Travis County Commissioners Court
October 31, 2006
Item 32
Item number 32 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following related to the use of community development block grant funding from the united states department of housing and urban development. A is selection and approval of projects and 'activities. B is selection and approval of source funding for expenses related to grant administration. And c is other related items.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioner. Sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. We are before you today to is is is is is is is reallocate community development block grant dollars in light of the change in the allocation that we've been discussing with you the last few weeks. I will not speak very long, but just to give you an assumption of what you have before -- a summary of what you have before you in terms of what we need you to do today. Staff have made some assumptions that you would want to at least have before you for consideration the projects that were before you before. We also made an assumption that because of the need that existed in the north ridge acres area and the funding that is leveraged by Travis County's contribution to that project that you would want to consider and refund that item as you move forward. So we made those assumptions and I'm going to pass you over now to meg and christie who will slain is to you what you will see on the -- explain to you on the spreadsheet there. What we will do is let you see the impact of your decisions as we move along, so we're still in a little bit of techno savvy from planning and budget. I'm sure they'll tell us how we do today.
>> good afternoon, I'm meg pogue, and before we jump right into specific projects and activities, we need to first discuss briefly that the consolidated plan is is a five-year plan and 'the first year action plan is what we're talking about with project but there was the five-year strategy plan also. So I wanted to see before we move into specific projects and the action plan if the court was interested in looking back at what our overarching strategies forp the five years and narrowing that focus, considering that we've got significantly less fund or if we want with to keep the broad focus that we had had. Specifically we had two main goals, the promotion of affordable housing development and also the liveability of neighborhoods, which is more of the infrastructure projects like sidewalks and roads. So we could either narrow it to one primary goal or we could keep it open. But I didn't to assume that we were keeping the sfreaj plan the exact same considering the funding is is narrowed.
>> it may be best to maybe discuss this specific recommendations that you have and then when we discuss the reasons why.
>> and look back at the strategic plan?
>> if necessary.
>> okay.
>> does that make sense?
>> sure.
>> okay. You have the legal size dlorred document with blue, -- colored document with blue, green and yellow. Because the options are somewhat complex, there's a lot of different ways we can move the money and projects around, so what I'm going to do is what will probably work bft is I'll run through the basic recommendation that we have and then from there I'll talk about the options, the different ongses and ways that -- the different options and ways that we can move things around in that. Just to remind ushs the cap on administration and planning is 20%. That's a maximum amount that we can use. And the court can choose to use some of that admin to fund positions or operating or to reinvest that admin dollars back into the community development. At this point staff are recommending that we fund -- that we use the 20% can in administration and planning, partly because this is the first year of the grant and we're not sure how administrative heavy this could be. So it would safeguard us against losing capacities in other areas of both health and human services and the auditor's office. And our second recommendation in the area of public services, again, here there's a cap of 15%. We do not have to use anything in this area. It could be reinvested into community development. Our initial recommendation is is to do the social services expansion that we discussed with the case management and outreach. And then also the expansion of the youth and family assessment center flexible fund at 10,000. And the capital net is about 1 is 25 nou. And then finally in community development there were two projects, be and we have -- we're assuming that we're moving forward with north ridge as that was a very good leveraging opportunity, so we've got that down. And then another project that seemed to make a lot of sense and really address community need was the land acquisition for affordable housing and development for homeowner occupied units. And if we only did those two projects, it would be 200,000 for north ridge and about 345,000, 346,000 for the land acquisition.
>> just to point out, there is a math rosh on the community development. -- math error. The amount for the land acquisition is incorrect. That's again 345,928.
>> aren't y'all spending too much time with those hud people?
>> [ laughter ]
>> so the alternatives -- the alternative investments then -- and these are all things that we identified in the last planning process, so there's nothing new that we haven't discussed before. The only project that would be -- that wasn't included in our initial plan is the down payment assistance. So I wanted to point that out as the first alternative for investment in community development. And we discussed with the housing finance corporation that just because the way their funding is is working that they realized they would be able to do down payment assistance with cdbg whereas before they weren't sure. They didn't feel confident in that. We wanted to put that back on the table and it was in their interest to do so. That would be be a minimum of about 1 is 50,000 -- 150,000. And then the other alternative would be to keep our project with substandard road improvement in apache shores and we worked with tnr to do some estimates of what it would cost to do sort of a basic level of work. We prioritized the roads that needed the motion work and seemed to be the greatest barrier for the neighborhoods. And went from there and gave you different options of funding amounts, about 160,000, 278,000, 380,000.
