Socorro ISD board adopts tax rates and orders voter‑approval election to seek $49.2M annual revenue

Socorro Independent School District trustees adopted tax rates Thursday that preserve the district’s overall tax rate while setting in motion a voter‑approval election to allow the district to collect additional maintenance‑and‑operations revenue if voters approve.

The board approved a maintenance‑and‑operations (M&O) tax rate of 78.89¢ per $100 valuation and an interest‑and‑sinking (I&S) rate of 27¢ per $100, yielding a total tax rate of $1.0589 per $100 valuation. The board then adopted the required resolution and voted to call a voter‑approval tax rate election for Nov. 4, 2025, as required by state law because the proposed rate is higher than the voter‑approval threshold.

Why it matters: Administration estimates the full 12‑penny voter‑approval option could unlock roughly $49.2 million in additional annual revenue if voters ratify the higher M&O rate. District officials said recent state legislative changes to homestead and business property exemptions reduced the district’s taxable base; the district used the higher exemption values (as required for calculation) when computing compressed tax rates and the voter‑approval threshold.

CFO David Solis presented the legal timeline and tax calculations, and described how recent legislation affects the district’s taxable values. Solis said the proposed rate would leave the overall tax rate unchanged from last year, and that “most homeowners will see a decrease in the school tax bill despite no change in the overall tax rate” because the higher homestead exemptions reduce taxable values for many homeowners.

Solis walked trustees through required public‑notice steps, the calculation of the voter‑approval tax rate and the distinction between the no‑new‑revenue rate and the voter‑approval rate. He explained that because the proposed rate exceeds the voter‑approval rate, state law requires the district to call a tax‑ratification election and to provide an efficiency audit before the election; the board previously approved an efficiency audit on June 24. Solis also noted the central appraisal district provided certified values that factor into the state’s compressed‑rate calculations.

The board also heard from bond counsel Matt Hines, who reviewed election‑ethics constraints and advised trustees on permissible district communications during an election. Hines told the board, “public funds cannot be used to advocate for or against an election outcome,” and he outlined the legal distinction between factual education by the district and advocacy or political advertising that would be prohibited. Hines and trustees discussed examples — staff communications, videos produced by students, use of district social channels, and third‑party campaign activity — and the higher scrutiny that may apply to superintendents and district employees acting during work hours.

Trustees asked questions about the practical cost of placing the election on the ballot and the fiscal effects of varying the I&S rate. Administration said a November election typically costs the district tens of thousands of dollars to place on the county ballot and that lowering the I&S rate by one penny would require drawing from the debt‑service fund balance (roughly $90 million at the time of presentation) to cover debt payments, at an estimated one‑time fund‑balance contribution in the low single‑digit millions.

Public comment included a district retiree who supported giving voters the choice to approve the extra funding. Trustees who voted in favor cited a need to preserve programs and services and to maintain momentum on improvements the board has pursued since May.

Actions taken Thursday included adoption of the M&O and I&S rates; adoption of the tax‑rate resolution required by the Texas Education Code; and approval of an order calling the voter‑approval tax‑ratification election for Nov. 4, 2025. The board recorded required language in the resolution noting that this year’s levy for maintenance and operations exceeds last year’s levy and included the statutorily required statement of the percentage change and the dollar impact on a $100,000 home.

Legal and procedural authorities cited in the presentation included Texas Education Code section 44.004 (notice requirements), the Texas Education Agency’s compressed‑rate process, and state statutes and rules governing voter‑approval tax rates. Bond counsel advised trustees on election ethics and on keeping district communications factual and non‑advocative during the election period.

The board scheduled follow‑up steps to publish required notices, post the required statement and tax‑rate calculations on the district website, and coordinate with the county for placement of the proposition on the November ballot. Final outcomes will depend on the canvass of the election and voters’ decision on Nov. 4.