No no no no

Vote against every school bond election. Every time.

Blanket no votes is how you end up with **** facilities that cost more in the long term. I get the point, but these things should be voted on based off their individual merit.

Prop A - Mostly necessary spending save the baseball/softball field turf. Never pay to turf a one-off facility that is used 4 months out of the year. Improve cages, lighting, etc. but turfing fields is wasteful in my opinion.

Prop B - Absolutely a must. Tully is bad shape, and DC is not far behind. Kicking the can here only adds to cost when you do something. And you will have to do something at some point.

Prop C - No

Prop D - No - time to put Grob down.

1Aggie99 said:

---

Blanket no votes is how you end up with **** facilities that cost more in the long term. I get the point, but these things should be voted on based off their individual merit.

Prop A - Mostly necessary spending save the baseball/softball field turf. Never pay to turf a one-off facility that is used 4 months out of the year. Improve cages, lighting, etc. but turfing fields is wasteful in my opinion.

Prop B - Absolutely a must. Tully is bad shape, and DC is not far behind. Kicking the can here only adds to cost when you do something. And you will have to do something at some point.

Prop C - No

Prop D - No - time to put Grob down.

---

Maintenance of turf fields is far less expensive than natural in the long run. And they can also generate revenue for the campus by hosting tournaments on weekends, especially in the summer.

HS baseball coaches will tell you they prefer natural fields but they lose too many days of practice and games to weather vs. turf. They can also host playoff games as a revenue generator.

FWIW, and if I'm remembering correctly, SBISD generally does a pretty good job managing bond money. I think when they did the elementary school bond several years ago, they were able to stretch the money enough to completely rebuild another 1-2 schools.

NoahAg said:

---

Vote against every school bond election. Every time.

---

And this ignorance is why it gets to a point it's no longer feasible to maintain and ultimately costs exponentially more when they have to start from scratch.

Genius.

$90m per high school is a crazy amount of money to renevate sports related activities AND then to ask for another $300m on top of that is ridiculous. This is how you get things like the Ennis football stadium or the Berry center. **** that

No to the HS Facilities portion and a firm no to Grob - that's a no-brainer.

The proposal lacks detail, inflates numbers, and was rushed through the process.

What began as a $150 million bond for Tully and the Natatorium has spiraled into an enormous, unchecked spending plan. This kind of reckless financial approach should not be rewarded.

Meanwhile, a $1.5 billion+ bond to rebuild our middle schools looms on the horizon - something that should have taken priority and what our borrowing capacity should be saved for.

Oh, and we only rebuilt 1/2 of MHS so when do we get to rebuild the other half, if ever?

In under a decade, SBISD taxpayers could be saddled with $3 billion in bond debt, with payments stretching 30-40 years. For a district serving fewer than 34,000 students, that's simply crazy.

terradactylexpress said:

---

$90m per high school is a crazy amount of money to renevate sports related activities AND then to ask for another $300m on top of that is ridiculous. This is how you get things like the Ennis football stadium or the Berry center. **** that

---

Sure. And it's caused by realistic bond requests getting voted no over and over.

Every time you vote one down it's going to be more expensive to do the same work the next time it's requested. Facility is in worse condition and materials and labor are never cheaper as they were the previous time. Inflation alone year to year is a sizable increase on a 8 figure project. Then you get the material and price increases.

Add in our government playing with tariffs and no competent GC is going to give anything other than a highly inflated number so they don't lose money on the project that even if approved this month, won't be finished for several years.

So while the "fiscally conservative" folks keep telling themselves it's saving money. Every time you vote no and pat yourself on the back the next proposal will come back more money for less project. And the cycle keeps repeating while those vote no folks want to rant about the districts inability to provide needed facilities or "mismanagement".

I'll give you a real example of a small school building project that was quoted by multiple GCs in 2022 and now 2025. The 2025 quote for the exact same project is now almost 2.2x what it was in 2022. Nothing has changed except the people that held it up the first time have now been removed from leadership roles for costing the organization millions in the name of "fiscal conservatism".

AgLA06 said:

---

terradactylexpress said:

---

$90m per high school is a crazy amount of money to renevate sports related activities AND then to ask for another $300m on top of that is ridiculous. This is how you get things like the Ennis football stadium or the Berry center. **** that

---

Sure. And it's caused by realistic bond requests getting voted no over and over.

Every time you vote one down it's going to be more expensive to do the same work the next time it's requested. Facility is in worse condition and materials and labor are never cheaper as they were the previous time. Inflation alone year to year is a sizable increase on a 8 figure project. Then you get the material and price increases. [1]

Add in our government playing with tariffs and no competent GC is going to give anything other than a highly inflated number so they don't lose money on the project that even if approved this month, won't be finished for several years. [2]

So while the "fiscally conservative" folks keep telling themselves it's saving money. Every time you vote no and pat yourself on the back the next proposal will come back more money for less project. And the cycle keeps repeating while those vote no folks want to rant about the districts inability to provide needed facilities or "mismanagement".

I'll give you a real example of a small school building project that was quoted by multiple GCs in 2022 and now 2025. The 2025 quote for the exact same project is now almost 2.2x what it was in 2022. Nothing has changed except the people that held it up the first time have now been removed from leadership roles for costing the organization millions in the name of "fiscal conservatism". [3]

---

I'm not dismissing the bond out of hand with a blanket "no" vote, but my starting point for any extracurricular-related improvements is one of skepticism given some of the boondoggles across the state. That said, you seem to know a fair bit about it, so I was wondering if you'd indulge me by answering a few questions:

[1] Can you provide some relevant examples of how this "worse condition" translates into meaningfully higher renovation costs, as it relates to the improvements requested in these bond proposals? Of course there is normal wear and tear, but you're also getting additional years of service out of those assets. Also, isn't inflation significantly offset by the fact that you're not paying interest on the additional debt during those years?

