[Speaker 2] (1:21 - 1:33)
All right, I hereby call this workshop meeting of the Lee College Board of Regents on October 15, 2026 at 5 p.m. to order. We have a quorum. Do we have Regent Guillory online, virtual?

[Speaker 6] (1:40 - 1:46)
Mr. Chairman, she said she may or may not and I understood it to be for the regular meeting.

[Speaker 2] (1:46 - 1:56)
Okay, well I'm just asking. All right, that would be a no. All right, we'll move on to our next item on the agenda is Facilities Master Plan update from Pfluger Architects.

[Speaker 1] (2:05 - 12:56)
Testing, okay, I learned a lesson. It's better to pull it out than to hunch over. Let's try a retake on last board meeting.

So hopefully, fingers crossed, the power will stay on. Once again, I appreciate everybody's time and afforded us this opportunity to update you on the progress that we've made with the master plan to date. Briefly, to go over the schedule, it is still within line in terms of our estimated one year to 13 months to accomplish that.

Second, since last time we had the opportunity to present to the full board, we've conducted 18 workshops, four being steering, eight being working groups, and seven focus groups covering a series of different topics that you can see to the right side. What I'd like to get into is different campus scenarios that have come out of our discussions earlier this summer with leadership. So we had our own focus group involved in the leadership that involved Terry Phillips with the facilities program, and we started off by asking the question, what do you want to get out of the master plan?

Just the top outcome. So each person that comprised of the steering committee put down their response, and you can see that there. Which led us to another exercise, and that exercise was about the programming.

So we asked, we cataloged all the different programs that Lee offers, and set aside where they're at physically today. If you could recast how programs are associated with each other, where's the best synergy, how would you organize the programs? Which ones are like programs, which ones benefit from being a part of each other?

Not necessarily how it is today, but how you would do it in the future. And with that, that led to what you see here, how we tried to list everything that's being offered, and then trying to associate them with synergistic programs. And that gave us an aha moment, which is to say, we recognized that from a technical side, that you had lots of CTE programs, and you had the PetroChem, and everybody agreed out of this exercise that it would benefit that these programs would have synergy if they were physically associated with each other, which is not exactly how it is currently.

You have PetroChem on the Baytown campus, and you have CTE over at the McNair Center, which then led us to a deeper discussion is, okay, well, is there a benefit to try to associate these programs physically in the same location? Which I'm going to walk you through that exercise of exploration today. So the first option that we went into is saying, you know what, we're going to look at McNair, see if it's possible to put the PetroChem there, and then keep the, in doing that, we kind of recognize it's not reasonable to put the PetroChem in McNair, it has to stay on the Baytown.

So we said, okay, if we kept things as they were, status quo, and redid the PetroChem, on Baytown, this is how we would rearrange it in terms of where it belongs in locationally. So these are just diagrams that represent land area that would occupy uses. So it doesn't represent architecture.

And we said it would take approximately 2.5 acres of land to accommodate your PetroChem program for you. And so that shape represents that approximation of land. We know that we can accomplish everything that's required of your program.

We say, great, it can fit still on the main campus, but as I said, it wouldn't really lend itself to be on McNair. And the reason is because of its current conditions, it has a lot of different challenges physically. One, you have a floodway.

Two, you have detention. Three, you have separation of your land. And so when we did all that analysis, we recognized that you would be very hard to find a justification, because the cost to develop that land for not a lot of densification just wouldn't be a good return on your investment.

You're better to just go find fresh land. And part of the reason is because you would have to do a lot of jugglery on how you deal with detention. And so that would require underground detention in order to utilize the land itself.

And then when you get into underground detention, that means you're building up. That means you're bringing in land, soil itself. There's certain areas you still can't build on.

You'd have to create a bridge to connect to the other side. So through all that analysis, we said, look, McNair is probably built out to the best that it can be. It has very limited expansion capability.

But if you really wanted to build out McNair and just have future CTE programs, this would be the way to do it. It would require redoing the geometry of the parking. It would require filling up the current detention and going into underground detention.

