News Archives - Page 137 of 280

Will Redistricting Affect Flood-Mitigation Priorities?

The recent redistricting of Harris County precincts could not have been more disruptive. More than half the county’s residents changed both precincts and commissioners. Can you say, “Tossed Salad”? It will take some time to work this out. In the meantime, “Many are asking how will new precinct boundaries affect flood-mitigation priorities?”

We’ve already seen how Commissioner Adrian Garcia tried to divert flood bond money from an area he was giving up in the redistricting process to one he was inheriting. That got voted down, but…

Priorities Already Altered Multiple Times in Past

We’ve also seen how Democrats re-ordered flood-bond priorities in 2019, shifted money from other budgets to accelerate projects in poor watersheds, and are suggesting another flood bond with new priorities based on so-called racial equity.

Officially, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) does not allocate flood-bond mitigation money by precinct. They allocate it by watershed and project – with the most money going to the most heavily flood-damaged areas.

But those who watch Commissioners Court regularly know that Commissioners control HCFCD priorities, and no project moves forward without their approval.

Lake Houston Dam Example

All this raises the question, “How will the re-alignment of Commissioner’s precincts re-align flood-mitigation priorities?”

For instance, the Lake Houston Dam was half in Precinct 1 and half in Precinct 2 both controlled by Democrats. But P2 Commissioner Garcia has given that area up. The east side of the dam will now be in Precinct 3 now controlled by Republican Tom Ramsey. Ramsey will now also control virtually all the homes around the lake with the exception of a small area in Summerwood. The flood bond allocated $20 million to help support expansion of the flood gates on Lake Houston (Project CI-028). How solid is that commitment now that Democrats have given up most of the area?

Across the county, from Cypress Creek to Armand Bayou, people have dozens of questions like that about projects affecting them. The answers will take time to sort out.

New High-Resolution Precinct Maps Finally Available

Until a few days ago, the lack of resolution and streets in redistricting maps made it difficult to tell exactly where the new precinct boundaries were.

But just last week, the Harris County Attorney posted a new high-resolution map showing new boundaries. The map also shows major streets and voting precincts (in addition to the county precincts).

The biggest changes happened on the north side of the County where Commissioner Adrian Garcia staged a strategic retreat from Republican voters to bolster his re-election chances. Also, Precincts 3 and 4 switched positions. P3 formerly on the west side of the county is now on the north and east sides. And Precinct 4, formerly on the north and east sides is now mostly on the west and north sides.

The plan, designed and approved by Democrats, will force Commissioners Cagle and Ramsey to run for re-election in areas where they are relatively little known – unless they want to move their residences. Commissioner Rodney Ellis carefully drew district boundaries so that Cagle and Ramsey would no longer live in precincts they once represented. And by law, Commissioners must live in the precinct they represent.

Ramsey and Cagle will now have whole new watersheds to learn.

Watershed Boundaries Not Yet Shown on New Precinct Map

Unfortunately, the new high-res precinct map does not show watershed boundaries, although it shouldn’t be hard to create one – for someone with better Photoshop skills than mine!

At the moment, to see how your watershed could be affected, compare two maps side by side.

The new high-res precinct map and
Harris County’s Flood Education Mapping Tool (HarrisCountyFEMT.org).

The latter shows watershed boundaries if you click on the Watershed button in the left-hand column.

Most of the Lake Houston Area including Huffman, Kingwood, Humble (east of Bush Intercontinental Airport), Atascocita, Crosby and Spring will now be in Precinct 3 with Commissioner Tom Ramsey.

*New Precincts adopted by Harris County Commissioners Court in 2021. Click link for high res map.*

To learn more about redistricting and your new commissioner, visit the landing pages for Harris County Precinct 3 or Harris County Precinct 4.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/15/2021

1539 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.

Loophole Cuts RV Park Detention Pond Capacity Requirement in Half

When examining the floodwater detention pond capacity for the Kingwood Area’s first RV park at 1355 LAUREL SPRINGS LANE, it seemed impossibly low. The park will build a pond with 7.68 acre feet of stormwater detention. That’s more than the required 6.675 acre feet, but about half of what the City of Houston (COH) would require under new guidelines that went into effect within 90 days of the plan’s approval.

Because of that 90-day grandfathering loophole, the RV park will escape current City and County requirements for floodwater detention.

