Chronicle, ReduceFlooding endorse Mealer over Hidalgo

The Houston Chronicle has endorsed Republican Alexandra del Moral Mealer for County Judge over incumbent Democrat Lina Hidalgo. I won’t recap the lengthy Chronicle article here; you should read it firsthand. But I will expand on it, especially vis-a-vis flood control, which the Chronicle touched only lightly.

Let me start by saying that after watching four year’s of Hidalgo’s missteps in flood mitigation, I support Mealer, too. It comes down to concerns about Hidalgo and the promise I see in Mealer. Let’s discuss Hidalgo first.

Hidalgo Slights Area With Worst Flooding

The person in the driver’s seat has a huge influence on where flood-mitigation money goes. And more than half of all flood-bond money spent to date has gone to Brays, Greens, White Oak, Halls, and Hunting Bayous. Those five have received more than $550 million from the flood bond through May. That’s more than half of all bond money. See below.

Flood Bond Spending through May 2022. Data obtained from HCFCD via a FOIA Request.

Here’s how that looks in a graph. Keep in mind that the San Jacinto watershed is the largest in the county.

The San Jacinto also had the highest flooding in the county during Harvey – more than 20 feet above flood stage.

worst first
Chart showing feet above flood stage at 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey, including the 5 LMI watersheds listed above.

And as a result, the San Jacinto was among the most heavily damaged.

Flood-loss heat map during Harvey. From MAAPnext.org.

So, you would think this would get Judge Hidalgo’s attention. Instead, she brags about her equity prioritization framework. She claims it gives preference to the “worst first.” The only thing is, she doesn’t define “worst” the way most people would. She ignores severity of flooding and damaged structures.

Hidalgo’s Definition of Worst

Hidalgo’s formula measures Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) residents, the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, and population in an area. But many of those densely populated neighborhoods are crowded with apartments. So …

People who live above ground level and don’t flood get prioritized over people who live at ground level and do flood.

But Hidalgo can’t even tell how many residents in a watershed live with different degrees of flood risk. So, Hidalgo’s “worst first” mantra is clever but misleading. It intends to deceive.

While rewarding her core constituents with mitigation projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the entire Lake Houston Area has only $2,000 of capital-improvement flood-bond construction projects underway.

Compare that to the half billion dollars you saw above. She’s proud of that disparity. Watch the video interview embedded in the Chronicle article.

Meltdown at Universal Services

Flood-control spending is just one of the county’s “disaster areas.” Consider the County’s IT department, Universal Services, which is in meltdown. The reason you see five-month-old data above is that the county has gone through a disastrous change in its IT systems.

The department has been dogged by incompetence since Hidalgo appointed Rick Noriega to take over. He has no IT background and has pushed out people who do. The managers of every group beneath him have turned over.

Employees complain Universal Services now hires new people for their political affiliation, not professional qualifications.

The incompetence is widespread, according to multiple sources. Things have gotten so bad that many qualified staff are burning out from having to shoulder more and more of the workload. And they are quitting.

As a result, accurate, timely information is rare. And yet, Hidalgo keeps bragging about “transparency.”

Lacking Leadership, Direction on $750 Million Flood-Mitigation Allocation

Universal Services is not alone. See the org chart below.

Changes under Hidalgo. Red X’s represent changes in leadership. Green boxes represent new departments.

The Community Services Department has had three different leadership changes under Hidalgo.

So whom did she choose to develop a plan for spending $750 million in Harvey flood-mitigation funds? Community Services, not Flood Control!

Community Services may be knowledgeable about disaster relief. That’s about helping individuals recover from past floods. But flood mitigation is about lessening the severity of future floods. One requires social workers; the other requires engineers, like they have in Harris County Flood Control.

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers those flood-mitigation funds for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The GLO signaled its intention to allocate $750 million to Harris County on August 23, 2021, but Community Services hasn’t even started compiling a list of potential projects yet.

They are still waiting on “direction from leadership,” according to an internal memo obtained by ReduceFlooding. In 14 months, Community Services has only defined a “process” for determining the list.

Community Services has, however, determined that it wants to spend almost a hundred million of the $750 million on planning and administrative costs.

From CSD Planning Meeting Presentation for the $750 million.

Meanwhile, H-GAC which covers a much larger area and includes many more governmental entities received notification of a $488 million allocation – also on 8/23/21. Yet H-GAC has already submitted its project list, received approval, and is working with sub-recipients to secure and validate bids.

Brain Drain Continues

Some of the departments shown above have been gutted. For instance, Engineering lost 4-5 layers of management. They don’t even have a disaster relief capability anymore.

Also, their “Fix Flooding First” program lost its leader and has reported no progress in months. Fix Flooding First was especially important to people on the periphery of the county. Its objective was to get neighboring areas that drain into Harris County to adopt minimum drainage standards.

