July 29, 2019 — Regular Meeting

Name: July 29, 2019 — Regular Meeting
Start: 2019-07-29

Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees — Regular Meeting

View interactive version →

Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2019-07-29

Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes

Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.

Generated 2026-03-27 22:03 UTC

Unofficial Meeting Notes

Conroe Independent School District – Board Meeting

July 29, 2019 | Regular Meeting

Note: These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript. They may contain errors or omissions. Official minutes should be consulted for the authoritative record.

Board Members/Staff Referenced

Moderator/President Williams (Board President)
Dr. Curtis Null (Superintendent)
Darrin Rice (CFO/Finance)
Chris Hines (Demographics/Planning)
John Husbands (Board Member)
Datren Hubert (Board Member)
Mr. Sanders (Board Member)
Mr. Kidd (Board Member – arrived late)
Sarah (Staff)
Mr. Foster (Staff – Facilities)
Marshall (Staff – Maintenance)
Mr. Collshun (Staff)

1. Board Calendar Review

The 2019-2020 board calendar was reviewed.
Key upcoming dates:

- Summer graduation: Thursday (next week)

- Public hearing on the budget: Tuesday, August 6

- Celebrate Our Schools: August 12

Board field trip days are set with a mix of Fridays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
Ambassador Awards will now be held on the same day as board field trips (to avoid a separate trip). Board members agreed to this change.
Board meeting recognitions: Instead of highlighting feeder zones/campuses (as done last year), the district will highlight internal departments (e.g., transportation, etc.) via short videos. The district's communications team would produce the videos, so the burden on departments would be minimal. Board members approved this approach.
May 2020 note: Last day of school is May 28 (early release). This will be the last year without Grand Oaks graduation, which will be added the following year, requiring an additional graduation night.
Brief discussion about the possibility of doing two graduation ceremonies per day at the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion. Parking constraints during weekdays and the pavilion's weekend commitments (Bonnie's Dance Studio) were noted as challenges. Staff is exploring options for the future.

2. Budget Presentation Update (Darrin Rice)

Certified Property Values

Property values came in at 6.56% growth (above the estimated 5.5%), adding approximately $2.3 billion to total certified value, bringing total to $38.08 billion.
Key finding: Under House Bill 3 (HB 3), the increase in property values did not generate additional general fund revenue. Dollar-for-dollar, increased local tax revenue was offset by decreased state revenue. The state is the beneficiary of property value growth above 2.5%.

Revenue & Expenditure Summary

Total projected revenue: $555.62 million
Total projected expenditures: $549.58 million
Projected budget surplus: ~$6 million

Key Expenditure Items

| Category | Amount |

|---|---|

| Additional personnel for growth (1,350 students) | $10.98M |

| Salary increases (3–3.5%) | $14.05M |

| Potential employee retention stipend (1%) | $5.0M |

| HB 3 mandated programs (full-day pre-K, CTE, bilingual, dyslexia) | $7.29M |

| Other expenses (utilities, insurance, fuel, supplies) | $1.81M |

| TRS in-kind funds (reporting requirement) | $5.0M |

| Transfer to Capital Maintenance Fund | $10.0M |

Capital Maintenance Fund

The board previously approved a $10 million seed to the capital maintenance fund.
An additional $10 million annually (previously sent to debt service, now prohibited by HB 3) will go to this fund.
Over a 5-year bond program, this could pull $50 million in maintenance projects out of the bond and fund them through cash, avoiding approximately $40 million in interest.

Proposed Tax Rate

|---|---|---|---|

| M&O (compressed by HB 3) | $1.06 | $0.97 | -$0.09 |

| Debt Service (I&S) | $0.22 | $0.265 | +$0.045 |

| Total | $1.28 | $1.235 | -$0.045 |

Bond counsel advised: HB 3 prohibits using general fund surplus to buy down the debt service tax rate. The $0.265 I&S rate is the required rate to service existing debt. The county tax assessor-collector confirmed she would not sign off on a lower rate.
The state is effectively setting the tax rate in this first year of HB 3.

Pay Increase Comparison with Peer Districts

A comparison of salary increases across peer and Montgomery County districts was presented. Notable examples:

Humble ISD: $1,400 retention stipend
Aldine ISD: 7–8% raise + $1,000 stipend (benefited significantly from HB 3 compensatory education funding)
Klein ISD: $1,500 teacher/counselor/librarian stipend; $1,000 for others
Katy ISD: Two 1% stipends during the year
Cy-Fair ISD: Two $500 stipends

Conroe ISD's proposal: 3% raise for teachers with ≤5 years experience; 3.5% + $500 for teachers with 6+ years. This exceeds HB 3's minimum requirement of ~2.5%.

Discussion on Salary Sustainability

Board members raised concerns about what happens when the legislature reconvenes and potentially doesn't continue HB 3 funding levels.
Mr. Rice confirmed the ~$6 million surplus would be held to help fund future years if state funding changes.
Dr. Null noted the uncertainty is why many districts are using one-time retention stipends rather than permanent raises—no future obligation attached.

