{
  "id": "2022-02-01_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2022-02-01",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 1, 2022",
  "date_display": "February 1, 2022",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.907478Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2022-02-01\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 14:16 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board Workshop\n### February 1, 2022\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript of the board workshop. They are intended to help the public understand what occurred during the meeting and should not be considered official minutes.*\n\n---\n\n## Public Comment\nNo members of the public signed up to address the board.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2: Bond Sale Results – Series 2022\n\n**Presenter:** Darren Rice, Chief Financial Officer\n\n### Key Points:\n- This was the **third of five scheduled bond sales** from the 2019 bond referendum, generating **$177 million in proceeds**\n- Remaining scheduled sales: **$105 million in 2023** and **$59.6 million in 2024**\n- Bonds hit the market on **January 11** at near historic lows on the Bond Buyer Index (2.12% vs. historic low of 2.02%)\n- By **9:20 a.m.** (20 minutes after market open), total commitment was achieved; some tranches were **oversold by 2.5 times**, enabling negotiation of even lower rates\n- **All-cost true interest rate: 2.332%**\n- Average bond life: 16.72 years; longest bond: 25 years\n- Total district debt service requirement now stands at **$2.193 billion** (spanning 2022–2047)\n- Bond closing scheduled for **February 8, 2022**\n\n### Board Discussion:\n- **Debt-to-value ratio** has improved from approximately 5% fifteen years ago to approximately **3.8% currently**, well below the 10% standard\n- District's bond portfolio was described as straightforward (\"straight bonds\"), compared favorably to other districts that use more complex/risky structures (variable rate debt, capital appreciation bonds)\n- Board members discussed why bonds are used rather than paying cash for buildings — buildings have 50-60 year lifespans, and debt allows future residents to share the cost\n- **Average age of CISD buildings: 33 years** (Texas statewide average is over 40 years)\n- Discussion of rising construction costs: A new high school estimated at **~$200 million** (Grand Oaks was ~$150 million); elementary school costs increased **$6 million in one year** for identical buildings; the bond program's built-in cost escalation has kept the district on budget\n\n---\n\n## Item 3: Health Plan Update\n\n**Presenter:** Darren Rice\n\n### Financial Status:\n- **January results:** Revenues $4.5M, Expenses $4.3M (net positive ~$300K for the month)\n- **Plan year to date:** Revenues $22.5M, Expenses $25.2M (**deficit of ~$2.7 million**)\n- **Current fund balance: ~$7 million** (described as strong)\n- The board had previously approved using fund balance to absorb an anticipated one-time surge in claims (~$2.5 million) from deferred elective surgeries during COVID\n\n### Wellness Center:\n- Average participation: **338 visits** (needs to be **500+** to break even)\n- Annual cost: approximately **$600,000** (physician, staff costs; district provides building/infrastructure)\n- Conroe satellite clinic has been closed; prior attempts to sustain Conroe clinics were unsuccessful\n- Board discussion about **viability of the wellness center vs. telehealth options** — telehealth was made free to employees last year and usage has increased\n- District exploring **contracts with local urgent care facilities** for discounted rates during daytime hours\n\n### Driving Factors for Health Plan Costs:\n- Surge in elective surgeries deferred from COVID period\n- Individuals with chronic conditions who delayed care becoming sicker\n- Noticeable increase in **cancer spend** across all of Gallagher's clients\n- Large claimants costing more and staying in hospitals longer\n- Delta variant drove significant claims; Omicron less severe but more contagious\n- COVID testing driving up lab/pharmacy spend\n- New legislation allowing free OTC COVID tests to be reimbursed through the plan\n\n### Health Services Admin RFP:\n- Currently in **Year 3 of a 3-year agreement with United Healthcare**\n- Gallagher recommended