March 2, 2026 Newsletter
March 2, 2026 – Volume 20 Number 9
Highlights:
* Council met Tuesday; approved three resolutions of support for more low-income apartments and more funding for [the gigantic dollar vacuum known as] Anthem.
* Arlington Housing Finance Corporation approved intent for $75 million in bonds.
* Tuesday is Primaries Election Day.
* Wednesday P&Z will approve form-based code for the downtown-ish area.
Teachers' Salaries
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_97.html
Taxpayers' Funds at Risk:
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_83.html
City Council grades:
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_39.html
AISD Board grades:
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/blank_1.html
Citizens Defending Freedom vs. AISD
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_14.html
Open Letter to AISD Taxpayers
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/blank_11.html
Arlington is a city where citizens are relegated to being spectators, rather than players on the field. The SPECTATOR helps citizens know what is happening on the field. Only a few of the in-house team members are allowed to play ball in Arlington. The SPECTATOR helps citizens understand the game.
GAME SCHEDULE:
Tuesday, March 3: Primaries Voting Day, 7:00am-7:00pm.
Wednesday, March 4: P&Z meeting, 101 W. Abram Street, 5:30pm. (Work session at 3:00pm.)
Sunday, March 8: Daylight Savings Time starts, spring forward one hour, 2:00am.
Tuesday, March 10: City Council meetings, 101 W. Abram Street, 6:30pm. (You must preregister online by 5:00pm to speak during citizen participation.)
Thursday, March 12: AISD Board meeting, AISD Administration Building, 690 E. Lamar Boulevard, 6:30pm. (You must be signed up online by 3:00pm if you wish to speak.)
Tuesday, March 17: St. Patrick's Day.
Tuesday, March 24: City Council meetings, 101 W. Abram Street, 6:30pm. (You must preregister online by 5:00pm to speak during citizen participation.)
Wednesday, March 25: P&Z meeting, 101 W. Abram Street, 5:30pm. (Work session at x:xxpm.)
Thursday, March 26: AISD Board meeting, AISD Administration Building, 690 E. Lamar Boulevard, 6:30pm. (You must be signed up online by 3:00pm if you wish to speak.)
From THE LOCKER ROOM
Arlington City Council Update
The Arlington City Council met this past Tuesday, February 24, for a full slate of meetings. All council members were present. They approved the anti-discrimination ordinance (second reading), EDC money for Anthem, and the three resolutions of support for low-income apartments.
Committee Meetings
The Municipal Policy Committee met and discussed form-based code updates (presentation). They are encouraging super-high densities, including up to 100 unit/acre. [Commentary: They wish to ruin Arlington. This is happening. They are moving ahead, full steam.]
The Community and Neighborhood Development met to discuss multi-family inspection score (presentation, 30 minutes) and PY [plan year] 2026 Action Plan, finalizing the CDBG and ESG reviews (presentation, 60 minutes).
The Economic Development Committee met in executive session. Hold onto your wallets because their discussion was for offers of incentives to business prospects.
The quasi-committee Arlington Housing Finance Corporation met and approved the intent to issue $75,000,000 in bonds for the apartments at 1801 E. Arkansas Lane. [Commentary: Is it just me or does anyone else find it disgusting that they raise the tax rate on citizens so they can hop into bed with developers and build more and more apartments?]
Afternoon Meeting
All council members were present. The afternoon meeting may be viewed at: https://arlingtontx.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=5382 .
(4:25) Start of meeting. Council Member Boxall did not seem to be present. The executive session included:
West Pressure Plane 16-inch Water Main Improvements
Division Street Sidewalk Project discussion
Council Appointees Performance Reviews
Offers of incentives to business prospects
(1:17:28) Reconvened. Council Member Boxall was now present. The agenda for the open portion of the afternoon meeting included four work session items, one informal staff report, and some external committee reports.
The four work session items:
(1:17:47) 1. 2025 Racial Profiling Analysis (presentation , report). About 1:34:42 it was opened up to the council. James Hartley of KERA News and the Arlington Report has an article at: https://fortworthreport.org/2026/02/25/arlington-police-pulled-over-black-drivers-more-often-than-those-of-any-other-race-per-apd-report/ .
