{
  "id": "2023-04-04_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2023-04-04",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — April 4, 2023",
  "date_display": "April 4, 2023",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.045696Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2023-04-04\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 15:26 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe ISD Board of Trustees – Board Workshop\n### April 4, 2023\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Citizens Participation\nNo members of the public signed up to speak.\n\n---\n\n## Superintendent's Update (Dr. Null)\n\n### Job Fair Results\n- **1,134 registrants** with **800 in attendance** — described as a strong number compared to area districts\n- **25 letters of commitment** were signed on the day of the job fair, enabled by the board's recent policy change allowing faster hiring action\n- **594 jobs currently posted** for next year; the district expects to hire over **1,000 people** by end of summer\n- Principals reported the expedited hiring authority made a significant difference in competing for talent; principals \"actually applauded\" when informed of the change\n- The faster process also helps with \"domino effect\" vacancies created by internal transfers\n\n---\n\n## Item 2: Preliminary 2023-2024 Budget Overview\n**Presented by: Darren Rice (CFO) and Karen Garza**\n\n### District Financial Awards\n- CISD was the **first district in Texas** to earn transparency awards from the State Comptroller's Office (13 consecutive years)\n- **Texas Smart Schools**: One of only **two ISDs** (with Cy-Fair) out of 1,200+ to receive the highest **five-star rating** for all years\n- New award: **TASBO Award for Excellence in Financial Management** — CISD is one of only **23 districts statewide** recognized\n\n### Peer District Comparison\n- **Instruction spending**: 63.22% of operating expenditures (middle of peer group)\n- **Transportation**: Highest among peers due to geographic size (348 sq mi) and transporting 55% of students\n- **General Administration**: Lowest expenditures among peers\n- **Facilities Maintenance & Operations**: Highest — attributed to maintenance items cut from the last bond referendum being funded from the general fund\n- **Operating expenditures per student**: $8,748 — one of the lowest among peers\n- **Golden/Copper Pennies**: CISD and Klein access only 5 cents; peers like Fort Bend (~11¢) and Katy (~16¢) access more\n\n### Discussion: Voter-Approval Tax Rate Election (VATRE)\n- Board members asked why CISD doesn't access more golden pennies\n- Dr. Null explained it would require a VATRE, which is difficult to explain to voters compared to tangible bond items\n- Recent local VATRE failures: Magnolia and Klein both failed ~4-5 years ago\n- **College Station** recently passed one tied specifically to a 4% raise for all staff (2 pennies)\n- Dr. Null suggested a VATRE could be considered in the future, potentially after a November bond election, with clear messaging tied to employee compensation\n\n### Legislative Update\n\n#### Property Tax Relief Bills\n- **House approach** (HB): Additional 15¢ M&O compression + 5% appraisal cap on all real property ($17.3B cost)\n- **Senate approach** (SB): 7¢ additional compression + homestead exemption increase from $40K to $70K + $30K over-65/disabled exemption increase ($16.5B cost)\n\n#### Key Bills Being Tracked\n\n**HB 100 (King):**\n- $50 increase to basic allotment (~$4.5M for CISD)\n- 50% must go to teacher raises (equates to ~1% raise for teachers only)\n- Transportation allotment increase from $1.00 to $1.54/mile (~$2.5M for CISD)\n\n**HB 11 (Dutton):**\n- Teacher residency partnership program\n- Expands Pre-K eligibility to children of teachers (Dr. Null noted space constraints)\n- Grant program for TRS costs related to retired teachers\n- Teacher Incentive Allotment enhancements\n\n**HB 5170 (Dutton):**\n- Removes appropriation limits on fast growth allotment (~$5M additional revenue)\n- $50 basic allotment increase with inflation factor (TBD)\n\n**SB 8 — Vouchers:**\n- Dr. Null stated firmly: **\"There is nothing positive in a voucher system for Conroe ISD.