--~ ~~ SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2002, 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS' COURTROOM KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE 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 CODE.) This Commissioners' Court will hold a meeting at 6:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at the Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Courtroom. CALL MEETING TO ORDER I CONSIDERATION AGENDA: (Action may be taken on Items listed below) 1.1 Public hearing on the County's Revised 2000 Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan (TCDP). ~~ pRENENSIVE couNTY IoM pN {ERR A ST~ipY g~ pL. cpLpNl FINAL PUBLIC NEARING JULY 16~ 2002 TUES~AYr c~URTHO KERB COUNTY ~,.~_ . ~._._ ~. `\ ~- \ y/ \ f jq}@ / ,. R3'.l~t ~~ ~~.~ . ~ ~- ~~ } y ~~. OVN~Y C~~.C KER,R C N,p 'FI~uRE FACT A 8 Separate Areas 3'950 Residents Units 1,491 Nousin9 2,15 Square M-les (.1-3~b Acres, pS IN ALI. AREAS ovements NEE r illion in H°us-n9 Imp eels X21.5 M in W ater System N Needs ~~io,0oo ion in Sealer System ~1~,3 M-Il -- - wQEA'S ?S i KERR COUN"~ C Y~COMp~NEN .r g7UD SURREY ~` MAPPYNG .CAD Data Subdivision Plats .County Clerk Records C .Field Survey S stems .Geographic Information Y ANALYSIS tem Data (TNRCC~ I~ .Water SYs s .Existing System Map .Housing Unit Counts PLAN List .Improvements .prioritization .Financing Methods PI.ANNIN'G R,~A? wires that the ~1 TT A colonic area req ,lack of V~O~iA llDj °{ water supply "HAT IS A C used by H otable artkularlY `' the federal definition such as lack of p This definition, P housing• disposal criteria, 1990 and have conditi and sanitary the sewage It Is the The TCDP definition land safes 1 level. Note: ri°r to of decent, adequate in the Iota „objective„ area be established P oral, or lack criteria and relation at e disp housing a interP establish the vale sewag in the to som he ~5e of the words decent and '-s subje~ consultant to of their Planning criteria used t a d 9ree of flexibility ante final e with the assist areas. the arig allows for onsibility, Hate its colonic ublic Input f standards. County s resp desig and substantial P gel o that it will use to orts, eel a stricter measures veral draft rep redefined to m for Kerr County were 0,5 acres in the initial review, se unit per Following colonic areas to one housing to identify criteria were' 3 acres colania area unit per The housing es to the from one housing Chang density other criteria• oor condition the min-rnum in se in area• a met in to, not 'ne co~ idered fair °r p ^ Increa onion of the addition the developed P the area b criterion b homes in erica. that the housing 25% of the the planning p ^Require al least xterior survey• within Dint, requires that the visual a nobly provided South, Center P criterion based up°n e reaso Kerrville WQOd Qaks ard~ rovements b western West ~substand or sewer ~mP Eastern and Park and that any water ,fied criteria: Westwood ^ Require mod' a ~afoyette, t areas fit the glue Ridg lied, eigh wpOdcreek~ when app Country Estates, Hill River e park. Mobile Hom ERR C~uNTY K ~pY pREpS ST QV A~IFY~NG P Westwood Park Center Point River Estates Hi11 Country E, Kerrville South W ,Kerrville South W OpdCreek ~P~cture ab°ve~ e Lafayette Blue Rid9 1 HP Westwood M PLp~N~`N~ {CIA W AgTEW ASR SERv,,~.. - - ille South ~Ker~~lle~ .Kerry .Center P°mt .WoodcCeek .1n9ram Area twood Park CCOrnfOrt) .Wes INTRODUCTION Kerr County has commissioned this Comprehensive Colonia Study and Plan to identify the existing locations of and conditions in its "colonia areas." Though it is located more than 100 miles from the Texas•Mexico border, the county is home to several communities that share some characteristics with the colonias of South Texas. This plan's purpose is to assess the conditions in the unincorporated communities of Kerr County to identify needs and to identify possible solutions for those needs, particularly in the areas of water, sewer, and housing. While many of these areas in Kerr County do not fit the public perception of the term "colonia," they qualify for assistance under some federal programs designed to assist unincorporated communities whose residents are primarily low-to- moderate income and that contain a high percentage of substandard housing or lack adequate water and sewer systems. These areas are referred to as "colonia areas" because they may qualify for assistance through the Texas Community Development Program, afederally- funded program that provides housing and infrastructure assistance in rural Texas. The TCDP has two major funding categories for infrastructure assistance, the Community Development Fund and the Colonia Fund. Grants under the first fund are typically $250,000 while the Colonia Fund grants are $500,000. 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 eligible areas are primarily KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 1 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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, "colonia area" refers to any identifiable unincorporated community or subdivision that meets the following criteria: (1) Has ten or more housing units with a density of at least 2.0 units per acre in the developed residential areas; (2) Has a significant proportion (25% or greater) of substandard housing based upon an exterior visual survey; s3Dd (3) Lacks either centralized water or sewer services and can be reasonably served by an existing or proposed service provider within the planning period. Though all areas described in this study meet the above criteria, these areas are not automatically eligible for assistance. A door-to-door survey that verifies at least 51 percent of residents within any project target area are low•to-moderate income must be completed prior to any application for construction project grant funds. Low-to-moderate income residents are those members of households earning less than 80 percent of the median household income, adjusted for their particular household size. In Kerr County a family of four earning less than $33,000 in 2001 or a single person earning less than $23,000 is considered low- to-moderate income. The federal government releases new income limits each year. Prior to the door-to-door survey, the County must hold a public hearing at which possible project types and target areas will be discussed. During the door-to- door survey, all residents will be informed of the project and any opinions will be Page 2 JUNE 2002 registered. All public comments regarding infrastructure projects will be carefully considered by the County before any applications are submitted. 