Travis County Commissioners Court
September 18, 2007
Item 12
Number 12 consider and take appropriate action on county policy concerning floodplain buyouts.
>> during budget mark-up the Commissioners court indicated that they would be receptive to the idea of issuing a million dollars in additional debt for future buyouts. And we are in the position now of making application for additional fema grant money. But before we put in energy to do that, we want to test basically our policies and if we need to tweak any of these before we move forward. With that, I want stacy to kind of go over where we are. Some of the actions that have been taken to date, particularly with our federal agencies on the buyout program, what we're fixinging to do right now, and what the timetables of that application are.
>> stacy, tnr. Basically, today the account has purchased 64 properties as part of the floodplain buyout. 56 of those were purchased with fema grants. That means 75 percent comes from fema, 25 percent is the local match d. Most of these buyouts have happened in the timber creek subdivision in 4. It's the area we began the buyout it after the 1998 flood. We began purchasing in 1999 and have continued putting in grant applications since then for properties not only in timber creek but thorough bred farms and graveyard point where we have high concentrations of low homes in the floodplain. In 2003 the county approved, Commissioners court approved a mitigation action plan that specifically named graveyard point and timber creek as areas of interest for buyout. Court also approved a resolution directing staff to go ahead and pursue the action items in our mitigation plan. The time line for the hazard mitigation grant, which is available due to the recent flooding and the presidential disaster declaration in Texas, we don't have a real firm time line. We're expecting a call for applications from fema in about a month or so, probably the grant application will be due in November, December time line. We did put a notice of interest mfor --in for this a few weeks ago. We are expecting that grant application to be approximately 1.4 million with the county's match being 466,000. That application would include five additional rental properties in thorough bred farms and substantially damaged homes on graveyard point.
>> during the budget process we set aside a sum of money. Was this to meet our commitment if it's covered?
>> yes, that would be the million dollars that we're issuing would be not only part of this application but any subsequent. In order for this to be successful in the program, when we started this back in '97 the court authorized about $2 million. Because of that we have been in position to continue to apply for application, and each application is slightly different. The qualifications for homes are different. But because we already had our match, we were able to tailor the application and be successful. So year after year we now have a series of successful grants that have been able to stretch that $2 million into man more millions of dollars from the fema and federal agencies. And we have yet to do any acquisition with the corps of engineers but at the same time have stayed with them for the five years in a study, very rigorous study of onion cream. It's now starting to bear fruit because congress is fixing to allocate the real dollars and start the bayout program from the corps of engineers perspective. That match is slightly different. But because of our ability to take advantage of grants, we very able to leverage local dollars into many more dollars to help buy the distressed properties out of harm's way. With that said, there are perhaps issues with regard to where we provide county funds to do buyouts. For instance, to date it's been primary residence, owner occupied or owner owned, not rental prompt. --property. We are stepping into a new territory with the possibility of buying rental properties as well.
>> have we had a policy regarding rental property?
>> we really haven't. Just that I guess it's just the nature of what we have been buying to date, most of the units that we have purchased have been single family lots. Timber creek predominantly is a single family subdivision. That is kind of the target area. There were to rental properties there. We mainly were buying those type of units.
>> do we know--
>> we actually have purchased rental properties. If I could clarify. There have been some cases in timber creek where they were a primary residents, they would be flooded, they would be move out to get out of harm's way and rent rent to another person. The goal with the fema programs is really to get everyone out of harm's way. The poe cuss is on the structures, not the status of the people there. And then the standard for getting the structures out regarding income level has more to do, has less to do with where they are income-wise, as the actual impact on the nation the flood insurance program, how much it costs the federal government to continue backing properties in the floodplain through the national flood insurance. System where they back private insurance. So if I could clarify that, fema is really trying to the reduce losses, reduce, through the hazard mitigation plan, get people out of harm's way, reduce the cost of disaster response. Their focus is on structure and reducing loss. Period. As far as grants go, some will allow us to buy primary residence, some rental. It varies depending on fema's goal with a particular program. We have an inventory that includes all kinds of property. The ultimate goal is just getting all of them eventually.
