Tag Archive for: Ellis

Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole

Harris County’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.

Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…

After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.

But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.

Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.

For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.

At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).

Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects

But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.

The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.

That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.

The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”

For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly about projects in LMI neighborhoods having to wait for federal funding that might never arrive. Then they voted to take $425 million away from HCFCD when it did.

Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round

Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.

But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.

At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.

Admission of Funding Gap

Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?

More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding

At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.

Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)

Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”

Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.

Saying One Thing, Doing Another

Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…

…Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo help our least fortunate residents the least.

To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.

Compiled from data published by HCFCD in December 2022 Flood Bond Update and March 2021 Flood Bond Update

In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.

Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.

For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.

Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.

Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.

Brays and Greens have received more funding to date than the other six LMI-majority watersheds put together.

This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.

High Price of Turnover

The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!

This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.

If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.

Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023

2004 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.


Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects

Harris County Commissioners Court approved a motion on 1/10/23 that will change the formula for scoring future flood projects. It gives two thirds of a potential project’s score to population density, building density and social vulnerability, but only 20% to flood risk and nothing to actual flood damage.

Stacking the Deck

The new formula could be used both to compare and eliminate projects. With only 20% of a project’s score determined by flood risk, fixing minor flooding inside the Beltway could soon take precedence over fixing severe flooding outside the Beltway. The formula provides only the illusion of transparency and fails to ensure fairness.

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

During Hurricane Harvey, the highest flooding in the County occurred outside the Beltway along the San Jacinto River, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek.

Evacuation Route during Harvey
North Shore evacuation route during Harvey. Photo by Jim Balcom.

Regardless, despite being the largest watershed in the county and one of the most heavily damaged, few flood-mitigation dollars have come to the San Jacinto Watershed.

Since Harvey, 4.6 more flood-mitigation dollars have gone to the Brays watershed than the county’s largest, the San Jacinto.

Brays is the county’s most populous watershed. It’s also where Commissioner Ellis lives. Could that have anything to do with the factors and weights in the new formula for scoring future flood projects? They include:

  • 45% Project Efficiency
    • 15% Resident Benefits 
    • 30% Structure Benefits 
  • 20% Existing Conditions 
  • 20% Social Vulnerability Index 
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs 
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts 
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits 

This new formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. Partnership funding has provided approximately one third of all Flood Control District funding since 2000. The new formula gives the most weight to building and population density incorporated in the Project Efficiency formula (project cost divided by # residents and structures benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

Other Problems with Formula

The formula for scoring future flood projects, proposed by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has many other problems. It also:

  1. Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college. 
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000. 
  5. Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters. 
  6. Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries. 
  7. Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run. 
  8. Places 45% of the weight on cost data that has not yet been determined when deciding whether to explore projects further.

Ellis’ proposal passed 3-1 yesterday. Commissioners Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia, and Lesley Briones voted for it. Commissioner Tom Ramsey voted against. County Judge Lina Hidalgo was absent. Commissioner Ellis ran the meeting.

To see the discussion on Ellis’ proposal, click on “Departments 2 of 2” in the meeting video and scroll forward to 3:03:53. The discussion lasts 16 minutes. Below is a summary of key points and their time codes.

Summary of Debate with Video Timecodes

Ellis positions his proposal as a “transparency measure.” 3:04:10

Dr. Tina Petersen, head of the Flood Control District describes it as a “clear, consistent and equitable basis” for comparing projects that the flood control district is undertaking. 3:04:53

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey says “criteria and frameworks are not necessarily a bad thing,” but then expresses a list of concerns about the proposal, none of which are addressed later in discussion. 3:06:19

Petersen responds that it’s “not perfect.” She says, “there’s no reason we can’t continue to refine this tool.” It’s very “general.” It let’s us “use what we have as a basis for comparison and continue to look forward to opportunities to refine” the tool.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia asks whether the proposal will add costs or time to projects. 3:11:00

Petersen says no. “The framework should not require additional costs as long as we don’t look back.”

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Asks Probing Questions

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Briones then asks “how often will it be updated?” 3:13:20

Petersen replies, “We’re not considering making any changes to the framework.” She describes the primary uses as: comparing projects and determining which are eligible for funding from the Flood Resilience Trust.

Briones asks whether the framework incorporates “severity of flooding.”

Petersen points to the “efficiency” metric as the closest thing because it incorporate the number of people and structures benefitted. But Petersen sidesteps the point of the question about “depth of flooding” raised by Ramsey earlier. 3:14:25

Briones questions why partnerships are excluded.

Petersen responds that the framework was designed for use with the flood resilience trust, on projects where partnership dollars were no longer considered a possibility. “It was intended to be a backstop for projects that do not have partnership funding.” Petersen does not mention $750 million in HUD/GLO dollars pending final approval.

Briones next asks whether the framework will provide a threshold for making go/no-go decisions on projects. 3:15:40

Petersen replies, “I want to be clear. It will be used for determining whether a project is eligible for flood resilience trust funds.”

At 3:19:30, Ellis quickly closes debate before someone asks for clarification. The measure passes.

Debate Filled with Unresolved Contradictions

Petersen sidestepped Brione’s tough questions about severity of flooding and the eliminating projects. At one point, Petersen said it was “only a point of comparison.” Later, she said it would determine project “eligibility.”

She also equivocated in her response to Ramsey’s concerns. At first she implied the framework was a first step. Later she said that she didn’t plan to change it. Even though the framework is intended for future projects, most of Petersen’s answers related to the past.

Bellwether Vote

Only one thing is certain.

