The Senate Committee on State Affairs met on March 30 to take up a full agenda. This report covers testimony on SB 946 (Sparks) relating to the election date for the authorization of the issuance of bonds or a tax increase.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer.
SB 946 (Sparks) relating to the election date for the authorization of the issuance of bonds or a tax increase.
- Address two critical problems, low voter turnout and growing debt to GDP ratio
- Local elections held in May passed significant debt with less than 2% of total voters in favor
- Bond propositions are best decided when most number of voters are engaged in the process
- Lower vote turnout in off cycle allows for most organized interest groups to impact the turnout
- A similar bill was filed in 2013, another time in 2019
- Current outstanding local debt is about $284 billion, Texas is 3rd in local debt per capita
- Current local debt per capita is approximately $9k per person
- Wants to leave a fiscally sound Texas for future generations
- This bill will address debt problem and low voter turnout, helps people make informed decisions when it comes to their communities
James Quintero, TPPF – For
- Sound policy would require to make decisions when maximum number of voters show up the polls
- $34 billion in new debt in May 2022 and November of that same year the total was just $21 billion which signals to him local governments are waiting until May cycle to put these items on the ballot
- 80% of respondents support changing according to their survey, signals overwhelming support
Lynn Boswell, Austin ISD Trustee – Opposes
- Priorities adopted include this issue, opposes additional requirements for bond elections
- Discretion is needed, choice to take to voters when time is needed
- Concerns using M&O in repairs when bond could address, successful bond election helps reduce use of M&O and keeps dollars in the classroom
- Growth fast around the area, need to be able to pass bond timely so they can capture competitive rate
- Would also raise the cost of borrowing and construction
- Menendez – one your elementary schools is so old that safety standards now required, would allotment help cover those requirements
- Adding things well belong what requirements are including vestibules
- Need to pass bonds to help address safety needs
- Menendez – are you aware that some are saying they are losing bond election because state mandates language of a tax increase even when not, are you saying moving to November could potentially politicize
- Agree
- Bond in May or November depends on how well you communicate with community
- For example some trustee races are in May
- Some times could cut through noise in May to address issues
- Need flexibility
Steve Snell, Liberty Hill ISD and Fast Growth School Coalition – Opposed
- Multiple reasons against the bill
- Passed a bond in May of 2021
- Situation of growth caused an extreme capitol need, seeing inflation, etc.
- Fast Growth schools need more time to pivot than once a year
- It takes several months to work on an issue and get voters out to the polls
- Testimony earlier was that this simplifies the process, disagrees with that statement because there is nothing easy about bond
- This could also cost taxpayers millions of dollars in inflation and construction costs
SB 946 Bill left pending