Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Tomball ISD trims 2025 bond to $429.9 million, cites construction inflation and no tax-rate increase
Summary
After an update on progress and cost pressures from Bond 2021, Tomball ISD trustees revised the draft Bond 2025 package to $429.9 million, removing one elementary build and a Tomball West natatorium to stay within a no‑tax‑rate‑increase cap.
Tomball ISD trustees met Feb. 3 and presented a revised Bond 2025 package totaling $429,900,000 that district officials said preserves the district’s current total tax rate while funding prioritized facility repairs and growth needs.
The change trims an earlier, larger proposal so the district can issue debt without raising its total tax rate, Chief Financial Officer Zach Bowles said. "Bond 2025 could support a max bond package of 430,000,000. Any more than that would cause the district to have to increase the tax rate. We are not going to increase the tax rate at 430,000,000," Bowles said.
The revision removes construction of a new elementary school (referred to as "Elementary 13") while keeping land purchase and site development and delays construction of the Tomball West natatorium. Administration said the adjustments — plus modest reductions across several categories — bring the total to just under the district’s $430 million cap.
Why it matters: the board must call an election at its February meeting to place a bond on the May 3 ballot. Administration told trustees the cap is required to avoid a tax-rate increase while meeting internal limits for average debt maturity and the district’s policy of not issuing debt beyond 25 years. Texas law also requires special‑purpose propositions for certain facility types, so the ballot would contain multiple propositions if approved.
Administration framed the revision as a response to construction cost escalation since voters approved Bond 2021. Steven Gutierrez, the district’s chief operating officer, said the district had assumed an 8% annual construction escalation when planning Bond 2021 but faced far larger increases after passage: "In 2021, cost of construction went up 13.6%. The following year, they went up another 18.3%. By the time we were getting ready for those first projects under Bond 2021, construction costs had already risen over 32%."
Gutierrez described steps the district took to adapt, including changing procurement methods (moving from construction manager at‑risk to competitive single‑prime bidding), value engineering, and using bond proceeds plus proceeds from property sales to cover shortfalls. The district reported a roughly $48 million gap between 2021 ballot authorization and current planning estimates for Proposition A (new facilities and major infrastructure). Officials said they offset that gap with proceeds from the sale of about 35 acres near the Beckendorf Complex (approximately $10 million) and about $2.4 million in utility connection fees, plus interest timing and other mitigation strategies.
Proposition breakdown and revisions: administration said the district’s initial package included Proposition A (new facilities, renovations, transportation), Proposition B (technology not tied to safety or construction), Proposition C (athletic upgrades for facilities with seating over 1,000), Proposition D (natatoriums), and Proposition E (multipurpose fine‑arts/athletics centers). The earlier draft totaled about $529 million. To meet the $430 million limit, the district removed construction of Elementary 13 (retaining land/site work) and delayed Tomball West’s natatorium, while trimming other items to arrive at $429.9 million.
Public comment: two community speakers urged caution. Megan Jasper told trustees she felt the bond timeline was "a bit rushed" and asked the district to consider postponing the election to November for more public review. Gary Boudreaux, who said he served on the bond steering committee, echoed concerns about the committee’s meeting cadence and whether cost data were fully available to committee members, and asked how proposed projects would demonstrably improve student academic performance.
Discussion items and next steps: trustees asked for more detailed briefings on the multipurpose ("multi‑program activity") centers proposed in Proposition E — facilities described as indoor, climate‑controlled spaces that could host band, athletics, CTE, robotics and community rentals. Gutierrez said the primary driver for multipurpose centers is student and staff safety in extreme heat, and he described the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) monitoring that now guides practice decisions: "The primary driver behind all of this conversation of the proliferation of multi use sites across the state is safety, and the impact of weather on sport." Trustees requested a follow‑up showing the number of days over the past several years when WBGT or other conditions would have closed or curtailed outdoor practice and a deeper dive on design specifications and value engineering for the facilities.
No final action on calling an election occurred during the meeting. A formal vote is required to place a bond on the ballot; administration said that action would be on the February board agenda if trustees choose to call a May election.
Ending: trustees recessed for additional closed‑session business and later reconvened; the meeting adjourned after board comments and a motion to adjourn.