We’re in for four more years of fog described as transparency!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2023

1961 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.

Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has placed an item on the Commissioners Court agenda for 1/10/23 with far reaching ramifications for flood control in Harris County. It would change the way every future project is prioritized using a formula that gives almost half the weight to population and building density. Meanwhile, it ignores the amount of damage, severity of flooding, danger to infrastructure, historical underinvestment, and the difficulty of accurately estimating population in flood zones. Ellis’ recommendation could be used to permanently deny projects to heavily flood-damaged areas like Lake Houston.

Text of Motion

In Agenda Item #250, Ellis seeks: “Request for approval to direct the Harris County Flood Control District (“District”) to assign prioritization scores using the adopted 2022 Prioritization Framework for the Allocation of Funds from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to all new flood risk reduction projects funded by the District when requesting Commissioners Court approval to initiate the project, and to transmit those scores as quartiles to Commissioners Court.”

So what is that framework and why do we need it?

History of Recent Efforts to Prioritize Projects

Before the 2018 flood bond, Harris County flood control looked primarily at clusters of repeat damage to define and prioritize projects. That damage also formed the basis for obtaining partner funding in many cases.

However, when the perpetually underfunded Flood Control District received the huge infusion of cash from the 2018 flood bond, a problem arose. Which of the many worthy projects would be launched first? There simply weren’t enough qualified contractors to handle all needs simultaneously.

The text of the 2018 flood bond approved by voters contained a sentence that said, “…Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…” (See Paragraph 14-G). That became the key to the answer…with some verbal legerdemain by Ellis that turned “distribution” into “prioritization” and “equitable” into “equity.”

2019 Equity Prioritization Framework

In 2019, Ellis proposed (and the Court adopted) the “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Projects.” This framework ranked projects with a multi-factor index using the following weights:

  • 25% Flood Risk Reduction
  • 20% Existing Conditions (Drainage Level of Service)
  • 20% Social Vulnerability
  • 10% Project Efficiency
  • 10% Partnership Funding
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
  • Total 100%

Commissioners, including Ellis, repeatedly affirmed their intent to complete all projects originally identified as part of the bond. The framework simply prioritized their start dates.

Commissioners also talked a lot about prioritizing “the worst first.” It was a nice sound bite, but never defined. Were the worst areas those with the most damage, deepest flooding, poorest residents, highest risk, or some combination of the above? Notice that the formula above omits flood damage, the traditional way of prioritizing funds and “ground-truthing” flood-risk estimates.

At this point, all of the projects in the bond have started. Their natural lifecycles and complexity will determine their order of completion. So, the debate has shifted from the flood bond to other sources of funding and future projects.

2021 Changes Applied to Flood Resilience Trust

In 2021, Commissioners created a Flood Resilience Trust using Toll-Road funds to backstop potential shortfalls in flood-bond partner contributions. The weighting used to allocate funds from the Trust changed significantly.

  • 25% Structures Benefitted
  • 20% Flooding Frequency
  • 20% Social Vulnerability
  • 10% Cost Per Structure
  • 10% Partnership Funding
  • 5% Maintenance Cost
  • 5% Environmental Impact
  • 5% Secondary Benefits
  • Total 100%

Flood Control used this formula only to prioritize the use of backstop funds in the Trust. Note this version of the formula eliminated both damage and risk reduction from consideration.

2022 Changes

In April, 2022, Commissioners modified the 2021 weights within the Prioritization Framework – still only for Flood Resilience Trust Funds – as follows:

  • 45% Project Efficiency
    • 15% Resident Benefits
    • 30% Structure Benefits
  • 20% Existing Conditions
  • 20% Social Vulnerability Index
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits

This 2022 formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. But it gives weight to population density (project cost divided by # residents benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

2023 Proposal

Commissioner Ellis now proposes applying the 2022 Resilience Trust formula to ALL FUTURE HCFCD PROJECTS.

Problems with Proposal

Flood Control would now use Ellis’ formula to decide which projects make the list, not just which go first.

Thus, the so-called “equity” formula once used to schedule projects could now be used to eliminate projects altogether.

Two thirds of the weight goes to density and social vulnerability. Only 20% relates to flooding.

The projects most likely to be eliminated would be outside the Beltway – in less dense areas that have traditionally received the least funding. In a post-bond, financially constrained environment, the weight given to density will put every project outside the Beltway at a disadvantage.

But the Ellis formula has many other problems, too. It:

  1. Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000.
  5. Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters. 
  6. Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
  7. Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
  8. Forces Flood Control to judge projects before the District has engineering and cost data in hand that would help determine whether the projects are worth pursuing. That’s because “ALL FUTURE PROJECTS” include preliminary engineering projects.

Suggestions For Improvement

Below are several suggestions to improve the formula.

  1. Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
  2. Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
  3. Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
  4. Include partnership funds. They help stretch flood-mitigation tax dollars by almost a third. Even if people sometimes must wait longer to line up partner funding, partner funding helps more people in the long run.
  5. Acknowledge that HUD dollars go disproportionately and preferentially to Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
  6. Publish level-of-service data, used in the “existing conditions” calculation, for all streams in the county. It seems to be secret. I’ve been trying to get it for a year. Keeping it secret undermines trust in government. How do we know money is really going to the areas with the greatest risk?
  7. Publish results of the new prioritization index periodically, so we can see which projects are being eliminated and why. And so we can understand why 18 of the 20 currently active capital improvement projects are in Precincts 1 and 2.
  8. Publish a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan similar to the City of Houston. Let people see what is coming, when, and for how much. That way we can hold HCFCD and Commissioners accountable. Plus, we can see their “formula” in action.
  9. Acknowledge where money has really gone historically.
  10. Be fair to all. The proposed formula is like playing cards with a stacked deck.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/23

1957 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.

