Stafford trustees, city council call $150 million school bond for voter approval

The Stafford Municipal School District board of trustees and the City of Stafford voted Monday to place a $150 million school building bond before voters, splitting the request into four propositions covering general education projects, refunding maintenance tax notes, stadium facilities and technology.

Board members approved a school resolution calling the election—proposition A, $113,350,000; proposition B, $5,250,000; proposition C, $21,400,000; and proposition D, $10,000,000—by a 7–0 vote. The city council then approved a companion ordinance calling the election. Both bodies said the measure would go to voters only if the final legal and procedural steps are completed.

The bond package comes after a long-range facilities review and public engagement process that officials said involved a 71-person long-range planning and key-communicator group and months of work by outside consultants. Dr. Bostick, who led the presentation for the district, said the initial comprehensive needs assessment totaled about $214 million before the district and community prioritized and reduced the package. “So that's where we get to where we're at today at a hundred and $50,000,000 that consists of 4 propositions that are essential to accomplishing our mission and our goals to position SMSD, our community, and our students to be successful,” he said.

The four propositions are described as follows in the district’s draft ballot language read aloud by bond counsel Marcus Deetz: proposition A (general education projects, $113,400,000) for “design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, expansion, improvement, and equipment of school buildings … the purchase of necessary sites … the purchase of new school buses … retrofitting of school buses with emergency safety or security equipment,” proposition B ($5,250,000) to refund the Stafford Municipal School District maintenance tax note series 2024, proposition C ($21,400,000) for stadium facility repairs and improvements, and proposition D ($10,000,000) for technology acquisition and upgrades. Deetz noted statutory requirements that certain categories (for example, stadium facilities and technology devices) be presented as separate propositions.

Clarence Greer of RBC Capital, the district’s financial adviser, presented a cost estimate for taxpayers under current assumptions. Greer said the analysis uses a median home market value in the district of $313,000 and applies current homestead exemptions; his example showed an estimated monthly impact of about $12.15—roughly $145 per year—for the average homestead. He also said homeowners 65 or older who have their taxes frozen would see no increase under the projected scenario.

Board and city officials repeatedly described the package as a planning and budgeting document, not a spending authorization until voters approve the bond. Dr. Bostick and trustees said the full list of needs had once totaled roughly $214 million and that the package had been reduced through community ranking and board deliberation to the current $150 million figure. Officials said the district previously issued a successful bond in 2017 and that construction-cost inflation explains why the dollar amounts are larger in current dollars.

Public speakers during the joint meeting raised questions about specific items in the package, including the scope of deferred maintenance, the difference between similar line items for early-childhood facilities, and the removal of synthetic turf from the baseball/softball projects. A frequent theme in public comment was the request that city council members speak publicly about their view of the package before the board final vote; council members said they would respond after public comment concluded and emphasized the joint nature of the review.

During deliberations and public comment, trustees and city council members highlighted priorities that guided reductions: focusing on repairs and renovations of existing facilities, avoiding unnecessary new construction that would add operating costs, and preserving projects directly tied to student achievement and safety. Trustees said they tried to avoid cutting items that would affect academics. Several public commenters and elected officials urged robust voter outreach with clear, plain-language information showing estimated tax impacts for typical homes and an explanation of project scopes.

Final procedural actions: a trustee moved and the board secretary seconded the board resolution; the board recorded a 7–0 vote to approve the resolution requesting the bond election. The city council moved and seconded the ordinance calling the election and approved it during the same joint session. Bond counsel advised the district to publish a voter-information document with specifics such as estimated monthly and annual tax impacts under the law; that information is not part of the ballot text but will be posted and published if the election proceeds.

The district and city said the next formal steps include finalizing legal notices and publication requirements and preparing the voter-information materials required by law. If voters approve the propositions, the district would issue bonds and begin the listed projects; officials said the proposals do not themselves authorize tax collection until the bond issuance process and associated notices are complete.

Votes at a glance

- Stafford Municipal School District resolution requesting school building bond election (Propositions A–D; total $150,000,000): motion made from the floor (mover not specified in the record), second by Board Secretary Jean Baptiste; board vote recorded as 7–0 in favor; outcome: approved by the board.

- City of Stafford ordinance calling school building bond election (authorizes city to call the election and provide notice): motion and second on the council record; outcome: approved by the city council (vote recorded as passed; individual tallies not specified in the transcript).