Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:04]

>> PLEASE JOIN ME.

HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU TODAY WITH OPEN HEARTS ASKING FOR YOUR MERCY AND YOUR DIRECTION, AS WE ENTER INTO A MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR TOWNSHIP.

PLEASE GUIDE OUR MINDS AND OUR HEARTS AND HELP US TO BE GOOD INSTRUMENTS OF YOUR WILL.

AND TO DISCERN THAT CLEARLY.

WE ALSO ASK PROTECTION ON OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, OUR MILITARY AND OUR LEADERS AND OUR FAMILIES, LORD, AS THEY DO BATTLE AGAINST THIS VIRUS THAT HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT AND TRAGIC FOR SO MANY.

WE THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PROGRESS THAT IS BEING MADE ON THAT FRONT.

AND ASK YOUR BLESSINGS FOR MORE TREATMENTS AND VACCINES TO HELP OUR PEOPLE.

IN YOUR HOLY NAME, IN THE NAME OF JESUS, WE PRAY, AMEN.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE WILL NOW DO THE PLEDGES TO OUR FLAGS.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL OUR TEXAS FLAG.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE TEXAS FLAG.

ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I DECLARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW THIS MEETING WAS POSTED 72

[2. Call meeting to order;]

HOURS IN ADVANCE, AND ALSO ONLINE.

THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD VIRTUALLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES THAT HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FOR THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BY GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT.

QUORUM REQUIRES AT LEAST FOUR DIRECTORS BE IN ATTENDANCE.

I'LL TAKE ROLL.

DIRECTOR BROWN.

DIRECTOR MILNER.

DIRECTOR NELSON.

DIRECTOR RIESER.

DIRECTOR SNYDER.

[3. Receive, consider and act upon adoption of the meeting agenda;]

WE'RE ALL PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

I NEED A MOTION TO ADOPT TODAY'S AGENDA.

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

WE HAVE AN AGENDA.

WE WILL START OFF WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT WERE ALSO INCLUDED ONLINE WITH THE POSTING OF THIS MEETING, NUMBERS WERE PROVIDED TO CALL IN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE ASK MEMBERS WHO ARE CALLING IN TO PROVIDE US THEIR NAME AND PART OF THE WOODLANDS THEY'RE IN AND TRY TO KEEP THEIR COMMENTS TO AROUND THREE MINUTES.

WE'LL TAKE CALLS IN ORDER RECEIVED.

IF WE HAVE ANY CALLERS, WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST CALLER.

>> NO CALLERS CURRENTLY, SIR.

[ CONSENT AGENDA]

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 5, WHICH IS WHERE WE'VE BEEN ALL WEEK AND I BELIEVE WE'LL MAKE PROGRESS TODAY.

SO THAT WILL BE OUR BASE BUDGET.

AND IT WILL BE MONIQUE.

>> THANK YOU.

ONE SECOND HERE.

I HAVE TO PULL UP SLIDES FOR TODAY.

I'M SORRY.

THAT PROBABLY DID NOT WORK, DID IT?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: NO.

>> JUST ONE SECOND.

IS THAT BETTER?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YES.

>> OKAY.

GREAT.

I THINK THE ITEM THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW IS STILL THE PRELIMINARY BASE BUDGET.

[8. Receive, consider and act upon the 2021 Preliminary Budget for The Woodlands Township;]

AND THEN WE WILL, THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO DO IS GO OVER THE PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION AND WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT.

AND THEN AFTER WE GET THROUGH THAT PART, THEN WE WILL START DISCUSSION ON THE BUDGET INITIATIVES WHICH COULD ADD OR DECREASE TO THE BASE BUDGET.

FIRST LET'S GO WITH THE PROPERTY TAX.

OKAY.

BASED ON THE CERTIFIED ROLLS, WE ARE SEEING AN INCREASE IN TAXABLE VALUES FROM $20.8 BILLION IN THE CURRENT TAX YEAR GROWING TO $21.1 BILLION IN THE NEXT

[00:05:07]

TAX YEAR.

SO THAT IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 352 MILLION.

THE COMPONENTS OF THAT INCREASE INCLUDE A REVALUATION OF EXISTING PROPERTIES, THAT IS CONTRIBUTING ABOUT A 0.6 PERCENT INCREASE TO THE TAX ROLLS, AND THE INCREASE IN NEW PROPERTY EQUATES TO ABOUT 1.1 PERCENT.

SO IN TOTAL, WE'RE SEEING OUR TAXABLE VALUES INCREASE BY 1.7 PERCENT.

THIS IS, I KNOW EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, BUT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OF COURSE, MAKES UP THE LARGEST MAJORITY OF OUR TAXABLE VALUE AT 18.2 BILLION AND THEN HARRIS COUNTY AT JUST UNDER 3 BILLION.

THESE WERE THE TAX RATES THAT WERE CERTIFIED BY THE TAX ASSESSOR IN OUR REPORTS YESTERDAY.

SO CURRENT TAX RATE, JUST FOR REFERENCE IS 22.4 CENTS PER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF EVALUATION.

OUR EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IS NOW 22.31.

THE ROLLBACK RATE WOULD BE 23.03.

DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IS WHAT THE COMPONENTS OF THE TAX RATE, ASSUMING A 22.40 RATE, THIS WILL CHANGE, BUT WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS RATE OF 20.89, AND THEN OUR DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE WILL REMAIN FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE DECISIONS AT 1.51.

AND THEN JUST FOR REFERENCE, AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS, EACH PENNY OF THE TAX RATE EQUATES TO ABOUT $2.1 MILLION IN REVENUE.

SO LOOKING AT OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES, WE ARE FORECASTED FOR THIS YEAR AT 45.9 MILLION.

AT THE 22.4 CURRENT RATE, IF THAT WAS MAINTAINED, THEN REVENUES THAT WOULD BE GENERATED TOTAL 46.5 MILLION.

SO THAT IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 600,000.

SO WHAT THAT DOES TO OUR UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE ASSUMING THAT NOTHING ELSE IN THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET BASE BUDGET IS CHANGED, IS WE WOULD STILL, IT DOESN'T AFFECT OUR UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE FOR 2020 THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THAT REMAINS AT $2.2 MILLION.

BUT IT HAS INCREASED OUR UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE, PREVIOUSLY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A $640,000 IN TOTAL WITH THE CHANGE IN THE TAX VALUES THAT IS NOW ABOUT $1.2 MILLION.

AND AGAIN, JUST AS A REMINDER, ABOUT 570,000 OF THAT IS DUE TO CARES ACT FUNDING AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONGOING REVENUE SOURCE.

BUT ABOUT 689,000 IS CONSIDERED ONGOING REVENUE.

SO THIS IS, AS WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT, THIS IS SORT OF THE SLIDE WE ALWAYS GET TO AT THE END OF THE DAY IN TERMS OF OUR UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE.

WHICH JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AFTER WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, CAPITAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS TO OUR RESERVES.

THIS IS THE MONEYS, THE FUNDS REMAINING THAT HAVE BEEN UNDESIGNATED FOR ANY SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

SO THE BARS THAT ARE IN BROWN ARE WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

SO FOR LIKE 2021, YOU COULD SEE THE BROWN BAR, THAT 640,000 THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.

THE BLUE IS IF THE RATE IS MAINTAINED AT 22.4 CENT RATE, THAT NUMBER WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT.

$1.2 MILLION, IN UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE.

AND THEN FOR COMPARISON, IF THE RATE WAS LOWER TO THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE, THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE GREEN.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND THE CURRENT TAX RATE IS $186,000 IN REVENUE.

AND THAT IS REALLY, THAT IS THE >>THE CHAIRMAN: MONIQUE, I HAD ONE QUESTION ON THE EXISTING REVALUATIONS OR THE EXISTING TAXES.

HOW DOES THAT ACCOUNT FOR PREVIOUSLY ABATED PROPERTIES THAT ARE NO LONGER ABATED?

>> THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NO LONGER ABATED ARE SHOWING UP IN THESE NUMBERS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, THE RELEASE OF THE ANAADARCO ABATEMENT IS REFLECTED IN THOSE NUMBERS.

WE DO HAVE FOUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABATED.

THOSE TOTAL ABOUT $154 MILLION, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT $340,000 IN REVENUE.

[00:10:07]

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I WAS CURIOUS, TO THE TOWERS SHOW UP UNDER EXISTING BUILDINGS OR NEW?

>> UNDER THE EXISTING.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO THE 220, OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS THAT WAS, WOULD YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THAT SLIDE REAL QUICK? THE.65 INCREASE OF EXISTING.

>> THIS ONE?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

THE.6.

352 IS THE TOTAL INCREASE.

ACTUALLY, THERE IS ONE MORE SLIDE BACK, I THINK THAT ACTUALLY GIVES YOU THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

NO.

I GUESS NOT.

I THINK THAT REPRESENTS I THINK 250,000 OF IT WAS INCREASED REVALUATION AND THE BALANCE WAS NEW PROPERTIES.

ACTUALLY, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REVERSED.

>> NO.

WHAT YOU SAID FIRST IS CORRECT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THE HOTEL WAS CLOSE TO 100 MILLION OR OVER.

>> RIGHT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO ALMOST A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF OUR INCREASE REVALUATION IS THAT ONE ABATED PROPERTY COMING BACK TO THE TAX ROLLS.

>> GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY, MONIQUE.

>> THE ANADARCO TOWER WAS 150 MILLION THAT CAME BACK TO US.

>> 30 PERCENT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE INCREASED VALUATION.

>> THAT I DON'T KNOW.

OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF IT, YES.

>> IT WOULD BE 150 MILLION, PROBABLY.6 PERCENT, THAT IS ONE THIRD ESSENTIALLY.

AND THEN THE INCREASE IN NEW PROPERTY IS ABOUT TWO THIRDS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF OUR INCREASED REVALUATION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I JUST POINT IT OUT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST YEAR, WE TALKED ABOUT BELIEVING THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN IMPACT TO EFFECTIVE TAX RATE COMING IN TO THIS YEAR.

JUST BASED ON HOW THE ECONOMY WAS GOING.

AND HAD WE NOT PULLED THAT ABATED PROPERTY OUT, WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING AN INCREASE IN REVALUATION.

>> YES, SIR.

THAT'S CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

>> SO NOW WE HAVE COVERED ALL OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE BASE BUDGET.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANYTHING THAT WE WANTED TO GO BACK, THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO GO BACK AND REVISIT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WELL, I THINK YOU NEEDED US TO MAKE A DECISION ON IS DO WE WANT TO STICK WITH THE.2240, DO WE WANT TO GO DOWN TO.2231 OR THE ROLLBACK RATE WAS 23.

THAT IS THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT NUMBER.

AND YOU NEED THAT IN ORDER FOR ANYTHING TO GET SETTLED ON WHAT IS AVAILABLE, PLUS OR MINUS, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

BEFORE WE GO INTO THE BUDGET INITIATIVES, THAT WOULD LET US KNOW THE UNDESIGNATED REVENUE THAT WE HAVE LEFT.

YES, SIR.

>> GORDY, WHEN WE DID THE BASE BUDGET ANALYSIS, WE ASSUMED THAT THE TAX RATE WOULD REMAIN FLAT.

THINKING YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE WEREN'T LOOKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE.

I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING OFF THE EFFECTIVE RATE TO START, WHEN WE START THIS DISCUSSION.

IF WE DECIDE IN THE END THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IT UP TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE STARTING WITH THE EFFECTIVE RATE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE IS ONE FOR THE EFFECTIVE RATE, WHICH HAS $186,000 DIFFERENCE IN ANNUAL REVENUE.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON WHICH RATE TO USE?

>> I TOO AGREE, LET'S WORK WITH THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND SEE WHERE WE ARE WITH INITIATIVES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE WISE AND PRUDENT ON OUR PART.

>> THIS IS DR. SHELLY.

I AGREE.

I THINK THAT IS A GOOD PLACE TO START.

AND KEEPING IN MIND THAT ALTHOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY TAX HERE, THAT THE SALES TAX IS STILL IN FLUX AND THE HOTEL TAX IS STILL IN FLUX, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO WORK OUT.

BUT IN TERMS OF FOCUSING ON THE PROPERTY TAX RATE, I THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO START THE EFFECTIVE RATE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

SO I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH CONSENSUS TO UTILIZE THE EFFECTIVE RATE FOR THE BASE BUDGET, MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.

I DO NEED TO ANNOUNCE THAT I WAS WRONG, WE ARE NOT ON AGENDA ITEM 5.

[00:15:08]

I SOMEHOW SKIPPED OVER TO AGENDA ITEM 7.

WHEN WE COMPLETE THIS PORTION, WE WILL REVERT BACK TO AGENDA ITEM 5.

MY APOLOGIES.

THANK YOU, KAREN FOR POINTING IT OUT TO ME.

ALL RIGHT.

SO MONIQUE, ON THIS, WE WILL ADJUST THE BASE BUDGET TO REFLECT UTILIZING THE CERTIFIED EFFECTIVE TAX RATE OF.2231.

I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION THAT YOU HAD RELATIVE TO THE BASE BUDGET IS ARE THERE ANY OTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE BASE BUDGET THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO PROMOTE NOW BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BUDGET INITIATIVES, WE WANT TO APPROVE WITH THE EFFECTIVE RATE AND THEN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET INITIATIVES AND THEN COME BACK TO THE BASE BUDGET LATER.

>> ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU, IT'S REALLY AT THE BOARD'S PLEASURE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO.

IN THE PAST, THE BOARD HAS GONE AHEAD, ONCE THEY ARE, ONCE THEY ARE FAIRLY SET ON THE PRELIMINARY, OR THE BASE BUDGET, THEY HAVE TAKEN AN ACTION TO APPROVE THAT.

AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE ADOPTING IT.

IT'S JUST SORT OF SETTING A BASE BEFORE YOU START MAKING ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON BUDGET INITIATIVES.

AND YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND ADJUST THE BASE BUDGET IF YOU CHOOSE TO.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

FOR THE SAKE OF MOVING FORWARD, I SAY WE APPROVE WITH THE ADJUSTED TO THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND GO THROUGH THE BUDGET INITIATIVES AND THAT PROVIDES AMPLE TIME TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THOSE INITIATIVES AS WELL AS WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THE BASE BUDGET, TO MONIQUE'S POINT THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? OKAY.

WE HAVE FINALLY APPROVED THE BASE YES, MA'AM.

>> CAN I CLARIFY THAT YOU ARE ON NUMBER 8.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT YOUR NOTE SAID I WAS ON NUMBER 7.

>> YOU ARE.

BUT THE ACTION THAT YOU'RE TAKING IS NOT THE NUMBER 7 ACTION, IT'S THE NUMBER 8 ACTION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

[7. Receive, consider and accept a report regarding the 2020 no-new-revenue tax rate and voter-approval tax rate; ]

THAT WILL BE A VOTE PASSED FOR NUMBER 8.

>> I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GO BACK.

>> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED REGARDING THE NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AND THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE AND EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OKAY.

WE'RE BASICALLY APPROVING THE WORKSHEET THAT THE TAX ASSESSOR'S OFFICE PROVIDED TO US.

THAT WAS AGENDA ITEM 7.

AGENDA ITEM 8 WE VOTED ON PREVIOUSLY.

LET ME GO BACK TO MY SCRIPT HERE SO I CAN GET US BACK TO NUMBER 5, OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

ONLY ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA?

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL NOW GO TO AGENDA ITEM 6, RECEIVE AND CONSIDER, AND ACT UPON THIRD AMENDED INTER

[6. Receive, consider and act upon the Third Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between Montgomery County, Texas and The Woodlands Township, related to law enforcement services;]

LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

THIS IS PAGE 6 TO 56 ON OUR BOARD PACKETS.

I'LL HAVE DON WALK US THROUGH THIS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

THE TOWNSHIP ENTERED INTO AN ILA, PROVIDING SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE WOODLANDS.

IN MAY OF 2019, THE BOARD APPROACHED THE COUNTY ABOUT AMENDING THAT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE A TRANSITION AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THREE YEAR PHASE IN AT TIME OF INCORPORATION, THAT WE WOULD PHASE OUT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ACTUALLY SET UP THAT OPERATION WITHIN AN INCORPORATED CITY, IF YOU WILL.

IT'S A CONTINGENCY.

IT GIVES US THE OPTION OF DOING THAT, SHOULD INCORPORATION OCCUR.

THAT AGREEMENT AGAIN BOTH THE ORIGINAL SHERIFF'S AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSITION AGREEMENT WERE EFFECTIVE THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, OF 2020.

[00:20:04]

BASED ON THE DELAY IN THE INCORPORATION STUDY DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, AND REALLY ALL THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW, THE BOARD DETERMINED AT LEAST TEMPORARILY TO POSTPONE THE INCORPORATION ANALYSIS AND TO, AND WITH THAT, WHAT HAPPENED CHAIRMAN BUNCH DID APPROACH THE COUNTY ABOUT AN EXTENSION OF TWO YEARS, FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS IN THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSIDERED THAT AND AT THEIR LAST MEETING, THEY APPROVED AN OFFER TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT BY TWO YEARS, TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2022.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED WHEN THEY APPROVED THAT IS THAT THERE WAS, THEY INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF IN THE DRAFTING THE PORTION THAT DEALT WITH THE INCORPORATION TRANSITION.

AGAIN, THERE WAS NOTHING INTENTIONAL THERE.

IT WAS JUST THE WAY THIS WAS DRAFTED.

SO THE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO CONSIDER EXTENDING THE EXISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT FROM ITS TERMINATION OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2020, TO EXTEND THAT TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2022, AND ALSO TO INCLUDE IN YOUR ACTION THE REINSTATEMENT OF THAT INCORPORATION TRANSITION PROVISION THAT WAS LEFT OFF FROM THE, IF YOU WILL, FROM THE LAST AMENDMENT.

THIS WOULD JUST BASICALLY REINSTATE IT.

IT'S NO NEW LANGUAGE.

JUST A REINSTATEMENT.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

>> MR. NORRELL, I HAVE A QUESTION.

REFRESH, SINCE THIS ALL OCCURRED IN MAY, 2019, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU WOULD SUMMARIZE THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE TRANSITION AGREEMENT.

WHAT THAT ENTAILED.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY DON, IT'S PROBABLY NOT REALLY A REINSTATEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE IT INTACT TODAY.

