{
  "id": "2023-06-06_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2023-06-06",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — June 6, 2023",
  "date_display": "June 6, 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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.083167Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2023-06-06\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 15:44 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees\n### Regular Meeting & Workshop – June 6, 2023\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## REGULAR MEETING (6:00 PM)\n\n### Opening\n- Meeting called to order at 6:00 PM by President Hubert with a quorum present\n- Invocation led by President Hubert; Pledge of Allegiance led by Melissa Duncan\n\n### Item 2A – Special Recognition\n**UIL 6A Academic State Champion – Nixon Gorka, The Woodlands High School**\n- Nixon Gorka recognized as the UIL 6A State Champion in Current Issues and Events\n- The event requires a 40-question objective test on any news topic since August 15th, plus an essay on an unknown topic (this year's prompt: Texas education and pending legislation)\n- Nixon also participated in Literary Criticism\n- She will attend the University of Oklahoma as a history major\n- Dr. Landry and UIL Academic Coordinator Laura Lanzibom presented the recognition\n- Both of Nixon's parents are Conroe ISD educators; the family is relocating to Athens, Texas\n- Dr. Noel acknowledged the parents' contributions as educators in the district\n\n### Citizen Participation\n- No citizens signed up to speak\n\n### Consent Agenda (Item 4)\n- **Motion to approve consent agenda as submitted**\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously**\n\n### Item 5A – Name Principal of San Jacinto Elementary\n- Dr. Noel recommended **Dr. Latori Jacobs** as the new principal of San Jacinto Elementary\n- Dr. Jacobs has served as assistant principal and was noted for her impact at the campus\n- She replaces Mrs. Allman who transferred to Suchma\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously**\n- Dr. Jacobs thanked multiple mentors including Dr. Taylor, Dr. Medford, Mrs. Haymark, Mrs. Allman, and Dr. Winkler\n\n### Item 5B – Name Principal of Glenlock Elementary\n- **Cassie Hertzenberg** acknowledged for transferring from Glenlock to Wilkinson Elementary\n- Dr. Noel recommended **Mrs. Chris Smith** (current assistant principal at Glenlock) as the new principal\n- Glenlock received an \"A\" rating; Chris Smith credited as integral to that success\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously**\n- Mrs. Smith noted her 22 years in Conroe ISD\n\n### Item 5C – Name Headmaster of Academy of Science and Technology\n- Dr. Noel recommended **Dr. Debra Criel** as the new Headmaster of the Academy of Science and Technology at College Park High School\n- She has served as the college and career counselor since 2006\n- She succeeds Dr. Susan Caffrey; the Academy has maintained sustained excellence for 18 years under Dr. Murrell's leadership as principal\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously**\n\n### Executive Session (Item 6)\n- Board entered closed session at 6:26 PM pursuant to Sections 551.071 and 551.074 of the Texas Open Meetings Act\n- Board returned to open session at 7:52 PM\n\n### Item 13A – Superintendent Evaluation and Contract\n- **Motion:** Extend the superintendent's contract for an additional year and make other amendments as discussed in executive session\n- **Vote: Approved unanimously**\n\n### Adjournment of Regular Meeting\n- Meeting adjourned; transitioned immediately to Workshop\n\n---\n\n## WORKSHOP SESSION (Approximately 8:00 PM)\n\n### Citizen Participation\n- No citizens signed up to speak\n\n### Item 1 – Budget Overview (Presented by Darren Garza, Karen Garza, Rick Reeves)\n\n#### Awards & Transparency\n- CISD continues to receive recognition from multiple organizations:\n  - State Comptroller's Transparency Program stars (first district in state in 2016)\n  - Texas Smart Schools: One of only 2 ISDs out of 1,200+ to receive highest 5-star rating for all 13 years\n  - ASBO and GFOA awards for excellence in financial reporting\n  - TASBO Purchasing Award of Merit (4th consecutive year)\n  - TASBO Excellence in Financial Management Award (one of only 23 districts statewide)\n\n#### Legislative Update\n- **HB 3 (School Safety):** Provides $10/ADA for safety (increase of $0.28/ADA) plus $15,000 per campus (~$1 million additional). However, requires an armed security officer at each campus, estimated to cost **$3 million** — a net loss of approximately $2 million\n- **Special Session:** Governor called special session for property tax