>> a lot of the money is flexible so we could do a lot less in land acquisition if we wanted to add on more projects or if we reinvest from either the administration or the public services that will allow additional money that could be put more into land acquisition or into funding for an additional project.
>> remind me of what the cost is is to do one mile of road. Is this hard surface.
>> yes.
>> yes. This is all weather road. We typically use our 1949 substandard road standard for these type of roadways. It's an all weather roadway. With improved drainage.
>> approximate cost with one mile of road.
>> in the backup your road guy explained to me that it's about 582,000 for one linear mile for this type of resurfacing.
>> it assumes $100 per foot for any sort of reconstruction. That would include resurfacing, drainage work, widening the pavement where it's too narrow, that sort of thing. It's kind of a rule of thumb assuming that there's something there already.
>> if you're looking there, you're seeing two pretty short roads that don't equal that mile.
>> I'm trying to figure out ways to make everybody happy. To me, wherever the court lands related to what we're going to do on the administration, that will let us know how much more or less flexibility we have in the other categories. So may to me I'm not looking to be one or the other, be I'm looking to do a little bit of everything so that we move all things forward. So I am personally going to be looking at seeing where we want to land on administration because then we will know if there's more money in play or not. And my personal preference would be the less we spend on administration the better. And if that means that some dollars come out of health and human services, we've got to keep the auditor happy, but I'm not looking at using the full 20%. I yus don't think that's appropriate given the amount when we had $2.8 million, yes, that's a lot. But this is so drastically small. And we're trying to stay as far away as we can from subrecipient greamentz and agreements. So make the auditor happy and make (indiscernible) and we can discuss what dollars pay for that, make sure it's covered, but I'm not looking to do the 20% on administration even if it is the first year.
>> in the context of those comments, Commissioner Sonleitner, the staff recommendation that was part of the yardstick, so I think it's important for us to chair fi that we're not necessarily valuing one project over another. We are looking at it with the lens of what's the administrative costs that go along with with that project, how many people benefit, that's the lens we're looking through.
>> it seems at this point a key decision would be to first look at if we're going to reinvest the administration or how much of that we would reinvest and then we can look at public services and see if we're going to reinvest some of that in community development. 'Then we'll know our full community development amount and we can put that up on the screen so we can start pulling from there. ' '
>> my preference is to spend zero on administrative expenses. What that means is as they come up, we pick them up. And if we -- it may mean that we do more in-house, be and if we do a substandard road we can do most of the administrative work in-house, right? I don't know what federal forms you've got to complete in order to document use of federal monies, but we don't know whether we need half a person or three, but we do know we have enough in allocated reserve to cover it and before you get there, though, based on the projects, if you contract it out, you contract it out with somebody used to dealing with the federal government and us. And if we do it in-house, we ought to be used to covering -- doing most of the administrative work.
>> judge, what I was hoping to do with these is is to use a consultant to design the project and make sure that we comply with the need for requirements because of the federal funding connection.
>> what's the minimum amount you need?
>> for design and for that element 'of it?
>> you've got three figures here, right? Right?. Two roads, three roads are and four roads. '
>> I tend to estimate those sorts of cochts, the soft costs for the engineering and environmental stuff at anywhere from 10 to 15%. So we'll also have administrative costs internally to manage that contract, which we would he need that out of our budget.
>> if you were to do the two roads you were talking about, you would need 16 grand to 24 grand. 16 to 24 grand in that would be your desire?
>> for $100,000 worth of construction cost?
>> it would be 16 grand. So if you were to go as much as 15 gland on it, it would be 24,000.
>> right. I'm pretty sure I can get a consultant to do that. These roads don't seem like they're going to need a lot of extensive engineering and surveying, but we don't know until we get into it. I think that would be reasonable.
>> it's not an administrative cost, though, it's a design cost. Which is different.
>> a lot of the costs that we're talking about here can actually be rolled into the project. I think that they're also initially when we talked with tnr, there was about a 10% -- basically any time they use a grant there's about a 10% cost they keep in-house for any burden that's financial services or that anybody has.
>> but object be vusly rolled -- obviously rolled into the project means that now what you have available for your road, if the amount is $10,000, you have 150. So we should make that point that even though a consultant would be considered a project cost, if you're looking at 160,000-dollar amount, you've now reduced it by the cost of that consultant.