Fund Balance Analysis

Current policy: 25% of budget in fund balance
TEA requirement: 90 days of cash
Rating agencies confirmed ratings would not change if fund balance dropped to 20%, provided:

- There's an objective to return to 25%

- Expenditures are one-time (not recurring like raises)

At 20%, approximately $24.2 million would be available for potential bond-related uses
Estimated unassigned fund balance at 8/31/19: $134.1 million (24.4% of budget)

Pro-Forma 2020-2021

Projected deficit of approximately $6.56 million for next year
Current year's ~$6 million surplus offsets this

Next Steps

August 6: Public hearing on budget
August 20: Public hearing + board adoption of budget and tax rate

3. Bond Proposal Discussion

Community Feedback Summary (from post-May bond listening sessions)

Dr. Null summarized extensive community engagement conducted since the failed May 2019 bond ($807 million). Sessions included small groups of 5-7 unrelated community members.

Concerns heard:

Perceived luxury items (e.g., artificial turf)
Overall bond amount was too large/scary
Information was overly complicated
Misinformation was not adequately addressed
Historical projects caused concern (Jet Center/Sam Houston, Conroe HS)
Not all teachers were on board; some campuses felt they didn't benefit
Urgency of need was not communicated well enough
Timing (May election vs. November)
Specific items: turf, teacher training center, maintenance items in bond

Suggestions for future bond:

KISS principle—keep it simple
Communicate differently and better educate the community
Clarify that 2015 bond was a 4-year bond
Communicate ramifications of bond failure
Remove "fluff," tighten the package
Consider Proposition A / Proposition B structure
Highlight safety and security more prominently

Revised Bond Proposal ("We Listened")

Key Changes from the $807M May Package

| Action | Impact |

|---|---|

| $20M from fund balance (land, buses, capital maintenance) | -$36M (including avoided interest) |

| $10M/year to capital maintenance fund (5 years) | -$50M from bond; avoids ~$40M interest |

| Extended bond from 4 years to 5 years | Added 1 additional elementary school |

| Removed teacher training center, ag complex, Jet Center | Reduction |

| Removed Conroe HS 9th grade campus addition | -$11.9M |

| Removed custodial/maintenance facility | -$10.1M (funded by capital maintenance) |

| Hawke building conversion | Funded by capital maintenance (cash) |

| Technology reduced from $36M to $20M | -$16M |

| Buses & technology financed at 10 years; all else at 25 years | — |

| Turf moved to standalone Proposition B | Voter choice |

Proposed Package

| Proposition | Amount |

|---|---|

| Proposition A (schools, safety/security, infrastructure) | $660 million |

| Proposition B (artificial turf for high schools) | $23.8 million |

| Total | $683.8 million |

Both propositions passing = NO tax rate increase from the proposed $1.235 rate.
Maximum bond capacity without a tax increase: ~$683 million.

Board Discussion – Key Positions and Debate

On Artificial Turf (Proposition B)

Mr. Sanders: Expressed concern that Prop B standing alone may not pass; initially suggested rolling turf costs into Prop A and funding from cash. Later stated he supported letting voters decide separately to avoid jeopardizing Prop A.
Mr. Kidd: Emphasized turf affects many students beyond football—band, drill team, junior high games canceled due to rain. Wanted fuller discussion of benefits.
Mr. Husbands: Supported letting voters decide directly on turf as Prop B. Noted it gives the public a direct voice.
Dr. Null: Reported community feedback was strongly polarized on turf; even turf supporters liked the A/B split to avoid "murkying" the main bond.
Board discussed difficulty of quantifying turf savings (water, maintenance, injury reduction, utilization). Grand Oaks' turf was cited as an example of high utilization during rainy spring months.
Important note: Two turf projects remain in Proposition A (not B) because they are tied to construction necessities:

1. Conroe HS Phase 2 (practice field footprint shrinking due to campus consolidation)

2. New Caney Creek junior high project (water system capacity requires reducing irrigation burden)

On Conroe HS 9th Grade Campus Addition

Mr. Hubert strongly advocated adding the Conroe 9th grade campus addition back into the bond, noting it directly affects children.
Mr. Husbands supported this, citing projections showing the campus reaching 128% capacity (1,411 students) by 2023-24 against a capacity of 1,100.
Dr. Null acknowledged it's a need and offered a compromise solution:

- Add Conroe 9th grade campus back into the bond

- Use ~$10 million from fund balance (dropping to ~20%) to fund technology via cash

- This would bring total to approximately $652 million with still no tax rate increase

Mr. Hubert expressed concern about the bond total dropping and suggested shifting $10 million in technology to cash to offset the addition.
Board consensus appeared to support adding Conroe 9th grade campus back into the package.

On Bond Length (4 vs. 5 Years)

Mr. Husbands cautioned about extending the bond to 5 years, noting the difficulty of projecting costs that far out and the historical 6% annual construction cost escalation.
Dr. Null acknowledged the risk but explained that if a project comes in under budget, the district simply won't sell those bonds. Cited Houston ISD's problems with underestimating costs as cautionary tale.
Construction cost escalation is estimated at 6% per year; delaying a year could add ~$40 million to the same projects.

