Meeting Archives

CPVA MEETING MINUTES

January 16, 2006

7:30 p.m.

Presiding: Gail Carney, President

Location: College Park High School

Topic: Annexation

Board Attendance:

Steve Reinmund
Susan Kooiman
Jason Stephens
Ray Penton

Laura Dean
Ron Schultz
Wayne Mulkey
Gail Carney

Glen Bernstein
Cori Singletary
Seth Bienek
Ted Stanley

Resident Attendance:
Approximately 350

The structure of this meeting varied from traditional CPVA meetings; it focused on the singular topic of annexation. A panel of guests provided information from various organizations of interest in the organization process. Gail opened the meeting, Ted Stanley provided a synopsis of the issue, residents submitted questions in writing and a moderator presented those questions to the panelists.

President’s Report: Gail called the meeting to order at 7:30. She introduced herself, presented information regarding our scholarships and turned the meeting over to Ted Stanley, representative to The Woodlands Association, to present a history of the annexation developments.

TWA Representative Report: Ted introduced our panelists:

Tommy Williams, State Senator, District 4
Rob Eissler, State Representative, District 15
Joel Deretchin, President, The Woodlands Associations
Alan Benson, Chief of The Woodlands Fire Department
Chris Hines, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary School, Conroe ISD
Eric Hird, Director, M.U.D. #39
Erik Berglund, Director, M.U.D. #39

…and our moderator, Professor Nancy Kral, Political Science Dept., Tomball College.

He also noted the support of others present in the audience: Lloyd Matthews, Anthony Fasone, Arthur Bredehoft and Claude Hunter of The Woodlands Association; Bruce Tough, Dan Norrell (General Manager of TWCA) and Cheryl Tangen of The Woodlands Community Association; Miles McKinney, Director of Governmental and Legislative Affairs for TWA; Mike Page, attorney for The Woodlands, and numerous employees of The Woodlands Community Association.

History of the issue: State legislation passed in the 1960s to allow cities the ability to expand their jurisdiction and incorporate smaller surrounding communities and designated lands. The bill passed at the time when residents across the state were relocating from cities to smaller unincorporated suburbs. With those relocations, the cities were losing large amounts of tax base and still having to provide services; the suburbs were not organized or able to provide substantial fire and police protection on their own or provide water and waste services to the environmental standards being set across the state. Each city was granted a realm of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which enabled them to expand their borders to that point as time and circumstance permitted.

Annexation of the ETJs would in theory provide economies of scale in providing services to the outlying communities; each community would not have to support its own police force, fire department, etc. Sales and city taxes would provide for that protection, utility and other service fees would be lowered. The ETJs must, by law, be contiguous: a city cannot skip an area and annex something beyond, in effect creating concentric circles. Conroe has extended its reach by annexing a strip alongside I-45 in order to reach the Hwy. 242/IH 45 area.

The area being sought by Conroe encompasses the lands served by Municipal Utility District (M.U.D.) #39. The M.U.D. provides drinking and wastewater management. Its lands have been in the ETJ of Conroe from the inception of the law in the 1960s, but Conroe has since that time repeatedly stated that it is not interested in the area, which includes Harper’s Landing and the surrounding industrial parks. That interest suddenly changed in November 2005.

The CPVA board had no prior warning of the change in interest, nor did The Woodlands or the M.U.D. The mayor of Conroe approached the M.U.D. about the annexation, with cost accounting figures that have to this point been unable to be duplicated by other research. A member of the M.U.D. contacted the CPVA board at roughly the same time that Joel Deretchin overheard a conversation regarding the proposed annexation and phoned Ted about the matter. Gail Carney called an emergency meeting of the CPVA board within a week, on a Friday night. The board met with Tommy Metcalf, Mayor of Conroe, two working days later and asked him to delay the vote of the City Council that Thursday for 90 days until residents had time to receive the news, obtain information and ask questions. He refused.

The costs associated with the annexation vary between parties by almost $1 million. M.U.D. numbers show the annexation would cost the City of Conroe roughly $700,000 per annum; the mayor believes the city would be in the black by $100.000. The discrepancy lies in the estimated $200,000 cost of supplying additional fire protection, another $200,000 in operation of the M.U.D. and various other costs for police and additional services. Final estimates of the cost are being worked.

Ted turned the meeting at that point over to Professor Kral, moderator of the meeting.

