- Birdville Bonds
- Frequently Asked Questions
-
Who was involved in putting the package together?
The plan was developed with extensive community input from a diverse group of citizens from all parts of the District. A committee of more than 50 community and business leaders began work in February 2022 to evaluate the facilities issues of 91ÖÆƬ³§. During the course of their meetings, they studied facilities issues and deficiencies, student enrollment, demographics reports, and financial reports before making a final recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Committee members were:
Allison Barger
Joel Beeson
Greg Bell
Curtis Bergthold
Candice Bishop
Becky Bolstad
Zac Bunn
Kathleen Cantrell
Jerry Caruthers
Greg Clifton
Vanessa Copeland
Olivia Davalos
Bennie Ruth Dickens
Betsy DiPaula
Troy Dunn
Carlton Franklin
Mike Gist
Catherine Harvey
Alison Johnson
Bill Lanford
Misty Lynch
Chris McDonald
Kerri Murrell
Andrew Neal
Billy Parks
Angie Peterson
Betty Porter
Erin Powell
Angie Rhodes
Tito Rodriguez
Kathryn Rotter
Trina Sanders
Colby Shannon
Martha Strain
Mary Thedford
Brandon Treadway
Courtney Trevino
Dara Tucker
Debbie Villavicencio
Dolores Webb
Kristin Wheeler
Shawn Wood
Mark Wood
Chris Zimmer
-
What is included in the proposed bond?
- 91ÖÆƬ³§ voters are being asked to consider a bond proposal for the November 8, 2022 ballot totaling $359.8 million. The board of trustees unanimously called for the bond following the recommendation of the 2022 Bond Planning Committee. The final proposal addresses additional safety and security enhancements, renovations/repairs and upgrades to current facilities, combining two campuses into one (partner school), rebuilding a campus, buses, technology upgrades districtwide, and adding indoor multipurpose activity centers at all three high schools.
- Under the proposal, all campuses in the District will receive additional safety and security measures and technology.
BOND Highlights
Safety and Security
- Additional exterior security lighting
- Upgrade aging security cameras/door access systems
- Fire Alarm system replacement at various campuses
- Elevator upgrades at various locations
Rebuilds*
- Alliene Mullendore Elementary
-
- Built in 1955
- Eliminates 10 portable classrooms
- Provides additional classroom and support space
- Total estimated cost to complete deferred maintenance projects for the building is more than 83 percent of what it would cost to rebuild the campus
- Build Partner Elementary School (Smith/Francisco)
-
- David E. Smith Elementary
-
-
- Built in 1954
- Eliminates eight portable classrooms
- Total estimated cost to complete deferred maintenance projects for the building is more than 63 percent of what it would cost to rebuild the campus
-
-
- W.T. Francisco Elementary
-
-
- Opened in 1959
- Eliminates eight portable classrooms
- Total estimated cost to complete deferred maintenance projects for the building is more than 47 percent of what it would cost to rebuild the campus
-
*Safety and Security enhancements included for each of these facilities.
Property Purchase/Renovations
- Purchase of and renovations to Denton Highway property for new Shannon High School/Special Education programs*
- Enclose the Haltom High School courtyard to expand cafeteria and provide an additional entrance into library
- Add additional classrooms at Haltom High for Dance and Cheer
- Update 30+-year-old seating in the Haltom High auditorium
- Press boxes at all high school football, baseball and softball fields
- Artificial turf at all high school baseball and softball fields
Repairs/Upgrades
Issues at All Facilities Not Being Rebuilt-
- Repair drainage issues in the Birdville High courtyard
- Address structural issues in and around the North Ridge Elementary courtyard
- HVAC and electrical upgrades
- Roofing replacements
- Address plumbing, painting and flooring issues at various District locations
Transportation
- Buses
Technology
- Replacement of obsolete equipment
- Maintain replacement cycles for:
-
- Current 1:1 student-to-technology ratio; and
- Teacher/staff technology
Indoor Multipurpose Activity Centers at all three high schools
- 91ÖÆƬ³§ voters are being asked to consider a bond proposal for the November 8, 2022 ballot totaling $359.8 million. The board of trustees unanimously called for the bond following the recommendation of the 2022 Bond Planning Committee. The final proposal addresses additional safety and security enhancements, renovations/repairs and upgrades to current facilities, combining two campuses into one (partner school), rebuilding a campus, buses, technology upgrades districtwide, and adding indoor multipurpose activity centers at all three high schools.
