{
  "id": "2024-02-06_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2024-02-06",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 6, 2024",
  "date_display": "February 6, 2024",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.273833Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2024-02-06\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 16:36 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees\n### Workshop Meeting — February 6, 2024\n\n> **Note:** These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript. Some portions of the transcript were inaudible or unclear, particularly during the School Improvement Department presentation. Notes should be verified against official minutes.\n\n---\n\n## Meeting Called to Order\n- **Time:** 6:02 PM\n- **Quorum confirmed**; notice posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act\n- **Public Comment:** No citizens signed up to address the board\n- **Meeting adjourned:** 8:43 PM\n\n---\n\n## Item 1: No Action — No Public Comments\n\nNo members of the public signed up to speak.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2: GMP Process for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) Projects\n\n**Presenter:** Mr. Foster (Construction/Facilities)\n\n### Overview of the GMP Development Process\nMr. Foster explained how the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is generated for CMAR projects, addressing a question from a previous board meeting about why the district shares budget information with contractors.\n\n**Key points:**\n- **Bond Planning:** The district uses benchmark projects (typically elementary schools built repeatedly) to develop cost estimates based on historical costs, industry data, and current market conditions. These estimates are presented to the bond committee, then to the board, and ultimately to voters.\n- **All-in Costs:** Bond amounts voters approve include design, construction, and outfitting for teaching — not just construction alone.\n- **CMAR Selection Process:** After architects are selected, the district advertises for a CMAR. Up to five firms can be invited (the legal maximum). Firms compete on three fee components:\n  1. **Preconstruction Services Fee** — A lump sum (typically ~$20,000–$30,000 for an elementary) for working with architects during design, doing constructability reviews, and estimating.\n  2. **Construction Fee** — The firm's corporate profit margin (percentage of construction cost).\n  3. **General Conditions** — Monthly costs for superintendent, project manager, job trailer, portable toilets, etc. (~40-50 line items provided by the district for apples-to-apples comparison).\n- **Current Market Conditions:** Fees from competing firms have been very close together (within ~1% spread on larger projects, ~2% on smaller ones). The market is highly competitive.\n- **Example:** Two projects received fees today — one ~$30 million and one ~$13 million construction target. Historical elementary school construction fees have been around 1.5%.\n- **Evaluation:** Price accounts for 20 out of 100 points in the selection scoring. The lowest bidder receives 20 points; others are proportionally reduced based on distance from the low bid. All three fee components are combined into the price score.\n\n### Collaborative Design and Bidding\n- Once the team is assembled, the district, architect, and CMAR work collaboratively on plans. The contractor's presence allows real-time cost feedback on design options.\n- When plans are sufficiently complete, trade work is competitively bid. CISD handles advertisement; bids are submitted to the CMAR with a CISD representative present. The district retains copies of all bids.\n- **January Example:** Two elementary schools were bid on January 12 with Marshall Construction. After bid day \"scrubbing,\" both projects are meeting their budget targets, with potential to come in under what was promised to voters.\n\n### Financial Accountability\n- Mr. Foster emphasized post-construction financial review as his \"favorite part\": every charge is reviewed by CISD, internal audit, and external auditors before final payment. Any charge not benefiting the district can be struck.\n\n### Board Discussion\n- **Trustee Odenweller** asked several clarifying questions about the fee structure, confirming that the construction fee is the primary profit margin and that general conditions include markup (not strictly at-cost).\n- Discussion clarified that the CMAR contract is **not** a cost-plus arrangement.\n- Board members expressed surprise at the relatively low profit margins (around 1.5%), which Mr. Foster confirmed is typical in the current competitive market.\n\n---\n\n## Item 3: Budget Update and Forecast\n\n**Presenters:** Mr. Darren Rice (CFO), Ms. Garza, Mr. Reeves\n\n### Recognition of Mr. Rice\nDr. Null publicly acknowledged that **Mr. Rice has announced his retirement** effective end of summer 2024. Dr. Null praised his long career and accomplishments, including CISD being the first school district to receive all Transparency Stars and maintaining a low tax rate while supporting student success.