What you see in the org chart above is the wholesale replacement of highly credentialed professionals by political cronies. And often, the cronies have no experience or qualifications.

Many managers under Hidalgo have described the environment as “chaotic.”

And then there’s Elections Administration. Hidalgo hired a political activist who had never run an election. She missed key deadlines and lost 10,000 votes. So, Hidalgo replaced her … just weeks before early voting starts for the upcoming election.

Management Mayhem Under Hidalgo

In my opinion, Hidalgo’s biggest problem is that she’s just a bad manager. She:

  • Doesn’t attract and retain top talent
  • Pushes out those who disagree
  • Hires people based on political affiliation, not qualifications
  • Doesn’t value experience and institutional knowledge
  • Blatantly discriminates against Republican-leaning precincts.

Hidalgo repeatedly says that she’s proud of what most would consider screw-ups.

Hidalgo never “owns” her problems. She just waves them away. In my opinion, another four years of Hidalgo would leave the county in disastrous and unrecoverable shape.

County spending is up. Crime is up. Taxes are up. And virtually all the flood-mitigation money promised to the Lake Houston Area has so far gone elsewhere.

About Alexandra del Moral Mealer

Mealer comes to the job with much more life and leadership experience than Hidalgo did. She has a way of confronting the truth head on.

You would expect that from a West-Point-educated Army Captain who commanded a bomb squad in Afghanistan. Mealer understands:

  • The necessity of accurate intel
  • That peoples’ lives and livelihoods depend on the decisions she makes.
Alex Mealer
Alex Mealer spent days touring the Lake Houston area to understand local flooding issues first hand. Hidalgo has not.

Mealer also has MBA and JD degrees from Harvard. She was a VP at Wells Fargo where she helped put together billion-dollar oil-and-gas deals before deciding to run for County Judge. In flooding as with law enforcement…

Mealer’s focus is making sure the county spends money wisely.

Straight Talk Vs. the Flood-Control Fairy Tale

Before this campaign, Mealer acquired a wealth of knowledge about how the county works. And she has surrounded herself with experts on various subjects.

The Chronicle described her as a data wonk. In my opinion, that’s what the county needs: someone grounded in reality. In one commissioner’s court meeting after another, Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis, have spun a flood-control fairly tale.

It goes something like this. “Flood control has ignored poor neighborhoods. Rich ones like Kingwood get all the flood-mitigation money.” Why? They point to institutional racism!

If we had a judge who knew where her money was actually going, she could have challenged this myth. The reality is that LMI neighborhoods have consistently received the lion’s share of flood-mitigation funding going back decades.

By ignoring reality and blaming flooding on racism, Hidalgo has divided people. Worse, she has diverted attention AWAY FROM the REAL causes of flooding.

Laser Focus on Results that Benefit All

I have discussed flooding issues with Mealer a dozen times since the primary last spring. In my opinion, she is laser focused on accurately diagnosing problems. National and state issues over which she has no control do not distract Mealer.

Mealer is determined to provide a safe and secure community with well-maintained public infrastructure that support growth and opportunity for all.

Accurately diagnosing problems is the key to fixing them quickly and cost effectively.

I, for one, don’t plan to support Hidalgo. She continually says she needs more money when she doesn’t know where billions of flood-mitigation dollars have gone. Nor does she seem eager to deploy another $750 million already in her hip pocket. I’m voting for Mealer.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/22

1874 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.

September 2022 Flood Bond Update

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) transmitted an update to Commissioners Court today that shows the progress of the flood bond through September 2022. The report shows slowing activity. Specifically:

  • No new construction contracts or other agreements were awarded in the last month.
  • Total spending increased only $21 million – from $1.104 billion to $1.125 billion.
  • Overall progress remained unchanged from August. It’s holding at 23.5% complete.
  • The amount of “Professional Services Invoices Paid” declined from $4.8 million to $1.7 million.
  • Home buyouts “in progress” declined from 331 to 305 (-26).

Improvements Since Harvey

The update also included a list of accomplishments since Harvey. HCFCD has:

  • Completed 229 project components, reducing the risk of flooding for more than 14,000 homes and businesses
  • Removed an estimated 4.7 million cubic yards of sediment from channels across Harris County through maintenance efforts – the equivalent of approximately 335,000 dump truck loads – to ensure stormwater can move through channels efficiently
  • Acquired more than 21,500 acres of land for projects, floodplain preservation and buyouts to ensure floodwaters can spread out safely without structures that can flood
  • Secured more than $1.35 billion in partnership funding while pursuing more funding opportunities at the federal, state and local levels.
  • Started the third batch of major maintenance activities along Cypress Creek.

