O~Y ~, 25556 APPyOVal of ~ f oodp~e f~a~n~ fees $ept~r 14, 199$ Vol V Page 798 ORDER N0. c555E Rf-'pROVAL OF ON-SITE SEWR6E FACILITIES RND FLOODF'LAIPd MANAGEMENT FEES On this day the 14th day of September, 1'g~8 i_ipori motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, of Cln-Si.te Sewage Facilities and Floodplain Management Fee, recommended by Upper 6~_iadalupe River Ruthor.ity. Guadalupe Basin Na[ural Resources Cznter 125 Lehmann Dtive str. 300 Keaville, Texas 78028-5908 (830)896-5445 Fax (830) 2571621 E-mail: ugtaadm@ktacom August 27, 1998 The Honorable Robert A. Denson Kerr County Judge Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas 78028 I~'g, ~- 8 ~.~ ~I~ RE: Ken County/UGRA Administrative Services Agreement Ken County OSSF and Floodplain Programs Dear Judge Denson and Members of the Court: As both entities move toward the final days of our budget process, there appear to be two critical outstanding issues in our relationship. They are: 1. The County's desire and "intent to continue contracting with UGRA for program administration services; and 2. A fair and equitable income stream from the same to cover the costs for UGRA to administer the programs, should the County elect to continue the current relationship. The first issue is self-explanatory and does not need additional discussion at this juncture. The second issue is very critical to both parties at this stage of development of our respective budgets. On June 5, 1998, UGRA furnished the County with several documents for your review and discussion. UGRA had anticipated a discussion between the two bodies before this date, but clearly understands the demand on the Court's schedule. On August 19, 1998, the UGRA Board of Directors, at its regular monthly meeting, advised the UGRA staff to move forward with the development of a budget based on all outside contracts/contractors revenue streams sufficient to cover the cost of the contract/program and to end UGRA's subsidy of outside contracts from its tax base. The Board's decision was, in part, driven by the loss The Hm Ro6erl A Deasm .nom n, iv9s Afe Two of the $ .08 raw water charge and the need to fund the ongoing water quality program out of UG1tA's general revenue stream Since UGRA bears the entire cost for water quality monitoring and enforcement for the entire County, the Authority had no choice but to go to the General Fund for that commitment. UGRA proposes an expenditure budget of $141,550.00 for Fiscal Year 1999 for the administration of the OSSF and Floodphun Programs. The proposed budget is based on a mininnrm or zero increase in most line items. UGRA proposes a revenue stream based on the County's continuing administration fee of $30,000.00, as per the existing contract; additional ad~istration fees of $5,000.00 and $2,500.00, respectively, from Ingram and Cemer Point and an increase in the permitting fees as per the attached chart; or a combination of the two. It is anticipated that the increase in fees shifts the costs of the program to the uhimate user and away from the general taxpayer. The proposal also brings the fee stmchrre into line with other counties in the critical surface water quality area, as per the attached analysis. Based on historical information, the continuation of the administration fee from the County and the Cities of Ingram and Center Point, along with the proposed fee hike, will generate $141,550.00 for Fiscal Year 1999 operations. Without the fee increase and the addition of the Ingram and Center Point administration fees, UGRA would have to call on its ad valorem tax revenue base to subsidize the OSSF programs for the County and the two cities. The anticipated UGRA tax revenue contnbution under the current scenario is $51,600.00 for the proposed budget year, which would require a 10% tax increase to generate sufficient revenue to cover the $51,600.00 revenue shortfall. UG1tA's current tax rate is $ .020300 per $100.00. We anticipate the next, and poss-bly last, UGRA Budget Workshop meeting to occur toward the end of the Srst week of September, with final adoption and public hearing on the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget scheduled for the September 16, 1998 regular monthly Board meeting. The workshop can be scheduled around a convenient date for the County's response to these issues. UGRA could adopt its budget with the County's commitment to either increase the permit fees or the administrative fee. Should some unforeseen incident prohibit the County from taking the appropriate action, UGRA can protect its FY-99 Budget by exercising the 30 day notice to terminate the interlocal agreement. Td Irm Robert A ])seem Aoeoet 27,1998 Pate These The UGRA Board and staff continue to believe that the River Authority should contimle administering the OSSF and Floodplain Management Programs, since both relate to the water quality and quantity issues of our segment of the (hladahipe Basin and the avar7abiht' y of professionally educated and trained water quality and public heshh