Coppell ISD is closing schools. We're trying to innovate our way out of this budget crisis. For New Tech, for our students, for their future.
Read Our StoryCoppell ISD currently provides bus transportation at no cost to students residing more than two miles from their assigned school, including those with hazardous route exceptions. It also provides intercampus shuttles at no cost to facilitate attendance in elective classes. CISD’s pay-to-ride option is currently limited, confusing for families, and underutilized, with little public data on eligibility and participation rates. The process and eligibility are not widely understood, which likely suppresses both uptake and revenue.
| Student Type | Free Transportation Required? |
|---|---|
| Special education/Section 504 (unable to attend otherwise) | Yes |
| Regular students, 2+ miles from school | Not required, but state-funded if provided |
| Regular students, <2 miles from school | Not required; may charge a fee |
| Transfer students | Not required; may charge a fee |
| Hazardous route exceptions | Not required, but state-funded if provided |
In short, CISD is not legally required to provide free transportation to all students outside the two-mile radius, but may do so at its discretion and receives state funding on a per mile basis for eligible students if it does. (Texas Education Code §34.003). This gives the district flexibility to consider higher transportation fees as a revenue-generating option for students who are not legally entitled to free service. Pay-to-ride fees are currently in place for a limited number of riders to a limited number of campuses: 1st Student: $500 for the year, 2nd Student: $200/Semester, 3rd Student: $150/Semester, 4th Student or More: Free. The 2024-2025 budget estimates that $7,000 in additional fees will be collected, building on $25,000 (is this actual?) from 2023-2024 for a total of $32,000. This amount confirms that CISD’s pay-to-ride and transportation fee revenue remains extremely limited, especially compared to neighboring districts that have more comprehensive transportation fee programs. CISD’s state transportation allotment is also very limited. In the 2023-2024 budget, the district received only $798,500 from the state while spending about $5.7 million. This represents a significant funding gap
Implementing a transportation fee for elective-related intercampus travel is a proven revenue source in other districts. Any student relying on a bus is charged a fee. It could provide significant funds to help address the budget crisis, especially if structured in an equitable manner. Implementing a transportation fee for overall bus service would match what many neighboring DFW suburbs do and would provide even more revenue.
Keller ISD charges $185 per semester ($370 per year) for the first child and $135 per semester ($270 per year) for additional children. Students on free or reduced lunch pay $100 per semester ($200 per year) to use any bus transportation. Keller ISD spends $260–$360 per student annually on transportation. Pay to ride many school districts now charge fees to ride school buses
For the 2025-2026 school year, Southlake-Carroll ISD (Carroll ISD) bus pass prices are as follows: Transportation Services
If, for example, 250 students use the shuttle for electives and CISD charges $370 per year (Keller ISD’s rate), the district could generate $92,500 annually (250 x $370).
If 500 students participate in a more comprehensive transportation fee for intercampus and extracurricular transportation shuttles, revenue could reach $185,000 annually.
Offering a sliding scale for low-income students (e.g., $200 per year) would reduce total revenue but increase equity and participation.
If Coppell ISD is considering implementing a transportation fee, the fee structures in neighboring districts typically range from approximately $350 to $800 per year per student, with discounts available for additional siblings and reduced rates for students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Family caps and semester payment options are also standard.
| District | Regular Rate (Annual) | Reduced Rate (Annual) | Sibling/Family |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plano ISD | $800 | $350 | No |
| So-Carroll ISD | $350 | Not specified | $925 cap for 3+ |
| Keller ISD | $370 | $200 | $270 for 2 students |
These figures provide a benchmark for what Coppell ISD might consider if it adopts a transportation fee policy, with most districts offering some form of reduced pricing for families with multiple children and for those qualifying for financial assistance.
How many students currently use CISD shuttles or buses to travel between campuses specifically for elective courses not offered at their home campus (who are not legally entitled to free transportation)? Please provide a breakdown by semester and full year. Elective courses are optional choices. Extracurricular shuttles are also an optional choice.
What is the current cost to the district per student for providing shuttle or bus transportation for these elective courses? How does this compare to the average cost per student for regular bus routes? What is the cost of the extracurricular shuttles?
What fee structures have any other neighboring or demographically similar districts implemented for transportation (e.g., Keller ISD, Carroll ISD, Plano ISD), and what has been the impact on participation and revenue? Please provide comparative data if available.
