August 4, 2026 — Special Meeting
View interactive version → ↓ Board Packet PDF
Conroe ISD Board of Trustees – Unofficial Meeting Notes
Date: August 4, 2026
Type: Special Meeting
Time: Called to order 5:00 PM; Adjourned 8:48 PM
Meeting Highlights
Summary generated 2026-08-05 21:20 UTC
- The board approved the 2026–2027 Student Code of Conduct along with meeting minutes and routine HR/personnel items as part of the consent agenda (vote carried, count not specified).
- The board approved interlocal agreements with HCDE for music therapy evaluations (approximately $5,800 annually, serving ~20 students) and for 20 seats at the Academic Behavior School West, voted 6–0.
- The board authorized the superintendent to negotiate and execute an amendment to the HPM Construction audit contract expanding its scope to active construction projects, not to exceed $55,000, voted 6–0.
- The board received a detailed presentation on the proposed 2026–2027 M&O budget of approximately $769.65 million, which staff described as balanced at a flat tax rate of $0.9496; formal adoption is scheduled for August 18, 2026.
- The proposed budget includes no raises for FY27; a 1% raise across all staff would cost approximately $9 million, and multiple board members expressed concern about CISD falling behind neighboring districts on compensation.
- The district's unassigned fund balance is projected at approximately $146.9 million at the end of FY26, roughly $7.1 million below the board's 20% floor target.
- The board received a report on a projected $6.2 million debt service shortfall for FY27, driven in part by property value growth of only 0.58% and a legislative change to the bond homestead exemption hold-harmless provision; Trustee Horton expressed opposition to redirecting M&O compression savings to cover the gap.
- The district's Teacher Incentive Allotment plan received TEA approval on the day of the meeting, with projected revenue increasing to approximately $5.2 million in FY27.
Overview
This special meeting of the Conroe ISD Board of Trustees focused primarily on a lengthy budget training and financial presentation covering the district's proposed 2026–2027 budget, followed by routine consent agenda items and one administrative action item. The meeting ran approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes.
Board Training: Budget and School Finance
General Counsel Presentation — Board Roles and State Funding Formulas
District general counsel (Ms. Belau) opened with a training session on board fiduciary responsibilities and how Texas school finance formulas determine district funding.
Board Responsibilities Covered:
- Annual budget adoption (required by September 1; planned for August 18)
- Setting and voting on the tax rate (requires at least 60% board approval)
- Ensuring an annual independent audit (results reported to TEA as the Financial Integrity Rating System, or FIRST report)
- Overseeing contracting and purchasing policies
- Ongoing monitoring of fiscal performance
Tier One Funding:
The state calculates a district's entitlement through a series of allotments. The largest is the Regular Program Allotment: approximately 58,000 students in average daily attendance × $6,215 (the basic allotment) = approximately $363 million, representing roughly 50% of the district's formula funding. The board reviewed a detailed worksheet listing allotments from Lines 21–47.
Board members and staff discussed several areas where allotments do not cover actual costs:
- Special Education (Line 23): The district receives approximately $87–89 million but spends approximately $118 million — a gap of roughly $30 million. Staff explained the "disability penalty," in which students pulled from the regular classroom for special education services reduce the Regular Program Allotment by the equivalent of their time away, while the special education allotment does not fully make up the difference. This creates an estimated $20 million loss in the basic allotment alone. Board members expressed concern that the legislature may not be following statute on proportionality of funding.
- Transportation (Line 36): The district receives approximately $7 million but actual costs are approximately $27–35 million — a gap of approximately $20–28 million.
- Dyslexia and Early Education: Additional underfunded areas were noted.
Special Education Testing Costs: The state provides $1,000 per initial evaluation; actual district cost is over $3,000 per evaluation. The district conducted approximately 2,500 initial evaluations in the past school year. Some students evaluated are not enrolled in CISD (e.g., students preparing ESA applications).
