The First Expense Estimate of Splitting Keller ISD—And It’s Not Cheap

Splitting Keller Independent School District (KISD) into two separate districts, with approximately 70% of students on the west side of Hwy 377 and 30% on the east, would require substantial one time transition costs. Below is a detailed breakdown of projected expenses across key categories, based on real world examples and comparable district splits. This analysis focuses solely on transactional costs and does not account for ongoing revenue or expenses after the transition.

Total Estimated Cost of KISD Split: $25,000,000

1. Administrative Restructuring - ($8-$12M)

Creating two separate school districts means duplicating central administration. This includes establishing a second district headquarters, leadership team, and support infrastructure. Key cost components are:

Central Office Facilities: One side of the split would need a new central administrative office (if the existing KISD administration building serves only the West district). This could involve constructing or purchasing an office facility or repurposing an existing building. Such a project can run in the millions; even a modest administrative building with board rooms and offices might cost on the order of $5–$10 million to establish (construction, remodeling, furniture, etc.). In his conversation with Crouch, Randklev suggested Chisholm Ridge Intermediate could potentially serve as an administrative building for the west side, which would provide substantial savings.

Executive Leadership and Staff: Each district requires its own superintendent and executive cabinet (finance, HR, curriculum directors, etc.), along with support staff. Many of these positions will be new hires or promotions, since previously one team ran the unified district. Costs include recruiting and hiring a new superintendent (with salary and benefits likely ~$250k–$300k/year), plus other administrators (each easily $100k+). The first-year payroll for new central admins could be $1–$2 million. There may be overlap costs as new leaders are hired before the split is finalized (to plan and transition).

Support Infrastructure (Finance/HR/IT): Each district needs its own business services. That means setting up independent financial systems (accounting software, payroll system, procurement processes), separate HR systems, and IT networks. KISD’s data and systems must be partitioned so each new district has its own records (discussed more under “Technology and Data Migration”). There will be costs for software licensing and possibly new contracts if, for example, one district retains the existing systems and the other must purchase a new financial software suite. Implementing a new enterprise resource system for a district can easily cost several hundred thousand dollars in software and consulting. Training staff on new systems and establishing new procedures also carry costs (often absorbed as part of staff time or consulting fees). While some existing central office staff may simply shift to one side or the other, certain departments might need additional personnel to handle separate workloads (for instance, two budget directors instead of one). Overall, administrative restructuring is likely the largest single category of transition expense, potentially on the order of $8–$12 million (facility setup and first-year administrative operations) for the new east-side district’s startup.

2. Staff Transitions ($2-$3M)

During a split, almost all existing employees will need to be reassigned to one of the two new districts, and their employment contracts and benefits arrangements must be adjusted accordingly. Key cost factors include:

Reallocating and Hiring Staff: Teachers and campus staff would generally continue at their current schools (which become part of either the west or east district). However, employees who formerly served the entire KISD (e.g. curriculum specialists, itinerant therapists, maintenance crews, etc.) must be divided up or duplicated. Some may shift into roles in one of the new districts; others might need to be rehired by the new district if they were technically terminated from the old entity. The HR departments will have to issue new employment contracts under the new district names and possibly negotiate adjustments if the two new districts offer different salary schedules or benefit packages. While most staff will likely be retained, any staffing redundancies could lead to layoffs or reassignments (for example, KISD had one superintendent; post-split there will be two, but perhaps one less deputy superintendent in each). Severance costs could occur if certain administrators or staff are not kept on. These personnel transition costs are hard to quantify, but it could cost several million dollars in total (e.g. covering payouts for unused leave, contract buyouts, or hiring/training new personnel to fill gaps).
Benefits and Payroll Adjustments: Each district will need its own benefits plans (health insurance, retirement contributions, etc.). Staff might experience changes in their healthcare provider networks or contribution rates. The new east-side district must set up benefit contracts from scratch. There could be one-time costs if, for instance, the old district’s benefit contract is broken early or if the new district has to join a benefits cooperative. Additionally, aligning pay cycles and moving employees to a new payroll system can incur administrative costs. Pension considerations (TRS in Texas) should remain the same since it’s a state system, but any local supplemental retirement benefits or accrued sick leave balances might need to be transferred or paid out. The districts might choose to honor employees’ accrued leave by transferring liabilities, but if not, payouts could be required.
Employee Communication and Training: The transition must be clearly communicated to employees, and there may be training sessions or orientation for staff now working under a different employer. This might include modest costs for informational materials, extra HR staff time, or even consultants to ensure compliance with labor laws through the split.

In summary, staff transition costs could be on the order of a few million dollars for contract adjustments, benefit changes, and potential incentives. The main “cost” is the administrative effort and any duplication of staffing, much of which is captured in the administrative category above. Districts often try to minimize cash outlays here by transferring employees as-is, but they must still account for re-onboarding everyone into two separate systems.

3. Legal & Consulting Fees ($3-$5M)

Legal counsel and expert consultants will be essential throughout the splitting process. Costs in this category stem from:

Boundary Redefinition and Governance: Attorneys will need to draft the legal documents to establish the new district boundaries along Highway 377 and obtain the required approvals. In Texas, county commissioners have a role in approving district reorganizations, and this process will require legal guidance to ensure compliance with Texas Education Code. Additionally, setting up a new independent school district involves filing legal paperwork with the state, updating contracts, and potentially conducting new school board elections. Lawyers will handle the formation of a new school board or interim governance structure, which could entail drawing single-member trustee districts for the new entity and coordinating an election – these are legal costs and possibly election administration costs. If the split requires a public referendum (as many believe it should), there are costs to hold that election as well (printing ballots, etc.), although those are usually borne by the county.

Asset and Debt Division: One of the most complex legal tasks is dividing KISD’s assets and liabilities between the two new districts. This includes determining who owns each school building and facility and how to split existing bond debt (addressed in more detail below). The district will likely retain law firms and financial consultants to draft interlocal agreements or pursue arbitration if the parties can’t agree on the split.

