Amendment 11 from the Texas Hurricane Harvey Action plan will let the Texas General Land Office (GLO) take over unused money from seven Houston disaster relief funds. The money will be reallocated to a state-run Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP) currently administered by the GLO on behalf of Houston residents.
On 10/7/22, GLO posted Amendment 11 to the State’s Action Plan for $5.676 billion in Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) related to Hurricane Harvey. View the entire 461-page Action Plan Amendment 11 at https://recovery.texas.gov/public-notices/index.html. Or see the major changes below.
File photo from June 2021.Flood damaged home on Houston’s NE side, still needing repair.
Reallocation of $141 Million
Amendment 11 deals with the $1.2 billion in CDBG-DR funds previously allocated to and administered by the City of Houston. The amendment reallocates $140,930,253 in unused funds from seven City of Houston disaster relief programs. The money will be reallocated to a state-run Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP) administered by the GLO on behalf of Houston residents.
Reason for the reallocation? The City programs repeatedly failed to meet contract benchmarks and deadlines.
The GLO acted after the City missed contractual benchmarks designed to ensure that funds for City of Houston residents are expended before HUD’s final program deadlines.
GLOcurrently administersthe “City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program,” nicknamed HAP, the acronym used by the state as opposed to HoAP, which the City used.
Latest City Pipeline Report
The City doesn’t publish statistics for all of its programs in its monthly “Pipeline Reports.” However, the most recent, dated 9/6/2022 shows the following:
This whole issue came to a head several years ago when the GLO attempted to step in once before as programs were expiring. The City sued the GLO to keep the programs. A settlement let the GLO keep some and the City others. But it also stipulated that the City had to meet strict deadlines and quotas.
The City had to clear a certain percentage of its backlogs each month. The City missed those contractual deadlines repeatedly according to the GLO. And now the GLO is stepping in to help as many people as it can with the unused funds.
The GLO will only reallocate funds not already obligated to a project by the City. All funds will stay in Houston to benefit the residents of Houston. Funds should now get to residents in a faster and more efficient manner.
GLO has helped thousands of homeowners statewide in less time than the City has helped several hundred.
Reasons Cited for Delays, Slowness
The City blames the GLO for delays. However, many of the applications submitted by the City to the GLO early on were incomplete, lacked required documentation, or didn’t meet program requirements. Reasons cited for the Houston Housing and Community Development Department problems included bad hiring decisions, poor record keeping, training failures, refusal to accept help, political interference, unwillingness to follow GLO recommendations, making programs overly complicated, late starts, and procedural violations.
The GLO maintains it has not slowed the City of Houston from using disaster recovery funds – only prevented the City from using them improperly. “Any delays are a result of the City of Houston’s misplaced focus on circumventing rules and requirements,” said a GLO spokesperson.
Attempting to Help Those in Need Faster
Caught in the middle are the most vulnerable among us.
According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) statistics, nearly 90% of the homeowners served by the affected programs have incomes less than 80% of the area’s median income (AMI).
Nearly two thirds of the Houston homeowners served by the GLO’s program make less than 30% of the AMI. In Houston, this would include families of four living on $26,600 or less.
Also, 64% of the homeowners identify as Black/African American and 25% identify as Hispanic/Latino.
Finally, about 87% of approved homeowners are female heads of households and at least 72% are aged 65 or older.
The GLO’s Houston HAP demographics are updated monthly and available online.
Main Changes in Amendment 11
City of Houston Impacts
The amendment includes the following changes. Funds remaining with the City of Houston for all disaster recovery programs would be reduced to $694,157,590 from $835 million.
The difference – $140,930,253 in uncommitted funds – would be taken from the following City programs, which would be reduced to:
Homeowner Assistance Program (HoAP) – $69,188,511.
Multifamily Rental Program – $400,855,752.
Small Rental Program – $12,943,423.
Homebuyer Assistance Program – $18,381,000.
Public Service – $20,000,000.
Economic Revitalization Program – $18,888,904.
State of Texas Impacts
State administered disaster recovery programs increase to $4,064,897,426.
The State-administered City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program increases to $565,601,475.
The last total exceeds the $141 million because the State had previously taken over several programs that the City relinquished.
