Next generation government for The Woodlands Texas - Focus groups for Gap Analysis

The first step of resident input has been completed in a newly established project to determine the next form of government for The Woodlands Texas. As early as 2014, we are legally able to change to a city form of government.This phase of the project was to get feedback from residents for a gap analysis being conducted by the project consultant. Two goals of this phase are in the project plan - (1) See what residents don't know or understand, and (2) determine what are the perceived issues and future needs for effectively governing the community. To do this, residents were divided into two knowledge groups and attendees chosen at random to attend a number of focus groups moderated by the project leader. Focus groups were kept small in size so as to encourage interaction and contribution. The data collected will be sorted out, analyzed, characterized , and then presented back to the community in January to the next focus group workshops and apparently a town hall meeting. You will find a number of issues below related to governing and what seems to be a laundry list of problems as the primary concern on people's minds as we move forward. I may not agree with some of these, but I do believe as many ideas as I can remember should be included. I missed some I am sure, but the idea is to get these out in the open for continued development and thought by residents.  

To get an idea of what has been brought forward in these focus group discussions, here are some of the thoughts from one group.

What is right about our government

There was not much discussion in this area.

(1) Parks and pathways are excellent amenities and are kept clean.

(2) Government looks after the expense of our pools but there are perhaps too many of them and some tax dollars support their use.

(3) We are not part of Houston or Conroe (implied,not stated explicitly)

(4) Inclusion of residents in Parks department and policing strategies by government staff
(5) The Fire Dept is a fire class service.
(6) The policing force has improved and is now one of the best around.
(7) Excellent delivery of information to residents, beyond that required by the Open Records law of Texas 

Gaps

(1) Residents cannot influence decisions about land use. This is no longer a community of large land blocks to be developed except in the Village of Creekside Park. In the other villages, development is typically near and around existing residences or businesses. Residents have been demanding input for years, but go unheard and then with empty promises of inclusion into the process. As the remaining development properties within the villages are sold, residents do not want to have surprises and new establishments that seem to alter the master plan, with lack of controls such as noise, presentation and  privacy expectations that affect the quality of life by taxpayers. 

(2)  Local taxes for the benefit of local needs are managed by separate entities, some of which reach outside of the territorial jurisdiction of The Woodlands, with even differing strategies of management. Lack of centralized control of tax dollars is a gap, especially for county wide taxation based on property values. The county commissioners conduct their meetings on local issues in Conroe, and those decisions are integrated with other county areas. Management for a town of 90,000 should be from within the community and integrated with this community's priorities and needs, not managed by an external entity. This tax domain primarily consists of road maintenance, law making, courts, policing and jail. Governing must be equal and apply to all parts of the county equally due to the legal restraints on spending of taxpayer money.

(3)  There are no controls for noise pollution other than county laws which are designed for rural areas. County rules, regulations and guidelines are applied to stop signs, speed limits, signs, traffic noise, dogs barking, and other very common municipal issues within the territory of The Woodlands. The lack of ordinance power prevents The Woodlands from controlling its quality of life. It forces the community to accept rural conditions within the bounds of large densely populated area. 

(4) There is not an effective way to interact with the Board of Directors as a whole. That is prevented by the current structure and method of government. There is no area representation on the Board of Directors and there is only a one way communication in meetings. Every taxpayer should be provided equal amenities and quality of community life. The village representation at meetings has failed to accomplish the original intent of Village liaisons. It is too weak a link to the board of directors. However, the Village Associations themselves need to be preserved and provide the social aspect of our community in the way they have traditionally served.  All taxpayers are not represented by members of the board in the current government/political environment.

(5)  Our local government has no control over the roads and streets. County and state regulations control and their funds maintain them. The placing or removal of a stop sign, the timing of lights, speed limits, design, and all related matters are in the hands of the county and state where a resident has much less influence. In contrast, our local government maintains the paths which must cross those streets and the master plan which includes easy, flowing pedestrian is sometimes impeded by actions on these roads. Noise on the roads impact the quality of life for several blocks adjoining the main roads. Some residents are thinking that we should re-evaluate the widening of the roads. Governing this issue is ineffective.

(6) Our parks for the most part are clean, but some are not. Trash is brought in and left in the parks and sometimes in the water of some of our parks apparently by outside visitors. This situation needs to be governed, perhaps by control of use.

(7) Residents do not participate in government elections sufficiently. There is a knowledge and interest gap. It appears we continue to have an educational issue or more probably are still plagued by government complexity. It takes years to get educated to a comfort level on local issues, while many people move in and out of the community. Before this government was established, all residents had a say in politics and community decisions. Additionally, demographics have been changing dramatically. We now have entire blocks where many residents have no ability to vote, because of the citizenship voting law. This problem did not exist before this new government, because all residents had a say in their government. No board member represents these people and they have no say who governs them.

(8) Managing and encouraging homes to be purchased instead of rented as a business plagues the community. Residents prefer to have resident owners as neighbors instead of renters who rarely participate in government or have an interest in the local systems. They become users and part of the problem while no one represents the home at the polls. This is apparently a growing problem and not governed in any way.

(6) There is no governing of imposed tax dollars. Instead, taxes are governed by percentage of home value. Although the economy continues to have low inflation, some home owners have huge tax increases and therefore significant inflation. Salary does not keep up with home inflation. This affects long term residents the most. It is assumed that the value of a house should be the taxed by a cap on percentage of value instead of tax dollars. This gives the government more money. Residents are more than concerned about this, but it is not governed. 

(7) The DSC is a critical part of the fabric of the community, yet members on this committee are appointed by the Board of Directors. There remains representation by the development company. The RDRC boards of each village are elected to position, but the DSC sometimes overrides the decisions by those boards. This creates a gap in governing. Perhaps a solution would be to place this function in the hands of the people and let there be an elected association to manage restrictions.

(8)  This government has evolved into a business-centric group of directors who are imposing past and present decisions of the development company and the prior Town Center government officials who were appointed, on the residents. There is a hesitancy to consider candidates who have other ideas for various reasons. Incumbents are the preferred choice of the very few voters who go to the polls. This seems to be the cause of the continued frivolous spending of tax dollars and lack of home owner buy-in to the business community role in the spending of tax dollars. Governing Town Center activities, plans and role in the community remains with the development company. 90,000 residents need to have a say in the development of the entire Woodlands now. These people live here and many of them work here. Governing the use of land is a huge gap as we move forward. There continues to be negative neighborhood impact by development decisions. One such recent example is a cemetery in close proximity to a residential neighborhood. When are we ever going to get a master community plan to manage? The gap is that the local government does not have land use controls.    

Future Challenges

(1) Peripheral development of business and housing. ExxonMobil brings a larger number of people to the area in a relatively short time. Development along the new parkway and other peripheral areas will bring considerable competition for tax dollars and housing. Rental properties could increase in our community as older homes sell. Traffic could rise and the quality of life decrease if not governed. Development to our north will bring Houston closer to us. New development will outclass technology here in The Woodlands, especially "green technology". So there is a perceived related threat to home value and taxation demands by our government.

( 2) Traffic in general will rise as our roads continue to absorb traffic passing through The Woodlands, as a conduit between new development to the west and south from I45. Governing the use of roads and related noise/vibration  is a considerable challenge. The quality of life here needs to be protected.

(3) Managed affordable taxation for the residents

(4) Resident participation as volunteers. There is less opportunity than in the past to participate in government. Growing replacement or new volunteers is an issue. There is less opportunity than in the past to learn how the governing processes work, how issues are addressed and how decisions on the budget are made.

(5) Developing transparency of the development company as a governing body. It makes decisions for residents and has the master plan that is not visible. Residents want transparency now. The master plan appears to change whenever the development company wants it to. It is time to stop that behavior, or it is time to open it up so that residents buy into it and have confidence in decisions and not feel constantly threatened.

(6) Getting resident buy-in/influence in decision making. This could be related to just getting the vote out. Current government makes decisions based on the ideas and thought processes of a very few. There seems to be little conferring with residents on the issues.  

Need to protect      

(1) Unique feel of The Woodlands

(2) High quality of our schools

(3) Forest including trees, undergrowth and wildlife. Seems to be a gap in protecting our wildlife.