IT'S REALLY JUST PROVIDING THE COUNTY A DRAFT THAT MEETS WHAT WE AGREED TO OR INTENDED TO AGREE TO LAST WEEK.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOSE ANYTHING, DR. SNYDER.

OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT IS STILL PERFECTED THROUGH THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

WHAT THE COUNTY JUDGE AND I AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AGREED TO LAST WEEK DIDN'T MATCH THE DRAFT THAT WAS CRAFTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WE HAVEN'T APPROVED WHAT THEY APPROVED LAST WEEK.

WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS WEEK IS APPROVING A VERSION OF THAT EXTENSION THAT MATCHES THE INTENTION THAT WE HAD IN COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

AND THEN WE'LL SEND THAT VERSION BACK TO THE COUNTY FOR APPROVAL.

>> OKAY.

WELL, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, IF I MAY.

AND WHY WOULD WE NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PRIOR TO WE GOING TO THE COUNTY TO ASK FOR THAT EXTENSION, CHAIRMAN? TO ME, I KNOW IT WAS JUST IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAD AND DISCUSSED IN MAY 2019, WHICH I SUPPORTED.

BUT WITH THREE NEW BOARD MEMBERS, WHY WOULD WE NOT HAVE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE YOU APPEARED LAST WEEK AT COMMISSIONER'S COURT ASKING FOR THEM TO EXTEND THIS.

I THINK BOARD APPROVAL WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROCESS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE ASKING FOR THE EXTENSION FROM COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO THIS AGREEMENT IS ALREADY BOARD APPROVED.

THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED IS THE EXPIRATION DATE.

>> NO.

I REALIZE THAT.

BUT YOU HAVE, OR WE HAVE THREE NEW BOARD MEMBERS WHO PERHAPS WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

I JUST THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRUDENT TO HAVE US TALK ABOUT IT PRIOR TO AND GIVE OUR APPROVAL BEFORE YOU APPEARED BEFORE COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF PROCESS, CHAIRMAN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

AND I'M NOT ASHAMED OF THE PROCESS WE TOOK.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO PERFECT AN AGREEMENT THAT

[00:25:06]

TIES DIRECTLY TO OUR INCORPORATION STUDY, WHICH ALL DIRECTORS, NEW AND CURRENT HAVE BEEN THROUGH.

THIS AGREEMENT IS PART OF THAT STUDY.

AND WITH AN EXPIRATION, WITH THE BOARD AGREEING TO DEFER ACTION IN MARCH, THAT AGREEMENT EXPIRING THIS CALENDAR YEAR, YOU ESSENTIALLY PUT A HOLE IN THE ENTIRE INCORPORATION PLAN.

SO COMMISSIONER COURT MEETS EVERY OTHER WEEK.

THERE IS A DEADLINE FOR A BALLOT INITIATIVE, WHICH IS AUGUST 17TH.

WITHOUT THAT EXTENSION PERFECTED, WE WOULD HAVE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INCORPORATION.

IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD HAVE FORCED THE ISSUE TO GO OUT THIS YEAR.

WHICH I DON'T THINK IS OPTIMAL TIMING.

THE ENTIRE TRANSITION AGREEMENT IS FRAMED AROUND THAT TRANSITION OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND SO CAN'T LET THAT EXPIRE, PERIOD.

NOW, I KNOW YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEW DIRECTORS AND HOW THEY MAY FEEL ABOUT US GOING TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION PRIOR TO HAVING AN ENTIRE BOARD DISCUSSION ON IT.

I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DID NOTHING.

AND THE DATES ROLL UP ON YOU AND YOU HAVE NO ALTERNATIVES.

>> YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.

I MENTIONED THEM.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS, THAT WE WERE NOT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD APPROVES BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD ON SOMETHING.

>> MAY I WEIGH IN, GORDY.

DR. SNYDER, I APPRECIATE THAT MAYBE THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE IDEAL PROCESS, BUT IF THE COUNTY WASN'T WILLING TO AGREE TO AN EXTENSION, THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO VOTE ON.

WE CAN'T DO IT UNILATERALLY.

IT IS DEPENDENT ON THEM MAKING THE FIRST MOVE SAYING YES, WE WILL APPROVE THE EXTENSION.

NOW WE'RE FORMALLY RATIFYING THE EXTENSION FROM OUR LEVEL.

I MEAN, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK YOU COULD LOOK AT IT BOTH WAYS.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CHAIRMAN HAS RUN OFF AND YOU KNOW, IT IS, ESPECIALLY ON AN EXISTING AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHERE WE WERE GOING THIS YEAR AND THE NEXT VERSION IS COMING UP.

I GET IT.

BUT I STILL THINK THAT THE BOARD, THIS THING IS ALL DEPENDENT, IF THE COUNTY SAID NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WE WOULDN'T BE VOTING TODAY.

IT WOULD END UP EXPIRING AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: PREVIOUSLY, I WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO WORK ON THIS CONTRACT AND NEGOTIATE IT AND WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.

>> CHAIRMAN, SINCE I'M A NEW MEMBER, I'LL SPEAK HERE.

I THINK THE PROCESS WAS HANDLED VERY WELL.

THE REPRESENTATION YOU CONDUCTED ON THE BEHALF OF THE BOARD IN FRONT OF COMMISSIONER'S COURT WAS APPROPRIATE.

AND IT ALLOWS US TO NOW VOTE ON THIS MATTER.

AND THE PROCESS HAD TO START SO THAT IT COULD BE CONCLUDED BEFORE THE CONTRACT EXPIRED.

ESPECIALLY IN A TIME WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF EVERYONE'S MIND IN THE WOODLANDS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO LAPSE IN ANY WAY, AND THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION ABOUT THIS.

THAT WE'RE FULLY COMMITTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THAT THE CONTRACT WILL CONTINUE.

AND I FOR ONE, AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU PRESENTED IT TO THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT FULL THROATED SUPPORT ON THIS.

SO I APPRECIATE IT.

AND AM LOOKING FORWARD TO VOTING ON IT.

>> GORDY, YOU MIGHT ALSO POINT OUT DIRECTOR SAKULA GIBBS'S COMMENTS ARE SPOT ON.

BUT EVERYBODY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THIS GIVES A LOT MORE TO SHERIFF HENDERSON AND HIS SHERIFF DEPUTIES AS WELL.

WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE EXTENSION WAS AN ISSUE FOR THE SHERIFF.

I'M JUST GLAD WE GOT IT DONE.

>> YOU KNOW, I HEAR AND I KNOW, AGAIN, THE MINORITY, BUT I'M SHARING WITH YOU, TO ME, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES IF IT IS THE BOARD WANTS THIS RATHER THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.

I AGREE WITH THE EXTENSION.

I TOTALLY SUPPORT IT.

I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SINCE I'VE LIVED HERE DURING MY TENURE AND SERVED ON THE BOARD.

I JUST FELT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE AS A BOARD, WE MET THIS SUMMER, WHEN WE GO OUT

[00:30:08]

AND ACT ON AGREEMENTS THAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE FIRST REVIEW OF IT VERSUS READING IT IN THE PAPER.

MAYBE OTHERS KNEW ABOUT IT.

I DID NOT UNTIL I READ IT IN THE PAPER.

IT'S NOT MEANING TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO YOU, CHAIRMAN.

I JUST THOUGHT THE PROCESS OF US, AS A BOARD SAYING RATHER THAN HAVE I READ IT IN THE PAPER THE MORNING AFTER AND AGREED WITH YOU, YOU STATED IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR ME TO LET THE TRANSITION AGREEMENT EXPIRE.

WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POWERFUL IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US, AS A BOARD THAT PERHAPS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT IN PUBLIC.

THE PROCESS IS MY POINT.

NOT THE AGREEMENT.

NOT MEANING IT ALL TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO YOU.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I DON'T TAKE IT THAT WAY.

I TAKE THE ROLE I HAVE AND YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAD ASSIGNED THIS TASK TO ME FOR THIS SPECIFIC AGREEMENT AS HAVING ALREADY BEEN GRANTED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS AGREEMENT INTACT.

I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK MAYBE IN A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE WHEN WE ARE NOT IN COVID WORLD AND WE DON'T HAVE WEIRD TIMING AND DEADLINES, THAT MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED US ADDITIONAL TIMING.

BUT THIS SPECIFIC AGREEMENT WAS ONE THE BOARD APPROVED FOR ME TO ACT ON.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I APPRECIATE YOU AGREE WITH THE OUT COME.

AND I BELIEVE THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS AGREEING TO THE FORMAT OF THE EXTENDED AGREEMENT THAT HAS THE LANGUAGE THAT THIS BOARD WOULD APPROVE.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT.

>> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN, COULD WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT IN FINAL FORM AS APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY, IF THAT IS PERMISSIBLE.

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>> IS IT CLARIFICATION, IS IT THE ONE THAT WE RECEIVED IN OUR PACKET?

>> I THINK THAT THE AGREEMENT, I PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO THE CHAIRMAN AND I.

I APOLOGIZED TO THE BOARD.

I HAD A DEATH IN THE FAMILY.

SO I WAS, THERE IS A LITTLE DELAY ON MY PART.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

ESSENTIALLY, I JUST ADDED >>THE CHAIRMAN: WHY DON'T WE DEFER APPROVAL, ALLOW YOU TIME TO FORWARD IT TO THE BOARD, THROUGH THEIR E MAIL.

>> I COULD FORWARD IT NOW AND THEN YOU COULD STILL TAKE THIS UP ON YOUR MEETING TODAY.

>> IT'S WHAT SHE SENT US EARLIER, CHAIRMAN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, KAREN OR SOMEBODY ELSE HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE TO WORKING BACKWARDS, PLEASE.

SINCE I'VE BEEN OFF ON THE NUMBERS TODAY.

>> YES, SIR.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO WE'VE ALREADY DONE 7 AND 8.

[9. Receive and consider Budget Initiatives related to the 2021 Preliminary Budget and Five-Year Plan;]

AND 9 IS OUR BUDGET INITIATIVES.

SO WE ALL WERE PROVIDED BUDGET INITIATIVE BINDERS IN ADVANCE OF THIS PROCESS.

WE WILL LET MONIQUE PRESENT AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS BUDGET INITIATIVES.

SO IN PREVIOUS YEARS, I KNOW WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW DIRECTORS COMING IN TO THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF THINGS.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EACH BUDGET INITIATIVE IN GREAT DETAIL IN SOME YEARS AND IN SOME YEARS WE WILL REVIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE LIST IN SUMMARY AND DECIDE WHICH OF THE INITIATIVES HAVE SUPPORT FOR FULL PRESENTATION.

I PREFER THE LATTER.

SO WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH OF THE SUMMARIES AND SEE WHERE THERE IS SUPPORT TO MOVE INTO A FULL PRESENTATION ONCE WE KNOW WHICH INITIATIVES ARE FULLY SUPPORTED OR HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT, THEN WE WOULD COME BACK TO EACH OF THOSE SUPPORTED ONES FOR A FULL PRESENTATION.

[00:35:04]

IT'S JUST MORE INITIATE.

THERE IS NOT A LOT OF REASON TO GO THROUGH DEEP DETAIL ON INITIATIVES THAT DON'T HAVE SUPPORT.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT PROCESS.

>> I WOULD TOO, CHAIRMAN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

SO IF WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGET INITIATIVES, MONIQUE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THE CURSORY SUMMARY OF EACH OF THE INITIATIVES AND THEN WE CAN, AS A BOARD, AGREE TO SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT TO COME BACK FOR A MORE FULL PRESENTATION.

>> SURE.

I WOULD BE GLAD TO DO THAT.

SO IF EVERYONE HAS THEIR BUDGET INITIATIVES BINDERS, GO TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.

AND WE CAN JUST GO DOWN THAT WAY AND START.

SO LOOKING FIRST AT THE GENERAL BUDGET STRUCTURE, THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE RELATED TO CHANGING METHODOLOGY FOR FUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COSTS TO INSTEAD OF USING THE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE, TO CONVERT TO ISSUING BONDS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY WERE AVAILABLE, LOW INTEREST AND THEN TO REPURPOSE THE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE.

EITHER BY SAVING IT OR ALLOCATING TO OTHER RESERVES.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO I KNOW DR. SAKULA GIBBS HAD THIS ITEM.

I DO THINK IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL NEED TO EVALUATE LARGER CAPITAL PROJECTS, DEBT VERSUS CAPITAL RESERVES.

THE SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND IS SMALLER, FUNDED PROJECTS.

PARK RENOVATIONS, THINGS THAT DON'T HAVE LONG USEFUL LIFE TO IT.

I DO KNOW IN THE 30 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN THERE ARE ITEMS LIKE FIRE STATION REMODELS.

FIRE STATION REMODELLING AND RECONSTRUCTION IN A LOT OF PARTS OF THESE INITIATIVES TODAY.

THOSE MAY BE MORE WORTHY OF DEBT SERVICE VERSUS CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS.

ALL THE ONES IN THE INITIATIVES TODAY ARE NOT PART OF THE CURRENT CAPITAL RESERVE FUND.

THAT IS WHY THEY BECAME INITIATIVES.

SO I THINK THAT I LIKE THE IDEA, I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN PRACTICE THIS BUDGET YEAR.

I THINK WE CAN COME BACK AND EVALUATE THOSE LARGER CAPITAL ASSETS WITH LONGER LIFE VERSUS THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE METHOD.

>> YEAH.

I DON'T WANT TO BOND OUT ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE AT LEAST A 20 YEAR USEFUL LIFE.

IT SHOULD, YOU KNOW, ANY ASSET THAT YOU BOND SHOULD HAVE A USEFUL LIFE THAT AT LEAST MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE TERM OF THE BONDS.

AND I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS PRESSING.

OBVIOUSLY IF WE, THE FIRE STATION ISSUE IS PROBABLY THE MOST, THE BIGGEST CAPITAL ISSUE OUT ON THE HORIZON.

SO WE JUST NEED TO BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE DO THAT.

IT VERY WELL MAY INCLUDE SOME BONDS.

AND OF COURSE, THE POSSIBILITY OF YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A, WOODLANDS HAS GOT AN RFP OUT ON A STUDY TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF OUR CONVENTION CENTER AS WELL.

OBVIOUSLY IF IT COMES BACK AND THE BOARD WISHES TO TAKE THAT UP, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER BONDABLE ISSUE.

MOST OF THE STUFF THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR NOW, AS YOU SAID, ARE ASSETS THAT WE CAN ONLY BE AMORTIZED OVER FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE IS A FEW LONGER TERM ONES IN THERE, BUT AGREE.

>> IF I MAY, THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO DISCUSS, BRING UP THE DISCUSSION SO IT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

ESPECIALLY IN A TIME WHENEVER OUR REVENUES ARE MORE TENUOUS THAN THEY HAVE BEEN IN MEMORY, I WOULD SAY.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS WHAT ROLE WE WOULD HAVE AND IF THE GUIDELINE IS 20 YEARS AM TORIZATION THAT IS A GOOD ONE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE IN TERMS OF OUR APPROACH TO BIG PURCHASES AND BIG CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

ESPECIALLY IN A TIME WHEN INTEREST RATES ARE VERY VERY LOW.

WE WANT TO BE, ESPECIALLY GIVE THE PURCHASING FOLKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.

I'M ALL ABOUT THAT.

I WANT TO PROVIDE THE BEST VALUE FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.

AND THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

KIND OF A GENERAL PURPOSE ITEM.

[00:40:02]

THANK YOU.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

SO WE WON'T GO BACK TO THAT.

WE WILL NOTE THAT WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONALTIES AS WE LOOK AT LARGER LONG TERM ASSETS.

OR THE BUDGET INITIATIVE 2 WAS DEALING WITH THE SALES TAX RESERVE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED IN THE BASE BUDGET MEETINGS, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT ON THE BOARD TO SHIFT SOME OF THE UNDESIGNATED FUNDS BALANCES TOWARDS THE SALES TAX RESERVE TO BE USED PRIMARILY TO OFFSET ANY REVENUE SHORTFALLS FROM SALES TAX IN THE 2021 BUDGET.

I THINK WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT AMOUNT THAT IS THAT WE WANT TO SHIFT INTO THIS SALES TAX RESERVE.

>> AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO DISCUSS AND I APPRECIATE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

THE BOARD MEMBERS.

IT IS, I THINK IT'S WISE FOR US TO REINFORCE THAT SALES TAX RESERVE FUND.

ESPECIALLY THIS TIME, WHEN IT'S TENUOUS, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL WORK OUT.

WE'VE PRETTY MUCH HANDLED THIS I THINK ALREADY.

AND I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'VE DONE THAT.

>> GORDY, CAN WE PARK THIS AND WE CAN DETERMINE A NUMBER AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.

I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.

MONIQUE, I HAD A THOUGHT THE OTHER NIGHT, BECAUSE OUR OPERATING EXPENDITURES ARE GOING DOWN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, AT LEAST IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, ONE AVENUE WOULD BE TO YOU KNOW, TO TRANSFER SOME OF THE EXCESS OPERATIONAL RESERVE INTO THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

WOULD THAT BE AN OPTION? WE WOULD STILL MAINTAIN THE 40 PERCENT.

OR 20 PERCENT.

SORRY.

>> RIGHT.

I TEND TO VIEW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE LENS OF A CREDIT AGENCY CALL.

AND THE CREDIT AGENCIES ARE GOING TO GO FIRST AND LOOK AT YOUR OPERATING RESERVE.

AS OPPOSED TO A SPECIALLY DESIGNATED ONE.

I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP THE OPERATING RESERVE INTACT.

>> I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD LOWER IT BELOW OUR NORMAL STANDARD, MONIQUE, AT ALL.

I'M JUST SAYING BECAUSE THE OPERATING COSTS APPEAR TO BE GOING DOWN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, WE'RE ACTUALLY UP PROBABLY ABOUT 41 PERCENT OR PROBABLY A PERCENTAGE POINT OR TWO ABOVE WHERE THE BOARD HAS REQUIRED US TO BE IN ALL OF OUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS.

JUST AN OPTION.

>> YES, SIR.

YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

WE CAN DISCUSS THAT FURTHER.

I WAS ONLY SAYING THE CREDIT AGENCIES WOULD LOVE IT IF WE WERE ABOVE 20 PERCENT.

OBVIOUSLY.

SO SOMETHING TO DISCUSS FOR SURE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WE'LL COME BACK TO INITIATIVE TWO TO ASSIGN WHAT WE WANT TO INCREASE THAT RESERVE ACCOUNT TO.