\n\n---\n\n### 88th Legislative Session Recap\n\n**What the Legislature Did:**\n- Passed school safety bill (HB 3) — provided small additional safety funding\n- Passed property tax relief bill (SB 2) — 10.7 cents additional M&O compression + homestead exemption increase from $40K to $100K (~$18 billion cost to the state)\n- This was a **shift** in funding contribution from local districts to the state — **no net new revenue** for school districts\n\n**What the Legislature Did NOT Do:**\n- No additional funding for employee raises\n- No additional funding to address inflation/rising education costs\n- Various models during the session projected anywhere from $50 to $350 increase in the basic allotment (every $100 increase = ~$30 million for CISD), but none passed\n- Voucher issues were a significant impediment to school finance legislation passing\n\n---\n\n### 2023-2024 Budget Recap\n\n**Budget Challenges at Adoption:**\n- Unprecedented growth (3,000+ students in prior two years)\n- No state funding mechanism for raises or inflation\n- ESSER funding cliff: ~225 positions ($16 million) absorbed into general fund\n- Certified property values: $54.9 billion (5.26% growth, accounting for new $100K homestead exemption)\n- Tax rate: $0.9621 (15.25 cent decrease)\n- Balanced budget adopted\n\n**Enrollment Variance:**\n- Enrollment came in approximately **900 students short** of projections\n- However, **weighted funding** from growth in special education, bilingual, and economically disadvantaged populations **offset** the revenue shortfall\n- Dr. Null noted predicting PreK and Kindergarten enrollment is nearly impossible since those students aren't yet in the system\n\n**Expenditure Concerns (Potential $23.5 Million Over Budget):**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| November 2023 employee raise (no state funding) | $15 million |\n| Payroll accrual adjustment (will reverse next year) | $4 million |\n| Teacher Incentive Allotment growth (95 new teachers; pass-through with offsetting revenue) | — |\n| Additional special education personnel | $1.5 million |\n| Montgomery CAD fee increase (operations + software) | $1 million |\n| Property insurance increase | Included |\n| **Total potential overage** | **~$23.5 million** |\n\n- Beginning unassigned fund balance: $153.8 million\n- Projected end-of-year unassigned fund balance: ~$130.4 million\n\n**Fund Balance Analysis:**\n- Target (20% of budget): $134.5 million\n- Projected balance at 8/31/24: ~$130.4 million (below target)\n- If projected forward to end of 2024-25 with recurring $15M raise cost: **~$19 million below** the 20% target (not accounting for any other increases)\n\n**Possible Solutions:**\n1. **Legislative action** (most permanent solution)\n2. **Return bond contingency fund** ($18.8 million moved to capital projects for Conroe HS potential overage) — Mr. Foster's team believes savings/interest within the bond program can cover that overage, allowing the funds to return to general fund. **However, this is one-time money.**\n3. Weighted funding offsets (~$6.5 million)\n\n---\n\n### Medicaid/SHARS Funding Reduction\n\n- CISD participates in the SHARS (School Health and Related Services) program for Medicaid reimbursement\n- Projected ~$10 million in Medicaid revenue this year (not included in regular operating budget due to program instability)\n- $5 million in expenditures charged against this revenue (primarily special education positions)\n- **In December, the state announced a $300 million statewide reduction** due to a failed 2017 audit (appeal lost)\n- **CISD's share: ~$5 million reduction**\n- **Net result: Zero Medicaid funding** for the year\n- This eliminates a supplemental funding source previously used to cover unexpected costs (e.g., prior year's $2.85M phonics purchase, portable purchases)\n- Board requested the list of 12-13 health-related service categories that generate this funding\n\n---\n\n### Special Education and Weighted Funding Discussion\n\n- Significant growth in special education, bilingual, early education, and economically disadvantaged populations\n- CISD spends **194% of state allotment** on special education (required minimum: 55%)\n- Economically disadvantaged population increasing ~3% per year\n- Board requested **trend analysis data** on special population growth over the past 5 years\n- Discussion about the challenge of new PreK/Kindergarten students arriving with unidentified special needs — they enter as general education students and don't generate special education funding until identified\n\n---\n\n### Property Value Study — SIGNIFICANT CONCERN\n\n**Background:**\n- State Comptroller conducts annual property value studies to verify local appraisal district values\n- Local values must be within 95%–105% of state values\n- Used by TEA to calculate state funding (higher local values = higher local contribution = less state funding)\n\n**Current Situation:**\n- **Tax Year 2023 preliminary results (released January 31): Montgomery CAD values found INVALID at 94.7%** — just 0.3 percentage points below the 95% threshold\n- This is Year 2 — CISD was in a **grace period** in Year 1 (also failed but no financial impact)\n- **State values are $3.5 billion higher** than