The Leander ISD Board of Trustees has voted to bring a bond election to the ballot on May 7, 2023, the largest in the district’s history, clocking in at a $762,000,000.
While the district is in need of upgrades and maintenance on several aging facilities, and in need of new campuses for a growing student population, there are some valid concerns over the bond in its current form.
Before we get into the issues with the bond as it stands, let’s take a step back and look at the timeline and how we got to where we are now.
In January 2023, the Citizens Facility Advisory Committee (CFAC), which first met on September 26, 2022, presented its final recommendations to the board for discussion (See below).
An “OPTIONAL” community survey was built into the plan, which they opted not to engage in.
The last opportunity to discuss the bond occurred at the May 9th board meeting and the board voted to approve a May bond election at that time, without any community feedback.
In fact, on January 11th, Crestina Hardie, LISD communications director, stated in regards to the Long Range Plan, “I don’t think that we are actually soliciting the public on feedback or trying to create awareness UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION”.
CFAC’s recommendation included a recommended range from $563,000,000 to $601,000,000. The board ultimately removed nearly $27,000,000 of said recommendations, yet the dollar amount was not reduced.
In the end, the board increased the bond to include an ADDITIONAL $161,000,000 in items that were added to their “long-range” plan. (INCLUDING repurposing a Steiner elementary school and removing renovations for CRMS because they plan to close one of our middle schools in 2028. They have not disclosed whether it will be Four Points or Canyon Ridge).
Trish Bode, Leander ISD Board of Trustee President, first met with the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) on November 10th, 2022. The plan was discussed during the November 15th, 2022 board meeting, during which time Anna Smith, Leander ISD Board of Trustee, Place 4, expressed concerns that “the new board members had no idea what was in the Long-Range-Plan.” Trish admitted she had attended only one meeting and there needed to be more community education and involvement.
The first discussion of the Long Range Plan being incorporated into the CFAC recommendations occurred on February 7th, 2023, NINE days prior to the vote approving the bond vote.
This was also the first time that repurposing a southern school as a professional learning center was discussed, yet the board voted 6-1 to INCLUDE $161,000,000 in the bond for long-range planning items that had little discussion.
So, now, let’s dive into the details:
There are several things that should encourage you to dig a little deeper, so let’s look into just a few of the “concerns” for a moment.
Multiple PIRs (public information requests) have been submitted to the district asking for specific bids, contracts, etc. that align with the bond recommendations. To date, we have not received any such documents. So the question is, why are they not providing that information? And if they don’t have it, where did they get their numbers from? (Some of them are very specific. For example, “Elementary School #31 = $71,432,375). So the question is ”where are they getting those numbers?”
While many people may have swallowed the pill here and voted to support the bond despite these items, the Board of Trustees decided, at the last minute, to incorporate items on the Long Range Plan into the bond, without community feedback and without meaningful discussion amongst board members.
As you’ll likely see, there are some passionate folks on either side of this bond for various reasons. This article is not designed to tell you how YOU should vote, but rather to provide you with the information so that you can do your own due diligence and make an informed decision.
This is one of the fundamental flaws of the bond. Period.
As mentioned above, the timeline where the LRP was brought in was extremely rushed and there was no feedback or involvement from the community. Staunch supporters of the bond, administration, and several board members claim that it’s a “living document” and nothing has been decided as of yet.
However, the data that has been provided does not support such claims.
There have been multiple, conflicting, answers with regard to the timeline. Yet, the bond is calling for $161,000,000 for these projects.
After expressing frustration in the “South” part of the district, the LISD board and administration hosted a “forum” at Vandegrift High School, where residents in the area were angry, which were largely dismissed.
At the March 6th meeting at Vandegrift, Dr. Gearing stated: “So what I’m saying is, there’s room for negotiation, the social contract we’ve made in the south, really is with the people in this room. So if the people in this room come to us, and say, we really want to talk through what happens to that repurpose building and how that works, we will be able to do that to a certain extent.”
However, Jimmy Dissler stated unequivocally that there WILL BE one elementary school in the south and one middle school in the south that will become available to repurpose and at LEAST two in the central part of the district, possibly a third. And several board members and administrators were clear that they are not interested in community involvement despite Dr. Gearing’s claims.
Despite the claims that nothing has been “decided” for sure, we can see from their own documents that the process on at least 3 elementary schools will begin in the 2023-2024 school year. And that in the 2026-2027 school year, we will see a middle school be taken.
(NOTE: CFAC recommendations for the CRMS were struck from the bond and Gearing, himself, stated that he did so because it’s on the list for repurposing).
Schools in the Central part of the district that have been identified as possibilities include Cypress, Faubion, Giddens, Mason, Naumann (had over $20,000,000 removed from CFAC recommendation in the final bond package), Reed, Westside, Winkley. Elementary schools for consideration in the south include Laura Bush, River Ridge and Steiner Ranch.
This was discussed in greater length at the March 23rd board meeting, during which the board discussed a number of topics such as:
What’s also concerning is the amount of “repurposing” and shuffling of existing campuses around.
