Travis County Commissioners Court
May 19, 2009,
Item 13
13.
consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to the planning of community development block grant funds available through the american recovery and reinvestment act: a, review and approve projects to be included in the project year 2008 substantial amendment; and b, other related items.
>> good morning, judge is Commissioners, christie moffat, Travis County health and human services.
last week we came to you to provide the update on the -- on the stimulus money available through the community development block grant which we are referring to as cdbg-r, r stands for recovery.
so Travis County is eligible to receive $226,300 through a formula allocation.
from that conversation last week, we indicated that we had reviewed the project lists and had some question abouts some of the projects.
the court asked us to look at four different projects.
those were -- home rehabilitation, home buyer assistance, air conditioners for the elderly, and summer youth employment.
on Wednesday, h.u.d.
provided a webinar that provides us additional information so that we could understand a little bit better some of the nuances of the guidance that had been received.
as a result of that webinar, we also reconsidered a project that had been on the list that we indicated wasn't a good fit for this.
and that was water connections for plainview estates.
and so based on that analysis, we actually are recommending plainview estates as the project that the court consider for funding with these dollars.
and so to give you I guess a clearer understanding of why --
>> can you just describe what that project is?
>> yeah.
in 2007, infrastructure was laid in plainview estates to assist 41 households to get access to water.
that neighborhood is primarily low to moderate income.
based on a survey that the community development block grant office did back in 2007.
the general fund dollars would have paid for those infrastructure lines, the community at that time felt like they could afford the connection.
well, times have changed and so they are having difficulty connecting to that water infrastructure.
so this would provide design, engineering, surveying and environmental clearance, construction, and also a temporary position for someone to complete the eligibility of individual households.
to actually make that connection to the water line.
so the only people that would be allowed to be connected with these funds are people that are income eligible based upon verification of their income and then the connection would be made.
so what that does is that it -- the $226,000 it provides the whole package of services.
and in terms of -- in terms of the 120 day issue with trying to commit funds within that time period, we fortunately have -- have the opportunity to tap into a resource that t.n.r.
had done back in the past with purchasing, which was to prequalify some architecture and engineering funds for work under $100,000 they can pull from that list.
so we had received -- permission from h.u.d.
to use that same list,
>> [indiscernible], what we do is we pick three different firms.
we go ahead and do interviews and then we negotiate with whoever they feel best.
so that will actually allow us to commit approximately $73,000 within 120 days of award.
for the project.
>> okay.
>> we also believe that one temporary position and potentially four to five construction jobs will be created because of this project.
and those are estimates.
the office of management and budget from the federal government is still providing guidance on that.
so it -- it has to remain an estimate until we receive more clarification on how they're going to define job creation.
surrounding stimulus money.
>> and I guess -- which I applaud you for because enough folks came down here from plainview estates.
of course we did as much as we could do -- possibly could do for them at that time to make sure that they are recipients of water.
my concern today is whether or not if we will be able to stay within the cap of the $226,000.
in other words how will we be reassured that all of the -- all of the -- all of the contractual situations that we -- would probably come up if the court decide his to approve this project that we are staying within that amount of money to make sewer that we don't go over within the scope of the workers, within the scope of the amount of money that we are putting on the table.
i want to make sure that the public takes place.
can can you help me on that?
>> certainly the project has not been scope and engineered just yet.
so I think in collaboration with t.n.r.
we have done the best that staff can at this point to determine what we determine the cost would be.
as soon as we were aware there was some increase in cost we had not anticipated we certainly would come back to the court and advise you of that.
but at this moment in time, based on the four for five days worth of work that we have been able to do, we believe that we can -- that we can complete this project within the amount of funding that is available.
i think because this is a qualifying project, we have so far received guidance that h.u.d.
would prefer that we not co-mingle, use other cdbg funds to complete this project.
we are not sure, you know, what opportunities we would have in the future.
but I feel pretty comfortable that staff has estimated, I feel like we will be within --
>> okay.
i can always check with t.n.r.
staff.
joe gieselman and his staff to make sure that we stay as much as possible within this -- within this range of money.
>> yes, sir.
of course --
>> [multiple voices] with don't know what we don't know.
so our best guess at this point is that we can complete this project with the funds available.
>> we also built in a contingency.
lee turner, whose cdbg funds to help us scope these type of projects and do wastewater projects, he belt in contingency dollars.
also, if we start to run over budget from the design and construction and we can -- we can tap into health and human services staff to help us do the eligibility piece, so we could take out the temporary worker.
additionally, we also built in some time for lee's project management.
we can also take that out.
so there's some --
>> [multiple voices]
>> administrative costs that we could back out if we run short on the actual services that we are trying to purchase.
>> right.
i recall when you -- when y'all did a heck of a canvassing in that area to determine those that would qualify as far as being identified for low income.
so -- so I'm really pleased that -- that we're going in that correction and whoever -- whenever we have discussion, but I would like to move approval of that.
>> well, also --
>> second.
>> I'm sorry.
the residents were very active in -- in doing some of the evaluation.
>> right.
>> and helping us with that, too.
so we do want to give them credit for being proactive in their community to make sure that we had the information that we needed and I believe they have stayed in touch with ms.
moffat and the cdbg office to let us know what their progress has been on this project.
so we do thank the residents in plainview for
>> [multiple voices]
>> staying in touch with me, too.
>> in addition to, that the -- the providing of water seems to be, you know, up there with what we have as previous goals.
with any cdbg money.
so this is all kind of fitting in perfectly.
>> technically, while this isn't considered an infrastructure project based on h.u.d.'s definition, it is an integral part to infrastructure.
it's not, you know, you have to connect.
for being able to receive the benefits.
>> benefits, exactly.
>> only the income eligible can benefit.
>> that is correct.
>> only the income eligible and so -- so everybody else has wells or they are trucking in water so we are not taking anybody off of the system.
and so only the people that will be connected will be eligible.
>> okay.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> any other related items?
>> we need to figure out how to -- how the court would like us to handle approving the draft of the substantially amount.
so we have a template that we received from h.u.d.
right now mariana is back at the office working on that, we will drop this project into that.
this is supposed to go to public -- to go for public comment starting Friday the 22nd, it has to be put on the website.
i need to understand how you all want to approve the draft?
do you want me to e-mail it to you and then we can provide comments?
>> normally we would put this item back on the agenda for you to actually take action.
to approve the draft.
this is a singular project, however, with a singular funding source.
in order for us to meet the time lines, it may be helpful if the court would discuss, you know, either allowing the judge to approve that draft to go up for public comment.
you will have another opportunity to see it before you finally approve it.
so this would --
>> this is just giving notice of a -- of a public hearing to receive public comment on this project.
>> this is actually the detail of the project.
this is our intent to spend this money on this particular project.
so we will be posting that information for the community to give comment on how we are using this money.
>> so there's a template.
like we provide an action plan annually to y'all and you approved the projects and then we come back to you and you approve the draft that has all of the different parts and pieces.
so today you approved a project and what we need on Thursday is approval of the actual document.
that -- that would eventually be turned into h.u.d.
>> we're not posted to have a meeting on Thursday.
>> right.
>> right.
>> so this is -- okay.
why can't we wait until Tuesday?
>> because the public comment period starts Friday the 22nd.
and we have to post it on the website on Friday.
>> couldn't the staff be -- move that the staff be authorized to post the public hearing in a timely matter.
>> okay.
>> how is that?
>> that's perfect.
>> second.
>> discussion.
>> if we need to look at anything, that other process worked well, e-mail the comment and it's gone.
>> we will be happy to mail it out as well.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
do we need to take those bids?
>> yeah.
>> 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:
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:00 PM