(4) Parks and pathways

(5) Residential standards

(6) Managed traffic flow (a county service)

(7) Volunteer system - inclusion of residents

Missing items

I can think of a couple of additional things not mentioned but very relevant to the future governance model. One is water. We are taxed based on bonds for wells. Newer MUD districts have a much larger debt than the older ones in general. I see a financial issue associated with consolidating all the MUD districts together now but we may want to do that in 10-15 years. We face significant issues with water in the future, and there are issues with the governance model related to these issues.

On the positive side, we have excellent senior staff in government, most which transferred from the associations. This was not discussed in our focus group. 

In our current governing model, we cannot annex peripheral areas. This was mentioned, but I don't believe it ever made it to the gap analysis data. To be able to manage our current territory domain, we need to be able to have the sales tax income generated by nearby businesses. There needs to be flexibility to annex areas, especially to our west.

Our fire department is certainly a very good one, but we do not need to be top of the class in firefighting capability. We need better leverage surrounding departments. Our goals should not be to be the best in every class of service but to be as good or better in some of them, with a manageable and affordable budget. Budget must be governed better than it is. 

The exercise itself did not ask for feedback but did ask for questions. That bothered me a bit. When I asked a few of the people leaving what they thought of it, I got some good feedback that should have been gathered in the meeting itself. However, I believe this was very worthwhile and am anxious to see the results from other focus groups. I wish they too would be published, but I do not yet have my hands on any documentation. I understand someone else has done some documentation though. The project manager seemed a little anxious about that, because I believe he wants it all to be presented as a processed presentation rather than delivering the sound bytes that were collected. 

---

Difficulties of governing

---

Government is basically the same everywhere except maybe here. You can't please everyone, especially here. In The Woodlands Texas, we have some unique issues. History drives our dilemma. We started as a development company and gradually transitioned into an association. Then we developed Town Center independently but in parallel with the residential villages using totally different concepts, but retaining similar processes and community values. Village residents were not necessarily in agreement with the development plans of Town Center but few contested the vision of a suburban downtown in the middle of the forest, governing itself. From the beginning, Town Center has been a place for visitors. Now it is also a place for a unique urbanized class of residents. With the merger of Town Center and association governments into a township government, some of the conflicts have not yet been adequately addressed. Some big issues remain and the task to effectively govern this community is difficult.  

Newer residents have embraced the ideas of urbanization more than old timers. This has caused somewhat of a conflict between naturalists and city dwellers, a concrete/steel society vs a natural setting. This subject is rarely discussed because it just lies in the background, like a shadow, going unnoticed and being misinterpreted as the same as a business vs residential conflict. Villagers do not want to hear noise or see concrete and steel in their communities. That is the basis of conflict between the two paradigms. Commercializing The Woodlands must be done with care and consideration for the reverse side of the coin.  

The line between commercialism and naturalism could be drawn at budget time. Residents should not have to pay for commercialism, yet investments in commercialism can save taxpayers real money. Now the question is constantly asked, should government be in business, with capital investments and profiteering? This is one ongoing debate that is currently occurring within the government of The Woodlands. It is a conflict, because there continues to be vestiges of the old Town Center in the way the directors think and act. After all, we have a number of old town center directors remaining on the current board.

Many people here ask pertinent and pointed questions, but they rarely take any action. Last night I attended a town hall meeting specifically convened to review the 2011 budget. Outside of the normal crowd, there were very few residents, maybe only two who stood up and made what I would call "normal resident" comments. I made comments too, but I have been commenting regularly ever since our governing question came to the table a few years ago. The township directors were all ears with pen and paper in hand, but with so few voices speaking, they should not feel comfortable in receiving the feedback they sought. They get what they can and will discuss what to do before finalizing the budget. Last year, the public produced more comments than this year and had significant impact on the outcome. This year, the election generated significant focus on the issues, but the public did not come out and vote. It was no surprise to me to see so few people attending the town hall meeting and so few comments made.

It is no surprise to see the same issues at the town hall meeting as the election. Are the issues real? Is policing really an issue? If it is, why didn't the public vote out the incumbents and let new ideas be brought forward? Status quo does not produce change. It sustains the old. It is interpreted as "everything is OK". Just keep the taxes the same and we will be happy.  Yet the public said something different in the residents' survey. There are problems to be solved, especially in law enforcement.

The board has therefore made a small change to the budget to reduce Alpha Omega mounted patrols and put the money towards policing. $300,000 was knocked off of the $1.5 million contract, yet we will continue to see the mounted patrols in the parking lot of Walmart at I-45 and SH-242. The idea is that they are charged with patrolling all of Town Center. We will increase policing in 2011 through more overtime and three more hires. Each hire will require a full sized police car, compatible with the Sheriff's fleet for high speed chases on highways. These automobiles must be replaced every four years. We are not county roads. We are a urban community of neighborhood streets. Our policing requirements are different than the county. Every officer is trained in the county processes and skills are developed in the same way. Sheriff policies must be retained in the deployment of the officers. Isn't it time to change?

Hand it to the board however. The proposed budget has a plan to study policing again. Yes, get consultants and see what is needed in the community. It is difficult to govern a community, especially when there are no skills within the board to manage the policing of our community. This study may be the right thing to do now, but it must be done carefully. Representatives from the village associations are being given the job of giving feedback on the future of our policing. Maybe the feedback should also be given to a committee of knowledgeable people in the community. There is an abundance of issues associated with the direction we are headed, but someone has to lead the effort and get it done.

Fortunately, we have seven residents who volunteer their time to make these decisions. I hope they take to heart the comments made last night in their thoughts as they reconsider some of the decisions in the budget. For one, I hope we move off of the old idea that there is any law enforcement benefit in the deployment of horseback patrols. That is purely a tourist expense, hid under the umbrella of law enforcement. Much of it could be used as a general homestead for residents. If in 2011 it would be trimmed from $1.2 million to $500,000, then we would have enough money to fund a homestead discount in 2012. I have heard of no plan to reduce this budget item in the five year plan, so this would apply for five years out as well as today. With $500,000 we should have plenty of visible mounted patrols in pretty red jackets to give the township its "personality". Just put them in the right places - where people walk (but not parking lots). Put them in places for physical presence at events where people gather and along paths in Town Center, strictly for visibility. Put them under the jurisdiction and management of tourism, not law enforcement. They are patrolling to attract visitors. Let's find out if they really do that.

First Township Board Workshop Meeting - June 17

---

The Woodlands Township Board of Directors will conduct its first Board of Directors Workshop on Thursday, June 17, 2010. This is not intended to be a voting meeting, but can be. Looking at the agenda, this will have a single vote, since there is a consent list for approval. This will be one of two meetings this month for the new seven member board to manage the affairs of the township. This meeting will be held at 9am at The Woodlands Township Board Chambers, 10001 Woodloch Forest Drive, Suite 600, The Woodlands, Texas 77380. About one week afterward, a second meeting for the month will be in the evening at 6pm at the township service center on Lake Woodlands, across the street from the United Methodist Church. The intent of that meeting is to make decisions in the presence of interested residents. We all hope that residents take more of an interest in what occurs. I plan to be at both meetings. Do you? Link to Agenda

The Mounted Police Contract - Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end

Most people are aware of the mounted police in the Town Center of The Woodlands, Texas. Alpha and Omega is the company providing this service by horseback for us.  You can hardly miss their red uniforms that sort of resemble the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That image generates a small town atmosphere, so the township concept is boosted by their presence, so it is believed. We have them deployed in various zones within the Town Center as a tourist attraction. Just like the transportation system, however, we tend to lead people to believe these mounted patrols serve another function, that is to supplement the policing of the community. They are not policemen at all and, in fact, cannot secure your safety. They serve no useful purpose at all in regard to law enforcement. Some people will say they are useful in spotting crime and reporting it. In reality, they are no more effective in doing that than any resident who has a cell phone, and almost all residents have cell phones.

The other day I was at Walmart at FM 242 and I-45. I noticed two mounted police patrols in the parking lot there. Then I wondered. Why are they here? Walmart certainly does not present the image we need for a tourist, and the likelihood for a tourist to be present at Walmart sure seems to be small! I have no reason to contract these mounted people at all. If I would see them only at the parks, I would be more apt to support their presence, but why do we have them in the parking lot of the mall, Walmart, and other large commercial locations? These large commercial enterprises have their own way of protecting their businesses and managing security. Perhaps in isolated circumstances, we have a need for them in events and certain hours of the evening to help promote our community. Yet why are taxpayers bearing the burden for this extra amenity? The cost of it is atrocious! Some close to the checkbook say that the visitors are paying for them and this is what attracts them here. The horses are, after all, sort of a mobile petting zoo and children like to talk to these colorfully outfitted  people on top of horses. Even adults find conversation with the riders interesting. We find that the primary functional reason we have them is to dispense information and to help people find their cars in the parking lots. 

