texas Workforce commission to purchase several large pieces of equipment, but the current facility has proved to be too small to accommodate effective use of all of the equipment.  The electrical capacity of the current facilities is also inadequate for all of the equipment.  Finally the current facility does not have enough room to allow for construction of more than one or two small projects.

   The original gymnasium was constructed in 1954.  Funds might be utilized to remodel and upgrade the gym so it can be utilized for physical education classes, tournaments, pep rallies, and other activities so as to preserve the competition gym flooring and facilities.  Remodeling and upgrades might include central air and heat, remodeling the dressing rooms so they can be used for PE and guest dressing rooms, reinstallation of a hot water system, and possible installation of goals that will accommodate being raised and lowered for pre kindergarten to high school students.

  Other district-wide projects have been discussed.  However, none of the projects are finalized and will require input from the community, parents, teachers, business owners, and students and finally careful consideration by the Board of Trustees.

  Uvalde Hesperian: Can you explain how the $58 million dollar amount was reached?

  Superintendent Derry: The process began about 2 years ago when approximately 50 community members, parents, teachers, business owners, and students met during a strategic planning process to set goals for Utopia ISD.  One of the topics brought to light was facilities.  A subcommittee was formed and they met about once a month to discuss what facilities the district currently had and what facilities might be needed in the future, as well as what facilities might need to be remodeled.  The committee conducted tours of the current facilities and sought feedback from the community. 

  The committee requested that the Board of Trustees authorize an independent consultant to perform a facilities study.  After reviewing the study, evaluating feedback, and much time in discussion the committee proposed a bond to the Board of Trustees.  On August 14, 2023 the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to call for a $58 million dollar bond election on November 7th, 2023.

  Uvalde Hesperian: When will the election be held?

  Superintendent Derry: Early Voting is from October 23, 2023 to November 3, 2023. Election Day is November 7, 2023.

  Uvalde Hesperian: In the Uvalde Hesperian’s coverage of the 2022 Sabinal ISD Bond election, I was informed by Sabinal ISD Superintendent Richard Grill that bond money had to be used right away and could not be held for future projects.

   Superintendent Derry: There are several parts to the bond process.  The first is calling for the bond by the Board of Trustees.  Second is voting by the public.  If the bond amount is approved by the public then the bonds are “issued” in amounts as needed up to the maximum amount of approval. 

  Although there is not a statute or law providing a firm 10 year rule; however, there is a presumption of staleness.  Set forth below is a general summary of the doctrine of staleness relating to voted authorization to issue bonds:  As a threshold matter, the governing body of an issuer is authorized to determine the date of issuance for bonds, following approval by voters, and the governing body’s determination is final and conclusive in the absence of arbitrary action or fraud.  See, e.g., City of Houston v. McCraw, 113 S.W.2d 1215 (Tex. 1938), and Texas Attorney General Letter Opinion No. 89-094.  

  The Texas Attorney General’s public finance division has generally taken the view that voted authorization will not be presumed to be stale until 10 years after the election at which bonds were approved.  After 10 years, a presumption may arise that the voted authorization is stale and has been abandoned.  However, the determination whether voted authorization is stale and has been abandoned is very fact specific.  The AG’s presumption of staleness can be rebutted and the 10-year period extended by a variety of factors, including an issuer’s historical record of issuing bonds in increments pursuant to the voted authority.

 Here are two questions that were submitted to the Uvalde Hesperian:

 “Why double the size of the school when the number of students remains basically the same. Is the district expecting a sizable enrollment increase in the near future?”

  Superintendent Derry:  There were multiple items taken into consideration when planning the new building:

    1) The main building has been added onto five times because of growth and each time it was done as an add on with new sewage, water, and electrical that were not tied into the previous infrastructure.  The discussion was that it would be better both economically and infrastructure wise in the long term to build a new building large enough for some growth rather than coming back in future years and needing an addition or another building.

   2) Even though the student population has not grown at a rapid rate, a resource building was built in 1996 to move central office, the library, the science lab, and two classrooms to make room in the main building and in 2010 an elementary building was built to house PK – 4th grade to make room in the main building. So historically, there has been some need for growth.

   3) The kitchen is larger to allow all of the equipment to be inside as well as allowing adequate storage space. Currently the walk-in freezer is outside and there is not enough storage space for all of the food needed to order each week and still keep a large supply of items that are used on a weekly basis – serving trays, condiments, flower, sugar, etc.  The kitchen size was also increased because the facilities report noted the current kitchen area is undersized.

   4) The new cafetorium was sized to hold 300 people for awards presentations, plays, banquets, etc, whereas the current cafetorium will hold about 150 people.

   5) The new stage is planned to be a full size stage whereas the current stage is much smaller. 6)  The classrooms are sized according to TEA standards to hold a full size class, whereas the current classrooms are smaller.

   6) Each one of the new classrooms is designed like the current elementary classrooms with storage closets and counters with storage underneath whereas the current classrooms do not have any storage.

   7) A room was added to accommodate functional living instruction whereas currently there is no functional living classroom currently.

   8) A room was added for performing arts. The room would be larger than a standard classroom, but not a full size band hall.  It would be large enough to teach music, theater, or other performing arts.

   9) A room was included for Art.  Currently Art is taught in a portable building.  So, the space for art is not currently part of the square footage of the main building.

   10) Currently the fifth and sixth grade classrooms are in the Resource Building.  Those classroom measurements are not part of the main building square footage.  Both of those classes would move to the new building and technology, currently housed in a portable, would be moved to the Resource building. 

   11) Two science labs are included in the square footage of the new building.  The current science lab is in the Resource building and that area is not part of the main building square footage.  At the time the Resource building was constructed there was one science teacher for all grade levels.  Currently there is a science teacher for high school, one for junior high, and the ag teacher that teaches vet med, advanced animals science, equine science, and small animal science which all require the use of a science lab.   The idea was to move the ag science teacher that is teaching those courses to the Resource Building and use the lab that is currently in that building for those courses and then put the high school science teacher in one science lab in the new building and the junior high science teacher in the other science lab.  They would teach full time in the lab so that the science lab serves as both the classroom and the lab, thus eliminating the need for two rooms for one teacher.  The Ag teacher would share the Resource Building science lab with the elementary, allowing the elementary to conduct experiments, as the elementary currently does not have a science lab to use.

   12) The committee felt it best to plan for the maximum square footage that might be needed and then if the Bond was approved to go back to the table for more discussion and additional input from teachers, community members, business owners, parents, kitchen staff, and students for finalization of the plan.

   Submitted Question: “Why not reduce the bond amount requested and pass another bond closer to when the future projects will be acted upon?”

   Superintendent Derry:  This topic was discussed at length by both the committee and the Board of Trustees.  Several factors were taken into consideration.  The first and primary discussion topic was whether voters would get tired of being asked for additional funds every three to five years for projects that could have been planned comprehensively and voted on at one time.  The second consideration was inflation.  With construction costs rising each month it was a concern that the more time it took to get bonding approval for future projects the cost would continue to rise thus expending more taxpayer dollars.  Another consideration was that every time an election is held it cost the district approximately $10,000.  Three or four more bond elections could potentially cost upwards of $40,000.  In the end both the committee and the Board of Trustees felt that asking for the maximum amount that may be needed to complete all of the projects would be the most economical and save the taxpayers the most money.  However, it was very clear to both the Board of Trustees and the committee that if the bond were to be approved all current and future projects would require additional input from community members, parents, business owners, teachers, and students.