HCFCD Continues Relentless Expansion of Cutten Basin on Greens Bayou

Where Greens Bayou cuts across the northwest corner of Beltway 8 and 249, Harris County Flood Control District is expanding its Cutten Regional Stormwater Detention Basin.

Location of HCFCD’s Cutten Floodwater Detention Basin
The basin includes 5 separate Basin Compartments (BCs). One is on the north side of the Bayou (BC5) and four are on the south side (BC1-4).

The $16.2 million expansion will add 866 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity to the previous 677 acre-feet. That’s enough to lower the water surface elevation by .36 feet throughout the surrounding floodplain.

When complete, the 235-acre complex will have enough capacity to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 2.4 square miles.

Photos Taken 10/15/2021 Show Current Construction Status

Looking E at the extension of Greens Road between BC3 (right) and BC4 (left). Red line indicates path of culvert under roadbed.
Looking W in opposite direction. Greens Bayou is on right. Greens Road (coming from top of frame) will be extended south along ridge that bisects BC3 and BC4 in foreground. BC1 and BC2 are in background on either side of Greens Road. Hollister cuts through the frame from left to right.
Looking NW across Hollister toward yet another detention pond, BC5.
Looking SW across the intersection of Hollister (left) and Greens Road (right). Excavation of BC1 still has a way to go. On Friday, muddy conditions were slowing down the work, but if you look closely, you can still see heavy equipment working in the distance.

How Ponds Will Work with Bayou, Surrounding Developments

These ponds will function two ways. They will take stormwater:

  • Out of Greens Bayou when it starts to overflow.
  • Directly from surrounding subdivisions before it gets into the bayou.

This presentation describes more about the Cutten Basin.

It’s important to understand that County/Municipal neighborhood drainage and HCFCD infrastructure often pre-date current building and development codes, as they do in this area.

As cities and precincts re-grade and reconstruct streets with more and bigger storm sewers that get water out of neighborhoods faster, that water needs a place to go – without flooding others downstream.

In this area, these ponds will be that place. Everything has to work together. The very first sentence of the Texas Water Code Section 11.086 states, “No person may divert … surface waters in this state … in a manner that damages the property of another…”

Stormwater detention basins like these also provide greenspace and recreational opportunities, such as public parks.

HCFCD expects to complete the Cutten Project in the summer of 2022.

Cutten Basin Size in Perspective

To put the size of this basin in perspective, it roughly equals the size of Woodridge Village. Woodridge is the aborted Perry Homes development in Montgomery County. HCFCD purchased it earlier this year to build a regional Stormwater Detention Basin on Taylor Gully in the Porter/Kingwood area.

The Woodridge site already contains five small detention ponds and HCFCD has room in the center to add more. Perhaps the Woodridge site will look somewhat like this one before things are all over.

Cutten is one of six detention basins (Cutten, Antoine, Kuykendahl, Glen Forest, Aldine-Westfield, Lauder) either recently constructed or almost constructed by the Army Corps and HCFCD in the mid and upper reaches of Greens Bayou. HCFCD is also studying a number of flood mitigation projects on the lower reaches of Greens.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/2021

1509 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 758 since Imelda

Aldine-Westfield Detention Basin Phase 2 Construction Starting Along Greens Bayou

In April this year, I posted about Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) completion of the Aldine-Westfield Detention Basin Phase 1 along Greens Bayou. Now construction of Phase 2 is starting. It’s currently in the clearing phase.

The basin sits east of Aldine-Westfield Road at Beltway 8 North just south of Bush Intercontinental Airport.

Aldine Westfield Basin layout
Aldine-Westfield Basin location

Photos from April and October

Here’s how that looks from the air.

Looking NE from over Beltway 8 and Aldine-Westfield Road in a helicopter in May. Phase 1 in foreground had just been completed. Red rectangle indicates approximate location of Phase 2 which had not yet started. Note airport in background and Greens Bayou in foreground.

I didn’t have a helicopter this morning and I wasn’t able to safely launch a drone because of air traffic. However, I did manage to grab some ground-level shots from the entrance to the Phase 2 construction site on Aldine-Westfield road.

Photo taken on 10/15/2021 from Aldine-Westfield Road shows that clearing of Phase 2 has begun. The site is currently in the clearing phase.

The photo above was actually stitched together from seven shots in Photoshop. In person, the area cleared looks much larger than it does above. Here’s another shot of the area taken from the air back in April that better shows its size.

