ORDER N0.29063 DESIGNATION OF CITY OF INGRAM AS A COLONIA On this the 28`h day of February 2005, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the designation of City of Ingram as a "Colonia" for eligibility for grant funding for wastewater gathering system. COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS :EQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THF. C(~ilRa' MADE BY: Pat Tinley OFFICE: County MEETING DATE: February 28, 2005 TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT: Consider and discuss request for designation of City of Ingram as a "Colonia" for eligibility for grant funding for wastewater gathering system. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: County Judge/Danny Edwards 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, Government Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday. THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: 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 will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. ~Grir~i~ ~ . ~GG~Gl1Cr/1~6 ATTORNEY AT LAW February 23, 2005 Honorable Pat Tinley Kerr County Judge Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas 78028 Re: City of Ingram Application for Colonia designation Dear Judge Tinley: P.O. Box 379 HUNT, TEXAS 78024 (830) 238-4925 FAX (830) 238-4937 Attached please find my first and hopefully only, attempt at drafting an application to have the City of Ingram designated as a "colonia." We are encouraged that the suggestion we request such a designation originated from the State Office of USDA. That office is where the decision will be made on our pending application for agrant/loan package to construct a wastewater gathering system for the City. Receiving such a designation could well result in the City receiving a 100% grant. However, I hastily add that with the budget cutbacks from Washington, there is no guarantee we will receive any grant. I feel however, that our application is in the last stage of review and perhaps the colonia designation is the final step. It will be greatly appreciated if you could take the necessary steps to consider and act on the application as soon as possible. I do believe time is of the essence as the federal funding for 2004-2005 has just been released. At any time, I will be happy to meet or appear as necessary. If I can answer any questions or provide additional information, please do not hesitate to call on me. Thank you for your very kind consideration and attention to this matter. ,.$n~ely, ~yd' y. wards Ingr City Attorney DRE: st CC: Mayor Monroe Schlabach The Honorable Pat Tinley Kerr County Judge 700 Main Street Kerrville, Texas REQUEST BY THE CTI'Y OF INGRAM FOR DESIGNATION AS A COLONIA PURPOSE OF REQUEST The City of Ingram has filed with the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development an Application for a Grant/L.oan package for the construction of a wastewater gathering system for the City. A preliminary agreement has been negotiated with the City of Kerrville to receive and treat wastewater generated by the system. The estimated cost of construction for the project is approximately $7,000,000.00 to be phased in over athree-year period. The Preliminary Engineering Plans and an Environmental Assessment for the project have been approved by USDA. Due to the lower income level and housing standards of Ingram residents and properties, USDA has suggested that the City seek a "Colonic" designation. Such a designation will place the City in a more favorable position to receive a larger grant and reduce the burden of debt service. By USDA definition a Colonic is "any identifiable community designated by the State or County in which it is located, determined to be a colonic on the basis of objective criteria including lack of...adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing, inadequate roads and drainage..." Eligibility for a grant requires that: "Residents of the rural area to be served must face significant health risks due to the fact that a significant proportion of the community's residents do not have access to, or are not served by adequate, affordable water and/or waste disposal systems." HISTORY OF THE CITY OF INGRAM The City of Ingram was founded in about 1879. The first homes constructed were small, single family units with outdoor waste facilities and water from wells. Early settlers were mostly farmers raising grain, corn and cotton. Lumber was handled at Sherman's Mill and shingles were made from Cypress trees. The city growth in the early years was mostly by lower to middle income level families. While the exact number of housing units in the City varies when Kerr County Central Appraisal District ("KCAD") data is compared to data from the U.S. Census Bureau ("Census") it would appear that approximately 69% of the stick built houses in the City are over 35 years in age, having been constructed prior to 1970. There are a number of housing units that exceed 100 years in age. KCAD reports 652 housing units of which 261 are mobile or manufactured homes. The large influx of mobile homes in to the City began in the early 1970s though there are several such homes dating to the 1960s. Regulations on construction standards for manufactured homes were implemented only in 1974. Accordingly, many of the units in the City are sub-standard in construction. A large percentage of the older homes, including the manufactured units are in great need of repairs, some being very border line as acceptable for habitation. The Census shows 454 single housing units and 234 manufactured homes. Of the stick built units, 34% were constructed prior to 1960, being 45 years in age. Most are in a state of disrepair. When the early homes were converted from outhouses to indoor toilets, septic tanks were not always installed. Use of a 55-gallon drum or large pipe culverts was a common practice. The City has had many occasions to deal with the problems created by those types of installations. Some installations have been found to be French drains or cesspools. Even when conversions were made to septic systems, the minimum type of system required only two 55-gallon tanks with a minimum of field lines. The use of clay pipe was commonly used for field lines. City residents were put on a central water system in 1956, which put an increased load on all wastewater systems. The 55-gallon tanks are not sufficient for the increased load and the clay pipes used for field lines have in many cases deteriorated and collapsed. The result is large numbers of faulty septic systems. When defective systems are brought to light requiring new up- to-standard systems, many of the residents have not been financially able to update. On more than one occasion financial assistance from a church or other sources has been the only solution. THE CTI'Y OF INGRAM TODAY Location The City of Ingram is bounded on the South by the Guadalupe River and on the West by Johnson Creek. Brushy Creek also runs through the northwestern section of Ingram and 2 feeds into Johnson Creek. The Guadalupe River serves as the main water source for the City of Kerrville, just six miles downstream. The Guadalupe River also serves as a recreational area, which attracts many visitors to Kerr County each year. The lower areas of the City ar within the 100-year flood plain and are in close proximity to the Guadalupe River, na ly Old Ingram north of Old Ingram Loop and the southern most area of Cypress Falls Subdivision on the south side of Highway 27. The existing septic systems within the 1017-year flood plain are especially prone to being submerged by water in case of heavy rains either locally or upstream from the City. GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS The population of the City has historically grown at the same rate as the entire County. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, Ingram population was 1,408 in 1990 and 1,740 in 2000. However, there was a large drop in population between 1981 and 1990. The 1985 population was stated to be 1,949. The population is relatively evenly distribute within the City limits, although the natural terrain impedes development is some area of the City. Though the population continues to grow somewhat, the City has little vacate property available for new construction. Ingram is a Type A city as established by statute. Therefore is has no power of unilateral annexation and cannot expand its boundaries except by request of property owners adjacent to the City Limits. EXISTING FACILITIES The existing number of septic systems may be estimated by the number of existing structures shown on an aerial photograph and more accurately by residential units taken from the 2000 Census demographic data or KCAD records. According to water connection records, in addition to 711 housing units, some being multiple units, there are 69 commercial units connected to the existing water system. The residents of Ingram currently provide and maintain their own septic systems. The septic systems are generally in poor condition and are in need of replacement. The natural water quality in the area typically has low suspended solid; a high amount of dissolved calcium carbonate; low in chloride, sulfate and phosphorous; and also low in fecal bacteria and E. Coli bacteria. However, water quality data from the seeps, creek and springs taken by the Upper Guadalupe River Authority (UGRA) has shown unusually high occurrences of salts, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, phosphorous, fecal material and E. Coli bacteria. According to the UGRA, these impurities are generally associated with runoff of effluent from septic systems that are improperly designed, installed or maintained. 3 The septic systems currently in use in the City of Ingram are inadequate for proper handling of wastewater due to the population density of the area. Improper or inadequate design, installation or maintenance of the septic systems is also a cause of failure, which leads to unsanitary conditions for the residents and contamination of local water sources. The sight of raw surface sewage is not an uncommon sight. These unsanitary conditions are a safety and health hazard to the community and to the citizens of Kerrville downstream. A strong odor has been noted at each of the seep and creek study sites when visited. A copy of the UGRA Seep & Creek Study as well as a copy of the seep & creek data is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." HEALTH AND SAFETY Improper maintenance of existing septic systems, as well as inadequate absorption fields have been a ongoing source of problems for the City and the residents of Ingram. Septic system failure not only poses a threat to the environment if the effluent is allowed to drain into the Guadalupe River, but may lead to contamination of the ground water. Due to the population density of the area and inadequate absorption fields, the effluent for the septic systems may also contaminate the ground water sources for local wells. The City of Kerrville takes more than 80 percent of its drinking water from the surface water of the Guadalupe River the remainder from ground water. Private and commercial wells also provide water for the residents of Ingram and surrounding communities. Since 1994 the UGRA has monitored several seep and creek locations within the City of Ingram and its ETJ. The seeps were determined to be caused by the overloading of the subsurface soils and the leeching of the effluent along the clay strata. Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, the water quality of the monitored seep and creek sites does not meet minimum standards for human contact. The study established "Steam Walter Quality Criteria" for the Guadalupe River and other tributaries. While the numbers fluctuate during wet and dry years, the trend is obvious. Using the Ingram-Retama Center Seep site as an example it can be noted that in 1994 Fecal and E.Coli were not too high. Fecal (Standard -20) E.Codi (Standard-20) 1994 32 32 1998 (Feb.-March) 595 240 4 The numbers for Chloride and Sulfate have always been consistently high at all monitoring sites, evidence of fecal breakdown. At the Sixth Street site the Fecal/E.Coli count has been as high as 500/200. The UGRA has classified the area as threatening to the waters of the Guadalupe as a result of the failing and substandard septic systems. The failing septic systems typically are either older conventional septic systems, which have inadequate adsorption fields, open cesspools or surface discharge systems. The proposed wastewater collection system will remove the safety and health hazards of the failing septic systems and will minimize the water contaminations risks associated with these systems. A copy of a map showing the locations of the seep and creek study sites as well as the data from the sites is included in parts of the study attached as Exhibit "A." FINANCIAL, FAMII.,Y AND HOUSING DEMOGRAPHICS It is difficult to develop a clear picture of the financial standing of families in any given community. The Census Bureau recognizes that the lower income parts of our society and undocumented aliens are the least inclined to respond to census questionnaires. Recognizing this the Census Bureau works from overall known population figures and must resort to interpolation when developing data on family income, house values, race and employment numbers. In its manual on use of census data, it states as follows: "The Census Bureau strongly recommends that data users incorporate the information regarding standard errors into their analyses of data as these errors could be sizable. For any estimate in the Demographic Profiles subject to sampling error, users may calculate a confidence interval to see how likely a range of values generated from the sample results would be to contain the value that would have been obtained based on a census where all people and housing units were enumerated with the census long for." The bold print and italics above were not added by this writer, but were so printed for emphasis in the Census Bureau manual. The "information regarding standard errors" consists of several pages of formulas and charts used for interpolation. In some instances, interpolation can include using income, number of family members, house values, etc. from similar data for other parts of the County. Considering that the City of Ingram has a large population of lower income residents and some undocumented aliens it would seem to be a fair conclusion that without some extensive interpolation, the census data on number of family members per housing unit may likely be low and the average income and housing values may likely be high. 5 To assist in properly presenting data as accurately as possible, Census Bureau data has been examined along with available date from the Kerr Central Appraisal District. As an example only of the differences between the Census Bureau and KCAD, the Census Bureau on Exhibit "B" attached, indicated 454 single unit houses and 234 mobile homes. KCAD has 391 houses and 261 mobile homes. By interpolation between the two sources, approximately 63% of the single housing