Travis County Commissioners Court
June 13, 2006
Item 15
Text from afternoon discussion.
View captioned video:
Morning discussion
Afternoon discussion
That is item number 15, which is to consider and take appropriate action on the following planning requirements for community development block grant, cdbg, from the u.s. Department of housing and urban development, h.u.d. A is priority needs table. B, potential projects, activities and activity categories. And 15-c is other related items.
>> good morning, Commissioner, sherri fleming, executive manager for Travis County health and human services and veterans service. We're here today to talk through with the court the proposed priority needs table and the proposed project areas and activities related to Travis County cdbg funding. For the benefit of those persons who may be listening, Travis County was deemed eligible earlier this year to receive these funds for the use in unincorporated areas of Travis County. So projects and activities should be designed in accordance with their benefit to persons in the unincorporated areas of Travis County. We have discussing about $2.4 million overall; however, 20% of that is for administration and planning around projects related to cdbg activities. In other, up to 15% based on the court's decision, could be used for certain public service projects, and then the remaining allocation, which will be about 1.7, can be used for projects that are -- fall under the category of community development. Today staff has several options to lay out for you related to project areas and potential activities. And we have come forward with these options with the list that you guys gave us earlier and that was to be able to spend the funds within about 18 months, to be able to keep administrative burden to a minimum as best we could, and then to reduce the risk of noncompliance. So that has been the lens that we have used to view a lot of the activities that have come forward. Please be advised, suffer, that even though staff had recommendations for you today, you have been provided the full list of activities that have come forward. If there are other projects or activities on that list that you would like to consider or have included in our consolidated or our activity plan for year one, it is your choice to do so, and we will make those necessary changes. As we advised the court in work session on Thursday, in order to meet the h.u.d. I imposed deadline of August 15th, we will need action by the Commissioners court on the projects either this Tuesday or next Tuesday. Next Tuesday will be the last possible time for action in order to comply with the h.u.d. August 15th deadline. And that is because we are required to have a 30-day public comment period that has to take place prior to our submission. So with those summary comments, I will allow staff to go through the presentation. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> and we would like to note that these recommended priorities will be in the consolidated plan which can be amended. If the court decides after a period of time that we need to shift something from a medium priority to a high priority or any kind of changes like that, we could roll it into the public comment process for that year's action plan and it wouldn't be an additional administrative cost. So we can certainly amend this. It's not set in stone and we are recommending to you based on the information that we have what we feel the best priorities would be to propose at this time. Medium priority goals are listed on the second page. These are things that we could potentially use the funds for, but we don't have to use funding for those things, whereas the high priority, h.u.d. Is going have to see that we have addressed at least some of these priorities over the five year time period. Medium is open to spend money, you don't have to, they won't expect it.
>> in that case.
>> yes?
>> in that case seems to me employment training ought to be high priority of ours.
>> you would like to request takes changed to a high priority for the final version?
>> unless there's objection from the court.
>> that's a good observation, judge.
>> I think that's real important because if you are working with -- with -- individuals in need of special services, seems like the best thing that we could do is make themself sufficient, take care of themselves, their families, it's a generational thing if you get them on the right track. That would be my idea. Any objection to that?
>> I agree with you, judge, on that. Totally. I think that it's --
>> go ahead, Commissioner.
>> no objection. I was going to say while we're at it, I would throw in especially if you have been listening to the last 45 minutes worth of discussion, I would stick erosion abatement also on high priority. If you have flood drain improvements on a high priority, and if you couple that with erosion abatement, we might all of a sudden have a whole lot of more leeway within our grasp to solve some problems that we just heard about -- about 15 minutes ago.
>> let me ask you this question.
>> oh, darn.
>> especially if we looking at some of the -- of high priority, middle priority, whatever. Wherever we land, the court land on some of these things that we are trying to make adjustments to or adding or deleting, whatever. Can you explain to me or tell me what -- if there has to be an assessment, I guess, I warrant to make sure that we continue to v low risk, I want to make sure that traif cost is not escalating, especially if you have to look at -- the recipient's type of [indiscernible] even if we want to move these things around and shuffle them around, along with those shuffling aspects, would that cause movement of low risk administrative consequences? As far as recipient type of aspects where the money or the control of the money as far as what we are -- what we are wanting to see leads here and once it leaves here, then there are certain risks that may be assessed for us not having control of that money once it leaves here. I would like to maybe hear as we go through this process, in your opinion, I guess it's kind of hard maybe to give an answer, but it would be kind of clearer if I have some comfort level of knowing what's high risk stuff where we may get slapped on our hands for not doing a good job with the h.u.d. Money, cdbg money, whereas we can still stay in a safe zone, but still trying to pursue what we want to accomplish here. Do you follow what I知 saying?
>> yes, sir. Essential this is clearly the time to make these shifts so we appreciate that feedback from the court. The risk of a prong is more centered around the activities that we choose under that area. Identifying something as a priority in itself does not increase your risk. It would be more related to the activities that you choose. As we identify activities that fit into take category, we would use that lens to what is the administrative cost of this particular activity, what is the area of benefit that we have talked about area of benefit in terms of the number of residents who are low to moderate income who would benefit from that project. Making your changes now does not necessarily kick in a higher administrative cost. We would have to have an eye for that as we select the appropriate activities under those categories.
>> under senior citizens, having a lot of needs for assistance programs, all of these other things that we do render, is there an entry to address as far as high priority assistance to a senior citizen, spashly in those particular programs, weatherization, roof leaking, maybe not being able to pay their utility bill this month because of fixed incomes type of situation, would they be eligible because you hear a lot of senior citizens having a lot of difficulty with -- with not having adequate assistance because the funds run out, grant money has run out as far as employee assistance. Speaking of these eligible senior citizens that are on extreme fixed income and aren't able to provide for themselves for this type of relief. Would that come into also as far as eligible from cdbg funding? Just as I described it?
>> yes, senior services are -- are already in your high priority project categories.
