Travis County Commissioners Court

June 5, 2012 - Item 9
Agenda

View captioned video.

>> 9 is a long item, too long to add to the consent motion, I thought, but ms. Moffet has assured me these -- she's not here, that's why -- are you taking this, ms. Lemon?

>> I am.

>> It's consider and take appropriate action on a request to approve the following items related to the Community Development Block Grant available through HUD.
A: the proposed projects for the program year 2012 action plan, 1, lake oak estates substandard road improvements project, phase 2, for $326,598: no.2, owner occupied home rehabilitation project for $256,024, 3, family support services, social work expansion project for $106,000, 4, fair housing counseling project for $28,451, and, 5, administrative and planning project for $179,268.
Can we just take all of 9 a first?
Is that okay?

>> That is okay.
As a reminder -- I'm sorry, sherry, for health & human services and veterans service.
And as a reminder, Travis County cbdg is 896,000 -- $896,341.
The required action plan to inform hud on how we plan to spend these dollars is due to the san antonio field office by August 15, 2012.
Your approval today gives staff the opportunity to put these -- these projects up for public comment, and so there will be 30 days that your constituents will have an opportunity to see what projects are being proposed and give comments should they wish to prior to your final approval later in the summer for submission of your plan to the hud office in san antonio.
So what you have before you in 9a is staff recommendation for these five projects with all listed there and the amounts that we estimate that these projects will cost.
So these would be the primary projects that we would be looking to fund and implement for the program year 2012.

>> I have a couple questions.

>> Yes.

>> First one is, on this right-of-way for the substandard roads, whatever is there now, is that dedicated?
Because the improved road comes in on top of it, right?

>> It does.

>> So do we get dedicated what is there now serving as a substandard road?
Can you understand my question?

>> Typically on the substandard road program the right-of-way has already been dedicated in some fashion through platting or by separate instrument, and if that works as far as providing adequate

>> [inaudible] for the improvements we need to make, sure, we take that and that will become part of our accepted roadway system.

>> Because we say in the backup that the required easements needed to complete the project will be funded from cdbg --

>> Cdbg is different than our regular substandard program in that we can't --

>> We can't require.

>> We can't require them to donate.
we have to go through the process of --

>> Are we talking about supplemental right-of-way?

>> Probably drainage easements is what they're probably referring to.
the roadway right-of-way itself, if it's already established, may or may not have the necessary drainage easements to get water from the road down to a natural drainage feature, something like that.

>> But whatever is there today.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Substandard though it may be.

>> Uh-huh.

>> We try to get dedicated and we try to improve it and supplemental

>> [inaudible] if we need to.

>> That's right.

>> Regarding these ftes.

>> Yes.

>> Now, we have funded some ftes previously.

>> Yes.

>> For the cdbg projects, but that funding is tied to the year of -- to a certain year?

>> Well, there -- it depends which project we're talking about.
There is some funding that funds the staff who work on -- continuously on cdbg projects, but a portion of, for example, the engineer salary is funded from cdbg and some of those activities can be tied to a project, so it varies from project to project which staff costs can be included as part of the particular project and which has to fall into our admin, and it's sort of a delicate balance that we have to strike because we can't exceed that $20,000 -- the 20% portion of the grant.
So it would depend on which particular project we were talking about.
So we fund a planner, for example, who works all the time.
Then we also fund portions under the social work project would be a good example, where we actually supplement staffing that we have serving the population in the unincorporated areas.
So we're able to spread funding across several positions, if you will, to cover their work that would be cdbg eligible, if that makes sense, versus an outright funding of one or two positions.

>> All right.
So $106,000 that I'm looking at, social work expansion, this is to cover part of the staff --

>> Right.

>> -- who will be working on these projects?

>> So as they engage in activities that are billable to cdbg, then that's how we expend those dollars.

