10/23/26 – Harris County could lose a quarter billion dollars of grant money from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. At risk is at least:
A MINIMUM $250 million is at risk.AI image by ChatGPT.
But the total could climb even higher.
Even More MIT Funds in Limbo
More than $140 million in the CDBG-MIT program is at risk. However, the total of all “at risk” grants currently exceeds more than a HALF BILLION dollars. No wonder Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia pulled this discussion from the last Commissioners Court agenda. See Item 93.
Currently, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) shows 11 mitigation projects totaling $397.4 million reaching “substantial completion” AFTER their March 31, 2028 deadline.
However, HCFCD hopes it will get a one-year extension on the MIT deadline. If granted, the extension would give the District time to complete all MIT projects – except for two that total $140.5 million.
So, at a minimum, it appears that HCFCD could lose the $113 million plus $140 million. But in a worst case scenario without the extension, the total could climb to $510 million.
Garcia at Center of Fiasco
The fact that we’re even worried about losing that money can be traced back to Commissioner Adrian Garcia. He defended the slow performance of former HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen long after Commissioner Tom Ramsey raised concerns about the CDBG grants. And long after Judge Lina Hidalgo said to Petersen “I just lost my confidence in you.” And long after Commissioner Rodney Ellis warned Petersen of “a day of reckoning.”
Garcia reportedly recommended Petersen for the job and defended her for years, even as Flood Control activity dropped off sharply. See the graph below.
Incremental HCFCD spending shows relentless decline after Garcia and fellow Democrats started pushing out the executives who sold the 2018 flood bond. They were executing projects at a record pace.Graph ends with Petersen’s departure.
Garcia even defended her after she resigned under pressure by offering a factually incorrect timeline in an attempt to rewrite history and support his protege.
This fiasco is a testament to government mismanagement and inefficiency. The Texas General Land Office, which administers HUD grants in Texas, has said it doesn’t want to see Harris County lose any grant money. But it has also said that grant extensions have not yet been approved officially. The money is in administrative limbo.
Meanwhile…
Are We Adding More Cost than Value?
HCFCD isn’t the only part of Harris County government experiencing problems. Many other departments are, too, including the Engineering Department.
While efficiency decreases, the demand for more money increases. County Commissioners approved a tax increase next year for their General Fund plus increases for Flood Control, Harris Health, and the Toll Road Authority.
Luckily, HCFCD has a new executive director, Marcus Stuckett, who seems to be much more results-oriented than his predecessor. But when Stuckett tried to initiate a discussion about potential funding losses at the last commissioners court meeting, Garcia pulled the discussion from the agenda. That ensured the issue wouldn’t be aired until after the election.
So much for transparency and accountability! But hey! That’s what elections are for.
Posted by Bob Rehak
3342 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/250-Million-Cash-Storm-in-Sky-Ruins.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-10-23 18:37:342026-10-23 19:20:36$250 Million of Federal Flood Grants in Limbo
No single authority in the San Jacinto River Basin has responsibility for flooding. Instead we have jurisdictional fragmentation. Multiple jurisdictions have limited authority to solve parts of our regional flooding problems.
The Plan states, “Many of these entities have the authority to implement flood-related planning or projects but do not necessarily have the authority to implement or enforce floodplain management practices or standards.”
Collectively, our governmental organizations don’t match the nature of the problem: floodwater doesn’t respect jurisdictional boundaries. Yet people don’t want to give up their limited authority.
Local control doesn’t yield a collective solution.
Scarborough Example
The Scarborough Development in southern Montgomery County at the confluence of Spring and Cypress Creeks with the San Jacinto West Fork exemplifies the regulatory issue. Scarborough’s 5,300 acres lie between multiple jurisdictions.
The proposed development is in Montgomery County but borders Harris County. Part of it is in Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and part isn’t.
FEMA has updated its flood maps only for portions of the proposed development that lie within Houston’s ETJ.
The development lies in Montgomery County Precinct 3 but will affect flooding in Precinct 4 and Harris County.
Montgomery County doesn’t have a flood control district. Harris County does.
Subsidence plagues the area and development will make subsidence worse. That could create a bowl in the landscape that increases flood risk. But the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District is not considering subsidence in its new plans and will not acknowledge the concerns of the Harris-Galvestion Subsidence District.
Almost all of the proposed development lies in a floodplain or floodway. See below.
Only dark gray areas within red border are elevated above floodplains.US59 bridge during Harvey at intersection of Montgomery and Harris Counties, Houston and Humble; Scarborough just out of frame to right.
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group Recommendations
To solve this problem and others like it, the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning group is considering a series of legislative and regulatory recommendations that include:
Creating, consolidating, or reorganizing regional flood authorities, flood-control districts, river authority programs, and drainage districts where broader regional coordination is needed.
Clarifying roles and responsibilities for floodplain management in extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas to reduce gaps or overlaps in responsibility for floodplain management, permitting, and drainage standards..
Three Aspects of Current, Self-Defeating “Flood Governance”
In business, management consultants commonly call this a “silo problem.” The more precise governance term is an “institutional collective-action dilemma,” compounded by a “scale mismatch.”
Organizational Silos
McKinsey describes how optimizing individual functions in silos can undermine performance when trying to address a collective concern. In this case, think of departments as jurisdictions and the San Jacinto River watershed as the organization.
Theoretically, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has responsibility to control flooding throughout the river basin. But the SJRA almost never exercises it; they say they don’t have funding. The closest they’ve come to flood management is when they established a flood management division after Hurricane Harvey. But they have only managed a series of studies funded by others. And the studies have produced no tangible improvements to date.