What would be the projected annual revenue if CISD implemented a mandatory transportation fee for ONLY elective-related intercampus travel, using a rate similar to Keller ISD ($185 per semester, $370 per year) or Carroll ISD ($350 per year)? Please provide estimates for various participation levels (e.g., 100, 250, 500 students). How many students currently utilize intercampus shuttles? Could the fee be administered as a cost of taking an elective off-campus, regardless of whether a student uses the shuttle to facilitate planning?
What would it look like if CISD adopted transportation fees for ALL bus usage as allowed under the law and set the fee at a rate higher than what the state reimburses? At what price does the bus fee generate more revenue than what the state would pay in the allotment and how would that impact ridership?
Are there provisions or sliding scales for students on free or reduced lunch in other districts, and what would be the fiscal impact if CISD adopted a similar policy?
What are the potential equity concerns, and how might the district support low-income families while still generating net new revenue?
What would be the administrative burden of implementing such a transportation fee?
How does the potential revenue from this fee (for shuttles OR for bus usage overall) compare to the projected savings from closing New Tech High @ Coppell? Please provide a side-by-side analysis using current budget figures.
| Number of Students | Fee per Year | Estimated Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| 100 (shuttles) | $370 | $37,000 |
| 250 | $370 | $92,500 |
| 500 | $370 | $185,000 |
| 6,575 (all riders) | $600 | $3,945,000 (while this wouldn’t cover the entire cost of transportation it would provide far more than the amount the state allots. |
Can administration provide the exact number of students using intercampus transportation for electives and extracurricular shuttles after school and model the potential revenue from a mandatory fee, using both Keller ISD and Carroll ISD rates, including a scenario with reduced fees for low-income families? How does this compare to the expected savings from consolidating New Tech High @ Coppell?
Average daily attendance (ADA) is the primary driver of state funding, and certain excused absences, such as documented medical appointments, do not count against ADA if proper documentation is provided. Optimizing our new absence reporting system could yield significant revenue gains. This is essentially “free money” from the state, provided we can maximize it.
Has the new Attendance System been examined and analyzed for efficiency improvements?
What percentage of absences that could be excused with a medical note unverified due to missing or late documentation? (Examining the reason used for checkout, i.e., due to appointments or religious observances)
Can the administration provide updated data for the 2024-25 school year to date? What enhancements can be made to the absence reporting system to increase the collection rate of medical notes and other verifications so that the absence does not count against ADA?
Can the current system send automated reminders (texts, emails, phone calls) to parents when a note is still missing after 36 hours? Other districts have used automated follow-up reminders to parents, emphasizing the importance of providing documentation to close the budget deficit, which has helped boost compliance. Interestingly, the reminder that documentation helps the district manage the budget deficit has also increased overall attendance.
Modern student attendance management solutions—such as DreamClass, Remind, TeamSense, and Pikmykid—offer features like:
Automated Real-Time Notifications: When a student is marked absent without prior notice or documentation, the system can immediately alert parents or guardians via their preferred communication method (text, email, app notification), which we currently have
Customizable Alerts: Schools can set up the system to send reminders or escalate notifications if an absence remains unexcused or undocumented after a certain period Best absence managmenet systems
Integration with School Information Systems: These platforms can pull data from your student information system (SIS) and automate messaging, ensuring that reminders are accurate and timely
These systems are designed to enhance communication, accountability, and compliance with attendance policies by ensuring that every absence is promptly addressed and accurately documented. CISD may want to encourage a note or reason, even in the case of unexcused absences, to keep track of the reasons why students are absent and address any patterns that may emerge.
According to the Texas Education Code §25.087, other absences that do not count against ADA (if properly documented) include:
Is there a process for non-tech-savvy families to submit notes (e.g., via email or in person)? Are they aware of it?
Are there any language barriers?
What would be the estimated increase in ADA (and corresponding state revenue) if the district improved its rate of documented absences that don’t count against ADA by 10%, 25%, or 50%?
Please provide a fiscal impact analysis using district attendance data and the state funding formula. A 1% increase in attendance, combined with an increase in documentation for absences that do not count against ADA, would generate more than $1,000,000 in revenue. More than a headcount
The re-enrollment and new student application window for Limited Open Enrollment closes on July 6, 2025, making immediate action critical for the 2025-2026 school year. It is currently limited to specific neighborhoods in Lewisville and Irving, as well as certain areas in Coppell that are not within CISD boundaries.