>> Okay.
Any other questions?
Move approval of 9a.
Hold on a second.
Move approval of 9a.
Seconded by Eckhardt.
Commissioner Davis?
Yes, sir.

>>

>> [inaudible] under 2 and also 4 under a, could you elaborate a little more on how home ownership improvements and things of that nature and also the way the public housing -- as far as the complaints and things of that nature

>> [inaudible] all of this stuff that's laid out is this.

>> The owner occupied -- no.
2 is the owner occupied home rehabilitation project.

>> Exactly.

>> And that project we actually have developed a waiting list based on the work of the social workers we were just discussing.
The social workers have been engaging with residents in the unincorporated areas and in those instances where they have identified needed home rehab, home improvements that they already know cannot be completed with the current funding that either our department has or resources that might exist in the community, they have submitted those families to our cdbg office to begin sort of a client waiting list for this project.
And so that's how we have developed this waiting list, and of course those social workers were able to add those folks because they've actually been able to interact with the families, they see the services they needed, they've seen their residences and they know that they qualify under the cdbg income guidelines.

>> Okay.

>> The part that's under no.
4

>> [inaudible] spoken to the court several times about certain responsibilities we take on once we become an entitlement community under the housing and urban development program, and one of these is to make available to our community and provide resources to ensure fair housing.
And this project actually represents our first sort of fore into that by providing funding to the -- I went blank on it issues excuse me -- on it, excuseme just a minuo provide funding to the tenants -- the Austin tenants council so that they will be able to assist residents who might believe that they have been subjected to housing discrimination of some sort.
And hud's primary interest would be persons who believe they've been discriminated against with regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, because they have children or because they're expecting children, and sexual orientation and also gender selection.
So those are the primary areas that hud is interested in communities such as hours ensuring that there are resources available for people who might believe that they are -- have been subjected to discrimination, so it they are able to talk with someone at the Austin tenants council, the Austin tenants council can help them to, you know, sort of hear what their concerns are, they also would have the ability to do what they call testing, which means that they would send in sort of secret shoppers, I guess is the best way to describe it, to, in fact, see if they can replicate the proposed discrimination, and also off alternatives to our residents should they want to file an official complaint, you know, and then follow them through that process.

>> And I guess the Austin tenant council probably have a record of those type of discriminations.
You mentioned a few, but there may be others other than the categories you just mentioned, disability and maybe some others that for whatever reason people discriminate fair housing, folks in this community.

>> Right.

>> So I want to make sure that we understand and the public understands that we're going to be hopefully moving in a direction whereby someone is able to monitor these types of acts of discrimination to our residents in Travis County.
So I wanted to make sure that came out so folks would understand that we are looking into it as we go through the process, dealing with the cdbg funding mechanism.

>> Yes, sir.

>> And on the other one, on the 2 of this particular item, I want to make sure that as far as the improvements on these particular homes, the money that is being lent out to that particular individual, of course there are certain criteria, documentation, a whole lot of other things that have to be met to ensure that the persons that are making these improvements are investing into such an improvement in their home to make sure that these are -- what I understand forgivable type?

>> It is a forgivable loan over five years, I believe.

>> Right.

>> And each -- so each year a portion of the loan is forgiven until 100% of the loan has been forgiven.
And those -- the criteria, including what happens should you move from your home before that forgivable loan period expires, all of that would be made available to residents prior to any work being initiated.
So the criteria for participating in the program, how the forgivable loan process works and any other questions they might have would be --

>> And my final question on 2 is this, is that the persons -- you know, we have some shies ter teres out there, a lot of people being ripped off expecting home improvement category, and they're left holding the bag.
What guarantee do we have before the person that goes into a situation like this, that they won't be ripped off with a shiester out there taking advantage of persons and these are low to moderate income mfi situations here that we're dealing with as far as the person that qualifies for these type of grants and these types of programs. But I'm concerned about the person that will be doing the improvements of things of this nature.
How will that be monitored to ensure that the residents of this community are not going to get ripped off as far as the improvements.

