Travis County Commissioners Court
August 26, 2008
Item 22
22 is a quick one, consider and take appropriate action on the following related to the use of community development block grant, cdbg, funds provided by the u.s. Department of housing and urban development, h.u.d. A, notice of noncompliance with timeliness requirements. B, review and authorize the county judge to sign the Travis County response. And c, other related items.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners. Sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. We're here today to discuss with you our notice from the san antonio h.u.d. Field office that currently Travis County is out of compliance with 24 cfr 570.902, which is a timeliness requirement related to the expenditure of our cdbg funds. I guess sort of cutting to the chase that that notice of being out of compliance currently does not have a fiscal impact. Long-term it could potential have a fiscal impact, but at this point this is notice to the county that we are out of compliance with this particular provision. Now, I think it's important for us to note that this provision does not take into account that there was a four-month delay in our being able to fully execute this program due to a h.u.d. Error. We have been in conversations with the field office in san antonio and have certainly continued to cite this related to our timeliness so I can assure you they won't be surprise when had they see in our response that that is part of our response. But just for your benefit and the benefit of those that might be listening, timeliness is impacted certainly by the projects we select. It's impacted by our procedures and processes that we must apply to making decisions. It is also impacted by things that may be within our control, but a whole lot of things that may be outside of our control. It is also something that impacts new entitlements, but it also can impact entitlements with many years of experience with cdbg based on the projects they select and those items that I previously mentioned that may or may not be inside their control.
>> if it's in their purview and the error was in their backyard, would they take that under consideration when we move forward since the error was on their part?
>> what they have said to us and the reason we received the letter is that they are not able to factor that in to the timeliness review. So they informed us that despite the fact that they're very much aware of what occurred, they must hold us accountable to this particular standard. And as I said, at this it does not have a fiscal impact to the county, but this -- in July 2009 were we not able to meet the timeliness requirement, we would potentially have a fiscal impact. So at this point staff is here today certainly to make the court officially aware of this notice. Also to share with you a draft of a response that we have prepared on our behalf. And the only thing that has changed since we filed our backup, there are several forms that are included in your backup to address timeliness and we've been notified by san antonio that they would prefer to see the information on a month-by-month basis rather than a per project basis, which is the way that we have set it up.
>> so as far as what we're requesting, we're able to actually carry it out. Staffingwise, time line, all this other stuff. Is that an impact? Would there be a negative impact within your shop?
>> no, sir. Timeliness is at the forefront of our consciousness on a daily basis. I think we're trying to move the projects as swiftly as we possibly can. So I think that -- I can't be sure, but I think that h.u.d.'s interest might be in being able to look at what our estimates are on a month-by-month basis so that if we aren't meeting them on sort of every 30 days, they can communicate with us, find out if there's any technical assistance that they can provide. So I think that may be the motivation for asking us to make estimates on a month by month rather than per project.
>> okay.
>> do we need to put that in the letter?
>> that they changed their requests?
>> no. I would put in the letter something that says basically, we understand the importance of spending the funds -- expending the funds in a timely manner. That we commit to basically spending it more timely in the future because the county -- because the projects that we've submitted are critical to our community, something like that.
>> absolutely.
>> and we will be happy to file monthly reports, however you describe it, as you request.
>> we certainly can add that. And that was our reason for wanting to make sure that what we smighted to you is a draft so that we can make those changes as you see fit. But we have outlined in the letter much of what we've covered. Also we've documented in the letter the fact that we have been in talks with h.u.d. Over several months about this issue. We've also documented what we believe are the factors that impact our timeliness, namely the fact that our plan was disallowed due to their computation error. And so that is well documented I believe in the letter, and so we also request that if there aren't any more additions that the court would like to see to the letter, that we would ask that the judge be allowed to sign the response. We have about a 30-day turnaround and we received the letter three or four days after it was actually dated. So we're shooting for responding by about September 11th.
>> that's my one change because I think that's what they want to hear. And I think we ought to tell them that, # 800,000 is worth that probably.
>> oh, yes.
>> move approval of the letter with the recommended changes by the county judge and authorize the county judge to sign this letter and get it to them.
>> second.
>> as soon as possible.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Because we have a long list of projects if we have funding to reach them. It's not the deepest flow of funds, but it is a flow. As long as we keep getting funded annually. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
>> 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:
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:37 AM