Where Money Has Gone

Note that the September update (reported in October) actually contains figures compiled through the end of August. The map below shows where more than $1.1 billion has gone.

From Page 9 of September HCFCD Flood-Bond Update

Budget Priorities

Here’s how that spending looks in table form arranged in order from highest to lowest based on spending through the end of August (column 3).

August Flood Bond Spending
Transcribed from maps in July and August

This spending shows a huge disparity among watersheds. The ratio between Brays and Vince is 335 to 1.

The table also shows the effect of “equity prioritization” – concentrating on watersheds with a high percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.

Eight LMI watersheds have received a total of $447.5 million for an average of $55.9 million each.

Yet the 15 other watersheds have received a total of $460.2 million for an average of $30.7 million each – roughly half as much.

The entire Lake Houston Area still has only two active capital improvement construction projects – valued at $1,000 each. Both are Excavation and Removal Contracts – one in Woodridge Village and the other in the Cedar Bayou Watershed.

Slowdown in Spending Bears More Investigation

The most worrisome aspect of this update is a continued slowdown in activity. At the current rate of spending, HCFCD would spend less than half the money in the bond in the next six years. Remember, we’re four years into a ten-year, $5 billion program. At $20 million per month for the next 60 months, HCFCD would spend only another $1.2 billion. That would cover only about half the projects in the bond.

However, note that in project management, sometimes pauses are built into projects for things such as approvals, right-of-way acquisition, etc. The real question is whether such pauses can explain the current slowdown. HCFCD is investigating to see how much, if any of the slowdown, is planned. More on that next month.

To see the complete bond update, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/12/22

1169 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.

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.

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.

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:

The City’s HoAP program included three sub-programs: Reimbursements, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction.

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%.

  • Approximately one out of six families invited to apply for aid submitted applications.
  • Of those who completed applications, approximately two out of three were eligible.
  • But of those, only 807 applications made it to the GLO for approval.
  • The GLO approved all of those but 10.
  • So 9,422 applicants were left in the pipeline (10,229 – 807).

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:

  • 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.

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.

  • 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.

Keyframe for YouTube video on bond website promotes spending $100 million for maintenance.

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.

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.

$750 Million MOD Going to GLO

Correction: since posting this, I have learned that Community Services has not even started compiling a list of projects that will comprise the Method of Distribution. The department has only defined a “process” for compiling the list and is waiting for “direction from leadership.”

On September 8th, the Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) distributed a schedule showing that it would complete the first draft of its Method of Distribution (MOD) for spending $750 million in mitigation funding by the end of the month.

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated the money to Harris County earlier last year. The draft MOD will now hopefully go to the GLO for review and approval by the end of October.

What MOD Entails

Early last year, the GLO allocated the money to Harris County along with another $450 million to the Houston-Galveston Area Council.

A MOD lists projects and amounts. It shows how Harris County wants to distribute the money, i.e., who will get how much for what from the $750 million.

will this get any of the $750 million in CDBG-MIT funds from the GLO?
US 59 at Townsen Boulevard during Hurricane Harvey

The GLO must verify that all planned expenditures meet requirements of the funding allocated by HUD and Congress.

MOD Developed With Public Input

Harris County CSD held online and in-person meetings to share information with the public. English-language meetings were held on August 17th,  25th, and 31st. CSD also held a Spanish meeting on September 1st. They then gathered written and oral comments from the public. (The deadline to submit comments has passed.)

Next Steps

After a public planning meeting on September 8th, CSD spent the rest of September developing a draft Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million. The department will now submit it to the GLO for review and preliminary approval. Steps after that include:

  • Publish Draft MOD by October 30
  • Nov 15-Dec 2 – 15-day public comment Period and hearing
  • Contract entities included in the MOD with funding level and gain confirmation of participation via Funding Acknowledgement Letter from entity
  • Dec 5-7 – Document Responses to Public Comment, add to Draft MOD document
  • December or January- Draft MOD document approved at Commissioners Court
  • January 2023 – Final MOD document submitted to GLO
  • GLO approval of final MOD and MOD allocated entities complete project information package process
  • March/April 2023 – MOD Entity project information packets submitted to GLO for review and approval
  • Kick-off contract development for projects.

So, the GLO has until the end of the month to review and approve the draft MOD. Once approved, CSD can publish it. Then CSD will hold more public meetings and submit any revisions to Commissioners Court and the GLO for final approval.

Pressure On to Develop Projects Quickly

Expect projects to begin sometime in the second quarter of 2023. But keep in mind that all dates are subject to change.

Starting to develop projects almost six years after Harvey will put some pressure on Harris County Flood Control and any other entities designated as recipients.

