Sharyland ISD facility committee backs $260 million bond; parent urges district aquatic center
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A facility planning committee recommended a $260 million bond (Package A) to address aging buildings, safety and program space, including a district aquatic center. The board heard public comment from a parent urging action on a pool for competitive swimming and community lessons.
Sharyland Independent School District trustees heard a report from the facility planning committee and heard a public plea for a district aquatic center at their regular board meeting.
The facility planning committee — which held six meetings and reported extensive community participation — recommended Package A, a comprehensive bond proposal described by presenters as a $260,000,000 package that would fund campus modernizations, new fine-arts facilities, gym air-conditioning and a district-wide aquatic center. Committee presenters said the package emerged from multiple workshops, campus tours, cost modeling and a live community vote.
The committee’s presentation emphasized four project frameworks: academic modernization; safety and security; learning outside the classroom; and district equity and alignment. Presenters said they used a structured voting process with live polling (Menti) and that Package A had the most community support in the committee’s exercises.
"We want the aquatic center for everybody," parent speaker Mr. Salinas said during public comment, urging the board to provide deeper, regulation‑sized water facilities for competitive swimming, water polo and community swim lessons. "Please, please, can we have an aquatic center of our own?"
Presenters illustrated the potential household tax impact using a $170,000 taxable‑value example and estimated the cost to be roughly $27 per year for Package A, while also noting the committee’s $260 million recommendation could be reduced when contract bids are finalized. The presentation said the committee aims to balance program needs with tax considerations; presenters said deferred maintenance and equity across campuses motivated the proposals.
Board members did not take a formal vote on a bond authorization at the meeting. Trustees and administrators framed the recommendation as the committee’s consensus that will guide further analysis, public outreach and legal steps needed to place an authorization before voters.
Next steps described by administration included further cost refinement, potential bid savings and scheduling a bond election process. The committee and district staff said they will return with final bond language, schedule and definitive tax‑impact calculations before the board considers calling an election.