All right, let's bring the court to order. Please let's stand for the opening prayer and the pleasure of allegiance. Mary please do prayer please. Kind of in my father's we join our hands and our hearts with you. We just come looking to you today for the strength and the courage to press forward. I just slipped up these gentlemen to you Lord Lord, and I just asked that you give them, as you talk about in the first Corinthians, the wisdom and the knowledge and the understanding, know what to do and how to do for the citizens of this county. But most of all, Lord, as we lift up our government to you, we just ask that you continue to cover it with the blood. We just pray you will and your way over it. But Lord, as we lift up our men and women that are in arms ways, I just asked Father that you were just protecting them and sending special guardian angels to surround them. Lord, most of all, we just tell you that we love you. We honor you and we continue to ask for your guidance and your directed and then to one of our lives. Amen. I'm in. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. I play. a slide. I'll play the lead since the lead to the crisis. One in state, one in individual. All right. In the row call, I'll members of the court are present. We need a motion on the agenda, please. Okay. All the favor say aye. All right. We have an employment committee. Hi, sir. Morning. My name is Tina Solomon, and I am with the Employees Committee for our January employee of the month. Already? And during the month of January the sheriff's office was involved in a very detailed and tedious investigation regarding the robbery of an individual and crash burglary of a gun shop located in South Montgomery County and brief a security guard protecting the shopping center area where their crime occurred, came across an individual lying in an alley giving the appearance of a medical situation. As a security guard exited his patrol vehicle to check on the person lying in the alley, another person appeared from the darkness and robbed a security guard at gunpoint. He used tape to tie him up and stole his patrol vehicle. After stealing the vehicle, the suspects used the vehicle to crash into the gun store located in the same shopping center and steal several guns. During the initial stages of the investigation, the case was lacking in evidence and leads, making it very difficult if not impossible to investigate. I signed Detective Hatfield to this case for investigation and he took the initiative to investigate the case and was determined to find any and all leads to find the suspects involved in the Hennias crime. Detective Hatfield through hard work and determination was able to identify, locate and arrest both individuals that committed the robbery and crash burglary. The detective Hatfield is a dedicated employee in Montgomery County who receives many cases every month to investigate and despite the heavy monthly case load he works diligently to clear every case with integrity and strived daily to be a great public service. For this reason I nominate Detective Vintatville for employee of the month respectfully sign Melvin Franklin Lieutenant. Great. So did Tech2Pat feel the pleasure come up? Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you. All righty, Commissioner Rohnhard, did you want to move something up? Yeah, I'd like to move the paper to the toilet. To the cheese. To the cheese. To the cheese. I need a part of it would you come up please? I'd like to consider and discuss the Polo of ESD for to lease a portion of County property located at Timnick Community Park on Main Street to begin construction of a new fire station. They hadn't got anything on the east side of the railroad track at Timnick. We've got, we worked with Scott, was environmental to help us cut that down. Chief has met with the people there in Tammany and the closest thing they've got is what 242? Yeah we cover that area from the fire station on 242. Mutual aid companies we have South Montgomery County that covers it covers it from the city of Oak Ridge but we've targeted the area as a high risk because of the railroad tracks and the limited accessibility and an out of that area. There's only two ways in. And the way that the two tracks are situated in the cross scenes, we've had events where those areas have been cut off from us being able to get into it. And with that, we have been looking for over a year to build a fire station there in the Tamina area on the east side of the railroad track so that we can eliminate that situation. This will be man 24 hours a day. Yes sir. We do have the paid staff currently right now to man it 24-7. We currently have all the apparatus. We have everything we need other than the location for the station. I make a motion we do a long time lease on that property to get those people over protected. Okay so emergency over happens. Second. Okay who's gonna we're gonna get the Kennedy attorney to go shade the lease? Yes. Already? Let's make that part of the motion. Okay. Make a county attorney to do the police agreement on that. I think there's motion that there's second Mr. Novak. All in favor say aye. Aye. Passes. Thank you, Chief. The job you all do down there. Alrighty, County Clerk, we need to prove the minutes for anywhere at the 28th, 2013. Move. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, on consent, commissioners, I have no changes. All in favor say aye. Okay, under county judge, 10 a. Consider and approve annual Montgomery County dues assessed for calendar year 2013 and the amount of $2,100 payable to the text to the county judges and commission association I move. Second. Second. All in favor see how? All right. And B, consider and approve the 2013 annual membership dues in the matter 2440 payable of Texas Association of counties and I move all in papers say Sheriff Obviously, I'm not the sheriff. Good morning. The sheriff's in Arkansas, I don't know if y'all know, but his older brother is gravely ill. In fact, over the weekend, we thought he probably wouldn't make it. We got an update this morning he's doing somewhat better, but the sheriff's still there in a chiefs out of town. So they approached me and then we'll muddle through this with the aid of the other cabinet. You can end it. Item A, considering to approve the transfer of $895.95 in salary funding from position 56 01.3940-9 to 56 01.3940-30. The transfer of funds pertains to civilian positions as it does not increase the current salary structure. Move. On the favor of the Chair. Item B. Consider and approve the transfer of excess position funds within the Sheriff's admin and jail budgets to the funding position line 99999-999. The transfer of funds pertains to civilian positions and does not increase the current salary structure. Move. And for gentlemen, on this particular one, there's a typo on the second page. And the clerk's records will reflect the change. The dollar amount will not change. Thanks, thank you. Second. All in favor, see. Item C. Consider and approve funding Second all in favor see item C consider improve funding in the amount of $996.96 for alarm permits mail equipment lease when you alarm permits transferred from environmental to the sheriff's office at the beginning of fiscal year their budget was short two months of payments requesting a funding source to be named and the funding to be applied to the budget line 56 0 11 74 19. It's only 9 96. Yes, sir. We could probably recognize additional revenue for this gentleman if you think that's appropriate. Let's do that. I move second. I want to favor see. I. Item D. Consider and approve the revised MCSO training academies in service fee schedule. The fees will only apply to law enforcement personnel not employed by Montgomery County. Move. I'm in favor of say aye. Consider and approve an amendment to the 2013 interlocal law the considered approve an amendment to the 2013 interlocal law enforcement agreement between the Montgomery County and the woodlands township extension of the current agreement. We've done the agreement to address the fuel allocations. Okay. Second. All the favor, see you. I'll be able to see. Gentlemen, we have a small issue with this particular change. I'll do to prove part of this back in October, which was to set up the fuel as an expense line in this particular cost center. The unintended result of that was that there wound up being about a $300,000 anticipated reimbursement from the Woodland and the Sheriff's line that now we know we won't recognize. We can handle that a couple of ways. You could either cover that from contingency. You could just know upfront that you will not be reimbursed twice once in the Sheriff's Department and once in this particular cost center. Or you could name a funding source from somewhere else. I'm just recognized in a non-double reimbursement. Just for you to know that going in. Okay. I'm signing papers and I'm trying to listen at the same time. Would you repeat that? Yes, sir. Whenever we adopted the budget, we did it anticipating that the Woodlands would reimburse us about $300,000 for the fuel that is purchased for the patrol down there. Back in October, the sheriff's office came to you and asked if we would actually start about $300,000 for the fuel that is purchased for the patrol down there. Back in October, the sheriff's office came to you and asked if we would actually start charging that in the cost center just to track the Woodlands fuel. To do that, we anticipated revenue from the Woodlands at that time. We know that we won't get reimbursed in two places. It's a fairly significant amount of money. It's approximately $300,000. We just want y'all to know, at the onset, that you're not going to get reimbursed in both of those places. It's only going to happen in this costs center, not in the sheriff's department. You can handle that. I mean, it's just moving it right there. I just want to let you know. Things are we getting reimbursed in the one place we expected. Not in the one that we anticipated during the budget hearings, no sir. But in the one that we anticipate as far as it coming from the woodlands and it will be charged to the woodlands. Overall, in that case. But we're getting a 300,000. Originally, we expected all of this to happen in the Sheriff's Fleet Ops budget. But they really would rather account for it separately for the woodlands so they can show the woodlands what the total costs are to the woodlands. Whenever we anticipated a budget for them in the woodlands, we also anticipated the reimbursement in the woodlands, but we had already thought we would get that in the sheriff's budget, which now we know we won't get. The only possible fix would be to reduce the sheriff's fuel budget, but they're telling you they can't take that reduction in their fuel budget. They need that whole fuel budget. We understand. OK. OK We understand. Okay. Okay. Was your motion? Yes. Yes. I moved. Second. All the favourites here. Yes. Item F. Consider an approved allocating all MCSO fugitive transport reimbursements to the Sheriff's Admin budget. Line item 5601. 