  • 50% of the grant must be expended by Jan. 12, 2027.
  • 100% must be expended by January 12, 2032 – 15 years after Harvey

Half of the $750 million must be spent within four years. To put that in perspective, Flood Control estimates it’s only 23.5% done with a 10-year flood-bond package four years after it was approved by voters.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/1/2022

1859 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood- and Garcia-Bond Updates

The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) August update to County Commissioners on the progress of the 2018 flood bond shows a continued lopsided distribution of funds in favor of low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds. It also showed slowing activity overall.

Separately, the County has posted a new website and scheduled input sessions for Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond proposition(s). The dates of input sessions relative to the legislative deadline for bond language make it clear that the bond language will not reflect much voter input.

Lopsided Distribution of Funds Continues for Flood Bond

Five watersheds with a majority of LMI residents have received 39% of all the flood bond spending. LMI is defined as “below median income for the region.” Brays, Greens, White Oak, Halls and Hunting watersheds received a total of $430.4 million – an average of $86 million each. Together, the other 18 watersheds received $443.5 million – an average of $24.6 million each. Countywide projects received the rest – $217 million.

Page 9 from the August Flood Bond Update.
Data transferred from map above and arranged by total spending per watershed.

I’ve said it before. Facts do not support the political narrative that affluent watersheds get all the funding. To see what the funding in those five LMI watersheds helped buy, see the photos in these posts.

Flood-Bond Progress Appears to Slow

During the month, HCFCD:

  • Awarded only one new construction contract valued at $1 million.
  • Awarded three new agreements with other contractors but spent $0 with them.
  • Completed 19 buyouts compared to 21 the previous month.
  • Spent $2.4 million on buyouts compared to $6.6 million the previous month.

The total value of active capital improvement construction projects fell to $225.8 million from $231.9 million in July and $235.6 million in June. Out of that, the Lake Houston Area still only has $2,000 or 0.0009% of the total. Although that should improve in the future, it could also worsen, depending on election outcomes in November.

Page 12 from full update.

Total reported bond spending increased to $1.1 billion, up from $1.06 billion the previous month, an increase (with rounding) of slightly more than $40 million.

Overall progress of the bond program? 23.5% complete – four years into a 10-year program.

However, HCFCD believes it is only slightly behind schedule. The District’s key performance indicators stayed steady at .97 percent.

Major-Maintenance Flood-Bond Spending Holds Steady, but Still Lopsided

Major maintenance projects held fairly steady. HCFCD spent $78.4 million in August compared to $78.8 million in July. But there’s only one maintenance project in the entire northeastern section of the county – some drainage system repairs in the Jackson Bayou watershed with an unspecified value. It’s unspecified because the report lumps it together with two projects in the Halls Bayou watershed. The total for all three is about $1 million. Assuming each project got one third of that million, the entire northeastern section of the county received 0.42% of all the maintenance spending from the bond last month.

Active maintenance projects reported on page 11 of full report.

The largest group of maintenance projects is along Cypress Creek and its tributaries. There are 14 projects valued at $48.1 million. That’s 61.4% of the major-maintenance total.

Input Sessions for Garcia-Bond

Separately, Adrian Garcia has proposed another $1.2 billion bond – even though hundreds of millions remain from the 2015 bond. Unlike the 2018 Flood Bond, which specified projects in each watershed so people knew what they were supposedly getting, Garcia’s bond contains only three high-level categories split up into Propositions A, B, and C. They include:

  • A) Public safety: $100 million
  • B) Transportation: $900 million
  • C) Parks and Trails: $200 million

That’s right. Garcia wants to spend twice as much on hike-and-bike trails as public safety.

The county will hold four open houses in each of the four precincts during the next five weeks. It will also hold four virtual open houses. For a complete schedule, see HarrisCounty2022Bond.org.

The one input session in the northeastern section of Precinct 3 will be at the Humble Civic Center at 6PM on October 4th. Neither Kingwood, Huffman, Atascocita, nor Crosby will have its own input session.

Bond Language Will Not Reflect Voter Input

The county must post bond language by September 30 at the latest. But the input sessions run until October 20th. Early voting starts on October 24. And Election Day is November 8. So the bond language will not reflect much voter input. Neither the county, nor media, will have much time to digest voter input. It’s pure political theater.

The bond website simply says that “Input will be shared with Harris County Precinct staff as they make decisions regarding future projects.”

https://harriscounty2022bond.org

The bond website provides absolutely no detail about SPECIFIC PROJECTS or WHERE projects would be – despite promises made by the County Administrator to Commissioners Court.

In contrast, my records show that Harris County Flood Control under Judge Ed Emmett posted a comprehensive list of projects almost two full months before the Flood Bond Referendum in 2018.