(1:51:34) 2. Review of Housing Tax Credit Applications (presentation). About 2:02:33 it was opened up to the council.
(2:07:17) 3. Arlington's Sesquicentennial Celebration (presentation). About 2:24:45 it was opened up to the council.
(2:27:24) 4. Council Priority – Strengthening our Communities (presentation).
(2:35:43) The one informal staff report dealt with used auto sales certificate of occupancy update (staff report , map , table of invalid codes).
(2:36:29) Committee reports.
(2:43:43) Appointments (list)
(2:43:57) Evening agenda items.
(2:50:38) External committee reports.
Evening Meeting
The agenda for the evening meeting included appointments, six items from executive session, minutes, 34 consent agenda items, three public hearings, and three resolutions. A large LGBTQ contention was there in opposition of the second reading of the anti-discrimination ordinance. All council members were present. The meeting may be viewed at: https://arlingtontx.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=5383 .
(5:04) Start of meeting. The appointments, six executive session items, and minutes all passed in three separate 9-0 votes.
(14:02) Consent agenda. The mayor pulled consent agenda item 8.20 for separate consideration. This was the second reading of the anti-discrimination ordinance.
Consent agenda 8.22 was to purchase Constellation Handley Power 20.979 acres for $1.14 million using Fire Bond funds [yet, another pocket to store/hide money to use when they want it] (staff report).
Consent agenda 8.25 was three Tax Credit Resolutions of Support, each carrying a waiver of $500 of permit fees [yes, we the taxpayers are paying for this] (staff report). There was a speaker in opposition.
The consent agenda, minus item 8.20, the second reading of the anti-discrimination ordinance, passed, 9-0.
Item 8.20 had approximately 16 speakers in opposition plus another 21 non-speakers in opposition. It passed, 6-3, with Hunter, Hogg, and Odom-Wesley in opposition. Pedro Malkomes and Taylor Sansom of The Shorthorn staff have an article at: https://www.theshorthorn.com/news/politics/arlington-city-council-passes-new-limited-antidiscrimination-chapter/article_a8e975af-a4fa-47f0-9eb9-d27807cb3459.html . Bianca Rodriguez-Mora of the Arlington Report has an article at: https://fortworthreport.org/2026/02/25/arlington-community-members-speak-out-against-the-passing-of-new-anti-discrimination-ordinance/ .
(59:25) The first public hearing was to create an Anthem Public Improvement District (staff report , resolution). There was one speaker in opposition. It passed, 9-0.
(1:01:56) The second public hearing was to fund the Anthem Public Improvement District just created (staff report , ordinance). It appears to be for 28 years. It passed, 9-0.
(1:03:06) The third public hearing was for a specific use permit SUP25-11 for a tattoo parlor or piercing studio at 536 W. Randol Mill Road (staff report). It passed, 6-3, with Piel, Boxall, and Hogg in opposition.
The resolutions:
(1:11:44) 1. Anthem Development Agreement with the Economic Development Corporation for $25,000,000. [Commentary: more money after bad into the black hole to force this project to come true. How many people remember when they first announced this project? – they were so happy with it costing taxpayers only $14,250,000; the cost is now at $39 million, of a $121 million project. Back when it started it was a $150 million project.] It passed, 9-0. The city's website has an article by the city staff at: https://www.arlingtontx.gov/News-Articles/2026/February/Arlington-EDC-Approves-Incentives-for-Lincoln-Square-Redevelopment . Chris Moss of the Arlington Report has an article at: https://fortworthreport.org/2026/02/25/anthem-gets-the-arlington-council-go-ahead-for-incentives-and-public-improvement-district/ .
