Harris County Commissioners Supplement Flood-Bond Funds with Highway Money to Accelerate Mitigation

Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court voted 5-0 to transfer $315 million of toll road revenue, unallocated County road bonds and other county funds to accelerate the construction of certain flood-bond mitigation projects. They will allocate the funds to mitigation projects using the 2018 Flood Bond Prioritization Criteria.

The transfer will provide backstop funding for 100% of the projects in the Road & Bridge Subdivision Drainage Program of the 2018 Flood Control Bond Program, removing the risk that partner-funding shortfalls prevent projects from being completed.

Text of Motion

The final language as amended and approved reads as follows:


Create a new funding facility of $115 million, made up of County road bonds or HCTRA surplus revenue, to free up Flood Control bond capacity currently used for the Subdivision Program.  The Flood Control bond capacity will be allocated by utilizing the 2018 Flood Bond prioritization criteria.

Create an additional funding facility of $200 million, comprised of HCTRA surplus revenue or other County resources, to support completion of projects that are part of the 2018 bond program with the required transportation nexus.


Here is a background sheet from the county’s budget management department that explains the switch.

The Subdivision Program consists of 91 projects which, according to HCFCD estimates, reduce the risk of flooding to more than 45,000 homes.

Background

The projects benefit neighborhoods with outdated drainage infrastructure or which never had modern drainage systems in the first place. Furthermore, multiple projects are located in watersheds that have been historically disadvantaged in securing federal funds for flood control. According to the Office of the County Engineer, the Subdivision Program has a current estimated total cost of $535 million (or ~$590 million including an approximately 10% contingency).

Among the objectives:

  • Provide backstop funding for partnership projects in case grants don’t materialize or are delayed beyond a reasonable time
  • Let projects with mature or advanced partner funding opportunities pursue those opportunities for a defined (but not unlimited) period of time..

The background sheet contains a list of eligible projects in each precinct. Any Subdivision Program project costs that have not received a notice or award of partner funding by August 31, 2021, would be eligible to receive additional money from the backstop funding.

Discussion

Discussion on the motion and amendment lasted about an hour. It became clear that commissioners believe they:

  • Must complete all projects in the bond.
  • Expect not to find partnership funds for some projects, leaving those projects underfunded.
  • Need more money.
  • Must use diverted funds on flood projects that have some connection to transportation, i.e., problems created by new highway construction.
This approval will remove a cloud of uncertainty from projects that rely on partnership funding which has not yet materialized for some projects.

Including projects from all four precincts helped ensure a unanimous vote.

Another Bond? Not So Fast

Commissioners talked about the possibility of another flood-bond offering. However, the likelihood of that passing is slim. Poor people feel the money is going to affluent neighborhoods and affluent people feel the money is going to poor neighborhoods. If no one is happy with the way the current bond money has been handled, why would anyone vote to approve more?

Commissioners have grappled for more than a month with how to handle a possible shortfall in partner funding. Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis threatened to slow down or halt all flood-bond projects until Flood Control found a way to fully fund projects in Halls and Greens Bayous. Today’s development, seemed to avoid that showdown.

Flood Control will try to collapse a ten-year timeline down to five years.

It’s unclear at this time how today’s development will affect HUD grants in the pipeline, the interest costs on borrowed money, or the availability of qualified contractors.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/28/2021

1338 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Four Halls Bayou Detention Ponds Recently Completed; Four More Virtually Done

If you saw the recent front page article in the Houston Chronicle about Halls Bayou, you would think that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) relegated residents in the watershed to “the back of the bus.” Even before the bond, Halls received four floodwater retention projects, three of which are major. HCFCD is trying to expand the fourth of those. And since the flood bond, HCFCD has virtually completed four more floodwater retention projects..

Here’s what I found by simply driving around after consulting the HCFCD website and Google Earth Pro. I wish the Chronicle writer had done the same. There’s just no substitute for laying eyeballs on the job sites before riling up millions of people. Let’s start with the flood-bond projects first. I took all the photos below on 4/25/21 and 4/26/21.

Almost Completed Stormwater Detention Basins in Halls Watershed

Basin on Little York east of US59
New basin at Hopper and US59
Third new basin north of Helms Road east of Airline Drive
Fourth new basin south of Helms Road west of Airline Drive.