Moderator Report: Professor Kral noted that she had been asked to serve as moderator because she knew nothing of the issue and had no knowledge of the existence of the College Park Village or Harper’s Landing before being asked to serve as moderator. She had undertaken no research of the issue and had no prior dealings with either the management of The Woodlands or the government of Conroe and could therefore present a fair and impartial moderation to the meeting. She would aggregate written questions into a general topic and present them en masse to the appropriate panelist. Professor Kral read the questions over the microphone and passed the microphone to the panelist answering the question so that all persons in attendance could hear both the question and the response.

Question 1: How will schools be affected?
Response from Chris Hines, CISD: The schools that students attend are not related to city limits. They are based on proximity, the number of pupils in a school, the schools that neighbors attend, the history of an area and a few other factors. Harper’s Landing younger students were recently re-zoned from Sally K. Ride to Powell Elementary because of the sheer numbers of students going to Sally Ride. Mr. Hines indicated he did not want to say they would “never” be re-zoned again, because re-zoning occurs every time a new school is built but there are no plans to build any more schools in the immediate vicinity or time frame. The children in Harper’s Landing are part of The Woodlands and CISD will make every effort to keep them in Woodlands schools.

Question 2: If we are annexed, will we still be considered part of The Woodlands, have access to the amenities of the rest of The Woodlands, have the amenities in our own neighborhood or will we be considered Conroe?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: Harper’s Landing, if annexed, will still be part of The Woodlands. We will still vote in The Woodlands elections, still have access to the pools and parks of other villages, and still have the pool, paths and landscaping provided by The Woodlands now. What makes us part of The Woodlands, he said, is the application of the covenants. We ascribe to the covenants of The Woodlands, we pay our assessment fees; we are part of The Woodlands. He cited as example Grogan’s Forest, another community of College Park. Part of Grogan’s Forest actually lies within the city limits of Shenandoah; that part is still considered to be The Woodlands and residents there retain access to all amenities, parks, pools, etc. of the rest of The Woodlands.

Question 3: How will annexation affect taxes?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: The community of Grogan’s Forest set precedence in this area. Residents within the overlap of Shenandoah and The Woodlands have adjusted assessment fees so that they do not pay twice for the same service. If Harper’s Landing were to be annexed, the city of Conroe would have to provide our fire and waste management services. The Woodlands would, in all probability, delete those fees from our assessment charges. Mr. Deretchin hesitated to say that the fees would unequivocally be lowered as he is not personally in charge of that aspect of The Woodlands, but noted that the precedence has been established with Grogan’s Forest and he saw no reason that it would not be followed. Editor’s note: Windsor Hills has the same arrangement. The M.U.D. district recently lowered rates to $0.53 per $100 valuation; Conroe rates are indeed lower, at $0.43/$100, but the cost of providing the same services through Conroe are undetermined. If the annexation occurs, M.U.D. 39 ceases to exist and Conroe will provide water services.

Question 4: Will Woodlands fees go away all together?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: No. Will we still be able to use the pools of other villages? Yes. The Woodlands will continue to maintain the pools, the parks, the walkways, the streetscapes, the landscaping.

Question 5: What will happen to property values?
Response from a number of panelists: The Montgomery County Appraisal District establishes the property values. The panelists carried no expertise in that area and felt obligated to leave the answer as “unknown.”

Question 6: Can the state legislature help?
Response from Tommy Williams, State Senate: When the Senator’s office learned of the motion before the Conroe City Council, he was out of town and sent a representative from his office as well as a letter, conveying to the council that the annexation was not a good idea, especially in the secretive manner in which the annexation was approached. They ignored him. He emphasized that the annexation was not final. The City Council could at any time within the three-year process of annexation decide not to annex M.U.D. 39. He encouraged residents to write the members of the council, to keep the issue in the news, to let everyone in the city of Conroe know the expenses with which they may burdened if the annexation continues.

Response from Rob Eissler, Texas House of Representatives: Tommy Williams authored the 12-year moratorium with Houston and the rest of The Woodlands. Representative Eissler would be willing, as Tommy Williams would be, to author a bill to so that annexation is more of a marriage and not a kidnapping. They had focused their efforts on Houston, not Conroe, as Conroe had repeatedly indicated the city was not interested in Harper’s Landing.