\"**\n- He argued it would create a parallel system with zero accountability to taxpayers and zero state mandates, calling it \"completely unfair\"\n- Expressed confidence in CISD's schools and programs but insisted competition must be fair\n\n**⚠️ SB 9 (Creighton) — FLAGGED AS MOST CONCERNING:**\n- Districts **over 20,000 students**: teachers receive **$2,000 raise**\n- Districts **under 20,000 students**: teachers receive **$6,000 raise**\n- **Impact on CISD**: Every teacher in Montgomery County would get $6,000 EXCEPT Conroe ISD teachers ($2,000 only)\n- CISD would **immediately become the lowest-paid district in Montgomery County**\n- No funding mechanism identified; current cost estimate: $2 billion\n- Dr. Null described this as **\"the most dangerous bill\"** for CISD and more immediately harmful than voucher legislation\n- He has engaged directly with Senator Creighton and his staff, offering alternatives:\n  - Increase basic allotment substantially with 80% mandated for teacher raises\n  - Move funding from ADA to enrollment-based\n  - Apply population-based county caps instead of district-size thresholds\n- Board members expressed serious concern; noted CISD has ~4,000 non-teacher employees who would receive nothing under this bill\n- No companion bill identified in the House\n- Dr. Null confirmed he informed Senator Creighton's office this would be presented publicly\n\n#### School Safety Bills (189 bills being considered)\n- Current safety allotment: $9.72/ADA (~$650K for CISD)\n- Proposals range from $10 to $100/ADA increases\n- **HB 3 (Burroughs)**: $15K per campus (~$1M additional); requires armed school safety officer at every campus during school hours — would cost ~$3M and require 38 additional officers\n- Concerns raised about officer availability and proper training for school environments\n- Brief discussion of school chaplain bills (SB 7623) and school marshal programs\n\n### Budget Goals & Challenges\n\n**Objectives:**\n- Open **Hines Elementary**, **new Moorhead Junior High**, and retrofit **Veterans Memorial Intermediate**\n- Competitive compensation plan\n- Safe learning environment\n- Absorb ESSER positions into general fund\n\n**Challenges:**\n- Legislative uncertainty\n- Unprecedented growth: **~2,600 students/year**\n- No funding mechanism for raises or inflation\n- **ESSER funding cliff**: 225 positions ($16M) currently ESSER-funded\n- No funding mechanism for employee retention stipend\n\n### Fund Balance\n- 2022 budget: ~$620M\n- Projected unassigned fund balance at 8/31/23: **$176M**\n- 20% target: ~$124M\n- Board previously designated **$18.8M for bond contingency** (unused) and **$30M for land purchases**\n- Actual capacity: ~$3.4M\n- If bond passes, reimbursement resolution could return $30M to fund balance\n- Extensive board discussion about the $30M land decision and its impact on employee compensation options\n\n### Attendance & Enrollment Data\n- **Projected 2023-24 enrollment**: 73,394 (growth of 2,600)\n- **ADA estimate**: 92.5% of enrollment\n- Pre-COVID ADA was ~94%; each 1% = ~$4M in revenue\n- Current enrollment as of 4/4/23: **71,440** (up 21 since 3/29)\n- Growth is coming from everywhere — local, out of state, international\n- Significant discussion about build-to-rent communities driving growth, particularly around Hope Elementary\n- Discussion about developers and land costs; CISD struggles to get favorable pricing\n\n### Property Values & Funding Formula\n- Using **10% growth** estimate; total certified value projected at **$57.3B**\n- **Key message repeatedly emphasized**: Increased property values generate NO net new revenue for the general fund due to state funding formula — state reduces its share dollar for dollar\n- This slide has been shared with realtors, bond committee, and community publications\n- Board members encouraged continued wide communication of this fact\n\n### Tax Rate\n- Current total rate: **$1.1146** (M&O: $0.8546; Debt Service: $0.26)\n- Rate has decreased **16.54 cents** since 2018-19\n- CISD is the **second-lowest tax rate** in the greater Houston area\n- Current law