Equity and Political Leaning Will Guide Distribution of Garcia-Bond Funds

Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle argued for months to delay the bond referendum until details could be nailed down, but Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis refused.

During debate in Commissioners Court, it became clear that Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis intend to use “equity principles” to divvy up the money, not just to prioritize the start date of projects as they did with the 2018 flood bond. Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis even passed a motion that would give Democratic-leaning Precincts about 40% more money than Republican-leaning Precincts. For instance, Precinct 3 would be guaranteed only $220 million. That’s 18% of the total even though P3 has 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain, improve and patrol.

Why Trust in Government is Eroding

During debate, Rodney Ellis even bragged about how he redefined “equitable distribution of funds” in the 2018 Flood Bond text after the election.

My takeaway: Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis don’t want to be held accountable. They talk transparency, but this is nothing more than a slush fund. And this is why trust in government is eroding in my humble opinion.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/22

1848 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.

Dems Deprive Republican Precincts of Services

Late in the afternoon on 9/13/22, my phone started blowing up. Frantic callers asked, “Are you watching Commissioners Court?” I wasn’t unfortunately. I was working on a post about the completion of a flood-mitigation project. But my priorities quickly changed when I learned that the three Democrats (Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo) voted – as a block – to take take “no action” on 32 separate projects. Each will deprive residents of Precincts 3 and 4 of services.

Adrian Garcia, Rodney Ellis and Lina Hidalgo removed 32 items from the 8/13/22 Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda that would have helped residents of Precincts 3 and 4.

The brazen no-action votes, led by Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, were in retaliation for Republican commissioners walking out of a vote that would have allowed Democrats to increase taxes at a time when rising inflation makes larger tax bills doubly difficult.

A quarter of the no-action votes directly targeted residents. The other three-quarters target companies that provide services that benefit residents, such as engineering companies that improve drainage.

Targeted items included residents’ community center wellness classes, maintenance, flood-rescue equipment, roadway improvements and drainage projects.

Violating Historical Norms

By agreement and tradition, historically, Harris County Commissioners do not interfere with each others’ business. So this sets a dangerous precedent in which one party weaponizes its majority to punish the opposition’s constituents. Here’s what happened.

Ramsey and Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle boycotted the meeting so that the Court would not have sufficient votes to raise taxes. In retaliation, Commissioner Adrian Garcia, aided by Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, pulled dozens of Precinct 3 and 4 items from the agenda.

Commissioner Ramsey said in a press release that, “This is retaliation against Harris County residents at its lowest level. It punishes residents because they disagree about having a responsible fiscal budget. It’s childish and embarrassing for the Court and Harris County.”

Ramsey and Cagle have tried for several months to engage their Democratic counterparts in substantive budget discussions with little luck. The Democrats even rammed through a $1.2 billion bond proposal with no details except for a lopsided allocation plan that gave about 40% more to Democratic precincts.

Previously, Commissioners have agreed to respect the boundaries of one another’s precincts. “Today’s action is the latest example of Precinct 3 residents being stripped of services by the current Court,” said Ramsey.

Ramsey’s allusion to “latest” referred to a redistricting plan that left Ramsey with 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain with only 25% of the budget.

During redistricting, Garcia also tried to shift $191 million from Precinct 3’s Cedar Bayou flood-bond budget to areas within his newly redrawn precinct.

Ramsey’s Rebuttal to Dire Dem Predictions

At one point Lina Hidalgo threatened a government shutdown. “If we don’t adopt a budget today, there would be government shutdown in essence,” she said at 35:40 into the 5-hour video.

Said Ramsey, “Judge Hidalgo and others would have you believe that since there was not a quorum at today’s Commissioners Court, the budget will fail. In reality, the lack of a quorum simply means that the maximum tax rate allowed by law – without voter consent – cannot be implemented. Instead, a smaller budget will be adopted.”

The difference between the two budgets is $100 million. Out of a $2.2 billion budget, that’s 4.5%.

Hidalgo counters that the extra money is needed for more “officers.” According to Ramsey, she referenced investigators and detention officers, “yet didn’t mention adding one patrol officer” who could combat street crime.

Hidalgo also threatened that if the maximum budget and tax rate aren’t passed, 180 flood projects that “…affect the lives of every single resident in Harris County” will be jeopardized. But the bond pays for those projects, and the difference between the two budgets for flood control is only $14 million. That’s .6% of the HCFCD’s budget. And Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle volunteered $7 million each from their precinct budgets to make up the difference.

Finally, Judge Hidalgo asserted that not passing the Voter-Approved-Rate budget instead of the No-New-Revenue budget would dramatically affect the Harris Health System. The difference between the two budgets is less than 2%. And Ramsey points out that many of the Health System’s requests are for capital investments which are not even a part of these budgets at all.