To Comment on Amendment 11…
The amendment triggers a federally required 30-day public comment period.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 7, 2022, to be considered. Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for its 45-day final approval.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/8/22
1866 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20210626-RJR_8685.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-10-08 19:43:482022-10-10 14:13:00GLO Posts Amendment 11 to Harvey Plan Affecting Houston Flood Victims
Those few who attended a meeting at the Humble Civic Center on October 3, 2022, hoping to get more details about the proposed new Harris County bond offerings were sorely disappointed. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, and Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis are asking voters to approve $1.2 billion in bonds before the three have identified projects totaling $1.2 billion. The lack of defined projects and the lack of language in the bond that would guarantee a fair distribution of money should have all voters on high alert.
Bait and Switch?
I got the distinct impression voters are being set up for a bait-and-switch.
Neither does the ballot language, the bond website, nor the promotional literature.
Promotional literature mentions a minimum $220 million per precinct. But the bond language does not. And that’s the only thing that’s legally binding. So there’s no guaranteed minimum per precinct, even though Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia said there would be.
This reminds me of when Ellis bragged openly in Commissioners Court about how he tricked voters in the flood-bond election by redefining “equitable distribution of funds” after the vote. I just don’t trust these three.
Something Ain’t Right Here
My first tip-off that this meeting would be a bust was the nearly empty parking lot when my wife and I arrived five minutes before the start time. Clearly, the county had not advertised the meeting widely. Once inside, I noticed more strangeness.
Many of the displays sat behind tables – too far away to see any detail.
I found no one at the tables who would answer questions.
Staff outnumbered residents.
During most of the meeting, only three or four visitors at a time wandered through the cavernous space. I counted seven residents briefly at the high point.
Translators outnumbered residents most of the time.
I didn’t see one person entering suggestions at a table with a dozen laptops for that purpose during the hour I was there.
No one could produce a copy of the bond language. One staff member said it was “on the bond website.” I visited the site as we talked; it wasn’t. And still isn’t.
Equity, Lop-sided Spending, Minimum Distributions, Maintenance Not Disclosed in Bond Language
The bond language is, however, now posted on a sample ballot at HarrisVotes.org, the election administrator’s website.
See the jpeg below. It’s notable for what it doesn’t include. The bond language mentions nothing about “equity”, the lop-sided spending proposed by Hidalgo, or a minimum per precinct. Nor does it mention maintenance.
Three sentences of explanation contain no detail about where the $1.2 billion would be spent.
Nothing in the language would prevent Democrats from spending ALL the money in their own precincts.
If re-elected, they could change their minds about a minimum at any time, and blow it all on maintenance.
Compound Interest on Maintenance Expenses?
Let’s discuss maintenance. The official ballot language makes no mention of it. However, the bond website does.
That maintenance money would be paid back over 30 years WITH INTEREST. So fixing that pothole could easily cost 7X the out-of-pocket costs at today’s interest rates.
This is how $100 million worth of work turns into $700 million in debt.
And that’s why most bonds discourage spending money on maintenance.
Maintenance should be handled out of current income, not long-term debt. But Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia propose borrowing to pay for it. And that’s just a bad idea. The potholes they fix now will need to be refilled a dozen more times before the bond is paid off. Who will pay for those repairs? And how?
Misleading Project Sheets
The meeting handouts, bond, and bond website discuss spending CATEGORIES. But they still do not mention one actual proposed project within any category – the main criticism of this bond package to date.
The County did have “project sheets” at the display tables. But staff wouldn’t let residents take them. I suspect I know why.
If you look closely, you can see that they were labeled “current” or “active” projects. That means the projects shown already had funding. They were NOT candidates for the PROPOSED bond. After lengthy, pointed questioning, a staff member admitted that to me.
Active projects masquerading as proposed projects.
Were such sheets simply displayed to create the appearance of a plan?
The visitors I talked to said they thought the lists contained proposed projects. They didn’t. They only contained examples of projects that could be covered – not those that will be.
Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo haven’t yet made the effort to define one needed project, though they say the need is critical.
If it’s so critical, how come they can’t cite one example? This is such a contrast to the last bond election!
Free License to Spend Your Money
YES votes would give Hidalgo, Garcia (if both are re-elected) and Ellis a mandate to use your money when and where they want. And that would not include Republican-leaning precincts. One expert on Harris County government bond offerings told me that the lack of public input gives them license to do as they please. The language doesn’t even contain provisions that would force them to spend money within the categories they discuss.