INITIATIVE 3 WAS DEALING WITH DEBT.

MONIQUE, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE, I KNOW IT'S REFINANCE.

>> RIGHT.

YOU HAVE TWO UNLIMITED TAX BOND ISSUANCES THAT BECOME CALLABLE IN MARCH OF 2021.

IN ORDER TO RETIRE BOTH OF THEM WOULD REQUIRE ABOUT $6 MILLION CURRENTLY IN YOUR BOND REDEMPTION RESERVE, YOU HAVE $1.8 MILLION.

SO IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ALLOCATION TO IDENTIFY FUNDING FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE IF DEFEESING THE BOND IS A PRIORITY.

ANOTHER OPTION, I HAVE SLIDES WE CAN LOOK AT LATER ON, REFINANCE THE BONDS.

THAT DOES SEEM LIKE AN OPTION, AT LEAST BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.

WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY INITIATE ANYTHING UNTIL 90 DAYS BEFORE THE CALL DATE, WHICH WOULD PUT US IN DECEMBER.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REEVALUATE MARKET CONDITIONS IN DECEMBER TO SEE IF IT WAS STILL FEASIBLE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: DR. SNYDER, GO AHEAD, THIS WAS YOUR INITIATIVE.

>> YES.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

DURING MY TENURE ON THE BOARD HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT IT HAS BEEN GOOD CONSERVATIVE FISCAL PLANNING TO RETIRE DEBT.

THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE YEAR.

BUT HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH MONIQUE AND THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS WE COULD LOOK AT OUR FIVE YEAR PLAN OR ALSO THE REFINANCING OF BONDS THAT SHE HAS JUST ADDRESSED.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I WOULD SUPPORT A REFINANCING INITIATIVE ONLY.

I THINK THAT THE INTEREST RATES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE SAVINGS TO THE COMMUNITY AND CASH IS KING WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THIS TYPE OF SHORTFALL IN REVENUE.

SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF COMING BACK WITH A REFINANCING PRESENTATION.

[00:45:03]

>> I AGREE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT BUT WE'LL VIEW IT FROM A REFINANCING ONLY SCENARIO.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO INITIATIVE 4.

AND THAT WILL TURN OVER THIS BACK TO MONIQUE.

>> THANK YOU.

INITIATIVES ACTUALLY 4, 5, 6, AND 7 ALL HAVE TO DO WITH RECLASSIFICATIONS IN STAFF FOR THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES.

GENERAL EMPLOYEES.

4, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS A RECLASS.

WE WOULD JUST BE RECLASSING A CURRENTLY VACANT POSITION INTO A POSITION THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE WAY MORE PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE FOR THE ORGANIZATION.

THAT WOULD COME AT A COST OF ABOUT 22,000, I THINK IT'S 22,600, TO MAKE THAT RECLASS.

THE POSITIONS 5, 6 AND 7 ALL WOULD HAVE NO COST IMPACT.

THEY WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL.

SO POSITION 5, LEGAL SERVICES, INTERN THAT IS ACTUALLY AN UNPAID POSITION.

AND THEN THE PARKS AND RECREATION RECLASS, FOR A BOATHOUSE AIDE TO SPECIALIST WOULD BE OFFSET WITH PROGRAM REVENUE.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES POSITION,.25 POSITION, THAT WORK IS CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED THROUGH OVER TIME WITH EXISTING STAFF.

THIS WOULD JUST OFFSET THAT OVER TIME COST WITH A SEASONAL POSITION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO THESE HAVE DIMINIMUS IMPACT TO THE BUDGET.

CAN WE APPROVE 4, 5, 6 AND 7 NOW AS TO NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 4, 5, 6 AND 7.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR.

THERE WE GO.

WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS.

ON TO THE MORE CHALLENGING INITIATIVES.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, 8, 9, 10 AND 11.

(AUDIO CUT OUT) IN THE INITIATIVE 8, THIS IS REALLY HAVING TO DO WITH EMS, YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY OUR NUMBER ONE CALL, THE FIRE SERVICE RECEIVES IS PARA MED, MEDICALLY RELATED RESPONSE.

AND THEN WITH COVID, IT'S ALSO GRADED A CHANGE IN OPERATIONAL NEEDS WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR PPE GOING BEYOND JUST COVID PERIODS.

SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS, I'M NOT SURE IF IT NEEDS TO BE A BATTALION CHIEF OR A DIFFERENT POSITION, BUT WHEN IT'S RELATED TO THE HEALTH PIECE, IT MAY QUALIFY FOR CARES ACT BECAUSE IT'S RESPONSIVE TO PROTOCOLS WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE, SAFETY TRAINING FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND COORDINATING MEDICAL SERVICES DISPATCH.

PREVIOUSLY THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED I GUESS BY EXISTING BATTALION CHIEFS, BUT THE WORKLOAD FROM MY UNDERSTANDING HAS GONE UP SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THIS CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT QUALIFIES FOR CARES ACT, BUT I WANTED TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT.

EVEN IF IT DOES, OBVIOUSLY CARES ACT IS NOT INTENDED TO FUND LONG TERM POSITIONS.

SO WE NEED TO KIND OF DECIDE WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITH THIS PARTICULAR POSITION.

I DON'T THINK THE CHIEF HAS AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE IT QUICKLY.

BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE AN INCREASE IN LONG TERM OPERATING BUDGET, EVEN IF CARES ACT COVERED IT SHORT TERM.

>> CHAIRMAN, SEVERAL OF THE INITIATIVES ARE ALREADY IN THE BASE BUDGET, ARE ANY OF THESE FOR NEW STAFF REQUESTS IN THE BASE BUDGET, MONIQUE?

>> NO, MA'AM.

THEY ARE NOT.

>> I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU.

>> GORDY, I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, THIS MAY, THIS POSITION MAY BE NECESSARY BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING DECISIONS IN A COVID ENVIRONMENT.

I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE STABLE NORMAL DEAL AND

[00:50:05]

TALK ABOUT HOW WE NEED TO HANDLE YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS A SECOND LEVEL, FROM THE CHIEF ITSELF.

LEVEL JOB THAT WOULD, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FUND FOREVER.

AND IT'S NOT INEXPENSIVE.

I THINK IT'S 167,000.

>> 155,000.

>> COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION, MOST CHALLENGING ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'VE EVER HAD AND WE GO BACK AND FIND OUT THAT WE'VE ADDED A POSITION THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, AT A LOWER LEVEL.

MY THOUGHTS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN BUNCH, I THINK YOU KNOW, I WOULD KIND OF ADD THAT YOU KNOW, ADDING A SENIOR LEVEL EXECUTIVE LEVEL MEMBERS AT THIS TIME TO ME IS A CHALLENGING THING TO DO UNDER OUR CURRENT SITUATION.

WITH I THINK IT'S A TIME RIGHT NOW TO MINIMIZE AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO MORE WITH A LITTLE BIT LESS.

I'M OBVIOUSLY A HUGE SUPPORTER OF BOTH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

BUT IN A TIME LIKE THIS, WE HAVE MANY RESIDENTS THAT ARE TIGHTENING THEIR BELT BUCKLES AND LEARNING TO DO MORE WITH LESS AND THE BUSINESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE ALSO BEING ASKED TO DO THE SAME THING.

I JUST WOULD HAVE TROUBLE SUPPORTING INCREASING COMMAND STAFF AT THIS TIME.

ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT EVEN IF IT QUALIFIED FOR POTENTIAL CARES ACT FUNDING THAT WE WOULD BE MAKING A LONG TERM DECISION THAT WOULD AFFECT BUDGET AND YEARS COMING INTO THE FUTURE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I TAKE THAT MOST OF THESE 8, 9, 10 AND 11 ARE ALL ALONG THAT KIND OF VAIN OF ADDITIONAL HEAD COUNT AND THE FIRE SERVICE THAT I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY WANT TO DEFER TO NEXT YEAR DISCUSSIONS IN ORDER TO YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, I KNOW I'LL PROBABLY SAY IT NUMEROUS TIMES THROUGHOUT THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

OUR NEW REVENUE LIMITATIONS FROM THE 3.5 PERCENT ARE NOT IMPACTING US THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

BUT IN ALL FUTURE BUDGETS THEY WILL.

AND I ASKED MONIQUE TO PUT TOGETHER A PRESENTATION THAT MAY NOT BE TODAY, MAYBE TOMORROW, TO BETTER ILLUSTRATE THE IMPACT OF OUR CURRENT BASE BUDGET AGAINST THAT FUTURE REVENUE CAP.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MUTED BECAUSE OF THE FTA FUNDING WE RECEIVED AND NEAR TERM WINDFALLS.

IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE THOSE OUT, IT PAINTS A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE AND THEN IT ALSO PAINTS A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE OF OUR CURRENT BASE BUDGET IN THE OUT YEARS AGAINST THOSE FUTURE REVENUE CONSTRAINTS.

SO UNDERSTAND.

I SHARE THAT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD.

WE LOVE YOU, WE WANT TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE AS WE CAN, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 3.5 PERCENT REVENUE, IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE THOSE OUT, IT PAINTS A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, 250, $300,000 A YEAR.

A THIRD OF OUR TOTAL POSSIBLE REVENUE INCREASE IS ABSORBED BY TRASH SERVICE.

AND THEN JUST CURRENT EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS AND THEIR ANNUAL STEPS AND INCREASES EXCEEDS THE BALANCE OF THAT.

SO YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF ROOM IN OUR BASE BUDGET OR IN ADDING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL BUT FOR SOME CHANGES LEGISLATIVELY.

AND/OR MASSIVE WINDFALLS OF SALES TAX, HOTEL TAX AND OTHER NON PROFIT TAX RELATED REVENUE SOURCES.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO 9, 10 AND 11 OR DO WE WANT TO DEFER THOSE AS WELL?

>> I'M GOOD, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ONE QUICK NOTE TO THAT IS I'M SURE THAT THE CURRENT STAFFS WOULD PROBABLY MUCH RATHER HAVE THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE OF THREE PERCENT THAN THE NEW ADDED STAFF.

JUST SOMETHING TO NOTE.

THAT IS ALL.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

[00:55:01]

AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS COMING IN 2021 THAT WE'RE WORKING ON WITH THE FIRE SERVICE THAT MIGHT HELP THEM WITH ADDITIONAL FTES GOING IN THE 2021 BUDGET.

WE WILL HAVE AGENDAS IN THE MID FALL.

WE'RE WORKING ON THAT WITH CHIEF BUCK.

ALL RIGHT.

SO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AGENDA ITEM 12, THIS WAS, IT SAYS MULTIPLE DIRECTORS.

I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO CLAIM THE INITIATIVE.

BUT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE THOUGHT WAS ON THIS.

AND IF WE STILL HAVE SUPPORT TO BRING IT BACK FOR A DEEPER DIALOG.

>> WELL, I'LL SPEAK FOR IT.

I'M NOT A MULTIPLE DIRECTOR.

I THINK MONIQUE, CAN YOU SHARE WITH US WHO ASKED FOR THIS TO BE ON THE REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF ALMA OMEGA.

PERHAPS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND THEN I WILL SPEAK IN FAVOR OF RETAINING WHAT WE HAVE.

>> I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL THE DIRECTORS.

I JUST KNOW IT'S BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BROUGHT UP OVER TIME.

DURING BUDGET MEETINGS AND DURING THIS PROCESS.

SO I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> NO.

I DID NOT MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

>> IT'S OKAY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: IT'S NOT MY INITIATIVE.

I'LL OWN THAT PART.

BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DIALOG AROUND IT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT COME BACK FOR THE DISCUSSION AND SEE WHERE THAT ENDS UP.

BUT I THINK THAT PROVIDES US RIGHT NOW WITH WE NEED SOMEBODY ELSE TO DECIDE DO THEY NOT WANT TO DISCUSS IT OR THEY DO WANT TO DISCUSS IT.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO DIRECTORS THAT ONE WOULD RATHER JUST NOT TOUCH IT AND I WOULD RATHER EVALUATE IT.

>> I'LL SPEAK.

ALMA AND OMEGA HAVE BEEN A DETERRENT TO CRIME.

I FREQUENT BY MYSELF THE DIFFERENT RETAIL CENTERS AS DO MANY RESIDENTS IN THE WOODLANDS.

IT'S ADDED PROTECTION.

I KNOW THAT WE MOVED IT TO COMMUNITY SERVICE.

IT'S STILL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ME.

THE CURRENT BASE BUDGET HAS ALPHA AND OMEGA CORRECT, MONIQUE?

>> YES.

AT THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

YES.

IT'S IN THE BASE BUDGET.

>> SO IT'S IN THE BASE BUDGET TODAY.

I DON'T SEE IN THESE CHALLENGING TIMES REMOVING SOMETHING THAT IS AN ASSET AND A DETERRENT TO CRIME IN OUR COMMUNITY.

>> MONIQUE, WHAT VALUE IS IT IN THE BASE BUDGET FOR UNDER ITS CONTRACT.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S 1.8 MILLION.

>> IT IS THE BUDGET INITIATIVES IT SAYS 1.78.

>> 1 MILLION / P /#* 780 IS THE CONTRACT COST EXPECTED FOR 2021.

>> CHAIRMAN, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, AT BEST, BELIEVING THAT THERE IS EFFECTIVE PRESENCE AT LEAST JUNE THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER, IS PROBABLY QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME THE HEAT FACTOR IS SUCH THAT YOU KNOW, RESPECTFULLY, THEY NEED TO SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME IN THE SHADE.

I ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE SHOULD LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER METHODS MAY PROVIDE FOR US.

I KNOW HAVING SERVED IN THE MILITARY, WHEN I WAS IN THE MILITARY IN THE LATE '70S AND '80S, WE HAD INDIVIDUALS THAT PATROLLED THE PERIMETER FENCE 24/7 AND TODAY THEY USE DRONES TO DO THAT.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE MAY LOOK LIKE.

AND THAT MAY NOT BE THIS YEAR.

BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AND WHAT IS THE BEST METHOD TO ACHIEVE IT.

AND WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE IT WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF COSTS TO THE RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE WHAT WE NEED OUT OF IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD.

[01:00:01]

>> I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE THE STAFF PROVIDE I GUESS A COMPARISON TO WHAT WE GET TODAY, WITHOUT ALPHA OMEGA AND WHAT WE COULD BE PROVIDED BY ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WERE TO ELIMINATE ALPHA OMEGA, WHAT COULD WE PROVIDE IN ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT COST? SO MAYBE IN A DIFFERENT AVENUE, WHETHER IT BE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER THEY WOULD BE ON BIKES, OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE VEHICLES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY CORRELATION OF WHAT WE COULD GET IF WE BASICALLY TOOK THAT CONTRACT AND ADDED ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SERVICES THEY PROVIDE.

I'M LOOKING AT THE REPORT THAT WE GOT, WE JUST LOOKED OVER, WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ACCORDING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HE DOES INDICATE IN HIS REPORT THAT THERE ARE SOME GREAT BENEFITS HAVING THEM, MOUNTED PATROL, REGARDING CAR ALARM CHECKS, LOCKOUTS, THERE IS A WHOLE LIST ON PAGE 35 OF 38.

SO I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE FOR THEIR EFFICACY.

1.8 MILLION IS A LOT OF MONEY.

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY NOT GIVING TOWNSHIP STAFF RAISES UNTIL APRIL TO SAVE 200,000.

SO I THINK IT'S TIME TO JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

MAYBE HOW WE CAN SAVE A LITTLE BIT, PARTICULARLY POSSIBLY IN THE HIGH HEAT MONTHS, AS DIRECTOR MILNER TALKED ABOUT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT.

>> MAY I CHAIRMAN, JUST SAY, ONE OTHER ITEM, I'M SURE EVERYONE READ THEIR BOARD INITIATIVES, WITH REGARD TO ALPHA OMEGA, 2019, PROVIDED INITIATIVE WITH THE FOLLOWING SAFETY CHALLENGES, VISUAL AND PERSONAL ESCORTS, CLOSE TO THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION.

THEY ALSO ADDED SECURITY TO HIGH RISK RETAILERS AT IMPORTANT TIMES, SUCH AS CLOSING.

CAR ALARMS, 4600.

LOST CARS, 1100.

UNSECURED VEHICLES, CLOSE TO 1400.

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTS, SECURITY ASSISTS, AND THE LIST GOES ON.

IT'S A COMMUNITY PRESENCE.

I VALUE THE SUPPORT THAT THEY'VE GIVEN US.

I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING THAT ONE, MULTIPLE DIRECTORS WON'T OWN UP TO THEM WANTING TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE IT.

BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A DETERRENT TO CRIME.

I KNOW THAT FOR MYSELF, MY FAMILY, RESIDENTS SHOPPING IN THESE AREAS.

IT HAS BEEN AN ASSET TO OUR COMMUNITY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MORE THOROUGH VETTING.

ALL RIGHT.

THE NEXT ONE IS AN ADD ASSISTANCE FOR CAPTAIN HOLYFIELD.

I HAVE TALKED WITH CAPTAIN HOLYFIELD.

HE DOESN'T EXPECT US TO APPROVE THIS.

HE WOULD LIKE HELP, BUT KNOWS THAT AT THE COUNTY LEVEL THEY ADDED NO PERSONNEL.

AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THEY ACTUALLY SHRANK THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET BY FIVE MILLION.

HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING.

HE KNOWS WHERE WE'RE AT AND APPRECIATES WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING.

SO UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO, WE CAN MOVE ON FROM 13.

NUMBER 14, I BELIEVE KIND OF TIES IN TO NUMBER 12.

DR. GIBBS.

THIS WAS THE SURVEILLANCE AND DETERRENCE TOWER.

I THINK THIS SPEAKS TO WHAT DIRECTOR MILNER WAS TALKING ABOUT FROM A TECHNOLOGY STANDPOINT, WHAT CAN YOU DO DIFFERENTLY THAN WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAD INTEREST IN FOR LARGE EVENTS.

SOMETHING I THINK WE CAN BRING BACK AND DISCUSS.

>> THANK YOU, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK YOU HAVE BACK UP IN YOUR FOLDERS THAT EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY.

AND THEN 15 WAS ADDING ADDITIONAL OFFICERS, WHICH I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSED.

THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL RIGHT NOW.

[01:05:05]

I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT.

I THINK WE ALWAYS WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY AND COUNTRY.

ALL RIGHT.

ON TO PARKS AND REC.

THE NUMBER 16.