Current Regs Would Require 13 Acre-Feet of Detention Pond Capacity

Under today’s requirements, a 20.032-acre RV Park would require 13 acre-feet of detention pond capacity (20 acres x .65 = 13 acre feet). That’s because the COH 2021 infrastructure design manual makes properties larger than 20 acres follow HCFCD guidelines (see below).

*New Harris County guidelines require a minimum rate of .65 acre-feet per acre.The RV Park is slightly larger than 20 acres.*

This requirement is based on NOAA’s new, higher Atlas-14 rainfall probability tables adopted in the wake of Harvey.

COH 2021 Infrastructure Design Manual Defers to HCFCD Regs for Lots This Size

The City’s Infrastructure Design Manual imposed new criteria in July 2021 that would have required developments greater than 20 acres to follow the HCFCD standard for detention pond capacity. See screen capture below which bridges two pages.

*Screen Capture excerpted from Pages 9-29 and 9-30 of COH 2021 Infrastructure Design Manual.*

City’s 2020 Regulations Required Far Less Detention

However, the City’s 2021 standards also provided a 90-day grace period for plans initially submitted before July. That meant the City’s 2020 Infrastructure Design Manual applied. And those standards only required following HCFCD’s higher standards if the lot was larger than 50 acres – which this is not. It’s 20.032 acres. So the RV Park developer will get away with installing far less detention than current regs require.

Differences Between Old/New Versions of City/County Regs

Two primary differences exist between the City and County regs in 2020 and 2021.

The first is the basis for calculations. In both years:

The County bases required detention pond capacity on the total size of the site.
The City, except where it defers to HCFCD regs, bases detention pond capacity on the amount of impervious cover within the site.

The City also changed the minimum lot size required to follow HCFCD regulations between 2020 and 2021.

Sites larger than 50 acres had to follow HCFCD guidelines in 2020.
Sites larger than 20 acres had to follow HCFCD guidelines in 2021.

The 2020 requirements apply in this case because of when plans were first reviewed (January 2021). The 2020 Infrastructure Design Manual read as follows:

*COH 2020 Infrastructure design manual requires 20- to 50-acre tracts to have detention volume (in acre feet) equal to half of the impervious cover.*

Developer Applied Before Detention Pond Capacity Increased

Using that formula, the developer planned a detention pond that holds 7.68 acre feet of storm water detention, an acre foot more than required at the time the plans were first submitted, even though they were finally approved four months after the new regs went into effect. But that’s still far less than the 13 acre-feet required under today’s regulations.

*Screen capture of detail from detention and mitigation plan approved on 10/14/21.*
*The City previously reviewed a version of the plans on 1/21/21* *which were originally submitted in 12/20.*

Impervious Cover Calculations Need Further Review

I question whether the amount of impervious cover above is correct. That’s because the developer’s permit allows 182 RV spaces, but the plans show 226 – about a 24% increase. However, the impervious cover shown on the plans before and after the permit approval did not increase. That could also affect detention pond capacity requirements.

Timing, Impervious Cover Issues Raise Public Safety Questions

Assuming the impervious cover calculations above are correct, and that’s a big assumption, the developer is providing more than the minimum amount of required detention under 2020 requirements. But if they are not correct, the developer would be short.

And if the 2021 requirements applied, the developer would have to provide virtually twice as much detention.

A half-sized detention pond would require the RV Park to pump water into Lakewood Cove’s drainage system sooner and faster than with a larger pond. And under severe conditions, when Lakewood Cove’s drainage is already stressed, the extra water could over-stress it.

No Drainage Impact Analysis

I’ve requested a drainage impact analysis from the City for the RV Park on at least two occasions and have not received one. I therefore deduce that one does not exist. Such an analysis would quantify the impact on Lakewood Cove, Edgewater Park and surrounding roads.

*Detail from most recent approved construction plan shows all water from detention pond going under Laurel Springs to Lakewood Cove storm sewer system* *toward homes below.*

*All the runoff from the 20 cleared acres will be funneled via a 24″ pipe toward the homes in the foreground.*

Bottom Line: Park Will Provide Half of Today’s Detention Requirement

If this developer, LS RV Resort, LP, submitted plans today, it would have to provide almost twice as much detention pond capacity.