Representative Eissler also noted that a few years ago he was on the board of the Conroe ISD. A new high school was being proposed for The Woodlands. Many of the residents in Conroe disagreed on the need for a new school. The bond referendum failed everywhere but in The Woodlands, and at that point The Woodlands showed it was a political force of substantial strength. A gentleman in Conroe, a private citizen, was so incensed with the idea that he appeared before the CISD board to sponsor a petition to remove The Woodlands from the CISD. Mr. Eissler refused to hear it.

That citizen is now mayor of Conroe.

Additional response from Tommy Williams: Both Senator Williams and Representative Eissler indicated that they would be willing to sponsor a bill during the next regular legislative session akin to a house bill “rifled” to a particular area near San Antonio. Senator Williams said a sweeping bill covering all cities in the state would probably not pass but this particular bill, which targeted an area “north and east of Interstate 10…” near the San Antonio city limits, did pass.

The next scheduled legislative session is 2007, halfway into the three-year annexation plan for M.U.D. 39. A special session is slated for 2006 but the governor has earmarked it for school and tax reform.

Both Senator Williams and Representative Eissler reminded the residents that only 2500 people voted in the last mayoral election in Conroe. Harper’s Landing has roughly 1350 homes in it, with over 2000 registered voters. Senator Williams said to talk to people in Conroe; get them to tell the City Council to say NO to annexation. Tell the merchants of Conroe to convey to the City Council that they don’t want the extra tax burdens associated with the annexation.

Response from Gail Carney, CPVA: Ms. Carney reminded residents that 3 of 5 votes in the City Council can either pass the annexation or defeat it.

Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: The Woodlands Association has designated $50,000 for College Park to use in pursuing studies, finding options and conducting campaigns to determine the best action to follow – whether that action is to consent to the annexation or to fight it. Mr. Deretchin also encouraged residents to send letters to the City Council, to write letters to the newspapers, to keep the issue in the forefront of the news, especially in the Conroe Courier – silence might be interpreted as consent.

Response from both Eric Hird and Erik Berglund, M.U.D. 39: Municipal Utility District 39 runs from the intersection of Hwy. 242 and IH-45, up the feeder road, zig zags across the county and has a rather unusual boundary line. Maps are available of the M.U.D. 39 area [one was provided in the back of the room]. Both Mr. Hird and Mr. Berglund said the residents need to get Mayor Metcalf to hold a meeting with the residents. What will happen to the value of the commercial property in the area, once plans of the annexation have been announced? They don’t know. It could remain unchanged and the annexation fall through or Conroe could intend to increase taxes.

A caution from Senator Williams followed: We do not want to support a Special Annexation Plan where we offer the industrial area to Conroe on the condition that they leave the residential area alone. We need the taxes from those industrial areas to keep our own taxes and fees at a realistic level. They supplement a large amount of the costs associated with service.

Response from Gail Carney: We can not afford to be left in a pocket, left alone if The Woodlands is annexed by Houston and we have no assistance with paying for police, fire, waste services and the like.

Question 7: If the rest of The Woodlands is annexed to Houston, can we de-annex from Conroe?
Response from Tommy Williams, Texas Senate: It will be difficult to de-annex. Harper’s Landing was part of a moratorium, as the remaining part of The Woodlands has with Houston, because of Conroe’s repeated insistence that they had no interest in annexing Harper’s Landing. He also doesn’t believe the Houston annexation will actually come to pass and that Houston really doesn’t want the responsibility and expenses associated with 125,000 new residents.

Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: The Woodlands created a governance committee which meets the fourth Monday of every month at the Woodlands Associations Building. That committee is tasked with finding the details of what would be involved in incorporating, in being annexed by Houston or in remaining as is. They are trying to determine what option the people of The Woodlands would like – and have a workshop February 25th for all residents of The Woodlands to provide input. They desperately want our input. Registration is free; the workshop is in the morning. Details are available at www.thewoodlandsassociations.org, under the governance link.

Response from Rob Eissler, Texas House of Representatives: George Mitchell intentionally put all of The Woodlands under the ETJ of Houston when he devised the plan for our community. Mitchell did so in order to prevent individual communities from picking off various parts of The Woodlands. The area that is now Harper’s Landing was already at that time under the ETJ of Conroe and not yet under the umbrella of The Woodlands.

Question 8: Did this stem from the fire station deal [substation on Harper’s Landing Blvd. near the railroad tracks]? Why did The Woodlands turn it down?
Response from Alan Benson, TWFD: Conroe did approach The Woodlands Fire Department, offering to lease the station to TWFD for $1/year for 20 years. The fire department gave a great deal of consideration to the deal but turned it down because the associated risks outweighed the benefits.
Risks/disadvantages:

The station is land-locked.