Because floodwaters don’t respect jurisdictional boundaries, independent authorities need a shared solution. However, disagreements over costs, benefits, commitments, and loss of autonomy impede collective action.
Political scientist Richard Feiock describes this as “an institutional collective-action dilemma.” The term explicitly addresses barriers to coordinated decisions, including negotiation costs, constraints on autonomy, and difficulty securing enforceable commitments. Cooperation can benefit the region while requiring individual governments to accept obligations or surrender some discretion.
Scale/Institutional Mismatch
The geographic reach of the flooding problem exceeds the geographic reach of the institutions empowered to address it.
The term “scale mismatch” captures this dilemma. Some water-governance researchers call this the problem of institutional fit: whether the institutions managing a resource match its physical processes and geographic extent. Academic research has applied this concept specifically to flood planning across jurisdictions.
Fragmented Flood Governance and Conflicting Mandates
In Texas, authority to address flooding issues does not match the geographic extent of watersheds. And local incentives do not necessarily produce river-basin-wide results. The problem is especially acute for those who live or work at the intersection of jurisdictional boundaries.
Yes, multiple authorities could achieve a collective solution through binding agreements, shared standards, funding, and accountability. But there is no effective mechanism for making local decisions serve basin-wide, flood-reduction concerns.
Worse, some of the jurisdictions that have responsibility to fix flooding also have conflicting mandates. For instance, Montgomery County Engineering, which would permit the Scarborough Development, answers to the County Judge and Commissioners. Their top priority may be economic growth.
Another example: The Texas General Land Office, which administers $14 billion of Flood Remediation and Mitigation money for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, has reportedly invested $140 million in developing the Scarborough land – some of the most flood-prone land in the region.
Need for a River-Basin-Wide Flood-Control District
One in five Texans live in a known floodplain … and more than one in four in the San Jacinto River Basin (27%). Nationally, a commonly cited benchmark for people living in floodplains is 10%.
According to the 2024 State Flood Plan, 5.2 million Texans live or work in identified 100-year or 500-year flood-hazard areas. Those areas contain 1.66 million buildings. And those figures would likely grow if all floodplains were mapped using current rainfall statistics.
Clearly, the upcoming state legislature should seriously consider the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group’s recommendations above to consolidate responsibilities for flood management.
Early voting starts this month. In the meantime, sign the petition protesting Scarborough if you haven’t already done so. One of the region’s most respected hydrologists has said that if the property gets developed, it would be like aiming a firehose at the Kingwood/Humble area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/5/26
3324 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Harvey-at-59-Bridge-IMG_3686-e1741129570215.jpeg?fit=1100%2C685&ssl=16851100adminadmin2026-10-05 15:14:362026-10-05 15:19:10Why 27% of People in the San Jacinto River Basin Live or Work in a Floodplain
9/27/26 – Harris County just passed the largest tax increase in its history. But it provides very little transparency in how it spends taxpayer money. For example, try digging into how the county spends money from its 2022 Bond Program.
What Voters Approved in 2022
In November 2022, voters approved Harris County Engineering’s three-part $1.2 billion bond program. It included:
Proposition
Purpose
Authorized
A
Public Safety Facilities
$100 million
B
Roads, Bridges, Transportation
$900 million
C
Parks and Trails
$200 million
Total
$1.200 billion
No Spending Data on Engineering Department Website
Yet, I can find no discussion of bond expenditures on the Engineering Department’s website. It contains only one mention of dollars “committed” (see below). ALTOGETHER, the county has so far committed $242 million. But Engineering doesn’t tell us what for.
Breakdowns of spending among Public Safety, Roads and Parks
Project lists
Spending by precinct
Explanation for the sudden drop-off in spending for 2026.
I had to look elsewhere, without much luck, for that information.
The County’s Universal Services Department contains a dashboard that includes Engineering expenses for FY2025. But I couldn’t find one for the current fiscal year.
And the County’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) “Open Budget Dashboard” hasn’t worked for months.
No data loads for any of the categories/groups nested on left.
The hunt was on. A 2023 presentation on the 2022 Bond by Dr. Milton Rahman, the County Engineer, showed that within the $900 million dollars designated for Roads, Bridges and Transportation, six sub-categories existed:
$200 million for neighborhood drainage
$100 million for Road Rehabilitation
$50 million for Multimodal Transportation
$50 million for Vision Zero
$200 million for Partnership Opportunities
$300 million for General Road improvements.
Falling into an Information Black Hole
So, what did that money buy and where? That’s even harder to determine. Of the $242 million supposedly “committed” to date from the 2022 Bond, I could find no detailed information on money actually spent. However, I did find high-level information in the County’s 531-page Proposed FY2027 budget about totals “encumbered” in the three main categories. Encumbered means purchase orders have been issued for projects; it does not mean work has been paid for.
The Proposed 2027 budget says that:
All of the $100 million in the Public Safety portion of the 2022 bond has been committed to eight projects (see page 81). But the budget provides no further breakdown.
Approximately a third of the 2022 Park bonds have been issued or encumbered, but we don’t know where or for what.
$45.3 million (5%) of the $900 million in Road bonds has been encumbered, leaving approximately $855 million remaining. NO bonds have been issued yet in this category, which includes $200 million for Drainage Improvements.
So, it would seem that Harris County is about to ask for more bond money to improve Road Drainage when it has only encumbered 5% ($45.3 million) of the money approved in 2022 for Road Bonds.
The budget contains no breakdown showing how much each of the six subcategories has received from Road Bonds to date. But even if all of the $45.3 million went to Drainage Improvements, the percentage encumbered to date would still only amount to 22.7% ($45.3 out of $200 million).
