As a wise man once said, "I prefer clarity over agreement"....I appreciate the clarification. That being said, a $60 mil stadium is the issue....it's the symbol of the issue. As I stated above, why not build a $50 mil stadium and fund the fine arts (and basically every other school organization) for years with the other $10 mil. The same issue was shown on Sunday Night Football...they had aerial shots of a couple of $50/$60 mil stadiums.
You're exactly right...the issue is priorities. I assume Allen Band has fees...building a stadium like that and then looking at the band and saying "yeah, you guys still need to pay those $$$$ fees to be in band", it gives the message to students and parents that football is more important than the fine arts.
A couple of things:
1) Bond money built the stadium and the fine arts hall. Under Texas school finance law, bond money can't be used for operating expenses. Plus, the tax rate for bond servicing and the tax rate for operations are separate rates. So, there is no legal way to take $10 million from the bond money for the stadium and use it to fund the arts. And there is no legal way to use funds from the tax rate for bond servicing to increase operating budgets. I hear what you are saying, but it's not as simple as you make it.
2) Allen's band fees are for purchasing equipment/clothing/trips, etc. There isn't a blanket "band participation fee", and the district does cover the vast majority of the expenses of running the program. The band boosters do a lot of fund raising for extras, as do athletic boosters. From talking to people from other schools, I know Allen band students/parents pay a lot less that others.
Trust me, with the level of support that fine arts has in Allen, no one thinks that the district feels football is more important to the district. With the number of kids in band at all levels, band parents in the district can make or break a school board election. In fact, the school board currently contains at least three (and maybe more) band parents.