Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
East Central ISD board votes to call May 3 bond election for $309.15 million schools plan
Loading...
Summary
The East Central Independent School District board approved an order calling a May 3, 2025 bond election for $309,150,000 to build a new comprehensive high school and two elementary schools. Officials and advisers outlined projected tax impacts, timelines and site-development costs.
The East Central Independent School District Board of Trustees on Feb. 2025 voted to call a bond election for May 3, 2025, asking voters to approve $309,150,000 in bonds to fund a new comprehensive high school and two new elementary schools.
Bond planning committee member Cassandra Baron told the board the committee recommends a single proposition of $309,150,000 that would fund a new comprehensive high school and two elementary schools, and that the district needs the projects to relieve overcrowding as several campuses approach or exceed capacity by 2028.
Victor Koroga, the district’s financial adviser, presented the district’s revised tax-impact analysis and said the district’s modeling shows the proposed $309,150,000 program would raise the I&S portion of the tax rate by about 8.75 cents per $100 of taxable value when phased over three years. "We were able to solve for this bond amount of $309,150,000 and ... have that I&S tax rate impact at 8.75¢ per $100 valuation," Koroga said. Koroga described a three‑year bond sale plan that he said would phase the tax impact for homeowners (first year ~5.2¢, second year ~2¢, third year ~1.42¢, according to the adviser’s scenario). He also said the district plans to apply about $5 million from an interest and sinking/sinking‑fund balance to help subsidize debt service.
Cassandra Baron summarized survey results and lessons from the November 2024 election, saying voters who opposed that election cited too many propositions, concern about total tax burden and a desire to prioritize academic needs over athletic facilities. The committee recommended removing athletic improvements from this May proposal and focusing on the new schools.
Jim O'Pelt of LPA Architects reviewed schematic designs for a phased comprehensive high school sized initially for 2,200 students (with core spaces sized to allow future expansion to about 3,200) and two prototype elementary schools of about 910 students and roughly 95,000 square feet each. O'Pelt said the high school site is about 124 acres split by a flood‑plain area, with the planned high school footprint on roughly 68 acres at Old Corpus Christi Road and Dunham Road. He described parking, courtyards, a dining/performing‑arts flexible space and plans to design to state security guidance.
District staff and site consultant John Thomas outlined site‑development work and additional off‑site infrastructure the board should expect. Thomas estimated significant road improvements and utility work for the high school site totaling roughly $15.16 million (including road upgrades, a sewer tie and utility connections), plus separate site development and lift‑station work at the proposed south elementary site and costs to bring water and power to undeveloped parcels.
Board members and staff discussed ballot language and statutory requirements. The district’s bond attorney provided the required ballot language; officials noted state law requires a property‑tax‑increase statement in school bond ballot wording and that 2019 changes require separate propositions for athletic/auditorium items if those were included. The superintendent recommended board approval of the order calling the bond election. Trustee Spries made the motion; Trustee Crossfield seconded. The board voted to approve the order calling the election; the transcript records "All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries," but does not give a roll‑call tally.
The bond planners and architects said design work on the high school and elementary prototypes continues so the district could begin phased construction if voters approve the proposition. Presenters gave target opening years of 2027 for Elementary School No. 10, and 2028 for Elementary School No. 11 and High School No. 2, contingent on voter approval and schedules for permitting and road/utility construction.
Next steps identified in the meeting included finalizing ballot language, public education and outreach to explain the single‑proposition approach and tax impact, and meeting statutory deadlines: presenters noted the legal deadline to call the election (as presented in the packet) was Friday, Feb. 14, and the election date would appear on the May 3, 2025 ballot.
Votes at the meeting recorded approval of the order calling the bond election but did not record the full yes/no tally in the available transcript; board members also discussed additional outreach and the program’s focus on new schools rather than athletic projects.

