George P. Bush, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office (GLO), announced a 30-day extension of a deadline for renegotiating its contract with the City of Houston for a variety of Harvey Recovery Programs. The new contract would let the City keep some of the programs it had been working on while returning others to the GLO.
By tag-teaming remaining work, GLO hopes to expend all available funds before HUD pulls back unspent money out of the $1.3 billion it allocated for aid within the City.
GLO worries about the slow rate of City’s progress and whether the City can meet HUD deadlines.
The City, on the other hand, keeps insisting it is about to speed up as it falls farther behind.
When HUD attempted to pull the programs away from the City, the City filed a lawsuit to prevent that. At stake: millions in management fees for the City and hundreds of millions in aid for Harvey victims.
Last month, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin hinted that changes could be in the wind, but refused to release details until HUD and the GLO approved them.
Homeowners Worry About Cloud Over Programs
Meanwhile the cloud hanging over the programs worries thousands of homeowners who:
Qualified for aid but were not invited to submit an application
Have not been notified of their application’s status
Can’t get phone calls or emails returned from the City.
As of November 3, 2020, the City reports $776 million in available funds not yet committed for projects.
Three years after Harvey, the City reports it has issued only 82 reimbursement checks to homeowners for a total of $1.4 million. Either that number has not changed or the City has not updated it since October 23rd when I last posted on this subject. Neither has City updated the number of applications in its “pipeline” since August 31, 2020.
The GLO/CoH contract extension will let both sides work out a new plan that doesn’t leave disaster victims in limbo.
Statement from GLO Commissioner Bush
Commissioner Bush said: “The GLO has preliminarily agreed on the framework of an agreement with the City of Houston in the effort to help Houstonians recover from the worst natural disaster in our state’s history. The GLO has agreed to extend the current deadline for termination of the existing contract to better facilitate completion of this new agreement.”
Bush added, “The GLO’s focus continues to be making significant progress in putting federal dollars to work for the people of Houston. The GLO remains committed to helping Houston residents who are still in need of assistance with repair or reconstruction as well as moving other programs forward to successful completion within HUD’s mandatory timeline.”
GLO Still Taking Applications for Homeowner Assistance Program
In the meantime, the GLO will continue to operate the Homeowner Assistance Program to rebuild single family homes for Houston homeowners still needing assistance related to damage from Hurricane Harvey. Houston homeowners with a remaining Hurricane Harvey Housing need may find more information and apply at recovery.texas.gov/hap/houston.
Photo by Camille Pagel. Her children helped gut the kitchen instead of going to school after the Harvey flood.
GLO established the site above to help Harvey victims who have not yet submitted applications. Those who previously submitted applications which have become lost in space should call the numbers listed on the GLO site to determine their best course of action.
Note: the extension above affects contract negotiations between the City and GLO. It does not affect program deadlines.
Full Text of Interim Operations Agreement Between City, GLO
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Camille-Pagel-1.jpg?fit=800%2C1067&ssl=11067800adminadmin2020-11-04 17:58:102020-11-04 18:31:00GLO, City of Houston Agree to 30-Day Extension While They Work Out New Contract for Harvey Relief
The case of Emil C. Shebelbon, II v. Upstream Holdings, LLC ET AL (Montgomery County Cause No. 15-10-10710) provides fascinating new insights into how sand mines can affect flooding. This case is NOT about broken dikes, unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water, or mines inundated by super-storms such as Hurricane Harvey. It involves the opposite of all those things. Yet it still has implications for state regulations – or lack thereof. Specifically, I’m talking about setbacks of mines from rivers, lack of best management practices, reclamation of mines after the completion of mining and monitoring of floodway development.
All of the mines around Shebelbon’s property (bottom center) lie completely within the West Fork floodway (cross-hatched area). Development in floodways should not impede flow.
Defendants in this case appear to have filled in or walled off more than 200 acres of floodway property north of Shebelbon. That should have raised eyebrows from Washington to Conroe City Hall, but didn’t.
Two sand mines north of Shebelbon occupy more than 200 acres of floodway. The one closest to I-45 has been abandoned without remediation. Mining debris still litters the site. Shebelbon’s property lies immediately to the south, across the river.