So where is all the money going? Why does Harris County need more?
In fairness, many drainage projects started to date may still be in the engineering phase. Construction comes last and is usually the most expensive phase of a project’s lifecycle. So the percentages cited above may climb.
Perpetual Tax Increases Thrive in Perpetual Darkness
But the point is that perpetual tax increases thrive in perpetual darkness.
I’m not implying fraud. But…
The absence of reliable information makes informed debate impossible. It also makes results impossible to track and accountability impossible to determine.
Harris County Engineering:
Provides no or little insight into how it spends taxpayer money
Against that backdrop, Harris County property taxes are going up by 7.6% next year – the largest increase in history.
For the record, Dr. Milton Rahman, executive director of Harris County Engineering, used to be Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia’s head engineer. Garcia voted FOR the massive tax increase and also proposed the 2022 Bond.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/27/26
3316 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2022-Bond-2026-09-27-at-11.20.33-AM.png?fit=1452%2C716&ssl=17161452adminadmin2026-09-27 19:12:182026-09-27 21:17:54As Harris County Increases Taxes, Spending Remains a Mystery
2/6/2025 – Fireworks erupted in Harris County Commissioners Court today over the 2018 Flood Bond and Subdivision Drainage shortfalls. It was a rare display of bipartisan outrage.
All four commissioners and the county judge expressed concerns about budget shortfalls. The County Engineer, the Head of the Flood Control District, the County Budget Manager and the County Administrator all took turns in the crosshairs when it became clear that the County didn’t have enough money to deliver flood-mitigation projects promised long ago.
That said, the cost of subdivision drainage projects alone increased from $451 million to $590 million since 2018. Comparable figures were not provided for flood-bond projects although the July 2024 Flood Bond Update alluded to 33 projects that have “uncertainty about whether current funding levels are sufficient to take the associated projects through construction.”
Reasons cited for the subdivision drainage project budget shortfall included 30-35% inflation in the construction sector, scope creep, additional projects, and adoption of higher Atlas-14 rainfall standards after passage of the flood bond. Atlas 14 requires projects to handle larger rainfall events than the previous standards.
Reasons cited for the bond-project funding uncertainty included “inflationary pressures and the rising cost of property acquisition, as well as potential schedule impacts due to inclement weather, supply chain pressures, and regulatory changes.”
“An Abysmal Failure” and Loss of Trust
During the contentious 24-minute discussion, the County Judge said that the county needs another flood bond.
Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis said that he would campaign against it. Ellis also accused the County Engineer of ignoring the county’s equity plan.
“This is an abysmal failure to deliver on the bond issue.”
Rodney Ellis, Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner
Ellis also said, “It would be very challenging to go to voters in Precinct One [and ask them] to ever trust this county with money again … even to trust me. … This is an abomination.”
We haven’t heard the last of this. Ellis addressing the county engineer said, “So, you would have a $150 million hole before you discovered there was a problem. I’m just curious about all of the bureaucracy we put in place. I’m a person who voted to have a county administrator, our deputy county administrators … paying the best money, if not in the state, in the country for these folks.”
Ellis continued, “I’m curious to know, when did the county manager know about it? When did the deputy county administrator know about it, and when did the Budget Office know about it? When did you all discover it? Is it tracked by anybody?”
“Major Crisis” with No Sense of Urgency
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, said, “This is a major crisis. I sense no urgency from flood control. I sense no urgency from the county engineer’s office. And I don’t sense any urgency from the county administrator.”
Ramsey also said, “We need to go back and take a look at it, but there needs to be an adult in room to be sure that we get honest answers back.”
“Utter Dismay. Frustration. Shock.”
Normally restrained Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones said, “I share my colleague’s complete and utter dismay. Frustration. Shock.” She emphasized that the county needed to find solutions for both the subdivision drainage projects and the flood bond.
“This is not OK,” she said. “And we need to get it done with a sense of urgency.” Then in a thinly veiled threat, she added, “If we’re not being clear, I don’t want to go back to the policy about wages. But when we say something, we mean it.” Commissioners recently voted department heads large pay increases.
Before finishing, Briones emphasized that Flood Bond Projects, not just subdivision drainage projects needed to be completed also.
Motion to Revisit Issue on March 27 Unanimously Approved
In the end, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion to direct the Office of Management and Budget “to work with flood control, county engineering, and any relevant departments to return to court on March 27 with proposed options and recommendations using any and all county resources for closing the shortfall on the Harris County Engineering Department Subdivision Drainage Program and ensuring the implementation of the flood bond framework adopted by Commissioners Court.”
Commissioner Ramsey offered a friendly amendment. “The financial analysis should include, at a minimum, the entire program showing all projects completed. Projects under construction with any potential changes in contract. Active projects awaiting funding. Remaining available funds for all projects now that the project budgets have been increased.”
The motion with the amendment carried unanimously.
Video of Meeting
You can view the entire discussion and vote on the motion at this link. Click on Departments (Part 2 of 3). Then scroll forward to 3:24:01. You’re looking for item 217.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/2025
2718 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20250206-CC-court.jpg?fit=1100%2C624&ssl=16241100adminadmin2025-02-06 22:14:092025-02-07 13:08:41Flood Bond, Subdivision Drainage Shortfalls Prompt Harsh Words From Commissioners
On Tuesday, 10/31/23, Harris County Commissioner’s court took no action on a request from Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE to abide by a pre-election promise to voters re: the 2022 Road and Parks Bonds. Ramsey could not even find a second for his motion on Agenda Item #418, which would guarantee the promised minimum of $220 million for Precinct 3.
