.ronvT ~~~ COMMISSIONERS' COURT AND UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS WORKSHOP AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002,1:00 P.M. UGRA LECTURE HALL 125 LEHMANN DRIVE KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028 THIS NOTICE IS POSTED PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. (TITLE 5, CHAPTER 551, GOVERNMENT CODE AND TITLE 5, CHAPTER 552, GOVERNMENT CODF,.) This-Commissioners' Court will hold a joint workshop meeting at 1:00 P.M., Monday, April 22, 2002, at the UGRA Lecture Hall, 125 Lehmann Drive, Kerrville, Texas. • Call to Order • Joint Workshop meeting with UGRA Board of Directors to discuss the Comprehensive Colonic Study and Plan and Capital Improvements Schedule as as presented by Eric Hartzell and Robin Sisco of GrantWorks, Inc. I. Introductory Comments -County Judge/Commissioner Pct. #2 2. Colonic Program Background and Requirements ' 3. Explanatiott of Plan Elements 4 Identification of Colonic Areas County-wide 5. Inventory of existing Infrastnicture and Housing 6. Analysis of Colonic Areas' needs 7. Prioritization of Improvements 8. Funding sources and schedule 9. Conclusion/Summary ~~.p~ l ~ ~.~ oC ~ 7 ~.l]~ ~- AGENDA PUBLIC WORKSHOP KERB COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA AREAS STUDY AND PLAN Upper Guadalupe River Authority Headquarters Apri122, 2002 1:00 P.M. All items will be presented by Eric Hartzell and Robin Sisco of GrantWorks, Inc. unless otherwise noted. 1. Introductory Comments-Judge Henneke /Commissioner Williams 2. Colonic Program Background and Requirements 3. Explanation of Plan Elements 4. Identification of Colonic Areas County-wide 5. Inventory of Existing Infrastructure and Housing 6. Analysis of Colonic Areas' Needs 7. Prioritization of Improvements 8. Funding Sources and Schedule 9. Conclusion/Summary The format for this meeting will be informal with free and open discussion. Several maps and tables will be presented that exemplify or summarize information found in the Comprehensive Colonic Areas Study and Plan. COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THI5 REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT. MADE BY: William H. Williams OFFICE: Commissioner, Pct. 2 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2002 TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT: (Please be specific) Joint Workshop Meeting with UGRA Board of Dvectors to be held 4/22/02, lp.m. at UGRA Lecture Hall. Topic of discussion will be Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan and Capital Improvements Schedule. GrantWorks personnel will conduct the joint workshop. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON(S) ADDRESSING THE COURT: Bill Williams, Pct. 2. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: IF PERSONNEL MATTER NAME OF EMPLOYEE: Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Govemment Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BV: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court meetings. Your cooperation is appreciated and contributes toward your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. Sec Agenda Request Rule adopted by Commissioners Court. APPENDIX A: COLONIA AREA RANKINGS AND PRIORITY LEVELS SCORE as r- ~ ~. ~ c Colonia Area N o H x° N 3 N :; e` d . 1 5 Eastern Kerrville South 3 2 0 3 8 1 2 1 Center Point 2 1 3 2 8 1 3 6 Western Kerrville South 1 3 0 3 7 1 4 8 Woodcreek 2 3 0 2 7 1 ~ ~~ ~'Ut'fil£ Ct'~CI1 ~CEl1C11Q5 ~ ~ 3 ~ '~ a ~ 1 ~ 1~8SfitNCit3C~ ~JtlhS ~ ~ ~ •° ~ ~t `ti 4'Y it ~+. i3;i "1 ;'~ 'i~ '~ "t ~fk t;~~t~rl a t ¢[ 4 4 `~ }t i ,'} [ ~ { 1 f ~ Il i~1 ~~ d~ ti o-. ~ J :k d- ~ ,5 ~~ -Y gg 66 55 !`'{flit'.. ,? t~ * iJ ., .~ ~-a ~'.~ 3 ! i j` pyy~~ Jaiit C"I LuF 9.3. Ct\ GS9 y~de?~y , .~ .. ,Y ry£ ` Li See pages 21-22 for exp/anation of Ranking and Prioritization KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 41 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN r APDPV MENBS SCHEDULE CAPITAL IMPF2 f/ira! Year ene6 2007 CIP R rre vdle Souih Point K re cvilleSauth Creek Run lAoin ComPonords (ollettion lines 5425,000 ST,923,000 2004 20TH ST FUndin0 sources t T(OP (olonia Fund, DGRA 1 TCDP (D fund, DGRA TCDP (otonioFund, DGRA TCDP CD Fund, DGRA ment,UGRA USOARurol0evelop UGRA USDARuralDevelapment, DGRA 125 program Yrs), TCDP Colonic Fundl p75 program years) TCPD (oloma Fund C UGRA TCDP Colonic Fund DGRA TCDP (olonio Fund, ro ram oars), UGRA TCDP (D Fund 1235 P g oors) 2.5 ro ram Y TCDPtofoniaFundl ears)~TWDB 125 program Y TCDP CD Fund l ' 15 progrom oars) ennn tCDP(olanioFundl No projocls scheduled dining the planning Period ~tu~ ~omm~,~••, - UPPERCI meat Program lt0 ~ rotile hY divor(reekEstates Develop tOP _ mmun0y Author'ny~ rovemems ore scheduled are indimted on eoch colonic araa Streets where capital imp stewater Service Are ... _ c..,rth Wa _...a~e Area 2003 204 Page 42 TY,TEXAS PLAN KERR COON COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE (continued) Planned Grant Application Timeline-Future Grants Only Grant amounts will vary from capital budgets because they include management costs, while the capital budgets include only acquisition, construction, and engineering costs. Program Program Year Funds Available Capital Project Amount ($) TCUP•Col 2002... 20(73 Kerrvilla South (K5}W Loyal Vat~y Sewer. $50(7,000 Tt~7P•CL- 2003104 2004 KS-Raandtero Sewer $250,000 TCDP-Col 2003 2004 'I(S~DonnallValley Verde Sewer $500,000 USDA-RD N/A 2004.06 Center Point (CP) Sewer System $2,848,000 TGDP•Coi 2004 2005 KS-Tierra GrandelMHP Sewer $500,000 TCDP-Col 2005 2006 Center Point Sewer Connections 1 $500,000 TODP•CD T~~~l . ` 2005J0~, ..`'. ~ : 2006 .: y KS•Twomb{ylMotuoe (Tlbl} Sewer 1 ~~';~l?s, .~~ OP ~e Sy~~e€>'i .. $250,000 !' $53;000' TCDP-Col 2007 2008 Woodcreek Sewer 1 $500,000 TCDP-CE7 2007108 2008 KS-Tlk~l Surer 2 & Turfile Cte~kt ~Me#~r 1 $250,OC7Ct TCDP-Col 2008 2009 Woodcreek Sewer 2 $500,000 TCDP-Col 2009 2010 Woodcreek 3 & Westwood Oaks Sewer 1 $500,000 TCPD-CD 2009/10 2010 TurtCe Creelc Water 2 & unknown project $250,000 TCDP-Col 2010 2011 Westwood Oaks Sewer 2 $500,000 TOTAL $8,348,000 USDA-RD = U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development TCDP =Texas Community Development Program CD =Community Development Fund Col = Colonic Fund " ` "r Kerrville South Wastewater Service Area Turtle Creek Water Service Area_ Center Point Wastewater Service Area Center Point Water Service Area ~ Woodcreek Wastewater Service Area Westwood Oaks Wastewater Service Area Multi le Project Area Grant KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 43 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN INTRODUCTION Kerr County has commissioned this Comprehensive Colonic Study and Plan to identify the existing locations of and conditions in its "colonias." Though it is located more than 100 miles from the Texas-Mexico border, the county is home to at least 11 communities that share many characteristics with the colonias of the border region, including several containing about a thousand residents each. All of these communities are located in the eastern third of the county. Several are "suburbs" of the city of Kerrville and all are fairly accessible from state highways and farm•to-market roads that radiate from that city. Growth has been steady in Kerr County, fueled by many retirees lured to the area for its scenery, lower costs of living, and laid-back lifestyle. Many colonic areas are primarily home to elderly residents living in mobile homes; others provide residences for ~-. the lower paid construction and service workers that have come to Kerr County due to its overall growth. For the purposes of this study, colonias refer to any identifiable unincorporated community or subdivision that meet the following criteria: (1) Has ten or more housing units with a density of at least i unit per three acres in the developed residential areas; (2) Is thought to have a "low-to-moderate income" population of at least 51% and either (3) Has a significant proportion (25% or greater) of substandard housing or (4) Lacks either centralized water or sewer services Low-to•moderate income residents are those members of households earning less than 80 percent of the median household income, adjusted for their particular KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 1 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN household size. In Kerr County a family of four earning less than $33,000 annually or a single person earning less than $23,000 is considered low-to- moderate income. In mid-2000 Kerr County contracted with GrantWorks, a community development grant management and planning firm based in Austin, Texas, to complete this Comprehensive Study and Plan. The report's purpose is to: • Identify the number, location, physical character, and population of colonias Quantify existing and needed infrastructure Document housing needs and costs • Create goals and objectives for improving conditions in the colonias • Establish aten-year Capital Improvements Program The County has created this plan, including goals and objectives, with opportunity for citizen involvement at several public hearings and workshop meetings held on XXX. In addition, public hearings for the County's participation in the 2001-02 TCDP funding cycles discussed community goats and objectives relevant to this plan. Throughout this document the capitalized form of the word "County" refers to the government of Kerr County