And so that's what you would be in for. So in order to leverage the land at McNair further, you would have to pay an inappropriate amount of money that doesn't track to a fresh piece of land, so to speak. So the next option we explored was to create a brand new technical campus because you do have 110 acres right off of the I-10 corridor.

So that's a fresh piece of land. It's not been developed. And you can make of it as you want because you have quite a bit of you're not constrained.

And so with that, we said, okay, well, we can now take the Petrochem program, move it to the I-10 property, and then we can also add in the CTE, add in new programs like a CDL, which is land intensive, typically takes about an acre and a half, so that's 60,000 square feet usually for a CTL driving pad. It would accommodate the parking that's required. It would accommodate a level of administration so that it has a full turnkey campus situation.

And it would still yield you 80 acres in reserve for your future use. While doing that, that affords you to free up a lot of your land here in Baytown, which you're constricted simply because you're in the middle of the town. So land is precious.

And it would allow you to now start to take or transition some of these buildings that you're no longer in need of or you're moving over to the new campus and affords you flexibility for the future. Now, the third one is, well, what if we wanted to really densify the Baytown campus itself and make it even more populated with students? Really try to, we would solve the issue of administrative function where McNair doesn't really have that presence.

You would be able to have all the student services in one location available to those at McNair. So you would really leverage efficiency. If you were to move the CTE program over to Baytown, redo the Petrochem.

So really just transform the Baytown campus. So there's a lot of efficiency gained. However, a lot of those programs are basically land in tents, so to speak.

So it would necessarily force you to really get into development mode of this campus, which will, some of the things that it would require is parking. And so you would have to start to go vertical in the parking. It would constrict your ability to really grow in the future on this property, kind of get locked in unless you start acquiring more land.

And that means you're acquiring around the town. People get why, so that the land price will go on. So I assume that the acquisition of land would become expensive in nature because everybody can see what's going on.

However, it does afford you some benefits as well, such as efficiency, such as everybody being in one location and having one strong campus, such as really driving more presence here physically. So you see a lot. And you would see the campus being used at more hours of the day because of the nature of CTE programs and the Petrochem tend to favor evening.

So that means you would have kind of a full cycle. You would have morning, afternoon, and evening. So there'd be a lot more activity.

However, it would be capital intense as a result. So we share these three options. We share these three options first with leadership at the steering community level.

There was some discussions in terms of what makes sense for them. We then turned it over to, they said, we really would like to have the building committee weigh in on this. So we presented this to the building committee, and they had a strong opinion on what ought to be.

But they said, we want to give the benefit of our other colleagues on the board. This is too much of a decision for us to take in a vacuum. We'd prefer that you share that with the board at large.

And so today, I'm trying to walk you through very high level so that I can afford everybody time to ask questions, to have discussion. So although I kind of curtailed and shortchanged myself on going through each option, I'm happy to go backwards. I'm happy to ask questions.

But I'm really trying to encourage dialogue between the board members. And if you want more information, I'm here right now to try to address any questions that in this brief synopsis that I probably didn't address enough.

[Speaker 7] (13:01 - 13:07)
So I have a question. You have to remind me, you said that the third option is more cost intensive.

[Speaker 1] (13:08 - 15:00)
Yes, because, explain that, please. Sure. First, right now, you have the luxury on all your campuses that your parking is on grade.

That's the cheapest way that you can park a car. Because you'll start to take up so much of your land for buildings, such for your CTE programs, for your petrochem, suddenly all that land is going away, and the land that we're going to grab is where your parking is. So now you're going to be forced to build vertical on your parking garage as well.

So not only are you building new buildings, but you're now going to have to build infrastructure that you wouldn't necessarily have to build like on the I-10 property, because there's so much land, we can keep the parking side of it flat, which means that's your leveraging the land for parking in a cost-effective way. Not to mention that you would have to upgrade your central utility plants, so all of your, basically your infrastructure would also have a knock-on upgrade effect. And you have really the gymnastics of trying to implement these types of projects with a fairly active campus.

