Irving ISD, Keller ISD, and the City of Forney want $1.83 billion in new bonds before a dime of interest is counted

These are not the only bonds on North Texas ballots this November. Collin County, Collin College, the City of Dallas, McKinney ISD, North Richland Hills, Midlothian, and others are asking for more.¹  Among the three highlighted below, we see some alarming patterns taxpayers should watch for: interest that costs more than the projects, rejected items coming back bigger, routine maintenance moved onto a 25-year loan, and facilities paid for by property owners that would be operated by a third party.

Early voting runs until Friday, October 30th, with Election Day November 3rd, and North Texas taxpayers are being asked to take on a lot of long-term debt. 

In just three North Texas entities, the ballot asks for $1.83 billion in new principal. With interest, it comes to an estimated $3.8 billion, all repaid through higher property taxes over the next two-plus decades.

Irving ISD: $952 Million, and the interest costs even more

Irving ISD is asking for $952,336,061 across four propositions.² According to the district’s own voter information document, the estimated interest on those bonds is $1.30 billion, more than the principal. If every proposition passes and the bonds are paid as scheduled, Irving taxpayers would owe nearly $2.25 billion.³

That would be added on top of the $704.8 million in principal and $373.6 million in interest Irving ISD already owes, roughly $1.08 billion in total existing debt. All together, the district would carry more than $3.3 billion in principal and interest. 

Interest exceeds principal on all four bond propositions:

• Proposition A ($552.2 million, four replacement campuses plus districtwide renovations): $752.3 million in interest, $1.30 billion total.
• Proposition B ($300 million, a replacement Irving High School): $408.8 million in interest, $708.8 million total.
• Proposition C ($40 million, technology): $54.5 million in interest, $94.5 million total. Total repayment is more than double the principal cost of the devices and network gear, which will be obsolete long before the debt is paid off.
• Proposition D ($60.2 million, three indoor “multi-purpose facilities” at Irving, MacArthur, and Nimitz high schools): $82 million in interest, $142.1 million total.

On Proposition D, Irving voters rejected these same three indoor facilities in May 2023, when they were priced at $45 million.⁴ The district’s own FAQ acknowledges the earlier proposition “was not approved in 2023.”⁵ The facility committee “again recommended” the buildings anyway, and they are back three years later at a price about one-third higher.

The district projects a combined tax-rate impact of 12.5 cents per $100 of valuation if all four propositions pass. Meanwhile, the district’s own 2025 facilities assessment notes that the middle- and high-school age groups in its study area “show declines.”⁶

Keller ISD: $828 Million to Borrow for Upkeep

Keller ISD’s five propositions total $828,107,815.⁷ Proposition A alone is $756.3 million, more than 91% of the package. It is mostly roofing, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, code compliance, and safety systems at 34 campuses and facilities, plus a partial rebuild of Keller Middle School.⁸ The district received bond money for Keller Middle School as recently as 2019.

The district says it wants to move these repairs onto the bond side because they currently come out of the operating budget, and that bond funding “could reduce pressure on the operating fund.”⁹ Put plainly, Keller ISD wants to finance routine maintenance with decades of debt and interest instead of budgeting for it in a responsible and sustainable manner. 

The district’s own voter information documents¹⁰ put the interest across the five propositions at about $648 million and the total at $1,476,513,794. That sits on top of the $627.8 million in principal and $234.1 million in interest Keller ISD already owes, or about $862 million in total existing debt and interest.¹¹  

The smaller propositions include:

• Proposition B: $28 million in bonds for student and staff devices. The district already spends $6 million a year¹² from its operating budget to refresh them.
• Proposition C: $8.9 million to repair the Keller Natatorium, which “is currently closed for student and community use.”
• Proposition D: $11 million for athletic complex repairs and a field house renovation.
• Proposition E: $23.9 million for artificial turf at every middle school and at high school baseball and softball fields. The district’s rationale is that it is “one of the few districts in Northeast Tarrant County still using grass competition fields.”

Keller ISD claims all five can be paid “within the existing tax rate.” But the district’s own fiscal page¹³ admits state law requires the ballot to call each one a “property tax increase,” because the bonds are repaid with more property taxes. All of this comes as enrollment is projected to fall below 30,000 and the district consolidates campuses. Meanwhile, the pro-bond PAC’s largest reported contribution, $20,000, came from a vice president of a contracting firm that serves educational clients.¹⁴

City of Forney: $49.5 Million for a YMCA

The City of Forney’s Proposition A would authorize $49.5 million in general obligation bonds for one city-owned building. Part of it would be a library. The other part would be a recreation center “leased to and operated by the YMCA.”¹⁵ Taxpayers would pay for the building, while the YMCA would run the programs.

