[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6565927,"mediaKeyId","3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d","parentId",3211745,"title","Votes at a glance: Goose Creek CISD board actions, May 6, 2025","audioSeconds",8992,"startMs",3174000,"endMs",12166000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d&start=3174&end=12166","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d/thumbnail_3174000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6565927/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Goose-Creek-CISD-board-actions-May-6-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565927-18906123a17826f63190876609dfb480/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150815&Signature=Ue3uXn0dhuWNEaqEOdc8Fp7JWrL2ZHrCCUjfXDiUIDRboQjYyZ9Q0xgxhBb6LiHYCvq8ntZuTFWspF8ZZjlR-N8ew7Qkp53N0iO30XMGgJDt6p9inY~6mtCqdmp1TUXtmuHTEWcJYXXjOS4FB3K3B3IAl6tj4eE4xa7AoiI2-w0WXTXBcDZ3YJEuY-EKXA3tcfOi4rRShz9Q-2ZvTrNZjzQ5H~~tkgh3ByNmgXbpaiI9UPgpmegYCx2JCbFeULsjL1-im0uXACtybzzJMvxBpfa8o0d0dbe2BqmbZqqXZ6NEJwRQzN6tx2st1sLH5HUgbAHIk7L~-dhiiIbs4j4h~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Goose Creek CISD, TX","date","2025-05-07T13:26:46Z","article","At the May 6, 2025 regular meeting the Goose Creek CISD Board of Trustees took multiple procedural and substantive votes. Major outcomes summarized below reflect the formal motions on the agenda and additions taken during the meeting.

Key votes
- Approval of minutes: the board approved meeting minutes for March 21 (budget workshop), March 31 (special meeting) and April regular meeting following motions and recorded voice votes.

- Consent agenda: trustees approved a package of consent items including donations, administrative contracts and service agreements (items 1–4, 6–10 and 12 on the printed agenda). The board unanimously approved the consent package after two items were later considered separately.

- Citizens Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC): the board approved dissolving the Series 2019 CBOC with direction that any remaining bond funds be returned to the board (caption language was amended during the meeting to clarify the board — not the superintendent — will determine remaining uses). Trustees moved and passed the adjusted motion.

- Surplus property (item 11): trustees removed authorization to solicit bids for the 1.76‑acre tract adjacent to Highlands Elementary from the consent agenda for further study and tabled the administrative action for now. Trustees discussed traffic, community concerns and potential future capital use; the item will be brought back with more information.

- Oath of office and reorganization: newly elected board members completed the oath of office. The board then reorganized officers: trustees nominated and approved James Campisi as board president (the nominee requested the change take effect at the close of the meeting), a nomination for vice president (Mister Quinn) and other officer appointments were approved by voice vote.

- Personnel and contracts: the board approved multiple personnel items, including new hires and resignations submitted for approval. The board also considered renewal/nonrenewal of Chapter 21 instructional contracts and approved the renewals as presented (recorded votes included two abstentions on that motion).

- NRG Cedar Bayou 5 application: the board took up a late agenda addition — consideration of the NRG Cedar Bayou 5 LLC Comptroller application (J0012) for a tax‑incentive agreement — and approved a declaration of conditional intent supporting the application. The motion to consider and approve was made by Ms. Scott and seconded by Mr. Renteria and carried on a voice vote.

Votes not finalized: the board postponed approval of a final district compensation plan until legislative action on the state school‑finance bill is clearer; administrators recommended delaying compensation adoption to June 2 (sine die) or later to align with state funding outcomes.

How the board voted (selected motions with recorded makers/seconders)
- Add and approve consideration of NRG application (13.f): Moved Ms. Scott; second Mr. Renteria; vote: unanimous voice approval.
- Dissolve Series 2019 CBOC and return remaining funds to board (consent 13.a.5, amended caption): Motion to approve amended language; vote: unanimous.
- Remove surplus‑property solicitation (item 11) from consent: board administratively pulled the item for further study; no sale authorization was given.
- Approval of personnel and Chapter 21 renewals: motions carried; one recorded personnel renewal motion carried with two abstentions.