>> would that be part of that --
>> direct assistance is somewhat problematic under cdbg funding. We are still, you know, exploring the guidelines around that. But so far and staff can correct me, but so far we have not identified the opportunity to provide direct assistance. However, there are opportunities for home repairs, you know, those things that might create better energy efficiency in the home, those types of things. It may be that we aren't able to provide assistance in the cdbg, there may be things that we could do for the senior, for their home, there may be transportation things that we might be able to do, so those are the things that while there's no specific plan around those activities, they certainly would fall in that senior services category that we have listed as a high priority. If we are not able to move up the clock that's ticking as far as the feds are concerned, as far as something in place by the time line, I guess some of the things that they may be requesting, put them both up on the high priority, if they are not granted or given the -- given the attention in year one, who did that do for the future years, would that be looked at maybe in year two or three. I want to make sure that folks here they don't go forward, that doesn't mean that the project does.
>> absolutely. --
>> property project dies.
>> absolutely. Once we have committed our consolidated plan which our priority needs go into our consolidated plan and that is the -- the broad policy direction if you will. The action plan will speak to the activities that they will engage in that first year. Projects on the project make it particulars just because they may not be recommended in the first year, does not mean that once more information is gathered that they could clearly are recommended for year two, three, four, five recommended by this plan. These projects to the extent that the court continues to have an interest in them will not go away. We will figure out what additional work needs to be done by staff. Additional discussions with the court and then we can plot them in, in each year's action plan as we submit them.
>> okay.
>> I think the caution is as soon as you put something in a high category priority, you are essentially telling h.u.d. That you intend to do something in the next five years, in terms of moving those things around, it's appropriate. If we had it as a medium priority, it wasn't that we didn't think it was valuable. It was just trying to -- to -- to pretty much identify what we felt like we could handle within five years with the allotment that we had. We can make those shifts.
>> walk through again what is hudnell's division -- hudnell's division of -- h.u.d.'s division of flood drainage improvements or road abatement, what we just heard within the last hour was that rather than there being a structural solution, engineered solution, the best alternative for a good portion of what we are facing here is to buy out those homes, take those homes forever out of danger of lives and property. So would a buyout kind of a proposition be eligible under what this definition is of flood drain improvements?
>> we are -- we are allowed to acquire land for a variety of reasons. In fact t.n.r. Made a recommendation with regard to another area, currently staff is researching that. We are looking at the regulations, how it ties into national objectives. Traditionally what you have to do if you buy a piece of land you have to have an intent or purpose with it. That's how you accurate categorize it in your action plan for that year. So at this point I can't answer your questions specifically. But I can tell you that it is allowable, we can get more information can to you.
>> because we did have a stated purpose for exactly that when we went to the Travis County voters. We said that we were going to be getting homes and properties out of dan danger. Because it was related to a waterway, not a street it is under prop 2 which has to do with open space, all of those things that we did down a temper creek are being managed as open space related total drainage related to drainage. Something sitting here that we are fixing to start a process to clearly identify. We have already identified the problem and the need. Rather than let's go find someplace else to spend this money, why aren't we talking about taking time and attention to leverage some of these dollars, not all of it, dan, to try to make our dollars with our bond election go that much further related to flood drainage and erosion. We just heard all of these folks talking about it. The question would be, is there a specific requirement that this particular neighborhood be a certain color on your map that you had related to things or because it is part of a larger watershed that includes many lower income folks, would it have a different kind of priority.
>> my understanding at this time is that it wouldn't necessarily have to be in a low to moderate area block group. It would be just a matter of -- it depends on what objective you use. There are three to choose from. One is urgent need, the other is blight, the other is low to moderate income. It's just a matter of acquiring the data, giving it to you in a way to allow you to handle that. We can do that and get that back to you within the next day or two.
>> okay.
>> we are going to move those two to high priority, right?
>> yes.
>> then finally the low priority categories, again not that we don't see that there's a need for this, it's just where cdbg fits. Handicap centers, homeless facilities. [reading graphic], those are things that we are probably not going to address in the next five years, but if we do identify a need to do so, we can amend the plan.
>> if we choose though the to amend the plan, certainly when we begin hopefully our second five year plan, if any of these things would need to move at that time they could move and any time during our -- our action plan for each of the subsequent years.
>> and now we are going to shift into talking about this first year's action plan and the projects that we are recommended for your consideration. We also -- we wanted to let you know that the priorities outlined in the prefl slides again are for the five years and we used those priorities to consider these projects but also your additional stipulations for these first -- for this first year and -- and as sherri mentioned being able to spend those funds within 18 months, keep the administrative burden limited and reduce the risk. We also are -- are recommending these options just for your consideration and we are laying out to you all of the information that we can gather at this point. Christie is going to get into some of that detail, you have more detail and writing in your backup. So we want to provide you as much information as we can, however, if you feel like you want more information about any specific project, we wanted to let you know that we are available to meet with you at your convenience over the next week to answer any additional questions that you might have.
>> I have got a philosophical time out here. I just have real issued all of a sudden jumped from five year plan, all of your priorities, recognizing the need that -- number one, I have no problem with slide number 5 that says these are the kinds of things that we are looking at in terms of that. But from this point forward, we start dealing with some things that went through a committee structure and applied a matrix on scoring that I don't think the Commissioners court signed off on. And so I知 real uncomfortable with -- while I appreciate the very good work of trying to help us sort things out, I was kind of looking for more these are all things that fit into various and sundry categories, that they would not be ranked and they would not have -- not have some kind of a weighted whatever attached to them for whatever reason because the court never said use this matrix to apply and therefore something rises to the top and something else doesn't. I知 just -- just -- I知 trying to keep this more broad so we can stick more things into it as opposed to I知 real uncomfortable that people have already attached specific projects and specific weighting and specific matrix that I don't think the court signed off on. So -- so I知 having a moment.
>> okay. That -- those -- that weighting was just as you described, Commissioner. A sorting process. The court is not bound by any of that weighting in terms of the projects that you select to move forward.
