Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOK: Birdville ISD has roughly $477M in bond capacity without a tax-rate increase
Summary
At a Dec. 11 board meeting, Josh McLaughlin of BOK told trustees the district has saved about $55.93 million in interest costs since 2012 and estimated bond capacity ranges from roughly $477 million (no tax-rate increase) to $723 million (10¢ increase); he outlined homeowner tax impacts and next steps for a potential May bond election.
Josh McLaughlin of BOK told the Birdville ISD Board of Trustees on Dec. 11 that the district’s active debt management has produced substantial taxpayer savings and left room for future bond issuance.
"The district has saved taxpayers almost $55,930,000 since 2012," McLaughlin said, and he noted the district will prepay about $7 million in February for tax-rate management purposes. He framed bond capacity around three scenarios: roughly $477,000,000 with no tax-rate increase; about $601,000,000 with a 5¢ increase; and roughly $723,000,000 with a 10¢ increase. McLaughlin said each penny of tax-rate change increases bond capacity by roughly $24.6 million under his model.
McLaughlin walked trustees through the modeling assumptions, including using a 5% interest-rate assumption for the main scenario (he noted current rates were closer to 4.5%), estimates of ongoing tax-base growth, and the new state homestead exemption in the calculations. He said the district’s outstanding principal (as of Aug. 31) is roughly $575 million and that a permanent school fund guarantee supports the district’s strong credit ratings.
Board members pressed on homeowner impacts and implementation timing. McLaughlin estimated monthly homeowner effects would be modest in many scenarios — on the order of $0 to $15 per month depending on the proposition and phasing — and pointed out that the new $140,000 homestead exemption reduced the average taxpayer’s bill by about $4.75 this year under his model.
McLaughlin also outlined procedural timing for placing a bond on a May ballot: the board would need to finalize language and approve propositions well before the Feb. 13 cutoff for a May election; if successful in May, initial bond sale activity could occur as early as August. He recommended the board consider how state law now requires certain items (stadiums, auditoriums, teacher housing, some technology) to be presented as stand-alone propositions rather than bundled.
Why it matters: The presentation gave trustees concrete numbers and modeling assumptions they must weigh before deciding whether to pursue a May bond election. The briefing identified both capacity and likely taxpayer impacts and spelled out procedural deadlines that will shape the board’s calendar.
What’s next: Trustees did not take a bond vote at the Dec. 11 meeting; McLaughlin said staff would return with additional details as the board moves toward any decision on a May election.
