Vote Against Both Dripping Springs ISD’s Propositions A & B!

1. DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions will MORE THAN DOUBLE (by over 2 1/2 times) DSISD's Total Debt Obligations from $518 million to nearly $1.296 BILLION!

• That amounts to an outrageous $148,713 in per-student debt.
• And $31,484 in per-capita DSISD debt—that's just for DSISD's debts alone (not other public or private debt), and on the back of every child, student, adult, senior—using DSISD's 2024 population estimate from the Texas Bond Review Board (TBRB).
• Even worse, that's $48,067 on the back of every WORKING AGE ADULT, again using the TBRB population estimate and the US Census's latest age distribution estimates of 65.5% of Hays County residents being aged 18-64.
• And hold onto your seat! The US Census estimates just 68.0% of Hays County residents aged 16+ worked between 2016-2020! That equates to an approximate DSISD debt load of $70,686—again, that's just for DSISD not accounting for other public, or personal, debt—on the back of every working age adult actually in the workforce in Dripping Springs ISD!
• Do you think less than 20,000 working adults can or should be burdened with nearly $1.3 billion dollars in bond debt for educational facilities for less than 9,000 students, and with our community's property values and future earnings as collateral?

2. Despite DSISD advertising $402.3 million for this May's bond package, that figure doesn't account for interest on that new debt!

DSISD, under disclosures required by Texas law that DSISD IS NOT PUBLICIZING estimates that these bond propositions will cost our community over $777.9 million ($777,916,632 exact), which is NEARLY DOUBLE (1.94x exact) the advertised price tag!

Put differently: only 51.7 cents of every tax dollar necessary to fund this proposed bond debt will reach DSISD students—the rest of our hard-earned tax dollars will be WASTED on bond debt interest!

DSISD Apologists and Pro-Bond Propagandists claim that bond spending is prudent because it avoids "Recapture," just 9.4% of DSISD's 2024-2025 M&O Budget was allocated to "Recapture" while DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions are planning to send 48.3%, over $375 million of our community's hard-earned school tax dollars to global creditors for interest payments—that's enough to fully fund DSISD at 2024-2025 Budget-levels for over three years!

3. 2024 Texas Bond Review Board (TBRB) School District Debt Data reveals that DSISD will have the 17th highest per-student Total Bond Debt of ALL Texas ISDs (based upon Average Daily Attendance [ADA])—that's more per-student debt than 98.2% of ALL 931 Texas School Districts if DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions are voter-approved!

And even worse, this TBRB ISD Debt Data reveals that should DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions be voter-approved, then DSISD will have:

• The SECOND HIGHEST—yes, #2—Total Bond Debt of all 86 Texas School Districts with ADA between 5,000 and 11,000 students (roughly, +/- 3k DSISD's 2024 ADA of 7,847) at ~$1.3 billion, following Liberty Hill ISD at #1 with $1.5 billion and with Hutto ISD trailing at #3 with $1.2 billion, and
• Again, the SECOND HIGHEST—yes, #2—Per-Student (ADA) Total Bond Debt at $165k of ALL Texas School Districts with 5k to 11k student ADA, following #1 Liberty Hill ISD at $180k and with #3 Little Elm ISD trailing at $141k!

4. When it comes to bond propositions, DSISD has deceptively advertised "No Tax Rate Increase" and focused solely on Tax Rate for years, despite knowing that increasing appraisal valuations will result in HUGELY increased tax bills for us and new revenue for them if the tax rate remains unchanged—you simply cannot CANNOT MORE THAN DOUBLE DSISD's DEBT WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES ON EVERYONE to pay for it.

In fact:

• DSISD's Bond Debt Local Tax Revenues have increased 78% in just five (5) years, from $21 million for the 2020-2021 fiscal year to $38 million for 2024-2025, and instead of reducing the Bond Debt Tax Rate to provide much needed tax relief, DSISD is instead taxing and spending like our tax dollars are a no-limits credit card and our wallets our bottomless!
• And since the 2018 Bond, an average DSISD residence has now seen a 72% DSISD Bond Debt/I&S TAX HIKE according to DSISD's own data, while that average residence's M&O Tax Bills (the General Fund costs of operating schools, paying staff, etc.), increased just 11% due to substantially increased State Funding for Texas Schools and the according mandatory local property tax rate compression/reduction required to receive it—that means Bond Debt Tax Bills have been increasing nearly SEVEN TIMES faster than the M&O Tax Bills for the actual day-to-day operation our DSISD's schools, and why Bond Debt now comprises 32% of our Total DSISD Tax Bill when in 2018 it was just 23%!
• Moreover, DSISD's 2024 Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Budget and Proposed Tax Rate, again DSISD's own data, shows Average Market Value of Residences to be 31% higher than Average Taxable Value of Residences—with much of that delta likely being due to Texas' 10% Homestead Cap—which means that at least a 31% Bond Debt Tax Hike is baked-in for an average DSISD residence within the next couple years!
• Texas' 10% Homestead Cap means that a property's Year-to-Year Taxable Value and according property tax bill cannot increase by more than 10% each year if you have a homestead exemption on that property.