>> looking for more like the chinese menu. Pick something from column a, b, c, d, I was looking for the sorting more in terms of a, b, c, d, a long list of things that the Commissioners court could go and grab things from each of them in terms of these are eligible things to do it from, if somebody would decide well you only have a choice of two appetizers under column a, we are going to tell you what your main menu is, then oh, you don't get a dessert. It's just -- I was looking for more, for the Commissioners court, where they would have -- they would have greater input in not a stressed -- I feel like this is being rushed related to specifics of the projects. I知 there on the categories. I知 -- I知 getting it. But to just all of a sudden say we are going to do x, y, z, it's like I just -- I just feel like we are skipping some steps here.
>> county judge's office, member of the committee. I want to make it clear for the court, from the committee perspective, the only thing that the committee approved was the priority needs for the five-year plan. We did look at a matrix that we -- that we help improve over a two meeting period. That was approved by the committee. But we also have indicated that that matrix had never been approved by the Commissioners court. Also in addition to that, none of these recommendations or options are recommended by the committee. We have not discussed these formally and taken an actual vote on them. So I知 going to clarify that.
>> > [indiscernible]
>> actually the last committee meeting they said staff should work with t.n.r., go work with where this is shaking down, final options, we thought there were going to be more options, too. The more research that we have done, the more that we have been ruling things out for the first year. Not for the five year time period, but for this first year. At the committee meeting, the committee decided that -- that christie and I would go work with t.n.r., probably doing most of the work on this. To finalize that list and give you the information about the options, so that's what we went and did with them last Friday.
>> that was only with t.n.r. Projects. The other thing is that the committee decided two meetings ago that when we got to the point of bringing individual specific activities, build this road, construct this facility, it would be presented in the court in in such a way that these groups, grouping of projects or activities meet the priority goals and criteria that the Commissioners court established. They would not be weighted by score. Or listed by highest and lowest. We decided to do it that way because of pitting precinct against precinct, probable project against project, keeping politics about it.
>> when would be the final phase when we have to make on what we have here today. If there's a modification, in fact we have made some modification, the judge suggestion, I think Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned, the things that I mentioned, looking at high priority going through the other priorities, then going through this particular presentation we are having today, would there be other opportunities to -- to flush out things a little more thoroughly than what we have here before us today? Is the time line getting to the point where we are going to have to face something to move forward? I would like to hear an answer on that.
>> in order to -- to maintain the time line we have been discussing with the court, which means that the public hearing process could take place as you have approved previously, that the document could be held for public comments for 30 days, that we submit our consolidated and action plan by the August 15th deadline, we would need the court to take action on be it projects or projects and activities, by next Tuesday. It's the court's decision if you want to go with projects as we discussed with broad categories, it would be street improvements. It wouldn't -- this -- the specific streets would fall under activities. So if the court, if it's were the court's choice to list just broad categories, street improvements, water and wastewater, knees would be project, you would assign a dollar amount to those project categories, we would notify m.u.d. At some point in the future as to what the specific activities are. If -- if it would be up to our h.u.d. Monitor to -- to accept our not accept our -- our submission in that way. We have discussed this with h.u.d. Our monitor indicating that -- not in writing, but indicated verbally that he would not accept it in that way. We have also been told there are other monitors in the h.u.d. System who would not. That gives me some degree of pause because this monitor has not seen fit to put that in writing that he would accept it and that we do know that within the system there is disagreement about whether that is appropriate or not.
>> [indiscernible] looking at -- turning in as our first year, anything that's on the high priority project category. Which gets us lots of leeway related to my different columns here and how difficult is it to go back in, be it in two weeks, four weeks, two months, to say, you know, we have sorted it all out now, now we have the absolute dollar figure per the -- per the sewer improvement program in north ridge, so that's the dollar amount being assigned. We have now gone through and -- and we know exactly how much we are going to need. I知 just making up projects here. For -- for the walnut creek erosion/floodplain issues. I mean, if you have already got the broad category, it ought not be an act of congress to get you to the next sublevel in terms of attaching specifics because I知 just worried that some of this is just -- it's in reverse order. We are finding projects and then specifics and putting them in a cat gore sticking them in, let the projects flow from there in terms of what things rise to the surface and have very specific information to send to the feds. Although 100% consistent with what we have got on these broad categories. It just seems untenable to me that we would pick projects that would not be on the high priority category list if it's on medium or low, there's a reason. It means we will get to them in the next five years, but it seems that -- that something ought -- everything ought to be on the high as opposed to a medium list.
>> [indiscernible]
>> the Commissioners court could elect to do that as long as the dollar amount that you assigned to that category does not change, you can list the activities under that. If there is change of more than 25%, then we would have to -- to go out for more comment on our plan. So that would be considered a substantial change in our plan. But certainly you could do just that. The other caution that staff would offer is that by not having -- not having some information about the activities h.u.d. Will not see what our plan is in terms of how we are going to spend the money, so they -- they don't have an opportunity to react to it at the time that we submit our plan. At this point we are -- we will not get a reaction either at -- until the time we -- we submit it or put it as part of our plan or potentially when we are monitored on the use of those dollars. And that is -- that has been our interest in wanting to include specific activities so that if there is -- if we can anticipate a negative reaction from h.u.d., we could alert you to that as soon as possible. But those decisions all rest with the Commissioners court.
>> did we list street improvements because they are easy? We are county government and roads and drainage is a lot of what we do?
>> well, I don't know if I could go straight to easy, Commissioner, judge. But they are -- they are -- the administrative cost is -- is not as high. There are projects that -- that t.n.r. Has the internal expertise to be able to manage and I would hate to speak for t.n.r., but -- but those projects could be managed internally with the least additional administrative costs.
>> okay.
