A 16-member Blue Ribbon Task Force formally recommended that the San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) board place a $450 million bond proposal and a 13-cent increase in the district’s Maintenance and Operation tax on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot.
The recommendations came during a well-attended special meeting of the SAISD school board Monday evening. The bond and new tax revenues would go to renovating some of the district’s oldest schools, updating classroom technology and environments to meet 21st century standards, and providing additional academic support through after-school and summer programs.
More than 50 community members, including more than 15 concerned parents and teachers from the Young Women’s Leadership Academy (YWLA), attended the special meeting.
“We’re recommending that the board look at these two ballot questions, for a bond and a tax ratification election, that would be placed on the ballot for the November General Election,” the task force’s co-chair, Mario Barrera, told Superintendent Pedro Martinez and the board of trustees. “We’re also asking that the board, if it proceeds with this recommendation and approves it, appoint a citizen advisory committee to oversee the bond.”
A school district’s tax rate has two components: the Maintenance and Operations (M&O), which funds daily operations, and Interest and Sinking (I&S), which services debt and funds capital improvements.
The $450 million bond would be limited to brick and mortar renovations of 13 schools, which were last upgraded with funds from a 1968 bond. The facilities do not meet current standards and do not comply with accessibility and code requirements. These schools include: G.W. Brackenridge, Burbank, Edison, Jefferson, Lanier, Sam Houston, and Fox Tech high schools; Davis, Irving, Tafolla, and H. Rogers middle schools; and J.T. Brackenridge and Bowden elementary schools.
The bond would be generated through a 12-cent increase on the I&S tax rate over the course of five years, from $0.34 to $0.46 per $100 of assessed property value.
The 13-cent M&O tax increase, from $1.04 to $1.17, would generate an additional estimated $15.6 million in tax revenue, matched by an estimated $16.5 million in state funds.
According to Martinez, half of this continuous M&O revenue stream would go to providing an average of three schools per year with improved technology and labs, enhanced manipulative resources, and an array of interactive environments.
“I believe that if our children are going to be competitive,” Martinez said, “there is no way that we can make that true unless they have the proper learning environment.”
The other half would go to expanding after-school and summer programs. According to district data presented by the task force, only 18% of SAISD elementary and middle school students participate in after-school programs, while only 10% of all students engage in programs during the summer.
“Our teachers spend so much time reviewing at the beginning of the school year and after Christmas break, because the children are not involved in additional enrichment activities,” Martinez said in an interview. “Students that have been in ROTC, in the fine arts, in sports – those are our top students across the board without exception. So we said, ‘You know that tells us something. If you get kids engaged in our schools, they do better.’”
Other funding targets, such as measures to increase teacher pay and retention, decrease class sizes, or alleviate counselor case loads, would not be included.
The session began with emotion-filled speeches by 10 teachers and parents of YWLA, one of the highest performing schools in SAISD and the only national blue ribbon school in the city. They voiced concerns about inadequate facilities and overburdened teachers.
“The teachers are so talented, so devoted, so exhausted, and so close to a really dangerous level of burnout,” said Shannon Prichard, who commutes an hour from the Northside to bring her daughter to the school. “Our daughters will be the losers if we allow these educators to burn out.”
Following their speeches, the superintendent and several board members promised to address their maintenance concerns and encouraged members of the YWLA community to help communicate the importance of the bond and tax increases to improving underfunded schools.
Data presented by the task force showed that, if the two ballot measures passed, the average homeowner’s monthly tax bill would increase by $7.59 beginning in the 2016-2017 tax year, and rise incrementally over the next five years to $14.59. Senior citizen and disabled homeowners would not be impacted by the increase.
Sixty-three percent of the M&O and I&S tax increases would come from commercial and industrial property, while another 26.3% would be generated by rental property owners. Only 10.4% would be paid by homeowners.
The volunteer 16-member Blue Ribbon Task Force has analyzed SAISD’s capital and operating needs since it was appointed by the board in May 2016. Each district is represented on the task force.
The Board unanimously voted to publish a Notice of Public Meeting for its Aug. 15 session, when trustees will decide whether to send the proposals to voters, which appears to be virtually assured.