Photo of Phase 2 area (right) taken in April this near. Note the pipeline corridor (left of center) that bisects the property.

About HCFCD’s Excavation and Removal Program

HCFCD has owned both portions of this site for years. They have been part of the District’s Excavation & Removal Program since 2005. The program lets contractors take and use dirt from the site for other projects outside of the floodplain – at no cost to the District or taxpayers.

Now, however, the Aldine-Westfield project is kicking into higher gear thanks to 2018 flood-bond dollars.

Details About Aldine Westfield Project

This two-phase stormwater detention basin will reduce the risk of flooding in the mid-reach stretch of Greens Bayou by taking in excess stormwater during heavy rain events and then releasing it slowly back to the channel when the threat of flooding has passed.

Phase 1 holds approximately 667 acre-feet of stormwater and Phase II will hold another 600 acre-feet. Two 5’x4′ reinforced concrete boxes will connect the two phases and outfalls into Greens Bayou.

Together, the two basins will have enough capacity to hold a foot of rain falling over 2 square miles.

Phase 1 cost $7.4 million and Phase 2 will cost $12.2 million, for a total of almost $20 million.

Part of Larger Greens Bayou Plan

The Aldine Westfield Stormwater Detention Basin is part of a comprehensive flood risk reduction plan for the mid-reach stretch of Greens Bayou. That plan includes construction of 11 miles of channel conveyance improvements and four stormwater detention basins:

This presentation, created a little more than a year ago, describes how the improvements discussed above will work in conjunction with several other subdivision and bayou drainage improvements.

The subdivision drainage improvements will be handled by the Harris County Engineering Department. They include increasing the capacity of storm sewers and curb inlets, repairing outfall pipes, and reconstructing roadside ditches. In the Humble area, subdivisions scheduled for the improvements include Fountainview Sections 1 & 2, Humble Road Place, and Parkland Estates. These subdivisions are just south of Beltway 8 near US59.

Areas Removed from 10- and 25-Year Floodplains

This community presentation from 2019 explains more about the benefits. It includes the two maps below.

The light blue shows areas that will be REMOVED from the 10-year floodplain. The dark blue shows areas that will remain in it.
Likewise, light blue represents areas REMOVED from the 25-year floodplain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/2021

1508 days since Hurricane Harvey and 757 since Imelda

Phase I of Giant Lauder Detention Basin on Greens Bayou Nears Completion

Phase I of the giant Lauder Detention Basin on Greens Bayou is nearing completion. The 90-acre Phase I of the project will cost approximately $18 million when complete. Excavation and grading are now finished but landscaping still remains on the to-do list for most of the site. It’s come a long way since I photographed this project in July.

Harris County Flood Control District gave this project the name C34. It’s project ID is P500-06-00-E005. These alpha-numeric descriptions do little to communicate the beauty of this massive pond complex. See below.

Phase I Lauder Basin Photos Taken 10/12/21

Looking south from over Greens Bayou (right). HCFCD contractors have begun to plant grass, but much still remains to plant including trees. Also, the ponds will have aquatic plants that improve water quality.
Looking north from north pond. Culverts will convey stormwater at a controlled rate from ponds to Greens Bayou at top of frame. The cut through the tree line by the bayou appears to be an overflow spillway.
Water flows from one pond into another within the 90-acre complex.
Looking south toward Lauder from north end of pond. That’s JFK Blvd. in the upper left.
Looking south from the Lauder Road entrance to the pond complex in Phase 1. That’s Aldine ISD’s Mead Middle School in the background. Note the drainage ditch running off into the distance and read the caption below.
Looking north from Lauder Road. Notice how water from the ditch above (P138-01-01 in map below) is channeled into ponds now at the lower left instead of going directly to Greens Bayou. Also note excavation equipment being loaded on flatbed trucks for removal.

The Flood Control District has received an $11.5 million grant from the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service to help construct these ponds.

Phase II Still Being Designed

The detention basin shown above was purchased by the Flood Control District as undeveloped land in 2000. However, Phase II required buyouts.

Looking west from over Phase I. Phase II when complete will occupy the wooded area in the upper right.
Phase 1 is on right (E005), Phase 2 on left (E006). Phase 1 is in its final stages. Phase 2 is still in the design phase. Notice how each pond detains water from long channels before releasing it into Greens Bayou.