2021 requirements call for .65 acre feet per acre times 20 total acres. That equals 13 acre feet of detention.
2020 requirements call for .5 times the claimed 13.349 acres of impervious cover. That equals 6.675 acre feet of detention.

And we wonder how floods happen! Remember this the next time you see water rising toward your home.

I wonder if investors in the RV Park will be notified of the potential liability in a prospectus. Undersized detention ponds based on a similar grandfathering loophole in Montgomery County regulations became the central issue in lawsuits by hundreds of Elm Grove residents against Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and its contractors. The defendants recently settled those lawsuits.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/13/2021

1537 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.

Kingwood Middle School: November Construction Update

Construction of the new Kingwood Middle School appears on schedule for opening with the next school year in 2022. Compared to my October update, no new major milestones have been reached. Everything just looks a little further along.

Kingwood Middle School Construction Sequencing

Construction started on the west and is moving toward the east. As subcontractors finish one phase such as foundations or structural , the next group picks up the baton and works on roofing, exterior walls, windows, etc.

The most visible change between October and November: progress on exterior walls and roofing.

I took all the pictures below on Saturday, November 6, 2021.

*Looking W.* Judging from the amount of erosion around the banks, the temporary detention pond appears to be getting a lot of use. This pond will be replaced with a larger permanent one after the old school is demolished to make room for it.

*Insulation, vapor barriers, brick and glass now surround more than half the site now. Roofing on the westernmost section looks complete. But many roofing materials remain stacked on other sections.*

*Looking south with the old school visible in the top of the frame.*

*Masons have completed the brickwork on large portions of the westernmost section. Shot taken from over Woodland Hills, looking east.*

*Portions of the exterior at the west end still need work, but it’s more done than not.*

*A view from the SE looking NW clearly shows the degree of finish evident in the left, middle and right sections.*

*Low level shot shows middle section on left.*

Next Steps for KMS

Next steps will be to dry-in the structure by completing the exterior walls, windows and roofs. The other trades will then start working on interior walls, electrical, wallboard, paint and flooring – all the things that could be destroyed by blowing rain.

I put two kids through the old Kingwood Middle School who became happy, healthy, successful adults. As I look at these pictures, fond memories of plays, recitals, teacher conferences, and athletic contests come to mind. Each month, as the old school comes closer to demolition, I become increasing nostalgic. We will soon witness the end of one era and the start of another in Kingwood.

Architectural renderings on the Humble ISD site inspire confidence that the next generation of Kingwood Middle School students will have an even better learning environment than the last.

And cross your fingers! Despite double the impervious cover now on the site, I have received no reports of flooding from neighbors.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/11/2021

1535 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Guefen Clears 17 Acres Between KPHS, St. Martha for 131 High-Density Homes. Will Detention Pond Be Enough?

Guefen Development Partners has announced that it will build a “luxury single family build to rent multifamily community” [sic] on 17 acres between Kingwood Park High School and the St. Martha Church on Woodridge Parkway.

*Future site of Preserve At Woodridge. Looking W toward St. Martha Church across a drainage ditch that empties into Bens Branch.*

Nine Homes Per Acre with 65% Impervious Cover

Guefen will build 131 units on 14.65 acres. The rest of the 17 acres will contain a detention pond. That works out to nine homes per acre. RG Miller, the firm that engineered the “Preserve at Woodridge” estimates the development will have 65% impervious cover. See the Plans here. (Caution: large file, 21 mb download.)

Grass will definitely be in the minority. I’m not sure what the Preserve is preserving. The site certainly preserves no trees.

Pictures Taken This Week

Here’s what Guefen’s land looks like as of this week.

*Looking E. Cleared area between St. Martha and Kingwood Park High School baseball fields will hold 131 homes and a detention pond.*

*Guefen’s detention pond will border the drainage ditch that empties into Bens Branch about a block south.*

Basis of Detention-Basin Calculations

The technically inclined reader may appreciate the detention calculations below. The basis for the calculations is a 16.1 inch rain in 24-hours which is the Atlas-14 amount used throughout Montgomery County. MoCo specifies an average to keep things simple for developers. Their average is slightly less than the 17.3 inches specified by NOAA for the Kingwood area.

*See pages 17-24 for the drainage portion of the subdivision plans.*

Will the Detention Pond Be Enough?

