“The $25 million [grant] is a nice effort, but to me it’s a number that we will leverage to do what we promised to do, which is to fix this [flooding] problem for everybody,” Council Member Scott Gregson said at a July 25 workshop discussing the funds.

Funding priorities

City Council’s options for how to use the $25 million include addressing housing—through a variety of strategies, including buyouts, relocations or assistance elevating homes—repairing  or building new infrastructure and economic development for businesses affected by the floods.

AECom has recommended the city dedicate 5 percent of the funds to administer the grant money, 15 percent to planning flood mitigation projects, 30 percent to housing projects and 50 percent to infrastructure projects. That initial allocation was approved at council’s Aug. 2 meeting.

AECom’s assessment found that 15 San Marcos businesses affected by the two floods in 2015 received loans from the Small Business Administration totaling $3.5 million. Its recommendation does not include an economic development component for the affected businesses.

San Marcos City Manager Jared Miller said council’s initial direction as to how the funds will be used can be modified.

“This is an initial survey,” Miller said of the council’s July 25 discussion. “When we’re talking about drainage, we’re not talking about [a specific project]. We’re talking about a number of different projects.”

The funds, known as Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery funds, come with a variety of strings attached. At least 70 percent of the funds must address low- or moderate-income areas of the city. AECom representative Lael Holton, who presented the consultant’s plan to City Council on July 25 and again Aug. 2, said every area that sustained heavy damage during the two floods is considered a low- or moderate-income area.

Additionally, any property owner who receives CDBG-DR funds and whose property was severely damaged—meaning it sustained damage totaling at least 50 percent of the property’s total value—must elevate their residence 2 feet above the base flood elevation—or assumed peak water level during a 100-year flood—when construction is complete.

All funds must also be spent to address only the two flood events.

The city has previously discussed using a portion of the funds on an Army Corps of Engineers project that would build an overflow channel east of I-35 to carry water during heavy flooding events. Participation in that project may be complicated though, as Miller said federal regulations limit the amount of HUD funds that can be contributed to an Army Corps of Engineers project to $250,000.

Miller said a HUD director indicated there may be some flexibility on that restriction, but Miller said he did not feel it is something the city should “bank on.”

“If [the channel project] is the best bang-for-the-buck project, they can probably make that happen or find a way to make that happen,” Miller said.

Miller said the overflow project still has quite a few challenges aside from the “funding vagaries,” including right of way acquisition for the project.

While the Army Corps of Engineers is studying the overflow channel, the city will consider a variety of smaller fixes to drainage infrastructure throughout the city. Miller estimated those projects may be ready to present to the public before the end of the year.

AECom estimates it would cost $33,064,838 to elevate 300 homes out of the flood plain.

Holton said AECom estimated that about 25 percent of the 1,246 homes in the Blanco Gardens neighborhood that sustained damage would need to be elevated, based on the CDBG-DR requirement that homes having sustained “substantial” or “severe” damage be elevated 2 feet above the base flood elevation. 

Gregson said he is skeptical that elevating homes is the best use of the grant funds. If the city used the entirety of the grant to elevate homes, many residents who experienced less than substantial or severe flooding would still own property at risk of future flooding.

“If they weren’t severely damaged but they were still flooded, we’re leaving them subject to flooding by not elevating them,” Gregson said. “My gut tells me elevation doesn’t get us anywhere other than to defer a problem to the future [that] we’re going to have again.”

Repetitive loss

At the July 25 workshop, AECom estimated there was about $14 million of unmet needs related to flood mitigation infrastructure in the city. On Aug. 2, the consultant increased that amount to $83 million.

Holton said the increase was due to council’s desire to address “repetitive loss,” or properties that are consistently damaged by floods.

Holton said 75 homes that received aid from FEMA or the NFIP were damaged in both the Memorial Day weekend and All Saints Day floods.

“There is really nothing that you can do that’s going to fix that [repetitive loss],” Holton said. “Flood water is going to go where flood water is going to go, but you can start putting additional things in place that would help reduce the [damage].”