Policy and Compliance Consulting: Each new district must establish its own policies (board policies, student codes of conduct, employment policies) and ensure compliance with all education regulations as independent entities. Consulting firms or legal specialists may be hired to advise on policy development, TEA compliance, special education program division, etc. There may also be consultants for financial planning (to project budgets for each new district), demographers (to adjust attendance zones if needed), and public relations consultants to manage communications during the transition.

Contract and Vendor Transitions: KISD’s existing contracts (for services like transportation, food service, janitorial, technology licenses, etc.) may need to be reviewed by attorneys to assign or renegotiate them for two districts. There could be legal costs associated with breaking or amending contracts so that each district has its own agreements with vendors.

Overall, legal and consulting fees for a district split are likely to be substantial. A reasonable estimate is on the order of $3–$5 million in total. This includes the work of attorneys to handle the separation (potentially a multi-year process) and specialized consultants for finance and operations.

4. Rebranding and Renaming ($500k-$1M)

A split would require creating a new identity for at least one of the resulting districts. Assuming the scenario discussed publicly – where the east side might retain the “Keller ISD” name and the west side becomes a newly named district (referred to as “Alliance ISD” in some community discussions) – there are various rebranding tasks and costs:

District Name and Logo: The new west-side district would need a name, logo, and branding from scratch. This might involve graphic design work for a new logo and style guide. Typically, districts might form committees or hire marketing firms to develop the branding. The cost for professional design and marketing materials can range from a few thousand up to, say, $50,000, depending on how extensive the effort is (some districts have done this in-house to save money). The east side might also consider slight rebranding if, for example, it doesn’t retain the exact “Keller ISD” branding, but likely it would keep the existing name/logo to preserve continuity.
Signage: All district-level signage and materials would need updating. This includes the signs in front of schools and facilities that currently say “Keller ISD.” Schools on the west side would have to remove or replace signage to reflect the new district name. For instance, marquees at campuses, logos on gym floors or auditoriums, and decals on district-owned vehicles (like maintenance trucks or buses) would be updated. Replacing or refacing signs for dozens of campuses can be costly – even a basic monument sign can cost several thousand dollars. If, say, 20 campuses plus facilities need new signage or emblems, this could easily total $200,000–$500,000 in signage expenses.
Website and Communications: Each district will have its own website, domain, and social media accounts. The current KISD website would either be retained by one side and a new site built for the other, or both might undergo redesign to clarify the new structures. Costs include web development (if outsourced) and migrating content to a new domain for the new district. Also, all letterhead, business cards, forms, and communications templates must be reprinted with the correct district names and logos. While individually small, these items add up – think of everything from employee ID badges to district police uniforms needing an update. This might be on the order of tens of thousands of dollars for printing and replacements.
Athletics and Extracurriculars: The split itself doesn’t necessarily force school name changes (high schools would still be Central High, Fossil Ridge, etc.), so team uniforms and mascots likely remain the same. However, any use of “Keller ISD” in district-wide events or combined programs would change. For example, a district-wide honor band or science fair might need rebranding under two separate districts. The new district may develop its own slogans or mottos which could eventually appear on school materials. These are mostly cosmetic changes but require some expenditure in new banners, programs, etc.
Community Marketing: The new district will want to inform the public of its identity. There could be a small budget for marketing outreach – e.g. advertising the new district name, conducting community meetings under the new brand, and ensuring the community knows which schools belong to which district. While not a large cost, dedicating funds for outreach helps smooth the transition.

In total, rebranding and renaming costs for the split are relatively modest compared to other categories, but still significant. A ballpark estimate is $500,000 to $1,000,000. This would cover new signage across the district, design and printing of materials, and web/IT rebranding efforts. In prior district splits, these costs are often rolled into overall “startup” expenses– for example, the need to create a distinct identity is acknowledged as part of the new district’s startup costs. Importantly, these changes need to be in place by the time the split is effective so that parents, students, and staff experience a clear handoff (for instance, on Day 1, the new Alliance ISD’s buses, signs, and website should reflect its name). Budgeting for rebranding ensures a cohesive public image for the new districts from the outset.

5. Student Transportation Adjustments ($1-$2M)

Splitting the district will impact student transportation in several ways. Although students will still attend the same campus they did before (just under a new district), the organization and assets of the transportation department must be divided or duplicated. Key considerations include:

Bus Fleet and Maintenance: KISD currently operates a single bus fleet serving the entire district. Upon splitting, the buses would be apportioned between the west and east districts, likely based on the number of routes or students served in each. For example, roughly 70% of buses might go to the west side and 30% to the east side. However, this split may not perfectly match needs; if either new district finds itself short on buses (or lacking spare vehicles), it may need to purchase additional school buses. New school buses cost roughly $100,000 or more each, so if the smaller east district needed even 5–10 new buses to cover routes, that’s on the order of $0.5–$1 million. The west side (with more students and possibly longer routes) might also need extras if the current fleet was optimized for a unified system. In the short term, the two districts might work out a transfer of buses and equipment so that each has a functional fleet on Day 1, avoiding immediate purchases. But any imbalance or future growth could prompt new bus purchases as a direct result of the split.
Bus Barn and Operations Center: Currently, KISD has one or more transportation centers (bus barns) where buses are parked, fueled, and maintained. For instance, the KISD bus barn is located on the west side, so the new east district would lack a local depot. In the immediate transition, the east district might negotiate to share the existing bus barn or use part of its facilities (see Facilities section below). Alternatively, the east side might set up a temporary parking and dispatch location for its buses (for example, leasing part of a parking lot or an unused facility to park buses overnight). These interim solutions have costs (renting space, installing fuel tanks or electrical for engine block heaters, etc.). In the long run, the east district would likely need to invest in building its own transportation center, which could cost several million dollars. For transition cost purposes, if sharing the current bus yard, the immediate cost might be relatively low (perhaps an agreement fee or minor upgrades). But if not sharing, one-time costs to set up a rudimentary bus yard (fencing, security, some maintenance capability) could be on the order of $200k–$500k just to get started, with a permanent facility to follow later.
Route Planning and Logistics: Each new district will conduct its own bus route planning. All routes will need to be updated in routing software to ensure no overlap across the new boundary. There may be some inefficiencies initially – for example, a route that used to pick up students on both sides of 377 will need to be split into two separate routes by two districts. Transportation staff will spend time redrawing routes and schedules. The districts might need to purchase separate routing software licenses if they previously shared one system. This software and planning effort might cost in the tens of thousands (software licensing, staff overtime or contracting route planners).
Personnel: Bus drivers, dispatchers, and mechanics must be split between districts. Ideally, drivers continue serving the same areas with whichever district now covers that area. But each new district will need to hire a Transportation Director and support staff to run its operations. If currently there was one transportation department, now there will be two smaller ones. This likely means hiring at least one new transportation manager and duplicating some staff like router/schedulers or safety trainers. The cost of an additional transportation admin staff and support (plus possibly higher driver headcount if routes can’t be optimized as efficiently) will reflect in the operating budgets, but for transition, there may be recruiting and training costs. Expect to spend some money on training drivers on new procedures (new employer, reporting structure, possibly new facility) and perhaps offering retention bonuses so drivers don’t quit amid the change (driver shortage is often an issue). A small stipend to all bus staff for staying through the transition could be considered, which might be, say, $500 per employee as a goodwill measure – amounting to tens of thousands if done.
Special Programs Transportation: If certain programs remain shared (for example, if both districts will still send students to the KCAL career center or an alternative school located in one district), transportation logistics for those students will need coordination. The districts must decide who buses those students – will each send their own bus, or will one district’s transportation handle it for a fee? In the interim, they might share services, but any cost-sharing agreement for transportation would need to be developed (perhaps one district pays the other a certain rate per student for providing rides). Setting up these agreements would be part of legal/consulting work but also could introduce transfer payments between districts as a cost.