The Real Inequities in Flood-Mitigation Funding

Data obtained via a FOIA Request shows that the watersheds where three top Harris County Democrats live are consuming 25% of flood-bond funding. Meanwhile, those Democrats are starving their Republican opponents and supporters alike of flood-mitigation money.

Harris County Flood Control’s website also shows there are currently no active capital-improvement construction projects in Kingwood, Humble, Huffman, Spring, Atascocita or Crosby. Yet half of all active construction project dollars are going to just three watersheds where the three top Democrat leaders live.

Largest Watershed Among Least Funded

Harris County’s largest watershed – the 215-square-mile San Jacinto – ranks #18 out of 23 watersheds in flood-mitigation funding per square mile under Lina Hidalgo’s administration. That’s according to data obtained from Harris County via a FOIA Request that shows funding through the third quarter of 2022. Neighboring watersheds in the Republican-leaning far northeast part of the county are similarly starved for funding.

Watershed Map of Harris County

Consistent Funding Bias

San Jacinto-watershed residents are not alone. Spring, Jackson and Luce watersheds comprise most of the rest of the northeast portion of the county. They are among the least funded watersheds under Hidalgo whether you measure “total flood-mitigation funding” or “funding per square mile.”

The San Jacinto received only $37 million during Hidalgo’s administration. Spring received $10.1 million. Jackson received just $2.7 million. And Luce received a minuscule $1 million.

These watersheds respectively rank:

  • #12, #18, #20 and #23 in total flood-mitigation funding
  • #18, #19, #21 and #23 in funding per square mile.

Backyard Fringe Benefits

Contrast that with the following totals under Hidalgo in three other watersheds:

  • Buffalo Bayou (91.7 square miles) is less than half the size of the San Jacinto Watershed. It received more – $39.5 million. That’s where County Judge Lina Hidalgo lives. It ranks #12 in total post-Harvey funding.
  • White Oak Bayou ranks #6 in total post-Harvey funding at $94 million. It’s half the size of the San Jacinto (111 sq. mi), but received 2.5X more flood-mitigation funding. Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia lives there.
  • Brays Bayou ranks #1 in total post-Harvey funding at $171 million – more than 8 times as much as the San Jacinto. Yet it’s only a little more than half the size (114.2 square miles). That’s where Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives.

Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis spent $305 million in the three watersheds where they live. That’s six times more than the $51 million spent for the San Jacinto, Spring, Jackson and Luce Watersheds.

Buffalo, White Oak and Brays watersheds are all in the lead for flood-tunnels, too. Those could add billions more to the backyard benefits received by Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia!

Funding-Per-Square Mile Comparison

Now, let’s compare what the watersheds above have received in funding per square mile under Hidalgo:

  • Brays = $1.5 million
  • White Oak = $845 thousand
  • Buffalo = $431 thousand
  • San Jacinto = $172 thousand
  • Spring = $169 thousand
  • Jackson = $104 thousand
  • Luce = $45 thousand

The first three above comprise 246 square miles and received $305 million under Hidalgo to date. The bottom four comprise 323 square miles and received $51 million.

So under Hidalgo, Brays, White Oak and Buffalo averaged $1.2 million per square mile. Meanwhile, the Republican-leaning San Jacinto, Spring, Jackson and Luce watersheds averaged only $158 thousand per square mile! That’s about one eighth as much.

Notice a trend? I thought the three Democrats were trying to help the poor with their equity plan. Were they really just trying to punish political opponents through funding inequities? Looking out for themselves all along? Or both?

Parts of the San Jacinto and Spring Creek watersheds experienced water more than 20 feet above flood stage during Harvey while parts of Brays and White Oak didn’t even come out of their banks.

No Active Capital Improvement Projects in Lake Houston Area

And to think! Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia conned dozens of members of the Northeast Action Collective into requesting Commissioners Court to shift money from Kingwood to Halls Bayou. They said Kingwood was getting all the money! It hasn’t and isn’t.

At the moment, Harris County Flood Control shows NO active capital improvement construction projects in Kingwood, Huffman, Crosby, Humble, Atascocita or Spring.

Screen capture from HCFCD.org on 10/20/22. Capital improvement projects have purple markers. Orange = maintenance projects.

Yet HCFCD is spending $224 million elsewhere in the county on active construction. That includes another $71 million in Brays and $36 million in White Oak for another $107 million total. Almost HALF of the active construction projects in the entire county are going to the watersheds where Ellis and Garcia live!

And that’s in addition to the $305 million that White Oak, Brays and Buffalo already received under Hidalgo.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to spend $412 million protecting your own homes while Low-to-Moderate Income residents elsewhere flood. Now I know why the three pretend Kingwood is getting ALL the money. It’s a diversionary tactic.

Out of $1.65 billion flood-bond dollars spent to date, the watersheds where Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia live have consumed 25%.

More news to follow as I continue to analyze the latest spending data through the third quarter of 2022.

For the complete response provided by Harris County to my FOIA Request, click here.

This summary worksheet combines funding with other factors such as population, area, damage, etc.

What You Can Do

We have a chance to do something about these inequities starting in a few days. Early voting starts on October 24. You can find polling places here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 20, 2022 and updated 10/21 to include spreadsheets and improve clarity.

