Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 13
13.
consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to the community development block grant made available through hud: a, request to accept the Travis County housing finance corporations withdrawal from the homebuyer assistance program and authorize staff to move forward with a request for services to find another provider; b.
estimated funding level for program year 2011; c.
program year 2012-2014 urban county renewal process; d.
program year 2011-2013 consolidated plan; e.
the strategic direction for program years 2011- 2013; and f.
project evaluation criteria for program year 2011.
>> good afternoon,.
>> good afternoon, christie moffat, Travis County health and human services.
I would like to introduce morgan khe, the new planner for cdbg, we hired her in February and we have been keeping her in her office diligently working on the consolidated plan.
so we just wanted to introduce her.
she's been working on a lot of the things that we'll be presenting today.
>> so you've gone down from 60 hour work weeks to 50 hour work weeks, christie?
>> well, yeah, sort of.
>> [laughter] but maybe from 80 to 50.
>> [laughter] so first we would like to request that the court approve us moving to -- moving to an rfs for the home buyer assistance program on may 10th, the finance corporation came to the board and requested permission to withdraw from that program we had provided funding for program years 2009 and 2010 and the -- in the amount of about $790,000.
and as a result of some retirements and things, the work that we had been working with the corporation on getting this program ready, we will take with us to help inform an rfs, but we are requesting to go out from an rfs so we can get this project moving.
>> can you tell me exactly on this particular amount of money that's left, from the home buyer's assistance program, can you tell me how much of that, is there any record of how much was used as far as assisting persons under the money that -- that was -- that is not here before us today.
I was told some, but I think it was more than that.
>> it was.
we reduced --
>> I can't remember what the exact beginning balance was.
>> yes, sir.
it was about $823,000.
>> 823,000.
>> we reduced the allocation, the court reduced the allocation so we could continue with the land acquisition project for habitat.
we never actually started this project.
we did a lot of work with the corporation to get it ready.
and we're getting ready to execute a contract for them to move forward.
so this is us trying to get that project going through moving -- through going to an rfs so we could find some providers to start it.
>> okay.
when will that rfs be, if the court decides to move forward with this?
>> we've begun working on it already.
so we're hoping that if -- if it's not some time in June, then definitely July.
there's not a lot of work to do to reshift it.
>> okay.
because it's very critical program as far as assistance.
but thank you for those comments.
thank you.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> we will see the rfs before it's released.
>> hopefully.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> we also wanted to let you know that we -- that the federal government passed a continuing resolution for program year for federal fiscal year 2011 and as a result of that continuing resolution, there was a reduction to cdbg funds in the amount of about 16.1%.
so at this time, we're still working on an estimated planning estimate of $790,119.
we are waiting, we are hoping any time we'll be getting a final amount.
but that's h.u.d.'s best estimate for us at this point in time.
so we just wanted to let you know about that.
in terms of the federal fiscal year 2012 budget, we are concerned there will be another cut.
and we will be trying to -- to provide as much information as possible to keep that from happening.
but -- but we'll see what happens.
so ...
>> hum.
>> and in terms of the program year 2012-2014 urban county renewal process, back in may of 2008 the Commissioners court requested us to look at including other jurisdictions, other incorporated cities in the county to include into our urban county.
so we are looking at our third renewal for this process and that will begin in October 1st of 2012.
so we have a certain deadlines that we have to meet for hued to be able to move through this -- h.u.d.
to be able to move through this process.
we met that first deadline for all of the incorporated areas within Travis County, provided them information and the opportunity to let us know if they are interested.
we have requested that feedback from them by June 1st.
on June 7th, we will come back to you and let you know of the interest and to determine whether or not you all would like to move forward.
we're working with the county attorney's office to come up with a cooperation agreement that meets h.u.d.
standards.
so that should you decide that we should move forward on June 7th, we'll be able to provide that document to those interested cities.
have them execute it and then we'll bring it back to Commissioners court in early July for y'all to execute that document as well so we can turn it in on time by mid July.
