Welcome
CFRTF Special Meeting
Prioritization Framework
February 8, 2022 | 5:30-7:30pm
TIMELINE
LAST WEEK
Ad Hoc Committee developed recommendations for full Task force
TODAY
Voting on final recommendations to send to the County
THIS FRIDAY
Send recommendation letter to OCA and HCFCD
Prioritize what we can accomplish in this timeframe to provide insightful recommendations to the County
AGENDA
FINANCIAL SITUATION
Partnership Gap �$1.3B
Flood Bond $2.5B
Expected partnership funding
$2.5B
Flood Bond $2.5B
Committed partnership funding
$1.2B
Gap $100M
Flood Bond $2.5B
Committed partnership funding
$1.57B
Flood Resilience Trust $833M
AUGUST 2018
MARCH 2021
JANUARY 2022
To be allocated by the 2022 revised prioritization framework
Grants being pursued and lobbying for HUD-GLO funds
PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK
2018 Flood Bond Projects in need of partner funds
Flood
Resilience
Trust
Prioritization Framework �is utilized to allocate Flood Resilience Trust funding
ALL 2018 Flood Bond projects WILL be completed
WHAT PROJECTS ARE BENEFITED BY THE RESILIENCE TRUST?
Gap $100M
Flood Bond $2.5B
Committed partnership funding
$1.567B
Flood Resilience Trust $833M
JANUARY 2022
53 projects out of 152
PROJECT PHASE
Feasibility
Preliminary Engineering
Design
Construction
WATERSHEDS
PROJECTS WITH PARTNERSHIP GAP
Greens Bayou
Halls Bayou
San Jacinto River
Sims Bayou
Addicks Reservoir
White Oak Bayou
Clear Creek
Brays Bayou
Armand Bayou
Buffalo Bayou
Spring Creek
Little Cypress Creek
Cypress Creek
Galveston Bay
Jackson Bayou
SVI SCORE PER
PARTNERSHIP GAP
no trend
Before we dig into Question 1….
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Benefits
Efficiency =
Cost of Project - Committed Partner Funding
Structures benefitted
What about projects without structures?
FOUR QUESTIONS
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims and wet carpet counts since 1977 to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
FOUR QUESTIONS | KEY TAKEAWAYS
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims and wet carpet counts since 1977 to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
Counting people instead of structures could provide some finer grained differences, BUT the three big variables (project cost, committed partnership funding, structures) combine to make the impact of using people less definitive
Primarily a decision of centering people over structures
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims and wet carpet counts since 1977 to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
FOUR QUESTIONS | KEY TAKEAWAYS
Projects with BIG amounts of committed partner funds do “move up” closer to the front of the line
Including committed funding matters if it’s a BIG contribution
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims and wet carpet counts since 1977 to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
FOUR QUESTIONS | KEY TAKEAWAYS
Could overvalue operations and maintenance projects over capital projects
Looks to balance projects that benefit lots of people with projects that benefit overall resilience goals
Prioritizes capital projects
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims, wet carpet counts, and permit requests since 1977 to be able to compare subdivision drainage level of service with channel/detention projects level of service
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service
FOUR QUESTIONS | KEY TAKEAWAYS
Combines several sources of data to give a proxy for the level of service that an area has
While there can be problems with the data, there is not a more accurate data source currently available
Like all data sets, it likely is an undercount of impacts
PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Include committed partnership funding as a factor in the Benefit Efficiency metric
OR
Don’t include committed partnership funding in the Benefit Efficiency metric
PEOPLE VS. STRUCTURES
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
OR
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
ASSIGNED VALUES
Keep the values as proposed
OR
Request alternate values
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Use FEMA claims and wet carpet counts since 1977 to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
OR
Request a new metric to measure level of service for subdivision drainage
xx
Support reducing importance of partnership funding
Support counting people instead of structures
Support prioritizing locally- controlled funds
Preservation projects should be competitive with projects with structures
Support wetland mitigation not being included, or ranked low
Need for comprehensive plan
Natural channel design should be used only on channels that were previously engineered
Interested in using census or HCAD data
Request regular re-evaluation of the framework to assess whether it’s doing what was intended
Need for suite of tools to assess prioritization of projects going forward
Want to confirm that this is not about moving bond money from the projects where it was intended
No comments
Could potentially only use that factor in a go/no-go scenario
Support for capturing benefits for everyone in the structure, not just the first floor
Q1: USING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF STRUCTURES
OPTIONS
Use number of structures to measure people benefited
Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend using a new formula to measure the number of people benefited
Recommend centering people over structures
Direct vs. Partial Benefits are TBD
VOTE COUNT
People
Yes-13
No-0
Straight Population over partial Benefits
Yes-13
No--0
Can we include impacts to non-residential but essential structures?