On-Call Engineering Contracts Delayed by Dems

So which projects did Dems pull from the agenda? Let’s start with retainer fees for on-call engineering in Precincts 3 and 4. The numbers below refer to agenda items. See full descriptions here.

  • #43 Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Precinct 3
  • #44 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 3
  • #45 Cascade Civil Services, LLC for Precinct 3
  • #49 HVJ Associates, Inc. for Precinct 4
  • #52 Eneval, LLC for Precinct 4
  • #53 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 4

Engineering Contracts for Specific Projects Also Delayed

In addition, the Dems agreed to delay approval of engineering contracts or contract amendments for specific projects in Precincts 3 and 4..

  • #51 Request to amend a contract Isani Consultants, L.P. for Professional Engineering Services relating to Stuebner Airline Road Segment C in Precinct 3.
  • #55 Approval of a contract with Edminster, Hinshaw, Russ and Associates, Inc. d/b/a EHRA to develop a Master Plan for improvements to Burnett Bayland Park in Precinct 4.
  • #67 Approval of an amendment to a contract with Huitt-Zollars, Inc. for improvements to Atascocita Area Trails Phase 2 in Precinct 3.
  • #76 Approval of Interlocal Agreement with City of Tomball to construct improvements to Nabors Parkway between Highway 249 and Holderrieth Road in Precinct 4.
  • #114 Approval of a contract with HNTB Corporation for engineering and landscape architecture services for a Road and Drainage Master Plan, Precinct 4.

Bizarre Delay

For unknown reasons, the Dems also voted to pull the following from the agenda:

  • #119 Request for approval to change the names of several projects in Precinct 3.

Delaying Release or Retention of Financial Surety

The following motions relating to approval of the release or retention of financial surety from developers were also taken off the agenda.

  • #123 Grand Oaks Section 9 in Precinct 4.
  • #124 Breckenridge West Section 7 in Precinct 3.
  • #125 Breckenridge West Section 10 in Precinct 3.
  • #126 Bridge Creek Section 2 in Precinct 3.
  • #127 Bridgeland Creek Parkway in Precinct 4.
  • #128 Bridgeland Sec 44 in Precinct 3.
  • #129 Bridgeland streets in Precinct 4.
  • #131 Groves Section 35 in Precinct 3.
  • #132 Groves Section 36 in Precinct 3.
  • #133 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #3 in Precinct 3.
  • #134 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #4 in Precinct 3.
  • #135 Windrow Section 3 in Precinct 4.

Delaying/Denying Services Directly Affecting Public

The items that most directly and immediately affect residents include the following. Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis took each off the agenda.

  • #155 Approval to negotiate an agreement for surveying as needed in Precinct 3.
  • #160 Approval to convert Sam Houston Tollway Segment #3 in Precincts 3 and 4 to an all-electronic roadway.
  • #278 Approval to construct pedestrian trails along a drainage ditch of Brays Bayou under Addicks Clodine Road Bridge in Precinct 3.
  • #291 Renewal of 1-year contract for exercise classes in Precinct 3.
  • #342 Approval to bid reinforced concrete pipe, saddle inlets and related items for Precinct 4.
  • #343 Approval to bid asphalt roadway rehabilitation for the Western Trails Subdivision in Precinct 3.
  • #351 Approval to bid airboat and trailer purchases for Precinct 3.
  • #352 Approval to bid passenger buses for Precinct 3.

Most Troubling Item Cancelled, Not Just Delayed

#351 is especially concerning because the airboats would presumably be used for rescue operations during flooding…something the Lake Houston Area remembers all too well. The Dems outright cancelled that; they didn’t just delay it.

Watch the meeting and form your own opinions. Apocalyptic predictions take up the first three hours and fifty minutes. Garcia then starts listing the agenda items he wants to kill or take off the agenda.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/14/22

1842 Days since Hurricane Harvey


Update on new Woodridge Village Detention Pond

At the end of August, I checked with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to see how excavation of the new Woodridge Village detention pond was coming and what the next steps are.

Before and After Photos

The two photos below show the extent of excavation at the end of July and today.

Woodridge Village Excavation
The far end of the pond reached slightly past the second cluster of storm sewers at the end of July.
By the end of August, excavation had reached the far end of the second pile of storm sewers.

Eventually, the new detention basin could reach to or past the cluster of trees in the background.

Rough layout for new Woodridge basin.
Rough layout showing the excavation limits for Sprint. Right now, they’re in the lower left of the green area.

Progress by the Numbers

From February through August, 2022, Sprint Sand and Clay has removed 55,167 Cubic Yards of dirt from the area where a new detention pond will eventually be built.

