Tom Ramsey Archives - Reduce Flooding

Commissioners Clarify Stance on Flood-Bond Partnership-Project Funding

7/10/25 – In today’s Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, the Court clarified its stance on funding flood-bond partnership projects in the face of spending cuts announced in the last meeting.

Commissioners revisited a vote on a motion from their 6/26/25 meeting that cast doubt over completion of 80% of the projects in the 2018 flood bond. Among them were many projects that involved money pledged by partners at the federal, state and local levels.

Today’s meeting clarified that Commissioners do intend to fund partnership projects that fell below the first quartile on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Including more flood gates for Lake Houston.

Revisiting Vote that Potentially Defunded Partnership Projects

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey kicked off the discussion on Item 277. (Note, however, that the video, which starts at approximately 58 minutes, calls it #177.)

The debate addressed the consequences of the vote in the last meeting to focus all remaining money in the bond on the top quartile of equity projects.

Further, the 6/26/25 motion said that future phases of those projects would also be funded – even if they weren’t included in the original bond.

That motion from June was approved 4:1 along party lines. However at the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey warned that it could potentially impact projects that had already received federal, state and local funding commitments. Partners included FEMA, HUD, the Texas Water Development Board, cities, and MUDs.

And, in fact, a scramble occurred among officials at all those levels as well as affected citizens to understand what the impacts were. They wanted to know whether Harris County was still committed to projects it originally had promised to help fund.

Prominent among those was the project to add more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam. The County had pledged to donate $20 million to that project to complement more than $100 million pledged by other parties. But the project did not even receive an equity ranking.

Before the debate, Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger spoke to Court about how important the gate project was. He addressed water security as well as flood safety. He also reminded commissioners about damage to the Lake Livingston dam after massive rains in May 2024. Flickinger’s message was clear: jeopardizing the water supply for more than two million people is unthinkable.

Ramsey Presents A Simplified Bond-Spending Analysis

Commissioner Ramsey presented much simpler bond-spending analysis than HCFCD had in the previous meeting.

Truth about the bond — *Ramsey’s Full Presentation*

And he arrived at very different conclusions. Ramsey made several key points.

The county needed to send a clear message about its commitment to HUD CDBG projects regardless of which quartile they fell into.
We have enough money left in the bond for many projects below the first quartile, plus contingency funds if we don’t fund future projects not in the original bond.
Decisions about funding should be on a project-by-project basis. But that may take several months to work through.

In the meantime, Ramsey made three motions to help reduce uncertainty re: the county’s commitment to certain projects. He introduced motions to fund:

All current needs of projects with CDBG commitments
Gates for Lake Houston (CI-028) and Buffalo Bayou Storage and Channel Conveyance Improvements (CI-017) for TIRZ 17
All current needs for Quartile 1

None of Ramsey’s motions received a second.

Ramsey Motions Modified by Ellis

Ellis then made a substitute motion which Ramsey agreed to:

“To fund all existing CDBG and other secured partnerships and grants tied to the Harris County 2018 Flood Bond.”

Ellis’ substitute motion carried unanimously. In other news…

Outrageous Travel Costs Approved

Also on the agenda was an $8,120 Flood Control District request for one person to attend a three day convention in San Francisco.

Ramsey made a motion to approve all spending requests except that one. However, the other commissioners and the county judge approved the junket.

The voting confused many viewers who initially thought Ramsey’s motion to kill the request was approved. That’s because of an unexplained two-part procedure for such motions.

Ramsey provided this clarification. “If we are pulling expenses out of a list of expenses, the process is for the Court to approve all expenses except the one I targeted. Then someone else makes a motion to approve the one I pulled. And that vote passed 3 to 1.”

Still confused?

All parties involved have confirmed the trip IS still on.
Commissioner Ramsey and HCFCD

The junket includes:

$3500 for three nights in a hotel when rooms could be booked through the convention sponsors for $249 per night.
$1700 for a registration fee listed at $945
$1500 for airfare that could be booked through Expedia for $185.

A HCFCD spokesperson explained that “The amount submitted was a rough estimate and is intended to provide an upper limit for approval and include buffers.”

Then she added, “All actual expenses are paid at reasonable market rates and in line with applicable public-sector pricing policies.”

No wonder we’re debating which projects to cut!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2025

2872 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.

MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond

4/17/2025 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler’s office says he is taking the controversial Townsen Blvd. extension off of the County’s 2025 Road Bond. However, as of 4 P.M. this afternoon, the county’s website does not yet reflect the deletion.

*Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler addressing Town Hall meeting about Townsen Blvd. and the 2025 MoCo Road Bond.*

The change comes after a Town Hall meeting last night at which the commissioner heard a crowd of angry residents express their concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension. The extension would open up 5,500 flood-prone acres, where a developer plans to build 7,000 homes.

No one spoke in favor of the road project, which includes three segments.

The cancellation of the County’s portion of the project could make it more difficult for a private developer to build a separate segment beyond that. The developer would have no thoroughfare to connect to.

Contractually, that separate segment must be completed by the end of 2030 if the developer hopes to get reimbursed $27 million from County tax revenues for building the road.

Road Plans Included Three Separate Segments

At the start of the meeting Wheeler explained that the entire road, as originally conceived, stretched from the Grand Parkway to Spring Creek on the south in three discrete segments. A bridge over Spring Creek was to have connected the Montgomery County portion of Townsen to the Harris County portion of Townsen Blvd.

*Each of the three segments has different funding.*

The first segment (shown above in yellow) is currently under construction using private funds.

Going into last night’s meeting, financing of the second segment (dotted green line) was to have come from Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond.

The third segment (shown in red) was to have been financed through a “381 Agreement” between Ryko, Montgomery County and several utility districts.

Controversy Surrounding 381 Agreement

Under a Texas 381 Agreement, if a developer builds a road and developments around it, the county reimburses the developer for their expenses. That reimbursement comes out of future tax revenues from the new residents. Such agreements encourage economic development.

According to Wheeler, his predecessor, James Noack, initially signed the 381 agreement with Ryko in 2018. The contract required them to complete the road by the end of 2027. But they still have not started construction, jeopardizing that deadline.

So, before Noack left office at the end of 2024, he signed an agreement to extend the deadline to 2030. That gave the developer three more years.

But Noack pushed the deadline extension through Commissioners Court on a “consent agenda.” Here’s where the plot thickens. Typically, consent agendas are reserved for non-controversial items, such as fixing a pothole.

However, the portion of the road covered by this 381 agreement was and is controversial for several reasons.

Last night, residents expressed concerns about decreases in property values along with increases in crime, traffic, flooding, and taxes. Residents also worried about the impacts on traffic safety and area schools.

This deal is very controversial and according to Wheeler should never have gone on the consent agenda.

Deadline Extension Also Fundamentally Changed Developer’s Obligation

Wheeler also pointed out that the deadline extension fundamentally changed the deal. The original agreement obligated Ryko to build the bridge over Spring Creek. However, the three-year deadline extension obligates them only to build the road – not the bridge. He also said the county has no plans to build that bridge, nor is it in the 2025 Road Bond.

Wheeler explained he had little to no power to stop the road or the agreement. “You cannot deny access to a public right of way to a property owner,” said Wheeler. But residents complained nonetheless.

Wheeler said that he met with Ryko and tried to buy the land from them. But he said they wanted “nine figures.” That would be somewhere north of $100,000,000 for 5,500 acres. And that would make the price per acre a whopping $18,000…for land that is largely in a floodplain and pockmarked with wetlands.

The land sits at the tip of a funnel where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek all come together. FEMA’s flood map below shows just how flood prone the area is.

*Ryko and its partner, Pacific-Indio Properties, own the land bounded by red box. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain.*

Montgomery County Appraisal District currently values the land at approximately $4,000 per acre, not $18,000.

Wheeler also said that Harris County Flood Control previously offered to buy 1,800 acres of Ryko’s land – the portions closest to the West Fork and Spring Creek. However, the developer wanted $15 million. Flood Control couldn’t afford it. The land would have cost more than $8,000 per acre.

County commissioners on both sides of Spring Creek (Wheeler and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey), have said publicly that they would not support building a bridge over Spring Creek.

So Ryko is now battling connectivity issues to its north and south. That will limit the appeal of any developments built there. And that’s probably a good thing.