staff. I will be available to discuss these and other issues with you and the Court at your convenience. Please call on me. Enclosures cc: UGRA Board with enclosures Upper Guadalupe River Authority Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Permitting and Regulatory Division (.07) OSSF !Floodplain Functions 1999 1999 Proposed Contractual Fee Changes Kerr County Administration Fee Ingram Administration Fee Center Point Administration Fee OSSF PermitlLicensing Fees Floodplain Permit Licensing Fees Total Revenues: $ Expenditure Centers: Personnel Expenditures Operational Supplies Repairs and Maintenance Outside Services Other Services and Charges Bonds, Insurance, and Related Capital Expenditures Total Expenditures 89,950 $ 141,550 114,494 114,494 2,738 2,738 1,050 1,050 14,593 14,593 4,575 4,575 1,100 1,100 3,000 3,000 Rev. Over / (Under) Exp.: $ 30,000 30,000 - 5,000 - 2,500 59,000 97,940 950 6,110 141,550 $ 141,550 (51,600) $ - tOUS COUNTIES' FEE STRUCTURE COMPARISON OF VAR SEWAGE pACItIT1ES ON-SITE TYPE New Re mrtlen~a~ , 00 GP[) New Co Non-Profit OSSF RebuildeCtion Fee ReinsP designs Review ubdivision Plats' RevieNe t pacifically for septic gtate of a Tr K~ Te,~s Bust gastro _ $250 $110 Giges ie ~- Has $250 $z00 $160 $300 ~ - -- $~ $150 $2D0 $aD0 _ - ._ '~ ~D 30 $ - $205 ~~ ~ _ -" $60 $50 $6p ._ $250o a lots t up - $75lp-at } t $50 _ ._ - $25ho $5hot>4 $5no `_ $100 _ - Re Ft-OO~PI.p--N TYPE petermlrtati0n ertificate mercial Eievation G Residential & Gom PBrrrfit-C1ass A Residential Permit-Glass 6 Commercial Penult-Glace outside of Floodplain) (Class A L within Floodplain) (Class f3 $15 -- $15 $100 -- $15 `_ $5D '" _ $351$ $15 Free ._ $75 _. $100 $35 $.025lsq.ft. _ -- $3.50 Per. $150 __ $1pp0 eualuaUon __ $150kgo.tolsq.ft. Fea ~m~~~ county 72095Im iSep O1 96 11:37a UGRfi/Genera; Mir. Offiee 830-792 6763 p.l n.;duupe L::r~~ Nmr:.! RCSnPYir~ l,bllp' iS tn:hmann ^nv_ err. IJJ Karr Le, -ex 7302fl-54J;• ~YSCI'o9b~`~g4~ 5-m~nl~. n„madaCtL1500 GPD N/A $400.00 $2,000 3) Application for Repairing a Licensed OSSF 12 $50.00 $600 $50.00 $600 a) Application for a Transfer of License <500 GPD 207 $50.00 $10,350 $75.00 $15,525 51 Application for a Transfer of License >SOD GPD 6 NIA $150.00 $900 sl Application for Reviewof a Proposed Subdivision 22+ $75.00 + $1,650 Same $1,650+ 143 lots t;s.oo each Io< $715 $715 7i Requests for an Inspection, each Additional 10 $30.00 $300 $50.00 each ?$500 Inspection or Reinspection 8) Research Fee N/A $10.OO/document $1,000? si Copy of County OSSF Order 0 N/A $5.00 each $50 ? io) Copies of Maps 0 N/A $3.00/page 0 (anticipated with GIS capatalities) t t) Expedite Fee (<3 day due date) 10 N/A $100.00 $1,000 $54,315 $97,940 FLOODPLAIN t) Application for Floodplain Determination 49 $15.00 $735 $30.00 $1,470 2) Application for a Development Permit -Residence 32 $15.00 $480 $120.00 $3,840 s) Application for a Development Permit -Commercial 4 None $200.00 $600 $1,215 $6,110 TOTALS Includes Research Council fees paid to State of Texas '* with 97/87 activity $104,050 OSSF FlanAplain lees 072090 jm m n a 0 m m m m b c m A a m n e b 3 n 0 n n m m N m m m a N Sep 01 98 11:36a UGRR/General Mgr. Offiee 830-792-6763 p.3 PROPOSED DELiVF.RABLES/APPLICATION TY"PL OSSF `; 1) New Residence: Application, Site evaluation irspection, Review of ~ i00 GPD planning materials, issuance of "Permit to Construct", construction inspection, issuance of License to Operate. 2) Commercial: Same as above. + additional construction inspection and a > 5001iPD final inspection. 3) Repair of Liceused OSSF: Application, final inspection. 4) Transfer of Licensed OSSF: Application, Final inspection, issuance of Liccnsc to Operate. ~) Request for Re-inspection : hispectiun and findings. 6) Subdivision Plat Review: Site evaluation and recommendations. FLOODPLAI\ 1) Floodplain Determination: Application; review of maps for vulnerability of site. 2) Development Permit-Residence: Application, site evaluation, review planning materizis, issuance of Permit, estimated BFE, Elevation Certifecate, final inspection. 3} Development Permit-Commercial: Same as above, and additional inspections, as necessary. ARISQN OF VARIOUS COUNTIES FEE STRrUCTURE COQ oN-s~TE"~s~ a ~A ~uriEs lY,~ New Residence < 500 GPD New Commend > 500 GPD Non.prof+t R.ebuild~ ~ Fee SSF Reinsp Review designs+vision Plats* Review of Subd' for septic • Review specthcalty ~~~ State of Travis K;rr past Tsxas cnet -~ Bu $250 $110 GiOes ie FIB _ $250 $200 $1G0 - - $150 $200 ~~ - _ $50 $205 $q00 - - _ - $30 $100 ~~ $6D $5D $100 - - $250 $251bt np to 41ots 75iplat+ $ $511ot -- $100 = -_ - $5nor>a l petermination ptevatian Certibcate permit-Class A Residential & Comrterc+a petTilii-Class B Residential Permit-Gass B CommefGal lass A = outs+de of l~lo'a Plaint lGassB=µpth~nt=loo P Free -- $106 $35 ~- $150 -- $150+$0.loisgli. $100 '" - $50 -- __ $35t$so 025tsn.tt - _ $75 _ - __ $3.5D per -- $1000 evaluar+on $15 $15 $15 $i5 N n "a t? m m a c A 9 t G1 n n u 3 m 0 M n n m m a :a m N J m m a rz~r~^' ~ Fee ae~~'Perisen avxPV