locally assessed values\n- **Potential impact: $33 million funding loss** if state values are assigned\n\n**Appeal Process:**\n- 40-day appeal window from January 31 release date\n- CISD's delinquent tax attorneys (already under contract — no additional cost) are handling the appeal\n- They were already working on it before CISD called\n- The appraisal district and attorneys **feel confident** the appeal will succeed but **cannot guarantee** the outcome\n- Could take until **late summer** to resolve (multi-level appeal process)\n- Four school districts in Montgomery County failed: CISD and Splendora (Year 2, off grace), Willis and Montgomery (Year 1, in grace period)\n\n**Key Points from Discussion:**\n- CISD has **no control** over this process — it's between the Comptroller and MCAD\n- If state values are used, CISD would be the entity penalized despite having no role in property valuations\n- The appraisal district will likely need to be more aggressive on commercial and vacant lot valuations\n- MCAD's new software may help going forward\n- Board requested historical data on the Year 1 gap for comparison\n- Dr. Null emphasized transparency: \"If it doesn't get fixed and we got to roll in here in August and tell you we have a $33 million shortfall, I didn't want y'all looking at us going why didn't you tell us\"\n\n---\n\n### 2024-2025 Preliminary Budget Assumptions\n\n| Category | Assumption |\n|----------|-----------|\n| Enrollment growth | 1,550 students (scaled back from prior projections) → 74,000 total |\n| ADA percentage | 92.5% |\n| Certified property value growth | 5.75% (considered conservative; last year was 10%+ before homestead exemption) |\n| Projected tax rate | Flat at $0.9621; likely to **decrease** if AV growth exceeds 5.75% |\n| M&O compression | 2 cents (per state law) |\n| Debt service increase | 2 cents (from $0.26 to $0.28, approved by voters with 2023 bond) |\n\n**Raise Scenarios Presented (No Funding Available for Any):**\n\n| Scenario | Cost |\n|----------|------|\n| Teacher hiring schedule years-of-service adjustment only | $1.6 million |\n| Additional raise scenarios | Various costs shown (specific amounts partially inaudible) |\n\n- **Recommendation:** At minimum, do the $1.6M years-of-service adjustment to maintain a functioning pay schedule (prevents new external hires from making more than existing teachers)\n- Dr. Null stated clearly: **\"There is no money for any of these\"** — no state funding exists to support raises\n\n**Preliminary 2024-25 Budget Projection:**\n\n*Revenue Side:*\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning revenue | $672.7 million |\n| Local revenue increase (AV growth, capped at 2.5%) | $10.5 million |\n| State funding (net of ADA/AV adjustments) | $6.3 million |\n| Golden penny yield increase | $1.5 million |\n| Teacher Incentive Allotment (pass-through) | $1.0 million |\n| TRS in-kind accounting entry | $1.75 million |\n| **Total revenue increase** | **$21.1 million** |\n\n*Expenditure Side:*\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning amended expenditure budget | $694.3 million |\n| Additional personnel for growth (includes Bartlett Elementary opening) | $7.5 million |\n| Teacher hiring schedule adjustment | $1.6 million |\n| Virtual Academy (ESSER funding expiring August 2024) | $1.3 million |\n| Teacher Incentive Allotment offset | $1.0 million |\n| Other (MCAD fees, insurance, utilities, fuel) | Various |\n| TRS in-kind offset | Included |\n| **Total expenditure increase** | **$16.2 million** |\n\n- **Projected deficit for 2024-25:** Approximately **$16.6 million** (does not include the potential $18.8M bond contingency return)\n\n**Notable Discussion:**\n- **Virtual Academy:** If the board decides to continue the program, $1.3M must come from the general fund as ESSER funding expires\n- **PTO Days:** Trustee Odenweller asked about adding PTO days as non-monetary compensation; CISD went from 2 to 5 district-provided days a few years ago. Dr. Null agreed to look into costs/implications of adding more days.\n- The new school calendar includes \"exchange days\" to give teachers some flexibility\n\n---\n\n### 2023 Bond Sale Proceeds and Interest Earnings\n\n- Bond proceeds received **today** (February 6, 2024)\n- Proceeds remain in the bank earning interest until disbursed for projects\n- **Estimated interest earnings over 5 years: ~$62 million** (net of arbitrage limitations)\n- Interest must be spent on same proposition items where earned\n- ~$10 million of the estimated $10.4 million available is from **Proposition A** (buses and land)\n- Dr. Null: \"Buses and land never go out of style\" — purchasing these items with interest earnings reduces future bond needs\n- Board will receive future updates as interest is realized\n\n---\n\n## Item 4: School Improvement Department Update\n\n**Presenters:** Mr. Fuller, Mr. McCord, Dr. Upshaw, Ms. Stewart, Ms. Blake-Loock, and team\n\n> **Note:** Significant portions of this presentation were inaudible in the transcript due to audio issues. Notes below reflect what could be discerned.