THIS WAS POOL COOLING EQUIPMENT, WHICH WE ACTUALLY DID A TESTING ON LAST YEAR.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THIS IS MY QUESTION ON THIS ONE, IT SAYS 90,000 FIVE YEAR COSTS.

DOES THAT MEAN IT'S 17,500 A YEAR ISH TO EXPAND THE COOLING EQUIPMENT?

>> WHAT THIS IS A CAPITAL PURCHASE.

SO THERE WOULD JUST BE MINIMAL ONGOING OPERATING.

THE INITIATIVE IS TO EXPAND TO THE AREAS TO TWO POOLS, COST 12,000.

TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM TO ALL POOLS WOULD COST 90,000.

THAT IS A CAPITAL PURCHASE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO GET INTO A DEEPER DIALOG ON THAT?

>> NO, SIR NECESSARILY DEEPER DIVE.

IS IT PROVING SUCCESSFUL? WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A REPORT ON THE PILOT.

YOU KNOW, DOES IT DO, DOES IT WORK AS ADVERTISED? IS IT WORTH INVESTING ANOTHER 90,000 IN CAPITAL?

>> BETWEEN THE KIND OF PILOT POOL AS WELL AS A CONTROL POOL, THERE WAS ABOUT A 5.21 DEGREE DIFFERENCE.

IT BROUGHT IT DOWN FROM ABOUT 89, 88 TO 89 DEGREES AND CONTRACTED THAT BY ABOUT 5 DEGREES.

83 TO 84 DEGREES.

>> DOES THAT BRING IT INTO THE SAFE RANGE?

>> THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS NOT RECREATIONAL SWIMMERS.

IT IS FOR THE SWIMMERS THAT MIGHT BE CALLED COMPETITIVE SWIMMERS, PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO LAP LANES.

WE BELIEVE THIS IS COMING FROM A GROUP THAT USES OUR POOLS AS CONTRACT LANE USERS FOR COMPETITIVE SWIMMING TRIATHALON TRAINING AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DEVELOPED A RECOMMENDATION, TWO DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE FOR THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL POOLS THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS OUR TRAINING POOLS AND THEN SYSTEM WIDE.

SO THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATION IS FOR ONLY $12,000 FOR TWO ADDITIONAL POOLS.

AND THEN IF THE PROGRAM PROVES SUCCESSFUL AGAIN, WE MAY COULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD AT A LATER TIME IN 2022'S BUDGET OR LATER WITH THE ADDITIONAL SYSTEM.

>> I COULD SUPPORT A $12,000 INITIATIVE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

I HEARD THIS DISCUSSED LAST YEAR.

AND WOULD IT BE REALISTIC TO JUST FOCUS ON THOSE POOLS WHERE THE COMPETITIVE SWIMMERS HAVE A STRONG PRESENCE AND LET THE OTHER POOLS BE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COSTS AND THEN ALSO WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT MANY COMPLAINTS FROM FAMILIES, HAVE WE?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: DR. SAKULA GIBBS, I THINK THAT IS WHAT DR. NUNES JUST SAID, HIS RECOMMENDATION IS WE ONLY DO 12,000, I SUPPORT IT.

I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY APPROVE THIS ONE RIGHT NOW AT 12,000, IF THE BOARD IS SO INCLINED.

>> THAT WOULD BE PERMANENT IN ONE POOL?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: NO.

EXPANDING TO TWO ADDITIONAL SWIM LANE POOLS.

THREE POOLS.

>> A TOTAL OF THREE.

>> OKAY.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

WHY DON'T WE VOTE ON THAT AND TAKE IT OFF THE TO DO LIST.

ALL IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE $12,000 INITIATIVE FOR ADDITIONAL TWO POOLS SAY AYE.

THERE WE GO.

>> THANK YOU.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE GO TO 17.

ENTRANCE MONUMENT SIGN COMING IN ON, I THINK IT'S RESEARCH FOREST.

I'M SURE THAT DIRECTOR BROWN IS GOING TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

DO WE WANT TO BRING THIS BACK?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT BACK.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WE WILL TAKE THAT UP.

PATHWAY CROSSWALK CONNECTORS, NUMBER 18.

THIS ONE, I THINK WE HAVE A MILLION AND A HALF LEFT IN RESERVES THAT WE'VE BEEN SETTING ASIDE 500 THOUSAND FOR BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, WAITING ON GRANT FUNDING TO EXPAND THE FUNDS.

I DON'T THINK THIS ONE HAD A LARGE TOTAL COST TO IT.

>> IT WAS $30,000 CAPITAL COST.

YOU'RE CORRECT, YOU HAVE ABOUT 1.5 MILLION IN THAT RESERVE.

[01:10:05]

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I WOULD PROPOSE WE JUST APPROVE THIS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING INITIATIVE 18, SAY AYE.

FUNDING FROM OUR EXISTING RESERVES.

NUMBER 19, I THINK HAS NO SUPPORT.

I'M PROJECTING IT HAS NO SUPPORT.

WE ALREADY HAVE HAZARDOUS COLLECTIONS FROM THE COUNTY SERVICES.

I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET INTO THIS BUSINESS.

ANYBODY WANT TO SUPPORT THAT? ALL RIGHT.

WE WILL NOT TAKE UP 19.

NUMBER 20.

A LITTLE MORE EMOTIONAL.

HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT EXPANDING THE DUBBS?

>> SUCH AS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> SO THIS INITIATIVE HAD TO DO WITH WE HAVE THE HOLIDAY DUBS ON DISPLAY THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY SEASON IN SEVERAL AREAS.

THAT IS NOT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE COMMUNITY.

TO ME THERE IS A LOT OF COSTS INVOLVED WITH THIS TRYING TO PUT DUBS IN EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY AT THE TOWNSHIP.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DEFER TO BETTER TIMES MYSELF.

>> I AGREE, CHAIRMAN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

NUMBER 21, LOOKS LIKE A REVENUE NEUTRAL OVER TIME INITIATIVE.

STREETSCAPE IRRIGATION ATTACHMENT, TAKING WATER FROM THE LAKE, VERSUS WATER FROM THE WATER SUPPLY.

YES, IT'S A CAPITAL EXPENSE, BUT IT'S RECOVERED THROUGH OPERATIONAL REDUCTION EXPENSES.

I PROPOSE WE JUST APPROVE THIS.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT THIS AS WELL.

THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE IN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.

NOT USING POTABLE WATER FOR IRRIGATION.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I LIKE THE IDEA.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS I ALSO SEE DOWN BELOW DREDGING LAKE POLOMO.

DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE OTHER?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: NO.

THEY'RE NOT TIED TOGETHER.

>> WHAT IS THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, GORDY?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I BELIEVE ON THIS ONE IT IS.

>> 30,000.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: 30,000.

BUT THEN IT REDUCES.

WE GET IT BACK ANNUALLY.

>> YOU GET IT BACK QUICKLY.

SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS.

IF THERE IS CONSENSUS, WE CAN APPROVE INITIATIVE 21.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE, ON INITIATIVE 22, STREETLIGHT TRIMMING, MY QUESTION ON THIS ONE HAD TO DO WITH I THINK THIS IS REALLY THE COUNTY SERVICE AROUND THE STREETLIGHTS.

WHERE ARE WE COMING UP WITH, OR HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH THIS DIFFERENTLY? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPERS DO WHEN THEY INSTALL, MAYBE IT'S ONE THAT CAN HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION.

>> QUESTION, AND I DID NOT PUT THIS ON.

BUT IS IT NOT FOR SAFETY REASONS, THE STREETLIGHT TRIMMING, MONIQUE? SIMPLY BECAUSE OVER TIME THE TREE CANOPY CAN OVER THE POLES AS WELL AS THE LIGHT FIXTURE ON THE DIFFERENT PATHWAYS, OR STREETS?

>> IF DR. NUNES COULD ADDRESS THIS ONE, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

>> THANK YOU, MONIQUE.

BASICALLY YOU'VE SEEN THE TRIMMING DONE BY THE COUNTY, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS TRIMMING ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 12 FEET HIGH OR THE LIGHT POLES GO ANYWHERE BETWEEN 25 AND 40 FEET HIGH.

WHAT THIS IS PROPOSING IS A KIND OF A FIVE YEAR ROTATING PROGRAM, $15,000 PER YEAR, TO HIT ON AVERAGE I THINK I PUT ABOUT 130 TO 150 POLES PER YEAR.

NOT EVERY POLE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

SOME OF THEM ARE VERY CLEAR.

SOME OF THE VEGETATION IS SET BACK.

BUT THERE IS A CONCERN, WE DO GET CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT STREETLIGHTS BEING BLOCKED BY VEGETATION AND A LESSER EXTENT IMPACTS OUR ABILITIES TO HANG BANNERS DURING VARIOUS TIMES OF THE YEAR.

>> IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE AND IT'S $15,000 PER YEAR APPROXIMATELY.

IS IT NOT, DR. NUNES?

[01:15:02]

>> THAT IS OUR CURRENT ESTIMATE, YES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: DR. NUNES, WHAT I READ INTO HERE IS THAT THESE TRIMMINGS ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS COUNTY OR RUN PROPERTY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

THE LIGHTS ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAYS.

THE UNIQUE ASPECT ABOUT THE LIGHTS IS ON A COUNTY ROAD, LIGHTS ARE TYPICALLY NOT INCLUDED ON A COUNTY ROAD.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: BUT THE LIGHTS IN THIS CASE ARE.

>> YES, BECAUSE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THEY WERE PUT IN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

WHEN I TALKED TO COMMISSIONER NOAK ABOUT STREET SCAPE STUFF, HE SAID HE HAD BOUGHT SOME EQUIPMENT AND WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THESE TYPES OF THINGS IF WE ASKED AND POINTED OUT SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN.

I THINK HE'S ALSO DOING SOME OF THE CUTTING FOR PRECINCT 2, WITH THE EQUIPMENT WE PURCHASED.

SO I WOULD RATHER WE ASK HIM FOR SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, PRIOR TO LEAP FROGGING AND DOING IT FOR HIM.

>> I AGREE, CHAIRMAN.

I THINK THAT IS PRUDENT.

>> I AGREE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD.

>> HOW ABOUT A COMPROMISE.

WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE $15,000 A YEAR.

WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER NOAK AND SEE IF HE'S CAPABLE OF DOING THIS OR NOT.

IF NOT, WE DON'T SPEND THE MONEY.

I AGREE THAT FOR A NOMINAL AMOUNT, I DON'T LIKE YOU KNOW, THE IDEA OF DOUBLE TAXATION EITHER.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SAFETY ASPECT INVOLVED HERE.

IT IS KIND OF, WE'RE KIND OF A HYBRID MODEL HERE THAT IS A TOWNSHIP.

SO I REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH APPROVING TENTATIVELY YOU KNOW, THE EXPENDITURE RATHER THAN COMING BACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR AND MAKING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.

>> HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE COMMISSIONER ABOUT THIS OR HAS MR. POWERS TALKED TO THE COMMISSIONER ABOUT THIS?

>> I HAVE NOT TALKED DIRECTLY.

>> IN THAT CASE, LET'S DEFER IT TO A CONVERSATION.

IF WE CAN'T GET RESOLUTION, BRING IT BACK TO US AND WE'LL FIND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THIS IS A SIZE WE CAN DEAL WITH THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

AND I DO THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO TALK TO THE COMMISSIONER ABOUT THESE.

BECAUSE LARGE TRUCKS LIKE 18 WHEELERS AND SELFISHLY RVS, THERE IS A STANDARD CLEARANCE THAT I BELIEVE IS REQUIRED IN RIGHT OF WAYS ALONG THESE ROADWAYS IN ORDER TO HAVE I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 13 FEET CLEARANCE.

IS THERE SOME STANDARD JOHN OR DR. NUNES, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S 16 FEET, WHICH IS THE BRIDGES.

>> 16 FEET.

SO THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE TREE CANOPIES TOO, THOUGH, RIGHT?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, SIR.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO THERE IS AN ACTUAL APPLIED STANDARD THAT WE COULD BE ASKING IS MAINTAINED BY THOSE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

ALL RIGHT.

AGAIN, DIRECTOR RIESER'S POINT AND DR. SNYDER'S POINT, IT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT.

REALISTICALLY, THIS SHOULD BE BEING DONE ALREADY BASED ON APPLYING THE STANDARDS IN PLACE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE 22.

23, ROAD MEDIAN RE FORESTATION.

THIS IS HERCANDAL ROAD, I BELIEVE IT'S RELATED TO CREEKSIDE PARK AREA.

DR. NUNES.

>> THIS IS CREEKSIDE PARK SOUTH OF THE BRIDGE, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL AREA.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MEDIANS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY RESIDENTS OVER THE NUMBER OF YEARS.

ONE TO REFOREST.

TWO, THERE ARE SEVERAL MEDIANS THAT BASICALLY HOLD WATER BECAUSE THERE IS NO OUTLET FOR THE WATER.

SO THE IDEA TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTS'S CONCERN WAS TO FILL IN CERTAIN MEDIANS AND REFOREST CERTAIN MEDIANS BASED WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF HARRIS COUNTY APPROVAL, FOR VARIOUS SIGHT LINE DISTANCES.

THAT ROAD IS AT A 45 MILE PER HOUR THRESHOLD.

SO THE SIGHT LINES ARE IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN BECAUSE THERE ARE

[01:20:02]

UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS IN THAT AREA.

>> FOR JUST FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, WHO OWNS THE MEDIANS?

>> THE COUNTY DOES OWN THE MEDIANS.

>> SO THIS WOULD BE A DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER KAGLE'S OFFICE?

>> YES IT WOULD BE.

IT'S INDICATED THAT HE WOULD NO REFOREST THE AREAS OR FILL IN THOSE MEDIANS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WERE THESE ORIGINALLY RUD PROJECTS AND THEN CONVEYED TO COMMISSIONER?

>> I BELIEVE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RUD PROJECTS.

>> I DON'T THINK THE ROADWAY WAS AN RUD PROJECT.

I KNOW THE BRIDGE WAS, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE MEDIANS, CHRIS.

I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

THE ONLY THING, I JUST WANT TO CAUTION EVERYBODY, TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, CHRIS IS YOU KNOW, THE SPEED LIMIT IS 45.

WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER SITUATION, LIKE WE HAVE IN THE ALDEN BRIDGE AREA, BECAUSE OF LIMITED SIGHT LINES THAT WE HAVE ACCIDENTS.

>> AND IN THE FULL MEMO, YOU IDENTIFIED, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN MEDIANS THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FROM HARRIS COUNTY TO BE REFORESTED.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT HAVING AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT I DON'T THINK I'M READY TO SAY YES TO THAT RIGHT NOW.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT IT TOO.

BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WOULD THIS REQUIRE OR DOES IT NEED WATER OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IRRIGATION THERE?

>> WE TYPICALLY DO A REFORESTATION IRRIGATION PACKAGE, EITHER BY WATER TRUCK OR TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THOSE TREES ARE ESTABLISHED.

>> IN THE AREAS THAT DIRECTOR RIESER AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, SIGHT LINE CONCERNS, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME LOWER LANDSCAPING, SPOTS THAT CAN'T HAVE A TREE, WHERE THE CREEKSIDE RESIDENTS WILL FEEL LIKE THERE IS ATTENTION BEING GIVEN TO THIS.

>> SURE.

THE COST OF THAT IN THE AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REIDENTIFIED FOR REFORESTATION, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLANTS.

WE WOULD AGAIN NEED TO TAKE BACK THAT CONCEPT TO HARRIS COUNTY FOR APPROVAL OF LOWER LEVEL LANDSCAPING.

>> DR. NUNES, WE HAVE AN ANNUAL REFORESTATION BUDGET.

IS THERE NOT A WAY TO USE SOME OF THAT ALREADY EXISTING FUNDING TOWARDS SOME OF THESE EFFORTS?

>> IN THE OUT YEARS, OUT YEARS BEING WE'RE FINE TUNING OUR REFORESTATION RIGHT NOW, INCLUDES PROBABLY ABOUT 3,000 PLUS OR MINUS TREES.

AND WHAT THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN USED FOR IS A LOT TO RE VEGETATE FOR THE AREAS THAT HAVE VINE REMOVAL.

WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND REPLANT TREES IN THE AREA SO THE AREA IS NOT LEFT BARE.

IF WE DECIDED TO SLOW DOWN THAT PROGRAM, EXISTING DOLLARS COULD BE USED.

BUT THIS WOULD BE IN THE 21 22 REFORESTATION CYCLE OR LATER, TO USE THAT POT OF MONEY TO DO THIS PROJECT.

>> WHEN YOU SAY POT OF MONEY, WHAT ARE YOU SPEAKING TO?

>> I BELIEVE REFORESTATION IS ABOUT $300,000 PER YEAR.

BUT DR. SNYDER, THE COST, THAT WOULD MEAN THE POTENTIAL HALT TO THE VINE REMOVAL PROGRAM.

BECAUSE WHEN WE DO VINE REMOVAL, WE REPLACE TREES THERE.

THAT WOULD BE THE DECISION FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND MAKE.

WE REGULARLY GET VINE CALLS ABOUT RESIDENTS OF VINES AND RIGHT OF WAYS, BEHIND THEIR HOMES, IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING PROGRAM AND IT'S BEEN TO SOME EXTENT, A CHALLENGE TO KEEP UP.

ESPECIALLY WITH THE RAINS THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.

WITH THE VINE REMOVAL.

EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL 120 DAYS, 240 DAYS OF VINE REMOVAL A FEW YEARS AGO.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THIS HAS ENOUGH BACK AND FORTH DIALOG.

WE CAN BRING THIS ONE BACK TO FLUSH OUT WHEN WE COME BACK.

ALL RIGHT.

THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE INITIATIVE 24, WHICH I THINK WE CAN ALL JUST VOTE FOR.

THESE THINGS PAY FOR THEMSELVES.

AND THEN SOME.

THEY'VE BEEN A WILD SUCCESS AND CONGRATULATIONS DR. NUNES ON DEPLOYING NEW

[01:25:03]

RECREATIONAL AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING WIDELY ADOPTED AND UTILIZED.

IT'S AWESOME TO SEE IT OUT THERE.

IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED, CAN WE APPROVE 24?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

SAY AYE.

WE HAVE APPROVED 24.

25 IS A PLAYGROUND REQUEST, FROM STERLING RIDGE.

THE CLIFF NOTE VERSION IS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A 55 AND OLDER AREA WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PLAYGROUND.