With other high-density developments going in upstream along Bens Branch, I hope Guefen’s detention pond capacity will suffice. Brooklyn Trails, several blocks upstream on another tributary of Bens Branch, lacks about 30% of the capacity needed to meet Atlas-14 requirements according to my calculations.

Montgomery County’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations specify that outfall ditches, such as the one in the first photo above only need to carry a 25 year rain. (See page 9.) With that in mind, it seems like Guefen’s detention pond so near a ditch would fill up quickly from ditch overflow in a 25-year rain and provide little detention benefit for anything heavier, for instance, 50-100 year rains.

If that ditch ever needs to be widened, like Hall’s Bayou, the fact that so many homes are built so close to it will severely limit mitigation options.

You can’t build mitigation projects if you don’t have the land.

668 SF Homes with “Interior Garages” and “Luxury Vinyl” Flooring

The 131 single-family detached homes will range in size from 668 square feet to 1,255 square feet and feature “luxury vinyl” flooring. The press release boasts of an “amenity suite” including interior garages. It’s hard to imagine how much living space would be left in 668-SF homes with “interior garages.”

So I checked the plans. I found 29 parking spots labeled “garage spcs.” Many more exterior parking spaces exist. But no one, it appears, will be unloading groceries from his/her car directly into a kitchen. Your “interior garage” could be several homes away.

Nor do all the homes front on a street. That’s going to make moving day hard for your college buddies. You know who your real friends are when they’ll go the distance for you.

Speaking of going the distance, in case of an emergency, that firetruck may be parking 250 feet away from some homes. That’s almost the length of a football field.

Build-to-Rent

According to Guefen’s website and press release, the company sees a niche market for this type of housing in the Kingwood area. They are building these homes to rent them, not sell them. The company normally specializes in multifamily and student housing.

While plans show detached homes, they also show five to six feet of separation. That should be enough to dampen most stereos. So party on, Wayne!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/10/2021

1534 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Are We Winning or Losing the Battle to Reduce Flooding?

Valley Ranch, the new downtown of East Montgomery County, seems to be exploding with growth. The northwest quadrant of I-69 and the Grand Parkway developed first. Now the focus is shifting to the southwest quadrant where more than 500 acres are being cleared near the banks of White Oak Creek. People downstream from I-69 to Caney Creek have experienced flooding recently. This raises the questions, “Will the flood mitigation measures being put in place at Valley Ranch be enough?” and “In general, are we winning or losing the battle to reduce flooding?”

The Relentless Forces of Development vs. Battle to Reduce Flooding

Last week, I posted about the new Amazon distribution center, shown above at A. Today, I’d like to focus on four areas west of Amazon, shown as 1-4. All sizes below are approximate. I used the measuring tool in Google Earth.

1 = 170 acres
2 = 120 acres
3 = 100 acres
4 = 135 acres

I took all the aerial photos below on 11/6/21.

This interactive map of Valley Ranch shows what’s planned where.

Area 1: Marketplace

Most of Area 1 just south of the Grand Parkway will be future retail space dubbed “Marketplace.”

*Area 1 looking SW from over the Grand Parkway will contain retail. However, apartments are now going up in the far top left corner.* *What’s that soupy area in the middle? See below.*

*US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper shows a wetland area that corresponds to the soupy area in photo above this one.*

*Here it is again. Looking north toward the future Marketplace and the Grand Parkway.*

*Closer shot of apartment* *construction.*

Area 2: Commercial District

*Looking East from over Grand Parkway toward I-69. Commercial area is the clearing in the distance. White Oak Creek is the wooded area that runs diagonally through the frame.*

*Closer shot of commercial area.* *From over White Oak Creek looking N toward Grand Parkway. I-69 on right.*

Areas 3 and 4: Medical District

*Medical District looking SW from over I-69.*

You can tell by the amount of standing water on this property that drainage could be an issue. Note below how the standing water coincides with the former wetlands mapped by USFWS below.

*Areas 3 and 4 shown in US Fish & Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper.*

Sediment control during clearing becomes a real issue for sites like this. Note the series of trenches channeling standing water toward the storm drain on the I-69 feeder road below.

*Looking W from over I-69 across southern portion of Medical District. Note attempts to drain the site through the storm sewer in the foreground.*

That basket of rocks is supposed to filter out sediment before it reaches the drain. But when I enlarged the image, look what I found.

