Steering / Technical Committees Joint Meeting -December 9, 2010

At 1:30pm on December 9, 2010 the Steering and Technical Committees met at WeslacoCity Hall to review the scope, get an update on progress, discuss the evaluation criteria, and discuss upcoming public meetings and other public outreach.

The agenda / handouts for the meeting included:  JointSteer-TechAgenda2010-12-9

Attendance:      Technical Committee - 10 out of the 18 members attended, as well as 2 ex-officios

                         Steering Committee - 11 out of the 29 members attended, as well as 1 ex-officio

A report was given by Laura De La Garza, LRGVDC Project Administrator regarding the October 30 workshop, as well as reiterating the roles of the Steering and Technical Committees.

A presentation was given by S&B Infrastructure, Ltd. regarding the scope, schedule, and progress of the project:  JointSteer-TechPPT-2010-12-9.

Additionally, a status regarding the identification of projects was also presented. As of this meeting, 55 projects in Cameron, 18 projects in Hidalgo and 3 projects in Willacy have been identified. These projects include detention ponds, ditch expansions, coastal protection, etc. Some of these have been populated on maps. Costs estimates for each project in current and future dollars are also being compiled.

An example / hypothetical project was presented and then ran-through the Project Identification Summary, and the evaluation criteria.

Several items, issues, and/or suggestions resulted from the meeting –  

• Presentations should be made to each County’s commissioner’s court regarding the project scope and progress, as well as advertise the upcoming public meetings.
• Security of the GIS inventory and database in relation to any requirements of Department of Homeland Security.
• Ensure that photos of flooding and the impact of Hurricane Dolly and Tropical Depression No. 2 should also be included in the data collection; contact the TCEQ Watermaster, who is also compiling similar data that perhaps could be incorporated.
• Research and study how each County and/or entity is monitoring development --- are they using Model Subdivision Rules, who approves development, what processes are in place, etc.
• There needs to be a mechanism or process that will enable projects to be added in the future; how is the plan going to be maintained, who is going to maintain it, etc.
• Need to look at whether projects would be evaluated based on size versus economic impact; for example, an area that is the major tax base for a city could be in flood danger. While the project is small in square footage, it may incorporate more than half of the given city or entities tax base.
• Regarding the project evaluation criteria, there needs to be thresholds identified for what a “10” means or an “8” or a“5” etc. in the numbering system. It was also discussed that perhaps public support could be brought down from “20” to “15” in the numbering system so that additional points can be given to how important that area is to the tax base. The decision was to add a critera with five points on the importance of the project or percentage of the tax base affected in an entity. The five points would be deducted from the public support item so that the total possible score remains 100.

The meeting adjourned approximately 3:45pm.