>> so human beings occupy them again.
>> that's correct.
>> there are 8,000 structures within the floodplain of Travis County. It's a big goal.
>> are we obligated to follow the fema requirements for a particular buyout program?
>> if I understand you , --fema.
>> the second part of my question, really. So if the fema program allows buyout of the rental property, our 25 percent goes toward that also.
>> that's correct.
>> so we have been thinking that it might make sense for us to maybe expect those with the financial ability to the contribute to do a little bit more. Right now when we buyout, we appraise the proability of the e owner, slash, applicant, fema, if fema does not allow that in its guidelines, we can't do it
>> although hypothetically speaking, someone could sell this property at fair market value to somebody willing to build to code and engineer their way out of a high risk circumstance.ople in there.
>> it also puts those people in danger who are going in there. Especially if it's after hours and they have to go in the dark and there's no light and they have to go in to try to rescue people. Some of them are from the sheriffs department. I remember margo mentioning that it was really hard to put her own employees at risk trying to rescue people late in the night. We have to consider that risk as well.
>> again, this is a voluntary buyout. Those people refuse to leave. Again, I grew up in a floodplain on a house on 20-foot stittle with a boat lashed to the bottom. So those who choose to have that kind of risk choice can still make that risk choice as long as they are within permit guidelines.
>> that's correct.
>> this has got to be a much more contentious policy and issue. Seems like to me. At least in the last couple of years. I mean, in precinct 3. I don't know how people felt ten years ago, but there are obviously folks that insist on living in areas that at least have decent chance of flooding. And people are pretty bothered by the fact that tax dollars are being used to not only go get them, but to pay them for their homes. I mean, I do think that you have some situations where people, the floodplain has changed, and that's really, you know, I think that those are reasons why you have to be sympathetic to people like that. But I think we have to be pretty judicious about what we are looking at with this policy. There obviously are some people who insist on living in some of these areas. I think most people aren't sympathetic with using tax dollars to do that. The fact that we can get a plun and a half dollars from the feds but it's also costing us a half a million dollars, may be good reason to still do it, but we're going to need to be pretty judicious about who we are going to buy, what properties that we are going to buy. For example, I know that we stated that the graveyard point was an area where we were going to be pretty sympathetic. In the last few years, I think that graveyard point, a lot of people have turned on the graveyard point. Now, if you go out in southeastern Travis County in particular, I mean, own onion creek, there are a lot of folks that had no idea that they were in areas that had the high probability of some flooding. Just like a walnut creek. People say where are you doing that. You say well, a lot of reasons, because of what's happened at walnut creek as a result of just the whole urban growth and what it's done with changing the creek and the volume. I think those are areas that we do as government have the responsibility to help. Given the fact that we're going to have a policy which we need to have, I think we need to be very careful about which one of those properties that we're willing to go in and to buy. Especially.
>> let me ask this. Is there a distinction between floodinging on the lake versus flooding on the creek? I mean one possible distinction out there is, I'm assuming, creek flooding has become more prevalent because of our increased imper vious cover, whereas lake flooding has always been lake only pursue these properties for buyout that were there prior to the knowledge of the floodplain. We did look at one this morning that was that got there afterwards, than could be the policy cutoff. We don't reward property owners who have built in noncompliance with regulations or have somehow purchased a property in noncompliance. But as far as creek flooding versus lake flooding, feelo --fema sees no difference the main difference is in emergency management response. Typically on a lake you will have ample warning to get your stuff out of the house. In other words, can you load up furniture. Some folks especially on graveyard point even load up cabinets and appliances. A floodplain with creek is flashy, sometimes you get a half hour, ten minutes' warning. And we end up rescuing folks out of trees. They are different situations but the hazard and the cost to taxpayers for dealing with the aftermath of floods and managing what happens during the floods is about the same.
>> we have approved several specific programs. So do we need to act on this policy today?
>> mainly what we are doing, there's a good amount of cost to preparing the application, both staff time and also consultant time. We just wanted to make sure that we were at least for this application, that we're moving in the right deck shun--direction. That application will come back in three to four weeks for approval by the court.