As one finance expert told me today, “This is how Houston got into trouble. Once you get under that mountain of debt, it’s just about impossible to dig your way out,” he said.
Another bonding expert suggested, “A good slogan for this bond would be ‘Just Vote No. No Projects, No Transparency, No New Taxes – No Way!'”
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 7, 2022
1865 Days since hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221007-Screen-Shot-2022-10-07-at-5.17.56-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=16771200adminadmin2022-10-07 20:30:012022-10-08 12:09:39Backward, Bait-And-Switch Bond Meeting a Bust
On October 3, 2022, the City of Houston announced an update of its 568-page Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM). The new IDM will govern all new construction within the jurisdiction of Houston after October 1.
Residents concerned about the possibility of new construction negatively affecting drainage should review it and related documents to make sure contractors adhere to requirements. At a minimum, neighbors should understand the outcomes that the City expects developers to achieve in case something goes wrong.
Chapter 9 addresses Stormwater Design and Water Quality Requirements. At a minimum, make sure you read Section 9-2, pages 183 and 184 of the PDF. The City lays out the high-level requirements and objectives for developer/contractors.
Goals Guiding Drainage Standards
Chapter 9 begins with several paragraphs that lay out the obligations of developers and contractors. I’ve condensed them for brevity below. See the original document for the exact wording.
9.1.02.A (1)
Drainage criteria for newly designed areas must provide protection from Structural Flooding during a 100-year storm event.
9.1.02.A (2)
Recognizing that each site has unique differences, the City may consider alternatives (pipe flow, overland sheet flow, and detention storage) that still achieve objectives.
9.1.02.B
Ponding in streets and roadside ditches of short duration is anticipated and designed to contribute to the overall drainage capacity of the system.
9.1.02.C
When rainfall events exceed the capacity of the storm sewer system, the additional runoff is intended to be conveyed or stored overland in a manner that reduces the threat of structural flooding.
All proposed New Development, Redevelopment, or Site Modifications shall not alter existing or natural overland flow patterns and shall not increase or redirect existing sheet flow to adjacent private or public property.
Where the existing sheet flow pattern is blocked by construction (i.e. raising the site elevation) of the Development, the sheet flow shall be re-routed within the developed property to return flow to original configuration or to the public right of way (ROW).
Except under special circumstances dictated by natural or existing drainage patterns no sheet flow from the developed property will be allowed to drain onto adjacent private property.
No impact will be allowed onto adjacent property.
9.1.02.C of CoH 2022 Infrastructure design manual
No sheet flow from the developed property may drain onto the adjacent ROW.
Any increased quantity discharge should only be discharged to the ROW at the approved point of connection (which have enough capacity to handle the discharged) via a subsurface internal drainage system.
GLO Posts Amendment 11 to Harvey Plan Affecting Houston Flood Victims
Amendment 11 from the Texas Hurricane Harvey Action plan will let the Texas General Land Office (GLO) take over unused money from seven Houston disaster relief funds. The money will be reallocated to a state-run Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP) currently administered by the GLO on behalf of Houston residents.
On 10/7/22, GLO posted Amendment 11 to the State’s Action Plan for $5.676 billion in Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) related to Hurricane Harvey. View the entire 461-page Action Plan Amendment 11 at https://recovery.texas.gov/public-notices/index.html. Or see the major changes below.
Reallocation of $141 Million
Amendment 11 deals with the $1.2 billion in CDBG-DR funds previously allocated to and administered by the City of Houston. The amendment reallocates $140,930,253 in unused funds from seven City of Houston disaster relief programs. The money will be reallocated to a state-run Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP) administered by the GLO on behalf of Houston residents.
The GLO acted after the City missed contractual benchmarks designed to ensure that funds for City of Houston residents are expended before HUD’s final program deadlines.
GLO currently administers the “City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program,” nicknamed HAP, the acronym used by the state as opposed to HoAP, which the City used.
Latest City Pipeline Report
The City doesn’t publish statistics for all of its programs in its monthly “Pipeline Reports.” However, the most recent, dated 9/6/2022 shows the following:
According to the City’s own statistics, it helped only 704 homeowners in all three categories in the five years since Harvey. That’s out of 96,410 homes that flooded inside the City limits during the storm. That’s less than three-quarters of 1%.
Reallocated Funds Will Stay in Houston
Six hundred and forty six days have elapsed since the City’s Housing and Community Development Department cut off applications at the end of 2020.