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: • Provide a working definition of "colonia area" that meets the needs and expectations of the County and its residents • Identify the number, location, physical character, and population of colonia areas • Quantify existing and needed infrastructure • Document housing needs and costs • Create goals and objectives for improving conditions in the colonia areas • Establish aten-year Capital Improvements Program The County has created this plan, including goals and objectives, with opportunity for citizen involvement at several commissioners court meetings, public hearings and workshop meetings held in August and November 2001 and March, April and June 2002. In addition, opportunity for public input was provided at public hearings for the County's participation in the 2001-02 TCDP funding cycles where community goals and objectives relevant to this plan were discussed. Public comment regarding draft versions of this plan identified several discrepancies in designating certain neighborhoods as "colonia areas" and led to an overall refocusing of the Colonia Planning effort upon those areas that most closely meet the colonia area criteria (please see note on page 9). 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 3 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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 Kendal- 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 Page 4 JUNE 2002 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 O 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 5 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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 Jo 1990 36,304 26aJo 2000 43,653 20% 2010 49,250 13/0 Projected 2020 54,886 11 /o 2030 57,565 5% *Projections from the Texas A&M State Data Center,• all other figures from Decennial Censuses of Population. Page 6 JUNE 2002 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 4,000 residents live in unincorporated communities that qualify as colonia areas, or about 20% 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 (2~/0) 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 (lOJo) under the Texas average ($34,500) and a poverty rate of 14.5 percent. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 7 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN PLANNING ACTIVITIES: SURVEY Kerr County's plan was created to comply both with the requirements of its Texas Community Development Program contract and with the specific needs and priorities of county officials and personnel, rural utility personnel, and the public. The Survey portion of this document was used to produce the Area 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 (prior to 1990) • 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) Page 8 JUNE 2002 Note: The TCDP definition (and the federal definition used by HUD) of colonia area requires that the area be established prior to 1990 and have conditions such as lack of potable water supply, lack of adequate sewage disposal, or lack of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. This definition, particularly the use of the words decent in the housing criteria and adequate in the sewage disposal criteria, allows for a degree of flexibility and is subject to some interpretation at the local level. It is the County's responsibility, with the assistance of their planning consultant, to establish the "objective" measures that it will use to designate its colonia areas. Following the initial review, several draft reports, and substantial public input, the original criteria used to identify colonia areas for Kerr County were redefined to meet a stricter set of standards. Changes to the colonia area criteria were: • Increase in the minimum density from one housing unit per 3 acres to one housing unit per 0.5 acres in the developed portion of the area. • Require that the housing criterion be met in addition to, not instead of other criteria. The housing criterion requires that at least 25 Jo of the homes in the area be considered in fair or poor condition (substandard) based upon the visual exterior survey. • Require that any water or sewer improvements be reasonably provided within the planning period. When applied, eight areas fit the modified criteria: Eastern and Western Kerrville South, Center Point, Hill River Country Estates, Woodcreek, Blue Ridge-Lafayette, Westwood Park, and Westwood Oaks Mobile Home Park (MHP). KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 9 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN a.2 VERIFICATION OF CONDITION OF 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 surveys performed in December 2001 and throughout the spring of 2002. 