Houston and Conroe's share of the booty, actioned upon by Project Planning and Development Committee

By agreement with Houston and Conroe, we share 1/16 of 1% of sales taxes collected here with these two cities collectively in order to be "free". This has seemed reasonable from day one. There should be no big issue with it. The reasonableness comes from the fact that we enjoy the amenities of Houston and Conroe, using the roads they maintain, and other services (parks, garbage pickup at public sites, etc) that they provide. A city always uses some of their sales taxes for capital improvements, but they are restricted in what projects are eligible.¹. Houston's general sales tax is 1%. Ours is 2%. They also have a 1% transit sales tax, so their total tax is 2%, the state maximum - same as ours, 2%. So if Houston had annexed The Woodlands, we would be paying 1% sales tax from all stores to Houston for their improvement and use, which would include The Woodlands area, apportioned as they would have seen fit to whatever projects they see fit. We assume we would also be paying 1% transit tax also, but that was never determined. Conroe has a 2% general sales tax. So 1/16th of 1% does seem to be quite a reasonable cost for being free from annexation. We are The Woodlands and control our own destiny.

We have a committee in The Woodlands Township to administer our role in this part of the two municipal contracts. That is called the PROJECT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. That recommends which projects the Township supports to execute with the funds we provide. What seemed like a rubber stamp when the committee made its recommendation earlier this year, probably was just that, a rubber stamp to Houston's proposed projects.

This year, Houston listed projects directly from the eligible list as a starter to this process. We agreed to the list. We actually agreed as residents when we voted "yes" for the Township. We as a government agreed to them via this committee's recommendation. A few of the projects are a little obscure as to our benefit, but the scope of the expenditures does not have to include our specific interests. Benefactors are those who live in the region, not residents within The Woodlands, although we are of course direct benefactors from some projects such as the extension of Hardy Tollway. Houston does not in fact have to even seriously consider our thoughts on these regional projects. They do it as a courtesy but as a requirement of the contract. This makes me wonder why we even bother to review them and maybe we don't. Yet I cannot help but think if we came up with a reasonable project, the city would consider it amidst the others. If we are astute on this matter in the future, we would seek ideas to add to Houston's and Conroe's project lists that would influence the northern area's interests. Although at this time, we need not be very involved in choosing projects, the time will come when we should be participative.

For the time being, we can continue to agree to the cities' projects, being a rubber stamp, since the improvements will be made there, not here and we have actually agreed upon them anyway at the onset of a new government. All current eligible projects for the Houston/Township agreement were listed in an attachment to the agreement with Houston.

So the booty this year is $16 million to Houston and $320,000 to Conroe. This money has already been paid to those municipalities by financing a short-term bond at 5.25% that can be discontinued at any time, when we want to buy a long term bond at a better rate. The Township managed a good financial arrangement where it has excellent flexibility. Hopefully, our economic environment will become more stable within the year and money for long term bonds will be readily available again.

For your additional reference, I have included the pertinent text referencing these projects, extracted from the signed agreement with Houston. I thought about summarizing them since they are written in typical legal jargon, but decided not to "interpret" the text. Have fun of you want to go take a run through the text!