>> the other thing that we've discovered is that it is very possible that we might have to do an environmental assessment where we thought we could do a lesser environmental impact study it actually might be an environmental assessment that has to be completed because of the nature of the work. So that cost is about $2,500 to 10,000 depending upon what has to happen.
>> we have to do an environmental assessment to put two or three roads in a substandard area?
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> if you don't chaifng change the area --
>> can you pick be up the phone and call somebody and find that out?
>> you have to do enough environmental work for them to determine what level of environmental work needs to be doing.
>> last week (indiscernible). Would you use a penny of federal dollars and that immediately triggers the whole eis thing, judge.
>> we can put in the road and have metal detectors go out there. I.
>> how much time do you add to the schedule if have you to do an environmental assessment?
>> well, that won't take a lot of time, maybe be three, four months to get something like that done. To me that's not a lot of time.
>> to me that's a long time, steve.
>> I deal in projects that last five years.
>> I wouldn't expect much to come out of an environmental assessment. These are existing roads. We're not planning on excavating and putting a lot of embankment and changing drainage characteristics out there, but we have to go through the process.
>> so how much did we we budget in the county budget for substandard roads?
>> half a million dollars.
>> for the deer creek.
>> actually, it's --
>> deer creek would be one and then there's cross winds and trade winds and you also have some 2001 substandards road money remaining as well.
>> so we can add this amount to -- okay. All right.
>> judge, are you leaning towards alternative option number three related to the zero percent for administration?
>> that's what I would do and just pick up the administrative costs. Try to get as much bang as possible.
>> but basically committing to the auditor, is that something coming out of allocated reserves?
>> as soon as we find out what -- if we need additional staff to meet whatever the h.u.d. Requirements are, then we would just fund it. And what it would enable us to do is really just get more direct services from the $838,000. We have it in allocated reserve. I don't know that we put it in for this purpose, but at the same time this seems to be as good a purpose as any. If our goal is is to try to maximize the direct benefit from the $838,000.
>> would you like to consider any of the other options or should we go ahead and load that into the spreadsheet out of general fund?
>> well, I guess on administrative -- on administration and planning, we can go anywhere from zero to 20 percent.
>> that's correct.
>> that seem to be pretty important because based on that decision we know what's left.
>> that's correct.
>> right?
>> that's correct.
>> we could do the modest, which is five percent, which basically says the little stuff and still picking up out of general fund and health and human services the actual f.t.e.'s. I'm at zero or five, either one, judge. Whatever.
>> if we're going to hit the allocated reserve, I say hit it for the full amount, otherwise I say I'm not sure it matters a whole lot if it's zero or five. Kristin has identified another source of funding, so zero make more sense than I thought.
>> no. He hasn't identified another source of funding. He hasn't identified another way of looking at this, which is to pick the projects. And then determine what administrative staff are necessary to make this project successful rather than the other way around. Having listened to discussions on -- when there was more money available about various projects, some projects require a lot of work. Some projects -- from an administrative standpoint. Other projects do not or cause less work for various offices. And there are multiple offices involved. Who have weighed in on this. So if you pick the administrative overhead first without knowing the projects, you may be be under or overfunding either the administrative overhead or the project. So what I would urge you to do without reference to the fund source, pick the projects. If you go with $800,000 worth of direct services, identify those projects that you want to pick, then let the staff come back and say here are administrative implications. Yes, we can do it all in-house or no, we can't do it, we can have three f.t.e. Whatever it is, then you can deal with the funding at that time. Because many of these are accordions. You have one road, two roads, three roads, four roads. You have expanding social services a little, a lot, a long way. That would be my suggestion method logically.
>> did we have three or four hundred thousand for has been be at that time? I don't remember that being the number be originally.
>> we with didn't originally. Some of the back be-up you have was staff recommending a mortar getted strategy and narrowing focus to affordable housing development. So it was initially $125,000. And so in ternl of looking at the -- so in terms of looking at the projects that we with had approved previously that met that, we put that amount knowing that there would be options that you could consider.
>> we need to make this decision today.
>> yes.
>> with respect to christian's comments, I would just say that we feel pretty certain about the administrative impact of the projects on the table. If we go off script, then that's when what mr. Smith is talking about will come into play. We will have to go back and look at the and analyze the administrative impact be of something that you would choose that's not before you right now. But we pretty much feel like we're as close to target as we can be with still question marks ahead of us on the projects that you had originally chosen.