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. Homes that were not visible from the public street were not surveyed. This occurred in relatively few cases in the areas included in this report, though many other areas in the county have long driveways with homes set far back from the streets, preventing visual survey. Substandard housing, defined as housing units in the Deteriorating or Dilapidated condition categories, is one of the 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 area. The scope of the housing analysis for the Colonic areas includes inventory and mapping of manufactured homes (mobile homes, doublewides, etc.) and the estimated costs of both housing rehabilitation and housing reconstruction. Most Page 10 JUNE 2002 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 CONDITIONS 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 a few missing or damaged roof shingles small rust spots or holes on mobile homes Generally meets local codes and no evident threat to health and safety Minor rehabi/itation needed in a few cases Fair/ Visible exterior defects requiring repair beyond routine maintenance Deteriorating such as: missing or damaged wooden surfaces that could cause injury missing window panes or badly deteriorated window frames missing or major holes in exterior siding 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 /n a few cases (mobi/e homes) Poor/ Fails to provide adequate shelter Dilapidated Multiple defects listed under "Fair" or other major 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 KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 11 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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% of Fair Units x $20, 000 per unit 25% of Poor Units x $30, 000 per unit Reconstruction 25% of Fair Units x $45, 000 per unit 50% of Poor Units x $45,000 per unit Demolition of Abandoned Units 25% 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 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 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 colonia areas were mapped on a countywide base Page 12 JUNE 2002 map. After the colonia criteria were applied, those potential colonia areas that qualified were mapped in detail. County-wide mapping includes two maps: 1) Colonia Areas Base with county boundaries, roads, major water features, precinct limits, incorporated city limits with extraterritorial jurisdictions, and the colonia areas, and 2) tili y Service Area Base with roads, incorporated city limits, rural utility service areas (i.e., areas where a utility holds the certificate of convenience and necessity for water or sewer service), and water lines color coded according to service provider where available; there is currently no sewer service in any of the county's colonia areas. The utility service areas were identified using TNRCC maps showing the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) areas granted to the various utilities. Colonia area mapping consists of the following map sets for each area, each overlying a base map that shows subdivision names, lot lines, rights of way, major water features, city limits, and extraterritorial jurisdiction limits: 1) I and Use and Housing showing data gathered in the visual field survey for housing unit locations, types, conditions, and occupancy and land use types, by lot, 2) Fx_ fisting Wat r ystem showing locations and capacities (where available) of water facilities provided by the rural utility service suppliers and color- coded to reflect which water service supplier owns and operates the particular system, and 3) Existing Streets and Drainaee showing street surfacing width, type and condition, right•of-way width, major drainage structures, drainage problem areas identified through the field survey and local input, and 100•year flood hazard boundaries provided by the FEMA Flood Plain map series for Kerr County. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 13 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN a.4 RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION Demographic and economic information for each colonia area is found its individual Area Profile (Appendix E). colonia areas range in size from about 230 residents to nearly 1,300. The current population of each colonia area was estimated using the 2000 Census Block Group figure for persons per occupied housing unit times the number of occupied housing units recorded during the field survey. Block group data for persons per occupied housing unit ranged from 2.5 in Center Point to 3.1 in Woodcreek. Where available, the number of 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 areas where no survey has been completed and where no Census data is available that provides the level of geographic detail needed, the information was listed as "not available" (N/A) on the area profiles. As stated earlier, one of the main purposes of this study is to identify areas that are likely to be eligible for Texas Community Development Program (TCDP) assistance. Before any construction activities are approved by the TCDP, a door- to-door income survey of the target area must be completed. Approximate median household income for the colonia areas was determined using 1990 Census Block Group figures adjusted to remove incorporated areas. 2000 Census figures have not been released for this information. 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. Page 14 JUNE 2002 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) Soil 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" section above: 1) Water system inventory provided by the larger privatelyheld rural water service providers--Kerrviiie South Water Company (Eastern Kerrville South), Aquasource (Western Kerrville South, Woodcreek, Blue Ridge- Lafayette, Westwood Oaks MHP, and parts of Center Point), Weidenfeld Water Company (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. 