-
Why are there three propositions on the ballot?
Beginning with the May 2020 election cycle, Education Code §45.003(g) requires that certain “special purpose” categories of improvements be included in separate, standalone propositions:
-
- Stadiums with seating capacity for 1,000 or more;
- Natatoriums;
- Recreational facility “other than a gym, playground, or play area”;
- Performing arts facility; and
- Technology other than that used for school security purposes or technology infrastructure integral to the construction of a facility.
-
-
What are the three propositions being considered by voters?
Proposition A
Safety and Security/Renovations/Repairs/Rebuilds/Buses
-
- Rebuild Mullendore Elementary
- Build New Partner School (Smith/Francisco)
- Renovations at Denton Hwy. property
- Haltom High Cafeteria expansion
- Repairs/Upgrades
- Buses
- Press Boxes at all three high school football, baseball and softball fields
- Artificial Turf at all three high school baseball and softball fields
Total: $284,714,315
Proposition B
Technology
-
- Maintain replacement cycles for student/staff devices
Total: $16,061,775
Proposition C
Indoor Multipurpose Activity Centers at all three high schools
Total: $59,000,000
-
-
Which high school districts in the North Texas area have Indoor Multipurpose Activity Centers/Indoor Workout Facilities?
SCHOOL
UIL
SCHOOL
UIL
SCHOOL
UIL
Aledo
5A
Frisco HS
5A
McKinney Boyd
6A
Allen
6A
Frisco Lebanon Trail
5A
McKinney North
6A
Argyle
4A
Frisco Liberty
5A
North Crowley
6A
Arlington Bowie
6A
Frisco Lonestar
5A
North Forney
5A
Arlington HS
6A
Frisco Memorial
5A
Northwest
5A
Arlington Lamar
6A
Frisco Reedy
5A
Paris
6A
Arlington Martin
6A
Frisco Wakeland
5A
Plano East
6A
Arlington Sam Houston
6A
Gainesville
4A
Plano HS
6A
Arlington Seguin
6A
Granbury
5A
Plano West
6A
Azle
5A
Grand Prairie
6A
Prosper
6A
Brewer
5A
Grapevine
5A
Prosper Rock Hill
5A
Burleson Centennial
5A
Greenville
6A
Richardson
6A
Burleson HS
5A
Hebron
6A
Richardson Berkner
6A
Byron Nelson
6A
HICO
2A
Richardson L Highlands
6A
Carrollton Creekview
5A
Highland Park
5A
Richardson Pearce
6A
Carrollton Newman Smith
5A
Hillsboro
4A
Rockwall
6A
Carrollton RL Turner
5A
Joshua
5A
Rockwall Heath
6A
Chisholm Trail
5A
Keller Central
6A
Royse City
5A
Cleburne
5A
Keller Fossil Ridge
6A
Saginaw
5A
Colleyville Heritage
5A
Keller High
6A
South Grand Prairie
6A
Coppell I
6A
Keller Timber Creek
6A
Southlake Carroll
6A
Coppell II
6A
Kennedale
4A
Springtown
5A
Decatur
4A
Lake Dallas
5A
Terrell
5A
Denison
5A
Lancaster
5A
The Colony
5A
Eaton
6A
LD Bell
6A
Trinity
6A
Flower Mound
6A
Lewisville
6A
Waco Midway
6A
Forney
5A
Little Elm
6A
Waxahachie
6A
Frisco Centennial
5A
Lovejoy
4A
Weatherford
6A
Frisco Heritage
5A
Mckinney
6A
Weatherford II
6A
Wylie
6A
-
What will guarantee that these projects will be done as proposed?
If the bond package passes, 91ÖÆƬ³§’s board of trustees will once again form a citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee to oversee the bond to ensure everything in the proposal is completed and within budget.
