Travis County Commissioners Court
May 27, 2008
Item 17
17 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to planning andrew mcintosh the use of community development block grant funding from the u.t. Department of housing and urban agreement. A, request to approve June 25th 2008 through July 26, 2008 as the 30 day public comment period for the public to receive the drafts of the program year '08 action plan and the substantial amendment to the program year '06 action plan. B is request to approve public hearings on July 1st, 2008 and July 22nd, 2008 to receive comment on the drafts of the program year '08 action plan and the substantial amendment to the program year '06 action plan. C, request to approve the advertisements announcing the public hearing dates and the 30-day public comment period to be placed in newspapers of general circulation. D, request to authorize the substantial amendment of the program year 2006 action plan by deleting the social work expansion services project and reprogramming the funds in the amount of $83,659 to another project. E, request to approve the potential projects for the program year 2008 action plan. And f, other related issues. Morning. >> morning. Christie moffett, Travis County health and human services. I promise this doesn't seem quantity as daunting as -- doesn't seem quite as daunting as all of the words in the agenda item. As the court is aware, we are in the middle of creating our 2008 program year action plan for the community development block grant funds that we spree the u.t. Department of housing and urban development. We're going to receive approximately $833,133 for program year '08. And as required by 20 cfr part 91 and also by our approved citizen participation plan, we are required to hold a 30-day public comment period for the public to comment to the proposed uses for cdbg funds for year 2008. Also the action plan needs to be approved due to funds that were not spent in an expeditious manner, and also those funds are required with public comment as well. So we are requesting that the court approve June 25th 2008 through July 26th, 2008 as the 30-day public comment period for the public to have the opportunity to provide written comment to the staff so that we can provide that to you at a later date prior to the final draft of the action plan.
>> judge, do we approve these as we go along?
>> that would be fine.
>> I move approval of a.
>> discussion of a? That basically is the public comment period. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B?
>> b is we also are required to have two public hearings related -- during the time of the 30-day comment period, and so staff is recommending July 1st and July 22nd as those dates at 9:00 o'clock here at the Commissioners court.
>> move approval of b.
>> second.
>> should we just say what the substantial amendment is?
>> the substantial amendment is actually deleting the social work expansion project, and that is for $83,659. And hopefully soon the court will approve what project you want to support those dollars for.
>> remind me of why that's a good act?
>> we have a cap on how much money we can spend towards public services annually. And that money -- that cap doesn't change even though we allocated $83,659 in 2006. We weren't able to spend that money because we had difficulty in hiring the staff to actually have that project occur. And so currently we do have staff hired. That person has started serving clients. And they started serving clients this month. But what happened is that if we don't reprogram those dollars, if we try to spend that $83,659, we're going to actually end up being over our public services cap. So based on regulations and the data management system, staff recommends that we go ahead and reprogram those funds for a community development project.
>> this action is necessary for us to comply with h.u.d. Guidelines.
>> correct.
>> and to keep all the money.
>> yes.
>> any more discussion of b? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We have just received an explanation of d.
>> of d?
>> haven't we?
>> basically.
>> move approval of d.
>> second.
>> anything else we need to know about d.
>> d, the project that staff is recommending is the lava lane project. It is a substandard road street improvement, and it is -- basically there's a road that is not -- part of the road is Travis County maintained. That is not the part of the road that the lava lane project would touch. The rest of it is not maintained by Travis County. And the issue is that emergency vehicles, school buses are not able to pass because there's not a turnaround and the road is not safe for the school buses to come down. So there's a busy intersection at culver lane and lava lane where children -- approximately 12 children have to walk a little more than -- perhaps three-quarters to half a mile down a road everyday, and it's just not necessarily a safe environment. So what we're recommending is that the design portion of this project to be funded with that $83,659 for the project to go forward. Now, in approving that, the staff would also recommend that the court know and understand that the staff are requesting additional funds in '09 in the amount of $50,000 for right-of-way acquisition, and then also in 2010, approximately $554,000, which would essentially be most of the community developmental indication for 2010. So it is a project that requires additional funding and the additional use of cdbg dollars in the future.
