Travis County Commissioners Court
April 3, 2007
Item 22
22. 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. Strategic direction for 2006-2010 consolidated plan strategic direction; 2. B. Scoring matrix for prioritizing projects for plan year 2007; and 3. C. Other related issues.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... Staff is before you today to recommend that we reduce that list from 17 priorities categories to six. Keep in mind that you have an opportunity at any point that you desire to add to that list so by changing the priority categories for this plan year, does not prevents you from again changing those priorities categories for the next plan year. Our recommendation today is that you consider the priority categories to plan year to be water and sewer improvements, street and road improvements, owner housing production of new units, infrastructure for new housing developments, youth services and other public service. Our first question to the court would be are there any additional categories from the original 17 that you would like to add to the high priority list?
>> okay. This is five right?
>> there was a -- there was a --
>> a formatting error. Youth services is running into infrastructure for new housing development. So that's how it got six.
>> okay. So youth services should be separate.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. I'm fine with that.
>> move approval of this list.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. The second, did you want to call up the next item.
>> we called all of them up.
>> I have been cautioned about acting as county clerk.
>> sometimes I wish you could be here and I be out there ms. Flemming.
>> thank you, sir, the next part is the scoring matrix for project prioritization. As we discussed with the court last week, staff would use the crooitd listed to prioritize projects. However we will present to the court all project that's come forward, only indicating which ones meet the priority criteria. Staff were proposing that you approve the following criteria. Addresses a high priority goal of the strategic plan, the feasibility of the project, and that speaking to the ability to complete the project within 18 months, I would not have you be concerned about that time period. It connects to our timeliness issue. Certainly if we are having a timeliness issue in the completion of a project, we have several opportunities to intervene to reallocate funding so that we don't run into a timeliness issue. I wouldn't have that disturb you there. Impacts large number of households. We would certainly indicate to you how many households will be impacted by the project. Benefit low to moderate income persons. Leverages are matched with funding from another source, then a phased project. A phased project also speaks to our timeliness issue that I mentioned earlier. Are there any other criteria that the court would like to add to this for staff to use to prioritize projects for cdbg funding selection.
>> the word large may trap us if you are not careful. In my view if there's a critical need that would serve 30 or 40 families that would be significant. I'm not sure that large of an impact compared to -- to 900,000. You see what I'm saying. It certainly significant so a large is p.u.d.es.
>> that would be ours.
>> significant be a little bit better? Large clearly goes to -- to if we say significant number of households, I think the 40 that went in this morning, kennedy ridge early on I think had 40 or 50, but it was -- it was a lot for that situation.
>> certainly.
>> > it was a significant, probably not that large in the grand scheme of things.
>> I think in a lot of the projects that we look at, 39 or 40 household is a large number. But significant is easily done and we can provide for the court if we have the information the number of people or households that will be impacted by each project.
>> how will the matrix elements be weighted against one another. I'm assuming the high priority goal would have the heaviest weight applied to it. But what is the weight being of these.
>> we haven't actually come up with that yet. But last year what we did was we took each criteria and broke it out amongst the point system. Actually vetted that with the cdbg committee, talked about what seems to be the most important and used the point system that way.
>> any problems with changing that?
>> any other recommendations? I move approval of the scoring matrix.
>> second.
>> as recommended by staff. Discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any related issues?
>> no related issues at this time, judge. Thank you.
>> thank you. Are we together on this morning the actions taken by the court.
>> yes, we are.
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:
Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 9:34 PM