Other districts, such as Frisco ISD, McKinney ISD, Garland ISD, and Wylie ISD, are utilizing full open enrollment to fill seats and generate revenue, with more districts planning to follow suit next year.
These programs often include specific requirements, such as maintaining a 90% attendance record in the previous school year, achieving satisfactory grades, passing any state-mandated tests, and having no history of expulsions or disciplinary actions. Some of the open enrollment programs also come with application deadlines and fees. A robust, funded marketing campaign targeting eligible families or surrounding districts for full Open Enrollment seats at NewTech could boost enrollment and increase average daily attendance, which directly translates to increased funding from the state. As a choice school, New Tech is uniquely positioned to attract students from outside CISD, especially if marketed effectively to families seeking innovative learning environments. Parental and community involvement in direct mail and outreach could boost numbers. Smart School Marketing Strategies
Each additional student enrolled through open enrollment brings in state funding (often $7,000–$8,000 per student, depending on the state allotment and local recapture), which can quickly add up if empty seats are filled. 8-19-2024 Budget Brief
What is the current budget allocated for promoting and marketing the Limited Open Enrollment program, particularly for New Tech High @ Coppell? Is there a specific line item or dollar amount in the communications or recruitment budget allocated for this purpose? Enrollment Marketing Strategies for 2025
How many open seats are available at New Tech for the 2025-2026 school year, and how many of those could be filled by out-of-district students under Limited Open Enrollment? What is the current number of Limited Open Enrollment students at New Tech, and what has been the trend over the past three years?
Would expanding the list of eligible neighborhoods or opening New Tech to a broader set of out-of-district students generate additional revenue, and what policy changes would be required to do so? Vouchers and a need to maximize ADA in an aging population have changed the landscape.
What specific marketing strategies has CISD used to reach eligible families in the approved open enrollment neighborhoods (e.g., High Point Oaks Estates, Hackberry Creek, Willowbrook, etc.)? And to reach out to City of Coppell employees? Have there been any campaigns to “re-recruit” students who reside within Coppell who have left the District for homeschool, charter, or private schools? Encourage them to “come check out the changes?” Ensure that these parents are aware that the way CISD elementary students use technology has changed for 2025-2026.
Are we leveraging direct mail, social media, email, and local media to promote New Tech’s unique offerings and open seats? If not, can we partner with parents and community groups to help with direct mail or targeted marketing campaigns?
Given that Frisco ISD (Access Frisco) and McKinney ISD (Choose McKinney) are actively pursuing open enrollment to fill empty seats, what lessons can we learn from their approach, and what is the projected revenue impact if we match their enrollment growth rates? Frisco Student Transfers
Frisco has shared some preliminary numbers, and they are impressive. Frisco had 646 applicants and accepted 330 to fill 900 open seats, as of March 2025. Frisco projects $750,000 in revenue for every 100 open enrollment students. With 330 students accepted so far, the projected revenue for the first year is $3 million. If Frisco filled all 900 open seats, the program could generate up to $6.75 million annually. Frisco Open Enrollment: 646 applicants Frisco Open Enrollment: to generate $3mil
How did they market, and what can we learn from the 12 other districts that are having success?
What is the estimated per-student revenue gain for each additional open enrollment student at New Tech, and how does this compare to the projected net savings from closing the campus as a school but maintaining it as a district building?
Can the administration provide a timeline and action plan to immediately ramp up marketing and outreach before the July 6 open enrollment deadline? How can the PTSO help?
The 2024-2025 budget explicitly lists a target to increase facility rental fees by $200,000 as a revenue measure. However, the baseline (current) revenue from rentals is not detailed in the summary; has CISD been successful at achieving that target? CISD’s website states that CISD aims to allow buildings to be used as much as possible by many groups without interfering with education. Recent board discussions have included potential uses of facilities for rentals, district training, and even employee daycare. Yet, there is no public evidence of a robust marketing campaign for facility rentals; most information is found only on the district’s website.
