Brownsville ISD facility committee weighs $350M bond package, separate performing‑arts proposition and smaller repairs plan ahead of May election

Brownsville ISD staff and bond counsel briefed the Board of Trustees Facility Committee on Feb. 10 on four options for a possible bond election in May, including a full $350 million package to maintain the district’s interest and sinking (I&S) tax rate, a package with a separate performing‑arts proposition, and a smaller proposal focused on immediate roofing and HVAC repairs. No formal board vote occurred; the board announced a special called meeting for Feb. 13 where it will consider whether to call an election.

District staff said the administration and the citizens facilities committee compiled a prioritized list of projects, with items 2 through 42 on the committee’s list focused primarily on HVAC, roofing and campus renovations. The administration recommended a narrower bond (described as Option 4) that would address immediate facility needs, preserve existing I&S tax capacity and buy time for more detailed public input on larger projects such as a performing‑arts center (PAC) and a career and technical education (CTE) center.

The district’s presentation included data from the Texas Bond Review Board showing the local context for bonds since Sept. 1, 2019, when legislative changes took effect. Staff noted nearly 1,400 bond elections statewide since that date, with a general pass rate of roughly 61 percent. Bond counsel Matt Lee (Norton Rose Fulbright) explained that a 2019 law requires certain large projects — including performing‑arts facilities, stadiums over 1,000 seats and natatoriums — to appear as separate ballot propositions and that Texas ballots for school‑district bonds must include the statutory notice that the proposition “is a property tax increase,” even when the district intends no net increase in the tax rate.

The staff briefing described four approaches:

• Option 1 — a single, up‑to‑$350,000,000 bond that would fund the prioritized list recommended by the citizens facilities committee (HVAC, roofing, CTE center funding, campus renovations) and maintain the current 24‑cent I&S tax rate.

• Option 2 — the Option 1 package plus a separate proposition for a performing‑arts facility (PAC), which under current law must be a distinct proposition.

• Option 3 — include the PAC as a separate proposition but cap the total package at roughly $350,000,000 so adding the PAC would require removing or reprioritizing other items on the committee’s list.

• Option 4 (administration recommendation) — reduce the immediate bond to a narrower package (presented figures ranged roughly from $200 million to $263 million in staff materials) focused on roofing and HVAC to preserve the district’s current tax rate and allow more time for community input on the PAC, a CTE center and other major projects.

Board members pressed staff on timing, tax‑rate effects and how the PAC would be sized and sited. Staff noted Brownsville ISD has about $39.6 million remaining in bonded debt under the current fiscal year and that the district’s declining average daily attendance (ADA) and other factors could reduce state aid for future bond debt. Staff said delaying a bond could lower I&S debt rates in the short term but make it politically harder to ask voters to increase the rate later.

Architectural examples from Pfluger Architects showed a range of PAC types: a larger performing‑arts center with roughly 1,200 seats and full amenities (estimated around $65 million using discussed per‑square‑foot metrics) and a “budget‑friendly” version of about 43,500 square feet at roughly $32.6 million (including soft costs). Staff and the architects cautioned that seating capacity and design choices affect acoustics, event viability and cost — and that a PAC in the 1,200‑seat range would not meet the district’s largest graduation‑attendance needs, where some events draw 6,000–7,000 people. Separate comments during the meeting noted hybrid or fully enclosed arenas capable of 7,000–10,000 seats were discussed by county officials in the region and carry substantially higher price estimates.

Bond counsel said the board can craft ballot language with varying levels of specificity: the district may use the statutory minimum description (“school facilities”) for maximum flexibility, or list projects (HVAC, roofs, buses, CTE, PAC) to offer voters more detail. Counsel warned that the statutory notice that the measure “is a property tax increase” must appear on school‑district bond ballots, per the 2019 law, even when the board expects to hold the tax rate steady.

Public comment at the meeting included four speakers. Rivera Early College student Jasmine Longoria urged the board to include a performing‑arts center in any bond package, saying BISD students travel to other cities to perform and that recent local events turned away audience members because of capacity limits. Elementary music teacher Brad Elder also urged passage of a PAC to host UIL events and district musicals and said renting the facility to outside groups could help recoup costs. Patrick Hammes, representing Brownsville Educators Stand Together / AFT, cautioned that the PAC’s size and scope required clarity: he reminded the board that past discussions included proposals for larger multipurpose arenas and noted the district still needs a CTE center and other renovations; he warned that base estimates for PACs should be treated as preliminary.

The committee did not call or pass any bond language at the Feb. 10 meeting. Staff said it will deliver more detailed pricing methodologies and the architects’ cost assumptions on request. The board is scheduled to meet in a special session on Feb. 13 to decide whether to call a bond election and, if so, which option and ballot language to place before voters.