In summary, student transportation adjustments will likely require an estimated $1–$2 million in one-time expenditures. This accounts for possible bus purchases, establishing or modifying a bus depot, and the administrative effort to split the department. It’s worth noting that in past district separations, transportation has been a significant ongoing cost increase – smaller districts can’t consolidate routes as efficiently, leading to higher per-student transport costs. Initially, however, the focus is on ensuring both new districts can transport their students on day one. By possibly sharing facilities and carefully dividing the fleet, the districts can keep first-year costs a bit lower, then plan for future capital expenses (like an east-side bus facility) in subsequent budgets.

6. Technology and Data Migration ($1-$2M)

KISD’s information technology systems and data repositories must be carefully divided so that each new district has fully functional and independent technology infrastructure. This includes everything from student records to email systems. Major tasks and costs:

Student Information Systems (SIS): The district’s SIS (which manages enrollment, attendance, grades, etc.) will need to be split. Likely one district (say the west side) could retain the existing SIS instance, and the east side would get a cloned instance with only its students and data. This requires collaboration with the SIS vendor to copy the database and then filter records. The vendor will also charge for establishing a new license/contract for the second district. Initial setup fees for an SIS can be significant (tens of thousands of dollars), plus annual licensing per student. The migration will also involve IT consulting hours to ensure historical data (transcripts, etc.) are properly accessible in each new system. Similar processes apply to other student data systems: special education records systems, cafeteria payment systems, library systems, etc., all need to be partitioned. The one-time vendor and consulting fees for data migration could easily be $100,000–$300,000 depending on how many systems and the complexity of separating them.
Staff and HR Systems: Employee data (payroll, HR, evaluation systems) must likewise be split. Each district might need to set up a new instance of the HR Information System or payroll software (discussed under “Administrative Restructuring”) if they don’t plan to share. Converting payroll data mid-year is complex; ideally the split coincides with a new fiscal year to simplify this. Costs here include software setup fees and ensuring all employee records (for those moving to the new district) are exported and imported correctly.
Network Infrastructure: Currently, KISD likely has an integrated network domain (e.g., a single Active Directory or Google Workspace for all staff and students). After splitting, the east district might create a new domain (discussed under “Rebranding and Renaming). For instance, all staff/students in the new district will get new email addresses (e.g., @eastKISD.org) and user accounts. Migrating emails and files from old accounts to new ones can be labor-intensive. If using Google or Microsoft, there are tools to transfer data, but with thousands of accounts this is a major project for IT staff. Additional hardware like separating the data center or duplicating servers/services might be needed (though much is cloud-based now). After each district creates its own website, each district may possibly need separation of internet service and content filtering systems. One-time costs can include IT consulting and extra hardware or cloud service configurations – perhaps on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars to get all network and account systems split cleanly.
Educational Software and Platforms: All the learning software (learning management systems, assessment tools, etc.) licensed district-wide will need either new licenses for the new district or to be split into sub-accounts. Some vendors might treat it as a contract novation (splitting the contract into two). Others may require the new district to start a fresh contract. In some cases, splitting might lead to loss of volume discounts – e.g., KISD’s 33,000 students got a bulk price, but a 10,000-student district might pay a higher per-student rate. While that’s an ongoing cost issue, initially there may be implementation fees for setting up the software for a new client. The transition team would budget for those fees and any needed training for staff in the new systems.
Data Integrity and Security: Ensuring that confidential data (such as student IEPs or health records) remain secure during the migration is critical. The district might hire a data security consultant to oversee the process and prevent any breaches or data loss in transferring records. This is a preventative cost but important given legal obligations (FERPA, etc.).
Website & Communication Systems: Each district will launch its own parent communication portals, notification systems (like automated call/email systems), and possibly social media. Contact lists for parents and staff must be split appropriately. Initial setup of these communication tools for the new district may incur setup fees.

Considering all these aspects, technology and data migration might carry a one-time cost on the order of $1–$2 million. This estimate includes vendor fees for duplicating major systems, consulting manpower to perform data exports/imports, and additional IT infrastructure setup. On the positive side, if planned well, these are largely one-time investments – once each district has its systems up and running, ongoing costs will be in each district’s normal IT budget. But during the split, having sufficient IT support (possibly contracting with external experts) is vital to avoid disruption in services like grading systems or payroll.

