City of Paradise timeline, PISD responses

At the City of Paradise’s council meeting Monday, Mayor Amanda Black gave a timeline of events regarding Paradise ISD’s bond projects dating from April to present-day. Black’s recollection of events are denoted in bold, with official responses from PISD unbolded below each corresponding entry.

• April 30, 2022 Black invites PISD and then-superintendent Paul Uttley to a May 4 meeting with city engineers, building inspectors and contractors. Uttley did not attend, but PISD Board President Homer Mundy was present.
• The district had not started the planning process as the committee development was in early stages. Nothing was mentioned about city infrastructure or city water issues at this meeting.
• During the summer of 2022, Black was present for bond committee meetings made up of community members, and mentioned to PISD board members that the district would need to be prepared to handle city infrastructure improvements for the bond projects, specifically citing water issues.
• The district disputes Mayor Black’s accounts of the information she provided during bond committee meetings regarding city infrastructure improvements. The “water issues” presented by the Mayor were the water line in front of the high school along stadium drive and the number of meters in the district. The belief from the district’s architect was that the budget in the bond accounted for the water lines and the issue of city water meters were not within the scope of the bond project.
• Aug. 11, 2022 Black sent an email to interim superintendent Rod Townsend reminding him that the district needs to plan for off-site system improvements to support the district’s projects. 
• Aug. 12, 2022 Black clarified that without detailed project plans from the district, the city would be guessing as to what system improvements would need to be made. City engineers cited past similar projects in Ponder ISD and Northwest ISD (Haslet), where the respective ISDs fully funded the installation of new sections of water mains and “participated proportionately in the construction of new elevated water storage tanks.”
• The district is very aware of area schools that have also been required to fund city infrastructure beyond what is to be expected in typical bond projects. The community is encouraged to question if there is a common thread among districts in the area that are being asked to do so.
• Early February 2023 Black met with Mundy and Brewer and informed them that the city’s water system can not support the bond projects. She also encouraged them to meet “early and often” with city officials to begin troubleshooting. 
• The superintendent, PISD maintenance and operations director and the Mayor met on Tuesday, January 24th. The superintendent was new to the district and asked to meet the Mayor. During this meeting, the Mayor explained that the city was in the process of adopting commercial building codes and that there would be fees associated with the district’s bond projects.
• At the February meeting, the Mayor did share the city’s “Master Water Plan,” but it was received as long term goals of the city and not a plan for the district’s responsibility to fund the city’s “Master Water Plan.”
• The architectural team had difficulty in getting information from the city regarding city requirements. On February 16th, in an email from the Mayor, the architectural team was told by the Mayor that she had “reached out to the company finalizing the codification of our ordinances and there are a few references and typos that are being corrected during their legal review.” The Mayor went on to state “I haven’t forgotten: Just still getting things together. Thank you for your patience!” The city was unable to provide the architectural team the information that was needed to review the district’s designs in order to set a meeting for the first time. The architectural team asked again on February 27th and were told in a response from the Mayor that the “council just last night adopted getting pdfs of the maps and drainage plans to you from the city engineer’s office as well. I am going out of town for a conference this week, so please be patient if you don’t see anything until next week!” The architectural team received the requested information from the city on March 9th, but they lacked the zoning map.
• In March 2023 the city met with PISD administration and bond project professionals for the first time, with the topic of discussion being turf installation, tennis court improvements and fire protection. PISD also asked the city about building codes at this meeting, and they were given them along with city ordinances.
• From March to May, the district’s architect and engineering team were obtaining a survey of district property, and compiling existing utility data that was necessary for the site design for the project.
• Additionally during this time, multiple meetings were held at the district to further develop plans to present to the city. In order to submit plans to the city, the district had to get a significant amount of feedback from teachers, coaches, food service staff, technology staff, administration and school board members.
• In May 2023 the city engineers received building plans for the new junior high for the first time. They are marked as 75 percent complete. According to Black, the city and its engineers were not contacted by the district between March and the May submittal of these plans.
• Plans were submitted by the district on May 22nd. On June 16th, the city engineer responded with “I have attached a markup of your site plan. I apologize for taking a little longer than we had intended but we need additional time for research and for additional/further discussions with the City. Our next working/review meeting in Paradise we be Wednesday 06/21 for other matters but would be happy to sit down with you and/or your team at 2:30pm to further discuss the planning process and our limited review of this project so far.”
• In a May 26th email, the city raised an issue regarding drainage at a residential development. After further investigation by the district, the drainage had not changed since the district acquired the property and should have been addressed in plans approved by the city. At a later meeting, the city agreed that it should have been in the plans approved by the city, but asked the district to help assist in fixing the issue even though the district did not have any responsibility with the issue.
• May 30, 2023 Brewer requested a joint meeting between city council and school board and Black said that she didn’t think the city would be able to make that happen. She shared initial markups from the city engineers regarding the bond projects. Black invited Brewer and the school board to council meetings, and said she would be willing to go to a school board meeting to speak, but Brewer declined. (Note: In emails between Black and Brewer acquired by the Messenger through the public information act, Brewer requested joint meetings on May 3, May 30, two times on May 31 and Aug. 2.)