During debate on the topic:
Only one of the four Democrats on Commissioners Court agreed with the idea that “we need to deliver on what we say.”
One confused the 2022 road and parks bond for the 2018 flood bond.
Two claimed they had already spent their allocation; so they couldn’t re-allocate the money even if they wanted to (which they didn’t).
One claimed “everybody” lost track of $110 million.
Two claimed that allocating the money to poor areas was more important than an equal split or honoring promises.
Screen capture from 10/31/2023 Commissioners Court Meeting at start of debate on Item #418.
When they talked about allocations to poor areas, they did not mention the percentage of county-maintained parks or roads in their precincts. Nor did they take into account the percentage of their precincts inside incorporated areas, such as the City of Houston. Municipalities are already responsible for maintaining roads and parks within their boundaries.
Bait-and-Switch Tactics
BEFORE the 2022 election, commissioners voted to allocate a minimum $220 million from the 2022 Road and Parks Bonds to each precinct. The county then trumpeted that promise in:
Pre-election publicity
Postings on county websites
Speeches and handouts at community meetings.
Voters approved the bonds on the basis of that promise.
Then, in January 2023. shortly AFTER the election, the Democrats on commissioners court broke that promise. They voted to adopt a different formula that resulted in drastically less money than promised for Precinct 3, the only Republican-led precinct remaining in Harris County.
Precinct 3 received $187.5 million – $32.5 million less than promised.
Meanwhile, the Democrats voted to award themselves far more than Ramsey’s Precinct 3 which contains the highest percentage of unincorporated areas in the county.
Precinct
Minimum Promised Before Election
Allocated After Election
Difference
% of Allocated $
One
$220 million
$269 million
$49 million MORE
27%
Two
$220 million
$293 million
$73 million MORE
30%
Three
$220 million
$188 million
$32 million LESS
19%
Four
$220 million
$239 million
$19 million MORE
24%
Promised vs. Actual funding from 2022 Road & Parks Bonds
The FTC calls this “bait-and-switch” advertising. It’s illegal. In a commercial context, intentionally advertising a product or service with the intent to lure customers in, only to then provide a different, less desirable offering is considered a deceptive trade practice and fraudulent. The FTC often forces companies caught in bait-and-switch schemes to refund money.
Ironically, had Precinct 3 voters realized the bait and switch, they could have defeated the bonds.
Was There Intent to Break the Promise?
In my opinion, it would be easy to prove intent in this case. Before the election, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia talked for months about how they wanted to apply so-called “equity” and “social vulnerability” factors to the distribution of proposed bond funds…without identifying projects or nailing down a formula.
Then on August 2, 2022, they relented and consented to a $220 million per precinct minimum. After voters approved the bonds and Lina Hidalgo won re-election, the Democrats changed the deal back. We got exactly what Ellis and Garcia argued for all along – an SVI-based formula that radically skewed the distribution of bond funds.
So, in the end, after redistricting (which packed more roads and parks into Precinct 3 than any other precinct), and after an election in which voters were deceived…
Precinct 3 gets 19% of the funding, yet has 47% of the County’s roads and 35% of its parks to maintain.
Some would say Democrats planned that all along.
What Democrats Said During Debate on Ramsey Motion
Precinct 4 Commissioner Leslie Briones
The newly elected Briones, a lawyer by trade, was not part of the pre-election promises. She said, “I agree fundamentally that we need to deliver on what we say and need to be transparent in doing so.” However, she later added that rectifying such situations is important … on a ‘go forward’ basis.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia
Garcia said, “In terms of Precinct 2, I’ll say that our projects have already been lit. So we’re already, you know, our funding is already committed. We got our project partnership commitments already out. And so the funding is already allocated and you know … I absolutely love leveraging equity. Otherwise I wouldn’t have the 30%, uh, the precinct to, uh, needs it because we’re down to the downstream side of five counties, not just Harris County. Um, and but I am open to seeing if there’s another way of, of getting there, because flooding is flooding regardless of its downstream side or wherever. But right now, of the allocation that I’ve got, my guys have already let that out the door. Yeah.”
Commissioner Garcia evidently confused the 2022 Road and Parks Bonds being discussed with the 2018 Flood Bond.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis
Ellis said, “Yeah, we’ve already committed our funds as well. And I would say that I’m strongly committed to SVI.” SVI means the CDC’s race-based Social Vulnerability Index as a means of allocating dollars.
County Judge Hidalgo
Judge Lina Hidalgo argued that the $220 million promise was based on faulty math. She said, “We hadn’t thought about … there’s overhead costs of $110 million. And I think that just literally nobody thought about it.”
Hidalgo narrowly won a hotly contested re-election bid on the same ballot as the bond, based in part on her assertion that she represented ALL the people of the county.
Could You Really Spend $562 Million in 10 Months?
With all of the County’s purchasing procedures, could you really spend (or at least commit) $562 million in ten months? That’s the total of Ellis’ and Garcia’s split.
Democrats didn’t approve the SVI-based allocation formula until earlier this year. Then you would have to study projects, rank them, advertise the projects, review qualifications of potential bidders, bid the projects, pick a winner, acquire right of way, sell bonds, and mobilize the projects.
That can take years. For instance, the Northpark Drive expansion project in Kingwood began in 2015 and won’t finish for another 2 or 3 years. And two miles of Loop 494 renovations have taken 4.5 years.
And, perhaps more important, how do you just forget about $110 million in overhead costs? I couldn’t follow the Budget Director’s attempted explanation on that one! Forgetting about $110 million in the private sector would get most people fired.
Think about these issues as you go to the polls and vote on new bond projects next Tuesday.