7. Facilities & Shared Use Agreements ($500k-$1M)

KISD currently owns and operates several specialized facilities that serve the entire district. Post-split, the two new districts must decide which facilities will be owned by which district, and whether some will be shared (at least temporarily) to avoid duplicating extremely costly infrastructure. Drafting and executing shared use agreements for these facilities will be a critical part of the transition. Below is a list of key facilities and considerations for each, including whether to share or duplicate and the costs involved:

Natatorium (Aquatic Center): KISD has a central natatorium (for swim teams and community use) – a costly facility with pools, pumps, etc. Building a second natatorium for the breakaway district would be very expensive (potentially $10+ million). The pragmatic solution is a shared-use agreement: one district (probably the one where the natatorium is physically located) would own and maintain it, and the other district’s swim teams and students could use it at scheduled times. They’d split operating costs accordingly. The cost to draft this agreement is mainly legal/administrative, but each district might budget some funds for the usage fees or contribution to maintenance. For example, the west district might pay the east district an annual fee for its swim teams to practice and host meets there, rather than build a new pool. This sharing avoids a huge upfront duplication cost. (If down the line the west district wants its own natatorium, that would be a new capital project outside the initial transition window.)
Bus Barn (Transportation Depot): As discussed in the transportation section, the bus maintenance and parking facility is a major asset. Only one might exist currently. In the short term, sharing the bus barn could save money – one district could contract with the other to fuel and service its buses at the existing facility until it can build its own. The agreement might involve paying a portion of facility operating costs. If sharing, initial costs are minimal (perhaps a small capital investment if extra parking or a new entrance is needed to accommodate both entities). If not sharing, the new district must invest in a new bus barn. Constructing a full-scale transportation center (with maintenance garage, fueling station, etc.) could cost several million dollars (e.g., $5 million or more including land acquisition). That likely wouldn’t be ready by Day 1 of the split, so even if a new facility is planned, interim sharing or leasing of space is necessary. Thus, the transition plan will probably include a facility use agreement for the existing bus barn, at least for a year or two. Costs to negotiate and implement that are part of legal fees; any rent paid would be an inter-district expense (the two boards would have to agree on an amount).
KCAL (Career and Technical Education Center): The Keller Center for Advanced Learning (KCAL) provides career and technical education programs (trade classes, medical tech programs, etc.) for students district-wide. It likely houses specialized labs and equipment. Duplicating KCAL for a smaller breakaway district is impractical in the short term – it would require building new labs and purchasing expensive equipment (easily tens of millions to replicate the full facility). Therefore, a shared attendance agreement is sensible: students from both new districts continue to attend KCAL for part of the day, just as they do now. One district (probably east side) would own the facility and employ the staff, and the other district would pay tuition or a proportional cost for its students to attend. This model is similar to how some smaller districts share a vocational center. Transition costs here include developing the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between districts and possibly adjusting student transportation (each district might run buses to KCAL for their own students). There might also be a need to formalize governance – perhaps a joint committee to oversee the program. The cost to each district would be negotiated, but certainly far less than building a second CTE center. Thus, initial shared use avoids huge capital outlay.
Football Stadium: Keller ISD has one large football stadium used for high school games (and additional smaller athletic stadium/complexes as noted). High school stadiums in Texas are multi-million-dollar facilities. Building a brand new stadium for the new district would likely cost $20–$30 million (or more), which is not feasible as an immediate expense. Instead, the two districts can share the existing stadium for games: for example, the high schools of both districts could rotate use on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights. Many areas have multiple districts sharing a municipal stadium in a similar way. A shared use agreement would specify how maintenance costs are split and how scheduling is managed. One-time costs might include rebranding the field (if it had "Keller ISD" branding, maybe changing that to a neutral name or both district names). But those are relatively minor. The main cost is coordination and potential rent paid by one district if the other owns it outright. Again, legal fees to craft the sharing contract are the primary “transition” cost. Down the road, if the west side decides to construct its own stadium (a probable event), that would be a large capital project necessitating raising bonds and thereby increasing property taxes – but likely years out. Initially, sharing the existing KISD stadium avoids an enormous $25M+ expense.
Security Officers and Vehicles: Currently, KISD likely has a single police or security department that patrols all schools (with a certain number of officers, school resource officers, security vehicles, etc.). After the split, each district will need its own security/police department. This means splitting the personnel and assets. They might allocate existing officers to each new force, but each district will have to hire a chief of police/security director to lead its department. Any specialized units or equipment (K9 units, surveillance systems) may need to be split or duplicated. If, for example, KISD has a fleet of security vehicles (patrol cars or SUVs), those get divided – one district might retain the newer vehicles and the other takes older ones or gets a budget to buy a couple of vehicles. Purchasing new security vehicles and equipment could cost $50k–$100k per vehicle (fully outfitted). The number of vehicles needed depends on school locations; a smaller east district might need only a few. Additionally, uniforms and badges will change to the new district names (minor cost). If there’s a central dispatch or emergency operations center, one district may need to set up a new one. However, in the very short term, there could be interlocal agreements where, say, the existing KISD police continue to provide coverage in both areas under contract until the new district officially establishes its own force. That might simplify the immediate transition but would be temporary. In budgeting transition costs, one might include funds for hiring and equipping the new police force – potentially a few hundred thousand dollars to cover initial training, vehicle acquisition, and communications systems for the new district’s officers.
Educator Training Facility: KISD’s educator training center (a facility for professional development sessions and staff training) is likely a single location with meeting rooms, etc. Post-split, the districts could share this facility for teacher workshops – after all, both sets of teachers will still need training and perhaps the same sessions could be offered separately by each district but in the same location on different days. If sharing, one district would own the facility and the other could rent it as needed for in-service days. The cost to duplicate a training center is mostly in real estate/space – the new district could initially use school libraries or cafeterias for training if they lost access to a dedicated facility. This is not as high priority to duplicate as student-facing facilities, so a sharing arrangement is likely at first. The transition cost here is negligible beyond scheduling – perhaps the new district might invest in some of its own training equipment (projectors, etc.) if those were formerly centralized. That might be a small cost (under $50k) one-time.
Early Childhood Centers: KISD operates dedicated early childhood centers (for Pre-K programs or special education early intervention), their distribution across east/west is important. KISD has two Early Childhood Development Centers and both happen to lie on the west side – the east side district does not have a comparable facility. In the short term, the east district could either send its Pre-K students to the west’s centers under a tuition agreement, or it might repurpose an elementary classroom or two as a makeshift early childhood unit. A shared use or service agreement could allow continuity of services: for example, the east district could contract with the west district to serve a certain number of Pre-K or special needs preschoolers at the existing center, paying a portion of the costs. This avoids immediately building a new center. If duplication were pursued, equipping a new early childhood center (with appropriate playgrounds, therapy rooms, etc.) could cost several million dollars and would also require hiring additional specialized staff. So, to minimize transition disruptions and costs, the likely approach is sharing or alternate arrangements for a year or two. The budget should include funds for whatever contracted slots or services the new district might purchase from the other to cover early childhood needs (maybe on the order of $100k+ for a year, depending on number of students served).
Alternative School (“Compass Center”): The Keller Compass Center (alternative campus for at-risk or disciplined students) is another facility that both new districts’ students might need access to. Rather than each district running a very small alternative program, it makes sense to keep a single alternative campus serving both, at least initially. A shared services agreement would let the east district operate Compass and the west district pay for any of its students it sends there. This is common in splits – not duplicating an alternative education program because of its low student count but high importance. Costs: minimal for infrastructure (use existing building), but the districts will settle on a per-student or proportional cost sharing. The new district should allocate funds for these placements. If the arrangement is not to share, then the new district would have to create its own alternative program – maybe renting a small facility or using portables to house it. That still would incur costs for staff and security. For a transitional estimate, assume shared usage and legal costs to set that up (which we already counted in legal fees). No major one-time cost beyond possibly furnishing a small separate space if needed.
Agri-Science Learning Center: This agricultural learning center serves students interested in agriculture across KISD. It’s specialized and located on the west side. Duplicating a working farm or agri-science facility would involve acquiring land and equipment (tractors, animal pens, etc.), a significant expense and not practical immediately. So, like other unique programs, this should be shared. Both districts’ students could continue to participate in FFA and use the Agri-Science Center. The cost-sharing might involve the east district helping with upkeep costs (feed, utilities) proportionally. The transition cost primarily is administrative (making sure the new district has access rights). If animals or projects belong to students from what will be the east side, the agreements need to ensure they can continue seamlessly. No major one-time cost if shared; if one district had to lose access, they would incur large costs to start a new program from scratch (land, etc.), so sharing avoids that.
Collegiate Academy: The collegiate academy is an early college high school program or a dual-credit academy that serves students district-wide. Options: they might choose to each run their own smaller collegiate program (if feasible with staffing), or more likely, they let the existing academy be run by one district and open seats to students from the other. Given early college programs often involve partnership with a community college, that partnership might have to be re-negotiated by both districts. Transition costs might include administrative work to split student enrollment (each district might need separate agreements with the college) and potentially funding if one district pays the tuition for students from the other. If the collegiate academy remains a single campus, the districts will share it – meaning one might reimburse the other for a share of the program’s costs. If they decide to split it, perhaps each district designates one high school to host its own program. That could require hiring additional staff with college credentials for the new district’s program – a cost to that district’s budget (not a one-time infrastructure cost, but an operational shift). In the short term, a shared approach seems more cost-effective.
KISD Athletic Facilities: Besides the main stadium, KISD’s athletic facilities would also need to be shared or split. Likely, each high school retains its on-campus facilities. But any central athletic facility (like a natatorium, which we already covered, or other shared practice facilities used by multiple schools) would follow the same logic: avoid duplication via sharing agreement. The transition cost is mainly the negotiation of scheduling and maintenance responsibilities. If needed, some minor capital improvements might be done to ensure both districts have equal access (for instance, separate storage areas for each district’s equipment within a shared facility). These would be relatively small expenses, maybe $50k–$100k range if they occur (for partitions, extra lockers, etc.).

