Travis County Commissioners Court
January 19, 2010,
Item 5
>> number 5 is to consider and take appropriate action on the next consolidated plan beginning there program year 2011 for the community development block grant provided by the u.s.
department of housingen an urban development.
a, approve the next period for the consolidated plan.
b, schedule for the development of the consolidated plan.
c, receive an update on the outreach to the incorporated areas of Travis County for inclusion into the urban county designation, and d, other related items.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, chrissie, Travis County health and human services.
we receive community block fund from the u.s.
department of housing and develop.
in 2006 we completed our first planning process which spansed from 2006 to program year 2010.
believe it or not, it is time to talk about consolidated planning once again.
we are about to begin planning for our last year of funding within our current consolidated plan.
and so, in an effort to try to stay on time with our next consolidated plan, we're coming to the court and requesting that y'all consider a three-year consolidated planning period.
this does several different things.
it would span from program year 2011, which starts October, pardon me, October 1 of 2011, through program year 13, which would end in September 30th of 2014.
and the reason why we are requesting that is that hud is in a state of flux right now.
traditionally most entitlements go through five year consolidated plan.
right now we are hearing some things that they are considering looking at regional planning with consolidated plans.
there also is the change with the use of acs data and potentially those impacts to how the community development block grant uses census data and how that could affect us.
as we looked around and talked to our partners, what we determined was that Travis County was offcycle with william son county, city of Austin and city of Round Rock.
so while we are still in discussion about whether or not there's benefit to looking at collaborative use of analysis of impedimented to fair housing choice and housing market studies, those kinds of things, it is probably a very good idea to go ahead and attempt to get on the same cycle as the other entitlement communities in our area should hud decide to go to regional planning model.
for that reason we're asking the court to consider our next planning cycle to move from program year 2011 to program year 2013.
and that would get us in line with the other entitlement.
for that to happen, what we are requesting, sorry, that is the first thing we're asking for you to decide.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, sherry, flemming, health and human services.
the only thing I woulded a, at the time we did our original consolidated plan, I don't think any of us could have prei can't didded the changes in the economy that have occurred in the last five years.
so I think the other benefit to having a shorter term consolidated plan would make us a little more flexible in terms of how we want to use our cdbg funds in the event that there is some significant change in our community or at the federal level that might change the focus of how we want to use those dollars.
>> so it's 20111 through 2013.
>> and those are considered program years.
so if you are thinking in terms of Travis County business, that is fiscal years 2012-2014.
>> in terms of calendar, we're talking about October 2011 or 2010?
>> October 2011 to September 30 of 2014 and so it actually takes us about, our interest is to make sure that the strategic direction, the consolidated plan is made up of five different parts.
so there are a lot of analysis and data collects that --collection that has to occur to enform the strategic direction.
the direction is what the Commissioners court votes on to help staff determine what projects to bring forward to you what are considered high priority versus medium or low priority.
so the data plus the public participation helps inform our recommendations to the Commissioners court about strategic direction.
and since our action planning process begins every January and continues through August, it's a good idea to go ahead and have the strategic direction set prior to getting into the action planning cycle.
so for program year 2011 that action planning seekel--cycle will begin in January of 2011.
so we would like to have the direction set for the consolidated plan in January.
so for us to be able to meet that time line, we need to do all of the data collection now, this year, during 2010, to get that strategic direction ready for you to consider and approve by January of next year.
>> so we have a letter or document that we sign indicating the decision we may be about to make?
>> no, sir, a motion from the court on the record is more than enough for direction to staff to proceed.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> 201-2013.
>> motion is to approve the recommended 2011 consolidated plan for three years.
>> for three years.
>> does rudhave to approve the change.
>> no, the entitlements have the choice to choose three, six or ten year.
as I indicated, five tends to be the typical choice but we are allowed to pick whichever one we choose.
>> discussion.
all favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
did we just approve b?
>> b is in backup.
you have a schedule based on our idea of how we will move through the process.
i'm happy to go through or can just enter tine questions.
>> any questions?
>> basically they are the same process that we have gone through in the past.
public hearings out in the rural areas.
>> correct.
>> and I think we have a schedule already set for that.
>> that is the neck item we're going to be requesting.
>> with respect to the public input.
>> yes.
>> reducing from five year setting the three year setting, we're looking, will that in any way affect any type of opportunity to have adequate public input?
>> no.
as a matter of fact, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with public input.
it has to do with, the strategic direction is more about responding to community needs.
so it's actually a better indicator.
it allows us to respond more quickly to a changing community depending on what is happening.
>> that doesn't disallow.
>> no, no.
>> in other words, I know we have needs out there in the public.
but of course the public sometimes can see things a little clearer than we can as far as some of the needs.
so what I'm trying to say is that that doesn't alleviate any factors where public can have input to address some of those needs.
>> no, sir, absolutely not.
>> that is what I'm getting to.
>> I think actually in terms of the public and the needs that they may bring forward, it actually may provide a better opportunity in that we find ourselves having to discourage projects that maybe don't fit into the approved strategy that we have adopted.
>> exactly.
>> so it may be a really good project, but in terms of the strategy we have adopted for our plan, it may not fit.
so in this case, we will be looking at our plan more frequently so that those projects that might bubble up, for example, that we had a high priority on water development projects, for example.
should the community change and there be something else that may be we need to add as a high priority, it gives us an increased opportunity to do so.
>> okay.
>> additionally.
>> thank you for that, sherry.
that kind of lays it out from where I'm headed.
all right.
thanks.
>> I'd also like to point out we're trying to do something a little different than we did brief --previously because we have some time.
we're going to expand in addition to requesting that we take on some consolidated planning items during our spring public hearing process, we're going to keep open that public participation process for the consolidated plan until August.
so there will be availability of surveys, we will really do an outreach push and try to get as much input from people in the unincorporated areas as possible.
so I am really happy with not being confined to a public hearing process that will just last for a week in time.
hopefully we will get some excellent feedback.
>> thank you.
>> you might want to stick around for the manner labs presentation.
that might be a tool we can utilize.
>> thank you.
>> discussion?
ms.
porter, you have the backup, right?
all in the favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
c.
>> the final thing regarding this item is back in 2008 we had to renew our urban participation our urban status to be considered an entitlement community for cdbg, and as a result we had an opportunity at that point in time to request or include cities orvill--or the villages within Travis County to be a part.
at that time the court choose to keep the urban county as it was but directed staff to look and speak to the other incorporated areas and determine if there was interest.
but we wanted to provide you an update to let you know we're going to be moving more stringently through that process now.
we provided letters that the court approved back in June of of 2008 to indicate the states of the county and indicate we would be in the future asking to discuss cdb g.
right now we are going to be preparing materials and have requested assistance from a staff person within health and human services to help us develop easily presented materials that we can provide to cities and villages, to garner their ent.
then we will be providing an update to you, hopefully before the end of the year, sometime in October.
the reason why this is important and why it's related to the consolidated planning is that if we add any cities or any villages, all of that information will have to be cluted in the consolidated planning.
it provides an opportunity to be sure that once the consolidated plan is done it will have everything that it needs when it gets turned in August 15 of 201.
>> move approval on that proces.
>> no action required on c.
just an update.
>> yes, just an update.
>> kind of generally report.
anything on d?
>> no, no additional item.
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, January 19, 2010 4:03 PM
