{
  "id": "2019-07-29_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2019-07-29",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — July 29, 2019",
  "date_display": "July 29, 2019",
  "type_display": "Regular Meeting",
  "types_display": [
    "Regular Meeting"
  ],
  "item_count": 0,
  "has_agenda": false,
  "has_notes": true,
  "pdf_filename": null,
  "packet_url": null,
  "generated_at": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.614088Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2019-07-29\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-27 22:03 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District – Board Meeting\n### July 29, 2019 | Regular Meeting\n\n> **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.\n\n---\n\n## Board Members/Staff Referenced\n- **Moderator/President Williams** (Board President)\n- **Dr. Curtis Null** (Superintendent)\n- **Darrin Rice** (CFO/Finance)\n- **Chris Hines** (Demographics/Planning)\n- **John Husbands** (Board Member)\n- **Datren Hubert** (Board Member)\n- **Mr. Sanders** (Board Member)\n- **Mr. Kidd** (Board Member – arrived late)\n- **Sarah** (Staff)\n- **Mr. Foster** (Staff – Facilities)\n- **Marshall** (Staff – Maintenance)\n- **Mr. Collshun** (Staff)\n\n---\n\n## 1. Board Calendar Review\n\n- The **2019-2020 board calendar** was reviewed.\n- **Key upcoming dates:**\n  - Summer graduation: Thursday (next week)\n  - Public hearing on the budget: Tuesday, August 6\n  - Celebrate Our Schools: August 12\n- Board field trip days are set with a mix of Fridays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- 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.\n\n---\n\n## 2. Budget Presentation Update (Darrin Rice)\n\n### Certified Property Values\n- 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**.\n- **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%.\n\n### Revenue & Expenditure Summary\n- **Total projected revenue:** $555.62 million\n- **Total projected expenditures:** $549.58 million\n- **Projected budget surplus:** ~$6 million\n\n### Key Expenditure Items\n| Category | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Additional personnel for growth (1,350 students) | $10.98M |\n| Salary increases (3–3.5%) | $14.05M |\n| Potential employee retention stipend (1%) | $5.0M |\n| HB 3 mandated programs (full-day pre-K, CTE, bilingual, dyslexia) | $7.29M |\n| Other expenses (utilities, insurance, fuel, supplies) | $1.81M |\n| TRS in-kind funds (reporting requirement) | $5.0M |\n| Transfer to Capital Maintenance Fund | $10.0M |\n\n### Capital Maintenance Fund\n- The board previously approved a **$10 million seed** to the capital maintenance fund.\n- An additional **$10 million annually** (previously sent to debt service, now prohibited by HB 3) will go to this fund.\n- 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**.\n\n### Proposed Tax Rate\n| Component | Current Rate | Proposed Rate | Change |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| M&O (compressed by HB 3) | $1.06 | $0.97 | -$0.09 |\n| Debt Service (I&S) | $0.22 | $0.265 | +$0.045 |\n| **Total** | **$1.28** | **$1.235** | **-$0.045** |\n\n- **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.\n- The state is effectively setting the tax rate in this first year of HB 3.\n\n### Pay Increase Comparison with Peer Districts\nA comparison of salary increases across peer and Montgomery County districts was presented. Notable examples:\n- **Humble ISD:** $1,400 retention stipend\n- **Aldine ISD:** 7–8% raise + $1,000 stipend (benefited significantly from HB 3 compensatory education funding)\n- **Klein ISD:** $1,500 teacher/counselor/librarian stipend; $1,000 for others\n- **Katy ISD:** Two 1% stipends during the year\n- **Cy-Fair ISD:** Two $500 stipends\n\n**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%.\n\n### Discussion on Salary Sustainability\n- Board members raised concerns about what happens when the legislature reconvenes and potentially doesn't continue HB 3 funding levels.\n- Mr. Rice confirmed the ~$6 million surplus would be held to help fund future years if state funding changes.\n- Dr. Null noted the uncertainty is why many districts are using **one-time retention stipends** rather than permanent raises—no future obligation attached.