>> then I think what we need to do is is identify what christian was saying. Let's identify the projects that we are the most supportive of and get that down first.
>> so on the social services expansion in health and human services --
>> that's correct. That was the project whereby -- there was a lot of discussion during our deliberations early on about pockets of residents who don't show up in the census blocks that we are required to use to make decisions about projects with this funding. So we saw this as an opportunity not only to get out into these communities and document the residents and 'their income and what their needs are, but also to expand our services into areas where we may not be doing as good a job of getting out and cowpting people -- counting people and identifying where they live and that sort of thick. So that was going to be part of helping us build a case for future projects, but then also identifying service needs for riz dents in the un-- residents in the unincorporated area.
>> how important is is that?
>> we believe be very important.
>> so what's the deliverable on that?
>> the deliverable is data and hopefully more informed -- more information to make better decisions in the future because we have -- we have gone into what we've called pockets of poverty and basically identified the residents there, what their income levels are, what their needs are, where they're located in the unincorporated areas. Because you remember we had a lot of discussion about census blocks and how some properties within the census block that we use overshadow residents who have lesser income in those areas.
>> the other thing that they would be be doing is have a caseload. So they would be providing case management services, making sure that they're hooking into the community centers. And those two social workers would basically be focusing in precinct 1 and precinct four.
>> that's the piece I don't understand.
>> each person is intended to assist at least 50 households. More than likely they'll serve more than that, but as an estimate we said 50 households per social worker.
>> we think this will be be fine with h.u.d.
>> yes.
>> all right. Then here's what I recommend. North ridge acres, $200,000. Land acquisition, 250.
>> exactly my numbers be. Go, judge.
>> substandard road improvements, 300,000, which would include environmental and design what have you. And then for health and human services, how much is that left? If we use the full 838? Now, this strategy in my view really disinlt have doesn't have us doing a whole lot of specific stuff and north ridge acres a whole lot of that money is state money, there's a whole lot of administrative support there already, isn't there?
>> that's correct.
>> so ienl thinking that we need to do a minimum there probably.
>> and on the land acquisition, in terms much h.u.d. Record keeping, there shouldn't be a whole lot.
>> no. We actually -- I believe we've identified habitat for humanity and they pretty much know how to do this.
>> okay. If we do the 300,000 for roads, that's three roads with design and environmental to lay play with.
>> there's about $88,000 left.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> and then add social services expansion and we would augment that to the tune necessary from the -- from our allocated reserve.
>> okay.
>> now, there's another project that I chat with joe and richard about, $90,000 that was in there and the kind of tnr work, but it enables hitched hall pin to access five or six hundred thousand dollars. Dollars: what I would do from that is just from allocated reserve, that way we eliminate the subcontract completely away from this. This is Travis County and them, and we just basically supplement a contract that we already have have with americorps or whoever it is that does the work be.
>> is is there any talk related to some portion of the -- I'm with you in terms of get that one out of the cdbg realm. We do have in play that approximately $100,000 on workforce development that we're talking about out of hhs, which is also where a lot of the youth works stuff is located, whether half of that amount comes from our contract or not. I'm just looking for a menu of options.
>> that doesn't bother me. At some point I think we need to look be at it and try to get the biggest bang. What's attractive about that 90,000 is the other state and federal money is already in place as well as the sort of commitment from joe and tnr to him and him to us. Susan?
>> our issue is that jution like the environmental study, we were doing that road ourselves, we would not think that's necessary, but if we are purchasing land through habitat for humanity, if there are subrecipients, if we are passing federal money through as a grant and they've got more restrictions than you could possibly imagine, that's the cost to us. So to the extent you're doing that, I need a person. If you don't do that at all, I won't --
>> we need to find out first exactly what it is we're required to do to meet h.u.d. Requirements.
>> I think we know that.
>> actually, don't have is to do it in the subrecipient agreement way. We do have to have an agreement and that agreement would convey the land to habitat? Some form or fashion. We have to -- we can consider habitat more of a contractor. Where we have to follow what the use of the land is, but we do not have to set up the relationship so that they have to follow all the h.u.d. Guidelines. We can stipulate --
>> what we have in mind is setting the money aside and then when the land is acquired, taking the money to closing. That may be one of those deals where we actually advance the money and get reimbursed by h.u.d. There could be more.
>> what might there be?