>> Well, once we have your approval and the approval of hud to implement this program, we will have to work with our purchasing office to do either requests for services or request for qualifications, and actually enter into a sub-grantee relationship with the appropriate vendor, and so those protections afforded by contracts with the county, with the expectations that we have for our contractors to perform, all of those protections will be a part of that in addition to very lengthy expectations and guidelines that come from hud requirements.
So I feel pretty certain that the entities who would respond to us in seeking a subcontractor to do the service would have to be someone who would be familiar with the federal guidelines that are necessary in order to make these programs work.

>> Okay.
Thank you.

>> The motion covers all of 9a.
Any more discussion?
By the way, do we plan to try to monitor and evaluate this contract with the Austin tenants council?

>> Absolutely.
We do collect performance information, yes.

>> All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
Let's go to 9b, the alternate projects for the program year 2012 action plan.
This is just in case some of the primary projects fall out.

>> They fall out or come in under budget, as we discussed with you a couple weeks ago.

>> Number one, home buyer assistance project for up to $300,000.
2, owner occupied home rehabilitation project for up to $200,000, and 3, las lomitas septic tank and water project for up to $480,000.
C, substantial amendment to the 2011-2013 consolidated plan to include the village of webberville into the service area.
D, substantial amendments to the program year 2006, program year 2008, program year 2w5 and program year 2010 action plans.
One, delete the program year 2009 youth and family assessment center flex fund expansion plan, and 2, reprogram project savings and the deleted project funds totaling $227,935.96 to owner-occupied rehabilitation project.

>> And staff --

>> Under b, if you add those up you come up with about a million dollars.

>> Yes, sir, and if the up to is the most important words -- they're the most important words in that sentence, and we generally try to plan these projects so we don't have to modify your plan mid-year because that requires us to take up court time but also we have to put these things out for public comment each time we amend our plan.
So we try to give ourselves a little leeway in terms of the amount of money that we might be able to assign to these projects should money be freed up because of a project that is not feasible or a project that comes in substantially under the projected project cost.
So it's up to an amount.
I don't anticipate us having the resources to fund these up to the listed amounts, but it just gives us the flexibility to not have to amend our plan if we -- give us a little wiggle room.

>> Alternates left, does this -- this is -- does this provide any momentum for the cdbg plan year moving forward so that when we do get into the 2013-2014 time frames we've got sort of a foothold for some of these projects or the expansion of some of these existing projects?

>> Yes, absolutely, and I think particularly with the las lomitas project, we know that the neighborhood is busy at work on doing some primary surveying and doing things they need to be ready to engage with us in.
Cdbg project.
So this I think encourages them that their work is important and necessary to get into this project.

>> It telegraphs a future intent as well as sort of primes the pump.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Thank you.

>> That's why I move approval of the three alternate projects.

>> Second.

>> Discussion?
All in favor?
That passes by jiewms unanimous vote.
On c we previously voted whether to add -- this is just the amendment to do it.

>> This is just the amendment to do it and the public comment about it.

>> That's why I move approval.

>> Second.

>> Discussion of that motion?
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
D?

>> And staff recommends d as well.
This is just deleting a project that has been somewhat sluggish in funding.
We have some other funding sources that we're utilizing so we wanted to make the funds dedicated to this program available for other uses.
So we deleted a project in one and we are reprogramming those funds into.
So staff recommends your approval of that change.

>> That's 100% of.

>> Yes, it is.

>> The backup said that we had figured out a way to provide this service through a nonprofit agency.

>> Yes.

>> That's why this is unnecessary?

>> Yes.

>> [inaudible] in our youth services.

>> That's why I move approval of both of them.

>> Second.

>> And that is d1 and d2.
Seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion?
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
Thank you, ms. Clement.
Heck of a job.

>> Thank you, thank you.

>> [inaudible] proud.

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.