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.

CISD solicits feedback on next school year' s calendar

The CISD website has a feedback question for residents and employees to input their preference for next year's calendar. It is especially important for parents with school age children to provide their feedback. In the comment form, make sure you identify yourself and state your position.

The difference is centered around Thanksgiving preferences. Calendar "B"  has a full week and two weekends vacation for Thanksgiving, allowing parents to travel. One off day for the children is removed from the January schedule to accommodate the new alternative calendar. Teachers will be asked to begin one day earlier in August. School start and end will be exactly the same for both calendars.

Recognizing that parents might have to find additional care for some of their children is a motivator for the standard calendar " A". Calendar "A" is similar to the 2009-10 school year, with three days for Thanksgiving.

IndianSpringsGuy endorses the full week of Thanksgiving to allow more time for families to visit relatives and travel during this very important traditional holiday of our great nation. That would be calendar "B".

Parents, teachers and other affected residents of the school district, please provide your input for more effective feedback to the school board.

Click here to make your wishes known:
Conroe Independent School District feedback website  

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.