going to bid for potentially better admin fee rates\n- United Healthcare declined to renegotiate fees\n- **RFP bids received from:** United Healthcare, Cigna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and Healthcare Highway\n- **Evaluation timeline:**\n  - Evaluation committee (7 members, subset of Employee Benefits Committee) reviewing bids beginning February 2\n  - Finalists to present to full Employee Benefits Committee in February\n  - Recommendation to board at **March board meeting**\n  - **September 1, 2022 effective date**\n- This is for **admin services only** (not pharmacy, which is separate through CoreTrust/Optum)\n- Plan design (Kelsey, Charter/Memorial Hermann ACO structure) expected to remain similar regardless of administrator selected\n\n---\n\n## Item 4: Preliminary 2022-2023 Budget Overview\n\n**Presenter:** Darren Rice and Dr. Curtis Null (Superintendent)\n\n### Legislative Update:\n- **Senate Bill 1** (from special session): Permanent increase to mandatory homestead exemption from $25,000 to **$40,000** (effective tax year 2022)\n- State is holding districts harmless, but on the M&O side, CISD sees **net zero benefit** due to HB 3 formula\n- Debt service side: approximately **$400,000** in additional state funding\n- Hold harmless is stated as perpetual but historically has been repealed in subsequent legislative sessions (2015 increase hold harmless was repealed in 2019)\n\n### Budget Framework:\n\n**Revenue Side:**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning Revenue | $586.12M |\n| Local Revenue Increase (capped at 2.5%) | +$10.37M |\n| State Funding Decrease (Robin Hood/HB 3) | -$10.37M |\n| **Net from property value increase** | **$0** |\n| State Funding from Student Growth | +$23.74M |\n| Teacher Incentive Allotment (Year 1) | +$1.5M |\n| TRS In-Kind Funds | +$1.75M |\n| **Estimated Total Revenue** | **$613.11M** |\n\n**Expenditure Side:**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning Expenditure | $596.12M |\n| Salary Increase (~3.5%) | +$12.5M |\n| Additional Personnel for Growth | +$10M |\n| Teacher Incentive Allotment (corresponding expense) | +$1.5M |\n| Backing out Retention Stipend (one-time, prior year) | -$10M |\n| Backing out additional 2,900 students (budget adjustment) | +$2.99M |\n| **Estimated Total Expenditures** | **$613.11M** |\n\n**Result: Balanced preliminary budget at $613.11 million**\n\n### Critical Issues Discussed:\n\n**Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Funding Challenge:**\n- District must staff based on **100% enrollment** but receives state funding based on ADA\n- Budgeted at **94% ADA** (historical norm), currently tracking at ~92%\n- **Every 1% drop = ~$4 million** in lost revenue; 2% shortfall = $8 million gap\n- Only **two states** still fund on ADA\n- Dr. Null has been actively lobbying legislators to move to enrollment-based funding\n- TEA considering broader relief beyond the current first-six-weeks hold harmless\n- Estimated enrollment for 2022-23: **69,187 students** (using 1,500 growth projection)\n\n**Projected Tax Rate for 2022-23: $1.1553** (down from $1.176)\n- M&O: $0.8953\n- Debt Service: $0.26 (unchanged)\n- CISD remains **third lowest tax rate** in greater Houston area\n\n**Future Budget Warning:**\n- In fiscal year 2024-25, with no legislative changes, the district projects an **~$11 million deficit** that would compound annually due to no mechanism for raises without additional state funding\n\n### Compensation Plan Discussion (Board Guidance Sought):\n\n**Current approach:** 3.5% across-the-board raises (~$12.5M)\n\n**Key question posed to board:** Should the district shift to a **weighted approach** favoring hourly/lower-wage employees who face the most competition from private sector?\n\n**Board feedback/positions expressed:**\n- **Board Member Williams:** Suggested a **70/30 split** — 70% of funds directed to hourly employees, 30% to teachers/professional staff\n- **Board Member Swagman:** Emphasized need for market-competitive wages, not just comparison to other school districts; need to compete with restaurants, retail, etc.