Next steps: administration will bring back the surplus‑property item with traffic and community impact analysis, provide a refined compensation recommendation once legislative action is final, and present the NRG draft agreement for board review if and when it is prepared by the governor’s office.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 6, 2025 – Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The board approved minutes, a range of consent items, personnel actions, reorganized officer seats and a conditional agreement to support the NRG Cedar Bayou 5 application. One surplus‑property item was withdrawn for later consideration.","taxTitle","GOOSE CREEK CISD, School Districts, Texas","taxId",13516,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565933,"Goose Creek CISD delays pay‑plan approval pending final state school‑finance action",1723,10158000,11881000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d&start=10158&end=11881","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d/thumbnail_10158000.jpg","/articles/6565933/Texas/Goose-Creek-CISD-delays-payplan-approval-pending-final-state-schoolfinance-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565933-76ab6d06a95fd2346d21b4a8a48cc293/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150815&Signature=UFg3yRwsujm0~TLZPOa1~GU-twbaRJCao9t9k4ZdFAaWPu7mLqjcDqbVLsvkJcPhKkRfPVRonWswpxZq1c5iP1RFExfYsTTMPLlCJWQmnQkeQSOl0snHWU7KDTwRYpisoPlXRW8vm~b0wgmvh~RHpvgavNerJ4xNo23sz13lJIkXwoO6pCtA~agE37X9hWZz0PQYCdubJhHfzSGuvSgLEHCf515GeDQaWNy9aLp2mUYtuz2PnbfAqpjf37B05vmcaakNhomcZbEPKeYgkbg6CVpqocUSB4xjWtK66UhuYLxQONHOdHkptX~DzvkHJQDJHb~ef2G2K-SJ1Xr8F~30RA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","District finance leaders told the Goose Creek CISD Board of Trustees on Tuesday that state legislation will determine how much new revenue the district can expect and that trustees should delay final approval of next year’s compensation plan until the legislature finishes its work.

Overview and background: the district presented scenarios showing large variations in future revenue depending on whether the school‑finance bill commonly called House Bill 2 passes in its current form. Finance staff ran models using a public formula circulated by independent analysts; depending on the scenario, the district could see a multi‑million‑dollar increase in state funding (presenters cited figures near $13 million under a commonly circulated run) or see no additional state revenue if the bill is not enacted.

Spending requirements: staff warned trustees that the likely finance bill language contains a “40% spend” rule for year‑over‑year new funding, and within that 40% a 75% sub‑requirement for teachers, nurses and librarians. District staff presented a menu of hypothetical raises (2%, 3%, 4%, 4.5%) and showed how each interacts with the projected funding and the statutory spend rules.

Scenarios and consequences: presenters described three timing scenarios: (1) House Bill 2 dies — the district would face a budget gap and would need to use reserve or reduce spending to cover compensation changes; (2) House Bill 2 passes before budget adoption — the district would have more flexibility and could adopt a larger raise; (3) House Bill 2 passes after the district adopts its compensation plan and budget — the district could be required to amend its plan and make retroactive payments, creating administrative and fiscal complexity.

Administration recommendation: because legislative action remained pending, administration recommended postponing board approval of the compensation plan until June 2 (sine die) or as late as legally possible so the board can adopt a plan consistent with final state law and avoid mid‑year retroactive changes.

Other budget items: staff also summarized food‑service and bond‑debt forecasts, noting a required food‑service spend plan and that Series 2019 bond projects finished under budget with about $3.4 million in remaining funds (presenters recommended returning the funds to the board for future capital decisions, a separate consent agenda item the board approved after a caption amendment clarifying the board, not the superintendent, will decide remaining uses).

What trustees asked: trustees pressed for clarity about timelines and whether the House Bill 2 figures were final; staff said the House and Senate versions still diverged (roughly $7 billion vs. $5 billion in public estimates) and that negotiations in the final days of session could change the district’s projection. Trustees asked for a precise contingency plan if the bill failed to pass.

What happens next: the administration said it will bring a compensation plan (or an updated recommendation) to the board as soon as legislative action produces a concrete funding figure; staff recommended the board wait until the end of the regular session or call a special meeting for personnel if required to finalize contracts.","District finance staff told trustees the fate of House Bill 2 (school finance) and other legislation will determine available revenue; the board was advised to delay adopting a final compensation plan until the legislative session concludes or near‑final figures are available.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565938,"Teachers propose campus‑level behavior grants; board told Superintendent fund exists to pilot supports",1386,6060000,7446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d&start=6060&end=7446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d/thumbnail_6060000.jpg","/articles/6565938/Texas/Teachers-propose-campuslevel-behavior-grants-board-told-Superintendent-fund-exists-to-pilot-supports","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565938-20b09c88993141a55a5903284665c86b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150815&Signature=dtNY~SQ6JSCM7cf2k6IWLPrKZEONbeDn8~0Pz1e~ZLEIQRc2NUO5CEzeNeb~pF1Ib2eS5O-eQanxWceGWvl4x~GSYkk-ULHFMl9NC6DbDQ4~RYydLHaHIM1MOIze-1fl06qsGVb7LNH35cecLraxczgzclQizvevR8aTbTBTfJGpjbQjx9-NJpQn~9CVFOHQQ7dndaYougiHQhJFwMcNFzuh2BaXzu0NVj1XyLffbs~ebauUXFcKb16QLU~nsm2p5GHij9RU15sqNhWmZrykEpVvBBh3Pqzdb1iDismtbohA7d6ZKg~aTcgSfRZEHp4f0t2D~N-MQiQfcFvXSIc8qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A group of teacher‑of‑the‑year representatives told the Goose Creek CISD Board of Trustees they want to pilot a campus‑level behavior grant program that would let each campus apply for funds to address classroom and hall behavior.