Tier Two Funding:
- The district accesses all five available "golden pennies" (0.05 cents) without a voter-approved election, generating an entitlement of approximately $61 million ($28 million local / $33 million state). Board members discussed that accessing pennies beyond 5 would require a voter-approved tax rate election (VATRE).
Interest and Sinking (I&S) Fund:
- The proposed I&S tax rate is $0.2825, generating approximately $161 million locally plus $26 million in state homestead exemption subsidy, for a total of approximately $187 million in debt service revenue.
Overall Tax Rate:
- Proposed combined tax rate for 2026–2027: $0.9496 (flat from current year)
- M&O: $0.6671 (Tier 1 MCR of $0.6171 + 5 enrichment pennies)
- I&S: $0.2825
- The MCR (maximum compressed rate) is set by TEA; the board has discretion only over the 5 enrichment pennies.
- Board members emphasized to the public that the MCR is dictated by the state and cannot be changed without severe financial penalties.
Truth in Taxation:
Staff noted that because the proposed tax rate exceeds the "no new revenue rate" (calculated at $0.9232), the board chair will be required by Texas law to read a statement at the August 18 meeting declaring a tax increase, and the district must publish notices in the newspaper — even though the board has not chosen to raise taxes. Staff noted that adopting the no new revenue rate instead would result in a loss of approximately $32 million in funding.
CFO/Financial Adviser Presentation — 2026–2027 Budget Details
CFO Karen Garza and financial adviser John Robuck (serving the district since 2005) presented the preliminary budget.
Key Budget Assumptions:
- Projected enrollment: 72,800 students (reduced from 73,500 used last year, due to actual snapshot enrollment of 72,757)
- Average daily attendance rate: 93% (generating approximately $5 million per 1% of ADA)
- Certified property value growth: 0.58% — the lowest the financial adviser has seen in 21 years; below 1% for the first time
- Proposed tax rate: $0.9496 (flat)
Revenue Projections (M&O):
| Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Local property taxes (M&O) | ~$379 million |
| State funding (FSP) | ~$336 million |
| TRS on-behalf / other local | Pass-through / minor |
| Total M&O revenue | ~$769.6 million |
ADA vs. Enrollment Funding Discussion:
- Texas funds schools based on average daily attendance, not enrollment. The 7% gap between enrollment and ADA (93% attendance) represents approximately $35 million in unrealized revenue.
- Board members expressed interest in setting strategic attendance improvement goals, noting the district was at 94–95% attendance before the pandemic.
- Dr. Vinson indicated the district is already working on attendance strategies and will report to the board.
- Trustee May requested this become a formal agenda item for deeper discussion.
Enrollment Trends:
- CISD grew by only 157 students in FY26 vs. FY25 — part of a statewide trend. The state lost over 75,000 students that year.
- Three new campuses are opening: Arnold Elementary, Fowler Elementary (opening with students August 13), and Grand Oaks 9th Grade Campus (opening after winter break).
- Demographic projections suggest enrollment will "hover" for 3–4 years.
- The district reduced enrollment projections partly in anticipation of potential ESA (Education Savings Account) impact; however, the actual impact on CISD enrollment is unknown and may not be visible for 3 years.
- Special education student count ended FY26 at just over 12,000; projected to reach just under 13,000 in FY27.