Plaintiff’s Property Did Not Fill Floodway
The plaintiff in this case, Emil Shebelbon, purchased approximately 200 acres of land on the southwest corner of the San Jacinto West Fork and I-45 North about 20 years ago. He operates a motorsports facility there with dirt tracks and jumps for cyclists. Most of his land is in the floodway at the original level. He did not bring in fill. However, he did push some dirt into mounds to create the jumps. Very little impervious cover exists. It resembles a park. If you were going to build a business in the floodway, this is one of the few you might consider. It does not obstruct floodwater.
Increase in Flood Frequency, Depth and Erosion
When Shebelbon bought his land, everything north of him was farm, ranch or forest land. Then one mine came in and another. They expanded and started building up their property or walling it off from the floodway with dikes.
Shebelbon soon started to notice an increase in the depth and frequency of floods. He also started to lose land to erosion during statistically small floods.
Allegations in Lawsuit
Shebelbon’s lawsuit alleges that:
Mines blocked half of the floodway, forcing their flood water south onto his property, a violation of state law.
Cutting the floodway width in half forced floodwaters up to 3-4 feet higher on his property.
The increased flow in a smaller area increased the velocity of floodwaters.
That increased what hydrologists call “sheer stress,” the force necessary to start erosion.
Modeling showed shear stresses increased upwards of 0.5 pounds per square foot. The hydrologists claim that’s enough to cause substantial land and bank erosion near and within the Shebelbon Property. That, in turn, widened the river, eroding Shebelbon’s property, they say. Shebelbon estimates he lost seven acres due to erosion caused by constriction of the floodway (see photos below).
The mine north of Shebelbon’s property on the San Jacinto West Fork. Shebelbon’s property is out of frame to the right, underneath the nose of the helicopter. To visualize the height of the dikes, compare activity in the red circle with the following photo.A dredging expert estimates that the height of the berm at this point is 50-60 feet based on the size of the dredge. Note: this photo and the one above were taken on April 21, 2020, more than a year after the hydrologist’s study. Dikes here are likely taller than 2018 LIDAR data in the study indicates.
Federal, state, county, and city regulations all prohibit restricting the conveyance of floodways. So how did this get permitted? That will be the subject of another post.
Court documents show that the mines deny any connection to Shebelbon’s damages. They issued simple, general denials and are fighting Shebelbon tooth and nail.
Surprising Expert Witness Testimony
Shebelbon, however, has produced hundreds of pages of expert witness testimony to support his claims. This 197-page document downloaded from the Montgomery County Clerk’s office contains the testimony of several experts. For this post, I’m focusing on Exhibit E-22: Flood Impacts from Surrounding Activities, prepared by Dr. David T. Williams and Dr. Gerald Blackler. Their testimony and credentials run from pages 19 to 101 of the PDF. (Caution: 19 mb download.)
Surprisingly, experts for the plaintiff found that the problem is most visible in smaller floods, i.e., less than 18-year floods. 100-year floods can overtop dikes and spread out. But smaller floods cannot.
Despite hundreds of posts on the relationship between sand mining and flooding, I have not previously focused on the phenomenon described by these experts. But every flood expert I talk to – at local, county and state levels – says their findings make perfect sense.
Looking west.Compare height of dikes on right with river bank on left by Shebelbon’s property.Photo 11/2/2020. Also note how little flood storage capacity is left in ponds.This abandoned sand mine virtually blocks TxDoT’s auxiliary bridge on the north side of the river (upper right).TxDoT commonly uses such auxiliary bridges to convey water in floodplains.Photo 11/2/2020.
Public-Policy Concerns Raised by Shebelbon
Shebelbon’s case has not yet gone to trial. But I see similar situations every time I get in a helicopter. Together, they raise some disturbing public-policy issues. For instance:
Do we need greater setbacks of mines from rivers? Greater setbacks would allow greater expansion of floodwaters and help protect neighboring properties.
Do we need a comprehensive set of best management practices for sand mines that cover reclamation and abandonment? Restoring the natural floodplain instead of leaving an elevated mine next to the freeway might have prevented some of Mr. Shelbelbon’s damages.
What happens when local officials turn a blind eye to those apparently violating regulations? Is there a higher authority to enforce compliance – short of expensive lawsuits?
Hopefully, the TCEQ or State Legislature can address these questions. But it won’t happen without public pressure.