\n\n### Fund Balance Analysis\n- **Current policy:** 25% of budget in fund balance\n- **TEA requirement:** 90 days of cash\n- **Rating agencies** confirmed ratings would not change if fund balance dropped to **20%**, provided:\n  - There's an objective to return to 25%\n  - Expenditures are one-time (not recurring like raises)\n- At 20%, approximately **$24.2 million** would be available for potential bond-related uses\n- **Estimated unassigned fund balance at 8/31/19:** $134.1 million (24.4% of budget)\n\n### Pro-Forma 2020-2021\n- Projected deficit of approximately **$6.56 million** for next year\n- Current year's ~$6 million surplus offsets this\n\n### Next Steps\n- **August 6:** Public hearing on budget\n- **August 20:** Public hearing + board adoption of budget and tax rate\n\n---\n\n## 3. Bond Proposal Discussion\n\n### Community Feedback Summary (from post-May bond listening sessions)\nDr. Null summarized extensive community engagement conducted since the failed May 2019 bond ($807 million). Sessions included small groups of 5-7 unrelated community members.\n\n**Concerns heard:**\n- Perceived luxury items (e.g., artificial turf)\n- Overall bond amount was too large/scary\n- Information was overly complicated\n- Misinformation was not adequately addressed\n- Historical projects caused concern (Jet Center/Sam Houston, Conroe HS)\n- Not all teachers were on board; some campuses felt they didn't benefit\n- Urgency of need was not communicated well enough\n- Timing (May election vs. November)\n- Specific items: turf, teacher training center, maintenance items in bond\n\n**Suggestions for future bond:**\n- KISS principle—keep it simple\n- Communicate differently and better educate the community\n- Clarify that 2015 bond was a 4-year bond\n- Communicate ramifications of bond failure\n- Remove \"fluff,\" tighten the package\n- Consider Proposition A / Proposition B structure\n- Highlight safety and security more prominently\n\n### Revised Bond Proposal (\"We Listened\")\n\n#### Key Changes from the $807M May Package\n\n| Action | Impact |\n|---|---|\n| $20M from fund balance (land, buses, capital maintenance) | -$36M (including avoided interest) |\n| $10M/year to capital maintenance fund (5 years) | -$50M from bond; avoids ~$40M interest |\n| Extended bond from 4 years to 5 years | Added 1 additional elementary school |\n| Removed teacher training center, ag complex, Jet Center | Reduction |\n| Removed Conroe HS 9th grade campus addition | -$11.9M |\n| Removed custodial/maintenance facility | -$10.1M (funded by capital maintenance) |\n| Hawke building conversion | Funded by capital maintenance (cash) |\n| Technology reduced from $36M to $20M | -$16M |\n| Buses & technology financed at 10 years; all else at 25 years | — |\n| Turf moved to standalone Proposition B | Voter choice |\n\n#### Proposed Package\n| Proposition | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| **Proposition A** (schools, safety/security, infrastructure) | **$660 million** |\n| **Proposition B** (artificial turf for high schools) | **$23.8 million** |\n| **Total** | **$683.8 million** |\n\n- **Both propositions passing = NO tax rate increase** from the proposed $1.235 rate.\n- Maximum bond capacity without a tax increase: ~$683 million.\n\n### Board Discussion – Key Positions and Debate\n\n#### On Artificial Turf (Proposition B)\n- **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.\n- **Mr. Kidd:** Emphasized turf affects many students beyond football—band, drill team, junior high games canceled due to rain. Wanted fuller discussion of benefits.\n- **Mr. Husbands:** Supported letting voters decide directly on turf as Prop B. Noted it gives the public a direct voice.\n- **Dr. Null:** Reported community feedback was strongly polarized on turf; even turf supporters liked the A/B split to avoid \"murkying\" the main bond.\n- 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.\n- **Important note:** Two turf projects remain in **Proposition A** (not B) because they are tied to construction necessities:\n  1. Conroe HS Phase 2 (practice field footprint shrinking due to campus consolidation)\n  2. New Caney Creek junior high project (water system capacity requires reducing irrigation burden)\n\n#### On Conroe HS 9th Grade Campus Addition\n- **Mr. Hubert** strongly advocated adding the Conroe 9th grade campus addition back into the bond, noting it directly affects children.\n- **Mr. Husbands** supported this, citing projections showing the campus reaching **128% capacity (1,411 students)** by 2023-24 against a capacity of 1,100.\n- Dr. Null acknowledged it's a need and offered a **compromise solution:**\n  - Add Conroe 9th grade campus back into the bond\n  - Use ~$10 million from fund balance (dropping to ~20%) to fund technology via cash\n  - This would bring total to approximately **$652 million** with still **no tax rate increase**\n- **Mr. Hubert** expressed concern about the bond total dropping and suggested shifting $10 million in technology to cash to offset the addition.\n- **Board consensus appeared to support** adding Conroe 9th grade campus back into the package.