June 4, 2019 — Regular Meeting
Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2019-06-04
Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes
Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.
Generated 2026-03-27 21:57 UTC
Unofficial Meeting Notes
Conroe ISD Board Workshop – June 4, 2019
These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript of the meeting. They may contain errors or omissions.
Attendees
- Dr. Curtis Null, Superintendent
- Darrin Rice, Chief Financial Officer
- Dr. Chris Heinz, Deputy Superintendent (Academics)
- Dr. Winkler, district administrator (early education)
- EZ (likely Erich Ziehe), Facilities/Construction
- Board Members referenced by name: Skeeter (President Williams), John Husbands, Scott Moore, Scott Kidd, Ray (last name unclear), Datren (last name unclear), Mr. Inman, Mr. Sanders (Linda also briefly mentioned)
Key Topics Discussed
1. House Bill 3 (HB 3) Legislative Update
Overview: HB 3 represents a major overhaul of Texas school finance. Mr. Rice emphasized that information is still arriving daily and is subject to change. A phone call received at 3:30 PM the day of the meeting revealed a $7 million error (to the district's disadvantage) in funding calculations from Region 13's spreadsheet — specifically a Golden Penny miscalculation related to the district's prior tax rate swap from $1.06 to $1.04.
Key HB 3 Provisions Discussed:
- Basic Allotment Increase: From $5,140 to $6,160 per ADA
- Tax Compression: 7-cent compression of Tier 1 M&O tax rate (from $1.04 to $0.97)
- Net Revenue Increase: Approximately $33.6 million after accounting for lost local tax revenue (first decrease in local tax revenue since 2005)
- Property Tax Relief: $5 billion statewide; district will see first tax revenue decrease since 2005
- Teacher Pay: $2 billion statewide; requirement to use 30% of revenue gain for compensation increases
- Full-Day Pre-K: Mandated for eligible 4-year-olds (discussed in detail below)
New/Changed Allotments:
- Compensatory Education: New tiered index based on census blocks (weights .225 to .275) — still awaiting details from TEA
- Bilingual/Dual Language: New weights generating ~$1.5 million
- Career & Technology (CTE): Extended to 7th grade (from 9th); generates ~$1.5 million
- Transportation: Changed from linear density to $1.00/mile — roughly break-even at $7.3 million
- Dyslexia Allotment (NEW): Weight of .01; district dyslexia students grew from 2,342 (2016-17) to 3,244 (current year)
- Fast-Growth School District Allotment (NEW): Weight of .04 for total ADA; generates $14 million — state's offset for moving to current-year property values and repealing Cost of Education Index
- Dropout Recovery: Still determining if district qualifies
Repealed Allotments:
- Gifted and Talented: $2 million lost (program must still be maintained)
- High School Allotment: $4.7 million lost — significant impact on high school budgets
- Staff Allotment: ~$1.6 million lost (helped with insurance costs)
Other Significant Changes:
- Move to current-year property values (elimination of one-year lag) — district will feel this impact in 2020-21; major concern expressed
- Cost of Education Index repealed — study ordered for possible future reinstatement
- Golden Pennies increased from 6 to 8 — district currently accesses 4; can add one penny with unanimous board vote (no TRE required); additional pennies would require a Tax Ratification Election
- Recapture: District has moved further from Chapter 41/49 threshold
2. Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten Mandate
Dr. Heinz presented implementation challenges:
- Current enrollment projection: 1,468 pre-K students in half-day sessions across 25 campuses
- Expected growth: ~850 current kindergarteners would have been eligible for pre-K; going full-day will increase enrollment
- Eligibility expanded: Now includes children of any CISD teacher (in addition to existing criteria: socioeconomic need, English language learners, military, foster, homeless, Texas Star Award recipients)
- Classroom need: Approximately 65-70 additional classrooms needed (roughly another campus worth of space)
- Staffing: Currently 49.5 allocations (29.5 regular ed, 20 bilingual); 19 PPCD allocations — numbers would roughly double
- Current payroll: ~$3.25 million; would increase significantly
- Classroom outfitting cost: ~$22,000 per classroom
- Transportation impact: Currently ~400 AM / ~500 PM riders (~60-70%); would essentially double morning pickup and afternoon dropoff
- Additional impacts being studied: Clinic staffing, lunch capacity, specials rotation, conference period solutions (11 campuses lack gyms), curriculum development for full-day program
Waiver Options: Districts may seek two 3-year waivers. Administration recommended exercising the first waiver, noting the district cannot implement fully overnight. Discussion of possible pilot programs at 1-2 campuses.
