Months after voters rejected<\/a> a roughly $31 million bond proposition for Arlington ISD athletic and fine art facilities, trustees have voted for the district to foot at least part of the bill.<\/p>\n On Tuesday night, the school board unanimously voted to pay roughly $17 million for the projects using interest earnings from the district\u2019s 2019 bond package.\u00a0<\/p>\n While many items from the 2026 Bond Proposition C will be addressed using those funds, trustees didn\u2019t rule out going back to voters in the future for projects still needing funding.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trustee Justin Chapa said he anticipates more needs will pop up as the district moves closer to an expected shift<\/a> in facilities and campuses due to usage and declining enrollment.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s going to be additional moves and facility needs there that need to be addressed for a bond,\u201d Chapa said before the vote. \u201cI would be comfortable revisiting that conversation around both Prop C items and that come early spring.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposition initially failed in May, with 51.7% of voters rejecting it. The margin between it failing and passing was 831 votes.<\/p>\n The largest projects were to replace the natural grass surface at the softball and baseball fields in the district, which trustees said would help lower maintenance costs.<\/p>\n When discussing how the district could pay for the projects, staff took the field projects out of the equation. They also added a rough cost estimate for fine arts costs attributed to the upcoming move<\/a> of sixth grade to junior high campuses in the district.<\/p>\n Throughout the months since the bond failed, officials have said the projects will need to be addressed to ensure the safety of the students, as well as district facilities usability.\u00a0<\/p>\n Related article: What is the future of Arlington ISD athletic projects voters rejected? Trustees to discuss<\/a><\/p>\n The district will pay for these costs through interest earnings Arlington ISD received from its 2019 bond, which was a roughly $966 million proposal. In July, Kelly Horn, assistant superintendent of facility services, said the district had accrued roughly $45 million in earnings.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t the only option on the table, however.\u00a0<\/p>\n Staff initially presented four options to the board:<\/p>\n Send the proposal back to voters in November unchanged from the May ballot. Trustee Leanne Haynes told her colleagues that she hoped they would have a discussion about some form of bond for items like turf for the softball and baseball fields.<\/p>\n \u201cWe were so, so close to passing that, and I really was hopeful that we could bring that back to our community,\u201d Haynes said.<\/p>\n While a bond for other projects could be on the table in the future, Superintendent Matt Smith said the district could face an uphill battle.<\/p>\n \u201cThe timeliness of this is going to be important as well,\u201d Smith told trustees. \u201cI do think we are going to have a challenge from our legislative process coming up potentially about when and how districts can call bond elections.\u201d<\/p>\n Chapa expanded on those concerns, adding that he believes a bill could pass through the Texas Legislature requiring a two-thirds majority, or 66.67% approval, to pass school bonds.\u00a0<\/p>\n That threshold is one that none of the 2026 propositions<\/a> and the 2019 bond package<\/a> would have passed.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t want to get in a situation where we\u2019re having to go out, and the threshold is now two-thirds or higher, because if that were the standard, most school bonds across the state wouldn\u2019t pass at all,\u201d Chapa said. \u201cFor districts like us, that would be extremely detrimental for a lot of reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n Chris Moss is a reporter for the Arlington Report. Contact him at chris.moss@arlingtonreport.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nKeep the original proposal but add other athletic-related projects and send it to voters in November.
\nPlace the projects on hold.
\nPay for the projects using interest earned from the 2019 bond funds that were not being used.<\/p>\n