Melissa ISD Quietly Seeks $1.2B Bond Approval
A Taxpayer Advocate’s Observations
Spring is usually a time in which local governments use bond elections to aggressively pursue new tranches of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. In perhaps recognizing recent electoral rebuffs by financially tapped out voters, Melissa ISD appears to be taking a quieter approach to its $1.2 billion bond campaign.
What’s the ask?
The district wants voters to approve two bond packages - one for $800 million, another for $75 million - which with interest (generally calculated at 40-50%) will total more than $1.2 billion. The district’s bond website currently lists Proposition A for $800 million as including an early childhood center, three to five elementary schools, a middle school, a 9th grade center, facility additions and renovations, bus/transportation expansions and land acquisition. The technology-focused Proposition B for $75 million includes upgraded network infrastructure, in-classroom technology, digital safety and security systems as well as devices for students and staff.
Based on district website screenshots featured in an earlier article, “land acquisition” was later listed under Proposition A while “secured high-speed access to Wi-Fi & Internet” was deleted from Proposition B. A massive grammatical error has also been corrected.
In its “Melissa ISD is Growing” pitch, the district offers growth history and projections positing that student population has “more than doubled in the last five years” and is “set to increase by 67% in the next 10 years.” It also maintains that “growth will surpass facility capacity in the next 5 years.”
Voters should know that passage of this bond will functionally triple the district’s debt from its current $632 million to $1.8 billion. It will also raise the average Melissa ISD resident’s total local government debt (including Melissa ISD, city of Melissa, Collin County and the Collin County Community College District) to $3.7 billion. Click here for more detailed analysis.
No new taxes?
Thankfully no one appears to be saying “read my lips.” Melissa ISD, however, is advertising how passage of the bond will have “no tax rate impact.” This isn’t the same as no new taxes.
On its website and within three mailers, the district’s position is basically:
The district “plans” to keep its Interest and Sinking fund rate the same, but of course despite the best of intentions, taxpayers are well-served to be mindful that plans can change.
A recent mailer cites growth as how Melissa ISD can pay for the bond without increasing its tax rate. The piece states “as our community grows rapidly, the taxes generated from new homes and business help to cover the costs.”
It also notes that “individual tax bills may go up due to increased appraisal values beyond the district’s control.” That’s called “appraisal creep,” a tactic used to raise taxes through property valuation hikes which then generate higher tax revenues while shielding local entities from unpopularly raising rates.
In 2023, Texas Scorecard’s Robert Montoya detailed the role of appraisal districts in the overall property tax structure. This piece remains relevant two years later and is a good overview for the uninitiated.
Historical perspective on bond election transparency
State-required ballot language informing “THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE” appears to have the district concerned. This language was added as a bond election transparency measure to ensure voters are better informed.
In 2023, Texas Scorecard also reported that “the pass rate for school bond propositions dropped to an all-time low of 61 percent” seemingly after implementation of the 2019 school finance reform legislation. The trend appears to have continued in 2024.
Schools use taxpayer funds for membership to “professional” organizations such as the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) and the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA). Cities similarly use public dollars to fund the Texas Municipal League (TML) and counties have the Texas Association of Counties (TAC).
While local government officials credit these organizations as providing important support functions, understand they are not taxpayer-friendly organizations. Instead, they coalesce as a protectorate with a modus operandi that lobbies and works on behalf of members (i.e., school districts, etc.) to seek and retain larger amounts of governmental control and taxpayer funds.
These organizations’ influence is especially obvious during legislative sessions as they are routinely the most ardent proponents of issues like taxpayer-funded lobbying and limited oversight while opposing taxpayer-friendly efforts seeking bond election transparency, general election integrity, school choice, etc.
Per the article, TASB used the 2023 legislative session to promote “a broader anti-taxpayer agenda, opposing any legislation that ‘increases ballot language requirements, limits dates upon which elections may be held, or creates additional requirements for voter-approved tax rate elections and bond elections, such as voter turnout thresholds.’”