IT DIDN'T TURN OUT THAT WAY.

AND SO IT DOESN'T HAVE A PLAYGROUND IN THE SAME HALF MILE DISTANCE AS MOST OF THE COMMUNITY.

DR. NUNES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS?

>> YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB IN THE CLIFF NOTE VERSION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: IT'S 135,000 REQUEST FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT.

I MEAN, THE BOARD HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT ABOUT TRYING TO PROVIDE EQUAL AMENITIES ACROSS ALL VILLAGES.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S A CAPITAL EXPENSE TO DO IT.

>> I AGREE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? IF NOT, WHY DON'T WE APPROVE IT AND MOVE ON.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

WE'VE APPROVED THAT.

NOW WE GO TO SPECIFIC VILLAGE ASSOCIATION REQUEST FROM CREEKSIDE PARK VIOLATION ASSOCIATION.

NOW, AS DIRECTOR RIESER ALLUDED TO THERE WAS A SECTION ASKING FOR DREDGING.

DR. NUNES, I THINK THIS ONE, IF I RECALL, WAS A FAIRLY PRICELY ENDEAVOR.

>> THIS ONE WOULD BE THE PRICE IS $15,000.

BUT THAT IS REALLY TO DO A STUDY TO SEE IF DEPTH IS AN ISSUE.

THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM THE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM IS PER SE.

WE DO JUST AS A STANDARD PRACTICE, A DEPTH STUDY OF LAKE WOODLANDS ABOUT EVERY FIVE YEARS.

AND SO THIS WOULD BASICALLY ESTABLISH THAT, THE DEPTH OF THE LAKE AND COMPARE IT AGAINST WHAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE LAKE WAS TO SEE IF THERE IS AREAS WHERE WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WHAT IS THE SIZE OF LAKE POLOMOA IN RELATION TO LAKE WOODLANDS?

>> POLOMA IS 76 ACRES.

WOODLANDS IS 235 ACRES.

WE DO NOT DO A DEPTH STUDY OF THE ENTIRE LAKE.

WE DO THE FINGERS, WHERE THE DRAINAGE COMES OUT, ALONG EAST PANTHER CREEK, THE COVES BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE BOATS GO IN AND OUT, IN AND OUT.

AND OF COURSE, COORDINATING WITH THE VARIOUS MUD DISTRICT DOWN THERE BECAUSE THERE IS DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

I HEARD DIRECT MILNER WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS INITIATIVE.

ANYONE ELSE?

>> I SUPPORT IT.

>> OKAY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: >>THE CHAIRMAN: IF IT'S $15,000 TO DREDGE, DO WE WANT TO APPROVE THIS NOW.

>> I THINK IT'S A STUDY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: STUDY ON THE DEPTHS TIED TO DREDGING REQUIREMENTS, DREDGING NEEDS.

>> ONE TIME COST, CORRECT?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: IT'S A ONE TIME COST FOR A STUDY THAT COULD COME BACK WITH MORE COSTS.

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH THE LAKE LEVEL HAS TO DO WITH THE WATER QUALITIES AND THEN WHAT OTHER ELSE HAPPENS WITH THE INTENDED USE OF THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SILTATION WILL CHANGE THE WHOLE LITANY OF DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL STUFF THAT GOES ON WITH THE LAKE.

I THINK THREE OR FOR US.

IF WE CAN APPROVE THIS PIECE, WE CAN MOVE ON.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OKAY.

APPROVED.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO ON THE COST SIDE.

DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A QUICK DOWN AND DIRTY?

>> HIGH LEVEL, CHAIRMAN BUNCH.

THE REQUEST FROM CREEKSIDE PARK VILLAGE ASSOCIATIONS WAS TRASH WAYS AND DOG WAY STATIONS.

THE COST IS NOMINAL.

IF YOU WERE TO EXTEND THAT OUT TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, IT DOES GET A CHALLENGE.

[01:30:02]

WE HAVE NOT INSTALLED DOG WASTE STATIONS, OUTSIDE OF LINEAR TRAILS.

THEY'RE ARE ONLY A VERY VERY SMALL NUMBER OF TRASH CANS ON PATHWAYS WHICH ARE MAINLY FOUND IN PANTHER CREEK, OLD AND KIND OF HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED DUE TO THE OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COST.

>> I DO THINK WE HAVE THREE OR FOUR OF THOSE ON THE PATHS AROUND LAKE?

>> YEAH.

WE WORKED WITH CREEKSIDE PARK TO KIND OF CONSIDER THAT AROUND THE FOOT BRIDGE AREA, AS A LINEAR PARK, THERE ARE A COUPLE ON LAKE POLOMA PARK SPECIFICALLY IF YOU GO TO THE FAR WESTERN END, THERE IS A TRASH CAN AND A DOG WASTE STATION THERE TO BASICALLY MANAGE PREVIOUS REQUESTS.

AND STAY WITHIN OUR STANDARD.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WHAT YOU WOULD END UP DOING HERE IS CREATING A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR CREEKSIDE PARK AND THEN THE INEQUITY TO THE BALANCE OF THE COMMUNITY, WOULD THEN, IF WE WANTED TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN BALANCE LIKE WE DID WITH THE PLAYGROUNDS, THAT IS WHERE THE COST GET ONEROUS AND WHY WE RESISTED.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

THIS BOARD AND PREVIOUS BOARDS HAVE WORKED THROUGH THAT DOG WASTE STATION REQUEST I THINK THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN MY TENURE HERE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: RIGHT.

OKAY.

I'M NOT INCLINED TO CREATE A DISPARITY IN SERVICES VOLUNTARILY.

ANYONE ELSE?

>> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO WE WILL NOT DO B AND C.

AND THEN D IS A SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT.

CAN YOU SHARE WITH US JUST QUICKLY, I KNOW SUN LIGHT COMING INTO THE REC CENTER PROBABLY CREATES A HEAT ISSUE.

>> IT'S JUST MORE OF A SUN IN THE EYES ISSUE FOR INDIVIDUALS USING THE FITNESS EQUIPMENT WITHIN ROB FLEMING RECREATION CENTER.

>> IT'S $2,000.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

>> YEAH.

I THINK THIS WAS REQUESTED A COUPLE OF TIMES FROM THE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION THROUGHOUT, AT LEAST THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT I KNOW.

>> I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.

>> I SUPPORT IT.

>> ISN'T IT ODD THAT IT'S THE NORTH WINDOW?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: TIME OF DAY ISSUE OR SEASONAL.

>> IT MUST BE SEASONAL.

BECAUSE I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE LOWEST LIGHT LEVEL, I MEAN, THESE HIGH PERFORMANCE FILMS ARE GREAT.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE GORDY TO CUT DOWN THE AMOUNT OF UV GOING INTO THE STRUCTURE AS WELL.

I THINK IT'S WORTH IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WE CAN DO IT.

LET'S SAY AYE.

THEY GET FILM.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOVES US TO THE SECOND PAGE OF INITIATIVES, BACK TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND ADDITIONAL COMPANY.

MONIQUE, ON THIS INITIATIVE, HOW MUCH OF THIS INITIATIVE WAS IN OUR CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN?

>> WE HAD TIED TO STATION 5 OVER, WE LOOKED SEVEN YEARS AHEAD.

AND WE HAD ABOUT $600,000 IN THERE.

IT WASN'T ALL IN 2021, BUT OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS, WE HAD ABOUT 600,000.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I ASKED CHIEF BUCK, I MET WITH HIM ON THIS ON MONDAY AND WENT OVER AND CHECKED OUT THE DAMAGE TO THE STATION AND ASK THAT HE SEND ALL OF THE DIRECTORS THE GEOTECHCAL STUDY AND THE REMEDIATION TIED TO THIS FIRE STATION.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT YET.

HAS ANYONE ELSE?

>> NO.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

YOU KNOW, I DO THINK WE ALL NEED TO REVIEW THAT BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY A SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL REQUEST.

AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT THAT GEO TECHNICAL STUDY IS SAYING, WHAT THE REMEDIATION OPTIONS ARE AND WHAT THE REBUILT OR RELOCATE OPTIONS ARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR FACILITY.

I SUGGEST WE BRING THIS ONE BACK WITH SOME OF THOSE DETAILS RELATED.

I DON'T THINK THIS WILL GET APPROVED THIS YEAR.

I DID SHARE WITH THE CHIEF THAT BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT, YOU'RE TALKING.5 CENT

[01:35:06]

TAX INCREASE OR ONE CENT TAX INCREASE TO ADDRESS THIS WITH SOME KIND OF DEBT INSTRUMENT.

MONIQUE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BALLOT INITIATIVE?

>> DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE DEBT THAT YOU WANTED TO ISSUE, YES.

SO IF IT WAS >> IT WOULDN'T IF WE USED HOTEL TAX.

IT WOULD IF WE USED REVENUE TAX.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.

WITHOUT HAVING THE STUDY AND BEING FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH IT, I CAN'T MOVE FORWARD ON THAT ASPECT OF THE STUFF.

>> I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT ON IN THE BUDGET TASK FORCE.

WE CAN WORK WITH THE CHIEF AND GET SOME STUFF TOGETHER AND BRING A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

I DO THINK THE FULL BOARD NEEDS TO GET THE GEO TECHNICAL STUDY SO WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHER WHAT WERE THE OTHER ONES? SO REMODELLING OF STATION 3 AND 4 MONIQUE, THOSE WEREN'T IN THE CAPITAL PLANS?

>> WE COULD PULL MONEY OUT OF THAT.

BUT REALLY THOSE ARE MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO IT RATHER THAN REPAIRS.

IT WAS ADDING ADDITIONAL APPARATUS BAY AND STORAGE AND LIVING AREA.

SO THE CAPITAL RESERVE WAS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING THE CURRENT FACILITIES AS THEY EXIST.

NOT EXPANDING THEM.

HAVING SAID THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD PROBABLY PULL MAYBE A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OUT OF THE CAPITAL RESERVE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY THAT WAS PLANNED TO BE SPENT FOR THESE FACILITIES IN THE CURRENT CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN.

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I DID SHARE WITH THE CHIEF THAT WE PROBABLY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT 2021 FOR PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THESE REQUESTS AND HE UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE WERE AT ON THAT.

THAT WILL GIVE THE BUDGET TASK FORCE TIME TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH OPTIONALTY AS WELL.

MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT.

WE CAN LET THE BUDGET TASK FORCE DO THEIR THING.

AS A FULL BOARD, GET THE GEO TECHNICAL STUDY AND COME BACK.

ADDITIONAL LIST, ONE CENT TAX INCREASE IN ORDER TO GET THAT IN, THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO LOOK AT AND ENTERTAIN THE EIGHT PERCENT TAX RATE.

EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE TAX RATE.

BECAUSE IT'S 1.7 MILLION A YEAR IN INITIAL YEAR OPERATIONS.

THIS ALSO GOES BACK TO WE TALKED ABOUT ALPHA OMEGA, IT'S $1.7 MILLION A YEAR.

ADDITIONAL WEST SIDE FIRE COMPANY IS $1.7 MILLION A YEAR.

WHEN WE START LOOKING AT THE OUT YEARS, EVENTUALLY THERE IS GOING TO BE DECISIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE MADE IN THE BASE BUDGETS ON DO WE FUND THIS OR THAT.

IS IT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALPHA OMEGA.

LAW ENFORCEMENT, ALPHA OMEGA.

EMPLOYEE SALARIES OR ALPHA OMEGA.

IT'S COMING TO A HEAD AND THAT IS GOING TO BECOME APPARENT WHEN YOU SEE THE 3.5 PERCENT.

AND EVEN WITH 3.5 PERCENT ANALYSIS, THAT IS ASSUMING THAT FUTURE BOARDS TAKE THE 3.5 PERCENT INCREASE.

THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.

WE TEND NOT TO DO THAT.

WE TEND TO TAKE THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SAME ANALYSIS ON EFFECTIVE TAX RATE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES IN THE OUT YEARS.

THERE IS LIKE I SAID, EARLIER, THE PLAN WITH THE CHIEF BUCK AND I ASKED ON MONDAY, ON TRYING TO GET REVENUE INTO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THAT COULD HELP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL FTES FOR THEIR SERVICE, I THINK WE HAVE A DECENT STRATEGY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO VET OUT AND WE'LL SHARE, LIKE I SAID IN THE FALL, BUT WE REALLY CAN'T ADD A FIRE COMPANY WITHOUT GOING TO A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER TAX RATE.

>> UNLESS WE TAKE AWAY ALPHA AND OMEGA.

WOULD YOU SAY THERE WOULD BE EQUIVALENCY THERE, GORDY?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: EVEN WITH THAT, IT'S NOT A NET NET.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HIGHER ESCALATION IN COSTS IN THE FIRE SERVICE THAN WE HAVE AT ALPHA OMEGA.

SO IT'S NOT A ONE FOR ONE SITUATION.

>> AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT STATION CAPACITY TO ADD ANOTHER COMPANY OUT TO THE WEST WITHOUT ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT'S CORRECT.

IN TALKING WITH THE CHIEF, HE'S GOT A DIFFERENT IDEA OF HOW THEY COULD ADD ANOTHER TEAM TO THE FIRE SERVICE.

BUT MAYBE MORE FOCUSED ON ACCIDENT RESPONSE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SMALLER

[01:40:03]

VEHICLE OR REQUIRES LESS EXPENSIVE VEHICLE FOR RESPONSE.

AND THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRE SERVICE CALLS ARE ACCIDENT RELATED.

SO IN TALKING WITH HIM, HE UNDERSTANDS THE WEST SIDE FIRE COMPANY IS NOT GOING TO OCCUR AT THIS POINT.

AND THAT HE'S REENVISIONING WHAT SUPPLEMENTAL TEAM, WHICH WOULD BE SMALLER THAN WHAT IS REQUESTED IN INITIATIVE 28, VERY LIKELY WE COULD GET WORKED OUT BY 2021, BASED ON THE EARLY DISCUSSIONS.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO BRING 28 BACK.

BUT I DO KNOW 2021, WE SHOULD HAVE A PLAN WHERE WE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO THE HIGHEST CALL VOLUME WE GET.

WHICH IS ACCIDENT RESPONSE.

ALL RIGHT.

29.

RESIDENTIAL SURVEY.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE.

DO WE NOT HAVE IN OUR INCORPORATION STUDY A RESIDENTIAL SURVEY AS PART OF THE STUDY.

>> WE INITIALLY IN REGARD TO INCORPORATION, WE INITIALLY HAD A STUDY THAT WAS PLANNED, EARLY IN 2020, THAT HAS BEEN DEFERRED A COUPLE OF TIMES AND AT THE CURRENT TIME WE DO NOT HAVE THAT ON THE SCHEDULE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MY POINT WAS WE HAVE MONEY ALLOCATED FOR A RESIDENTIAL STUDY WITHIN THE INCORPORATION PLAN AGREEMENT.

MEANING IF WE, ASSUMING WE EVER GET TO A FINAL PRESENTATION, WE CAN MAKE TO THE COMMUNITY, WE COULD UTILIZE THAT RESIDENTIAL SURVEY FUNDS AS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY AND NOT HAVE TO DO TWO SEPARATE SURVEYS.

>> THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE FOR INCORPORATION SERVICES WITH THE NOVAK GROUP HAD US ACTUALLY FUNDING, AS I RECALL, MONIQUE CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS, OR KAREN CAN, HAD US FUNDING THAT SURVEY IF WE CHOSE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> GORDY, I WAS GOING TO SAY MY RECOLLECTION OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD WAS YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T REALLY IDENTIFY YOU KNOW, A STATISTICALLY VALID WAY, YOU KNOW TO DO THE SURVEY.

YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT SOME DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT.

BUT THE PROBLEM WAS YOU KNOW, WAS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE STATISTICALLY VALID.

I THINK THAT THE DECISION WAS ESSENTIALLY THAT PUTTING THE INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT WOULD BE THE WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD RESIDENTIAL SURVEY.

IF I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS CORRECTLY.

>> I THINK THERE WAS TWO DIFFERENT DIALOGS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE STILL WOULD DO, WE STILL HAD THE OPTIONALTY OF DOING A SURVEY BASED ON THE TIMING OF WHEN WE HAD A FINAL PUBLIC PRESENTATION.

I THINK WHAT THE BOARD AGREED TO IS THERE IS NO POINT IN POLLING OR SURVEYING THE COMMUNITY WHEN THE FINAL RESULTS AND IMPACTS HAVE NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY PRESENTED.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE AN ILL INFORMED POPULOUS OPINING ON INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE YET TO RECEIVE AND HAS YET TO BE PRESENTED.

SO I THINK DEPENDING ON LIKE TO YOUR POINT, IF IT WAS BALLOT INITIATIVE AND YOU WERE IN A TIGHTER TIMETABLE, WHERE YOU'RE MAKING THE FINAL PUBLIC PRESENTATION, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S STILL ON THE BALLOT IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS, CORRECT, YOU DON'T DO A RESIDENTIAL SURVEY.

IF WE'RE IN THIS LONGER PHASED APPROACH, WHERE WE HAVE TIME AND YOU'RE MAKING PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS, NOT TIED TO A BALLOT INITIATIVE, THEN YOU DO HAVE TIME FOR A SURVEY POST PUBLIC PRESENTATION TO GET SOME FEEDBACK BECAUSE IT'S NOT TIED TO A SHORTER TIMETABLE.

SO DO WE NOT SET ASIDE FUNDING OR DID WE RETRIEVE THE FUNDING FOR OUR PLANNED SURVEY?

>> WE HAVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE INCORPORATION RESERVE TO DO THE STUDY.

IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY APPROPRIATED AT THAT TIME.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE CAPACITY.

THE PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL SURVEY IN 29 HAD EVEN THOUGH IT HAS SOME BEARING HERE, IT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE TOWNSHIP AND THE BASELINE THAT WE TRY TO UPDATE EVERY 18 MONTHS TO MAYBE 24 MONTHS.

AND SO THIS SURVEY WAS TO BE MORE ON SERVICES, HOW WE'RE DOING AS AN ORGANIZATION AND

[01:45:08]

NOT SO MUCH ON INCORPORATION.

>> IF I MAY, MR. NORRELL, I WANT TO AGREE WITH YOU.

WHAT I SEE THE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY IS PROVIDES OUR RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO INDICATE WHAT THEY LIKE BEST ABOUT LIVING IN THE WOODLANDS, WHAT SERVICES THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE DIFFERENT.

I KNOW IN PAST THE INCORPORATION QUESTION HAS BEEN ON THERE.

