Here’s a construction update on six large Lake-Houston-Area construction projects, told in aerial photos and captions. All photos were taken on the last day of June, 2022. Dry weather created almost ideal conditions for construction with little risk of sediment-laden runoff. But as the tropics heat up, that could soon change.
High Street Residential
At West Lake Houston Parkway between Upper Lake Drive and Kings Park Way, High Street Residential has finished clearing 19.7 acres for an apartment complex. Now the company is constructing drainage and detention ponds. After that come utility installation; concrete for building pads and streets; and finally construction of the apartments.
High Street is a subsidiary of Trammell Crow, the Dallas-based developer with billions in assets. They are known for high-end work.
High Street Residential Property.Looking S across Upper Lake. West Lake Houston Parkway on right.Looking S across middle of property. Could that be a detention pond in the middle?
Kingwood Middle School
As the new Kingwood Middle School nears completion, contractors have ripped up the parking lots and driveways of the old school in the foreground. During last week, contractors excavated a new detention pond (foreground below).
New detention pond in front of old school.
They moved the dirt to the old, temporary detention pond…and filled it in.
Old temporary detention pond adjacent to Cedar Knolls now filled and compacted.
Meanwhile, an army of contractors prepare the new school for its grand opening later this year.
Louvers on the south-facing, two-story window wall of the new school will help keep students from broiling in the Texas sun.
The developer of the Preserve At Woodridge is beginning to lay rebar before pouring concrete for more roads and the last rows of houses. Contractors are also busy building a retaining wall around the detention pond. Since a TCEQ investigation, I have not caught them pumping any more silty water into Bens Branch. The developer also finally posted his permits, but still has not posted the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
Contractors have approximately two thirds of the homes in various stages of completion.They’re also starting to lay rebar for the remaining streets and homeson the last third of the site.
New Caney ISD West Fork High School Construction Update
South of Kingwood Medical Center on Sorters-McClellan Road, New Caney ISD’s West Fork High School is nearing completion.
Entrance and courtyard of new three-story high school.Looking south toward 59 bridge over West Fork.Contractors widening Sorters-McClellan Road to accommodate high school traffic.Note new landscaping bordering road.First things first. This IS Texas after all.
In a way, I envy these students starting out on their journey with a chance to start their own traditions.
Let’s hope this hurricane season doesn’t spoil the party. We’ll have another construction update next month, featuring other projects.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/2022
1766 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/2022/06/20220630-DJI_0939.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-06-30 21:41:152022-06-30 21:41:18June Construction Update: Six Lake-Houston-Area Projects
On 6/29/22, Harris County Commissioners Court discussed a billion-dollar-plus bond package presented by County Administrator Dave Berry, Budget Director Daniel Ramos and Engineering Department Head Dr. Milton Rahman, P.E. The presentation talks about a $1 billion package. But during discussion, commissioners asked to look at several higher options – $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. The discussion, which you can see posted on the Harris County Commissioners Court website, starts at 3:32 (timecode) and goes to 4:20. Since that’s almost 50 minutes, let me try to summarize it below using some of the slides presented by Rahman.
Proposed Uses for Money
In fairness, understand upfront that Rahman presented an introductory outline, not a detailed plan. With that in mind, he pitched a $1 billion plan broken down as follows.
The package includes $200 million to improve neighborhood drainage. That’s over and above the $600 million in the current budget.
Rahman focused on both the number of people (20,000) and structures (4,000) benefitted with the $600 million. That averages to $30,000 per person or $150,000 per structure. That also works out to 5 people per structure. But the Harris County average per household, according to the US Census Bureau, is 2.84 people for the five years ending in 2020.
That made me question where Rahman obtained his numbers. He never says. Does he base his estimate on a combination of apartments and single-family households? Who will benefit from another $200 million? If that $200 million works as efficiently as the $600 million, it should help another 1,333 homes (4000/3). Where are they? Which precinct? Which neighborhoods?
I get the need for rounding at this early stage. But they’re talking about going to voters in four months. 4.2% of the $5 billion flood bond is more than $200 million dollars of rounding error! That made me wonder about the accuracy of the numbers in the slides above.
The fact that the total “ask” varied by 50% during the discussion also made me wonder about how much research and planning went into these numbers.
Yet Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are eager to put it on the agenda for a vote during the next commissioners court meeting – without any public input. That raised more red flags, because the Community Flood Resilience Task Force has demanded public input on future bond programs. In multiple languages. A majority of the task force felt so strongly about public input, that they even asked HUD to fund it!