while the non-capitalized version refers to the geographic entity. Page 2 COUNTY OVERVIEW PHYSICAL CHARACTER Kerr County is fifty miles northwest of San Antonio in the Edwards Plateau region of south central Texas, also known as the Texas Hill Country- The county is bounded on the northeast by Gillespie County, on the east by Kendall County, on the south by Bandera County, on the southwest by Real County, on the west by Edwards County, and on the northwest by Kimble County. The county covers 1,107 square miles of hilly land drained by the Guadalupe River and its tributary streams. Just under half of the county's population resides in its principal community and county seat, Kerrville. Ingram is the only other incorporated place in the county. Interstate 10, State Highways 16, 27, 41, and 173, and several farm-to-market roads serve the county. US Highway 87 skirts the county's eastern boundary and ~' US Highway 83 crosses the county's western edge. Less than 10 percent of the county's land is arable. Soil types range from shallow dark loams over limestone in the northwest to variable light colored brown•to-red clays and darker loams over clayey subsoils elsewhere. The county has characteristic Edwards Plateau vegetation such as long stem grasses, live oaks, juniper, and mesquite. HISTORY The banks of the Guadalupe River have been home to humans for thousands of years. Native American groups including the Lipan Apaches, Comanches, and Kiowas hunted game and fished the river. Apache incursions against San Antonio resulted in Spanish expeditions to what is now Kerr County during the 1700s, but the first attempt at Anglo settlement in the area of the present Kerr County did ~-- not take place until 1846 when Joshua D. Brown established ashingle-making KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 3 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN camp at the site of present Kerrville on the Guadalupe River. Apache and "Comanche raids persisted through the late 1870s against an increasing number of white settlers despite the establishment of the United States Army's Camp Verde in southern Kerr County in 1855. Kerr County was formed from Bexar County in 1856 and included what is now Kendall County. The community that grew around Brown's shingle factory was renamed Kerrville and became the county seat, but the frequent raids against the remote settlement led to the designation of the more established town of Comfort as the county seat in 1860. With the creation of Kendall County in 1862, the Kerr County government returned to Kerrville. Many of the county's earliest settlers came from the Appalachian South, particularly Tennessee, while others crossed into Kerr County from the German settlements at Fredericksburg, Comfort, and New Braunfels. Cattle and sheep ranching comprised the bulk of the economic base. A second community, ,., Zanzenberg (modern-day Center Point), was established in 1859. The Civil War bitterly divided the county's residents, but economic growth continued briskly in the war's aftermath, particularly with the arrival of the San Antonio and Aransas Pass railway in 1887. Charles Schreiner's Y 0 Ranch was organized in the 1880s and grew to 600,000 acres of rangeland for cattle, sheep and goats. Mohair was a principal export. Tourism based on church camps became important in the early 1900s, followed by summer youth camps and dude ranches in the middle part of the century. Today more than 30 camps host 25,000 children each year. Sanatoriums and health retreats were established during this time as well, heralding the county's late twentieth century boom as a health care and retirement center. Today, a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a major general hospital and the Kerrville State Hospital are located in the county. .- Page 4 Senior citizen communities, hunting, fishing, exotic game, and two major festivals bolster the current economy. Both the Texas Arts and Crafts Fair and the Kerrville Folk Festival attract 25,000 or more visitors each year to Kerr County. Small manufacturing facilities such as Mooney Aircraft and James Avery Craftsmen provide jobs for local residents, though Mooney Aircraft's future is somewhat questionable at this time. POPULATION During the early part of the century Kerr County's population hovered around 5,000 before doubling during the 1920s. Following sluggish growth in the depression years of the 1930s, the population again began to increase rapidly (approximately 26 percent growth every 10 years) until the current day. The Texas State Data Center at Texas A&M University estimates the county's population will continue to grow but at a reduced rate during the next 30 years. The Data Center model's strong reliance on birth and death rates versus ,-. migration rates could be a cause for this slower predicted growth. Year Population % Change 1960 16,800 20% Census 1970 19,454 16% 1980 28,780 48% 1990 36,304 26% 2000 43,653 20% 2010 49,250 13% Projected 2020 54,886 11% 2030 57,565 5% *Projections from the Texas A&M State Data Center; all other figures from Decennial Censuses of Population. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 5 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN The county's population is evenly split between incorporated and unincoporated ~--areas, with approximately 22,000 of the county's 44,000 total residents living in either Kerrville or Ingram. Approximately 4,800 residents live in unincorporated communities that qualify as colonia areas, or about 22go of the unincorporated county population. According to the 2000 US Census, approximately 19 percent of the county's residents are of Hispanic ethnic origin, while 89 percent consider themselves white. About two percent (2qo) of Kerr County's residents are black and about one percent are either American Indian or Asian. The percentage of the county's population under the age of five (5) years is just 5.3 percent, far below the statewide average of 7.8 percent. The county's population is also much older than average, with 24.9 percent of all residents over the age of 65 compared to just 9.9 percent for Texas as a whole. The county is considered to be middle income with a median household income of $30,800, about ten percent (lOtrJo) ,.- under the Texas average ($34,500) and a poverty rate of 14.5 percent. Page 6 PLANNING ACTIVITIES: SURVEY Kerr County's plan was created to comply both with the requirements of its Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) contract and with the specific needs of county officials and personnel, and rural utility personnel. The Survey portion of this document was used to produce the Colonic Profiles (Appendix E) and Maps (Volume 2). The Survey included seven elements, listed below with their corresponding contract section number: a.l VERIFICATION OF NUMBER OF COLONIA AREAS The first step in completing the Survey required identification of the colonias in the county. Information from the Kerr County Appraisal District and the Kerr County Clerk's Office was used to locate subdivisions and unincorporated "towns" ^ throughout the county. Discussions with engineers, County officials, water utility personnel, and local residents narrowed down the list of subdivided areas to those with residential development. Field surveys of each subdivided area and investigation of other unsubdivided developments led to a complete listing of potential colonia areas in the county. For each potential colonia area the following information was collected: • Approximate date of establishment • Number of housing units (Co/onia criterion) • Physical size (acres) • Number of lots • Average size of lots • Estimated population • Percent of area that is developed ^ Density of development (Co%nia criterion) KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 7 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN '" Following the initial review, seven areas were identified that had the requisite characteristics. Upon consultation with County personnel, four additional areas were included in the County's colonia plan based solely on the likelihood that their residents are 51 percent low-to-moderate income, even though they otherwise fail to meet the colonia criteria. These areas are Silver Creek, Fawn Run, Quail Run, and Mills-Miller. a.2 VERIFICATION OF CONDITION OF COLONIA AREA HOUSING STOCK Field surveys recorded the locations, types, occupancy status, and conditions of existing housing in each potential colonia area. This information was recorded on field maps through a windshield survey performed in December 2001. The survey of housing used a classification system that rates the condition of each housing unit ranging from "standard" to "dilapidated" as defined on the following page. A housing unit includes single-family detached houses, mobile/manufactured homes, and multifamily units such as apartments, condominiums, and town homes. A house in standard condition may have one or more characteristics of decay but is not considered deteriorated unless repairs would require significant expense to the homeowner. Substandard housing, defined as housing units in the Deteriorating or Dilapidated condition categories, is one of the two optional Co/onia criteria used to determine whether a potential colonia area qualifies as a colonia. At least 25 percent of the housing units in a community must be substandard to qualify as a colonia under this criterion. Page 8 