Summary of Facilities Costs: The primary approach in the near term would be shared use agreements for expensive, specialized facilities to avoid the tremendous cost of building duplicates. The one-time costs here are largely legal/administrative to put the agreements in place, which we have accounted for, and possibly small modifications to enable joint use. However, it’s important to note that while this avoids immediate capital costs, each new district will eventually consider whether and when to build its own facilities. An analysis we saw in Utah’s Alpine District split debate pointed out that if you end up sharing many services or facilities, you have to ask “what exactly is the point of splitting?” since you’d be “paying more to get what we already have” by running two administrations on shared services. In other words, shared facilities mitigate costs, but they also underscore that the two districts remain interdependent. Nevertheless, for transition budgeting, one should assume minimal duplication at first. Any facility that is not shared (e.g. if politically one side insists on having its “own” stadium immediately) would dramatically increase the transition cost – likely pushing the cost of the split into the hundreds of millions due to new construction. A realistic plan avoids that. Based on the Jordan School District’s experience, they were unable to amicably share services and had to split assets via arbitration, but that was more about administrative services. In Keller’s case, shared facility use for student programs is more tenable and common. Thus, aside from perhaps a new central office and eventually a bus depot for the new district, we assume no other major facility is duplicated in the immediate term. There is a high likelihood that the west side will eventually want to establish its own domain to deliver healthy whoopings on the 248 rivals in football at some point. Although not a transitional cost, its something to plan for. This will result in lost revenue for the east side and necessity for the west side to raise money through bonds, which will increase taxes. Avoiding this duplication for now keeps initial facilities-related expenses relatively low (likely under $1 million in total for minor adjustments and agreement implementations), with the understanding that each shared facility will have some ongoing cost-sharing payments between districts as they use them (an operational expense, not a one-time cost).