units in the City are stick build and 37% are mobile homes. As pointed out above in "History of the City of Ingram," using the "Year Structure Built" data on Exhibit "B", approximately 69% of the stick built houses in the City are over 35 years in age and 34% were constructed before 1960, being 45 years in age. By far, a majority of the older houses have not been properly maintained and continue to deteriorate. The likely hood of having septic tanks updated in those older homes is highly dubious and more so when the financial burden is factored into the equation. It should further be noted on Exhibit "B" that 15% of the housing units have three rooms or less and 36.9% have four rooms or less. The Census Bureau shows 712 housing units with 96.7% being either a mobile home or a single- family unit. Data provided by KCAD reflects that 34% of the homes, including mobile homes are valued at $30,000 or less and 53% are valued at $50,000.00 or less. These percentages would increase greatly if as few as 31 houses were removed from the equation. KCAD puts the average value of all home, including mobile homes, at $48,811.00 and again, this figure would be lower if the same 31 homes were removed from the equation. Looking at Exhibit "B" from the Census Bureau it can be seen that the population of Ingram is somewhat transient. Note that 55% of householders have moved in since 1995 as the City regained it growth following a decline in population from 1985. And, 23% moved in 1999 alone. Looking at Exhibit "C", the Census Bureau Economic data, the population over the age of 16 years numbers 1,290. However, only 65% are in the work force, with 35% being unemployed. Of those in the work force, 45% are females indicating that two people are employed in many families. Yet, 60% of households earn less that $35,000.00 per year and the median household annual income is only $30,958.00. Note that 78.4%of households earn less than $50,000.00. This is household, many of which have mare than one employed person. This percentage would increase greatly if only 16 households were removed from the equation. In households with a female as head of the house and no husband present 36.9% 6 are below the poverty level when related children are under 18 years of age, and 47.1% are below the poverty level when related children are under 5 years of age. SUMMARY The age and deteriorated conditions of the septic systems within the City of Ingram are creating hazardous health conditions for the residents and such conditions will only worsen with each passing day. Those systems, due to their proximity to the Guadalupe River, Johnson Creek and Brushy Creek that feeds into Johnson Creek, pose a threat to the environment. As the effluent continues to saturate the soil, there is a continuing risk of contamination of ground water sources. The threat will continue to grow for the City of Kerrville in the taking of its surface water from the Guadalupe for its drinking water. Contamination of the Guadalupe River could also financially impact the County, considering the large number of visitors attracted to the area by the presence of the River. The UGRA has extensive data obtained from monitoring of seep and creek locations to confirm the leeching of effluent along subsurface clay strata. The data reflects that the quality of water from monitored seeps and creek sites do not meet the minimum standards for human contact. Such data supports the action of UGRA in classifying the Ingram area effluent as threatening to the waters of the Guadalupe. Data from the Census Bureau and KCAD confirms that the age and deteriorated state of a large percentage of the single-family living units in the City are substandard with little chance for improvement due to the limited financial resources of the property owners. Such financial restrictions also impede any progress in properly maintaining and/or repairing or replacing faulty septic systems. Without a wastewater gathering system for the City of Ingram there is no feasible or practical way to prevent a worsening environment and health conditions due to hundreds of substandard septic systems. The City of Ingram cannot develop a wastewater system without the benefit of a government grant. 1t is respectfully submitted that there is sufficient objective criteria, including the lack of an adequate sewage system to support a finding that Ingram can be designated as a colonia. The eligibility can be satisfied: "Residents of... (the City of Ingram are faced with) significant health risks due to the fact that a significant proportion of the community's residents do not have access to, or are not served by adequate, affordable water an/or waste disposal systems." 7 The designation of the City of Ingram as a colonia will greatly enhance the chances of obtaining a grant and a wastewater system. WHEREFORE, the City of Ingram acting by and through it's City Council and with full authorization to the Ingram City Attorney to represent the City, respectfully submits this request for the necessary action to be taken by the County Judge to designate the City of Ingram as a colonia as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development. The City of Ingr Y Danny .Edwards Ingram City Attorney Approved pursuant to authority of the Ingram City Council: _ ~ ~ Gerald John's. ,Mayor Pro tem Shirley ug, Counci woman 8 IDEl'~ITIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS BASED ON WATER QUALITY KERl2 COUNTY TEXAS By Seott Loveland Upper Guadalupe River Authority Environmental Laboratory April 1447 EHI3IBIT "A" cl\TrROOLTc~r-rol~i Management of water resources involves the understanding of the complete hydrological cycle including; rainfall patterns, runoff and floodflow, ground water and springflow and fcnally consumption and return flow. Local water management is primarily focused on the watershed of the Guadalupe River and the aquifers utilized by Kerr County residents. Studying a watershed is a holistic approach, and entails looking at the many factors effecting a water body. This includes water quality along with and in relation to water quantity. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has "classified" four stream segments in Kerr County: Johnson Creek, the North Fork, the South Fork, and the Guadalupe River from the North-South Fork confluence downstream to Canyon Dam. All other streams and water bodies in the county are termed "unclassified". TNRCC and UGRA have developed the "Stream Water Quality Criteria" (SWQC} for the four classified stream segments in Kerr County (Tablel). This criteria is based on a stream segment's uses and water quality. It assumes that if water quality in a stream is preserved, the uses will be preserved. Inversely, if the water quality degrades the uses may degrade. ~To understand water quality in the Guadalupe River it is necessary to examine the water sources flowing into it. The base flow of the river is primarily springs emerging from "karst" (honey combed limestone} geological formations, locally referred to as the Edwards Plateau Aquifer. if unspoiled, the water is typically clear (low in suspended solids}, hard (high in dissolved calcium carbonate), and Iaw in chloride, sulfate, phosphorus and fecal bacteria. Seeps originating from the area of the USDA Livestock Insect Lab and Ceci( Atkinsson Chevrolet feed this drainpipe on the north-west side of I-14 (In figure 3 this area reads "Cemetery"). This area is characterized by many seeps and springs originating from typical Hill Country caliche hillsides. AlI parameters tested at site 24 exceed SWQC