The Case for Caution

As the Federal Government reduces support for flood-mitigation and disaster relief, the financial burden will fall increasingly onto states, counties and cities to do the job by themselves. And the lowest cost way to do that is by preserving land along bayous, creeks and rivers. Prevention is always cheaper than correction.

Taking that center portion of the Townsen Blvd. extension off the Montgomery County road bond won’t prevent Ryko from developing its land. But it could make it more difficult. And, in my opinion, that is a step in the right direction.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2025

2788 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.

HCFCD Finishes Removing Beryl Debris from Bens Branch

3/3/25 – A Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spokesperson reports that the District finished picking up Hurricane Beryl debris at numerous locations along Bens Branch in Kingwood on February 27, 2025.

Hurricane Beryl struck the Houston area on July 8, 2024, with winds gusting up to 83 MPH at Bush Intercontinental Airport. Sustained winds exceeded tropical storm strength for approximately six hours in the Lake Houston Area. Wet grounds over a large part of the area from well above average spring and early summer rainfall led to widespread downing of trees.

The storm damage came on top of a derecho earlier in the year that created chaos.

HCFCD claims the piles were not theirs but couldn’t say who they belonged to. However, local leaders who monitored cleanup efforts disagreed.

But Eric Heppen, Harris County Precinct 3’s Director of Engineering, said, “We’re past that now. We’re just going to pick up the piles.” Thank you, Commissioner Ramsey. And thank you, HCFCD.

Some piles, such as those along Bens Branch opposite Bear Branch Elementary on Tree Lane, became highly visible eyesores. They also became temptations for young boys eager to show off their mountain-climbing skills.

HCFCD picking up Beryl Debris from Bens Branch along Tree Lane — *Beginning of Tree Lane pickup of Beryl Debris on Tuesday, February 25, 2025*

The pictures below show what remained of the Tree Lane piles today.

Thanks to Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey for breaking the logjam (pun intended) over who was responsible for the Beryl debris and arranging for the pickup.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/25

2743 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 238 since Beryl

Flood Bond, Subdivision Drainage Shortfalls Prompt Harsh Words From Commissioners

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.

Budget Shortfall and Contributing Factors

Subdivision drainage projects used to be a subset of projects within the flood bond. However, Commissioners formally transferred them to the Office of the County Engineer in April 2021 (Item 21-1833 in the 4/27/21 Commissioners Court meeting).

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.

However, no one could say exactly where all the projects stood. The Flood Control District’s Active Projects page stopped working long ago. The last “Completed Projects” Report on the District’s website is dated 12/14/2020. And the frequency of flood-bond updates has declined from monthly to annually.

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

Four Dems Take No Action to Honor Pre-Election Bond Promise

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.

To see the entire Commissioners Court debate on Item #418, start at 2:30:21 into the video of Departments Part II of IV. The discussion lasts 20 minutes.

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

Mark Your Calendar: Harris County Precinct 3 Budget Meeting

Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey and Daniel Ramos, Executive Director of Harris County’s Office of Management & Budget, will host a town-hall budget meeting to discuss next year’s budget.

Commissioner Ramsey urges you to attend and voice your opinions on how the county should address wasteful spending, save money, and prioritize next year’s budget.

Why You Should Attend

Precinct 3 maintains nearly 47% of the county’s roadways, but only receives 25% of the general funds, and only received 17% of the 2022 Road and Park Bonds.

Commissioner Ramsey expresses the need for the public to attend in order to understand how tax dollars are truly being spent.

This meeting will let you voice your priorities on how Harris County should prioritize its responsibilities and spending of tax dollars.

Meeting Details

WHEN: Monday, August 14^th, 2023, 6 PM

WHERE: George H.W. Bush Community Center

6827 Cypresswood Dr., Spring, TX 77379

Q&A SESSION: Following presentations

Free Shuttle Service

The county will offer free shuttle service from the following Precinct 3 Community Centers. Space is limited. Pre-registration required. Call the community center to save your spot!

