Travis County Commissioners Court
June 30, 2009,
Item 9
Number 9, consider and take appropriate action on the development of a joint city and -- city of Austin and Travis County housing committee.
>> this is an item for discussion only.
and --
>> before you go into the discussion period, Commissioner Eckhardt, I requested a two-week delay on this.
in addition to that, I want to make sure that there is something in writing that will reflect that the local government code 373 a is not applicable to what --
>> having a hard time hearing you, Commissioner.
>> let me get a little closer.
i would like to make sure that we are provided something in writing to make sure that this housing committee -- for this particular item, not only item 9 but also in the housing finance corporation, number number 2, is not applicable to local government code 373-a, which is basically the homestead preservation district reinvestment zone.
so I want to make sure that there's no relationship that -- with that and, of course, that it be provided in writing.
>> the primary purpose of the agenda item as I saw it was to look at housing and all of our options generally.
i think it would be unwise to stifle discussion on any particular type of tool despite how one feels about that tool.
and the homestead preservation district is one of those tools.
>> well, that's the whole point.
and the point is this very -- let's lay this out the way it is.
now, if the Commissioners court is in support of this particular enabling legislation, I just think we need to go ahead and have it on the agenda.
>> that's not what this agenda item is about.
>> but I understand, but you are saying it's one of the two.
being one of the tools is that the taxpayers I don't think here in Travis County are willing to look at the t.i.f.
information and things of that nature that would be part of the tool you are referring to.
>> let me go to what this agenda item is about since it's not about --
>> but I asked for it to be in writing.
i want to make sure that is the case.
>> I personally would not be willing to put in writing that we would specifically exclude a tool from discussion.
but let me actually lay out what the agenda item is about.
may i?
>> yes, you may.
but again, I would like to reiterate this and have it be a part of the record, please, clerk, that in order for us to proceed -- if this is a back door to attempt to allow the Travis County Commissioners court, which would have to be a part of this enabling legislation as far as t.i.f.
is concerned to put -- forego $22 million out of general fund along with the city of Austin another $22 million out of the general fund to support a t.i.f.
in these hard economic times and, of course, that is what I'm talking about.
and I don't think the taxpayers of Travis County is willing to take that on.
and again, that's why if it's not a big deal then it ought to be in writing.
that's all I'm saying.
>> this agenda item is in response to a housing study that came out from the city of Austin in March of 2009.
and in the executive summary of that housing study on page 3, I believe it is, and I'm sorry that this is marked up.
it had my markings on it, but --.
>>
>> [inaudible]
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] stock or single or attached single like duplexes or four-plexes or whatnot.
and to come up with a strategy on how to disburse that housing stock throughout the community so that we don't get concentrated low income in any one area.
that we distribute both mixed use and mixed income throughout the region.
so in pursuing such an effort to have a regional strategy, I spoke briefly with mr.
davis about it and also with ms.
fleming about it.
and we thought that it would be wise to bring the ideas to the Commissioners court.
>> (indiscernible).
>> to bring the idea to the Commissioners court before moving forward with any specific talks with the city folks.
that no groundwork has been laid.
first we want to delay it before the Commissioners court to see if the Commissioners court as a body were interested in looking at a coordinated strategy on housing regionally.
so again, I would reiterate, it's not about the homestead preservation district.
>> so you've said publicly it can be a two.
a two is a two and two's ought to be used.
>> the homestead preservation district legislation didn't pass, the changes, the amendments to that legislation didn't pass, therefore there are some difficulties with it.
there have been no conversations to my knowledge with the city folk about specific tips or even utilization of any of the tools in the home stetd preservation district with the exception of of the discussion about land banks which exist independently of the homestead preservation district, also land banks are also included.
>> what you need is financing, what you need is money.
it doesn't operate --
>> we could either discuss this with the city or we could refuse to discuss it with the city and that's the agenda item that's before us.
>> I understand, but you have to remember, Commissioner, if you recall, laura morrison, councilmember laura morrison and mike martinez came right before this Commissioners court and testified overwhelmingly in support --
>> that's absolutely true.
they are in favor of the homestead preservation.
>> will y'all let each other finish, please?
the rest of us are trying to follow the discussion.
but my understanding is that action will be postponed for two weeks, right?
>> exactly.