Board Discussion:
- Mr. Moore asked about eligibility changes — confirmed same as current plus teacher's children
- Mr. Kidd asked about the rationale — Dr. Heinz and Dr. Winkler cited research on early education impact, social-emotional readiness, and learning readiness
- Mr. Husbands asked about the classroom need's impact on prior bond/demographic planning — Dr. Heinz confirmed this was NOT planned for in the last bond; represents roughly another campus worth of space
- Discussion of district-wide early childhood center concept — acknowledged feasibility in dense areas but not district-wide due to geographic spread
- Board member asked about pushback from other districts — administration noted the legislature did not consult districts; "it wasn't really a conversation"
3. Teacher/Employee Compensation
HB 3 Requirement: 30% of FSP revenue gain ($10.08 million minimum) must go to compensation increases for non-administrative full-time employees. Of that, 75% ($7.56 million) must go to teachers, counselors, nurses, and librarians, prioritizing those with 5+ years experience. The remaining 25% ($2.52 million) may go to other full-time non-administrative employees.
Five scenarios presented (after $7M adjustment):
| Scenario | Teachers/Librarians/Nurses/Counselors | All Other FT (non-admin) | Administrators | Total Cost |
|----------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------|------------|
| 1 | 3.5% ($8.4M) | 3.0% ($2.4M) | 2.5% ($1.6M) | $12.4M |
| 2 | 4.0% ($9.6M) | 3.0% ($2.4M) | 2.5% ($1.6M) | $13.6M |
| 3 | 4.0% ($9.6M) | 3.5% ($2.8M) | 3.0% ($1.96M) | $14.36M |
| 4 | 4.5% | 3.5% | 3.0% | ~$15.4M |
| 5 | 5.0% | 4.0% | 3.0% | ~$17-20M |
Note: Scenario 3 was initially recommended before the $7M error; after the error, administration recommended backing down to approximately Scenario 3 level or below.
Significant Board Discussion:
- Mr. Moore raised concerns about classification of LSSPs, speech pathologists, instructional coaches, and RTI specialists — where do they fall in these categories?
- Dr. Null acknowledged this is an active debate; campus-based people in top line, AE pay scale positions (LSSPs, diagnosticians) still being sorted
- Mr. Husbands noted historical raises have been ~3% per year; expressed caution about long-term sustainability given uncertain future funding
- Skeeter (President Williams) confirmed this is new state money requiring raises; without HB 3, no annual raise mandate exists
- Mr. Sanders leaned toward Scenario 1 ($12.4M), citing uncertainty about funding beyond two years and other unfunded needs
- Mr. Kidd suggested 4%/4%/3% (~$14.7M)
- Mr. Husbands suggested 3.5%/3.5%/2.5%, expressing concern about unknown future costs
- Discussion about classification: Board members debated whether people who interact directly with students should receive the higher raise tier regardless of their pay scale classification
- Mr. Williams suggested a principle: "If kids sit in front of them" they should be in the higher raise category
- Mr. Inman suggested 3.5% across the board for all categories to eliminate classification disputes
- Dr. Null proposed a possible solution: use AE pay scale boxes — counselors are in box 3, so everyone in AE boxes 1-3 gets the teacher raise; boxes 4+ get the administrative raise
No vote taken — administration directed to run additional scenarios and return with refined numbers. A July workshop was suggested.
