On August 5, the Colorado Springs D11 board voted to refer a $775 million bond to the November 3 ballot. It would pay for HVAC, safety and hazardous-material work, renovations, equipment and career-and-technical facilities, with D11 saying every school in the district would receive at least $1 million in improvements. D11’s last bond passed in 2004.
D38 has not publicly referred a tax measure to this November’s ballot as of August 13. But the way D11 built its question is worth understanding here, because it is a structural answer to a problem D38 shares.
What D11 is actually asking for
“$775 million” is the amount D11 wants authority to borrow, not the cost. The resolution caps total repayment — principal plus interest — at $1.48 billion, and caps the increase in annual property taxes at $49.8 million. Those are ceilings written into the ballot authority rather than projections.
What it costs a household is less settled. D11’s bond FAQ describes an increase of about 8.6 mills while its own tax calculator assumes 10 — at Colorado’s 7.05% residential assessment rate, the difference between roughly $61 and $71 a year for every $100,000 of home value. That is D11’s to reconcile, and it is why this piece does not convert their rate into a Monument tax bill.
The trade underneath it
A bond in Colorado cannot pay salaries. D11’s leaders say so directly, and it is the first thing their FAQ addresses.
Teacher compensation is still a substantial part of the case for it, through an indirect route. D11 currently spends part of its operating mill levy override revenue on capital costs and debt service — money that could otherwise go to salaries, being spent on buildings because there has been no bond since 2004. Bond proceeds would take over that burden, and the board adopted a companion resolution the same night committing the freed-up money to teacher compensation.
Three things are worth holding onto about that commitment. It is real and board-adopted rather than informal. It is contingent, because none of it happens unless the bond passes. And it is revocable: the resolution makes the compensation spending subject to annual appropriation and states that it creates no contractual right and does not bind future boards.
So voters are being asked about roofs and boilers. Part of what they are deciding is compensation — but through a mechanism that a later board could unwind.
D38 made a version of this trade already
That will sound familiar to anyone who has read D38’s recent budgets.
After the 2022 override failed, the district paid staff a one-time amount out of reserves and took about $1.1 million through efficiencies and attrition. Separately, annual capital investment came down from a $3 million run rate established in 2024-25 to $2.5 million, and district discussions indicate the difference was redirected to compensation. The adopted 2026-27 budget holds capital flat at that lower $2.5 million.
Same logic as D11’s, run backwards. D11 proposes to borrow money for buildings so operating money can go to people. D38 took money from buildings and gave it to people, without going to voters for a tax increase.
The difference is that D11 is proposing to replace what it moves, and D38 had no mechanism to. That is why these steps are described in the district’s own materials as one-time.
The projected general-fund ending balance tracks it: $13.7 million in 2023-24, $9.7 million in 2024-25, and about $5.96 million in both the amended 2025-26 and adopted 2026-27 budgets. Against $53.3 million in budgeted general-fund spending, that last figure is roughly 1.3 months of operations. It is a budgeted ending balance, not a bank statement.
The record it would be joining
D11 has not passed a bond in 22 years. D38’s record has its own shape:
- The 1999 operating override — $4 million a year, no sunset and no escalator — passed and is still the override in force today, 27 years later. It has never risen with inflation.
- Since then D38 has put districtwide operating overrides to voters in seven election years — 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2022 — and lost all seven.
- Bonds have not fared much better: two failed in 2004, the 2006 bond of $57 million passed with 50.72% and built Palmer Ridge High School, and bonds failed again in 2018 ($36.5 million, 33.89%) and 2019 ($28.985 million, 45.06%).
- The closest recent result was 2022’s Issue 4A, a $5.6 million override for staff compensation, which took 47.95% and lost by about 4.1 points.
It would be convenient to conclude that voters here approve buildings and reject operating money. The record does not support it. Two elections put both kinds of question to the same voters on the same day, and they split:
| Election | Operating override | Bond |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Failed, 49.05% | Passed, 50.72% |
| 2018 | Failed, 35.53% | Failed, 33.89% |
In 2006 the bond outperformed the override and passed. In 2018 the bond did worse than the override. Whatever distinguishes a winning measure here, it is not simply bricks versus salaries.
One thing worth watching
There is a feature of D11’s setup that gets less attention than the dollar figure.
D11’s 2000 and 2017 overrides created a standing Mill Levy Override Oversight Committee to monitor how that money is spent. It reviews implementation plans for voter-approved items, publishes summaries, and commissions periodic performance assessments. It is not purely a citizens’ body — the current roster includes district staff serving ex officio and a non-voting board treasurer — and its periodic reviews are performance assessments rather than independent financial audits. The proposed bond would establish a separate oversight committee of its own.
Set the caveats aside and the underlying idea still matters. The most common objection to any school tax measure, here and everywhere, is that the money will quietly end up somewhere other than where it was promised. D11’s answer is not a promise. It is a standing body with a charter, a reporting obligation and a review cycle, created by the ballot questions themselves.
Whether the bond passes is a question for voters in Colorado Springs. Whether that kind of structure is worth writing into a future local question is a question for anyone in Monument, Palmer Lake or Woodmoor who has ever said they would consider a measure if they could be sure where the money went.
Sources
- Colorado Springs D11 — Bond information and FAQ
- Colorado Springs D11 — 2026 Bond Planning
- D11 Board of Education — August 5, 2026 meeting materials
- KKTV — District 11 bond heads to November ballot after board approval, Aug. 6, 2026
- Colorado Springs D11 — Mill Levy Override Oversight Committee
- El Paso County — 2022 Coordinated Election final canvass
- Yes for D38 — Ballot History (D38 measures since 1999, with sources)
Found an error? Every figure here has a source attached so it can be checked. If we got something wrong, tell us at [email protected] and we will correct it in public with a note saying what changed.