433-1011. That's the state inmate transport. Two. Second. On the paper, state. Item G. Consider and approve allocating all U.S. Marshall reimbursements paid to the sheriff's office to the sheriff's overtime budget line item 56-01-7104. The funds are for overtime reimbursements paid by our agency in support of the Joint Law Enforcement Operations Program and Joint Terrorism Task Force. Move. Second. I'm there. I see you. And finally, this is, I think, a misprint. This is for to approve the submission of the grant application only, not the funding. The CJD Directional Radar Trailer Project grant is used to purchase directional radar trailers that allow not only radar notification, but will permit messaging for a notification of emergency conditions and important community messaging. No matching funds are required. messaging no matching funds are required. All in favor say aye. And Captain I believe you and Carol thank you for coming to my office and walking me through what you were looking to do on a budget and while we were there we discussed the fact that earlier this year the Sheriff's Department got about $235,000 out of contingency to cover some salary funding that needed to take place and I understand that you have that $264,000 in your salary and you'll be coming to court next time to have that swept contingency. Thank you so much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Bruce. Already. Constable precinct number three. Good morning, Judge Commissioner. Good morning. Thank you. Gentlemen, I would like to consider, ask for an amendment to 12A to consider and approve the purchase of just a mobile data terminal. We're not looking to purchase a mobile radio any longer. The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office has kindly told us that they would provide a radio for us. So I am proposing that we name a funding source for a mobile data terminal, a laptop, and the amount of approximately $6,800. And contingency is the funding source. And I move. All in favor, say aye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Robert. Thanks, Gabon. Infrastructure. Morning, Judge commissioners. Good morning. So, consider discussing appropriate take action on proving the construction of a commissioner precinct three office building. Please also discuss naming funding sources for this project. Commissioners, Mark has been a significant amount of time in precinct three. Look in at the office space that we currently have and we certainly have a deficiency when it comes to space and that would include for the sheriff the constable ED Conley and myself and so what we're looking to do is explore the possibility of building a new facility in precinct 3 to accommodate those needs and you may want to add the land is there. Yeah, we have 9.95 acres that is county owned and it's cleared and would be a suitable location for it. The budget time would be the time to address this. Well, we just thought that when $700,000 was deposited into contingency, now may be a better time. I don't know that there's a better use for that than to make certain that South County residents are well taken care of. You know, since we had this windfall of money last two weeks ago of $740,000. That almost equates exactly to the amount of money that Commissioner Neweight needs. And. Well, Judge, I would get the building done, but there's certainly this part of infrastructure would need to be done. But if we just start a funding source, if that's what you all want to do, we'd have to. I gather more money in the future. I guess my point is we've seen construction costs started to go up. I would hate to wait until the summer. I would move that we go ahead and transfer that money that we use for contingency two weeks ago for this line on them. Second. Do we have an estimate on the total cost? At this time we don't, but for that, for the building alone will be that, but I'm going to gather that we'll be in the neighborhood of $1.4 million overall. But there's another 110,000 if you so choose to do it out of spring creek to put over there for a generator that could be moved over if you so chose to do that. Absolutely. Any more discussion? I'm going to let leave. And we need you said 1.1. We leave about 700 about 800 thousand. Last once we moved 100 thousand from spring to until we sit down everything it's about 1.4 million. I can't remember what. Why don't you put some numbers together and get us a good hard number and come back when we have that? I still think budget time's a time to do this. Whatever you'll find. Sure. It's my field. We know the building itself will cost that much. Pretty much in that neighborhood right there. How much do you spend on yours? It's about that, about 1.2. It's about the time. It's just that I don't know if you all have seen this building lately, but it's of all the buildings, of all the commissioner buildings, this is the oldest, the most dilapidated, and clearly needs to be replaced. I'm not against it. I just think budget time is a time to address an item where we're going to get $600,000. Well, we just had $700,000 put into contingency. We can start the process, mark and I can sit down and start to analyze exactly what we need, but it seemed like the appropriate time when that money became available. You can identify the balance of that somewhere that would be great. Well, let's compromise with Commissioner Meta. Let's go ahead and move the money and not agree to do any construction until we do plans, facts, and a hard number. Yeah, we've got to address the rest of it. Yeah, I agree with that. But let's go ahead and move the money, but we will honor Commissioner Metters' request and not do anything past that until we get everything else lined up. If you enjoyed getting that motion, could you include the 110,000 it's over in spring, Creek to move that in there? Was for a generator to put it in the funds? Yes. That gives us 800 and 840,000. But if you use the 740B, about 850 right now. About 850. And we'll go back and put numbers go. It's a very good start Commissions will do the O bill Well move Vet will either move Ryan Gabel in there the sheriff some one of our other It'll be used where the JPM the gospel is there a strap for space plus traffic for the public coming in, there's just not enough room for all the traffic coming through there. We don't, excuse me, live from remote off. That building for Ryan. No, Ryan and I've spent some time walking through the building. There's a few things that would need to happen, but overall we could Make sure we fix that we definitely need to do the rest of them over there Okay, there's a motion. There's a second any further discussion or is there Are we telling or were we ready to vote? Right you going off my No, not I had the motion commission. I know I had the second. Set the funds aside. How are you going to do is identify the money. Is that what you're going to do? It's almost going to do is move the money. Nothing else. Once we get a firm number and we're all you're doing down there, budget time we can identify some money for that project. Yes, sir. All in favor, see. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Alrighty. Taxi. Sessor. Yes, that these you can take both these items with one motion. It's the same company. many years ago, we entered into an agreement with Brock and allowed them as they built the condominium to transfer that abatement to that company. But if that company ever sold or did anything else, they were not allowed to transfer that abatement. And if they did, then we recaptured the dollars. And that's what these are. We found this year with our semi-angle report that there was four of these and this will be the third one. We've got another one also working. These two here are the first one actually is currently on the tax roll with the name of GABO investments. They are the second owner so these do not qualify for it the second one is north forest investments. I'm going to ask the court to be declared to be thought. Okay. This is motion of second of 14 A and B. All in favor say aye. Thank you. Can they clerk? Consider them allowed the 2013 salary agreements committee to be comprised of six elected officials in three citizens or nine citizens. Oh, did this two weeks ago? commissioners we've always had six electric officials in three citizens that believe. I move we continue that. Second. All in favor say aye. Okay, let's Good morning, gentlemen. In the consent agenda, you voted to approve a request from the Historical Society to have them use the parking lot at the Malcolm Purvis Library. In the past, they've only used a portion of the parking lot and the remainder was available for library users. This year, they've expanded their program, asked for the entire parking lot and they plan to close both entrances to that parking area. So I'm here today to ask you to allow me to close the library. There'll be no easy access to it. Even staff members would have to park in a remote location and walk. I don't believe that citizens are going to do that when depot days are going on in the parking lot. And so I've spoken with Commissioner and we feel that our hands are tied. Thank you for the good idea. Deepo day generally shuts down all the downtown Magno, at least that portion of downtown Magno, and I would move that we take it. All in favor, see you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. The second is to allow us to proceed with the preparation of plaques for staff recognition during our staff development day. We have a biennial staff development day. It's the result of the Deloitte and Two Study in 1996 saying that staff needed more preparation. This is our one time to come together with everyone in one place. And at that time we try to recognize those who've gone above and beyond with an outstanding employee of the year and outstanding manager of the year for each of the two years involved. And I would ask you to allow us to go ahead and fund those. They've been included in my supply budget, but I usually come and ask you for authorization to spend those funds in that way. Okay, there was a motion. Is there a second? I think the commissioner know I made the first motion about about one eighth of second. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Manage the Signed Council. Good morning. I have two items on the agenda today. First is to consider except the resignation of Cindy Sill from the oversight board for the Manage the Signed Council program as you know Miss Sill recently retired from Tri-County Services. In the second item we're asking you to consider an appoint Evan Robertson who is the new executive director of Tri-County Services to the oversight board. I've already met with Evan and we didn't scare him off. And just for the information Evan has a bachelor of science from Howard Payne University and a master's of public administration from a little school up the road called Sam P. Houston State University. University and a Master's of Public Administration from a little school up the road called Sam Pius to stay in. I move on. All of the papers here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Alrighty. The county attorney requested he be moved up. Number 21. Good morning, Judge commissioners. Good morning. I'm B.D. Griffin. Here's speaking for the County Attorney's Office. On item 21, F, to consider an approved resolution in order, pointing JD Lambrite County Attorney and BD Griffin Assistant County Attorney, if the exclusive contact and spokesperson for Montgomery County regarding one Montgomery County jail financing corporation to Joe Corley Detention Center, three mental health facility, four and related contracts and agreements with GO Group Inc., GO Care, and any governmental agency or institution. Even one would come with the Gangtown request to be the exclusive content. Certainly, Your Honor. This is really a very narrowly designed resolution. It's designed to promote confidentiality and to protect privileged communications. The intent is to use our office as a gathering place for the information from all the consultants, including other attorneys, financial and contract consultants, which county has used for several years. We think it's necessary to protect the county's investment and the future potential liabilities. And short, we think the resolution merely ask for the court to designate Mr. Lambrite and or me as the voice of the county in order to protect against the disclosure of confidential and, again, attorney-client privilege of communications. Let me address what it's not designed to do It's not intended to remove the commissioners or any of the courts appointed Consultants from being part of that process It's not going to prohibit or limit then their involvement in this process in fact I've already consulted with quite a few including including several other attorneys, bond council, tax council, disclosure council, contract financial advisors in this process. And we're about to get into a delicate stage with regard to at least the Corley Detention Center. And it's, again, it's really designed just to prevent disclosure of confidential information and privilege communication. We did have some disclosures last month of really a litany of what other council have told us commissioners court and open court. And that's part of what this is designed to do is to rein in that communication as especially as regards to again, confidential information and privileged information. Well, VD, I think it's I'm very glad to see the county attorneys office stepping up and taking control of this matter and I move. What type of county attorney's office? I'll obviously ought to be involved, but I wouldn't it a couple of courts ago. We authorized Mark Mosmer office, obviously, ought to be involved, but wouldn't it a couple of courts ago we authorized Mark Mosmer, the issue there, the RFQs, and then negotiate that contract or that sale. Would that preclude that? No, it would not, no, no, it would not, commissioner. In fact, I'm working with Mr. Mosmer's office right now on RFP. Well, this is past due. We have, if you take the total amount of money with these two projects, you're looking at almost $80 million. And I'm glad to see JD Lambrite and UBD step up to the plate on this and agreed to basically kind of be, I think you put a very good move and hopefully we can... Judge, I think it'll also... Tell both projects. I think it'll also facilitate the information between all parties. I think we'll everyone have a little easier time accessing information that we need to make decisions as well. The other thing it does is it prevents or streamlines the process, so where such as our tax council or a bond council, they're not getting necessarily multiple requests for the same information and dispensing that information out. Just from my background over the past few years from representing property owner associations, I would as part of my private practice when I had the private practice, I would say, I want someone designated to be contacting me because I don't necessarily want to be talking to everybody in the subdivision needless to say so that's the germination of the idea frankly is to streamline the process make it more efficient as well as primarily again control confidential information so that doesn't get out and frankly attorney privilege information so that doesn't get out and you'll be working closely with the consultant that the court is hired. Yes. I hope certainly hope to. We need that expertise and that background knowledge. Yes we do. And that's been ongoing for years. Yes. There's knowledge there that can't turn you into any other idea. It would be foolhardy not to use that knowledge in those consultants and commissioner I'm not a full hearty person. So I definitely would want to and expect to. Okay, there's a motion as I believe is your second. A second? I'm in favor, see I? Aye. Those opposed? I was opposed. Most in passes 3 to 2. Thank you, Beaty. Thank you. Okay. Let's go back to number 17 or 18. Oh, mental health treatment facility. 18 at the commission. Consider approved payment to Texas Department of State Health Services for the absence. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you I don't think you consider the previous provisions to two policies in the management plan is recommended by the Montgomery County. Then we have the treatment facility advisory board and it's set forth and paperwork on file. I think one of these is a change in the title of an R&D. The other one is change on some times that they do certain procedures. I move. Second. I'll have a favor to see. I'll return. There is a request to use $312.50 from the J.P. Technology Fund for training for just as of the peace precinct one. Move. Second. All the favors here? I vote for the motion passes. Thank you. Purchasing. Good morning, Darlo. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Item 20A. I'd like to present the recommendation for approval. Item number three. GC- MS systems with options, emergency management. There was one respondent to Smith detection in the amount of $137,080 to be funded out of the 2011 UASI grant. Move. There you go. All the favourites here. Hi. Item B, concern and approve the proposal from LJA Engineering Inc. to provide construction phase services for the electronic toll direct connectors to 42 and the amount not to exceed 100,000, precinct 2 and 4 and MCTP. Move. There you go. All the favourites here. Precinct 2 and 4 and MCTP. Move. Second. All the papers here? I am seeing, considering approved the proposal from HTS Inc. Consultants to provide construction materials testing and inspection services for electronically told direct connectors to 42 in the amount not to exceed $306,248, precincts 2 and 4, and CTP. Move, second. Hall of Pairer, Sida. Thank you. Okay, the balance of the county attorney atoms. Okay, Judge, we're going to defer item 21A. Okay. 21B, we're asking the Court to approve a personal services agreement with Alex Taylor. This person will provide services as an independent contractor for the IT department. I hope he paid $12 an hour not to exceed 20 hours per week. And the total contract will not exceed $13,440 as part of the motion to approve that agreement. We also need the Court to approve a discretionary exemption per local government code 262.024A4. Thank you. I want papers to see how. And item 21C, right in the court to approve an agreement with Walker Montgomery Community Development Corporation. This is for fiscal year 2012 CDBG funding for an ongoing project. That project is the construction of single-family homes for senior citizens or special needs citizens. And the contract amount for