²Eligible Projects
Eligible Projects for purposes of this Agreement shall mean and include any program or project described in Section 43.0754(d) of the Act, and such other similar projects or programs as may now or hereafter be permitted by law and mutually agreed upon in writing by the Representatives. All of the Projects listed in Exhibit “B” attached hereto are Eligible Projects.
Section 3.2. Selected Projects. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.10(b) above, and after giving consideration to the sufficiency of funds on hand in the Regional Participation Fund, and the likelihood that any alternative or additional sources of funding may be or may become available in the foreseeable future from gifts, grants or contributions or payments by others, the Representatives shall endeavor in good faith to periodically select one or more Eligible Projects (the “Selected Projects”) for funding and implementation pursuant to this Agreement, with priority given to the Projects listed on Exhibit “B”. If the Representatives are unable to agree upon the selection of Eligible Projects, then the selection proposed by the Representative of the City shall be deemed to have been adopted, subject to the right of any other Representative to invoke the dispute resolution procedures of this Agreement to determine whether such selection complies with Section 43.0754(d) of the Act. The Projects selected by the City Representative shall be conclusive unless the arbitrators determine that the City has abused its discretion by selecting a Project not included on Exhibit "B" or in Section 43.0754(d) of the Act.
Section 3.3. Project Reconsideration. If, for any reason, binding obligations in the amount of the lesser of $100,000 or 10% of the estimated Project Costs of a Selected Project (other than a Project listed on Exhibit “B”) have not been made or incurred within eighteen (18) months after the selection of the non-Exhibit “B” Selected Project, the Project Manager, upon request of a party, shall provide the Representatives with a report detailing the reasons for such delay and the anticipated constraints upon and time requirements for successful implementation of such Selected Project. Upon receipt and review of such report, the Project Representative for any party may request that such Selected Project be suspended and that the selection and continued implementation of such Selected Project be reconsidered. If implementation of such Selected Project in the foreseeable future is not reasonably expected, and if suspension and reconsideration of such Selected Project has been requested by any Representative, implementation shall be suspended by the Project Manager as soon as practicable pending such reconsideration. Within 30 days of suspension of implementation of a non-Exhibit "B" Selected Project, the Representatives shall apply the procedures set out in Section 3.1 and 3.2 to determine whether the Project will be reinstated as a Selected Project and with what priority.

Other References

• Handbook of Texas Online - History of Sales Tax in Texas
• ¹Texas Comptroller - Local Sales and Use Tax
• ²Houston/Township Agreement

Conroe School District - 2008 Rezoning Controversies for Mitchell, Deretchin, Coulson Tough and Galatas

Here in Indian Springs, as well as adjoining villages, we face an issue with school zoning and feeder systems. After passing a bond issue last fall to increase capacity, there is a controversy on how to proceed with rezoning the elementary schools, a necessary consideration for capacity change. A group of interested residents in this and neighboring villages have put their energy into studying the proposal and petitioning the ABC (Attendance Boundary Committee) committee in CISD to not rezone the schools, as has been recently proposed. Today and tomorrow the ABC committee presents their conclusions to the parents of these schools. "If the ABC’s newest “Combined Scenario 1” is put in place, overcrowding problems are shifted to Mitchell in just two short years."

Changing zones affects many different things - busing, whether a child can ride a bike to school, friends, and graduation years (to higher level school). It even affects the rationale for moving into a neighborhood. As mentioned earlier in our blog supporting the election bonds in 2008, there are principles which govern the construction of buildings and the use of temporary facilities in the schools. Administrative governance using those principles is a best practice. Now the residents are questioning why there seems to be an effort to deviate away from those principles. They say they are under a time crunch to dissuade the ABC committee from recommending going forward with one option for rezoning Deretchin and Tough. Indeed there is a time critical consideration. A process is being followed that includes parents, and there are parents on the ABC committee from Deretchin and Coulson Tough. The process includes meetings with parents to communicate the results but does not appear to have a means for dissenting parents to affect the outcome.

"They want to move 300 students from Deretchin to Tough and move 400 Tough students out to Galatas and Mitchell. We believe that students should be moved out of Deretchin to Galatas and Mitchell." notes Jennifer Reitmeyer, a resident of Indian Springs and one of the leaders of this movement. She goes on to say, "With the passing of this referendum, Coulson Tough will add an additional 8 classrooms to the school. With the new addition, the capacity, according to the ABC, is 1185. Current enrollment at Tough is 1295. If you do the math, that means we will be at 109% capacity!". She notes the statement of Dr. Stockton, directed to me personally, 'I read in your article that you asked Dr. Stockton about contingency plans should there be a change in the actual growth. His response was, partly, “Actually, we do not consider a campus over capacity until it reaches 125% of the building capacity.”'