In the end, Ramsey, the only Republican, couldn’t even get a second for his motion, so the court took no action.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/2023
2258 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231104-Screenshot-2023-11-04-at-3.50.10%E2%80%AFPM.jpg?fit=1100%2C639&ssl=16391100adminadmin2023-11-04 16:26:242023-11-05 07:18:54Four Dems Take No Action to Honor Pre-Election Bond Promise
Citing the urgent need to spend half of a billion flood-mitigation dollars quickly, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) has made a common-sense suggestion to streamline flood mitigation in Harris County. It recommended making Harris County Flood Control District a “direct recipient” (rather than a “sub-recipient”) of the half billion dollars carved out of $750 million awarded to the County in 2021.
Harris County Commissioners put Community Services, not Flood Control, in charge of managing the $750 million award. But Flood Control is spending two thirds of the money.
The GLO suggestion would streamline working relationships, speed up mitigation, and give Harris County a fighting chance to spend the money before the deadline.
Following the Money
In May 2021, the GLO recommended allocating $750 million of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) money to Harris County for Harvey mitigation and recovery. In March 2022, HUD approved the recommendation.
Later that year, Harris County Commissioners Court decided to have its Community Services Department (CSD) administer the funds rather than Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD).
Since then, CSD recommended giving two-thirds of the money to HCFCD and distributing the rest to various entities within the county. But so far, CSD has only received one application from a potential partner. And six years after Harvey, none of the money has yet been spent moving dirt to reduce flood risk for Harris County residents.
Meanwhile, the county is under HUD deadlines to use the money quickly or lose it.
So, on June 20, 2023, Mark Havens, Deputy Commissioner of the GLO, asked County Judge Lina Hidalgo to make HCFCD a direct recipient. Hidalgo reportedly did not reply to the letter.
The change would shorten lines of communication and reduce layers of administration while speeding up mitigation, protecting residents, and hopefully beating the imminent HUD “use it or lose it” deadlines.
Going into the third year since the announcement of the $750 million flood-mitigation award, none of the money has yet been spent.
Commissioners Court Will Discuss Issue on Tuesday
After more than six months of deliberation, CSD eventually allocated $502.5 million to HCFCD from the $750 million. CSD was then going to allocate most of the rest to unspecified sub-recipients within the county after soliciting applications from potential partners.
However, on next Tuesday’s Commissioner Court agenda, Item 401 reveals…
CSD has found only one entity interested in applying for any of the remaining money in more than six months.
As of this morning, 7/16/23, CSD’s web page that solicits applications has not been updated for two months. It still talks about a May 4th meeting in the future tense.
Screen Capture from solicitation announcement page on 7/16/23.
It also contains some hysterical typos in the first line above. “Applicant’s Conference” singular? “Question” singular? They expected to have only one attendee and one question!?
Worse, it takes a lot of work to find the application web page. CSD’s home page has no direct link. The architecture of CSD’s site revolves around consumer issues such as rent relief and bus ridership, not applicants for mitigation projects.
To get to the $250 million pot of gold at the end of this rainbow from the CSD Home Page, one must click on:
Links
Harris Recovery (a separate web site)
CDBG-MIT
Not very intuitive! CSD blames the lack of response on a $20 million funding limit. That may be so. But the first rule of sales is, “Make it easy for the customer.” And that certainly didn’t happen here.
Projects Put on Hold While $250 Million Sits on Table
Management turnover has also plagued CSD. Under Lina Hidalgo, the department has had six different directors in 4.5 years.
Meanwhile HCFCD is still looking for money to complete projects in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods. Moreover, Harris County Engineering is putting subdivision drainage projects on hold for lack of funding. And all this is happening while a quarter of a billion dollars is still sitting on the table.
I hope Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner Ellis can connect those dots and streamline flood mitigation quickly.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/23
2147 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Screenshot-2023-07-16-at-10.52.33-AM.png?fit=1196%2C754&ssl=17541196adminadmin2023-07-16 12:30:142023-07-16 21:15:48GLO Suggests Plan to Streamline Flood Mitigation in Harris County
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.
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220913-Screen-Shot-2022-09-13-at-11.48.04-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C629&ssl=16291200adminadmin2022-09-14 01:10:112022-09-14 19:26:54Dems Deprive Republican Precincts of Services
Last in an eight part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
For two years, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia have alleged that rich watersheds get all the flood-mitigation funding, while poor and minority watersheds get none. But data suggests that is far from the truth.
Three months ago, the din from Ellis and Garcia reached a crescendo. I became so alarmed about the allegations of racism in flood-mitigation funding, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for historical funding data by watershed. I also requested related data such as watershed size, damaged structures, the number of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents, and more.
Data Contradicts Ellis/Garcia Narrative
My analysis contradicted the carefully crafted Ellis/Garcia narrative. I found the exact opposite of what they claimed.
The most dollars flow to low-income watersheds which, coincidentally, have the most flood damage.
The strongest correlation I found with flood-mitigation “funding” since 2000 was “damaged structures.” And the percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in a neighborhood correlates very strongly to damage per square mile.
When you think about this, it makes sense. We put the most flood-control dollars in areas that flood the most.
Damage Per-Square Mile Correlates Highly with LMI %
To understand patterns in the data, one must start by evaluating damage “per square mile.” That’s because high- and low-income watersheds differ radically in size and number.
Harris County has only eight low-to-moderate income watersheds, but 15-high income watersheds.
The low-income watersheds are half the total size – 600 square miles vs. 1176 square miles.
When looking at damage on a per square mile basis, the highest concentrations occur in low-income neighborhoods.
LMI percentage and damaged structures per square mile have a 0.82 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong. 1.0 is the highest you can get, a perfect correlation.