Let's take a look at the contract. Budget time is coming up very shortly. Don't you want to know what agreements we have and the alternatives the Woodlands Township Board of Directors should be considering? There will be seven directors charged with making a decision to continue this program, cut it back or replace with a new one. I will give you their email addresses soon, although you can find those addresses on the township website. You will be able to copy and paste those addresses from this site onto an email to correspond with them.

So I want to bring this contract to the attention of residents in The Woodlands. We pay Alpha and Omega company $39.10 for each patrol hour. That is about double what we pay for a Sheriff deputy officer according to one of my sources. Behind the scenes we are also paying for support personnel at the tune of $10.53 per hour. A patrol person is called a Trooper. Troopers provide a courtesy to visitors of Town Center. They are charged with providing information to patrons of the commercial area, but if they see some crime, they are charged to report it immediately, just like a resident would be expected to do. They are to help people find their cars in parking lots as well. The contract provides for a maximum of 700 total Trooper hours per week.  Clerical support is a 40-hour maximum week.  This three year contract ending in 2012 may be canceled with a 30 day notice. If both parties agree to change the contract, the contract can be modified.

Value of the contract is $1,514,920 for 2010. Alpha and Omega was selected based on government staff criteria from two bids. The competing company bid was $1,361,370.

Alternatives have never been defined that I can find. Back in TCID days, there may have been alternatives to the original concept, but we don't seem to have a Board of Directors these days trying to conserve on spending.

What alternatives can I envision?

1. Smaller presence - For this alternative, I suggest Town Green Park, the pavilion, down on the waterway and  the conference center. That makes four locations, 6 days a week. As a rough simple cost estimate, let's say it takes 1/2 support person and 4 Troopers to provide that service. And let's say each patrol would be 50 hours. Per year, it would cost 52* ((20*10.52)+(50*$39.10))= $417,581. That would be almost $1,100,000 savings in 2011, more if we can cut this contract this year. I don't see any reason to continue spending so much for the remainder of this year. This is called "reduced services" by the directors but not in my book. I call it "service by need", not "service by want".  

2. Removal of service altogether - Forget the image. People do not come here for the horses. They come for the waterway, the fountains, the other amenities and attractions. Save an additional $471,581.

3. Drop the contract and solicit new bids for reduced presence. That would likely lead to a smaller rate since we do not have to contract such a large company to provide the services and we can go out for bids again. That might save an additional $50,000.

4. Replace the entire mounted horse service with cameras. I cannot price this, but it would necessitate monitoring personnel and a station. This is a common practice and enables visual contact with law lawbreakers from high strategic points using technology and monitoring staff to add additional security for all critical areas in the Town Center. This would require a capital outlay for a communication infrastructure but probably could share some of the county's  resources.

5. Replace the entire mounted police with bike police patrols. No cars would be required. They could operate out of the existing Sheriff building near Town Center or Constable police office nearby. A deputy should cost us about half the amount of a mounted Trooper. 12 policemen patrolling on bikes would cost approximately $639,600 per year, a savings of more than $900,000. We could probably shift some of the township patrols and thereby increase police manpower in the villages for increased security services. One option would be to take perhaps three existing patrolmen with cruisers, shift them to the villages and then put six patrolmen by bike in the town center. There would be no cost for cruisers. True, they would not be wearing red uniforms and they would not be on horses, but maybe they could ride horses. I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe the bike provides a faster and more effective response to crime or call.  

We could mix and match these alternatives. There are likely many more scenarios. If you can think of any, please let me know through the comment section. During the budget process, you should demand your board of directors to give you the alternatives considered, why they selected one (hopefully the best that fits the community) and say exactly why they rejected the others. That is their responsibility in managing your money and communicating back to you their stewardship of it.

What are The Woodlands resident issues found in our government request system?

Type	Incidents	Percent
Events	1	0%
MUD	1	0%
Other svcs	1	0%
Trees	1	0%
Other	2	1%
Schools	2	1%
Parks	4	1%
Mobility	6	2%
Animal control	8	2%
Garbage	8	2%
Website	9	3%
Crime	13	4%
Safety	13	4%
Alerts/Watch	13	4%
Solicitation	15	4%
Assessment questions	17	5%
Other requests	21	6%
Streetlight repair	32	9%
Common area maint	46	13%
Covenants	55	15%
Information	87	25%
Grand Total	355	100%

I reviewed the 355 resident requests from the Township Request Database over the past three months. January 1st to near the end of of March 2010. Not all requests were from residents, but the vast majority were. Obviously from the data, all who reported an issue through the database had a variety of questions and concerns. You will note that I have distinguished between safety and crime. Safety had something to do with mitigating a specific visualized risk to life or health. Crime concerns were related to the news, or general statements about the crime reported outside of the view of the resident.

Information is a catch-all and can be about anything, such who to call on advice how to approach an issue. If information was sought for the Neighborhood Watch program, that was included in Watch. Mobility does not include all road issues. It is limited to change or safety issues related to mobility, whether by foot, bicycle or automobile.  Common area maintenance includes park maintenance and water runoff from easements. Solicitation is usually a request to consider the use of a service provider.

The Township Service Request Database can be accessed at this link.  

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to place a comment or email me. 

The Woodlands Independence from Houston

Isn't it great to have a guarantee of not being governed by another city, especially Houston? We don't have their taxes, police force, their ordinances, their firefighting standards, their trash and garbage schedules, their environmental standards, their 911 call centers, or their standards for a "quality life". We set our own standards and our own direction. That was what I considered when we began our trek to govern ourselves.

I remember participating in the meetings with residents to determine what our issues were, where we wanted to go, and what was most important to us. Security and taxes were our utmost concern. Water should have been also, but our vision for that issue seemed further out then. Our water problems have accelerated as the build-out accelerated, and the Montgomery county growth significantly impacted water consumption. Slower reservoir recharging due to drought has also impacted the urgency to supplement our well water with potable surface water.  Now that issue is probably our biggest tax threat.

I recall going door-to-door getting support from the community for all three propositions. I did not want Houston to annex us; the date they could do that was quickly approaching. They could annex us as early as 2014, and from all indications they would have strong financial incentives to do so. All they had to do was to build a fire station within a certain distance of our community and bang! They could have and would have done it.

I wrote several articles on the subject of those propositions, and many people read them. I did my own risk assessment based on the knowledge I had gleaned from working with many people on the project. That exercise took a lot of time, but it was well worth it. Today, I stand firm on what was done. That was a good decision. We have not lowered our taxes as much as I had hoped. In fact, the WCA has not lowered its taxes at all. I will write another article on taxes a little later.

Here are the links to articles I wrote on the Township creation (three propositions) back then. You can see I have cautiously supported the Township concept from the beginning and have never backed off.

1. Residents Value System 
2. Road to Governance
3. Governance in a nutshell
4. Panel Discussion with Woodlands Decides 
5. The Decision
6. Congratulations to The Woodlands

---

Good news to Indian Springs and Panther Creek

Actually, the good news includes the Village of Creekside Park as well.

The start of the Creekside Park fire station on Kuykendahl is delayed until the 3rd or 4th quarters of this year due to delays in road construction. Therefore, the relative governing bodies decided jointly to accelerate the construction of the Indian Springs fire station and staff it with the personnel from the temporary fire station currently off of Gosling. This action will make Fire Station #8 (Indian Springs) operational before Fire Station #7 (Creekside Park). The Indian Springs Fire Station is now planned to begin operations in July 2011 followed by Fire Station #7 in January 2012.

After all the insistence that Fire Station #7 had to be done first and the urgency was tantamount, we now have a different scenario. It was not that urgent after all. Residents in Panther Creek and Indian Springs, including myself, have been asking to accelerate the Indian Springs Fire Station for a long time, even before the 2010 budget process. Now that some of the hurdles have been jumped for the Indian Springs Gosling location, that location is now more advanced in infrastructure and can proceed without the obstacles that Fire Station #7 has.