She along with several others have petitioned ABC to redirect their efforts to an alternate proposal which would better serve the district. "Many of the scenarios presented by the ABC at the original forums moved children out of Coulson Tough to then move children into Coulson Tough from Deretchin. That just did not make sense to many of the parents. The majority of the people we spoke to agreed that moving the least amount of families would be in the best interest of everyone involved. So our main objective was to present the committee with ideas that impacted the least amount of children while maximizing use of CISD facilities. Another concern of many parents was the bond referendum that was passed in May. Many feel that it was presented as the solution to overcrowding at Tough. Nothing was said about rezoning back in the spring before the referendum was passed. This whole issue of rezoning took a lot of people by surprise because they thought overcrowding was not going to be a problem at Tough once the eight classroom addition was built."

The data for the ‘United We Stand’ petition was collected by Deanna Clark and Jennifer Reitmeyer. The signatures were collected by scores of concerned parents and taxpayers. It was amazing to see so many families come together and work so hard! We had 676 people sign the ‘United We Stand’ petition. These words are really at the heart of the petition from which I quote: Our students and families would rather all stay at our school with a few “portables”, lovingly named “Tough Town”, which easily meets the goal of “providing for the education and welfare of all students…” rather than be forced into a new school and new school configuration after seven years. The newest and undeveloped areas within the Deretchin feeder zones make the most sense to convert, if necessary, to K-4/5-6, since fewer families will be affected by the reconfiguration and those that will be affected have only been there a short time, in most cases less than a year or two. Many of our families purchased our homes based on a having a CISD K-6 Flex school configuration, for the sake of our children. Many of our children and their siblings have attended Coulson Tough since its inception in 2002; strong roots develop into strong academic performance! We OPPOSE rezoning the Coulson Tough School feeder zones. The most recent response of this group is presented here just before the meeting with parents today. As the proposal has have shifted over the past couple of weeks, many of the parents not on the ABC committee are frustrated that they are not being heard and fear a poor decision is imminent.

Total number of students at Mitchell after rezoning:

School Year	5th Grade	6th Grade	Total	% Capacity
2009-2010	637	591	1228	102.3
2010-2011	667	637	1304	108.7
2011-2012	672	667	1309	111.6

It appears that very little attention has been paid to the effect the rezoning plans will have on Mitchell in just two short years! Mitchell Intermediate will be overcrowded as soon as this rezoning occurs, at 102.3% of building capacity. As well as looking at the current student census, you must also consider how the upcoming classes will overload the capacity of Mitchell to an even greater extent. Mitchell will be at 108.7% of capacity only 12 months after its newly rezoned students are moved in, and at a 111.6% just 24 months if this “massive student shuffle” is allowed to occur in the current Tough-Deretchin feeder zones. For CISD to ask those families to be rezoning yet again is not efficient nor is it fiscally responsible to the public.

Other Resources

• "Parents upset about rezoning options" - Courier of Montgomery County
• Parents still against Tough rezoning option - Courier of MOntgomery County
• CISD zoning process and goals
• CISD Rezoning Scenarios

Woodlands Township Meetings venue

As one might guess, there is something to say about the current controversy on meeting places and times of The Woodlands Township. We as a community are in transition from an association paradigm to a government paradigm. In that, I recognize the desire of those who serve now, to do so in day time hours at a convenient location. In this interim transition, the Township board has decided to conduct business later in the day, at 9AM instead of 7:30AM, which is personally OK with me but not so for some others. Additionally, to compensate for not being available to some residents, the meetings will be video taped. Additional services are being provided such as quarterly public meetings to provide an additional venue for residents to discuss their issues and the board to connect to issues on the minds of residents. Budget meetings will be held at 9AM. Although not optimum, this may be fine for now but I believe it is far short of what is needed by the year 2010.

The idea that the operation of the government should be established equal to other towns of this size is not a very good one. The operation should be based on the needs of our community, not the needs of other communities. We are unique, and we can design an operation around that uniqueness. We do not need to be like other communities of this size. We need to be our own community based on our demographics and needs.