Recently Completed in Halls Watershed

Hall Park Stormwater Detention Basin East of US59 at Parker. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2018.
Bretshire Stormwater Detention Basin West of US59 at Parker. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2015.
Keith Weiss Park Stormwater Detention Basin on Halls Bayou east of Aldine Westfield. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2015.
West of Aldine Westfield, there’s a small basin owned by TxDOT. HCFCD hopes to enlarge this basin into the surrounding wooded areas as part of bond project C-25. Google Earth images show the first phase of this project was completed in 2012.

Funding “Shortfall” Not Yet Known

The Chronicle writer also claimed a “funding shortfall” for Halls of $272 million. Curious that he would make this statement just days before the GLO announces the winners of a statewide competition. Harris County could get some, none or all of its requests. To be clear, the competition is stiff; Harvey affected more than 40 counties. Regardless, there’s more than $2 billion up for grabs ($1 billion in this round and $1.144 billion in the next). It seems to me, the Chronicle writer could have waited a few days to publish results rather than rumors.

We Need Real Historical Data on Flood Mitigation Spending

Whether you agree with Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia and Lina Hidalgo or not, they have fought tenaciously for their constituents. They succeeded in reordering the priorities in flood-bond spending to serve low-to-moderate income neighborhoods first. For the Chronicle to imply that they failed their constituents is an insult to the Judge and Commissioners.

And to imply that all the money is going to more affluent neighborhoods is simply false. That claim seems designed to inflame racial hatred. Kingwood, for instance, has NEVER received one federally funded capital improvement project from HCFCD. Yet the Chronicle’s readers evidently concluded rich neighborhoods get all the money. Again, there’s no substitute for research.

From the Chronicle writer’s Twitter feed.

Inflaming racial tensions based on false information is the last thing America needs at this time.

In my opinion, we need facts, not fiction. Asserting discrimination is not the same as proving it.

Chronicle Article Also Ignores Tax Issue, Funding Realities

The Chronicle’s “HCFCD-puts-poor-people-at-the-back-of-the-bus” narrative also ignores the mechanics of funding projects. Before the flood bond vote in 2018, I spent an hour with former County Judge Ed Emmett discussing funding needs. A high priority at that point was to make local tax dollars stretch as far as they could by leveraging partner funding.

The need to leverage partner funding was even addressed in the final flood bond language. Paragraph 14 G states “…the commissioners court shall provide a process for the equitable expenditure of funds recognizing that project selection may have been affected in the past and may continue to be affected by eligibility requirements for matching Federal, State and other local government funds.”

Nobody stretches local tax dollars like the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is one of the main sources for funding projects in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods. Why?

HUD often offers a 90% match.

But there are two catches. First, you’re only eligible if at least 70% of residents that benefit from a project qualify as “low-to-moderate income” (LMI). Second, HUD is slow. To put “slow” in perspective, the Texas General Land Office just started accepting HUD grant applications from Imelda last Saturday. Imelda happened 586 days ago.

Looking at the flood bond spreadsheet (Page 6 of 10) and the expected partnership share of Halls Bayou Projects, you can see that 90/10 ratio reflected in most of the projected funding for Halls.

It’s unclear whether voters would have approved a flood bond that was 9X higher, especially when everyone, rich and poor alike, expressed concerns about not getting their fair share.

Alternative Sources of Halls Funding More Risky

Had HCFCD tried for FEMA funding instead, the low home values in Halls neighborhoods may have yielded a poor Benefit/Cost Ratio. Commissioner Ellis constantly reminds people about the perils of FEMA funding when applied to LMI neighborhoods.

So really, HCFCD had no choice but to focus on HUD for Halls projects.

  • The neighborhoods qualified.
  • The HUD match was far higher.
  • That minimized a tax increase.
  • It also maximized the number of possible Halls projects.

This was not a “gamble” as the Chronicle headline implied; it was actually the least risky option that seemed to benefit the most people.

Map above taken from HUD CDBG-MIT Draft Grant Application from Halls Bayou Watershed shows that 144,000 people in the watershed qualify as LMI (low to moderate income). That’s 70.6% of the total residents. To see the complete draft, visit this page.

We all need to calm down and wait to see how much money HUD grants the Hall’s Bayou Watershed projects. Brittany Eck of the GLO told me that she expects decisions by the end of this month. That’s this Friday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2021

1337 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 586 since Imelda

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.

Officials Slapped With Criminal Complaints for Failure to Produce Records in Colony Ridge Investigation

On Friday, 4/23/2021, journalist-turned-private-investigator Wayne Dolcefino filed criminal complaints against two public officials for failure to comply with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) in regard to his widening Colony-Ridge probe.