this year is $122,365. All in favor? Say aye. In item 21, D, the court to clarify the funding source related to the retention of Kempstemith LLP as outside counsel related to the injection well administrative proceedings. In April 11th 2011 the court authorize retention of Kemp Smith but the resolution in order was blank us to the funding source. These invoices have been paid from contingency in the past and today's action would just clarify the source as contingency for all the invoices related to that representation. I think we discussed for the next budget year if we're going to continue paying for these services. We try to accommodate that in the budget for next year. That's fine. I can measure it. If we could utilize this continuously funding until budget hearings and we could address it at that point. No problem. I move. Second. All the favourites here? Aye. All right. What's the basis? And item 21E, right in the court, to approve an assignment of 1.414 acres of land at the Lohm-Sarg-Executive Airport. This is an assignment from Killian Air LLC to KH Aviation LLC. And there's no changes in terms of conditions of the existing lease. Move. Second. All in favor, say aye. All righty. We have a public hearing in precinct three. This recessed the court have been that public hearing. Precinct three we're gonna consider and approve establishing a loading zone on the west side of Waterway Avenue, South of Lake Robbins Drive. Anyone in court to discuss this? Yes sir. My wife is older. She's like, he be set. Oh, please. Morning. Morning. Uh, we're requesting a drop off loading zone in front of, uh, the former Sturker E. restaurant at Lake Robbins and Waterway Drive, uh, for unloading cars after five o'clock for another restaurant that's going to take its occupancy. We've had our engineering departments fully reviewed it while we don't believe it's going to cause an inconvenience. Any member of the public is free to drop their car off there. You don't have to be utilizing that particular restaurant. have plenty of available parking so I move. We're not still in public hearing. Oh sorry. Anything else? Well it's going to alleviate some traffic hold up for people looking for a place to park in that particular area. In the evening time there'll be a valley station there similar to the one on's up the street that any person can drop off their car and get their car validated in part. Okay. Is there anything else sir? No, I don't believe so. It's currently in place up the street. We're just asking for it to go down to the next corner to alleviate traffic congestion No, this is just taking an existing loading zone and after five turning it into valet for a particular restaurant just like we do. So it will be managed at an expense of the public. No, but it's going to be the same service is provided in the rest of the township, same valet service. Exactly the same. Another drop off station. So instead of backing up and on one station we'll have two stations cut the back up. So it will be paid belly part. Yes. Okay. Yeah. That was a question. I got a call from John L. A. Okay. Nobody will judge. Anything else sir? No, I don't believe so it would be a fine addition to the to the area it will be we're looking forward to you any of the comments and this public hearing regarding this issue okay let's recess the public hearing and recovink commission's court yes sir All right. All right. Under commissioners, precinct three. Consider and approve the following open position 614-8557-1. Close position 614-850-1, and then we'll just do this in one motion. Consider and approve the following transfer7-1 and then 6,457 from 614-8504-1 to 614-8559-1 and we're going to remove item three. Move. So second. You want to remove three? Yes, sir. Already. Precstate four. I have done that. Okay. We sure have. Any engineer? Good morning, Judge commissioners. Good morning. 24 A1 considering approval and amendment to the pass-through toll agreement executed on August 29, 2005 between the state of Texas and Montgomery County to reduce Montgomery County's obligation to reinvest a portion of its its past three toll reimbursements into future transportation projects from 76 million to 56 million as per amendment on file. On the paper say I. Thank you. Already. I'm going to be able to put the bill on the bill. I'm going to be able to put the bill on the bill. I'm going to be able to put the bill on the bill. All righty. We need to recess this court for executive session under Article 551.071 and 0.072. and point 072. And can we go ahead and recess for the toll? I thought already also, at the same time or not. OK. We can't. No, you have to do separately, right? So this course recess presents a session. OK, let's bring the court back to order, please. Okay, let's bring the court back to order, please. Any other questions or any extra necessary for me to take a question or not? I don't believe so, Judge. All right, next we have citizens who are here for these citizens coming today. Bill O'Pillum, time to have a bully. Bill, set up. Please. Good morning. I want to address Senator Williams recently introduced Bill regarding certificates of obligation. Parts to that are good. I'm the one part, the three-year ban. If it's part of a bond that gets defeated, I think it's too restrictive because most recently, you saw something in the Stiving Solvigation you didn't particularly care for, and you didn't particularly care for that to be part of the Stiving Solvigation. You can have that in a bond issue where there's some good stuff, some bad and the bad stuff has enough stuff against it to knock down the good stuff. And a lot of times I would rather see you have the power and again get down to the definition of emergency or whatever the new standard that is creating that you guys have the power to exercise that and again it would have to be a different from my perspective the fine power and I don't know if I guess you're using lobbying down there during the session. And if, you know, just my minor suggestion that go to your lobbyist, see if you can get that sort of amendment to the bill. And that's basically it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. John Bowman. Good morning, Judge commissioners. I actually wanted to talk about what's coming up on the agenda, which is the memo of understanding between the county, Harris County, and the Montgomery County total road authority. I understand in your next breakout you're going to be talking about this MOU that Harris County is asking us to execute. My biggest concerns are transparency and efficiency. First of all, as I understand this MOU, it's all contingent on the outcome of a traffic study. Why are we signing an MOU before we have the traffic study to know whether this project is even viable? Why do we wait till the project is, this traffic study is completed and then talk about signing this MOU? I just don't understand the rush to get into this MOU. Second question I have has to do with Harris County's authority to make a loan like this. I think that's something that needs to be looked at. I know there's a lot more discretion about this, but you need to look at what the Harris County's loan authority guidelines are to make sure they have a loan authority to make it. But more importantly, I don't see where the county has the authority to make this kind of borrowing. I did some investigation into county borrowing authorities when I, before I testified before Senator Williams's finance committee last fall. And I'm simply, I haven't done a lot of work on this, but I can't offhand see under what category of borrowing authority the county can make this take up, take this loan. I also don't see why this would be effective borrowing for the county. The county of the Tollboard wrote out to be able to borrow cheaper than the cost of borrowing from Harris County and paying some sort of a premium over Harris County's borrowing costs. So I don't see how this would be an effective borrowing mechanism. Just as a general proposition, I don't understand why the county doesn't complete the feasibility study then make a case for the project to the citizens of Montgomery County that this is something that we should do and then with the public's approval and hopefully authorization then borrow the money directly to do the project that's the way we should be doing projects not going this way through a back door using other people's money, which probably is going to cost us more. Thank you. One thing, let me say on this is this is a big difference. Other can be a big difference It is strictly revenue Following meaning the borrowing is strictly back the revenue of the project versus the full-fafing credit of the county I'm not sure which way this is going to be Not say what I'm saying. I absolutely do whether you're going to do project financing over there going to do Government financing I totally understand that That's a huge issue and I absolutely do. Whether you're going to do project financing or whether you're going to do government financing. I totally understand that. That's a huge issue. Right now I'm not aware of which way you're going to persuade this thing as heavy. Well, and again, that has to do with the whether this project is an effective and whether a project that makes economic sense. But I don't see how the $20 million borrowing from Harris County fits into that. Well, you can believe there will not be a bulldozer that makes one mark until there's a positive till study that is submitted to Montgomery County and Harris County. It's just not going to happen. We've done the projects with negative total and revenue studies. As we take action on this in the next section, I think I can address some of that, too. Go ahead, Mr. President. Well, I think we're going to comment you on, and I think our response should be held in the active action item of the Thank you John appreciate it. Thank you Do we hear any other citizens comments today? Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Judge Sadler. Good morning. I understand Walter Boyd, OSU, $25 for the wedding a couple of weeks ago. He sent me out here to assure you that although he's in Alabama trying to straighten out their system over there, he will be back. And I don't have enough time. Not come back, people. Not a battle. I don't know how to put up with too many people back in. That is true. That is true. And I'm sorry about the rant I went on about the homeless last time I was up here. But the homeless got together and decided I should have to take the first homeless person back. And Leno Sullivan was saying, oh, come on. She wasn't that bad, wasn't she? And I felt quite under duress and I felt like since I had a public forum, I was going and telling the tea party how I felt. But today I'd like to address the carless issue in Montgomery County. We had a pretty good Brasus transport system that would help people get around that didn't have cars. And when the Tea Party went to work on Washington, that was one of the things that was cut out of the Federal budget. And there are a lot of people that don't have cars that have been visiting with them now that I'm a celebrity on your court. But they are very concerned because, for example, when they want to go to a doctor's appointment, they have to wait five hours for the bus to come pick them up again. You know, a lot of these are elderly people or disabled or whatever. I was wondering if the court could try to find some way to help support the government into the Brasis transport because the people, you know, at $3.50 a trip. It's very cheap, but for people who don't have money for transportation, you know, they can't afford what would really cost. And I was hoping that that issue might come up. And that's about all I wanted to say today. But Walter will be back if Alabama lets him. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the citizens today? I'd like to thank Tom. Good morning, Judge and commissioners. My name is Brian Crumby and I'm coming here to talk about the toll road in the 249 road. So the thing I'm hearing and I've been hearing a lot about it, there was a meeting about four or five years ago about tolling the existing highway and there was a ruckus that was, you know, that got backed off of. And I guess now the plan is to toll the rest of it. It's not been highwayed. Back, I lived in Harris County in the 90s and 80s and that the toll road exists now. We voted on it back then. And they told us, you know, we want to build this road and then we'll remove the toll road. We'll move the tax and we knew it was not true and it's not true. It's been paid for at least once. It drives us crazy. All these new taxes that come on. So my my request is that if we do this toll road let's vote on it, let the people vote on it. If they want to be taxed, it's their money. If they want to be taxed for it, let them tax it. If they don't want to be taxed for it, let them say no. It's the same thing as those certificate obligations, you know. You guys have your opinions, but we have our opinions too. So if we do it, let's be the paper of the road and then quit taxing us and let us come a vote on the front. Thank you much. Thank you, sir. Do we have any additional comments today from the citizens? One more time. Do we have any additional comments today from citizens? Okay, let's take human resources. Good morning. Please consider and approve the payroll change request forms. Move. Second. All service. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We need to recess. We're going to be Kennedy Commission's Court and convene and meeting building studies for same by paying transportation partners. Welcome to the city of rural. Good morning, Judge. Good evening, Senator. Very good. You're here, Senator. Yes, still here. Yeah, do you want to take that action out and take the action out of the park? Yes, this is and first. Yeah. The B. Yeah, this is going to make the most sense. Well, I'd like to move that we move out and be up and go ahead and get that action out of the way real quick before we get into the workshop. Yes, sir. Is that all right? Sure. All right. And concerning the MOU, that's an item that was approved by our court a couple of months ago. This is for ratification under the toll road authority. I think that this MOU is a great idea. The concern about the reason for the rush to do so, I think it sends a message to our legislative contingent that we are serious about doing 249 in conjunction with Harris County. We've got a cooperative partner with Commissioner Cagal and the Inhectro over Harris County to build a project that I think will serve from in this mobility needs for the entire region. It's a project that will be put together similar exactly to what was done in Harris County when the West Park toll road was done. The President has been set. These type of things have been done in the past and the issuance of a loan from another county at a negotiated rate should the T&R study come back I think can be done at a rate that's favorable to Montgomery County with less issuance cost and less interest than we would if we had the issue you know bonds of another nature so I think dealing with another facility or another county that has funds that they're able to loan us We can negotiate a favorable rate if you do it in a timely manner Presidents has been set projects like this have been done in the past and I think it's a great opportunity for us And this is simply an MOU to negotiate those That loan with Harris County if the TNR study comes back and they agree to that they've approved it that our commissioners court and I would make the motion that we approve it through our sole road JD JD I just was curious is does do we have the authority to take on debt in this manner we've started looking into this but I don't think we have a vision. No, we have not looked at that particular thing. I would just echo that the reason you're being presented with this is which was reported time in the lead in the number 11. It's so that Parris County has a paper for all for all that now they can basically start for us. No, the proposal and we work with them on the proposal for the final document. That's the court of the final agreement. Really just a step to get them started on it. So that we can go forward and they should get the benefit for it. So you feel comfortable? Should we? We'll be looking at that and getting the difference that we've already undertaken here. It's like we're doing a lot of other contracts. Good. OK. Thank you. OK. Jenny. We have plenty of you on the vote. Motion and second. Motion and second on 29B. I'll pay for the bill. Motion and pet. Good morning. Good morning. Again. This morning I want to talk a little bit about mobility here in Montgomery County building off of the extremely successful pastor program. I want to give a little bit of report of where we are on that program looking at toll projects that are currently being considered are in progress such as Grand Parkway and then discuss a little bit about what next step should be taken. Is the computer work here? You know, we're all aware that transportation dollars from state and federal sources are for adequate capacity projects are diminishing rapidly. And congestion, like we see in these pictures, and these are all pictures that we took in at the beginning of the pass-through program and congestion has gotten considerably worse since these pictures have been taken. You know, start to negatively impact the quality of life that the Commissioner's Court has worked so hard to improve here in Montgomery County. They need to track from economic initiatives that the court has worked so so hard to make happen and You know we need to we need to to continue what the court started and what has been at the top of the courts Agenda for quite some time which is to to improve the transportation network in the county in 2004 this commissioner's court took a very bold step. It just out in front of many counties in the state to be the first one to receive the pass-through dollars that were available at that time. Then this court understood that the competition was going to be, continue to be fierce for state federal dollars and that this program would offer an opportunity to move some projects up. The latter that had been sitting for quite some time, very much needed projects and get them on the ground today when this county needed it. The PASTER program, which included six projects, built 27.582 miles of roadway improvements, those improvements sat in pre-seat one, two, and four and included the 1484 project, the 1485 project, 1314, and the two sections of 1488. Finally, the last project which you took action to help move forward today, the electronically towed connectors at State Highway 242 and I-45, which was the very first whole project that this county considered building, and now we're getting ready to make that one a reality. I want to spend just a few minutes talking about the state of the past through program and where we are, where the project ended up. If you look at the slide in front of you, program and where we are, where the project ended up. If you look at the slide in front of you, you will see that the original budget for the PASTER program was $219,403,000. Our final cost, the actual cost, again, these are with some projections for the 242 project. It's 224 million, 227.705. We're a little over, but working up to 2004 projections, that's a pretty good record. You'll notice in the next column, we came under budget in construction to buy about $9 million. The places that we were over budget are two of the areas that we have very little control over, which is right away acquisition and utility relocation. When text.negotiated, not just Montgomery County passed through, but all the past through agreements, they really felt like