So residents and business owners alike in the southwestern part of Panther Creek and the southeastern part of Indian Springs are thankful that a better emergency response time is on its way to their homes and retail areas. Thanks to those who contributed to this decision.

Sometime this month, we should see the land acquisition agreements completed for both fire stations with final approvals for the project scheduled in May, with ground breaking for Indian Springs in July and for Creekside Park in January 2011. Also, those who are interested should be present at the DSC meeting in May to see the proposed plan and how these stations might impact residents' lives. The Indian Springs station is to be at the corner of Gosling and Flintridge.

2010 Woodlands Bond Issue Announced

---

The Woodlands, TX (March 24, 2010)… The Board of Directors of The Woodlands Township issued $34.8 million of tax-exempt unlimited tax bonds today with an average interest cost of 3.82 percent.

The Woodlands Township Chairman of the Board Nelda Luce Blair said, “Our financial plan assumed a five percent interest rate, so this issue is going to yield significant savings to the taxpayers.”

The Woodlands Township’s Financial Advisor Drew Masterson said, “This rate is one of the lowest I’ve ever seen.”

The sale of today’s bonds comes after the voters in The Woodlands approved three different bond propositions on November 3, 2009, to fund fire services, park improvements and refinancing of association line of credit. The sale of the bonds included a very favorable bond rating of AA by Standard & Poor’s. The S&P noted The Woodlands Township’s strong economy, good financial management and limited future debt as strong positives for the rating, according to Chairman Blair.

“We’re very pleased to issue these bonds,” Chairman Blair said. “We are very pleased with our bond rating and very pleased with the interest rate. The voters in November asked for us to move in this direction, and today’s sale is reflective of their wishes, which ultimately benefits the taxpayers of The Woodlands. The passage of all three bond propositions shows that residents said that parks, pathways, fire stations and lower debt are important to their quality of life, and that they understood that these bonds will make those things possible.”  

The winning syndicate underwriters in a sealed bid process included Southwest Securities, Citi, EdwardJones, Wells Fargo, and Stephens. These firms prevailed over three other bidders. Bonds were offered by the underwriters to initial investors at rates ranging from 0.73 percent in 2011 to 4.33 percent in 2030. Bonds can only be offered by the underwriters through the Official Statement, which will be posted on The Woodlands Township Web site.

The first proposition approved by the voters addressed fire department needs. Proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used to construct two fire stations, purchase related fire equipment for these stations, provide payment of any emergency services district (ESD) debt allocable to the Township upon removal of certain territory from the overlapping taxing jurisdiction of the ESD, and any related issuance costs.

The second proposition approved by the voters addressed The Woodlands Township’s Parks needs. Proceeds from the sale of the bonds on the second proposition will be used for the construction of new parks and pathways pursuant to the Recreation Facilities Development Agreement and Construction Management Agreement assumed by the Township from The Woodlands Association, Inc. and The Woodlands Commercial Owners Association, Inc.

The third proposition approved by the voters addressed the refinancing of existing debt obligations from the community associations. In accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement, the Township assumed certain debt obligations from each community association and related service companies on January 1, 2010. Proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used to refinance existing debt obligations of $19.080 million assumed by the Township from the community associations and The Woodlands Fire Department, Inc., and to pay for bond issuance costs.

Click here for additional details. 

The Woodlands Township Web site is at www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov.

Government control of association functions - deed restrictions

We have a controversy in The Woodlands that has arisen from a single action. I will not direct my comments to the exact nature of the issue, but will direct my thoughts to the overall situation relative to the situation. This is also intended to review the process here so that residents have a more in-depth understanding of it.  In The Woodlands, there are three organizational entities which enforce property covenants, otherwise known as "deed restrictions". The enforcement of covenants is not normally part of a government function. In this region, association fees are normally paid by residents to fund association functions, especially to provide covenant enforcement. In the merger of the township with the associations, the township government acquired legal authority through the legislature to bring covenant enforcement under its umbrella. This has inherent consequences that residents should understand. We should also understand why we have merged this function into the government rather than keeping it separate.

Our covenants in many ways are no different than other communities, except for a few values we uphold to make our community uniquely "The Woodlands" and to provide amenities for the type of resident for which the community is intended. For example, the community highly values its trees by design and vision from the master plan. This value includes the trees on home properties, as well as in green areas. A tree of 15+ years is recognized for its value to neighbors and the community as a whole. Therefore a caliper measurement of a tree's diameter determines its protection by property covenant. This same value is highly esteemed for public property owned by the township. 

To enforce our residential covenants, we have a three-tiered system. On the frontline we have employees in the township who administer enforcement. They receive complaints, keep records, prepare and send out notification letters, monitor neighborhoods for violations, organize materials for meetings of the DSC and RDRC, and more. The Residential Design Review Committees (RDRC) is the second tier. This committee consists of resident volunteers elected annually by the community of each village to review covenant violations and decide on appropriate actions. The theory is that covenants are for the residents, and therefore actions should be decided by the residents of those village neighborhoods. I am the chairman of one of those committees, so I have been involved in the decision making process during my tenure of several years. It is the goal of an RDRC committee to be fair to the residents but at the same time enforce the covenants. A covenant is a contract between the community and the property owner. Therefore, it is legally binding. The RDRC committee members are not normally deeply versed in law, nor are the members necessarily property experts. They live in the same neighborhoods as those who seek changes to their property or have violated the covenants. They seek consistency in property presentation to the public.  Those who serve should be and generally are citizens who have the same value system as the community and willing to spend their time to keep the community consistent with the master plan vision. Each decision is based on data collected from the covenant administrator who has been assigned to that particular committee, plus any committee member's personal knowledge of the situation. The RDRC does not have the authority to file lawsuits, nor does it have the authority to decide on final action of any sort. After the review of requests, the committee recommends an action plan to the property owner. It also recommends an action plan to the third tier of enforcement, if the owner does not wish to follow the recommendation, or the committee is electing some variance to the covenant.  RDRC and DSC committee meetings are open. Each committee member follows the regulations of the Texas Open Meetings Act(TOMA). Residents are welcome and do at times attend RDRC meetings and DSC meetings.

The Development Standards Committee (DSC) consists of four appointed qualified residents and three Development company designates who act on enforcement of the standards. The Township Board of Directors is responsible for appointing individuals to this committee. Most of the time, this committee will agree with the recommended actions of the RDRCs but occasionally spots an issue and overrides a recommendation. I have seen only one of these instances in our village, where there was an issue with water drainage and the DSC took appropriate steps to investigate the design of the neighborhood, discovering something the RDRC did not know, and therefore took a different approach to the solution. This is the reason the committee exists, to provide a higher level of expertise on some issues and to provide a means for a resident to protest the RDRC recommendation.

So how does all of this play into what recently transpired at the township meeting? Our tax dollars are now used to enforce the covenants. If legal action is required by the DSC, money must be spent by the community. Legal mitigation of an issue happens when a resident either refuses to take the action(s) prescribed, or when the property owner cannot be found. The DSC has the authority to take a lien out on the property to pay for such actions. If the community pays for mowing the grass, or caring for or repairing the property, the property owner is required to eventually pay for those services. And if there are court costs, the property owner will pay for that as well, unless of course, the property owner wins the case. If the resident cuts down a large tree without permission, he will likely have to pay for replacement(s).

We do have residents who refuse to follow the covenants, even though the residents formally promised to do so by signature when they purchased (or rented) the home . Each and every covenant is to be enforced. Some people believe the trashcan regulation is simply frivolous, but it is serious. Cans left in view of neighbors and the public is unsightly and a nuisance to many residents. No resident has the right to interpret the covenants the way he or she wishes to interpret them. The trash can regulation is very important to some residents, and the regulation is part of the covenants. Making one part of it more important than another is not an option either. However, legal action is prioritized and generally taken based on the severity of the issue. If residents are routinely annoyed by unsightly property and the property owner refuses to comply with the action dictated by the DSC, legal action will be taken and that will cost taxpayers some money.

