ORDER NO. 30438 hEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR REGIONAL WATER AND WAS~fI?WATER SERVICES Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: ndopt the final draft of the Feasibility Analysis for Regional Water and Wastewater Services for Center Point and Eastern I{err County, Texas, as submitted to Texas Water Development Board. /. a~ .3oy3S~ COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT. MADE BY: Commissioner Williams OFFICE: Precinct 2 MEETING DATE: Aug. 13, 2007 TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT: (Please be specific). Consider, discuss and take appropriate action to adopt the final draft of the Feasibility Analysis for Regional Water and Wastewater Services for Center Point and Eastern Kerr County, Texas, as submitted to Texas Water Development Board. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: NAME OF PERSON(S) ADDRESSING THE COURT: Commissioners Williams. 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 is appreciated and contributes toward your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rule adopted by Commissioners Court. ~~~ _ TAT T~~`~~ ~. 50I SC3LEDAD SAN ANTC?Ni4, TX 78205 TEL 210.226.2922 ~ ~~~ ~ s .. t ~ ~ }.s €, i ,. ~ _ _s, ~~ ~„a,.. ~. ~ - ''eta '~ ~ ~~ ?5Y ,e~-: ~ _ ~~ ~ ~c ''1~ ,~ ~»2 . s THE TEXAS WATER L~EVELt~PO`'IENT BOARD t ; ~: ,~ ~~ ~~ ~ . -i i w i i i i i i i PROPOSED KERR COUNTY REGIONAL WATER & WASTEWATER PROJECT for CENTER POINT & EASTERN KERR COUNTY SERVICE AREA Prepared for KERR COUNTY and UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY This study was prepared with the assistance of a Texas Water Development Board Planning Grant TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Executive Summary Wastewater Services Wastewater Cost Estimates Operational Cost Differentials Water Services Water Cost Estimates Public Input Conclusion/Recommendations Exhibits Exhibit A -Proposed Regional Service Area Map Exhibit B -Proposed Wastewater Collection System Map Exhibit C -Proposed Wastewater Transmission Line Map Alternate "A" to Kerrville Exhibit D -Proposed Transmission Line Map To Kendall County WCID No. 1 Exhibit E -Proposed Water Supply System Map Exhibit F -Proposed Water Transmission Main to Kendall County WCID No. 1 Exhibit G -Existing CCNs Exhibit H -Demographic Information SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI SECTION VII SECTION VIII SECTION IX SECTION X Feasibility Analysis for Center Point, Texas Regional Wastewater Collection System and Regional Water Supply and Distribution This feasibility study is to determine the cost and potential benefit of providing a wastewater collection system with treatment being provided by either the Kendall County WCID No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant or by the City of Kerrville Wastewater Treatment Plant. I. Introduction The Regional Wastewater Planning Study for Kerr County (TWDB Contract No. 0604830607) provides an analysis of a wastewater collection system for the Center Point Community and Eastern Kerr County Texas. By an agreement between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, the planning study has been expanded to also provide an analysis of a potential surface water treatment plant. This plant will provide surface water to some existing CCNs in the region, and a proposed distribution system to serve other residential and commercial units not presently served by any system. Eastern Kerr County and the Center Point Community are presently served only by on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal, and as such are experiencing significant environmental and health problems along with a detrimental atmosphere for development of the area. Many OSSF's in Center Point are totally out of compliance with current TCEQ standards, and serve properties that are too small to accommodate updated systems; or are in close proximity to water wells for domestic use. ' The location of the Center Point Community in Eastern Kerr County subjects it to growing pressure of suburban development from San Antonio. This continuing pressure for development utilizing septic tanks and individual wells is rapidly depleting the ground water resources and posing significant proliferation of septic tank seepage into streams and rivers. ' The development of this required surface water supply will provide a source