Eventually, they could double the amount of detention on the site. Sprint’s contract lets them remove up to 500,000 cubic yards and sell the dirt at market rates. In exchange, HCFCD will pay them only $1,000. The minimum amount to be removed under the contract is 5,000 cubic yards per month.

Since January, Sprint has managed to beat the minimum each month. But regular reports show the rate of excavation slowing with the housing market.

Sprint began work on January 27, 2022.

By mid-April, Sprint was averaging a little more than 14,000 cubic yards per month.

But by the end of July, the average fell to 8,000 cubic yards per month.

And in August, Sprint removed only 6,307 cubic yards.

At 6,000 cubic yards per month, Sprint exceeds the contract minimum. But it would take the company another six years to reach 500,000 cubic yards. Flood-weary Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents pray it doesn’t take that long.

Slowing Rates Reflect Slowdown in Housing

The slowing rates of removal reflect a slowdown in the housing market. The Census Bureau reports that privately‐owned housing starts in July were 9.6 percent below June and 8.1 percent below July 2021. TradingEconomics.com reports that the housing sector has been cooling down amid soaring prices of materials and rising mortgage rates. The Census Bureau has not yet released August rates.

Luckily, this project and others in the Kingwood Area could potentially accelerate soon.

Status of Preliminary Engineering Review on Taylor Gully

Idcus should be done with the Taylor Gully preliminary engineering review this fall. However, the Idcus contract does not include design of the detention basin that Sprint is working on. According to Alan Black, HCFCD Director of Operations, that design will need to go under a separate contract.

Funding for Design and Construction

That’s because US Congressman Dan Crenshaw secured a $1.6 million earmark earlier this year that will pay for design. Crenshaw has also requested another $10 million earmark to complete the actual construction of the Woodridge Basin when design is finalized.

According to Black, HCFCD can’t just extend the Idcus contract. HCFCD will have to start over with a request for qualifications (RFQ) for final design of the Woodridge Village detention basin and other improvements along Taylor Gully.

“That’s because the money that we’re going to use is coming from this year’s earmark from Congressman Crenshaw,” said Black. “Because federal funds are involved, we have to issue a new RFQ. We can’t use the consultant we already have just by default. So it will take us a little bit longer. By the end of this year or the beginning of next, we need to get a consultant selected, based on qualifications, once those grants come to fruition. In this case, they will be through the EPA.”

Other Crenshaw Requests to Help Lake Houston Area

As reported last night, in the immediate future, funding for projects in the Lake Houston Area will likely have to come from the Federal, State or City governments. Crenshaw has requested $10 million for construction of the Woodridge Basin, $8 million for the Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project, and another $10 million to construct another detention basin along Cedar Bayou. Crenshaw already secured another $1.6 million for final engineering of improvements to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/2/22

1830 Days since Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto Watershed Still Virtually Ignored

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending data on right-of-way acquisition and construction for the first half of 2022 shows that, once again, the San Jacinto watershed has been ignored. Thus, the largest watershed in the county received virtually no help in terms of flood-mitigation funding.

Brays, where Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives, received $89.4 million for the completion of Project Brays. But the San Jacinto watershed and Kingwood, which he constantly berates for getting “all the money,” received only $200 thousand. Cedar Bayou, also in the northeastern part of the county, received only $160 thousand. Buffalo Bayou received only $230 thousand.

Thus, Ellis’s Brays received 389X more than Buffalo Bayou. 447X more than San Jacinto. And 559X more than Cedar. All in the name of equity.

Oh, and don’t forget that Adrian Garcia tried to move $190 million designated for Cedar Bayou in the 2018 Flood Bond to his newly redistricted Precinct 2. I’m convinced that that’s what poker players call a “tell.” See more below. But first…

FOIA Data in Graph and Table Formats

Here’s the right-of-way and construction data from my FOIA Request in a bar graph. Do those blips on the right below make you feel ignored?

Harris County ROW and Construction dpending data obtained via a FOIA Request for Q1 and Q2 2022

Here’s the same data in a table, again arranged from highest to lowest.

If it weren’t for money contributed by Federal, State and City sources, virtually nothing would get done in this part of the county. So far, Harris County has mostly paid for studies. But the studies do no good without construction to back them up. They’re just yellowing paper on a bookshelf somewhere.

It looks like the Democrats are hoarding money hoping for a larger majority in November so they can move around – at will – the remaining money in the bond.

Hypocrisy of “Worst First”

Since 1979, floods have ravaged the northeastern part of the county more than most.

historical flood loss map of Harris County after Hurricane Harvey
Historical flood-loss map of Harris County since 1979. From MAAPnext.

And during Harvey, we had the highest water above flood stage in the county – 20+ feet! Compare that to representative locations in watersheds getting the lion’s share of funding.

worst first
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.