>> because they never occurred to me as being -- one that we would do the first year. I mean, I can understand water and sewer improvements, that's a big area, lord knows there's a great need. My guess is that -- that we could spend a stash amount of money getting that done if not all of it. Some administrative costs would be involved there. The erosion issue is fine with me, too. We can identify projects. The big question, though, is income one of the eligibility requirements that may be the killer for the -- for the -- for the walnut creek area. But I would confirm that and I guess -- I知 just thinking that -- that most of the people that I know out there, if they are not working it's because they are kind of retired or had a financial wherewithal to -- to be unemployed. The others that I知 familiar with make substantial salaries, so that may -- that may eliminate that. But if that is possible, then -- then I have no problem with that. The other one in my view is if we really are supposed to help needy people in unincorporated areas, it ought to be real, real easy to identify pockets of poverty where a -- where a -- where a substantial number of folk are unemployed. And I don't know where we wouldn't be able to go to -- to workforce development programs already in place with contracts with the city and county and buy slots for them. See what I知 saying. So we say x, y, z agency. Okay, we have identified an area here with a certain number of feeddy people unemployed folk and we think that we can get a certain number of them interested in this program. If so, what's the per person cost? Because -- see what I知 saying? It's already ongoing, we can identify the unemployed people in need and -- and we can also identify the programs that are producing good results where there's a great likelihood that the unemployed people will be employed after the training program. I mean, seems to me that that wouldn't require a whole lot of work and I assume that the agency has probably built in the administrative cost, right? Our challenge would be to identify not only the pockets, but the persons unemployed who are committed to improving their lives. I don't know why we wouldn't be able to get some of our staff in the community centers to assist with that. The other thing is that we could start with the young, maybe -- maybe not under 18, but young, middle aged and seniors who are looking for a job and can't find one. So I知 thinking that there would be a whole lot of hits there -- I think on the capital side, maybe the -- maybe the water and wastewater systems, but I wish we could put a little bit more money into direct services for persons, persons in need. Those are the three big areas that stand out to me, if we -- you know,, the water and wastewater area would involve t.n.r. Also. In terms of water and wastewater, at this time I guess our understanding was that we were trying to find things that we could do within a 12 to 18 month period, we could assure you that that could occur. There is a lot of primary surveying that would have to occur in the areas that at this point have indicated that need to us. We also would like to come up with some criteria so that we could prioritize those areas. Because there is a lot of need and -- and in order to make it fair, just to make sure that -- that people aren't getting put above one another. At this point in time I don't think that we can assure you if we put money in water and wastewater, say we put all of it in there, a significant part of water and wastewater, I don't think that we could tell you right now that we would be able to spend that.
>> I wouldn't do all of it.
>> my question I guess is what's to keep us from listing $4 million worth of projects, realizing we have 2.4 million coming and for those that are not ready, see what I知 saying, you give yourselves a much greater opportunity to at least spend in the 18 month period whatever the allocation is. Now, joe, are these substandard roads? I have no problem if there are substandard roads, I think we should --
>> that -- a -- instead of street improvements, I should put something a bit more descriptive than street improvements.
>> these are --
>> h.u.d. Categories.
>> it's -- it's a category.
>> that's fine.
>> but for the court, I mean substandard roads is what I need to see.
>> okay.
>> because there's a long list of those projects and people that we have been -- we have been interacting with I guess for years if not decades and if what we could help there makes sense to me.
>> already been -- judge, brought up a real good point and -- and some of these things -- administrative costs, especially if a lot of things have been identified. For example, we know we have a pretty good track record of -- of folks that are eligible who are in the -- in the [indiscernible] category who -- who need assistance I mean that is something that we already have. We have a data base to describe a lot of these persons that we -- that we -- we are looking to seek and to assist. Serb citizens for example, high priority, a lot of those things have been defined as far as employee assistance, some of the needs of -- of senior citizens on fixed incomes and unable to -- to have to make some pretty critical decisions on how they spends that money. It just appears to me that a lot of these have been identified, I guess there have been more that we need to look at that maybe need to not be a part of this process, need to be added to the process, I don't really know. It just occurred to me that administrative costs and also be looked at andments reduced if we -- and also reduced if we also have something that we can start out with -- with -- with us as far as alleviate a lot of work that will reduce administrative costs so again I知 -- look toward these things that we already have on the table, these givens that we already have on the table to reduce administrative costs yet take care of some of these high priority concerns and so I知 really looking forward to that. I hope that you all understand where I知 trying to come to on that.
>> one of the -- one of the meetings we had, we talked about the pockets of poverty that exist throughout the county, and -- and I know one of the things, a youth certainly can fall into that. And seniors. Can fall into those.
>> categories. I think when it comes to youth, you apply the income, you can apply that -- that measure -- the measurement of income, then I think when you look at youth there's the -- there's the employment, the -- the training of -- that they need and then I can see where the slots would cover those -- those and then when you go to the seniors, of course, there's the fixed income and -- then don't you also have to apply to seniors, you have to apply to facilities, whether it's for their -- for their -- their parks and recreation, usually tied to senior -- to senior activities and -- and certainly their fixed income and then to the youth you can apply the employment --
>> on the -- they -- youth need to stay in school for nine months, we really ought to augment, though, the funding available for summer youth employment. We can target youth unincorporated areas. And if -- if our -- if the -- if I staff -- if the staff knows that we got additional funding coming, then they can start early to identify real work opportunities for them. Right? We have been spending a good amount of money over the last few years, but it's been the same amount. I mean, in my view, if you could add a quarter million to that, you have done a world of good and we know that we will spend the money and there won't be any problem identifying poor kids who need a work opportunities in the summer.
>> another possibility there judge is also that's for kids who are of a certain age, but they are not fixing to go out into the work environment yet. It would be a lovely opportunity, but there are also things related to our contract, existing contracts that we have with the american youth works. These are kids who have not gotten on a path in terms of trying to stay in school, g.e.d. They make money related to the projects that they are working on, they get out with skills and a g.e.d. Degree and it is leveraging the dollars that are still coming in off of the -- the americorps dollars.
>> job training, that's exactly what I in mind.
