Grand Prairie city and school officials answer questions about upcoming sales tax and bond elections

by Kirk Dickey of of Grand Prairie TODAY

Community members got the chance to grill city and school district officials about the upcoming sales tax and bond elections at an information session April 19.

About 70 people showed up for the forum sponsored by the Westchester Homeowners Association with questions about some of the more controversial ballot items.

The city made its presentation first, discussing the three sales tax propositions that voters will see on May 12. Proposition 1 would fund a new 30,000 square-foot senior center at the corner of Warrior Trail and Highway 161 with an 1/8 cent sales tax. Proposition 2 would fund a minor league baseball stadium in the city's entertainment district with an 1/8 cent tax. And the Crime Control and Prevention District Proposition would fund a new 130,000 square-foot police station next to the proposed senior center at Warrior Trail and Highway 161.

The sales tax propositions would combine to a half-cent total, replacing the half-cent sales tax that the city had used to pay for Lone Star Park. The racetrack will be paid off 18 years early this September, so city officials have called the ballot items a “re-use” or “reallocation” of the existing sales tax monies. If all of the propositions are approved, sales taxes would remain the same.

And, Grand Prairie Marketing Director Amy Sprinkles pointed out, “(Out of town visitors) spend money there and they are paying for these facilities for us.”

Most of the questions asked by the group revolved around the baseball stadium.

One resident asked if the city could guarantee that the baseball team would stay in the city past the stadium's projected eight-year repayment period. She seemed concerned the city would be left with a stadium and no one to play in it.

The preliminary answer given that night was that the baseball team would have a contract for 14 years, well past the repayment schedule. Sprinkles said she would check into the matter further.

Other residents were concerned about the development of the area around the entertainment district. One asked why the area had not already developed as was believed would be the case after Lone Star Park was built.

City Councilman Rick Sala answered the question, saying that the council made some zoning mistakes that did not allow for development as readily as was hoped. But, he said, adding the baseball stadium would give businesses more of an incentive to build in the area since there would be attractions there year-round.

“It's an investment in the entertainment district, just like the horse track was and just like Nokia was,” Sala said. “It is sort of a missing piece out there.”

He said that during the times of year that there is no horse racing, there is not a lot of activity in the area unless there is a concert going on. This would help spur traffic during the summer and could spur development in the area by providing more midday activities there, rather than just nighttime ones.

“The council would not have brought this to the voters if we didn't feel that this was going to be - no pun intended - a homerun for Grand Prairie,” Sala said.

In closing, Sala said that although he feels it would be a good fit for the city, if one of the propositions must die, baseball should be it. He said that the other two propositions are desperately needed - especially the police department.

“If we have to fund this without a sales tax, it is going to be very hard to find $50 million that is in the budget,” he said.

Detective Heath Wester, the president of the Grand Prairie Police Association, echoed Sala's comments.

“The police association has met with the (baseball group),” he said. “We know this is going to be a benefit to the city.

“We are in favor of all three issues. We encourage you to vote for all three.”

But Wester said that he was leery of other issues on the ballot this May.

“I know there is opposition to the school bond,” he said. “We just pray that does not carry over to what we are trying to accomplish.”

Later in the night, Phil Davila, the spokesman for the VoteNoGPISD.com committee, said that he was concerned that people were getting the wrong impression about the group. He said he was asked if the group opposed the city's ballot items as well and he was “floored” by that.

Davila said that the group only opposes the school district bond and that was because it wants to know more about how the program will be implemented and why the district has not used its annual budget to make some of the repairs called for in the bond program.

Presenting a list of the monetary sums taken out of the final bond package being presented to voters, Davila said he would like to see a list of the projects taken out of the bond package. Those projects were put on hold so that the district could put in the all-weather facilities and move Boze Learning Center rather than renovating the existing facility.

Davila also said that school board members have been pitting different parts of the city against one another in an effort to get the bond passed.

“It is sad for me to think that officials that we have elected to serve the whole city try to divide the city with the intent of playing people against others,” he said.

Davila later declined in a later interview to say which school board members made those comments.

Davila said he believed that residents south of I-20 cared just as much about students north of the road as they do about the ones south of it and he was concerned the people who live around Joe Pool Lake were getting a bad rap.

“I think we probably join those parents at Eisenhower and Rayburn and other elementary parents in wondering why some of these schools have gone into such disrepair,” he said.

Davila said the process should be started over so that a better solution to all of the district's problems could be reached.

“A vote no is not against a part of the town,” he said. “It is against an all-or-nothing package.”

In his presentation, Interim School Superintendent Earl Husfeld layed out the bond committee and the district's case for the bond package.

Husfeld called the bond committee's work “an evolutionary process.”

“We started off with some ideas,” he said. “The committee, through the course of those meetings, molded those ideas and ultimately two recommendations were made to the school board.”

The recommendations were either to revamp the existing South Grand Prairie High School as a career and technology center, or to build a new stand-alone career and tech center that would house 1,500 students. Husfeld said the board was ultimately the group which decided to call a bond election and which high school option to choose. The school board chose the latter option.

“I think the committee felt there was, overwhelmingly, a need for (some sort of career and tech) facility,” Husfeld said.

Husfeld said that the district had not determined the exact structure of the career and tech programs and whether the center would be a full or part-day program.

And that was one of the questions directed at him in the question and answer period which followed Davila's presentation. How, he was asked, could the budget for the center be set at $62 million if the district does not know exactly what is going into it. Husfeld said the cost of the facility was based on having an all-day program and fitting 1,500-1,800 students. Based on the history of construction costs and other factors, that was the sum the district came up with.

Other residents asked if the center will really draw that many students? And how can the district be sure?

Husfeld said the center probably would not at first. But that it should over time if the programming is done right.

“Is it going to be like a field of dreams?” he asked rhetorically. “Hopefully it will be. It will be incumbent on us to design programs and have the quality programs there (so) that will become a problem (making sure there is enough room for all the students who want to take the courses).”

Another resident asked why Grand Prairie School District was not considering a third high school when Mansfield ISD, is on its fifth high school now.

“Right now, at this time, we do not have enough new student growth at our high school, nor is it projected, to pay for those operations costs,” Husfeld said.

Husfeld added that much of the growth in the southern part of the city is not in GPISD, but rather Mansfield School District and Irving School District.

Husfeld said that at this point in time and for the foreseeable future, the demographer's data shows there is no need for a third high school in addition to a tech center. He said that is not to say there will never be a need, but for now there is not.

Resident Katie Hubener asked what would happen to the savings proposed by the state legislature under House Bill 1 if the bond package goes through. That bill will reduce the maintenance and operations side of the tax rate to between $1 and $1.04 from its current $1.32.

“Basically, this bond election takes up all of that tax reduction except for nine cents,” she said. “We are getting no savings under House Bill 1 under this bond program.”

Husfeld answered that, under the bond program, district would reappropriate some of the money currently being paid on the M&O side of the tax rate for use on the debt side. Taxes, he said, would go down, but admitted they would not go down as much with the issuance of any bond package.