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 15 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Water. All of the county's colonia areas 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 Kerr County's rocky nature, 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 connections x $500.00 Any additional costs for new wells, pumps, storage (lump sums) Wastewater. None of Kerr County's colonia areas have centralized 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, Center Point/Hill River Country Estates, Westwood Park, Blue Ridge-Lafayette, and Westwood Oaks Mobile Home Park (MHP). Costs were estimated based upon the following figures, derived from the engineering budgets for the County's 2001 Colonia Fund and 2002 Community Development Fund first-time sewer system projects in Kerrville South and by prior studies for proposed sewer facilities serving the Center Point community: Page 16 JUNE 2002 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 colonic 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~treet 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 no work for good streets, repair and new surface treatment for fair•conditioned paved streets, reconstruction using a two course asphalt and aggregate surface with surface treatment on poor paved streets, and grading, laying asix-inch compacted base, and two•course surface treatment on unpaved roads. Related roadside drainage ditch was included as well. Street renovation costs were calculated based upon recent County street reconstruction and paving costs: KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 17 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN (Street Length x Width) x $0.35 for Poor (Street Length x Width) x $0.25 for Fair a.7 OTHER INFORMATION Additional historic background information is provided in the profile of the county's largest colonia area, Center Point, which is considered a town by most local residents. Page 18 JUNE 2002 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 colonias, prepared aten-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 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 the public, area water suppliers, Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 19 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Objective D Consider organizing "self help" initiatives in colonia areas where volunteers, 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. Goal 3 Accessible, safe, weatherproof, and affordable housing with full plumbing facilities, adequate sewage disposal, and potable water service for all residents. 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 county'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 housing development funds from the Texas Housing Trust Fund and the owner- occupied rehabilitation CHDO set-asides Page 20 JUNE 2002 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 Consider using 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 colonic areas. Objective B Pave all dedicated streets in colonic 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 colonic 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 colonic 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 colonic areas. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 21 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Objective D Provide flood hazard insurance information to residents of colonia areas 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. Objective A 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 8 colonia areas are home to around 4,000 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 areas. The ranking is based on the original criteria used to identify the areas: density of development, housing conditions, and access to centralized water and sewer facilities. Points were assigned to each colonia area based on the relative conditions found for these four criteria. Densi 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. Density is measured by housing units per acre of residentially developed land. Page 22 JUNE 2002 Housing that is poor or fair in condition reduces the overall appearance, property values, and tax revenue generation of a colonia area. 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 can be targets of future housing rehabilitation and reconstruction programs. Safe, clean drinking water is found in most of the rural areas of Kerr County. Based upon the limited amount of information gathered from the private for-profit water service providers in the county, colonia areas appear to have few if any direct water needs, though some still have unconnected housing units. Anecdotal evidence describes supply problems such as lack of proper water treatment, inadequate well capacity, and undersized or leaking water lines in some areas. Because this information was not verifiable no discussion is included here regarding specific water suppliers or colonia areas. Priority is given to connecting the remaining unserved or underserved households in the colonia areas, determined by locating housing units that are not on water lines or are connected to undersized water lines (less than two inches in diameter with multiple connections). Centralized sanitary sewer service is not available in the unincorporated areas of Kerr County. The areas included in the Plan are heavily populated and densely developed enough to require or support a system on their own, or are smaller but located in close proximity to larger colonia areas or to existing sewer systems. The estimated cost per connection considering the total cost of providing service to the colonia area was used as a means to rank the relative priorities under this criterion. Lower costs per connection generally indicate higher housing density, favorable topography, proximity to other developed areas that will a-so use the sewer system, or proximity to a proposed treatment facility. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 23 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Points were assigned to each factor based on the following matrix: Criteria I: Density of Development Criteria 2: Poor Housing Conditions The average density for all Colonia Areas (CAs) was To qualify as a CA, at least 25a/o of the housing must be calculated to be 3.0 housing units per acre fair or poor in condition. Priority is given to those areas CAs exceeding 150% ofaverage = 3 with proportionally greater poor condition housing CAs with 100go to 150% ofaverage = 2 CAs exceeding 25QJo Poor condition housing = 2 CAs with 75% to 100a/o ofaverage = 1 CAs with lO~Jo to 25~jo Poor condition housing = 1 CAs with less than 75go ofaverage = 0 CAs with less than 10% Poor condition housing = 0 CAs exceeding 50~Jo Fair/Poor condition housing = 1 CAs with less than 50ya Fair/Poor condition housing=0 Criteria 3: /nadequate Water Supp/y Criteria 4: /nadequate