of treated surface water to relieve pressure on the ground water resources, and the wastewater system will significantly reduce the environmental degradation of streams and water sources from inadequate septic systems. The proposed regional service area is being jointly proposed by Kerr County and the Upper ' Guadalupe River Authority. Exhibit A shows the proposed regional service area as recommended in the conclusions to this study. i II. Executive Summary The results of this study provide a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of providing a wastewater collection system and a potable surface water treatment facility to serve the Center Point Community and the river valley of Eastern Kerr County. The results are broken into four categories: 1. Wastewater Collection The conclusion was made that the wastewater collection system could be constructed with one central lift station for pumping wastewater flows to respective treatment sites. It was also determined that the same wastewater collection system would work for both identified treatment options. 2. Alternatives for wastewater treatment Alternatives for wastewater treatment that were investigated consisted of City of Kerrville as Option A and Kendall County WCID No. 1 as Option B. Option A would require a pressure force main to transport waste flows to the entire distance to Kerrville. This force main could not be used to provide service to any of the areas through which it passes. Option B would allow a gravity transmission line for nearly all of the distance between Center Point and the Ken /Kendall County line. This would allow wastewater services to be provided for a regional area identified in Exhibit A. Based on estimates of probable cost shown in Sections N and VII, the system totals for each option are as follows: a. Option AWastewater - $10.697,500 b. Option B Wastewater - $12,436,500 c. Water Treatment and Supply to Center Point Area $4,87,200 d. Water Treatment and Supply to Region $8, i 88,700 Operating cost for pov,-er ~~ ith an assumed cost of power $0.0`!kwhr, electr~cai operating cost for Option A wo~aid be approximately $0.08i 1000 gal., ar_d Option B ti~-euld be approximately $0.03/1000 gal. See Section V. 3. Water S>?ppiy The water supply within the region is provided by individual wells or from welts owned and operated by a number of small utilities holding CCNs ire the region. 2 t 1 ~~ All of the supply sources are from the Trinity Aquifer which has been under increasing pumpage demands. The Texas Water Development Board's 2001 study titled "The Lower Trinity Aquifer of Bandera and Kerr County," found the following: 2001 Report: The Lower Trinity Aquifer of Bandera and Kerr Counties '`Lower Trinity water levels in areas where pumpage has been heavy and localized have declined significantly in the past. The City of Kerrville relied on the lower Trinity as a source of water from the 1920s to the early 1980s, and water-level declines of as much as 250 feet were observed during that time. In 1981, asurface- water treatment plant was brought on-line, and ground-water production was reduced dramatically. This resulted in water levels in the Kerrville area rebounding as much as 200 feet between 1982 and 1990. Since 1990, however, many wells are again showing significant water-level declines as ground-water use has again increased." 4. Water Distribution Water Distribution is proposed to provide supplemental surface water to the individual CCNs that are experiencing depleted ground water problems, and to existing and proposed residential and commercial areas that are outside any of the existing CCNs. w w III. Wastewater Services A. Collection System The collection system, shown on the preliminary plan Exhibit B, would provide service to the existing developed area of Center Point. At the present time, the on-site treatment of septic tanks does not provide acceptable protection for ground water and has had unacceptable impacts on the streams and the Guadalupe River. Kerr County will adopt a policy of mandatory sewer hookups as required by TWDB. There are a number of developments that have been created in recent years between Center Point and Kendall County WCID No. 1 that can be served by the proposed interceptor line to Kendall County WCID No. 1. B. Transmission Lines Alternative "A" Treatment by the Ci±y of Kerrville. This