Added complexity of critical facility structures + people may not be needed to allocate funding
Note: schools, grocery stores, water pump, hospitals seen as critical
Simplicity is preferred when it comes to allocating flood resilience funds
MB suggests total population (don’t distinguish)
Other tools needed for Beyond the Bond projects & at multiple stages of projects
Be consistent w/ data and use most recent data
Q2: INCLUDING COMMITTED PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
OPTIONS
Include committed partnership funding
Don’t include committed partnership funding
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend NOT including Committed Partnership Funding in the formula
Include minority view point:
At this stage, it makes sense to include partnership to tell us how efficient this project is
VOTE COUNT
Yes-11
No- 2
Don’t want to further disinvest in Greens Bayou
Dont include
Need tools that help us in multiple stages of project creation, design, etc.
If 1 rule for all: don’t include
If 2018 BOND: don’t include
Want to be grounded in data when discussing disinvestment
Want assurance that we will still PURSUE partnership funding
More investment doesn’t mean higher LOS - FMBI will help us get there
Need to also consider drainage infrastructure at street level
All projects will be funded - so don’t include to allocate resilience trust
Concern that we currently rely a lot on partnership funding so want to keep it
Could we consider- have to pursue partnership for X amt of time?
Future
Q3: ASSIGNED VALUES FOR PROJECTS W/O STRUCTURES
OPTIONS
Keep the values as proposed
Use alternative values
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend keeping assigned values for Floodplain Preservation and Investigation
Recommend changing some values to prioritize projects that go beyond operations and maintenance.
For “beyond the bond” projects, recommend building Operations and Maintenance costs into the District budget, rather than listing as separate projects. Ensure that this doesn’t create an O&M budget deficiency.
Request that the County clarify their goals regarding flood risk reduction and nature-based solutions.
Request that the County start to identify the funding sources for the $60B total price tag
Where does a field that can flood occasionally stand? It would be detention basin and reduce flooding for people
VOTE COUNT
Yes- 13
No-0
Does this create deficiency with O&M? We’re here b/c we’ve had that in the past
Remember: while $5B is a start we need $60B for our long-term resilience. Need to ID funding for this
Long-term: for investigation we need to study projects and their efficacy so we can make decisions based off those metrics
Q4: LEVEL OF SERVICE
OPTIONS
Use FEMA claims/wet carpet counts/permit requests since 1977 to measure level of service
Request a new metric to measure level of service
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend using the blended data set of FEMA claims/wet carpet counts/permit requests, and other documented instances of flooding to measure the extent and frequency of damage.
Recommend a data starting point that is more recent than 1977.
‘Frequency of flooding’ may better capture what we are trying to compare
VOTE COUNT
Yes-
13
No-
More recent data- accounts for more development (last 20 years) and better data
Even if the data goes back to 1977- we can use more recent subsets
What is the definition of level of service?
Concerns that people don’t even apply to FEMA and trust more in local sources → undercounting
There is reason to consider historical data sets
Future: Consider the previous investments with the FMBI : )
KEY QUESTIONS GOING FORWARD
EQUITABLE RESILIENCE
Centering people
COUNTYWIDE RESILIENCE
Full definition of “benefit”
Historical inequities
Project phases
Capturing benefits to critical infrastructure
MORE TOOLS for evaluating future projects
45% weight of the Benefit Efficiency formula?
SVI should be weighted higher?
Transparency of projects and the tool with community
How to evaluate studies as we go
END of SHOW
BENEFITS EFFICIENCY - 45%
BENEFITS EFFICIENCY
Project Cost - Committed Partner Funds
Structures benefitted
in a 1% event
=
=
HCFCD Cost
Structures benefitted
in a 1% event
=
$ per structure benefitted
Example
1,000 structures
=
$200 M - $100M
=
$ 1,000 per structure benefitted
Q1: USING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF STRUCTURES
ONE POTENTIAL PROPOSED FORMULA
DIRECT BENEFITS
first floor only
PARTIAL BENEFITS
upper floors
PEOPLE BENEFITTED
1 Structure = 2.8 people per household
+
=
1 tax account = 2.8 people
X
Total number of accounts in entire building
-
Number of people on the first floor
=
=
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
TO GIVE TO THE COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION: Use a new formula to measure the number of people benefited.
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
Wetland mitigation should not be scored if part of the O&M work (built into the projects)
“Stabilization”—if “natural channel design”, not maintenance—goes to 6
RECOMMENDATION: Make sure the metric takes into account vulnerable populations and is more current
WHY: FEMA data is charged and problematic
This framework should be used for the 2018 Flood Bond projects still in need of partner funding.
The framework would need further revision before it is to prioritize for future projects and working “beyond the bond.”
We need County to establish resilience goals to we can strike a balance in this tool
PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
ASSIGNED VALUES
LEVEL OF SERVICE
FRAMING OR OTHERS?