Phase II is immediately west of Phase I. It will be located on the property of the former Castlewood Subdivision, Sections 1 and 2. HCFCD completed preliminary engineering for Phase 2 in January 2021. The project is now in the design phase. It is budgeted for $20.5 million and scheduled to start construction in the summer of 2022.

Castlewood was built in the early 1960s in the Greens Bayou floodplain. It was also built in a former floodway of Greens Bayou before the bayou was rerouted and straightened circa the 1950s. Development occurred many years before the advent of Harris County’s first floodplain maps and associated development regulations in the 1980s. Since the late 1970s, there have been more than a dozen recorded flood events in the area.

Artist’s rendering of pond layouts from HCFCD community presentation. When complete, these basins will offer healthy recreational opportunities for area residents.

Together, Phases 1 & 2 comprise more than 200 acres – an area about 25% larger than Kingwood’s largest park – East End Park.

When complete, the ponds in both phases will have enough capacity to hold a foot of water falling across a two-square mile area. That’s water that won’t be going into Greens Bayou immediately during a big storm.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/14/2021

1507 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Another Massive Detention Pond Going In Next to Halls Bayou

Construction has begun on another massive detention pond along Halls Bayou. It stretches south from Isom Street to the bayou between Chrisman and Aldine-Westfield Roads. It covers approximately 26 acres and when complete will hold 180-acre feet of stormwater to reduce the risk of flooding. This is just one of 11 projects comprising the Halls Implementation Program. Together they have a total current value of $212 million dollars.

Looking NNW across the new detention pond. Construction started in August 2021. HCFCD expects completion by March 2022.

Such basins take in excess stormwater during heavy rain events and then release it slowly back to the channel when the threat of flooding has passed. Part of the basin will have a wet bottom and another part will have a vegetated shelf. Yet another part will go in between Isom and Aldine Mail Route Road, although that portion has not yet begun construction. (See below).

Map on left shows current extent of construction work. Eventually, project will also include channel conveyance improvements (right) for a tributary that will be directed into the new pond.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) lists the project as C-25 on its website. But the Flood Bond Program ID is P518-11-00. Ultimately, this will become part of a much larger project area that includes P118-21-00. Together, they will improve drainage in a large part of east Aldine.

Each of these projects falls into Commissioner Adrian Garcia’s Precinct 2. The description that accompanies the project in the flood-bond spreadsheet says, “This project could reduce the risk of flooding for over 90 buildings and could reduce the 1% floodplain for over 100 acres.” The HCFCD spreadsheet and website indicate a total cost of more than $14 million.

But keep this in mind. Project C-25 will work in conjunction with two proposed Harris County Engineering Department projects: neighborhood drainage improvements in the Western Homes subdivision and proposed roadway and drainage improvements along Aldine Mail Route Road. The detention capacity in the pond you see here will accommodate drainage improvements in those areas without flooding other areas. Thus, the pond will really help more than 90 structures.

The project shown in these photos is P-518. P-118 is still in preliminary engineering review.

C-25 is a partnership project. HCFCD received an approximately $9.5 million Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Approximately $5.4 million comes from local funding.

Photos of Work to Date

Looking NE from the SE corner of the construction. Halls Bayou, center, runs along the southern edge of the new basin. The detention basin in the top center was developed by TxDoT. Another phase of this project will expand north into those trees in the upper left.
Looking north from over Halls Bayou. A large part of this basin will have a wet bottom, which contractors are beginning to excavate now. Only detention capacity above the permanent waterline counts toward the total of 180 acre feet. So this pond will have a depth of 7-8 feet from the top of bank to the waterline.
Reverse shot looking SE from Isom Street. The TxDoT basin and Keith Weiss Park are in the upper left of this shot.
The scale of the workers in this shot shows the depth of excavation as of 10/13/21.

This HCFCD presentation explains more about the project, a related project (P118-21-00/C-28) and their benefits.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/13/2021

1506 Days after Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto East Fork Dredging Begins

This morning, for the first time, I photographed dredging on the San Jacinto East Fork. It was a welcome site and one that hundreds of East Fork residents who flooded will appreciate.

Three Months After Plans Unveiled

It was back on July 9, 2021, that Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, unveiled the City’s plans to begin East Fork dredging. At the time, Costello said crews would have to dredge their way there through a shallow channel south of Royal Shores in Kingwood.

On July 11, I first photographed dredging in the channel.

On September 23rd, I photographed crews about three quarters of the way through the channel.