>> okay.
in our letter to the cities, we advised them as to the advantages and disadvantages of working with us as opposed to proceeding on their own, I guess.
>> correct.
we let them know that they would not be allowed to -- to apply for certain kinds of funding through the state.
and that we would probably use a competitive process for looking at cdbg funds.
>> okay.
>> okay.
so I'm going to move on to our powerpoint to move us on to the rest of the items. So we wanted to give you an update on the consequence detailed plan.
consolidated plan.
we worked on a three year consolidated plan that will span from 2011 to program year 2013.
consists of five section, first community profile, second community engagement
>> [reading graphic] in terms of the consolidated plan, what will it tell the county?
>> [reading graphic]
>> [reading graphic] peer groups like transportation natural resources, so they can review it and give us any feedback.
on June 21st the intention is to have the final draft of the con plan so we can come forward to you on June 28th for you to move it for approval for public comment.
so what we're wanting to do today is to talk about the strategic direction for the next three years.
and so what we did was in our original consolidated plan, we had about 30 different items that y'all prioritized as high, medium or low.
and as we've moved through this process, we've determined that was a bit cumbersome.
so we did some research and determined that we could roll up those 30 plus things into six categories.
and those categories are housing, infrastructure, community services, which is what you would consider public services or social services, public facilities and buildings, populations of specialized needs and services and business and jobs.
so for us to come to you today for a recommendation, regarding the prioritization of those needs, what we did was we looked at community engagement, engagement and also the needs assessment.
so we would be doing now is going through each of the categories and letting you know what staff recommends as the high, low or medium priorities for investment over the next three years for cdbg.
so the first one is infrastructure.
so we're determining that infrastructure is the high priority related to the residents feeling like it was the second most important priority and the social service agencies feeling like it was the fifth.
additionally, this need has been consistently identified in the unincorporated areas since 2006 when we began this process.
we have a lot of water, wastewater and street needs.
there's 119 miles of substandard roads in the unincorporated areas.
we have approximately 18 communities who want water and wastewater infrastructure and an estimated $24 million in projects that have been requested over the five years.
and it also plays into a significant quality of life issue.
and the project impact tends to be high.
because it improves value and quality of life.
the second category that we're recommending as a high priority is housing.
in terms of community engagement, residents indicated that it was the fourth most important priority.
and social service agencies said it was the first.
what we know is that affordability and quality of housing are significant issues in the unincorporated areas.
we know that very low and low income owners and renters experience significant cost burden.
we know that since 2000, the amount of houses that are in the lower ranges have decreased and more costly houses have been built and that range is what's increasing in the county.
also we know that the credit market for mortgage lending remains tight.
>> is there any analysis of rental stock?
there seems to be -- this seems to be geared towards single family.
>> there is significant analysis in the consolidated plan about rental stock.
we're making a very strategic decision for the next three years about focusing continually on owner housing because we are expecting to continue to receive reductions in our allocations over the next three years.
we want cdbg to kind of stabilize and figure out where our best investment would be to enter into the rental market.
>> is this in -- in collaboration or at least coordination with the city as far as where we would excel in being able to move the needle versus where the city would be able to excel given the cost of dirt in the incorporated and unincorporated areas.
>> yes.
we've talked with them, right now it seems like home ownership seems to be the best investment in the unincorporated areas.
however, we'll make sure that we're involved in planning efforts to take a look at affordability and where it's happening and we have over this past year been in discussions with a couple of different entities about trying to figure out where we can dip our toe into rental, see how that works out, just nothing is panned out yet.
>> has there been discussions with the cog and their -- and their federal grant with regard to seeding multi-family and multi-use incentors, I'm talking about the housing advocacy groups, cog, npo on the development to the centers?
>> in terms of the consolidated plan, we have mentioned what's happening with the cog and with their 2035 activity centers planned, the urban plans.
we also are involved in some groups that are starting those conversations and we are actively trying to participate in those.
so we understand where the activity centers are and will continue to work through advocacy efforts to make sure that that is moving forward because we understand that's certainly an interest of the court.