Sewage Disposal The average cost per connection taking into account CAs with unserved homes or supply problems = 2 the TOTAL cost for centralized collection and ireatmenf facilities in CAs where this is feasible was $7,003. CAs needing line replacement = 1 CAs with less than average cost/connection = 3 CAs with no known needs = 0 CAs with 100% to 120~Jo ofaverage = 2 CAs with more than 120°jo of average = 1 CAs where septic tanks are adequate = 0 The points earned by each Colonia area were added to yield a final score. The maximum possible score is 12 points (3 for maximum density, 2 for maximum poor condition and 1 for maximum fair plus poor condition housing, 2 for households unserved by water systems, 1 for water line replacement needs, and 3 for minimum cost per sewer connection). The highest score was 8 points each for Eastern Kerrville South, Center Point, and Blue Ridge-Lafayette, followed closely with 7 points by Hill Country River Estates. Because some Colonia areas scored the same number of points, a final ranking was determined by overall priorities of (1) sewer, (2) water, (3) housing conditions, and (4) density. Page 24 JUNE 2002 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. 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 25 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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 years, accumulating in an account, so that single large purchases may be made; other 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 financial and operational resources of Kerr County as well as the resources of the UGRA and the private and non-profit 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. Implementing 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 Blue Ridge-Lafayette, Westwood Oaks MHP, portions of Center Point); Page 26 JUNE 2002 4) Weidenfeld Water Works Inc. (private, serves Western Kerrville South and portions of Center Point); 5) Kerrville South Water Company (private, serves portions of Eastern Kerrville South); 6) Private system serving the Wood Drive area (Oak Grove Mobile Home Park) of Eastern Kerrville South; 7) Private system serving Elmwood Mobile Home Park in Center Point; 8) Private system serving Hill River Country Estates (Hill River Water Works); 9) Private system serving Westwood Park subdivision (Westwood Water, Inc.) The public non-profit and governmental utility providers may issue debt, raise revenues, or use grants and loans from private, state or federal sources to expand 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 non-profit 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 KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 27 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN 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 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. • rating 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. • Special Districts such as Road Districts or Drainage Districts may be formed to provide improvements in a county. Road Districts may be created by a Page 28 JUNE 2002 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. • 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. 9ther 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. KERB COUNTY, TEXAS Page 29 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN • 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) 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). Page 30 JUNE 2002 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. E ui 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 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, if any. 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. In any case, the County will always seriously consider the comments of area residents when participating in any infrastructure improvement projects. 2.c.2) & 3) CAPTIAL NEEDS LIST and SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS Capital needs lists are specified in each Area Profile. Those that will be addressed by the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) over the next ten years are shown in the CIP Schedule. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 31 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN Each colonia area's capital needs list was reviewed and prioritized based on its ranking. The exact order and timing of implementation of specific improvements may change depending on when and where resources become available to the County. No project contained in this CIP is renuired by any State or local ag n v. The decision to a° rticipate in anv project will be left to the roperty owners located within the target areas. At the time that specific improvement ~jQCts are contem to ated, public hearings will be held to receive comment, which will be carefully considered by the Commissioners Court. The timing and extent of any p~ject listed in the CIP or discussed in this Plan may be modified to meet the situations and needs that exist within the County at that time. Each project's description, location, 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/Hill River, Woodcreek, Ingram area, and Westwood Park, (2) new water systems, extension of first-time water service, or system upgrades in colonia areas, (3) minor improvements to roads in several colonia 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 colonia areas, particularly Kerrvi-le South and Center Point/Hill River. Based on natural topography, density of development, and potential build-out populations, there are five Wastewater Service Areas where centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems would be feasible during the Page 32 JUNE 2002 planning period from an engineering perspective, if not from a financial perspective. They include eight colonia areas that together are home to about 4,500 residents, more than 80% of the county's colonia area population: 1) Kerrville South (2 colonia areas, 554 housing units; several non- colonia areas), 2) Center Point/Hill River (2 colonia areas, 562 housing units), 