Finally, today, October 12, three months later, I photographed a barge moving straight through the channel and into the East Fork. I even had to move locations a couple time to keep the drone within range.

Drone Photos of East Fork Dredging from 10/12/2021

Two mechanical dredges on East Fork, just upstream from the entrance to Luce Bayou.
Today’s dredging location circled in red. Arrow points way back to where crews are depositing the spoils on the West Fork just south of River Grove Park.
Tug pushing empty pontoon through Royal Shores Channel toward East Fork (top). Looking SE. Note FM1960 Causeway in upper right.
Looking NE toward Luce Bayou on opposite shore to begin Dredging
Empty barge turns NNE. East Fork dredging location is around the finger that sticks out into the river from the upper left. After loading up with silt and sediment, the barge will return to the West Fork to deposit the spoils.

More Dredging $$$ Voted by Commissioners Today

This morning, in Harris County Commissioners Court, Agenda Item 102 passed unanimously without discussion. The motion will contribute $10 million from the Harris County 2018 flood bond funds to extend the dredging on the East Fork, West Fork, and Lake Houston, including the entrance to Rogers Gully.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/12/2021

1505 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 756 since Imelda

Flood Digest: Updates on TWDB Grants, Affordable Housing Investigations, Subsidence

Below are updates on three items recently in the news: Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Grants, Affordable Housing Investigations, and Subsidence.

Texas Water Development Board Grants Affecting Houston Region

Last week, I posted a story about flood mitigation assistance grants being considered by the TWDB. The Houston region qualified for eight and the TWDB approved them all…unanimously. However, the checks aren’t in the mail yet.

TWDB approved the following subject to FEMA final approval:

  • 32 structures in Houston, Jersey Village, Pearland and Taylor Lake Village will receive financial assistance for elevating structures.
  • 1421 structures in Bear Creek Village (near Addicks Reservoir and Highway 6) will see their drainage improved by Harris County Flood Control District HCFCD).
  • 61 repetitive loss structures will be bought out by HCFCD.
  • 1 hotel with a severe repetitive loss history dating back to 1979 will also be bought out by HCFCD.
  • 40 repetitive-loss structures in Montgomery County will also be bought out.

FEMA requested more information for further review on each project. So when/if FEMA gives final approval to each of the above, they should be good to go. That usually happens by January.

Texas projects considered for further review by FEMA

Clear Lake Apartment Complex Recommended by Mayor

On September 21, the former director of Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) turned whistleblower and accused the mayor of recommending a multi-family housing deal in Clear Lake that was not in taxpayers’ best interests. It turns out the Mayor’s former law partner would have benefited by $15 million from the deal, but the department’s recommendations would have provided four times more affordable housing for essentially the same amount of money.

That ignited a firestorm in the media and on City Council. HUD, GLO, the County Attorney, and the City Attorney (with the help of two US Attorneys) and City Council are all investigating.

In the face of this withering onslaught, the Houston Chronicle today reported that the Mayor has dropped his recommendation to back his former law partner’s project in Clear Lake. The Mayor said he didn’t want it to become a “distraction.”

However, getting the genie back in the bottle may not be that simple. Since the Clear Lake deal imploded on September 22, 2021, more allegations of financial mismanagement arose in City Council last week.

Also this afternoon, investigative journalist Wayne Dolcefino issued a press release about a Federal lawsuit he filed. It alleges a cover-up at the Houston Housing Authority on other housing deals that appear to be linked to the same players Tom McCasland and the Mayor.

This has the stink of Watergate about it.

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner at Kingwood’s last town hall meeting in October of 2018.

GMA-14 Makes Subsidence DFC Optional

For several years now, the state’s Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) in southeast Texas has struggled to define Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These are long-term goals that address groundwater conservation and the maximum amount of subsidence allowable.

The Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District has denied subsidence exists in Montgomery County and stonewalled efforts to include a subsidence metric in DFCs.

Going into a board meeting last week, GMA 14 had proposed DFCs that read:

In each county in GMA 14, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 and no more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080.

Initial DFCs

However, days before the final vote on this statement, State Senator Robert Nichols, intervened. He wrote a letter to each of GMA-14’s groundwater conservation district leaders “urging” them to make the subsidence metric optional. At that point, the debate ended. The final DFCs adopted by GMA-14 read:

In each county in Groundwater Management Area 14, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 or no more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080. 

Final DFCs

This “opt-out option” defeats the purpose of even having a GMA and a subsidence metric.