The final reports of the 2006, 2014 and 2018 Bond Oversight Committees said, “In summary, the Oversight Committee commends the Birdville Board, administration, and staff for completing all projects promised to the voters of 91ÖÆƬ³§, on time and within resources available for construction projects … .”
-
Will this plan eliminate all portable buildings in 91ÖÆƬ³§?
No, however, the bond proposal being presented to 91ÖÆƬ³§ voters on November 8 does eliminate 26 portable classrooms across the District.
-
How does this bond address technology in the District?
In 2014 and 2018, the Committee stood before this Board and said, “Technology is here to stay, and all 91ÖÆƬ³§ students must have the ability to use, and learn from, current technology. Our students must be ready to compete in today’s world.”
The technology plan will be rolled out over several years with a focus on continuing to address equity across the District. The plan:
- replaces obsolete equipment;
- provides for student/classroom technology upgrades;
- maintains replacement cycles for:
- current 1:1 student-to-technology ratio across the District; and
- provides teacher/staff technology upgrades.
The plan allows for flexibility in selecting devices as technology continues to change. Technology bonds are paid off in five years.
-
How does this bond address safety and security?
91ÖÆƬ³§ must continue to look for ways to provide a safe and secure environment for our students and staff.
The 2014 and 2018 Bonds did so much to address safety and security by adding safety vestibules, additional cameras, card access doors and fencing around our portable classrooms and playgrounds.
However, our proposal continues to address additional safety issues that the Committee considers important for the continued protection of students and staff, including:
-
- adding additional card access doors and/or upgrading aging technology on current card access doors/door access systems,
- adding additional HD video security cameras and replacing aging cameras,
- adding additional exterior security lighting,
- fire alarm system replacement at various campuses, and
- elevator upgrades at various locations.
-
-
What is the Partner school for David E. Smith and W.T. Francisco elementary schools?
The 2021–22 enrollment for Smith was 391 students and Francisco was 365. After much discussion, the Committee agreed to propose a Partner school because of the high cost of operating two small schools in 91ÖÆƬ³§. The Committee was presented with an option that would locate the new campus on the current Smith Elementary site because the property is larger. By building this Partner school (a combined campus), the District eliminates 16 portable classrooms and potentially saves up to $1 million in operational costs each year.
Voters approved a new partner school for Richland and Major Cheney elementary schools as part of the 2018 Bond. The new partner school, Cheney Hills Elementary, opened in August 2021.
-
What will happen to the old Smith and Francisco elementary buildings if the Partner school is built?
The old David E. Smith Elementary campus would be torn down and the new partner school will be built on that site. 91ÖÆƬ³§ will work with the city and community leaders to determine the best use of the other property.
-
Will teachers lose their jobs because of the partner school with Smith and Francisco elementary schools?
No. Just because the campuses are coming together doesn’t mean the students go away. Teachers from both campuses will be merged together as one team to serve the new campus. No teachers or administrators will lose their employment in the District because of the proposal.
-
How will this bond affect property taxes?
School property tax rates will not increase as a result of this bond proposal.
-
How can this bond proposal be accomplished without a tax rate increase?
The efficient management of 91ÖÆƬ³§’s existing bond debt over the last ten years has allowed the District to refinance more than $142.2 million of its outstanding bonds at a lower interest rate, saving taxpayers $18.4 million in future interest costs. The District has also prepaid approximately $29 million of its bonds prior to scheduled maturity, saving an additional $20.2 million in future interest payments for taxpayers. 91ÖÆƬ³§ will continue to carefully monitor its bond debt and related interest rates in an effort to save taxpayers additional dollars in the future.
The District repays its bonds on an annual basis over a period of 25 years or less, while structuring its annual bond payments to decline over time creating additional bonding capacity for future bond proposals. Furthermore, the District repays its bonds based upon the useful life of the assets for which the District is financing. As an example, 91ÖÆƬ³§ repays bonds issued for new school buildings over a 25-year period, but repays bonds issued for technology and other short-term assets over a period of three to 10 years.
91ÖÆƬ³§ will have the ability to sell these additional bonds with NO school tax rate increase due to bond prepayments and the refinancing of current bonds at lower interest rates.
-
How long will it take the proposed bond debt to be paid?
91ÖÆƬ³§ bonds are fully repaid in 25 years or less, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in interest.