It's one thing to subtract, it's a different thing to add. Well, we have not done an analysis, if you will, but however, what we have done and what we've planned, depending on how the outcome of this discussion goes, is in the future you're not going to lose any parking. You're actually, we're actually going to add on a little bit more parking.

We're already doing so by availing the property just north of the cosmetology, so that is underway to be paved. So you're actually having supply come in in terms of parking.

[Speaker 8] (15:03 - 15:08)
What's the timeline that we have to make a decision, and is there one of these options that y'all favor?

[Speaker 3] (15:13 - 16:06)
So in terms of timeline for making a decision, if there's not a general consensus tonight, we can take more time if we need to. There is my opinion and most of cabinet felt that the creation of a CTE technical campus to the north and the development of main campus into a transfer academic focused campus made the most sense for both partnering with industry and looking at the opportunities to create a technology hub to the north with a more traditional collegiate experience for students who are looking to complete an associate's degree and transfer or pursue a medical field here on the main campus.

[Speaker 11] (16:07 - 16:08)
Option B.

[Speaker 1] (16:27 - 17:04)
Yes, with this option, the second option that would move the CTE programs currently located in McNair over to the I-10 creating a unified technical campus. Now what you can do with McNair is obviously something you can discuss. It's not necessarily going away.

We haven't opined or given any type of response to that because we're not sure where we are today with these options. So I think it depends on how you want to move forward. Then we can contemplate what that means for McNair.

[Speaker 9] (17:11 - 17:27)
I like the opinion of you in the cabinet of the I-10. I mean, personally, if you're asking for opinion that I like going with this I-10 campus and then making this the academic hub. I think that sounds pretty exciting personally.

[Speaker 3] (17:27 - 18:39)
As far as McNair goes, we have some limitations on how quickly we could transfer programs from there to a new campus. When we entered into the agreement in 2014 with the feds and the county, we committed to providing essentially the programming that we have at that facility for 20 years. If we stop providing that type of education before the end of those 20 years, we're subject to recapture by the feds for the grant that they gave us, about a million dollars.

I worked with our general counsel and verified that McNair is in the name of the college, but there is a lien on the property placed both by the federal government as well as by Harris County. So until we meet those obligations, there are some limitations on on how we could transfer programs out of that facility. After that, we would have the flexibility to reprogram that facility and use it for something else or potentially even consider selling it.

[Speaker 4] (18:48 - 19:06)
Legal counsel, was there any flexibility? You said it's programming specific. Is there any way process to apply for maybe a different programming there on that?

Campus that would fulfill their obligations or get a waiver or whatever?

[Speaker 3] (19:07 - 19:36)
So we did not do a full legal analysis on which programs we could potentially swap in and out of that property. What I will say is that facility is used heavily for dual credit during the day. That continuing that education only even if we moved some of our traditional student programs over to another facility would suffice to meet the obligations made with the feds and with the county.

[Speaker 4] (19:37 - 19:39)
So McNair is heavily dual credit?

[Speaker 3] (19:40 - 19:48)
During the day, it's primarily dual credit and then in the evening, that's when we're educating our traditional students.

[Speaker 6] (19:51 - 20:04)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but HVAC, truck driving and the workforce program were not part of that original agreement because those programs weren't located there until recently.

[Speaker 3] (20:05 - 20:30)
So I would probably feel comfortable making the argument that if we had something in the realm of career and technical education that we would be meeting those obligations. But again, we have not done a full legal analysis on that as best case scenario. We're talking four or five years before we could even be in a position to transfer those programs.

[Speaker 4] (20:31 - 20:36)
I'm going to use the term buyout. We could buy out of the thing for a million dollars?

[Speaker 3] (20:38 - 20:40)
Probably a bit more than that, but yes.

[Speaker 4] (20:41 - 20:42)
And then we would own the property?

[Speaker 3] (20:43 - 20:49)
We already own the property. The buyout would remove the lien.

[Speaker 11] (20:50 - 21:01)
Okay. Correct. Other thoughts on these options?