alternative, shown on Exhibit C, requires a lift station with a pump capacity of 71 Sgpm and a total head of 120-feet. This lift station would tie to a force main of 8- inches in diameter and a total length of 25,000-feet to tie to an existing manhole on the Kerrville system in the vicinity of the f Kerrville-Kerr County Airport. '~ The only advantage to this transmission line alternative is the initial cost estimated to be $2.6 million. The major disadvantage to this line is, as a force main, it could not serve any of the area between Center Point and Kerrville City Limits; however, a portion of this area can be served with a gravity flow line back to Center Point, thus increasing the Regional Service Area capabilities both to the west and east of Center Point. The cost of operation of the lift station would be greater than Alternative "B" due to the increased head required. See Section V. Alternative "B" This alternative, shown on Exhibit D, also requires a lift station with the same capacity as Alternative "A", 715 gpm; but with a lower head of 60 ft. This lift station would tie into a force main of approximately 7,000 ft. where it would discharge into a gravity sewer line that would be constructed all the way to Comfort (Kendall County) for delivery to the WCID No. 1 wastewater system, approximately 48,000 ft. This line is estimated to have a total cost of $4.4 million for the force main and the gravity line. The main advantage to this alternative is that it would truly provide regional service by serving all of the area along Hwy 27, between Center Point and Kendall County WCID No. 1, and it would have less operating cost for the lift station. The only disadvantage is the initial construction cost. C. Treatment Comparisons: Treatment by City of Kerrville City of Kerrville's impact fee is $500.00 per connection. The City has indicated it is "premature to speculate on negotiations without knowing how the proposed wastewater system will benefit Kerrville." ThP City of Kerrville has a rate of 1.Sx the current in-city rate _for each 1,000 gallons ' passing the meter for sewage received from outside city limits. This process could be difficult to handle for billing purposes in Center Point and may wind up paying for any infiltration in the system. Trea±ment by Kendall County VF'CID No. 1 Kendai_l County :x~Crn No. 1 and Kerr County have signed a "L.etter of lntert" to negotiate an Inter-Governmental Agree~izert setting forth all conditions and fees associated with this project. This makes it easy to bill customers and does not charge customers for incidental infatraticn flows. 5 i 1 D. Expansion On the assumption of using the Kendall County WCID No. 1 connection as the preferred plan, because of its regional service characteristics, with a 12-inch gravity line running from Center Point to Kendall County WCID No. 1, the future expansion capacity would be as follows: Estimated number of connections for 12-inch pipe at minimum slope 0.20% ~' 3 persons per connection 100 gallons per day per person with a 2.5 peak factor 12-inch capacity @ 0.20% = 71 ~ GPM = 1,029,600 GPD 1,029,600 GPD/4X100X2.5 = 1030 connections There are approximately 450 existing connections to be initially served within Center Point proper. The lift station and gravity line to Kendall County WCID No. 1 is being designed to accommodate 1,000,000 gallons per day, or approximately 1030 -~ connections. Center Point is estimated to grow by 3% per year or to 835 connections in 25 ~' years. ,~~~: The area between Center Point and Kendall County WCID No. 1 presently contains approxi- mately 250 possible connections, and if it grows at 3% per year it would have 460 connections in 25 years. If both areas grow at this projected ra±e, the systems capacity would be reached. in less than 25 years; ho~~~ever if the area experiences that growth, it is probable that an alternative treatmer_t facility would need to be developed for the region. 