These changes passed at the last monthly Township meeting are all good but again, insufficient for the long term. What we need is to totally reset the venue. The current location is too small. My suggestion is to have one meeting per month now in the evening in a location where residents can participate, maybe even a local school would suffice. Proceedings must be open and transparent. Transparency is provided through the video taping of the proceedings, openness is not.

Why would this be so important here in this little community? The town has a large population of professional people who commute to downtown Houston and other locations outside of The Woodlands. Morning meetings are out of the question for many. The reason our town continues to grow and flourish, even in poor housing development times, is the oil industry. The oil industry is booming! Most people living here and working in the oil industry commute during hours before dawn. They typically arrive home in the rush hour with everyone else so that their family life is in sync with children sports and other activities. We have to consider that those things which affect our homes and family lives are attached to the governing body of our hometown. In in the past, that personal link from our leadership has been provided by the association in the evenings. In the future that link becomes the Township.

I am firmly for the new changes but call for a stronger availability of our government to the residents. The changes made in this month's meeting to improve meetings are but a step in the right direction. Our village associations will certainly need to play a stronger role in providing residents a better quality of life, but the government must be available to the residents as well, and we cannot afford to leave out the backbone of our community, those who commute to work. Decisions are not made quarterly. They are made in special and regular meetings monthly.

Township reference link: Newsflash

Two Months after Elections - Woodlands Township, Texas

Now that the newly elected directors have had sufficient time to acclimate to their new community paradigm, we as residents have to ask - how is this government entity working out in the larger schema for May 2010, which is less than 2 years away? In 2010, the remainder of the seven resident directors will be elected. Until then, we will have eleven directors consisting of six Town Center Improvement District legacy directors and five at-large Township resident-elected directors. This is a government in transition with substantial issues on its plate. 

First, Frank Robinson has stepped down from his position as business manager for the Woodlands Township. This will affect our government operation. He had very significant influence. The many times I discussed issues with him, I always found he was on top of them with a clear vision of direction and outcome. He accepted the city manager job in Apple Valley California (pop 78000). His move is only the result of personal opportunity and the need for a change in his life. He will be missed here after some 14 years of contributions. This puts an additional burden on the Township board. Three vice-presidents of the Township have taken his role in the interim, while the board seeks a replacement. We the residents of The Woodlands wish him the best! 

Second, Bob Kinnear, a Woodlands resident and former director of the Township, has been appointed to the Township Director board to replace Mr. Tarrance, rather than placing the decision in the hands of the voters.  Kinnear's credentials in big business, stakeholder as a resident, and director experience became the dominating factors for replacing the vacated position. His appointment is intended to balance the board constituency during the transition period, while the association turns over its responsibilities to the township. Since he is not one of the directors of the association and has the transition knowledge needed to move forward,  Kinnear is believed to be the appropriate choice for the position. Bob Kinnear did not, however, seek the office through the election in May. This does not seem accidental. However, he is qualified to hold the job. Residents might have preferred to vote for a new director, but the wisdom of the board must prevail in this unique situation.  It was entirely within the legal right of the board to appoint whomever it believed to be an appropriate replacement for the resigning Tarrance and the work ahead. In my own opinion, the appointment process is unfortunate, yet we will nevertheless have an excellent person in the position to help during the transition period. Perhaps we would miss the training aspect of a resident who wants to participate on the board after 2010? This transition period is a training frame, an opportunity to position potential candidates for the future. The alternative person, who might have been appointed from the election slate, is heavily engaged in the transition and will remain an influential stakeholder in the process, so the knowledge base has not been eroded nor opportunities lost. I conclude now that the argument for using the ballot box to install a new director is primarily a political one and has little substance for gain except for voter confidence. I am of the opinion that the right person was appointed to this position, despite the controversy on how the decision came about. 