[Speaker 2] (21:03 - 23:03)
I think at this point, in my mind, I look at this as we obviously don't have a lot of detail that most of us would want. Cost, how we're going to get the money, all that kind of stuff. And I think at this point, from my, I think I looked at this the other day in the building committee was, you know, not that we don't, I don't want this to sound the wrong way, that I don't consider the cost.

I'm considering the vision of our institution first. We have a vision. We're trying to serve our community and beyond.

We're trying to expand our CTE and petrochemical offerings. There's a need. Our industry is demanding.

And what would it take to do that? There will be a reality at some point, right, when we get there. There will be a reality that could possibly cause us to divert our option or tweak our option.

So I think at this point, it's, I don't know that we can, you know, just say, yes, option two, and let's, that's going to be it. We're guaranteed. Let's move forward, because there's a lot more information we have to collect.

I like option two. I like the new campus. I've always envisioned that property over there as a premier technical center.

I do like, I do like the thought of this campus being more the academic hub. You know, not that, not to separate students, but we're separating career paths, and we're separating experiences that students have. And, you know, those folks coming in to do welding and all that kind of stuff, they got a different, they got a different goal in mind than the folks looking to transfer to a university.

So I like the option with the beginning to develop the I-10 property. I get the whole perimeter start. Is that a start?

Because I would also like to master plan that property if we're going that route.

[Speaker 1] (23:04 - 24:27)
So what you see there is diagrammatic just to represent land consumption. It's not to suggest that's where things belong. So it's just purely proving out that you have sufficient land to accept the programs we've identified to date.

Just to come back to the concern of, it seems like this is the right direction. It feels right. Of course, we have reservations because the details are light.

It's really more of a big picture. We're looking at, I wouldn't even say 30,000. I'd say we're at 60,000.

That's part of the journey of a master plan anyways. And what the master plan is, is it's a strategic vision for the next 10 years. And it's meant to be flexible.

And it's meant to take in account that things change. And what we're trying to do is build into the document the strategy that it is the vision for Lee College to create these two campuses with these purposes in mind. And so when it comes down to cost, there are ways that can be addressed to still realize those.

But it may not be all one bite, so to speak. You may say, well, this is what our capacity, this is what our capital resources are today. This is our biggest bang.

And we're going to implement this portion of it. And that's why we do that.

[Speaker 2] (24:27 - 24:28)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (24:28 - 24:58)
So that gets more granular. And that's really going to get into the back end of the phase we're in right now. So some of those details will start to emerge in the near future.

And you'll be better able to understand the cost of those components from a rough order of magnitude. And that way, we can start to look at what are your capital resources to afford that. And then how do we structure the master plan in terms of phases and priorities to achieve that?

[Speaker 2] (25:00 - 25:08)
We may have more comments. I was given notice Regent Guillory has joined us, offering her an opportunity to comment if she has any comments.

[Speaker 5] (25:09 - 25:12)
He absolutely does. Thank you, sir. So yeah.

[Speaker 2] (25:13 - 25:15)
I felt you talking to me on the back of the head.

[Speaker 5] (25:17 - 26:10)
I have been here for a little bit and I like the presentation, even though I can't see it, I can hear very well. And so what I heard was vision. What I heard was preparing ourselves for what we expect to happen in the future.

And so even though I can't see option one, two and three, I do believe that, of course, we need a little bit more information, but I just like the idea that we're already in a position to plan for what we've just been talking about. And our growth won't just be Barbers Hill, but we're going to grow within our own boundaries and our city limits as well. So sounds like option B gives us the ability to do both, to expand where we are, but then to further grow on the north side of I-10.

So that's my comments. I appreciate it. Nice presentation from what I could hear.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (26:10 - 26:11)
Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (26:11 - 26:30)
I was going to add that the building committee got a chance to see this last month and we had a very long meeting, got to ask a lot of questions and had a lot of discussion, which was great. And so we, I think we all felt that option two was the better vision for now.

[Speaker 4] (26:32 - 26:42)
So can we, can you expand more on what with option two, what would this campus look like? What would be happening here?