>> judge, I'm setting up meeting water and wastewater the city council and there's no bones about it, but when I mention local government code 373-a, which is the homestead preservation district reinvestment zone, it exists.
that is enabling -- that is the law.
and they cannot be funded under that.
when you say use it as a tool, then of course that -- the sting is the same.
it's almost like choto.
you recall the problems that the legislation had with chodo.
it becomes a chodo, per se, where it takes property off the tax roll whereby the taxpayers of Travis County have to pick up the tabs when that property is taken off the tax rolls.
so again, this legislation as it exists now under that local government code 373-a is so do just that, take property off the tax rolls.
>> there are other tools, though, that bear discussion.
we both have housing corporations.
there is also the housing authority.
we have the ability to do home pier assistance.
we have the ability to actually build low income and moderate income housing stock.
we have the ability to partner with habitat for humanities.
there are many tools that we could utilize in coordination to have a region-wide strategy on building out the stock that we so clearly need.
>> now, staff, what comment do y'all have for us today?
realizing action will be delayed for two weeks at least.
>> thank you, judge.
sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services.
i believe that health and human services staff is here merely as support.
we did attend a meeting at Commissioner Eckhardt's request and so we are here just to support you as necessary.
>> and just to mention that the housing study the city of Austin finished this year, we also will be expanding as part of our consolidating planning for next cycle and we will be beginning the process within the next six to 12 months.
so it is certainly -- we participated minimally in the city of Austin's housing market study in terms of some feedback.
and obviously it is a building point for us to go forward with our housing market study that's required from hud for us to move forward with our next consolidated planning cycle.
>> let me ask you this, christy.
are we currently using the city of Austin's comprehensive housing market study as a proxy for the necessary benchmarks that we are providing to the feds?
>> we're using their analysis of impediments to fair housing choice.
we actually completed a fair housing -- a housing market study with the research and planning staff and also with the cdbg staff at the time we did the consolidated plan.
>> would it be to our advantage since we have to have a certain level of study for our programs to expand upon this study?
>> I think we can use it as a building block and talk about how we can move forward, if there's a way for us to build on this, it absolutely makes sense for us to do that.
also, it provides us an opportunity to look regionally.
i know Williamson county also completed their consolidated plan this year and so if we find out who their consultant is, I mean, there's a possibility that we could actually have at least two contiguous counties with updated information within the last 12 to 18 months.
>> would that updated and improved information improve our ability to draw down federal funds for affordable housing in our region?
>> potentially, yes.
when you look at the national trends with the conversations that are happening with the new administration, they are most certainly looking at transportation, economic developments, affordable housing and energy conservation.
and so it's important that we kind of keep our ear to the ground about that and be very thoughtful and long range planning regarding how we want to move forward with that.
so we do need to understand the county, not just the city of Austin and not just the unincorporated areas, but the county as a whole in terms of what it needs so that we can plan and make the best decisions possible as we move forward with investments.
>> mr.
davis, does our housing corporation have much interface with the city of Austin's housing corporation?
>> I would say we have a good relationship with them.
and we communicate on an add-needed basis, but we don't communicate too often.
>> would there be benefits to us in having a more regular communication, a more standardized communication with the city of Austin's housing corporation?
>> in my opinion, yes?
>> what would be those benefits.
>> we could discuss, for example, having the same fee structure that we offer to developers when they want to do a bond issue, multi-family bond issue.
we could very importantly in my opinion discuss a policy -- a policy that both entities could adapt very similar policies in which they would entertain public-private partnerships.
this is an important issue and one that is ripe for abuse because you are entering into a partnership with a private developer and taking property potentially off the property tax rolls and that needs to be considered in a thoughtful manner and should have written policies of when it is appropriate to consider those kinds of proposals.
>> I hear what you're saying.
of course, you have been here with us for awhile with the housing authority and with the Travis County finance corporation and many of the corporations that we have to do.
and I applaud you and your staff for what you do for Travis County.
we've made a lot of tremendous strides in dealing with housing autonomous from the city, and it's not to say that we shouldn't look at maybe joint efforts with the city of Austin.
i'm not knocking that.
what I am knocking, though, is that -- you can recall the chodo incidents that we have dealt with over the years.
they're poison.
there are some counties -- places that really have suffered because of the fact of chodo's that actually take property off the tax roll and once it's done then of course property -- the tax bills have to pick up the difference.
i don't really knock the relationship, but I'm being cautious.
i think any time you go into any kind of joint venture, you need to do all the due diligence that's also necessary.
and I think taking property off the tax roll is not a tool, especially if there are attempts which appear at this point with some of the -- it's an appearance, that appear to be applicable to some of the development, community development corporations who, quote, are just -- are land grabbing and taking property off the tax rolls.