In 20 years the area surrounding that station will be built up much greater than it is now. The station cannot grow to accommodate the need; it cannot house more equipment and more manpower than it already has.

A condition of the deal was that TWFD would service all of Conroe south of 1488 and other adjacent areas.

That area is approximately 1/6th of the current area serviced by TWFD today. Within 20 years it would expand tremendously, causing the residents of The Woodlands to pay additional taxes to support additional fire fighters, equipment, emergency medical technicians and response units – all for lands outside The Woodlands. Residents of The Woodlands would, in effect, be paying fees for services of someone else’s community.

Partnerships with Montgomery Community College were already being pursued.

A new station at MCC will provide facilities for EMS, police, fire and other emergency teams; it will house a training facility allowing TWFD to better its ISO rating. The station will be tax-based, not part of the assessment fees. A temporary station will be housed at Lowe’s shortly, with a fire engine in residence. Editor’s note: ISO ratings reflect the type and extent of fire fighter training, the number of people taking that training, the firefighter response to emergencies, the water supply available, and the maintenance and testing of fire station equipment. The better the ISO rating the more prepared a station is for emergency, and the lower homeowner’s insurance rates become.

Question 9: Can we vote on the annexation?
Response from multiple panelists: No. Current law does not allow for a vote of residents regarding annexation.

Question 10: Will our homes depreciate in value?
Response from numerous panelists: Same answer as with the previous question regarding property values. They don’t know.

Question 11: Can we approach annexation by Conroe and by Houston as an all-or-none situation, whereas they annex all The Woodlands or none of it?
Response from numerous panelists: No. Annexation is processed by ETJ and by divisions of Municipal Utility Districts (M.U.D.s)

Question 12: What is the time frame for this annexation?
Response from Ted Stanley, TWA board: Three years. Those three years began with the vote of the City Council, December 8th.

Question 13: The mayor quotes one set of figures; you quote another. What are the true numbers?
Response from Erik Berglund, M.U.D. 39 board: The M.U.D. has made an official request through the Open Records Act to the City of Conroe to determine how where they are pulling their numbers. That request was made earlier this month; information should be received in February.

Question 14: What notice was given to residents?
Response from the entire CPVA board: None.

Response from Ted Stanley, TWA board: The board learned of the impending vote through informal conversation through an alert from the M.U.D. board and from Joel Deretchin of The Woodlands Associations, who himself had learned of the matter from an informal conversation. Gail Carney called an emergency meeting of the board; the board met with the mayor of Conroe two working days later to request a delay in the vote (denied) and roughly 48 hours later the council voted for the annexation.

Question 15: Did our realtor know about this?
Response from Gail Carney, CPVA: Not unless you purchased your house after December 8, 2005. We have always known we were in the ETJ of Conroe, being that it was established in the 1960s, but repeated declarations from Conroe, including one this past summer, have always indicated they were not interested in Harper’s Landing.

Question 16: Question directed to Joel Deretchin specifically – what did he want for The Woodlands in terms of governance?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: Whatever the residents of The Woodlands vote to do. He would support whatever decision they make. He’d be willing to share personal views off the record in private conversation but not in this forum.

Question 17: Question regarding water. Will we, if annexed, be forced to go with city water?
Response from Erik Berglund and Eric Hirt, M.U.D. 39: Not likely. With the presence of the railroad and with contractual agreements set with the San Jacinto River Authority, Conroe will in all probability have to utilize the M.U.D. infrastructure and water supply.

Question 18: What GOOD will come from annexation?
Response from Gail Carney, CPVA: The mayor indicated that water services cost would go down. Garbage pickup is twice a week although Conroe does not currently do roadside recycling and therefore to maintain our same level of service would have to incur extra costs or increase our fees. Editor’s note: During the meeting of the CPVA board the mayor said unequivocally that service fees would go down. The Conroe City Attorney who was also in the meeting said, however, that he did not think that would happen. The service price can go down but, as in the case of Kingwood being annexed by the city of Houston, the rates for water usage can increase.

Response from Ted Stanley, TWA board: Please attend City Council meetings, contact your legislators, stay involved, whether you are “pro” or “con.” Encourage a change in legislation so that residents of communities can vote on the issue.