>> is that the bottom line for this particular project even though it goes into plan year of another year other than what we're discussing here this morning? In other words, the -- if you just look at the bottom line total -- I知 sorry.
>> sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services. I think that part of the design work that needs to be done would get us closer to -- I think it's best to identify the amounts we've quoted as estimates. I think they're probably pretty good estimates, but they're based on 2008 prices. So we certainly can imagine that we may be off a percentage once the project is designed out. And of course even though the project requires an additional investment, the court will continue to have authority to make decisions about that investment as each of those plan years come before you for approval.
>> so if there's any necessary -- I知 not just talking about this particular project. I知 talking about all ongoing -- all future projects, if there is necessary adjustments that have to be made because of prices changing from one year to the next, the court has that prerogative to do those kind of things, is that correct? I want to make sure that we can actually change it because we may have been short and not really fulfill the project because we're short. So I want to make sure that's understood when we come up with these projections that we do have some flexibility to make cost adjustments.
>> the action you take today will only be planning and design for the project. And that will be done by transportation and natural resources with the engineer that we've already employed under cdbg. No? Okay. It would be a consultant that would do the design and planning for that. But your action today only approves the evaluation of the project and design. We will come back for plan year '09 with that 40 a consultant, and staff's recommendation regarding that potential project in the midst of other projects that will come in just as others do through your public comment period. So the court will have the opportunity to decide which programs and projects they want to prioritize for each of the subsequent years.
>> okay.
>> if there's such a situation where we come with a shortfall for particular projects, the court can move -- can change funding up to 20% -- up to 24.99% for any particular project so that we can shift money around if we need to to be able to come up with any shortfall. Anything beyond that requires a substantial amendment of the action plan. And then it's just a public comment period. So all of those things can be addressed, it just depends upon how much and what action have you to take.
>> okay. I just wanted to lay it out. Thank you.
>> and then finally, the opportunity you town have, for example, if the court did not initially approve this project, should you lack funds on another project, you could do much like you're doing today, vote to allocate funds that have lagged from a previous project on to this project. So you have some funding opportunities, so I don't want you to feel like you're sort of locked in to those amounts because there are some creative ways that we might be able to get to the same place.
>> right.
>> is the lava lane project a joint recommendation -- essentially a joint recommendation with tnr in regards to infrastructure projects of needs in the community?
>> they're actually the ones that brought the project to us. It went through the substandard road program. And they thought that the residents were going to have difficulty in being able to make those funding commitments. And so they recommended to us -- I believe it was in January -- the project.
>> how many residence will benefit from this -- how many residents will benefit from this project?
>> we estimate about 20 howard holds. It's a little over $24,000 per household, but we will end up getting the amount of actual residents that -- impacts prior to the construction phase.
>> part of the substandard roads policy is that we don't purchase right-of-way. You're suggesting that we are spend $50,000 purchasing right-of-way.
>> it was actually part of the tnr proposal. I知 a little limit understand my ability to answer. We are allowed to -- for cdbg to purchase right-of-way. That's an allowable cost. We're not actually --
>> if it requires policy waiver, I mean, I guess -- the ones we've had in the past we have taken the money and applied it directly to the project, and typically we expect residents to dedicate right-of-way and whatever sweat equity they can give. I do think we ought to address that. I don't know if we ought to local this up, but my vote ultimately will turn on that, unless there are compelling circumstances that would justify a waiver. As far as I know we've played applied that across the board.
>> fiesta carnival understand the project correctly, I think I致e spoken to the two residents where the right-of-way issue would come into play, and at least verbally they have indicated at this point that it's the only two homeowners, and I believe it is, that they're fine with donating it.
>> there may be a combination of things going otnr would have that information.
>> I知 thinking of four or five projects where that mattered, but we would generate fund to go design the project, to actually construct it, to monitor, etcetera. The benefit is substantial, but it's a good public project. And so I don't have any problem doing it, but I do -- if we put the policy in place, and my guess is that probably some communities have been excluded because they've not complied with that.
>> staff can certainly make sure that we have that information prior to its progress tropical depression of that.