relief and border security. Both House and Senate bills on property tax died — House bill died in Senate; Senate bill refused by House\n- **Key concern:** Tax compression means no new money for school district general fund\n- School district funding may not be addressed until **September**\n- Teachers noted as potentially the only government employees not receiving any raise this session\n\n#### Budget Objectives for 2023-2024\n- Opening three new campuses: **Heinz Elementary, Moorhead Junior High, and Veterans Memorial Intermediate**\n- Provide competitive compensation (pending legislative action)\n- Provide safe learning environment\n- Absorb approximately **225 ESSER-funded positions** (~$16 million) into the general fund\n- No funding mechanism exists for employee raises or inflation adjustment\n\n#### Fund Balance\n- District goal: Maintain 20-25% unassigned fund balance\n- Projected unassigned fund balance at end of August: **~$130 million** (just above 20%)\n- Approximately **$6.2 million** available for discretionary use\n- Reasons for maintaining 20%+: bond rating agencies require ~90 days of funding; state has historically delayed payments; required for TEA First Report calculations; provides disaster/insurance backstop\n- Fund balance is earning interest income\n\n#### Property Insurance Crisis\n- District received **non-renewal notice** from Affiliated Insurance (the only carrier that has bid in recent cycles)\n- Current premium: **~$3.2 million**\n- Other districts experiencing massive increases (Pasadena: $5+ million increase)\n- District insures approximately **$1.5 billion** in buildings; replacement cost estimated at potentially **$10 billion**\n- Deductible currently $100,000 per building per occurrence — likely to increase significantly\n- Self-insurance discussed as a possibility but not yet formally explored\n- Budget currently includes ~20% insurance increase; actual increase may exceed that\n\n#### Enrollment & Attendance\n- Estimated 2023-24 enrollment: **73,394** (increase of ~2,600 students)\n- Average daily attendance rate: **92.5%**\n- Actual 2022-23 enrollment on last day: **71,133**\n- Revenue is based on ADA (not enrollment), creating significant budget risk\n- Discussion about potential shift to enrollment-based funding — talked about in legislature for first time but no action taken\n- Consistent growth of ~3,000 students/year for last three years\n\n#### Property Values & Tax Rates\n- Certified property values estimated to increase **10%** in 2023, adding **$5.2 billion** (total: $57.3 billion)\n- **This provides NO net new revenue** to general fund — as local revenue increases, state funding decreases dollar-for-dollar\n- This dynamic has contributed to the state's **$33 billion surplus**\n- CISD tax rate: **$1.1146** (second lowest in Greater Houston area)\n  - M&O: $0.8546\n  - Debt Service: $0.26\n- Tax rate has decreased **$0.1654** since 2018-19\n- Current law (HB 3) would compress M&O by **5.5 cents** to $1.0597\n- Additional compression of 10-20 cents anticipated from special session legislation\n- **No New Revenue Rate** discussion: Adopting this rate would trigger a **$156 million loss** (equivalent to ~2,200 teachers) — not viable for school districts\n- **Golden Pennies:** 5 of 8 accessed (~$11.2M each); **Copper Pennies:** 0 of 9 accessed (~$4.3M each)\n\n#### Preliminary Budget\n- **Total estimated revenue: $672.68 million** (increase of $49.38M)\n- **Total estimated expenditures: $672.68 million** (balanced budget)\n- Key expenditure items:\n  - Personnel for growth: **$35.68 million** (556.3 new FTEs)\n    - Elementary class sizes reduced from 23:1 to 22:1\n    - ESSER positions absorbed: $16 million\n    - New special education positions: $5 million\n    - Additional instructional coaches for reading and math\n  - Reading Academy/summer school/teacher pipeline: $2.1 million\n  - Inflation adjustment (10% supply budget increase): $3.5 million\n  - Portable buildings: $3 million\n  - Software licenses: $1 million\n  - Utilities, fuel, insurance, supplies: $2.3 million\n  - **Salary increases: BLANK** (awaiting legislative action)\n- **NOT yet included:** ~$2 million for armed security officers (HB 3 requirement); potential insurance premium increase beyond 20%\n\n#### Armed Security Officers (HB 3 Requirement)\n- District needs approximately **33 additional officers** by September 1 deadline\n- District standard: certified police officers (higher than minimum HB 3 requirement)\n- Chief of Police provided assessment — district unlikely to meet 9/1 deadline\n- Competition for officers will intensify across all law enforcement agencies\n- Board will receive Chief's assessment\n\n#### Retention Stipend