A community watchdog group is calling for a full stop to all major construction projects in the Tolleson Union High School District (TUHSD), citing overwhelming voter opposition and stark financial projections that point to a looming deficit that could reach into the hundreds of millions.
Citizens for Schools Accountability (CSA), a local 501(c)(4) organization focused on transparency and responsible spending, says the district should halt work on all ongoing and planned facilities including High School #8, a proposed domed stadium, and a new district office until an independent audit is completed and a clear financial plan is released.
The group also criticized Superintendent Jeremy Calles and Governing Board President Steven Chapman for declining to follow a board directive requiring a full budget presentation before any further action on High School #8 is taken.
The warning comes just weeks after voters decisively rejected both a bond and an override sought by TUHSD, a dramatic reversal from past elections in which district measures routinely passed by wide margins. CSA leaders say the election outcome underscores widespread public concern over spending, transparency, and priorities within the district.
“Continuing construction without public support or a sustainable funding plan represents a dangerous breach of fiscal responsibility,” the group stated in its announcement. According to figures cited from district financial documents, TUHSD has approximately $294.6 million in bond, fund balance, and state School Facilities Board (SFB) resources available. Yet the projected costs of its construction plan far exceed that total.
Even under the lowest cost estimates, the district faces a minimum shortfall of $95 million. Under more likely scenarios, the deficit could approach $200 million. “This district is on the edge of a financial cliff,” said CSA Chairman Kino Flores. “Any organization facing a minimum $100 million deficit would hit the brakes immediately. Yet TUHSD is accelerating.”
Flores said that between the voter rejection, the cost projections, and the pending audit, continuing construction would be “reckless and irresponsible.”
CSA argues that until these steps are taken, any continued spending could jeopardize the district’s long-term stability. The organization says its concerns are not philosophical or political but grounded in the district’s own data and the unmistakable rejection voters delivered at the ballot box. “The voters said no. The math says no,” Flores said. “Fiscal responsibility demands the board stop every non-essential building project until the audit is complete, and a transparent financial plan is presented to taxpayers.”
CSA leaders say they will continue monitoring district actions and expect the board to respect both the financial realities and the community’s clear mandate.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Voters in the Tolleson Union High School District decisively rejected two funding measures last week, signaling a sharp reversal from past election outcomes and raising new questions about public trust in district leadership.
Both a proposed bond and budget override failed by wide margins, marking what state leaders are calling a significant shift in community sentiment. According to Arizona State Representative Matt Gress, who chairs the House Education Committee and co-chairs the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the margin represents an estimated 40-point swing from the district’s last round of voter-approved measures.
“That kind of reversal doesn’t happen by chance,” Gress said in a statement. “It reflects taxpayers’ deep concern over how their money is being managed and the direction of district leadership.”
The vote comes as the district faces ongoing scrutiny from lawmakers over financial transparency. Gress first requested detailed financial transaction data from Tolleson Union on August 26 following a legislative audit hearing. The district declined to provide electronic records and instead issued an estimate exceeding $26,000 to fulfill the request. A follow-up clarification was sent on September 17, and as of last week the district had not complied.
Gress said the lack of cooperation has only fueled public skepticism. He pointed to delayed responses to official requests and continued planning for an $80 million domed stadium as examples of misplaced priorities, particularly as some governing board members face an active recall effort.
“When a school district refuses to provide basic financial records to the Legislature … public trust deteriorates quickly,” he said. “The Tolleson Union Governing Board should halt any further work on the stadium until transparency is restored and confidence is rebuilt.”
Supporters of the failed measures argued the additional funding was needed to maintain educational programs, address facility needs, and manage enrollment growth. But Tuesday’s results underscore a shifting climate in which voters appear more reluctant to approve additional spending without stronger fiscal assurances.
“The people of Tolleson have made their position clear: accountability must come before new spending,” Gress said. He added that lawmakers will continue to press for the financial records needed to assess how taxpayer funds are being used. School districts often rely on bonds to finance major capital projects and budget overrides to supplement operational funding. The rejection of both measures could force Tolleson Union to adjust spending plans or scale back initiatives in the months ahead.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Just two years after voters approved a $161 million bond in 2023, the Kyrene Elementary School District has unveiled a deeply unpopular, albeit long overdue, austerity plan to shutter nine of its 25 schools. Final decisions on which campuses will close remain in flux until December.