The proposals came through the Superintendent Campus Connection committee, a district group made up of campus teachers of the year that meets monthly and that has made varying one‑time investments in past years from a superintendent line item. Presenters said the fund has existed for about a decade and ranges “generally $50,000 up to $100,000 depending on presentations and what the need is each year.” They said the new behavior focus is intended to support students who are not currently served by specialized programs but who still disrupt instruction or need targeted, regular check‑ins.

Elementary proposal: the elementary cohort proposed a “behavior response grant” that would allow each school’s PBIS committee to apply for campus‑directed funds. Proposed uses include stipends to train paraprofessionals as registered behavior technician (RBT)‑level supports, positive‑behavior incentives (stores, reward days, house systems), or stipends for paraprofessionals who would check in with identified students regularly. Presenters said the grant would be implemented starting this fall, with campuses evaluating needs, applying, implementing in the school year and reporting mid‑year and end‑of‑year results. Funding level was “to be determined” in the presentation.

Junior‑high proposal: middle‑school teachers asked that middle schools pool their grant allocation to buy a district‑wide hall‑pass management app (SmartPass) that runs on student iPads. Presenters said the app can issue logged hall passes, track restroom usage, identify restrooms with repeated incidents and provide reports to reduce congregating and vaping in bathrooms. Highlands Junior School has piloted the app, presenters said, and middle schools estimated a per‑student price of about $2–$3 for a rollout that would rely on existing issued iPads.

High‑school proposal: high‑school teachers proposed a flexible grant program for traditional and non‑traditional high schools. Examples offered included stipends for an already‑employed teacher to serve part‑time as a student outreach mentor (pull‑out mentor check‑ins, parent outreach, goal setting), PBIS incentives, staff training in restorative practices or peer mentoring. Presenters said each campus application must include a measurable SMART goal and cover a September‑to‑April implementation window so results can be evaluated and shared by mid‑May.

Administration context and funding: district leaders said the Superintendent Campus Connection fund is an established general‑fund line item that trustees have used for targeted initiatives — examples included convocation items in prior years — and is designed to “put the power back in the teachers’ hands.” Trustees were told the committee has proposed roughly $2,500 per campus in examples shown during the meeting and that the overall line item historically has ranged from $50,000–$100,000 annually. Trustees asked whether funds would pay new hires; presenters said the intent is to use existing staff (teachers or paraprofessionals) with stipends when applicable.

Board reaction: Trustees asked for clarification on staffing, stipend levels and whether an RBT at every campus was feasible. Presenters said a dedicated RBT per campus would be a longer‑term “dream” costing an estimated $2.4 million; in the near term, they proposed a stipend model. Trustees asked for clearer budget numbers and implementation detail; Superintendent O’Brien and presenters said the proposal would return to the board later with final numbers and application language.