Other local entities (e.g., Coppell Parks) restrict rentals to residents and charge fees; CISD could consider more aggressive outreach to non-district users, particularly event planners. Facilitron, a leading facility rental platform, reported that 40 new school districts are joining its system this summer to monetize their spaces, reflecting a “growing national movement” as districts seek supplementary income through community rentals. Facilitron announces record growth
The platform now serves nearly 50% of Florida’s schools and major districts, including Austin ISD (Texas), Fort Worth ISD, San Diego Unified (California), and Clark County (Nevada). Has CISD looked at using a facility rental platform? Districts using Facilitron have seen significant gains. For example, Manhattan Beach Unified in California generated over $500,000 from high school athletic complex rentals after switching to a more aggressive rental platform and pricing model. Facilitron School Rental Platform School Facility Management
There could still be a tiered rental fee structure that distinguishes between non-profit use and commercial private use. Application and non-refundable reservation fees could be charged.
What is the current annual revenue generated from facility rentals, and what is the specific line item for this in the budget?
How are CISD’s event spaces (indoor and outdoor), gyms, and meeting rooms currently marketed to non-district organizations? Is there a dedicated marketing budget or staff for this purpose? Do families within CISD have easy access to rental information when organizing events?
The budget projects an increase of $200,000 in facility rental fees for the current 2024-25 fiscal year. Budget Brief for 8-19-2024
What is the baseline revenue this increase is based on, and what would be the projected revenue if fees were doubled instead of simply increased?
Could the district expand rental opportunities to include night leagues, weekend tournaments, community events, maker space events (particularly at NewTech), and summer camps? Are there any policy or staffing barriers to maximizing the use of gyms, potential maker spaces, and meeting rooms during after-hours and summer periods?
Are there underutilized large meeting spaces, such as at CMS West or other campuses, that could be more aggressively marketed for meetings, camps, or community events?
What is the current rental rate structure for different types of users (e.g., outside organizations, booster clubs, non-profits)? Could booster organizations and other frequent users pay a modestly higher rate to better reflect the true facility costs?
How does CISD’s rental fee schedule compare to those of neighboring districts, and what best practices could be adopted to increase both usage and revenue?
What is the total cost to the district (including custodial, utilities, and security) for hosting outside events, and how does this compare to the revenue generated? Would doubling fees still keep CISD competitive in the local market?
Could the district partner with local organizations or event planners to help market and fill available spaces, especially during school breaks and evenings?
See Plano ISD and Austin ISD for fee structures and national best practices from EAB, Facilitron, and Brightly Software for models and benchmarks.
Coppell ISD currently charges a $35 protection plan fee, but it is not mandatory. “All elementary, middle school, CHS9, Coppell High School, and New Tech High @ Coppell parents or guardians are encouraged to pay a non-refundable $35 annual fee for the Device Protection Plan, which will be used to repair accidental damage to CISD-issued devices, including iPads, keyboards, or cases. This protection plan applies to all students (PreK-12)…”
The 2024-2025 Budget Brief lists a revenue line for “Technology Fees” with amounts of $433,256 (2022-23 actual), $225,000 (2023-24 amended), and $275,000 (2024-25 proposed).
Several DFW-area school districts charge mandatory technology fees for student devices, and there is a clear trend toward reviewing and increasing these fees to help offset rising technology expenses:
Forney ISD requires a $30 annual technology fee for each student, which covers Chromebook usage and basic insurance for accidental damage. This fee is mandatory, and students who do not pay are restricted to an “Education-Only” internet filter until payment is made.
Typical mandatory technology fees for K-12 students in nearby DFW districts are generally in the $30–$75 per year range, with some districts considering increases to cover rising device and software costs:
| ISD | Cost | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Forney ISD | $30 per year | mandatory for all students using district devices. |
| Frisco ISD | $20 per year | mandatory for secondary students (grades 6–12) using district-issued Chromebooks and suggested for others. |
| Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD | $30 per year | mandatory for all students with district devices unless waived, and considering an increase to $40 per Board notes. |
| Plano ISD | $75 per year | mandatory for secondary students in choice and specialty programs. |
Many districts provide waivers or reductions for students who qualify for free or reduced lunch (Title I), but the fee is still required for those who do not qualify. Several districts have indicated in board meetings or budget updates that they are reviewing these fees for possible increases for the 2025-26 fiscal year, citing increased costs for devices, software, and insurance. With technology costs rising and state instructional materials and technology allotment set at only about $171.84 per student for 2024-25 (which must cover all instructional materials and technology for two years), many districts are reassessing their fee structures to close the gap between state funding and actual technology expenses.