This revised statement was quietly approved on October 5, 2021. At its January 5, 2022, meeting, GMA-14 will approve the report that accompanies the DFCs when they are submitted to the TDWB.

Of the five groundwater conservation districts in GMA-14, four voted for the new DFCs and one abstained. The new DFCs will likely be challenged in court by areas threatened by subsidence.

Makeup of Groundwater Management Area 14

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/11/2021

1504 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.

CoH Excavating Silt from Diversion Ditch at Kingwood Drive

After finishing excavating silt from under the Kingwood Drive Bridge over Ben’s Branch, City crews are now doing the same under the bridge over the Diversion Ditch near the fire station on Kingwood Drive.

Before excavation began. Looking south at the Kingwood Drive Bridge over the Diversion Ditch in August.

Bridges are often chokepoints during floods because of their supports that reduce and sometimes slow the flow of water and contribute to sediment buildup.

Closer shot of same bridge, still looking south. Note sediment buildup. Also note how bridge supports catch debris.

The City of Houston is responsible for excavation under the bridges because the bridges are City property.

On Ben’s Branch, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) had excavated both north and south of the bridge at Kingwood Drive. Then the City did its part.

Pictures of Work in Progress At Kingwood Drive.

However, at the Diversion Ditch Bridge, HCFCD has not yet begun excavation. CoH went first.

Dan Monks, a Kingwood resident, captured work in progress last week and gave ReduceFlooding.com permission to use his photos.

Photo By Dan Monks shows excavation in progress under east side of Kingwood Drive Bridge over Diversion Ditch.
The City is stacking the dirt on the bank, letting it drain and then hauling it off. Another shot courtesy of Dan Monks.
There’s still more work to do on the western side, but that should happen soon. Photo courtesy of Dan Monks.

The Second of Many Such Projects

According to Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office, the City’s Public Works Department will also be investigating other bridges in the Kingwood area to see if they too need to have silt removed from under them. These projects aren’t glamorous, but they are necessary to restore conveyance of area ditches. HCFCD’s Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis showed that some area ditches were down to a 2-year level of service. That means they were so constricted that they would flood in a two-year rain.

Bridges along Kingwood Drive and Northpark Drive can least afford flooding. They are vital links in crucial evacuation routes.

Thanks to the folks in the District E Council Office and the Public Works Department for addressing these issues.

It’s not yet clear when HCFCD plans to start excavation of the Diversion Ditch in this area.

If you have photos you would like to share with the public, please submit them through the Submissions Page of this website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/10/21

1503 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Should City Be in Disaster Relief? For One Program, It Spent $3 Million to Get $3 Thousand

One of the more alarming facts that came out of Thursday’s City Council meeting is that Houston’s Housing and Community Development is spending far more on disaster relief than it gets back in reimbursements. In the case of one program, Economic Development, the ratio between costs and reimbursements to date was actually 1100 to 1, even higher than the headline indicates ($3,596,821 spent vs. $3,260 reimbursed).

The program’s purpose: to help small businesses damaged by Harvey. But the City launched the program just this year. And four years after the storm, those who needed assistance the most have already gone out of business. Most small businesses can’t survive that long after losing essential equipment. Is this program chasing business applicants that no longer exist? It’s hard to tell without more information. (The City’s most recent pipeline report, published just yesterday, doesn’t even mention the Economic Development Program.)

Regardless, the Economic Development Program isn’t the only area where expenses seem out of whack. This raises the questions, “Should the City even be in the disaster-relief business?” And “Can others do it better?”

Disaster Relief Costs Exceed Reimbursements and Budgets in Multiple Areas

Temika Jones, the Department’s new Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Director showed the chart below as part of her presentation. She has one year on the job. Before that, she served as an auditor for a major accounting firm. Her presentation spotlighted two giant problems: Costs exceed reimbursements. And costs exceed budgets – so some may never be reimbursed.

From a Presentation by HHCD to A Joint Committee Meeting of Budget & Fiscal Affairs, and Housing and Community Affairs

In the chart above, focus on the last two columns in the Total row. They show that the City is incurring disaster relief costs that average 2.3X higher than reimbursements – across the board.

Also focus on the big red numbers at the bottom of the slide. They show budgets that have already been exceeded.

Now compare Columns 3 and 6 in Line 1. The City has already overspent its four-year budget for administration in the first year of its contract with the GLO by $1+ million. Oops. The budget was $15 million. But the City already spent $16 million and has only had draws approved for $1.2 million.