1878 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Backward, Bait-And-Switch Bond Meeting a Bust

Those few who attended a meeting at the Humble Civic Center on October 3, 2022, hoping to get more details about the proposed new Harris County bond offerings were sorely disappointed. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, and Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis are asking voters to approve $1.2 billion in bonds before the three have identified projects totaling $1.2 billion. The lack of defined projects and the lack of language in the bond that would guarantee a fair distribution of money should have all voters on high alert.

Bait and Switch?

I got the distinct impression voters are being set up for a bait-and-switch.

This reminds me of when Ellis bragged openly in Commissioners Court about how he tricked voters in the flood-bond election by redefining “equitable distribution of funds” after the vote. I just don’t trust these three.

Something Ain’t Right Here

My first tip-off that this meeting would be a bust was the nearly empty parking lot when my wife and I arrived five minutes before the start time. Clearly, the county had not advertised the meeting widely. Once inside, I noticed more strangeness.

  • Many of the displays sat behind tables – too far away to see any detail.
  • I found no one at the tables who would answer questions.
  • Staff outnumbered residents.
  • During most of the meeting, only three or four visitors at a time wandered through the cavernous space. I counted seven residents briefly at the high point.
  • Translators outnumbered residents most of the time.
  • I didn’t see one person entering suggestions at a table with a dozen laptops for that purpose during the hour I was there.
  • No one could produce a copy of the bond language. One staff member said it was “on the bond website.” I visited the site as we talked; it wasn’t. And still isn’t.

Equity, Lop-sided Spending, Minimum Distributions, Maintenance Not Disclosed in Bond Language

The bond language is, however, now posted on a sample ballot at HarrisVotes.org, the election administrator’s website.

See the jpeg below. It’s notable for what it doesn’t include. The bond language mentions nothing about “equity”, the lop-sided spending proposed by Hidalgo, or a minimum per precinct. Nor does it mention maintenance.

Three sentences of explanation contain no detail about where the $1.2 billion would be spent.

Nothing in the language would prevent Democrats from spending ALL the money in their own precincts.

If re-elected, they could change their minds about a minimum at any time, and blow it all on maintenance.

Compound Interest on Maintenance Expenses?

Let’s discuss maintenance. The official ballot language makes no mention of it. However, the bond website does.

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

So does the motion approved by the three in commissioners court (see pages 3 and 4). The omission of maintenance in the ballot language is intentional.

That maintenance money would be paid back over 30 years WITH INTEREST. So fixing that pothole could easily cost 7X the out-of-pocket costs at today’s interest rates.

This is how $100 million worth of work turns into $700 million in debt.

And that’s why most bonds discourage spending money on maintenance.

Maintenance should be handled out of current income, not long-term debt. But Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia propose borrowing to pay for it. And that’s just a bad idea. The potholes they fix now will need to be refilled a dozen more times before the bond is paid off. Who will pay for those repairs? And how?

Misleading Project Sheets

The meeting handouts, bond, and bond website discuss spending CATEGORIES. But they still do not mention one actual proposed project within any category – the main criticism of this bond package to date.

The County did have “project sheets” at the display tables. But staff wouldn’t let residents take them. I suspect I know why.

If you look closely, you can see that they were labeled “current” or “active” projects. That means the projects shown already had funding. They were NOT candidates for the PROPOSED bond. After lengthy, pointed questioning, a staff member admitted that to me.

Active projects masquerading as proposed projects.

Were such sheets simply displayed to create the appearance of a plan?

The visitors I talked to said they thought the lists contained proposed projects. They didn’t. They only contained examples of projects that could be covered – not those that will be.

Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo haven’t yet made the effort to define one needed project, though they say the need is critical.

If it’s so critical, how come they can’t cite one example? This is such a contrast to the last bond election!

Free License to Spend Your Money

YES votes would give Hidalgo, Garcia (if both are re-elected) and Ellis a mandate to use your money when and where they want. And that would not include Republican-leaning precincts. One expert on Harris County government bond offerings told me that the lack of public input gives them license to do as they please. The language doesn’t even contain provisions that would force them to spend money within the categories they discuss.

As one finance expert told me today, “This is how Houston got into trouble. Once you get under that mountain of debt, it’s just about impossible to dig your way out,” he said.

Another bonding expert suggested, “A good slogan for this bond would be ‘Just Vote No. No Projects, No Transparency, No New Taxes – No Way!'”

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 7, 2022

1865 Days since hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Flood- and Garcia-Bond Updates

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

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

Lopsided Distribution of Funds Continues for Flood Bond

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

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

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

Flood-Bond Progress Appears to Slow

During the month, HCFCD:

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

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

Page 12 from full update.

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

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

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

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

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

Active maintenance projects reported on page 11 of full report.

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

Input Sessions for Garcia-Bond

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

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

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

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

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

Bond Language Will Not Reflect Voter Input

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

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

https://harriscounty2022bond.org

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

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

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

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

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

Why Trust in Government is Eroding

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/22

1848 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Garcia’s $1.2 Billion Mystery Tax Going on November 8th Ballot

Three bonds that amount to a $1.2 billion mystery tax will go on the November ballot in Harris County. In a special Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting on Thursday 8/18/22, three Democrats voted for the bonds in another carefully orchestrated meeting. They did not:

  • Make the bond language public before (or after) the meeting.
  • Release even a partial list of projects that the money will go towards.
  • Address how the bond will be promoted or who will promote it.
  • Discuss the lopsided distribution of funds ($160 million more for each Democratic precinct).
  • Define how phrases such as, “worst first” will be defined.
  • Allow Republican commissioners to ask questions.
  • Explain why they wanted another bond when approximately half a billion dollars remains from the last one in 2015.