Barrett Station Community Center

Departs at 3:45 PM

Call (713) 274-2040 to register

Crosby Community Center

Departs at 4:15 PM

Call (832) 927-7730 to register

May Community Center

Departs at 4:30 PM

Call (713) 274-2434 to register

San Jacinto Community Center

Departs at 4:15 PM

Call (713) 274-2860 to register

Trini Mendenhall Community Center

Departs at 4:30 PM

Call (713) 274-3200 to register

County Responsibilities in Texas

For reference, according to the Texas Association of Counties, responsibilities of Texas county government include:

Providing public safety and justice
Registering voters and holding elections at every level of government
Maintaining Texans’ most important records
Building and maintaining roads, bridges and in some cases, county airports
Providing emergency management, health, and safety services
Collecting property taxes for the county and sometimes for other taxing entities
Issuing vehicle registration and transfers

Harris County also offers libraries, parks, and other programs that add to the quality of life for residents. Many play a vital role in the economic development.

So learn more at the Town Hall. Join other concerned residents and let your voice be heard on how tax dollars should be prioritized and spent. I’ll be there. And I hope to comment about the distribution of flood bond money.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/5/2023

2067 Days since Hurricane Harvey

A First: Houston, Harris County Both Meet HUD/GLO Disaster-Relief Benchmarks in Same Time Period

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) announced today that for the first time ever since Hurricane Harvey, both Houston and Harris County have each met their benchmarks for expending disaster relief funds – in the SAME time period. They may have individually met performance benchmarks before, but never together in the same review period.

Both Harris County and Houston have semiannual expenditure benchmarks in their Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief funding contracts with the GLO, per HUD guidance. “These milestones were set by the City and County and approved by the GLO to ensure all programs will be completed as timely as possible,” said a GLO spokesperson.

A New Era of Cooperation Yielding Results Already

Dawn Buckingham, M.D., the new GLO Commissioner credits open communications and focused cooperation. “The GLO is dedicated to helping Harris County and the City of Houston put these vital funds to good use.”

GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D., speaking at a joint press conference in March. Others L to R: Harris County Community Services Interim Exec Director Thao Costis, HCFCD Exec Director Dr. Tina Petersen, P4 Commissioner Lesley Briones, P2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, P3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, P1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, County Attorney Christian Menefee.

This is good news. In years past, the relationship between Houston, Harris County, GLO and HUD foundered over performance benchmarks, cooperation and communication. But now, new players are in place. And 5+ years after Harvey, the City, County and State all face “use it or lose it” deadlines from HUD.

More Money Hangs in Balance

While the performance benchmarks in question have to do only with unexpended, Harvey-related, disaster-relief funds, much more money hangs in the balance.

The success of the relationship will also affect $750 million in CDBG-mitigation funds and another $322 million in unspent funds that the GLO shifted from expiring projects to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD).

Earlier this month, HCFCD presented Commissioners Court with a proposed project list for those funds. HCFCD is reportedly still trying to define the areas benefited by each of those projects before final approval. However, HUD and the GLO seem pleased with both the progress and the collaborative working relationships that have developed.

Everyone seems to respond positively to Dr. Buckingham’s working style – described as “supportive,” yet “results oriented.”

Commissioner Adrian Garcia stated publicly, “I want to give a shout out to the GLO and Commissioner Buckingham for her support of Harris County and giving us a degree of trust.”
Commissioner Tom Ramsey complimented the fairness of project list, noting that it worked out to about 25% for each precinct. He stated, “job well done by the whole.”
Commissioner Lesley Briones said, “This is so wonderful that we were able to hit reset and really focus on the progress going forward.”

Nature Provides Its Own Deadlines

It can’t happen soon enough for Harris County residents who live under constant threat of floods. Monday afternoon, Tropical Storm Brett formed in the Atlantic. Another storm with an 80% chance of formation in the next 7 days follows closely behind. That’s up from 50% yesterday afternoon.

*National Hurricane Center update as of 10:45AM EDT Tuesday, June 20, 2023*

It’s too early to tell with any reliability where/whether/when either of these disturbances will make landfall.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/19/2023

2120 Days since Hurricane Harvey and Updated on 6/20/2023 with new storm information and photo.

How to Find HCFCD’s Active Projects in Your Area

Ever wonder where your tax and flood-bond dollars go? Harris County Flood Control District shows all its active projects on one page. You can review those projects in tabular form or on a map. You can even click on links to learn more about each project. Or explore it in depth by going to its related “watershed” page.