Reverse angle *of same area* *looking E toward I-69 shows two large detention ponds under construction on left.*

We Need Regional Flood-Mitigation Scorecard

The pace of development seems to be faster than the pace of flood mitigation.

Four and a quarter years after Harvey, we’re halfway done with dredging the sediment flushed downstream to the headwaters of Lake Houston. We have yet to build one regional detention basin upstream. And according to the Houston Chronicle, the proposed new gates for Lake Houston’s dam are being scaled back to fit the available budget.

And all of that is on the asset side of the ledger.

On the debit side, thousands of acres are being cleared with little to no detention capacity, faster than I can photograph and catalog them.

Somebody smarter than I needs to develop a formula that shows whether society is winning or losing the battle to reduce flooding. Are new developments springing up faster than we can mitigate the runoff from them?

Certainly, responsible developers exist who retain their rain. This may be one. That remains yet to be seen. But other developers exist who do not retain their rain. The question is, “Are there more irresponsible developers than the responsible kind?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/9/2021

1533 days since Hurricane Harvey

New Caney ISD’s West Fork High School Blocked Out; Access Being Enhanced

Although much finish work remains, contractors have finished blocking out New Caney ISD’s new West Fork High School. Walls, structural steel and roofs are up. Some windows are in. Now they are widening Sorters-McClellan Road. They are also building another access route through woods that will connect to Kingwood Place Drive, the street immediately west of the HCA Kingwood Medical Center.

Photos Taken 11/6/2021

I took all of the shots below on November 6, 2021, with the exception of the last one from November a year ago.

*New Caney ISD West Fork High School Construction as of 11/6/2021. Looking NE from over Sorters-McClellan Road toward HCA Kingwood Medical Center and Insperity in top center.*

*Looking south from over Sorters-McClellan Road, which is apparently being widened in front of the high school and then some.* *Note the wetlands and cypress trees in the upper right.*

*Looking north from over detention pond at south end of campus. I-69 in upper right.*

*New access road through woods will connect with Kingwood Place Drive*

*Looking south. Note windows being installed in center.*

From a higher altitude, you can see the proximity to the San Jacinto West Fork. From the upper left, it curves around the large pond then becomes visible again to the left of the sand mine in the upper right.

Wetlands Gone Forever

From US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper. Green areas are/were freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. Blue/gray areas are freshwater ponds. High school site is in center of frame. Image taken shortly after clearing. *Note large area of former wetlands where athletic fields will be.*

I’m sorry to see the wetlands go, but now that they’re gone, I want to see them complete the drainage for this campus ASAP to make sure everything gets channeled into the detention pond. That will minimize the chance of flooding neighbors.

Progress in One Year

New Caney ISD has posted an update on construction that indicates the percentage of completion for each of the project components as of October 29.

It was just a year ago, that this site was virtually nothing but dirt. Contractors had just started pouring concrete for the first parking pad.

New Caney ISD expects to finish construction by the summer of 2022.

*General plan for New Caney High School #3*

Posted by Bob Rehak on November 8, 2021

1532 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Amazon Transportation Center at Valley Ranch Nears Completion

In the four months since I last posted about the new Amazon Transportation Center at Valley Ranch on I-69 and White Oak Creek, just south of the Grand Parkway, the facility has come a long way. I can’t see inside, of course, but exterior construction looks complete.

In March, Community Impact reported the facility would open this year, but did not specify a date. Amazon said it was one of four such facilities opening in the Houston area this year. “The station will bring in about 300 full-time jobs paying $15 as a starting hourly wage,” said Community Impact.

*Amazon Transportation Facility at Valley Ranch as of 11/6/2021. Looking NNW from the SE corner. I-69 intersects Grand Parkway in upper right.*

According to Amazon’s plans, those brownish grassy areas between the parking lots are wetlands they are trying to preserve.

*Looking SW from over White Oak Creek from NE corner of property.*

The site has two large detention ponds on the left and in the foreground to help slow down all that runoff from the acres of concrete.

Proximity to Bush Intercontinental Airport, US59 and the Grand Parkway make this location an ideal transportation hub.

Development in this area is exploding. While photographing this site today, I noticed three other sites on the west side of I-69 clearing ground. Developers are excavating detention ponds and building has just begun. More on those soon.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/7/2021

1531 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Multiple Mistakes Found in Supporting Doc for RV Park Permit App. What Lurks in Others?

