Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 26
Now, since I do see ms. Moffat and ms. Flemming here, let's go back and pick up our -- one of the open court items that we made reference to a moment ago.
that's the cdbg item which is number 26. 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 current projects, b, overview of needs from the program year 2011 spring public engagement process; and c, overview of the potential projects for the program year 2011 action plan.
>> good afternoon, christie moffat, Travis County health and human services.
we will try to be as quick as possible.
I did a slide show to kind of help me stay on task.
so we'll move through that.
today what we're asking is or presenting is the project recommendations for next year's funding which spans from October 1st to September 30th.
of 2012.
these are for the community development block grants where funds where we get from the u.s.
department of housing and urban development.
so we wanted to provide you an update on the current projects.
the lava lane construction project is substantially complete.
working on a few punch list items and waiting for the revegetation.
the four lot land acquisition is anticipated to close on or about July 20th.
social work expansion, is underway.
going very well.
the social worker has exceeded her annual goal in March which was six months into the program.
their goal was to serve 120 people and she served 160.
as of March 31st.
as far as administration and planning, that's well underway, we are on track to spend about 95% of our funds.
over the summer we are intending to implement home buyer assistance, homeowner rehabilitation, and also the yfac flex funds.
in terms of public engagement, for the consolidated plan, we gathered information over a two-year time frame.
while we were collecting information for the program year 2010 action plan, we were also including information for the consolidated plan.
then for the py '11 action plan we also included information for the consolidated plan.
what I'm going to mention here today is specifically information that we collected this year to help inform the py '11 action plan.
so during this year, we -- seven people attended public hearings.
>> [reading slide] just as a reminder, participation forms are the forms that people who aren't able to attend a public hearing can fill out to provide the same kind of feedback without actually having to transport themselves to a public hearing.
>> [reading] so as we move through the process, we looked at the interests of the people that were identified through the program year 2011 action planning process.
people continued to -- to indicate infrastructure, water and wastewater, streets, housing and then also access the public facilities and community services as large needs.
back in may the Commissioners court approved these five criteria in terms of project selection.
for projects for this upcoming year.
and also in may the Commissioners court approved three high priorities for the 2011-2013 consolidated plan, which were infrastructure, housing and community services.
so taking all of that information, and looking at all of the different projects you have in your backup, every project that was recommended or that was suggested this year, either through a project proposal, a public hearing, or -- or as a part of a survey that was completed.
so we provided all of those to you, we also gave you information about why or why not we may have selected one project over another.
and so we came up with four recommendations for you.
the first being lake oak estates substandard road improvement, to do the design, environmental construction of sections of substandard roads.
it's a three-phase project.
the first project or the first phase would be funded with py 11 funds in the amount of $145,000, that's for the design and environmental costs.
this is one of the neighborhoods we did the primary survey with.
they did have to organizations themselves and do quite a bit of work to demonstrate they were low to moderate income.
it's an infrastructure project.
it's a high priority.
would be phased over three years.
it impacts 106 people.
at this point there is no leveraged funds.
the project has been on the list since 2008.
the improvements would positively impact the quality of life.
we've included a couple of pictures in your backup so you could see what the roads look like.
the funding would be needed from the two successive funding years from cdbg for a total cost of $805,000.
the only thing that we want to mention is in this current federal budget it's possible that cdbg funds would be cut again.
we sustained a 16.1% cut --
>> [multiple voices]
>> you brought that up several times.
I've listened to you extensively on that.
the federal cuts.
when will we really know for sure if that's going to take place?
is it some kind of magic time line out there to let us know that there will be funds that will not be available or just when it happens it just happens?
>> well, when it happens --
>> because in the planning phase, I think anyway go ahead I'm sorry go ahead.
>> yeah.
we are a member of an organization that helps update us on what's going -- of -- capitol hill.
when those updates come up, we find there's a crucial moment for you all to intercede we bring that to your attention, I know that the h.u.d.
hearings have been held.
they've been -- proposed their budget.
what we do know at this time we are hoping to maintain the funding that we have for py '11.
we would like to have an increase, that's probably unlikely.
this year the continuing resolution for the py '11 funds didn't come until I can't remember, was it March, maybe April?
so as that process goes through, it's when it happens.
there's no knowing.
what I can tell you is that in your backup we also showed that we are phasing it in three years for -- for a reason.
we wanted to make sure that each phase was manageable, even if we sustained another cut.
so each -- so year two and year three, year two would be about $280,000 and year three would be about $380,000.
so we feel like even if we sustained a cut, then it would still be reasonable to continue on with the project.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> also this project would partially fund the senior engineer that works with the cdbg program through the t.n.r.