>> for things on capital idea as well, we already have preexisting contracts that believe me, richard halpin and steve jacobs tomorrow could tell me what each of them could do with x number of slots. Because we already have existing contracts there, they could match whatever applicant it is, whether this is somebody that could go on a cdbg slot or for lack of a better phrase or one of our regular social service/workforce -- social service slot or a workforce development slot. To have some leeway as to where that person goes, but the end result is that we get more slots that they are all coming to us saying we can put as many slots to good purpose in terms of finding people meaningful jobs. Same thing related with our Travis County fire academy. We have been told multiple times, that's serving an underserved area in terms of where those kiddos are coming from, that if -- if you had more money, we could be running a second firefighter's academy. Again serving -- serving young people in a certain -- certain income category serving an area in terms of public service and getting them into meaningful jobs and job employment. So we have got lots of things under here that we could --
>> yeah. Then when you apply the income measurement, though, I think that you can also do that with seniors. Because they need to -- to be out in the center or facility where they can socialize and -- with others. And -- but at some point, though, I think when you are applying what -- what cdbg is all about, the water in the sewer at some point you are going to have to -- to tell them that we need to -- to have a two-year or a three-year deal with them because that -- that takes a little bit longer. You have to survey and -- and certainly I am aware of how that takes time. But nonetheless that really improves their -- their livability in -- in wherever they are. The water, the septic, certainly water and sewer.
>> if I could speak to that, depending on how you frame those project as described, either summer youth employment, the -- the american youth works, as those programs are currently described, they would fall under our public service category, which you only have 15% of the funding that you can use in those areas. It would -- if we have an opportunity to -- to look at how we can style those programs in such a way that they would fall under the community development piece, you would have a greater opportunity to -- to spend more of the funding and not be limited by that 15%. The other thing that -- that we have to be mindful of under h.u.d. Guidelines is the direct payment or benefit to the individual, there are guidelines that prohibit us from -- from making payments, such as rent for example or utility payments that directly benefit the individual not saying it can't be done, I知 just saying that -- that the regulations depending on which category you decide to include that activity in, and -- and how that person is going to benefit from those dollars will guide how much money you actually have available to spend on that type of activity.
>> you think maybe limited to 15%?
>> yes --
>> we don't have to rush into this. We have this afternoon.
>> okay.
>> why don't we -- try to call this item up at about 3:00.
>> yes, sir.
>> after discussion of the -- of the harris pharmacy item. Now, what I have heard, though, is this ... What if we look at these broad areas, substandard roads, job training, water, sewer, youth, seniors --
>> I would like to see it reflect drainage improvements on there, judge --
>> all right, erosion.
>> erosion and flood drake drainage to that we have total options. May turn out that we can't do it. I would like to have the due diligence done related to --
>> talking about in terms of the community development portion of the budget for --
>> right.
>> what we can do this afternoon is look at these at broad categories and determine what restrictions, if any, would come with each. Whether we think that it's a good idea and can make it work. And if we need to -- to describe a specific allocation of funding whether we think we can do that?
>> if you look at the community development, looking at what you gave us on page 8, the -- the pros are the rules -- the rules to draw an area of benefit for a public facility, a large project that can be completed in 12 to 18 months, benefits many families, continued opportunities for community engagement at the facility, it's low risk and if the area of benefit is resolved then you are -- that's the kind of thing that -- that -- that seniors utilize.
>> all right.
>> and so -- so seems like the southeast -- the southeast recreation center fall into that category.
>> I知 going to be --
>> so we don't have warfare between five of us, I知 looking for things that helps all five of us in terms of what everybody has desires in terms of trying to get something good to happen and not it all lands in one place because I think otherwise four of us are going to be grumbling and one person will be happy. And I知 trying to -- to make everybody get at least a little bit of -- of happiness.
>> I知 looking at community development.
>> I understand.
>> looking at that.
>> that takes all of the money. I am looking for --
>> but it serves a large number of families.
>> in one precinct.
>> but if -- [multiple voices]
>> we won't make a decision this afternoon. We will have a follow updiscussion as best we can, then try to decide next week, how is that?
>> we need to not look at it as a precinct. But rather an area where you have the largest number of families who fall under that income measurement. That -- that h.u.d. Looks at.
>> judge, what -- may I -- will I be allowed make my remarks about north ridge later on this afternoon.
>> you certainly will.
>> thank you, your honor.
>> you certainly will this afternoon, too.
>> I was going to ask you something that -- [laughter]
>> go ahead on then.
>> I was going to ask if it would be helpful for us to -- to maybe abandon the presentation that we provided to you and mainly just put up a slide that has the areas that you have identified so that you can think of them in the context of money that you have assigned to each category. If that would be helpful --
>> abandoned may be too strong of a word because we may have to go back to it.
>> sidestep.
>> yeah.
>> high priority things I think that you have listed here I think are in the ballpark and -- and you know I just -- as the judge stated earlier, I think that we just need to flush out a few things, see what we can go forward with, and I think a lot of things have been discussed there from the job training aspect to the -- to the seniors, the youth services and the -- a whole bunch of other stuff. Kind of lay it out and see what we need to do in between here and next Tuesday.
>> I won't be here this afternoon. I have to be at that funeral. But I think that we need to kind of get away from looking at this from a precinct level. And let's look at where -- where we have the -- the highest number of families who can benefit from h.u.d., cdbg funds. And I know that we have a always looked at Travis County in terms of precincts. But I think we kind of look at what h.u.d. Addresses and the highest number of families who can benefit then just let it fall wherever it may. You know, let's look at what h.u.d. Looks at. In community development.
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Afternoon Discussion
This morning, while we wore our tight fitting good government caps, we decided to take up number 15. We made a lot of progress this morning, didn't we, ms. Flemming and company?
>> [indiscernible]
>> and when we last talked, we looked at a -- at a list of -- of categories of -- of the first priority, priority 1 projects. And the question was their suitability for this kind of funding any other observations that staff would have for us this afternoon.