• The school board would not be allowed to attend and participate in a city council meeting. It would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act with a quorum of board members present at a city council meeting. This is the reasoning behind the district’s multiple requests for a properly posted, joint meeting between the city council and the school board.
• The Mayor did state that she did not think the city would be able to make the joint meeting happen, but she also stated that she “will ask for their availability for a joint meeting at our next regular meeting.” (This discussion does not appear in the city council minutes of the June 26, 2023 meeting.)
• June 21, 2023 Black and the city engineers meet to discuss the recently proposed plans with the district’s engineers and architects. The district explains that they plan to stack vehicles during pick up/drop off hours, the need for PISD to conduct a traffic impact analysis (TIA), need for the district’s master plan for the junior high’s ongoing development and to determine what projects will be deferred to coincide with future bond projects.
• The district’s sewer plant, solutions to drainage issues, impact to traffic on Schoolhouse Road, water supply shortage and the discussion of a joint venture between the city and district for off-site water storage facilities, water meter replacements and consolidations and changing zoning from R-1 (residential) to B-1 (neighborhood business) were also discussed at the above meeting.
• From summer 2023 to present-day, Black said that the district failed to make any arrangements to discuss the bond project delays, provide any solutions or give updates on engineering and architectural plans.
• The district strongly objects to the Mayor’s statement. Below are conversations between the district and the city.
• June 27, 28, 29 – In an email exchange between the superintendent and Mayor Black, the superintendent shared a link with the mayor regarding potential grants for the city. The mayor responded, again, that she could not make the joint meeting happen. She offered to attend a PISD board meeting. The superintendent responded that he felt a joint meeting is important with this issue due to the district being asked to improve the city infrastructure significantly. The superintendent informed the Mayor that the next regular board meeting was on July 17th and that she was more than welcome to attend. The mayor did not respond back.
• July 6 – Scott Gibson, engineer working on behalf of the district’s architect firm, emailed the Mayor and city engineer the overall campus exhibit with the parent drives for the new junior high. He informed the city that the district was wrapping up the queuing study. Mr. Gibson submitted the proposed traffic study (TIA) plan focusing on 7 intersection evaluations along public streets near the proposed bond project sites.
• July 8 – The Final Queing Study was submitted to the city identifying the projected vehicle stacking limits during peak hour for the New Junior High and the Intermediate School. The Queing studies addressed and resolved the current stacking issues along School House Road, and in front of the exiting Junior High School. No formal response to the submitted Final Queing Studies have been received to date from the city.
• July 12 – The city engineer returned the traffic study with additional comments and requirements. In those comments, the city engineer added 13 additional intersection evaluations and the need to include “full development of all approved subdivisions (City and County).”
• July 19 – The city engineer sent an email to the district architect team and the mayor regarding their internal discussions on emergency/fire access. The engineer working on behalf of the district’s architect sent information to rebut the city engineer’s comments along with an explanation of the rebuttal.
• July 20 – Continued email communication with the engineer working on behalf of the district’s architect and the city engineer.
• July 26 – The Mayor sent an email to the district’s architect questioning the district moving forward with the bidding process without the city reviewing the plans. The mayor continued, “and to reiterate the city’s position, there will be no construction until the public improvements have been completed and accepted by the city. Not one shovel of ground to be broken.” With the line of questioning by the mayor regarding bidding and the statement of “public improvement have been completed and accepted by the city,” the district was now in a position of potentially not being able to move forward until the “public improvements have been completed.”
• July 28 – An email was sent to the Paradise ISD superintendent and school board president along with all members of the city council as well as members of other city committees. In the email, the Mayor discusses the city improvements that she believes the district should include in the bond project. The Mayor continues with a characterization of the school by stating that the district is “the largest drain on its (city’s) resources.” The district strongly disagrees with the view by the Mayor that our children are a drain on the city, but rather they are the future of the city. The Mayor stated that “continued push-back will not solve either entity’s problems – and your current building program only exacerbates those problems that should have been solved with more forethought and planning of past projects, both from the District’s and City’s sides.” The district believes that it has a responsibility to get clarification when an entity is requiring a commitment of potentially millions of dollars. At this point, the district viewed the city’s requirements on the current bond project as a means for the Mayor to address issues she felt should have been previously addressed by the city.
• July 28 – The superintendent repeated his request for a joint meeting with the city to find solutions for the city and the district. The Mayor did not respond.
• August 2 – With hesitancy, the district released the letter to the community to inform the community of the city infrastructure requirements due to the recent communications from the Mayor clarifying the city’s intentions and the refusal to agree to a joint meeting.
• August 8 – The Mayor emailed the superintendent to inform the district that city hall will be closed on Fridays. She also explained that she had polled the city council members and they would be available to meet on August 21st at 6:00 p.m. at the Boyd Community Center in Boyd for a “neutral meeting site.” The superintendent informed the Mayor that August 21st was the date of the district’s regularly scheduled meeting and that it is not legally permissible to have a joint meeting in Boyd due to Open Meeting requirements. The superintendent offered several other dates and suggested the possibility of meeting at a church in Paradise.
• August 9 – The Mayor responded that she would put scheduling a meeting on the agenda for the August 28th city council meeting.

The district also provided a “general time frame of project” to the Messenger.