>> I believe just in what we understand, how we understand this would work is if the -- if the other party does any programmatic work, qualifies the candidates or does programmatic work other than just executes our instructions that that might be subject to being a subrecipient.
>> if we buy the land and convey it to them, they will come out and one by one build houses on it. But they turn around and you have to qualify to be eligible, an eligible property owner, right? So whatever -- I assume they use federal poverty guidelines to determine who would qualify. So we would have is to track that too, who occupies the property?
>> yes. I would believe that if habitat performed that service that they would be be doing a programmatic effort and that would make it a subrecipient.
>> what habitat told us is they would first have to identify the land, have the program in place. Do we think this will take place in '07?
>> they can get this done so quickly.
>> well, be the commitment from the county would be that whatever we need we need and we just -- we just take care of --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> I'm not enthusiastic about adding staff, you know that. I would be be happy if you told me today you're not doing subrecipients. Probably that's the thing to do, get into the project. You'll just know if there are subrecipients. As long as you're ready to pay for that, we'll --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> in certain areas the land prices are going so sick quickly that if you say we'll do that in year two, three, four, the opportunity is gone. The stuff is flying off the shelves. With the toll roads opening today, if that satisfactory is going to quickly become out of price, so I think we need to strike very quickly and I think habitat is positioned to strike very quickly. They already have a good sense of where they're looking.
>> we purposely put money in allocated reserve because of possible development. So if we have 88,000 left, whatever that balance is, and we need 115, but in my view we simply tap allocated reserve for the difference there. Now, I understand maybe 115, may be 113, may be be 118, but the other thing is whatever personnel we need in order to meet h.u.d. Requirements, we just have to get because if you don't do it right that jeopardizes the 8 thrai thousand for the second year, third year, fourth year.
>> and we need to know that real quickly because we're not exactly recruiting quickly. And it made me think of that when Commissioner Sonleitner said you want to buy the land quickly. You want a person in place to make sure they are following h.u.d. Guidelines. That endangers any future hundz funds and the f.b.i. Has entered some counties that didn't quite handle federal funds correctly.
>> we're committing to follow their guidelines. We take their money and follow their guideline.
>> I think what staff has been able to determine, in talking with other counties that do this, the devil is is in the detail of how we structure our legal documents. So we want to do that in such a way that requires the least amount of administrative work on our side, but also makes the transactions whether it be a purchase by the county and then we convey the land to habitat or whether they actually purchased it and we reimbursed them. We want to select the method that has the least administrative burden on both sides of the equation. So that's what we are working toward.
>> Commissioner?
>> so I guess what I'm hearing is that since reallocation has taken a new direction is that the projects that we're discussing today are ready to initiate immediately as far as today's date to move forward. There's no hang-ups or anything? It's basically ready to go forward. Am I hearing this correct?
>> actually, Commissioner, our plan has to go up for a 15-day public comment period. We have to resubmit it to h.u.d. And get our official approval now that we've made this change. So once that occurs sometime early December then we would have our Marching ores to go forward.
>> but I'm saying as far as just is between us. As far as our discussion, we're basically ready to go forward with what's being presented here today is what is being discussed here today.
>> yes. The staff is ready for the court's approval of this today.
>>
>> [ inaudible ]. As far as we're concerned about today is giving you the Marching orders to go forward and I want to make sure everything being discussed here today you have a comfort level to go forward with with it.
>> yes. We do need to make sure we clarify, and I can't really see the schedule there, but in terms of the public service project, the court is wanting to fund the social services expansion. The 10,000-dollar -- the flex fund portion represents a loss of funding that was actually cdbg dollars that this project received from the city of Austin. And so these funds would be service dollars that support the social services piece. So I just need clarification, is is that a yes or a no on whether we want to fund that piece?
>> I think there's ways to fit all this stuff in. If I'm doing my math correct cannily, we're only short 37,000 plus whatever is is necessary from allocated related to project costs for the auditor and/or health and human services. In terms of the way I've been adding it up is is we keep the 115 and the 10,000 in the yellow exactly as it is. North ridge stays at 200. Then we had the road was 300, judge?
>> right.
>> and then habitat is is at 250. If di the math right, we're at 37,000 is all that we're lacking to fill in the gap, is that correct?
>> yeah, 36, 341.
>> we wind up staying at the 15% related to the two good --
>> [ inaudible ]. Judge, I'm with you that we figure out a way to work with american youth works in ternlz of making that happen whether it's a combination of allocated reserves or the 100,000 related to the services that we talked about this morning. We're only short 37,000, plus when we get the judgment from our professionals about what does that mean in term of halftime, full time, support, whatever, from the general fund related to health and human services and the auditor's office to make everybody be happy.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that's how we would envision that happening.
>> we've got a cushion. :
>> it gets us to 300,000 to get those three roads done and have the 10 percent in there related to a contract and the oversight.
>> or just under it.
>> so we may have to add a little bit. On the 10,000, do we need 10,000?
>> right. Currently the youth and family assessment center funding for services comes from cdbg dollars with the city of Austin, so we are restricted to using those funds within the city of Austin. This makes funds available for folks in unincorporated areas.
>> it is able for us to use smaller dollar amount because part of what the social workers will be be doing is creating systems because there's not a lot of providers out in the unincorporated areas, and so you won't impact as many youth, but we could also use a lesser amount.
>> we don't want to spend $10,000 in such a way that we spend 20,000 do it.
>> that's right.
>> also we have to keep in mind that this is November. We have to recruit for these positions and so once these folks hit the ground, I think the amount that's needed to take us to the end of the fiscal year may be be -- this amount is based on a full year's worth of funding. So we may be good.
>> if we follow the strategy of what susan and others want us to remember is is there may well be be f.t.e. Commitments out there depending on how this unfolds.
>> that's correct.
>> the other thing is is that I think we ought to try to be as simple as possible, yet we want to meet the requirements. We don't want to do anything to jeopardize future funding, but yet at the same time we don't want to splurge on it.
>> that's correct.
>> that makes sense to me. I'm glad christian came forward.
>> [ laughter ] do we need to repeat this?
>> go ahead.
>> north ridge acres, 200,000. Land acquisition 250,000. So that's 450. Substandard roads 300,000. So that's 750. 115, we've exceeded the 838. And then we've got a 10,000 if we need it we'll do it.
>> yes.
>> and we have a commitment to monitor this situation and if we need to bring an additional staff to comply, the court's commitment is is to do it.
>> yes.
>> is that a motion?
>> that's my motion. Thank you very much. I thought you were about to --
>> I was about to call for it, judge. I'm ready.
>> mr. Gieselman has some concerns.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> that's not on today's.
>> that will be a separate item.
>> I think we ought to have all the fak before us too. -- all the facts before us too. We can put that down next week or the week after.
>> if we bring back, joe, the thing in two weeks related to the extra $100,000 for workforce development out of Austin housing finance corporation in two weeks and we can pull it altogether and put a ribbon on it.
>> that's one where the real work is is done now and in the spring? Rear yownd? -- year-round?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank y'all.
>> wait a minute. Anything else today?
>> I believe you've doferd it, judge -- covered it, judge.
>> there was a strategic plan we are going to come back and fiewk a minute about that.
>> I think that we've covered that and just keep in mind that as we come forward to year two we will have to talk about what our strategy will be going forward.
>> if you need this back on next week, be let me know or should I put it back on anyway?
>> if you would give aws couple of weeks, we want to get down with pbo and pin down the budget and come back to the court and health you know what the numbers are related to administration.
>> on the 14th we'll be be asking you to approve the draft revision so that it can go for public comment and 'also so that we can send our initial draft to h.u.d. So is that they can begin reviewing it prior to our final submission.
>> we eagerly anticipate that opportunity.
>> I think I just thought of something in terms of to make sure that we don't go oops, how did we do this? We overspent our allocation by $30,000. So my question is are we giving them the discretion to make the numbers work in whatever individual program comes forward, we will make up the difference out of the general fund.
>> that's what I heard.
>> that's why we would like to come back with the actual budget, yes.
>> so if we all of a sudden see a road project isn't coming in at 300, it's coming in at 37,000 less than that, it is with the every anticipation that the 37,000 will not be be part of these discussions, it will happen when it needs to happen.
>> not to worry about that.
>> the minute we fully appreciate what we have to do, we probably ought to caucus on that and see what kind of response we need to consider.
>> the only -- if I may make -- the only thing we have to keep in mind is is that we only have about a 25% move around. And it also depends on what category you're spending in. Just as long as there's an understanding that we can absolutely do that as long as we don't make a substantial amendment without intending to.
>> tell the h.u.d. People we understand.
>> they owe us one.
>> I would agree.
>> they really do.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank y'all very much. Appreciate it.
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, November 1, 2006 11:30 AM