Tomball ISD board unanimously orders May 3 bond election amid public debate over procurement, facility needs

The Tomball ISD Board of Trustees voted unanimously on Feb. 11 to order a school-building bond election for May 3, 2025, and to enter joint election agreements with both Montgomery and Harris counties.

The board approved the order calling the bond election after a multi-hour series of public comments and trustee discussion. "Do I have a motion?" the board president asked before Mr. White moved to call the election; the motion was seconded and the chair announced "Motion carries unanimously."

What passed: Trustees approved the order calling the bond election (proposition and total on the agenda), and separately approved joint election agreements with Montgomery County and Harris County to administer the May 3, 2025 election. The board also approved related agenda items earlier in the meeting, including contingent-fee legal services agreements and other consent and considered agenda items.

Public comment highlights: Eight individuals spoke during the agenda-item public-comment period and additional speakers addressed non-agenda items. - Alan Muir urged support for renovations to the Tomball High School natatorium and said aquatics programs have been "overlooked." He described state-level competition results for local students. - Dan Cranford raised procurement and conflict-of-interest concerns tied to the bond, telling trustees: "I want to ensure that there is never conflict of interest." He asked who would be the bond program manager and said he had found public records he said raise questions about bidding practices. - Rebecca Masciola, a member of the bond steering committee, urged trustees to support the items identified by the committee and argued the multipurpose and extracurricular spaces are needed for student safety and participation. "This is not about keeping up with the Joneses, but the safety of our students who are involved in sports and fine arts," she said. - Megan Jasper opposed the multiuse facility as a "want and not a need," arguing that training indoors could leave athletes less prepared for heat when playing outdoors. - Stacy Baron, who said she served on the bond committee, urged putting the bond on the May ballot and argued the proposal would not increase the district's total tax rate and would address aging buses and facilities. - Suzanne Swadderski criticized the pace of the proposal and questioned projections and cost assumptions; she told the board the district "currently carries $440,000,000 in interest payments alone," an assertion she attributed to her review of district finances.

Trustee and staff clarifications: Superintendent Martha Salazar Zamora and CFO Zach Boles answered procedural and technical questions during and after public comment. On the proposed size of multipurpose facilities, the superintendent said the board had reviewed options and "we did settle on 80" (yards) for the multipurpose facilities included in the proposal. Trustees also asked that presentation materials (the slide deck) be posted on the district website for public access; administrators agreed to add materials to the district's bond information page.

Board discussion and reasons for the vote: Trustees described weighing facility needs, safety concerns related to extreme heat, prior facility study committee recommendations and tax-rate implications. One trustee summarized the facility study committee's work and noted a prior committee list of approximately $530 million in priorities had been reduced to approximately $429 million for the current proposal. Another trustee said the choice to take the measure to voters reflected respect for local control and a desire to let the community decide.

Formal votes (selected): - Order calling school-building bond election (May 3, 2025): motion passed unanimously. - Joint election agreements with Montgomery County and Harris County: both motions passed unanimously. - Related motions on contingent-fee legal services and other agenda items were approved by unanimous votes earlier in the meeting.

Next steps and context: If approved by voters on May 3, the bond would fund a range of facility repairs, renovations and multipurpose program buildings. Trustees and administrators noted timing and scope could change depending on voter approval and future board actions. Administrators also said they would return with additional timing and funding details for certain projects (for example, the Tomball High School natatorium) as those items are scheduled and potentially funded from general-fund assignments or the bond.

Ending: The board directed staff to post presentation materials and continue outreach; the board also scheduled closed-session business later in the meeting after the bond votes.