4. Preliminary Budget Overview (2019-2020)
Budget Objectives:
- Open Suchma Elementary and 11th grade at Grand Oaks High School
- Competitive compensation plan
- Safety/security: adding ~5 school resource officers and a corporal position
- Establish district-wide maintenance fund
Key Budget Numbers:
- General Fund Balance (end of 2018): $138 million
- Certified Property Values: Estimated 5.5% increase (~$1.97B increase, total ~$37.7B)
- Student Growth: 1,350 new students projected (total 64,187; 94% ADA)
Revenue/Expenditure Summary (HB 3 scenario):
| Item | Amount |
|------|--------|
| Beginning Revenue | $502.27M |
| Local Revenue Change | -$5.07M (first decrease since 2005) |
| State Funding Increase | +$38.72M |
| Total Revenue | $535.92M |
| Beginning Expenditures | $495.46M |
| Salary Increases (Scenario 3) | ~$14.36M |
| Personnel for Growth | $10.5M |
| Pre-K/Dyslexia/Comp Ed Programs | $5.0M |
| Other Expenses | $4.5M |
| Total Expenditures | $529.82M |
| Potential Available Funds | $6.1M |
Proposed uses of surplus: Retain for new HB 3 programs, buffer against further changes, support 2020-21 budget uncertainties, unforeseen expenditures.
Fund Balance Proposed Uses ($25M available above 25% threshold):
- $10 million to establish general fund maintenance program
- $8.5 million to finalize two land purchases under contract
- $1.5 million for school buses (~14-15 new buses with A/C and seat belts)
Dillard's/Mall Tax Refund Issue: District must issue ~$625,000 refund to Dillard's due to appraisal dispute. All box stores in the mall fought their appraised values; additional refund amounts for other stores still pending. An appraisal district employee who improperly raised values is no longer employed there.
5. Tax Rate Discussion
Current vs. Proposed Tax Rate:
| | M&O Rate | Debt Service Rate | Total |
|--|----------|-------------------|-------|
| Current | $1.04 | $0.24* | $1.28 |
| HB 3 Compressed | $0.97 | $0.24 | $1.21 |
| Potential (with I&S increase) | $0.97 | $0.265 | $1.235 |
The $0.24 reflects the prior 2-cent swap.
Key Issue — M&O Transfer to Debt Service:
- District currently transfers $10M annually from general fund to debt service to buy down debt
- HB 3 appears to prohibit using M&O surplus to pay down debt
- If prohibited, district would need to increase debt service tax rate by ~2.5 cents to replace that $10M
- Net taxpayer impact: still a ~4.5 cent decrease overall
- Mr. Sanders noted community support (specifically Texas Patriots Pact) for this approach if it meant using the freed-up $10M for maintenance items paid from cash rather than bond financing
- Board discussion about the long-term benefits of paying cash for shorter-lifespan items (technology, painting, carpets, buses) rather than financing them through bonds
- Several board members and Dr. Null discussed the historical context — previous boards prioritized lowest possible tax rate; this approach adds debt reduction as a co-priority
Future Budget Timeline:
- July 10: Budget presentation to District-Level Planning and Decision-Making Committee
- July 16: Committee recommendation to Board
- August 6: First public hearing
- August 20: Second public hearing and budget adoption
6. Attendance Zone/Rezoning Discussion
Dr. Heinz presented several planning maps:
Conroe Area Junior Highs (Washington/Peet/Stockton):
- Peet at ~1,450-1,500 students (at capacity); Washington at ~800-900
- Stockton Junior High opening in 2020-21
- Rezoning process to begin this school year with target completion around January
- Board noted an unusual attendance zone outlier — a purple section far from Peet that has "always" been in Peet's zone; Mr. Sanders noted the long bus ride and suggested not presenting maps with such anomalies going forward
South County High Schools (Grand Oaks, Oak Ridge, College Park, The Woodlands):
- Contingency map shown (if no successful bond): Would move Harper's Landing to Oak Ridge feeder, shift some Woodlands areas to College Park, and some College Park areas to Woodlands
- Dr. Null emphasized: "This is not a plan that we want to do" — it is a contingency if no future bond passes for additions at Woodlands and College Park high schools
- Using all Oak Ridge capacity would eliminate strategic flexibility in South County
- Junior high solutions also needed for York and Moorhead — junior high seats described as "most premium" currently
The Woodlands Elementary Rezoning:
- Overcrowding at Ride, Glen Loch; Powell and Lamar growing
- Capacity available at Galatas, Deretchin, Tough
- Administration recommended waiting until bond outcome before proceeding, as high school feeder changes would alter the elementary approach
- Mr. Husbands pushed for addressing the broader Woodlands elementary shift rather than piecemeal fixes
No votes or decisions taken — informational/planning discussion only.