(1:28:41) 2. Purchase of 700 W. Lamar, 715 Ryan Plaza, 701 Ryan Plaza, and 1610 N. Collins (staff report , resolution , attachment). $19,000,000+closing costs. The expected reimbursement is expected to occur before the end of the fiscal year, and the claim is it will not affect/delay the start of any water projects that would use the money. [Commentary: so, they raised the tax rate on taxpayers, yet have no problem buying this, and taking it off the tax rolls. They are using a water-pay go account, just another of many pockets they have in which to tuck away money and then spend like crazy.] It passed, 9-0. James Hartley of KERA News and the Arlington Report has an article at: https://fortworthreport.org/2026/02/25/arlington-approves-19m-land-buy-to-advance-redeveloping-opportunities-as-city-nears-buildout/ .
(1:30:13) 3. Event Agreement-2026 FIFA World Cup (staff report). $850,000 which I think will be reimbursed. It passed, 9-0.
(1:31:16) Citizen participation had four speakers registered, but only the last three were present. The first knew he would not have time started, and will continue in the future, analysis of the homelessness of Arlington. The second was a business owner wishing to speak about 380-agreements; he had been rejected in the past. The third spoke of apartments not being the answer and made mention of the $75 million of intent the Arlington Housing Finance Corporation approved.
Council Leftovers
The first Arlington Spectator question for the candidates: How much of a priority should be placed on protecting taxpayers' dollars? If we are granting dollars for “economic development” should the company be vetted? Should an “economic development” grant require an actual application? Why or why not?
Ballot Order:
Mayor
Hunter Crow - Protecting taxpayers' dollars should be the highest priority, requiring strict vetting of companies and mandatory, transparent application processes for economic development grants. This ensures accountability, prevents fraud, and guarantees that public funds generate a genuine, measurable return on investment for the community rather than corporate welfare.
Why Stringent Controls are Necessary
Accountability: Public funds are finite; misuse erodes trust and drains resources from essential services like infrastructure, public safety, and education.
Vetting Prevents Fraud: Thoroughly vetting companies ensures they are financially stable and capable of delivering promised jobs or development, reducing the risk of taxpayer money disappearing into failed ventures.
Application Requirements: A formal, standardized application creates a public record, allows for comparative analysis, and ensures that projects align with community goals.
Jim Ross – Did not respond.
Shaun Mallory – Did not respond.
Steve Cavender – Did not respond.
District 3
Kelly Burke – Did not respond.
Nikkie Hunter - Every dollar we allocate belongs to the people of this city. It belongs to seniors on fixed incomes, working families, and small business owners who are stretching every paycheck. So yes — protecting taxpayer dollars must always be a top priority.
Economic development incentives can be powerful tools. They can bring jobs, expand our tax base, and strengthen neighborhoods. But they are not giveaways. They are investments — and investments require accountability.
If we are granting public dollars for economic development:
- The company should be vetted.
- There should be a formal application process.
- There should be measurable benchmarks.
- And there should be consequences if commitments are not met.
Without vetting and a structured process, we risk putting public money into projects that may not deliver for our residents.
Transparency protects everyone — the taxpayers, the council, and even the businesses receiving support. A clear application process ensures fairness. Proper vetting ensures stability. Public reporting ensures trust.
I support smart economic development.
But it must be responsible, transparent, and performance based.
District 4
Tom Ware – Did not respond.
Rojo Meixueiro - My campaign is built on making the Arlington, the American Dream City, more affordable. That means protecting taxpayers’ dollars must be a top priority, especially in a city where the dollar doesn’t go as far as it once did. Every dollar that Arlington spends comes from working families, homeowners, renters, and small businesses who deserve not only results but transparency on how those results were delivered.
If public dollars are granted for economic development, the company should be vetted. Reviewing financial stability, track record, ethics, community impact, and wage standards are essential. As well as that, critical analysis on whether the project aligns with Arlington’s long-term infrastructure capacity and workforce needs is necessary. Incentives should be considered only when there is a clear and measurable return on investment for residents.
A formal application process would strengthen transparency and allow for public review. I’m open to discussing the specifics with working families and business owners in District 4, but I believe a structured, consistent process ensures decisions are fair, accountable, and shaped by the people who fund them.