“The two initiatives on Nov. 8 are really about transformation,” said Trustee Ed Garza (D7). “If you vote ‘yes’ on both of these you’re voting to transform our school district into a national model.”
Clarification: The $7.59 tax bill increase referred to the average homeowner’s monthly tax bill.
Top image: SAISD Board of Trustees discuss a $450 million bond proposal and a 13-cent tax increase during its Aug. 1, 2016 meeting. Photo by Daniel Kleifgen.
Related Stories:
SAISD Board to Vote on $450 Million Bond, 13-Cent Tax Rate Hike
San Antonio’s School Inequity Rooted in City’s History of Segregation
CAST Tech Finds Home at Fox Tech
SAISD Board Appoints Task Force to Assess Funding Needs
Families Preview SAISD Advanced and Creative Learning Academy
Correct me if I’m wrong on the following numbers. Please!!!
Here’s my math: For every $100,000 of valuation on a home (which is the standard normally used), the I&S tax will rise $120 ($100,000 ÷ $100 x $0.12), and the M&O tax will rise $130 ($100,000 ÷ $100 x $0.13). I would hope it’s only one-tenth this amount ($12 and $13 respectively), but I can’t figure out how to come to those numbers…
What is the “average” home value in SAISD? Without this number, it’s hard to understand what is going on. I hope it wasn’t deliberate to not provide this info because it’s misleading as such).
In my neighborhood, it’s getting hard to find a nicely-restored home for less than $200K. And the concept that landlords will pay the majority of taxes is disingenuous. It means rents will rise as landlords pass on the tax to their tenants.
C’mon, please. Don’t play fast and loose with the numbers like this…
I’m not sure how the numbers in the article were created but your calculations seem right. The only thing I can imagine is they meant the monthly tax bill would go up for the amounts to they mention. Of course we all know that property tax bills don’t come monthly so it’s terribly misleading to state it that way. If you run the numbers that way it would seem the average house would be about $95,000 with a $25,000 homestead exemption, giving the ISD a 70k taxable value.
Also, some great info here on values of property for tax purposes in the district. https://www.saisd.net/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=330&Itemid=163, an increase in property values of over $1,743,000,000 in one year isn’t too shabby.
At the bottom of this post is a direct link to the latest report that has really good statistics on taxable value of property in the district. It is up over $1.5 billion again this year. That’s over a 10% increase in local funding two years running at the time of stagnant student population growth. It also shows planned state funding is shown to drop in their numbers. Really, even without a tax rate increase, the financial picture for the district seems pretty good. Rising property values, new construction, and the influx of people without kids going into the school seems like a pretty good situation to me.
https://www.saisd.net/admin/finance/SAISD_Notice_of_Public_Meeting_2016-17_6-8-16.pdf
Thank you for your comments Page and Will. The average homeowner’s tax bill rate increase presented by the task force and this article are monthly rates. The annual rate increase would be $91.08 in the 2016-2017 tax year, rising incrementally to $175 by 2020-2021. These numbers are based on SAISD’s average taxable homestead value of $70,023. Thank you Will for providing this figure as well.
The 26.3% of revenues attributed to rental property owners was not meant to speak to the tax incidence that would fall on landlords versus tenants or the elasticity of rental prices.
The problem with the assumptions here is that the tax increases 2017-2021 are based on static median valuation. The inevitable 10% annual property value increases do not appear to be factored into the equation. Actually, the tax increases will be compounded by the increases in property value. I must say that I have been impressed with Dr. Martinez, but I don’t know that I can afford to vote in favor of this bond initiative. Time for a reality check SAISD!
That’s the other thing I don’t understand. With the current meteoric rise in real estate prices in many SAISD neighborhoods, there’s already an existing built-in bump in annual revenue. I see what were once neglected homes barely worth back taxes being remodeled and sold for $300-400K every day.
As a result of this white-hot real estate market, my tax values will be going up 10% a year for the forseeable future, simply because of the differential between appraised value and the Homestead Exemption limit. Bingo! Extra revenue every year. Didn’t anyone on the “Blue Ribbon Panel” take this into consideration?
I think this “Blue Ribbon Panel” and the SAISD board needs to get their heads out of the…ummm…sand. This one ain’t gonna fly if they aren’t going to give us the numbers straight up. Which in this article, they are not. I have yet to see a meaningful defense of this tax increase in the comments section of this article (correct me if I’m wrong in my calculations, please!) yet I know there are SAISD board members and “Blue Ribbon” folks who read this publication.