>> we have adjusted on the slide, hopefully we will be able to see, maybe not, but the -- but the high priority slide that you -- that you asked for the additions to to that category I believe it was erosion, and employment training. We have made those changes. Staff would just -- just in summary over the last three months, staff has spent hundreds of hours researching project ideas and specific activity ideas in conjunction with t.n.r. And legal and other county staff each project category and/or activity has been met closely researched using piles of manuals and regulations. The manuals and regulations are sitting next to mr. Gieselman there. We asked for and received from your -- from you guidance regarding additional stipulations for year one projects. Project activity idea options for year one look different than the subsequent years because of this direction, which was as we discussed earlier, that we ensure that we are able to spend the entire allocation within 18 months, that we keep administrative burden to a minimum. For example avoiding the use of some recipients, avoiding conducting many small projects as opposed to those that might have a larger impact. And then focusing on projects that -- that may be less risky as staff learned the regulations. The scoring matrix that was discussed this morning was developed based on your feedback. And your ideas regarding year one project prioritization. We provided you a copy in your addition backup. Staff used specific recommendations for the first year to develop the matrix and the cdbg committee approved the matrix as well as the scoring methodology. The committee did direct its staff that scoring matrices for federal grants, that's other federal grants that the county receives are not generally voted on by the court and told staff that -- that they did not need to seek approval from the court for this -- for this matrix because it was not consistent with previous approaches to federal grants. However, that matrix is the result of direction that we received from the court. We -- we have also --
>> I have a question, ms. Flemming. On this -- when you get to the year one scenario about the 18 months where we are looking at the spending of the particular money within 18 months, if that's not complied with, are you penalized by h.u.d. If that money is not spent in the 18 month time frame for first year?
>> okay. We -- we went back to the date that the h.u.d. Officials were here in the court. And that question was specifically asked. At that time, john maldanado who is I知 afraid --
>> division director.
>> for this project responded to that question from the court and indicated that it was his opinion that one of the biggest risks that grantees take is not spending their money on time and that -- that -- I could read it to you verbatim, in the interest of time I will try to summarize. Basically he said one and a half times your allocation is what you are allowed to have as a line of credit. Once you have two times your allocation, that would trigger them to ask us to either spend the money or we would risk losing it at that point. Now, did he -- he didn't say automatically you would lose it. He said that if you were to reach an amount that was two times your allocation, that would trigger them to notify you that you are in a move -- in a move it, spend it or lose it type of situation. So that was his testimony before the Commissioners court, I値l tell you the date in just a minute. When he came in, we announced the allocation back in January. In January of this year. I see increased administrative costs in a lot of these columns. You all have recommended that we spend the maximum 20% in spite of the county judge's thoughts to the contrary. And if that's the maximum, how can I -- how can I recommendations adversely impact that.
>> if -- if your question is if -- if we are recommending spend the maximum, how could your recommendation increase that? The -- the --
>> increase administrative costs.
>> right.
>> including in your administrative costs is the cost of personnel that you have hired, the cost of -- of advertising the plan that we have done, the cost of -- of any preengineering for certain projects,, with a lot of programs. We tend to think of the administrative costs for a specific project. For example if you told us to go out and do a -- do a -- a tree cutting program, for example. You would -- you would assume that -- that the cost of hiring people to cut those trees, to plan the project, to -- to design what the project was going to look like would be a cost of that tree cutting program. But with cdbg any preplanning that has to be done for a program and if you were to have to hire staff to do the program, that is considered a part of your administration and planning budget. The -- another example we have talked a lot about water and wastewater projects. If those projects have not had their preengineering or if there's -- if it's not a specific activity identified in terms of, you know, water and wastewater projects have lots of different phases to it that must be completed in order for the whole thing to -- to take shape. For people to go from not having water to having water, in order to be able to identify those activities we would have to -- to have some preengineering work. We could not charge that as a part of our community development portion of the dollars. That would roll back into your administration and planning budget. So those costs are not just the costs of -- of operating your back room, so to speak. It has to do with any setup or preparation that you would have to do to be prepared to implement a particular project.
>> and -- and in relation to some of the agreements and those kind of things, we have had different departments share concern about the cost of extra staff in order to make sure that the money is spent in a compliant way. And so -- so a lot of times when you see your increased administrative costs, it also might point to the fact that perhaps purchasing may need somebody or part of a position. It may mean that the auditor's office has requested increased staffing, depending upon what direction we go. It also might mean that -- that we need just extra staff to make sure that we are compliant. Essentially that -- when you see that increased administrative cost, until we generally know a direction of where we are going to go, people can't tell us what they think they'll need. So it's just a flag for you to know that it is possible that it might go above the 20%, which we can't do with cdbg dollars. Which means that we might have to although at general fund dollars.
>> [indiscernible] with the goal of having administrative costs, in a 10 to 15% range by the way. The reason that I recommended a couple of the things that I did was that I already know the programs exist out there. And there is a per capita cost. And seems to me that the challenge would be for us to be able to identify needy persons in unincorporated areas who should want and will benefit from these services. See what I知 saying? You can't make people do it. But I知 thinking that the need is a whole lot greater than the available resources. Now, my other idea is that I would come up with a list that -- that would cost a whole lot more than 2.4 to meet. That way if some shake out during the year, then you won't fall short. But if we leave substandard roads then, which are you all's street improvements, we keep taking a look at erosion if we can, we plug in the others, I thought that was a sure way for us to be able to not only to meet needs that we know exist, but also give us a better short at expending the same amount of money. The other thing is I mean some of these are not really one of your projects, they will take two or three years, but phase 1 may be the first year. You spend all of that, then it may be the other part. I mean, I -- so -- so is your gut feeling overall that I mean I know that you weren't saying they had betrayed you, you were saying the court came up with other ideas maybe at the 11th hour. The problem, though, is to be honest, what I heard during the work session surprised me in many regards. So I have my mindset about how I think the money is best spent, a little bit different than what I saw on the lists that were given us.
>> sure.