So the recent issue, noted as a "transition issue" by the Township Board, is one of accountability for taxpayer dollars. While the DSC is an independent entity, not regulated by the Township Board of Directors, it does not have spending authority per se. Covenant administration's budget for 2010 is $2,196,883 and the anticipated income is $30,000. President (Don Norrell) of the Township has signature authority for legal expenses. No one seems to actually have the authority to say "no" to the actions of the DSC to take these actions. Therefore the controversy - growing pains maybe, but also perhaps an inappropriate government function. The idea for having this function in our township government is efficiency and funding power to enforce the covenants. So if the township can intervene in the decisions of the DSC, the process becomes vulnerable to politics, which cannot be tolerated. Our covenants cannot be enforced based on the popularity of government official(s), nor on personal relationships.

I believe everyone in authority in the township does not want the Township Board of Directors to be a fourth tier in the process. They are not designated to be the last resort for a protest by a resident. How are the DSC committee members accountable? They can be removed by the Board of Directors if there are serious issues in conduct. The issue that triggered a discussion on the overall process and accountability debate, was one of timing and resident consideration. The resident asked to cut down a tree and apparently made some remarks on the character of one or more officials for their decision. A constraining order was issued to protect the tree(s), some saying that action was due to those remarks towards some officials. The restraining order occurred during the Christmas holidays. There is a history of residents occasionally cutting down trees, even if they are not permitted to do so. Sometimes the DSC has to assess the probability of that happening. A restraining order is the prescribed action in that situation. 

Commentary

The question of covenant enforcement autonomy continues to haunt me as we go forward. I believe this Township Board of Directors has the correct perspective on autonomy, but on the other hand, there is the issue of financial control. Taking this one step further, perhaps we should not even have the covenant enforcement function in the government, but instead return back to a separate resident association concept, with fees levied on residents, instead of taxation, to fund this type of activity. Then however, we would lose the economic advantage of IRS taxation relief and probably suffer a higher total cost for this function. We would not have the financial backing of the large tax dollar base when we have to go to court and engage in a battle with one or more property owners. Therefore, I am not in favor for backtracking on government control of the function.

Whatever occurred in this case seems inappropriate to me on both sides of the fence, but whatever occurred would not change anything in the overall picture. The covenants must be enforced without political influence on the process. I see no reason to add another layer of decision-making. The RDRC recommended decision should normally stand, but it can be contested and overruled. The DSC action should always stand. Residents can contest its decision in court. That keeps the whole process autonomous with checks and balances, and like having the function in an association, it is not governing; it is simply enforcement just like a police law enforcement unit. So the township seems to want to reserve the right to intervene in court cases, because those cases will be in the name of the township. I believe we cannot do that. If it makes the township look bad or affects its image to the public, that cannot be the basis of enforcement; the action can only based on the enforcement of a covenant itself. There is compliance or there is not compliance. Certainly we need to have a contract for legal advice on what action to take sometimes as well as consider alternatives to filing a case in court.  It is also wise to assess the impact of non-compliance and see if there is a real need to take a harsh action. That is up to the RDRC and DSC on how they conduct their business. This has worked well in the past from my experiences, but not saying it will always be so. Community associations almost everywhere also have these issues.

Legally, there are books written on the subject of associations that tend to make one want to have this function in a government, At Harvard, the issue of the power of an association was  reviewed in "The Rule of Law in Residential Associations". As one might expect, there are varying views of this subject in other universities and circles of law. By having the function in the Township, we trump the issues of real government vs "democratic sub-societies". However if we maintain our position of autonomy, any related citizen rights issues remain.  

Current candidate list for The Woodlands Township

Candidates continue to apply for the Township board positions. As we stated in the last article, there are four positions, each defined simply by a number. Each one is an at-large position. Incumbents occupy each one with one incumbent dropping out for personal reasons, leaving that position slated only with new candidates. Nominations remain open for those four positions, but will close soon.

Position 1 - Claude Hunter (incumbent) and Robert Tyson are vying for this position. Hunter has been a cornerstone of the community for quite sometime, highly involved in everything and reasons out all issues. It will be difficult for Tyson to successfully challenge him, but not impossible. Tyson is new to the scene but has challenged WCA directors for quite some time. He will need to convince the public that he is a team player to make any significant inroads to this position.

Position 2 -  Tom Campbell (incumbent) and Michael Donnelly are in this contest. I expect another person might emerge to join in this race. Donnelly, as a dissenter of the establishment, is a weak challenger, while Campbell is organized,  issue-oriented, and always willing to listen to the community, having  a significant following.

Position 3 - Lloyd Matthews (incumbent) has dropped out for personal reasons. He does not feel he can spend adequate time on the job in the next couple of years, so he was ethically obligated to step aside. We may see him back in two years. Those remaining in this race are Jeff Long, the last president of WCA. He is the strongest contender in that he has a great deal of experience in the community politically and has had significant influence on the transition to the Township. Running against him is Adam Muery who is starting a strong campaign based on policing the community. Muery is likely to make this race interesting. The last contender, Jay Mack Sanders is fairly obscure. I am uncertain of his doctrines or contention strength at this time.

Position 4 - Ed Robb (incumbent) has a strong hold on his position and has yet to be challenged for it. He is the pastor at the United Methodist Church on Lake Woodlands and has contributed significantly to the township board before and through the transition of government.        

I believe there will be more candidates entering the election. Some are probably waiting to see who is added on the slate before they select the incumbent they want to challenge.

May election is creeping up on us - watch out for the new position-based process

Subtle changes of process may be evident when you go to the polls this coming May in The Woodlands Township elections. Recent legislation changed the way nominees will be elected here. On May 8th, the Township election will not select the top vote getters at large, as was done in the previous election. It will instead be the winner of each of the new four at-large positions, i.e. the candidate who wins position 1, candidate winning position 2, etc will be on the board. Now how does one select a position to run for? Good question, responded some officials. The timing of application submission goes hand in hand with what strategy to select in campaigning. So to start, four candidates submitted their forms as soon as the process began. Generally speaking, one candidate chose to run for each position, like dominoes, occupying different spaces. None of the first runners elected to run against the other. So one assumes that the incumbents communicated with each other and chose to be separated into each of the four positions. That would make sort of a coalition, but it does not establish much except to make sure incumbents do not run against each other. This is the first time to elect by position, therefore incumbents filing for those four positions makes sense. There is nothing wrong with that as far as I can see; it is simply the effect of the changed law.

Instead of individuals competing each election, it becomes a system of challenging incumbents, not necessarily aligned on political boundaries or platforms. This is what happens in city elections when council candidates are elected by district. They have challengers to their positions. 

The hometown feel of our community is changing with the legislation passed in the last session of the Texas Legislature. Like I say, it is neither good nor bad, just a change, looking down from 1000 feet up. Some residents were suspicious of the change and others were very critical of it, but the arguments against it have not been strong. I question the process but will wait til the end of this article to present my own thoughts.

In the prior election, some people observed weaknesses in the free-for-all at-large-position process. When voting, you chose three from the candidate list who you wanted on the board. Sounded like the top three would just naturally rise to the top. Yes, but you could have been canceling out some of your own vote. I heard several people voice a concern about that. For example, take the scenario below:
You cast all four of your votes.
Candidate #1 - receives 4 votes, you did not vote for this candidate
Candidate #2 - receives 3 votes, your vote included
Candidate #3 - receives 3 votes, your vote included
Candidate #4 - receives 3 votes, your vote included. You wanted this candidate to win most of all.

If you had cast only one vote, for candidate #4, your preferred candidate would have won, given the same results from the others.  The result would then have been:
Candidate #1 - 4 votes , yours not included
Candidate #4 - 3 votes, yours included
Candidate #2 - 2 votes, yours not included
Candidate #3 - 2 votes, yours not included

A different outcome.

Bill SB2515 has these changes to the original legislation:
" (2) an election shall be called for the uniform election date in May of the next succeeding even-numbered year after the election held under Subdivision (1) of this subsection, for the election of four directors by [ add "position"] [cross out "at large"]. Each of the [The] four candidates [receiving the highest number of votes shall be] elected shall serve for a term of two years;"
- and -
" an election shall be called annually thereafter for the uniform election date in May of each year for the election by [add "position" ] of either three or four directors, as appropriate, to serve two-year terms."

Now with the conflicting vote risk removed, each voter can rest assured that his own votes do not affect his own selected candidates negatively.

In a positioning move for the election, the executive committee met last month and decided on names for the four positions to be put on the ballot. They named them "Position 1", "Position 2", etc etc. Each candidate will be allowed to run for one and only one position. A position is not marked by village, demographics or population. It is merely an arbitrarily named position, elected by the majority of at-large votes for that position.

