CORRECTED VERSION*
San Angelo voters appear to be sharply polarized by the upcoming bond elections on the ballot this May.
While the City of San Angelo wants voters to approve major renovations to the Coliseum at a cost of $41.6 million, San Angelo Independent School District desperately needs voters to approve $397 million worth of bonds to update and consolidate schools in alignment with the District’s long-range plan.
Included in the bond is an estimated $267 million for needed repairs and renovations all over the district, many of which have been deferred several years already.
Local Voters Trail West Texas in School Bond Spending
The Concho Observer surveyed the four most-comparable school districts in West Texas and discovered that San Angelo has the lowest amount of approved capital spending for schools — by a considerable amount.
By comparison, the district also holds the lowest amount of total bond debt of the five cities, and brings bond propositions to the voters less frequently.
May 3 will mark the 23rd time San Angelo voters have been asked to approve a capital outlay for the schools since 1903, meaning the district has called a bond election every 5.3 years, on average, with an average of almost four years between bond propositions going back to 1985.
Most of the other districts call for a bond election every second or third year, for instance, but in order to examine the last 10 bond elections for San Angelo, you have to go back to 1985.
For the other cities, 10-bond-propositions-ago was sometime after the year 2000.
San Angelo, joined Abilene and Wichita Falls in having six of the last 10 propositions fail, and Ector Co. had seven defeats, but every district approved significantly more capital funding than SAISD.
Another stark contrast revealed by our survey is the amount of money sought by the districts.
SAISD Asks For Less Than Comparable Districts
San Angelo schools have asked for far less from taxpayers than other districts — again — by a considerable margin.
A survey of headlines in a year when San Angelo was voting on a $1.5 million bond, showed Abilene was voting on bonds for nearly $4 million and Ector County was seeking $5 million.
Twenty-odd years later, as San Angelo school officials were seeking $6.8 million for expansions, Midland passed a school bond for three-times that amount.
These trends have been consistent for decades, as Midland has outspent all the other districts we compared, and San Angelo has been at the back of the pack since the mid-1950s, in terms of bond financing.
However, Midland’s story can also serve as a cautionary tale about over-reach on school spending.
In 2023, that city approved bonds totaling $1.415 billion to pay for two new high schools and a new elementary school, in addition to numerous other projects.
This year, headlines from Midland announced that the district was facing a budget deficit of $41.1 million, with plans to cut non-teaching positions and possibly sell or lease four schools to a charter-school operator to make up the shortfall.
That’s after closing three other elementary schools in the last few years.
Why Does It Cost So Much?
If there is a problem with your brick wall that could be fixed today for $1,000, how much will it cost to fix in 10 years?
The answer to the question is simple. It will probably cost several-times the original amount, because left unresolved the problem will get worse. Guaranteed. And don’t forget, the cost of labor and materials will increase significantly as well.
Ask any civil engineer, architect or school custodian.
These are the kind of questions San Angelo school officials and administrators wrestle with year after year as the public withholds capital funding, and then complains bitterly when heating or cooling units, for instance, break down inconveniently.
Deferred Maintenance Eventually Comes Home to Roost
In years where schools were strangled for funding, a great deal of maintenance was deferred.
Deferred means they know it should be fixed or replaced, but there’s no money in the budget, so the problem is punted into the future.
This has a cumulative effect, in terms of repair costs, for the reasons outlined above.
Also — kids are just hard on stuff; from floors to doors, and everything in between.
If you’re a parent, nobody has to explain this to you.
But by all means, find the nearest school-maintenance professional you know and ask what sorts of things get worn out at schools and why. Most of them can speak at length on the subject.
The facilities assessment study from Parkhill is very comprehensive and shows every defect in every school and school-support facility in the district, and a slideshow to spotlight each problem would likely run a few hours.
115 Years Is Too Long
Then there are the problems unique to San Angelo, like the schools that are more than 115-years old.
Any engineer worth his professional seal would have recommended demolishing Reagan and San Jacinto decades ago, for practical and safety reasons alone.
If the community loves those schools so much, then an intelligent plan to completely rebuild them should have been commissioned, and funds should have been approved for the work.