Finally, compare Columns 3 and 5 on Line 4: The Homeowner Assistance Program. The department budgeted only $8.2 million for project delivery, but has already spent $30.6 million – almost quadruple. That means they have no budget remaining to finish the program. Worse, reimbursement for $22.3 million could be in jeopardy.

City Operating Outside of Its Core Competencies

There are several reasons for the problems discussed above:

  • HUD and the GLO operate on a reimbursement basis. The City can give money to flood victims and expect reimbursement, but then have the victim’s application refused for some reason – often missing forms or incomplete data.
  • The City’s track record with successfully completing applications has not been good. Many have been kicked back because they are incomplete.
  • That’s apparently because of staffing, training, and management issues.
  • The City’s accounting systems don’t handle disaster relief programs well, so the problems lack visibility.

Disaster relief just doesn’t seem to be one of the City’s core competencies.

The City is operating waaaaay outside of its areas of expertise. Police. Fire. Water. Streets. Trash. Those are the things people expect from the City and what the City should focus on. In business, any time you tread outside of your core competencies, your costs and risks escalate exponentially. That takes money away from flood victims.

It appears that the City was so eager to get its hands on hundreds of millions of dollars in disaster relief money that no one asked whether the City even should be in that business. Or whether the City should just have let the GLO handle disaster relief – as it did so well in 48 other counties.

As of the end of last year, the GLO had reimbursed 2961 homeowners; Houston reimbursed 119.

And while the GLO reconstructed 2500 homes, the City reconstructed only 117.

Increasing the Pace, But Falling Father Behind

The City has accelerated its pace this year, but Jones’ presentation also shows that the City is still sitting on top of applications worth $114 million that have yet to be filed. That’s almost triple the previous year’s number. Meanwhile, expenses have more than tripled.

From Page 16 of Jones’ Presentation to City Council

That brings us full circle. The City’s Economic Development Program has spent more than $3 million to get $3 thousand approved. It makes one wonder whether the purpose of pursuing HUD money was to create employment in Housing and Community Development or to help flood victims.

Turfing this to the GLO could have helped many more flood victims much faster at a lower cost.

The City put a third bureaucracy between money in Washington and the flood victims who need it. Two could have done the job faster, easier, and better.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/9/2021

1502 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.

How to Speed Up Flood Assistance

Since Harvey, Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department has been criticized severely by HUD, the GLO, media, and flood victims alike for poor performance and non-performance in flood assistance efforts. Thursday, Keith Bynam, the Interim Director of the Department, and Temika Jones, the Department’s Assistant Director and Chief Financial Officer, informed city council members about other issues: severe and repeated budget overages in their department.

Their explosive testimony drew sharp questions and raised many more about the department’s management and oversight by the City.

Eight Main Recommendation to Improve Disaster Assistance

Bynam and Jones never did get to finish their presentation. Unfortunately, recommendations on how to fix the department’s problems were at the end. Arguably, Pages 22 and 23 should have been the focus of their presentation.

Bynam and Jones made eight recommendations as part of their Corrective Action Plan for flood assistance.

  1. Reduce future Admin spending and forecast Admin dollars needed to execute programs.
  2. Restructure reporting lines to other city departments in consultation with Central HR.
  3. Re-evaluate all staffing decisions approved by the former director, Tom McCasland.
  4. Align future expenditures with program spending.
  5. Implement strike teams to focus on GLO submissions
  6. Timely submission of draw requests to GLO (within 90 business days)
  7. Continue operating successful programs (such as Multifamily, Public Services)
  8. Ensure new CDBG-DR 2017 (Harvey) programs are implemented successfully (Economic Development, Small Rental, Single Family)

Flood Assistance: A Multi-level Problem

The meeting yesterday focused on fixing the negative financial impact to the City. But the impact to flood victims caught up in this bureaucratic miasma needs to be considered simultaneously.

During my business career, I found it hard to go wrong if you structured your organization around clients’ needs. In this case, there are two sets of clients: the GLO and HUD on one hand. And flood victims on the other. Both have one primary need: speed.

  • Some victims are still struggling to fix their homes or recover from the financial devastation caused by Harvey.
  • The GLO needs to use the money appropriated by Congress and HUD or lose it when program deadlines expire.

One program (Home Repair) has already expired. And 1501 days out from Hurricane Harvey, hundreds of millions in funds remain to be distributed – despite overspending on administrative expenses, such as employee salaries and computer expenses, by 400% last year.

