Travis County Commissioners Court
September 4, 2007
Item 11
11. Consider and take appropriate action on county policy concerning floodplain buyouts.
>> stacy sheffel,ture again. After the recent floods on lake travels, there have been several questions raised whether Travis County should continue with its buyout program. Specifically should the county purchase homes of persons who knowingly put themselves in harm's way, should the county use public funds to purchase secondary homes or rental properties and should public funds be used to purchase homes of higher income individuals, such as those on Lake Travis. Traditionally the county has gone fairly aggressively after fema funds. Where there's a 75% federal match to our 25% county. We -- we are looking right now, we have the opportunity to participate in a hazard mitigation grant program due to the flooding in Texas this summer. Staff has put -- we put in a notice of interest, about two weeks ago. To participate in this. But these grants are very staff intensive, time intensive. And if this is not something that the court wants us to do, we can spend our time in a better fashion. If we apply for this grant we would need $466,990 in a match. That would be our 25%. The areas we are looking at are
>> [indiscernible] point on Lake Travis and thor thoroughbrd farms in precinct 4, also an area where we had a 2005 bond project, we have purchased several properties out there. These are rental properties, they are duplexes. First of all, our hazard mitigation plan. This plan was approved by court in 2004. It -- it listed specifically graveyard point as an area for buyout. We do have some information out of the corps of engineers that says there is not a structural project that would be cost effective to help the flooding problem out there. We have purchased one home on the graveyard point, in the graveyard point area to date. A lot of our repetitive loss properties are on Lake Travis, specifically on graveyard point. Fema expects us as -- as a condition of our participation in the national flood insurance program, they expect us to -- to mitigate these properties, to get them off the foot insurance rolls. Either with structural projects or buyouts or elevation. There are secondary issues with graveyard point and Lake Travis. That is properties that are non-compliant with our floodplain regulations. There are two that we know of to date. These properties were built 1999 to 2000, well after the county had adopted its floodplain regulations. They were built too low. Both of these homes flooded. The current owners of these homes are not the -- not the original offenders. They butt a problem. Both of these -- they bought a problem. Both of these homes have asked to be included in this grant application. That is something else we are asking for direction from court on. And I guess the last thing that I would like to say is that the public cost for floods, cow creek road, which was a low-water crossing that was wiped out in the last flood, to date has cost the county over $92,000 to repair that. Many of these roads and low-water crossings are there to serve these residents who live in the floodplains. The idea is to get as many of them out and we can -- we can possibly vacate these roads and bridges that lead to these properties. An example would be the map included in your backup of thoroughbred farms. We only have a few properties left to purchase there, we can vacate that street, take it off of our roles for -- for a road maintenance. Debris removal. Just after the latest flood on Lake Travis, we are expecting to spend approximately $89,000 on debris removal. Human life, 44% of all deaths, water related deaths are caused by floods. Mostly in low-water crossings, the county has 110 low-water crossings, many of these would not have to be there if they weren't serving the structures that are in the floodplain. Emergency services we utilize significant amounts of -- of emergency service personnel, both for rescue and evacuation of these areas. In fact, after the 2001 flood on onion creek, several residents were rescued from roof tops and trees. So I guess what we are really looking at is some direction from court as to whether county staff should proceed with this buyout application.
>> well, I guess one way of looking at is is that by -- by purchasing the -- the rental properties, we wouldn't leave that opening there to continue renting to some other family who then gets flooded and gets in harm's way. And if we can save money in the long run by -- by not having those -- having to -- having to -- to repair and service the -- the low-water crossings that get there, then that might be a real savings for us in the long run. I know that I get calls from -- from people who are renting and somehow the information doesn't get communicated to them. That this will flood. At some point. And then Travis County gets the blame later, well, why didn't you all tell us? Well, you know, I wish we knew when everybody rents a place that would be helpful. But I guess -- that's -- that's one way of looking at it that we could perhaps save money and lives in the long run. Eliminating those rental properties.
>> in the thoroughbred farms, that's 22 families that did not flood this past summer.
>> can we have a policy statement on the -- on the types of property that's we will -- that we will pursue buyout for?
>> our hazard mitigation grant, does have some statements, specific to damaged areas, timber creek is one, graveyard point is one. But also leaves it up, we have 8,000 structures in the floodplain in Travis County. We didn't want to tie it down to just go after folks in graveyard point and timber creek. Since we wrote that plan, they have flooded the summer twice in two weeks.
>> we have already got 22 families out of that neighborhood.
>> when a property is -- is a repeat flood -- flood property, say it's a rental -- rental -- say it's rental property, what happens if we don't purchase it? Do they just -- they are no longer able to get flood insurance but continue to rents it?
>> no, the flood be insurance is a separate issue. There are two ways to handle repetitive loss properties. You can buy them, elevate theme, very locate them, do a structural project to remove item them from the floodplain or use county regulations, called the 50% rule. Once the structure is damaged, 50% or more much its value we cannot issue a permit for it to rebuild. The problem with this regulation is that it is cumulative, that is good for Travis County. We are pretty strict. But it is -- it is three events or 10 years. So if you have long periods between floods, it is possible for these structures to keep getting permits legally to rebuild in the floodplain and keep drawing on the national flood insurance program to repair the homes.