Waiting until a school has been condemned to demand that it remains open is the opposite of foresight, and it’s no secret how old those buildings are. It’s mentioned quite often.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone who attended San Angelo schools knows about the aging facilities and the countless portable buildings used as classrooms around town.
I had one former student tell me they attended class in a portable building at Bowie Elementary in 1978 that is still in service.
I’m not sure exactly when that portable building was placed on campus, but over the course of more-than 45 years, it seems like a more permanent solution should have been found.
Bonds Are Only Way To Renovate Or Construct
At the root of every single one of these problems is a lack of funding.
School districts must seek voter approval to issue bonds for capital projects like new buildings or renovations, and bond proceeds are limited to items with a useful-life exceeding one year.
Texas law is very clear on this point.
No amount of good financial management in the schools will provide money for renovations or new construction.
It can’t. By law.
The money for these things must come from voters approving bonds.
In the final analysis, San Angelo school trustees and administrators have done a remarkable job of working with less capital than any other comparable school district in West Texas, and should probably be commended for their efforts.
FIVE CITIES COMPARISON – THE DATA
CONCHO OBSERVER GRAPHIC
Abilene ISD
Pop. 104,805
- Ten bond propositions between 2004 and 2018, averaging one every 1.4 years
- Six of the last 10 propositions- defeated
- Total of bonds approved: $302,859,000
- Largest bond approved: $138,679,000 – 2018
- Total Outstanding Debt – $270,410,609
- Total Tax Rate Now: 1.0326 PER $100
- Tax Rate High: 2022 at $2.5568 PER $100
Last 10 Bond Propositions
- May 2004 – 3 propositions; 1 carried 2 defeated
- May 2008 – 4 propositions; all defeated
- Nov. 2009 – 1 proposition; defeated
- Nov. 2013 – 1 proposition; carried
- Nov. 2018 – 1 proposition; carried
San Angelo ISD
Pop. 99,544
- Ten bond elections between 1985 and 2023, averaging one every 3.8 years
- Six of the last 10 bonds defeated
- Total of bonds approved: $171,700,000
- Largest Bond Approved: $117,000,000 – 2008
- Total Outstanding Debt – $83,272,301
- Total Tax Rate Now: $0.8123 PER $100
- Tax Rate High: 2007 – $1.458 PER $100
Last 10 Bond Propositions
- Feb. 1985 – 1 proposition; carried
- May 1996 – 2 propositions; both carried
- May 2007 – 2 propositions; both defeated
- Nov. 2008 – 2 propositions; 1 carried, 1 defeated
- May 2018 – 1 proposition; defeated
- Nov. 2018 – 2 propositions; both defeated
Midland ISD
Pop. 178,136
- Ten bond propositions between 2002 and 2023, averaging one every other year
- Five of the last 10 bond elections carried
- Total of bonds approved: $1,682,747,500
- Largest Bond Approved: $1,415,400,000 – 2023
- Total Outstanding Debt – $1,711,583,310
- Total Tax Rate Now: $0.877 PER $100
- Tax Rate High: 2007 – $1.458 PER $100
Last 10 Bond Propositions
- Aug. 2002 – 3 propositions; all defeated
- Feb. 2003 – 2 propositions; 1 carried, 1 defeated
- May 2007 – 2 propositions; both carried
- Nov. 2012 – 1 proposition; carried
- Nov. 2019 – 1 proposition; defeated
- Nov. 2023 – 1 proposition; carried
Ector Co. ISD
POP. 173,175
- Ten bond elections between 2001 and 2023, averaging one every 2.2 years
- Seven of the last 10 bond elections defeated
- Total of bonds approved: $642,773,000
- Largest Bond Approved: $424,263,000 – 2023
- Total Outstanding Debt – $596,523,917
- Total Tax Rate Now: 1.014 PER $100
- Tax Rate High: 2019 – $1.2796 PER $100
Last 10 Bond Propositions
- Oct. 2001 – 3 propositions; 1 carried, 2 defeated
- Nov. 2012 – 1 proposition; carried
- Nov. 2017 – 1 proposition; defeated
- May 2022 – 2 propositions; both defeated
- Nov. 2023 – 3 propositions; 1 carried, 2 defeated
Wichita Falls ISD
POP. 89,233
- Ten bond elections between 2002 and 2021, averaging one every 1.9 years
- Six of the last 10 bonds defeated
- Total of bonds approved: $409,500,000
- Largest bond approved: $276,415,000 – 2020
- Total Outstanding Debt – $419,649,264
- Total Tax Rate Now: 1.0326 PER $100
- Tax Rate High: 2007 – $1.44 PER $100
Last 10 Bond Propositions
- Feb. 2002 – 2 proposition; both defeated
- Sept. 2004 – 2 propositions; both defeated
- Nov. 2006 – 1 proposition; carried
- May 2014 – 1 proposition; defeated
- May 2015 – 1 proposition; carried
- Nov. 2020 – 2 propositions; 1 carried, 1 defeated
- May 2021 – 1 proposition; carried
Source: Texas Bond Review Board
*CORRECTION: an earlier version of this report contained an incorrectly-calculated total number of school bond elections in San Angelo ISD between 1903 and 2025.