6 i 0 0 IV. Wastewater Preliminary Estimated Quantities & Probable Cost Regional Sanitary Sewer Collection System Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension Mobilization 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 Right-of--Way Prep 1 LS 100,000 100,000 6" Sanitary Sewer Pipe (All Depths) 9,600 LF 35 336,000 8" Sanitary Sewer Pipe (All Depths) 27,400 LF 40 1,096,000 12" Sanitary Sewer Pipe (All Depths) 8,000 LF 50 400,000 Sanitary Sewer Manholes (All Depths) 120 EA 4,500 540,000 Manhole Ring Encasement 120 EA 300 36,000 Siphons 800 LF 600 480,000 Siphon Structures 4 EA 30,000 120,000 Service Laterals to Property Line 500 EA 800 400,000 Service Laterals to Property Line to Dwelling 500 EA 1,800 900,000 Septic Tank Mitigation 500 EA 750 375,000 Cut & Patch Asphalt 5,000 SY 30 150,000 Bore, Jack Or Tunnel 300 LF 700 210,000 Dewatering 1 LS 20,000 20,000 Erosion Control 1 LS 90,000 90,000 Trench Safety Protection 45,000 LF 3 135,000 Total $5,588,000 Alternate "A" to Kerrville Mobilization 1 LS $120,000 $ 120,000 R.O.W. Preparation 1 LS 60,000 60,000 8" Force Main 25,100 LF 40 1,004,000 12" Sanitary Sewer Pipe 14,000 LF 60 840,000 Sanitary Sewer Manholes 30 EA 4,500 135,000 Cut & Patch Asphalt 100 SY 35 3,500 Lift Stations 1 LS 300,000 300,000 24" Bore, Jack or Tunnel 100 LF 600 60,000 16" Bore; Jack or Tunnel 100 LF 450 45,000 Trench Safety Protection 14,000 LF 3 42.000 TOTAL $2,609,500 Wastewater System will: Alternate "A" to Ker rville Collection System $5,588,000 Transmission Mair. 2,609,500 Total Constructior. $8,197,500 Planning & Design 900,000 Contingencies 900,000 Legal & Fiscal 400,000 Environmental __ 300,000 'Total Wastewa±er $10,697,500 7 1 Alternate "B" to Kendall County WCID No. 1 Mobilization 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 R.O.W. Preparation 1 I,S 100,000 100,000 8" Force Main 7,000 LF 40 280,000 12" Sanitary Sewer Pipe 48,000 LF 60 2,880,000 Sanitary Sewer Manholes 66 EA 4,500 297,000 Cut & Patch Asphalt X00 SY 3~ 17,00 Lift Stations 1 LS 250,000 20,000 24" Bore, Jack or Tunnel 300 LF 600 180,000 Trench Safety Protection 48,000 LF 3 144,000 Total $4,348,500 Wastewater System with Alternate "B" Direct Fl ow to Kendall County WCID No. 1 Collection System $5,588,000 Transmission Main 4,348,500 Total Construction $9,936,500 Planning & Design 900,000 Contingencies 900,000 Legal & Fiscal 400,000 Environmental 300,000 Total Wastewater $12,436,500 e 8 V. Operational Cost Differentials Due to the increased elevation and head loss in the proposed pipe going to the City of Kerrville, over a proposed pipeline going to Kendall County WCID., the pump horsepower required for Kerrville would be 93 bhp and the horsepower required to go to Kendall County would be 34 bhp. The following table shows the estimated differential in operating cost for the lift station from 8 cents/1000 for Kerrville and 3 cents/1000 for Kendall County. All other operating and maintenance costs for the collection system are assumed to be the same for either disposal route. Process Data Alt "A" - Kerrville Alt "B" - Kendall Coun WCID No. 1 Flow Rate 800 800 m TDH 300 110 ft Pum Efficiency 65% 65% Power 93.2 34.2 bhp Standard Motor Size 100.0 40.0 h Number of pumps in service 1 1 Motor Efficiency 95% 95% Total Power consum tion 105.3 42.1 bh Total Power consumption 78.6 31.4 kW Voiume Basis Energy Consumption 1.64 $0.65kWh/ i 000 gal Assumed Cost of ower $ 0.05 $0.05 /kWh Daily energy cost $ 0.08 $0.03 /1000 gal 9 VI. Water Services The rapid depletion in around water supply has been under study for several years by many different agencies. y Gene Williams, General Manager of "The Headwater Ground Water Conservation District has provided the following comment: "The Center Point area is the center of a growing population area that extends from Kerrville to Comfort. Many new wells have been drilled in the area placing stress upon both the Middle and Lower Trinity aquifers. Two public water system wells were drilled by Aquatex in 2006 to test the Lower Trinity in the Center Point area. Both wells failed to yield enough water from the Lower Trinity due to low permeability and partial depletion problems. One well was re-drilled to the Middle Trinity and a successful well was completed. Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water for the Center Point area and areas east toward Comfort is highly recommended. I have attached a Well Log of the Lower Trinity well drilled by Aquatex in the Center Point area. In the summer of 2006 an extended drought that began in early 2005 caused well levels to drop in a number of wells from ~0 to 80 feet, some wells went dry." As part of the regional water and wastewater services for Center Point, the feasibility study has been expanded to cover water supply. The proposed water supply system would include a Surface Water Treatment Plant on Center Point Lake, transmission lines to connect each of the four existing owner operated water supply companies, an elevated water storage tank, ASR facilities for underground storage, securing of Water Rights, and water distribution to areas not presently sei"-~ed Each of these items is discussed in ±he following sections: A. Water Supply Surface Water Treat=Went Plant Initial Service Areas The CCITT Map {Exhibit G) shows the various CCNS that presently serve the area. The t~x~o major CCNs have agreed to change all or pa-t of their supply from ground water to the new surface water supply. Both of these operators are having difficulty in maintaining the required water capacity ~~~ith file rapidly depleting ground water. It is anticipated that other CCNs will request service. 10 V i~ At present there are approximately 400 existing connections with an additional 100 connections that could be served outside of the existing CCNs. Using 500 existing connections at 10,000 gal/mo would require approximately 1 X0,000 gpd of supply. Project potential growth within the regional service area of 3% per year for 2~ years would result in approximately 1,000 connections or demand of 300,000 gpd. Since the service area is within the growth impact area of San Antonio, it is likely that significant new growth will occur and provisions should be made for expansion to serve that growth. On the basis of this evaluation, the initial design capacity should be a treatment plant of 200,000 gpd with expansion capability in 200,000 gpd increments as required. B The proposed surface water treatment plant would be located on the high bank of Center Point Lake, along Center Point River Road, in the vicinity of the dam. The treatment plant will be a version of the membrane treatment process. Water Distribution 1. Elevated Storage The elevated water tank will 6e cons±ructed adjacent to the treatment plant with a preliminary estimated capacity of 500,000 gallons aad a tank bottorri elevation of 1600 feet. Prom this elevation, water service can be provided to the service area below 1 e00 feet elevation, which should cover most of the growth area. 2. Transmissior. ?~~lait?s Transmission mains will be installed to provide service to the various CCNs within the region and provide distribution to areas not presently serviced by ar~y of the CCNs. The Distribution System is shows: on Exhibi± E. 11 i 3. ASR Facilities ASR facilities are to be included to allow storage of surplus water for use in times of surface water shortages or to relieve the demand on ground water facilities. Aquatex, the operator of the largest CCN, indicated that they have anon- producing well that might be a good injection well for the ASR. F}*_.. 1 L VII. Water Preliminary Estimated Quantities & Probable Cost Water Treatment System Surface Water Treatment Plant - 200,000 gpd 200,000 gal. Membrane Plant $ 400,000 Intake Structure 300,000 Pumping Station & ASR 300,000 500,000 gal Elevated Storage Tank 750,000 Total Treatment System $1,750,000 Water Distribution System Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension Mobilization 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 Right-of--Way Prep 1 LS 50,000 50,000 6" Water Pipe 18,100 LF 20 362,000 6" Gate Valve with Box, Complete 12 EA 900 10,800 8" Water Pipe 15,500 LF 25 387,500 8" Gate Valve with Box, Complete 8 EA 1,250 10,000 Standard FH Assembly, Complete 70 EA 3,000 210,000 Tie-in to Existing Line 4 EA 2,500 10,000 Testing 1 LS 15,000 15,000 Fittings 8 TON 4,000 32,000 2" Combination AirNac. Release Valve 4 EA 3,500 14,000 Cut & Patch Asphalt 11,000 SY 30 330,000 Bore, Jack Or Tunnel 200 LF 700 140,000 Dewatering 1 LS 20,000 20,000 Trench Safety Protection 15,300 LF 3 45,00 Total Distribution System $1,737,200 Total Construction $3,487,200 Flanning, Design & Contingencies 800,000 Legal & Fiscal 200,000 Environmental 100,000 Total Water Project $4,587,200 If Kenda[I County WCID No. 1 is to be supplied with wholesale water, it will require a transmission main of 45,000 L~ The Total cast of the transmission mains is estimated to be $3,601,500, as sra~vn or. the following cost stimate. 