projects additional ~5.5¢ compression; pending legislation could add 7-20¢ more\n- Discussion of \"no new revenue\" rate — would result in loss of golden pennies (~$45M+) and additional tier 2 penalties (~$10M+), totaling $55M+ in losses\n\n### Revenue & Expenditure Estimates\n\n**Revenue increase**: $48.35M\n- Local revenue (AV growth): $13.1M (offset by $13.1M state reduction)\n- State funding increase (enrollment + golden penny yield): $43.6M\n- Interest income increase: $3M\n- TRS on-behalf (accounting entry): $1.75M\n\n**Expenditure increase**: $48.35M\n- **Additional personnel**: 437.3 FTEs for growth ($28.4M) + 107 FTEs district support ($6.3M) = **544.3 total FTEs ($34.7M)**\n- Key staffing changes:\n  - **K-4 student-teacher ratio reduced from 23:1 to 22:1** ($3M)\n  - Two instructional coaches per campus for reading/math ($4.5M net)\n  - Associate principal positions added at junior highs\n  - Campus administrator and counselor ratio changes ($3.2M + $1.5M)\n  - **Special education**: 27 district positions, 35 teaching units, 30 paraprofessional units, 18 behavioral units, 5 diagnosticians ($5M total)\n  - 46 auxiliary positions (bus drivers, custodians, maintenance)\n  - 225 ESSER positions absorbed (~$16M)\n- Reading academy stipends, summer school, teacher pipeline (from ESSER): $2.1M\n- Inflation adjustment: $3.5M\n- Portable buildings: $3M\n- Software costs: $1M\n- Other (utilities, fuel, insurance, supplies): $2.3M\n- TRS on-behalf: $1.75M\n\n**Result: Balanced budget at $671.65M** — but with **NO employee raises included**\n\n### Compensation Discussion\n- TASBO compensation study completed; results to be shared with board\n- Raise scenarios presented:\n  - **2% raise**: ~$11.5M (all employees)\n  - **5% raise**: ~$24.4M (all employees)\n- Historical raises averaged 2-2.5%, with some years reaching 3.5-4%\n- **Retention stipend** ($1,500/employee: $500 fall, $1,000 spring): ~$13.25M — **NOT included in current budget**\n- Board expressed significant concern about inability to fund raises without legislative action\n- Discussion about the difference between salary increases (compounding, permanent) vs. retention stipends (one-time)\n- Strategy: Release positions early so principals can hire; any additional state funding can be directed entirely to raises\n\n### Benefits Plan Design\n- **No premium increases recommended** for 2023-24\n- **No plan design changes**\n- Self-funded insurance fund balance: **$6.2M** (expected to increase)\n- Current year performance through February: revenues exceed expenses by $1.8M\n- PBM change (approved last month) to Blue Cross Blue Shield saved **$2M+**\n- Gallagher/BCBS recommended 7% increase (~$365K) but district recommends status quo given strong plan performance and fund balance\n- Formal approval to come at April board meeting\n\n### Budget Timeline\n- May 2, 2023: Board workshop (if needed based on legislative action)\n- June 6, 2023: Board workshop with more complete budget\n- July 12: Presentation to District-Level Planning & Decision-Making Committee\n- July 18: Board meeting for committee recommendation\n- August 1: First public hearing on budget and tax rate\n- August 15: Second public hearing; board adoption of budget and tax rate\n\n---\n\n## Item 3: Bond Planning Committee Update\n**Presented by: Dr. Null, Sarah (Bond Committee Coordinator), and Mr. McCord (Operations)**\n\n### Committee Process\n- Committee members have been highly engaged; attendance averaging ~100-110 per meeting\n- Voting membership: **148** (6 removed for non-attendance)\n- Consensus threshold set at **66%** by the committee\n- School tours being offered to committee members\n- All materials available on district website\n\n### Meeting 5: Transportation & Safety/Security (March 9 at Oak Ridge HS)\n\n**Transportation:**\n- 348 square miles; 6.4M annual miles; 55% of enrollment transported\n- 3rd highest % of enrollment transported among 24 largest TX districts\n- **Over 1/3 of bus fleet exceeds 12-15 year life expectancy**\n- Nearly 2/3 will be at upper end of life expectancy within 4 years\n- New bus cost: $131K (77-passenger); $118K (special needs)\n- 12 new buses just