The scope of the housing analysis for the Colonia areas was expanded to include '1 inventory and mapping of manufactured homes (mobile homes, doublewides, etc.) and the estimated costs of both housing rehabilitation and housing reconstruction. Most homes that are considered "dilapidated" are not economically feasible to rehabilitate. This is also true of many manufactured homes that are simply deteriorated. Demolition and clearance of the existing structure and construction of a new housing unit is the only alternative in these cases. This activity is eligible under the HOME Owner-Occupied Housing Assistance program administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. COLONIA AREA HOUSING CLASSIFICATION Classification Criteria Good/ Few or no minor visible exterior defects, limited to: Standard ~ cracked, peeling, or missing paint cracked, sagging, rotting, or missing siding, steps, porch planks, or `~ other wooden surfaces • cracked or broken window panes cracked masonry, brick, or mortar surfaces missing or damaged roof shingles small rust spots or holes on mobile homes Generally meets local building codes No detriment to health and safety present Rehabi/itation needed in a few cases Deteriorating Few visible exterior defects requiring repair beyond routine maintenance such as: missing or damaged wooden surfaces that could cause injury missing window panes badly deteriorated window frames major holes in exterior up to one (1) foot across and/or penetrate through the interior walls roof missing many shingles or has holes up to six (6) inches across chimney bricks missing extensive rusting, joint separation on mobile home exterior Rehabi/itation is economics//y feasib/e and needed in most cases Reconstruction is needed in a few cases (mobi/e homes) Dilapidated Fails to provide safe shelter Several of the major defects listed under Deteriorating KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 9 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Any major structural damage such as: ,_ sagging foundation sagging roof slanted or tilted exterior walls missing doors collapsed chimney or porch fire or severe water damage Rehabi/itation is economics//y feasib/e in a few cases Reconstruction is needed in most cases Using data collected in the windshield survey, estimated costs for rehabilitating and reconstructing housing units in the colonia areas was determined using the following method: Rehabilitation 10% of Good Units x $10,000 per unit 75/0 of Fair Units x $20,000 per unit 25/0 of Poor Units x $30,000 per unit Reconstruction 25~Jo of Fair Units x $45,000 per unit 50% of Poor Units x $45,000 per unit Demolition ofAbandoned Units 25c/o of Poor Units x $5,000 per unit demolition This method is based upon GrantWorks' experience as Texas' largest non- governmental provider of housing rehabilitation and reconstruction program management services for lower income households, with more than 800 units assessed and completed through the TCDP and Texas HOME Programs since 1995. This experience provides the following rules of thumb: (1) some units that appear to be in "good" condition on their exteriors may still require wiring, plumbing, or other internal improvements; (2) most "fair" and some "poor" units can still be rehabilitated cost-effectively; (3) around 1 in 2 "poor" units are not Page 10 salvageable and must be removed and replaced; and (4) about 1 in 4 "poor" units ~' are abandoned structures that should be demolished. a.3, a.5, a.6 MAPPING OF COLONIA AREAS Base maps were prepared using digital map files from the Kerr Central Appraisal District and original subdivision plat maps filed with the County Clerk at the Courthouse. All potential colonic areas were mapped on a county-wide base map. After the colonic criteria were applied, those potential colonic areas that qualified were mapped in detail. County-wide mapping includes two maps: 1) Colonic Area Base with roads, precinct limits, incorporated city limits with extraterritorial jurisdictions, unincorporated colonic areas, and platted subdivisions that are not colonias, and 2) Utility Service Area Base with roads, incorporated city limits, rural utility service areas (i.e., areas where they hold the certificate of convenience and necessity for water or sewer service), and water lines color coded according to service provider where available; there are currently no sewer lines in any unincorporated colonic areas of the county. The service areas were identified using TNRCC maps showing the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) areas granted to the various utilities. Colonic area mapping consists of the following maps for each area: 1) Land Use and Housin>? showing data gathered in the field survey for housing unit locations, types, conditions, and occupancy and land use types, by lot, 2) Existing Water System showing locations of water facilities provided by the rural utility service suppliers, and 3) Existing Streets and Drainage showing street surfacing width, type and -- condition, right•of-way width, major drainage structures, and drainage KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 11 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN problem areas identified through the field survey and local input, and flood `_ plains provided by the FEMA Flood Plain map series for Kerr County. a.4 COLONIA RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION Demographic and economic information for each colonic area is found its individual Colonic Area Profile (Appendix E). Total population for each colonic area was calculated by multiplying the number of occupied housing units by the average household size for the block group in which the colonic area is located. Census information regarding low-to-moderate income residents for each of Kerr County's colonic areas was extrapolated from the 1990 Census Block Group statistics, the most recent available. Results from income surveys of specific colonic areas undertaken for Texas Community Development Program applications in past years were used for parts of Center Point and Kerrville South. Colonic areas range in size from about 50 residents to nearly 1,300. The current " population of each colonic was estimated using the 1990 Census Block Group figure of persons per household times the number of occupied housing units from the field survey. Block group data for persons per household ranged from 2.7 in Center Point to 3.6 in Woodcreek and Four Seasons. The number of colonic area residents assumed to be "low-to-moderate income," which includes those members of households earning 80% or less of the median family income, was taken from door-to-door income surveys in a few cases and from block group census figures in most cases. It was assumed that at least 51aJo of colonic area residents were low-to-moderate income even in those areas where block group statistics indicated a lower percentage. Approximate median household income for the colonic areas was determined using 1990 Census Block Group figures adjusted to remove incorporated areas. Page 12 countywide demographic and economic data was provided by the U.S. Census ~. Bureau's "Quickfacts" sheet on their website (www.census.gov). Population projections for 2010-2030 were obtained from the Texas State Data Center at Texas A&M University. a.5 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF COLONIA AREAS The physical description of each colonia area was compiled from several sources and graphically illustrated on the individual Colonia Area maps as described in the "Mapping of Colonia Areas" section above: 1) Land uses, through field survey, 2) Flood•prone areas, through field survey and FEMA Flood Hazard Boundary Maps showing the 100-year flood hazard areas, 3) Soii types, from the U.S, Soil Conservation Service Maps (type is named on each colonia area Streets and Drainage map in an inset box), and 4) Topography, from the U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute Quadrangle Maps. .-_ a.6 EXISTING AND NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IN COLONIA AREAS Infrastructure conditions and requirements were assembled from several sources and mapped as described in the "Mapping of Colonia Areas" section above: 1) Water system inventory provided by the larger privately-held rural water service providers-Kerrville South Water Company (Eastern Kerrville South), Aquasource (Western Kerrville South, Four Seasons, Woodcreek, Quail Run, Fawn Run, Westwood Oaks, and parts of Center Point), Weidenfeld Water Company (Silver Creek, parts of Center Point}-and from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) for all systems in the county; 2) No centralized sewer collection and treatment systems exist in unincorporated Kerr County, so no inventory was possible. The rural utilities, the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, any existing engineering ~-_ studies, and the field survey were used to identify needs. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 13 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 3) Street and Drainage conditions and needs were determined by the field survey, mapping from the Kerr CAD, the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and TxDOT, and through meetings with the Kerr County Commissioners and the general public. Water. All but one of the county's colonia areas, Turtle Creek Ranches, have water service through privately held water systems. There are no public systems serving unincorporated Kerr County. Several systems rely on single wells and may be in disrepair. The soils in some of the colonia areas are thin, with exposed limestone bedrock in many places. This significantly increases the costs of installing and maintaining water and sewer systems. Water improvement costs were estimated using the following basis unless other engineering estimates were available. Due to the rocky nature of many Kerr County colonia areas, these costs are somewhat higher than those found in other areas: -- Linear feet (LF) of new/replacement water line x $25.00 (with valves, hydrants, trench work, asphalt repair, easements) Or $35.00 if bedrock is at surface Number of new water service connecfions x $500.00 Any additional costs for new wells, pumps, storage (lump sums) Wastewater. None of Kerr County's colonia areas have sewer service. Again, the costs of installing wastewater lines is much higher in Kerr County except along the Guadalupe River due to the lack of a significant soil layer. Only those colonia areas with sufficient total population and development density or that are proximate to existing wastewater treatment facilities were considered for wastewater service improvements during the planning period. This list includes Kerrville South (eastern and western), Woodcreek, Four Seasons, Center Point, -- and Westwood Oaks. Costs were estimated based upon the following figures, derived from the engineering budgets for the County's 2001 Colonia Fund and Page 14 2002 Community Development Fund first-time sewer system projects in Kerrville ~-. South: LF of new sewer line x $40.00 ($30.00 for force main) (with manholes, testing, trench work, asphalt repair, easements) Number of new sewer service connections x $1,200.00 (includes septic tank abandonment costs) Any additional costs for new treatment, lift stations (lump sums) Streets and Drainage. The streets in each colonia area were field surveyed to determine their surface type, condition, and width. Conditions were assessed for both paved and unpaved streets using the following scheme: Good-Street surface is intact and smooth, little or no surface cracking on ,,..- paved streets or surface material loss on unpaved streets; routine maintenance will keep street usable and safe for at least five years. Fair-Street surface is cracked, with some lose surface material, potholes; should be resurfaced with new material (unpaved) or seal•coated (paved). Poor-Street surface material is missing over large areas, large potholes are common, erosion of exposed base material may be present, some sub- grade failure in paved streets causing slumping; streets require new base material, reshaping, leveling, and reapplication of surface material. Improvement costs were based on seal coating good streets, repair and two- course seal coating fair-conditioned paved streets, reconstructing and two-course seal coating on poor paved streets, and grading, laying asix-inch compacted caliche base, and two-course seal coat treatment on unpaved roads. Related roadside drainage ditch was included as well. Street renovation costs were calculated based on County estimates: KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 15 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN (Street Length x Width) x $0.20 for Poor .-~ (Street Length x Width) x $0.10 for Fair (Street Length x Width) x $0.05 for Good a.7 OTHER INFORMATION Additional historic background information is provided in the profile of the county's largest colonic area, Center Point, which is considered a town by most local residents. Page 16 PLANNING ACTIVITIES: PLAN The second major portion of the Kerr County Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan is the plan itself. The County developed goals and objectives, developed a ranking methodology to assist in prioritizing improvements in the colonial, prepared a ten•year capital improvements program. This information is included in this report and in the indexed Colonia profiles. 2.a. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goa/s are those items that present a generalized description of the desired future state of the community. They are often articulated by local elected officials through a planning process. Objectives are clear targets for specific actions, and may be quantifiable. The -- usually have associated time lines during which the objective is to be achieved. Objectives provide structured, measured advancement toward meeting community goals. The County's goals and objectives for the Colonia Areas are: Goal 1 Clean, safe, sanitary drinking water provided for all residents through approved means. Objective A Assist water providers with expanding and reconditioning their systems through sponsorship of grant applications. Objective B Coordinate with cities the Upper Guadalupe River Authority (UGRA), and rural water suppliers to modify service area boundaries if necessary to provide water service. Objective C Host twice•yearly "Water Summits" that include representatives from -- area water suppliers, Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District and the UGRA. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 17 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Objective D Consider organizing "self help" initiatives in colonia areas where "~lunteers, working with local water utility providers, may access State STEP funds for water system improvements. Goal 2 Safe, sanitary and legal wastewater collection, treatment and discharge through approved means. Objective A Continue coordination between potential wastewater service providers to plan for service in the more densely populated colonia areas named in this plan. Objective B Coordinate with cities and rural utilities to modify service area boundaries if necessary to provide sewer service. Objective C Ensure adequately sized and appropriately located septic tanks under the subdivision ordinance enforcement and through the County's on-site septic sewer facility monitoring and permitting agreement with the UGRA. ,-- coal 3 Accessible, safe, weatherproof, aesthetically pleasing, and affordable housing with full plumbing facilities, adequate sewage disposal, and potable water service. Objective A Publicly proclaim Fair Housing Month, provide information regarding federal Fair Housing policy and local Fair Housing Ordinances to the public Objective B Work with local churches and community groups to begin aself-help housing rehabilitation program aimed at preserving the City's existing housing stock. Objective C Apply for approximately $500,000 in HOME grant funds in each of the next 10 years to provide owner-occupied housing rehabilitation or reconstruction assistance to low income, elderly and/or disabled homeowners in colonia areas. Objective D Consider assisting with the establishment of a countywide non-profit community housing development organization (CHDO) to take advantage of Page 18 housing development funds from the Texas Housing Trust Fund and the owner- occupied rehabilitation CHDO set-asides Goal 4 Remove dilapidated, unsafe and abandoned structures, abandoned cars and other large items of refuse from roadsides, vacant lots, and drainage ways. Objective A Use the authority granted by the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 343 to abate public nuisances in various neighborhoods of the county. Objective B Use a portion of any HOME assistance grants to demolish and remove severely dilapidated houses occupied by lower income elderly or disabled residents and replace these houses with new structures. Goal 5 Safe, accessible, and all-weather roads serving all unincorporated communities in the county. Objective A Investigate the creation of Road Districts as authorized in the Texas Transportation Code Chapter 257 to finance county road improvements in colonia areas. Objective B Pave all dedicated streets in colonia areas that serve more than 20 residences per mile from the point where this density occurs to the nearest existing paved county road or state farm-to-market road or highway. Objective C Regularly seal coat all existing paved streets in colonia areas. Goal 6 Adequate drainage to prevent loss of property or life, deterioration of roadways, and erosion control. Objective A Install drainage facilities that route water flows during storm events through or around developed colonia areas, particularly where such flows cross streets and residential yards. Objective B Dig or reshape roadside ditches whenever Countymaintained roads are constructed or repaired. Objective C Enforce minimum driveway culvert sizes for all new subdivisions and driveways in colonia areas. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 19 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Objective D Provide flood hazard insurance information to residents of colonia ~.. -eas whose homes are located within the flood hazard zone. Goal 7 Prevent, where possible, the creation of new colonia areas that lack proper roads, drainage facilities, and water or wastewater services. ObjectiveA Enforce existing subdivision rules. Objective B Enforce use of proper septic tanks and adequate drainfield size in all colonia areas. Objective C Encourage education programs that emphasize housing maintenance and repair. 