>> so you can't appear plight 50% rule until it's flooded three times within 10 years?
>> the 50% rule is -- is cumulative. In other words it's -- it's three events, to 50% of the the value. You can be damaged 20% one flood, 20% the next, damaged 20% on the third flood and it's within 10 years, we cannot issue you a permit to rebuild that structure.
>> it still requires three separate flood damage events.
>> it could happen in one. It's possible to have 50% damage in one. But a lot of floods, especially on dry creek, you only have maybe less than a foot of water on these homes so they don't get substantially damaged. They still get the flood insurance claims on the home, very hard to declare them substantially damaged.
>> what's the probabilities that fema will approve a grant for graveyard point?
>> we think there's a very high probability. We get points just for being in a declared county. We did get a disaster declaration.
>> [indiscernible] we get points for that. These homes were substantially damaged, include the ones that are non-compliant. Substantial damage you don't have to do cost benefit analysis, it is assumed that if a home is substantially damaged it is worth the repair costs. That is because they back the amount of flood insurance these folks would have gotten out of the purchase price of the home. In other words folks can't double dip.
>> when we would need the $466,000 if we would approve it.
>> we would need that in fy '08. We do have a portion of that money left over in our sort of buyout pool of funds.
>> how much?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> 447,000 we have now. 50, 57,000 in addition in fy '08.
>> okay.
>> that's saying that all of the other buyout initiatives have already been satisfied?
>> as far as the --
>> [indiscernible] if I'm hearing you correctly. In other words, the money that's set set aside.
>> it wouldn't account for any other disaster or grant opportunity that we have coming up in the future. That would tap out any kind of financial -- any kind of money that we have for -- for buyouts would be used up.
>> but I guess my question -- okay. All right.
>> thank you.
>> the grants for t.n.r., this fund is one that we have there in particular, flood mitigation grants whenever they occur throughout the years. Once we use this for the hazard mitigation grant, if we were to have another flood we would have to come to you from allocated reserves. We would like to keep a fund there readily available, so -- so these -- these events by definition come up quickly and they like to be able to respond to the grant rounds quickly. When the money is in our budget, we can do that.
>> that's the answer that I'm trying to get.
>> we also ask for a million in matching funds for grants in the budget request. We did get --
>> huh to get that in.
>> we had to put that in.
>> carol joseph waiting in the wings to bring us a million dollars.
>> so the 447 is from a line item that we budgeted for -- for this purpose?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> part of what you all stated in the backup which I think is a really important question to answer, the related questions, whether we are just looking at home instead, whether we are also looking at investment and rental properties,, have we -- what would be the impact -- then there was also the issue of homes built before '82, before the floodplain maps came out from fema, those that were built after. I think that there were four points that you all made, whether it's homestead or other, whether it's homes built before or after '82 and whether or not we would cover
>> [indiscernible] people who for whatever reason are in possession of homes that aren't -- aren't compliant. Then I asked a question previously when it came up regarding our debris pick up. Is there any way to means test this so that we are -- so that we are addressing folks who really can't get out because this is all of their assets?
>> I think that you are going to have a mixture in this grant application. Certainly thoroughbred farms, while these are rental properties, they are low income individuals as far as the renters and those are the folks that we are really trying to get out of the floodplain moved to a safer place to live. On graveyard point, I know three of the individuals that we would include in this application own their property -- owned their property prior to having any knowledge of the floodplain. These folks, while their income level isn't as low, they are looking -- they are older folks, they are looking to -- to -- they are not interested in selling the rot to another individual who may put themselves at risk. They have a problem with that. They also have a problem with passing it on to their kids.
>> right, they just want to get their equity out.
>> get it out, to go a separate place to live. One of these individuals is even disabled, these are not the folks we want to live in the floodplain because you have to -- you have to be able to move quickly. The two non-compliant properties. Again these were second owners. Both of the new owners complained that they had no idea of the floodplain regulations. They knew that the home was in the floodplain, but they had no idea that the home was non-compliant. The tough part with these is t.n.r. Will not be able to issue the folks permits to repair their structure.
>> when one purchases a home, usually they have it inspected. Wouldn't inspectors and appraisers be able to tell someone if the home was not in compliance --
>> that's correct. The purchase process will always include a fema form that will show a lot of times realtors may not highlight that, it will be in a thick closing packet in the -- and the buyer is not necessarily aware of it. The information is not necessarily stressed to the buyer.
>> I think that it's more --
>> but the renters don't -- we've had cases where the primary resident bought it vaguely knowing, but then it flooded so they left and they started renting it and -- which is why we really get back to the -- to the policy we have worked under for the last 10 years is to look at these as remnants of an era when we didn't have the ability to regulate development in the floodplain. Now we are just trying to get structures out of there and the people that occupy them regardless of what their circumstances are. When you come to the financial impact of that, I don't think this is a real -- real free for all for people with a high income. Basically we are getting appraisals that are based on fair market value, which will be what anybody could get out on the open market. It will take into account the fact that it's in the floodplain.