Damage includes structures flooded in four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey).
Low-income watersheds cluster on the left and high-income watersheds on the right because of “Damage,” not racial discrimination in mitigation funding. Mitigation dollars already overwhelming flow to minority and low-income neighborhoods as they have for decades.
Flood-Control Dollars Flow to Damage
There’s also a strong relationship between total funding and total damage. Notice how the shape of the curves align closely with a few exceptions.
Total funding since 2000 and the number of damaged structures show a 0.84 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong.
You can see a general downward trend in both blue and orange, indicating a strong correlation. This relationship supports other statistical analyses in this series. (See links to previous articles listed below.)
At the highest level, when you look at the data from multiple perspectives, one thing stands out:
Dollars flow to damage, not affluent watersheds.
Possible Causal Links Between LMI Percentage, Damage and Funding
Touring lower income watersheds by car or helicopter helps explain why those watersheds have so much more damage and consequently receive so much more funding. In general, they:
Are much more densely packed with buildings, a consequence of more than twice the population density (3,900 residents/square mile compared to 1,600).
Have more impervious cover, so water can’t soak in as quickly or as much
Have many clogged roadside ditches and storm drains, due to poor maintenance by county precinct crews and the City of Houston’s Public Works Department. (Water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods.)
Have more structures per acre.
Re: the last point, in Kashmere Gardens (an LMI neighborhood), I found six homes on a third of an acre worth more than my house on a full acre in Kingwood. The density can offset higher home values in suburban neighborhoods when calculating Benefit/Cost Ratios for FEMA or HUD.
Flood-Mitigation Funding by Watershed Since 2000
Here’s how much money each watershed received for capital improvement projects since 2000. No maintenance dollars or dollars committed to complete projects are included – only dollars “out the door” as of the end of March 2021.
The graph above dramatizes two things:
The wide variation from high to low. Luce Bayou received only $4.5 million while Brays received $510 million. That’s 113 to 1.
A few watersheds received multiples of the average and median, while far more received a small fraction.
Funding Data Disproves Racist Allegations
Remember that the next time you hear the allegations of racial discrimination from Ellis and Garcia. This discussion shouldn’t be about race. It should be about fixing flooding problems.
The government is not funding flood-control projects in rich areas that didn’t experience flood damage. It funds them in areas that had the MOST damage. Those just happen to be in minority and low-income neighborhoods. And it is critical that people focus on WHY those structures flooded if we are to find solutions.
Implying that they flooded because of racial bias is misdirection. The racial allegations divide and distract people. They also keep HCFCD, from focusing on real solutions to our flooding problems. That harms all voters in Harris County.
If commissioners continue to focus on race, it will prove they care more about political gamesmanship than fixing drainage.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LMI-v-Funding-Per-Sq-Mi.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=17131200adminadmin2021-06-28 13:24:492021-11-18 15:37:54Flood-Mitigation Funding Flows to Damage, Not High-Income Neighborhoods
Seventh in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County.
For the last two years, I’ve heard the same tirades in Commissioners’ Court – that rich neighborhood’s get all the flood-mitigation money while the poor neighborhoods get none. According to Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, that’s because higher home values in rich neighborhoods generate higher Benefit/Cost Ratios and therefore get more FEMA grants. Problem is, FEMA looks at many other factors. And HUD grants favor low-income neighborhoods. But you never hear Ellis or Garcia talk about those.
In reality, most flood mitigation-money in Harris County goes to watersheds with high percentages of low-income residents. (See links to previous posts below.)
By focusing on a narrow part of the flood-mitigation funding process as opposed to outcomes, Ellis and Garcia have been looking though the wrong end of the telescope. Why? To focus attention on the wrong end of the drainpipe!
In the most flooded parts of Halls and Greens watersheds, street after street has clogged ditch drains. Responsibility for cleaning those drains falls onto, you guessed it, Ellis and Garcia, along with their counterpart at the City of Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner.
Simple FOIA Request Disproves Narrative
The Ellis/Garcia narrative just didn’t sound right to me. So I submitted a Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA) request to the Harris County Flood Control District in March for historical funding data. I wanted to see if the allegations were true. They’re not.
Analysis shows that the Ellis/Garcia narrative is 180-degrees from the truth. By almost any statistical measure, flood-mitigation spending favors the poorer watersheds in Harris County. That’s where most of the damage is.
Surely Commissioners Ellis and Garcia can’t be oblivious to more than a billion dollars of construction benefitting their own precincts.
Verbal Sleight of Hand Deflects Attention from Who’s Responsible
So, what’s going on here? Why the constant barrage of racial accusations and divisive rhetoric?
In my opinion, the deception, omissions and distortions of fact are about misdirection.
They seem designed to deflect attention from those responsible for a crucial part of the problem: street drainage.
And if you don’t fix that, you will never solve flooding no matter how much money you throw at channel widening, detention ponds and green solutions.
A process engineer in the oil and gas industry once told me, “There’s always a bottleneck in every system somewhere.” And one of the biggest issues in neighborhoods that flood repetitively is street drainage. Water can’t get out of the neighborhoods to the bayous.
Poor Ditch Maintenance Contributes to Street Flooding
By alleging racism in the HCFCD funding, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are deflecting attention from a serious issue; many of the neighborhoods in their jurisdictions have awful internal drainage (streets and storm sewers) that contribute to frequent street flooding. Street flooding happens when high rainfall rates exceed the capacity of storm drains and ditches to carry the water away. The reduced capacity of the ditches below makes the streets flood on smaller rains.