Lisa Ventura - Protecting taxpayers’ dollars must be a top priority. Voters I speak with across Arlington consistently tell me they are deeply concerned about their taxes — property taxes, rising costs, and whether their money is being spent wisely. People want their money managed frugally, just as they would with their own budget. After all, it's the families of Arlington that contribute their dollars to the city.
Look, economic growth turns the wheels that make our economy roll, but we need to be smart about it! It is what strengthens our tax base, but I don't want to see the incentives become political or automatic. There needs to be an application process. Applications require companies to clearly state what they’re requesting and what they’re committing to deliver. We can offer SMART incentives and negotiate for the best deal for the people of Arlington. Companies should be falling over each other to get to do business here!
District 5
Rebecca Boxall – Protecting taxpayers’ dollars and getting the most from funds expended is my highest priority. Any use of public funds—especially for economic development—must be justified, transparent, and deliver a public benefit.
When evaluating economic development proposals, I look at several key factors. These include how many jobs will be created, how many of those jobs are likely to go to Arlington residents, and the quality of those jobs, including wage levels. I also evaluate the expected return on investment and the payback or break-even period, with a strong preference for projects that achieve payback within five years or less.
In addition, I consider the future viability of the business or product. This is obviously a judgement call that includes risks. It is very easy to be swept up in optimism about the future - we all want a prosperous future. I conduct independent research and strive to maintain a critical disposition throughout.
I also weigh broader community impacts such as environmental impacts and whether a project’s physical facility will enhance or detract from Arlington’s overall appearance and long-term development goals. Economic development projects can encourage (or deter) other good development citywide. So, I look at that very carefully as well.
Regarding applications, City Council receives extensive briefings on economic development proposals—often over many months. This process includes detailed analysis, many rounds of questioning, negotiation, and sometimes intense debate. In my five years on City Council, I have never seen a proposal that did not undergo very thorough scrutiny before coming to a vote.
Because these proposals are often complex and shaped by months of back-and-forth between staff and Council, they can be difficult to summarize for the public. Once details are finalized, I request a one-page public summary prior to Council action. While this improves transparency, it cannot fully capture the scrutiny that occurred earlier.
The public also does not see the many proposals that go through this process and are ultimately declined. In one case I learned a company intended to bring in foreign workers that would also be using taxpayer subsidized housing! I do the research and bring additional information I find _ or a differing perspective_ to the full council. Other councilors do the same.
All of this underscores the importance of representative government. Ultimately, citizens must be able to trust that their Council member is examining every proposal critically, responsibly, and with the long-term interests of Arlington taxpayers in mind.
Brittney Garcia-Dumas – Did not respond.
District 8
Jason Shelton – Did not respond.
Melody Fowler – Did not respond.
Corey Harris – Did not respond.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
The City of Arlington proposes a total project investment of an estimated $24,000,000, combining federal, state, local, and private resources for the acquisition and demolition of an existing two-story, 81,205-square-foot dilapidated motel structure at 1220 W. Division Street built in 1965 and comprised of 72 rooms. So far, they have determined they will use approximately $3,850,000 in federal HOME-ARP funds. Part of the city/local funds included is $2.85 million of Arlington Housing Finance Corporation funds. Anyone's guess on the specifics of the rest of the funding?
Following demolition, the city intends to construct a new permanent supportive housing community consisting of a minimum of 70 units. The new development will provide safe, service-enriched housing for chronically homeless individuals, veterans and their families, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations. The primary objective is to expand the supply of affordable, supportive housing and promote long-term housing stability for residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Economic Development Corporation (EDC)
We do not know the date of the next meeting. Best guess: March 17.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
Upcoming Public Hearings
On Wednesday, March 4, P&Z will hold a public hearing on PD26-1, at 109 W. Rogers Street. They wish to revise the current development plan. If approved, it will go to the city council on April 7.
On Wednesday, March 4, P&Z will hold a public hearing on ZA26-2, at 2401 W Green Oaks Boulevard. They wish to change the current development plan for a veterinary office to a “straight” neighborhood commercial (NC) zoning. If approved, it will go to the city council on April 7.