Discussion\n- Board discussed providing a retention stipend while awaiting legislative action on raises\n- **~$9 million in ESSER funds** available for retention stipend\n- Dr. Noel recommended a **$1,000 stipend** (two payments of $500 — potentially October and November/December)\n- Applied to **all employees** (not just teachers) — flat rate intentionally benefits lowest-wage employees most\n- ESSER III funds expire at end of 2023-24\n- Additional potential: If bond passes, **$36 million** currently assigned to land purchases in fund balance would be repaid with bond funds, potentially available for future stipends (would require budget amendment)\n- No legal prohibition on using ESSER funds for retention stipends confirmed\n\n#### Budget Timeline\n- July 12: District-Level Planning & Decision Making Committee meeting\n- July 18: Budget update to board\n- August 1: First public hearing\n- August 15: Second public hearing + budget and tax rate adoption\n\n---\n\n### Item 2 – Pay Plan Presentation (Amy Campbell, TASB HR Services)\n\n#### Market Analysis\n- 11th consecutive year TASB has worked with CISD\n- Analysis includes peer districts plus non-school market sources (for law enforcement, custodians, technology positions)\n- **Teachers:** Generally within 1% of market median at all experience levels; furthest below market at 5 and 10 years (~$575 below)\n- Average teacher salary is highest above market — indicates experienced, stable teacher workforce\n- **Stipends:** Master's degree above market; bilingual even with market; special ed slightly above; secondary math/science teachers have **no stipend** (half of peer districts offer one — noted as growing trend)\n- **Exempt (salaried) staff:** Within a few percentage points of market\n- **Non-exempt (hourly) staff:** At or slightly above market\n\n#### Pay Increase Scenarios\n- **Two models presented:** 2% and 3% (of market average teacher salary/midpoint)\n- Additional experience adjustments proposed:\n  - 15-19 years: +$500\n  - 20-24 years: +$750\n  - 25-29 years: +$1,000\n  - 30+ years: +$1,250\n- Cost of experience adjustments alone: ~$1.2-1.3 million\n\n**Cost Estimates:**\n\n| Model | General Pay Increase | Adjustments | Total |\n|-------|---------------------|-------------|-------|\n| 2% | ~$14M+ | ~$2M+ | ~$16M+ |\n| 3% | ~$18M+ | ~$1.3M+ | ~$19M+ |\n\n*(Exact figures from presentation; includes new positions)*\n\n#### Significant Board Discussion on Pay Communication\n- **\"Midpoint\" terminology** causes confusion — most teachers (especially experienced ones) are below or above the structural midpoint\n- Board members expressed concern that saying \"3% raise\" when it's 3% of midpoint (not 3% of individual salary) is misleading, especially for veteran teachers\n- **Recommendation adopted in discussion:** For teachers, communicate raises as a **flat dollar amount** (e.g., \"$1,900 raise\" or \"$2,900 with experience adjustment\") rather than a percentage\n- Board member Williams raised concern that the current method compounds the gap for experienced teachers over time\n- Amy Campbell confirmed this approach would be clearer and is consistent with how peer districts operate\n- Board member requested additional analysis showing:\n  - Net percentage increase with adjustments for each experience level\n  - Comparison to projected market position after raises\n  - Number of employees in each pay plan category\n\n#### Other Pay Plan Notes\n- Employee health insurance premiums: **No increase** (premiums staying the same)\n- Board expressed interest in seeing a **4-5% model** if funding allows\n- No action taken — awaiting legislative funding decisions\n- Districts that have pre-approved raises may face difficulties: if state mandates raises \"on top of\" existing raises, those districts could face deficit budgets\n\n---\n\n### Item 3 – Bond Planning Committee Update (Dr. Noel)\n\n#### Process\n- Large community committee with diverse representation\n- All materials publicly available on district website (full transparency)\n- Items required 66% committee vote for inclusion in bond package\n- Community feedback being collected; \"Coffees with Curtis\" events being scheduled\n- Committee will finalize recommendations July 17; presentation to board in August (date TBD — all 7 board members desired present)\n- Bond committee members will present directly to the board (not staff)\n\n#### Draft Bond Package — Five Propositions\n\n**Proposition A — Core Capacity & Infrastructure (~majority of $1.99B)**\n*New Schools (8) — Adding ~13,000 seats:*\n- Conroe area high school (3,800 students; relieves Conroe HS and northern Caney Creek)\n- Caney Creek 9th Grade Campus (242 corridor)\n- Conroe area junior