Other Highlights from Discussion
Commissioner Ellis wants to review a tighter proposal and put it to a vote at the next commissioners court meeting on July 19, 2022.
Garcia wants it on the ballot in 2022, not 2023.
Ramsey wants to slow it down. He wants to listen to voters, develop a tight plan, communicate the elements to the public, and advocate for it. He stated that it would take a long time to recover from a bond proposal that failed. Ramsey would prefer a vote in 2023.
Commissioners Court spent considerable time discussing whether the proposal should have a list of specific projects or just generic categories of spending. But the commissioners made no decision on that point.
Milton Rahman stated, “The wish list is bigger than we can afford.” That raised another red flag for me. It means someone will have to make hard decisions about where the money goes and who benefits. Who will make those decisions? On what basis? When? After the election?
Commissioner Cagle suggested voting on this proposal with additional requests to fund flood tunnels and the coastal spine project. That could delay this bond proposal until we knew how much federal funding we could get for those projects. And that could take two years. Congress will vote on the next Water Resources Development Act in 2024.
Withholding Judgment for Now
Until I see more detail, I will withhold judgement on this bond proposal. I can see how there may be a need. But I’m not going to vote for a billion dollars of vague generalities. I want to see where the money goes and I want to have time to study the bond language. I was fooled once by a non-standard definition of “equitable” applied to the 2018 flood bond. What other surprises lurk in the wings?
One reader who prefers to remain anonymous said, “We should trust this Court with a blank check for projects that are not defined??? NO DAMN WAY!!! What is the formula to determine which Precincts get how much money? What is the prioritization framework to select projects? How will equity considerations affect funding? How will the public know where this money goes? We have NO IDEA where previous bond funding went!!! This Court has not earned our trust. Some members just cannot be trusted. NO BOND!”
Frankly, that’s a fairly typical attitude outside the Beltway from comments i get.
Yet Rahman, Berry and Ramos, in their last slide, suggest this proposal – with a barely defined project list – is a foregone conclusion. See below. They want to identify only a few flagship projects to complement other unspecified projects in the bond. And they want to start drafting bond orders now.
Let’s see if Berry, Ramos and Rahman can advertise and conduct dozens of precinct meetings; solicit public input; and define a plan responsive to community needs before the next commissioners court meeting. If not, perhaps Ellis, Garcia, Hidalgo and the Community Flood Resilience Task Force should demand their resignations.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/2022
1765 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/2022/06/17-Bond-Presentation_Page_06.jpg?fit=2000%2C1125&ssl=111252000adminadmin2022-06-29 20:35:112022-06-30 00:14:18County Discussing Another Billion-Dollar-Plus Bond
The introduction to the request states, “Although the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) continues to aggressively pursue partnership dollars … substantial amounts of anticipated partner funding remain unrealized.”
Of the roughly $5 billion in 2018 Flood-Bond Projects, officials hoped that Federal, State and local partners would supply roughly half the money. But it hasn’t all materialized yet. So last year, Commissioners created a flood-resilience trust fund to create backstop funding. Until now, the county has not needed it. But now the county does…for the sixteen projects listed below.
Projects recommended for first round of backstop funding. Some of these projects started before the flood bond, were later included in it, and ran over budget.
To date, Harris County has secured $1.275 billion in partnership funding for 2018 Bond Program projects from Federal, State, and local partners. Of the $2.5 billion in partner funds originally anticipated, “the county has not yet identified $754.2 million. This gap includes projects for which grant applications were submitted to various Federal and State programs such as CDBG-MIT, FEMA-BRIC, and others but not awarded,” says HCFCD.
Ironically, the backup documentation provided to commissioners by HCFCD makes no mention of the $750 million allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to Harris County. More on that below.
Ranking Methodology
The document provided to commissioners by HCFCD contains information about the Trust, its history and intent, projects that need funding help now, and a methodology for ranking projects.
After ranking all flood-bond projects that are short of funding using the proposed matrix below (Appendix B), the county began whittling away from Trust funds. HCFCD started with the top-ranked project and proceeded to the lowest until the money ran out, i.e., the balance in the trust fund went negative. Only two projects from the entire San Jacinto Watershed made the “eligible” list: one near the ship channel and another below Highway 90. But neither of those is part of the group of 16 above.