utility relocation was something that was a local responsibility, that the local sponsors ought to bear the cost of that. And when the agreement was negotiated, they were only willing to include about $350,000 for utility relocation. We have spent roughly $8 million on utility relocation. And then on right away acquisition, the budget that was developed in 2004, the TechStyle approved, gave us about 25.5 million per right away acquisition. We ended up right about 31 million. And so when you took, take those two pieces together, clearly we were very fortunate to have the underrun in construction, that $9 million. It offset some of the overrun that was caused by right away acquisition and utility relocation, but that accounts for the $4 million that the program is over budget. That's hard to combat. You're required to relocate utilities to state and federal guidelines and acquire right away, pay for relocations. Those numbers just are of what those numbers are. When you look at the sources and uses or the program funding schedule for the program, originally the program was slated to have $186 million coming from Montgomery County and 33 million from the TechStyle Houston District Construction reimbursement for construction reimbursement, Pally and the $219 million that the projects were budgeted to come in at. What has happened is we have spent today about $158 million of bond funding. We have 32 million left of bond funds that have been issued for these projects. Those will go towards the 242 project. The text.construction reimbursement by the time that the contract was documents were put together the 33 million that the text. Houston district had slated for these projects have been reduced down to 27 and a half million bringing us a little bit short from our overall the overall needs of the program. So the amendment that was passed by the court today, moving 20 million from future projects into this phase, roughly about half of that will go to bring the project, the program back to even the remainder of that money because we're going to work very hard to save as much of it as possible. It's up to Montgomery County up to the commission or court to decide what to do with it. It can go for other projects. It can go for debt service or any lawful purpose that the Commissioner's Court chooses. The past of reimbursement, you know, we can go share the contract, the total reimbursement that Montgomery County received was $174,473,000. That was broken up. In the original agreement, 98 million was going to come against the Phase 1 projects. The projects were just now completed. The remaining 76 million would come against future projects. We have moved 20 million from the future projects into this phase to bring that phase one reimbursement to $118 million, leaving $56 million, $473 for future projects. The good news is, Jenny, yes sir. Are there, what can we use this $56, $473 for? Can you give some examples? Yes sir. It has to go for projects that are on the system, on the State Highway system. So, at FM Road, a State Highway Road potentially could go to a toll road. It's any project that could receive State and Federal reimbursement. Unfortunately, that leaves out a lot of the local roads in that that existing Montgomery County, but but does could go to improve the basic road network here in the county. So we could possibly utilize that for say widening 2978. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Thank you. We've received two payments, both of which are not full payments yet. The first payment that was received in 2011 for $7.9 million. It was not a full year worth of payments for the projects that were paid back, but you see that we're moving up towards the minimum payment. The second year, we were really happy to see that we actually exceeded the minimum payment. Again, it wasn't a full-year payment for every project. For example, 1488 would be the section north of West of 2978. It only was paid back for 290 days out of the 365. So this year in 2013, we should see a full years payback for all five projects that are open with the only one remaining to be the 242 project. What did that get us? That got us a lot of roadway. When you look back at the pictures that I showed earlier and looked at some of these same intersections and look at how they appear today, it's an amazing transformation and definitely definitely worth the investment I believe by Montgomery County. This is 1484 at the 3083 intersection and this is 1485 looking towards US 59. This is an artist rendering that was done early in the program of what the 242 direct connectors will look like at I-45. So that's taken care of the pass-through program, which has gone to alleviate congestion tremendously along some very key roads. Did it solve every problem? No, because the list was so long when the court finally decided on the six projects to put in the Phase 1 program, it just was the sort of the top of the list. But, you know, these kind of projects, obviously the State Highway Projects in a county like Montgomery County really do form up the roadway network that the local streets tie into. In addition to that as we talked about a while ago, there's just very little money, state and federal money to continue to improve that roadway network. And unfortunately, programs like the PAST through program has been suspended, one because it was just so vastly popular that the line was out the door for sponsors to come in and get their projects accepted. I believe they did roughly 22 different agreements, tallying somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 billion. Montgomery County was the first to get theirs and received one of the best paybacks of all the projects that went forward or all the programs that went forward under the past through program. So how do we pay for the next set of projects? There is obviously by the needs assessment that was done by the members of this court a couple of years ago, there are plenty of needs for the local roads and those have to be addressed separately. Larger corridors, such as the Grand Parkway that everyone had worked very diligently from a regional standpoint to get off the ground is moving forward. That's a good news. That will help take care of East West mobility from I-45 to U.S. 59 and take care of the southern part of Montgomery County and open up a lot of land for development. The 249 project that you just passed of the MOU for has a lot of potential. That's a very crowded corridor. The frontage roads were put in years ago, but not main lanes. It makes it a perfect project to come in and lay in toll lanes. Now to take care of that. And all those frontage lanes would still continue to be free lanes? Yes, sir. Understate law. No, no. You cannot convert that. That's right. Or if you did convert it, you would have to replace that same capacity with free lanes on the ground. So the same amount of free capacity would always remain on the ground. So just like the 242 project, I think there'd be more free capacity for those using the toll facility would free up those free lanes. That's right. Just like the 242 where we're leaving the free alternative, the free alternative will always remain on a tow project. It's for those people who choose to use the tow lanes, who want to get ahead a little quicker and are willing to pay for that speed, that's the beauty of the tow road. It becomes a user fee from that standpoint. Not everyone has to use it, but for those that choose to use it, they pay for it. It's totally the only answer. It's not, but and it doesn't work in every county, unfortunately. But in a major metropolitan county like Montgomery County, it does work. Because there are corridors and there are populations of people that you need to move to specific locations that you can build, tow corridors to serve. And so, you know, that being the case, the three projects with the 242, which will help at the I-45 connection, the Grand Parkway, and then the 249. That's all helping pretty much the southern part of the county. I think it's important to mention too that text dots also talking about taking 249 from Pinehurst for our project ends all the way to basically the Navisoda. The Navisoda. Yeah. And I have that on the next map as we go forward. If you, you know, we, as I said, the projects that we've got on the table today, they're helping the southern part of the county. How do we start opening up access to the central parts of the county, both east and west and to the northern part of the county, and at least to the, to WETO5, which traverses the entire county east and west and to the northern part of the county and at least to the to 105 which traverses the entire county east to west and you know a couple years ago back in 2007 actually we talked about studying this section over here on the on the eastern side of the map as the Montgomery Parkway Montgomery Parkway. But at that time, you know, the focus really was on, let's get the Grand Parkway up and going. We needed to, you know, work with our regional partners, get that road connected. And frankly, it's a huge, hugely important piece of anything that moves north because you've got to connect it back over either to I-45 or to US-59. The way the Grand Parkway ended up, they will east of the San Jacenar River, they will put a tie-in for Montgomery Parkway. And I believe that while we did some study on it back in 2007 and 2008, the time is probably right now for us to go back in, look at that corridor, look and see what the environmental impact would be, not specifically under an environmental study, but a curse review of environmental impacts and see where we could actually lay it a corridor and start to narrow that down so that we can move forward into project development but prior to to making any of those decisions you would have to complete a feasibility study. On the west side of the county and the area that's shaded in red at the bottom