>> and to be clear, a majority of the centers in the -- at least in the campo region are actually outside of the city of Austin.
although it is the biggest of the centers, it is the majority of the overall numbers outside of the city and scattered through Williamson, caldwell, travis and heys.
and bastrop.
>> the last of the high priorities that staff are recommending is related to community services and as I said earlier, that's the same thing as social services.
so residents and social service agencies agree very much on this, ranking them first and second respectively.
and so what we have determined is that it's been a consistent need identified over the first five years of the cdbg program with the transportation, youth services, job training and mental health services mentioned very frequently.
in terms of gaining access to those.
we also know that the social service investments that we make are underrepresented in the unincorporated areas and so what we did was we took a look at the community impact report that the research and planning division of health and human services does.
we looked at it through the lens of cdbg.
we identified zip codes that are primarily located in the unincorporated areas to try to narrow down the field as much as we could.
and what we did was try to determine approximately what what percentage of services will be divided among unincorporated area.
in general about 9% of those funds are going towards the unincorporated area.
the unincorporated area makes up 18% of the county's total population.
so we feel like that it's really important to make this a high priority so we can figure out how to move those services out of the urban core and to some of the unincorporated residents that aren't being served right now.
additionally, we determined that needs are identified across all four precincts.
while we've basically focused in precincts 1 and 4 for our first five years and that isolation and complex needs are identified by the people who are sharing their needs.
and that project impact is high when you are able to intervene and help families.
in terms of a medium priority, public buildings and facilities, we are ranking that as medium.
residents indicated it was the third highest need in social service agencies
>> [indiscernible] it's been consistently identified as a need, especially in precincts 1 and 4, people are requesting that recreation centers, youth centers, community center, get pushed out further.
so that they're closer to them.
we feel like the only reason we're indicating this is a medium priority because we feel like there are other funding sources that might be of help with this and that cdbg might be better used towards housing and the public service in the infrastructure.
our second medium priority is populations with specialized needs and services.
residents rank this as the sixth priorities, social service agencies as the third.
data strongly indicates that we need more supports for elderly and the disabled.
elderly representers are more likely to have a housing problem and households with one or more disabled member are likely to have a housing problem as well.
so there isn't any housing specifically identified for disabled people in the unincorporated areas.
and so our intention in calling this a medium priority is taking a look at the investments over the next three years and rather than specifically identifying them for elderly or disabled, make sure that whoever is implementing those are targeting those populations.
so that we're maximizing investment to them.
the last category for the strategic priorities is a low priority for business and jobs.
residents rank it as the fourth as well as the social service agencies.
what we do know is that the need for housing and work location needs to be linked.
it also meets with the campo 2035 plan.
less than 3% of the investments made in workforce development last year were provided to residents living in the unincorporated area.
infrastructure housing and services were identified as more urgent needs.
so again what we would like to do is to make sure that the investments that we're making in workforce development gets pushed out.
we figure out ways for people to access those where they are and to work with entities to make sure that people are able to get to them and come up with different methodologies for service delivery.
so ...
what we're asking the court today is to approve the strategic direction for the three-year plan, which is allowing infrastructure, housing and community services to be indicated as high priorities.
populations of specialized needs and services and public buildings and facilities as medium priorities.
and business and jobs as a low priority.
>> so did these priorities come from a -- from a list provided by h.u.d.
or from the residents who -- who attended public hearings and gave comments?
>> so the categories we came up with by looking at other people and how they have people prioritize things.
and then for us to come up with the high, medium and low, we took information from the citizens and then also from the needs data that we collected.
>> okay.
so we looked at other jurisdictions to come up with the list.
>> yes.
what this does is it provides us more flexibility so should we decide to go with doing sidewalks and drainage instead of streets, we can do that without having to go back and amend anything.
so infrastructure encompasses a larger --
>> would h.u.d.
expect us to spend federal money consistent with these priorities?
>> yes.
