Dallas ISD
$6.2B$33.48/yr est. homeowner costSUPPORT with accountability conditionsFort Worth
$845M$0.00/yr est. homeowner costSUPPORT (Prop D conditional)Grand Prairie
$327M$89–$146/yr est. homeowner costSUPPORT A+B; CONDITIONAL CArlington ISD
$501M$18.00/yr est. homeowner costSUPPORT A+B; CONDITIONAL CThe Turnout Problem
“Bond authorization worth billions is decided by a fraction of eligible voters.”
May elections consistently produce single-digit turnout in DFW jurisdictions. Bond authorization worth billions is decided by a fraction of eligible voters, raising questions about democratic legitimacy and representativeness.
Six Findings That Demand Attention
Accountability infrastructure is uneven.
Dallas ISD has a citizen bond committee that has never published minutes. Fort Worth has no permanent oversight body.
Dallas ISD Bond↗May elections suppress participation.
Single-digit turnout means billions in authorization are decided by a small, unrepresentative electorate.
PFC revenue diversion erodes the tax base.
Public facility corporations divert property tax revenue with minimal transparency, creating a structural serviceability trap.
State Comptroller↗The “Black tax” is real and measurable.
Historically disinvested neighborhoods bear higher effective tax burdens through assessments, PIDs, and deferred maintenance costs.
Credit ratings mask governance gaps.
Strong credit ratings (AAA, Aa1) do not guarantee strong delivery or transparency.
TEA FIRST Ratings↗Housing bond precedent needs guardrails.
Fort Worth’s first-ever housing bond is historic, but without defined metrics and oversight it risks limited replicability.
Fort Worth Bond↗Democratic Architecture of DFW Bond Tools
Different bond and financing tools carry different levels of voter control. Understanding the architecture matters for accountability design.
| Tool | Voter approval? | Oversight mechanism | Risk profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| GO bonds | Yes — direct ballot | Citizen bond committee (where established) | Moderate — depends on oversight quality |
| PIDs | No — council-created | Advisory board; limited public input | High — opaque assessment, limited recourse |
| CBAs | No — negotiated | Contractual enforcement only | Variable — depends on enforcement capacity |
| CLTs | No — nonprofit-led | Board governance; community input varies | Low — long-term affordability lock |
| PFCs | No — council-appointed | Board only; minimal public reporting | High — revenue diversion, limited accountability |
Reform Recommendations
Immediate (before May 2, 2026)
- Dallas ISD: Publish all CBSC meeting minutes and adopt a data verification protocol for bond dashboards.
- Fort Worth: Define production, leverage, and location metrics for the housing bond.
- Grand Prairie: Publish objective site selection criteria for southern sector facilities.
- Arlington ISD: Release a project-by-project reconciliation of the 2019 bond.
Near-term (2026\u20132027)
- All jurisdictions: Establish or strengthen permanent citizen bond oversight committees with public reporting requirements.
- Adopt annual third-party financial and performance audits modeled on California Prop 39 standards.
- Implement quarterly, project-level spending dashboards with internally consistent data.
- Push for November election consolidation for future bond elections.
Structural (2027+)
- State-level reform: Require PFC revenue impact disclosures and sunset provisions.
- Standardize bond oversight requirements across Texas ISDs and municipalities.
- Develop regional coordination mechanisms for overlapping bond programs in multi-county jurisdictions.
- Create model legislation for community land trusts and community benefit agreements linked to bond-funded projects.
Jurisdiction Snapshot
| Jurisdiction | Amount | Tax mechanism | Oversight gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas ISD | $6.2B | I&S +0.01 per $100 of taxable value | Delivered many projects from 2020 bond but with notable transparency and execution gaps. |
| City of Fort Worth | $845M | No I&S tax rate increase projected (capacity-growth model). | Consistent bond cycles but no permanent citizen bond oversight body. |
| City of Grand Prairie | $327M | I&S +0.039 per $100 of taxable value ($89–$142/yr depending on county). | Strong credit rating but limited existing bond-oversight infrastructure; risk of "project list without accountability." |
| Arlington ISD | $501M | I&S +0.01 per $100 of taxable value. | Disciplined issuer with strong delivery record but incomplete public reconciliation of deferred 2019 projects. |
Next Steps
Explore the Full Suite
Read the Voter Guides
Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction breakdowns with tax impact calculators, proposition summaries, and accountability assessments for all four DFW bond elections.
Go to Voter Guides →Explore the Investor Lens
Credit profiles, passage probability modeling, and institutional risk analysis built for stakeholders who evaluate public debt professionally.
Go to Investor Lens →