\n\n#### On Bond Length (4 vs. 5 Years)\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- Construction cost escalation is estimated at **6% per year**; delaying a year could add ~$40 million to the same projects.\n\n#### On Tax Rate\n- 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).\n- One penny of tax rate = approximately **$50 million** in bond capacity.\n\n#### On Community Reception\n- Dr. Null reported that early community feedback on the revised package has been **\"very positive.\"**\n- Community members expressed that they feel the district **listened to their concerns**.\n\n---\n\n## 4. Impact Scenarios if Bond Does Not Pass (Chris Hines)\n\nDr. 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.\n\n### Immediate Needs (~$25 million for 2020-21)\n- Safety and security projects\n- Campus infrastructure (chillers, roofs)\n- Technology replacement\n- Portable buildings for growth\n- Maintenance of 175 existing portables\n- Bus orders\n- Design work for future projects\n\n### Potential Funding Sources if Bond Fails\n| Source | Estimated Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Minimum salary increase only (~1%) | ~$10M savings |\n| Eliminate retention stipend | ~$5M |\n| Hiring freeze/allocation adjustments | TBD |\n| General expense reduction (~9.5% of supply budget) | ~$2M |\n| Capital maintenance fund reallocation | Variable |\n| One-cent tax rate increase | ~$3.8M (weighted penny) |\n\n### Campus Capacity Concerns (Selected Highlights)\n\n| Campus | Current Capacity | Projected Enrollment | Projected Year | Portables |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Grangerland Intermediate | 1,100 | 1,254 | 2021 | 7 |\n| Stewart Elementary | 975 | 1,600+ | 2023 | — |\n| Giesinger Elementary | 675 | 1,000+ | 2023 | 6 |\n| Broadway Elementary | ~1,000 | 1,282 | 4 years | 2 |\n| Austin Elementary | ~750 | Growing | — | 6 (existing) |\n| Bush Elementary | 825 | 1,062 | 2023 | — |\n| Moorhead Junior High | 1,050 | 1,447 | 2022-23 | 7 |\n| York Junior High | ~1,400 | 1,835 | 2023-24 | 14 |\n| Conroe 9th Grade | 1,100 | 1,411 | 2023-24 | — |\n| Woodlands HS | Over capacity | — | — | 15 |\n| College Park HS | Over capacity | — | — | 12 |\n\n### Rezoning Scenarios Discussed (All Preliminary/Conceptual)\nChris Hines presented **multiple hypothetical rezoning scenarios** with strong disclaimers that none have been decided:\n\n1. **Stockton Junior High** (opening next year): Rezoning Peet and Washington boundaries; potential to pull ~150 students from Moorhead\n2. **Moorhead relief options:** Moving students along 242 corridor to Irons; or pulling from north of 105 to Stockton area\n3. **York relief:** Moving Legends Ranch (~200 students) from York to Knox; moving Harpers Landing from Knox to Irons to make room\n4. **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\n5. **Ride and Glen Loch Elementary:** Solutions being explored within Woodlands-area capacity\n\n**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.\n\n### Other Capacity Notes\n- **Full-day pre-K mandate** will reduce effective capacity at all elementary schools\n- Austin Elementary was rebuilt to its original capacity (not expanded) due to site constraints\n- Core facility limitations (cafeteria, restrooms, parking, traffic) constrain expansion options\n- Class size increases (e.g., from 22:1 to 26:1) can reduce classroom demand but impact educational quality\n- Even seemingly underutilized buildings house special programs, itinerant staff, and support services\n\n---\n\n## 5. Key Outcomes and Next Steps\n\n### Direction to Staff\n- **Add Conroe HS 9th Grade Campus addition back into the bond package**\n- **Utilize approximately $10 million from fund balance** (moving toward 20% threshold) to offset costs—potentially by moving technology purchases to cash\n- **Maintain Proposition A / Proposition B structure** (turf separate)\n- **Target: no tax rate increase**\n- Staff to bring revised bond package back on **August 6** for additional feedback\n\n### Upcoming Dates\n| Date | Event |\n|---|---|\n| August 6, 2019 | Public hearing on budget; revised bond package review |\n| August 20, 2019 | Public hearing + adoption of budget and tax rate |\n| November 2019 | Potential bond election |\n\n---\n\n## 6. Notable Board Member Statements\n\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- **Mr. Sanders** supported the Proposition A/B structure, letting voters decide on turf, and expressed caution about jeopardizing essential projects.\n- **Mr. Kidd** emphasized that turf benefits extend far beyond football to all extracurricular activities.\n- **Dr. Null** stressed that the revised package meets student needs and was built from the ground up (not reverse-engineered from a target number).\n\n---\n\n*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.*"
}