I asked for the rationale behind our at-large position method, and have received a few responses. There were some interesting and relative answers by officials, but nothing from our Austin representatives, nor anyone who actually made the decision to write this new method into law. Therefore I will use what I have, since the rationale presented seems appropriate for the question asked.

It is believed by some that the old way facilitated groups or slates of candidates to run. It could then be a popularity schema, votes going to those who ran together, partied together, or had common ideas or lifestyles in common. They would naturally group together and even develop strategies together, maybe not on purpose, or maybe so. The new method would promote individuality and attract opponents to counter that individuality. Therefore, it would encourage those possessing the highest skills, enthusiasm  and savvy to compete for a specific job (even though it does not pay anything). That would seem to be in the best interest of the public. It would promote more focused debates among those running for a single position rather than everyone debating everyone running for the positions that are up for election.    

Coupled to that, one would assume there is rationale against geographic districts being established here. Indeed there is an argument against that. Should we pit geographic area against geographic area in the routine operation of the Township? If the Township was divided into geographic positions, it is feared by some that the mere fact of having area representation would detract from governing in meetings and in the voting process, for show and political reasons. Since the demographics of each area is homogeneous, a districting method would seem counter productive. You would want the board to act in unison on most issues. There is a lot of work to do. Quibbling and bickering on who is getting what and special area interests should be minimized in debate and in decision making, not saying that an area consideration be tabled, but be considered as part of the whole, not represented and defended by a board member's residential location. The new way encourages team decision making for the benefit of the whole and not special interests in geographic areas. Normally, districting is put into place to represent the interests of minority groups. We don't have the distribution of any minority in any special place in The Woodlands.

Commentary

Basically I agree in part with the view that in theory, we are ethnically and racially homogeneous. I also agree that we need unity of purpose and efficiencies on the board of directors.The entire community has been designed to prevent areas from being ethnically or racially overweight.  That was part of the master plan. From what I know, Hispanics, for example, are spread throughout The Woodlands. I do however have an instinct on some demographics that are prevalent in some areas. For example, there are probably lower median incomes in the WCA part of The Woodlands (eastern) vs the TWA part (western). Additionally, the median age of a resident is likely higher in the WCA villages than the TWA villages. Age of the communities also play a role in the spacial demographics and necessities of areas. For example those living in Grogans Mill and Panther Creek have issues with aging streets and pathways, while those to their west may be more concerned about filling in missing links in pathways and planting trees.

Generally, cities have at-large positions and area positions. I personally believe it would be to our advantage to have three area positions and four at-large positions. That would be like a city government and would promote more trust in the community on where being represented. Having area districts enable lower cost campaigns and less effort to run for a position.

Saying that, we also have village associations to help in representing residents to the board. I have to wait to see how this works out. The villages have no voting power or authority, but resident issues are and will continue to be heard by the board. Therefore there are residents elected to village positions having significant influence on the board's decisions. This in my opinion should offset any representation issues.I hope residents partner with the board of directors to take the village associations more serious and demand that the voices in the associations be heard. That is where local issues should be brought forward. It is my opinion that the president of each village association should be charged with making local representation be heard. We are positioned to do this. Let's make it work!

Finally, it seems that in order to be constitutionally aligned with tax representation, there would be area representation. A  government by and for the people means that an equal  population-based tally of will is the only way to determine how tax dollars are to be collected and spent. Maybe we have that in our current law, maybe not. I am not a lawyer. We seem to be in a gray area of legal interpretation, from what I hear. So onward on the path to May 8th. Let's see what happens. The positions remain open for additional candidates.

Census 2010 - how important is it to us?

The simple answer - VERY! It is a trillion+ dollar issue, and the related decisions based on the Census endures until the next census in 2020! That is a long long time. We in Texas (and especially Montgomery County) are part of the few states and counties that are growing rapidly. We have the responsibility to ourselves to make ourselves known to the Census Bureau. The U.S. Census was established to count people so that they could be represented by our government which is for the people and by the people. I am a partner on the team, having taken a certification class, so I am able to "see" the process, and I feel comfortable with the process.  The process is important and safe. Ten questions will be asked in ten minutes lasting for ten years.

Census Day will be April 1st. Questions will be answered on what your household is anticipated to be on that day. For example, if your child is going to get married and leave the household, that "child" should be interviewed separately, so that person can establish location and their residence situation independently.

Forms will be mailed to your home in March. Census workers will subsequently be visiting the homes of people who have not answered the questionnaire.

Every year, some $300 billion is distributed to states and communities based in large part on census data. In a high growth area, typically there are financial issues associated with the growth and maintenance of infrastructure and projects that are required, which would not normally be required if the population was stable and self sufficient. We need every person to be counted so that we get our share of the funds. The government's representation in decision-making for those funds is reorganized based on the resultant numbers.

How is the process safe? Do you know that if there is an illegal activity observed by a census taker at the home where that person is conducting business of the Census Bureau, the census worker is sworn to not report what was seen? He is not exempt from being summoned to court, but he will not cause any issue with the law. The worker is not an arm of law enforcement, nor responsible in any way for what he sees at your home.

The purpose of the visit is strictly to count people, nothing else, leaving the household as he found it, without any risk to the inhabitants. It is all about numbers - identifying the number of potential volunteers for community services, the number of voters, demographics of voters and residents for government programs and grants, etc etc. Numbers! Numbers to help the community, with no risk! The only risk is not being counted - then you have failed to help your community, your government to make decisions, to represent you. So please, do your part and get the word out to those on your mailing lists and social networks. This is a national effort, and you have the opportunity to promote the process.

How important are volunteers in The Woodlands?

Volunteers have historically been the key to a successful community here in The Woodlands Texas. All governing functions have originated from these residents, some of whom have been elected and others as ad hoc volunteers. With the advent of a taxing authority, we will now be governed by a single volunteer board of elected directors to The Woodlands Township. This only replaces the governing constituents of the associations. There remains the necessity to operate our covenant standards enforcement with resident elected volunteers. There is also the continued need to have village associations with elected residents.

This month, the associations put together a "final" annual celebration for volunteers. Each year, the progress of the community is celebrated in a Christmas party as a "thank you" from the community for the work of volunteers. This is an event always appreciated by the volunteers and has in itself created an atmosphere of willingness to serve in our community. This year we had a live band but normally we have a DJ to play music. Those who I have talked to prefer the DJ over the live band due to of the variety of music and lack of dead time when the live entertainment takes a break. Many people decided to leave when the band took its break this year. Also the the service company staff always comes to this meeting and dance, and they enjoy the evening alongside the volunteers. Since we all work together throughout the year, this is a perfect event to cap off the year.

So I ask, is this the last of this type of celebration? Have we matured into something less hometown? I hope not. The community derives a great deal of benefit by the teamwork demonstrated in every meeting and event through the year. Maybe the Township can find this type of event useful to keep costs down and encourage continued resident participation in hometown activities beyond the village events. This tradition will be sorely missed by those who have grown to appreciate the contributions of fellow volunteers. We have tradition. I hope this was not the last of these year-end celebrations.

Election 2009 November 3rd

An election is coming up on November 4th or earlier if you wish to participate in early voting.  At this link, you can review the ballot²

Woodlands Propositions
 There are three proposition for The Woodlands. All three are bond proposals. As stated elsewhere on this website, I endorse all three "FOR". These are very important for our community, enabling the township to issue bonds to borrow for payment of the specific constructed assets over the lifetime of the assets being constructed.  Please refer to the articles under "References and Resources" for additional information and/or access to the township website. Page 2, second column.^{3 4 5}

Texas Constitutional Amendments
Woodlands residents will also vote on state constitutional amendments below. These are my tentative conclusions that I am sharing with all readers. However, I encourage everyone to read the resources provided and whatever else they can find that is "legitimate"  and "trusted"  to reach their own conclusions. 