3) Woodcreek (1 colonia area, 144 housing units), 4) Ingram Area (2 colonia areas-Westwood Oaks MHP and Blue Ridge- Lafayette-220 housing units, in conjunction with a future Ingram or Greenwood Estates system), 5) Westwood Park subdivision (i colonia area, 90 housing units). Costs for wastewater service were based upon the figures outlined in section a.6, "existing and needed infrastructure in colonia areas," in this report. Shared costs of additional wastewater treatment capacity, sewer trunk lines and lift stations were distributed among the Western Kerrville South colonia 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: colonia Area LF Line Conns. Other Anticipated Facilities Total Cost E Kemille 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 Kerrville $1 375 000 South system* , , Center Point 38,360 453 2 lift stations, 19,400 LF force main $3 473 000 to/added capacity at Kerrville plant , , Hill River 14,000 gg 1 lift station, trunk line to Center Point $771 000 System** , Woodcreek 15,500 144 Package treatment facility $1,195,000 Ingram Area 16,450 217 Trunk lines to main system $1,264,000 Westwood Park 12,210 90 Trunk lines and lift station to Comfort $760,000 *Shared cost with non-colonia areas along Encino, Monroe, Fawn Valley, Valley View, etc. **Shared cost with non colonia area along Skyline Drive. KERB COUNTY, TEXAS Page 33 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN • 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 Colonic 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 can begin to connect Western Kerrville South. To allow gravity flow from the west to the east, this phase could connect to the main line serving Eastern Kerrville South via a lift station and force main across Camp 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 Michon (Tierra Verde and Aureon Estates) is a likely configuration. About two-thirds of the expected connections for this phase would be in colonia•eligible areas with the remaining located in higher income neighborhoods. For budgeting purposes, the colonic area sub•phases for Page 34 JUNE 2002 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/Michon. • 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 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 KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 35 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN (non colonia area) 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. A second colonia area, Hill River Country Estates, and the homes along Skyline Drive, also fall within the Center Point Wastewater Service Area. The development density in the colonia area is among the highest in the county and some residents are using cesspools and other unapproved septic systems. With 89 households in the colonia area and approximately 50 more along Skyline Drive between Hill River and Center Point, extension of sewer to this area is both financially feasible and desirable from a public health perspective. Approximately 14,000 linear feet of line and one small lift station would be required to serve this area. 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 90% grant funds for this type of project. By comparison, 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 55,000 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 costs by connecting low•to-moderate income residents. Page 36 JUNE 2002 • Woodcreek: this colonic area is fairly densely populated with average lots of less than one-half acre. Approximately 500 residents live in 144 houses, most of which are mobile homes. Though the colonic 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 the TCDP Colonic Fund. It would require about two and one-half Colonic Fund grants ($500,000 apiece) to complete the system and connect the residents. • Ingram Area 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). Two portions of this area meet the colonic area definition: the Westwood Oaks Mobile Home Park, located just northeast of Ingram, and the Blue Ridge-Lafayette areas just east of Ingram along State Highway 27. An adjacent unincorporated non-colonic area, Greenwood Estates, contains nearly 200 homes. Westwood Oaks MHP 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. Any plans to provide sewer service to Ingram or to Greenwood Estates should include Westwood Oaks MHP and Blue Ridge-Lafayette. Wastewater from Westwood Oaks MHP, a KERB COUNTY, TEXAS Page 37 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN high density area, would gravity flow southward along Nichols Creek, requiring no lift stations. Wastewater from Blue Ridge-Lafayette would gravity flow the short distance to the main line along SH 27. These areas are eligible for either TCDP Colonia or Community Development funds but would more likely be connected as part of an area- wide system using USDA Rural Development assistance. Again, this program provides up to 90% grant and 10% repayable loan assistance, depending on the USDA's own calculations. Grant/loan ratios are more often in the range of 75/25 or 80/20. The City of Ingram is investigating an Ingram Area wastewater collection system that would most likely connect to the City of Kerrville for treatment. • Westwood Park: This Colonia area is located just over a mile west of the service territory of the Kendall County Water Control and Improvement District Number 1, the water and wastewater provider for the unincorporated town of Comfort. Some discussion between the WCID and the residents has taken place in the past regarding extension of wastewater collection service. When the WCID completes its new wastewater treatment plant in late 2002 it will have adequate excess capacity to serve several thousand connections outside the immediate Comfort community. Providing sewer service to Westwood Park would involve a lift station and approximately 2.5 miles of sewer line. This project could be completed using TCDP Community Development or Colonia funds. Wastewater Service Coordination; Wastewater services are unlikely be provided by the water