[2] If anything, this seems like more of an argument to wait a few more years until Trump leaves office or makes up his mind on what the tariffs will be. Why should we pay the premium for this uncertainty now?

[3] I confess that increase is shocking, but I'd also love to hear the details. Especially given 2022 pricing would have already factored in the sharp increase in labor/material costs that happened during COVID, it just doesn't pass the smell test. You're saying that multiple GCs rebid the work, and all of them came back 2.2x or more?

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic because my first exposure to this bond proposal was someone looking to fundraise $100k for a PAC simply to promote its passage. So not only do I need to pay more in taxes, I need to pay even more to help promote awareness, in order to ensure said tax increase goes through. Not to mention the proposed marketing was along the lines of: "we get new turf! we get a fancy new digital scoreboard! we get a new pressbox for our middle school soccer fields! oh yeah, cheer team and marching band and drill team somehow benefit too!"

The fact that something is old does not, in and of itself, prove to me that a replacement is required, especially when we're talking about fields of dirt and grass (acknowledging it's more than turf, but that stuff gets the headlines). Also, how does this all square with the potential funding shortfalls that made the news in the past year or two due to the dispute with the state? Did all that get resolved/can we hire the librarians back? I know we can't pay operating costs out of bond proceeds, but if you're going to raise my taxes anyway, I'd rather the stated goal be more clearly tied to improving educational outcomes.

Disclaimer: I'm relatively new to the area, I haven't personally seen all of the facilities in question, and our kids won't benefit from the proposed improvements for several years.

AgLA06 said:

---

NoahAg said:

---

Vote against every school bond election. Every time.

---

And this ignorance is why it gets to a point it's no longer feasible to maintain and ultimately costs exponentially more when they have to start from scratch.

Genius.

---

Naw dog. You vote no until the school shows it can actually manage the multiple hundreds of millions it already takes in through taxes first. Which means cut the bloated overhead, sell properties that are no longer used beneficially, etc.

Sports stuff can take a back seat. Multiple generations managed to make it on fields and in stadiums that weren't college or pro level, the spoiled shts today can do the same thing when districts can't manage money and their answer is to just go get more.

And you folks do realize that about $126,000,000 of that bond doesn't have to actually go to what the bonds are for, correct? Superintendents can spend up to 20% of the bond on whatever their discretion is. So if they have a pet project somewhere that there is no way in hell they could get passed through the board or voters, they can use bond money for it without having to notify voters up front.

AgLA06 said:

---

terradactylexpress said:

---

$90m per high school is a crazy amount of money to renevate sports related activities AND then to ask for another $300m on top of that is ridiculous. This is how you get things like the Ennis football stadium or the Berry center. **** that

---

Sure. And it's caused by realistic bond requests getting voted no over and over.

Every time you vote one down it's going to be more expensive to do the same work the next time it's requested. Facility is in worse condition and materials and labor are never cheaper as they were the previous time. Inflation alone year to year is a sizable increase on a 8 figure project. Then you get the material and price increases.

Add in our government playing with tariffs and no competent GC is going to give anything other than a highly inflated number so they don't lose money on the project that even if approved this month, won't be finished for several years.

So while the "fiscally conservative" folks keep telling themselves it's saving money. Every time you vote no and pat yourself on the back the next proposal will come back more money for less project. And the cycle keeps repeating while those vote no folks want to rant about the districts inability to provide needed facilities or "mismanagement".

I'll give you a real example of a small school building project that was quoted by multiple GCs in 2022 and now 2025. The 2025 quote for the exact same project is now almost 2.2x what it was in 2022. Nothing has changed except the people that held it up the first time have now been removed from leadership roles for costing the organization millions in the name of "fiscal conservatism".

---

So your answer is to give supers a blank check whenever they ask then.

Yeah, that's the way! Screw forcing districts to become fiscally responsible and have any accountability, that's just nonsense.

AgLA06 said:

---

terradactylexpress said:

---

$90m per high school is a crazy amount of money to renevate sports related activities AND then to ask for another $300m on top of that is ridiculous. This is how you get things like the Ennis football stadium or the Berry center. **** that

---

Sure. And it's caused by realistic bond requests getting voted no over and over.

Every time you vote one down it's going to be more expensive to do the same work the next time it's requested. Facility is in worse condition and materials and labor are never cheaper as they were the previous time. Inflation alone year to year is a sizable increase on a 8 figure project. Then you get the material and price increases.

Add in our government playing with tariffs and no competent GC is going to give anything other than a highly inflated number so they don't lose money on the project that even if approved this month, won't be finished for several years.

So while the "fiscally conservative" folks keep telling themselves it's saving money. Every time you vote no and pat yourself on the back the next proposal will come back more money for less project. And the cycle keeps repeating while those vote no folks want to rant about the districts inability to provide needed facilities or "mismanagement".

I'll give you a real example of a small school building project that was quoted by multiple GCs in 2022 and now 2025. The 2025 quote for the exact same project is now almost 2.2x what it was in 2022. Nothing has changed except the people that held it up the first time have now been removed from leadership roles for costing the organization millions in the name of "fiscal conservatism".

---

Your definition of "needed facilities" and others definitions of needed facilities does not have as much overlap on the venn diagram as you think.

Not every facility needs to be top of the line, or maintained with the expectation to last 70+ years, or built new for the sake of building new. We need to stop prioritizing the latest and greatest fluff when the education is the priority and everything else is secondary at best.

Yep, my kids elementary doesn't have a librarian and we also dump a ton of money into the school to cover costs through PTA. I realize the bonds they are asking for don't/can't cover **** like that, but education > sports arenas having new fancy screens/media rooms etc