Aside from three-high level categories of spending (public safety, roads and parks), nothing in the bonds says exactly how or where the money will be spent.

Debate Cut Off with Questions Unanswered

After Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia made three motions to approve three separate bonds, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis seconded them. County Judge Lina Hidalgo extolled their benefits and called members of the public who spoke against the bonds liars.

In a carefully stage-managed meeting, Hidalgo insisted the bonds would not raise taxes, but once again blurred the distinction between tax rates and tax bills. Budget Manager Daniel Ramos repeatedly said property valuations were going up. However…

Neither Hidalgo, nor Ramos discussed the combined impact of the rate multiplied by much higher property valuations over 25 years.

Hidalgo has consistently avoided that discussion.

Despite attempts by Republican Commissioners Tom Ramsey and Jack Cagle to ask questions, the Democrats used their majority to invoke a parliamentary procedure known as “calling the question.” Calling the question stops debate (which never started in this case) and calls for an immediate vote on a proposal. The three Democrats voted YES to call the question. The two Republicans voted NO.

Hidalgo then called an immediate vote on the three bond proposals. Each passed 3-2. Hidalgo adjourned the meeting.

Video of Politics at Its Most Brutal

This meeting was a microwave version of most court meetings in the last four years. If you want to get a good feeling for Harris County politics before you vote, I highly recommend watching it. The last public speaker ends at 36:28 and approval of the bond begins. You can view the entire video here. It only lasts another 15-20 minutes.

But first, you may want to watch this 20-second clip posted on YouTube in which Hidalgo brands members of the public who spoke against the bond as liars.

Video clip showing start of discussion after public comments. Compare audio with official transcript below.

In the official transcript, someone redacted the lying comment.

8/20/22 screen capture of official transcript. Red type added to indicate text and location of omission.

Accidental or intentional? You be the judge.

Bond Language Concealed from Public Beforehand

While you are at it, click on the meeting’s agenda and see if you can find the bond language they “voted” on.

Clicking on the links and tabs within the agenda item for the bond showed no linked PDFs with bond language.

Clicking on Legislation Details brought up this page.

Blank page for Legislation Details where bond text should have been linked.

Clicking on “Legislative Details with Text” brought up these pages, which contained only a high-level summary of the bonds.

Omissions Open Door to Redirection of Funds

I had to specifically request the bond language from Commissioner Ramsey’s office. You can review the entire bond text here. Two omissions jumped out at me.

  • “Worst first” isn’t defined. Commissioner Cagle complained about that, among other things, starting at 47:30 in the video.
  • There is no mention of at least $220 million going to each precinct.

In 2019, Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo cried “worst first” to justify their prioritization of flood-bond projects. After passage of the bond, they defined “worst” as watersheds with high percentages of Low-to-Moderate Income Residents, regardless of how badly those watersheds flooded. Those watersheds have received more than a billion dollars to date while areas that received 20+ feet of water above flood stage have received virtually nothing from the bond.

The bond language also makes no mention of at least $220 million going to each precinct, a concession approved in the previous meeting which Hidalgo repeatedly referenced.

When Cagle tried to raise these issues, Garcia and Hidalgo cut him off. The three called the question, voted and left the room.

The next meeting of commissioners court will vote on two proposals to promote the bond which have not gone through a competitive bidding process. See items 427 and 428. Sorry, there’s no backup on those either. So much for transparency!

No one except Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo know why we need the bonds, where the money will go, or who will get the benefit. That’s why I call this bond a mystery tax.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/22

1817 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.

August Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Nine Items in the News

Here’s a short digest of nine flood-related items in the news this month.

Fifth Anniversary of Harvey

This month marks the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey. It’s hard to pinpoint an exact day for Harvey. The system moved off of Africa on August 13, 2017. It became a tropical storm on the 17th; moved into the Gulf on the 22nd; became a Cat 4 hurricane; and made landfall at Port Aransas on the 25th. The outer bands reached Harris County on the 26th.

Harvey dumped heavy rain over Houston for four days. It started moving back offshore on the 29th and 30th. Ninety percent of the river forecast points in southeast Texas reached flood stage; forty-six percent reached new record levels. Harvey dumped more rain than any storm in the history of North America. For more information, see the Hurricane Harvey tab on the Reports Page.

West Fork San Jacinto During Harvey. Looking NE toward Kingwood from the Townsend Park N Ride.

New SJRA Director From Lake Conroe

Most flooding in the Lake Houston Area during Harvey happened after the SJRA started releasing 79,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) from Lake Conroe to save homes there. Many Lake-Houston-Area residents blamed the absence of downstream representation on the SJRA board for what they saw as disregard for their property.

After touring the extensive damage by helicopter, Governor Abbott appointed two Lake-Houston-Area residents (Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti) to the seven-person board. Cambio later resigned to avoid a conflict of interest when she joined Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s staff. Last month, the Governor appointed a Lake Conroe resident to fill her vacancy, Stephanie Johnson. That now leaves Micheletti as the lone downstream representative.

Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District Elections

Sometimes it seems that the main requirements for membership on the LSGCD board are half a brain, a willingness to kiss Simon Sequiera’s ring and indifference to science. Sequiera owns Quadvest, the largest private groundwater pumping company in Montgomery County. And excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo has been linked to subsidence and flooding. But concerned citizens will have a chance to take back the LSGCD board from a slate of directors backed by Sequiera. The deadline for applying is August 22. This page on the LSGCD site is all about the election and how to file if you are interested.