>> okay.
>> our second recommendation is to add additional funding to homeowner rehabilitation.
this is a program that y'all have funded in the past that we're trying to implement this summer.
it's a five-year forgivable loan of up to $24,999 to improve homes for low to moderate income homeowners.
it can -- the amount of funds can be used for a variety of things, to improve the quality of the house.
it can connect them to a water line, it can improve their septic system, fix their plumbing or electrical systems. We kind of leave it broad to deal with a wide variety of issues.
it is a high priority area.
it's possible for this work to be done within 12 months.
in your backup it says the impact will be five houses, one dropped off.
it should say 15 houses.
the low to moderate benefit would be 100% and at this point we don't know what the leverage would be because we would have to identify a non-profit and determine whether or not they would be able to put any of their funds towards the project.
so a few things to consider.
right now we have 25 houses on the waiting list.
so people who have either notified the social worker from the previous cdbg program we talked about earlier or who have called me and said I'm interested in the program, we have put those people on that list.
we have put a date when they contacted us and whenever the non-profit is identified, we will give them that list and make sure those people have gone through that list in order.
we were able to talk to some non-profits who were interested, there's a home rehabilitation coalition.
we talked with them, there are non-profits who are interested in implementing the program.
they do believe there's a need.
they indicated that it would be anywhere from five to 12 months to be able to expend the funding that we've put towards the project.
the third project is continuing the social work expansion project.
as I had said previously, this project has worked well really for us.
we're actually requesting a program redesign of this.
so currently the project funds one f.t.e., one person who focuses in precincts 1 and 4.
we are wanting to expand that project to fund 1.5 f.t.es, plus the operating costs that would be needed to make them mobile and then what we want to -- do is partially fund four social workers.
there would be four staff who would be funded or that would be placed all throughout the county.
they would go to people's homes and provide home based case management.
that would provide access to everyone in the unincorporated areas rather than just focus being it in precincts 1 and 4.
the other thing that this allows us to do is to allow social workers to have continuity of care with their clients.
currently if the social worker is seeing someone, they move into an incorporated area, then they have to transfer the clients to another social worker who can do that work.
because she's prohibited from doing that.
she has to work only with people in the unincorporated areas.
so we feel like that this would be a good change.
it would increase, we are increasing the funding by 71%.
however we're increasing the impact by 312% I think it is.
so we believe we would be able to serve about 500 people by making this change to the project.
all of those people would be low to moderate income.
then the final recommendation is to continue funding administration and planning.
these dollars help pay for staff as well as operating costs.
so it's $158,000.
it isn't -- there isn't a priority area to be able to put this in.
we would spend the funds in 12 months.
the leverage is about $105,000 of existing funds in the hhs target budget.
this project would funds 60% of an existing planner, 25% of an existing senior engineer and then we are also are looking to request an additional slot for a new grant funded planner.
this would pay for 75% of her salary through this project.
then we would pay for the rest of her salary by doing project delivery costs for home buyer assistance and also home rehab.
there's some work that has to be done that we could actually charge to a project to make another full planner position.
what this would do is increase our capacity to engage in planning around housing and infrastructure and it would also help us with project implementation.
and additionally this project pays for all of the grant related advertising and other costs.
>> when do you need us to take action on the recommendations.
>> by next week.
next Tuesday we would have to know to be able to drop everything into the action plan, because we will be bringing the drift for public comment to you on the 28th.
>> what will do if federal funding is less than we anticipate?
>> well, what we did -- we did receive confirmation for program year 2011 the funding has been confirmed and it will be $790,136.
so our concern isn't necessarily for this program year or for this upcoming program year.
it's for program year 2012 which starts in October 1st of 2012.
>> so the recommended actions are for 2011 or 2012?
>> 2011.
>> the recommendations actions equal the amount of money available?
>> yes.
>> okay.
any critical questions?
this will be back next week in part.
and on the other -- on the other parts we just pat you on the back and tell you to kind the good work, right?
>> okay.
>> that's what we do.
>> thank you very much.
also thank for you your patience, we will ask the court to put you closer to the top next week.
>> thank you, sir, appreciate it.
>> thank y'all.
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.