2.b. RANKING AND PRIORITIZATION OF COLONIA AREAS Kerr County has limited resources to expend addressing the infrastructure needs of its colonia areas. Its eleven colonia areas are home to more than 4,800 citizens. In order to meet the current needs in the colonia areas as well as .-- anticipate future needs, a method was devised for ranking the colonia areas. The ranking is based on the original criteria used to identify colonia areas: density of development, housing quality, and access to adequate water and sewer facilities. Points were assigned to each colonia area based on the relative conditions found in these four criteria. Density is an important factor because denser developments more intensely use infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Denser development allows more people to be served at a lower per capita cost than when development is spread over large areas. Risk of contamination of water resources from inadequately sized septic tank drainfields is another reason why denser developments warrant a higher priority. Housing that is poor or fair in condition reduces the overall esthetic quality, sense ,.-. of community, property values, and tax revenue generation of a colonia area. Page 20 Substandard housing may also be hazardous to the health of residents, their visitors, and rescue and emergency personnel such as firefighters or medical professionals. Those areas with higher percentages of poor and fair condition homes receive priority and will be targets of future housing rehabilitation and reconstruction programs. Safe, clean drinking water is found in most of the rural areas of Kerr County. Most colonia areas have few if any direct water needs, though some still have unconnected housing units, supply problems such as lack of proper water treatment, inadequate well capacity, and undersized or leaking water lines. Priority is given here to serving unserved communities, connecting the remaining unserved households and ensuring safe drinking water in the colonia areas with existing systems. Centralized sanitary sewer services are not available in the unincorporated areas of Kerr County. As is discussed in the capital needs list, not all colonia areas identified in the plan need to be connected to a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system. Many areas have large lots with single homes; others with large lots may have five or more homes on them, making them better candidates for centralized wastewater collection. Those that are heavily populated and densely developed enough to require or support a system on their own, or that are smaller but located in close proximity to larger colonia areas or to existing sewer systems received priority. The estimated cost per connection considering the total cost of providing service to the colonia area was used. Lower costs per connection generally indicate higher housing density, favorable topography, proximity to other developed areas that will also use the sewer system, or proximity to a proposed treatment facility. Points were assigned to each factor based on the following matrix: KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 21 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Criteria 1: Density of Deve/opment 'ie average density for all Colonic Areas (CAs) was .alculated to be 0.6 housing units per acre CAs exceeding 175% ofaverage = 3 CAs with 125°jo to 174a/o ofaverage = 2 CAs with 75 Jo to 124% ofaverage = 1 CAs with less than 75%ofaverage = 0 Criteria 3: /nadequate Water Supp/y CAs with unserved homes or supply problems = 2 CAs needing line replacement = 1 CAs with no major needs = 0 Conditions The average percentage of Poor quality housing for all CAs was I1%; Fair quality housing was 34%. CAs exceeding 16.5aJo Poor quality housing = 2 CAs with 11% to 16.5% Poor quality housing = 1 CAs with less than I 1 qo Poor quality housing = 0 CAs exceeding 51% Fair quality housing = 2 CAs with 34% to 51% Fair quality housing = 1 CAs with less than 34% Fair quality housing =0 Criteria 4: /nadequate Sewage Disposal The average cost per connection taking into account the TOTAL cost for centralized collection and treatment facilities in CAs where this is feasible was $6,998. CAs with less than average cost/connection = 3 CAs with 100% to 150% ofaverage = 2 CAs with more than 150°Ja ofaverage = 1 CAs where septic tanks are adequate = 0 The points earned by each colonia area were added to yield a final score. The ,-- naximum possible score is 13 points (3 for maximum density, 2 for maximum poor and 2 for maximum fair condition housing, 3 for both major water problems and water lines, and 3 for minimum cost per sewer connection). The highest score was 8 points each for Eastern Kerrville South and Center Point. Because some colonia areas earned the same number of points, a final ranking was determined by overall priorities of (1) water, (2) sewer, (3) density, and (4) housing conditions. c. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Capital improvements are new or upgraded constructed or installed items such as water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; roads and bridges; drainage and flood control facilities; parks, recreational facilities, or community centers; and structures for the operation of governmental functions. Page 22 A capital improvements program (CIP) is a schedule of major public physical improvements based upon an analysis of available fiscal resources. CIPs are the foundation of financing for capital expenditures because they blend program and needs analysis with financial capabilities. Properly developed and used, CIPs are critical tools for anticipating large expenditure items and determining when and how much money will be needed to keep up with infrastructure needs. Several elements form an effective CIP: 1) Knowledge of County fiscal and budget policies; 2) Assessment of County's fiscal health; 3) Assessment of fiscal health of utility districts and cities operating in the unincorporated portion of the county; 4) Assessment of current and needed facilities based on existing and anticipated development; 5) Identification and description of specific capital projects; 6) Prioritization of identified capital projects; and 7) Identifying potential funding sources for capital projects. The time frame for this CIP is ten years, 2001 through 2010. Many factors that affect the ability of counties to influence or control development could change during this time period; for example, it was not until 1999 that all Texas county governments were given the authority to own and operate their own public water and wastewater systems. The CIP lists specific projects, estimates costs for those projects, proposes funding mechanisms, and schedules the year or years over which the project should be constructed. Often the costs associated with capital improvements are large in comparison with routine maintenance and operations that Counties perform on their roads, bridges, and buildings. Sometimes money must be budgeted for several fiscal KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 23 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN years, accumulating in an account, so that single large purchases may be made; '~ her times, it is preferable to borrow larger amounts of money for capital improvements and make scheduled payments over a number of years. This is especially true of utility districts that must finance improvements to water supply and storage facilities and wastewater treatment facilities. This CIP considers the resources of Kerr County as well as the resources of the UGRA and the private utility companies that serve colonia areas. 2.c.1) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The County's fiscal year runs January 1 through December 31. There are limited resources for colonia area improvements. Its primary contribution is maintenance of roads and roadside drainage ditches in the colonia areas, paid for from the Road and Bridge Fund. nplementing these improvements falls primarily to the utility service providers, which in many cases are private companies. These include: 1) Upper Guadalupe River Authority (public, plans to provide sewer service in unincorporated areas); 2) City of Kerrville (public, serves inside city limits); 3) AquaSource (private, serves several colonia areas); 4) Weidenfeld Water Works Inc. (private, serves several colonia areas); 5) Kerrville South Water Company (private, serves eastern Kerrville South); 6) Private water system serving Mills subdivision (Split Rock Water System); 7) Private water system serving the Wood Drive area of Kerrville South; 8) Private water system serving Verde Hills in Center Point; and 9) Private system serving Elmwood Mobile Home Park in Center Point. The public nonprofit and governmental utility providers may issue debt, raise .... revenues, or use grants and loans from private, state or federal sources to expand Page 24 their utility systems. The private for-profit utilities are also able to access some .