I would simply ask.
Why should miners’ property rights outweigh those of a neighboring business or resident?
Food for thought as we approach the upcoming legislative session!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/2020
1163 Days after 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/2020/11/20200421-RJR_0628.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-11-03 22:42:522020-11-04 10:58:45Expert Witnesses Model Surprising Flood Risks in Sand Mine Lawsuit
At the October 27, 2020 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion from the floor to explore using flood bond funds for maintenance projects. The motion was not on the agenda, nor did he circulate it before the meeting. It caught some commissioners off guard. Minor changes in wording between what the motion said, and how Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis described it, will keep court watchers guessing about their true intent.
Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia
In the end, the motion passed. It didn’t commit commissioners to anything more than conducting a survey and exploring options. However, last Tuesday’s discussion gives voters a peak over the horizon. It reveals what commissioners think and how desperate some are to find new sources of revenue rather than reign in runaway spending.
Garcia Explains Rationale for Motion
View the discussion yourself online.Click on Departments (Part 4 of 5). Start at approximately 4:21 into that segment. Below is a close transcription.
Adrian Garcia: The flood control district has developed the future operations and maintenance needs for the projects that the district will be constructing using the bond program. The overall need for the next 10 years is ninety seven million, with an average annual budget increase need of approximately 10 million per year. Major infrastructure that the control district owned and maintained are detention ponds, earthen channels, concrete channels, and outfall. It’s extremely important that the county funds the proactive maintenance and deferred maintenance for all Harris County owned infrastructure.
I see the spreadsheet that the district has submitted for their 10-year, cost-increase projections for bond projects and growth only as of 10/16 of this year. I am curious as to why some of the heavy equipment, the vehicles, management software implementation, the customer service, the (garbled) software, large repair projects, why these couldn’t be paid out of the bond funding [Emphasis Added, see below] versus using general-fund dollars?
And so I’d like to propose a motion that would touch on the customer-service satisfaction aspect of the flood control district. (Interruption) …
…so the customer-service satisfaction model, the risk-based model and the deferred-maintenance model.
Garcia Proposes Motion
Adrian Garcia: And so my proposed motions would read that Harris County flood control district should perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs.
The flood control district should develop an overall condition assessment for the infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, the flood control district should develop a prioritized criteria and maintenance-needs budget and the Harris county flood control district needs to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance needs that have been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large and may also qualify for a capital project. And the Budget Management Department needs to evaluate if we can fund this through a bond program [Emphasis Added, see below].
So that’s the motion I’d like to propose.
Judge, just make sure that we’re not forgetting how to maybe better deal with the O&M (operations and maintenance) side of the Flood Control District’s operations.
Ellis Wants Maintenance Tied to “Equity” Scheme
Rodney Ellis: Second. It also brings to my mind the question of, “How much of the flood bond money was spent before we adopted the equity guidelines?”
Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis
Matt Zeve (Deputy Exec Director, HCFCD): Yes, sir, Commissioner. My staff and I are working on getting those numbers over to you by the end of the week, plus all the other questions that you asked us to dig into. We plan to have that over to you before the end of the week.
Rodney Ellis: And Commissioner (Garcia), I only ask because it relates to the issue. Let’s say if a half a billion, five hundred million was spent before we adopted equity guidelines, I know the city is trying to get us to do some swap. They don’t have equity guidelines as it relates to that … some other project in another county … and I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one so that we make up a project that will fund it in the absence of equity guidelines, possibly in an equitable way. And money was taken off the top while we were coming up with guidelines, and I want to compensate for that going forward. And that ties in with what you’re doing today.
Hidalgo: So there’s a motion and a second…
Cagle Objects Because Motion Isn’t in Writing
Cagle: Was it sent around, Judge? (Meaning, “Was the motion circulated so that commissioners could see in writing what they were voting for?”)
Adrian Garcia: It’s coming around now, Commissioner.
Cagle: I’ll hold off until I see it.
Hidalgo: We can circle back (before taking a vote).
One Hour Later, Motion Passes
Approximately an hour later, at time code 5:23:50, Hidalgo finally circles back to Garcia’s motion.
Commissioner Jack Cagle asks Commissioner Garcia if he discussed his motion with the leaders of the flood control district. Answer: “Some of it.”