standards. Ingram/Greenwood Forest Thirteen samples were collected from the Ingram/Greenwood Forest area (Table 2 and Figure 4, samples #6-#18}. Alt samples had very poor water quality, with many having alt parameters exceeding SWQC standards. Samples 6 thru 9 were collected within the city limits of Ingram, and all flow into creeks or culverts within a mile of the Guadalupe River. Site 8 was of special concern not only because of its poor water quality, but because of its close proximity to Ingram Elementary. The Ingram area is characterized by small Lots, poor soils for septic systems, and shallow ground water. Samples 10 thru 18 were collected from the Greenwood Forest area. Again, all samples were collected from seeps or creeks that travel less than a mile to the Guadalupe River. Samples I5, 16, 1? and 18 were collected from seeps flawing down neighborhood streets, and all had high to extremely high fecal bacteria. This area's characteristics are similar to The City of Ingram's; small lots, poor sails for septic systems, shallow ground water, and no centralized sewer collection system. JLD LAKE INGRAM Cllr. IngramlGreenwood Forest Study area ~.,. ~~ 0 ~s SAMPLE FLAN METI~IODS Ah'D MATERIALS The sample plan included 51 seeps and smaller creeks in the County. Samples were collected according to procedures specif ed in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 18~' Edition. Samples were tested far ?common water quality parameters: nitrate-nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, sulfate, conductivity, fecal and E.coli bacteria. Methods and instrumentation for testing are listed in the Upper Guadalupe River Authority Environmental Laboratory's standard operating procedures (SOP} for each test and in the Texas Clean Rivers Program Surface Water Quality Monitoring Pmiect For TTie GuadaluQe River Basin. Quality Assurance Project Plan (1996). l 1 RESULTS AItD DISCUSSIQN Table 2 Iists the sample sites and water quality results included in this study. Bolded values are parameters exceeding SWQC standards. Bolded and enlarged values are parameters at least twice SVi~QC standards. The sample stations were grouped by general sampling area and analyzed for potential water quality problems. Four primary " roblem areas" were identified: Hwy 173 South, I-10 and Hwy I6 North, P ~ Ingram/Greenwood Forest, and Kerrville South. These areas are represented in Table 2 by gray shading, and illustrated in Figure 1 by red dots. Hwy I73 South Two samples were taken from the Hwy 173 South area (Figure 2 and Table 1, sample #34 & #35}_ Both samples were collected from seeps flowing down the street into a culvert on highway 173. This culvert empties into Turtle Creek, which then flows 2 miles to the Guadalupe River. Both samples had parameters well over the SWQC standards for conductivity, chloride, sulfate and phosphorus. This area is characterized by heavy ground water flow, a "moderate lot size" subdivision, and poor soil type far septic systems. 1-1t1 and Hi~hway 161\`orth Two samples were collected from this area (Table 1 and Figure 3, sample #24 & #25}. Sample 25 was collected from Quinlan Creek, south of I-10. AlI parameters appeared within SWQC standards at this site. Sample 24 was collected from a drainpipe which empties into Quinlan Creek, just downstream of site 25. From this location, ` Quinlan Creek flows 3.5 miles to the Guadalupe. The remainder of the Guadaiupe's Flow comes from rain, discharges, and small creeks and seeps. If the Guadalupe source water is degraded to the point where the water quality has parameters over the SWQC standards, water quality in the River will eventually degrade. The objective of this study was to examine the water quality of Ken County seeps and creeks (ie: source water to the Guadalupe River}, and identify problem areas. Table i Stream Water Quality Criteria WATER QUALIFY STREAM SEGMENT PARAMETER Johnson Creek North Fork South Fork Guadalupe River 'Conductivity ; 54Q 540 544 __ 580 Chloride 40 20 20 30 'Sull'~te ~0 20 20 3d Nitrate 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Pltosphorus Q.015 4.E3I5 __ O.t~IS 4.420 Fecal 200 200 240 200 E.eol X35 135 135 135 USES Recreation CR CR GR CR Aquatic Life E E E E ©omestic Water Supply PS PS P5 PS Acronyms: CR -Contact Recreation E -Exceptional Qua.Iity Habitat PS -Public Water Supply I1 UGRA Wader Quality Data Seeps, Creeks and Springs Collected February 1994 ~ AREA CREEK, SEEP or SPRING .Conductivity Chloride Sulfate Nitrate Phos horus Fecal E.co/i 1 South Fork RiverLm(SEEP) 522 l9 43 0.9 O.t10 0 0 2 Ingram Ingram Dam 450 i9 0 0.1 O.U17 0 0 3 Ingram Ingram-Relama Center (SEEP} 1176 1I 1 151 I.7 0.01 S 32 3Z 4 [ttgratrt/Creenwood Forest. Nichols Ck (c~ Goat Ck Cut-Off 1ZI4 155 90 9.1 0.006 20 20 5 Cam Verde Verde Creek im Hwy l73 455 l5 24 0.2 0.003 38 16 6 Center Point Verde Creek (a7 Elm Pass Rd) 500 15 29 0.1 0.007 622 6 7 Center Point Verde Creek t~ Center Point Estates 536 l9 45 0.l 0.004 34 26 B Hwy 27 -Airport Steel Ck ~a~ Hap 27 730 33 53 1.4 0.004 l6 0 9 Kerrville Loop 534 1~tird Ck (~ Spur I W 1100 183 63 15.0 0.254 .116(1 ' 46 IO Kerrville Loop 534 KerivilIe's aVVVTF Effluent 1070 187 52 13.0 0.28(! 0 0 I 1 Comfort CamforYa 4VGVTP E~ueat 1486 264 122 12 1.b30 Bold Values represent parameters at or over stream standard. Bold and enlarged values represent parameters more than twice stream standard. SeepCreek94 SeepCrek94-99 SAL Ur RA Water ~uaEity Data Seeps, CreeEtis and Springs Capccted Febtturi• 1995 p I AREA North Fork CREEK, SEEP_ or SPRAG Bcc Caws Creek a Hwy 1340 Condyctivirv 310 Chloride Sulfate Nitrate Phosphorus Fecal B,coli 1 North Fork Dry Cted: 6: Hwt' 1340 3g0 3 South Fork 5th Rives J:idg oti Hwt 39 West of Hunt, Lynx Haven (SEEP) 340 4 South Folic White Oak Crock ra Hwy 39 350 ~ Sou~t Fork River Gut (SEEP) 560 20 37 2.0 0.067 t 50 p 6 7 South Fodc South Furk Across Hwy 34 From River Gtn, Culvert (SEEP) 2nd River •" From Hunt an Hwy 39 (SEEP) 880 7g0 4i 5S 6.2 0.054 >3000 >30d0 8 South Fotk a Ravine (a' Htvy 39 4U0 9 South Fars: Across Hwt 39 From C La Junta (SEEP) 6U0 (B 5 0.2 0.021 U EO 11 Hunt- Johnson Ck Bumble Bee Ck (a Hwy 39 Fessenden Ck tai Hwy 27 460 450 20 29 10 (1 0.2 1.3 0.005 O.U03 150 8 2p i2 1 i Gtg~am Below Now Dam (SEEP) Indian Ck ~ ConElurncc w Goads 470 320 16 I6 l2 16 0.2 0.2 0.017 0.(/U3 I60 40 14 Ingram Brtuhy Ck ~ Clad, Street 520 43 46 0.2 O.OUS 16 1` Gtgtata Gtgrun IIcmentary School (SEEP} 1100 148 94 6.5 o_o[S 200 1G frtbtarn Gtg'aarRetama Center {SEEP} 71SA 78 HZ 0.3 O.OOS 70 10 I7 fit~rant/Crrocbwood Forst Hwy 27 ~ Budweiser (SEEP) Ht0 81 36 3.2 0.00E 90 p 1 B Gtgraatt/Crreeavwod Forcat groat Ck Cat-0ff Road {SEEP) tt1211 127 70 4.9 0.004 120 20 i9 Keirn7le I-10 Rattlesnake C4: r H l6 400 20 16 0.2 0.012 64 20 Kerrvn~e [-10 Lot F52 Scenic Vapcv (SE$P) 580 23 21 D.6 0.033 880 21 Kerrville [-10 Draw South of Litdc River Dance Hall (SEEP) S l0 25 24 U.2 0.004 g Z2 Kcrrv>71e i-10 South Side Qi 10, F.sst Hwy 16 Cuh~ert to (?ttinLyt Ck (SEEP} 965 76 74 2.5 O.Z39 4 23 Kalrvt7le I-10 Bcmon Drive Wcaf of I-IO 7atetaeetion (SEEP} g46 4p ;9 0.2 0.010 >jQQ(j 24 KetrvElle Loop 534 T1tvd Creek Road, Upstream of Disc a S73 19 5 tl.2 0.004 gb 20 zS KerrvipC 3oudt Ranchero Rd ~ Vapey View Drive (SEEP} Itf89 135 105 0.012 26 EGonvp[c_ SouA>, C Crock Himfct'a W 7411 43 4$ 0.002 27 Kerrvipe South Camp M Ck . Hwyl73 640 40 IS 0.2 0.007 70 50 28 Kerivipe Srnaft Ranchero Rd /~ Va1 Verde (SEEP? 760 47 64 0.020 24 Kctrvipe Soulti Clear Ck (c8 Calcotte brive 540 3U Ken vi71e South Clear Ck ~ Hwitcr's Vv'av 570 36 39 0.003 31 River HIIs Faraway I)r(SEEPJ 921 103 6(1 0.2 O.WS E0 32 River Ht71s Behind River Ht71 1\fainfenance Baro (SEEP) BOtI et 6.4 3.B 33 Hwy l6 South Seep ([~ West Ck & Hwy [6 510 26 3I O.OU9 3a Hwry l5 South 14o1f Ck ra Fap Ck Rd 410 l3 1 L U.6 0.