Travis County Commissioners Court
March 27, 2007
Item 25
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
Item 25 will be to consider and take appropriate action on the following related to community development block grant funding through the u.s. Department of housing and urban development: 1. Update on program year 2006; 2. Results of public hearing process for program year 2007; 3. Strategic direction for 2007 through 2010; 4. Recommended scoring matrix for 2007; and 5. Other related issues. A, b, c, d, e.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioner, sherri flemming executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. We are here for discussion only related to community development block grant program. We will give you a mark level overview of plan year '06 which is our first year, but then also move into some of the preliminary work that staff has been engaged in for plan year '07. We will little share with you a time line in terms of our implementation. As you well know in working with the federal government we have very rigid time lines, therefore we wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the process with you early on so that as we move through, we can keep you posted on how projects are being solicited and also hopefully hear your questions today and also in the future related to any potential projects that we might need to look at. So with that said, I will turn the presentation over to christie moffett our senior planner for cdbg.
>> good afternoon. Well, last year the department of housing and urban development provided Travis County the opportunity to apply for community development block grant fund. In December of 2006 h.u.d. Approved our plan and so the first slide here is to give you an update of where we are for our first years of funding. We are in the process, we've had our fund certified by the auditor's office, we are in the middle of developing primary surveying methodology. So that we can primary survey areas in the county that do not fall within a low to moderate income block group, identified by census data. Also we are in the process of developing federal boiler plates. There is also -- we are also in the process of the t.n.r. Developing administrative environmental review process. And then finally we are posting the cdbg social worker positions. We are going to be requesting that each funded project provide us a quarterly update and we can forward that information to you if you have interest in that. In terms of our time line for the development of the '07 action plan, today we are going to be asking that the court consider narrowing the strategic direction and also determine how project prioritization will occur. In April we will be collecting project ideas from other county departments so that we can have a full list of projects for you to consider in addition to those mentioned in the public hearings. In early may we would like to come to you for a work session to discuss those projects. And then finally in may come in and have the court decide which projects they would like to be considered for the second year's action plan followed by a public hearing process, public comment period, and then we will need to turn in the action plan to h.u.d. By August 15th, that is our standard turn-in date for every annual action plan. We have exciting news h.u.d. Has confirmed our funding for our second year, an increase of $9,586. So our funding allocation for program year 2007 will be $848,245. Also h.u.d. Has lowered the 51% low to moderate income threshold for benefit activities to 46.2%. That added an additional seven block groups to the map, which means that we will have to do less primary surveying for some of the area benefit activities that may be planned in the future.
>> just by way of a reminder, the area of benefit information refers to who would benefit from activities that we would expend these dollars on. In addition to that, we discussed with you during the process last year that h.u.d. Forces us to look at census block groups that they define. And we are unique here in Travis County that we find that we have low to moderate income families in -- in the same block groups with very high income families with sometimes -- will sometimes skew our ability to see folks in that low to moderate income classification. So we feel this is very significant that h.u.d. Has lowered our limit so that it does get us, it actually reduces some of our administrative burden in having to go out and actually valve date that we are serving in that low to moderate income category.
>> there's also an amended map in your backup. Continues on with the development of the second year's funding, there -- the results of the public hearings, we had 6 public hearings that were held, two here at Commissioners court, four out in the precincts. Also received written comment in terms of information gathering process and so a total of 30 people attended the public hearings out in the precincts. Two people testified at Commissioners court and two written comments were received. An exercise conducted at the public hearings and the precincts, 81% of the public feedback indicated that a high priority need for water and wastewater improvements, in addition both testimonials at Commissioners court and one of the two written comments related to water and wastewater issues. The other written comment included a need for homestead housing, food, apparel and jobs. In the backup you will find a full accounting of the public hearing results including a list of specific project ideas that were mentioned. Now we are moving on to the strategic direction. 17 high priority categories were approved by the court. On the slide our h.u.d.'s convictions and expectations of high, medium and low designations. H.u.d. Expects that dollars will be spent in all priority categories over the five year time period with a reduction in funding, the possibility of funding 17 different categories over a five year period would be difficult. In a January 11th work session the court requested that staff return after the first round of public hearings to better inform them prior to narrowing the strategic direction. The change in the strategic direction will be open for additional public comment at the same time as the draft of the action plan for your two. On the slide of the 17 high priority categories that were approved by the court when we originally had the 2.5 million annual. There in the strategic direction staff recommended reducing the list of high project categories to an amount that Travis County's funding allocation will support. The change in strategic direction would be effective for the remaining four years of the grant unless the court hose to amend the strategic direction in the future. Water and wastewater improvements, street road improvements, owner housing production of new units, youth services and other public services which are identified in bold, must remain high priority categories due to being funded in the first year. These five priorities match with many of the projects mentioned in the public hearings. In addition staff would recommend two additional categories for consideration. Sanitary sewer improvements and also infrastructure for new housing development. Those are identified in italics. The reason for sanitary sewer improvements is that often you will find that people who need water and wastewater infrastructure are also needing sanitary sewer improvements. Because you are having to look at septic systems before you go in and improve water and wastewater infrastructure, it's usually a nice pairing and you can phase those projects in and it's just a nice pairing with water and wastewater. In terms of infrastructure for new housing development, this actually matches very nicely with the land acquisition project that were funded for the first year, what this will do is provide habitat for humiditity the non-profit identified for the land acquisition for affordable housing development, the opportunity to have a better choice of land selection in the unincorporated areas and also be able to afford to bring in infrastructure such as water and wastewater, sanitary sewer and roads and make the housing more affordable. So with that if -- if we would like to ask for any -- any questions orng through the -- the list of priorities as far as what you are looking at, especially what seems to be of significance as far as some of the water and wastewater needs. That the community appears to be looking at. My question is that -- that at what point of the process will we actually be able to look at this particular high priority concern since it appear to have been the top -- top attention getter as far as process is concerned at this point? And just kind of speculate. I know that coming up April 3rd, there will be an item placed on the agenda for us to look at some of the situations that we are dealing with in some of the water and wastewater needs in the community. As far as directing the court, doing whatever the court decides to do. But I'm also looking at the data that's been captured, as we look at plan year '07, how it appears that -- that -- how categorize it, especially with the -- with the need to bring the attention to some of the -- of the water, wastewater needs that's -- that's been -- been highlighted. And so -- so I guess my question is at some stage of this we will -- that need to be entertained. So if you happen to have a little bit on that.
>> yes, sir, Commissioner. And as you see on the slide those areas that are indicated in bold in water and wastewater one of them are areas that you have already made investments. Therefore it would be recommended as a matter of fact h.u.d. Requires that those continue to be in a high priority category. That area is already represented. In terms of the specific projects that we might address in our next work session with you, we will be talking about all of the projects that have come forward and in having the court help us by giving direction as to which projects you are most interested in at that time.
>> right.
>> so -- so I think that would probably be the time when we would get into the -- into the meat and potatoes of the individual projects and it would be our hope for staff to be able to share with you not only those projects but the feasibility of pursuing those projects in the next plan year. Because keep in mind, that -- that you have a 10-year or excuse me you have a five year period to look at or remaining four year period to look at what projects you want to invest in. We have a five year plan that we filed. Each year we have a one year plan to do or for that particular plan year. So as you move through the five years of your consolidated plan, there may be projects that come forward, say in '07, that -- that are not ready but certainly could be considered in '08 or twine '09. So we would be able to hopefully provide you with that information, which projects we see as ready for '07, which projects we see as needing to have more either staff work or community work, whatever the case may be, then maybe come back to knew a subsequent year to propose those. I hope that is helpful.
>> yeah, it is. I just want to make sure whatever process we take in trying to overcome these things, in needs to address them, is procedurally followed according to what we are doing here. Just wanted to bring that up, thank you.
>> on this map here, is there any way that doesn't preclude how you can really tell exactly where you are as far as like streets, stuff like that.
>> I'm actually going to be requesting from -- from t.n.r. Some assistance in overlaying the street map.
>> right. Because right now -- yeah.
>> I can provide you with a copy of that.
>> that would be good because right now you see this all over the place.
>> that's how I feel about it as well
>> [laughter]
>> I saw that map I said well wait a minute. How am I going to know exactly where we are according to what's here. There's no depiction.
>> I think last year also Commissioner we did travel with the map that had the area of benefits in color so it's easier to identify. The maps are challenging.
>> in terms of the scoring matrix. We used a scoring matrix last year to prioritize projects. This will outlined in project collection to assist the court and evaluation of final selection of the projects for this year as well. The scoring matrix used last year will -- not approved by the court was based on the interest expressed by the court. In your backup you will the full matrix used last year and that initial matrix was based on the original $2.5 million. On the slide scoring strategies used last year, the highlighted items are the categories that the staff recommend we use this year and using these cat dwoars actually streamlined the scoring make it tickets matrix t changing the interesting steve the fool. Do you have any additional interest, deletions, deletions for categories for the program year '07 scoring matrix? I would also add that the staff used this to prioritize projects for your discussion. It was not the court's court's e to use the scoring matrix to actually make your decision. If you are wondering about that, you didn't actually use the matrix itself to make your decision. It is certainly possible while to have your feedback for staff to prioritize projects it would be the court's decision whether or not you would use those same criteria to make your decisions.
>> I can't remember the language that we used but it was sometime like -- like water is one of those basic needs that every person needs to have access to, would that be in that high priority goal of the strategic plan.
>> right.
>> okay. Regardless of the number of houses, there would not be a large number of household, but even if they are smaller number, it's still a very high priority goal. So we would use that number one --
>> the other thing that we could do is if there was interest to add a category if it addresses a basic life need. And water --
>> that was my question. But if it's in that one, number one, then I mean that -- that's -- that surprises me. But does it need to be separate?
>> I don't think so.
>> okay.
>> if we declare that we would not use the scoring matrix, we had not --
>> you did not cast a vote to say you would not. We provided you the -- the projects that we prioritized and you made your selection, some in accordance with what we prioritized, some that
>> [laughter] accordance with
>> I interpreted that to mean that we were applying it differently, but use using thesame.
>> I would never disagree with y spect of any given project is a plus. When you are looking at timeliness in terms of spending grant funds, it's better if -- if you can -- say water and wastewater project. Maybe the first year you spend money on design and the environmental costs. The second year you work on construction and then the third year you work on the sanitary sewer system.
>> if it's something that has to be done yesterday it's not as -- it doesn't come out as favorably in the scoring matrix.
>> not necessarily Commissioner. I think more to the point is we ultimately for us it's not a consideration at this point but as we continue to be a grantee in this process, we would be penalized if we had in our account so to speak one and a half times our allocation. If we are doing projects where the spending is somewhat slower, it would be better to -- to pay for those things that we could pay for this year than we could budget next year than this year. I would not be carrying a large balance in our account so to speak.
>> it's a procedural plus, not a policy plus. Whereas the rest of them can essentially go to the policy plus.
>> that distinction.
>> yes.
>> I would like to see something that's real clear. If you need water, then I think it does follow, you are going to need wastewater. So if we put water in, why can't we just say we will put in the wastewater. Those are two very high life needs. I would like to do that. I just think that's the best use of money in this particular case.
>> an education piece for the consumers that are actually asking for those services. When you come to a public hearing, you ask them specifically about it. You indicate that they don't need that. I think it's more of an education piece from a design standpoint and -- the fact that from what I have learned over the process is that once you get a wire line in, you are not using well water, you will tend to use more water than you had previously. So -- or if you haven't had any water, so you have to be able to -- your system has to be able to accept that water usage without failing so I think that it's part of an education piece, but you are right. I think water and wastewater really go hand in hand.
>> but should you make the eligibility -- the eligibility determination before submitting the project to h.u.d.?
>> yes.
>> there's a problem on stuff like water and wastewater is some of the residents qualify, some do not. You never know how that will shake out with the h.u.d. When you determine eligibility you can size the project and figure out the cost. And the projects that I'm familiar with, unless you break it town into four or five years, this amount would cover water and wastewater.
>> right. That's correct.
>> so we have done water, we have separated the two to make a project affordable more than anything else, I think. Clearly when you bring water, you know that you have got a wastewater issue, you sell dem find a perfect wastewater system where you have have had a flawed water system. So we just have to be mindful of that. What's clear to me is based on some of the requests that I have heard from citizens participating in public comment sessions is that -- is that we need to try to figure out a way to simplify the -- the data gathering for the eligibility determination. Individualized in communities that you made the request. Really unless you do a Saturday/sunday project, you will make numerous trips out there.
>> correct.
>> the other thick is that if -- I don't know why you can't get some neighborhood association or faith based group to assist, specific ones come to mind because they have surfaced to do some of the preliminary work where maybe on Saturday morning you bring the data and spend two or three hours filling in blanks, correcting it, clarifying it, allegation, to you can later really go ahead fairly quickly thereafter make the determination.
>> that is actually why we are having -- we are actually going back to h.u.d. And amending. We have -- we had a draft of survey methodology that they were okay with. We actually are going back and amending it, having a piece to have a community-like meeting where we have a larger set of people that are trained before we go in. We do an orientation, try to get as many residents as possible and then we do that detailed one on one going and following up with the people who weren't able to come to the community meeting. So -- so we are trying to put in things to make the eligibility process much easier for the community and less time intensive and more quick.
>> so is the application process -- the application -- the application itself, the form, simple enough for the average person to -- to -- to complete? Well, we would generate this survey. We would have to have information that was -- that would support the 46.5 --
>> 46.2% low to moderate income. That percentage of the residents in that area would -- would be low to moderate income. So we would craft the instrument ourselves and collect the appropriate income information that would support whether or not they are low to moderate income.
>> I think the other piece that we are talking about, though, is that we had discussed I guess in the last work session about a one or two pager about -- about what is your community look like, how many people have water, how many septic systems are on, you know, are on the property, those kinds of things. And so I think that that's where we get into there has to be some additional staff time for development of these projects. Gathering some of that information that it may be difficult for traditional residents to gather and so it will be more staff intensive in terms of trying to determine where these projects are and trying to get them into a queue for readiness.
>> another point that you may want to give some thought to with the water and wastewater projects and what we have heard from constituents is that there are communities that -- that are what you would describe as running out of water versus those communities who feel they have no water and so what would be your priority in those cases? Because we clearly have folks who see those things differently. So that could also be a part of how you make decisions on the priority. The next steps are cdbg staff would provide opportunities to provide a letter of interest for py 07 funding.
>> [reading graphic] will present potential projects to the court to consider in a may work session. Now the other thing that's not on here is that in terms of it being the best process possible, it probably is best before we ask the county departments for possible projects for the court to decide. To narrow the strategic direction. And what you want the strategic direction, what do you want to keep as high priorities. For the remaining four years of the grant. Then that way you are -- when we send the letter, send the letter of intent for people to -- to talk to us about funding then we are saying this is what the court has deemed as high priority categories for the strategic direction and if you have a project that falls into this, then let us know if you have a project of interest.
>> as part of these next steps I would like to propose we come back next week with a draft of what we think, based on what we have discussed with you today, relative to the high priorities for action sort of a vague catch all.
>> it is.
>> under housing production of new units, those are the five that you are recommending.
>> in addition with sanitary sewer and -- and infrastructure for new housing development.
>> the difference between sanitary sewer and wastewater -- water and wastewater storm sewer so it's gray water. And sanitary sewer is -- is equivalent to like a septic system. But it's --
>> I thought that we were trying to do away with septic systems.
>> well, it would replace the septic system. So the sanitary sewer line would come in and replace septic systems, septic tanks.
>> it's gray water versus septic.
>> sewage, yes.
>> it's also important for us to -- to note that -- that each year we will have the opportunity to have this discussion, so -- so by removing things from the list this year does not necessarily prevent you from adding things to the high priority list in subsequent years. If we said we want to give our cdbg fundings to addressing water and wastewater issues period, do they jump for joy, do they -- do they wonder in amazement of how we came up with that decision?
>> I don't think they will. I think the concern that I would have --
>> wonder or jump for joy.
>> I don't believe they would wonder, I believe we have enough data to support that.
>> the other question is this, let's say that we make the eligibility determine nation for a certain community and we -- determination for a certain community we discover their
>> [indiscernible] is 49%, 49% of the residents must be eligible.
>> 46.2.
>> 46.2%. To make the project go we use h.u.d. Money to deal with the 46.2%, we generate other funds to cover the other part for the project. So there's a mix there of cdbg funds and let's say other funds. Would they care as long as we can trace the h.u.d. Funds to the 46%?
>> actually, you wouldn't be be kept to -- the 46.2 has to do with an area of benefit. As long as 46.2% of the people that you are going to serve are low to moderate income, you can serve the entire area with h.u.d. Money. What happens if you have a multi-funded project, all of your cdbg money is going to pay for is the middle house hookups, taking a line from the tap to the house, if you are going to pay solely for that, that becomes an individual eligibility project where to you have to go to each household, do a very invasive eligibility process. But if you are going to do a full project that is going to encompass bringing in the water line, hooking up each house, that's different. So what happens is that that entire project even though more than half are not considered low to moderate income, you can still do it. As long as you meet that 46.2% threshold.
>> so following the judge's scenario, if you were going to hook up to individual houses, staff preference would be that you would spend general fund dollars on the actual hookup to the houses because --
>> or other dollars because you would control at that point what kind of information you would want as opposed to the very intrusive process that h.u.d. Would require.
>> I'm thinking that if you don't qualify it's because you have the financial ability to do your own, why wouldn't we put the system in but the individual house hookup, we would expect that home owner to pick up.
>> if the court wanted to accept that policy because right now you don't have the -- you don't have that as an expectation per se in the process. If you were to set that expectation staff would act accordingly.
>> I also think that h.u.d. Would request why you do that simply because if you can, if you have the opportunity to -- to -- to let me rephrase that. What h.u.d. Would ask is that we would have to show up front that -- that those households would be able to afford that hookup.
>> why wouldn't we be able to show the opposite, that the ones whose home is hooked up met the h.u.d. Eligibility standards. The ones that we would use h.u.d. Money for did not. So to comply with h.u.b. Standards we could not. So we went to the other homeowners said you don't qualify for h.u.d. Hookup, can you pay your own? They got -- they will say yes or no, right? They will say I can pay part of it. The -- I think the bottom line is that we would not be able to avoid, in a scenario such as that, we would not be able to avoid the -- the primary surveying and so we would have the information on tap --
>> get h.u.d.'s opinion up front is what you are saying.
>> absolutely.
>> okay. This is a fascinating do some sf proxy data in order to establish whether someone was eligible for us to pay for their hookup? We do it all of the time in trying to determine whether someone is eligible for, you know, attorneys I guess, you know, we look at -- see if they are on ssi, any other benefit program. And use that as a proxy to establish lenlt for us to pay for their service. Is that a possibility so that we wouldn't have to do the invasive survey of their resources?
>> in order to establish their --
>> eligibility for non-cdbg fund that we have identified to get them hooked up.
>> off the top of my head Commissioner, what we would most likely do is come in and tell you what your eligibility is for other programs regarding indigent persons and have you look at those and see if they fit. For example in emergency assistance you have a -- a 125% cap on income for elderly and disabled versus 50% for persons who are not elderly and disabled. So we would present it to you in that way and determine which eligibility I think for other programs you may have different eligibility standards.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> we'll look forward to that particular part of the conversation also.
>> on the one wastewater project, projects, why wouldn't we ask residents, in your view what is the easiest way for us to gather this eligibility information frommer household in the community? And see what recommendations they make.
>> we could do that except there is a survey methodology that has to be followed that is prescribed by h.u.d., and then all that would mean is that every time we did a specific neighborhood, we would need to get h.u.d. Approval each time we changed the process. And so --
>> see, we followed h.u.d.'s methodology. The big problem for us is at some point labor becomes important because you can't take forever. It's time sensitive and I've seen some neighborhoods with as many as 100 households. And sthas thoos a whole lot -- and that's a whole lot of people, especially if we have two or three people trying hog tog household to household together. Some have informal neighborhood associations, some don't. Most of them have several individuals who are active and interested enough to be able to invest a little time to put together a strategy to gather the information, preliminary information that we can analyze. I think our best move is to put ourselves in a position where we spend the h.u.d. Requirements than doing the footwork necessary to get the forms completed. I don't think we're asking too much of residents to ask that. But where they simply cannot do it, then we've got to come up with another strategy that I'll have at the time. Because that has worked a few time in the past, and I don't think we should assume just because your income is in need, financially you don't have the ability to put together a strategy to help you and your neighbors complete some of these forms unless the form is unduly complicated. That's why I asked the question earlier.
>> sure. And to the extent that that process complies with h.u.d. Requirements, we're pushing the envelope in term of what we're asking them to approve, but they do do to approve a macro level strategy. I think what christie was speaking to is if we do it differently for each community, that we would have to get it approved each time. But we have taken your comments to heart, judge, and we are getting them to approve the broadest approach to how we gather this information that the guidelines will allow.
>> okay. So next week we'll be given specific questions to answer.
>> yes.
>> in fact, to expedite our deliberation it may help to have those questions in advance. Those questions will be based on today's presentation, though.
>> yes.
>> and it could be helpful maybe that we roll two weeks for the questions so that we have a chance to get them to you, have you a chance to qur them and make your decision not on the third, but that would be the 10th.
>> if that's better.
>> and this goes to the specific direction and the recommended scoring matrix?
>> right.
>> and actually, are there any other -- are there any other categories that you think y'all want added? Off the top of your head is there anything of interest that you want to keep a high priority that weren't identified in the seven?
>> if we're serious about water and wastewater, we will run out of money long before we run out of categories just with the five or six we have now. I think we ought to mull over that. And the other thing is that we can use general funds to cover some of the other stuff. I know that we initiated some road projects, and so it may be that we have to move some of those projects to the county's budget. Do you see what I'm saying? Right. The ones that we can.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> but on this even using all of the h.u.d. Money, we would still have to come up with other sources, but there are other possibilities in addition to county funding. If we really prioritize them, then I say let's do it if we're of a mind to do it.
>> okay.
>> okay. Since we have you sitting there, m advisory committee. This has generate add few e-mails.
>> yes, sir, it has. Basically the Commissioners court advised staff or directed staff to meet with our counterparts over at the city of Austin and come back to you with a process to fill the vacant appoint appointee on the animal commission, the city animal commission. So at your request the committee has come back with a recommended process, one of which is to solicit -- to open a solicitation period from April first through April 30th, which would involve having a link to the city boards and commission application that would actually be on our website as well as the city's website, but then also advertise on the city channel as well as the Travis County channel so that we would hopefully stimulate additional interest in this appointment. So have the application process be extended through April 1st through April 30th. And also we were hope to go encourage applications from residents who live outside the city of Austin. Part of the -- I think the comment you have received from the community related to this proposal is the...
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, March 28, 2007 8:00 AM