Mountain River Owners Association

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. 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. 

There is a lot of information available about the bond election on the District website. Also here: www.scucbond2013.com.

Yes, the majority of projects are in the Cibolo side of the district, but if you go and look at the last years worth of demographers reports (available on the District website) you will see that the overwhelming majority of growth has occured in this part of the District. The Board of Trustees is trying to fill the needs caused by residential growth and is, IMO, not intentionally ignoring Schertz. Does it make sense to you to build a new elem in the Schertz side of the District and then rezone all elem schools or bus kids across the District to fill the classrooms?

The addition at Steele is also desperately needed, in 2006 we spent 21Million to renovate and add on to Clemens and Steele got nothing, yet Steele has 750+ students in portables. Do you consider this fair?

Yes, the total debt of the District is a big number in this area, but consider this. If we were in Bexar County and compared to school districts there we would be very small in comparason. SCUC ISD is the largest employer in Guadalupe County and has some of the lowest debt per student figures of any of the 100 fastest growing school districts in Texas.

Unfortunately under the current laws cities can charge developers and builders impact fees for water, sewer and streets to offset the impact of new development. Guess what school districts can charge?..... NOTHING, the burden of new development falls squarely on the shoulders of all taxpayers. Is it fair, no, but it is the current law of Texas. So if you don't want to build, where do you propose we put the 500-600 new students a year coming into our schools? We have 9 of 14 schools currently at or over capacity. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to solve the problems of growth.