Edgewater Park

Harris County Precinct 3 is trying to jumpstart the development of Edgewater Park at 59 and the San Jacinto West Fork. The county has stated it is hiring a new consultant to re-design the park and that construction could begin 1 to 2 years from now. Quiddity Engineering will get the nod. The project will provide a boat launch, an additional park for the Humble/Kingwood Area, and a connection to the Spring Creek Greenway hike and bike trail. Quiddity’s contract will cover design, engineering, and other pre-construction expenses. Quiddity is the new name for Jones and Carter.

Houston Planning & Development Department News

The Planning and Development Department has a new initiative called Livable Places. The objective: create more housing options for Houstonians. The four options they visualize all increase housing density and impervious cover. I wrote them asking, “Won’t that increase flooding?” In essence, they said, “But it may help other places stay green.” True. But that’s not going to help flooding in the City much. Wasn’t our Drainage Fee designed to provide an incentive to REDUCE impervious cover. Oh well. These are different times. Can we get our drainage fees back now?

Flood Tunnels

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released Phase 2 of its $30 billion flood tunnel study last month – along with a recommendation to study the recommendations in more detail. The current plan for Phase 3 is to spend the next 4-6 months:

  • Working with the Army Corps to explore possible federal involvement
  • Scoping the Phase 3 study
  • Beginning procurement.

HCFCD hopes to start Phase 3 in early 2023. Said Scott Elmer, P.E. CFM and Assistant Director of Operations for HCFCD, “We expect it to take approximately 3 years to complete.” For the complete Phase 2 study, click here.

GLO HARP Program Deadline

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) announced that applications for its Homeowner Assistance and Reimbursement Program (HARP) will close at 5 p.m. on Aug. 31, 2022. Those include applications for repairs/rebuilds from Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019. To be eligible, you must submit applications by the deadline … unless funding runs out first. So hurry. 

The program includes repair or reconstruction of owner-occupied single-family homes and reimbursement up to $50,000 for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or mitigation. Repayment of SBA loans is also eligible for reimbursement.

The GLO has $71,604,000 to help residents of Harris, Chambers, Liberty, Jefferson, Montgomery, Orange, and San Jacinto counties. HARP is only available for a primary residences, not second homes. Interested homeowners should visit recovery.texas.gov/harp to apply online or download an application.

Harris County Attrition and Pay Reports

As reported in April, the loss of employees and managers in dozens of Harris County departments has created a brain drain that impacts delivery of county services. On Tuesday, 8/2/22, Commissioners considered two related reports. The first had to do with attrition. The second had to do with pay and benefits.

Commissioners did not discuss the first, but they did discuss the second at length. They also voted unanimously to have the Office of Management and Budget investigate pay disparities. Certain commissioners wanted to apply equity guidelines to low-paid employees and freeze pay for those making more. I didn’t hear the words “Pay for Performance” once during the discussion.

In the end, commissioners recommended having HR create a job architecture, pay structure, and new evaluations that would determine pay increases or freezes. More in future posts.

New Bond Package

Discussion of a new $1.2 billion bond package consumed the last 90 minutes of commissioners court this week. The County Administrator still cannot say where the money is actually needed. Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis want to apply equity guidelines to this bond. And neither wants to say which projects they would spend the money on. Garcia even threatened in a previous meeting that Republican-leaning precincts would not get ANY of the money if their commissioners voted NO on the bond.

When Hidalgo suggested guidelines for distribution of the money, Garcia stomped out of the meeting. He later reluctantly agreed to a split that would give his precinct and Ellis’ $380 million each while Republican precincts would get only $220 million each.

During the debate, it came out that much of the money from the 2015 bond program still has not been spent. That raised the question, “Why do we need another bond?”

Bragging About Trickery on One Bond While Pitching Another

Also, Commissioner Rodney Ellis publicly bragged that he purposefully didn’t define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond. “It was side language,” he said. “It was not in the language that was on the ballot, but that was the side agreement we agreed to.”

Ellis later said, “Those poor neighborhoods are the ones who have gotten the short end of the process.” But the HCFCD July flood-bond update shows that Halls, Greens, White Oak, Brays and Hunting Bayou Watersheds have received $400 million out of the $1 billion spent to date from the flood bond. Twenty percent of the watersheds are getting 40% of the money. Short end?

I personally don’t plan to vote for another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where or on what the money will be spent. To me, this looks like a $1.2 billion dollar slush fund for Garcia and Ellis.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/6/22

1803 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.

More than $400 million in Unexplained Harris County Transfers Receive No Discussion During Rants On Other Items

A Harris County Commissioners Court meeting yesterday lasted 8 hours and 30 minutes. While viewers were repeatedly treated to rants alleging racial discrimination, partially documented transfers of approximately $470 million received absolutely NO discussion.

Let’s begin with the rants. Here’s one example. A revision to equity guidelines for the Flood Resilience Trust consumed 20 minutes of discussion including a 6-minute monologue from Commissioner Rodney Ellis. In essence, Ellis said, “I support the new formula” in 894 words. I transcribed the rant in its entirety below. See if you can follow it. Among other things, Ellis:

  • Says he hopes to reduce a HUD appropriation from $750 million to $250 million. 
  • Confuses the County with the City; and flood mitigation with parks and police. 
  • Drags Harris Health into the discussion for some unexplained reason. 
  • Invokes ‘back of the bus’ language to describe watersheds receiving the lion’s share of funding. 
  • Threatened to sue a federal agency trying to give the county $750 million.
  • Claims the County didn’t make specific project recommendations/allocations for the flood bond (which it did).
  • Overlooks the contribution of partner funding to build a case for not chasing partner funding.