>> and the court can have a policy that any project that cdbg takes on would require the donation of right-of-way.
>> which is what tnr would look for.
>> move approval with that understanding.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Less go back and pick up c. Oirks pages 6 of 8 in your backup we have the advertisements in both english and pan spanish that announce the location where people can find summaries and also copies of the drafts of the substantial amendment and the action plan and also the public hearing dates. These will be put in newspapers of general circulation. We're actually doing something a little different in terms of spanish language outreach. We're going to target spanish advertisements in the Austin chronicle. Other than that the rest of the newspapers will just have english advertisements in it. That's our way that -- we've looked at circulation rates and tried to find a more strategic way to engage that particular population.
>> move approval of c.
>> second? Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. You.
>> okay. E is potential projects for program year 2008. We provided information for you on particular projects in a work session on 5-8 and we've actually made some changes to the recommendations that we provided to the court at that work session. So again we have # $833,133 for program year '08. And we are recommending instruct for new housing development, which is in the amount of half a million dollars. The installation of public infrastructure to include water, sewer, gas and electric lines as well as streets to support the land with a acquisition project in py '06 and py '07 as a designated recipient, Austin habitat for humanity would manage those dollars. It is the creation of 41 affordable housing units. Right now we have a couple of outstanding questions regarding this project to habitat. And so we wouldn't actually be requesting that -- we would actually be requesting that you hold off on approving this. We have some questions that we're needing to -- some additional information that we need. We're also recommending a homeowner rehabilitation project, which would mimic the current weatherization and home repair services that the traffic health and human services department through our housing services division provides. It would be home repair and weatherization services to be complete bid a nonprofit designated as a subrecipient identified through a formal application process. Based on the feed backs that we got at the work session, we're recommending that the maximum amount available to each outside hold who applies is determined eligible would be $5,000. That matches the current investment that's allowed into homes with the Travis County funded home repair program. These houses can be anyone in the entire presyringe and the unincorporated areas. Much like they do through the Travis County program. And if the court wishes for us to target a particular subset of people, if the court wants us to target very low income persons, low income or moderate income, that is something that y'all can let us know if you have interest in and if you're wanting to target a certain demographic. So we're saying about $106,136 for that project. For public services we're recommending the continuation of an internal health and human services program through the family support services division to expand social work services. Services include case management information and referral, increased access to youth flexible funding and also outreach. It's one social worker to provide assistance to a minimum of 100 households. It's $64,788 for that project. Iphonely administration and planning, this amount is capped at 20% of the total allocation. We're recommending the allocation of a water, wastewater planning. This is senior engineer staff at tnr. And that person started on April first. This project also includes assessing 16 neighborhoods for future water or wastewater projects. This is an increase of I believe six neighborhoods from last year who have identified an interest. What this position would be doing is not only helping them do the project management with some of the infrastructure projects that tnr is managing on our behalf, but also to provide a report that we would come to the court hopefully within the next 12 to 18 months to let you know potentially what some of the cost related to water or wastewater infrastructure is based on the community needs. And then finally we're recommending to fund $53,505 in administrative operating expenses. This includes projects related to advertising, training, office supplies and also a once every five-year 25,000-dollar allocation to an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. This is a required analysis that we need to do every five years. And the city of Austin let us use theirs. It's actually quite a deal of work. So the city of Austin let us use theirs during our original consolidated planning process. And we'd like to go ahead and get that done so that we can create a plan prior to our next consolidated planning process.
>> we believe these recommendations comport with h.u.d. Guidelines?
>> yes, of course.
>> move approval.
>> so we will revisit the habitat proposal at a later date?
>> yes.
>> discussion?
>> judge, let me ask, christie or sherri, our 166,000, which is our 20 percent for our administrative, now, wented to leave as much as we could in the programs and we are leaving that in the general fund. Do we pick up the whole 166,000 out of general fund now?
>> well, currently we have one approved cdbg position. We have a second position that the court approved during the '08 budget process that planning and budget would reduce the department's salary savings to fund. And then there are other administrative costs, I believe. I don't have that -- do we have that number?