Third, a significant key to success will be how the board performs as a team. This has concerned me from day one in the transition phase of the Township. It is imperative that the board operates inclusively and as one unit. We must avoid polarization and cliques. This cannot be a board which seeks to exclude selected individuals by using internal politics as a means to further future political ambitions as some people have claimed. The selection of  individuals on committees does present an appearance of this phenomenon, but based on what I am told and have observed, there is a genuine attempt to have everyone engaged equally. Committee assignments are a bit overweight toward a couple of individuals as one observes the committee table. I cannot rationalize that fact. Hausman has the time to work on many things and contribute in many areas. Now that the committees have been selected, the challenge for the chair person Nelda Blair will be to ensure buy-in by all of the directors in the programs and decisions. She needs all of their support. Decisions must not be based on who made the proposals but the quality of the proposals themselves. That is all that really counts in the end - timely progress and decision quality. Diversity of thought will be essential to quality decisions; we will not get that diversity unless all of the directors are active and supportive in those decisions. Continual challenge by individuals because of political bickering will weaken and erode confidence and respect, so essential for good teamwork and progress. For that reason, our board must find ways to ensure that there is an inclusive means of participation, so that there is not any one director feeling that we have an inclusion issue. When the 2010 elections come around, I hope not to see this problem perpetuated. Two months into the transition, and we have this dissent. Personally, I am in favor of conducting team building exercises to strengthen the team for the remaining time in office and patching any dissent that may linger for the next two years. That investment could reap great reward. 

Our newly elected directors have spoken on several issues, which I will bring into focus at this time. For the moment, we will look into their comments, not seeking the related opinions of the legacy directors. We will defer focusing on that input until a more appropriate future date. As we will recall, two of the newly elected directors have returned to the board after being previously appointed - Peggy Hausman and Nelda Blair. The latter is the chairperson, playing a key role in the cooperative team. Every director is expected to be part of that team. Blair has experience and significant respect in the community as a leader. Hausman has a great deal of experience in various government entities and has earned significant respect in the community as a neighbor as well. Tom Campbell, Claude Hunter and Bruce Tough are new kids on the block but not in The Woodlands governance nor the association nor in services. They have a great deal of experience in the founding of the new Township as our governing body. Campbell is respected for his energetic and detailed contributions. Hunter has helped many a resident with community issues and has been working for us over the years in the association. Tough has worked for us in the association, services and various other activities including the governance project.

Here is the lineup on the committees:

Township Committees by Director
Director	Type	Committees
Nelda Blair	elected	1. Public Facilities Admin 2. Governance & Nominations 3. Executive (chair) 4. Convention and Visitors Committee
Tom Campbell	elected	1. Fire Dept board 2. Audit
Bruce Tough	elected	1. Museum Ad-hoc  2. Project Planning & Development 3. Governance & Nominations  4. Fire Dept Board (chair)
Peggy Hausman	elected	1. Convention and Visitors Committee
Claude Hunter	elected	1. Public Facilities Admin 2. Fire Dept board
Vicki Richmond	appointed	1. Audit  2. Museum Ad-hoc (chair)  3. Executive
Kemba DeGroot	appointed	1. Audit (chair)  2. Public Facilities (chair)
Ed Robb	appointed	1. Museum Ad-hoc 2. Project Planning & Development 3. Governance & Nominations
Alex Sutton	appointed	1. Museum Ad-hoc 2. Project Planning & Development 3. Public Facilities Admin 4. Executive 5. Governance & Nominations
Lloyd Matthews	appointed	1. Project Planning & Development (chair) 2. Convention & Visitors Bureau 3. Fire Dept board 4. Executive (vice-chair)
Bob Kinnear	appointed	1. Governance & Nominations

¹ "elected" strictly refers to the at-large election, not the Town Center elections
¹ "legacy" refers to the TCID legacy directorship which includes Town Center elections  

We readily see a spread of committee assignments  in this organization with one exception.  We must keep in mind the state of our government as we consider who has been assigned to what committee and role. There may be a need for additional committees in 2009 as the transition continues to unfold. In the meantime, one director (Hausman) has been assigned to only one committee. Are we under-utilizing ready, willing and competent manpower? This situation poses an opportunity for the board to get her working on other matters as the need arises. I would encourage the leader of the board to leverage that capability as opportunities arise. Again, I believe team building exercises might go a long way to promote unity in purpose, direction and shared responsibility through mutual understanding.  