>> we have funded that, though, right?
>> you have indicated your willingness to allocate a million dollars for that purpose for buyouts. Not specifically for this.
>> I would take that as affirmativei would too.
>> .
>> I would too.
>> you're saying we still need a policy. Seems to me--
>> I guess it's more like continueyou are doing is okay.
>> I'm not sure. There may be other specific questions that at least we need to surface and address. For example, is there like a fema manual that has the fema policy set forth?
>> it's serious but specific to each grant application.
>> maybe we ought to, we have four or five basic questions that keep surfacing here in Travis County. Why don't we go and pull two, three four of those programs and see what policy has been in place there? The other thing, is there another urban county in Texas as active as we when it comes to buyouts?
>> certainly harris county has ten to 20 times activity as we have.
>> why don't we take a look at their floodplain policy. One ge is if you all had to do this anew, would you do it the same way or would you change the policy and how would you change it. I guess there is, I'm thinking why don't you take our affirmative vote on the money as yes, we want to file this next application and invest whatever time is necessary, and try to plan for a work session where we discuss an appropriate Travis County floodplain policy. Maybe with some of that information viewable a little bit in advance of the work session. Or during the work session. This is because, I think our three or four questions sort of keep surfacing. So we may as well surface them in a way that we can discuss them fully, and then shortly that after during a Tuesday session, address them. That will get you all off dead center and wondering how we will respond to the next application possibility.
>> fair enough.
>> right? When we are talking with fema about their policy, we may as well mention the example that we talked about this morning that the gentleman came in here on. When you think about it, it really is kind of a delicate situation. If the owner needs to repair 20 percent of it, that's destroying 80 percent and there is no program available for him right now. Right?
>> there is. We could include him in this hazard mitigation grant application. Fema is kind of disjoined. They are regulatory folks who are the ones dictating that the county adopt regulations for new development and for substantial improvements to existing developments. The other is the national flood insurance program. And the grant applications are really geared to the national flood insurance program, and looking to prevent the hits on this program. This structure would be a valid structure for the grant because it would take the property off the flood insurance rolls. Now, fema would much more prefer that the county through its enforcement procedures remove this home. It still meets their benefit-cost ratio to include this home in a grant application.
>> that's probably the best news we have heard today about that particular structurethe other.
>> the other thing that I hear too, removing structures from the natural flow of water. Regardless of whether it's rental or owned or prior or after the date that we got into fema, they are all structures obstructing the flow of water.
>> that's especially true in the timber creek subdivision where they basically put them in the floodway of onion creek. They do affect neighboring properties by restricting flow. It's not is much an issue on Lake Travis.
>> fema has determined, apparently, that there is substantial public benefit to buying out certain structures that are in floodplains, even if the property owner could afford to do so him or herself.
>> that the correct--that's correct.
>> it would help us to have a list of those. That question has been put to me several times. I have generally responded sort of from the Travis County perspective but have always said we only pick up 25 percent of the cost you, but it is public money. And so it would help to have that fema perspective in writing to share it with others and then during our work session, let's just look at that. If we buy into that and it seems to me that that tells let's just adopt a fema standard in the future and keep pushing. If we question that, it may be, now, how much do we reduce our chance of getting agrant approved if we put the provision in the Travis County application versus, you know, not having it so these are all good questions and questions that residents who do not favor these programs can keep, I am not talking about droves of folks, but I am talking about a handful. Surely after we have our public discussion of a particular program is where I get a couple, three phone calls. When we vote for money, I think that's set through the application. So we have the money in hand so if the fema program is not approved, we never spend it. We just have it for the next application.
>> once you issue. We have a bunch of mark-up. We still have to issue the debt.
>> right.
>> we have a period of time where the absolute commitment has been made.
>> okay. Does that help any? Certainly helps with the next application, doesn't it.
>> right.
>> okay. Remind us of it early fiscal year work session where we discuss this.
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 19, 2007, 18:30 AM