utilities currently serving the county's various unincorporated 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 Page 38 JUNE 2002 treatment center for Kerr County. The Kendall County WCID No. 1 (Comfort) has the capacity to offer water and wastewater service to eastern Kerr County as well. The private water companies serving the larger colonia 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 will assist the UGRA, the Cities of Kerrville and Ingram, the Kendall County WCID Number 1, and the private water utilities in coordinating wastewater services where feasible and necessary. Since natural watersheds cross utility service boundaries and proximate colonia areas are often served by different water utilities, cooperation is essential. Septic Systems; Kerr County has an intergovernmental agreement with the UGRA to permit the construction and license the operation of on-site sewage facilities (OSSF), commonly called septic systems. For new construction, a registered sanitarian or engineer must design alt 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 39 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN This lack of public ownership and management makes effective water planning by the County extremely difficult, particularly in identifying needs such as tack 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 "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: • 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. The options for providing additional water service range from forming a new public water supply corporation or water district or reviving the defunct Center Point Water Control and Improvement District. Any of these Page 40 JUNE 2002 options would provide the residents served with an elected board. Other options include ownership by the UGRA or extension and ownership by one or more of the private water supply companies already in operation in Center Point. Any of these options are eligible for assistance under the TCDP Colonic or Community Development Funds, though the private ownership option would 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. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 41 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN on Information private Water Utility Storage G' Water System Water Utility(s~J iUe South Water Co.lLoma Vista Area estcreek Kerry Water ~O.1W Kerrville South prive area) Eastern) Name tWpOd Kerrvilte South ( Unknown rcelErlund Subd~v+s10n South A4uaSou Kerrville (A portion also served by South (Western) water) vine Dint North Kerr rcelCenter P AquaSou AquaSourceiTaYlor Dint (Center P /Verde Park (non.colonia) Weidenfeld Point Weidenfeld~ non~colon~a) Center Verde Hills WSC ( e Park Elmwood Mobile H°m AquaSource/Woodcreek 11 River Water Works dcreek 563,000 75,0Q0 Ni A 66,000 20,000 45,000 15,000 54,000 4o,oao 40,000 42,000 9,000 48p,000 000 A a"Q ~~~ 905 977 {4) 128 1]0 (1) ..75 N~`A 207 186 C2) (~60) 83 135 (1) 168 80 (1) 58 110 (2) 54 50 (1) 22 100 C2) 73 75 (1) 176 130 (1) 18 23 (1) 1,643 O1 30 (6) 130 I 130 (1) 80 Woo H~ 21, Estates ram WSC 61(2) country paks* italicized figures Nili River AquaSource/In8 35 p00 WSC, Oaks MHP, AquaSourcel`Nestwood Westwood eratedby AquaSource/fnSram Westwood Water System 6iue RidBe'kafayette is connected to and oP Subdivision yaks sYsse s em for reference' ood park ood yaks Y Westw uaSourcaloWe Westw°od for stand *Effective 20010da a q provide 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. Appendix C 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 100•year flood hazard zone; another 15 homes lie within Verde Creek's flood hazard zone just south of the Center Point colonia area. 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 MHP's 130 residences appear to lie within the 100•year flood hazard area of Nichols Creek, a southward•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. KERB COUNTY, TEXAS Page 43 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN COLONIA AREA RANKINGS AND PRIG SCORE ELS APPENDIX A~ se O 3 S c Colania Area 3 2 -- 3 0 3 8 ~ 4Eastern Kerrville South 4 e Lafayette Z 3 q 8 ~ 7 Blue Ridg • 1 ~ ~ Z Center Point <~~~~ . :~e~iF4s ~ Q 0 ~ 1 2 a } 4 7 gWestwood Uaks MRP 6 ~ Westwood Park and Prioritizafion a es 22-24 far expianation of Ranking See p k' KERR CXAS COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN t i ~ 1 ~~ 3 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE fls~o/ Yeor Colonic Areo (PCT) Scheduled CIP 2002 2003 2004: 2005 2006 2007 ;2p06` 2009 Y010 2011 Potential Funding Sources Eastern Kerrville South (2) TCDP Colonic Fund, UGRA T(DP CD fund, UGRA ~~ ' - ; TCDP Colonic Fuad, UGRA Qn .. ~"' "~ ~ TCDP CD fund,.UGRA enter Point/Hill River (2j System ~53,593,4gQ" =; ~*= USDA Rural Development; UGRA Connections $650,000~ * :~ T(DPtoloniafund(1:25pragramyrsj,UGRA ' •.' ` TCPD (olonia Funtl (035 pre ram years) lue Rid e•lafa ette 4 Lines Connections S399,000 USDA Rural Develo ment, UGRA astern Kerrville South (I) ' ; ,; T(DP. Culoniafund,UGRA ` TCDP (olonia Fund, UGRA °~` T(DP.CDFuad(1.2i ro raro ears);UGRA oadcreek 1 (om late S stem T 51,195,000 TCDP{olonia Fund 25 ro ram ears ' Westwood Oaks MHP (4) lines/Connections - f"` 5865,000 USDA Rurof Develo menf, UGRA Westwood Park 3 , ~ lines Copnectionsn~, . z°_ - `'• 7.4D ~. TCDP (olonio Fund 15 ro ram - -ears TCDP = Tezas Community Deuelopment Proamm I[D = . [emmeniN nxrnlnmm~nr BmAl.rwna = ro.~. wpm. navel,,.,.....,, c...a_ uro. - u_... c.._~_~..__ e:..__ ........_ .. -----_~_-_-'.. _'._„'.._" '__'••...".'"...p......~.....,......-..pr.: vvauu:vra :u.v: mm~uu:r. Streets where capital improvements are scheduled are indicated on each colonio areo profile 6y UPPERCASE tent. Center Point Water Service Area KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 45 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE (continued) Planned Grant Application Timeline-Future Grants Only Grant amounts will vary from capital budgets because they include management costs, while the capital budgets include only acquisition, construction, and engineering costs. Program Program Funds Capital Project Amount ($) Year Available ~,•::: USDA-RD N/A 2004.06 Center Point (CP)/Hill -River Sewer' System $2,848;000 TCDP-Col ~ 2005 2006 Center Point/Hill River Sewer Conns. 