-
Can these and other 91ÖÆƬ³§ bonds be paid off early?
Yes, bonds may be repaid prior to final maturity. While the majority of the bonds from the District’s proposed 2022 bond election will initially be structured with annual principal payments over 25 years, 91ÖÆƬ³§ will retain the flexibility to prepay these bonds prior to their scheduled maturity, without penalty. In fact, since 2014, the District has repaid $29 million of its existing bonds prior to final maturity, saving taxpayers $20.2 million in future interest payments.
-
How much debt does the District currently have?
On November 8, 2022, the District’s current principal balance on bonded debt will be approximately $409 million from bond elections in 2006, 2014 and 2018. Total debt including interest is $568 million. Each year, the District pays off a portion of its existing bonds. All bond obligations from 1986, 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2005 have been paid. All current 91ÖÆƬ³§ bonds are scheduled to be paid off by 2044 with almost one-half being paid off by 2030.
-
Where is the property on Denton Highway that will be used for the new Shannon High School/Special Education programs?
91ÖÆƬ³§ is purchasing the property at 4051 Denton Highway (formerly The Wisdom Center building) in Haltom City for a new Shannon High School/select Special Education programs.
-
Is 91ÖÆƬ³§ financing the technology in the bond proposal for 25 years when its life span is typically five years?
No. Technology bonds are paid off in five years (before the end of the equipment’s life cycle).
-
Is 91ÖÆƬ³§ financing buses in the bond proposal for 25 years?
No. Like technology, bonds sold to buy buses will be for a shorter term. 91ÖÆƬ³§ buses typically have a life span of approximately 15 years.
-
What is a bond election?
The law provides that a school district must hold an election and get permission from voters to sell bonds and to levy taxes to pay for them. Bonds are sold to provide funding for capital improvements that last for a number of years. Such investments are too large to be included in operating budgets. Just as an individual agrees to repay a new home loan, voters authorize the District to sell and repay bonds for making major capital improvements. School boards may only levy taxes in the amount necessary to repay the bonds.
-
How can bond money be used?
Bond money can be used for new schools and facilities, expansion and renovations of existing facilities, furniture, technology, equipment, buses and other support vehicles, and new school sites.
-
What may bond money NOT be used for?
Bond money may not be used for personnel, raises, utilities, and other such operating expenses. Bonds may only be used for capital improvements and related costs.
-
How does the bond process work?
- The Board calls for an election.
- If a bond referendum is approved by voters, bonds are sold to investors.
- Proceeds are used for approved capital projects.
- Each year, the school board must set a tax rate in two parts: one to cover the operating costs (payroll, supplies and equipment, insurance, utilities, etc.) and the other to pay principal and interest due on voter-approved bonds.
- The District may only collect what is necessary to repay the debt.
-
When will the work begin and be completed?
If voters approve the bond referendum in November 2022, work would begin immediately to design and develop a schedule of when work on individual campuses will take place. With the amount of work to be done, it is anticipated it will take 36 to 48 months to complete all the projects. Most renovations will take place during summer months when no students or staff are on campus. However, when it is necessary to do work during the school year, it will be scheduled to have the least impact on the education process and to assure student and staff safety. Also, all construction workers must have criminal background checks before they may work on any school site.
For Mullendore Elementary and the Smith/Francisco Partner elementary school, it can take 24 to 36 months to complete design work and build the new facilities.
-
What if I am over 65?
The Texas Constitution provides homeowners an “Over 65” property tax exemption when they turn 65. Upon qualification for the exemption, a homeowner may file an application with the Tarrant Appraisal District (TAD). Once the exemption is granted, the homeowner property taxes will not increase above what they were the year the homeowner turned 65.
For further information, you may contact the TAD at 817-284-0024 or on the web at .
-
Does 91ÖÆƬ³§ have a long-range plan to address all facility issues?
The Bond Planning Committee overwhelmingly supports the District developing a long-range plan.
The slide below represents what this might look like. This is only a concept, and the Board and Administration will spend more time developing a final plan for 91ÖÆƬ³§. It will be a dynamic document that will need to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, and it does not guarantee specific campuses a place in future campaigns. However, it does give the District a road map of future issues.