This whole issue came to a head several years ago when the GLO attempted to step in once before as programs were expiring. The City sued the GLO to keep the programs. A settlement let the GLO keep some and the City others. But it also stipulated that the City had to meet strict deadlines and quotas.
The City had to clear a certain percentage of its backlogs each month. The City missed those contractual deadlines repeatedly according to the GLO. And now the GLO is stepping in to help as many people as it can with the unused funds.
The GLO will only reallocate funds not already obligated to a project by the City. All funds will stay in Houston to benefit the residents of Houston. Funds should now get to residents in a faster and more efficient manner.
GLO has helped thousands of homeowners statewide in less time than the City has helped several hundred.
Reasons Cited for Delays, Slowness
The City blames the GLO for delays. However, many of the applications submitted by the City to the GLO early on were incomplete, lacked required documentation, or didn’t meet program requirements. Reasons cited for the Houston Housing and Community Development Department problems included bad hiring decisions, poor record keeping, training failures, refusal to accept help, political interference, unwillingness to follow GLO recommendations, making programs overly complicated, late starts, and procedural violations.
A HUD audit in late 2021 also ripped the department for conflicts of interest and failure to document recommendations.
The GLO maintains it has not slowed the City of Houston from using disaster recovery funds – only prevented the City from using them improperly. “Any delays are a result of the City of Houston’s misplaced focus on circumventing rules and requirements,” said a GLO spokesperson.
Attempting to Help Those in Need Faster
Caught in the middle are the most vulnerable among us.
According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) statistics, nearly 90% of the homeowners served by the affected programs have incomes less than 80% of the area’s median income (AMI).
Nearly two thirds of the Houston homeowners served by the GLO’s program make less than 30% of the AMI. In Houston, this would include families of four living on $26,600 or less.
Also, 64% of the homeowners identify as Black/African American and 25% identify as Hispanic/Latino.
Finally, about 87% of approved homeowners are female heads of households and at least 72% are aged 65 or older.
The GLO’s Houston HAP demographics are updated monthly and available online.
Main Changes in Amendment 11
City of Houston Impacts
The amendment includes the following changes. Funds remaining with the City of Houston for all disaster recovery programs would be reduced to $694,157,590 from $835 million.
The difference – $140,930,253 in uncommitted funds – would be taken from the following City programs, which would be reduced to:
State of Texas Impacts
The last total exceeds the $141 million because the State had previously taken over several programs that the City relinquished.
To Comment on Amendment 11…
The amendment triggers a federally required 30-day public comment period.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 7, 2022, to be considered. Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for its 45-day final approval.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/8/22
1866 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Backward, Bait-And-Switch Bond Meeting a Bust
Those few who attended a meeting at the Humble Civic Center on October 3, 2022, hoping to get more details about the proposed new Harris County bond offerings were sorely disappointed. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, and Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis are asking voters to approve $1.2 billion in bonds before the three have identified projects totaling $1.2 billion. The lack of defined projects and the lack of language in the bond that would guarantee a fair distribution of money should have all voters on high alert.
Bait and Switch?
I got the distinct impression voters are being set up for a bait-and-switch.
This reminds me of when Ellis bragged openly in Commissioners Court about how he tricked voters in the flood-bond election by redefining “equitable distribution of funds” after the vote. I just don’t trust these three.
Something Ain’t Right Here
My first tip-off that this meeting would be a bust was the nearly empty parking lot when my wife and I arrived five minutes before the start time. Clearly, the county had not advertised the meeting widely. Once inside, I noticed more strangeness.
Equity, Lop-sided Spending, Minimum Distributions, Maintenance Not Disclosed in Bond Language
The bond language is, however, now posted on a sample ballot at HarrisVotes.org, the election administrator’s website.
See the jpeg below. It’s notable for what it doesn’t include. The bond language mentions nothing about “equity”, the lop-sided spending proposed by Hidalgo, or a minimum per precinct. Nor does it mention maintenance.
If re-elected, they could change their minds about a minimum at any time, and blow it all on maintenance.
Compound Interest on Maintenance Expenses?
Let’s discuss maintenance. The official ballot language makes no mention of it. However, the bond website does.
So does the motion approved by the three in commissioners court (see pages 3 and 4). The omission of maintenance in the ballot language is intentional.