Elected Directors opinions and perspectives

1. Nelda Blair - Blair has assumed the same duties that she had before the election - Chairperson of the board . She seems quite comfortable there. Given the question, "Have you noticed a difference in the content and progress of the board with the addition of elected residents?" Her thoughts are "the content of the Township Board has changed somewhat, of course, in that new ideas and leadership styles naturally come with new members. But, since a portion of our Board members has always been elected residents, and the appointed members were residents or area leaders, the ideals have not changed. I expect the progress of the Township Board will only become more forward-thinking with our current transition." In essence, from my (IndianSpringsGuy) personal viewpoint, the representation breadth of the board has changed, but the concept of partial representation has not and will not change until the 2010 election. That is part of the transition process. She goes on to say, "The changes that I believe are taking place as a result from the expansion of the purposes of the Township in general. The newly merged entity will handle economic development as well as residential services, so the focus is broadening. I fully expect that our Board mix will be very valuable in properly handling those functions."  She and I have a similar vision in this respect. Diversity of people will provide a  meaningful approach to governing processes and strategies. As the economic development strategies are transitioned to resident-elected directors, the resultant responsibilities of those directors will shift to a broader perspective than that of the association directors. Every opportunity to expose the new directors to the economic and development strategies will be paramount to our future economic health. Commenting on committee assignments, Blair emphasized that she took every measure to spread the load and provide opportunities for everyone equally so that they could contribute as they wished. We had five Directors who asked to be put on the Fire Dept board of four possible positions. I nominated all of them, and four of them were elected by secret ballot to the board. Hausman asked to be put on the Public Facilities Admin committee "but it was already full". She was instead nominated to the Audit committee where we needed her, but to which she declined. I nominated her for the Fire Dept board and the Convention & Visitors Bureau and placed them on the written ballots.  "I also treated her no differently in this situation than any other Board member."   
2. Tom Campbell - The board got off to a rough start in May when Bruce Tough was not elected as a co-vice chair on the executive committee with Lloyd Matthews. Unfortunately policy would not allow it; the board will review policy later this year. Campbell emphasizes the representation of residents on the board, coupled with good communication. He feels that some of the committees could have been chaired by an elected Director. The newcomers were asked on what committees they would like to serve and generally, they got nominated for them. The Fire Dept board has been established just as the transition agreement stated. On another plane, there is an issue with the timing of the monthly meeting, because many residents cannot attend an early morning event. They are often commuting or have other obligations. Another issue in the operation of the board is the executive committee. With the exit of Robinson, we have a void. Of additional concern are the six Vice-presidents and two presidents. Seems a bit top heavy. Campbell supports replacing Robinson with Don Norrell, manager of the association service company. "The good news is the (community) services are continuing seamlessly under the direction of our very competent, well qualified general manager, Don Norrell. The policing, waste pickup, Parks and Recreation, streetscape and covenant administration continue uninterrupted. Also, the Economic Development and Visitor Bureau continue.". 
3. Peggy Hausman  was disappointed in the outcome of the committee assignments. "The chairman recommends and then the board ratifies. I did request Special Projects, Woodlands Fire Department, and Waterway (Facilities)" committees. The chairperson "chose to not place me on any of my choices" and "I was never asked to serve on anything except the once an hour audit." Hausman is the senior member of the board and feels some injustice on the outcome. Both Matthews and Tough drew heavy responsibility on the committees. Hausman has much she would like to accomplish , thus her frustration.  
4. Claude Hunter - Hunter has not responded to my inquiries. I have to assume he is content with the board, its progress and his role after two months.
5. Bruce Tough - Tough is taking a wait and see approach. He has been included on several committees. It appears that he is content with his role on the board of directors, but his view on teamwork is not yet apparent. He intends to reveal his perspectives at a later date.

