Estimated Time to Read: 4 minutes
Before the November 4, 2025, election, Texas Policy Research examined local indebtedness and noted that more than $32 billion in local bonds were up for consideration by voters across the state. While we are still compiling the totals for bonds that passed and failed, it is worth reviewing how some of the larger bond proposals we previously highlighted fared.
Lamar Consolidated ISD’s $1.9 Billion Bond Package
According to information provided by the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, voters were asked to decide on a four-part bond package totaling more than $1.9 billion for new schools and facility improvements, stadium repairs, technology equipment, and a student device initiative.
The result: three of the four propositions passed, funding new schools and facility improvements (Prop. A), technology equipment (Prop. C), and the student device initiative (Prop. D). Prop. B, which would have funded upgrades to Taylor Stadium, failed.
While this still represents a significant new debt burden for district residents, it is encouraging that voters appeared to prioritize needs over wants, approving propositions focused on the academic and vocational success of students.
Seven Springs MUD’s $1.3 Billion Proposal
A $1.3 billion bond proposal was on the ballot for a new development in Collin County. The Seven Springs Municipal Utility District measure passed with only one vote cast, as is often the case for bonds in newly created districts.
While such results are typical before a development gains population, this kind of approval effectively binds future homeowners to the associated debt and property taxes. Though issuing bonds to fund new infrastructure is standard practice, an important question remains: Is this a proper use of public debt, or should such investments be made by the developer?
Developers who stand to profit substantially from these projects should bear the financial risk, not shift it onto future taxpayers. While TPR strongly supports free enterprise, it should not come at the expense of increased public indebtedness.
City of Prosper Bond Propositions
The City of Prosper divided its bond proposal into six distinct propositions: streets, police, library, parks and recreation, public works and parks, and downtown improvements.
Of the six, voters approved only two; Prop. A for street improvements ($92 million) and Prop. F for downtown improvements.
By rejecting Propositions B, C, D, and E, Prosper residents rightly focused on the core functions of local government, rejecting more than half of the proposed debt. This outcome reflects a clear preference for fiscal prudence and a commitment to essential services over broader municipal enhancements.
Parker County’s $286 Million “Justice Bond”
Parker County voters rejected both propositions in the proposed $286.3 million “Justice Bond” package.
Proposition A, $104.8 million for the renovation and expansion of the Parker County Jail, failed with approximately 67.6% of voters opposed. Proposition B, $181.6 million for the construction of a new justice center to house courts and county offices, failed with about 70.4% opposed.
The rejection of both measures signals strong voter opposition to taking on additional debt for these projects. County officials must now wait two years before resubmitting similar proposals to voters.
Other Notable Bond Measures
The Bad
North East Independent School District (NEISD) – $29 Million for athletics and non‑core facilities.
Bexar County, Propositions A & B – $311 million to fund a new downtown arena for the San Antonio Spurs, representing a large public subsidy for a private professional sports franchise. Even though the tax is “tourism-based” (hotel and rental-car taxes), it still represents a public financial commitment and an economic risk that should fall to the private sector.
The Good
Baytown (Harris County area) – Nearly $152 million in proposed bonds for roads, parks, drainage, fire stations, and wetlands or arboretum projects. From a conservative standpoint, the question is whether all components of the package, particularly parks and arboretum features, qualify as essential government functions rather than optional amenities, especially when funded by debt rather than pay-as-you-go financing.
Fortunately, voters approved only two of the six propositions:
- Proposition A – $69.86 million for major thoroughfares.
- Proposition D – $4.25 million for the design and land acquisition for a new fire station.
The Concern Moving Forward
The statewide tally of more than 472 bond measures on local ballots across Texas, totaling at least $90 billion in new debt, is staggering. Even if each bond is justified as “necessary,” together they represent a massive expansion of future taxpayer obligations and a reduction in fiscal flexibility for local governments.
From a small-government standpoint, this trend underscores the growing need for taxpayer scrutiny, transparency, and restraint. As debt continues to mount, Texans should demand that local governments embrace pay-as-you-go principles and avoid the trap of perpetual indebtedness that mortgages the future for present spending.
The 2025 bond elections reveal that many Texas voters are growing wary of unchecked borrowing. Their message was clear: the government should focus on essentials, not expansion. That’s a victory for fiscal responsibility and for taxpayers across Texas.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