It gets better! Read on.

Rodney Ellis on New Equity Formula

“Commissioner Garcia, some of the issues that you were raising and Commissioner Ramsey were raising, I think that this proposal for prioritization-framework modifications will address some of them. Commissioner Ramsey, first of all, I want to point out that the 2018 package of $2.5 billion would in no way fund all of the projects that people talked about. I also want to reiterate that coming off city council a long time ago, I argued to list specifically what the projects were. It was a short fuse. If you remember Commissioner Cagle, you might agree with me. I was worried about having the election in August, as opposed to when more people would show up.

“But I didn’t win that battle and it passed despite my misgivings. But we were on a short time frame and I was told you cannot lay out the specific projects, because if a project…If you put in 20 million and it costs 50 million, can you get the creek? Or you put in 50 million and it costs 40 million and it didn’t quite sound right to me. Because unless the city did a better job of projecting what parks and police command stations will cost, you know, inflation. But that’s what was said. And I was not going to argue with it and didn’t think I had the support of the court anyway.

“But 2.5 billion was never going to fund all of the items that were on the radar, shall we say, because a decision was made not to lay them out with specificity was how to do a cap improvement program. I also want to say that to my knowledge, maybe others’, two projects had come to my mind that weren’t on the radar. One was in your precinct. The education project came from them.

“The other one was in another county – Commissioner Cagle’s area. I don’t know where it is now, buying some land in another area that certainly had some political gravitas to it.

“I argued for two things. The varnish was coming off. What I wanted to despair to say, and everybody said that they were for getting rid of disparities until it was time to vote. Send somebody to do statistical analysis to see if they had one. And I was told, you pay for it. And you can do it. So Precinct One paid for it. Thank you to the women. Precinct One, you added $660,000 back. And of course, it showed there was a tremendous disparity. I would encourage you to listen to Harris Health’s discussion of why they’re going to lay off the expert study off. So it will be interesting to see what Bert came up with, but that’s history. Going forward, we will do better as we are doing better here, I think. 

“The other item I wanted was the equity guidelines. Now, once it passed, there were those who thought equity meant just split 2.5 billion…four ways…which would be highly inequitable if we all agreed that chasing federal money with a cost benefit ratio and a host of other issues meant certain neighborhoods that flooded all the time didn’t get funding regardless of why, chasing federal money, that’s what happened. So all of these projects were started. We know three big ones, Commissioner Garcia, in your precinct and mine, and might touch all our precincts, in Halls and Greens.

“We were chasing GLO money or federal money that never came, so they were delayed. So, then resiliency was created as a way to get stuff here created to fill up the gap. And whether or not it would fill it all up, I don’t know. But I, for one, would not just talk the talk. You got to pay for it, pay for it. Or maybe politely find a way to just pass a resolution and say you resolve to do it down the road. This prioritization framework makes sense because it places a greater emphasis on the number of people that a project would address instead of what neighborhood you live in.

“I can’t say it enough. Something’s wrong. When this county had a system where you protect the neighborhood I live in now, but the neighborhood I came out of – even if that one historically flooded more. It also says we do not consider partner funding as a factor because who gets partner money? Well, that’s part of the funding.

“The neighborhoods have always been privileged. It’s just that way. And we use the latest data to invest in projects that address structural delay both inside and outside the 100-year network. So, I can’t wait until you bring it up and I’m going to vote for it when it comes up.

“And I tell you, just as I’m proud of what Texas Housers did, and I’m proud of what HUD did to get us our 750. Hope we get down to 250 and I hope the city gets this bigger because they deserve it. We both do.

“And if we don’t follow prioritization framework like this, I will be the first one finding somebody to file a lawsuit and raising all kind of hell at HUD because we will continue to neglect those neighborhoods that have always been on the back of the bus. But other than that, thank you very much.”

– End of Ellis Monologue –

Diversionary Tactic?

How can one react to rambling, unsubstantiated rants such as this!

During the meeting, as I tried to look for backup on several agenda items, the county website froze on numerous occasions – shades of the IT debacle at Universal Services.

To set the record straight, Brays Bayou, the watershed in which Commissioner Ellis grew up AND in which he now lives, has received $575 million in flood-mitigation funding in the last 22 years. White Oak, the watershed where Commissioner Garcia now lives, has received $525 million in funding. That’s almost one third of all the flood mitigation money spent in the county since 2000 – on two watersheds out of 23. No watersheds have received more!

Flood mitigation spending in Harris County during first quarter 2022 and since 2000. Obtained via FOIA Request.

Greens and Halls received another $620 million. That makes $1.72 billion. And that’s 46% of all the flood mitigation money in recent history.  

More than one long-time Harris County insider has characterized such rants as a diversionary tactic. Elsewhere on the agenda yesterday was a motion to make “routine transfers” between departments (see Item 17). 

It received absolutely NO discussion and the Budget Management Department provided no backup for the agenda item. But the transfers totaled almost half a billion dollars. I had to obtain the backup through a special request. Notice how many of the transfers do not follow the industry standard for double-entry accounting – even though the forms request it.

Double-entry accounting shows where money is coming from and going to. That facilitates balancing the books and auditing. But in this case, the ‘from’ or the ‘to’ were omitted in 21 of 39 transactions for this year. Those 21 transactions alone totaled approximately $470 million.

I have no proof that anything illegal occurred and I’m not suggesting it did. But I am suggesting that Democrats, who pride themselves on transparency, could improve on that score.