[Speaker 1] (26:42 - 27:34)
So this, this is more of your arts and humanities, traditional transfer associates degrees, people that are looking to move on to two plus two, that sort of almost like what harkens back to the 80s when you thought of going to community college. You went there because it was affordable. It got a lot of your prereqs out of the way.

It gave you a pathway to be better prepared to be living on your own in a four-year system setting. So we kind of view that as kind of bringing that back. And I hate, I kind of liked the description, but it kind of graced on me.

We don't want this to feel like 13th grade. We want this to have that collegiate feel. And so you have the student profile or those that, that aspire for that.

And that's what this campus would represent.

[Speaker 5] (27:36 - 28:36)
I just want to jump back in because you just used a fighting word for me and that's 13th grade. And that is many, many years ago. That's how Lee college was described as students felt like it wasn't really going off to college.

It was a 13th grade and that may have been closer to the truth years ago, but I, it is nowhere near true. Now they're receiving a high level. And I know you're not saying that they're not, but I just, when you say 13th grade, I just want to speak to it because this college is so prestigious and it is way exceeds 13th grade.

We're going to end up in the bachelor's degree categories because we deserve, and the education that they receive matches that. So we are no longer nowhere near 13th grade. And I know you know that, but I just wanted to speak to it.

[Speaker 7] (28:37 - 28:42)
Gina's right. And we were called Pelly Tech too, or Pelly on the Hill.

[Speaker 4] (28:42 - 29:07)
Harvard on the Hill, but speaking derisively. I think in your discussion, the building committee or in the administrative side with option two and moving towards more of an academic campus and kind of collegiate atmosphere, was there any discussion of student housing, particularly since we're talking about potential four year?

[Speaker 1] (29:08 - 30:40)
So that was not, that has not been to date part of the discussion. It's not to say that it couldn't be, but that's never really kind of percolated to the top and identified as a priority. And it's not to say that it couldn't, but I think you have to be very strategic and specific if you want to go down that avenue.

I think we, Terry and I can talk volumes on this offline because there's a lot of dynamics that go into whether or not that's something you want to pursue or not. But the economic side of it is generally not something that pays off, especially for a community college. So if you do it, you do it with purpose, knowing that that's not a moneymaker for you.

It serves a different function. So take the Blinn College as a case in point, which has a fairly successful student housing program. The reason it does is because it has a lot of athletics.

And so it caters to that. And therefore they can they can fill them, but it's not making them money. It is definitely subsidized.

And so that's my caution to you. So when you, when you talk about housing, you have to talk with purpose and understand why you're doing it. So if you say, you know what, that's great, we have a basketball program and we love our volleyball, but I would like to see some other athletic opportunities come to this campus.

Then we can start talking about student housing. That's normally how you group that discussion at this level that makes sense in my mind, at least.

[Speaker 4] (30:41 - 30:47)
So you're saying that athletic programs like scholarship, that's correct.

[Speaker 1] (30:48 - 30:56)
That's part of it. So that's why I'm saying that when you do housing, it's not for the purpose of making money.

[Speaker 4] (30:57 - 31:13)
But what would attract regular non-athletic scholarship students at the community college level? Do you see an example where student housing is beneficial to having regular students non-scholarship?

[Speaker 1] (31:16 - 32:24)
Well, not really. That, I mean just bluntly, no. Normally it's part of an attractor to to fulfill a scholarship program.

I'm not saying that people don't avail it. I'm not saying that students don't. There's always going to be a portion.

A case in point would be Central Texas College. They are a little bit unique because, and they have a dorm, and they don't have a sports program, but they still fill it 60 to 85 percent. But understand that their fill, their fill in it is not necessarily a full term.

It's because they have sheriff's offices around the state may send some of their staff for further training, and they have a two-week program. So they need a place to stay. They happen to be next to a military installation, and parents move, and the kid needs a place to stay because they're no longer in quarters.

So that's a very specific example where I've seen it work, but that's because everything lines up correctly. I don't see you having those environments that would create that opportunity.