is the is the quarter that's being studied for the Aggie Freeway or that freeway that's the extension of 249 over to Navisota. That 249 and 2978 create you78 create either boundary of a very congested corridor. Both of those roads are overloaded today. Their experience seems peak traffic for longer and longer and both morning and afternoon travel times. And so how do we open up the center part of that corridor, start moving people down from 105, relieving congestion that's happening as a result of the growth of Montgomery along Lake Conroe, along the 105 corridor, and bring people back in, get them off of 2978 while fish creek has helped tremendously which Commissioner goal develops five years ago I guess now it's been about five years and it's still just it's just not enough to to service all the people that have moved to the north and and central part of West Montgomery County. So what would need to be done to do feasibility studies on those two projects? The first thing you'd have to do is do a route study to conduct it to define particularly on the on the on the one on the east to find the corridor from the Grand Parkway up to 105 for the one on the west. It's a little more difficult. You'd have to look at several options of how you service both the 249 and the 2978 traffic. How you would lay that in there and then move it north from there. The traffic and social economic data developed by HGAC has to be analyzed and considered when you look at the IT Project moving forward. Horde or improvements must be defined to finalize cost estimates. Obviously, the cost of this project is a number of the traffic at the population growth or all the lead-determinate factors of whether the IT facility is ultimately feasible. A total collection concept would have to be developed and the revenue potential would have to be estimated. And more than likely, given the nature of these kind of projects, a construction phasing plan would have to be developed so that you could build sections that made sense that had logical terminus that serve as people that you could afford to build would be self-supporting before you extend it all the way maybe to your ultimate ultimate destination. And then and then financing scenarios would have to be developed you know working with the tow road authorities financial advisors looking at having them run models based on the cost and the transaction projections that can be developed for each of these facilities, then true financing scenarios can be developed so we can see whether a project is feasible or whether that feasibility, if it's not present today, when might a project become feasible, and are there any interim steps that can happen to get a project ready, such as reserve the right away for it? As we look back at the past through program, think what had happened if we could have bought right away years before those numbers started skyrocketing, particularly along, say, 1488, which was in major in development when that project happened as opposed to 1314 that we were able to buy right away before the development got there. And now that project is starting to develop and land values are going up as a result of the road. And we're seeing that same scenario on 1097. It's 1097, an excellent example. I mean, it's just, you know, we started a process what four, five years ago and text that ran out. And it went on. And we're able to finish that acquisition corridor and we had the way I had the game, but we're not. But the money, you know, there's only so much money. And that's the, you have two problems. One, when development happens, it's always going to drive the car right away up. And then two, when development happens, your choices of where you can lay in a new corridor, such as these new corridors that we're looking at, where you can even put one in. And, you know, so if there could be some advance work and get ahead of the schedule then you might be doing well. That's sort of the benefit of a lot of counties that do major metropolitan thoroughfare plans. They start to identify where their thoroughfares are going to go. We'll try to get ahead of the curve on those things. I know at one point Montgomery County had some version of that, not a full thoroughfare plan, but it's one of those things that would be of great benefit to be able to say, look, these places would work well for toll corridors. These are roads that need to be, that are already on the ground that need to be improved in a more conventional fashion and then have the local roads all tie in together so that you have a full picture of what the roadway network and the mobility plan for the county could be over a period of time, which helps you schedule your investment. Well, the other part of that is in fish creeks, a example of that as that development occurred along that corridor the developers constructed portions of that roadway Absolutely And they donated all of the right away So when we came in you know five or six years ago all we had to do was fill in the gaps right on some very small pieces Built two bridges and built about a half a mile a road that created a tremendous corridor through there It did. And right away is there for future growth. That's right. And I believe on both the projects that I highlighted on the example before, I do believe that there is some potential to work with developers that are out there today who are willing to open up their land and do some donations, which would help, you know, and maybe get some of that in place ahead of time. So that is on a reserve. So we're doing it with $2.49, right? That's what, right. And that was the beauty of the segment G of the Grand Parkway. When Riley Fuzzle was done, you know, a lot of that land was reserved for right away used for a future tow road and or could be used for a future tow road. And so therefore, why you need to study many options, the options becomes abundantly clear if where a road could actually fit into this. You know I'm sure that there are several other roads that we have looked at over the course of the last six, seven years that I've been involved in transportation in Montgomery County. Quite a few people have talked about the development of a 242 tow road running east and west through there. I think in the short term, not that that's not a good longer term project, but in the short term the Grand Parkway is going to take care of a lot of those needs and I agree with the judge that we need to start looking at, you know, with some of these pieces that we've gotten taking care of the east and west down in the southern part of the county. Now, how do we tie in those populations and those communities and that development potential that's running into the central cores of both sides up to the north part at least to the 105 corridor. That's a great snopsist, Jimmy. But they want to explain what we're doing is using the brand partner way to get this out instead of starting at I-45. Right. And the wide concept that we talked about is. Yes, sir. On the east side, if we're going to take I-45 as the backbone and you look to the east, when we worked with Senator Williams back in the 2007 session to make sure that the Grand, that the Green River County Parkway had a reservation from some of the stipulations that were moving forward on tow road to that point. But the Montgomery Parkway never had the ability to tie into I-45 as a tow road that was always reserved for the Grand Parkway. And so as we looked in our early looks at the corridor, what seemed to become abundantly clear, given the expense of crossing the San Jacinto River, is that if the Grand Parkway would make that traverse from I-45 towards US-59 and cross the river, and let that project absorb the more expensive river cross-seed, then Montgomery Parkway could tee off of that and run north and take care of the, really, the populations that that road was designed to serve anyway. Getting it up to 242, moving, you know, north and south through the sitter part of East Montgomery County, and then ultimately on up to 105. Can that all be done in a single phase? Or is that going to have to be phased? That's what a feasibility study is going to tell us. So that would take care of an access like this on the east side with you've got your two interstates here, the Grand Parkway, Traversee, East and West, and then the Montgomery Parkway by sexting the center of the county on the east side. Westside is not quite as easy to do a merit project mainly because of how big a footprint the woodland has so that puts everything to take care of the center part of West Rameen, Montgomery County out to the west of 2978. 2978 has become incredibly congested. I moved to the woodland six years ago and they had just opened up Woodlands Parkway to 2978 at that point. The traffic from that area, really from a hardened store up to at least for research forest comes through now is pretty constant stop and go traffic almost at any time during the day. It drops off a little north of 1488 though. North of 1488 it does drop off. In 1488 has been an incredible traffic reliever but what has happened you know is that with Woodlands Parkway being as crowded as it is, 1488 now that it's improved has become a new entrance into the woodlands and people either come all the way up to 2978 and then come back into the backside or the west end or they come in through the new access through Kirkindall and once Kirkindall is completed this year so that truly is a thoroughfare all the way out. I think you'll see a lot of people accessing the woodlands from that side. But that has made 2978 become the new sort of barrier right there with a lot of congestion. 