Cagle then states, “It’s asking for an assessment. I don’t have an issue with that.”
Commissioner Radack asks whether it could be implemented without coming back to court.
Robert Soard, speaking for the County Attorney’s office, says that any action on the survey would have to come back through Commissioner’s Court for a vote.
Garcia restates the motion, but this time the wording differs slightly: To direct the Harris County Flood Control District to perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services (i.e. mowing, desilting, etc.) to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs, to develop an overall condition assessment for the Infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, HCFCD should develop a prioritization criteria and maintenance needs budget and to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance need that has been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large that may also qualify for a Capital Project and Budget Management Department need to evaluate if we can fund these through a Bond Program.
Under Texas law, bond funds from the 2018 referendum can only be used for purposes approved by the voters.
However, as Commissioner Garcia alludes to in the final sentence of his motion, some maintenance projects are so large that they could legitimately be characterized as capital projects. In fact, the 2018 Flood Bond contained three such projects:
F-53 $40 million for “Rehabilitation of Channels Upstream of Addicks Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
F-52 $20 million for “Rehabilitation of Approximately 20 Miles of Channels Upstream of Barker Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
CI-012 $60 million for “Major Maintenance of Cypress Creek and Tributaries”
Before the 2018 Bond Election, Harris County Flood Control had only a $120 million budget for maintenance, half of which it spent on capital projects. So you can see that those three maintenance projects would have consumed the entire annual maintenance budget by themselves. Clearly, they fall into a gray area.
The three projects above fall under language in the flood bond that allows “channel improvements.” Also HCFCD publicized them as potential projects before the vote.
Is It Wise to Pay for Maintenance With Bond Money?
Ordinarily, it’s a bad idea to pay for maintenance out of 30-year bond funds.
Mr. Garcia’s introduction of the motion mentioned things not in the motion. For instance:
Vehicles
Software
Customer service
The County should never, in my opinion, pay for those with a 30-year bond. Neither should the bond pay for mowing, which WAS in the motion.
It’s literally like taking out a mortgage to cut your grass. A week later, you’re back where you started and saddled with 30 years of debt.
A New Bond?
Above, I bolded “THE BOND” and “A BOND.” At first, Commissioner Garcia said he wanted to use money from THE BOND (meaning the 2018) bond to pay for some maintenance items. But his actual motion refers to “A BOND.”
That’s certainly a strange way to refer to the historic flood bond passed in 2018. It sounds as though he’s laying the groundwork to float another flood bond.
Rodney Ellis’ rush to second the motion supports the second interpretation. For months, Ellis has consistently carped that there won’t be enough money in the 2018 bond to do all the projects that need doing.
Ellis, Equity Flap and Elm Grove
That’s why Commissioner Ellis redefined “equity” earlier this year. The 2018 Flood Bond specified “equitable distribution of funds.” 88% of people throughout the county voted for that language – thinking they would get their fair share of flood bond money. However, Commissioner Ellis redefined the word to favor the socially vulnerable and penalize others.
Now, Ellis seems to be linking help for Elm Grove to the City of Houston’s adoption of “equity guidelines” comparable to his. He said, “I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one…” Then he added, “That (meaning equity) ties into what we’re doing here today.” Literally, they are conducting an inventory of maintenance needs and developing a prioritization framework for it.
That framework will no doubt be used to ensure distribution of maintenance dollars according to Mr. Ellis’ definition of equity.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/3/2020
1162 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Garcia.jpg?fit=764%2C586&ssl=1586764adminadmin2020-11-02 23:10:042020-11-03 09:25:39Harris County Commissioners Vote to Explore Using Flood-Bond for Maintenance, Possibly Floating Another Bond
GLO, City of Houston Agree to 30-Day Extension While They Work Out New Contract for Harvey Relief
George P. Bush, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office (GLO), announced a 30-day extension of a deadline for renegotiating its contract with the City of Houston for a variety of Harvey Recovery Programs. The new contract would let the City keep some of the programs it had been working on while returning others to the GLO.
Origin of Conflict Affecting Aid Recipients
Houston and GLO have fought for months over the speed of the City’s handling of aid applications.
When HUD attempted to pull the programs away from the City, the City filed a lawsuit to prevent that. At stake: millions in management fees for the City and hundreds of millions in aid for Harvey victims.