[Speaker 2] (32:27 - 32:55)
One of the things I see that this campus would have the opportunity to expand on would be our nursing program. You know, desperately need more of that. A lot of health sciences, and you know, right now if we were to move a lot of the programs off-site to the north, that would, I think, give this opportunity to grow in that area, which was mentioned earlier along with the traditional, you know, transfer student.

That was mentioned as well as an opportunity to grow here.

[Speaker 1] (32:57 - 33:11)
Yeah, I think nursing, and Jacob can speak probably better to it than I can, but I think always the linchpin is clinical space and acquiring that, because you're kind of capped by how much clinical space you can get.

[Speaker 2] (33:16 - 33:17)
Do we have room to build a hospital?

[Speaker 4] (33:20 - 33:22)
That's what you mean by clinical space, right? A hospital.

[Speaker 1] (33:22 - 33:39)
You would think that would be a solver, but even that won't help you because it's generally going to be part of a system, and then they just dole out reserve spots to all the colleges. So your proximity doesn't equal or doesn't secure spots for you.

[Speaker 2] (33:40 - 33:41)
Working on that.

[Speaker 11] (33:41 - 33:51)
Right. Any other thoughts? We haven't heard from a few folks.

[Speaker 8] (33:55 - 34:24)
Well, they say this is a 10-year plan, so they're supposed to be complete in 10 years. So if we don't start this for 10 years, that'll bring us out of the time frame of the eight-year window that we're talking about. And then is all of this done within our existing budget, or are we looking at bonds or anything like that?

And then to your house, it sounds like it might be time for baseball.

[Speaker 2] (34:29 - 34:48)
Well, you asked a lot of questions, and I think, yes, it will take some capital expenditure. It would also take a capital campaign and partnerships with our industry folks. So a combination of funding sources, but I don't think we can do this type of expansion without some type of general obligation bond at some point.

[Speaker 8] (34:49 - 34:58)
So this was just for informational purposes? Are we supposed to vote on something, like, or is this just for us to hear about it?

[Speaker 2] (34:58 - 35:39)
We're not voting. It's just for them to get some feedback and see if there's any kind of consensus. If we had some strong opinion on some of these options, totally against.

We've talked probably favorable of some options, not really negative, like we didn't like them, but we talked about what we did like. So I think that's the best we can do today. We're not raising hands on anything, but it's just how we see things progressing.

What we've heard so far seems positive for one of the options that I think administration and staff have recommended as well. I haven't heard anything opposing that from anyone.

[Speaker 4] (35:40 - 36:13)
No, I just want to recap, just so I understand, as he went through. We would be moving our technical education mainly that we have here on campus, what we have eventually, to the north main property. We would be eventually moving our programs from McNair to the north main property and then we would repurpose or remove structures that no longer needed here or fit a program, maybe expand nursing or that kind of thing.

Am I kind of recapping what option two is?

[Speaker 3] (36:14 - 37:13)
Yes, so on the main campus as we vacate some of the TV buildings with our technical programs, they're aging or aged buildings and that's why that shows as reserve acreage, whether we repurpose those facilities or remove them kind of remains to be seen. We will play that out as we work down this particular philosophy in more detail and then the McNair, obviously those facilities are in better shape than some of the buildings that we have here on campus. It's more likely that that would be repurposed to programs that function really well in isolation from the rest of campus and that again would be a matter for future discussion.

[Speaker 4] (37:15 - 37:26)
And does our Barbers Hill campus fit in with two? Okay, because I know there's been talk about some nursing programs out there as far as instruction.

[Speaker 3] (37:27 - 38:14)
So the Barbers Hill program does include new allied health programs. Sonography, respiratory therapy and sterile processing are all brand new programs that we currently do not offer here on campus. The other education that would be offered at Barbers Hill will be some IT-based education and then our core classes, right, our 42 hours of core education.

So it becomes an extension of some of our allied health programs and an academic center in Mont Bellevue. It really, this program still works because none of the programs that we would be targeting for the I-10 location will be offered in Barbers Hill.