City Council needs to look at the flood assistance from their clients’ perspectives and start there. How can they speed up the assistance?

Insights from Former Employees, the GLO, and Flood Victims

Not wanting to rely solely on Bynam and Jones recommendations, I also talked to former employees of the department, the GLO, as well as flood victims who described several problems:

  • An accounting system that can’t recognize liabilities incurred on behalf of the federal government in reimbursement programs
  • Featherbedding (keeping and protecting political friends on a payroll, often by stretching out work)
  • Personnel with lack of experience who don’t know what to do
  • Inadequate management and training
  • Refusing help from the GLO
  • Turnover in managerial ranks (five managers in the Home Repair program alone since Harvey, according to Bynam)
  • No one from the Mayor on down ever asking the questions, such as “Why are we in this business? Do we want to stay in it?”

It’s amazing how closely these comments map back to the recommendations made by Bynam and Jones. The two lists closely parallel each other, though they are not identical.

Ten People to Pay Two Bills?

In her testimony yesterday, Ms. Jones, who joined the department a year ago, said that, shortly after arriving, she discovered that, “We had 10 people paying bills in accounts payable and two people requesting reimbursements. That change was made immediately.” She said, “The GLO compliments us at least weekly on the progress we are making, but we have a long way to go.”

Friends in the media who have covered the department for decades describe persistent problems that previous mayors and city councils found convenient to ignore.

I applaud Jones and Bynam for having the courage to air dirty laundry in public. That is the only way these problems will ever get fixed. Departments like Housing and Community Development cannot become fiefdoms for featherbedding, or as one former employee put it “a receptacle for misfits and castoffs from other departments.”

Some Unsolicited Advice: Restructure Around “The Right Five”

I had a highly successful information technology (IT) client for 30 years that did government as well as private-sector work. They believed that for their clients to be successful, IT systems had to deliver the “right five”:

  • The right information
  • In the right form
  • For the right people
  • In the right place
  • At the right time

Example: a successful airline must juggle equipment availability, maintenance, reservations, pricing, baggage, seating, staffing, gate availability, check-in, air traffic control, weather, seating and other variables…for each flight, thousands of times a day.

For the system to work efficiently, customers, employees, and vendors see only what they need, when they need it, where they need it, in a form that lets them do the task at hand. Software guides them through each step.

It’s safe to say that Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department does not have “the right five.” I say that based on the testimony we heard yesterday, from City Council reactions, from former employees, and from the persistent criticisms offered by HUD, the GLO, and flood victims.

Checking the “Flight Status” of Flood Applications

Neither the City Controller, City Council, Mayor, HUD, GLO, the Department, nor flood victims can tell the “flight status” of pending applications at a glance. That’s how you get an economic development plan where the City has spent $3.6 million to get $3,260 of aid approved (see line 3, page 14). That needs fixing.

And part of the fix will require managing the information so that low-wage employees can perform their individual roles in a very complex process.

The whole notion of “trying” to file paperwork within 90 business days feels repugnant to me. But with the “right five,” filing those applications in real time with a fraction of the people could happen automatically.

If the City were a private business, it would not be trying to figure out how to timely file flood assistance applications right now. It would be filing for bankruptcy. We seriously need to fix this.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/8/2021

1501 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.

Bombshells in Council Meeting Raise More and Bigger Questions about Housing and Community Development

Weeks ago, Mayor Sylvester Turner said he would provide a complete explanation for allegations of interference in a $15 million contract that would have benefitted his former business partner. Many people thought that would happen today at a joint meeting between the Budget & Fiscal Affairs and Housing & Community Development Committees. But it didn’t.

The Mayor didn’t appear. His representative didn’t speak. And Tom McCasland, the fired director of Housing & Community Development wasn’t even invited. Instead of explanations, we got more bombshells and even bigger, more troubling questions that pointed to what Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin called “a train wreck” that was years in the making.

The Longest Three Hours Ever

Keith Bynam, the department’s Interim Director, and Temika Jones, Assistant Director and Chief Financial Officer (also a former auditor) sat in the hot seats for three hours. They gave a presentation about the department’s finances.

The meeting almost ended before it started. Council members received the presentation from Bynam and Jones less than an hour before the start of the meeting. The members had so little time to prepare that several wanted to postpone. Based on their initial review, some also called the presentation a “diversion.” The acrimonious discussion about whether to adjourn the meeting consumed the first 33 minutes and set the tone for the rest of the day. One council member, Mike Knox, walked out.

