Magnolia ISD trustees review $527 million bond package, debate separate athletics and natatorium propositions and strict ballot wording

Magnolia Independent School District trustees on a workshop agenda reviewed a facility planning committee recommendation for a $527,000,000 bond package and debated how to divide projects into ballot propositions, how to describe equity work at existing campuses, and how to comply with new state ballot-language rules ahead of a likely November 2025 election.

The bond package reviewed includes a new high school and two new elementary schools listed in the committee’s instructional and immediate-needs slate, plus safety and security, land, buses, turf and seating upgrades at high schools, and a proposed natatorium on the west side of the district. Eric, a district staff member who presented the package, told trustees that the district’s “total capacity without having to increase the tax rate is 650,000,000.” He said the facility planning committee originally recommended a $527,000,000 package. “Prop A is obviously those items that are instructional and focused and also immediate needs,” Eric said, describing the committee’s organization of projects.

Trustees and the district’s bond attorney, John Hall, discussed items that must be stand-alone propositions under state law. Hall said districts typically separate large athletic venues and certain special facilities so voters can consider them independently. He explained that a facility with seating above 1,000 typically must be its own proposition, which affects whether football stadiums or large athletic venues can be included in general propositions. Hall also advised trustees that a natatorium is treated as a separate, stand-alone proposition and that the district can add locational language; the presenters said they had added local language identifying the natatorium to be “located on the West side of the school district.”

Trustees debated whether to include two tiers of facility upgrades in Prop A (priority 1, needs within one-to-two years) and priority 2 items (three-to-five years). Eric said administrators proposed removing the priority 2 facility upgrades from Prop A because the committee had recommended them but the administration judged many as not immediately required. “The subtle adjustment that that we made…was to remove the facility upgrade priority 2 from Prop A,” he said. Trustees asked for a detailed list of what is in priority 2 so they could see what would be delayed if the board excludes those items this election.

Board members repeatedly raised messaging and voter clarity concerns. One trustee said voters should understand that rejecting Prop B (the athletic/equipment/upgrade proposition) would also mean existing high schools would not receive upgrades that would match standards at a new high school. Eric and Hall said statutory changes limit what the ballot text can say and how it must be formatted; Hall noted an Attorney General opinion and recent legislation tightened the permissible wording. “The AG just came out with an opinion to us on Thursday exactly how that language needs to read,” Eric said. The presenters said the statutory text must include a phrase that the election is a “property tax increase” and that districts may not add electioneering language. Hall advised trustees that while districts can show estimated tax amounts in the public notice, they should avoid phrasing that could be construed as advocacy in the ballot language itself.

Trustees directed staff to refine ballot lines and to return draft language for review. Eric said administrators and the bond attorney would prepare alternative wording for trustees to review before the board’s decision deadline. The presenters reminded the board of upcoming procedural dates: a public hearing scheduled for August 25 (as part of the budget process), and a deadline to call the election that falls in mid-August; presenters said final ballot language must be resolved before that call. Eric said the administration would circulate draft ballot language to trustees so they could provide feedback before the board’s next meeting.

Next steps: the district will produce draft ballot language incorporating trustees’ feedback, provide a refreshed breakdown of priority-2 items for trustee review, and present revised propositions and language for board consideration ahead of the election-call deadline.