>> okay.
so you want us to approve the list that you just gave us.
>> please.
>> three are high and three are medium.
>> two are medium and one is low.
>> which one is low now?
>> the business and jobs.
I'm happy to make that medium, though, if you wish.
>> to be clear, though, it is still a priority.
it's among the priorities it is the lowest because I would I like your estimate here, the community service projects and housing projects can link to workforce development issues rather than specifically target funds for business and job development.
>> right.
>> I think that's an interesting point that you can give somebody a job, but if they don't have a house and can't get to the job, what's the point of giving them the job.
>> what do we lose by making employment medium instead of low?
>> we don't, we don't lose anything.
>> with all of this flack I have heard about importance of jobs, at the federal and state level, I guess if it won't cost us any money, I don't know why we ought to -- I would at least elevate it to medium.
>> okay.
we'll sure do that.
>> I'm going to blame you anyway when I get criticized.
>> [laughter]
>> ms. Flemming, shed light on this for us.
>> I am -- I completely agree with your direction.
I just wanted to add that -- that just because it would be -- because we have assigned priorities does not mean that work does not occur in those areas.
and I think that it's important to re-emphasize something that christie said earlier, that is what has been painfully clear to us is how much of our investments have not been pushed out into the unincorporated areas.
so what we hope to be doing over this next three year plan is to figure out how we can affect that.
so we can -- so we can actually take services that we're already investing in, ensure that residents in the unincorporated areas have equal access.
so -- so lots of work going o.
the other thing that I would add, too, is that in the business and jobs category, you can probably appreciate a -- a big high dollar amount needed there to -- to see the kind of impacts that I think that you all would like to see in that area.
so --
>> we have done quite good in -- with the job training.
>> right.
>> you know, we're looking at cuts at the federal level, the state level, in social services across the board.
the city and the county need to try to close the gap some.
but a good job will enable individuals to do a whole lot more closing than we'll be able to do city and county-wide, just because of the amount of that would be required.
but a good job by one person really -- really can take care of that person, plus part of that person's dependents.
so I'm not -- I mean, it would be a different thing if it costs us $100,000 to do it.
but if it costs us zero, then it seems to me that we ought to give it a slightly greater priority than we do by elevating it from low just to medium.
otherwise the -- the priorities look fine to me.
>> I think that your direction is -- in good.
>> that direction or suggestion?
>> well, it's a suggestion now, but in a minute it will be direction
>> [laughter]
>> was there a motion?
is that friendly?
>> absolutely.
>> okay.
Commissioner Davis seconds it?
is that friendly to the seconder, also?
elevating business and employment from low to medium.
>> yes.
>> all right.
>> okay.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> able final action that we're going to be requesting of you today is for us to be able to come back to you with project recommendations.
we are asking you to approve an evaluation criteria for projects.
traditionally you do this in January, but we had to set the strategic direction first.
in your backup we provided you what y'all approved back last year.
and essentially the evaluation cite has not changed -- criteria has not changed.
we are looking at the project that address a high priority goal.
feasibility of the project, if it can be done within 12 to 18 months.
whether it impacts a significant number of households, the benefit to low to moderate income persons, finally does it leverage or match funding from another source.
so we will put that through the lens.
if you approve this criteria today.
and we will come back to you on June 7th for a recommendation of projects for your consideration.
>> the criteria have worked well so far?
>> they have.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> since you are relatively knew, ms. Che, any words you want to share with us today, any wisdom that you have picked up since January?
these four Commissioners are not nearly as mean as they look.
we all know how kind and friendly the county judge is.
>> thank you.
it's been lovely being here and meeting you all and I'm excited to be here again soon.
>> in that case, we're excited to have you back.
>> she's very happy.
she's good for me.
>> [laughter] very nice to be around such a happy person.
so ...
>> you have descended into cynicism and --
>> yes, I have
>> [laughter]
>> but she's bringing me out.
it's great.
>> [laughter] just what we need at the end of this legislative session.
>> right.
>> 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.