Proposition 1 :"FOR".  Enabling a municipality or county to acquire land adjacent to military property, using bonds. Of course an election for each bond proposal would be required. The legislature would have to draw up the appropriate language.
Proposition 2: "FOR". Valuation of homestead residence solely on residence value, not potential commercial value. This is the fair way of property valuation. It has been a weakness in our valuation system for years. Although it will affect some  government coiffures, I believe it is about time we protect homeowners against commercial valuations, which ultimately can drive them out of their homes.
Proposition 3: "AGAINST". Uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes statewide. I do not think this is needed.  Leave valuation up the counties. There are processes for contesting valuations in our county and it should be the same for all counties. .
Proposition 4:  "FOR".  Establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund. This would enable additional universities in Texas to participate in major research and become on even par with the traditional large universities - A and M, and UT. Our state has grown well beyond being a two major university state and we should move to the 21st century with the funding of other major institutions. There will be no additional taxation. In our area alone, we expect the University of Houston to graduate to a tier one school if this amendment passes.
Proposition 5:  "FOR". Authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations. This applies to The Woodlands. We have two appraisal entities - Harris County and Montgomery County. We may want to consolidate the two for The Woodlands for consistency of valuations. It makes sense when two adjoining entities fall under the same taxation umbrella.
Proposition 6:  "FOR". Authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized. I see no reason not to do this. 
Proposition 7:  "FOR".  Allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.This is just an oversight when Texas started the guard. There is no reason to exclude any member of the guard from other civil positions.
Proposition 8: "FOR". Authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state. Many veterans have to travel many miles to get hospital care because of the size of our state and the distribution of veteran hospitals. This enable the state to assist the federal government by contributing resources to the Veterans agency.
Proposition 9: "FOR". to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The shore should be open and public. This enables that to happen. Encroachment of water from erosion and has recently caused the loss of public beach access. Beachfront homeowners wish to protect their privacy and keep the public off of what used to be "their" land. This proposition is contested based on "squatter's rights". The open beach act should prevail.
Proposition 10: "AGAINST". Elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years. Due to the nature of the services, I cannot endorse pushing someone out of control on the basis of number of years. Let that be determined by the election or appointment processes.
Proposition 11: "FOR". prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State ... Please refer to the reference on this proposition for the full text of the proposition.¹ See the opposition arguments in the reference.

Voting Information

In Texas, early voting can take place for any county-registered voter at any voting location in that county. For example, if you live in Montgomery County and are registered in Montgomery County, you can vote at any of the Montgomery County designated locations in early voting. On the day of election, each registered voter may vote only at their designated precinct location.

Early voting will take place from Monday, October 19, 2009 through Friday, October 30, 2009. Early voting will not take place on the weekends unless specified otherwise. From October 19, 2009 through October 24, 2009, early voting locations will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; from October 26, 2009 through October 28, 2009, polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and October 29, 2009 through October 30, 2009, polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Montgomery County early voting locations are:

Montgomery County Administration Annex

(Building with County Attorney & District Attorney Offices)

207 West Phillips – Conroe, Texas 77301

Malcolm Purvis Library

510 Melton Street – Magnolia, Texas 77354

South County Community Building

2235 Lake Robbins Drive – The Woodlands, Texas 77380

North Montgomery County Community Center

600 Gerald Street – Willis, Texas 77378

East County Courthouse Annex

21130 U.S. Highway 59 South – New Caney, Texas 77357

West Montgomery County Annex

19380 Hwy 105 West – Montgomery, Texas 77356

The Harris County early voting polling location will be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Harris County early voting location is:

134 W. Crystal Canyon Circle – The Woodlands, Texas 77389

On Election Day, there will be nine consolidated Montgomery County polling locations in The Woodlands Township and one location in Harris County for the Village of Creekside Park. The polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The polling places are:

Precincts 69, 76, 81 - Mitchell Intermediate, 6800 Alden Bridge Drive

Precincts 58, 59, 70 - Bear Branch Recreation Center, 5310 Research Forest Drive

Precincts 56, 75  - Windsor Hills Clubhouse, One Windsor Hills Circle

Precincts 71, 78 - Buckalew Elementary, 4904 W. Alden Bridge Drive

Precincts 3, 61 - The Woodlands High School Ninth Grade Campus, 10010 Branch Crossing Drive

Precincts 31, 62 - Collins Intermediate, 6020 Shadowbend Place

Precincts 4, 48, 49 - Copperwood Apartments, 4407 S. Panther Creek Drive

Precincts 33, 67, 84 - Lamar Elementary, 1300 Many Pines Road

Precincts 32, 45, 79 - Wilkerson Intermediate, 12312 Sawmill Road

Harris County - Creekside Forest Elementary School, 5949 Creekside Forest

References and Resources

¹ Analysis of Proposed Constitutional Amendments by the Texas Legislative Council
² Example Ballot
³Township Bond Election Brochure
⁴ Woodlands Commentary Bond Update
⁵ Woodlands Commentary Bond Endorsement 
⁶Texas Online Voting Central - Texas Registration database 
⁷Tommy Willams Guide to Constitutional Amendments

---

Budget Police Proposal 2010

---

The new policing plan proposal of the Township will provide consolidated service for the entire community. It appears to be a cost effective program and accomplishes the goal to merge all resources into one package. Let me start by saying I endorse the proposal, because while reading this article, one might think otherwise. I do question if the proposed operating unit is sized properly. My focus is on the metrics and doing the right thing for the right goal. This proposal adds 0.9 cents to the budget. What is a $200,000 homeowner asked to pay for this service? I choose to use a $200,000 assessment because it is easily scalable - only $18 per year or $1.50 per month. I can see some political or psychological value of the proposal and logical value to the community, but am not convinced that we actually need the number of deputies in the proposal. People respond, “Can’t you see all the crime here?” I do not take a position because of the media, nor out of reaction to a short-term problem. Managing a business has been a long-term task for me. I’ve been here many years and talked to many people about the police manpower in this community. Personally, I do not like to invest in intangibles unless there is measurable value to them. Why would anyone do so when they can invest in tangibles, which have cumulative and long lasting value? So I will outline the plan, as I understand it, and outline what little portion of it that bothers me. Basically, I am concerned about the derivation of the proposal.

The proposed plan is to reorganize the Montgomery County law enforcement districts such that The Woodlands becomes its own district. Currently it is part of the large district 2. Having our own district, limits the trips outside of our area, except in dire situations. It makes the reporting easier and customization of services easier. What is more important is that it provides a captain over the Township, commanding the force – a single point contact accountable for costs, services and processes used for enforcement, directly reporting to the Sheriff and the Township, managing the personnel issues, and performing the reporting and administrative functions. District 2 is funded by the county and provides proportional police service to us because of our percentage of population in the county. In this plan, the workforce assigned to us from District 2 would be merged into the current Woodlands deputy force funded by the Township, forming one operational entity. We have known for some time that the merger has an opportunity to consolidate the resident patrols with the Town Center patrols. So we put all of this into one pot and call it The Woodlands District. This will enable an organization that essentially performs like a police force for a municipality. It conforms to the processes of the county, but it is flexible enough to tend to the needs of the community. Additionally, we pay for the cooperative policing in the I45 corridor with Shenandoah and Oak Ridge. That is an additional and debatable cost being phased out in the plan over the next two years. In the new plan, we would grow our contracted deputy staff by 27%. I have not yet seen all the details of the proposed Woodlands District plan, but the million-dollar price tag is staggering, and therefore my concern for metrics behind the proposal. I am certainly not alone in this, as I have had a few people express their similar concerns. It is still early in the budget process. I hope to hear from more of you on this and other issues.