*Active maintenance (orange) and capital (purple) flood mitigation projects in Harris County* *as of 1/4/2*2 *shown against backdrop of precinct boundaries adopted on 10/28/21.* *Purple = P1, Green = P2, Red = P3, Yellow = P4.*

Paragon of Transparency

HCFCD’s Active Projects page is a paragon of government transparency. You can even switch out base maps to see where the projects fall in terms of the old or new precinct boundaries approved on October 28, 2021.

One side benefit of the two base maps is that they give you a clear, unambiguous view of the redistricting boundaries.

Zoom far enough in on the map and you can even see your street, home, and the drainage features around you (streams, channels, storm sewers, etc).

As of today HCFCD has 64 active projects.

31 maintenance projects total $60 million
33 capital projects total $232.4 million

In case you want to see how the map changes from time to time, you can even download a PDF, such as this one from December 2021. Save it for future comparison.

Monitoring Work in Progress

Physically seeing work in progress is difficult. Construction zones are dangerous and often fenced off or hidden behind trees. They’re also so large that seeing them from an entrance at ground level is almost impossible.

The good news: the projects almost always include hike and bike trails, like the one below, which you can enjoy upon completion.

*Willow Water Hole near South Post Oak and Highway 90.* *One part of a six compartme*nt *detention basin complex ringed by hike and bike trails.*

However, if you want to monitor work in progress, your best bet is a drone.

Good News from Commissioners Court Today

Commissioner Tom Ramsey introduced a motion to affirm Commissioners’ intentions to complete all projects in the flood bond. Despite several previous attempts to cancel projects and change bond priorities, commissioners voted unanimously to complete the entire bond package. Ramsey will be the new commissioner for the Lake Houston Area if the Ellis-3 redistricting plan survives court challenges. See the sprawling red area on the map above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/4/2022

1589 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Redistricting Lawsuit Dismissed by Ellis-Backed Judge

A lawsuit by Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle and their supporters that sought to overturn a redistricting plan devised by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has been dismissed by an Ellis-backed judge, Dedra Davis.

How Ellis-3 Redistricting plan affects Lake Houston Area — *In the Ellis-3 Redistricting plan, almost all of the Lake Houston Area including Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita, Huffman and Crosby will change from Precinct 4 to Precinct 3*. *Tom Ramsey will remain the Commissioner of Precinct 3, and will not be up for re-election in 2022.*

Details of Redistricting Plan

The Ellis redistricting plan swapped the numbers of Precincts 3 and 4. It also redrew the boundaries of Precincts 3 and 4 so that Ramsey’s home and Cagle’s home changed precincts. The Ellis plan has two immediate effects.

It forces Cagle and Ramsey, both Republicans, to run in each others’ precincts because commissioners must live in the precincts they represent.
The number swap will deny voters in the new precinct 3 the right to vote for commissioner in the next election. That’s because only even-numbered precincts will vote in the next election cycle for commissioners. So the Lake Houston Area will not be able to vote for commissioners next year as it normally would have.

In addition, the plan redraws boundaries of the new Precinct 4 so that it becomes more Democratic. That jeopardizes Cagle’s chances of re-election and could shift the balance of power in Commissioners Court. Four Democrats could create a super-majority, enabling them to raise taxes at will.

A supermajority could also have far reaching consequences for flood mitigation by enabling Democrats to shift funds between watersheds as Adrian Garcia already tried to do.

TRO Denied, Then Lawsuit Dismissed on Plea to Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block preparations for redistricting until the lawsuit could be resolved.

Judge Brittanye Morris (acting as an ancillary judge for Davis) denied the TRO on November 29 without explanation.

Hidalgo then filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction on December 13. In it, she pled that:

Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claims
She enjoyed sovereign (governmental) immunity
Plaintiffs did not plead a constitutionally valid claim
She was acting within her powers.

Yesterday, December 22, 2021, Judge Dedra Davis of the 270th District Court upheld Hidalgo’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the lawsuit.

Judge Davis, who was supported in her election bid by Rodney Ellis, a key player in this drama, did not recuse herself. Nor did she cite any reasons for dismissing the case in her terse ruling.

*Rodney Ellis and Judge Dedra Davis during her election bid.*

Stage Set for Appeal

A spokesperson for Commissioner Jack Cagle’s office responded that the plaintiffs intend to file an appeal. However, because of the holidays, no other details were immediately available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/23/2021

1577 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Tag Archive for: Tom Ramsey