The city estimates the impact at about 8 cents per $100 of taxable value.¹⁶ That is not small. Forney’s adopted FY2027 tax rate¹⁷ is $0.441281, and its debt-service portion is $0.063902. An 8-cent increase works out to about 18% on the city’s total rate. It would also more than double the debt-service rate the city levies today. On a home with $400,000 in taxable value, 8 cents comes to about $320 per year.

The interest adds up too. The city’s Bond Review Board filing¹⁸ estimates $43.5 million in interest on the $49.5 million, for a total of about $93 million. Nearly half the cost of this building is interest.

The Question for Taxpayers

Each entity says it has needs. Some of them may be real, but the pattern is the same Texans see across the state. Projects that could be planned for, saved for, and prioritized in the base budget are instead put on a loan paid for by taxpayers for decades. Items voters already rejected have come back bigger. “No tax rate increase” claims are made while ignoring that all bond debt must be repaid with more property taxes coming out of family’s pockets. 

Texas local governments already owe roughly $552 billion in principal and interest.¹⁹ Every bond approved adds to that number, and rejecting bonds remains one of the few direct ways²⁰ taxpayers can force rates down (and thus overall property tax collections) as old debt is paid off. Taxpayers in Irving, Keller, Forney and across the state must decide whether their local governments have earned their trust, and even more of their money.

---

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility is an independent educational non-profit organization seeking to illuminate the actions of government, educate and equip citizens to effectively advocate for pro-taxpayer and pro-family reforms, and hold lawmakers accountable for their actions.

Funded by ordinary Texans who want a fair, fiscally sound, and accountable government at all levels, we exist to protect and serve the best interests of taxpayers and families in the Lone Star State. Please consider making a generous donation towards our work today!

Get The Fiscal Note, our free weekly roll-up on all the current events that could impact your wallet. Subscribe today!

---

1. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/lone-star-politics/dfw-area-isds-cities-put-forth-billions-in-bond-packages-for-nov-3/4092667/ ↩︎
2. https://www.irvingisdbond.com/bond-scope ↩︎
3. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1791491400/irvingisdnet/i6cxpjofiwu2v4evecwe/Bond2026-VoterInformationDocuments-English.pdf ↩︎
4. https://ballotpedia.org/Irving_Independent_School_District,_Texas,_Proposition_D,_Indoor_Athletic_Facility_Construction_Bond_Measure_(May_2023) ↩︎
5. https://www.irvingisdbond.com/contact ↩︎
6. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1790022731/irvingisdnet/tdxmo0bupiz58qvc7yh7/CapacityDemographics.pdf ↩︎
7. https://www.kellerisd.net/about-kisd/bond ↩︎
8. https://www.kellerisd.net/about-kisd/bond/2026-bond-propositions ↩︎
9. https://www.kellerisd.net/about-kisd/bond/fiscal-information ↩︎
10. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1791487103/kellerisdnet/lcayae6xh9vzqqjzlvq4/BondElection_OrderofElection_NoticeofElection_Nov_3_2026.pdf ↩︎
11. https://www.tarrantcountytx.gov/content/dam/main/elections/2026/1126/notices/entity_notices/08_KEL_Notice_of_Bond_Election.pdf ↩︎
12. https://www.kellerisd.net/about-kisd/bond/2026-bond-propositions ↩︎
13. https://www.kellerisd.net/about-kisd/bond/fiscal-information ↩︎
14. https://texasscorecard.com/local/keller-isd-asks-voters-to-approve-1-4-billion-in-new-debt/ ↩︎
15. https://www.forneytx.gov/175/Election-Information ↩︎
16. https://www.forneyelectionfacts.com/faqs ↩︎
17. https://www.forneytx.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/13144?fileID=24586 ↩︎
18. https://data.texas.gov/dataset/Local-Debt-Bond-Election-Results/kbmc-qmvg ↩︎
19. https://texastaxpayers.com/may-2-bond-elections-the-local-debt-tsunami/ ↩︎
20. https://texastaxpayers.com/texas-broken-bond-election-system/ ↩︎