\n- **Board Member Herman/Truman:** Requested data on turnover rates for hourly employees; emphasized retention value vs. constant retraining costs\n- **Multiple board members** agreed the district should be **aggressive on hourly wages** even if it means teachers receive closer to 3% rather than 3.5%\n- **Dr. Null** noted that about 4,500 employees are teachers (over half); hourly pool is ~70 people, so significant hourly increases may only modestly reduce teacher raise percentages\n- Board directed staff to have **TASB conduct a market-based salary survey** (including private sector comparisons, not just other school districts) and present scenarios at the **April workshop**\n\n**Retention Stipend:**\n- Not built into preliminary budget\n- Could be funded from fund balance later in the year if budget permits\n- This year's $1,500 flat stipend cost ~$10 million\n- Board expressed interest in potentially continuing the flat-rate approach (benefits lower earners by percentage)\n\n**Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA):**\n- ~245 teachers eligible/participating\n- Estimated $1.5M revenue; 90% must go to teacher compensation\n- This is the measurement year; actual payouts begin in 2023-24\n- TIA is in addition to regular raises\n\n### Staffing Formula Changes Under Consideration:\n| Level | Current Ratio | Proposed Ratio | Estimated Cost |\n|-------|--------------|----------------|----------------|\n| Pre-K | 22:1 | 18:1 | $1.3M |\n| Intermediate (5th-6th) | 26:1 | 25:1 | $600K |\n\n### Fund Balance:\n- **Current unassigned fund balance: $171.4 million**\n- Target (25% of budget): $149 million\n- **Available above target: $22.4 million**\n- Potential uses: retention stipends, capital maintenance, land purchases\n- **Capital maintenance fund: $60 million** ($50M earmarked for 2019 bond support; $10M available for separate projects)\n\n### Employee Leave:\n- **10 days total leave** (5 state + 5 local) — permanent going forward\n- New: Employees can now **bank local days** (previously only state days could be banked)\n- Extended sick leave (half-dock) will remain through next year, providing a \"double parachute\" during COVID era\n\n### Budget Timeline:\n| Date | Action |\n|------|--------|\n| April 5 | Board workshop: TASB compensation study, benefits plan, budget update |\n| June 7 | Board workshop (only if needed) |\n| July 13 | District-level planning committee presentation |\n| July 19 | Board meeting: budget recommendation |\n| August 2 | First public hearing |\n| August 16 | Second public hearing + budget/tax rate adoption |\n\n---\n\n## Item 5: Student Enrollment Growth and Capacity Overview\n\n**Presenter:** Dr. Chris Hines\n\n### District-Wide Capacity: **97% (including portable classrooms)**\n\n### Key Statistics:\n- **Current enrollment: ~68,376** (as of late January 2022)\n- District grew by **3,124 students** this year (vs. typical 1,500/year)\n- **Likely to pass 75,000 students within five years**\n- **203 portable classroom buildings** in use across the district (~4,400 student capacity, equivalent to ~4 elementary schools)\n- A new demographic study is needed (last one was 2018)\n\n### High Schools:\n\n| Campus | Notable Status |\n|--------|---------------|\n| Grand Oaks HS | Projected at 3,650 next year (capacity 3,200); **already past 2028 projections** |\n| Conroe HS | Combined 9-12 projected near 5,100 next year; projected ~7,000 by 2028 |\n| Woodlands HS | 103% capacity (even with new 200-seat wing) |\n| College Park HS | Over capacity (even with new 200-seat wing; portables removed) |\n| Oak Ridge HS | Under construction; appears to have room but space unavailable due to construction |\n| Caney Creek HS | Currently ~80% but projected 125% by 2028 |\n\n- **29 portable classrooms** at high school level\n- **#1 priority identified: Plan for a new Conroe High School**\n- May need as many as **3,000 additional high school seats** by 2028\n- Discussion of converting Conroe HS 9th grade campus back to a junior high if new high school is built\n- High school takes approximately **3-4 years to build** (could be shortened by 1 year with pre-construction work funded from fund balance, as was done with Grand Oaks)\n\n### Junior Highs:\n- District-wide at **102% capacity**\n- **37 portable classrooms** in use\n- York JH: Just added 475 seats, already at **103% capacity** — already past 2028 projections\n- Stockton JH: Open only 2 years, already at 102%\n- Moorhead JH replacement opening in 2023 will add **550 seats**\n- By 2028: projected **112% capacity** (~1,400 seats short = at least one large junior high needed)\n- **Estimated cost of a new junior high: ~$90 million**\n\n### Intermediates (5th-6th Grade):\n- District-wide at **97% capacity**\n- 6 portable classrooms in use\n- **Veterans Memorial Intermediate** opening in 2023 (relief for Grangerland, currently at 110%)\n- Gordon Reed Elementary will add **300 intermediate seats** on west side of Conroe\n- **~2,000+ additional intermediate seats needed** in next few years\n- Clark Intermediate (opened recently) already at 108%\n- Board member raised concern about elementary enrollment (26,000+) flowing into intermediates that are already at/over capacity\n\n### Elementaries:\n- Current enrollment: **26,395 students**\n- **121 portable classrooms** across elementary campuses\n- **17 campuses at or above 100% capacity**\n- Notable overcrowding:\n  - Broadway: **137%**\n  - Snyder: **133%**\n  - Ford: **132%**\n  - Creighton: **132%**\n  - Giesinger: **127%**\n  - Bush: **116%** (limited site, few portable options, no current solution)\n\n**Upcoming Relief:**\n- **Gordon Reed Elementary** opening (650 elementary + 300 intermediate seats, west Conroe)\n- **Flex 22 Elementary** (Lexington Blvd, Grand Oaks area) opening 2023 — 925 seats for Broadway/Snyder relief\n- **Flex 23** (last elementary in 2019 bond, opening 2024 or 2025)\n  - Dr. Hines recommended placement **north of SH 105, east of the loop** to serve Creighton, Austin, and provide relief for Runyon, Anderson, and Patterson\n\n### Pre-K Impact:\n- District moved to **full-day Pre-K** starting 2021-22\n- Pre-K enrollment: 1,751 students requiring **95 classrooms** (up from 45 classrooms for 1,522 half-day students pre-COVID)\n- This effectively requires **one entire school's worth of additional space** not planned for in the 2019 bond\n- **If universal Pre-K is enacted:** Would require an additional **153 classrooms** (~3 more schools, ~$150 million in construction) with no state building funding anticipated\n\n### Grand Oaks Feeder Pattern:\n- Identified as the **most crowded feeder pattern** district-wide\n- Over capacity at virtually every level (elementary through high school, except Cox Intermediate)\n- Significant undeveloped green space remains in the feeder zone; future development expected\n\n### Areas of Concern Being Monitored:\n- Bush Elementary (rapid growth, limited site, no current solution)\n- Reeves Elementary (large multi-family housing developments incoming)\n- Ford Elementary (apartment complexes, reduced actual capacity)\n- Oak Ridge Elementary area (increasing density)\n- Suchma Elementary (rapid increase, K-6 model attracting larger families)\n- Entire Grand Oaks feeder pattern\n- Oak Ridge feeder area generally\n\n### Future Capital Needs Summary (Preliminary):\nDr. Hines outlined anticipated future facility needs:\n\n| Facility Type | Estimated Need |\n|--------------|----------------|\n| High School (Conroe) | 1 |\n| 9th Grade Campus or Large Addition (Grand Oaks) | 1 |\n| Junior Highs | 1-2 (possibly 1 if CHS 9 converts) |\n| Intermediate Schools | At least 2 |\n| Elementary Schools | At least 2-3 (possibly more with Pre-K expansion) |\n\n**Estimated total cost: ~$850+ million** (compared to 2019 bond of $657 million)\n\n- Dr. Null noted for context: Montgomery ISD is anticipating a $326M bond while being 1/7th the size of CISD; proportionally, that would be equivalent to a $2.4B bond for CISD\n- The district is still a few years from a bond election but beginning preparation, including commissioning a new demographic study\n\n### Other Facility Notes:\n- District developing new **educational specifications** for future facility planning (year-long process ongoing with Easy Foster's team)\n- Adding **gyms at two intermediates** this year (all intermediates will then have gyms); older elementaries still lack gyms, creating scheduling constraints\n- Portable building costs: **~$231,000** for new double portable (turnkey); **~$175,000** for used double portable (turnkey)\n- Portable buildings are funded from operating budget, not bond funds\n\n---\n\n## Adjournment\nThe meeting adjourned at **8:17 p.m.**\n\n---\n\n*No formal votes were taken during this workshop session. The meeting was conversational in nature, focused on providing information and receiving board guidance on budget and facility planning priorities.*"
}