On Wednesday, March 4, P&Z will hold a public hearing on SUP08-2R1, at 8380 Glenn Day Drive. They wish to amend the current specific use permit for gas drilling. If approved, it will go to the city council on April 7.
On Wednesday, March 4, P&Z will hold a public hearing on SN-FBZD26-01, on 681.63 acres of 1162 tracts for form-based zoning. Boundaries west: Davis Street; south: UTA Boulevard; east: Willis Avenue; and north: Stanford Street. If approved, it will go to the city council on April 7.
On Wednesday, March 4, P&Z will hold a public hearing to update the Unified Development Code (UDC) for form-based zoning. If approved, it will go to the city council on April 7.
On Tuesday, March 10, the city council will hold a public hearing on SUP10-23R4, 408 113th Street. They wish for high impact IM (Industrial Manufacturing) on 2.379 acres.
On Tuesday, March 10, the city council will hold a public hearing on SUP25-10, 2102 Prestonwood Drive. They wish for a secondary living unit on 0.749 acres.
On Tuesday, March 10, the city council will hold a public hearing on PD25-14, 1112 N. Collins Street. They wish to change the current CC (community commercial) to a PD-CC use plus a package liquor store.
On Tuesday, March 24, the city council will hold a public hearing on PD25-23, at 2301 N. Collins Street (at Brown Trail). They wish to change the CC (community commercial) to a planned development plus a billiard parlor and package liquor store.
On Tuesday, March 24, the city council will hold a public hearing on ZA26-01, at 300 W. Park Row Drive. They wish for a straight zoning change from CC (community commercial) to residential medium density (RM-12), usually townhomes.
On Wednesday, March 25, P&Z will hold a public hearing on PD25-8, at 2100 S.E. Green Oaks Boulevard. They wish to change the CC (community commercial) to a planned development plus a car wash.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
P&Z Commission
P&Z will meet this Wednesday, March 4. The agenda is at: https://www.arlingtontx.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-and-development-services/documents/planning-amp-development-boards-amp-commissions/planning-and-zoning-commission/posted-agenda/planning-and-zoning-commission-regular-session-03-04-2026.pdf . There are five public hearings.
Public hearing #1 is to amend the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow for form-based zoning (staff report).
Zoning public hearing #1 is to form the specific downtown area that will allow form-based zoning (staff report).
Zoning public hearing #2 is for SUP-08-2R1 at 8380 Glenn Day Drive. They wish to establish a drill zone at the existing well site (staff report).
Zoning public hearing #3 is for PD20-22R1 at 109 W Rogers. They wish to revise the current development plan (staff report).
Zoning public hearing #4 is for ZA26-2 at 2401 W Green Oaks Boulevard. They wish to change from a PD for a veterinary office to neighborhood commercial “NC” (staff report).
# # # # # # # # # # # #
AISD School Board
The next AISD School Board meeting will be Thursday, March 12.
Question 1: Currently the AISD has the highest M&O rate of any ISD in Tarrant County. Staff has started budgeting for the paying of recapture (“Robin Hood”). How fiscally responsible should the board be with taxpayers' dollars and why? How high of a priority should fiscal responsibility be and why? What are your suggestions to be more fiscally responsible?
AISD Ballot Order:
Place 6
Jan Tyler - As a taxpayer, I know that every Arlington resident does not want to pay higher taxes, but also wants the best school opportunities for their children. Fiscal responsibility should be a huge portion of a Trustee’s position. The title “Trustee” means that the community has put their trust in you to spend their money wisely, and offer an excellent education with every dollar spent. All spending should be evaluated by its ability to support the quality of education in Arlington. First consideration, does it add value to daily instruction? Do the teachers think it is worth spending the money? Will the student outcomes be improved? I would always seek input from the teachers, administrators, and those that are supposed to benefit by the expenditure. My experience as a classroom teacher for 38 years, left many of us sometimes wondering “whose great Idea was that?” Money has be spent to meet the ever changing elements of education, and I would hope that great amounts of input and consideration would occur before spending. A good Trustee needs to have a mindset like they are spending their own money. Trustees also need to look at the bottom line and always aim to cut items that no longer yield good results. Fiscal responsibility is a must for a School Board Trustee.