high\n- Grand Oaks area 7-8/9 \"comma campus\" (designed to convert to 9th grade campus in future bond)\n- Woodlands feeder elementary (north of 1488/Old Conroe Road area)\n- 242 Corridor elementary (cross-feeder; relieves Caney Creek and Suchma feeders)\n- Conroe area intermediate\n- Grand Oaks area elementary\n\n*Additions (3 overcrowded schools):*\n- McCullough: +500 seats\n- Haley & Ford: additional seats\n- Total: ~700 additional seats\n\n*Major Renovations:* The Woodlands HS, Knox, Oak Ridge 9, San Jacinto, Creighton\n\n*Master Plans (building function changes):* Oak Ridge HS (Phase 2 only; Phase 3 deferred to future bond), Washington HS — 2,600 seats impacted\n\n*Also included:* Infrastructure (mechanicals, plumbing, HVAC at older schools), safety upgrades (door locks, glass film, fencing — all campuses), land for bond schools and potentially future bonds, transportation (new buses + facility expansion), technology infrastructure\n\n**Proposition B — Technology Devices: $40 million**\n- Required by law to be standalone proposition\n- Chromebooks, iPads, etc.\n- District is behind on replacement cycle after 2019 bond failure cut all tech devices\n\n**Proposition C — AG Barns & Elementary Gyms**\n- AG Barns: Expansion of Otwell (Oak Ridge/Grand Oaks); improvements to Boothe Road (Woodlands/College Park); new barn at fairgrounds (Conroe, Caney Creek, new HS)\n  - **Highest-voted item by committee: 95% approval**\n- Elementary Gyms: Two options under consideration\n  - Option 1: 8 gyms (half of schools without)\n  - Option 2: 16 gyms (all schools without) — committee leaning toward Option 2\n  - Woodlands area particularly impacted by lack of gyms\n\n**Proposition D — Pool/Natatorium**\n- Two options under consideration:\n  - Option 1: Outdoor covered 50-meter pool at existing natatorium + locker room expansion\n  - Option 2: Indoor 25-yard pool at new Conroe HS (less water, not competition-capable, but reduces travel for Conroe/Caney Creek students)\n- Current single pool is completely booked; UIL added water polo\n- Committee to select one option before presenting to board\n\n**Proposition E — Artificial Turf for Baseball/Softball (UNDECIDED)**\n- 5 schools currently without; 1 with\n- Committee has not decided whether to include\n- Some concern about having 5 propositions potentially confusing voters\n\n#### Financial Impact\n- **Maximum total: $1.99 billion**\n- **Estimated tax rate impact: 2 cents**\n- With anticipated 15+ cent tax rate compression, net effect would still be a **tax rate decrease**\n- Impact on average home ($308,000): approximately **$5/month ($61/year)**\n\n#### Comparison to Neighboring Districts\n- Every Montgomery County district has passed a bond in the last 9 months\n- Per-student comparisons show CISD's package is conservative:\n  - Splendora: equivalent to CISD doing $3.7B\n  - Montgomery: equivalent to $2.5B\n  - New Caney (May 2023, passed ~65%): equivalent to $2.9B\n- Even with 2-cent increase, CISD would remain **second-lowest tax rate** in Greater Houston\n\n#### Initial Community Feedback (Conroe Chamber luncheon, 46 respondents)\n- Support for bond at 2-cent impact: **96% yes**\n- Gyms preference: **89% said do all 16**\n- Pool option: **55% preferred Option 1** (at natatorium) — notable given this was a Conroe audience\n- Include artificial turf proposition: **63% said yes**\n\n---\n\n### Workshop Adjournment\n- Workshop adjourned at approximately 10:00 PM\n\n---\n\n## KEY TAKEAWAYS\n\n1. **Superintendent contract extended** one additional year — unanimous vote\n2. **Three new principals named** unanimously: Dr. Latori Jacobs (San Jacinto Elementary), Mrs. Chris Smith (Glenlock Elementary), Dr. Debra Criel (AST Headmaster)\n3. **Budget is balanced at $672.68M** but contains **no salary increases** pending legislative action\n4. **Property insurance crisis**: Non-renewal from only carrier; significant premium increase expected\n5. **Retention stipend of $1,000** (two $500 payments) being considered using remaining ESSER funds (~October/November)\n6. **Armed security officer mandate** will cost ~$3M with only ~$1M in state funding; 33 officers needed; unlikely to meet 9/1 deadline\n7. **Pay raises on hold** until legislature acts; board directed staff to communicate teacher raises as dollar amounts, not percentages\n8. **$1.99 billion bond package** drafted with 5 propositions; estimated 2-cent tax rate impact; bond committee to present final recommendation in August for potential November ballot\n9. **AG barns** were the highest-voted bond item (95% of committee)\n10. Several bond items still undecided: number of elementary gyms (8 vs. 16), pool location, and whether to include artificial turf proposition"
}