Population and Survey Analysts (PASA) has a track record of missing the demographics by 50% or more! In addition, the CFAC looked at a single table to make their recommendations and excluded the warnings that PASA indicated in their own report citing concerns with COVID and getting back to normal.
According to the PASA 2022 Demographic Update Report (page 176) “Between 2006-07 and 2017-18, the proportion of the student population that was in KG declined steadily from 9.1% to 6.4%. In 2018-19, this declining trend reversed, and 6.6% of the student population was in KG, followed by 6.9% in 2019-20. The 2020-21- and 2021-22-years’ unusual decline in the youngest student population (due to pandemic fears) complicates an understanding of true demographic trends in those years. Likewise, this year’s KG class was actually smaller than last year’s class and represented only 6.2% of the student population. It remains difficult to know if this small KG is still reminiscent of a pandemic-related enrollment decline or, rather, a true demographic trend.”
NOTE: This aligns with the data presented in Figure 5 below.
However, PASA is also missing a number of development projects on the horizon and, per Dr. Gearing, does not take into account regeneration.
They claim that the district is growing in the north and shrinking in the south. In evaluating a single zip code in the southern part of the district, 78732, the number of children 0-4 bottomed out in 2018, but increased 42% between 2019 and 2021 and is the highest number in that demographic since at least 2011 (the last year available on the Census website).
The Leander ISD CFO, admitted that they have over 1300 students that have not attended school this year. The district lost 2000 kids to COVID and they don’t know where they went. He said “…there’s gonna be a little lull. If you look data across the line, there’s going to be a two or three-year kind of a little dip.”
They are missing several new construction projects that have either been permitted, are in the works, etc.
Let’s face it! We are in a tough economy right now. There are no two ways about it.
This has people concerned and with a price tag of nearly $800,000,000, it’s a LOT for some people to swallow.
One big concern is that they CLAIM that the bond will NOT increase taxes… They have come to that conclusion by using estimates of 10% appreciation for 2023 and 2024 (the next two years as defined in the slide below).
HOWEVER, since this was originally submitted, the feds have raised interest rates AND home values have actually DECLINED.
In the event that we DO NOT see a 10% appreciation rate, how will the district pay for these bonds?
Spoiler alert: According to the latest Central Texas Housing Market Report provided by the Austin Board of REALTORS® ( Mar 12, 2023), the Austin-Round Rock MSA housing market experienced a 6.3% decrease in median home prices to $450,000 in January 2023, which is the largest price drop since July 2011. So for just the first year, they are off 11.3% (and we’re still in Q1).
Some “experts” are predicting a correction of as much as 20%-25%.
“The largest decrease in home prices will occur in Austin, where values are projected to slump 19% by late 2024 compared to late 2022, according to the note.” – New York Post, 2/27/2023
According to Goldman Sachs, The anticipated decline in home prices on a national level is expected to be manageable, with a low risk of widespread mortgage credit turmoil or a surge in foreclosure. “That said, overheated housing markets in the Southwest and Pacific coast, such as San Jose MSA, Austin MSA, Phoenix MSA, and San Diego MSA will likely grapple with peak-to-trough declines of over 25%, presenting localized risk of higher delinquencies for mortgages originated in 2022 or late 2021.”
Rising interest rates, a housing correction, continued layoffs, inflation, bank failures, and navigating the post-Covid educational landscape create an environment where it’s not unreasonable to ask questions and express valid concerns.
However, some are trying to discredit such concerns with personal attacks and lumping groups together who have nothing to do with one another.
Add in rising interest rates and inflation, there is a legitimate concern about borrowing costs increasing the long-term liabilities of the district.
Interest rates have more than doubled in the past year and it’s worrisome to include funding for long-range plans that have not even been fully worked through (or if they have, they have not been disclosed).
For illustration purposes assuming standard 30-year amortization*, on $762,000,000 at 2% (estimated rate just 2 years ago), the monthly payment would be $2,816,500 (total interest paid would equal $251,940,137, or a TOTAL payment of $1,013,940,137. That’s OVER A BILLION DOLLARS).
Double that to 4% and the monthly payment jumps to $3,637,905 per MONTH, $547,645,639 in interest paid, increasing the total amount to $1.3B (yes! 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS)
*We have not been provided the specific interest rates so this is for illustration purposes. Bonds must be paid back in 40 years but can be paid back earlier.
Combining these higher borrowing costs with inflated construction prices, we are borrowing more money at a higher cost and if the tax base drops, then they will need to come up with the difference somehow (aka increased property taxes).
There are COUNTLESS solutions that would be FAR more fiscally responsible than a bond package that will cost taxpayers well in excess of a BILLION dollars.
Some options include:
These are just a few options that have been brought up to LISD board members and administration in an attempt to work together to meet the needs of the district, meet the needs of the community, and take into account the last several years, which have presented a lot of challenges in terms of predicting enrollment numbers and student populations.
The most important thing that we want people to know is that we are NOT against bonds, in general. We are FOR the kids and teachers in our district. We simply want transparency in the process and we are expecting meaningful engagement from impacted communities for next steps.
For more information: