Travis County Commissioners Court
May 29, 2007
Item 31
31. Consider and take appropriate action on the following related to planning for and the use of community development block grant funding through the u.s. Department of housing and urban development: a is amend the program year '06 action plan; b amend the 2006-2010 consolidated plan's strategic direction; c, request to set a 30-day public comment period from June 20 through July 19, 2007; d, request to set two related public hearings on June 26 and July 10, 2007, to review the drafts of the program year '07 action plan, the substantial amendment to the program year '06 action plan and the amendment to the 2006-2010 consolidated plan's strategic direction; , e, approve the advertisements in english and spanish related to the drafts detailed in items c and d above; f, discuss potential projects for program year 07 action plan; and g, 7. Other related items.
>> good morning, sherri flemming executive manager of health and human services, our presentation today will follow the presentation received at the work session a couple of weeks ago, so I will let staffing through and hopefully our technology will be up in a minute. What you have is a summary presentation that goes through each of the posted items for today.
>>
>> [indiscernible] provided Travis County the opportunity to apply for community development block grant fund last year. We completed the consolidated process approved in December of 2006. We are currently implementing year 1, planning for year two. So -- so in terms of a time line, today we are requesting that the court approve the public comment period and also the public hearing dates and also start the consideration process for the py '07 projects. On June 12th is the final date that we will be requesting that the court make their final project selections that will allow us to meet our 30 day public comment period. The public comment period we are proposing is June 20th through July 19th. On July 24th, we are requesting that the court consider approval of the py '07 action plan. Followed by August 7th as the date that we finally would have to have the action plan approved to have an o time submission to h.u.d. By August 15, on time submission to h.u.d. We are having technical difficulties so will not follow the powerpoint. Moving on to the next slide that you have in front of you, staff is recommending that we amend the action plan for py '06 and that substantially amount that we are requesting is to delete the
>> [indiscernible] expansion project funded at 5,000 and move those dollars into the apache shores street improvement project. The services that that project was going to provide was to 30 youth providing mentoring, tooth this tutoring, counseling, any kind of services that yooed needed identified through the cdbg social workers. We are still planning to do that project, but just with general fund plex dollars that currently is within the hhs budget. So we are requesting that the court allow us to amend the -- the py '06 action plan.
>> > we know that we have enough funding in hhs budget to cover whatever the needs are. Correct.
>> move approval.
>> discussion of a? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We may as well do these as we go along.
>> yes.
>> the next item is amending the strategic direction for the 2006-2010 consolidated plan. The strategic direction informs how we intend to spend the money for the five year time period. Due to the reduction in allocation that we received, due to human error, the court previously had approved six high priority categories on April 11th, 2007. We are requesting an additional category to be added, housing rehabilitation, based on information that we received from h.u.d. In terms of clarifying any water improvement projects that we may do in the future. That is required as being able to hook a home up from their home to the water line requires housing rehabilitation to be added. So we are requesting to add that.
>> okay.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay. Next there is a public comment period that is required from our citizen participation plan that was approved in April of 2006. That 30-day period allows the citizens of Travis County to comment on how Travis County intends to use the funds for the second year. Also, if the court would like, we would like to roll in the amended strategic direction comment period into this as well. And also the substantial amendment of the py '06 action plan. We would like to do all three at the same time. So the 30 day public comment period we are proposing is June 20th through July 19th.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> let me ask this -- second that. Ly welcome ask this question on setting the public hearing. Will they basically be held at the same location that you previously held for public comment or how that -- how does that work?
>> this second -- excuse me, commission. The second round of public hearings are held here at Commissioners court.
>> held here?
>> yes, the first round is when we went out to each of the precincts to meet with your constituents. So according to our citizen participation plan, these next two will be held here in Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> as far as the notification will they be similar to what we did in the past? Because we had quite a few participants out there in -- you know in the different public hearing settings in the past and I just want to make sure that we don't lose the flavor of -- of the notification process even let them come here to -- to further -- further testimony as far as the public process is concerned. So the notifications are all still available to make sure that those people that were involved previously will also be available for what's coming up?
>> yes, sir. There is an item posted today to -- to have a -- to have the court review the advertisement that will be placed in various publications in the community and we can speak in more detail if needed to -- to other means of notifying the community about -- about the public comment period.
>> because we had a lot of folks -- the reason why I bring this up, during this process, I heard that -- that for whatever reason, folks allegedly said that they were not notified, didn't have an opportunity to participate. So that's kind of drawn it to my attention. So -- so I'm just wondering when the next round of public comments is made available, whatever those concerns -- alleged concerns as far as what they brought up, I don't know if -- if you didn't notify them or -- you know, I don't know.
>> what we have done previously, everybody who has given us an e-mail add, we have e-mailed them. We will do the same thing this year. We will also mail or e-mail the summaries of the recommendations for the changes to the strategic direction and both action plans.
>> okay. So we will do that. We will also have it in I believe six different newspapers and we will also have it posted at the -- at the seven Travis County community centers, also go through the listservs that we have so that -- so that clients of -- of social service agencies can also have that information available.
>> are you able to get all of that on one page the public hearing.
>> we can try. We may be able to this year. Last year we weren't able to. Two or three last year.
>> maybe front and back.
>> > if it runs on 17 if it's on the agenda with the date conspicuously displayed. I don't think it will harm --
>> we will also have it on the website as well.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you so the recommendation is to have the 30 day comment period from June 20th through July 19th.
>> right.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> and the challenge there is to make sure that we are ready by then.
>> that would be the June 12th date is key in that.
>> okay.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> within that public comment period, we have to have two public hearings to be compliant with our citizen participation plan, we are recommending that those dates be June 26th and July 10th at 9:00 a.m. Here at Travis County Commissioners court.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> should we have both of them at 9:00 a.m.?
>> that's what we did previously.
>> the one that's we had in the community we had after work.
>> July 10th.
>> Tuesday.
>> Tuesday.
>> one in the morning, one in the evening. There are -- the problem with the evening meeting is that it's a hassle getting down there. Hassle getting out at 9:00, too.
>> right.
>> if you are lucky, traffic is going in the opposite direction when you come in here for the evening meeting.
>> okay.
>> now, I would do that. I mean, I -- the common complaint that I hear is we have some of our public hearings at 9:00 a&m, people who say they would come are at work and unable to come.
>> okay.
>> I think we ought to try one at 9:00, one at say 6:00. If that's all right. Any problem with that?
>> do you have a preference of which date you want at 6:00 p.m.?
>> it may help to get a little bit of publicity if we have the first one at 9:00, second at 6:00. At the beginning and the close of the one at 9:00, we can announce that there would be a second opportunity to provide input on that date at 6:00 p.m.
>> we also modified the ads that were run to include those times, so those times will be in the publications.
>> okay.
>> if there's no objection. We will do that. One morning, one --
>> okay.
>> is that friendly --
>> yeah, judge.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay. Then there are related ads to the public hearing announcing where copies will be posted at the 7 different Travis County sites that the summaries will be available at the website and announcing the public hearing dates and the public comment period and also how to provide written comments to be included within the plan. So the ad that you have is in english. It's currently being translated into spanish right now. We will -- we will -- we would like to put both of those in the newspapers with your approval. And the changes that we just discussed.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The final set of slides are just a summary of the work session that we had last Thursday. These are the recommendations for projects. That staff were making for the court to consider for the py '07 action plan. So for community development, staff are recommending street approvement in the apache shores substandard roads of $500,000. Owner occupied production of new housing units to be a land acquisition with habitat for humanity in the amount of $195,518, that is 82% of the dollars going towards community development. Public services we are requesting $64,000 to fund the -- the f.s.s. Social work expansion program. That would be making that program a 15 month program. Starting in July and ending -- of this year anded ending in September of next year. It would serve 200 households and also serve 30 30 youth, that's 7.5% of the funding. Then the recommendation to allow water, sewer improvement planning dollars in the amount of $88,727. And that's an f.t.e. Through t.n.r. To allow that planning to occur so that we can understand the need, costs and other related items with water sewer planning.
>> uh-huh.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Is there any way for us to -- to really find out how many communities in Travis County haven't first a water issue?
>> I believe, judge, that's the goal behind trying to devote a resource towards these projects. So that we can 7 visit with the communities. I would anticipate that we would have to really do some on the groundwork to -- to not only the communities that we know about, but also communities that we suspect. I think t.n.r. May have more information based on those communities that have sewers, not sewers, septic systems, excuse me. And so -- so that's the motivation behind trying to dedicate a resource toward being able to identify the projects, scope them and -- and be able to inform the court about -- about the cost of the projects, the proposed planning period, et cetera.
>> all right. What I had in mind was really a lot more challenging. If you throw the net out for water problems or communities with water problems, there's no telling what you may get back. But we really try to find out okay which ones have serious water problems, similar to the three or four projects that we have had, if we find out one what those communities are and, two, roughly how many people live there, and three, if we can, the nearest organized system. I guess what I am thinking about is before you hire a person to refine that information, I think you kind of need to know that you will end up with an accurate project. I don't know that it makes sense to spend 60, $70,000 to conclude that the projects are not such that we can assist. I saw one list that had eight or nine. Three or four of those are ones that we are already working on, right?
>> correct.
>> so it may be just the name of the other four or five, roughly how many people we think are affected and then where we think the nearest organized water system is and who owns it. So those three pieces of information.
>> judge
>> [indiscernible] I think that's a real good point that you brought up. I guess the last point that you brought up as far as the problem
>> [indiscernible] people also organized system basically -- very, very clear, though, because of the fact that the
>> [indiscernible] that we have a necessity which are actually the bona fide
>> [indiscernible] of water that everybody need it, has to go through to obtain water, especially when it comes to jurisdictions of the ccn's in Travis County, we have quite a few. So that organized water system we have had to direct persons to see how they can maybe work things out with that organized system. No, Travis County is not a utility provider, nor do we, you know, provide the water, nor do we deal with the septic with the wastewater. However, the -- the organized system as you brought up, the water provider, the ccn's, I think need to be really illustrated and also the jurisdiction boundaries of the ccn within Travis County. Otherwise, you will have a person that maybe right across the jurisdiction line, you have one ccn and then right across that boundary line you have another one. They don't understand why they can't get water from the other one. That's just the ccn that's, you know, with the nearest water supply. So it's a lot of things that have to be looked at and flushed out. I think it's something that we need to deal with because we've had to direct people to persons rather to the -- an example of city of Austin where they felt they could get hornsby bend water, which actually was in the city of Austin jurisdiction. Those kind of examples I think are very critical if we are going to get a status report of those ccn's who actually provide that service along with those things that you are request requesting. I think that's really on target as far as your suggestion.
>> we may not be on target, right, joe?
>> , I mean, you are making some quantity take it active and qualt -- quantitative and qualityive judgments here. I know that t.n.r. Does not have at its fingertips the water and wastewater service that is -- we have hundreds of subdivisions in the county. I don't know how many of those have adequate water and wastewater, that would take some effort to go out and make that determination. Just self reporting. We know when we had the -- we had the say the east service center, a whole bunch of people saying we would like the county to provide water to that area. That just popped up, defendant go out searching, no analysis, but obviously they feel that they have inadequate water in that area of the unincorporated area. The seven or eight or 10 maybe perhaps the worst case, also qualified under the -- the poverty guidelines. But if you want a universal picture of what's out there. I think that it's going to take some effort.
>> look, joe, you brought that point up, I'm glad that you did, especially the last one regarding the service center. The folks that came and testified in this representatives of those persons that contacted my office. Of course we directed them to the city of Austin, lamar james, he did respond to them and let them know exactly what's required for those individual property owners to -- to tap into the city of Austin's water supply. That's why I brought the ccn in other words we -- there may be something that -- that, you know -- that water being provided, not coming from Travis County, but coming from the ccn, those ccn's would be able to respond to those accordingly. With the city of Austin, we just got an e-mail from him, saying look we did respond to those persons and -- and show them exactly what they need to do to try to get the individual water needs satisfied .
>> the various ccn's, other counties, the other major, you know, municipalities, since Travis County and no county in the state of tex as is a water provider by statutory obligation. But sounds like this is an issue that keeps coming back to us. Perhaps maybe we should get ahead of the curve and just set up some kind of, I hate to say the word committee.
>> you are talking about a water, wastewater plan for the unincorporated area. Typically this has not been our line of business at the county. I think what we are doing with this program is really just a niche of the problem, trying to get to the worse cases with the federal funds available.
>> right. With the money source that is unrelated to our general fund because that is not designed to be water. That is not a statutory obligation.
>> right. So if you want the larger picture of how many of these cases we have, I think the regional planning effort would be a good place to start.
>> I wouldn't knock on doors doors. What I had in mind is a couple three hours of telephone work because I think we need a better idea of what is out there before investing hud money to further research it. If it doesn't come up, least assume it's not there. Statutory obligation or not, when I joined the court we we in were in the water delivery businesslve we got out of that but found an alternate, a private provider substitute. And from the time I was Commissioner until now we have had a water problem going was when people come and say we are running out of water, we need your help and nobody else will help us then we try to help as much as we can, which is why we are discussing had this. I don't see us changing that that. There is a source of revenue that may be available for it it. The reason I think the preliminary search is important is that if you run across several of the magnitude of plain view with a similar remedy that will cost the county a hundred thousand is one thing. If you run across more like north ridge acres inside Travis County, then you can only do one of those each year, it seems. And maybe even part of one. So it would help to have a better feel for that. The other thing is I didn't assume tnr would do it. If there are poor people who need water, my feeling is health and human services may have had more contact with the residents than tn r. Also, when announce, say we are trying to figure out who has a dire situation, those who believe that they are hit will het us--are hit will let us know, won't they they?
>> I would hope so.
>> so preliminary this is money for next year. So we have few months. Before you hire the position I am just saying we ought to know a little more about potential qualifying eligible communities. But I agree with you. I would not spend a whole lot of time on the front end because the people spending their time are in the work plan to do something else. Right? And so, we don't have to decide this today.
>> judge, something that we have been doing quite a while now, and tnr is involved in this. And she has attended all of our meetings, and that is with the stakeholders and cc ccn's within Travis County. And we have also looked at those particular ccn's to look at how we are going to deal with the growth around sh 130 and how to provide water and wastewater. So it is some activity going on within that realm already already. Tnr is involved. Those particular portions, I can slow pose in our next meeting, and those are to see what kind of record they have as far as requests for water through their particular services they provide. Something that we can basically find out in our next meeting. It's an ongoing problem and something I think we can probably do, even working with the state. I found out that there is money, low-interest loans can be made available to these ccn's to help as far as upgrading. There's a lot going on in this particular arena as far as water, and that is in the whole region. I just wanted to bring that point out.
>> it's really the biggest problem we have encountered that the cdbg funds may be used for, right ?
>> that is correct.
>> there are other projects that are worthwhile and would be good public service projects , but the water really seems to me to be the most serious.
>> and seems to be what is getting people out to public hearings.
>> and the sad news, joe, once we have dealt with all the water problems, then somebody needs to go back and sort of monitor the wastewater situation and see if we need to, I mean, that should be in the back of our minds. Did we cut you off in your explanation of potential projects ?
>> no. No, sir. You approved it.
>> those were floating-- floating--fleeting, intended to be fleetinging comments by the county judge.
>> all right.
>> if I may, judge, because our powerpoint didn't work, I want to alert the community that might be list listening that all the teams you approve today will be part of the plan posted for comment. And certain if there are residents who would like to see the presentation, we can e-mail it out if case anyone is missing what we did with you today.
>> over the next month and a half, really, plen the-- the--plenty of opportunity for public comment.
>> yes.
>> any related ?
>> we will be back on June 19 to get your final approval of the draft.
>> on I campt anything campt campt. Okay. Anything else for the court ?
>> readingthrough the bag, it is pretty maiding that staff recommendation for putting this into motion is around $400,000 worth of administrative fees. I think we are spending $400 000 of administrative fees that we are going to pick up in the general fund, to be able to use 848,000. That is 45, almost a 50 percent use of administrative fees. That is, had we had $2.4 million when we first went into this thing, it was sort of a no-brainer for us. But, you know, I guess that still will be coming back to us, to determine whether or not that is something that we are going to appropriate through budget in order to give folks, you know, this. Between here, tnr and the auditory--auto tor--auditor, we are talking about that amount of administrative cost. Do you all thick that is satisfactory ?
>> yes, as we shared with you, working with the federal government is extremely complex. There are ft e's included in that and also the cost of advertising which as you well know can be quite staggering as well. In addition to those costs that you have before you, and by the way, those are included in the '08 budget submission I think for all of the affectedaffect-- affectedaffect--departments s--affected. We do have staff in purchasing and those dents have not requested funding and big staff have tan on those responsibilities. If you were to add in the in kind, so to speak, it would be more than that.
>> that comment is not intended to encourage those departments to submit a budget request for additional fund.
>> not at all. Just intended to be factual, judge.
>> I just think that it's something that we need to keep in mind. You know, it's hard to turn away federal funding but when you have the extraordinary cost of operat operating the program, it sure would be nice for us to figure out a way that we can reduce that. Of course, we can get part of that out of the $848,000 fund. But as we all know, that is less money that goes to really what we want it to go to, and that is helping the folks out there. That number jumped out at me.
>> at some point we need to look at exactly what they will do and we need to conclude that it's important that that be done.
>> yes.
>> so if we land on both of those to the positive, it seems to me the next question is how do we fund those, whether or not we could redirect some in-house personnel, but where would we take them from, something is left uncovered so the question may become at some point, which one is more important for us.
>> we would like to believe, judge, Commissioners, that as we build in the system, we just are entering our second year of this process, that we will streamline. You know, we are still in that growth phase.
>> let's be easy on christopher. We have run off one planner already, haven't we ?
>> I was going to say, I really think at some point we can do with less. I'm glad that jerry said it. I really think at some point once once we hit our leverage curve, the cd b g will be more manageable.
>> okay. We eagerly anticipate that day. Thank you.
>> thank you.
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, May 30, 2007, 8:00 AM