COMPILED FROM NEWS REPORTS · APRIL 28, 2011 · 25 COMMENTS

LOCAL NEWS ·

Even as Katy ISD was publicly opposing the rezoning of property owned by the Powerhouse Christian Academy last December, documents show the district was quietly negotiating with the prominent eastside church to purchase the very same property.

InstantNewsKaty has confirmed Katy ISD finalized the purchase of the 16-acre tract in March; however, school officials say the district has no specific plans to use or develop the land.

According to county records, the school district paid the church roughly $3.9 million for the property. The documents were dated March 10, 2011.

Less than three months earlier, Katy ISD Architect and Planner Peter McElwain appeared before the Dec. 16 meeting of the Katy City Council to tell council members the district has “concerns” about a proposal to rezone the property from R-1 residential to C-1 commercial.

Powerhouse Senior Pastor G.F. Watkins had requested the rezoning on behalf of the church, saying most of the adjacent property had already been developed into commercial use and there was “no interest” in the land for residential development.

“It is currently listed as residential, R-1, and a review of this and the surrounding property would conclude that its highest and best use would be anything other than residential. An independent appraisal company, Rhode, Havel and Company, has verified this conclusion in a review dated Sept. 27, 2010,” Watkins wrote in his request to the city.

The property is bordered on the north by a 40-acre plus parcel that currently includes a Walgreen’s and is zoned C-1, Watkins noted.

“To the northwest, there is a major grocery store and a car wash also zoned C-1. On its southern border is a Katy ISD high school and stadium,” Watkins wrote. “Its east boundary is an area of undeveloped commercial acreage separated by the four-lane Katy-Fort Bend County Road that is outside of the Katy city limits.”

Given the adjacent land uses, Watkins explained, the church wanted to rezone the property as commercial to make it more marketable.

McElwain told the council the school district was concerned commercial zoning would negatively impact the adjacent school property.

“We are concerned the commercial zoning will introduce some variables to the area that may have a negative impact on future school use,” McElwain told the council.

Records obtained by InstantNewsKaty revealed the district had been negotiating to buy the property from Powerhouse well before the rezoning issue ever came to the city council table.

Even when asked by Council Member Carol Adams what plans the district had for the area, at no time did McElwain disclose the district’s negotiations to purchase the property.

“We’re still in the planning phase,” McElwain said in response to Adams’ question.

After hearing the school district’s objection, city council decided to table the request until Jan. 11 meeting. A month later when the item came back to the council for reconsideration, neither Powerhouse nor the school district spoke up. Council members then approved the rezoning on a unanimous vote.

After InstantNewsKaty obtained the property purchase records, it contacted Katy ISD Director of Communications Steve Stanford to ask what plans the district had for the land. Stanford was also asked when the board approved the purchase.

“Right now the land is for future district use; no specific project has been identified,” Stanford replied. “I believe the board approved the purchase in January.”

A check of school board agenda items for it January 24 meeting revealed no specific mention of the Powerhouse property. The agenda did, however, reflect a closed-door executive session item entitled “Consider board approval for the purchase of property.” No further details were listed.

An InstantNewsKaty reporter covering the January school board meeting noted at the time that trustees approved the purchase after coming out of executive session, but did not publicly describe the property being purchased, the location, the price being paid or the party from whom the property was being purchased.

The “Board Notes” – a summary of board meetings published by the school district following each regular meeting – for the meeting had no mention of the property purchase.

InstantNewsKaty has filed an open records request with the school district for additional documents related to the property purchase.

25 Comments

westsidebillAPRIL 28, 2011 AT 9:58 AM

“Do as I say, not as I do….”

So that $3.9M couldn’t have been used elsewhere? What’s the purpose of this other than to block Powerhouse from selling? I know that sometimes in the BUSINESS world competitors buy properties to prevent competitors from obtaining/using them. However, I didn’t realize we were in competition with anyone over this property. Are there plans to sell it at a profit? Is there an Administrative Annex being planned there? Why has there been no public ANYTHING said by the BOT or KISD?

Oh wait, I already know. We taxpayers are on a “need to know” basis with Big Al and the gang, and in their eyes we need to know only the morsels of excrement they bother to throw our way once in awhile.

Just Wondering2APRIL 28, 2011 AT 11:26 AM

What is the source of funding for this purchase? Old bond and this was “savings?” New bonds and something NOT designated in the bond request? Or was this from the as yet unaccounted stimulus money the district got this school year? Was that about $42 million?

Please someone give me the amount of the stimulus money we ALREADY got? Maybe I missed a decibel point because surely they didn’t get that kind of money and then lay off teachers.

Just Wondering2APRIL 28, 2011 AT 11:38 AM

I guess with the ringing in my ears caused by the high blood pressure brought on by this article, I put in the wrong word.

It should read.

“Maybe I missed a DECIMAL point…..”

AstrosFanAPRIL 28, 2011 AT 12:33 PM

When you can’t trust governmental entities, higher-up entities need to pass laws to prevent certain behaviors.

I think it’s time for a state law preventing ISDs from using bond money for any purpose not listed in the bond (this is assuming this money came from bond savings, I really, really hope they did not use operating money for this). To be clear: if the ISD wants to pass a bond, the bond authorization should list every specific project that the bond will finance. Bonds should only be issued for the amounts needed. Any authorized bond funds that are not used for a listed project should expire, or, if the bond money was sold, it should be used to pay down debt. That’s it.

This whole idea of bond savings being used for other purposes, subject only to the vote of the board, needs to be outlawed. This is getting out of hand.

At the same time, any contract over a certain amount, and any contract for real property, should have to be publically disclosed. Consent agendas should be used for things of a routine and non-controversial nature. In what universe, exactly, is government purchase of real property to be considered a routine and non-controversial nature?