(104 154 3~ Hwy 16 South Hidd~•tt Arces br (d. Hwy i6 (SEEP) 540 24 37 0.005 36 Hwy 16 South Lower Iunle Ck Rd !a~ Hwy 16 (SEEP) SW 18 43 0.0(M 37 Hwy 16 South Hoofbeat Trail fc~ Hwy l6 (SEEP) 54U 3l 47 U.(N15 36 E{vvv l6 Sotdh Hwv l6 (u. Esst Spicer Rd (SEEP) 600 27 4B 39 Hoy 173 South Forest Circle (~ Rwd Dr (SEEP) 1140 74 4$ D.2 d.Ua4 I40 0 40 Hwy U3 Snuth Foust Circle (a' Hwy 173 (SEEP) 769 27 I06 U.2 QU06 lU 41 I,owror Tcrrtte Cl: Kd Tamar f vtc ~ I'tutlz Ck (SEEP} 93b 10 $Q )p,p O.n}9 6p 0 42 [.otver Turtle Ck P.d Seep ,Wert Ck & l,ovver Tartly Ck. Rd. 490 22 35 D.(N12 43 Hvw 27 -Airport Silver Cl. r Hwy 27 610 26 43 U.3 a4 Hwry 27 - ~'-.irport Silver CI. ~a Hv.~~ 27. (SEEP) (a~ Hvvv 27 Bri a 630 71 43 0.002 45 Center Point P.ivcr Rd Upstream Center Poutt Lake (SPRIIIG) 650 50 1.1 4G Center PrsQtt Steel Ck ra Hwy 27 640 29 49 1.8 47 Center Paint Blufl Ck ~a Hwy 27 53(I 48 Cyprtas Ck u'dsvn Ck r; Wt7svn Ck Rd 4yD Rold Values represent parameters at or over stream standard. IIold and enlarged values represent parameters mare than twice stream standard. SeepCteek95 S eepCrek94-99 SAL T:tbCe 2 Water Quality Resu{ts ©F Kerr Cottnty Creeks and Seeps January 1997 d AREA C:EtEEK OR SEEP Cenductivits Chloride Sulfate FFitmte ('hosFhoru F cc,t r f ':ort}r Furl: F(oney Ck ra Hon- Cl' Ranch 496 10 E0,000 3PU 17 In ood Forest •GakView St end Sktivicw St. (BEEFY) 1192 67 133 8.4 O.I2.I 1.9W I .U iR [naram/C'rreerwvod Forest `TimExrGne SL and Wed t-wood St. (SEEP) 1824 26I 5.0 0.049 19 rJld Imam IYam Indian Ck ray Contlurnce w/ Guadalupe 512 16 Id <0.5 O OUZ <1U m4'io~svood Forest Hwy 27/03 Bodweisor(SF.EP) 1258 I22 3s 9.5 0.01E t0 10 15 ^'DOd Forest Goat Ck l`.at-0ffltuad (SEF~) 1315 118 60 10.5 O.OI3 130 I I O 16 Fn~aml'ieeewood Forest SEyview SL and Oakview Sk (SEEP) 410 1J 33 <0.5 0.121 450. 100 17 Foress 3 St and w st SEEM' f195 &14 63 10~ .0.043 >1Q b00 380 1 R F~Gmividod Forest OakView bt. sad Styview St (SEEP) 1192 67 133 8.4 0.121 1.900 170 19 In~gamr(3ceawood Forest Cseovwood Spring (SL'EP) 1357 114 113 12.T O.a22 IOl3 loo 2Fl FnljanJGeeQwood Forest Tmtbertiue Sk and Wedgewood St. (SEEP) 1824 26l S.0 0.049 2 f Kenvihe- 27 Goat Ck 63l 22 3l :O.S 0.002 30 l0 23 Y:ewiOe m Ck .Pads St 667 37 30 'O.j 0.00 30a 200 24 [Cerrvi0e Beat Ck , Beu Ck ltd, Abm~e UQLA Lake 373 21 SS 'OS 0.003 t lb is 25 I-10 Fiillstar Mdlidts I-10 and ITwY l6 (SE81') .. !SS .::., 7~ 9~ - 43 OS$ 41q 26 KemtIle t-ia Quiat}m Ck . I-to s63 17 19 <11.5 0.006 2000 >2000 (ngram/CMlatwood Forest Oalview St and Skyview 5t (SEEP} .. 1139 ~1. 97 16.9 0.022 183. 170 Kerrville-Ingam Goat Ck ra Hwy 27 560 21 31 0.3 <0.002 65 60 Kerrville I-10 Quinlan Ck ra Gardrn oflvlemory Cemetery 533 l5 24 <0.02 0-006 <5 <5 Kerrville I-10 HiIIstar hintors Q I-i0 and Hwy I8 (SEEP) 831 S7 67 Ib.~ 0:04,3 .. >2000 >2000 TCer}'vilte I-10 South Sider 1>1 10, East Fdtsry t6 Crtlvort to Quiafao Ck (SEEP} 1063 69 114 3.7 b.t'}16 9S 55 Kcmille [-l0 Quinlan Ck ra Camera Safari below main lake 402 L6 l8 x.02 0.013 25 25 Kerrville I-l0 Town Ck (c~ Harper Rd. 473 20 1 l 0.2 <0.002 225 120 Kemi Oe Bcaz Ck ~ $caz Ck Rd, Al+ove UGRA Lakc 529 16 33 0. l O.U02 5 S Kerrville Town Ck ra Rater St. bridge 490 24 25 ,0.02 0.008 55 50 Kerrville South Rancltere Rd k~ Valley < 2Q0,000 >200,000 27 Kerrville-lrJQnet [31ue Rktpe MI-iP ~ (S~P) 266 <0.2 4.944 50 SD 28 Kerrville Bcar Ck @ Bear Ck Rd, Above UGRA Lake 556 16 26 4,000 19U 36 Kerrville Loop 534 2nd Ck @ Spur 100 766 27 35 0.3 0.D07 100 100 3 % k:errvdle Loop 534 3rd Ck I DO yds Upstream of W WTP discharge 633 l7 27 <42 U U03 380 280 38 ~~--+tr1r, r v~p s]a )-d rG @ 7 c-'•;trgr;l nr tVt~r ~ !(1R0 l37 f10 9.1 0.11)6 80 R(7 39 Kcrrvilka :,app 534 3rd Ck @ Rive:sidc Dr IOtL L l7 5B S.0 9.177 t8d l60 Bold Values represent parameters at or over stream standard. Bold and enlarged values represent parameters more than twice stream standard. sexPCrrzk99 sapctikva-~ SnL Summary The objective of this study was to examine the water quality of Kerr County seeps and creeks, and identify areas of concern. The sample plan included testing 51 county seeps and creeks for water quality. Tests included conductivity, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, phosphorus, and fecaVE.coli. bacteria. Four areas were identified as having water quality problems: Hwy 173 South, I-IO and Hwy 16 North, Ingram/Greenwood Forest, Kerrville South. This was based on the water quality in an area, compared to the "Stream Water Quality Criteria" (SWQC} standards. The four areas identified have several common characteristics. Some of these include, shallow ground water, a heavy reliance on septic systems for waste disposal, and poor soil types. These charecteristics along with the poor water quality indicate contamination from septic sytems. SWQC relates stream uses to water quality. Future studies can be designed to assess the effects degraded water quality is having on "stream uses". Depending on goals, other studies can be designed to answer the following important questions: What effects do degraded creeks and seeps have on the Guadalupe River?, What is the effect of rain- runoff on Kerr County streams?, What is the effect of Kerrville's waste water discharge on the Guadalupe River: Increased flow/increased nutrient enrichment. 14 T'.~;r1'?~ C,.:y', eX,~.S -.ter-_~.. -+0.-...~ O 1e..+~'.eC..- ~'~~'. ~; ., `"a1:~.C:e1-"'~:"C5: _, ., ,, .' O_ n._ DP-4._Profile of_Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 Data Set: Census 2000_Summar + File 3~SF 3~ -Sample Data Geographic Area: Ingram city, Texas NOTE Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions see httR~tfirlslei.c~[LSUSg9YLhQppQl~r]Ld'stta~ se~e~sf3 htm. Subject Number; Percent 5 to 9 units 4 0.6 10 to 19 units 0 0.0 20 or more units .......................................................................................................................................... 0 ..............:.......................................................... 0.0 ........................ :Mobile home 234 32.9: :Boat, RV, van, etc. 4 0.6 .. -- _.. 9 .........:.......................................................... 1.3 ........................ 79 11.1 58 .........:.......................................................... 8.1 ........................ 162 .........:..............................................:............ 22.8: ......................: 136: .........:.......................................................... 19.1 ........................ 114: ;.. 16.0: 125: 17.6; 29 4.1 :ROOMS .......................................................................................................................................... ..............:..............................................:........... .......................: 1 room 11 1.5 2 rooms .......................................................................................................................................... 24 ..............:.......................................................... 3.4 ....................... . 3 rooms 72 10.1 ~4rooms 1561 21.9: i 5 rooms 222: 31.2: 6 rooms __ _ - 131 18.4; 7rooms 47 6.6 8 rooms .......................................................................................................................................... 32 i ..............;..............................................:........... 