Operating Conditions

There are two issues on the plate for operating conditions. (1) As an open meeting, there is insufficient space for residents. Blair has stated that the board is looking into alternative locations for the meeting. Another possibility is to provide residents with a video-taped and/or internet-streamed or TV/internet broadcast of the proceedings, to enable a more open meeting. (2) The time of the meeting is inconvenient for residents, many of whom must commute to Houston. The board will be discussing the pros and cons of changing the time in the near future.

Conclusions

Our journey from one form of government to another will not necessarily be a smooth ride. We can expect rough spots on the road. All members of the board in my view desire success for this community. They are making the decisions the best they can under the circumstances imposed by rules and law. They are not seeking conflict; it just happens when something goes awry. The goal is to resolve the issues. Now we have an issue of dissent along with the burdens of change. A certain sensitivity exists which needs to be worked out. Wounds need to heal. Our community will thrive as long as we all put all we have into it and remember that we are neighbors. We are in this together for the long haul. Let's keep on trucking.       

Reference sources

• Many thanks to the continuing cooperation of the Township Board of Directors for providing timely feedback to my questions, sometimes even unsolicited. Residents here appreciate candid insights to our government and the efforts of our public servants.
• Committee assignments from The Woodlands Township website.
• Frank Robinson - Apple Valley City website

Last updated committee table 8/2/08

Woodlands Texas Township Meeting March 26 2008

Since many residents do not have the opportunity to attend these meetings, I wanted to share my impression of and the contents of the Township Meeting today. This was the first meeting I have attended. These meetings are scheduled early in the day, at 7:30AM, making it impossible for residents commuting to Houston or early workers to attend. The meetings are open, but the conference space is relatively small. Today, the room was filled. There was probably more interest than normal due to the coming elections. Several of the board candidates and/or their representatives attended. Or perhaps, these folks attend normally.

General Meeting - Township

Overall, my impression is that some members of the board do not speak loud enough for visiting residents to hear their comments or questions, especially if the visitor sits in the back. There were microphones available, but it seemed that some speakers used them more than others. This fast moving large agenda meeting had few comments or questions by individual board directors. Their question or comment was pertinent to the subject. The pace set by the chairperson (Nelda Blair) led the group to a rapid conclusion. Prior to the meeting, a book of reading material was distributed to each director. More often than not, the directors were asked to make and approve motions to keep the meeting as short as practical. I assume everyone not only had the chance beforehand to read the material, but also to seek answers to their questions. The book of documents had well over 100 pages of material. Two separate meetings were conducted, for a total duration of about 90 minutes.

Financial report: consisted of budget plan variances and explanations of those variances. Projects might start late or the timing of certain payment transactions might not be as expected. "We are seeing a tax receipt slowdown." However, the Township remains on budget, and the receipts are larger than last year.

Fire Department Capital Project Status in Economic Zone 4: This $11.9 million dollar project is within budget and on time. Station #6 is 75% complete with an expected opening in June. Its equipment has already arrived and is being circulated through the other stations to shake out the bugs. The training center is 68% complete and should be operational by September. These two projects will open the path to a better rating and a lower resident insurance rate. Fire Chief Benson presented an excellent review of the projects, complete with photographs.

In Waterway Square, the grand opening is scheduled in April. A maintenance agreement process was proposed and approved, to enable a contract for the contractor Progressive Inc to maintain the fountains and equipment for about $15,000.

A proposal was made and approved to add a standing agenda item for reporting Woodlands Association issues and progress when needed.

There are various marketing initiatives and events coming. The Logo contest closes at the end of April. A celebration of the local "public heroes" will be in April. The Waterway Festival will be a good one with lots of activities April 12-13. An RFP (Request for Proposal) is almost ready for Ambassadors to print directions for visitors and to print coupons. Continental Airlines will soon have an article for The Woodlands, a campaign partnered with the development company. Texas Highways magazine will have an article about The Woodlands. Austin American Statesman will have an article on weekend getaways to The Woodlands. A new website for visitors will come out in April. This will contain a guide for visitors that will include the villages.