Truth B ToldAPRIL 28, 2011 AT 3:34 PM

The Powerhouse property was NOT on the 2010 Bond Call list, and has not had ANY public discussions or debate! No wonder the public is upset with this school board. They take liberties that the voters have not discussed publicly.

Last fall, at Katy Economic Council breakfast, where Frailey gave his ‘state of the district’ speech, he was pressed for specifics to what he meant with his multilevel planning.

Frailey wants to stack one bond on top of another. He thought one billion dollars of debt was a good base line. Now we have $1.5 BILLION in debt for 60,000 students and SAT scores are going down.

Snyder talks about going ‘on the right track’ and “going to the next level.” When pressed for specifics, she rolls her eyes. Thought she was the board’s president, and guess they have derailed Katy ISD. Conductor? Star treckie? Electrons? Not sure where she wants to go yet. Don’t think they want to tell us either. Anything to avoid follow the open meetings law intent.

Frailey slipped and let us know he wants to build a new football stadium, bigger than Rhoades with box seats. A mini Kyle Field. The business & community leaders went into questioning mode for more information.

Why not plan a large project like this over many years and let the booster groups fundraise for private funds, not state funds? Keep education funds for the classroom & teachers; and sports money for extra curricular activities? The new stadium was dropped very quickly, the new astroturf & score board were all educational expenses, that no one believed the trustees leadership or management style.

The PLEDGE that was requested during the last bond election was to only do projects on the bond call as AG’s office says is the intent of the laws. But the district’s attorneys keep avoiding following the TEA’s request for the specifics on the construction projects paperwork. Katy has repeatedly not followed the TEA guidelines for the specificity on the bond call list of projects. If Crocket wants to sign the bond call pledge now, that would be a step in the right direction. The ethics pledge and the bond call pledge is two different items for her to consider.

katy75APRIL 28, 2011 AT 4:58 PM

This article is unbelieveable! I don’t really care if the funding was bond, stimulus, or general operating funds, why on earth do we need more property with the current budget crisis at full throttle? More property for more buildings that we can’t adequately staff? I predict SAT scores are not the only scores going down soon in KISD. New state exams are on the way to a classroom near you and that classroom will be filled with too many students, out of date textbooks, and an exhausted teacher! The careless and cruel treatment of KISD staff is difficult to comprehend…..however, this property purchase smells fishy to me! Where do these top tier administrators and board members get the nerve to continue their arrogant ways? Please get out and vote!

Bill ProctorAPRIL 29, 2011 AT 3:04 AM

If there is a bond call in the future, the Board should formulate the projects in a project priority list. The board should keep this commitment with the taxpayers. If there is a reason to deviate from this list then a public hearing, with plenty of advanced notice, should be held to inform the public of the proposed change and take input from the public.

Somehow the statement that “this land will be used for an educational purpose in the future” appears to me to be telling the taxpayers there is no plan for this expenditure. It is like the board is saying “we are the dog that caught the car and we will figure out something now that we caught the car.”

cm23007APRIL 30, 2011 AT 4:38 PM

I think the dirt out on the prairie west of Katy, sold by developers, was much more than that.

Developers keep their hands in the Katy ISD pocketbooks.

We taxpayers are paying to be mistreated by Katy ISD school board members. They do not want to know what voters think about their mismanagement styles.

TRAUMA DRAMA is what we know KISD to be good at performing daily.

Had enough of it yet? Yep,I have and I intend to vote them OFF!

propswifeMAY 2, 2011 AT 10:50 AM

Wow, 3.9 million is a steal? For unimproved land it sounds more like highway robbery. Not being familiar with commercial property prices in these parts, it seems like an awful lot.

What does the school district need with that land? The article mentioned keeping things that would infringe upon the academic atmosphere from being built. I get that, perhaps some of you don’t. An example, how about a tattoo parlor, a sports bar and a liquor store

being built right on the edge of school property? Maybe even a convenience store to make cigarettes and beer easier for high school kids to get (or at least get distracted by trying to get)? Pretty much anything goes with commercial property. Wouldn’t it be lovely if KISD had to lay off more teachers in order to hire security guards to keep the people walking to the bar and store from short cutting across school grounds, taking a leak on the fence, and just hanging out? I would prefer my child NOT go to a school with this kind of commercial presence next door.

Just Wondering2MAY 2, 2011 AT 12:26 PM

Are you for real? There are laws on the books about what can be built near a church or near a school. However if this was the ISD’s concern, don’t you think they would make it easy on themselves and just say this was the case. Someone was going to put in a strip joint next to one of our schools and Power House Church was going to allow this next to their property as well.

Why we bought the land is a mystery, but in any case don’t you think the district should be able to tell us what the plan is and why is was needed? Consider this is being done as we are laying off teachers, cutting programs, and facing paying higher property taxes due to the November bond issue. Come on people!!

katymom43MAY 5, 2011 AT 12:55 PM

I think this is really sad. Great teachers have lost their jobs because KISD “couldn’t” keep them and then they go and spend 3.9M to purchase a piece of property and they don’t even know what they are going to do with it! How does this help children’s education? What a crock!

KISD and powerhouse have always been buds right along with the Katy Mayor. That’s why it was done quietly! That sign on Katy-Fort Bend Rd has been there for years showing that Powerhouse property for sale.If KISD was so interested why didn’t they buy it 2 years ago? First they have a problem with the re-zoning and then they secretly buy the property? OOKKKK.. I bet Powerhouse had just as much to do with this “quiet” deal as KISD did. I don’t believe for an instant that KISD is the only secret keeper in this deal.

Luke 8:17 ESV

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light