Debt Service Fund and Tax Rate Concerns:
A significant portion of the discussion focused on the I&S fund and the proposed transfer of a quarter-penny (0.0025) from M&O to debt service:
- Projected debt service shortfall: $6.2 million for FY27, even with the proposed $0.2825 I&S rate
- The state compressed the M&O rate by 0.0025 this year; the district proposes to redirect that quarter-penny to the I&S fund rather than passing it to taxpayers, generating approximately $1.4 million in additional I&S revenue
- A bond refunding planned for fall 2026 is expected to generate additional savings of approximately $4–5 million to partially offset the shortfall
- Contributing factors to debt service strain:
- 2023 bond program projected property value growth of 6–8% annually; actual growth came in at 1.87% last year and 0.58% this year
- Homestead exemption increases enacted by the legislature changed the "hold harmless" provision from authorized debt to issued debt — a change the district could not have predicted — leaving approximately $700 million in unissued bond debt without the property tax base to support it
- The district accelerated some bond issuances, increasing the second bond sale
- MCAD valuation issues in prior years (including a state vs. local values dispute and a calculation error totaling approximately $17 million over two years) also contributed
Board Member Position — Debt Service Tax Rate:
Trustee Horton expressed opposition to redirecting the M&O compression savings to the I&S fund, stating that the state intended the compression as tax relief for homeowners (whose property values have risen approximately 86% over 10 years) and that using it for debt service would effectively ask taxpayers to bear the cost of what she characterized as "unchecked bond planning assumptions." She noted the bond planning committee projected 84,000–90,000 students by 2027 (actual: ~72,800) and property value growth of 6–8% annually (actual: well below that). Other board members acknowledged the projections missed the mark but noted the obligations must be met and that some factors — such as the legislative change to the hold harmless provision — were unforeseeable.
Staff clarified that unlike the M&O rate, the board does have discretion over the I&S rate but faces the risk of defaulting on bond obligations if it does not set a sufficient rate.
Insurance Plan Transition:
- The district is transitioning from a self-funded health insurance plan to TRS ActiveCare effective September 1, 2026.
- The self-funded plan required a transfer of approximately $7–8 million in FY25 and approximately $11–12 million in FY26 from the general fund to keep the plan solvent. Had the district remained on the self-funded plan, losses would have been "well north of $12–13 million" with required premium increases described as "astronomical."
- Board members noted these transfers significantly strained the general fund balance.
Fund Balance:
- The district's 20% fund balance floor is approximately $154 million
- Projected unassigned fund balance at end of FY26: approximately $146.9 million — approximately $7.1 million below the 20% target (at approximately 19.1%)
- Contributing factors include the healthcare transfers and enrollment/property value shortfalls
- Bond rating agencies are expected to ask about fund balance during the fall bond refunding
Compensation:
- Proposed budget is flat on the teacher hiring schedule — no new raises for FY27
- Staff explained this was a deliberate FY26 decision: knowing no new state money would come in FY27, the district front-loaded raises in FY26. The district spent approximately $35.3 million on raises while receiving $22.3 million from the state — a gap of approximately $13 million.
- Some neighboring districts gave additional raises in FY27 by either holding back some FY26 raise money across two years, adopting deficit budgets, or passing VATREs.
- A 1% raise across all staff would cost approximately $9 million
- Multiple board members expressed concern about falling behind peer districts on compensation. Bus driver pay and starting teacher pay were highlighted as areas where CISD is below neighboring districts. Board members and Dr. Vinson committed to developing a multi-year strategic compensation plan.
- Teacher Incentive Allotment: Currently generating approximately $5 million; projected to increase to $5.2 million next year. The district's TIA plan was approved by TEA the day of the meeting.
Personnel Changes:
- Approximately $4.1–4.4 million in positions were eliminated (primarily instructional coaches redeployed to classrooms) and reinvested into special education staffing (dyslexia teachers, school psychologists, speech pathologists, diagnosticians)
- Other new positions: custodians and police support for three new campuses; contingency units for enrollment growth beyond projections
- None of the new special education FTEs were tied to the homecoming plan; all were driven by increased student need
Legislative Priorities (Four Buckets):
1. Compensation
2. School safety
3. Special education funding
4. Transportation funding
Balanced Budget Confirmed:
Total projected revenues and expenditures: approximately $769.65 million (M&O). Staff confirmed this is a balanced budget. The board will be asked to formally adopt the budget and tax rate at the August 18, 2026 meeting following a public hearing.
Citizen Participation
Two citizens registered to speak. Both agreed to wait until after the budget presentation.
