Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 9
Number 9, consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to the community development block grant available through the u.s.
department of housing and urban development.
a, update on interested municipalities joining the urban county for prom years 2012 and 2014 or through 2014.
and b, request to move forward with participation agreements.
>> christy moffett, Travis County health and human services.
we have to renew our urban county qualification every three years, so we are in the process of doing that now, looking at program years 2012 through 2014.
what that does is gives us the opportunity to request the 21 incorporated areas in the county if they want to participate in the urban county.
what that means is basically if they have a request for cdbg fund, we come through us rather than going through the state.
as a part of that process back in 2008 the Commissioners court requested that staff determine the interest of the municipalities and the county.
on may 13th, we sent out a letter asking them if they were interested and gave them until June 1 to provide a letter of interest.
we've had two entities indicate interest.
the first was the city of Pflugerville and the second was the village of webberville.
and if we were to include them in the urban county, that would be an increase of 47,028 people into the urban county, which is a 26% increase.
however, I just want to stress this does not necessarily mean that our allocation would increase by 26%.
there is a formula that h.u.d.
uses as they look at population, poverty and also the condition of housing.
so at this point in time it's unclear what the net change would be to our allocation effort if the court were to decide to move forward with including these two municipalities.
what we have done is worked the county attorney's office and a cooperation agreement is attached to the backup that was revised and given to you on Friday.
and this is the document that meets h.u.d.
standard that would have to be signed by the city and ratified by the the can signed so that we could move forward with including them.
and at this time, you know, there are pros and cons to including them.
and you know, in terms of the benefits, it helps us collaborate, it helps us talk about planning in terms of infrastructure and housing.
in terms of the some of the things we would have to do if we were to include them is we would have to amend our consolidated plan next year.
we would have to look at their policies that they have and make sure that there aren't any impediments, different housing choice and those kinds of things.
and so really it's, you know, up to y'all about how you want to move forward at this time.
>> let me ask this question also.
I notice there's several municipalities within Travis County that we actually reached out to, that you reached out to to include in this particular cdbg opportunity.
my concern is, I know they don't really have to state, I know they have to go through the state, but my concern is this, and I know these smaller municipalities, and looking at manor for example, webberville and, of course, Pflugerville and manor appear to be the only one who accepted this outreach from using and bringing under the umbrella of cdbg funding.
is it staffing that may -- is it staffing maybe pose a challenge to the municipalities?
I'm looking at the village of webberville for example.
manor, Pflugerville.
any of the other municipalities in the county.
is staffing -- is that an issue or not?
in other words, the staffing of the municipalities.
>> I think it's a variety of issues, staffing certainly being one of them.
I think it may be the stage of development that these villages and municipalities, where they are currently, we will certainly have to work with even those who you might consider to include in the urban county to ensure that they have appropriate policies that conform to the same policies we have to conform to for h.u.d.
and so I think it's the idea that they would be restricted from approaching the state for cdbg funds, the staffing and then just where they are in their development.
that would be my guess.
I don't know that we received any detailed responses that we could give you more specific data on why the cities have rejected our requests.
you know, it's something that we can do every three years and it could be that some of these other areas are more developed the next time if we choose to open it up again, but those will be the top three from my perspective.
>> and I think we've also had some informal conversations with municipalities -- or with urban counties who have participating cities.
most urban counties do.
so we're very unusual in the fact that we don't have any.
and so as we've talked to them, there's a variety of ways you can implement this process.
some give the funds to the cities and let them handle it and then monitor the city's interactions.
other counties maintain the funding and handle the project on the city or village's behalf.
I think we've looked at two different models where the county actually maintains control of the funding just because of the level of risk involved should, you know, things not move forward well.
but it's a series of decisions that would have to be made should we move forward with the participation.
there's a variety of things that would have to be determined in order of how we're going to select projects, you know, are we going to award particular amounts of money to particular jurisdictions, is everything going to be competitive.
there's a lot of work involved to make this happen.
>> and those decisions don't have to be made today.
>> no, they don't have to be made today.
>> I was kind of surprised that manor, of course, did not participate basically because we've been getting a lot of calls in from them talking about economic development and not from maybe the structure as far as the city is concerned, but and sometimes within that city structure also of manor, as far as that kind of development is concerned.
so I was kind of concerned that they didn't participate at this time and I guess everybody has their reasons for -- and the challenges that may take place, I don't really know.
>> Commissioner, if I may, we tried to be as transparent as we could about the process.
and one thing that is abundantly clear in this process is that if you opt in and we accept you as a participating jurisdiction, you cannot approach the city for -- I mean the, excuse me, the state for use of their cdbg funds.
the other thing that is abundantly clear is that there is no obligation on our part to fund any projects from those jurisdictions.
so I think that fact alone probably was of some concern to some of the jurisdictions.