[Accessible verbiage of the above image.]
In 2014, 91ÖÆƬ³§ developed a long-range plan for future bond campaigns. The graphic shows the four-year cycle of planning, elections and construction. The bottom of this graphic shows a sampling of projects being considered in the 2022 bond. They include possible replacement campuses (Francisco, Smith, and Mullendore elementary schools); additions and renovations (facility repairs, safety and security, and technology infrastructure); and equipment and other assets (transportation, technology equipment, and land purchases).
-
Why were Mullendore Elementary, and the partner school for Smith and Francisco elementary schools identified as rebuilds?
Mullendore Elementary
-
- At the end of the day, the Committee agreed to include this campus because there was not a good plan for this school other than rebuilding.
- The cost to bring Mullendore up to current building and TEA standards exceeds 83 percent of the cost to completely rebuild the facility.
- By rebuilding this campus, the District eliminates 10 portable classrooms.
Partner school for David E. Smith and W.T. Francisco elementary schools
-
- The 2021–22 enrollment for Smith was 391 students and Francisco was 365.
- After much discussion, the Committee agreed to propose a Partner school because of the high cost of operating two small schools in 91ÖÆƬ³§.
- The Committee was presented with an option that would locate the new campus on the current Smith Elementary site because the property is larger.
- By building this Partner school (a combined campus), the District eliminates 16 portable classrooms and potentially saves up to $1 million in operational costs each year.
-
-
Will all the students in the District be impacted by this bond?
Yes. Every campus is impacted by this bond proposal. This proposal includes safety and security and technology on every campus. In addition, students currently in elementary and middle schools will be impacted from work done at their feeder schools.
-
In what years were the current facilities opened?
Campus
Year Opened
Shannon Education Center
1948
Haltom High School
1989
Birdville High School
1999
Richland High School
2009 (Rebuilt)
Birdville Center of Technology and Advanced Learning (BCTAL)
2009
North Oaks Middle School
1966
Watauga Middle School
1969
Smithfield Middle School
1975
North Ridge Middle School
1989
North Richland Middle School
2017 (Rebuilt)
Haltom Middle School
2021 (Rebuilt)
Richland Middle School
2021 (Rebuilt)
David E. Smith Elementary
1954
Alliene Mullendore Elementary
1955
Snow Heights Elementary
1959
W.T. Francisco Elementary
1959
Holiday Heights Elementary
1966
Watauga Elementary
1966
Grace E. Hardeman Elementary
1971
W.A. Porter Elementary
1976
Foster Village Elementary
1980
North Ridge Elementary
1989
Academy at C.F. Thomas Elementary
1991
John D. Spicer Elementary
1991
Green Valley Elementary
1992
Walker Creek Elementary
2005
Jack C. Binion Elementary
2008 (Rebuilt)
O.H. Stowe Elementary
2008 (Rebuilt)
West Birdville Elementary
2016 (Rebuilt)
Birdville Elementary
2017 (Rebuilt)
Cheney Hills Elementary
2021
Smithfield Elementary
2021
-
Did you know?
- 91ÖÆƬ³§ was awarded two Transparency Stars by the Texas Comptroller for opening our financial books not only for our traditional finances, but also in our debt obligations. #91ÖÆƬ³§Bond22
(Transparency Stars: Recognizing Local Transparency Achievements: Traditional Finances and Debt Obligations.)- 91ÖÆƬ³§ is also proud to be recognized by The Texas Association of School Business Officials (TASBO) with a 2022 Award of Merit for Purchasing Operations. The Award of Merit was established in 2009 to recognize Texas school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and education service centers that are committed to following professional standards in the acquisition of goods and services.
-
91ÖÆƬ³§’s bond referendum will not increase the property tax rate for homeowners or businesses. However, a new state law requires all school bond referendum propositions to include ballot language that reads “THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.” Passage of the bond package will not result in an increase in the property tax rate, despite the ballot language stating that there will be a tax increase.
-
Proposition A: $284,714,315
Safety & Security/
Renovations/Repairs/
Rebuilds/Buses
Proposition B: $16,061,775
Technology
Proposition C: $59,000,000
Indoor Multipurpose Activity Centers