Swale filled with sediment, almost totally blocking drain on Kashmere Street between Octavia and Engleford in Kashmere Gardens.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Ignacio Vasquez has lived in Kashmere Gardens for 45 years. He says he has called 311 about blocked drains like this one on Engleford St. “thousands of times”, but they never get fixed.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Vasquez says that after a heavy rain, this drain backs water up throughout his neighborhood and contributes to flooding. He says it can take up to 3-4 days for water to drain away. Completely unprompted, he then said that Kingwood was getting all the help from the City. I told him that I lived in Kingwood and that our drains were just as bad as his. See below.
Drainage swale on Valley Manor Drive in Kingwood is completely filled in. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
But I digress. Here are some more street drainage photos taken on 6/26/21 in Halls and Greens Bayou Watersheds as well as Kashmere Gardens on the southeast corner of US59 and Loop 610.
Wherever I drove for five hours, residents repeatedly told me that because of poor maintenance, water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods. It must either sink in or evaporate. See below.
Amboy and OctaviaStreets. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
On Octavia just east of Amboy St.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Etheline St. near Korenek St.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.Octavia St. near Kashmere Street. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
To be fair, not all the ditches were this bad. But I saw thousands like these on hundreds of streets while driving around for five hours. Sometimes sediment almost completely covered drains. I often had hard times spotting the pipes.
On north side of Laura Koppe just east of Arkansas Street.Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.On Kowis Street a few hundred feet east of the Hardy Tollroad. Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.
The saddest sight I saw all day was this home on Etheline Street between Homestead and US59.
Note the mold and rotting exterior. Also note how close to street level this home is.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Red circle shows location of drain completely blocked by sediment.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Sixteen more representative shots in Harris County Precinct 1, Precinct 2 and City.
With drainage this bad, water may evaporate or infiltrate faster than it flows out of neighborhoods!
Who is Responsible for Streets and Storm Sewers?
Who is responsible for clearing blockages like these? Not the Harris County Flood Control District.
Inside the City of Houston, it is the Houston Public Works Department and a mayor who has been sued for diverting drainage fees.
Who is responsible for the unincorporated areas of Harris County? The Precincts. And the worst drainage happens in Precincts One and Two with Commissioners Ellis and Garcia.
Why does Kashmere Gardens (in the City) have open ditch drainage that hasn’t been maintained in years?
How do areas in East Aldine still have barely functional roadside ditches and residents who do not have municipal water and sewer service?
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have the power and the money to address these issues. Yet they have chosen not to. Why have they not helped the very people they claim are left behind?
Show Us the Data
It is important to note the questions NOT being asked in this so-called “equity” debate.
How much has the City of Houston invested in these flood-damaged areas to remediate drainage?
How much have Precincts 1 and 2 invested?
What drainage projects have they completed since 2000?
What is the capital improvement plan for each precinct, and how much of that includes drainage improvements?
What is the equity prioritization framework for precinct spending?
How much unspent money does each precinct have for infrastructure?
The answers may point right back at the people making racial accusations.
The City and Commissioners Ellis and Garcia need to provide answers. Let’s see the data. How much have the City and the Precincts spent in these areas? If these areas are underserved, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, and Mayor Turner are responsible.
They have claimed transparency is important to them. The time to prove that is now.
Blaming the problems on racial discrimination is an easy sell in minority neighborhoods. But it’s misdirection and it keeps the spotlight off Commissioners.
And it diverts focus from finding solutions to the real problems that contribute to flooding. For that, many people need look no further than the end of their driveways.
We all need to step back and look at flooding from end to end. Then maybe we’ll make life easier for the most vulnerable people among us.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210626-RJR_8673.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-27 12:35:382022-01-03 15:25:38Looking Through the Wrong End of the Drainpipe: The Politics of Misdirection
At the October 27, 2020 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion from the floor to explore using flood bond funds for maintenance projects. The motion was not on the agenda, nor did he circulate it before the meeting. It caught some commissioners off guard. Minor changes in wording between what the motion said, and how Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis described it, will keep court watchers guessing about their true intent.
Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia
In the end, the motion passed. It didn’t commit commissioners to anything more than conducting a survey and exploring options. However, last Tuesday’s discussion gives voters a peak over the horizon. It reveals what commissioners think and how desperate some are to find new sources of revenue rather than reign in runaway spending.
Garcia Explains Rationale for Motion
View the discussion yourself online.Click on Departments (Part 4 of 5). Start at approximately 4:21 into that segment. Below is a close transcription.
Adrian Garcia: The flood control district has developed the future operations and maintenance needs for the projects that the district will be constructing using the bond program. The overall need for the next 10 years is ninety seven million, with an average annual budget increase need of approximately 10 million per year. Major infrastructure that the control district owned and maintained are detention ponds, earthen channels, concrete channels, and outfall. It’s extremely important that the county funds the proactive maintenance and deferred maintenance for all Harris County owned infrastructure.
I see the spreadsheet that the district has submitted for their 10-year, cost-increase projections for bond projects and growth only as of 10/16 of this year. I am curious as to why some of the heavy equipment, the vehicles, management software implementation, the customer service, the (garbled) software, large repair projects, why these couldn’t be paid out of the bond funding [Emphasis Added, see below] versus using general-fund dollars?
And so I’d like to propose a motion that would touch on the customer-service satisfaction aspect of the flood control district. (Interruption) …
…so the customer-service satisfaction model, the risk-based model and the deferred-maintenance model.
Garcia Proposes Motion
Adrian Garcia: And so my proposed motions would read that Harris County flood control district should perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs.
