El Campo ISD facilities committee backs roughly $81 million bond package for high school, elementary work

The El Campo ISD facilities committee endorsed a recommendation to present a single bond proposition to the school board that would fund replacement and renovation work at the high school and new construction at an elementary school, the committee said during its final meeting. The committee summarized the package as two projects totaling roughly $80.9 million and said it will present its recommendation to the board at the board meeting next Wednesday, the 22nd; the board could vote at a special meeting Feb. 5 to call a bond election.

The proposal calls for a new administration building; a new cafeteria sized to serve 500 students (up from an earlier plan for 300); a counseling suite; a two‑story academic wing to match existing buildings; a library; academic classrooms including special education; culinary classrooms; a dance studio; a band hall and choir room; and expanded CTE (career and technical education) space. The committee also recommended renovating parts of the existing CTE/shop areas (automotive, ag mechanics, construction systems) and renovating the A building for larger CTE classrooms. The committee said it would demolish the existing administration building, the cafeteria, the C building, H building, portables, the east side of the ABS building, parts of the construction systems area and the band wall.

The committee gave a rough cost breakdown in the presentation: the high‑school project is “just under $56 million,” and the elementary project is “just under $23 million,” producing a combined package in the neighborhood of $80.9 million. Committee members and staff emphasized that these are preliminary estimates and that final bid results could differ. The committee also described built‑in contingencies: a $3 million scoping contingency plus separate owner/contractor construction contingencies and customary soft costs (surveys, geotechnical testing, furniture, material testing and similar allowances). Committee materials referenced escalation assumptions for later projects (including a separately discussed conceptual $47 million set‑aside for future replacement or consolidation of Mayotte and Northside projected to 2030 with a 4% annual escalation).

Committee members said scope additions — not only rising unit construction prices — drove the change from an earlier ~$52 million figure to the current high‑school estimate. The cafeteria increase from 300 to 500 capacity was identified as a board‑directed change, and the committee noted that change raised the cafeteria cost about 40 percent. Committee speakers repeatedly cautioned that the numbers are preliminary and that final costs will depend on bids and market conditions.

Beyond project scope and price, the committee spent meeting time planning outreach and communications in the event the board calls the election. The meeting included a facilitated SWOT exercise (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) to gather messaging ideas and to identify misinformation risks. Committee leaders emphasized the need for a coordinated communications effort so staff, parents and community groups hear accurate information — including that the proposal is presented as a “no tax rate increase” (the presenters said the proposed bond would not change the current tax rate, while producing the bond proceeds described). The committee sketched a two‑phase approach: finalize the recommendation to the board, then, if the board calls the election, shift remaining committee participants into a citizen outreach team or political action committee to promote the proposition and run voter education and fundraising efforts.

Four volunteers (identified during the meeting as James, Jim and Jana among those present) agreed to serve as primary spokespeople to present the committee’s recommendation to the board on the 22nd; about eight additional people said they would attend the board meeting in support. The committee also planned a smaller preparatory meeting on either Jan. 20 or 21 (scheduling dependent) for those who will speak to the board and to finalize presentation materials, including 3‑D renderings and simple graphics to show what will be renovated and what will not.

Committee speakers flagged several issues the outreach work must address: clarifying which items are in the bond and which are not, explaining contingency and escalation assumptions, and countering circulating misinformation (for example, rumors about a new stadium). Committee members discussed existing district practices such as setting aside fund balance for field maintenance and replacement; a staff speaker said the recent turf project on the football field was funded from previously reserved fund balance and is not part of the bond package. Speakers also raised landscaping and green‑space concerns, traffic and parking improvements (noted as Ricebird/Bryceburg Way in committee materials) and accessibility upgrades to gym restrooms and locker rooms.

The committee’s presentation packet will include the full record of meetings, sign‑in sheets, the SWOT feedback and a draft PowerPoint for the board. Committee leaders said they will recommend that the board engage a communications professional to help coordinate the outreach if the board moves to call the election. The committee noted multiple unknowns — final bid results, market escalation, and precise timing — and asked that its outreach message emphasize those uncertainties while making the case for the projects included in the recommendation.

Votes at a glance: The facilities committee registered an informal, membership endorsement of the recommendation to present a single bond proposition to the board. The committee recorded volunteer spokespeople to appear at the board meeting; the board has not yet voted on calling any election. The board is scheduled to receive the committee’s recommendation on the 22nd and may hold a special meeting Feb. 5 to consider calling a bond election.

— End —