13 Water Transfer Main to Kendall County WCID No. 1 Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension Mobilization 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 Right-of--Way Preparation 1 LS 50,000.00 50,000 8" Gate Valve with Box, Complete 10 EA 1,250.00 12,500 12" Water Pipe 45,000 LF 55.00 2,475,000 12" Gate Valve with Box, Complete 30 EA 3,500.00 105,000 Standard Fire hydrant Assembly, Complete 90 EA 3,000.00 270,000 Tie-in to Existing Line 4 EA 2,500.00 10,000 Testing & Disinfection 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000 Fittings 10 TON 4,000.00 40,000 2" Combination AirNac. Release Valve 10 EA 3,500.00 35,000 Cut & Patch Asphalt 1,000 SY 30.00 30,000 Bore, Jack or Tunnel 300 LF 700.00 210,000 Dewatering 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000 Trench Safety Protection 44,800 LF 5.00 224,000 $3,601,500 14 VIII. Public Input After the initial public meeting at the Center Point School on January 11, 2007, individual meetings were held with UGRA, Kendall County WCID, City of Kerrville Public Works and Texas Water Development Board. An additional public meeting will be held on July 26, 2007, to review the draft feasibility report and anticipated implementation program. After this review, any changes will be made and the final report will be submitted to the Texas Water Development Board. 15 IX. Conclusion/Recommendations: Wastewater The development of Option B for wastewater provides the maximum benefit for regional wastewater service to Center Point and Eastern Kerr County. This option will allow service to the entire service area as outlined in the report. ' From the point of power cost of operation per 1000 gal., Option B is 2.6 times less expensive than Option A. Kendall County WCID has indicated a willingness to participate in the regional system program by negotiating acceptable rates, impact fees and connection fees, and investigating the possibility of participating in the operation of the Regional Wastewater System. For the above reasons, the recommendation for the Regional Wastewater System is to follow Option B. ~' Operating cost will be dependent on final negotiations with Kendall County WCID No. 1. Water The recommendation for the water system is to continue to explore the possibilities of expanding the water distribution to serve the region. Operating cost will be dependent on final cost of development, debt service required, and number of CCNs participating. 16 i :I~ :ii ., `i !r ~, __ ~__ ., _ - . ;, ' _ ~ H , t ~ 1 ~ ,i !' 1 _~_ rr ~ n ~ , _ J . ; , H J `. ~ ~~ I' ~ ' ~ II ~ . Ij i_ ~ 1 ` ~ ,~.• l ~ ~ _ ;. }' ; ' . ! ., _~- , ,_ ~ ' - ~ I I _ ~. cy,~ ' ~ ~ i. ` ~ I a1o ' ~ ~" ~~ ~ O _.. - _'111.2. . ~-~ i ' O cV t 7 ~ ~ I \ i _ _^ Q~ ... Q ~~... ..~ N - ~a .~ Tc^-~_-'. '~.~ _ _ "~ c .~ ~ ~ ~ ,1l1~Q i t ~ .~ ~~` -~ `~ ~ I O = y Z_ A' t ~ ' r ~ ~ .. ~ ..-~ ~ ~ •z .f .6 -1. -. ~ t` f~ --111 ~,: 1 ~. .~, ; Q.J "j ~~~ ` ~~ rti _ w o i ~ : 1 9 "ti `~ ~ - ~' ~ ~ - YU~ ~ i ail .rl - ' '.' 6 .~' ~ ~ i ~ Ii ~ 0 ~ . i * ` ~ . ~ f W.' i Y qu ~ U KERB COUNTY, TEXAS o 0 EXHIBIT ~ PROPOSED REGIONAL SERVICE AREA A ~ TETRA TECH o O ~ ~ o O O o az° m NMOHS Stl ~ O AavaNnoe v3av 3alna3s ~vnolo3a d0 NOIltlnNI1N09 aOd ,.0.1191NX3 33S ,., . ~ , y _.,,~. , ,~ ., ~ ~ _ ~ s r • t 4~ ,,t ~~~ u ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ s off w ;, m ~' ~ .. Q ... 1 ~ w~` s ~ ~ ~'3s.._ _ ; ~ k~ O 1 ~ ~ ' '~ _ ~ ~_ - _ a.. _, ~ aY ~a,, r ~ ~ ' ~,~~ 3 ~~ ~~ _... - I` !~,yT f''r^ ~`'~' ..rte .`.'aiFf~~'_~!'^ f~ t f `~ i ,. . r { J .c I, ~ ~, I- ~~ ~'/ r ~ 3'c .s',"',_"_~_-.~~ / e Irh` ~ ~ it ': ~ t `~ \ • `r i 1 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~' 1( i ~ LL ~ /\ J v ~ -,~ 3 ~~ '~ ~~ ~ f- U Z r r ~,.. ~ I,I.I U W i +~y, ~ ~w 1 ~~ _ , '.t w ~, ~ • ~ _ ~a~%r~ ~, , ~ k ~ Y ~~ . ~`~y_w t~iE°..'..-~ .,.,~ ~ ~ i ~ `` ~'~~ .~~+~ .,~ _. ~ l~'~ _Pir+ fir- ~~, ~,y~ U s _ _ ~.. ~ -~ ~. ,, - .~ ~ -• ~, i ~Y _J `~• ~ t \ ~ ` T r.. -.. d ' LWE ~._ ~. a1 ,i z < I. . . ~tlc a l1 ._ ~...-., ~.... ~ ~ `q .acwx sr. `w~F"'i"u""li' ,~ R < at ' ,v ~ - ~~'~ ~ d it; q ~ '„ ~ r _ _ _ W. ..,~ ',..... . ~' ~: r ~ o .,,,.~ tq ~`'.°,~t _ 'c•. ~ k - ~ ~ ~~r~i ~ y ,rowo s ,ad+ ~ °3 ' l ~ ° a~',~, '~-. ' , . ` I ~.,~ ,/ ~ ~ f~!. ~, `' ~- Is , P~ LkJE:.. ~ ~. .NEC ,~ - ~~ ~'Sy~ 11 6 7 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ . /,J ,l(~ --t~ ~ u m w ....c .~ 1 .. - •' ~ ~ r 'i _ ~ >Q ~`„~ ~ fib ~ ~~.' ,~,-, ., t a ~ ,.. ~_ ~_ I _ ~ '~r~mwx.