The flood control district should develop an overall condition assessment for the infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, the flood control district should develop a prioritized criteria and maintenance-needs budget and the Harris county flood control district needs to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance needs that have been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large and may also qualify for a capital project. And the Budget Management Department needs to evaluate if we can fund this through a bond program [Emphasis Added, see below].
So that’s the motion I’d like to propose.
Judge, just make sure that we’re not forgetting how to maybe better deal with the O&M (operations and maintenance) side of the Flood Control District’s operations.
Ellis Wants Maintenance Tied to “Equity” Scheme
Rodney Ellis: Second. It also brings to my mind the question of, “How much of the flood bond money was spent before we adopted the equity guidelines?”
Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis
Matt Zeve (Deputy Exec Director, HCFCD): Yes, sir, Commissioner. My staff and I are working on getting those numbers over to you by the end of the week, plus all the other questions that you asked us to dig into. We plan to have that over to you before the end of the week.
Rodney Ellis: And Commissioner (Garcia), I only ask because it relates to the issue. Let’s say if a half a billion, five hundred million was spent before we adopted equity guidelines, I know the city is trying to get us to do some swap. They don’t have equity guidelines as it relates to that … some other project in another county … and I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one so that we make up a project that will fund it in the absence of equity guidelines, possibly in an equitable way. And money was taken off the top while we were coming up with guidelines, and I want to compensate for that going forward. And that ties in with what you’re doing today.
Hidalgo: So there’s a motion and a second…
Cagle Objects Because Motion Isn’t in Writing
Cagle: Was it sent around, Judge? (Meaning, “Was the motion circulated so that commissioners could see in writing what they were voting for?”)
Adrian Garcia: It’s coming around now, Commissioner.
Cagle: I’ll hold off until I see it.
Hidalgo: We can circle back (before taking a vote).
One Hour Later, Motion Passes
Approximately an hour later, at time code 5:23:50, Hidalgo finally circles back to Garcia’s motion.
Commissioner Jack Cagle asks Commissioner Garcia if he discussed his motion with the leaders of the flood control district. Answer: “Some of it.”
Cagle then states, “It’s asking for an assessment. I don’t have an issue with that.”
Commissioner Radack asks whether it could be implemented without coming back to court.
Robert Soard, speaking for the County Attorney’s office, says that any action on the survey would have to come back through Commissioner’s Court for a vote.
Garcia restates the motion, but this time the wording differs slightly: To direct the Harris County Flood Control District to perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services (i.e. mowing, desilting, etc.) to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs, to develop an overall condition assessment for the Infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, HCFCD should develop a prioritization criteria and maintenance needs budget and to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance need that has been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large that may also qualify for a Capital Project and Budget Management Department need to evaluate if we can fund these through a Bond Program.
Under Texas law, bond funds from the 2018 referendum can only be used for purposes approved by the voters.
However, as Commissioner Garcia alludes to in the final sentence of his motion, some maintenance projects are so large that they could legitimately be characterized as capital projects. In fact, the 2018 Flood Bond contained three such projects:
F-53 $40 million for “Rehabilitation of Channels Upstream of Addicks Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
F-52 $20 million for “Rehabilitation of Approximately 20 Miles of Channels Upstream of Barker Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
CI-012 $60 million for “Major Maintenance of Cypress Creek and Tributaries”
Before the 2018 Bond Election, Harris County Flood Control had only a $120 million budget for maintenance, half of which it spent on capital projects. So you can see that those three maintenance projects would have consumed the entire annual maintenance budget by themselves. Clearly, they fall into a gray area.
The three projects above fall under language in the flood bond that allows “channel improvements.” Also HCFCD publicized them as potential projects before the vote.
Is It Wise to Pay for Maintenance With Bond Money?
Ordinarily, it’s a bad idea to pay for maintenance out of 30-year bond funds.
Mr. Garcia’s introduction of the motion mentioned things not in the motion. For instance:
Vehicles
Software
Customer service
The County should never, in my opinion, pay for those with a 30-year bond. Neither should the bond pay for mowing, which WAS in the motion.
It’s literally like taking out a mortgage to cut your grass. A week later, you’re back where you started and saddled with 30 years of debt.
A New Bond?
Above, I bolded “THE BOND” and “A BOND.” At first, Commissioner Garcia said he wanted to use money from THE BOND (meaning the 2018) bond to pay for some maintenance items. But his actual motion refers to “A BOND.”
That’s certainly a strange way to refer to the historic flood bond passed in 2018. It sounds as though he’s laying the groundwork to float another flood bond.
Rodney Ellis’ rush to second the motion supports the second interpretation. For months, Ellis has consistently carped that there won’t be enough money in the 2018 bond to do all the projects that need doing.
Ellis, Equity Flap and Elm Grove
That’s why Commissioner Ellis redefined “equity” earlier this year. The 2018 Flood Bond specified “equitable distribution of funds.” 88% of people throughout the county voted for that language – thinking they would get their fair share of flood bond money. However, Commissioner Ellis redefined the word to favor the socially vulnerable and penalize others.
Now, Ellis seems to be linking help for Elm Grove to the City of Houston’s adoption of “equity guidelines” comparable to his. He said, “I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one…” Then he added, “That (meaning equity) ties into what we’re doing here today.” Literally, they are conducting an inventory of maintenance needs and developing a prioritization framework for it.
That framework will no doubt be used to ensure distribution of maintenance dollars according to Mr. Ellis’ definition of equity.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/3/2020
1162 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Garcia.jpg?fit=764%2C586&ssl=1586764adminadmin2020-11-02 23:10:042020-11-03 09:25:39Harris County Commissioners Vote to Explore Using Flood-Bond for Maintenance, Possibly Floating Another Bond