>> and then additionally the Texas capital fund is not available to people who join the urban county.
so it isn't necessarily just state cdbg funds that are acted, there are several funding sources.
to be clear, the city of Pflugerville has asked questions and we have called in to the state to get clarification.
this is certainly a decision point for the Commissioners court now that you know the interest, and then it is possible that both of the municipalities, they may not execute the cooperation agreement.
so we may not come back to you with two cooperation agreements once we provide them the answer that they are requesting.
>> I think that this is a very good exercise so as far as going down the road of being the scaffolding through which these municipalities participate in this federal conduit that's low level, because we've seen the state operating as a conduit for federal funds is becoming questionable.
and so I can certainly understand how municipalities would be exploring utilizing the county as their conduit for federal funds rather than the state since the state, particularly the governor, has expressed a disdain for utilizing federal funds.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I just had an additional process question, somewhat --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> .
we have had some conversations.
some indicated that it was a nice idea.
scow felt they wouldn't get any money.
so it might not be, you know, something they are interested in right now.
there's a variety of response.
I do understand the short turn around time.
>> actually some of the small municipalities in my precinct don't meet every week.
it's possible if they needed a vote they couldn't get it within that time frame.
>> we had a situation I think with webberville where they had a special called meeting and talked to us about it.
they also let us know what their time line was in terms of moving forward with the cooperation agreement should the court approve that interest today.
so we understand where they have to get things, get this is back to this e can meet their deadlines.
>> I think, Commissioner, we just needed an indication of interest.
I think where the rubber meets the road is the participation agreements which certainly would have to be approved by those bodies.
and I think that was the reason ms. Moffet indicated even though we have interest from Pflugerville and webberville, at the time they receive the agreement and have the opportunity to weigh with the legal staff and elected officials they could decide no at that point and then they will not be, even though we have extended the offer, they would not be participating jurisdictions.
>> what did our letter to the city say?
>> it was several pages long.
>> regarding, we basically laid out the opportunity.
>> yes.
>> then we said let us know if you are interested in.
then we would do what?
>> we would advise the Commissioners court of their interest.
>> they came to us several weeks ago.
>> yes.
>> we told them on June 7 we would come and talk to you all about the interest.
we indicated should the court decide to moving forward onunder 8, they will receive an e-mail from us from staff with the cooperation agreement.
and with the time line.
they all know that the agreement would have to be executed by June 30.
if it's the court as wish, we can send the cooperation agreement to all the municipalities.
>> did our letter say if you were interested in, we will send you a draft participation agreement?
>> yes.
if the court approves.
>> what I'm getting to, and the implication being so far that if you are interested in, let us know.
>> uh-huh.
>> we will send you the participation agreement.
>> yes.
>> you let us know formally whether you want to participate or not.
>> yes.
>> aren't we duty bound to follow through on that word and approve the participation agreements?
>> I feel like it was pretty clear in the letter that the court, we would bring back the interest, than the court would decide whether or not they wanted to move forward once they understood what the interest was.
so we never promised them that a cooperation agreement would come their way.
but if it did, it would be after today.
>> I think the question, though, what you are asking, is that the municipalities maybe who have not responded affirmatively might still be expecting--
>> I'm talking about the two who responded and were interest oka.
>> did we say the court may send you a participation agreement or may not?
>> they say they may not.
we were very clear that today's action would determine that.
>> the agreement has all kinds of caveats.
I guess I really feel that we kind of left the implication, hud regulations provide this and if you are interested we'll sign you onment but you have to understand that if you are signed up with us, you are basically tide to us.
and you don't necessarily get any sort of hud allocation.
>> you had you.
>> just that possibility.
I guess in the spirit of food faith and collaboration, we would try to work with those that join us.
right?
>> yes.
and we would provide notice to the municipalities, must in the spame way we have every year since we have been parting with cdbg of the solicitation for projects.
then those projects would come before you to view in the context of other projects that you might review.
>> should we assume these entities have not gotten any money from the state or hud before?
>> Pflugerville confirms they have never requested funding from the state.
and I did the ask webberville but I'm pretty sure they haven'.
>> the participation agreement would be in place three years.
>> yes.
>> if they don't like what happens over the next threer years--
>> they don't have to reup.
yes.
>> any other questions or comments?
I move approval of 9 b.
and that is that we proceed with the participation agreements by sending them to the two that have indicated interest.
should we send a reminder note to other entities from whom we have not heard?
>> we can certainly do that.
>> although there was a gen bin deadline we in fact have untilunder 30.
>> yes.
>> maybe somebody else is out there, judge.
>> why don't we do that.
>> okay.
>> the motion will be that too, which means waiver of the deadline.
the new deadline would be--
>> June 30.
>> that is the hud deadline.
shound we say like--
>> June 30 is our deadline to meet the hud deadline.
>> let's say June 30.
how is that?
>> yes.
>> if I may, judge, recommend that we go ahead and send the participation agreement so that they have that document.
they are able to review in full disclosure what they would be--
>> to all?
>> yes.
>> sounds right to me.
>> bring them to me too judge.
>> any more discussion, comments?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much d.
>> thank you.
thank you all.
great job.
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.