Since we cannot execute the full plan in 2010 due to the county being under economic constraints, funds to hire the additional deputies to execute this plan are not available. In the first part of the two-year plan, 2010 would be a transition year, adding a patrol for the village centers. So you see, this will be part of the long term solution as well. Part of our taxes will go to commercial use, guarding businesses (and shoppers) in the village centers and their immediate surrounding area, perhaps snagging a bank robber or two near or in the centers. I see recent robberies playing a role here, even though the banks have elected to have insurance policies instead of guards. Currently, normal resident deputies serve the centers. So theoretically they would be more available to respond to resident calls or traffic issues, and the new deputies would provide a specialized service to all the commercial centers outside of Town Center. The cost for this part of the plan is $360,000, or 1/3 of the total. Commercial patrols would be divided into two zones. The north would serve Alden Bridge, Cochran's Crossing, Windvale and College Park. The south zone would serve Grogan's Mill, Panther Creek, Indian Springs, Walmart/2978, and Sterling Ridge. Coverage would be 80 hours per week by one officer in each zone.¹

Emotions are running high with some people in The Woodlands as a result of the number of bank robberies and other crimes, but we need just plain common sense to prevail. What alternatives were rejected in this proposal? It seems no one yet is presenting how we got here. This budget project proposal sounds good on the surface, but the details and history will tell the full story. I have not seen any metrics yet that drive the proposal nor have I seen metrics that tell us how many deputies we should have for the size of community we have and based on the workload of this force. For example, we need quick response when we call 911 and fairly quick response sometimes even when we call the non-emergency number. One stated goal of the project is to improve response. What is the current response? What do we need it to be? What can we expect different with the service level in the new plan? Those numbers are not (yet) published. What is the number of officers we have out on the streets on an average? I would think we should know the equivalent people on the streets for each given hour. (FTE patrolling). Accountability to operational metrics might also include a diversity of street presence. Instead, I see the metrics of the criminals. How many robberies, how many thefts, etc etc. Maybe one can staff based on the number of reported crimes, but that is not really a good way to staff, is it? The criminals, not the police force, determine that metric. That makes the criminals the drivers of our taxes. One can argue that the number of cars present will deter crime. I am betting that it would make little difference. One can call the number of crime incidents “the workload”, and it is just that to some extent, but it is certainly not clear that we have a handle on the number of officers needed for our community. Maybe the plan has too few, maybe too many. Metrics should be able to guide us through decisions that can be measured for effectiveness.

I know this could be considered a controversial article. It is intended to bring some resident issues to the table to stimulate thought. I know there are other residents here who have the same value system as I do, although they may have bigger pocket books than I. All good big capital project managers have value-driven metrics. Operational managers too will tell you they need meaningful metrics to make meaningful decisions. So when someone wants to spend our money on additional police, I have to ask, what will that money do for us and how was that number derived? Someone might say it buys you protection. I don’t think so. Read everything you can about policing and find out where the police have actually protected someone in neighborhoods. They are not guards, as we employ them. They are responders to help people when called. Then and only then do they normally provide something of measurable value.

We asked for additional law enforcement a few years back because we had serious issues on our streets. Several residents were killed in car accidents. Who is responsible for improving accidental death statistics on the roads? Injuries still occur. Maybe the additional staffing has had no effect, and we have just been lucky. We remain with many drivers doing crazy things on our roads. If we are going to throw dollars at the problem, let's do it cautiously with measurable results. Perhaps the biggest impact is to go door to door and get people to seek change in the community - to lock their doors. The Sheriff's office has told us over and again the same story - residents are contributing heavily to the crime problem.

We don’t have local ordinances to enforce. Local ordinances generate additional work. Our police work is standard for the laws of the county and state. Having higher police visibility is also a goal of this project program. I am not sure how to measure that and am wondering if it should even be a goal. Police presence in a neighborhood is negative to some people. In my opinion, the best deterrent in not presence but reputation. If our police force has a reputation of being johnny-on-the-spot and likely to apprehend anyone committing a crime here, that will deter criminals. If residents have a front line of defense and are known to not be easy picking, then that will deter criminals as well. I see those as two focus points for effectiveness. Newspapers advertise our crime. Maybe we should counter advertise with our successes.

I am sort of questioning the necessity of this project based on what not has been presented. The goals and metrics are not well defined publicly. I have been questioning it for the past year. It seems to me that we need to look at efficiency. This may only be a communication issue, but no metrics have been presented. How many deputies are in the office vs. on the street? How spread out are the deputies in the community? Do they have sufficient backup? What is their response time to emergency calls or those that that need immediate attention? How many false alarms are they servicing or missing? How long are they at a crime site? Metrics have not been used to present the case for the project. How many deputies are enough? What can we do to free the deputies up? Doing an efficiency and work process study could save us millions over the next five years. I don't think we have done that over the past 3 years, since we switched to the Sheriff's services. We continue to use the original study. Since then, our experience with policing this community has grown in size and complexity. If we take my neighborhood as an example, my neighbors can testify to their current level of service. But how about system-wide? My neighborhood has generally received acceptable police response to emergencies and non-emergencies. In contrast, our fire response has not been acceptable, yet our service level will probably remain the same until 2012 in this budget plan. That is measured and published. True, we are not having major fires here (yet) to raise our level of concern like the crime incidents that we read about in the newspaper.

What can we do to help reduce the number of police required and make our force more cost effective? There are several views to this. The statistics that people use now to show the crime rate has a mixture of what I call “forced crime” where the criminal breaks the law no matter the obstructions or difficulties and “accommodated crime” where the criminal breaks the law with no obstructions, or basically where the community or homeowner allows the crime to easily occur. We are told that the bulk of our crime is the latter case, committed by young people, who live here or in nearby communities, seeking easy fast targets so they are not detected. Their goal is to move quickly and get what they can as fast as they can and perhaps even use a stolen car (probably not locked) so that their identity is unknown. So the way I see it, if we are indeed driven by the number of incidents for staffing our police force, we who take precautions are paying for someone else’s negligence. Residents and businesses and the community have an obligation to protect their assets with alarms and locks. I do. Why can’t others? Some people say we need more presence on the streets. I say that would help just a little. Apprehension is the key to success, but if you look at when residents typically report an incident, it is too late to apprehend the criminal. A swarm of police at the time of the incident helps the apprehension process significantly. Otherwise, the incident becomes a report, not an engagement and an unlikely apprehension. The first line of defense is not the police but the resident, the storekeeper and store owner, and the community. They are the first responders; they are the eyes of the community. That will be the case no matter how many officers we have on contract (or employed for that matter, if that was an option). If they are not reporting the incident while it is happening, it is often too late to do much about it.

Why don’t we advocate conservative approaches in our governing body as it transitions to a consolidated entity? Maybe the first year we could have another look at the concepts behind our policing strategies. We need to lower our taxes if we can, but more importantly, we need to be right sized in police force and we need service levels based on the right measurements. If we have to, and it can be rightly justified, then we have to reorganize and deploy more officers on the streets. I just do not see yet that we have to fund this size of a police force. Is it too large or too small or just right? If we don't know that, we don't know the budget. Given the appropriate numbers to drive staffing levels, we could be convinced we need this exact number of deputies and administrative staff, but establishing a tax levy for this is simply does not seem right, given the current information available and economic climate. Maybe all of this has already been considered. I asked if efficiencies were considered and board member took notes, but maybe a better question would have been “what were the rejected alternatives to this proposal?”

Asking a few residents in our neighborhood how they feel about this, the response has been positive but conditional. One person responded: "There has been a lot of money wasted in the associations and it just continues. This would be more important than some of those expenses." Another said, "I would not mind paying the additional cost as long as it produces notable results." Asked if police response to recent calls has been satisfactory, the reply has been overwhelmingly "yes" from those who have needed and used the service with one exception. A resident noted that the response was good, the apprehension occurred, but the law breaker was released. "If the law is not enforced, why should I pay for law enforcement?"

In general, I am for right-sizing tax assessments to fit the needs of the community. Expectations are different among residents. Some have a 30-cent mentality, others a 32-cent expectation and still others a 34-cent expectation. Many people would like to drive down the cost of living here. Almost everyone I talk to wants to be taxed on need, not want or false perception. The desire for responsible and transparent spending is the trend of thought from about everyone I speak to. Personally, I want to see excellence here and live in a safe place. I do not believe it is possible to keep crooks out. It is possible to protect ourselves and get excellent response from law enforcement officials when we need it. Maybe we already have sufficient response. Perhaps an education program and resident participation program should be part of the budget. Yes, we have the awareness program, but it needs a tune-up. I believe it is a weak program needing a complete overhaul.

As you are probably aware, this program is one of four that raises the tax rate from an operational base of 25.3 to 32.8 cents per $100. The policing project costs $2mm over two years or 0.9 cents per $100. The table below from the presentation in the town hall meeting demonstrates the major add-on costs in the budget best. I have added tax payer dollars to it.

Program	Tax  in cents/$100 assessment	Tax for $200,000 home
Base Operations and debt - current service level	23.5	$470
New Police program	0.9	$18
Existing major capital projects on books (ISV fire station , Creekside station) plus replace Central Station	3.1	$62
Other capital projects - New parks and pathways - Village of Creekside Park and new developments	3.5	$70
Total	32.8	$756

Resources
¹ Public Security Plan by Vice President of Operations & Public Safety - Steve Sumner
²Township Budget Initiatives, page 2