BUT IT'S MORE GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR PRIORITIES FOR THE TOWNSHIP'S FUTURE.

IT WAS I FELT PRIOR TO SERVING ON THE BOARD AND NOW AS A DIRECTOR ON THE BOARD, IT GIVES ME INPUT WHAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS LIKE AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ALLOCATING THE $45,000 FOR POTENTIAL SURVEY IN 2021.

I THINK YOU KNOW, IT WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR WHAT THAT SURVEY WOULD LOOK LIKE AND IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AT A FUTURE DATE.

IT'S A ONE TIME EXPENSE.

WE'VE TYPICALLY DONE THEM EVERY TWO YEARS.

I THINK THE CLOUDINESS OF THE CORPORATION IN A SEPARATE STUDY IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR EXTENSION AND OUR TIMING, I THINK WE CAN WORK IT IN.

AND WHETHER THAT FUNDING COMES OUT OF THE INCORPORATION STUDY RESERVE OR COMES OUT OF A DIFFERENT BUCKET, IT DOESN'T MAKE AN IMPACTFUL DIFFERENCE TO THE BUDGET.

BUT IT GIVES US THE OPTIONALTY, AND WE KNOW WE HAVE THE OPTIONALTY AT ANY TIME TO DO THE SURVEY.

IT DOESN'T GIVE ME HEARTBURN TO HAVE THAT KNOWN AS A KNOWN QUANTIFIABLE ACTION FOR 2021, THAT THE BOARD WILL REVIEW A POTENTIAL SURVEY, RESIDENTIAL SURVEY.

IT MAY BE AN INCORPORATION RELATED SURVEY OR MAYBE ONE THAT IS BROADER IN SCOPE AND MORE IN LINE WITH OUR PREVIOUS SURVEYS.

>> I SEE THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENT SURVEY AS BEING THAT THE RESIDENT SURVEY UNRELATED TO THE INCORPORATION QUESTION.

SO THIS WILL BE A BASIC SURVEY THAT WAS HANDED OUT I GUESS WELL NOW PRIOR TO THE INCORPORATION INITIATIVE.

SO THAT IS HOW I LOOK AT IT.

BASICALLY RESIDENT SURVEY.

>> I BELIEVE THE LAST SURVEY WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN IN LATE 2019, AND WASN'T IT 18 DONE AND REPORTED IN 19 OR WAS IT 19 REPORTED IN 20? IF I MAY, IT WAS 18 AND REPORTED IN 19.

>> THANKS, NICK.

SO NEXT YEAR WOULD BE TWO YEARS COME JANUARY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK THE TIMING OF THESE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN FAIRLY ILL TIMED.

I KNOW THE 16 SURVEY WAS DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF ELECTIONS.

WHICH HEAVILY WEIGHTED SOME OF THE FEEDBACK.

IN THOSE SURVEYS.

BECAUSE YOU HAD A LOT OF MARKETING AND ADVERTISING GOING ON WHILE THE SURVEYS WERE OUT, BEING PERFORMED AND THEN YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, AT LEAST THREE OF US SHOULDN'T BE ELECTED BUT WERE.

SO IT JUST TIME THE SURVEYS TO A NON POLITICIZED TIME PROVIDES MORE STABLE AND RELIABLE FEEDBACK.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION.

I THINK EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH $45,000, WHETHER IT COMES OUT OF THE CORPORATION STUDY OR COMES OUT OF SOME OF THE BUCKET, WE CAN REVIEW.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR NICK.

IS THERE A COMPONENT OR COULD THERE BE A COMPONENT TO REDUCE THE COST OF THE SURVEY IF WE DID SOME OF IT DIGITALLY? OR IS THAT UNACCEPTABLE FOR OTHER REASONS I DON'T UNDERSTAND?

>> WELL, IT CERTAINLY CAN BE.

AND WE DO COMPETITIVELY BID THIS OUT AS WELL.

AND SO THAT IS JUST WHERE WE ARE FROM A BUDGET, KIND OF BASICALLY WHAT THE COST HAS BEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF SURVEYS.

BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON EXACTLY LIKE YOU SAID, AS HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT SURVEY.

>> COST SAVINGS ARE ALWAYS GOOD.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> PEOPLE ARE MORE FAMILIAR WITH DOING THINGS ONLINE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE.

IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK THE CHALLENGE WILL BE LOOKED AT A FEW YEARS AGO HAD TO DO WITH AUTHENTICATING THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY RESIDENTS PERFORMING THE SURVEYS.

>> FAMILIAR CONCERN, CHAIRMAN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: VOTING ONLINE AND OTHER THINGS OUT THERE.

SO WE'RE OKAY.

LET'S APPROVE CONTINGENTLY, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

[01:50:01]

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

EVENTS, ADMISSION TAX USE INITIATIVE NUMBER 30.

I THOUGHT THAT WE ADDRESSED THIS KIND OF THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CREATING THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR REQUEST FOR FUNDS, OR DID THAT NOT COVER THIS ASPECT AS WELL?

>> I'M SORRY.

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SET UP THE CRITERIA FOR AND BROUGHT THAT TO THE BOARD REGARDING FUNDING SHOULD IT BECOME AVAILABLE.

BUT WHAT THE COMMITTEE DID NOT DO AT THAT POINT WAS TO RECOMMEND ANY PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION OF THE FUNDS.

THE CRITERIA OR THE GUIDELINES WILL ONLY BE EFFECTIVE IF THE BOARD APPROPRIATES MONEY AND SO THAT IS REALLY THE REASON THAT THIS ISSUE IS ON.

SO THE QUESTION IS DOES THE BOARD WANT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING FROM THE EVENTS ADMISSIONS TAX THAT COULD BE USED FOR SPECIFIC GROUPS TO APPLY FOR CULTURAL, I GUESS CULTURAL EDUCATION OR CULTURAL EVENTS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I GUESS FOR ME, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE DIRECT DIALOG WITH THE PAVILION.

I WOULD WANT TO GET AN IDEA FROM THEM ON WHAT IS THEIR, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE HAVING AN HORRIFIC YEAR WITH ALMOST THE ENTIRE SEASON BEING CANCELLED AND NO REVENUE COMING IN.

IF THEY TELL ME THAT THEIR TIMING IS FIVE YEARS OR LONGER, TO REENGAGE THEN THAT MIGHT SAY OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT PROVIDING FUNDING THAT COULD BE APPLIED FOR IF THEY SAY THAT HEY, THEY'RE WELL ENDOWED AND WELL POSITIONED TO RECOVER QUICKLY, THEY LIKE THE CONCEPT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT TWO YEARS, WE COULD BE MOVING TOWARDS THAT PROJECT, THEN I WOULD SAY WE RETAIN THE FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE, WHICH WAS THE PERFORMING ARTS THEATER THAT WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON FOR MULTIPLE YEARS.

>> I AGREE, CHAIRMAN.

I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PAVILION BOARD AND/OR THE PERSON CEO, JERRY MCDONALD WOULD GIVE US THE DIRECTION OF WHERE THEY AT LEAST RIGHT NOW, THINK THEY'RE GOING WITH THIS.

I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO I'LL TAKE THAT ON AND TALK TO JERRY.

MONIQUE, I GUESS FOR THE CURRENT PERIOD, WE WOULD STILL ALLOCATE THESE FUNDS TOWARDS THAT FACILITY RESERVE.

>> ACTUALLY, GORDY, THAT PARTICULAR DEAL SITS, DOES NOT SIT IN THE RESERVE.

IT'S A SEPARATE RESERVE ACCOUNT, IS IT NOT, MONIQUE? THE TICKET TAX, ISN'T THAT A SEPARATE ACCOUNT?

>> YES, IT IS A SEPARATE RESERVE.

HAS ABOUT 780,000 IN IT RIGHT NOW.

>> BUT THE POINT IS, YOU KNOW, YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.

WE DID THIS YOU KNOW, IN RESPONSE TO TWO YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IS THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE FIELDING THIS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS A BUDGET ISSUE PER SE YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S A POT OF MONEY THAT WE CAN'T USE FOR GENERAL SERVICES.

IT'S NOT, IT CAN'T OFFSET ANY OF THE REVENUES THAT WE USED FOR OTHER GENERAL PURPOSES.

SO THIS IS STRICTLY A DECISION THAT YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SHOULD BRING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO SET ASIDE MONEY TO LISTEN TO PRESENTATIONS.

TO KEEP THE BOARD OUT OF THAT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING HERE.

THE FUNDS CONTINUE TO GO TO THE SAME RESERVE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CAN COME BACK IF THEY HAVE THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO PUT IN FRONT OF US.

ALL RIGHT.

SO NO ACTION ON 30.

THAT GOT US THROUGH ALL OF THE BUDGET INITIATIVES.

CAN WE TAKE A BIOLOGICAL BREAK AND GIVE THE BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THEIR BOARD E MAIL, LOOK FOR THAT MEMO THAT WAS COMING FROM ROBIN, SO WE CAN GO BACK TO

[01:55:11]

THE AGENDA ON APPROVING THE TRANSITION SERVICES AGREEMENT EXTENSION.

>> CAN WE TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK THEN.

>> KAREN, I'M NOT USED TO THIS DIGITAL FORMAT.

WE'VE NEVER TAKEN A BREAK IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT.

HOW DO I DO THAT?

>> JUST TURN OFF YOUR CAMERA, WE CAN MUTE ALL OF THE MICROPHONES AND PUT UP THE SLIDE THAT JUST SAID THE BOARD IS IN RECESS.

>> WHY DON'T WE RECONVENE AT 10:45.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE MOSTLY BACK.

FOR THE DIRECTORS WHO TURNED OFF THEIR CALENDARS, I THINK EVERYBODY IS BACK IN.

HAVING GONE THROUGH THE BUDGET INITIATIVES, WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN THE NUMBER TO REVIEW.

WE DID MAKE SOME DECISIONS GOING THROUGH IT ON A FIRST RUN.

AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW, DID EVERYBODY GET THE E MAIL FROM ROBIN CROSS? OKAY.

CAN WE GO BACK NOW THEN, LET ME GO BACK AND MAKE SURE I GET THE RIGHT AGENDA ITEM.

WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND ON APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDED INTER LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND NOW THAT EVERYONE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED FROM ROBIN CROSS, DO WE THE SAME MOTIONS?

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

SO WE HAVE PASSED THE AMENDED EXTENSION.

MONIQUE, I KNOW WE DIDN'T DO A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES THAT DRAMATICALLY IMPACT THINGS THIS MORNING.

I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE MORNING THAT MONIQUE WAS WORKING ON PRESENTATIONS TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE THE IMPACTS ON OUR BASE BUDGET IN THE YEARS BASED ON PROJECTIONS.

THAT OBVIOUSLY, OR ACTUALLY NOT OBVIOUSLY.

SHE DOES NOT HAVE THAT READY FOR TODAY.

WE DID HAVE A LOT OF FUN GETTING THE INITIAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATES WORKED OUT.

AND APPRECIATE THE BOARD DEFERRING YESTERDAY IN ORDER FOR US TO GET WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR AND MAKE SURE WE HAD ACCURATE INFORMATION BEFORE PRESENTING PUBLICLY.

SO WHAT ACTION DO WE NEED FROM US TODAY, MONIQUE, TO PUT US IN A GOOD POSITION TO RECONVENE TOMORROW?

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THE BUDGET INITIATIVES THAT YOU PULLED OUT TODAY TODAY AND THAT WAY I WOULD KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT IF YOU DID, I WOULD KNOW THE FULL IMPACT OF THE COSTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THOSE INITIATIVES AND COULD BRING BACK, GIVE YOU A STATUS TOMORROW OF WHERE YOU ARE IN TERMS OF YOUR FUND BALANCES, ESPECIALLY YOUR UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

I KEPT TRACK AS WE WENT THROUGH IT.

SO THE FIRST OPEN ONE THAT WE AGREED TO REVISIT IN MORE DEPTH WAS NUMBER TWO.

WHICH WAS ESTABLISHING A SALES TAX RESERVE NUMBER.

>> AGAIN, MAYBE AFTER WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THE BUDGET INITIATIVES AND WE KNOW WHAT THE COST IMPACTS OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE, PERHAPS WE COULD.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: >>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE'S TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT IT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AS A MINIMUM NUMBER IN THERE AND WHAT SOURCE.

BECAUSE IF YOU GO THE OTHER DIRECTION, YOU COULD FIND OUT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO PUT IN.

THERE IS CURRENTLY A BALANCE OF $2.5 MILLION IN THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

THE DIALOG WE HAD EARLIER IN THE WEEK, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD AT LEAST A 10 PERCENT CUSHION ISH ON THE 2021 PROJECTED REVENUES.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD FIVE MILLION DO DRAW DOWN ON ANY REVENUE SHORTFALLS GIVEN OUR ANTICIPATED COLLECTIONS OF 2020 OR AROUND 46 MILLION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE TWO PRIMARY SOURCES THAT WE COULD GET THAT FROM, AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE THE $2.2

[02:00:10]

MILLION IN UNDESIGNATED FUNDS REMAINING FOR 2020.

BUT AS I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

SO THAT IS NOT MONEY IN THE BANK.

POSSIBLY COULD HAVE SOME FROM 2021.

BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD MATERIALIZE TO NEXT YEAR.

SO THE ONE WAY ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO MAKE SURE IF THAT IS A PRIORITY OF THE BOARD, TO GET TO A HIGHER, $2.2 MILLION IN UNDESIGNATED FUNDS REMAINING FOR 2020, BUT AS I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

SO INSTEAD OF RETIRING IT, THERE IS $1.8 MILLION IN THE BOND REDEMPTION RESERVE.

AND THAT COULD BE MOVED OVER TO THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

TO SUPPLEMENT THAT.

AND THEN OF COURSE, IN FUTURE YEARS, IF THE SALES TAX RESERVE WAS NOT NEEDED, YOU COULD ALWAYS MOVE THAT BACK TO A REDEMPTION RESERVE, IF THAT BECAME A HIGHER PRIORITY OF THE BOARD.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR MOVING FORWARD IS WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF WHAT WE WANT FOR THE SALES TAX RESERVE TO COVER ANY REVENUE SHORTFALLS IN 2021.

I THREW OUT FIVE MILLION.

ANYBODY ELSE IS FREE TO THROW OUT A LOWER OR HIGHER NUMBER.

>> GORDY, WHY DON'T WE TRANSFER THE BOND REDEMPTION RESERVE.

THAT GETS YOU TO $4.2 MILLION.

AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DRAWING THIS DOWN ON A YOU KNOW, MONTHLY BASIS.

SO WE KEEP THE REVENUES FLAT IN NEXT YEAR AND THE BUDGET PROCESS.

COULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, MAKE YOU KNOW, WE COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT ANY, THAT WE HAVE ANY UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES WE HAVE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT YOU TOP IT UP ANOTHER 800,000, AND THEN YOU WOULD BE AT FIVE MILLION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

LET'S LOOK AT THAT APPROACH.

WHY DON'T WE TAKE NUMBER 3 UP, WHICH SPEAKS TO THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT REFINANCING THE DEBT AT THIS TIME MAKES SENSE.

I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON IT UNTIL DECEMBER.

BUT WITH A REFINANCING APPROACH, DR. SNYDER, ANY HEARTBURN WITH SHIFTING THE REDEMPTION FUND OVER TO THE SALES TAX RESERVE AS RECOMMENDED BY DIRECTOR RIESER? AND YOU'RE MUTED.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, BUNCH.

NO.

THAT IS ONE REASON WHY I PUT IT AS A BUDGET INITIATIVE, TO GIVE US FLEXIBILITY IN THESE UNCERTAIN TIMES.

SO I WOULD CONCUR THAT 1.8 TO THE SALES TAX.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

MONIQUE, SO I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO ON NUMBER 2 AND NUMBER 3, NUMBER 2 IS WE WILL MOVE, ADD THE BOND REDEMPTION RESERVES TO THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

AND WE WILL DIRECT STAFF TO DRAW DOWN MONTHLY 2021 UNREALIZED REVENUES FROM THAT RESERVE TO COVER THE BUDGET.

AND FURTHER TO THAT, ANY REMAINING UNDESIGNATED FUNDS FROM 2020 WILL BE ADDITIVE TO THAT SALES TAX RESERVE WITH THE SAME PRIORITY DRAWDOWN.

SO THAT GIVES US FREEDOM NOW TO DO EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND WE WILL ON INITIATIVE 3, PUT INTO THE BUDGET AND BOARD PLAN FOR A REDEMPTION, NOT REDEMPTION, FOR A REFINANCING OF THOSE DEBTS FOR 2021.

>> WE'LL PUT IT ON THE DECEMBER PLANNING AGENDA TO BRING YOU BACK REFINANCING.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WHY DON'T WE ALL VOTE TO AGREE TO THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THOSE TWO ACTIONS, SAY AYE.

EVERYBODY OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL DONE.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY RESPONSIBLE FOR US TO PRE PLAN POTENTIAL SHORTFALLS, IF YOU PROJECT IT OUT PROBABLY ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR.

ALL RIGHT.

WE ALREADY APPROVED 4, 5, 6 AND 7.

THAT BRINGS US TO 12.

THE ALPHA AND OMEGA MOUNTED PATROL.

A LOT OF DIFFERENT DIALOG THERE.

DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT TODAY?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

[02:05:02]

AND TO ANN'S POINT, TO OFFER UP MAYBE SOME MITIGATING STRATEGIES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AT THE MALL AND OTHER RETAIL AREAS THAT WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE, IN DETERRING CRIME BUT MAYBE MORE COST EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF OUR BUDGET.

I THINK WE'VE COST IDEAS AROUND EXPANSION OF THE RANGERS AND WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL.

SOME IDEAS ALONG THAT LINE.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY IN THE RETAIL AREAS, BECAUSE WE ARE.

BUT I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE A FAIRLY LONG DISCUSSION.

14 IS TIED TO THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAN UP THE LAST THREE BUDGET INITIATIVES THAT YOU'VE GOT THERE AND THEN WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW TO SEE, I WANT TO SEE THIS PRESENTATION FROM MONIQUE ON THE BASE BUDGET AND THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THAT AS WE GO FORWARD BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS WHERE WE WOULD CHANGE THE BASE BUDGET.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

SO WE CAN THEN, IF WE CAN DEFER 12 AND 14 TO TOMORROW, THAT WOULD BRING UP 17, WHICH IS MONUMENT SIGN FOR RESEARCH FOREST ENTRANCE COMING OFF THE WESTERN ENTRANCE.