4.5 .......................: 9 or more rooms .......................................................................................................................................... 17; ..............:.......................................................... 2.4 ....................... . 'Median..(rooms) ........................................................................................................... ...............':........................................4:9 !........... ..................~X) :......................................................................................................................................... Occupied Housiq~ Units_ - - _..._ .............. ..............:..............................................:........... ..................................._ _......_ 645: ....................... : 100.0: _.... . :YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT :1999 to March 2000 148: 22.9: :1995 to 1998 213: 33.0; :1990 to 1994 .......................................................................................................................................... 120: ......................................................................... 18.6: ....................... . :1980 to 1989 70 10.9: :1970 to 1979 .......................................................................................................................................... 64 ..............:.......................................................... 9.9 ........................ :1969 or earlier 30 4.7 :VEHICLES AVAILABLE None 45 7.0 1 233: 36.1 2 250 : .......... .............. 38.,8; 3 or more 117: 18.1 =aQe o http://factfinder.census. gov/servl et/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4836032&-gr_name=DE... 2/16/2005 EXHIBIT "B" ,. Subject Number: Percent: HOUSE HEATING FUEL Bottled..tank, or.4?..9as.........._ .............. .......... _ _........__. _......_......... .........~.8~......... .................2$: Electricity ............... _ ..._......................................._................ _ ........................... ..............-.............425.:......... .-..............65.9.: Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 2 0.3 Coal or coke 0; 0.0 Wood 23 ~ 3.6 Solar energy 0 0.0 _ -Other fuel 2 0.3 No fuel used 3 0.5 ........................................................................................................................................................:... SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS .....................................................................................................................................................;... ...........................................:......... ........................................... i......... .........................: .........................; Lacking complete plumbing facilities _ _ 4____ _ 0:6; Lacking complete kitchen facilities 4 0.6 No telephone service - 22 - 3.4 .OCCUPANTS PER ROOM .....................Occupied housing.units.........................................................-..............-.............. ...................................645:......... ......--.....-100.0.: :1.00 or less 603 93.5: :1.01 to 1.50 .... ... .................................................................................................................................................:... 28 ..................................................... 4.3 .......................... :1.51 or more 14 2.2 Specified-owner-occupied units _ .._... 295: 100.0: VALUE Less than $50,000 ........................................................................................................................................................:... 119: ..................................................... 40.3: ......................... . :.$50,000 to $99,999 ... ------ - - ..-..-_....-.-.. - -- - - - - _ _ - - ._ ............................. .......... - - - - _ . ..-145 ...... -- - --49 2 $100,000 to $149,999 ........................................................................................................................................................:... 27 ..................................................... 9.2 .......................... .$150,000 to.$199,999 ..............................................................................................................::.. .................... .....-. ~......... ...................0: :$200,000 to $299,999 ........................................................................................................................................................:... 2; ..................................................... 0.7 ....... . ........ . ........ . $300,000 to $499,999 0 0.0': $500,000 to $999,999 0 0.0 :$1,000,000 or more.. ........_._ _ .._ _ _ _ -._._._. _.._._...... _ ........... ..._ .._.. _...... _ 0:._._._ ._._._....0.0.: Median {dollars) :-- --------- ..............56,800-_ ---.. ............_......(X) .. :.......... ... ... ............ ...........................................................................................................................:... MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................;... .............................. .............:......... ...........................................:.......-. .........................: .-.......................; With a mortgage ........................................................................................................................`:... ...................................174.:.-.....-. ................59:0.: Less than $300 4 1.4 $300 to $499 42 14.2: $500 to $699 73 24.7 $700 to $999 38 12.9 :........$1,000 to $1,499 ................................................................................................................... ......................................~.~.......... ..................5:8. $1,500 to.$1_,999 ......................................... -.. ........................................0...-..-.. ...-..-..-..-..-...0:0 $2,000 or more :...................................................................................................................................... ... ... ... ........:... 0 ..................................................... 0.0 .......................... .......Median .(doI Iars) .................................................................................................................... ................................... 603......... ....................{X).; Not mortgaged .............................................................................................................................. ...................................121.:......... ................41.:5.: Median (dollars) 235: (X) :SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 :Less than 15 percent 111 37.6: 15 to 19 percent ~ 45 15.3; ,20.to 24 percent ..._...... _ _._..._ _ _ _ _ -_ ...__ ... .._... _ .. ....... ...._.__ .40._._.. _..........13:6: 25 to 29 percent ........................................................................................................................... ......................................26.......... .....-.............8: g< 30 to 34 percent .........................................................................................................................~... ......................-..-........... 29.:........ ...............-... 9:8.€ 35 percent or more 44 14:9: :Not computed ................................................................................................................................ ........................................5......... ................... a:5. :....................Specified renter-0ccupied units . ...... _ _._.