Comparing BONDS
Voters react Dripping Springs ISD’s November bond narrowly failed. Survey data shows the main reasons the bond failed focused on scal concerns.
PROPOSITION A
PROPOSITION C
PROPOSITION B
48.3% for 51.7% against
46.4% for 53.6% against
46.2% for 53.8% against
TOP 3 REASONS PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST THE BOND
All three propositions presented in the November Dripping Springs ISD bond package failed. This May’s bond election will contain only one proposition with the largest change being removing the construction of a second high school.
9% had concerns that it was wasteful spending.
17% 10%
had concerns that it cost too much money.
of voters voted against the bond because of tax increase concerns.
NOVEMBER FAILED BOND
Because of Senate Bill 30, e ective September 2019, a proposition seeking voter approval for the issuance of bonds requires ballot language that states a property tax increase. However, because of property value increases in the area, DSISD o cials did not expect a property tax rate increase due to the bond. The tax rate for the district would remain the same. Did you know?
PROPOSITION A
$199.28M*
Expand Sycamore Springs Middle School Capital improvements Build Elementary School No. 6
$62.87M
$60M
$30.83M
Total cost: $481.13M
SOURCES: BASELICE & ASSOCIATES, DRIPPING SPRINGS ISD, TEXAS 86TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION COMMUNITY IMPACT
Design two additional schools $3.1M
Infrastructure, technology, land and other projects
$42.5M
For the 2024-25 school year, two additional portable classrooms will need to be purchased to accommodate student growth. If the bond fails, 14 portables will need to be installed. The district has already purchased two por- tables for the 2023-24 school year for Walnut Springs Ele- mentary School. Similar to the November package, the district is seeking to construct a new elemen- tary school, expand Syca- more Springs Middle School, and design a new elementary school and middle school. The di erence in this bond package is the district will not ask for construction of a new high school. By splitting the design and construction of the new high school over two bond elections, the dis- trict can reduce the amount of money it asks for in a bond and fund a visual that can be shared with the community, DSISD Deputy Superinten- dent Elaine Cogburn said. “We still have the same facility needs; the main- tenance projects haven’t changed,” Cogburn said. “None of the needs have really changed. It’s just what kind of package will the com- munity support?” To prepare for the bond presented to voters in Novem- ber, two DSISD organiza- tions made up of community members and residents, the Long Range Facility Planning
DSISD o cials said the tax rate would not have increased because it already generates enough revenue to pay outstanding bonds and the bonds issued if the prop- ositions had passed. DSISD’s total tax rate is $1.3103 per $100 property val- uation for the 2022-23 school year. While this rate, set by the district, did not increase from the year prior, property values have increased. The median taxable value on property for DSISD home- owners increased by 50.62% from 2021 to 2022, meaning tax bills grew, even when the tax rate did not. Texas law requires lan- guage on a ballot to include the statement: “This is a property tax increase,” regardless of the impact on the district’s tax rate. The law comes from Senate Bill 30, which became e ective in September 2019. Before the election, the district is working to edu- cate voters on the nances of the district and the lan- guage regarding taxes through monthly informa- tive sessions. “Confusing information on the ballot, coupled with con- fusing information by social media and a distrust of what the district is saying, made it not feel safe to vote ‘yes‘ for the bonds,” Cogburn said. “And that’s what we’re trying to change is feeling safe that
Committee and the Bond Steering Committee, helped the district prioritize projects. The November bond pack- age had three propositions focused on the design and construction of new schools as well as maintenance repairs to facilities. “We know we have student growth coming and that our current facilities won’t accom- modate all of that growth,” Cogburn said. “And the only way for a school district to build a campus is to ask the voters for the authority to issue bonds.” About 52% of DSISD voters turned down each proposition. “It’s not about whether or not we need or want new schools; it’s a matter of how much we’re spending for them,” Dripping Springs res- ident Michelle Mostert said. “The voters spoke: They don’t want to pay the high price the board has come up with.” Understanding the costs The biggest factor con- tributing to voters deciding against the propositions was a concern for a tax increase, according to a survey of DSISD voters conducted by research rm Baselice & Associates. “If the taxes keep going up, people who work in the schools are not going to be able to a ord to live here,” Mostert said.
$275.35M PROPOSITION B
Construct High School No. 2**
$275.35M
$6.5M PROPOSITION C
*PROP A TOTAL DIFFERS DUE TO ROUNDING
Technology life cycle replacements**
$6.5M
**NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2023 BOND.
MAY PROPOSED BOND
PROPOSITION A
Construct Elementary School No. 6 Expand Sycamore Springs Middle School Design High School No. 2 Design Middle School No. 3
$66.26M
$33.21M
Total cost: $223.70M
$10.5M
$4M
$2.5M Design Elementary School No. 7
Build 18+ facility
$3.41M
Capital improvements
$82M $15M
Land
New buses
$2M
Technology infrastructure
$1.26M $2.35M $1.11M
SOURCE: DRIPPING SPRINGS ISD COMMUNITY IMPACT
Kitchen equipment
Portables
of portables and will need to increase class sizes to have as many kids in the building,” Superintendent Holly Mor- ris-Kuentz said during a bond workshop Feb. 10. Growing district needs In May, the district will ask for $223.70 million for new facilities and capital improvements.
CONTINUED FROM 1
overcapacity with three more predicted to reach capacity by 2025, according to DSISD. If the additional bond fails, the district will address growth by rezoning and shift- ing the student population within facilities and purchas- ing portable classrooms. “We’re going to have a sea
30
COMMUNITYIMPACT.COM
Powered by FlippingBook