ACTUALLY, I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OF, THERE IS LANDSCAPING TIED TO IT AND SO IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN THIS INITIATIVE, I KNOW IS THIS TO BRING THAT RESEARCH FOREST ENTRANCE INTO THE SAME LEVEL AS ALL OTHER MAJOR ENTRANCE POINTS?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, TECHNICALLY THAT IS WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS FOR THAT.

IT WAS KIND OF LEFT OUT AND THEN WE PUSHED THROUGH RESEARCH FOREST AND NOW THE ENTRANCE BASICALLY COMING FROM THAT YOU KNOW, WEST SIDE, IS REALLY KIND OF LIKE A BLANK SPOT.

SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE IN MAGNOLIA, OR WHEREVER AS YOU COME UP RESEARCH FOREST.

BASICALLY I WANTED TO KIND OF BRING THAT INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE REST OF YOUR EGRESS AND INGRESS THROUGHOUT THE WOODLANDS.

SO THAT IS MY REASONING FOR PUTTING THIS ON THIS FOR INITIATIVE.

>> WHO DID THE ESTIMATES, JOHN OR CHRIS?

>> THOSE ESTIMATES WERE DONE BY ME AND OUR TEAM.

WE WORKED WITH THE WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO IDENTIFY SOME LIKE SIGNAGE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT HAS BEEN INSTALLED.

THIS SIGN THAT IS ON EGYPT ROAD OR PROPOSED TO BE ON EGYPT ROAD, MIMICS THE SIGN ON 1488, AND KIRKENDALL WHICH HAS A BOW ARCH TO IT.

I BELIEVE IT'S 76 OR 90 FEET LONG.

SO PROBABLY TEN FEET TALL.

TRYING TO GIVE THE SIZE, GET THE RIGHT SIZE OF SIGN FOR THAT AREA.

THE AREA IS LOCATED ON SJRA TRACT OF LAND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET APPROVAL TO PLACE THE SIGN AND ALSO STAY OUT OF ANY TYPE OF RIGHT OF WAYS IN THAT AREA AS WELL.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO THAT INTERSECTION, I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THINK OUR BOUNDARIES START OR STOP WELL BEFORE THAT INTERSECTION.

>> THE PARCEL OF LAND THAT IT WOULD BE ON, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

I GUESS IT WOULD BE.

IS LOCATED IN THE WOODLANDS.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO RESEARCH FOREST, OLD EGYPT LANE, THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION IS THE WOODLANDS.

THE NORTH PORTION IS WHERE ZANTE IS, THAT IS NOT IN THE WOODLANDS?

>> CORRECT.

THIS WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

BECAUSE ALL THAT BEHIND THERE IS ALDEN BRIDGE HOMEOWNERS.

>> CORRECT.

IT'S IN THE SUN DANCE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

NOW THAT IS THE BIG ONES, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE COMING INTO CREEKSIDE PARK.

BUT IF I THINK ABOUT WOODLANDS PARKWAY AND 2978, WE HAVE A MUCH SIMPLER MONUMENT SIGN COMING OFF THAT MAJOR INTERSECTION.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT.

THE ONE AT CREEKSIDE AND GOSLING, THOSE ARE THE VERY LARGE SIGNS.

[02:10:01]

THESE ARE NOTCH OR TWO BELOW THAT.

SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THE SIGN THAT YOU MENTIONED AS WELL AS THE 1488 SIGN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THE ONE AT WOODLANDS PARKWAY IN 2978 IS NOT ALL THAT IMPRESSIVE.

THAT CAN'T BE $300,000.

>> IT IS AMAZING ON HOW MUCH THESE SIGNS COST WITH IRRIGATION, POOLING THE WATER IN THAT AREA, POOLING THE ELECTRIC IN THAT AREA, AS WELL AS SIGN COSTS THESE DAYS ARE EXPENSIVE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE IN THE WOODLANDS AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN THE WOODLANDS.

THIS IS THE ONLY ENTRANCE POINT, ACTUALLY, DO WE HAVE MONUMENT SIGNING COMING OFF 1488? I THINK WE DO.

>> THAT IS HAD TO GET IT BACK IN MY HEAD HERE.

THAT IS THE SIGN THAT WE'RE MIMICKING.

SMALL RETAIL AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT INTERSECTION.

THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE, ON THAT CORNER WILL BE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

THERE IS A PIECE OF THAT SIGN THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE MIDDLE MEDIAN OF KIRKENDALL, AS YOU ENTER, YOU WILL BE DRIVING SOUTH THERE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER MAJOR ENTRANCES THAT DO NOT HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN?

>> NOTHING TO THE, AT THE LEVEL OF MAJOR INTERSECTIONS OF THE RESEARCH FOREST WOODLANDS PARKWAYS, THERE ARE OTHER VERY MUCH SMALLER ENTRANCES THAT ARE IN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE NURSERY ROAD, THERE IS A COUPLE OF CONNECTOR ROADS THAT ARE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, NOT TOWN WIDE ROADS.

I THINK TWO CONNECTORS IN CREEKSIDE PARK.

TO AUTUMN WOODS.

>> CHRIS, THIS INITIATIVE INCLUDES KEN LAKES.

>> YES, SIR.

THAT IS WHERE I WAS GETTING TO AS WELL.

THERE IS A SMALL REQUEST FOR, SMALL BEING $60,000, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT.

REQUEST AT KEN LAKES.

THIS IS PARTLY TO RECOGNIZE THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY OFF OF KEN LAKES AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A POTENTIAL SOLUTION TO SOLVE SOME OF THE RESIDENT'S PROBLEMS OR CONCERNS BEHIND THAT INTERSECTION AT KEN LAKES AND TARAMONT.

OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CARS THAT HAVE MISSED THAT INTERSECTION, DROVE THROUGH THAT STOP SIGN AND ENTERED INTO THE RESERVE OR EVEN BREAKING DOWN THE FENCE.

WE HAVE PLACED BOLLARDS AND CABLES IN THAT AREA.

WE HAVE REINFORCED THAT AREA.

THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA WOULD LIKE SOMETHING MORE PERMANENT.

SO TRYING TO THINK CREATIVELY, A SMALLER SIGN WOODLANDS SIGN WOULD BE INSTALLED APPROXIMATELY 60 THOUSAND DOLLARS, THAT WOULD MIMIC ONE OF THE EXISTING SIGNS OVER AROUND HUFFSMITH AND CREEKSIDE FOREST.

>> IF I MAY INTERJECT.

THE LAST ACCIDENT ACTUALLY ENDED UP IN A HOUSE.

THE BOLLARDS AND THE FOREST PRESERVE DIDN'T PROTECT THE CAR.

SO IT ENDED UP IN THE HOUSE.

AND THAT IS PART OF THE IMPETUS OF THIS.

PLUS IT IS AN ENTRANCE OFF OF KEN LAKES, WHICH IS OFF OF 2978.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS LESS VISIBLE BECAUSE IT'S FURTHER IN FROM KEN LAKES.

BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU COME IN ON KEN LAKES, ISN'T THAT STILL BACK KIND OF

WHERE THAT SCHOOL, FAIR BRANCH ELEMENTARY OR >> CORRECT.

SO THE SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE TOWNSHIP.

BUT KEN LAKES IS.

AND THEN THIS WOULD BE ON TARAMONT AT THAT INTERSECTION, WHICH IS INTERNAL, IF YOU WILL.

TIES TO BRANCH CROSSING DRIVE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I DROVE OVER THERE THE OTHER DAY.

I'M SENSITIVE TO, I GET RESEARCH FOREST, KIND OF A NO BRAINER.

IT'S THE ONLY MAJOR ROAD THAT DOESN'T HAVE MONUMENT SIGNING.

PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN IT WAS BEING PUNCHED THROUGH FOR WHATEVER REASON IT DIDN'T GET DONE.

OKAY.

WE NEED TO DO THAT.

>> THAT WAS THE WEST MAGNOLIA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT INSTALLED EXTENSION FOREST, IT WASN'T A WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, OR THE TOWNSHIP BEING INVOLVED WITH THAT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I UNDERSTAND.

OBVIOUSLY WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE HAD DIALOG THERE TO HAVE IT MATCH THE REST OF THE MAJOR ENTRANCES.

[02:15:01]

THE KEN LAKES ONE, IS THAT AKIN TO NURSERY OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENTRANCE? BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE IS ALL OF A SUDDEN WE DO KEN LAKES AND THEN WE GET THE OTHER 15 SMALLER EGRESSES COMING BACK TO US FOR SIMILAR SIGNAGE.

>> I WOULD COMPARE IT TO THE SOUTH MILL BEND AT SAW DUST INTERSECTION.

THAT T INTERSECTION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT IS GROGEN'S MILL, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR ROAD TOO.

>> SOUTH MILL BEND WOULD BE KIND OF LIKE TARAMONT, A COLLECTOR STREET.

>> THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU GUYS, ARE YOU PLANNING ON PUTTING THIS MONUMENT SIGN IN PLACE OF THE BOLLARDS AND CABLES?

>> YES.

>> DO WE WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER PLACE WHERE WE CAN CRASH INTO MONUMENT SIGNS LIKE WE ARE ON RESEARCH FOREST AND GROGEN'S MILL.

MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT A GUARDRAIL.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT WOULD BE UGLY.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, MOST OF THEM MONUMENT SIGNS ARE HARD TO HIT.

THE ONE AT RESEARCH FOREST AND GROGEN'S MILL OBVIOUSLY ISN'T.

IT'S BEEN HIT NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.

I'M SENSITIVE TO THE IDEA OF PUTTING A SIGN IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S LIKELY TO TAKE VEHICLE DAMAGE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THINK THAT IS A FAIR CONCERN.

DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THE RESEARCH FOREST EGYPT LANE?

>> SINCE IT WAS MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, THE KEN LAKES MONUMENT SIGN WAS REALLY KIND OF SOMETHING, THE DESIGN ASPECT OF IT IS HOW I ENVISION IT, BASICALLY WITH THE HELP OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER I GUESS BEING IN THE MIDDLE, IF THERE WAS OPEN SPACE.

THIS IS JUST AN OPTION OF THINKING, YOU KNOW, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROADWAY, BASICALLY ON THE MEDIAN.

SO THE CENTER MEDIAN, SOMEWHERE IN THE OPEN AREA, THIS CONCEPT BEING IMPLEMENTED, YOU KNOW, I GET THE LARGER SIGN BECAUSE OF THE SPACE, YOU COULDN'T HAVE A SMALL SIGN IN THAT BIG LOT.

IT WOULD LOOK, IT WOULD GET LOST.

SO I GET THAT.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE KEN LAKES ONE.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS WHAT I ENVISION.

SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE MEDIAN.

SIMILAR TO IF YOU DRIVE DOWN SIX PINES AND YOU SEE SHENANDOAH HAS THEIR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE MEDIAN.

THAT WAS MY THOUGHT.

AS AN OPTION.

I GUESS I'M JUST THROWING OUT THERE IS IF YOU KNOW, THE BOARD HAS ANGST ABOUT THE LARGER ONE.

>> IF I MAY, THE TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE NORTH SIDE OF RESEARCH FOREST.

>> RIGHT.

I GET THAT.

IT'S MORE OF A VISIBILITY.

IF YOU'RE HEADING EASTBOUND OFF FROM MAGNOLIA, WHETHER THE SIGN IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OR IN THE MIDDLE, YES, IT'S ON WOODLANDS TOWNSHIP PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT, VISIBILITY IS THAT YOU ARE IN THE WOODLANDS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CENTER.

I GUESS I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

ON THE LEFT SIDE, IT'S NOT THE WOODLANDS TOWNSHIP PROPERTY.

BUT THE SIGN IS STILL VISIBLE IN THAT AREA.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I'M TRYING TO GET OTHER OPTIONS IN CASE THE BOARD HAS ANGST ABOUT THIS LARGER SIGN.

I THINK THAT A SIGN IS NEEDED.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A LARGE >>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY ON THAT RESEARCH EGYPT LANE.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

>> YOU CAN MAKE IT A SMALLER SIGN.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

I'M JUST SAYING MAYBE THE SIGN AT KEN LAKES JUST SAYS KEN LAKES AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOT DO AN ELABORATE WOODLANDS SIGN WITH THE WOODLANDS ON THE BOTTOM OF IT.

>> IT ACTUALLY COULD BE A STERLING RIDGE VILLAGE SIGN.

>> YEAH, YOU COULD DO THAT TOO.

THAT IS A GOOD IDEA, JOHN.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN THE PRESENTATION, IT'S ALMOST LIKE KEN LAKES COMES TO A T AND THE SIGNS BASICALLY YOU KNOW, JUST DOESN'T KIND OF PRESENT IT AS A MAJOR ENTRANCE.

I THINK WHAT JOHN WAS SAYING, OR JOHN POWERS WAS SAYING, IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLACEMENT OPTIONS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD BELONGS TO

[02:20:11]

THE TOWNSHIP.

IF WE DID A STERLING RIDGE SIGN, WOULD THAT BE LESS THAN 60,000 OR IS IT ALL THE SAME?

>> IT WOULD BE LESS.

ONE OF THE COSTS OF THE WOODLANDS SIGN.

>> YOU HAVE TO REFERENCE THAT SIGN, WE HAD APPROVAL I BELIEVE A MONTH AGO, IT WAS $55,000.

>> IT WAS.

YEAH.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT THEN, STERLING RIDGE OR THE WOODLANDS, IT'S GOING TO BE THE FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENCE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE OPTIONS FOR A NICE BEAUTIFUL LARGE SIGN ON EGYPT LANE AND RESEARCH FOREST, OPEN SUGGESTIONS ON SIZING AND OPTIONALTY FOR THAT INTERSECTION.

WE HAVE THE KEN LAKES OPTION.

WHAT DOES THE BOARD WANT TO DO WITH THIS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DR. NUNES.

IS THERE AN OPTION FOR A SIGN THAT WOULD BE ALSO SAFE FOR THE FOLKS THAT MIGHT RUN INTO IT, IS THERE SUCH A THING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT?

>> I'M NOT, REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS PRESENT A BARRIER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE RESIDENT CONCERN.

THE RESIDENT CONCERN THAT HAD THE CAR IN THEIR HOMES.

I'M NOT SURE I KNOW OF A SIGN MATERIAL THAT CAN BE USED THAT WOULD BE SAFE FOR THE CAR AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT STOP.

MY GUESSTIMATE IS YOU'RE PROBABLY TRYING TO STOP A CAR THAT IS GOING 15, 20 MILES AN HOUR, MAYBE EVEN MORE.

THE OTHER OPTION THAT YOU MENTIONED, SOMEBODY MENTIONED WHICH MAY BE A GOOD IDEA, I'VE GOT TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON GUARDRAIL STRENGTH AND THAT TYPE OF ASPECT.

IF THAT WAS SO DESIRED.

THE GUARDRAIL.

>> COULD YOU PUT THE GUARDRAIL BEHIND THE SIGN SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO FORGET THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING DIRECTLY BEHIND IT.

>> I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF USING A MONUMENT SIGN AS A BARRIER.

IF WE WANT TO PUT, IF WE WANT TO PUT A BARRIER OVER THERE, WE COULD PUT BOLLARDS IN AT THREE AND A HALF, FOUR FEET APART, YOU KNOW, AND DO IT PROPERLY.

YOU COULD HAVE A BALLISTIC BOLLARD OUT THERE, CHRIS, YOU KNOW THAT.

WE DO THIS AT AIRPORTS AND OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP A VEHICLE.

I DON'T WANT TO, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO USE THAT THING AS A BARRIER.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THESE PEOPLE MISS THE INTERSECTION OR GET BUMPED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THEY'LL JUST GO RIGHT THROUGH THERE.

SO I THINK THIS NEEDS A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH AS TO WHAT THE HECK WE'RE GOING TO DO.

BECAUSE I KNOW HOW SENSITIVE PEOPLE ARE ABOUT MY GOD THE SIGN AT RESEARCH FOREST IS DOWN AGAIN.

WE KEEP GOING BACK AND REPLACING IT.

REPLACING A COUPLE OF BOLLARDS IS A LOT CHEAPER THAN REBUILDING A MONUMENT SIGN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S, ON THE KEN LAKES, LET'S WAIT FOR SOME OPTIONALTY.

WE DON'T WANT TO SOLVE A BARRIER ISSUE WITH THE WRONG TOOL.

FOR THE ENTRANCE OFF EGYPT LANE AND RESEARCH FOREST, I KNOW WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE LARGER SIGN.

WHO WANTS A LARGER SIGN AND MIDDLE SIZE SIGN AND SMALLER SIGN? WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH THIS.

>> I WAS GOING TO DEFER TO YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, I GET, SO IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY SIZE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LOOKED AT IT, I GO THROUGH THAT OBVIOUSLY INTERSECTION MANY MANY TIMES, IT'S A PRETTY BIG LOT.

IT'S CLEARED.

SO A SMALL SIGN, I DON'T THINK WOULD WORK.

IT WOULD PROBABLY JUST GET LOST AND SOMEBODY WOULD THINK THAT WAS A SIGN FOR A NEW BUSINESS.

I DON'T KNOW REALLY, MEDIUM SIZED I WOULD START AT.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILS.

[02:25:01]

YOU KNOW, I THINK REALLY VISIBILITY WISE ANYTHING LESS THAN MEDIUM I DON'T THINK WOULD WORK.

IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MONEY.

>> WHAT IS THE PROPOSED COST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEDIUM AND A LARGE, JOHN?

>> I THINK CHRIS WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.

>> WHAT I WOULD STATE IS THIS IS THE MEDIUM SIGN AS COMPAREED TO THE LARGER SIGNS THAT YOU WOULD SEE AT SOME OF OUR TOWN WIDE ENTRANCES, AS CHAIRMAN BUNCH MADE MENTION OF CREEKSIDE FOREST AND GOSLIN.

THIS IS A LARGE SIGN.

THIS IS MORE OF A MEDIUM SIGN ALREADY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: $300,000 FOR THE SIGN FOR RESEARCH FOREST, EGYPT LANE.

I KNOW DIRECTOR BROWN SUPPORTS IT BECAUSE HE BROUGHT IT TO US.

>> I SUPPORT IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I HEAR DR. SHELLY.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE WE GO.

WE'LL VOTE.

EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THE MONUMENT SIGN IN RESEARCH FOREST, FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $300,000, SAY AYE.