Weighting Factors in Proposed Matrix
The scoring matrix used by the County includes evaluations of:
Cost per person (15%)
Cost per structure (30%)
Non-structural benefits (45%)
Existing conditions (20%)
Social Vulnerability Index (20%)
Long-term maintenance (5%)
Minimizing environmental impacts (5%)
Ability to deliver multiple benefits, i.e., flood mitigation, social and environmental (5%)
As additional partnership funding sources are identified, money remaining in the Trust may cover additional projects…assuming inflation doesn’t eat it all up.
For this exercise, HCFCD analyzed all projects with partnership funding gaps. However, that doesn’t mean that those projects will necessarily receive Flood Resilience Trust funds. When and if HCFCD identifies funding partners, some projects could drop off the list of those needing help. That could make funds available for lower ranking projects. See Appendix B, last page.
Future Plans
If approved, HCFCD will return to Commissioners Court twice each year with additional requests from the Flood Resilience Trust. Each of those requests will include an updated analysis of partnership and contingency funding needs, Trust funds remaining, and eligible projects.
HCFCD will request money from the Trust only when projects cannot move forward without it.
$750 Million HUD Allocation Not Discussed
The County’s Community Services Department is currently developing a Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million designated earlier this year for Harris County by HUD. A MOD is a plan for distributing the $750 million. Where and how will the county use the money? Who will benefit?
HUD and the GLO require that at least 50% of the money benefits Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
At the time the GLO and HUD dedicated $750 million to Harris County, they also dedicated $488 million to the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC).
Verification that all recipients are still interested in participating.
According to a GLO spokesperson, HGAC began developing its MOD when the GLO submitted its action plan to HUD. However, Harris County reportedly delayed planning until AFTER HUD approved the GLO’s recommendations.
That delay could mean spending more local money. And that could penalize Harris County watersheds farther down on the Trust Fund priority list that don’t currently meet SVI and other requirements. Will there be money left for the Lake Houston Area by the time we work our way further down this list? Only time will tell.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2022
1764 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Screen-Shot-2022-06-27-at-10.09.28-AM.png?fit=546%2C578&ssl=1578546adminadmin2022-06-27 22:50:062022-06-28 13:35:45HCFCD Asking to Tap Flood Resilience Trust for Bond Projects
June Construction Update: Six Lake-Houston-Area Projects
Here’s a construction update on six large Lake-Houston-Area construction projects, told in aerial photos and captions. All photos were taken on the last day of June, 2022. Dry weather created almost ideal conditions for construction with little risk of sediment-laden runoff. But as the tropics heat up, that could soon change.
High Street Residential
At West Lake Houston Parkway between Upper Lake Drive and Kings Park Way, High Street Residential has finished clearing 19.7 acres for an apartment complex. Now the company is constructing drainage and detention ponds. After that come utility installation; concrete for building pads and streets; and finally construction of the apartments.
High Street is a subsidiary of Trammell Crow, the Dallas-based developer with billions in assets. They are known for high-end work.
Kingwood Middle School
As the new Kingwood Middle School nears completion, contractors have ripped up the parking lots and driveways of the old school in the foreground. During last week, contractors excavated a new detention pond (foreground below).
They moved the dirt to the old, temporary detention pond…and filled it in.
Meanwhile, an army of contractors prepare the new school for its grand opening later this year.
Humble ISD still lists the opening date for the new school as 2022. At this point, with access to the old school mostly blocked, there’s no turning back.
Laurel Springs RV Resort Construction Update
The Laurel Springs RV Resort opposite Lakewood Cove is still trying to grow grass in its half-sized detention pond…
…while it lays more rebar and pours concrete.
The developer estimated that when complete, concrete would cover only two-thirds of the site. Get out the tape measure.
Preserve At Woodridge
The developer of the Preserve At Woodridge is beginning to lay rebar before pouring concrete for more roads and the last rows of houses. Contractors are also busy building a retaining wall around the detention pond. Since a TCEQ investigation, I have not caught them pumping any more silty water into Bens Branch. The developer also finally posted his permits, but still has not posted the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
These will become rent homes, some as large as 668 SF on Woodridge Parkway between St. Martha Catholic Church and Kingwood Park High School. This developer also claims it will have 65% impervious cover…with homes as close together as four to five feet and 11 homes to the acre.
TCEQ has not yet finalized its investigation into construction practices at this job site.
Royal Pines
At the north end of West Lake Houston Parkway, contractors have been clearing land for several months for a new subdivision called Royal Pines.
This land used to be owned by the Guniganti family, which also owns the Triple PG Sand Mine immediately to the east. The Texas Attorney General is suing Guniganti for more than a million dollars, for alleged violations of TCEQ regulations. That case, which began in October 2019 was still in discovery last week.