__152.1, _ _ _ 100.0: :GROSS RENT Less than $200 5; 3.3 $200 to $299 .......................................................... ............... ........................................................................ .......... 14 ... ... ............................................... 9.2 ........................... $300 to $499 54 35.5 $500 to $749 ........................................................................................................................................................:.. 44 ..................................................... 28.9 ........................... httpa/factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable? bm=y&-geo id= 16000US4836032&-qr name=DE... 2/16/2005 _r~ram c-.':y, --e~:as - -..^--~_~.. --ro::.e ~~: 'e ec~.ec..-.ous r~; ,..~a~-ac':er.,~: cs. _.~ ~~`~ -:`age ;~ o- Subject Number Percent $750 to $999 16 10.5 $1,000 to S 1,499 1 0.7 $1,500 or more 0 0.0 No cash rent .................................................................. ............................................................................:........ 18 .............................................................. 11.8: .......... Median (dollars) 479: (X)! GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 Less than 15 percent 28 18.4 15 to 19 percent `: 23 15.1 20 to 24 percent ......_ ......................._.-._...-..-.. ___ _......_-..._.._.__.._._.__........._._. ........................ _._21.;.__...._._........._ 1.3.:8: 25 to 29 percent .......................................................................................................................................................:........ 10 ................................................................ 6.6 .......... 30 to 34 percent ........................................................................................................................ 9!.......................... ..5:9 35 percent or more 40; 26.3: :Not computed 21 1.3:8; (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices H1, H7, H2O, H23, H24, H30, H34, H38, H40, H43, H44, H48, H51, H62, H63, H69, H74, H76, H90, H91, and H94 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable? bm=y&-geoid=16OO0US4836O32&-gr_name=DE... 2/16/2005 _ngram c':y, Tesas - ~~~:'-_~..:'ro:._e o: ~e ec~:ec --,conom~c '` larac~:er~sc'.cs: ~' ~' $ }. p~ d :., { TO'~ ice. ~ ~ n ~5 }$ $# r _ - YY ~ .~..... .... -:.. ......... __ ,3 DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Data Set: Census 2000 Summer _File_3 NSF 3~_-.Sample .Data Geographic Area: Ingram city, Texas NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions see htt~://factfnder.cena~~govlhome>~n/da anot s/expsf~.htm. Subject ......................................._._......._..._.._.. - - ._..._............_.......................-.....Number;........ - - Percent: EMPLOYMENT STATUS Population 16 years and over :............... ........................................................................... 100 - In labor force - - _._.. 847: 65.7: Civilian labor force 847; _ .- - 65.7: Employed ............... ................................. 810: 62.8 - -__...._ Unemployed..... - - - -._...... - - __..__..........._ ..._ ............................37 ......... - -2 9< . Percent of.civilian labor force 4.4 ~X) Armed Forces 0! 0.0 :Not in labor force ....................................................................................................................................... 443: .................:.......................................................... 34.3: ....................... . Females 16 years and over 662 ; 100.0 In labor force 380: 57.4: Civilian labor force 380: 57.4 .....Employed .................................................................................................... .......................................................373.:........... ..............56.3 ................ Own children.under.S..Y.ears............................................................ .................~......................................143.'........... ............100.0: .... . :All parents in family in labor force ~ 76 53:1 :COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over 791: ;Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 600;, :Car, truck, or van -- carpooled _ _ : 154; .. _... . ;Public transportation .(including.taxiceb_). .............................................................................. 0 ....................................................... :Walked 14 :Other means ......................................................................................................................................................... 10; ............................................ . :Worked at home .................................................................................................................................. s 13 ..............................................:........ :Mean travel time to work (minutes) 19.3' Employed civilian population 16 years.and over __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 810__:, :OCCUPATION ;Management, professional, and relaters occupations______________________________________________________ _______________________________________173; Service occupations 221 :Sales and office occupations .......................................................................................................................................................: 182; ...................................................... . :Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations ......................................................................... ...........................................~ ;Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations ______._._.. _. _ 150: __ . :Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 82 •, INDUSTRY _ .- .-... 700.0 ............::::.. ..........75.9.: 19.5 0.0 1.8: 1._3 ...............:.... 1.6 ...........(Xj.~ 100.0 21.4 27:3 22.5 0.2 18.5 10.1 ':Agriculture, forestrX, fishing and hunting, and minin9 ...................................................................... ..........................~.9............. ............... ~:3. :Construction 126: 15.fi ':Manufacturing....... ....................................................................................................................... .... ............... 58............ ............... ~:?. Wholesale trade 20 2.5 ;Retail trade 96; 11.9: :Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 21 2.6 :Information 16; 2.0 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing. ~ 22 2.7 :Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management 72 8 9 services Educational, heaRh and social services 188 23 2 ='age o _ httpa/factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geoid=16000US4836032&-qr name=DE... 2/16/2005 EXHIBIT "C" ,. _ - - , ._, .. . ti , ......,,., ~ _ ,...-_.. . -- ..... _ ,... ~ ..__,~. .,... .- . ~.,, .. , Subject Number: Percent: Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 90 11.1 Other services.(except public administration). _. . .. . _.. ._ .............. ...__...... .' . __......... 64`: 7.9 Public administration 18 2.2 CLASS OF WORKER Private wage and salary workers 620: 76 5 Government workers 94 11.6: Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 96 11.9: Unpaid family workers..... ...... .... .. ... 0' ...... ...................0.0 .. . INCOME IN 1999 Households 640: 100.0 -Less than $10,000 71 11.1 $10,000 to $14,999 _ - - - 68._.... ... _. 