Brooklyn Richardson – We do not have the highest M&O rate in Tarrant County. That’s simply not accurate.
Arlington ISD’s M&O rate is $0.7552 per $100 valuation. It’s within the limits set by the state, and several districts in Tarrant County are at or near the same rate. Here you can find more information: https://www.aisd.net/district-news/learn-about-school-property-taxes-in-arlington-isd/
If you prefer a source not district related, GP has published this: https://www.gptx.org/Departments/Economic-Development/Tax-Rates
Recapture isn’t about overspending. It’s triggered when property values rise and the state funding formulas don’t keep up. That’s a state finance issue, not the result of irresponsible local budgeting. If the state would actually fully fund public education NONE of this would even be a discussion.
Fiscal responsibility should always be a top priority. In AISD we’ve maintained one of the highest credit ratings in the country, passed balanced budgets, and managed declining enrollment without reckless tax increases. We’ve improved facilities while protecting taxpayers.
My position is straightforward: put classrooms first, eliminate waste where we can, advocate for fair funding from the state, and make sure every dollar serves students. I have made my choices with this in mind for the past three years and will continue to do so moving forward.
Place 7
LeAnne Haynes - As a trustee, one of my primary responsibilities is to set the budget for our school district. I approach this task with a strong sense of fiscal responsibility, always keeping our taxpayers at the forefront of my decisions. Throughout my first term, I have actively engaged in the budget-setting process with this commitment in mind.
Serving as one of the three board representatives on the district’s Financial Futures Committee for the past three years has been a crucial aspect of my role. The discussions I've had with community members and district staff regarding our budget and strategies to reduce the deficit are invaluable in allowing me to effectively represent our taxpayers.
My efforts to promote fiscal responsibility extend beyond this committee. I continually seek to understand our current spending, identifying realistic opportunities to decrease costs and increase revenue. Moreover, I will continue to advocate at the state level for increases in the basic allotment, additional funding for state-mandated measures such as armed security personnel, and a shift in state funding from attendance-based to enrollment-based metrics. Achieving any of these goals would significantly support our efforts as trustees to maintain a balanced budget and ensure transparency and integrity for our constituents.
Linton Davis - It is absolutely critical that our constituents feel that they are getting excellent value for their property tax dollars. Right now, we are a C rated district with an A rated budget. That is not excellent value. We need to utilize zero-based budgeting across the board to assess our spending, and this includes bond packages. It seems to me that it doesn’t make sense to spend money on new facilities and rehabilitating older facilities until we look at the impacts of declining enrollment and make some tough decisions about our facilities footprint. Of course, we need to re-assess our programs and student discipline process to ensure that our teachers are able to focus on teaching. One thing, given our student population, we need to ensure that every student has access to breakfast and lunch. All students need to be able to function at the best of their ability while in the classroom while not worrying about their next meal while socializing with other students.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
AISD Bond Election
https://www.aisd.net/bond-2026/
[Commentary: I have a great deal of difficulty accepting this bond. AISD has a decreasing student population from 63,000+ to maybe under 50,000 this coming school year. Other districts, in money-saving efforts have closed schools, which makes very logical sense. AISD will be closing its first school (Blanton Elementary) at the end of this school year.
The board went out of its way to add a second (unnamed/unplanned?) elementary school replacement [South Davis Elementary was the first and named school replacement], basically saying, here, raise the tax rate, give us the money and we will decide.
The board claims to make fact-based decisions; however, they seem to be failing. Where are the fact-based decisions on saving the taxpayers’ dollars and being efficient with taxpayers’ funds? Why have they not come up with plans to being more efficient with taxpayers’ funds rather than just raising the tax rate, giving them money, and having no specific plans on a second school replacement.
I say vote NO at least to Proposition A of the AISD Bond package.