New Caney ISD West Fork High School Construction Update
South of Kingwood Medical Center on Sorters-McClellan Road, New Caney ISD’s West Fork High School is nearing completion.
New Caney ISD posted a new web page about the high school. They’ve:
In a way, I envy these students starting out on their journey with a chance to start their own traditions.
Let’s hope this hurricane season doesn’t spoil the party. We’ll have another construction update next month, featuring other projects.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/2022
1766 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.
County Discussing Another Billion-Dollar-Plus Bond
On 6/29/22, Harris County Commissioners Court discussed a billion-dollar-plus bond package presented by County Administrator Dave Berry, Budget Director Daniel Ramos and Engineering Department Head Dr. Milton Rahman, P.E. The presentation talks about a $1 billion package. But during discussion, commissioners asked to look at several higher options – $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. The discussion, which you can see posted on the Harris County Commissioners Court website, starts at 3:32 (timecode) and goes to 4:20. Since that’s almost 50 minutes, let me try to summarize it below using some of the slides presented by Rahman.
Proposed Uses for Money
In fairness, understand upfront that Rahman presented an introductory outline, not a detailed plan. With that in mind, he pitched a $1 billion plan broken down as follows.
The package includes $200 million to improve neighborhood drainage. That’s over and above the $600 million in the current budget.
Rahman focused on both the number of people (20,000) and structures (4,000) benefitted with the $600 million. That averages to $30,000 per person or $150,000 per structure. That also works out to 5 people per structure. But the Harris County average per household, according to the US Census Bureau, is 2.84 people for the five years ending in 2020.
That made me question where Rahman obtained his numbers. He never says. Does he base his estimate on a combination of apartments and single-family households? Who will benefit from another $200 million? If that $200 million works as efficiently as the $600 million, it should help another 1,333 homes (4000/3). Where are they? Which precinct? Which neighborhoods?
Harris County already has neighborhood drainage improvements in the 2018 flood bond. Yet Rahman’s presentation says, “We do not recommend pursuing more voted authority for the Flood Control District at this time; approximately 74% of the 2018 Bond Program funds are not yet spent or encumbered.” That would mean 26% are. But Tina Petersen, the new head of the flood control district, submitted another presentation yesterday indicating that 21.8% has been spent.
I get the need for rounding at this early stage. But they’re talking about going to voters in four months. 4.2% of the $5 billion flood bond is more than $200 million dollars of rounding error! That made me wonder about the accuracy of the numbers in the slides above.
The fact that the total “ask” varied by 50% during the discussion also made me wonder about how much research and planning went into these numbers.
Yet Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are eager to put it on the agenda for a vote during the next commissioners court meeting – without any public input. That raised more red flags, because the Community Flood Resilience Task Force has demanded public input on future bond programs. In multiple languages. A majority of the task force felt so strongly about public input, that they even asked HUD to fund it!
Other Highlights from Discussion
Commissioner Ellis wants to review a tighter proposal and put it to a vote at the next commissioners court meeting on July 19, 2022.
Garcia wants it on the ballot in 2022, not 2023.
Ramsey wants to slow it down. He wants to listen to voters, develop a tight plan, communicate the elements to the public, and advocate for it. He stated that it would take a long time to recover from a bond proposal that failed. Ramsey would prefer a vote in 2023.
Commissioners Court spent considerable time discussing whether the proposal should have a list of specific projects or just generic categories of spending. But the commissioners made no decision on that point.
Milton Rahman stated, “The wish list is bigger than we can afford.” That raised another red flag for me. It means someone will have to make hard decisions about where the money goes and who benefits. Who will make those decisions? On what basis? When? After the election?
Commissioner Cagle suggested voting on this proposal with additional requests to fund flood tunnels and the coastal spine project. That could delay this bond proposal until we knew how much federal funding we could get for those projects. And that could take two years. Congress will vote on the next Water Resources Development Act in 2024.
Withholding Judgment for Now
Until I see more detail, I will withhold judgement on this bond proposal. I can see how there may be a need. But I’m not going to vote for a billion dollars of vague generalities. I want to see where the money goes and I want to have time to study the bond language. I was fooled once by a non-standard definition of “equitable” applied to the 2018 flood bond. What other surprises lurk in the wings?