Robin DeFerrari (PTO board member) addressed the board regarding compensation. She asked the board to reconsider its decision not to provide raises for FY27, noting that combined with increased insurance premiums under the new TRS plan and removal of other benefits, teachers are effectively experiencing a decrease in take-home pay. She emphasized that competitive raises are an investment in retention and student consistency, and that teachers frequently purchase classroom supplies out of pocket. She asked the board to "explore every reasonable option to provide fair and meaningful wages."
Consent Agenda
Items D and E were pulled from the consent agenda at the request of Trustee Brussard for separate discussion.
Vote on Remaining Consent Agenda Items (A, B, C):
Motion to approve; seconded. Motion carried (vote by show of hands; count not specified on record).
Items approved as part of the consent agenda:
- V.A. Approval of minutes from a previous board meeting
- V.B. Human Resources report and employment of professional personnel
- V.C. 2026–2027 Student Code of Conduct
V.D. Interlocal Agreement — HCDE Music Therapy (IEP Services)
V.E. Interlocal Agreement — HCDE Academic Behavior School (ABS) West
Both items were discussed together after being pulled.
Music Therapy (Item D):
Ted Landry (Special Education) clarified that the HCDE agreement is for evaluation only (approximately $5,800 annually). Evaluators come to CISD campuses; they do not transport students. The district separately contracts with music therapists (not HCDE) to provide actual therapy services in classrooms. Approximately 20 students currently receive music therapy. The AR/IEP committee — not the district or board — determines which students are evaluated for and receive music therapy. Board members asked whether similar services are available in Montgomery County; staff indicated no comparable provider is known locally.
ABS West (Item E):
The Academic Behavior School serves students who have exhausted the full continuum of in-district services, including self-contained settings, and whose behaviors (potentially 30–40 violent/aggressive incidents per day) require a more restrictive placement. TEA must approve each placement. The district is increasing from 12 to 20 seats for FY27 based on projected student needs. In FY26, 12 seats were purchased but 19 students were served (some students progressed and returned to the district). Board members asked whether the homecoming plan might reduce the need; staff explained that ABS students are beyond what the homecoming plan is designed to address.
Trustee Brussard and Dr. Vinson noted that going forward, interlocal agreements such as these will be brought to the full board as action items rather than placed on the consent agenda.
Vote on Items D and E:
Motion to approve both interlocal agreements; seconded. Motion carried 6–0 (vote by show of hands).
Administrative Item — HPM Construction Audit Contract Amendment
Dr. Vinson requested authorization to expand the existing HPM Construction audit contract to include additional projects and contractors. The original contract scope covered forensic/post-project audits; the expansion would include audits conducted during active construction projects. The estimated cost for the amendment ranges from $22,000 to $55,000.
Background and Discussion:
Trustee Dawson (Audit Committee Chair) provided context: CISD has passed approximately $3.64 billion across four bond packages, including $1.9 billion in 2023 — the largest in district history. She stated the Audit Committee has been in agreement on this direction since January, and that the audit committee meetings discussing the matter are publicly recorded.
Trustee Horton raised questions about the process:
- Whether other bids were solicited (staff confirmed four firms were considered; the selection of HPM was a professional services engagement, not subject to competitive bidding)
- Why the contract was signed by Board President Oden Weller rather than the superintendent
Director of Legal Operations Ashley Shelley explained that she identified the board president's signature on the original contract and, as best practice, returned the amendment to the full board for approval. She confirmed that going forward, contracts will be signed by the superintendent unless a specific board vote requires the board president's signature.
Trustee Horton stated she would have preferred a full board vote on the original auditor selection; other board members noted the matter was communicated in an April board brief and the process followed board policy (CH Local).
An initial motion was withdrawn and replaced with a motion to authorize the superintendent to negotiate and execute the amendment.
Vote:
Motion to authorize the superintendent to negotiate and execute the amendment to the HPM construction audit contract, not to exceed $55,000. Seconded. Motion carried 6–0 (vote by show of hands).
Adjournment
With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:48 PM.
Note: These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript. They may contain errors in names, spellings, or details. Official minutes should be consulted for the authoritative record.