Last month, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin hinted that changes could be in the wind, but refused to release details until HUD and the GLO approved them.
Homeowners Worry About Cloud Over Programs
Meanwhile the cloud hanging over the programs worries thousands of homeowners who:
As of November 3, 2020, the City reports $776 million in available funds not yet committed for projects.
Only 82 Reimbursement Checks Written Since Harvey
Three years after Harvey, the City reports it has issued only 82 reimbursement checks to homeowners for a total of $1.4 million. Either that number has not changed or the City has not updated it since October 23rd when I last posted on this subject. Neither has City updated the number of applications in its “pipeline” since August 31, 2020.
Statement from GLO Commissioner Bush
Commissioner Bush said: “The GLO has preliminarily agreed on the framework of an agreement with the City of Houston in the effort to help Houstonians recover from the worst natural disaster in our state’s history. The GLO has agreed to extend the current deadline for termination of the existing contract to better facilitate completion of this new agreement.”
Bush added, “The GLO’s focus continues to be making significant progress in putting federal dollars to work for the people of Houston. The GLO remains committed to helping Houston residents who are still in need of assistance with repair or reconstruction as well as moving other programs forward to successful completion within HUD’s mandatory timeline.”
GLO Still Taking Applications for Homeowner Assistance Program
In the meantime, the GLO will continue to operate the Homeowner Assistance Program to rebuild single family homes for Houston homeowners still needing assistance related to damage from Hurricane Harvey. Houston homeowners with a remaining Hurricane Harvey Housing need may find more information and apply at recovery.texas.gov/hap/houston.
GLO established the site above to help Harvey victims who have not yet submitted applications. Those who previously submitted applications which have become lost in space should call the numbers listed on the GLO site to determine their best course of action.
Note: the extension above affects contract negotiations between the City and GLO. It does not affect program deadlines.
Full Text of Interim Operations Agreement Between City, GLO
Neither Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, nor Mayor Pro Tem Martin, has yet released a statement on this subject. But ReduceFlooding.com has obtained a copy of the interim operations agreement signed by Mayor Turner and Deputy Land Commissioner Mark A. Havens. This determines how both sides will move forward in the next month.
Overview: Who’s Doing What in Next Month
During the Extension Period which ends on December 6, 2020, the GLO will let the City continue administering funds under the:
During the Extension Period, the GLO will also let the City:
Other Terms of Interim Agreement
As part of the settlement, the City must:
Dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice would forbid the City from refiling its suit in the future. For other terms and conditions, see the full text of the proposed agreement.
Posted by Bob Rehak on November 3, 2020
1163 Days after Hurricane Harvey
Expert Witnesses Model Surprising Flood Risks in Sand Mine Lawsuit
The case of Emil C. Shebelbon, II v. Upstream Holdings, LLC ET AL (Montgomery County Cause No. 15-10-10710) provides fascinating new insights into how sand mines can affect flooding. This case is NOT about broken dikes, unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water, or mines inundated by super-storms such as Hurricane Harvey. It involves the opposite of all those things. Yet it still has implications for state regulations – or lack thereof. Specifically, I’m talking about setbacks of mines from rivers, lack of best management practices, reclamation of mines after the completion of mining and monitoring of floodway development.
Defendants in this case appear to have filled in or walled off more than 200 acres of floodway property north of Shebelbon. That should have raised eyebrows from Washington to Conroe City Hall, but didn’t.
Plaintiff’s Property Did Not Fill Floodway
The plaintiff in this case, Emil Shebelbon, purchased approximately 200 acres of land on the southwest corner of the San Jacinto West Fork and I-45 North about 20 years ago. He operates a motorsports facility there with dirt tracks and jumps for cyclists. Most of his land is in the floodway at the original level. He did not bring in fill. However, he did push some dirt into mounds to create the jumps. Very little impervious cover exists. It resembles a park. If you were going to build a business in the floodway, this is one of the few you might consider. It does not obstruct floodwater.
Increase in Flood Frequency, Depth and Erosion
When Shebelbon bought his land, everything north of him was farm, ranch or forest land. Then one mine came in and another. They expanded and started building up their property or walling it off from the floodway with dikes.
Shebelbon soon started to notice an increase in the depth and frequency of floods. He also started to lose land to erosion during statistically small floods.