A Chris Moss article in the Arlington Report explores the possibility of the AISD joining the pay-for-performance teacher program offered by the state. That article can be found at: https://fortworthreport.org/2026/01/07/arlington-isd-considers-texas-pay-for-performance-teacher-program/ .
AISD saw a jump in their accountability scores because of their challenge of some of the STAAR testing results. Chris Moss of the Arlington Report has an article at: https://fortworthreport.org/2025/12/09/arlington-isd-sees-2025-academic-accountability-bump-after-staar-appeal/ . Also an AISD article may be found at: https://www.aisd.net/district-news/updated-district-and-campus-accountability-ratings/ .
There has been a recent Arlington Report article by Drew Shaw about the dismissed David Jarvis lawsuit against the AISD. It can be found at: https://fortworthreport.org/2025/12/31/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-arlington-isd-about-first-amendment-retaliation/ .
The AISD enrollment is expected to fall below 50,000 students at some point, maybe as early as the 2026-2027 school year. Chris Moss of the Arlington Report has a story at: https://fortworthreport.org/2025/12/03/arlington-isds-enrollment-projected-to-drop-below-50000-next-year/ .
The AISD will NOT be posting the Ten Commandments for now. An article by Chris Moss of the Arlington Report: https://fortworthreport.org/2025/11/05/arlington-isd-agrees-not-to-post-ten-commandments-amid-lawsuit/ .
The AISD Board and Superintendent have established written goals, including student improvement on the STAAR testing. The Chris Moss article in the Arlington Report: https://fortworthreport.org/2025/10/01/arlington-isd-school-board-sets-goals-and-expectations-for-new-school-year/ .
TEA Accountability Data:
In 2020, the AISD was tied for the highest M&O rate of all the school districts in Tarrant County. Since then, there has been NO tie. The AISD HAS the highest M&O rate in Tarrant County. [school district tax rates]
Top 5 of Tarrant County's 21 ISDs M&O Rates
1. Arlington ISD $0.802200
2. Birdville ISD $0.786900
2. Fort Worth ISD $0.786900
2. Lewisville ISD $0.786900
2. Mansfield ISD $0.786900
Teacher Salaries
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_97.html [Arlington ISD easily pays the highest salaries, thus creating ISD inflation.] An article by Jacob Sanchez in the Fort Worth Report confirms that the Arlington ISD pays the highest salaries in Tarrant County [ https://fortworthreport.org/2025/12/17/teachers-in-this-tarrant-county-school-district-earn-the-highest-salaries/ ].
HELPFUL CONTACTS
The Spectator: www.ArlSpectator.mysite.com
to be added/deleted to/from the mailing list e-mail: ArlSpectator@yahoo.com
We can be found on Facebook at ArlSpectator.
Teachers' Salaries
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_97.html
Taxpayers' Funds at Risk
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_83.html
City Council grades:
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/rich_text_39.html
AISD Board grades:
http://arlspectator.mysite.com/blank_1.html
City of Arlington website: www.arlingtontx.gov
e-mails of mayor and council:
.................... first.last@arlingtontx.gov
mayor = jim.ross
district 1 (north) = mauricio.galante
district 2 (sw) = raul.gonzalez
district 3 (se) = nikkie.hunter
district 4 (west) = andrew.piel
district 5 (central/east) = rebecca.boxall
district 6 (all) = long.pham
district 7 (all) = bowie.hogg
district 8 (all) = barbara.odom-wesley
AISD website ....................... www.aisd.net
McMurrough............ - sarahforaisd@gmail.com
Fowler ................... - fowler.aisd@gmail.com
Mike .................. - larrymike.aisd@gmail.com
Wilbanks .......... - dwilban.aisd@gmail.com
Chapa ...................... - chapa.aisd@gmail.com
Richardson ... - brooklyn.richardson.aisd@gmail.com
Haynes ................... - haynes.aisd@gmail.com
TEA Accountability Data:
ARC Political Watch Committee Reports
includes coverage of Mansfield ISD and national, state, county, & city
Texas Legislative Online:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx
To be added to/deleted from our mailing list please e-mail your request to: ArlSpectator@yahoo.com