One reader who prefers to remain anonymous said, “We should trust this Court with a blank check for projects that are not defined??? NO DAMN WAY!!! What is the formula to determine which Precincts get how much money? What is the prioritization framework to select projects? How will equity considerations affect funding? How will the public know where this money goes? We have NO IDEA where previous bond funding went!!! This Court has not earned our trust. Some members just cannot be trusted. NO BOND!”
Frankly, that’s a fairly typical attitude outside the Beltway from comments i get.
Yet Rahman, Berry and Ramos, in their last slide, suggest this proposal – with a barely defined project list – is a foregone conclusion. See below. They want to identify only a few flagship projects to complement other unspecified projects in the bond. And they want to start drafting bond orders now.
Let’s see if Berry, Ramos and Rahman can advertise and conduct dozens of precinct meetings; solicit public input; and define a plan responsive to community needs before the next commissioners court meeting. If not, perhaps Ellis, Garcia, Hidalgo and the Community Flood Resilience Task Force should demand their resignations.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/2022
1765 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.
HCFCD Asking to Tap Flood Resilience Trust for Bond Projects
Item #123 on the Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda for 6/28/22 is a request to tap the County’s Flood Resilience Trust Fund to help finance 16 flood-bond projects in the coming year. The request also seeks approval for a method of allocating future funds that weighs projects using a social vulnerability index.
A Backstop for Partner Funds
The introduction to the request states, “Although the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) continues to aggressively pursue partnership dollars … substantial amounts of anticipated partner funding remain unrealized.”
Of the roughly $5 billion in 2018 Flood-Bond Projects, officials hoped that Federal, State and local partners would supply roughly half the money. But it hasn’t all materialized yet. So last year, Commissioners created a flood-resilience trust fund to create backstop funding. Until now, the county has not needed it. But now the county does…for the sixteen projects listed below.
To date, Harris County has secured $1.275 billion in partnership funding for 2018 Bond Program projects from Federal, State, and local partners. Of the $2.5 billion in partner funds originally anticipated, “the county has not yet identified $754.2 million. This gap includes projects for which grant applications were submitted to various Federal and State programs such as CDBG-MIT, FEMA-BRIC, and others but not awarded,” says HCFCD.
Ironically, the backup documentation provided to commissioners by HCFCD makes no mention of the $750 million allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to Harris County. More on that below.
Ranking Methodology
The document provided to commissioners by HCFCD contains information about the Trust, its history and intent, projects that need funding help now, and a methodology for ranking projects.
After ranking all flood-bond projects that are short of funding using the proposed matrix below (Appendix B), the county began whittling away from Trust funds. HCFCD started with the top-ranked project and proceeded to the lowest until the money ran out, i.e., the balance in the trust fund went negative. Only two projects from the entire San Jacinto Watershed made the “eligible” list: one near the ship channel and another below Highway 90. But neither of those is part of the group of 16 above.
Weighting Factors in Proposed Matrix
The scoring matrix used by the County includes evaluations of:
As additional partnership funding sources are identified, money remaining in the Trust may cover additional projects…assuming inflation doesn’t eat it all up.
For this exercise, HCFCD analyzed all projects with partnership funding gaps. However, that doesn’t mean that those projects will necessarily receive Flood Resilience Trust funds. When and if HCFCD identifies funding partners, some projects could drop off the list of those needing help. That could make funds available for lower ranking projects. See Appendix B, last page.
Future Plans
If approved, HCFCD will return to Commissioners Court twice each year with additional requests from the Flood Resilience Trust. Each of those requests will include an updated analysis of partnership and contingency funding needs, Trust funds remaining, and eligible projects.
$750 Million HUD Allocation Not Discussed
The County’s Community Services Department is currently developing a Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million designated earlier this year for Harris County by HUD. A MOD is a plan for distributing the $750 million. Where and how will the county use the money? Who will benefit?
HUD and the GLO require that at least 50% of the money benefits Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
At the time the GLO and HUD dedicated $750 million to Harris County, they also dedicated $488 million to the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC).
HGAC has already submitted its MOD to the GLO and received preliminary, conditional approval. Conditional approval requires:
According to a GLO spokesperson, HGAC began developing its MOD when the GLO submitted its action plan to HUD. However, Harris County reportedly delayed planning until AFTER HUD approved the GLO’s recommendations.
That delay could mean spending more local money. And that could penalize Harris County watersheds farther down on the Trust Fund priority list that don’t currently meet SVI and other requirements. Will there be money left for the Lake Houston Area by the time we work our way further down this list? Only time will tell.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2022
1764 Days since Hurricane Harvey