Allegations in Lawsuit
Shebelbon’s lawsuit alleges that:
Modeling showed shear stresses increased upwards of 0.5 pounds per square foot. The hydrologists claim that’s enough to cause substantial land and bank erosion near and within the Shebelbon Property. That, in turn, widened the river, eroding Shebelbon’s property, they say. Shebelbon estimates he lost seven acres due to erosion caused by constriction of the floodway (see photos below).
Court documents show that the mines deny any connection to Shebelbon’s damages. They issued simple, general denials and are fighting Shebelbon tooth and nail.
Surprising Expert Witness Testimony
Shebelbon, however, has produced hundreds of pages of expert witness testimony to support his claims. This 197-page document downloaded from the Montgomery County Clerk’s office contains the testimony of several experts. For this post, I’m focusing on Exhibit E-22: Flood Impacts from Surrounding Activities, prepared by Dr. David T. Williams and Dr. Gerald Blackler. Their testimony and credentials run from pages 19 to 101 of the PDF. (Caution: 19 mb download.)
Despite hundreds of posts on the relationship between sand mining and flooding, I have not previously focused on the phenomenon described by these experts. But every flood expert I talk to – at local, county and state levels – says their findings make perfect sense.
Public-Policy Concerns Raised by Shebelbon
Shebelbon’s case has not yet gone to trial. But I see similar situations every time I get in a helicopter. Together, they raise some disturbing public-policy issues. For instance:
Hopefully, the TCEQ or State Legislature can address these questions. But it won’t happen without public pressure.
I would simply ask.
Food for thought as we approach the upcoming legislative session!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/2020
1163 Days after 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.
Harris County Commissioners Vote to Explore Using Flood-Bond for Maintenance, Possibly Floating Another Bond
At the October 27, 2020 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion from the floor to explore using flood bond funds for maintenance projects. The motion was not on the agenda, nor did he circulate it before the meeting. It caught some commissioners off guard. Minor changes in wording between what the motion said, and how Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis described it, will keep court watchers guessing about their true intent.
In the end, the motion passed. It didn’t commit commissioners to anything more than conducting a survey and exploring options. However, last Tuesday’s discussion gives voters a peak over the horizon. It reveals what commissioners think and how desperate some are to find new sources of revenue rather than reign in runaway spending.
Garcia Explains Rationale for Motion
View the discussion yourself online. Click on Departments (Part 4 of 5). Start at approximately 4:21 into that segment. Below is a close transcription.
Adrian Garcia: The flood control district has developed the future operations and maintenance needs for the projects that the district will be constructing using the bond program. The overall need for the next 10 years is ninety seven million, with an average annual budget increase need of approximately 10 million per year. Major infrastructure that the control district owned and maintained are detention ponds, earthen channels, concrete channels, and outfall. It’s extremely important that the county funds the proactive maintenance and deferred maintenance for all Harris County owned infrastructure.
I see the spreadsheet that the district has submitted for their 10-year, cost-increase projections for bond projects and growth only as of 10/16 of this year. I am curious as to why some of the heavy equipment, the vehicles, management software implementation, the customer service, the (garbled) software, large repair projects, why these couldn’t be paid out of the bond funding [Emphasis Added, see below] versus using general-fund dollars?
And so I’d like to propose a motion that would touch on the customer-service satisfaction aspect of the flood control district. (Interruption) …
…so the customer-service satisfaction model, the risk-based model and the deferred-maintenance model.
Garcia Proposes Motion
Adrian Garcia: And so my proposed motions would read that Harris County flood control district should perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs.
The flood control district should develop an overall condition assessment for the infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, the flood control district should develop a prioritized criteria and maintenance-needs budget and the Harris county flood control district needs to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance needs that have been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large and may also qualify for a capital project. And the Budget Management Department needs to evaluate if we can fund this through a bond program [Emphasis Added, see below].
So that’s the motion I’d like to propose.
Judge, just make sure that we’re not forgetting how to maybe better deal with the O&M (operations and maintenance) side of the Flood Control District’s operations.
Ellis Wants Maintenance Tied to “Equity” Scheme
Rodney Ellis: Second. It also brings to my mind the question of, “How much of the flood bond money was spent before we adopted the equity guidelines?”