7. Conroe High School Master Plan Options
Background: Phase 1 of the master plan (from 2015 bond) is complete (new science wing, band hall). Phase 2 was included in the failed May bond at ~$147 million.
Three options presented:
Option A — Full Original Master Plan (~$150M):
- Flips front entrance to back side
- Relocates athletics to current freshman annex location
- Moves CTE closer to Hwy 105
- All students under one roof
- Addresses all 27 elevation changes
- Extends building life 60+ years
- New CTE, athletics, competition gym, facade matching
- Con: High upfront cost; significant change for community
Option B — Phase the Master Plan (Not Recommended):
- Break remaining work into Phase 2 and Phase 3
- Would keep school under construction ~8 more years
- Would require asking for Conroe HS money in multiple bonds
- Would cost significantly more due to extended timeline
- Administration does not recommend this option
Option C — Reduced Scope Master Plan (~$120M):
- Still gets all students under one roof
- New CTE programs, new competition gym
- Athletics stays in current area (renovated, not rebuilt)
- Keeps Pit Gym and potentially front door on Hwy 105
- Shortest timeline, least expensive
- Cons: Limited facade changes; retains two 60-year-old gyms; parking remains asphalt; library not addressed; many elevation changes remain unmitigated; car rider line may remain on Hwy 105
- Savings of ~$30M vs. Option A (administration had hoped for $50-60M savings but that wasn't achievable)
No difference in student capacity between A and C (~3,500-4,000 with 9th grade center).
No difference in long-term maintenance — major equipment already installed for both scenarios.
Board Discussion:
- Mr. Sanders strongly favored Option A, citing 60-year investment, noting Conroe HS's 117th graduation, and arguing the community deserves matching brick throughout
- Mr. Husbands expressed strong support for Option A, addressed community confusion about the project:
- Renovation is because the building is worn out, not to avoid building a new high school
- A new Conroe-area high school will still be needed regardless
- Dividing Conroe HS now would drop it from 6A classification
- Addressed racial concerns directly: splitting wouldn't change school demographics as some assume
- Emphasized safety concerns about students crossing 7-lane Hwy 105
- Mr. Moore asked about long-term maintenance differences — EZ confirmed no difference in equipment quality between options
- EZ noted the $30M difference comes primarily from site work (parking, fields) and not mitigating elevation changes, rather than from major building systems
- Mr. Inman asked about Grand Oaks cost comparison — Grand Oaks was $160M for 3,000-student capacity; Dr. Null noted Conroe HS is not an apples-to-apples comparison due to larger size, CTE programs, renovation complexity, and elevation challenges
No vote taken — Dr. Null indicated he would present both options to community members for feedback.
Upcoming Dates
- July 10: Budget presentation to District-Level Planning and Decision-Making Committee
- July 16: Committee recommendation to Board
- August 6: First public hearing on budget
- August 20: Second public hearing and budget adoption
- Potential July Workshop to be scheduled given volume of unresolved issues
Items Flagged for Follow-Up
1. $7 million calculation error — further verification of all funding formulas needed; additional changes expected
2. Salary scenario refinement — administration to develop additional scenarios based on board feedback (3.5%/3.5%/2.5%; 4%/4%/3%; across-the-board 3.5%; classification adjustments for AE pay scale)
3. M&O-to-debt-service transfer legality — legal clarification needed on whether current $10M annual transfer is permitted under HB 3
4. Current-year property values mechanism — still unclear how comptroller certification process will work
5. Appraisal district data — Mr. Rice awaiting breakdown of how much of 5.5% value increase is new construction vs. existing property reappraisal
6. Mall/Dillard's refunds — additional box store refund amounts still pending
7. Pre-K implementation plan — transportation, staffing, facilities, curriculum all under development; pilot program being considered
8. Fast-growth district qualification — district currently in top 25% but could potentially drop out
9. Conroe High School — Dr. Null to gather community feedback on Options A and C
10. Bond election — no formal decision made; November 2019 referenced as potential date; multiple planning scenarios contingent on bond outcome