~.u-~~. - i _ ~~~ x ~ ~` ~~ w i _ tC'' t e n ~.. p ~ 4a. 6;. yo NnUB raatl 301na381dN01'J3a ~% .. ` 4 ~' `~ •~ ` ~ ~ ` d NOILVdNI1NO9 a0~ ..9..1191NX3 338 NMCHS SV 1~ I ~ r/ ~ ea ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _; ` ~l,.t ~ i ~ ~~+ 4 iy ,~ LfNE .., #JO IINE'~ :r -da 1T. F ` ~ ` L Q o ~i J O o Q o J z o a.~M ~ w m fn ° ~ ~ N 3 a ~ w Z J Z O w ~ J ~ l1! Y U ~ ~ W : {0 Q -S., Q `7uS W Q ~ w W O a a ~, i. is, ~' .a aNi r ~ ~ ~. 7y_ p r 1u~~ ~ ~~,.1`,t ~,.s ~ ~ ,. -_, e o .. 1'A ~ .ivy r' \ '.SF , f , :~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~~y 4 e k~' w~~.- ~ -~ ~; ~ ~ mil` .,:;.i ,~, ,~ - ~ r rte.. ~~~ - -~ ~ ~,:'.~~ k+f.F' ivli n i _ ~ / , k ~~ y ~<~,~~1~ ~ . ~a. , . -~ , ,~ r' . _ r .~- . ~ _ ' !~ _ .}~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ (, .+ ', Tr ~~ tf _ °- ~~~'~ _ ~--.~ \~1 `fed ~ _~ ~~^i ~ ~} 1, ~ r W _ ~ .~ i p T _ ~r { .. "~ ~ x ~ 6 c r - 1 ~ ~ ~- ~ ~yk'~ ~ ! }}v ~ ~~~ ~+ a f ~ ! ` ~ ?~ !' _ r t ~~'-'~c...~a ., ~ x! ,r 8.. 'mow. - Z a~~ wU~ Z ~ ~ U Y Z ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ W W ~~Y /O V Z o o r oo~m o~o ~Y ~ m~ ~ ~ N o ~ o _. ~~ ~.~. ~~.,._._..,yea;a.:ra~~~:s~~.~~aifiz~a~~~khNh,.. •4 a ~l~ ( (6•l F1i 3~ ~ ~ !` + J ~ ~~.+I'~ mj ~ ~ ~ `~•• JOE'/~ _ N~ 1 1~ ~ ~11~ L ~ Z . ' ~ ,.,- ~ ~~ ~ o NMOHS Stl - S / •'~ tt ~ - ... t ~f~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~, r 4 ~ ~. ~¢ ~ t ~ ~ ~ _°i~ ~~! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 " T_i ~ .~`g ~ Z 1. m, ,r V i 1 ~ta~ ~-~ ~ J Z " s ~,. ~ ~~ - ^c 1 . , ». . ~, - x ~ ~.., '~.~ ~ ,, ~: 1 ~ ~ fi s,"" ~' Z U ~ ~ ,,- ., , _... ~ '~ ; ~_',~.~a'~"~`- +ti. / ~ ~ `'~,~,. 4' ~ .a''" fir- ~ ~' f" , ~ ~ F• Y •,~.. , . ~~ _- ,~ a a iy_ ~'>oY, ter, - rx'"~ ~ r. ~~ d n j~°`' -.. k~ ~ .. 1 t'~C v , -. ~ / ~ a a u ~, fi ~ p ~ "~~ r",~ it _ '`~'!q~_ ~ ` /. t ,, Z ` ~, QQ _._ ~t f- - r, ~. ~~, ry ~~ .. ~ ~ -~ ~ J --sue--- a'.• ~ ° F- I- ,. _ W ~, ' '° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~i ~ Q "' ~ " i, ~o- ~~ ~ Q Y k r` ~~ ~ ` `;fi ~~~ k' ~ ~ ~ _ rf '6 ~'; + _ i ~ gyp, . ., I ~ -.-- ... ~ v ~ ~~ ~- 4 ~~ ~ 5 ~'~ ,,r " t r/ ?:v ~~ .' i _..__. i' '. ~"-. --_ /~ ypf ,yam ,.` p°ot . C "`"~~"' ~. ~ / ,_ p ~~'~- ~{t "~ ~ ~ ~j_ f-"nm .. :, ~ ~,• 1 i °' m ,. o ,y ~ ~~ -,. °~. ~, t t ~ ~ ~ o ~~, ~, '~ tip` ~ ~ ~ n ~ v°,~w _~~ ' tl j _ , -~ _ P ter"' c~ w~ ~i t .. ,~ ~ ~ ~~ _,~I ~~i :~ _ ,., ,~ _____,~ ~ __ ~ _.. i " ,r '~ a _~_ ~-`.~` .. ~ m ~ ,~ - x ~° ~ ~ ~ +i a '. '~ ~ rt ~ ' ' ~'~~ `\ -• a. - ~ ~ ~;, -~a' ~ n ~' - - s, ~ ~~ ~ ' ',:' ~ ~ .r-~ ~ ~ F- ~ ,~ ~~ _ _ v ,. C"~ y ~~ ~."`. ~ ~ cvua awi¢ ~ai~ a~mfla ~ °o o ~ O J p d o ~ ~ f d NMOHS SV a rj w 6) O o A21tlONf1O9 tl321V 331Aa3S 1YNO1'J3a d0 NOIlVI1NIlNOO21Od _0. L91NX3 338 _4 t ~ 1 ~ ~ - ti ~ ~ ~ ~ S {~ y~ ~g~. ~ ~, yem' 1~ ~' ~ '' ~ - ,•- ~' '" -- -- I ; m - a , ~. `t , . K x~" s ., ass 1 ti A ~ a' w y I ~ ~~ ~ ~tl~.r1` ^ ~ .f ,~t ~. ~. . ,. ~ r r ~ '~ ~ _ _ t ~ r ,, -ti.. „. -. _ ._ ~ s n i ._. _... _. :~ ~~-`. "`~--"fit a ~~ ~_~ ~.... t f ~ ~" `- \'~' w ~ y- ,.~. ~~ ' .2 ::~ ~ ~ _ J iia u Q m a ~ ~p W U W J ` ~ a y 5 W ~''" Y . ; ` ~ 6 .N .- «^ maws / W . } . ~._. - tie: ~ _. '~~ - ~ .~ , ~ ~ f ~ .~ r _ y ~ a , ty ~,9' , ~- _.~__ ...~. .~_ ~ 4 ~ ._.. 4- if ~. ~ _ -,.~ ~L~~r~'' -~ .( ~~y.1c y--~-yIDe •. -. » ~ ~..~ w.:VYf'' a ... Y~ . ~,- ~ off 1°IP K 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ a ~. ae ew,w a, , ~ ~.. .~F+ ..- ,/ r r Z vl / ': m ~, of / S , . S , ~/ ', ~,,-. fn.~ ~ ~.,; s us xrw+a aeq ".fZ. ..~ ~ l ~ ~ a4 ~ .~ I~'` , < *, / f ~~ )< ~ ~ + . ~ ' 1 ~ i ... . a .~ • ~(~ r ~f . 4 {y o ~ ~' / w l' ~ ~i Y N ~ r ~ ~ a.,w W P .,r ~-'... ..~.._.-_.~. ' N ~ ~ w, O X10 a: ~ '~[ a ~ w~'°N~ ~' i ~ ~ ~ ' p ~ E. ~~ 4 ~ 1 ~ / ~~ ' » ; ~ ~, . ~w~ ~' .~ --~ 1, -; ~r-wvr.R r ~~ ~' 1, ~.~ F11 ~ ~~r ~ ~ ~ F .. ;~.! W ~ L~ CtTRSS i . .A Z ~ } ~e""~ Ty ~ O f j v 1. ' Y f'. - S~' ~ ., \~ ~ ~ ~E .. Sb ~ Z " 5r' ~ J .~~ 1 st ~'a -. ~ ~ ~ ¢ - r w ~ i ~ o ' ,~~ H 1 -.ZI 7 ^,, ~ __ ~'a 4~ -~~ ~' i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~' _ x :. ' ~G :, . ` • ~ ,' _ ~ '~ a~-~ ~ n.~ ~ r' ~'. ~ ~ ! rl . ~f d, . ~ ~_ .: I a a ~, 11 i ° .,,, y ~ ~ ~ ~, l v~ i ,.. .: x ~ ~ ~ , -_~ , ~J~ ~ ` ~ !s z rvmoHS sv~ -d _; ~4 b -'t tiL;r .. \ o ~ I.. "f~2~ m 1 111 ~ ' ~ ~ , t ~ .'~ e 1•.~_ ~ ~ ~ ~, 5 .. ~ ~ ~a i ~ .ye l , l~ \ °„ye ~~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,~rj~ ySr J ~ / 7 . ~ 11/. .,. _6 ~ [~•.k~ ~T, ~ ' t ~. a r. \ # ~ J l P ~:, 1 fit, ~ ~"~ L , .,a. ~ ~~~ 'I ~ ~,-ti r'I~' F ~ ~ ~ ~ U O 1_ '' ,S 'v n. _ u C H w +} ~ - ~° y \ { ~ r rar r ~A, ~;~~ 4 ~a~ , ,. ~~ ~~ - .. ~'~~n_ ~..._ ~ - s - -- __ ~ L I r ..._ , ,. _ ~ .