8. Debt Allocation and Financial Structuring ($1-$3M)

One of the most consequential aspects of a district split is how to allocate the existing bond debt and financial commitments of the original district. KISD has outstanding bonded debt from past voter-approved bond programs (for building schools, facilities, etc.), and those obligations must continue to be paid by taxpayers in the new districts. The transition costs here refer to the legal and financial work needed to ensure an equitable division of debt and resources, as well as any one-time financial adjustments required. Key points include:

Equitable Debt Division: Typically, when a district splits, the bonded debt is divided based on either the assessed property value of each new district or the assets each receives. The goal is that each new district takes on a fair share of the debt so that taxpayers in one area aren’t paying for facilities now exclusively used by the other. In practice, this can be very complex. For example, if most school buildings (assets) on the west side were built with bond money, one could argue the west district should inherit the corresponding debt for those facilities. However, property value is higher on the east side (more affluent tax base), so an alternative is to split debt in proportion to each side’s taxable property wealth. If the east side has, say, 50% of the property value but only 30% of the students, how debt is split could become contentious. The Texas Education Code provides some guidance on dividing assets and liabilities in district reorganizations (often requiring an arbitration panel if parties don’t agree). Legal and financial advisors will need to calculate various scenarios and negotiate a formula that both new school boards and county officials accept. This negotiation itself is a cost (covered in legal fees above).
Bond Refunding or Reissuance: KISD’s bonds were issued under the credit and taxing authority of the unified district. After splitting, each new district will levy its own property tax for debt service (the Interest & Sinking tax rate or “I&S” rate). They may decide to refinance or reissue bonds such that each district has its own bonds. For instance, if KISD had $800 million in outstanding bonds, the west district might issue new bonds to effectively assume, say, $560 million of that, and the east district issue $240 million, using the proceeds to pay off the old bonds. This would legally separate the debt. However, doing so incurs bond issuance costs – financial advisor fees, bond counsel, underwriting fees, etc. These costs can be around 1-2% of the bond amount. On a few hundred million, that’s several million dollars in transaction costs. Alternatively, the bonds could remain in place and each district’s taxpayers continue to pay their share of the debt to a common debt service fund (this is less common and tricky to manage long-term). Most likely, some form of debt refinancing or allocation will be done as part of the split, and the one-time costs of executing that are part of the transition. We should expect at least $1–$2 million in financial fees for splitting the debt portfolio (this includes hiring a municipal advisor, bond attorneys, and possibly obtaining new bond ratings for each district).
Bond Rating and Interest Impact: Post-split, the two new districts may have different credit ratings than KISD does as a whole. For a reference point, Keller ISD was recently downgraded from “stable” to “negative” rating by Moody’s. The TEA Financial Integrity rating was downgraded from a “B” to a “C.” A smaller district often has a lower or at least not immediately strong rating due to having a shorter financial history and possibly less diverse tax base. A lower bond rating means higher interest rates on any future debt or refinanced debt. While this is a long-term cost to taxpayers rather than an upfront transition line item, it’s worth mentioning that as part of the financial structuring, they might try to mitigate this. For example, they could time the refinancing when market conditions are favorable or seek insurance/guarantees for the new bonds. Any such measures (like purchasing bond insurance or setting aside larger reserves) could be considered a cost of the transition. If, hypothetically, the east district ended up with a weaker tax base and got a lower rating, the interest on its share of debt could be higher by, say, 0.5%. On a $200 million debt, even a 0.5% higher rate means $1 million extra in interest per year until maturity. While not a one-time cost, it is a financial consequence directly stemming from the split.
Division of Fund Balances and Other Liabilities: Beyond bond debt, the districts need to split any other obligations (like leases, loans, or unpaid bills) and also the assets like fund balances (reserves). The KISD fund balance money will be divided, usually proportional to the size of each new district or specific needs. Each new district will want some reserve to start with for cash flow. Providing the east side an appropriate share of the fund balance can help offset initial costs (basically seeding their savings). There might also be shared obligations like ongoing construction contracts (e.g., if a school is being built using bond funds, one district will take over that project and its remaining payments). The transition team, with financial consultants, will allocate these and ensure contractors get paid by the correct entity after the split. The cost here is not so much an external expenditure as it is internal accounting work and negotiation. We might include the accounting/legal labor in consulting fees already noted. One potential one-time cost: if unequal allocation of something requires a lump-sum equalization payment. For instance, perhaps the east side agrees to take on slightly less than proportional debt but in return gives up claim to some shared facility; to balance the scales, maybe the east side pays a few million to the west side at the time of the split. This could happen if needed to avoid future disputes. Any such payment would be a direct cost of transitioning (though it’s one district paying the other, not money leaving the system).

In summary, dealing with debt and finances is a complex, largely behind-the-scenes cost of splitting KISD. We estimate the one-time professional fees for this work in the low millions of dollars (perhaps $1–$3 million). The true financial impact, however, could be much larger if not handled carefully – misallocation could burden one district’s taxpayers unfairly or result in higher taxes for both. For context, when the Jordan School District split, lawmakers considered legislation to “equalize” property tax revenue because the east side (Canyons) had a richer tax base and the west side feared an imbalance. Similarly, in Keller ISD’s case, the east side has higher-value single family residential properties contributing to taxes, the west side (with 70% of students) might worry about shouldering more debt with relatively less single family residential property value. These equity considerations might not have direct price tags, but addressing them may involve transfers or adjustments that effectively become costs of the split. Ultimately, the goal will be to structure finances so that both new districts start on solid financial footing. Achieving that will involve legal paperwork, possible refinancing of bonds, and careful number-crunching – all of which are necessary expenses for a smooth financial separation.

9. Primary Cost Estimate: Expedited vs. Delayed Implementation

What would it cost to complete the split by the next school year, and how much could be saved by waiting an additional year?