This should alarm not only Kyrene residents but also taxpayers in neighboring East Valley districts such as Chandler, Gilbert, and Mesa, which have likewise postponed needed consolidations despite data showing the urgency for school districts to “rightsize” to avoid future financial shocks.
Kyrene’s predicament shows what happens when district leaders, aided by special-interest boosters, ignore demographic realities and lean too heavily on bonds and overrides to prop up aging, half-empty facilities. Beyond the loss of schools and public trust, Kyrene’s crisis is a cautionary case study in how long districts can keep kicking the can on closures and restructuring before the math catches up.
For decades Kyrene ESD has fiercely defended its autonomy, resisting consolidation with Tempe Elementary School District, most notably in 2008, when Tempe voters approved a merger that Kyrene voters rejected by a 2-to-1 margin. The district has also resisted unifying with Tempe Union High School District, which serves most Tempe and Kyrene graduates. The result: three separate, duplicative bureaucracies servicing the same boundary zones of attendance.
That independence once seemed justified. By the 1980s and 1990s, Kyrene’s fortunes soared with population growth and rising property values following Phoenix’s annexation of Ahwatukee. A building boom beginning in the 1970s relieved Kyrene’s historic reliance on drawing students from outside its boundaries. That same appetite in housing translated to Kyrene’s expansion of schools, fueled by voter-approved bonds and overrides. Like many East Valley districts, Kyrene’s bond and override measures have passed easily, and typically without organized opposition.
Those glory days are long gone. Enrollment has fallen from 20,000 students in 2001 to roughly 12,000 today. That represents a 40 percent drop while the district continues operating 26 schools, a daunting figure considering it only serves grades K-8. Demographers project another 1,000-student decline within five years, equating to roughly $7 million less in state funding. Eight Kyrene campuses are less than half full, and three others are barely above that mark, culminating in the present restructuring effort.
Although Kyrene does have an override measure on the ballot for 2025, it remains to be seen if the drastic restructuring plan will have any impact on voter sentiment in the area for future bond requests. Given that Kyrene has spent millions from the recent bond request on schools now marked for closure, governing board members would be hard-pressed to make their case to residents for additional funding. Taxpayers who were told in 2023 by Superintendent Laura Toenjes that the bond would be “one more example of Kyrene’s commitment to fiscal responsibility” are right to demand answers about the gap between two decades of declining enrollment and the district’s continued inaction.
Kyrene is hardly alone. Large systems such as Chandler Unified remain locked in a perpetual bond-and-override cycle, masking structural enrollment declines with new debt and vague promises of an enrollment recovery effort that grows less plausible each year.
As seen in the chart below between 2020 and 2024, bond requests across Maricopa County have ballooned as pandemic stimulus dollars expired and districts turned back to property-tax financing. The pace of school bond elections far exceeds municipal ones, and the total amounts sought have surged as seen in the 2nd chart below. Inflation alone doesn’t explain the escalation, though it is often erroneously cited as the root cause of this growth.
The lesson isn’t that districts should never seek voter support, but that leaders must confront an uncomfortable truth: demand for traditional district schools is shrinking. Some causes, like rising housing costs and lower birth rates, are beyond their control. Others, like families choosing charters or ESAs, are the direct result of competition and consumer preference. Pretending otherwise guarantees more sudden, painful closures down the road, along with wasted opportunities adding up to hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds.
Kyrene’s crisis is neither the first nor the last domino of overbuilt school districts. Every district that keeps chasing bonds to prop up half-empty schools is writing the same ending. The can has been kicked far enough. It’s time to stop borrowing from tomorrow to preserve yesterday’s mistakes.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizona resident and educator who has served as a teacher and principal in both traditional public and charter schools. He is a doctoral student in education at Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. His opinions are entirely his own.
The Arizona State Senate is reviewing Senate Bill (SB) 1091, which would require school district election ballots to include clear information on potential property tax reductions if voters reject budget overrides or bond measures.