In a Declaration of Support for a building permit application, an agent for the owners of the Laurel Springs RV park made four crucial mistakes. They included the wrong:

Survey
Street address
City
Owner

Then the agent signed it under the words, “I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE that if any fact stated in this Declaration is false, the City may void any permit(s) issued by the City for the Project, and the City may order the Owner or its successor to remove all or part of the Project at my or our own expense. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.”

Serious Lack of Attention to Detail for Legal Doc

See the signed document below with red highlights added to help focus on the mistakes.

*Mistakes in owners’ declaration of support.* *Red emphasis added.*

So what should the right entries have been?

The Plat, HCAD and Deed all say “W Massey” not “S Massey.”
Address is Laurel Springs Lane, not Road.
Laurel Springs Lane is in Kingwood, not Huffman.
77339 is a zip code, not the name of the owner.

*Detail from approved plat.* *Note name of original survey in red highlighted area.*

Symptomatic of Other Mistakes?

You would have to be in a particularly uncharitable frame of mind to impose sanctions based on the careless mistakes above. But they show a distinct lack of attention to detail that raises more serious questions about all of the plans and potential mistakes in other documents.

This does not inspire confidence. But it should inspire an investigation into the details of all the plans and how they got approved.

Two Site Plans Show 24% Difference in Number of RV Spots

For instance, even a cursory reading revealed that the developer submitted one site plan calling for 182 RV spots, and another at a later date calling for 226.

That’s a 24% increase in the amount of impervious cover. And that could seriously affect drainage calculations. But the permit still calls for 182.

The drainage mitigation plans do not specify how many spots the drainage calculations are based on. What’s the final number?

This could be one of the reasons why the developer and contractor refuse to meet with neighbors to discuss their plans. Do they know of flaws in other docs, too?

Cavalier Attitude to Penalties of Perjury

Geez! This developer does not pay much attention to detail under possible penalties of perjury, project cancellation and personal financial ruin. I wonder how many mistakes other documents contain that don’t carry those penalties.

The person who filed the Declaration of Support for the permit is Leslie B. Mickelis. Mickelis lists her address as 12320 Barker Cypress, Suite 600. That’s a PostNet store. According to the Secretary of State, Mickelis operated a company called Texas State Permits LLC, which lost its right to do business in Texas due to a tax forfeiture in 2009.

All of this raises serious questions of public safety and concern.

We need Houston Public Works – or a neutral third-party engineer – to review the plans from beginning to end for consistency and accuracy.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/6/2021 and updated with additional information about Mickelis on 11/7/2021 thanks to a tip from Daryl Lombard

1530 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.

Contractor Behind Kingwood’s First RV Park Has Six Tax Forfeitures In His Past

The primary contractor responsible for building the Kingwood area’s first RV Park has six tax forfeitures in his past. And the Secretary of State indicates that he has not filed public information reports (PIRs) associated with Texas franchise tax since 2019 for two more of his companies involved in developing the RV park. They are Higbie Ventures LP and Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc.

The most recent PIRs on file with the Texas Secretary of State are dated April and September of 2019, more than two years ago.

Filing PIR reports is an annual requirement in Texas for business entities.

Below are the roles played by Higbie Ventures LP and Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. in the RV park next to Lakewood Cove.

Higbie Ventures LP Obtained COH Permits

Higbie Ventures LP obtained many, but not all, of the construction permits for the project from the City of Houston. They include permits for construction, clearing, grading, sitework, utilities, concrete and more. (For the full list, search by JOB ADDRESS on the Houston Permitting Center Website. Use 1355 LAUREL SPRINGS LN 77339).

*Screen capture of sitework permit from City of Houston Permitting Center on 11/4/2021.*

According to the Secretary of State’s database, Higbie Ventures, LP has not filed a PIR beyond 2019. Note also that the partnership previously forfeited its right to do business in Texas for seven years due to non-filing of reports (see below). However, it was later reinstated.

*Note gap between 2009 and 2016. Screen capture from TX SOS Direct on 10/28/21.*

I called the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) to confirm that the department’s records for Higbie were current. The lady I talked to said they were, but urged me to call the State Comptroller’s office to see if a new batch of updates was coming soon.

The State Controller’s office could not tell me when new updates were being sent to the Secretary of State. She also refused to discuss the company’s filing history except to say that their status was currently “active.”