The article also references a presentation earlier that year by Huckabee Inc., an architecture firm that specializes in designing bond-funded school projects, which coached schools in effectively promoting bond proposals. Later, the site reported on the txEdCON23, an event sponsored by TASB and TASA, which included not only a session tagging parents questioning school actions as “CAVE” people – citizens against virtually everything – and at least six other sessions “focused specifically on helping districts market costly bond packages that must be repaid with residents’ property taxes.”
Texas public education is a “monkey see, monkey do” institution. School districts and associated bond election proponents have historically used a formulaic approach which incorporates aggressive PAC-funded marketing campaigns, district presentations to the public and basic peer pressure throughout the community. As new bond package approvals become more difficult, Melissa ISD’s effort suggests the standard playbook may be changing.
It’s all about the language (or spin)
In a district YouTube video, Deputy Superintendent Robert Rich addresses the “THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE” ballot language explaining how the propositions won’t raise taxes as the “taxes are spread out amongst all of us so the same tax rate will generate more revenue, but no more for you as an individual family.”
While likely to at least initially be factually accurate, suggesting the ballot language as inaccurate or inapplicable is untrue. A $1.2 billion ask shouldn’t be based on semantics – or spin.
Issuance of new bond debt increases the property tax that will be collected and in this case, functionally triples the debt for which Melissa ISD taxpayers are now responsible. The district plans that new residents will impact of the new debt by theoretically spreading it over a larger taxpayer pool, but regardless, the new increased property tax liability exists regardless the number of taxpayers available to pay.
Stated differently, if this new swath of taxpayers doesn’t materialize or is smaller than projected, the increased liability still stands and could well be an impetus for the district’s “plans” to change thus generating a tax increase on existing taxpayers.
Also, imagine if smaller waves of new residents over upcoming years were used to pursue a more modest bond package that better coordinates expansion plans with just-in-time growth? Might that not better ensure a right-sizing of the district and residents’ tax liability?
One other thing
While the standard TASB bond election playbook does appear at least somewhat suspended at this point, the Melissa ISD news release announcing the bond election includes one standard talking point worth noting.
For voters over 65 or disabled who have an approved homestead exemption, your tax rate will not change. Under state law, the dollar amount of school taxes imposed on the residence homestead of a person 65 years of age or older cannot be increased above the amount paid in the first year after the person turned 65 or disabled.
This promotes how 65+ and disabled voters can vote a tax increase for their family, friends and neighbors, a tax increase to which they will not themselves be subjected. It always seems distasteful and though theoretically for now inapplicable, it’s worth identifying as typical of the approach often used.
Voting information
Early Voting by Personal Appearance is underway and runs through Tuesday, April 29. Click here for Early Voting Locations.
Election Day is Saturday, May 3. Click here for Election Day Voting Locations.
How will this play out?
While strictly an opinion, this one seems easy to predict. Both measures will pass with healthy majorities. Note that’s healthy majorities, not healthy vote totals. May elections, by design, are low-turnout affairs. The potential of high-dollar decisions made by small numbers of voters is a point not lost on any local government. And it should disturb fiscally responsible residents.
As average voters appear increasingly hesitant to approve new local debt (and statewide, school districts are the largest debtors), a revised “quiet election” strategy appears underway. School districts, often one of an area’s largest employers, typically work to ensure eligible district employees “understand” their need to vote.
That understanding will most likely quietly carry the day.
Before relocating back to the D/FW Metroplex, Lou Ann Anderson worked in central Texas talk radio as both a host and producer. She currently hosts Political Pursuits: The Podcast. Her tenure as Watchdog Wire–Texas editor involved covering state news and coordinating the site’s citizen journalist network. As a past Policy Analyst with Americans for Prosperity–Texas, Lou Ann wrote and spoke on a variety of public policy issues including the issue of probate abuse.