The correct total is 23 school bond elections, which significantly changes the average number of years between school bond elections. The correct average-number of years between bond elections, overall, is 5.3 years between elections between 1903 and 2025.
5 Comments
The reason why the bond election fails is because of lack of transparency. Show how much money is being spent on each item. I don’t want to see $122 million for a school without a breakdown. Are you spending $70 million for a gym, $40 million for tennis courts and $12 million for buildings refurbishing?
I had AI render and give a cost of building a new school for 2300 students keeping in mind security & efficiency. Just using modern Quonset huts on the high end was $5 million dollars. Granted it was a Taj Mahal that some school board could hail as their great accomplishment, but it was a facility for students to learn..
I love San Angelo more than those other cities because we understand the value of a dollar—for ourselves and for our children—among many other reasons.
The statement “Bonds are the only way to renovate or construct” is simply false. When San Angelo voters rejected a bond to build San Angelo Stadium, the school board built it anyway—without a bond.
Past fiscal irresponsibility is a compelling reason not to approve more money for a school board that has kicked the can down the road on maintenance. Has any school building been condemned or declared unsafe? If not, the crisis seems more manufactured than real.
There’s something uniquely valuable about students learning in century-old buildings—structures with character and history, unlike the modern, sterile facilities built to fall apart in 30 years. I went to 8th grade in the same building my mother attended during World War II… and I still gradutated college!
You say my statement that bonds are the only way to renovate, or construct is “simply false.”
And yet the only exception you can find to that statement is the construction of San Angelo Stadium.
You make it sound like construction and renovation projects are just happening left-and-right around town in the absence of bonds for years now, even.
I see absolutely no evidence to support that.
The $300,000 bond proposal for funds to build a new stadium was called by San Angelo College — not by San Angelo ISD.
Along with the stadium, there also was a $300,000 proposal to build an agricultural-science building, and a proposition that would raise the M&O tax rate for the college by as much as 15-cents.
On April 10, 1954, voters approved the new science building, and a 15-cent tax-rate increase for the school, but said “no” to the stadium.
The vote was 1,512 against and 1,386 in favor.
In June of that year, looking at the need for at least $50,000 worth of repairs at the old Bobcat Stadium, San Angelo ISD’s board started talks about building something new.
As it happened, by October of that year, the San Angelo School Board declared it would build a new football stadium if (1) half the money was collected by public subscription and if (2) the school district received the payout on an old claim of $223,289 from the Federal Government, that had been submitted during a building program from a few years before.
School trustees reasoned that the collection of $100,000 would be “interpreted as public approval of a new stadium.
This is similar to how COVID money helped accomplish the major renovations just completed at McGill Elementary, for instance, but it most certainly did not come from pinching pennies on paper and pencils.
In places where they have schools that are hundreds of years old, the buildings themselves were designed to last for hundreds of years. School buildings in America are, for the most part, not designed for the long-term.
The ward elementary schools of 1908 and 1909 were most likely designed to last about 50 years, because that was the industry design standard in America for most public schools.
My grandmother went to primary school in a one-room shack in Ismay, Montana in 1928. There is no part of me that thinks it would be cute or nostalgic for any child to attend school in those conditions today.
Pingback: Old Buildings Uniquely Valuable - The Concho Observer
Pingback: Bond Election Lacks Transparency - The Concho Observer