>> uh-huh.
>> and just paying fair market value, period. That's a requirement of the federal grant funds.
>> okay.
>> well, that -- that as assuages my concerns, I really appreciate that.
>> so we would want to approve your request giving you the -- the wording about clearing up properties that were remnants of past actions? Of --
>> before we had the regulatory authority --
>> do you want me to clarify that statement? What I'm speaking of is a lot of the subdivisions that we have bought out over the last 10 years were actually platted before counties had any kind of authority over floodplain and stacy could certainly speak to specifics. But thousand that we do -- this is a finite group. It's not just a program that we would do forever and ever.
>> not a free for all that's going to cover everybody. But how would we want the wording to be so that we --
>> in our policy.
>> so we could in a motion today to say we would approve the -- I guess the amount of money -- the match that you are asking for to make -- application --
>> we would approve the match in the memo, 466,990. To apply for a hazard mitigation grant.
>> okay.
>> we would apply that to -- what would the wording be? To apply to those cases that --
>> for an application to -- to the Texas department of transportation division of emergency management for a fema hazard mitigation grant.
>> let me ask this question. I'm sorry.
>> just a moment. Okay. So then that would cover the -- the rental properties for -- and the ones that you were mentioning in grave point.
>> as well as thoroughbred farms.
>> as well as thoroughbred farms. You have those three specifically addressed in this match.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> how long do -- Commissioner?
>> go ahead.
>> thank you, Commissioner. How long do we have to make a decision on this particular item today?
>> what we are asking from you today is to give staff direction as to whether we should spend our time -- the grant application has to come back before Commissioners court.
>> I understand. I'm just talking about the time line. Do you have a grasp of whatever the -- whatever the implications is as far as -- are as far as submitting the grant, the whole nine yards? How much time do we have to -- as far as giving direction, how much time do we have to really look at this? I understand that there have been some extensions made by fema. Would -- what you mention up till October?
>> we submitted a notice of interest to fema. That's the first step of the grant process.
>> okay.
>> the next step would be for fema to -- to evaluate the notices of interest from all of their disaster areas in the state of Texas.
>> all right.
>> then to come back to the local governments and issue an invitation to apply. So we -- we have some -- we don't have a grant deadline yet. We have some time.
>> we do have some time?
>> yes.
>> okay. That was the bottom line. Is there any way that we can maybe also look at some type of policy? It's been mentioned, Commissioner eckhardt brought it up earlier as far as policy is concerned. I'm a little concerned about some things here. I think maybe part of what we need to have is also a policy directive, that's my concern. Investment properties, versus home ownership, da-da-da, da-da-da, on down the life. How do we treat these according to policy. That's my concern.
>> we do actually, at this point from a staff perspective believe that we have a policy in effect. We have just seen people questioning the policy. And that's why we are -- we have been back before you with this local flooding. We have the hazard mitigation plan and then other policy statements in the -- in the memo. I don't want to go there -- but anyway. I am -- I am kind of concerned and I'm going to -- I'm going to need another week on this. If the court decide to take action, I'm going to request at least another week.
>> are we able to take two weeks?
>> two weeks would be fine, judge.
>> the problem is that we have markup scheduled for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. By the way, we need to restrict our agenda next Tuesday because if we really -- if we have to take two or three days for markup, we really don't have much time to get ready for Tuesday. In my view. So two weeks if we have that much time. What I suggest that we do is try to reduce the writing, whatever we think our current policy is.
>> okay.
>> we may as well go ahead and deal with these issues and vote them up or down and end it up with a -- with a policy that we can rely on in the future. Every time the buyout issue comes up, we kind of ask the same questions.
>> exactly.
>> the other thing is -- is that in the policy we may be able to address some of the concerns that some residents have called to our attention. At least we will be able to land on them, you know, it's kind of difficult to address some of the basic ones like I don't like buyouts and you shouldn't do them. I think that we have concluded that there are appropriate circumstances for us to -- to basically implement a buyout. Especially if 71% of -- 75% of the money comes from the federal government. But maybe we can -- more clearly define that.
>> yeah.
>> I feel comfortable judge under that umbrella.
>> is two weeks ago.
>> two weeks.
>> is that comfortable?
>> I guess as best you can try to summarize what our current policy seems to be. Some of that policy really is our past practices, right?
>> correct.
>> what we have done. So -- it's all been good. So I'm -- but if we could kind of summarize what the policy and practices seems to be up to this point then we can determine how to proceed. Is that all right?
>> okay?
>> yes, sir.
>> thank y'all, thank you very much.
>> we do have that much time.
>> yes.
>> because we have already indicated our interest to fema and I guess they are assuming unless we indicate otherwise we are still interested in the grant. Is there a grant application deadline.
>> not yet.
>> no.
>> is that okay? Two weeks? And two weeks is the 18th? Okay. Thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> y'all can sing happy birthday to me on that day.
>> oh, okay.
>> [laughter] all right.
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, September 5, 2007, 18:30 AM