Choice and specialty schools often charge higher or mandatory fees: Since NewTech @ Coppell is a choice school with a unique platform (ECHO) that incurs additional costs, it is reasonable and consistent with regional practice to require a higher, mandatory technology fee for New Tech students, with waivers for Title I or low-income families—a tech fee of $60-100 to cover both Echo and the use of the device.
What is the total annual cost per student for technology (including devices, software licenses, insurance, and platform fees like ECHO) at CISD and specifically at New Tech?
What is the rationale for making CISD’s fee non-mandatory?
Has the administration considered making the technology fee mandatory for all students, or at least for those attending choice programs like New Tech/IB and other special programs or electives, with exemptions for Title I/low-income students?
What would be the projected additional revenue if the tech fee were raised to $50, $75, or $100 per student and made mandatory for all “choice” students or all secondary students? With a summer fee for elementary students or middle school students who want to use the device for learning over the summer?
Are there plans to review or increase the technology fee for the 2025-26 academic year, as other districts are considering?
How does the district communicate the value and necessity of the technology fee to parents, and could improved communication or enforcement increase compliance and revenue?
Coppell ISD’s current $35 fee is low for what it spends on technology, and it is not mandatory, making it an outlier. Most districts are moving toward mandatory fees (or better enforcement) and are considering increases to better offset technology expenses.
Coppell ISD can achieve significant cost savings and generate additional revenue by optimizing technology asset management and contract oversight. Historical issues, such as decentralized software purchasing, underused technology, and lack of centralized inventory, have led to unnecessary expenses and missed opportunities for redistribution or resale. Implementing best practices in contract management, asset tracking, and procurement can help the district maximize every dollar spent on technology, reduce waste, and prevent duplicative purchases. Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) software is increasingly utilized by districts to centralize, automate, and optimize contract oversight, resulting in cost savings and enhanced vendor management. Effective inventory management systems enable districts to track their assets, their condition, and their location. This allows for the identification of surplus (before it hits steep depreciation), outdated, or unused items, such as technology, equipment, or furniture, that can be resold, repurposed, or redistributed to where they are needed most.
| Original Value/Unused Assets | Typical Recovery (5–10%) | High-End Recovery (30–40%) |
|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $2,500–$5,000 | $15,000–$20,000 |
| $100,000 | $5,000–$10,000 | $30,000–$40,000 |
| $250,000 | $12,500–$25,000 | $75,000–$100,000 |
Do we have a centralized system for tracking all technology contracts and software licenses across the district?
Has the district conducted a recent audit to identify redundant or underused software subscriptions, especially those purchased at the campus level?
What is the process for vetting new software purchases, and is the technology department involved in reviewing alignment, privacy, and cost-effectiveness of these purchases before approval?
Are all software and technology purchases/leases vetted and negotiated by CISD Technology to ensure alignment, avoid overlap, and share unused licenses across campuses?
How does the district handle unused or obsolete technology (e.g., unopened robotics kits, unused iPad accessories, calculators, batteries, and excess printers)? Is there a transparent process for reviewing, redistributing, or reselling inventory (especially after campus refreshes)? When was the last auction held?
When was the last asset audit? Is there an up-to-date online inventory of all technology (and other campus) assets to facilitate intercampus redistribution and prevent waste?
Are campuses incentivized to share assets rather than store unused ones, and are requests for new technology reviewed for redundancy?
What contract management software or tools does the district use to monitor contract renewals, compliance, and vendor performance?
Does CISD utilize technology to track vendor performance and contract compliance, enabling data-driven decisions for renewals or contract modifications?
Are there district-wide guidelines for campus leaders to request software or hardware, ensuring requests are evaluated for redundancy and alignment with district goals?
The Arena’s high visibility and the wide variety of competitions and events it hosts make it a prime candidate for a corporate partnership that could generate significant, recurring revenue for CISD year after year.
Many school districts in our region have successfully sold naming rights to athletic facilities, often securing substantial sponsorships. For example:
Southlake Carroll ISD recently approved a five-year sponsorship agreement with Methodist Southlake Medical Center for Dragon Stadium, generating nearly $500,000 over the contract term (about $100,000 per year). This deal includes prominent signage and digital advertising, as well as additional health and wellness services for students and staff.