What happens next: the idea is a pilot for the upcoming school year using the Superintendent Campus Connection fund and will require district staff to finalize application forms, review criteria and reporting measures before funds are awarded.","A teacher cohort asked the Goose Creek CISD board to start a district grant program, funded from a superintendent line item, letting campuses apply for money for behavioral supports such as stipends, PBIS incentives or trained paraprofessionals.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565943,"Goose Creek ISD board OKs conditional support for NRG Cedar Bayou 5 tax-incentive application",384,442000,826000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d&start=442&end=826","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3211745-631860046ae25ff74ed804a8d184020d/thumbnail_442000.jpg","/articles/6565943/Texas/Goose-Creek-ISD-board-OKs-conditional-support-for-NRG-Cedar-Bayou-5-tax-incentive-application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565943-37c9eefbee37ed945a59e41753800cf3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150815&Signature=Vto0OJCTGL58mNpzadMigthB~lRX0wedbRFp-lfYahI1bEB1PcooLl4LCM8NAwUYSUEzFUDyjPqJkx4PFFWBYWdH~zphMszBEWWecruCcahCS95F81n3YXA52it~cDr4gurYMMaOebbSJBLEB4yrGIQN-oDq3pC1~L4y~Fe99aF0JlS1yMeZcheEmnvI0hQKGB96niGWNRPjZoIZaKZdL~SKZPM8TWbdbwLo15TbeNNQScxfhthvCW919~hjGO4xKEBb3dhLkg~3582CPvv62RhAk1GNS8ZvkFK0eUNV1afFLOow89aNwHoryun50q-V7iACLZG1~WYutS0aOSG9nQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Goose Creek CISD Board of Trustees on Tuesday approved a declaration of conditional intent supporting an application by NRG Cedar Bayou 5 LLC for a state tax-incentive program tied to a planned expansion of the NRG Cedar Bayou power complex.

The board’s vote followed a public hearing on the company’s Comptroller application (J0012) and a presentation from consultants and local economic‑development partners. The board approved the item by voice vote after administration recommended consideration earlier in the meeting; the motion to add the item and approve it was moved by Ms. Scott and seconded by Mr. Renteria.

The project presented to the board is an additional 721‑megawatt electric generation unit to be built at the existing NRG site near the Baytown Industrial Park in Chambers County. Consultants said the project would be a single‑shaft combined‑cycle natural‑gas configuration with one combustion turbine, an estimated capital cost of about $825 million and a target commercial operation date in 2029.

Why it matters: the company is seeking a state tax‑incentive agreement through the Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation (JETI/JEDI) program. Under that program — created at the end of the Chapter 313 era, the presenters said — a qualifying project can receive an incentive that can affect local maintenance & operations (M&O) tax revenue but is designed to be offset by the project’s contribution to the tax base over time.

According to consultants, the comptroller has already found the application eligible and that a 20‑year revenue analysis indicates the project should generate state or local tax revenue sufficient to offset the school district’s loss of M&O revenue. Presenters said the project was selected through a competitive site‑selection process and is not located in a federal qualified opportunity zone.

What presenters told the board: consultant Kevin O’Hanlon said the required investment threshold for Chambers County (a county under 99,999 population) is a $20 million minimum, and that the NRG project’s size and investment exceed that. He also told trustees the state’s template and statutory rules narrowly constrain negotiable terms: “most of this is constrained by statute, not even the Governor’s office,” he said, and called the program’s financial structure less generous than the Chapter 313 deals the district saw in prior decades.

District staff clarified tax treatment during construction: while interest & sinking (I&S) taxes would be fully taxable during construction, M&O taxes would not be assessed during the construction period, a change consultants noted compared with the old Chapter 313 structure.

Next steps: consultants said, if the board indicates agreement, the Governor’s Office would prepare a draft agreement that would be negotiated among the company, the district and the state; if the governor approves and the district and governor execute an agreement, it must be submitted to the comptroller within seven days of execution. The board’s declaration Tuesday expressed conditional support for entering that process.

Board action: the board moved to add the NRG item for consideration and to approve the declaration of conditional intent; the motion was moved by Ms. Scott and seconded by Mr. Renteria and carried on a voice vote.

Who spoke: presenters included Kevin O’Hanlon (consultant, O’Hanlon & Associates) and Kathy Mathias (Oak & Casey); board members and district leaders asked questions about tax treatment, timelines, and whether the project met statutory thresholds.

What the district will see: presenters said the project would add M&O revenue on roughly half the value (the presenters used a 50% illustrative figure to show the project will put some value on tax rolls but not as much as prior chapter‑313 pilots), and they emphasized job creation and an increased bond capacity that accrues from I&S revenue. Final incentives and terms will be defined in the agreement drafted by the Governor’s Office if both the governor and the district move to execute the contract.","After a public hearing, the Goose Creek ISD Board of Trustees approved a declaration of conditional intent supporting NRG Cedar Bayou 5 LLC’s application for a state tax-incentive program that would cover parts of a new combined-cycle natural‑gas power plant planned for Chambers County.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Goose Creek CISD board actions, May 6, 2025

Goose Creek CISD delays pay‑plan approval pending final state school‑finance action

Teachers propose campus‑level behavior grants; board told Superintendent fund exists to pilot supports

Goose Creek ISD board OKs conditional support for NRG Cedar Bayou 5 tax-incentive application