-., grant programs, but are less likely to compete well for funding. Public Improvements Financing Practices. The type of financing used to pay for infrastructure expenditures depends on several factors, the most critical of which include the annual tax or utility receipt revenues generated, the unmet demand for different infrastructure projects, and the public or nonprofit entity's indebtedness. Because costs often run into the millions of dollars, several alternatives are often used to finance infrastructure expansion or replacement: general obligation bonds and certificates of general obligation, revenue bonds, operating revenues/general fund, impact fees, and state or federal funds. • General obligation bonds are paid out of a government's annual revenues. These types of bonds usually raise large sums of money with the debt retired over several decades. G.O. bonds are backed by the "full faith, credit and ,-. taxing powers" of the issuing jurisdiction. When G.O. bonds are sold, the jurisdiction guarantees that it will raise sufficient revenues to retire the debt on schedule, usually using property taxes. Because G.O. bonds are repaid by all taxpayers in a community, they are usually used to finance projects that benefit the community as a whole, such as public buildings, parks, recreation centers, and major street improvements. Certificates of obligation are similar to G.O. bonds. • Revenue bonds are sold to develop projects that produce revenues to the governmental utility, such as municipal sewer and water systems. In this case, the guarantee of repayment comes from the revenues generated by the financed project, which usually includes taxes or fees collected from the project's beneficiaries. Most projects financed using revenue bonds benefit a wide class of users, such as water customers, airport users, or toll road users. Unlike G.O. bonds, revenue bonds do not require the backing by the KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 25 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN jurisdiction's "full faith, credit and taxing powers." Consequently, the local ,-. government is not obligated to raise taxes to avoid default on the revenue bonds. Because of this, revenue bonds usually carry higher interest rates than general obligation bonds. These bonds parallel those used for private enterprises; voter approval is usually not necessary to float revenue bonds. • Operating revenues or the General Fund are funds that are derived from the income-generating functions of a governmental or non-profit utility such as sales and property tax collections and fees and fines levied by its courts. Financing infrastructure using operating revenues or the general fund saves the interest and fees associated with issuing bonds, but because the operating revenue cannot usually provide the large cash flows of a bond issuance, it is usually used to finance smaller, lower-cost capital improvement projects that can be paid for in one year. ,^.. Saecial Districts such as Road Districts or Drainage Districts may be formed to provide improvements in a county. Road Districts may be created by a Commissioners' Court following a public hearing to issue bonds up to the amount of one-fourth of the value of the property located within the district. A two-thirds majority of the district's voting eligible voters must approve any bonds or other debt that is issued. Drainage Districts may be created in the same manner as Road Districts, or by petition by resident taxpayers of the proposed district to the Commissioners' Court. Depending on how they are organized, they may not be limited in the same way Road Districts are regarding maximum debt issuance. Bond proceeds may be used to purchase private roads, construct new roads, or improve existing roads within a Road District or to build levees, channelize streams, or construct and maintain other waterways that prevent flooding and promote proper drainage in a Drainage District. Proceeds are financed by additional property taxes that must support capital improvement debt retirement plus a maintenance fee. Page 26 ~' Impact fees include user fees and special assessments and can only be levied by cities. Impact fees are levied as charges to property developers to help defray the costs of providing infrastructure or new facilities for the new development. The approach applies the costs of infrastructure development to those who are primary beneficiaries (usually the developers). The decision as to who will pay impact fees for development is difficult, but many communities that are experiencing rapid growth must raise infrastructure development funds in this manner. In some communities, developers are allowed to make non-cash contributions in lieu of fees. Such contributions might include land for a community park or construction of a new branch library. Other fees include those that are usually collected directly from the beneficiaries of a project. Examples include public swimming pool or golf course user fees, trash collection fees, or water meter tap fees. These fees can be levied by counties and by utility companies. The final method of financing is use of state and federal funds. Appendix D gives additional information regarding these resources. Grants and low- interest loans provided by state and federal agencies have long been a key ingredient in the development of local infrastructure. Most assistance requires some form of local matching contribution and some require that other socioeconomic conditions be present in the local jurisdiction, such as low-income neighborhoods or high unemployment. Although state and federal assistance for infrastructure has decreased significantly in the past twenty-five years, grant programs continue to provide a significant source of funding for infrastructure development in rural Texas. These sources include the Texas Community Development Program (TCDP), the Texas Parks & Wildlife grant program (TP&W), the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (TxDOT), and loan programs such as the State Water Revolving Loan Fund (Texas Water Development Board) and USDA's Rural Development (RD) KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 27 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN programs. The latter two programs are available to both the County and to '~ the non-profit water districts; all other programs mentioned require County sponsorship. Other suggestions for financing capital improvements include: • use of county prisoners as day laborers for drainage, park, and street projects as a way to save money and accomplish additional work; • encouragement of volunteer groups to make simple park improvements and to clear brush and debris out of vacant lots and drainageways; • use of the Small Cities Environment Program (STEP), a self-help grant program supported by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, the Texas Water Development Board, and the TCDP, that uses volunteer labor to install or replace water or sewer lines bought using grants from the TCDP. This program requires that project cost be significantly lower than the costs of similar improvements using conventional construction '~ contractors (at least a 40 percent reduction in cost). Cost of Financing. Each option available to pay for infrastructure carries a certain financial obligation. One objective of local governments is to incur minimal interest and finance charges, which may depend on the bond rating of the jurisdiction. If enterprise funds, revenues from general taxes, or outside assistance from state or federal sources are sufficient to pay for infrastructure development, no financing costs will be incurred. Equity. Local governments must determine the relationship between those who receive the benefits and those who pay the costs. In some cases, it is possible to identify groups of individuals who benefit more directly from a particular project; in others, the benefit may be more widely distributed. Some forms of financing may be more burdensome to one group of citizens than another, leaving local Page 28 governments to decide how the costs and benefits of infrastructure projects will '^' be distributed. Political Acceptability. While most communities have a range of infrastructure financing options, local political realities often play a major role determining which option is chosen. In some communities it may not be politically feasible to increase property taxes, while it may be acceptable to issue bonded indebtedness for a specifically earmarked purpose. In other cases, it may be more acceptable to charge fees directly to those who benefit from a project or incur debt that will be repaid by fees charged for use of the project. 