>> it's $25,000 in operating expense.
>> so I mean, the total general fund budget.
>> it's in here somewhere.
>> okay. So for the general fund for '08 it's 161184. And can you find that on page 13 in your backup.
>> so out of our 165,000 that's administrative is out of the general fund.
>> yes. Now, I知 afraid what might not be included in that, I believe there's a position in the auditor's office that is not included in that amount that is related to cdbg.
>> and also the water and wastewater planning, it's considered -- because it's not for a specific project, it's considered administration and planning, but we consider it a project. I mean, in terms of how staff think about it, we think of it as a list of project costs because it's responding to the needs that the public is indicating that they have an interest in getting water or wastewater infrastructure. So $108,000 of it is actually towards planning for a future project.
>> June, I just bring that up because -- I don't have any problem with what we're -- it looks like we're going to vote on today, but I do think that we need to start looking at some of these cdbg funds to take on some of the administrative costs because we're ratcheting up a pretty good chunk of change out of the general fund. We need the ability to use 20% of them for administrative. So if we don't watch it, we're going to billion ourselves a general fund transfer or usage for cdbg, and pretty soon we're going to be going why are we doing cdbg? It was something when we all got giddy over the fact that we thought we would get two and a half million dollars, but the # 838,000, so I知 just watching these f.t.e.'s and these folks in these places that continue to be added. So I do think that we need to be mindful that these -- that using these cdbg funds, it's because we're doing it. The feds will probably say, hey, you certainly have the ability to use 20% of that dough that we're giving you on administrative. So it's probably time to -- and I think that probably 2009, the 2009 budget is going to necessitate that we look at some things like that. Something we can look at in the budge.
>> if we tie the senior engineer to a project, does h.u.d. Consider that to be a project or an administrative cost?
>> it's considered an administrative cost because it's a general planning project. And so -- because we're not targeting one particular neighborhood, because it is multiple neighborhoods and more of a generalist planning project, it's considered administration planning.
>> it may be somewhat strange, but if we were to hire the engineer and do one project at a time, then it will become a project versus an administrative cost. It's staff's belief that it's more expeditious to -- and efficient to look at these projects and be able to provide some general information to the court as you move forward in spending cdbg dollars, so you at least know what's out there, because what we would be faced with is each year as we did our planning, we would be looking individually at these projects one to one instead of looking at them in the context of the multiple projects that exist out there. So I hope that makes sense. The -- in response to your comment, Commissioner Daugherty, I think staff is also looking at project with an eye towards what is the impact on the administrative cost? Some projects have a high degree of administrative support required, some projects not such a high degree. So I think that we are continually mindful of the court's interest to contain the administrative costs related to the use of those funds?
>> okay.
>> also in regard to water and wastewater, these are issues that in an attempt to avoid a colonias situation inside our uncorporated territories, we would probably be wanting to do this kind of assessment in any case. I would assume.
>> I would agree.
>> and based upon the citizen response, the interesting thing is we don't all have the same people showing up to the public hearings, but the prevailing issues that we keep hearing is water, wastewater and also streets.
>> and that issue is likely to be exacerbated with the increased and quickened pace of development in eastern Travis County, I would assume.
>> and yes, if we addressed colonias situation earlier or as soon as we can --
>> so we could have a cohesive, comprehensive strategy rather than a one hit wonder here and there.
>> that would be staff's goal, yes.
>> was there a second?
>> yes. I moved approval.
>> Commissioner eckhardt seconded.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, may we ask for a clarification of the motion? We approved all projects except the habitat project?
>> I think so. I think we ought to call it up again and discuss it as soon as it's right.
>> no, that is exactly staff's recommendation. We want to be sure that's what happened.
>> then I go along with my staff.
>> [ laughter ]
>> anything under f? Other related issues?
>> no, other than you will be receiving the -- we've been working dell gently with orca and also capcog to get information about the urban county renewal about who to contact at the different cities and also we believe we have a good final draft after sherri reviews it we will be forwarding it to the court probably within the next 24 to 48 hours.
>> okay.
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 28, 2008 8:51 PM