Eight hour meetings filled with incomprehensible rants, agenda items without backup, backup that omits crucial elements, and a website that intermittently stopped responding during the meeting create barriers to public participation and government oversight.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2022

1702 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.

Harris County still has not posted video of yesterday’s meeting. Here’s an audio recording of Mr. Ellis‘ rant so you can check the transcription yourself. He is admittedly hard to understand at times.

Harris County Commissioners Court Discusses What to Do with HUD, Flood Resilience Trust Money

If you managed to watch Harris County Commissioners Court yesterday, near the end you saw a lively and somewhat confusing discussion of flood mitigation funding. See the video at approximately 6:38:10. Agenda Item 249 was a request by Adrian Garcia to discuss disbursement of the $750 million in Community Development Block Grant Mitigation funds allocated to Harris County by the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

During the debate, commissioners also discussed approximately $830 million currently sitting in a Flood Resilience Trust that they created last July to compensate for an expected shortfall in flood-bond partner funding.

In the end, Commissioners made no decisions. But it became clear that Commissioners Ellis and Garcia leaned toward spending it in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods, cleaning out roadside ditches, and sharing money with the City of Houston.

Still No Plan for How to Spend $750 Million

HUD and GLO made the award on March 18, contingent on approval of what HUD calls a Method of Distribution (MOD). Basically, that’s a plan for how and where the money would be spent.

Commissioner Ramsey noted that the pursuit of the money was bi-partisan and that he hoped the distribution would be bi-partisan as well.

Commissioner Garcia said he was immensely frustrated because a) he just didn’t know when the $750 million was going to arrive, and b) what strings came with the money.

He then referenced the Flood Resilience Trust created by commissioners last year from toll road and other county funds. “If we’re going to be getting $750 million, then I think those other dollars (approximated $830 million in the Trust) can be put somewhere else for practical use,” said Garcia. He also noted that another hurricane season was fast approaching.

He then asked Dr. Tina Petersen, the new head of the Flood Control District, whether she had a chance to study this and come up with any recommendations. Petersen who has been in her job about a month said, “We’re working on that.” She reiterated that no project has been delayed due to a lack of partnership funding and that she was working hard to ensure none would be.

Garcia, Ellis Argue for More Money in LMI Neighborhoods

Garcia then claimed, without citing a source, that 70% of the people who flooded in an unspecified flood (but presumably Harvey) “are still without a given project.” He also said that $830 million had accumulated in the Flood Resilience Trust to date.

Commissioner Ellis claimed the County and City of Houston should each have gotten $1 billion and that he would continue to fight for the County’s other $250 million, as well as a billion for the City.

Ellis then tried to add up the amount of committed funding in the flood bond to date but forgot to add approximately $1.5 billion in partner funds already committed. Oops! With the $750 million and the money already in the flood resilience trust, the flood bond should be more than fully funded by now.

flood bond funding
As of the start of this year, HCFCD had $1.57 billion in committed partnership funding and $833 million in the flood resilience trust, leaving a gap of $100 million. The $750 million HUD allocation in March should have created a $650 million surplus.But nobody talked about that.

Ellis assumed the $750 million would be spent in Greens, Halls, and Hunting Bayou watersheds. All qualify as low-to-moderate income areas. But if you look at the latest flood-bond project list spreadsheet, Harris County Flood Control District needed $69 million in partner funding for Greens, $269 million for Halls, and $65 million for Hunting. So partner-funding needs for the three watersheds total about $400 million. That leaves about $350 million out of the $750. Nobody, however, even mentioned that in the discussion.

County Administrator Says “Not So Fast”

The County administrator David Berry then pointed out that we don’t have the $750 million yet. “It was not a direct allocation. The county must prepare the method of distribution (MOD) and a citizen participation plan first,” then get them approved by HUD and the GLO.

Then Berry dropped a bomb. He said, HCFCD was proposing projects, but not preparing the documents about how the money would be spent. That tells me the distribution will be based on political, not technical considerations.

Ellis Uses Threat of Title 6 To Support LMI Funding

Ellis concluded the discussion by saying that HUD used a Title 6 complaint as a lever against the GLO, “and if we’re not sensitive to [LMI, Social Vulnerability], there will be a Title 6 Complaint against us.”

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

According to a summary of the Texas CDBG-MIT Action Plan Amendment approved by HUD, HUD requires that at least 50% of total funds must be used for activities benefiting low and moderate income (LMI) persons. However, the summary also states that “all programs will have an LMI priority.”
Click here to see the complete text of the GLO’s action plan amendment approved by HUD on March 18.

Berry didn’t see the LMI focus as a problem, though. He concluded by saying, “The goals of this court in terms of protecting the most people at the highest risk of flooding, and who are the most vulnerable from recovery, all of that seems straight up the alley of the way we should be distributing this money.”  

Ellis Wants More But…

Ellis said that he still wanted to fight for more funding. He felt the City of Houston and the County each deserved $1 billion. And he wanted to fight for another $250 million. He volunteered to fight on the City’s behalf, too. No one told him that all the flood mitigation money had already been committed.

Ellis claimed the City got $0, but HUD and the GLO made a direct allocation to the City of $61,884,000. And the Houston Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) received $488 million.

According to Brittany Eck, a spokesperson for the GLO, “Funding for three competitions, Harris County’s allocation, and the Regional Mitigation Program all totaled more than $3 billion. Entities within H-GAC were either awarded or allocated a little over 56% of that. Congress has not indicated additional funding may be coming, though it could appropriate additional funds at any time. But that is not likely.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/6/2022

1681 Days since Hurricane Harvey