[Speaker 2] (38:15 - 38:17)
I think, go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (38:17 - 38:35)
Well, I just wanted to address a little bit of what Regent Thomas said. So from more of a timetable standpoint, okay, we're providing feedback in developing this facilities master plan and it should be delivered to us in January.

[Speaker 1] (38:36 - 38:40)
I'd say mid to late February is more accurate.

[Speaker 6] (38:40 - 39:04)
Okay, so once it's delivered to us then it'll be on us to take that plan and decide how to break it up and implement it and that's where voting and etc all comes in. Right now, we just want, it's the vision and then when we have it in February, then we get to start cutting it up and deciding what's priorities over these 10 years and what do we want to tackle first.

[Speaker 10] (39:04 - 39:19)
So that's the direction so they can comply by February by consensus.

[Speaker 7] (39:22 - 39:49)
And Chris showed us this week at the building committee that some of the committees have helped him put into certain phases, several different phases, what they think is a priority and fits for the first phase and then a second phase. None of that's set in stone. It's something that's suggested at this point that they're continuing to look at and that we will too as we move forward.

[Speaker 2] (39:51 - 41:23)
I got just another comment on the I-10 location. You know, we know we're developing within our taxing district an expansion within our local taxing district but that location right there I believe will attract all of the Mount Bellevue industrial complexes. They currently come here.

They acknowledge Lee College as where they want their workers trained and all that but that facility right there just almost geographically makes it so much more available to them and connected to them. I know we focus on our Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Philips, Covestro, largest industrial partners and we definitely need to continue growing our service to them but I think this will open up another dozen midstream companies that will be knocking on our door for services. It appears that the limitations or the expenses of expansion would eliminate that as an option.

All right. Any other comments? Have we provided you with what you need to move forward?

[Speaker 1] (41:23 - 41:42)
Yes, this has been fantastic. I just wanted to hear the dialogue, wanted to get some little affirmation we're on the right track that if we continued with this direction that it would be doing so with support. Obviously, you know, support within limits of what you know today.

[Speaker 2] (41:43 - 41:59)
Sure. So, it looks like right now we're some we are aligned with administration and our staff who have spent a lot of time looking at this and obviously a lot more detail. So, big picture wise it looks like we're we seem to be aligned as well.

[Speaker 1] (42:00 - 42:02)
Thank you. I very much appreciate that.

[Speaker 2] (42:03 - 42:07)
All right. Is that your entire presentation?

[Speaker 1] (42:09 - 43:09)
I think we probably put in next steps just for the benefit. So, we're rounding off kind of the last steps and we are in the midst of planning these last bits of focus groups. So, there's four.

We've communicated five different dates, either two dates in October, three dates in November. So, 27th, 28th or second, third or fourth. So, we're just working with the administration to nail down those dates.

When we meet with these groups, I think at that point we'll have all of the information we're going to need at that point to start to put dollars in terms of rough order of magnitude of what these priorities are going to be costing. So, that's going to be our next step that we're working towards. So, there's a little bit of more framework and reality associated with strategy which obviously informs kind of where things shuffle out.

[Speaker 2] (43:12 - 43:46)
I just want to thank you for herding all the cats that you've been doing. I know it's an extremely difficult process. I know you have a proven process to, you know, to do this with, but the outcome is data-based and it's an outcome that everyone comes to an agreement on.

It may not be 100 percent, but we know it's the best way to move forward with all the effort we put into it. So, just want to thank you and your team for grabbing this midstream, revamping, and pulling it all together to where we are today.

[Speaker 1] (43:46 - 44:10)
Well, we very much appreciate that and we really enjoy our working relationship with Lee. I mean, Jacob, John, Phil, Mark, the whole team, they've really been a blessing to work with and very much engaged and that's what you really want. You want an engaged client because otherwise you're not feeling like an island, but I don't think we feel this way.

[Speaker 2] (44:10 - 44:28)
Great. All right. Final comments from him?

All right. Next item on the agenda, matters of concern for future agendas. Anything related to this topic?

Hearing none, I'll adjourn the meeting. Next meeting will begin at 6 p.m.