Based on the above categories, an expedited timeline (having two operational districts by the start of the next school year) would likely incur significant one-time costs on the order of tens of millions of dollars. Summing rough estimates from each section:

Administrative setup: ~$8-$10 million
Staff transition and hiring costs: ~$2–3 million
Legal and consulting: ~$3–5 million
Rebranding: ~$500k–1 million
Transportation changes: ~$1–2 million
Technology and data separation: ~$1–2 million
Facilities agreements and minor duplicates: ~$500k-1 million (assuming sharing major assets)
Financial structuring fees: ~$1–3 million

These figures suggest a total in the range of $20–$30 million in one-time transition expenditures for a full split by next year. For a conservative planning margin, one might even say up to ~$35 million to account for unexpected overruns and inevitable errors in miscalculation or inefficiencies due to the infrequency of executing such rare operations. This is in line with documented experiences: a large district split can indeed cost on the order of dozens of millions (Jordan School District’s split ultimately tallied around $60 million after all was done, and that was a larger district; our estimate for Keller ISD’s split is lower but still substantial).

However, if implementation is delayed by one year, many of these costs could be reduced. A longer timeline (say planning over 18–24 months instead of 6–8 months) allows for:

Smoother phasing of staff and administration hires: Instead of hiring a full duplicate admin team immediately, some positions could be filled by current staff doing double-duty during a planning year, or hires could be timed with normal budget cycles. This could save on rushed recruiting fees or overlapping salaries. For example, not having to keep consultants or interim administrators on high-cost short-term contracts for the transition.
Better negotiation and less rush-premium: With more time, the districts can negotiate sharing agreements and debt allocations more calmly, possibly avoiding costly arbitration or legal fights. An expedited split might force last-minute decisions or court battles due to time pressure, whereas a year’s delay could result in mediated agreements (saving potentially hundreds of thousands in legal expenses). Similarly, IT migrations done on a tight deadline might require expensive outside contractors working overtime; with more time, in-house IT staff can do more of the work at regular cost. Vendors might also waive certain rush fees if the timeline is reasonable. Essentially, a year delay removes the “urgent” premiums on many services.
Strategic financial timing: If given another year, the districts could time any bond refinancing to favorable market conditions or use that year to pay down a bit more debt (if possible) to simplify the split. They could also coordinate the split with the fiscal year boundary to avoid mid-year financial complications. These strategies could shave off some costs or avoid inefficiencies (though hard to put an exact figure, it contributes to savings).
Use of attrition and natural turnover: Over an extra year, some staff retire or leave normally. This lets the district decide whether to replace them in each new district or consolidate roles, rather than potentially laying off people abruptly at split time. It’s a gentler adjustment that can reduce severance or duplication costs.
Deferral of capital expenditures: A rushed split might push the new district to quickly lease or renovate space for a central office or bus parking. With another year, the district could potentially schedule a bond or secure funds to do it more cost-effectively, or find a long-term solution rather than an expensive stopgap. Waiting might also allow the industrial trades center under construction to be completed and integrated without expensive interim measures.

In quantitative terms, a delayed implementation could likely reduce the transition cost by around 10–20%. For instance, if the next-year split would cost $30 million, a one-year delay might reduce that by approximately $3–5 million in avoided rush expenses. This is a rough estimate, but it reflects savings in overtime, fewer mistakes (which can be costly to fix), and not having to pay for parallel systems running simultaneously. Another way to view it: The new districts could incorporate some of the transition tasks into their normal operating budgets over an extra year rather than all as one-time hits.

For example, Alpine School District’s split is being planned with a multi-year lead time – the vote passed in 2024, but the new districts won’t formally launch until 2027, giving a three-year window to prepare. That kind of timeline, while longer than one year, dramatically spreads out costs and preparations. Keller ISD’s split likely wouldn’t take that long, but even moving the target from 2025 to 2026 could ease financial pain. If we had to give a primary cost estimate:

Expedited (Next School Year) – Approximately $25–30 million in one-time transition costs (most likely scenario, assuming major facilities are shared and no major new construction projects immediately). This could be higher if unexpected legal battles or if more duplication is done, but $25–30M is a reasonable planning figure.
Delayed by One Year – Approximately $20–25 million in one-time costs, implying roughly $3–5 million savings by taking an extra year. These savings come from efficiency and potentially avoiding the steepest part of the learning curve. In essence, subtracting on the order of 15% of the cost might be achievable with a well-planned, phased implementation.

It’s important to stress that these are estimates. The actual costs would need a detailed feasibility study. But in any case, splitting KISD will require a multi-million dollar investment to create two fully functioning independent school systems. Similar district splits in other regions have borne out these magnitudes.

References (Similar District Splits):

Jordan School District Split. The 2009 split of Jordan School District (UT) into Canyons SD cost an estimated $33 million upfront (with about $3 million in legal fees) and ultimately around $60 million in total startup expenses. This covered new administrative offices, personnel, and contentious asset division. It led to short-term tax hikes and budget freezes in the remaining district. This is a comparable scenario of a large suburban district “divorce.”

Mayors of Utah Valley: Do we really need a 3-way split of Alpine School District? | Daily Herald
Cost of splitting Jordan (Utah) district: $33 million | American School & University
Jordan School District Split: One Year Later | The Salt Lake Tribune
School district divorce: Jordan's split cost $33 million | The Salt Lake Tribune
Split involves arbitration to decide division of assets between east and west | The Salt Lake Tribune
Jordan district’s split: Salt Lake school officials decry property tax increase | The Salt Lake Tribune
Federal court reviewing vote that split Jordan School District | The Salt Lake Tribune

Alpine School District Split. The proposed Alpine School District split (UT) highlighted that breaking up a large district can increase costs due to loss of economies of scale. Opponents noted that keeping the district intact allows shared expenses, whereas multiple smaller districts mean duplicated overhead . In Alpine’s case, voters in 2024 approved splitting into three districts, but the plan gives about 3 years lead time (new districts start in 2027) to manage transition costs smoothly, showing the benefit of a delayed implementation to reduce financial strain.

Shelby School District Split. In 2014, Shelby County TN saw six suburban municipalities form their own districts, splitting from the Memphis-led county district. This change pulled about 25,000 students out and was projected to leave a $52 million hole in the county district’s budget. Each new municipal district had to incur significant startup costs (hiring superintendents, setting up offices, etc.), illustrating how multiple new administrations drive up expenses. These real-world cases underscore the scale of costs that Keller ISD should anticipate in a split scenario.