Matt Zeve (Deputy Exec Director, HCFCD): Yes, sir, Commissioner. My staff and I are working on getting those numbers over to you by the end of the week, plus all the other questions that you asked us to dig into. We plan to have that over to you before the end of the week.
Rodney Ellis: And Commissioner (Garcia), I only ask because it relates to the issue. Let’s say if a half a billion, five hundred million was spent before we adopted equity guidelines, I know the city is trying to get us to do some swap. They don’t have equity guidelines as it relates to that … some other project in another county … and I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one so that we make up a project that will fund it in the absence of equity guidelines, possibly in an equitable way. And money was taken off the top while we were coming up with guidelines, and I want to compensate for that going forward. And that ties in with what you’re doing today.
Hidalgo: So there’s a motion and a second…
Cagle Objects Because Motion Isn’t in Writing
Cagle: Was it sent around, Judge? (Meaning, “Was the motion circulated so that commissioners could see in writing what they were voting for?”)
Adrian Garcia: It’s coming around now, Commissioner.
Cagle: I’ll hold off until I see it.
Hidalgo: We can circle back (before taking a vote).
One Hour Later, Motion Passes
Approximately an hour later, at time code 5:23:50, Hidalgo finally circles back to Garcia’s motion.
Commissioner Jack Cagle asks Commissioner Garcia if he discussed his motion with the leaders of the flood control district. Answer: “Some of it.”
Cagle then states, “It’s asking for an assessment. I don’t have an issue with that.”
Commissioner Radack asks whether it could be implemented without coming back to court.
Robert Soard, speaking for the County Attorney’s office, says that any action on the survey would have to come back through Commissioner’s Court for a vote.
Garcia restates the motion, but this time the wording differs slightly: To direct the Harris County Flood Control District to perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services (i.e. mowing, desilting, etc.) to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs, to develop an overall condition assessment for the Infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, HCFCD should develop a prioritization criteria and maintenance needs budget and to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance need that has been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large that may also qualify for a Capital Project and Budget Management Department need to evaluate if we can fund these through a Bond Program.
Ellis seconds it again. The motion passes.
Text of Flood Bond That Voters Passed
The words “maintenance” and “operations” appear nowhere in the bond language approved by voters.
However, as Commissioner Garcia alludes to in the final sentence of his motion, some maintenance projects are so large that they could legitimately be characterized as capital projects. In fact, the 2018 Flood Bond contained three such projects:
Before the 2018 Bond Election, Harris County Flood Control had only a $120 million budget for maintenance, half of which it spent on capital projects. So you can see that those three maintenance projects would have consumed the entire annual maintenance budget by themselves. Clearly, they fall into a gray area.
The three projects above fall under language in the flood bond that allows “channel improvements.” Also HCFCD publicized them as potential projects before the vote.
Is It Wise to Pay for Maintenance With Bond Money?
Ordinarily, it’s a bad idea to pay for maintenance out of 30-year bond funds.
Mr. Garcia’s introduction of the motion mentioned things not in the motion. For instance:
The County should never, in my opinion, pay for those with a 30-year bond. Neither should the bond pay for mowing, which WAS in the motion.
A New Bond?
Above, I bolded “THE BOND” and “A BOND.” At first, Commissioner Garcia said he wanted to use money from THE BOND (meaning the 2018) bond to pay for some maintenance items. But his actual motion refers to “A BOND.”
Rodney Ellis’ rush to second the motion supports the second interpretation. For months, Ellis has consistently carped that there won’t be enough money in the 2018 bond to do all the projects that need doing.
Ellis, Equity Flap and Elm Grove
That’s why Commissioner Ellis redefined “equity” earlier this year. The 2018 Flood Bond specified “equitable distribution of funds.” 88% of people throughout the county voted for that language – thinking they would get their fair share of flood bond money. However, Commissioner Ellis redefined the word to favor the socially vulnerable and penalize others.
Now, Ellis seems to be linking help for Elm Grove to the City of Houston’s adoption of “equity guidelines” comparable to his. He said, “I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one…” Then he added, “That (meaning equity) ties into what we’re doing here today.” Literally, they are conducting an inventory of maintenance needs and developing a prioritization framework for it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/3/2020
1162 Days since Hurricane Harvey