2.c.2) & 3) CAPTIAL NEEDS LIST and SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS Capital needs lists are specified in each colonia area profile. Those that will be addressed by the CIP over the next ten years are shown in the Capital Improvements Program Schedule. Each colonia area's capital needs list was reviewed and prioritized based on colonia rankings. The exact order and timing of implementation of specific improvements may change depending on when and where resources become available to the County. Each project's description, colonia area, proposed year of improvement, estimated cost, and possible funding source is shown on the CIP Schedule, Appendix B. Project costs are in 2002 dollars; costs should be adjusted for future projects to account for inflation and changing labor and materials costs. In general, the most pressing capital needs in Kerr County's colonia areas are, in order, (1) sanitary wastewater collection and treatment systems in the larger and denser communities of Kerrville South, Center Point, Woodcreek, and Westwood, -- (2) new water systems, extension of first-time water service, or major system KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 29 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN upgrades in several colonic areas, (3) minor improvements to roads in several ,...:olonia areas, (4) new drainage facilities to control localized flooding in a few areas. Centralized wastewater facilities have long been discussed for several of Kerr County's colonic areas, particularly Kerrville South and Center Point. Based on natural topography, density of development, and potential build-out populations, there are four Wastewater Service Areas where centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems would be feasible during the planning period from an engineering perspective, if not from a financial perspective. They include five colonic areas that together are home to about 4,000 residents, more than 80/0 of the county's colonic population: 1) Kerrville South (2 colonic areas, 595 housing units; several non- colonic areas), 2) Center Point (1 colonic area, 480 housing units), '"~ 3) Woodcreek (1 colonic area, 144 housing units), 4) Westwood Oaks (1 colonic area, 130 housing units, in conjunction with a future Ingram or Greenwood Estates system). Costs for wastewater service were based upon the figures outlined in section a.6, "existing and needed infrastructure in colonic areas," in this report. Shared costs of additional wastewater treatment capacity, sewer trunk lines and lift stations were distributed among the Western Kerrville South colonic area and several non- colonia areas located in the Kerrville South Wastewater Service Area based upon each area's current shares of the Service Area's total estimated connections: Page 30 Colonia Area LF Line Conns. Other Anticipated Facilities Total Cost E Kerrville South 12,920 301 Trunk line to Kerrville system $1,485,000 W Kerrville South 19,800 203 2 lift stations, trunk line to E $1,375,000 Kerrville South system* 2 lift stations, 19,400 LF force Center Point 38,360 453 main to/added capacity at $3,473,000 Kerrville plant Woodcreek 15,500 144 Package treatment facility $1,195,000 Westwood Oaks 11,250 127 Trunk line to main system $865,000 * Shared cost with non-Colonia areas along Encino, Monroe, Fawn Valley, Valley View, etc. • Kerrville South Wastewater Service Area: The County, working in conjunction with the Upper Guadalupe River Authority (UGRA) and the City of Kerrville, secured a $500,000 TCDP Colonia Fund grant and a $250,000 ,-. TCDP Community Development grant to provide first-time sewer service to portions of eastern Kerrville South during 2002. The UGRA will own and operate the lines while the City will provide treatment at its wastewater treatment plant. The UGRA and Kerr County expect to continue adding sewer mains and residential connections moving westward and northward from the current target areas around Wood Drive and East Loyal Valley as funds become available. Future low•to-moderate income target areas include West Loyal Valley (George Muck, Shannon, Frederick, and Quail Valley) south of Ranchero Road and several apartment complexes, mobile home communities, and duplexes located on Ranchero Road itself. Once Phase One (Eastern Kerrville South) is complete, Phase Two will begin to connect Western Kerrville South. To allow gravity flow from the west to the east, this phase will likely connect to the main line serving Eastern Kerrville South via a lift station and force main across Camp KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 31 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Meeting Creek near the end of Valley View. Western Kerrville South lies ~- mainly along the north side of Ranchero Road. Topographically, the land falls from north to south, so a major collection line ("trunk line") along the north side of Ranchero from Tierra Verde Estates (Twombly Drive) east, with smaller collection lines connecting at Tierra Grande, North Valley Verde, Donna, Encino, Fawn Valley, Ridge Grove, and Monroe is a likely configuration. About two-thirds of the expected connections for this phase would be in colonia areas with the remaining located in higher income neighborhoods. For budgeting purposes, the colonia area sub-phases for this project could include, in proposed order of construction from east to west, Donna/Valley Verde, Tierra Grande/Mobile Home Park (on south side of Ranchero), and Twombly/West Monroe. • Center Point Wastewater Service Area: In the recent past plans have also developed to provide a centralized wastewater collection and treatment `~ system in Center Point. The community incorporated for a brief period in the 1990s with creation of a sewer system as a driving force. An application to USDA Rural Development for agrant/loan financing package was created but not submitted before local citizens voted to dissolve the municipality. Another potential service provider, the Kerr County-Center Point Water Control and Improvement District (WCID), was formed in 1961 but has been inactive since the early 1980s. The cost of providing sewer service in Center Point is driven by the options for treatment: connection via force main to the existing treatment facilities in Kerrville (19,400 linear feet) or Comfort (32,000 linear feet), or construction of a new treatment facility locally. Engineering work in preparation for the Rural Development grant/loan focused on the local treatment option, but this may be less efficient than piping wastewater to Page 32 Kerrville. Detailed engineering options beyond the scope of this plan must '"~ be developed to make this determination. Topography dictates a fairly straightforward collection system for Center Point: two main collection areas, one north and one south of the Guadalupe River, would funnel their flow to lift stations located near the river. The main lift station would then pump wastewater through a force main along SH 27 to the Kerrville system. The collection system would include all of North Center Point, the original town, and the Elmwood mobile home community, the densest parts of the colonia area. Verde Hills and Verde Creek would likely remain on septic tanks during the planning period due to their relatively lower densities and distance from the rest of the community. The relative size of this project, particularly the large up-front costs of connecting to an existing system or building a local treatment plant, dictates funding sources other than the Texas Community Development Program. USDA Rural Development is the most likely funding source since it will provide up to 80~/o grant funds for this type of project. Texas Water Development Board Funds are typically 100% repayable. USDA requires that all engineering work, permanent and temporary easements, and permitting be completed before release of construction funds. This process alone can take two or more years, so the entire time allocated to completing aUSDA-funded sewer system for Center Point should be four to six years. The system's probable main components (force main to existing system or new treatment plant, at least two major lift stations, and lines to connect them) and collection system (nearly 40,000 linear feet of sewer line) could be completed with USDA funds. TCDP funds can be used later in the project to offset a portion of the loan costs by connecting low-to- -- moderate income residents. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 33 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN `~ Woodcreek: this colonia area is among the poorest and most densely populated in Kerr County. Approximately 500 residents live in 144 houses, most of which are mobile homes. Though the colonia area is too distant from the county's existing or proposed wastewater collection systems to take advantage of shared facilities, it benefits from favorable topography that would entirely gravity-flow without the need for expensive lift stations. A small package wastewater treatment plant (approximately 0.25 MGD) sized according to TNRCC requirements for the area's build-out population of 867 could serve the area, discharging into Wood Creek. A sewer system for Woodcreek will be eligible for TCDP Colonia Funds. It would require about two and one-half Colonia Grants ($500,000 apiece) to complete the system and connect the residents. • Westwood Oaks: The lack of centralized sewage collection in and around the incorporated City of Ingram is a concern second only to that of Kerrville South, mainly due to the number and density of homes (more than 800 septic tanks on 1.5 square miles). The only portion of this area that meets the colonia area definition is the Westwood Oaks Mobile Home Park, located just northeast of Ingram. An adjacent unincorporated area, Greenwood Estates, contains nearly 200 homes. Westwood Oaks is located due north of Greenwood Estates in the Nichols Creek valley. Plans to provide sewer service in the Ingram area have been discussed for many years. Currently a large sewer main extends west from Kerrville to the Ingram High School facilities along SH 27, south of Westwood Oaks. Any plans to provide sewer service to Ingram or to Greenwood Estates should include Westwood Oaks. Wastewater from this high density area would gravity flow southward along Nichols Creek, requiring no lift stations. Page 34 Westwood Oaks is eligible for either TCDP Colonic or Community "~ Development funds to complete a local wastewater collection system that ties into an existing system for treatment. It would require approximately one and one-half Colonia Fund grants to complete this project. • Other Colonia Areas: No other Colonia areas contain both the