And when we ran these numbers for DSISD's voter-rejected November 2022 Bond Propositions, we found the following—and note the DSISD Bond Debt Tax Increase for an average residence has jumped 30% in just 2 1/2 years (to 72% from 42%), so these projections do appear to have been accurate:

• Have a 53% I&S/Bond Debt TAX HIKE baked-in/guaranteed for an average residence if voter-approved;
• Will result in an over 60% I&S/Bond Debt TAX HIKE for an average residence IN JUST FIVE YEARS if voter-approved; and
• Will DOUBLE I&S/Bond Debt Taxes IN JUST EIGHT YEARS if voter-approved.
• And that's after a 42% TAX HIKE on an average residence since the 2018 Bond that also advertised "No Tax Rate Increase."

5. High School #2, which totals 74% and nearly $600 million of DSISD's $778 million May 2025 Bond package is likely to only directly benefit the Eastern End of the District (the eastern ~1/3rd, which roughly is the 78737 zip code and/or SSMS's current attendance zone).

All SEVEN (7) DSISD Board Members reside in that 78737 (Austin) Zip Code, as well as reside within Sycamore Springs Middle School's Attendance Zones.

• Board President Stefani Reinold, Board Vice President Mary Jane Hetrick, and Members Kim Cousins and Tricia Quintero all reside, per voter registration records, in Highpointe Subdivision and are in Precinct 446.
• Member Olivia Barnard resides in Reunion Ranch and is in Precinct 442.
• Member Shanda DeLeon resides in Saratoga Hills and is in Precinct 445.
• Member Rob McClelland resides in Belterra and is in Precinct 443.
• That's right! FOUR (4) DSISD Board Members—a voting majority—reside in the same subdivison.
• *And don't forget that we at CEEDS have long been advocating for Single Member Districts with Geographic Representation to avoid precisely this scenario—the basic good government principles we advocate for like transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility don't pick winners and losers, they're just doing what's right!

Unfortunately, all this means with near-certainty that ALL DSISD Board Members will directly and personally benefit (in terms of home values and/or their children) from the construction of High School #2, which totals 74% and nearly $600 million of DSISD's $778 million May 2025 Bond package.

And they voted for this bond knowing that it would personally benefit not only them but also their nearby neighbors, while being paid for by the entire community—that's not only a conflict-of-interest, THAT'S WRONG!

• And it goes a long way to explain how they could possibly think the Wasteful, Dangerous, and Shameless Retread that are DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions are prudent, let alone something to be celebrated!
• Remember, HS #2 was the MOST rejected and defeated November 2022 Bond Proposition, with over 10,000 votes and 54% Against!
• And that the DSISD School Board was also brazen and shameless enough to do this when Zero (0) of the other Zip Codes that comprise DSISD, including Dripping Springs (78620), Driftwood (78619), and a handful of other Hays County and Travis County Zip Codes have ANY direct representation on the School Board makes it even worse!
• 78737 comprises less than 1/2 of DSISD's residents and voters.

6. DSISD’s May 2025 Bond Propositions Are Inequitable—Causing the Rich to Get Richer While the Poor Get Poorer!

Generally speaking, the Eastern End of DSISD contains District's Best Performing and Least Economically Disadvantaged Students and Schools, while the Western End contains DSISD's Worst Performing and Most Economically Disadvantaged Students and Schools.

Here are the facts:

• DSISD's highest performing and most economically advantaged students/schools' attendance zones continue to receive new facilities after new facilities FOR YEARS, while
• the District's lowest performing students/schools have been forced to make due with remodels of decades-old facilities—often having to attend class and try to learn in noisy, dirty, and dangerous construction zones.
• DSISD's Middle Schools current deltas are as follows per the latest data from the Texas Education Agency (2022-23):
• DSMS had a 90 Overall Rating, with 17.3% Economically Disadvantaged
  Vs.
• SSMS having a 92 Overall Rating and 4.1% Economically Disadvantaged
• That Means DSMS Has a FOUR TIMES GREATER SHARE of Economically Disadvantaged Students than SSMS!
• And the same applies to Elementary Schools:
• Western Elementary Schools: Walnut Springs = 87 Overall Rating & 13.2% Economically Disadvantaged, and Dripping Springs = 87 Overall Rating & 14.9% Economically Disadvantaged
  Vs.
  Eastern Elementary Schools: Rooster Springs = 94 Overall Rating & 4.6% Economically Disadvantaged, Sycamore Springs = 91 Overall Rating & 3.8% Economically Disadvantaged, and Cypress Springs = 89 Overall Rating & 3.8% Economically Disadvantaged
• So the same disparities seen between DSISD's Eastern and Western Middle Schools are also seen between DSISD's Eastern and Western Elementary Schools.
• DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions' HS #2 that comprises 74% of total will only exacerbate these inequities!
• As detailed in item #4, DSISD's Bond Debt Tax Bills will continue to increase, if these May 2025 Bond propositions are voter-approved.

So DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions' under-investment in its lowest-performing and most economically disadvantaged students PLUS the increased taxation to fund new facilities for its best performing and least economically disadvantaged areas of the District will INCREASE INEQUITY in DSISD on two fronts.

7. The facts:

❌ Three-quarters of DSISD's Total 2025 Bond Propositions will go to the construction of High School #2 at a Total Cost to Our Community, including Bond Debt Interest nearly doubling the price tag, projected at nearly $600 million!

❌ HS #2's price tag has ballooned by $33.9 million (principal-only) from November 2022, when accounting for both DSISD's May 2023 Bond's $10.5 million design cost and DSISD's May 2025 Bond Proposition's $298.8 million construction cost—$34 million is at least one-half the way to an entirely new elementary school!

❌ HS #2 will be a luxurious, platinum facility that more closely resembles a college campus than a high school—and although not included in this May 2025 Bond, DSISD is already planning for a full competition stadium like Tiger Field for that high school, with this Bond just funding/building a "JV Field."

-- Importantly, by including a competition field in the plan, the Darden Hill Site will not have room for a Middle School as originally planned, so will also increase long-term costs to taxpayers in ways that aren't realized in this May 2025 Bond, in necessitating the costly purchase of additional land!

❌ Accordingly, HS #2 will permanently divide the Dripping Springs community between its East and West ends, and division and hurt will occur as the School Board establishes those attendance zone divides.

❌ DSISD's Long-Range Planning and demographer shows that Elementary Schools #6 & #7, as well as Middle School #3 are as, if not more, pressing needs than HS #2.

❌ In fact, DSISD currently only has two 1,200 student middle schools—it is beyond belief imprudent to build a second 2,500 student high school before a third middle school is constructed, full stop.

❌ DSISD is placing HS #2 on this May's Ballot knowing that:

-- Future Bond Elections will be needed in 2026 and/or 2027

This Bond Election maxes out DSISD's "Bond Capacity"/Taxing Capability under the Current Tax Rate, so Bond Debt/I&S Tax Rate Increases ARE HIGHLY LIKELY for Future Bonds.

-- Thus it appears that DSISD, knowing HS #2 is the most contentious of the bunch, is placing it at the front of the line for reasons of political gamesmanship, political expediency, and the career ambitions of DSISD administrators and profit ambitions of District Vendors.

-- We'll dive more into this in a future update... Stay tuned.

❌ As we've covered in previous updates: instead of Building HS #2 @ 2,500 students and accordingly also needing A THIRD High School for District build-out, DSISD could instead build a 9th Grade Center/Academy to immediately address current HS capacity issues, requiring just two high schools and two ninth grade centers at build-out for HUGE long-term cost savings to taxpayers... HERE is just one instance.

❌ And we've also covered previously how DSISD's 2022 Bond Planning prioritized HS #2 over more pressing needs due to the political gamesmanship and process manipulation by lobbyists, DSISD vendors, and likely at the direction of ambitious DSISD administrators.

❌ Last, but not least, Transcend4, which led the Citizen Bond Steering Committee Meetings—the committee that "decided" to prioritize HS #2 before Elementaries #6 and #7 and Middle School #3, was acquired by VLK Architects, just months following the conclusion of that process—remember, the May 2023 Bond allocated $10.5 million for the design of HS #2, and all of that is unlikely to be paid to their coffers unless HS #2 is actually built.

-- So this is a near-identical and unfortunate repeat of the corrupted 2022 Bond Planning Process that we just detailed above!

That's a lot of facts—but they're all important ones and necessary to understand how truly imprudent, destructive, and scary DSISD's May 2025 Bond Propositions truly are!