The Comptroller’s office, however, did confirm that companies and partnerships had to file PIRs every year. No one could explain the contradiction between active status and apparent non-filing.

Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. the Primary Operator At Construction Site

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit at the Laurel Springs RV Park construction site shows Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. as the primary operator of the construction site.

*Permit posted on Construction Site as of 10/29/21.*

Yet this company’s most recent PIR was filed in September 2019 according to the Secretary of State.

*Screen Capture from Texas SOS Direct website on 10/30/2021* *shows no reports filed for 2020 or 2021. Reports are due by May 15.*

It’s unclear why Higbie or the owners needed more than one Higbie entity involved in this job.

13 Higbie Companies, Six Tax Forfeitures, One PO Box

Texas Secretary of State records show that William S. Higbie has started at least 13 companies or partnerships in Texas. Five are still active. They include:

Higbie Ventures, LP (formed 2003)
Higbie Ventures GP, LLC (formed 2003)
Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. (formed 2010)
Cherry Branch Enterprises LLC (formed 2006)
Higbie Residential Ventures of Texas, Inc. (formed 2014)

Higbie lost six in tax forfeitures and voluntarily dissolved two others. They include:

Higbie Builders GP, LLC (Tax Forfeiture 2006, later reinstated)
Zentrum Construction Company (Tax Forfeiture – 2007 )
WM-GP, Inc. (Tax Forfeiture –2007)
1318 GP, Inc. (Tax Forfeiture – 2007)
1318 Birdsall LTD (Tax Forfeiture – 2009)
Birdbath GP, Inc. (Tax Forfeiture – 2009)
Higbie Roth, Inc. (Voluntarily dissolved – 2002)
Higbie Roth Construction Company (Voluntarily Dissolved – 2013)

Higbie may have other business interests in Florida that are not shown here.

No Offices Currently Listed for Higbie

Eight of the 13 Higbie entities above are or were registered to PMB 1007 (Private Mail Box 1007) at 3733 Westheimer. Google Street View shows a Post & Parcel store there.

Higbie uses that same box for ALL of his active companies or partnerships in Texas.

This may indicate that none of Higbie’s Texas companies has a regular office.

Apparently, No Websites Either

At this time, Higbie does not appear to have a website of his own or for any of his ventures. I cannot find one.

A website called HigbiePlans.com DOES exist, but Higbie has no company by that name. Nor is one registered in the State of Texas.

A footnote on the HigbiePlans website says, “Online planroom powered by ReproConnect and Best Blue Print.” WhoIs.com shows that Best Blue Print actually owns the domain called “HigbiePlans.com.” To boost its own business, Best Blue Print appears to host websites like HigbiePlans as a courtesy to architects, builders, contractors, and others who may require prints of oversized files.

The HigbiePlans.com pages for Higbie Ventures shows one phone number that has been handed down from one Higbie company to another over the years, according to Google searches.

Very little information can be found about William S. Higbie or his organizations online.

Primary Operator?

The TCEQ permit posted at the RV park job site shows that Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. is the primary operator.

According to the TCEQ, a primary operator has operational control of a construction site. However, I have yet to see a Higbie logo on a truck out there. Or a Higbie logo anywhere!

Another company, A&M Contractors, appears to be doing the actual work which the TCEQ thinks Higbie is doing and which Higbie purchased the permits for.

*Signs on construction equipment at the site show that A&M Contractors appears to be doing the work that Higbie’s companies obtained permits for.*

While it is not unusual for companies in the construction business to hire subcontractors, it is unusual for an owner of a site to hire two (or three) companies to do the same thing. That runs up costs without adding value. And RV Parks are among the most cost-sensitive types of construction, according to developers I interviewed for this post.

Low Profile, High Failure Rates

I’m not alleging anything illegal or even unethical about Higbie or his organizations.

He just keeps an exceedingly low profile for a business man. And he has an exceedingly high failure rate. His Texas business ventures have failed at an alarming 62% rate.

Eight of his 13 entities in Texas have gone out of business, and six of the eight were lost to tax forfeitures.

In construction, when large dollars are at risk, that’s not the kind of track record that inspires confidence among lenders and investors.

Several Lakewood residents say they have tried to meet with Higbie about the RV park, but that Higbie doesn’t answer his phone. No wonder he’s so successful.