1 $500,000 es - . w _ -- _ w .~._ ^ TCDP-Col 2007 2008 Woodcreek Sewer 1 $500,000 TCDP-Col 2008 2009 Woodcreek Sewer 3 $500,000 USDA RD fV/A 2009-11 Westwood Oak/Blue Ridge=Lafayette 5ewer_ $1,264,000 TOTAL $9,362,000 USDA-RD = U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development TCDP =Texas Community Development Program CD =Community Development Fund CoI = Colonic Fund Kerrville South Wastewater Service Area Center Point Wastewater Service Area Woodcreek Wastewater Service Area In ram Area Wastewater Service Area ~:~ ~..•. Westwood Park Sewer Center Point Water Service Area Multi le Project Area Grant KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 46 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN APPENDIX C STREET SEGMENTS SUGGESTED FOR REPAIR PCT AREA STREET LINEAR FEET ESTIMATEq COST Center Point Mostly 3,092 $15,151 Avenue D 1,044 $3,654 3`d Street 1,082 $3,246 4'" Street 541 $1,894 North 850 $3,400 Church 1,933 $6,766 Swayze 773 $2,106 Kelly 3,711 $11,133 Park 2,474 $6,589 Cypress 348 $2,262 Depot 425 $1,063 J1 lane 1,778 $6,223 TOTAL $64,085 Western Kerrville South White Oak 3,401 $9,523 loudiar 464 $2,320 Terra Grande 1,275 $3,570 Cedar Ridge MHP 948 $4,917 Ranchero MNP 2,860 $10,010 Shadow Ridge 8i2 $2,842 Wild Cherry 1,044 $2,923 N Valley Verde 3,208 $2,055 Ridge (rest 2,203 $11,566 Monroe 2,628 $13,140 Mountain 5,914 $29,570 TOTAL S92,496 KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 47 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN APPENDIX C STREET SEGMENTS SUGGESTED FOR REPAIR (cont'd.) IINEAR PCT AREA STREET FEET ESTIMATED COST Woodcreek Pal 1,739 $4,869 Gibson 812 $3,045 Rhonda 618 $2,163 Stringer 850 $2,915 Seville 580 $1,450 Kings Court 502 $1,406 Demarc 734 $2,055 Aaron 271 $401 Valencia 773 $1,933 Mt Top 618 $2,318 Wood Creek 3,285 $12,319 Wendy 657 $2,464 TOTAL $37,402 Westwood Oaks MHP Skyview 4,329 $12,465 Acorn 1,256 $6,280 fox Trail 850 $4,250 TOTAL $22,995 Hill River Country Estates Hackberry 1,150 $7,245 Live Oak 1,168 811,138 Walnut 1,633 $10,288 Pecan 1,536 $9,611 Cypress 2,038 $12,839 Skyline Drive 1,382 $8,707 Hackberry 1,150 $7,245 Live Oak 1,768 511,138 TOTAL $59,894 Blue Ridge-Lafayette Park Place 502 $2,510 Private Road 1 1,063 $5,953 Private Road 2 1,082 $6,059 Private Road 3 1,140 $6,384 Private Road 4 1,005 $5,628 Vogeslane 696 $3,898 TOTAL $30,432 KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 48 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN APPENDIX D PRIVATE, STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES Office of Rural Community Affairs (texas Community Development Program) Grants made to cities and counties for water, sewer, streets, drainage, and other capital improvements that principally benefit low•to-moderate income residents. Kerr County is eligible for the Alamo Area's regionally-competitive Community Development Fund $250,000 grants; the border region competitive Colonia Fund for $500,000 grants; and the statewide Small Towns Environment Program (STEP) $300,000 grants, which require volunteer labor to yield significant cost savings. Matching funds for Community Development and Colonia grants have typically come from rural utility districts. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Grants are made to cities, counties, and non-profit entities for single and multifamily housing construction, rehabilitation and reconstruction, rental assistance, first-time homebuyer down payment and closing cost assistance, and tow interest home financing. For example, the nearby City of Bandera and Medina County have used the Texas HOME Program (HUD funds) to rehabilitate and reconstruct dozens of homes. HOME requires voluntary relocation of the homeowner for 20-30 days during the construction period. Texas Water Development Board State Revolving Loan Fund makes loans available to expand water and sewer systems in rural areas. Typically utility districts and cities are the applicants for assistance. The county currently does not meet the distress criteria for the TWDB's Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP). United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development This agency, formerly called the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), typically offers grantlloan combinations to make improvements in rural communities through its Rural Utility Service. Many non-profit water corporations began using loans from USDA Rural Development. Other RD funds are also used for housing, health clinics, and utility services. US Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Grants are made to stimulate job creation or retention in economically depressed areas. Some parts of Kerr County could be eligible for these funds, but most Colonia areas do not quality since job creation and retention is usuatty a key requirement. Federal National Mortgage Agency (Fannie Mae) This private corporation, chartered by the federal government, provides housing assistance to lower income residents. Nearly all resources are dedicated toward increasing homeownership opportunities. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 49 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN APPENDIX E AREA PROFILES Each of the eight (8) colonia areas identified in Kerr County have a two• or three- page profile. When a particular developed area or subdivision abutted another developed area or subdivision, the areas were combined into a single colonia area. Kerrville South is geographically divided into two sections, the eastern and western, by a wealthier non-colonia area between the streets Valley View and Encino. Each area was given a number, beginning in the northeast in Precinct 1 and moving counterclockwise in the same direction as the county precinct numbers. KERR COUNTY, TEXAS Page 50 COMPREHENSIVE COLONIA STUDY & PLAN