Mansfield ISD has a naming rights agreement with Methodist Mansfield Medical Center, which includes the use of the name and logo on the press box side of Vernon Newsom Stadium.
Mansfield ISD also generates revenue through trademark licensing agreements for the use of district and school names on apparel, with fixed annual fees for vendors.
Prosper ISD secured a 10-year, $2.5 million deal ($250,000/year) for its stadium.
New Caney ISD sold naming rights to its athletic facilities for $60,000 per year. It entered into a five-year naming rights agreement with Randall Reed, CEO of World Class Automotive Group and Reed Enterprises Planet Ford of Humble
Given Coppell’s location and the arena’s prominence, a sponsorship in the range of $100,000 per year is a realistic and attainable goal. The Arena’s use for all major competitions, tournaments, and community events ensures excellent exposure for potential sponsors. This approach aligns with broader trends in facility monetization and creative revenue generation in public education.
We are fortunate to have major companies with a presence in or near Coppell, including Fanatics (with offices in Cypress Waters), McLaren (with its North American headquarters in Coppell), and Vari (headquartered in Coppell). These companies are invested in our community and could be ideal partners for a naming rights agreement, benefiting both CISD and the sponsor through positive brand association and community engagement.
Have any steps have been taken to identify and approach potential corporate partners for naming rights, especially those with a local presence such as Fanatics, McLaren, and Vari?
Have we benchmarked our facility’s visibility and event volume against peer districts that have successfully sold naming rights, such as Southlake Carroll ISD, Mansfield ISD, Prosper ISD, and New Caney ISD? What did we learn from those comparisons?
What contractual terms (length, renewal options, sponsor benefits, exclusivity) are typical in comparable naming rights deals in our North Texas region? How would we ensure a competitive and fair process?
What additional benefits (e.g., signage, digital advertising, wellness services) could we offer to increase the value of a naming rights package, as seen in the Southlake Carroll ISD and Mansfield ISD agreements?
We’ve compiled detailed data and examples from other districts in this document.
| Suggestion # | Title | Description of Idea | Potential Revenue Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Transportation Fees | - Charge fees for intercampus elective travel or for all bus riders - Use a sliding scale for low-income students - Benchmark: $370–$800/year per student |
$92,500–$185,000 (shuttles only) Up to $2.4M (all riders) |
| 2 | Optimize Average Daily Attendance (ADA) | - Maximize state funding by improving absence documentation - Automate reminders for missing notes - Target a 1%+ increase in ADA with continued emphasis on how it closes the budget gap |
$1,000,000+ per 1% ADA increase |
| 3 | Expand & Market Open Enrollment | - Aggressively market open seats to out-of-district students as other districts are doing - Target New Tech High and other campuses (this has NOT been done for NT) - Each new student brings state funding |
$7,000–$8,000 per student $700,000+ for 100 students |
| 4 | Increase Facility Rental Revenue | - Expand marketing and use of school facilities for rentals (event planners) - Use platforms like Facilitron - Adjust fee structure for nonprofits/commercial use - Review and increase activity/booster club fees for use of facilities - Ensure fees reflect actual costs for extracurriculars |
$200,000+ annually (projected) $500,000+ possible |
| 5 | Increase/Mandate Tech Fees | - Make tech protection fee mandatory for all students and add a summer-at-home fee for elementary students (with waivers) - Examine the fees other districts are charging to set a higher fee - Consider even higher or tiered fees for secondary/choice programs |
$35–$50 per student $150,000–250,000 |
| 6 | Tech Contracts, Inventory & Asset Sales | - Audit and renegotiate technology contracts (share licenses intradistrict) and centralize purchases and decision making - Sell surplus or outdated tech and equipment - Improve inventory management to reduce losses and to sell before peak depreciation and to avoid duplicative purchases |
$50,000–$200,000+ (one-time and recurring) |
| 7 | Naming Rights to Arena | - High-visibility arena suitable for corporate naming rights partnership - Potential recurring annual revenue, based on regional comparables - Successful models in nearby districts (e.g., Southlake Carroll ISD, Prosper ISD) demonstrate feasibility |
$100,000-250,000 for two years with potential to be recurring |
Note: Revenue impacts are estimates and will depend on participation rates, fee structure, and administrative implementation.
CoppellForNewTech.org