arrived (ordered October 2021)\n- Bus driver attendance at best levels in 4 years\n- Bus parking expansion costs:\n  - Conroe Transportation Center: 40 spaces\n  - Oak Ridge Transportation Center: 80 spaces (expensive due to underground detention)\n  - East County Transportation Center: 100 spaces\n\n**Safety & Security:**\n- Committee expressed strong interest; no specific dollar figure yet\n- Wide flexibility in what can be purchased with bond safety funds\n- Spending decisions would go through district safety committee, then board approval\n\n### Meeting 6: Physical & Technology Infrastructure\n\n**Physical Infrastructure:**\n- ~25% of chillers exceed life expectancy\n- ~50% of boilers exceed life expectancy\n- ~25% of air handlers exceed life expectancy\n- Over 50% of kitchen coolers and freezers exceed life expectancy\n- ~25% of 198 roof sections exceed life expectancy\n- **Total district infrastructure need: $222M**\n\n**Technology Infrastructure:**\n- ~$69M in needs (infrastructure/equipment only, not devices)\n- Critical for data safety/security and daily operations\n- Technology was cut from 2019 bond, creating ongoing deficit\n- Current annual technology funding: ~$5M (capital maintenance fund + previous bond allocation)\n\n### Meetings 6-7: Committee Package Building Exercise\n\nCommittee members worked individually and in table groups to build bond packages using provided worksheets. They are now voting on categories.\n\n### Proposed Bond Propositions Structure\n\n**Proposition A (Core Package):**\n- **New Schools**: Would exceed $1 billion alone; committee ranking exercise determining how many schools (ranges from 6-10 discussed)\n- **Additions**: Various options; committee still refining\n- **Major Renovations**: Including Woodlands HS (largest), Oak Ridge HS phases 2-3, Washington HS master plan (near-rebuild)\n- **Infrastructure**: $222M baseline strongly supported; committee understands consequences of cutting this category (as happened in 2019 bond)\n- **Safety & Security**: Range discussed from $25-35M (one group proposed $100M); state funding expected to supplement\n- **Land**: $50M floor ($36M already committed); committee deciding how far into future to fund\n- **Transportation**: Buses and center expansions\n- **Technology Infrastructure**: Strong consensus around $70M (full need)\n\n**Proposition B**: Technology devices (required by law to be separate)\n\n**Proposition C** (potential): Elementary gyms (~$5M each) and playgrounds (~$250K+ each) — committee chose to separate from Prop A to protect core package\n\n**Proposition D** (potential): Career & Technical Education programs\n\n**Proposition E** (potential): Athletics — including natatorium renovation and potential additional pool space\n\n### Notable Discussion Points\n- Dr. Null emphasized repeatedly that **Prop A must be protected** — should contain only clear necessities\n- Board member raised concern about **natatorium capacity** and suggested including a practice pool at the planned new high school to reduce busing and free up space at the main natatorium; Dr. Null agreed to get cost estimates\n- Concern expressed that too many propositions could hurt passage rates (historically A and B pass well; C and beyond see declining support)\n- Board discussed whether a pool would be better in Prop A (as essential facility) vs. Prop E (athletics, more vulnerable)\n\n### Bond Committee Timeline\n- **May 11**: Expected to have draft package largely finalized\n- **Summer**: Public feedback period\n- **July**: Return to committee with public feedback for potential adjustments\n- **August (first or third week)**: Final package presented to Board of Trustees\n- **August 21**: Deadline to call bond election for November ballot\n- Board has flexibility to modify the committee's recommendation\n\n---\n\n## Other Notable Items\n- **Happy birthday** acknowledged for board member Carrie Galatas\n- No votes were taken (workshop/informational session only)\n- Board members who attended recent bond committee meetings: Trustee Dunham (Oak Ridge) and Trustee Nelson (at CJHS)\n\n---\n\n## Meeting Adjourned\nBoard wished attendees a happy Easter."
}