The TPIA requests included communication records between State Representative Ernest Bailes, Colony Ridge developer Trey Harris, and Colony Ridge lawyer Brent Lane. Dolcefino has also been frustrated in his attempts to obtain communication records from Liberty County Precinct 2 Commissioner Greg Arthur.

Behind the Criminal Complaints

Dolcefino suspects the records may shed light on the relationship between developers and public officials, and who is behind the failure of Liberty County to produce a complete set of Colony Ridge drainage analyses. The drainage reports were sought earlier under a separate TPIA request and relate to flooding issues that suddenly developed in Plum Grove. After Colony Ridge development began, the town’s main road washed out and homes started flooding repeatedly.

The question now is “Why?” are officials so reluctant to comply with the law?

After 4 months, the County still has not supplied the drainage records. Nor has it fully complied with the request for communication records. The latter triggered Dolcefino’s criminal complaints.

Earnest Bailes and Greg Arthur Target of Complaints

District 18 State Representative Ernest Bailes and Liberty County Precinct 2 Commissioner Greg Arthur are the first,” according to Dolcefino, to be subjects of criminal complaints regarding the hiding of public records. The complaints filed in Liberty, San Jacinto and Travis Counties are part of a widening Dolcefino Consulting investigation of Liberty County’s controversial Colony Ridge real-estate development.

“We do not tolerate public officials who ignore state law. The citizens of Plum Grove deserve to see the records that we have been asking for.”

Wayne Dolcefino, President of Dolcefino Consulting

Still Seeking Communication Records After 4 Months

Bailes’ Communication Records

Dolcefino formally requested a year of Representative Earnest Bailes communication records relating to state business; Trey Harris, the Colony Ridge Developer; and Brent Lane, Harris’ attorney. Dolcefino made the request in December 2020.

In four months since then, Bailes has provided screenshots for just one unidentified week of phone calls and seven text messages. Bailes’ office maintains there are no additional records. According to Dolcefino, Representative Bailes also refused to say whether he accepted trips from the developer.

“We have spoken with the San Jacinto County District Attorney and the San Jacinto County Sheriff’s Office,” said Dolcefino. “We are confident they will seek the immediate production of these records. Representative Bailes has had four months to destroy the records of his text messages and this investigation should include efforts to recover what was on his phone when our request was made.”

Arthur’s Communication Records

Precinct 2 Commissioner Greg Arthur was supposed to supply more than a year of communications records pertaining to county business. Dolcefino says Arthur produced pictures of phone records on a computer screen taken with a cell phone.  “All of the images were hard to read and many were totally illegible,” said Dolcefino. “Commissioner Arthur has ignored repeated requests for the actual, legible phone records.”

Example of records produced by Liberty County Precinct 2 Commissioner Greg Arthur – out of focus images of computer screen.

Drainage Records Still Missing, Too

These criminal complaints came months after county officials failed to find and produce missing drainage reports. The engineering firm that worked for Colony Ridge, Landplan Engineering, has also refused requests by Dolcefino Consulting to provide the drainage records.

The records are instrumental in determining if Colony Ridge broke Liberty County development rules.

Wayne Dolcefino

“We have not asked for the Magna Carta,” says Dolcefino. “These are records that were allegedly reviewed by the former county engineer before he put his state stamp on their plans just a few years ago. At least we know where the Magna Carta is.”

Why Finding Drainage Docs Is Important

In response to an initial request for drainage analyses and construction plans for all Colony Ridge subdivisions, Liberty County initially produced 39 documents. Most mischaracterized soil types in a way that could have contributed to flooding.

Landplan Engineering classified Colony Ridge soils as more permeable than USDA says they are.

If you go by Landplan’s numbers, more rain would soak in and less would run off. That reduces the amount of detention ponds needed, saves the developer money, and lets the developer sell more lots.

But if you go by the USDA numbers, the opposite is true. More rain runs off, more detention ponds are needed, costs go up, and the developer sells fewer lots. And if you don’t build enough detention ponds, people downstream flood.

Who’s right? No one seems to be able to supply soil samples to verify the information. Dolcefino also requested those. But the infiltration rates of the soil types were not the only problem in the Landplan reports.

None of the reports explained HOW Landplan calculated drainage requirements. And none certified, as required by law, that there would be no negative impact to upstream or downstream properties.

Bob Rehak

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/2021 based on input provided by Dolcefino Consulting and Liberty County

1335 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 584 since Imelda

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.