Will the real William S. Higbie please stand up?

Next, more on the owners of the RV Park. They operate more than 100 different companies.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/2021

1529 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.

Montgomery County Holding Three Meetings for Flood Victims Interested in Buyouts

Morgan Lumbley, Montgomery County’s Disaster Recovery Manager, will hold community outreach meetings in Spring, Conroe and Splendora in the next 10 days to explain buyout options for flood victims. “It is my hope that through positive engagement we can provide the ability for homeowners to relocate out of harm’s way,” said Lumbley.

See specifics about times, dates and places in the poster below.

*Anybody in Montgomery County may attend any meeting. Choose the most convenient.*

The primary purpose of the meetings will be to explain FEMA’s 2021 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, but Lumbley will also explain HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) buyout program.

If you’re a Montgomery County resident and you’ve ever wondered whether you qualified for a buyout, whether you could get fair compensation for your home, or how you could apply, these meetings are for you.

The meetings will cover:

Who qualifies (eligibility requirements)
For which type of assistance (FEMA vs. HUD)
How long it takes
The application process
How homes are valued
How to get help filling out the forms if you need it

Importance of Meetings and Timing

Lumbley described the meetings as community outreach. She needs to identify properties owners interested in buyouts and determine their eligibility. Once she does that, she will apply to FEMA for an FMA grant (Flood Mitigation Assistance) equal to the total value of all homes that quality.

The application process happens once a year. If interested, learn how to apply now.

“If we get awarded a grant,” said Lumbley, “those are the properties that we look to purchase first. Others may be considered only if someone drops out of the process.”

FEMA Requirements Explained at Meeting

The FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant basically has two requirements.

It has to be a severe repetitive loss or a just a repetitive loss property, as indicated by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
You must currently have a NFIP policy backed by FEMA. Private insurance is not eligible.

Lumbley cautions that getting a buyout can take years. “It’s not a tomorrow-type thing,” she said. “We may not have anything final for another year and a half to two years. So we’ll talk about that first. Then realizing that some may not qualify for FEMA’s program, we will also talk about HUD buyouts.”

FEMA Applications Due Back November 15th

Once Lumbley determines the number of homes that meet requirements, she will build a budget around those eligible homes. “We are basically saying to FEMA, ‘If you give us this money, these are the homes that we’re going to buy out. That’s how we establish the budget.”

“It all comes down to how many eligible individuals want to participate,” said Lumbley. “We will submit the county’s application to FEMA with five or a 100 homes.”

Definitions of Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss

“Very specific definitions exist for repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties,” she said. “A repetitive loss property has had flood related damage on two occasions in which the cost of repairs averaged together equal or exceed 25 percent of the market value of the structure – at the time of the floods. Severe repetitive loss properties have had four or more separate floods, with each claim being $5000 or more. And at least two of those claims have to be within a 10 year period.”

“Another way to qualify as a severe repetitive loss is to have at least two separate NFIP claims that that total more than the market value of the structure,” she added.

Valuation

“We will write the county’s 2021 FEMA grant application to reflect current market value of homes. If FEMA approves that, applicants would get whatever the competitive open market value is on the day that the appraiser goes out to appraise it.”

HUD grants are based on pre-disaster valuation. “So it goes back to the disaster on which funding is based,” said Lumbley. “We’re currently working off the 2015/2016 floods and Hurricane Harvey. So what value did the home have before the storm hit, minus any funding that the owner might have received that did not go back into the home as it was intended?”

Eligible Years Vary by Type of Grant

Community Development Block Grants from HUD are disaster specific. So to be eligible for a HUD grant, you must have been damaged during one of those ‘funded storms,’ such as 2015, 2016 or Harvey.

But FEMA FMA grants are not disaster based. So as long as you have a current NFIP backed flood insurance policy and you meet the definitions of repetitive loss or a severe repetitive loss, you could to be eligible. For instance, maybe you flooded four times in 1978, 1982, 1994 and 2001.”

it gets complicated. If you’re interested in a buyout, the time to explore it is now – at one of these meetings – and the person to ask is Lumbley.

For more information, visit the Recovery MXTX page on Facebook.

If you know someone interested in a buyout, make sure he/she attends one of these meetings. Please share this post with others in Montgomery County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/3/2021 based on information from Morgan Lumbley

1527 Days since Hurricane Harvey