>> the only other thing that I can say is that's the way we do business at Travis County. A whole lot of stuff kind of happens in this courtroom right here. But if it complaint work, then I can understand that. If it can work, then -- then I mean I would put a little bit of money in roads or capital projects, I would try to put some other funds in direction services, to -- to put people in a position where after the service is provided, they are in a much better position to provide for themselves. And so -- so, you know, there's a little -- I mean you all were not quite as tied into that philosophy as I seem to be for either one. I think that a lot of what happens in year one sort of sets the pace for the other four years. And years thereafter. And if -- if our mindset is we build recreational centers, substandard roads, projects of that nature, my guess is, that's what we keep doing. If we start doing a little bit of each one of them, then that's what we keep doing. Or it's much easier.
>> they are much more familiar with that stack of regs than I am. But for instance this morning we discussed american youth works. And the -- the training. That they would american youth works would be considered a separate [indiscernible], correct?
>> yes.
>> the one adventure that I had with cdbg requirements was when the city was using cdbg money as part of an interlocal. And the attachment that's like this and I can't remember if it was mhmr or somebody said don't give us any of that money because we are though the going to meet those regs. And I think like an american youth works, probably wouldn't want or the cost would be so extreme they can meet our requirements. I mean, some of our contractors think that our requirements are pretty extensive, but they are meetable. These requirements for an organization such as american youth works might be so burdensome and our administrative costs at monitoring whether american youth works was meeting those requirements and suddenly rather than front the amount of money that might pay for 10 students pays for one. And you get to the direct benefit to an individual student or youth which -- which isn't under cdbg. I think these are the things that some of the things that looked to me and to y'all like well why don't we just do this, we have already got it going. But when you translate it through the cdbg filter, and I think this is why some of this stuff that was recommended -- you all can correct me if I知 wrong, but went down a different path other than the paths that might have looked to us like --
>> well, with he need to check with some of these agencies as to whether that's a doable thing or not a doable thing. The thing that I found when I visited 46 social service agencies is some of them were struggling just to do our gig, which was straight county funding. Because they are very small, it's not a mature staff, they do really well with really simple stuff. And others of them made it extraordinarily clear that they are in the upper echelon of some of these agencies with -- with tens of millions of dollars flowing through there -- their bank accounts and being responsible for multiple federal grants that made our stuff look really, really simple. And so they can handle that kind of stuff. So the answer could be yes and no. Some of them might not be able to handle it. But I知 willing to bet that there are others, like a capital idea, that it's like been there, done that, where do we need to sign. We need to ask them rather than assume that it's going to be burdensome, that's a real quick and easy phone call if we can handle it.
>> one of the other things that you got street improvements down here in large amounts. It can always be a fall back. Substandard roads, a lot depends on what your project is. And I don't -- I won't feel good if at the end of the first year all that we've got it a set of roads. Because we see sets of roads every year. And our annual budget, the work plan, and I知 not knocking roads, I知 just saying there is more to community development block grant programs than that. Now, as to the administrative load, then if you give the broad categories to -- to the federal government, you can later come back and put specifics in, right?
>> you can put in specific activities.
>> yeah, all categories, they want some estimate of the amount of money.
>> that is correct.
>> it may be that we run these traps, it's not nearly as easy as we think. We need to run the traps, though. Seems to me. And the other thing is that I知 sitting here visualizing hundreds of youth that we turndown for summer youth employment because we ran out of money. It may be that this -- these are not good programs for that. But there are -- we may be able to move around some stuff and still comply with the federal standards. And if we are spending 20%, I would rather spend that 20% delivering goods and services or [indiscernible] services to needy individuals as well as improving substandard roads is my own position.
>> yes.
>> there's a question that I put to ms. Flemming ahead of time so she's not to be surprised by this question. In terms of -- of okay just for purposes of going through a strategy here, don't be angry if I ask you this question, which -- that is we got about 2.4 million bucks. If you all had to take kind of a high end and a low end of what needs to be set aside for -- for staff preengineering, you know, that administrative stuff that we think is low end, which is where the judge wants to go, the high end in terms of what it could be in terms of worst case scenario, what is the net left over dollars? Because I will tell ya, what -- it was about 17.
>> we prepared the slide. Did the slide ever go up? We do have a slide that divvies out exactly what you are asking for. I can't see it from here. Basically the community development portion, which would be the portion that would include the roads and -- and erosion, water and wastewater, those types of things, the amount would be -- the 1.5 figure there. Public service portion is capped at 15%. Now at the programs that you all described this morning, such as capital idea or -- or going into that service category based on the way these programs are designed. If staff would could have the time to look at the regs and see what wiggle room we might have, then I might be able to come back to you and tell you something different about that. Right now the way those programs are currently being implemented, they would have to fit into that public service category. Then the administration and planning is 20% and you see the 489,867. Do I need to say those.
>> we can see them.
>> the preaward spending which you all previously approved that was taken from health and human services salary savings and you have the option at some point to decide whether you want to in fact charge that to the grant or not, but so far the -- the estimated budget is 134,000. The reason why I say that it's estimated is because there was additional cost for the advertising that we did not anticipate, so -- so I believe has been a budget transfer to take care of that since that. So I believe 134,000 is pretty doggoned close, though.
>> with all of these numbers et cetera, you know what in listening to everybody this morning, the answer is not one person is right. All five of us are right. Each of us has our own special thing that we want to bring to the discussion whether it's in our precinct or it's a county wide need. You know what, I think we all ought to be accommodated. The most [indiscernible] way to get there is to say what's that number and divide it by five. And that each of us works up what we would like to see happen within the location. [laughter] judge, here's the deal. Gerald and I were already talking in terms of okay one of the things dear to my heart is mr. Smith's proposal going on in north ridge. Gerald said I have an interest in that too. I said split it with ya. People in the court working together, judge I like your idea about summer youth employment, let me put down blank amount of my allocation. We come up with a list, we can get this done over a week, all of us can be satisfied. I have a feeling if one person gets satisfied, four of us are not going to be satisfied. And unless we really start dividing it up like the five of us have equal say so as to how these dollars get spent, we ain't going anywhere.
>> we have dan and susan.
>> thank you court. Dan smith. County judge's office. I know that you all are very tired with a late night last night. I知 going to try to be as brief as I possibly can. I feel duty bound to correct the record with this inaccurate information with regards to the court. I知 wearing my north ridge hat right now. It was stated in the summary that -- that primary survey needed to be determined area eligibility, not feasible for first year planning. That's further from the truth much the north ridge project, I知 not going to recount the entire history, is already receiving cdbg funds.