INCLUSIVE OF THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, COST NOT TO EXCEED I THINK IT WAS 15,000.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO POINT OUT, THIS WILL BE BOARD AND THE AWARD OF BID WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN THE FUTURE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THAT IS MUCH APPRECIATED.

AND WE HAVE THAT APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, DR. NUNES AND DIRECTOR BROWN FOR BRINGING THIS TO US.

WE WILL TAKE UP KEN LAKE OPTIONALTY SEPARATELY IN THE FUTURE TO ADDRESS THAT SAFETY CONCERN.

THAT BRINGS US TO MEDIANS REFORESTATION, NUMBER 23.

>> WE ALSO PUT A PLACEHOLDER ON 22.

OR 23.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

22 I HAD AS NO ACTION THAT WE NEEDED TO TALK TO THE COUNTY FIRST SINCE NOBODY DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM AND IT'S THEIR RIGHT OF WAY AND TYPICALLY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THE 16 FOOT STANDARD.

BUT I DID HAVE 23 FOR MEDIANS.

WHICH WOULD REQUIRE COUNTY APPROVAL FOR COMMISSIONER CAGLE'S OFFICE.

POTENTIAL RECAPTURE OF EXISTING REFORESTATION FUNDS OR THIS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL $100,000 TO TAKE CARE OF THIS SEPARATELY.

>> CHAIRMAN BUNCH, HARRIS COUNTY DID RECEIVE RESIDENT REQUESTS TO FILL IN MEDIANS AND THEY INDICATED NO.

THOSE MEDIANS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY.

WITHOUT THE REFORESTATION, WITH AREAS THAT WOULD COLLECT WATER FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

WE INDICATED TO HARRIS COUNTY THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE RESIDENTS'S CONCERN TO THE BOARD FOR POSSIBLE FUNDING FROM THE TOWNSHIP IF THE BOARD WERE SO TO BE SO INCLINED.

I THINK YOU SAID THAT COMMISSIONER OFFICE WAS AGREEABLE IF WE WANTED TO MAKE ALTERATIONS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WITHIN THEIR PLANNING GUIDELINES, AS INDICATED IN THE PRESENTATION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

SO WE NEED SOMEONE TO $100,000 FOR THIS INITIATIVE.

>> I THINK WITH THE SAFETY AND GOALS AND VISION OF GEORGE MITCHELL THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT POSITIVELY, BECAUSE HE VIEWED THIS AS A FORESTED NATURAL COMMUNITY AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTORING, I THINK THE RESIDENTS WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THE CREEKSIDE PARK AREA.

ONE TIME CHARGE, CORRECT, DR. NUNES?

>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

MAY SMALL YEARLY WATERING COSTS, BUT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE STREET SCAPE PROGRAM BUDGET.

[02:30:01]

>> IT WOULD COME OUT OF CAPITAL RESERVES?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THIS WOULD PROBABLY COME OUT OF UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> RIGHT NOW WITH THE NEW CALCULATION OF THE TAXES, IT WOULD BE 1.2 MILLION, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE MORE THAN THAT IN 2020, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CONCERN IS

THESE ARE NOT REALIZED ON UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES BECAUSE WE >> I'M TALKING, THOUGH, ABOUT THE FUTURE.

FOR 2021, IT WAS 600,000 AND I THOUGHT WITH THE NEW CALCULATION IT ALMOST DOUBLED.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: SO BOTH THE 2020 NUMBER AND PROJECTED ARE BOTH ASSUMPTIONS.

THEY'RE NOT REALIZED UNDESIGNATED.

LIKE IN THE PAST BUDGET CYCLES WE'VE GOTTEN EXCESS REVENUES, WE HAD LESS EXPENSES AND THE FUNDS WERE ACTUALLY REALIZED WITHIN THE BUDGET SAVINGS.

THESE ARE PROJECTED UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES BASED ON THE REVISED 2020 BUDGET AND THE PROJECTED 2021 BUDGET, BUT THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY REALIZED ACTUALS.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF THE BALANCE OF 2020 SALES TAX RECEIPTS COME IN SUBSTANTIVELY LOWER THAN OUR CURRENT PROJECTION, THEN THE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE WILL SHRINK FOR THE 2020 PORTION.

WE MITIGATED 2021 SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE SALES TAX RESERVE IS INADEQUATE, THOSE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES FOR 2021 WOULD THEN COME INTO PLAY FOR DEPLETION.

YES, LOOK, WE HAVE $100,000, IF THE WILL OF THE BOARD IS TO REFOREST THOSE MEDIANS.

>> WHAT IF WE DID IT LIKE THIS, WE PROPOSED IT AND SET ASIDE BUT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY USE THE FUNDS UNTIL WE WERE FURTHER INTO THE RECOVERY OF COVID, FURTHER ALONG AND THEN IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE NEEDED THEM WE COULD TAKE THEM BACK.

WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD COULD?

>> DR. SEKULA GIBBS, YOU'RE READING MY MIND.

THE 300,000 THAT WE JUST PUT INTO THE MONUMENT SIGN, THAT ENDS UP BEING A DESIGN AND BID OUT, WE CAN DECIDE WHEN THEY BRING THE BID BACK, IT'S NOT THE TIME TO DO THAT.

WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT TOGETHER A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE REFORESTATION AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE PLAN AND THE COSTS AND WE CAN MAKE A DECISION AT THAT POINT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE IN A POSITION TO DO IT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE REST OF THE BOARD?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> I HAVE A CONCERN.

IT'S $100,000.

WE'RE IN A PANDEMIC.

AND HAVE A CLOUD OF UNCERTAINTY.

I JUST FIND THAT INTERESTING.

ALTHOUGH WOULD IT BE NICE TO DO IT? OF COURSE.

THE COUNTY OWNS THOSE MEDIANS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD BE SO QUICK TO SPEND $100,000 AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHEN WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT SALES TAX, WE JUST PUT ANOTHER 1.8 FOR THE BOND REDEMPTION IN THE SALES TAX RESERVE.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> THE PROPOSAL I JUST MADE, I'M NOT COMMITTING TO THE SPEND EITHER.

I'M SAYING LET'S LOOK AT IT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: THERE IS NO COST, DR. NUNES TELL ME, WHAT IF ANY COSTS ARE THERE FOR YOU TO PRESENT A PLAN FOR THAT INTERSECTION AND THEN THE BOARD CAN REVIEW IT AT A FUTURE DATE, SO WE'RE NOT COMMITTING IT TO THE BUDGET, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT REALIZED UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES AS WE'VE LIVED THROUGH THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND THE NEXT YEAR.

SO WE'RE NOT APPROVING IT.

>> IF YOU'RE REFERENCING THE SIGN OR THE REFORESTATION, THERE IS LIMITED EXPENSE.

WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE A LITTLE BIT, I'LL HAVE TO REVIEW THIS, IS IF IT IS ABOUT THE SIGN, WE MAY HAVE TO USE DESIGN WORK OR GET THE SMALLER COST, BECAUSE THERE ARE PLANS THAT ALREADY EXIST BUT WE MAY NEED TO GET THEM RESTAMPED FOR THE COMPLETION, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME DESIGN WORK.

THAT WILL BE DONE BEFORE A BID.

BUT AS MR. POWERS STATED, WE WOULD BE RETURNING TO THE BOARD WITH THE BID AND AT THAT TIME THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DECISION IF THEY WERE TO FUND THE PROJECT.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REFORESTATION.

[02:35:03]

>> THERE ARE NO COSTS ON THE REFORESTATION, AND SOME OF THE COSTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED ARE UNIT COSTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR EXISTING STREET SCAPE CONTRACT.

>> I WAS ACTUALLY INCLUDING THE MONUMENT SIGN AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT.

BUT YOU KNOW, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WHEN THIS THING, AFTER WE'VE DONE THE ENGINEERING WORKS, WHICH WOULD BE, WOULDN'T BE MORE THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE COST, YOU KNOW, THAT IS TYPICAL NUMBER FOR THAT SORT OF DEAL.

WE MAY DECIDE WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT.

SO YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT IS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH I APPROVED THE SIGNAGE AS WELL.

SO I JUST THINK IT'S YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY OUT THERE.

AND THESE TWO PROJECTS ARE REALLY KIND OF A DEFERRAL.

WE HAVEN'T MADE A COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT MONEY.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I GUESS I'M NOT SEEING A SIGN ON THE KIRKENDALL PROJECT.

>> I DON'T THINK I SEE A SIGN.

I THINK THAT IS ONLY REFORESTATION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN THAT WE JUST APPROVED, THE $300,000, SIGN.

IT'S THE SAME SITUATION.

IT'S GOING TO GO OUT TO BID AND THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE IT AGAIN.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: FO INITIATIVE 23, WE'RE NOT APPROVING IT, WE'RE OPEN TO IT COMING BACK AS WE ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE REALIZED UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES AFTER LIVING THROUGH OUR ACTUAL BUDGET FOR 2020 OR 2021.

SO THE BOARD IS OPEN TO THE CONCEPT JUST NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN BUNCH, ONE MORE COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS, DEPENDING ON THE APPROVAL, THESE DOLLARS BECOME AVAILABLE JANUARY 1ST, BUT BECAUSE OF THE REFORESTATION CYCLE, BY THE TIME WE COULD BID THIS AND GET THIS OUT, WE MIGHT BE OUT OF THE CYCLE, SO IT MIGHT BE IN SPRING/SUMMER BY THE TIME WE START LOOKING AT THAT TO DO FOR THE FALL OF 2021.

SO THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

GOOD.

SO WE WILL DEFER 23.

WE'RE ALWAYS ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK AS A BOARD AGENDA ITEM IN THE REGULAR BOARD CYCLE.

OKAY.

I THINK THAT HITS EVERYTHING THAT WE DIDN'T DEFER UNTIL TOMORROW.

MONIQUE, YOU'RE BETTER AT TRACKING THAN I AM.

DID I MISS ANYTHING?

>> YOU DID NOT.

THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET INITIATIVES BINDER.

STAFF DID WANT TO PRESENT AN INITIATIVE THAT IS NOT IN YOUR BINDERS.

WE CAN DO THAT TODAY OR TOMORROW.

BUT THAT HAS TO DO WITH ALLOCATING OR APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE UNDESIGNATED RESERVE RELATED TO OUR COVID 19 RESPONSE.

PENDING REIMBURSEMENT FROM COUNTY OR STATE OR CARES ACT FUNDING.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A FORMAL INTRODUCTION TO THAT CONCEPT.

WE ARE COMPILING CARES ACT FUNDING REIMBURSEMENT FROM FEMA AND FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY PROGRAM.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF UNDESIGNATED FUND RESERVES FOR US TO PRE FUND THOSE, KNOWING THAT THERE IS REIMBURSEMENTS THAT WOULD BE COMING AGAINST THOSE APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES FROM FEMA AND/OR THE CARES ACT FUNDING IN HARRIS COUNTY.

I HAVE ASKED THAT OUR STAFF PREPARE A CARES ACT FUNDING REQUEST THAT MIRRORS HARRIS COUNTY PROGRAM THAT WE CAN FORMALLY REQUEST FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY SO THAT WE HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO THE FUNDS MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS RECEIVED AS WE DO TO THE HARRIS COUNTY FUNDING.

>> DID YOU, CHAIRMAN BUNCH, RECEIVE A LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER THAT WE SENT TO THE CONGRESSMAN BRADY AS WELL AS TO JUDGE KEIL?

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FORMAL RESPONSE FROM EITHER PARTY.

I DID TALK TO JUDGE KEO AND I'VE BEEN TALKING TO HIM THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK HARRIS COUNTY, IN MY OPINION, CAME TO US WITH A WELL THOUGHT OUT FORMULATED PLAN ON HOW TO ADDRESS UNDERLYING JURISDICTIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE FUNDS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS NOT DEVELOPED THAT PLAN.

WE HELP OURSELVES HELP THEM BY TAKING WHAT WE LEARN FROM HARRIS COUNTY, PUTTING INTO A FORMAL REQUEST AND TAKE IT TO THE COUNTY SAYING HERE IS HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED FOR THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

THEY DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PROGRAM IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

THEY'RE LIKE WELL, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING SEND IT.

[02:40:05]

LET'S PUT IT IN FORMAL PROCESS, WHAT HARRIS COUNTY HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED AND THEN OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON OKAY, HOW DO WE ACCUMULATE AND IDENTIFY AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES AGAINST THOSE AVAILABLE FUNDS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD WEIGH IN HERE, YOU'RE CORRECT, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE LETTERS THAT YOU SENT.

WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME INFORMATION BACK VERBALLY FROM THEIR FOLKS AND THIS IS AT MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

AND WHAT THEY HAVE SUGGESTED TO US AT THIS POINT IS THAT WE FIRST SUBMIT ANY ELIGIBLE EXPENSES TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AND MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST IF IT'S DENIED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS, THEN THEY WILL TAKE THAT UP AS A CONSIDERATION.

AGAIN, INFORMALLY, WE'VE HEARD BACK THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT IT BASED ON AN EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT BASIS OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTRICAL EXPENSES, BUT AT THIS POINT THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERING A PER CAPITA LIKE WE SEE IN HARRIS COUNTY.

SO AGAIN, THAT IS WHAT WE'VE HEARD VERBALLY.

WE HAVE NOT HAD A FORMAL RESPONSE OF ANY TYPE, THOUGH.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

I THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION AND A REQUEST THAT HAS A FORMULA AND OUTLINE ATTACHED TO IT.

AND I THINK WE HAVE A FORMAT NOW BY BEING ABLE TO ARTICULATE HOW THE HARRIS COUNTY PROGRAM WORKS.

EARLY ON IN DISCUSSIONS, YOU KNOW, THERE WEREN'T ALLOCATION, WE SAW WHAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SENT OUT, WHICH IS WHAT CREATED THE $21 MILLION NUMBER, HARRIS COUNTY USED A DIFFERENT PER CAPITA NUMBER FROM THAT.

SO THE NUMBER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY WILL SHRINK FROM THAT 19 MILLION DOWN TO AROUND 6.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT DR. SEKULA GIBBS BROUGHT UP IN A PREVIOUS MEETING, BUT THE NUMBER WASN'T AS HIGH AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.

I THINK THERE IS CONFUSION FROM THE COUNTY THAT SOMEHOW THE STATE HAD RECEIVED MONEY THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

THE WAY THE FEDERAL CARES ACT FUNDING WAS DISPERSED IS IN JURISDICTIONS, COUNTIES OVER HALF A MILLION IN POPULATION, THOSE ENTITIES RECEIVED 100 PERCENT OF THE FUNDING INDICATED FOR THE STATE.

SO TEXAS ISN'T HOLDING MONEY RELATIVE TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND JURISDICTIONS THAT WERE NOT DIRECT RECIPIENTS.

SO WE'LL WORK WITH THE CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE ON TRYING TO HELP PROVIDE CLARITY.

I THINK CLEARLY THE HARRIS COUNTY INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALREADY SORTED THAT OUT.

AND WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE INTENDED PASS THROUGH PORTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

SO FOR THE BUDGET PROCESS, I THINK WHAT MONIQUE WANTED US TO APPROVE IS UTILIZATION AND UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES TO PRE FUND CARES ACT FUNDING REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THAT.

I THINK IF WE CAN GIVE HER THAT GUIDANCE, THAT WILL FREE THEM UP TO MAKE SOME OF THE EXPENDITURES FOR PPE, AND EQUIPMENT THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND START WORKING ON THE REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATIONS.

SO I GUESS WE NEED THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE THAT.

>> I SO MOVE.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OKAY.

WE NOW HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THOSE NON BUDGETARY CARES ACT REIMBURSABLE ITEMS. THANK YOU, MONIQUE FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

>> THANK YOU.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

SO IF I RECAP, I THINK FOR TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTION LEFT.

KAREN, I ASKED YOU TO REMIND ME IF I FORGOT ANYTHING.

>> YOU'VE GOTTEN EVERYTHING NOW.

>> IF I MAY, ON THE PROPOSED RATE, THERE IS SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR NOT ACTUALLY LANGUAGE BUT WE NEED TO BREAK THAT OUT INTO AN M&O RATE AND DEBT SERVICE RATE.

WE CAN, I HAVE SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE I CAN READ OFF IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE ACTION RELATED TO THAT TODAY OR WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TOMORROW.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I THINK YOU CAN BRING THAT BACK TOMORROW.

AGENDA ITEM 11.

WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND DO IT TODAY.

LET'S BE VERY FORMAL.

AND IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME THE DEBT SERVICE RATE AND THE OPERATIONS RATE, I WILL WRITE THEM DOWN AND TURN THAT INTO A MOTION.

[02:45:02]

>> OKAY.

THE DEBT SERVICE COMPONENT IS 0.0151 PER HUNDRED DOLLARS OF TAXABLE VALUATION.

AND THE M&O RATE IS 0.2080 PER HUNDRED DOLLARS OF TAXABLE VALUATION.

WE WOULD NEED SEPARATE MOTIONS ON THOSE.

AND TOGETHER, THOSE ADD UP TO YOUR 22.31 CENT EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: I HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTIONS IF THAT IS OKAY.

I MAKE A MOTION TO PROPOSED 2020 PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 0.0151 PER HUNDRED DOLLAR TAXABLE VALUE FOR DEBT SERVICE.

I NEED A SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: AND THIS IS PRELIMINARY FOR BUDGET PROCESS.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WILL PASS.

I ALSO MAKE A MOTION AND WILL BE NEEDING A SECOND FOR A PROPOSED 2020 PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 0.2080, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION TAX PER HUNDRED DOLLAR VALUE, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OKAY.

MONIQUE, YOU HAVE A FORMALIZED BASE BUDGET APPROVED DEBT SERVICE AND M&O RATE.

ACCUMULATING TO.2231, WHICH IS THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

AND THAT WAS AGENDA ITEM 11.

WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 12 YET.

SOME OF THESE ITEMS WE JUST CARRY FORWARD.

WE DON'T HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO WE CAN I BELIEVE MOVE STRAIGHT TO A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

UNLESS THERE IS ANY AGENDA ITEM REQUEST OR BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS.

IF NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>>THE CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AND WE WILL RECONVENE TOMORROW AT 8:30.

MONIQUE WILL HAVE NEW PRESENTATIONS TO SHARE WITH US AND WE WILL ADDRESS THE LAST TWO BOARD INITIATIVES.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.