{
  "id": "2019-08-06_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2019-08-06",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — August 6, 2019",
  "date_display": "August 6, 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": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.619212Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2019-08-06\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-27 22:04 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District – Budget Hearing\n### August 6, 2019 | Regular Meeting\n\n---\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Overview\n\nThe meeting was a public budget hearing for the proposed 2019-2020 CISD budget. Chief Financial Officer Darrin Rice presented the budget, followed by public comment. No formal votes were taken at this hearing. A second public hearing and formal adoption of the budget and tax rate are scheduled for August 20, 2019.\n\n---\n\n## Budget Presentation by Darrin Rice\n\n### Financial Highlights (Current Year Achievements)\n- CISD received **Transparency Stars** from the State Comptroller's Office for finances, debt obligations, and contracts/procurement\n- Named a **Texas Smart Schools Five-Star District** for **10 consecutive years** — one of only two districts out of 1,100+ statewide to achieve this\n- Ranked **2nd in the state** by the Education Resource Group (ERG) among the 200 largest districts for academic and financial performance\n- CISD spends **$7,965 per student**, which is **$916 less** than the state average ($8,881)\n- If CISD spent at the state average, the budget would need to increase by **$57.6 million**\n- **63.75%** of the budget goes to instruction vs. **57.69%** state average\n- Central administration spending is **less than half** the state average\n- CISD spends **more than the state average** on security and monitoring services\n\n### House Bill 3 (HB3) – Legislative Impact\nKey provisions of HB3 (\"The Texas Plan\"):\n- $5 billion in property tax relief\n- $4.5 billion for education reform\n- $2 billion for teacher pay\n- $3.5 billion for recapture reduction\n- Increased the basic allotment from **$5,140 to $6,160 per ADA**\n- **Requires full-day pre-kindergarten** for eligible 4-year-olds (estimated cost to CISD: **$5 million**, not including facility needs)\n- Moves to **current-year property values** for determining state funding\n- **Seven-cent compression** on the Tier One M&O rate\n- **Prohibits** school districts from transferring M&O surplus funds to buy down debt service tax rates (a practice CISD had previously used)\n- Rice stated: *\"The state has essentially set our tax rate for us in this first year.\"*\n\n### General Fund Balance\n- 2008 fund balance: $76 million\n- Projected 2019 fund balance: **$139.6 million**\n\n### Budget Objectives for 2019-2020\n1. Meet needs for the new school year (opening **Suchma Elementary**, adding **11th grade at Grand Oaks High School**, preparing for **1,350 new students**)\n2. Provide a competitive compensation plan\n3. Prioritize safety and security\n4. Establish a **district-wide capital maintenance fund**\n\n### Enrollment Data\n- Projected enrollment: **64,187 students** (increase of 1,350)\n- ADA percentage: **94.0%**\n- Growth trend: approximately 1,500 students per year\n\n### Property Values\n- Property values increased **6.56%**, adding ~$2.34 billion\n- Total property values: **$38.1 billion**\n- Due to HB3's use of current-year values, the increase generates **no additional M&O funding** — increased local tax revenue is offset dollar-for-dollar by decreased state funding ($3.66 million offset)\n\n### Proposed Tax Rate\n\n| Component | 2017-2018 | 2019-2020 Proposed |\n|---|---|---|\n| M&O Rate | $1.04 | $0.97 |\n| Debt Service Rate | $0.24 | $0.265 |\n| **Total Tax Rate** | **$1.28** | **$1.235** |\n\n- Net effect: **4.5 cent tax decrease**\n- CISD will remain the **second-lowest tax rate** in the Greater Houston area\n- **14.7 cents below** the peer district average tax rate\n- The debt service rate increased from $0.24 to $0.265 because the district can no longer transfer ~$10 million annually from M&O to buy down the debt service rate (prohibited by HB3)\n\n### Revenue Estimates\n- Total estimated available new funding: **$53.35 million** (same whether AV growth is 5.5% or 6.56%)\n- Investment income increased by $1 million\n- TRS In-Kind funds: $5 million (accounting entry)\n\n### Salary Increases\n- **Teachers, librarians, counselors, nurses:** 3.5% increase + $500 adjustment for 6+ years of experience (cost: $9.6 million)\n- **Pay Grade AE Levels 1-3:** 3.5% raise\n- **Pay Grade AE Levels 4-10:** 3% raise (cost: $1.75 million)\n- **Administrative/business:** 3% raise (cost: $265,000)\n- **Admin support, instructional support, auxiliary, police (non-exempt):** 3.5% raise\n- **Total salary increase cost: $14,046,000**\n- Beginning teacher salary: **$55,500**\n- A board member asked about the state-mandated raise from HB3; Rice confirmed it was **2.5%**, and CISD is providing **above that amount**\n\n### Personnel for Growth\n- **153 new campus positions:** 107 teachers, 10 administrators, 9 professionals, 27 paraprofessionals (cost: ~$9 million)\n- **56.4 support positions** (transportation, police, maintenance, custodial) (cost: $1.9 million)\n- **Total new positions: 209.4** | **Total payroll additions: $10.98 million**\n\n### Total Expenditure Increases\n| Item | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Personnel for growth | $10.98M |\n| Salary increases | $14.05M |\n| Potential employee retention stipend | $5.0M (~$625 per