Crosby ISD trustees weigh bond-election options after Harris County decline for May

Crosby ISD trustees on the agenda discussed whether to call a bond election for May 2, 2026, after the district’s CFO said Harris County would not assist with joint May elections. The CFO presented three options and cost estimates and trustees expressed concern about administrative burden, equipment availability and potential legal risks if the district attempted an independent May election.

The CFO told the board, "we received confirmation from Harris County that they will not be assisting with joint elections for the May," and outlined three paths: run the election independently in May, negotiate a joint May election with a local entity (for example, a municipal utility district), or wait and run a joint election with Harris County in November 2026. The CFO said an independent May election would transfer most responsibilities to the district and "the estimated cost would be about $85,000 to $150,000," not counting district personnel time.

The presentation included more detailed line items: ballot production and mailing estimated at $2,000–$10,000 depending on ballot length; voting equipment rental estimated at $50,000–$80,000 (or an outright purchase estimated near $150,000); early-voting and administrative setup estimated at $10,000–$20,000; and canvass/reporting costs of about $3,000–$5,000. The CFO said vendors contacted so far were unwilling to rent certified voting equipment and were offering purchase options instead, and the district was continuing vendor outreach.

Trustees raised practical concerns. One trustee said attempting an independent May election was "probably too big of a task at this point," citing staff time and rising costs; others agreed it would pull district personnel away from daily responsibilities. Several trustees favored delaying to a November election if the county would handle most logistics and cost-sharing, noting the November option was the least expensive for the district (estimated $50,000–$55,000) but would postpone any bond-funded work.

The board did not take a formal vote to call the May bond election during open session. The agenda item was discussed, and trustees asked about timelines, partnership feasibility with local MUDs, ADA and electronic-counting requirements for paper ballots, and deferred maintenance planning if a bond were delayed. The meeting record shows the board moved into closed session twice; after returning to open session late in the evening, Trustee Humphreys moved to adjourn, Trustee Barrett seconded, and the motion carried 7–0.

Next steps were not recorded on the public record: trustees asked staff to continue vendor outreach and analysis, and several trustees said they could be persuaded but were inclined to wait for a November partnership if renting equipment or a turnkey service could not be secured.