Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moat Casey analysis to Keller ISD board: east/west split reallocates existing state and local revenue; costs, debt not modeled
Summary
Moat Casey presented a revenue-only model of a proposed east/west split of Keller ISD, concluding the two successor districts’ combined M&O revenue would roughly match current combined revenues but that one portion would receive higher M&O per student because of student demographics.
Moat Casey (Josh Haney) presented a revenue-focused analysis to the board on Jan. 30 that modeled the financial impact of a hypothetical east/west detachment of Keller ISD using 2023–24 student counts and property values.
What the model found - Combined revenue parity: Using 2023–24 data and the proposed boundary, Moat Casey concluded the combined state and local M&O revenues of the two successor districts would roughly equal the district’s current combined M&O revenue — in other words, the firm modeled a reallocation rather than a creation of new revenue. - Per-student differences: The western portion in the consultant’s model retained a higher share of students who generate special allotments (special education, compensatory education, bilingual), producing a higher M&O-per-ADA figure in the western model compared with the eastern portion. The firm noted that these differences reflect student demographics and program participation, not new state funding.
What the analysis did not include Haney explicitly said Moat Casey’s assignment did not model: - Federal revenues (Title I, IDEA) or other grant flows; - Expenditures and efficiencies or diseconomies of scale from running two districts (duplicate administrations, IT, HR, etc.); - Allocation of capital assets, bond debt, or how shared facilities (KCA, natatorium) would be assigned and funded. Debt service impacts are less equalized under state law and were not modeled.
Assumptions cited - The model used 2023–24 student ADA and property values; the proposed boundary in Moat Casey’s slides placed about 70.5% of ADA in the western portion and roughly 55% of property value in the western portion under the scenario presented.
Board and public response Trustees asked how asset division, debt allocation and program access would be decided; Haney said those topics were outside his assignment and require further legal and financial work. Many public speakers pressed the board to publish a full expenditure and debt model and to commit to a public vote if detachment moves forward.
Ending Moat Casey’s presentation provided a revenue baseline for trustees but left unanswered the district-level questions — asset and debt allocation, administrative duplication and program access — that residents and trustees said are essential before any final decision.