employee) |\n| New HB3-required programs (Pre-K, CTE, bilingual, dyslexia, comp ed, safety) | Various |\n| Other expenses (utilities, insurance, fuel, supplies) | $1.81M |\n| TRS In-Kind | $5.0M |\n| **Total operating expenditures** | **$44.13M** |\n| Capital maintenance fund transfer | $10.0M |\n| **Total expenditures** | **$54.13M** |\n\n### Proposed 2019-2020 Budget Summary\n\n| | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Projected Revenue | $555.62 million |\n| Projected Expenditures | $549.58 million |\n| **Estimated Surplus** | **~$6 million** |\n\n- **Budget breakdown by category:** Payroll 87.6%, Contracted services 5%, Supplies/materials 4.2%, Equipment/other 1.4%, Capital maintenance fund 1.8%\n\n### Proposed Use of Surplus\n- Retain funds to support the **2020-2021 budget** (which is currently projecting a **$6.56 million deficit**)\n- 2020-2021 will include opening a **new junior high school**\n- Any remaining funds to support the capital maintenance fund and unforeseen expenditures\n\n### Fund Balance Analysis\n- Target: **25% of annual budget** (~$137.4 million)\n- Estimated unassigned fund balance at 8/31/19: **$134.1 million (24.4%)**\n- Approximately **$3.2 million short** of the 25% target\n- At the 20% level, approximately **$24.2 million** could be available toward a potential bond refund\n\n### Additional Information\n- One cent tax increase on a $300,000 home equals **$27.50**\n- Various reference documents available on the district website\n\n---\n\n## Public Comments (4 speakers)\n\n### Randy Lewis Smith\n- Expressed concern about being \"over-appraised\" and \"over-taxed\"\n- Raised concerns about student safety, specifically referencing alleged sexual assault incidents at Woodlands High School, Oak Ridge High School, and a historical case at Conroe High School\n- Urged the district to prioritize child protection and remove employees found to be predators\n- Asked the district to find ways to cut the budget to help taxpayers\n\n### Eric Yollick (The Woodlands resident)\n- Argued that despite the nominal tax rate decrease, the **effective tax rate is actually increasing**, meaning taxpayers will pay more\n- Contended that **nothing in HB3 prevents the district from using fund balance to pay down debt service** — suggested the district examine its CAFR to identify eligible fund balance sources\n- Criticized the board's budget review process, stating he has seen essentially the same presentation three times with no substantive board deliberation\n- Urged the board to conduct **line-by-line budget review** similar to county government practices rather than simply accepting administration presentations\n- Acknowledged positive interactions with several board members, Dr. Null, and Mr. Rice\n\n### Mark Wright\n- Asked whether the board has discussed a **tax rollback** to deliver on property tax reform promises\n- Raised the issue of **redistricting**, noting that over 100 teachers he's spoken with are in T-buildings (portable buildings) and have safety concerns, including locked-door inconveniences\n- Thanked board member **Dale Inman** for listening to constituents\n- Urged the board to adopt Inman's proposed amendment from the original bond as **Proposition A**, with remaining items as Proposition B\n\n### John Boucher (Oak Ridge North, Precinct 3)\n- Supported teacher pay raises and expressed appreciation for HB3\n- Expressed concern that the strategy appears to rely on **escalating home appraisals as a tax multiplier** combined with mega-bond issuances\n- Criticized what he perceived as increasingly **opulent school construction**, calling for a \"no-frills approach\"\n- Suggested spending priorities should focus on supporting teachers and addressing disruptive students rather than amenities like \"AstroTurf and Airsoft Gun ranges\"\n- Stated that regardless of percentage comparisons, *\"if we're paying more money, it's more money\"*\n\n### Ellis Cussie\n- Described a decade-long effort to obtain the district's **Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)**\n- Recounted difficulties in obtaining the document, including being initially given an abbreviated overview and being quoted ~$3,000 for a printed copy\n- Eventually received it on disc for $15 but expressed frustration that the full report was not readily provided\n- Stopped requesting it in recent years out of frustration\n\n**Board/Administration Response:** A board member asked if the CAFR could be posted under the transparency section of the website. Both administration and other board members confirmed **it is already posted and has been for years**, accessible to anyone.\n\n---\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- **No votes were taken** — this was a public hearing only\n- The proposed **$549.58 million budget** and **$1.235 total tax rate** (4.5 cent decrease) will come before the board for **adoption on August 20, 2019**, following a second public hearing\n- HB3 significantly impacts the district's funding formula and tax rate structure, effectively setting the M&O rate and prohibiting M&O-to-debt-service transfers\n- The district is providing salary increases **above** the state-mandated 2.5% minimum\n- Multiple public commenters expressed concern about the **effective tax burden increasing** despite the nominal rate decrease\n- Public commenters also raised concerns about **student safety, budget transparency, school construction costs**, and the **depth of board budget deliberation**\n- The 2020-2021 budget is projected to have a **$6.56 million deficit**, which the district plans to cover with this year's surplus"
}