and because, of course, they would have the money to do that.
so again, I just think we need to be very cautious.
i really don't think that that should be part of the tools as we try to move forward to bring affordable housing where a person that dwells in the house, but live in the house, but never do own the land up under the house, I mean, that in itself in my mind is kind of backwards.
but again, this is what some of that enabling legislation that I referred to earlier when I mentioned local government code 373-a, that's exactly what it does.
and I don't think that this community, in my opinion, it should have gone out to local options for the voters of Travis County who want an intervention or something like that to forego or allow themselves to put into a position to pay taxes on these kind of situations.
so again, that didn't happen, so again, even though it may be -- as my colleague says, it may be a tool, I don't think it's a tool that need to be used as we try to conduct a study to see a better way to bring affordable housing to the residents of Travis County.
and especially a tool that will -- that has the -- if you will look at the pros and cons, have a lot more cons than pros.
i handed these folks some information awhile ago, and for the record I want that read into the record.
staff, will you read that document into the record?
so everybody can officially hear what I'm referring to.
>> Commissioner wants me to read this and that's what I'm going to do right now.
the committee charged shall not include consideration or implementation of a homestead preservation reinvestment zone, chapter 373-a of the local government code.
>> if you will, please give that to the clerk so it will be a matter of record.
and again, I'm going to meet with elected officials because it's been pretty devastating with some of the things that are going on.
i think there needs to be some clear explanation based on what we're trying to do and the direction we're trying to go.
again, I can be supportive of a study to see where we are and where we're going as far as the housing needs are concerned here in Travis County for the residents, but I don't believe that should be one of the tools in the tool box 373-a.
thank you.
>> here are my thoughts.
the number nine is broadly worded.
the development of a joint city of Austin-Travis County housing committee.
which brings to mind the question what will the committee do?
so between now and two weeks, I think we ought to just reduce to writing what the committee will do.
this is one of those delicate areas that we have all been agonizing over for years, and if we can work with the city of Austin to improve the situation, we ought to.
but rather than focusing on the development of a joint committee, I think our focus should be on what the committee will do.
i don't know that we legally can authorize the committee to go out and put in place any kind of funding mechanism anyway.
ultimately even the committee recommendations need to be brought back to the Commissioners court, taken to the city council for formal action by those bodies.
so that's my question, what will the committee do?
it will help me at the next meeting in two weeks.
and I don't know that we can do more than that.
there have been a whole lot of studies done and so there is probably some value in pulling them together trying to figure out what the various recommendations were, what's been implemented, what had not been implemented and why, what still makes sense.
that's what I think.
i would like to see what the committee will do.
>> well, I was just -- while I'm listening to this, it did occur to me that the committee is not going to take any -- make any decisions.
i think you were going to try to bring information together and then when it comes time for actions to be taken that, yes, judge, the decisions that the county needs to make will be brought to the county.
and those that the city needs to make will be taken to the city.
and so -- but I don't read in this that there are any actions that are going to be taken by the committee and that it's a gathering -- fact-gathering in trying to bring together all those studies on housing so we can make some final recommendations for the future as to what we need to do and see what the different housing corporations and housing authorities can fit in.
but there's some resources out there that need to be brought together so we can see what needs to be done first and then next.
and of course we have the budget years to consider as well.
but in the meantime, I think while the economy bounces back, we can study all of these studies and try to determine what needs to take place first and then after that next steps.
>> this has been studied --
>> a long time.
>> often, by many.
so it's a good list of issues and opportunities.
but still it leaves the question, I mean, will they just be handed to the committee to review and consider and -- one thing that's important for staff to emphasize and with regard to your community block grant program because next year we will be redoing your five-year consolidated plan, the housing study is a required part of the plan.
and so regardless of what you decide regarding this committee, health and human services staff will be commissioning that report.
because it is a required part of your submission.
so how you choose to use that report and the depth of the information that can be provided by that report could certainly be guided by any questions or issues that the court would like this report to explore.
we do have certain components that h.u.d.
requires, but as long as those requirements are met, if there are any issues that you want explored by the consultant at this time, it will be a good opportunity for you to do that.
aside from your activities in the housing corporation, your housing affordability issues are relatively new and run along the lines of your cdbg program as you well know.
so based on the learning that we've had for these first four years, there may be questions, if you will, that you would like a consultant to explore in a report like this, and maybe the committee can help to crystal lies some of those questions.