249 was already experiencing high congestion levels. And so how do we take some of that traffic that's set of both of those corridors and give them another relief to run up north up to 105. That needs to be studied. It's not quite as apparent as what's happening on the east side but I think that there is a corridor to be laid in there and there are certainly population areas that would utilize a road such as this because the act, for what Commissioner Dool has been looking at them 249, it only goes so far to Pinehurst. And then the Aggie Freeway starts to curve to the east, so it really most serves the central part of North Montgomery County. And so if there's another solution, it would be to lay another told road through there, again, we're back to, because there's not enough state and federal money to provide that attic capacity with state and federal funds. Jenny, if you look at this in any more detail, on either east or west, as far as where it would actually end up, on one of five, like hard school roads, Montgomery 149, we've looked at the... Where would you recommend or just ballpark? Well the one to the west, we've looked at laying it into the east of the town of Montgomery. And again you have to be very careful in this phase that we've not honed in on a specific route because we don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the environmental clearance process and presupposing a specific route could do that. And so we started looking at just potentials and what are some of the pitfalls in that area. And there are a couple, but there still looks to be the ability to lay a corridor in from roughly tying off 249, maybe connecting over to the land that I believe has been purchased for, the expansion or the extension of Woodlands Parkway, and then moving north from there and snaking through maybe around the between thousand oaks and and like windcrest and moving north from there that you would have the ability to lay a cordorian but any more specifics than that we have to look at a couple of different alternatives. 105. 105 to the, just to the east of Montgomery on 105. So between the lake and Montgomery, sort of right through there, there's several places that we've looked at tying in, but haven't done a whole lot in any more specificities than that. For the rest of the 28 54 years. Yes sir. Trying to get it out past the lake so that it would feed both ways. Let's talk about the east. If you're dealing with this, do the same scenario. Same scenario east. I mean the tie-in at the Grand Parkway is going to be the tie-in at the Grand Parkway. And that sits just in the vicinity of the River Walk development. And then from there, it looks to be that you could move over towards an alignment that would sort of run parallel or of Oatheuston Road and either cross 242 in that vicinity or move a little further to the east and then look at an alignment that would run across one of those large tracks that in the vicinity of Fartower Road and take it up there which would put you on 105, you know, certainly west of Conroe maybe around Cutting Shoots sort of that area to open that out and probably to the west of Cutting Shoots a little closer to Conroe as it would been back in and tie in there. It looks to be the most favorable to corridors. You're going up part to our road. You'll be way east of country. But you don't have to stay on that one. You go up and do a curve. I mean, that gets to be the question. One of the things we have to look at is look at the traffic data, obviously, that we know what the traffic data on 105 is, but also look at both population and employment growth for that area along 105 and for North Montgomery County and see where the projected areas that the next, where's the next boom going to be and can we get a road laid in our corridor to find to service that boom before the boom hits? Better hurry We're probably a couple years behind the curve already. Yes, sir Yeah, the most total of the thories are they set up as a commissioner's court or as an independent Whole road of the way you know, there's a couple ways to set up a There's a couple ways to set up a tolling authorities in the state of Texas. The Montgomery County and the county surrounding Harris County have the authority at her chapter 284 to set up a county to rowed authority. They received that authority when Hector was created. And so I would say for the most part, the ones that set up a county tow road authority, set it up where the commissioners court is the acting body. Fort Bend County didn't do that. Fort Bend chose to have a named board for its tow road authority. I've heard positive and negatives from several people down there. Sort of if I had to do over again, maybe maybe they wouldn't because those bodies have to work so in tandem with each other it's very difficult when you have a named group other than the Commissioner's Court to make sure that all comes together. You know and then it's very different up in North Texas because they have a regional toll tolling authority up there, although several counties in the metropolitan area, the Dallas area, have now are now large enough to create their own county toll road authorities, and they're creating county toll road authorities in overlap jurisdiction from their regional toll authority. But even those, they're having the commissioners court become the the acting board of the tow road authority. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? I'll put the next step. The next step I think believe if the county if the commissioners court would like to to move forward and and to study the see the feasibility of these two corridors Or some modification of these two corridors Then we can present a proposal for consideration If you remember the court awarded a proposal back in 2007 on the Montgomery Parkway and we did quite a bit of work on that project, although because of the Grand Parkway we just suspended all that and never built against it so I guess technically that contract still active out there somewhere but we can bring a proposal forward for the courts consideration. And I would say that given the nature of these two projects, probably in a four to six month period, we can have these ability studies turn back in for the courts review. Permission to, I'm in favor of it. I must your fill or I would like likes proceed. I think these projects are very needed east and west. Judge, I think on the east side of talking east and precinct three. I mean, we have much more pressing needs in a toll road running up through Far East County. I don't know how you feel if people use it or not, but against the west side, but on the east side, there's some other things I'd like to consider, or at least be able to tie into other than just why and off of the Grand Parkway. I need $100 million to fix my road. I've got this coming forward right now. You have to see those. So we just load these. We don't think we need to load these. We don't think we ought to have no money. You know? We just have to see those. Huh? We have to see those. We need to be strong. Yeah, we can do that. Cause that. I think we need to be strong. I think you've got to use it for emergency. If we don't have money, we're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're going to have money. We're I think this year sometimes we need to look at another transportation bond issue. And the other list of those projects, commissioners. Yeah, we're missing to that. We need to find the starting point. We're behind. We're behind. The only good thing about this. We have a good story to work from. I believe from the last bond issue. The only good thing about these two projects is it does not affect the rooftop taxpayer. They've just paid about total revenues and give the choice to think in that road or not. Yes, sir. You're right about that. I mean, it is a true user fee from that standpoint. Absolutely. And that would be absolutely going to be a portion of it. But part of it would have to be for local roads. I agree. And that's not going to be funded by anybody except the tax. There's matching dollars for any of those looking for local funds. Well that last bond issue was 160 million. We lowered taxes on that and we sent them a half tax. We didn't go on some tax rate heading down up 20 years. We talked about the $2,05 bond issue. The one we passed for the past through was $160 million, yes sir. Yeah, but that didn't affect everyone's tax. Yeah, I think at the outset before that was taken to the voters, it was projected it could have an impact that was sitting half, but growth continued so rapidly that no impact has been realized. You guys commissioners do you all want to see a proposal from Jenny to take the next step on these two roads? Is that money still there on that contract? I would have to look that up commissioner the one back from 2007 that Jenny referenced. Yeah. If you can give us a proposal we'll see about the money this year. I would be happy to administer. Thank you. Thank'll adjourn. Okay. Judge, I need you to adjourn the meeting of the total road authority and then reconvene commissioner's court and then adjourn commissioner's court. Okay. This meeting, uh, commissioner, if you don't mind, let's have that adjourn the total road authority. And for a second? Oh, second. Thank you. and for a second and we also need to read the commission and we need a motion to I'm just going to wait for the We'll just just Say John Okay Okay I know I've got a meeting. Oh, that's a 20 second. Okay. I'll leave that in the back. Okay, they need a feeder road. I'll let you know. Okay. Thank you. That'll be great. Yeah. Oh, Marvin. Yep. That's it. Well, we got the heat set of 45 minutes. You know, you have to thank. What's that? The heat set is 29. You can use that factor. Pretty much all that. I think it to go ahead. That pitch was taking place. I'm going to have to finish that project. I have time. 2013. We have that in the section in 2000. And I think at the end of the day, you have that deal on it. I said, three or three or maybe two or three or maybe two or maybe two. From there. In 1959, that's 1000, that's 1000. I know. You already know that one? I'm a private road everyday. I do too.