It’s much more difficult to survive a 20′ flood than a flood that’s two or three feet.

When Will This Political Torture End?

The Democratic majority on Commissioners Court has proven that it won’t play fair. It’s up to voters to create a new majority in November and right this wrong. People’s lives are at risk.

Imagine being trapped in one of these as water rose during Harvey. Parts of other townhomes were swept away and now lie at the bottom of Lake Houston somewhere.

Just yesterday, we were treated to more political theater in Commissioners Court by members of the Northeast Action Collective whining about how they don’t get any money. Their watersheds netted approximately $78 million in the first half of this year alone! And they want to take money from Kingwood!

If you lump historical spending on top of first-half spending, the disparities become even more exaggerated. Get mad, people. Your silence only emboldens them. Demand fairness. Demand change.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/1/22

1829 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The High Price of Admission for Political Theater

Those who watched Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday, 8/2/22, soon realized they were in for some gripping political theater. The meeting started with a parade of 60 people making public comments. They took up more than three hours. It felt like the vast majority spoke in favor of Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond. And of those, the vast majority were Sheriff’s Deputies from a department Garcia once headed. Not one constable appeared.

Adrian Garcia
File photo of Adrian Garcia, Precinct 2 Commissioner.

The speakers may have been describing real needs. But if the needs were really that critical, why did the deputies never complain before? I find so many sudden and simultaneous complaints highly suspicious, as if someone orchestrated them.

But it wasn’t just the orchestration that raised questions about Garcia’s $1.2 billion bond proposal.

Conflicting Cues

Conflicting cues throughout the day left me doubting and distrustful. The pieces just didn’t add up. The performers in this melodrama stumbled all over each other – for more than five hours in total if you include the debate time on Garcia’s bond motion.

  • Neither Hidalgo, Ellis, Garcia, the County Administrator, nor Budget Director could actually name one project where the money would go, despite previous promises to at least compile a list of flagship projects.
  • If needs are so glaring, compiling a list should be quick and easy.
  • During the debate, it came out that much of the money from the 2015 bond program still has not been spent. That raised the question, “Why do we need another bond?”
  • The County Administrator and Budget Director claimed the bond would not increase property tax rates. But they did not calculate the impact of skyrocketing valuations and their impact on the total cost of tax payments – at a time when personal income can’t keep pace with inflation and food banks can’t keep pace with demand.
  • As if on cue, Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia repeatedly said the money would go to the “worst areas first.” But they refused to define “worst.”
  • Neither Ellis nor Garcia mentioned the $1.25 billion collected by the City of Houston in drainage fees during the last decade or how their Precincts largely overlap with the City and other municipalities. The cities are supposed to foot the bill for drainage and street repairs within their boundaries. The County focuses on unincorporated areas.

Red “Equity” Flags

Ellis also spoke of the need to apply “equity” guidelines to Garcia’s new $1.2 billion bond proposal.

Ellis openly bragged that he had a behind-the-scenes agreement to define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond in a way that the flood-bond language did not disclose. That made one wonder whether the three Democrats would play similar word tricks with voters in this bond.

In the middle of all this, a consultant presented a compensation survey of county employees. Ellis and others suggested that “equity” guidelines should apply to low salaries and that the county should cap high salaries. No one ever addressed “pay for performance.”

The Court voted 3-2 to allocate $220 million from the bond to the two Republican-leaning precincts, leaving $380 million each for Garcia and Ellis.

Connecting a lot of dots in this rambling meeting, I started to feel that the $1.2 billion was Garcia’s attempt to secure a slush fund for political patronage workers, vendors, and pet projects that would shore up his re-election chances. Could that be why he pushed so hard to put this on the ballot this year rather than next?

Many Unanswered Questions

In a previous meeting, Garcia threatened to withhold money from Republican-leaning precincts if their commissioners did not support his bond.

  • Why use such threats if you plan to distribute money fairly?
  • And if you plan to distribute the money fairly, why not disclose the methodology?
  • Why spring this on people two months before the election?
  • What’s the resistance to identifying projects?
  • How could you even determine the “worst” without a list of competing projects?

It would only take a few more months to put together a plan based on a list of needed projects. Then we could see what the actual costs were and vote on an appropriate amount of money.

Show Me the Costs and Benefits

In marketing, you always try to create a perception of value against which you sell. It appears Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo have decided to bypass that step when selling this bond proposal.

I personally don’t plan to vote FOR another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where, or on what the money will be spent.

The cost of this political drama could average $1000 just in principle – PLUS interest – for every homeowner in Harris County.

That’s the high price of admission to political theater.

Before I shell out that kind of money, I at least want to know what the play is about. Let’s slow this down and figure that out.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/22

1804 Days since Hurricane Harvey