Don’t play with numbers, SAISD leadership. You have an increasingly affluent cohort moving into this area, and they don’t appreciate being gamed like this. Be straightforward or risk losing the bond election…
Thank you for your thoughts, Page. The task force did not address the increased revenue generated through rising property value. These increases would be offset by decreases in state aid provided to the district. So increased property value would not positively affect SAISD’s budget.
The above estimated annual funding increase – $15.6 million in local revenues matched by 16.5 million in state funds – therefore does not factor in changes in local revenues generated through increased property values. As the local number goes up, the state matching will go down, leading to the same total increase to SAISD’s budget.
Thanks for the additional information Daniel.
I’m admittedly new to school finance, but I saw that the 2010 bond was also going to increase the I&S rate substantially until 2028, the overall tax rate was supposed to peak at 1.46/$100 valuation (assuming the other rate didn’t change), do the rates presented in this article include the increase from the 2010 bond? I ask because we’re only at 1.38 right now (this could also be because interest rates have been at historic lows).
As for the built in “10% increases”, the team putting together this proposal must be taking that into account. What’s interesting is that the gap between appraised value and taxable value (should account for the homestead exemption among other things) doesn’t seem to be widening by much in the past few years.
Overall, this massive tax increase needs to be sold for what it will do. The approach of saying, “hey, it’s only $9 a month” isn’t going to have me voting for it.
Thank you for your insightful questions Will. The overall education tax rate will not increase any further due to the 2010 $515 million bond. This bond came in under budget, and the property tax rate ended up being lower than originally projected.
In the 2016-2017 tax year, the rate increase would be 13 cents for the M&O tax. Thereafter, the I&S tax would be gradually introduced until it peaked at 12 additional cents by 2020-2021.
This means the tax rate would increase from its current level of $1.38 to peak at $1.63 by 2020-2021.
The task force did not address the increased revenue generated through rising property value. These increases would be offset by decreases in state aid provided to the district. So increased property value would not positively affect SAISD’s budget.
The above estimated annual funding increase – $15.6 million in local revenues matched by 16.5 million in state funds – therefore does not factor in changes in local revenues generated through increased property values. As the local number goes up, the state matching will go down, leading to the same total increase to SAISD’s budget.
Numbers…percentages….Blah…Blah…Blah!!! Should we really take it out on SAISD for wanting to improve their education system? We will never be able to escape taxes! So let’s just share in the cost of the vital resource of education. These children are the future and they deserve to be proud of the schools they attend. It is not the children’s fault that older homes are being revitalized (good thing) and then sold for over $300-400K in the inner city. To the affluent cohort: “Please move to SAISD….they need your share.” It takes a village! Let’s Pay it Forward and invest in our children and our future leaders! I vote YES to the children and YES to the Bond and YES to my community! (There are just to many great spillover effects to mention!) I am willing to share my income and will be voting Yes!!! Of course everyone has their own opinion. This is just mine. I respect everyone’s above so now let us take it to the polls! Thank goodness for Freedom of Speech and our Rights to Vote!
I e-mailed SAISD to get an answer to the main question addressed in this comment thread. What happens to the money that comes in from rising property values, and why can’t that take place of the Bond proposal?
“Under current state funding formulas, when the taxable property value in a school district increases, generating additional local revenue, the state decreases the amount of aid it provides the district. So, any increase in revenue generated by higher property values is offset by a decrease in state funding.”
Many folks know that I have been extremely critical of SAISD in the past. Their past reputation will not make it easy for them to gain the trust of the voters. BUT, I have seen the change in leadership push for true results and accountability for those results. I am a member of the BRTF. I don’t have my head in the sand, or anywhere else. Please remember that there more to go regarding this process.
If the answer above doesn’t satisfy you, then I would recommend that you e-mail SAISD…if you really want an answer. Commenting on an article is an excellent way to get everyone thinking, and a great way to vent, but it doesn’t bring in answers… Thanks to all of you for being engage citizens. 🙂 S/O to my Dignowity Hill peeps for being awesome edu advocates!!! 😉