Question 19: If M.U.D. 39 is annexed, will our mail be addressed then as Conroe or The Woodlands?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: Either. The default is Conroe, in the same manner that addresses in Alden Bridge default to Spring. The Woodlands established an agreement years ago with the U.S. Postal Service to recognize the address of The Woodlands, TX and deliver mail accordingly. City limits will not affect addressing.

Question 20: What about Panorama Village? River Plantation?
Response from Joel Deretchin: Good question. Panorama Village may not be part of the ETJ of Conroe. [Editor’s Note: A map was available on the side of the room which showed the ETJ of Conroe. Internet search on Panorama Village indicates it is part of the city of Montgomery]. River Plantation – not yet annexed. Conroe is focusing on the commercial property of M.U.D. 39.

Question 21: What other sections of The Woodlands are available for annexation by Conroe?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: Only one other section, an area of property alongside 1488. It also is in the ETJ of Conroe but is not in M.U.D. 39.

Question 22: Why is Houston not annexing Harper’s Landing along with the rest of The Woodlands?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: The Conroe ETJ, which includes Harper’s Landing, was pre-existing. Houston could not by rights annex land under another city’s ETJ.

Question 23: What are the taxes of Shenandoah once the offset of the reduced Woodlands assessment fees have been effected?
Response from a resident in the audience: They’re still high.

Question 24: What about incorporating?
Response from Tommy Williams, Texas Senate: Incorporation is not easy. It has associated costs. Road and bridge work within the city limits must then be paid for by the city rather than the county or state; sheriff patrols will disappear and police protection must be provided by the city. Additionally city taxes never go down; M.U.D. taxes do. (and did, recently).

Question 25: Is it possible for the M.U.D. to issue more bonds to drive up the price of annexation?
Response from both Eric Hird and Erik Berglund, M.U.D.: Yes. The M.U.D. has $24 million outstanding. It can issue another $12 million in bonds, possibly more, but can do so only if the money is designated and used for infrastructure.

Question 26: Why is the mayor not at this meeting?
Response from Ted Stanley, TWA board: When the CPVA board met with the mayor, they asked if he would be willing to speak to the residents at a meeting such as this. He said it was not worth his time at this point. He entertained the possibility of attending a meeting further into the three-year time period but would do so at this time.

Question 27: Will we be responsible to Conroe for jury duty?
Response from numerous residents in the audience: Yes. We already are.

Question 28: What about deed restrictions?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: We will still be part of The Woodlands and subject to the covenant restrictions in force by The Woodlands. The only time those will be superseded is by law or ordinance passed by Conroe. Laws of the city come first; deed restrictions are at the bottom of the list. [Editor’s note: This means that if we are indeed annexed by Conroe and Conroe passes a law stating that boats can be parked in driveways, that law will override our Woodlands covenants and you can admire your neighbor’s bass boat all day, every day]

Question 29: Can the “rifle” legislation be utilized for The Woodlands in response to Houston?
Response from Tommy Williams, Texas Senate: Mr. Williams does not expect the issue to get that far and is convinced that Houston does not want The Woodlands.

Question 30: What will happen to Harper’s Landing if The Woodlands incorporates?
Response from Joel Deretchin, TWA: Harper’s Landing will still be part of The Woodlands. Assessment fees will most likely be offset for services not provided as they are today in the Shenandoah area of Grogan’s Forest. [Editor’s note: Mr. Deretchin indicated previously in the evening that he believes fully that the fees will be offset but cannot promise they will be because that particular area is not under his control – but he also noted a precedence had been set with Grogan’s Forest having reduced fees and saw no reason why the same “ruling” would not apply to Harper’s Landing.]

Question 31: Who was responsible for the moratorium with Houston>
Response from Rob Eissler, Texas House of Representatives: Tommy Wilson spearheaded that moratorium, in cooperation with the San Jacinto River Authority and the M.U.Ds. Harper’s Landing did not fall into that moratorium because it lay in the ETJ of Conroe and frankly, the legislators never saw it coming. Conroe had until this point repeatedly said it was not interested in this area of the county.

At this point, Professor Kral noted it was 9 p.m. and asked that all additional questions be addressed after the meeting to particular members of the panel. She noted that refreshments were available in the back and thanked everyone for attending.

Meeting adjourned, 9 p.m.

Next meeting:
February 20, 7:30 p.m.
Rm. 102, Bldg. A
Montgomery Community College
College Park Dr.

Thanks extend to Laura Dean for creating special flyers for this meeting and for distributing them, with the help of Cori Singletary and Susan Kooiman.