The bill, which was sponosored by Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), aims to provide greater transparency for voters when deciding on school funding measures that involve secondary property taxes.
Arizona school districts can request budget overrides or bond authorizations when additional funding is needed beyond state-imposed limits. These measures are often funded by secondary property tax levies and must be approved by voters in district-wide elections.
Currently, school district ballots already include estimated tax rates for proposed overrides or bonds. However, SB 1091 would require ballots to explicitly state the estimated property tax reduction that would occur if voters reject the proposal, allowing taxpayers to see the potential financial impact.
If passed, the legislation would mandate that ballots for school district funding elections include an estimated average reduction in secondary property taxes if the budget override or bond measure is not approved and the exact date when the tax reduction would take effect.
This requirement would apply to budget override continuation elections, where districts seek to maintain higher spending limits through secondary property taxes as well as bond authorization continuation elections, which determine whether a district can continue issuing and selling bonds at the same tax rate in future years.
The bill also includes technical and conforming changes to existing statutes but does not impose any anticipated fiscal impact on the state’s general fund.
Supporters argue that SB 1091 enhances voter transparency, ensuring residents fully understand the tax implications of school district funding decisions. Critics, however, worry that emphasizing potential tax reductions on ballots could sway voters against approving necessary education funding.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Payson Town Council’s August decision to incur a $70 million debt via a bond measure approved without a public referendum has triggered a lawsuit from concerned residents with the assistance of the Goldwater Institute. Goldwater is assisting resident Deborah Rose to challenge the measure despite the Town’s claimed legal pretext of an “emergency” to counter efforts from the public to stop it.
John Thorpe, a Goldwater attorney representing Deborah explained, “Our leaders want our money, but not our vote. They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.”
The town of Payson, AZ, wants to bypass voters, dump $70 million in debt on its residents, AND prevent citizens from challenging this overreach.
As noted by the Payson Roundup, the lawsuit seeks to block the bond resolution by arguing that no legal emergency actually exists. However, the outlet reported Payson Town Attorney Jon Paladini scoffed at the lawsuit as “specious,” and claimed it would be dismissed quickly. He told the outlet, “Bottom line is that the courts are prohibited from second guessing a legislative body like the council — a slew of cases tell us that. It’s about as close to being frivolous as we’ve seen.”
The use of the city’s emergency clause with a 6-1 vote forced the bond sale into immediate effect and brushed aside the typical 30-day period voters would have to gather signatures to force a vote.
The alleged justification for the “emergency” comes from speculation that at an upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve, the Fed is expected to reduce interest rates by a quarter or half-point which would lower the interest rates the town would pay.
Thorpe argued that, “Government officials’ efforts to time the market, based on pure speculation about financial trends, is not an ‘emergency,’” and added that this use of the “emergency clause” violates the Arizona constitutional right to organize a referendum and vote on it.
“The so-called ‘emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum,”
He wrote, “When the council approved the bond measure, it slipped in an ’emergency clause,’ stating that the measure would go into effect immediately, without letting residents who might oppose the measure organize a referendum and put the issue to a vote. But the Arizona Constitution guarantees the right of referendum: the right of Arizonans to circulate petitions and refer bills, ordinances, and resolutions for a popular vote. It’s a cornerstone of democratic accountability in Arizona, and it means that the people—not politicians—have the last word in state and local government.
The Payson Town Council is trying to bypass that safeguard and short-circuit the democratic process using a legal loophole: a narrow exception allowing cities and towns to enact emergency measures without waiting for a referendum when such measures are ‘necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety of the city or town.’ The so-called ’emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum.”
Paladini maintains that the bond sale measure meets the emergency clause designation and therefore the bonds for such general town projects as “a community and swim center, hiking trails and trailheads, covered event center to lure conventions,” and “upgrades to Main Street to create a business and entertainment district,” “improvements to streets and to public facilities like the police station and fire stations,” according to the Roundup, all constitute “emergency” spending. As noted in the Roundup, nearly all bond sales rely upon the “emergency clause” to sidestep the possibility of blocking them through referendum.
Should the Goldwater lawsuit succeed, it would enforce the standard that voters can in fact challenge bond measures as intended under the Arizona Constitution.