density and the number of units to support centralized sewer collection and treatment. Both Fawn Run and Quail Run have adequate density but an inadequate total numbers of units. If future development adjacent to these areas maintains similar density, water quality could be affected and a centralized system may be considered. Wastewater Service Coordination: Wastewater services are unlikely be provided by the water utilities currently serving the various Colonia areas. The UGRA is actively interested in providing service in unincorporated areas and the City of Kerrville has expressed its desire to become the regional wastewater treatment center for Kerr County. The private water companies serving the larger colonic areas have no plans for wastewater service at this time; regardless, the UGRA plans to request the right to provide sewer service (a "certificate of convenience and necessity," or CCN) in several areas that have private water systems. The final entity that could legally build and operate a wastewater system is Kerr County itself, though the County has no plans to do so at this time. In the future, the County shall assist the UGRA, the Cities of Kerrville and Ingram, and the private water utilities in coordinating wastewater services. Since natural watersheds cross utility service boundaries and proximate Colonia areas are often served by different water utilities, cooperation is essential. Seatic Systems: Kerr County has an intergovernmental agreement with the UGRA -- to permit the construction and license the operation of on•site sewage facilities KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 35 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN (OSSF), commonly called septic tanks. For new construction, a registered sanitarian or engineer must design all alternative OSSFs, while the installer may provide designs for standard OSSFs. All completed systems are inspected by the UGRA before they are covered. Any repairs to licensed OSSFs also require a construction permit and may be inspected by UGRA. Water facilities in unincorporated Kerr County are completely controlled by the private sector. More than 30 privately held companies are authorized by the TNRCC to provide public water service, including large multi county providers such as AquaSource and Weidenfeld Water Works. This lack of public ownership and management makes effective water planning by the County extremely difficult, particularly in identifying needs such as lack of residential water service, poor water quality, or inadequate supply or storage capacity. System maps obtained from several companies and the TNRCC's CCN ~' map were used to create colonia area water maps. Data retrieved from the TNRCC's on-line Water Utilities Database were used to create a snapshot of the colonia area's existing water systems (see "colonia Area Private Water Utility Information" table on the following page). None of the private water systems operating in the county's colonia areas appears to be violating TNRCC minimum water system requirements (TAC 30 Part 1, §290.45) regarding storage, pressure, or production capacity. Most of the privately held rural water service providers have maintained their systems well and have added customers regularly as development occurs in their respective service areas. Primary water concerns include: Turtle Creek Ranches: This colonia area lacks centralized water service, a problem particularly in the densely developed central portion of the ""' subdivision on and around FM 1273 and Molina Drive where septic tanks Page 36 and water wells are in close proximity. A small water system serving this '~ low-to-moderate income area would cost approximately $270,000, including 5,620 linear feet of water line, 27 connections, a well, a storage tank, and related system needs. Future expansion east along FM 1273 and north along Dingley View could add another 20 to 30 connections, but at a high per•connection cost due to the distance between developed areas and rocky terrain. This project could use assistance from the TCDP Community Development Fund over a 2-cycle period to fully-fund the proposed activities. Ownership of the system could be a local water supply corporation, a water district, the UGRA, or a private for-profit water company. The first three options offer the best chance of funding under the TCDP, which takes form of ownership into account in application scoring. Center Point: Although inaccurate and incomplete information from private water system providers may contribute to an over estimation of homes lacking centralized water service, it appears that up to 90 homes in developed areas of Center Point may still rely on individual wells. If the worst•case scenario is true, approximately 11,800 linear feet of new water line and 90 connections are needed in Center Point, costing an estimated $410,500. Undersized lines serve some parts of the community. The TNRCC requires that lines smaller than two inches (2") in diameter serve no more than 10 residential connections, a condition violated in at least three locations in that colonia area. As with Turtle Creek, the options for providing water service range from forming a new public water supply corporation or water district, reviving the defunct WCID, ownership by the UGRA, or extension and ownership by -- a private water supply company. Any of these options are eligible under KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 37 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN the TCDP Colonia Fund, though the private ownership option does not "~ score as well in this competitive program. The Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District (HUWCD) was formed in 1991 to protect and monitor groundwater in Kerr County, primarily through the regulation of wells and the promotion of conservation and antipollution efforts. All wells that produce more than 17.4 gallons per minute (25,000 gallons per day) are permitted, while smaller wells are registered. HUWCD tests wells for water quality, checks water levels, and ensures that wells are located away from possible contamination sources. Although eligible to construct and operate public water systems, the HUWCD does not have any plans to do so during the planning period. Page 38 Colonia Area Private Water Utility Information Storage Capacity Well Capacity Total Meters Colonia Area Water Utility(s)/Water System (Gals) (GPM) and No. on S stem Kerrville South Water Co./Coma Vista 563,000 977 (4) 905 Kerrville South (Eastern) Kerrville South Water Co./Westcreek 75,000 110 (1) 128 Unknown Name (Wood Drive area) N/A N/A ~75 AquaSource/Erlund Subdivision 66,000 186 (2) 207 Kerrville South (Western) (A portion also served by Kerrville South Water) - (-60) AquaSource/Center Point North 20,000 135 (1) 83 AquaSource/Taylor 45,000 80 (1) 168 Weidenfeld WW/Center Point 15,000 110 (2) 58 Center Point Weidenfeld WW/Verde Park Ests. 54,000 50 (1) 54 Verde Hills WSC 40,000 100 (2) 22 Elmwood Mobile Home Park 40,000 75 (1) 73 Woodcreek AquaSource/Woodcreek 42,000 130 (1) 176 Four Seasons AquaSource/Four Seasons 20,000 25 (1) 27 AquaSource/Ingram WSC 480,000 1,030 (6) 1,643 Westwood Oaks AquaSource/Westwood Oaks* 21,000 130 (1) 130 Mills-Miller Split Rock Water System 20,000 27 (1) 25 Quail Run/Deer Run AquaSource/Forest South 68,000 180 (2) 202 Silver Creek Wiedenfeld/Southern Hills 103,000 135 (3) 186 *Effective 10/2001, AquaSource/Westwood Oaks system is connected to and operated by AquaSource/Ingram WSC; italicized figures provide 2001 data for stand-alone Westwood Oaks system for reference. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 39 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN "~' Roads are the most expensive improvements that the County itself might make. The County will consider forming one or more Road Districts to raise funds for road building in colonia areas according to the relative need reported in this study and on each colonia area map. The priority roads included in the capital improvements plan are shown in UPPERCASE in the Colonic Area Profiles and are named in Appendix C. The appendix also indicates the total approximate cost of the proposed road improvements. . Drainage is adequate in most colonia areas mainly due to roadside ditches and natural creeks. The steep terrain in many parts of Kerr County contributes to rapid drainage, though erosion of streets is a major problem as a result. The most significant drainage problems in colonia areas occur in Center Point. The Guadalupe River and Verde Creek floodplains cut across the Center Point's '"~ flat site from east to west . Approximately 30 homes sit within the Guadalupe's and another 15 sit within Verde Creek's 100-year flood hazard zones. The most flood-prone area lies in the triangle formed by SH 27, FM 480, and the Guadalupe just southeast of the two roads' intersection where Steel Creek enters the river. Approximately 40 of Westwood Oaks' 130 residences appear to lie within the 100-year flood hazard area of Nichols Creek, asouthward-flowing intermittent tributary of the Guadalupe River. No flood damage has been reported from this area in recent years. Despite the presence of flood hazard zones in several colonia areas, no required major drainage infrastructure work was identified. Most drainage problems were minor and would be corrected with culvert replacement and cleaning, ditch dredging and cleaning, and road paving. Page 40