>> from another county?
>> from another county. From another state agency. Under their community development program and primary survey data was used in order to qualify. So for someone to say that -- that cdbg I mean primary survey data was not conducted is not true. The other thing is that primary survey data for the water development board grant, that was conducted by the neighborhood bob Moore and myself over a two day period, up in the north rural community center, garnered $1.3 million for this project. 150,000 from Williamson county and the court just recently approved the $250,000 grant for more [indiscernible], cdbg funds. That data determined -- that data determined that 100% of the people that live on the Travis County side with low to moderate income. On the Williamson county side, 97%. So -- so to say that primary surveys need to be conducted is not true. We are already receiving cdbg funds. These -- these grants were approved by mr. Maldanado themselves?
>> how much money is that?
>> we will be short. By the way, I知 going to ends this on a positive note because I got good news from the water development board. I went over to their meeting while you guys were caucusing in executive session. We are probably short about 200,000 bucks. I think to lay information out there that's not true we are obligated to correct the record. The water development board with a 7-0 bought waived the requirement to repay the loan of $300,000. All right? Which means that we would need about 150 to $200,000 to complete the project. We have been dating this issue with the water development board, now we can begin to draw down funds on the big chunk of money from the water development board. Our next step in this project is to update the court and -- in two weeks, ask the court to allow us to begin to procure the engineering services for this project and move forward. I just think it was a bit unfair. That this community seemed to be penalized because some of us on the committee wanted an open process. I don't think that's appropriate and I felt duty bound to correct the record. I知 asking the court if they would consider granting this project between 150 and 200,000 bucks. That's an amount below the 25% threshold that could be used for something else, if it is not needed. We hope by good engineering, hoping that the prices are reasonable, that we can get this thing done under budget. And so these people could have water. The other thing is -- without being disrespectful to anybody. I just think that it's a bit unfair that we would consider spending almost $550,000 on administrative costs for money that's meant for the low to moderate income folk in this community. First time out. If it's absolutely necessary then so be it. My question is when will the poor see the money? That's all that I have. If in fact we have some recipients that is a huge workload not just for the agencies but for our office, we are going to need people. If you -- if you give a whole mess of grants to subrecipients, if it is a government, [indiscernible] audit requirements, so that's just -- that's just not really looking to add two people to my staff right now for a whole lot of reasons. But if you -- if you decide what you want to do and it requires a lot of subrecipients, then that's what it's going to take to administer it. I just give you that as a factor in your decision making.
>> I知 not suggesting that administrative expenses be 0. 10% of -- of $2.4 million is a lot of bread.
>> I would like ours to be none, judge, I would like you to pick projects that don't have subrecipients. [multiple voices]
>> I think [indiscernible] in order to make the best decisions for the rest of Travis County. I must also say, however, that I must take exception to -- to staff's ethics being called into question in a public forum. These are licensed personnel. Their licenses are driven by their ethical performance of their duties. So I take great exception to those being called into question in this public manner. Regarding the north ridge project --
>> it was intentional, they know it.
>> regarding the north ridge project, at no time has staff indicated that this project should not be funded. Staff has requested information that would assist them in supporting a recommendation to do this project. No information has been provided by mr. Smith. Mr. Smith participate understand the cdbg committee and has been acquainted with the time lines and other pertinent decision points since the onset of this project. Mr. Smith indicated to staff that he would be submitting a proposal on behalf of the judge and common Monday to the cdbg staff by may 25th. That proposal has not been received. He was contacted on June 5th but cdbg regarding information and we did not receive any information. Staff did not receive information from mr. Smith and therefore contacted Williamson county directly to get information on the project and its scope. The court has been provided copies of what we received from the Williamson county cdbg staff. Cdbg staff there could not provide Travis County staff with the detail of the scope of the project, how much of the project is the responsibility of Travis County, or any approvals from h.u.d. Regarding this activity. Still staff included this project in our project matrix. As recently as Monday, June 12th, I had a conversation with mr. Smith regarding his dissatisfaction with the recommendations made by staff. I asked him for information that I could provide to staff to better analyze this project. As of today, that information has still not been provided.
>> you asked me for that information at 6:00 yesterday evening and everything that you just said was not true.
>> hopefully everybody feels a little bit better since you kind of vented. It is 6:18. Clearly we will not be able to get this done today. Thank god there is next Tuesday which is our deadline as you all reminded us this morning. It may help for a couple of members of the court to work with the committee and staff between now and then and try to -- to come up with -- with something a little closer to a finished product. Since I知 not going to be working on another assignment, I would volunteer.
>> the county judge and Commissioner Sonleitner will work with you all.
>> be happy to.
>> and -- we will -- do we need to figure --
>> in terms of what everybody is bringing forward as their ideas.
>> sherri, I guess [indiscernible] I will just ask you something that is [indiscernible] the hour is late, I think everybody is ready to go home but --
>> what we will do is -- is try to get something done between now and noon Friday, is that okay? And maybe have staff visit with the other members of the court, which you can do and we can't.
>> okay.
>> and if we get feedback by noon Monday, then maybe we can get-- finish our work on Tuesday.
>> okay.
>> which is our deadline.
>> okay.
>> would you also be able to answer more detailed questions about what our concerns are.
>> that's fine.
>> I think we are a lot closer than we -- than we feel at this moment because we really have got a -- an excellent list of things on the high priority project list and now we just feed to kind of like fill it out.
>> now, for christie and meg, meg or peg?
>> meg.
>> meg.
>> you all are not used to these discussions, but we are. [laughter]
>> thank you for your hard work, your dedication, et cetera.
>> thank you.
>> I値l put in a good word for you with ms. Flemming before your next performance evaluation.
>> thank you, sir.
>> that was a lot of progress, you all. Commissioners court moves adjournment. Second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 6:20 p.m.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:21 AM