On Tax Rate

Board clarified that "no tax rate increase" means no increase from the proposed $1.235 rate, not from the current $1.28 rate (which is already decreasing due to HB 3).
One penny of tax rate = approximately $50 million in bond capacity.

On Community Reception

Dr. Null reported that early community feedback on the revised package has been "very positive."
Community members expressed that they feel the district listened to their concerns.

4. Impact Scenarios if Bond Does Not Pass (Chris Hines)

Dr. Null emphasized this section represents what the district would be forced to do, not what it recommends. He noted these plans would divert M&O funds (intended for educating children) to capital projects.

Immediate Needs (~$25 million for 2020-21)

Safety and security projects
Campus infrastructure (chillers, roofs)
Technology replacement
Portable buildings for growth
Maintenance of 175 existing portables
Bus orders
Design work for future projects

Potential Funding Sources if Bond Fails

| Source | Estimated Amount |

|---|---|

| Minimum salary increase only (~1%) | ~$10M savings |

| Eliminate retention stipend | ~$5M |

| Hiring freeze/allocation adjustments | TBD |

| General expense reduction (~9.5% of supply budget) | ~$2M |

| Capital maintenance fund reallocation | Variable |

| One-cent tax rate increase | ~$3.8M (weighted penny) |

Campus Capacity Concerns (Selected Highlights)

|---|---|---|---|---|

| Grangerland Intermediate | 1,100 | 1,254 | 2021 | 7 |

| Stewart Elementary | 975 | 1,600+ | 2023 | — |

| Giesinger Elementary | 675 | 1,000+ | 2023 | 6 |

| Broadway Elementary | ~1,000 | 1,282 | 4 years | 2 |

| Bush Elementary | 825 | 1,062 | 2023 | — |

| Moorhead Junior High | 1,050 | 1,447 | 2022-23 | 7 |

| York Junior High | ~1,400 | 1,835 | 2023-24 | 14 |

| Conroe 9th Grade | 1,100 | 1,411 | 2023-24 | — |

| Woodlands HS | Over capacity | — | — | 15 |

| College Park HS | Over capacity | — | — | 12 |

Rezoning Scenarios Discussed (All Preliminary/Conceptual)

Chris Hines presented multiple hypothetical rezoning scenarios with strong disclaimers that none have been decided:

1. Stockton Junior High (opening next year): Rezoning Peet and Washington boundaries; potential to pull ~150 students from Moorhead

2. Moorhead relief options: Moving students along 242 corridor to Irons; or pulling from north of 105 to Stockton area

3. York relief: Moving Legends Ranch (~200 students) from York to Knox; moving Harpers Landing from Knox to Irons to make room

4. High school scenario: Moving ~329 students (7% impact) from Woodlands HS and ~516 students (18% impact) from College Park to Oak Ridge; adding ~400 students to Oak Ridge

5. Ride and Glen Loch Elementary: Solutions being explored within Woodlands-area capacity

Dr. Null emphasized: These are study scenarios only. No recommendations have been made. High school feeder zone changes have historically only been done when opening new schools.

Other Capacity Notes

Full-day pre-K mandate will reduce effective capacity at all elementary schools
Austin Elementary was rebuilt to its original capacity (not expanded) due to site constraints
Core facility limitations (cafeteria, restrooms, parking, traffic) constrain expansion options
Class size increases (e.g., from 22:1 to 26:1) can reduce classroom demand but impact educational quality
Even seemingly underutilized buildings house special programs, itinerant staff, and support services

5. Key Outcomes and Next Steps

Direction to Staff

Add Conroe HS 9th Grade Campus addition back into the bond package
Utilize approximately $10 million from fund balance (moving toward 20% threshold) to offset costs—potentially by moving technology purchases to cash
Maintain Proposition A / Proposition B structure (turf separate)
Target: no tax rate increase
Staff to bring revised bond package back on August 6 for additional feedback

Upcoming Dates

| Date | Event |

|---|---|

| August 6, 2019 | Public hearing on budget; revised bond package review |

| August 20, 2019 | Public hearing + adoption of budget and tax rate |

| November 2019 | Potential bond election |

6. Notable Board Member Statements

Mr. Husbands repeatedly emphasized the importance of not cutting projects that directly affect children (specifically Conroe 9th grade campus) and urged the district to better educate the public on growth realities and consequences of bond failure.
Mr. Hubert advocated for keeping the bond amount adequate and questioned whether prioritizing no tax increase may have caused the district to cut needed projects.
Mr. Sanders supported the Proposition A/B structure, letting voters decide on turf, and expressed caution about jeopardizing essential projects.
Mr. Kidd emphasized that turf benefits extend far beyond football to all extracurricular activities.
Dr. Null stressed that the revised package meets student needs and was built from the ground up (not reverse-engineered from a target number).

These notes are unofficial and based on an automated transcript. They are intended to help the public understand what was discussed. For official records, please consult the approved board minutes.