KISD School District Split (and other resources). These documents were used as reference to estimate costs by confirming existing budget constraints, potential administrative inefficiencies, and financial complexities that would arise from dividing debt, staffing, and shared facilities:

Fort Worth HOA forms legal fund to fight Keller ISD split proposal | wfaa.com
2024-2025 Adopted Budget | Keller Independent School District – Provided key financial figures, tax revenue details, and expenditure breakdowns to help estimate costs of the split.
2024-2025 Budget Update | Keller Independent School District – Provided insight into Keller ISD’s financial status, budget deficits, and projected cost-cutting measures.
Budget Compliance Review | Keller Independent School District – Highlighted financial mismanagement, declining fund balances, and key budgetary challenges.
Revenue Impact Analysis | Moak Casey – Assessed how state and local funding would be distributed post-split, confirming that revenue per student would be similar between the new districts.

Other

The Promise and Challenge of Redistributing Control of Public Education | Daniel Kiel
Annulment: Inside the Largest-and Briefest-School District Consolidation in American History | Daniel Kiel; The University of Memphis Law Review
ISD Consolidation Study | Stewart, M. (2011). School consolidation impact on state and local revenues and expenditures in Texas (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas - Focuses on merging districts rather than splitting them, some key takeaways were still relevant:

Administrative Costs – Restructuring doesn’t always lower costs; KISD’s split would likely increase them.
Debt & Facilities Management – The split could lead to debates over facility duplication and sharing, affecting costs.
Transportation Costs – No clear pattern; a split may or may not save money on transportation.
State & Local Funding Impact – Per-pupil spending varies. Debt division must be handled carefully to avoid financial inequities.

________________
[1] See Jordan School District split in References below. A sizable portion of the ~$33 million startup cost was attributed to relocating and setting up new central office facilities for the breakaway district. New districts must duplicate “district buildings” like admin offices as part of their startup, so KISD should expect a similar investment.
[2] See Jordan School District split in References below. In the Jordan/Canyons split, the “rest” of the $33M (after legal fees) was spent primarily on hiring people to run the new district, underscoring how expensive duplicating leadership can be. Education experts note that duplicating district leadership and services inherently increases costs compared to a single larger district..Smaller districts lose economies of scale – an analysis in Texas found that small districts spent about $1,297 per pupil on administrative costs versus $517 per pupil in large districts (Consolidation of ISD Study.pdf). In short, KISD’s split will bring significant new administrative overhead.

[3] See Jordan School District split in References below. This aligns with experiences elsewhere: when the large Jordan School District split, total startup expenses were substantial, and observers later pegged total “divorce” costs around $60 million after all facilities and administration were duplicated. Keller’s scenario is somewhat smaller in scale, but one should expect tens of millions in administrative startup spending.
[4] See Jordan School District split in References below. While many of these staff-related costs are administrative in nature, they can add up. For example, when the Jordan district split, the financial strain forced the remaining district to freeze teacher salaries and cut programs in the short term. In a KISD split, both new districts would face tight budgets initially, meaning any raises or new hiring could be limited until finances stabilize. There is also a risk of staff turnover during uncertainty – Keller might need to offer retention bonuses or improved benefits on one side to prevent teachers from leaving for the other (or for other districts). In the Memphis split into municipal districts, it was noted that the legacy district risked losing teachers if the new districts offered more generous health or retirement packages (See Shelby County Split in References below), which is a strategy the new east/west districts might use to compete for experienced staff. Budgeting a contingency for such incentives would be wise (perhaps $1–$3 million reserved for any necessary salary adjustments, recruiting, or retention measures).
[5] See Jordan School District Split in References below. The experience from Jordan School District’s split shows how contentious this can get: a protracted legal battle over asset division in that case ran up about $3 million in legal fees alone. Keller’s split could become similarly contentious – already, community groups are gearing up for legal fights (a Fort Worth HOA has raised funds to retain a law firm to oppose the split and demand a public vote See KISD Split in Reference below). The KISD board and administration will need their own legal team to navigate these challenges and to respond to any lawsuits or injunctions filed by stakeholders.
[6] See Alpine School District Split in References. For instance, the city of Orem, UT hired an education consulting firm to conduct a feasibility study on splitting from its district, and similarly KISD might engage consultants to study and execute the split plan.
[7] See Jordan School District Split in References below. Notably, Jordan School District’s split incurred about $3 million in legal expenses due to asset disputes; KISD could see similar or higher legal costs if the process is controversial. Investing in expert consultants and legal counsel is crucial to ensure the split is done equitably and in accordance with the law – but those services do not come cheap. (If the split proceeds amicably with clear-cut agreements, costs could be at the lower end; if it devolves into lawsuits and arbitration, costs will escalate toward the higher end of the range.)
[8] See Alpine School District Split in References below.
[9] See Alpine School District Split in References.
[10] See Jordan Split Example in References below. In the Jordan split example, while a specific IT cost breakdown wasn’t published, it’s known that information systems staff were among those anxious about how the split would affect their jobs and processes – underscoring that IT changes are significant in such a move. In Utah’s recent considerations, “startup costs” for new districts explicitly include technology adjustments in their scope (See Alpine Split Example in References).
[11] See Alpine School District Split in References.
[12] See Jordan Split Example in References.
[13] See Alpine School District Split in References. The Alpine School District opponents noted that a split could harm bond ratings – Alpine’s AAA rating took years to build and wouldn’t be easily replicated by new smaller districts.
[14] See Jordan Split Example in References.
[15] See Alpine School District Split in References.
[16] See Alpine School District Split in References.

[17] See Jordan Split in References. For instance, the Jordan–Canyons split in Utah (2009) incurred over $30 million in immediate expenses and about $60 million total in startup costs. See Shelby County District Split in References. Likewise, when Shelby County Schools in Tennessee were divided into municipal districts, the legacy district faced a $52 million budget gap due to the reallocations, illustrating the high cost of reorganization. Those cases validate that a careful approach (and possibly a delayed timeline) is financially prudent.