What is the Roosevelt ISD 2025 bond? What you need to know about the $58.5 million ask
Residents in the Roosevelt Independent School District are set to vote on a $58.5 million bond package aimed largely at improving campus facilities.
RISD Superintendent Dallas Grimes said that the bond package comes as the district is facing aging and inadequate facilities that need some upgrades or that need to be completely rebuilt.
"In the last 65 years, this community has not passed a bond for a brand new academic campus," Grimes said. "Now is the time, in our opinion, to maximize the growth that has moved into the district."
With early voting set to begin April 22 and Election Day on May 3, here is what you need to know about the RISD 2025 bond request.
For some, yes.
Schools have two means of support funded through taxes. A school's maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rate is set by the state and can only be used to help the district to pay salaries and daily operational expenses.
The interest and sinking (I&S) tax rate is what the Texas school district can leverage for bonds to help pay for capital projects and improvements.
Grimes said the proposal is asking residents to consider a 21-cent increase to the district's current I&S rate, which is set at 19 cents, according to the Texas Education Agency.
For context, according to the TEA, RISD I&S tax rate has been dropping since the Fiscal Year 2020-21 rate, which was at 28.16 cents per $100 home value evaluations that fell to 21 cents in FY 21-22.
However, this tax increase will not affect homeowners over the age of 65 who have filed for an "Over 65 Exemption," according to RISD. If the tax rate is approved, RISD stated that it would cost homeowners with a $150,000 home valuation approximately $8.34 per month.
"If we're successful, we would build a brand new elementary campus," Grime said.
With the growing size of the district, Grimes said the new facility would be able to house 600 students. He also said the need for the build stems from the average age of the district facilities being around 65 years old, with parts of the elementary being 90 years old.
"It was built in 1935," Grimes said. "There's a (Works Projects Administration) plaque on there."
For context, WPA was a New Deal initiative from the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidential administration.
Grimes said that the new elementary school would be located directly behind the existing one, and once completed, the district will demolish the existing structure.
Other projects would include upgrades to the secondary campus for the district, including interior renovations and expanding the dining hall.
"We're out of space in our dining hall - our freshman class eats in the practice gym on the bleachers," Grimes said.
The district would also fund upgrades to its septic systems, leach fields, and sewer lines, and expand the existing awning for buses to accommodate more buses, to better protect them, ensuring the district's investment in the fleet lasts longer.
Grimes said the district has to wait 90 days after the Election day, given that it's approved, before it could start issuing bonds, but it would take about three years to complete every project on the district's to-do list.
"The sewer septic systems, probably what we would turn loose first on just trying to get all that stuff out of the way so that we can tie into the new buildings," Grimes said.
Grimes said it's because of the Leprino Foods factory that was recently built in the district's area just east of Lubbock.
"That factory is valued so highly that they would basically pick up at least 50% of all these improvements - that's just how much valuation there is in that factory," Grimes said.
However, Grimes said now is the time to do so because the factory will depreciate over the years, meaning their contributions will also shrink.
"To get the max contribution from these recent industrial improvements, we really need to pass this now; otherwise, by delaying it, construction costs will go up and their contribution will go down," Grimes said.
One unique aspect of the RISD bond election is that district residents can only vote for the bond at RISD's Gymnasium, located at 1301 CR 3300, on Election Day and early voting, and at the Lubbock County Elections Office, 1308 Crickets Ave., during early voting.
Grimes said he requested this change because the district viewed the prescribed voting hours during the May elections as restrictive and not accessible to parents. For context, early voting occurs from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays with no weekend times to vote.
"If you think about, our young families and just working folks, especially who live out here and work in town, you drop the kids off before 8, you've got to be at work at 8, and then you come back to pick up," Grimes said. "I mean - 8 to 6? That's just tough."
Grimes said that in order to expand voting hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during early voting and offer weekend times, he had to obtain a consensus from other voting sites in Lubbock to approve the change, so the ballot could be voted on at any of the polling locations.
However, no consensus was able to be reached, so Grimes and RISD's school board concluded that requesting an exemption to at least open its polling site for a longer duration during early election was needed, which was OK'd by the Texas Secretary of State and the Lubbock County Commissioners.
"Whether it goes thumbs up or thumbs down, the needs of the district will be here," Grimes said.
With the district's aging facilities, the growth of Lubbock is impacting the district and capitalizing on Leprino to foot some of the bill, Grimes said, now is the time to make the necessary changes to facilities to ensure they last for the next 50 to 60 years.
To learn more about the RISD 2025 Bond, visit roosevelt.k12.tx.us.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: RISD 2025 school bond set to fund new elementary, facilities upgrades
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
3 Reasons FSLY is Risky and 1 Stock to Buy Instead
Fastly has gotten torched over the last six months - since December 2024, its stock price has dropped 22.7% to $7.68 per share. This may have investors wondering how to approach the situation. Is there a buying opportunity in Fastly, or does it present a risk to your portfolio? Check out our in-depth research report to see what our analysts have to say, it's free. Even with the cheaper entry price, we're sitting this one out for now. Here are three reasons why FSLY doesn't excite us and a stock we'd rather own. Reviewing a company's long-term sales performance reveals insights into its quality. Any business can put up a good quarter or two, but the best consistently grow over the long haul. Over the last three years, Fastly grew its sales at a 14.3% annual rate. Although this growth is acceptable on an absolute basis, it fell short of our standards for the software sector, which enjoys a number of secular tailwinds. For software companies like Fastly, gross profit tells us how much money remains after paying for the base cost of products and services (typically servers, licenses, and certain personnel). These costs are usually low as a percentage of revenue, explaining why software is more lucrative than other sectors. Fastly's gross margin is substantially worse than most software businesses, signaling it has relatively high infrastructure costs compared to asset-lite businesses like ServiceNow. As you can see below, it averaged a 54% gross margin over the last year. That means Fastly paid its providers a lot of money ($46.00 for every $100 in revenue) to run its business. As long-term investors, the risk we care about most is the permanent loss of capital, which can happen when a company goes bankrupt or raises money from a disadvantaged position. This is separate from short-term stock price volatility, something we are much less bothered by. Fastly burned through $25.35 million of cash over the last year, and its $402 million of debt exceeds the $307.3 million of cash on its balance sheet. This is a deal breaker for us because indebted loss-making companies spell trouble. Unless the Fastly's fundamentals change quickly, it might find itself in a position where it must raise capital from investors to continue operating. Whether that would be favorable is unclear because dilution is a headwind for shareholder returns. We remain cautious of Fastly until it generates consistent free cash flow or any of its announced financing plans materialize on its balance sheet. We cheer for all companies solving complex business issues, but in the case of Fastly, we'll be cheering from the sidelines. After the recent drawdown, the stock trades at 1.8× forward price-to-sales (or $7.68 per share). While this valuation is fair, the upside isn't great compared to the potential downside. There are better stocks to buy right now. We'd suggest looking at the most dominant software business in the world. Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sent major indices to all-time highs, but stocks have retraced as investors debate the health of the economy and the potential impact of tariffs. While this leaves much uncertainty around 2025, a few companies are poised for long-term gains regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate, like our Top 5 Growth Stocks for this month. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Tecnoglass (+1,754% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today. Sign in to access your portfolio