Montgomery Transportation Plan - presentation for information:
1. Countywide paratransit/demand system: this is a means to transport people by prior arrangements using county vehicles to destinations. There are several programs already in operation.
2. New county service to Sam Houston State University: from south county to SHSU up the I45 corridor with various pickup points along the way. This is an exciting initiative. There are many obstacles (hurdles), but we are making progress. Only two more hurdles must be jumped before we can implement. We are optimistic. The cost of this service is $23 per passenger but passengers will not have to pay that much.

OPEN MEETING
Public comments are allowed and encouraged, but there were none.

Board gave their support in an initiative to acquire funds from a Texas Wildlife Commission grant for building a new park in Sterling Ridge. The development company is working with MUD 386 to acquire these funds. Maintenance of the park will be by the MUD district. The park will be very similar to other parks here in The Woodlands.

Board approved the operational rules for the Waterway Square. Hours of operation will be 6AM to 11PM daily. This can be changed later if needed. Generally the rules are the same as Town Green Park. There will be a wade pool.

Economic Development Zone Boundaries: Exclude Harris County until surveyed. This will have no impact on tax receipts since there are no businesses in Creekside Village Park. The 1% sales tax will be collected. However, the second 1% will be postponed indefinitely in Harris County until this issue is resolved.

Second meeting - Economic Development Zones

A list of 14 items were proposed and approved. Most were required for the operation of the Economic Zones. Those were modeled after the Township operational processes. Exceptions to those seemingly routine items included the combining of financial Year 2007 reports of the four zones into one report, and a reimbursement agreement between the Township and the economic zones for the Waterway Square project.

---

Getting to Know the Candidates for 2008 Township Election

Ballot Order and Documents available for viewing:

Randy Scott

Table for Candidates menu

1. Jeff Long	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
2. Ted Stanley	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
3. Tom Campbell	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
4. Kenny Speight	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
5. Bruce Tough	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
6. George Van Horn	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
7. Karen Booren	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
8. Renata Tyree	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
9. Nelda Luce Blair	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
10. Bev Earl	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
11. Joe Merrill	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
12. Peggy S. Hausman	Interview	Prof	Website	Email
13. Paul Martin	Interview	Bio	Website	Email
14. Claude Hunter	Interview	Press	Website	Email

The information contained within each document linked to a candidate has been published with the express consent of each candidate. The candidates and myself, Randy Scott (otherwise known as "IndianSpringsGuy") have provided this information to the residents of The Woodlands as a public service. Every voter has the "right to know". Each candidate has one or more links attached to their name for your convenience to quickly access information. Keep checking as we will update this as new information is available. Also note the Grogan's Mill Village link below.

Dates to remember:
- April 10th: last day for voter registration.
- Monday April 28: May Uniform Election Early Voting begins
- Tuesday May 6: May Uniform Election Early Voting ends
- Saturday, May 10: May Uniform Election Day

Other related information:
- The Woodlands Township for other related Township election information.
- Montgomery County election website pertinent information for locations and dates.
- Grogan's Mill Village Candidate Questions and Answers

---

Congratulations to Tommy Williams and Rob Eissler

Here in The Woodlands, we are interested in continuity of legislative work by our government for the people of The Woodlands and surrounding area. Both Tommy Williams and Rob Eisler worked hard for freeing us from annexation by Houston. Tommy Williams negotiated with the City of Houston and the both of them sponsored legislation to enable a special government in The Woodlands. Their work was remembered in the voting booths here. Voters were very aware that action and results were the themes of our legislative representatives. Now as we move closer to our new form of government, we will asking for additional supporting legislation to enable better self determination and a stronger hand in our own future matters. Let's get it done guys. Find out what we want and why. That is our expectation, that you continue to represent our interests in the coming legislative session. The job is never completed, and we look to you to lead us to a better future. Congratulations on your Primary election results.