10.6: $15,000 to $24,999 107: 16_.7: $25,000 to $34,999 138' 21.6: :.$35,000 to $49~999 .................................................................................................................. .......................................~. ~ $......... .................~.8: 4 $50,000, to_$74,999 ................................................................................................................... ........................................ 85......... ................. ~ 3:3. $75,000 to $99,999 37; 5.8 .$100,000 to $149,999 ........................................................................................................................................................: 14 ....................................................... 2.2 ........................... $150,000 to $199,999 .......................................................................................................................................................; 2 ........................................................ 0.3 °. .........................: $200,000 or more 0 0.0 Median household income (dollars) 30,958: (X) _: :With earnin9S .............................................................................................................................€ - . ......................................51.x.......... .................80:8.: Mean earnings (dollars) 35,487; (X) With Social Security income 181 :........ .................28.3: Mean Social Securi income dollars ...............t Y ................(............ ? ........................................................................: 8,428: ........................................................ X ....................(...). ;With Supplemental Security..Income ..................................................................................... ........................................ ~8......... ...................4:4.€ Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 5,964 (X)' V1Ath public assistance income 16; 2.5 Mean public assistance. income (dollars) 1.,344: (X) Wdh retirement income 97 152: Mean retirement income (dollars) :...................................................................................................................................................... 11,889: ....................................................... (X) .................... ................................................................................................................................. : Families ........................................................................................................................................................: .............................................. i......... 471; ....................................................... ......................... 100.0 .......................... . Less than $10,000 ........................................................................................................................................................; 32' ..............................................:......... 6.8 .........................: ;$10,000 to $14,999 37; 7.9 $15,000_to $24,999__,_. 66! 14.0: :$25,000 to $34,999. - -_ _. 111: 23 6; $35,000 to $49,999 ................................................................................................................... ........................................ 94......... .................20:x.: $SO,000.to. $74,999 .................................................................................................. ... ..... 83......... ................. t. ~ :6 $75,000 to $99,999 ........................................................................................................................................................: 32 ....................................................... 6.8 ........................... :_$100,000_ to _$149,999 ............................................................................................................... ........................................ ~ 4......... ...................3 :~ :$150,000 to $199,999 ........................................................................................................................................................: 2 ....................................................... 0.4 .......................... . :$200,000 or more 0 0.0 ;Median family income (dollars) 33,542: (X) Per capita income (dollars) 12,883; (X) Median earnings (dollars):. ..................................................................................................: ..............................................:........ ........................... Male full-time, year-round workers _._._._..24,779 ._._ ... ....................(X) Female full time year round workers _ .............................17 738 ., , (X): :POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 (below poverty lever ................. _..._ _ _......._... ._..._._.........................._......._ .. _._.. _.... Families ~ ................................. 52 X i Percent below poverty level _ ___ _____ _ .. _ (X); 1.1.0: :With related children under 18 years 40 (X) ........................Percent below.poverty-level........................................................................ .........................................(X)......... .................~.4:~. With related children under 5 years 18 (X) Percent below poverty, level .......................................... Families with female householder, no husband Percent below poverty level _._... ........................:..................................: 24' .........................1?~1; {X) `; 28.2; http://factfinder.census. gov/servletlQTTable?_bm=y&-geo_i d=16000US483 6032&-gr_name=DE... 2/16/2005 Subject Number: Percent: !VJth related children under 18years ___. ......_..._ .......... .............. ................ 24 - . ..... (X) _.._.......... Percent below poygrtY..leYe.~......._...._... _. .. iX~ , 36.91 ..._. Ufth related children under 5 years .............. ............ _. ......... .............. ...........................8 (X) Percent below vert level ........ _ .... P.~ Y ......... ....... ......................... _ (X ....... ........................... ) . ................... 47: ~. -.. Individuals _. _.... 236 _ (X __ Percent belowpoyerty level _ _..... .. _..._..._ ...... {X}. .........:_ ...... _. 13.3: 18 years and over _ 154; __.._ (X) _..._.. Percent below poverty level . .................................. ... .................................(X)........ 12 5 ... 65 years and over 20' ......... ......, (X) Percent below .overt level X : 12.5: :Related children under 18 years....... .............................. 82' ' (?~). Percent below poverty level _... (X) 15.3 : Related .children 5 to 17 years _... - .... 51 :' _..... . . (X) Percent below poverty level {X) 12.7: :Unrelated individuals 15 years and over 61 (X)_ ........................Percent below poverty level......................................................... ............... ~.........................................(x)....... ...................26..1 (X) Notapplipble. Detailed Occupation Code List {PDF 42KB) Detailed Industry Code List (PDF 44KB) User note on employment status data (PDF 63KB) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P30, P32, P33, P43, P46, P49, P50, P51 , P52, P53, P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P76, P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, PCT52, and PCT53 httpa/factfinder.census.gov/servletiQTTable? bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4836032&-gr_name=DE... 2/16/2005