That maintenance money would be paid back over 30 years WITH INTEREST. So fixing that pothole could easily cost 7X the out-of-pocket costs at today’s interest rates.
And that’s why most bonds discourage spending money on maintenance.
Maintenance should be handled out of current income, not long-term debt. But Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia propose borrowing to pay for it. And that’s just a bad idea. The potholes they fix now will need to be refilled a dozen more times before the bond is paid off. Who will pay for those repairs? And how?
Misleading Project Sheets
The meeting handouts, bond, and bond website discuss spending CATEGORIES. But they still do not mention one actual proposed project within any category – the main criticism of this bond package to date.
The County did have “project sheets” at the display tables. But staff wouldn’t let residents take them. I suspect I know why.
If you look closely, you can see that they were labeled “current” or “active” projects. That means the projects shown already had funding. They were NOT candidates for the PROPOSED bond. After lengthy, pointed questioning, a staff member admitted that to me.
Were such sheets simply displayed to create the appearance of a plan?
Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo haven’t yet made the effort to define one needed project, though they say the need is critical.
If it’s so critical, how come they can’t cite one example? This is such a contrast to the last bond election!
Free License to Spend Your Money
YES votes would give Hidalgo, Garcia (if both are re-elected) and Ellis a mandate to use your money when and where they want. And that would not include Republican-leaning precincts. One expert on Harris County government bond offerings told me that the lack of public input gives them license to do as they please. The language doesn’t even contain provisions that would force them to spend money within the categories they discuss.
As one finance expert told me today, “This is how Houston got into trouble. Once you get under that mountain of debt, it’s just about impossible to dig your way out,” he said.
Another bonding expert suggested, “A good slogan for this bond would be ‘Just Vote No. No Projects, No Transparency, No New Taxes – No Way!'”
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 7, 2022
1865 Days since hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
City of Houston Updates Infrastructure Design Manual
On October 3, 2022, the City of Houston announced an update of its 568-page Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM). The new IDM will govern all new construction within the jurisdiction of Houston after October 1.
Residents concerned about the possibility of new construction negatively affecting drainage should review it and related documents to make sure contractors adhere to requirements. At a minimum, neighbors should understand the outcomes that the City expects developers to achieve in case something goes wrong.
Chapter 9 addresses Stormwater Design and Water Quality Requirements. At a minimum, make sure you read Section 9-2, pages 183 and 184 of the PDF. The City lays out the high-level requirements and objectives for developer/contractors.
Goals Guiding Drainage Standards
Chapter 9 begins with several paragraphs that lay out the obligations of developers and contractors. I’ve condensed them for brevity below. See the original document for the exact wording.
9.1.02.A (1)
Drainage criteria for newly designed areas must provide protection from Structural Flooding during a 100-year storm event.
9.1.02.A (2)
Recognizing that each site has unique differences, the City may consider alternatives (pipe flow, overland sheet flow, and detention storage) that still achieve objectives.
9.1.02.B
Ponding in streets and roadside ditches of short duration is anticipated and designed to contribute to the overall drainage capacity of the system.
9.1.02.C
When rainfall events exceed the capacity of the storm sewer system, the additional runoff is intended to be conveyed or stored overland in a manner that reduces the threat of structural flooding.
All proposed New Development, Redevelopment, or Site Modifications shall not alter existing or natural overland flow patterns and shall not increase or redirect existing sheet flow to adjacent private or public property.
Where the existing sheet flow pattern is blocked by construction (i.e. raising the site elevation) of the Development, the sheet flow shall be re-routed within the developed property to return flow to original configuration or to the public right of way (ROW).
Except under special circumstances dictated by natural or existing drainage patterns no sheet flow from the developed property will be allowed to drain onto adjacent private property.
No sheet flow from the developed property may drain onto the adjacent ROW.
Any increased quantity discharge should only be discharged to the ROW at the approved point of connection (which have enough capacity to handle the discharged) via a subsurface internal drainage system.
How to Review Changes Quickly
The Houston Public Works Director signed the IDM Cover Letter & Executive Summary on July 1, 2022. The executive summary discusses updates made to all documents during the review cycle. The IDM Redlines and Construction Specifications Redlines are available for additional background. Redlines highlight changes from previous versions.
All of the content described here is accessible on the City’s Design and Construction Standards web page.
For more information, read HPW’s announcement here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/4/2022
1862 Days since Hurricane Harvey