\n\n### Department Overview\n- One of CISD's **newest departments**, starting in 2017-2018 as a one-person \"triage unit\" for struggling campuses\n- Has grown into a comprehensive school improvement, leadership development, and data monitoring operation\n\n### Leadership Development\n- **Principal turnover is significant:** ~45% of principals are within their first four years\n- Department runs annual leadership conferences, mentoring, data review meetings, and campus threat assessment meetings\n- Expanding into central office leadership exploration and a community collaborative program\n- **Learning Excellence Framework** — a 4-5 year strategic plan for building leadership capacity, encompassing data-driven instruction and observations\n\n### Accountability Results\n- In 2017-18, CISD had significant numbers of campuses on Improvement Required lists\n- Progressively improved: from removing 1 campus in 2017-18 to significant improvement by 2023\n- **Results Driven Accountability (RDA):** This is the **first year CISD received all \"1\" ratings** (lowest/best score) across all special population categories (bilingual, ESL, special education groups)\n\n### SILT Hub Data Dashboard\n- **New this year** — School Improvement Leadership Transformation hub\n- Built using Google tools (**free**)\n- Allows central office to monitor campus-level academic data in near real-time from a \"30,000-foot view\" without being physically on campus\n- **Features:**\n  - Campus-by-campus data visualization\n  - Grade-level and teacher-level drill-down\n  - Growth matrix comparing STAAR data to current assessments\n  - Ability to identify specific students who have lost performance and develop targeted interventions\n  - Internal communication/notes system between departments\n  - Campus improvement plan monitoring\n- **Data is real but was masked for the presentation** to protect student/teacher/school identity\n- **Not public** — internal leadership tool only\n- **Teachers also have access** to their own classroom dashboards for tracking student growth\n\n### Assessment Discussion\nBoard members engaged in significant discussion about testing frequency and types:\n\n**Assessment Types Used:**\n| Type | Description | Frequency |\n|------|-------------|-----------|\n| Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) | 10-15 items (secondary) or 8-10 items (elementary); standards-aligned to scope and sequence | 3 district-created per year + campus-created as needed |\n| Interim Assessments | State-created; allow comparison with districts statewide; replaced former \"benchmarks\" | 2 per year |\n| Campus/Teacher Assessments | Individual or team-created unit assessments | Varies by campus |\n\n- **Estimated total:** ~6 CFAs + 2 interims per year = testing approximately every 2-3 weeks\n- District leadership emphasized the goal is to **reduce** overall testing by making data more precise and actionable\n- Data is not shared with any outside providers or publishers (protected by FERPA)\n- Board members expressed concern about testing frequency and its impact on instructional time and teacher satisfaction/retention\n\n### Board Discussion Highlights\n- **Trustee Dung** raised questions about how the board can evaluate district/campus performance when formative data differs from summative (STAAR) data, noting the inherent lag in accountability reporting\n- Dr. Null clarified that STAAR results (summative data) are what the board sees, and they always lag by approximately one year\n- Discussion briefly touched on **District of Innovation** renewal (separate from this agenda item) — Dr. Null noted it could potentially allow moving teachers off 187-day contracts to 10-month contracts in the future\n- **Trustee Odenweller** asked about the relationship between this data work and teacher retention/satisfaction, noting the nationwide teacher retention crisis\n- Dr. Upshaw acknowledged that building teacher trust in district-created assessments takes time, and that involving teachers in writing CFAs has helped build transparency\n\n---\n\n## Key Takeaways and Items to Watch\n\n1. **No votes were taken** — this was a workshop/informational session\n2. **Property Value Study appeal** could have a **$33 million impact** if not resolved; results expected by late summer\n3. **2024-25 budget faces a ~$16.6 million projected deficit** before any raises, driven primarily by the unfunded 2023-24 raise becoming a recurring cost\n4. **Medicaid/SHARS funding effectively zeroed out** for this year ($5M reduction from failed state audit)\n5. **$18.8 million bond contingency** recommended to be moved back to general fund (one-time money)\n6. **~$62 million in bond interest earnings** projected over 5 years; available for buses, land, and future debt avoidance\n7. **Virtual Academy** faces a funding decision — $1.3M must shift to general fund if continued\n8. **CFO Darren Rice retiring** end of summer 2024\n9. **Legislative action** remains the most critical long-term solution for district funding challenges\n10. **School Improvement Department** showing strong results — first year of all \"1\" RDA ratings; new SILT Hub data dashboard operational\n\n---\n\n*Meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM. No action items were voted on during this workshop session.*"
}