While the presentation was certainly not what council members expected, it also wasn’t a “diversion.” It more closely resembled open heart surgery on an entire city department in front of live TV…using hand grenades instead of scalpels.

Most of the presentation focused on budget shortfalls in the department, and who knew what about those shortfalls when.

Sadly, Bynam and Jones had planned to talk about a “corrective action plan” for the department, but never got to their recommendations because of persistent interruptions from council members whose jaws were scraping the floor.

At the end of the meeting, the City Attorney said the internal investigation that the Mayor assigned to him had been turfed to outside counsel – former US attorneys. He knows a hot potato when he sees one!

If this presentation was an attempt to support the mayor (who was reportedly at an Astros game), it backfired. Bynam and Jones spent half their time fielding questions from council members about why they didn’t turn whistleblower years ago. They claimed: 1) that they repeatedly raised spending issues with McCasland, 2) that McCasland supposedly discussed them with the Mayor, and 3) that they weren’t really sure if he ever did.

Bombshell Revelations

Among the bombshells:

  • The department’s annual administrative budget for ongoing HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs (separate from Harvey programs) went over budget during the last fiscal year by 175%. It budgeted $3,987,480 and spent $11,084,775.
  • TIRZ (tax increment reinvestment zone) money made up the difference, but by law TIRZ money is supposed to be spent within the zone where the tax increment is collected.
  • During the last 5 fiscal years combined, the department overspent its admin budget by 143%. It budgeted $21,088,015 and spent $51,322,491 on admin.
  • Admin expenses for the Harvey CDBG fund exceeded the four-year budget of the program by 14% in the first year of the program.
  • For the department’s Homeowner Assistance Program (HoAP), the department incurred $70 million in expenses as of the end of the third quarter, but has only had reimbursements approved and/or paid that totaled $12,475,085. They missed that one by almost 6X. As a result, they are now $22 million short in their project delivery funds.
  • Only one of nine programs in the Harvey fund is on track to meet its performance benchmarks by the end of the year.
  • The former director’s wife owns a company that was doing business with the department to reduce “duplication of benefit” (DOB) gaps for HoAP applicants. But the company actually increased the gap for each applicant, according to the GLO. To cover the difference, the department will have to reduce each homeowner reimbursement request.
  • The GLO capped Relocation Assistance at $6,000 per applicant, but the department is spending $8 to 10K.
  • Change orders were not accounted for properly.

Virtually all city council members appeared to be surprised by the revelations.

12 Bigger Questions Remain

Compared to his role in one dubious financial transaction, Mayor Turner now has many bigger questions to answer.

  1. Did the Mayor provide proper oversight to the Housing and Community Development Department?
  2. Why did he continue to back McCasland when management issues arose years ago? HUD and the GLO had warned him. The problems were widely reported in the media.
  3. Are the numbers reported today accurate and complete, or are there more surprises waiting?
  4. How could admin expenses swell so much? Previous GLO and HUD audits suggested that the department was understaffed. And McCasland claims he held admin expenses below 13%. And typically, first-year admin startup costs for a new program run about 20-30% of the total allocated for the entire program. They don’t consume 4+ years of budget in one year.
  5. Does the City’s accounting software need improvement? The City doesn’t even recognize liabilities incurred to HUD and the GLO. It only covers the general fund.
  6. Were these numbers being timely reported to the Mayor? Bynam and Jones say they reported them to McCasland every month, and that McCasland supposedly discussed them with the Mayor. But Bynam and Jones claim McCasland kept them out of meetings with the Mayor. So they don’t know what McCasland told the Mayor.
  7. Did McCasland make the Mayor aware of the overages?
  8. What is McCasland’s side of the story?
  9. How is it possible that the City Controller was writing checks and these overages did not show up on a balance sheet?
  10. The City’s general fund advances cash to complete projects in anticipation of reimbursements from the GLO once the work is approved. Are there audited financials that show more detail on how these funds were spent AND additional liabilities which may be accruing?
  11. McCasland says he sent a memo to the Mayor, the Housing Committee and every City Council Member that disclosed the role his wife played. Where is that memo?
  12. Why did the City sue the GLO to keep these programs last year if they were losing so much money?

Rule #1

Rule #1 in business is that when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Evidently, NO ONE at the City got that memo.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/7/2021

1500 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.