Tomball ISD proposes $429 million bond package focused on aging facilities, buses and indoor practice centers

Tomball ISD officials on Monday outlined a proposed bond package totaling about $429 million that would fund campus infrastructure replacements, vehicle and equipment upgrades, technology refreshes and three large multi‑use indoor practice facilities at the district’s comprehensive high schools.

The district’s chief financial officer, Zach Bowles, told trustees the package is engineered so “we’re going to present a bond package that contains no increase to the tax rate,” and that the district will continue to manage debt maturities and refundings to limit borrowing costs.

Why it matters: Tomball trustees say the bond is intended to address aging infrastructure and maintain parity among campuses after years of growth and incremental projects. The package would fund land and site development for a future elementary, a south‑side Early Excellence Academy (pre‑K center), a replacement Tomball Intermediate School, expansion of special‑services space and Connections Academy, major district infrastructure repairs (HVAC, chillers, boilers and fire panels), a large bus and white‑fleet replacement program, a district Chromebook/staff device refresh and upgrades to athletic and fine‑arts facilities.

Key details

- Total proposed package: roughly $429,000,000 (combined across all propositions). Bowles presented specific proposition totals: Proposition A (general projects) about $331,500,000; Proposition B (technology) $18,000,000; Proposition C (Tomball High School stadium/turf/track) $2,800,000; Proposition D (three multi‑use indoor activity centers) $76,700,000. The board discussed those totals during its workshop; a final vote to call the election was scheduled for the Feb. 11 regular meeting.

- Tax impact stance: Bowles said the district’s debt strategy and current model are intended to avoid increasing the tax rate and to maintain an average maturity near 15 years while keeping outstanding debt maturities under 25 years.

- Funding context: Bowles reviewed state funding pressures, noting that a Senate proposal to fund education savings accounts (private school vouchers) and no new operational funding could reduce per‑pupil revenue for districts. He said Tomball ISD’s current state funding-per-pupil figure is $6,160 and that a voucher program in the senate budget would allocate up to $10,000 per private‑school student; Bowles warned that student departures would reduce district revenue while fixed facility costs remain.

- Major capital projects in Proposition A: land/site development for an eventual 13th elementary (land only), a south Early Excellence Academy (pre‑K center, estimated $35 million), a replacement Tomball Intermediate School (to address 60+ year‑old infrastructure), repurposing of the current intermediate campus for Connections Academy and expanded special‑services programs, repairs and upgrades across multiple campuses (chillers, boilers, water systems, fire panels, roofing), retrofit of Warehouse 7 at the Tomball Innovation Center for expanded CTE, and districtwide security upgrades (window film, silent panic alerts, radio communications).

- Transportation and fleet: presentation materials show the district operates about 64 route buses with more than half past the recommended 10–12 year service life; staff projected a need for more than 90 buses over the next five to seven years and a white‑fleet replacement program for maintenance, custodial and other district vehicles.

- Proposition D — multi‑use indoor activity centers: the district proposed building three air‑conditioned indoor turf facilities (one at each comprehensive high school) with eave heights up to 65 feet, retractable dividers and space for storage, offices and observation/film decks. Administration framed the centers as safety and equity projects so students can practice and perform year‑round during extreme heat, poor air quality or storms. The district cited wet‑bulb globe temperature guidance and recent months in which many practice days were restricted by UIL heat policies.

Public comment and trustee discussion

Several residents addressed trustees before the reports. Megan Jasper warned about tax effects and said, “if we did not pass this bond next year, the rate would likely be around 96¢,” arguing voters would like a lower rate. Other speakers, including parents and coaches, urged investment in an indoor practice facility to protect student athletes and arts groups from heat and scheduling conflicts. One commenter, Dan Cranford, criticized district fiscal practices and asked for a full audit before a bond vote. Trustees and staff responded to questions about site selection, whether land already owned could be used for the Early Excellence Academy south campus (staff said they expect to use district property), and how long‑term debt and refunding strategies reduce taxpayers’ interest costs.

What the bond would not cover

Administrators emphasized bond proceeds can be used only for capital items: land, construction, major equipment and technology. Bond funds cannot pay for teachers’ salaries, consumable classroom materials or ongoing operational expenses such as fuel and utilities; those are paid from the maintenance and operations (M&O) general fund.

Next steps

Board members reviewed the package in the Feb. 10 workshop and were scheduled to consider a formal order calling a bond election at the Feb. 11 regular meeting. If the board calls the election, administration presented a timeline that would aim for a May election date and then, if voters approve, a phased project schedule for design, bidding and construction. Trustees said they will continue to brief the public and answer questions before any ballot measure.

Trustee comments at the workshop ranged from full support of the package as proposed to requests for additional cost comparisons (for example, between steel‑sided buildings and fabric “bubble” structures used by other districts). Administration said it would return to the board with follow‑up cost comparisons and more detailed campus‑by‑campus allocation breakdowns.

Ending

The board did not vote at the workshop. The Feb. 11 agenda contained multiple items tied to the bond package, including a resolution and professional‑services agreements; trustees indicated they expected those formal motions and any amendments to be made at the regular meeting before placing measures on a voter ballot.