>> so a consultant is part of this?
>> yes.
we have budgeted in health and human services and in the cdbg budget funding to commission the study.
>> all right.
that has something to do with item number nine?
>> it could.
>> it could.
>> we referenced it earlier in the discussion.
>> let's make sure we consider that before we come back in two weeks.
in terms of what will the committee do.
and Commissioner Davis wants -- you want this to be considered as part of our discussion in two weeks too, right?
>> yes.
especially because I think the jury is still out on a lot of this, judge, and my involvement about the folks -- there was a meeting conducted the other day with the people's trust who appeared to be the big guns behind this thing, people's trust or people's fund, whatever you want to call it.
and my staff -- I had my staff to attend.
it was basically comprised of them.
two or three neighborhood folks.
and it just the point, judge, what I'm finding out more as more as we go through this process that nobody even knows anything about it.
maybe there are folks that would like to have it, but there's not enough I think involvement by the community initially from the get-go, from the initial get-go that's really overwhelming at this point.
and of course, what the folks are saying, if you really want to bring affordability to me and my household, in my homestead here in this district, here's what you need to do.
the first thing they're saying is reduce city of Austin-- give me a 20% homestead exemption like Travis County.
also give me $65,000 like Travis County for senior citizens and also disabled.
then our taxes will definitely be low enough whereby we'll be able maybe to make it affordable.
those are some of the feedback I've been getting on this thing is when it comes to this particular issue is those kinds of concerns.
it's just -- I just think this ought to be considered and I know that it's significant.
i haven't seen anyone come here supporting local government code 373-a, except two people, and they were both city council persons, mike martinez and of course ms.
shaw, who is with the Austin housing finance corporation, and along with laura morrison, who is a counterpart to Commissioner Eckhardt on this thing.
so it's just -- this really does need to be considered.
i just don't think it should be part of the tool myself.
>> mr.
pena?
>> yes, sir, judge.
i'm sorry, I was falling asleep there for a little while.
i didn't get too much sleep because of lucio's illness.
interesting discussion.
very interesting.
i will tell you this much, that the community is divided on this issue.
our concerns, the concerns that were related to me to relay to you prior to the other meetings, also this meeting, is this, affordability and the impact it will have on the community.
i would like to say this, in the interest of fairness, and in the spirit of governmental transparency, whenever I hear, let's have members from the city and the county in a committee, what about the community themselves?
we have some -- you're right, judge.
housing issues have been studied to death for the last 25, 30 years.
i remember the empowerment zones.
remember those?
i mean, but you're right.
i respectfully request that it may not be appropriate under the county regs or policies or procedures, but in the interest of fair play for taxpayers, if we could have some taxpayers from the community, I don't want to be involved.
i have too many things to do, but if we could have some people from the community, not just those from the nonprofits.
some people that are knowledgeable in the community at the table with y'all also.
that would be, you know, transparency.
if you could do that, I would appreciate it very much.
and I've learned a lot and I respect all of you, your comments, because the community views you -- I don't come here because I want to be here.
i love y'all very much, but I'm asked to bring some things to y'all, to the city council and at the school board.
so anyway, those would be our requests from the community if we could have some community representation from the people and the taxpayers.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
we'll bring this item back up in two weeks.
>> can I just briefly go over -- I was taking notes.
i wanted to make sure I got everything for consideration for two weeks from now so that we'll all know what's being worked on.
what the committee will do, pulling together previous studies to see what the recommendations were, what's been implemented, what hasn't been implemented and why.
that could be a charge.
what are the gaps in the current studies, that also could be a charge.
what other municipalities and counties are doing and the private nonprofits are doing.
that any action plan that was developed by such a committee of course would have to be brought back to the decision-making bodies.
any options for funding would also have to be brought back to the decision making bodies.
that separate and apart from this agenda item, health and human services must go forward with the housing study for the federal funding that we are receiving and to look at also when the breadth the depth would be expanded, do we want to expand it, would there be partners we want to ask to contribute, if we expanded it, say if it included manor or Pflugerville or Mustang Ridge or whatnot.
that community involvement it an important element to consider as well as the tax structure with regard to homestead exemptions and senior and disability discounts.
that was the list that I compiled from the discussion to move forward on -- over the next two weeks.
>> my concern is hearing what the committee will do.
>> okay.
got that at the top of the list.
>> right.
we'll bring it back in two weeks.
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, June 30, 2009 1:31 PM