~ W ~ ` is E ~ ;.! \~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ W tL' .. r r ~ ~ ~ 0 Y :, - a Q ~ ' •( -.. i , ~t-,... `~ ., U M ~ j ~ S _.. '~... ~~r"'~ 3.4_ 4, ~. `JJ~.~•~. ,:;\F- `~~f r '~ 1~~Y1417tYV! - 1 ~ ~ U A '' fJ ~ ~ - -____) 1 S _ x-. ! 11 _ ,J • ~~. Gt ~ , ~~~~. ~~ "~rR, Z ~.r xt ~ ~'~ ~ _ ;t: ~~ j _ -'~ as __ ~ ,ti a ~ -. 1 ~ ~~.~ ~. T ,~P ~ _ - ~~. W x a ~, ;_ ~ ~ s ,~ / ' ~' ri ., ~ ~ @~,, :-rs t~.'~ N__ :~ym rN -~~~~-. .. ~ ~ ~ i ~yT t Fj/ 1 r. ~ 1 ~. l ry '~ ' " ~ ~ l r ~r f ~4 - z __.__ , .. , `. i ~- ~ .~ ~ ~> ~ ~ „~~ ~ i ~~~ f i~.~ ,_~ _ ~ ~ o _ \ .~ . ,~~ R ~, ~,'~ ate, _ . rw ~q ., ti, C~ ~ ,ate>.~_....... _~<«„ . y~ ` ~ tr "'.'~"'..°`°' i' ~:. I \!, 1 al M- ,~- t •,° i f ~ - .y~.r ~. _.. ~ „_._ + C ., _ a ~ r ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,-: „~ ~. 1~~ - P'tlHtlZ P :5311! 3JH3tl3i3tl ~r 0 NMOHS Stl 0 ~~~ ~ / a ., ,/ f ... ~;. ;,-- t . ~.. 6' ~... ' ,~ Ciee_k ..~ ~. Stuff `~ . ~{ •..-~..~.. J, ....~ .1 a ~~~ ~~~ ` W S ~ . .~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ W V .,! o 0 0 0l 0 n rn o a U ~ ~~ Zm ~_ ~, x w W m '~.' ~ ~ ~ ~ o z `. ~~ N T-'` r WOw .. ~, _ ~ ~ .•~ Z w / a Q/ ¢° j. ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ - _ ~a ~~~~ oQ aides ~ (, U \ Q ~` ~.. _ ~ a'\\ • a n ~+ •- ~...~ Yea/~ ~~ ~ L ''" / ~ ~ U ~ :.. •. ; T `~~ a ~. ~ -~ 0.W .+~.. `~ f' t ''J a • ! - ~ to C Q ~ . ~"' ' ~ ~ T O O '' ~ ..I W 6 Sb4 ~'' ~ d U `m m ~' h`. ;.. W ~ ~ ~ F ASi- ~ ® /, f ~ a'~i m y -o ~. d .. ~-~O o i-. v ~ 3 Y E Q a zW -o, `: ~ my ~ m E~ '~~.. ~ m ~ m -`s•`' o ~ o ~'" -~ A a~>Ow= _ maw I I I IZI I3~I~ IJI3 33 _ ~...... a..~,u>. EXHIBIT H Demographic Detail Summary Report Population Demographics Percent Change 1990 2000 2006 2011 1990 2006 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2011 2000 Total Population 2,697 3,444 3,892 4,239 27.7% 8.9% Population Density (Pop/Sq 20.8 26.6 30.0 32.7 27.7% 8.9% Mi) Total Households 1,006 1,342 1,399 1,431 33.4% 2.3% Population by Gender: Male 1,296 48.1% 1,728 50.2% 1,963 50.4% 2,145 50.6% 33.3% 9.3% Female 1,401 51.9% 1,716 49.8% 1,930 49.6% 2,094 49.4% 22.5% 8.5% Population by Race/Ethnicity Percent Change 1990 2000 2006 2011 1990 2006 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2011 2000 White 2,427 90.0% 3,054 88.7% 3,567 91.7% 3,955 93.3% 25.8% 10.9% Black 8 0.3°,/0 2 0.1% 4 0.1% 6 0.1°./0 49.9% 75.0% American Indian or Alaska Native 15 0.6% 24 0.7% 15 0.4% 10 0.2% 59.9% -33.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 7 0.3% 10 0.3% 16 0.4% 20 0.5% 43.0% 25.0% Some Other Race 240 8.9% 294 8.5% 241 6.2°,% 210 5.0% 22.5% -12.9% Two or hiore Rags 6G i.7% 49 1.3% 39 0.9°/ -20.4% Hispanic =thnicity 533 i9.8% 82$ 24.0% 1,096 28.2°i° 1,312 31.0% 55,5% 19.8% Not Hispanic or zatino 2,165 80.3% 2,616 76.0% 2,797 71.9% 2;927 69.1% 20.9:% 4.7% Exhibit H -Page 1 i Population by Age 1990 Census 0 to 4 163 6.0% 5 to 14 389 14.4% 15 to 19 212 7.9% 20 to 24 140 5.2% 25 to 34 328 12.1% 35 to 44 361 13.4% 45 to 54 296 11.0% 55 to 64 278 10.3% 65 to 74 353 13.1% 75 to 84 153 5.7% 85+ 26 1.0% Median Age: Total Population 38.2 Households by Income 1990 Census $0 - $15,000 364 36.2% $15,000 - 267 26.5% $24,999 $25,000 - 133 13.2% $ 34, 999 $35,000 - 147 14.6% $49,999 $50,000 - 62 6.2% $74,999 $75,000 - 13 1.3% $99,999 $100,000 - 7 0.7% $149,999 $150,000 + 8 0.8% Average Hhld $27 516 Income Median hhtd $21,065 income Per Capita $10,530 Income Percent Change 1990 2000 2006 2011 2006 to Census Estimate Projection 2011 2000 228 6.6% 273 7.0% 326 7.7% 39.8% 19.3% 480 13.9% 495 12.7% 519 12.2% 23.3% 4.8% 245 7.1% 287 7.4% 286 6.8% 15.5% -0.4% 152 4.4% 259 6.6% 294 6.9% 8.5% 13.5% 346 10.1% 428 11.0% 571 13.5% 5.7% 33.3% 530 15.4% 508 13.1% 488 11.5% 47.0% -3.9% 499 14.5% 590 15.2% 623 14.7% 68.9% 5.6% 409 11.9% 445 11.4% 516 12.2% 47.5% 15.9% 290 8.4% 287 7.4% 289 6.8% -18.1% 0.7% 211 6.1% 244 6.3% 246 5.8% 37.9% 0.8% 55 1.6% 76 2.0% 82 1.9% 111.6% 7.9% 40.4 39.4 37.6 5.7% -4.5% Percent Change 2000 2006 2011 1990 2006 to Census Estimate Projection 20Q0 2011 248 18.5°io 229 16.4% 216 15.1% -31.8% -5.7 218 16.3% 203 14.5% 194 13.6% -18.1% -4.4% 168 12.5% 166 11.8% 172 12.0% 26.3% 3.6% 292 21.8% 274 19.6% 248 17.4% 99.4% -9.5% 213 15.9% 256 18.3% 273 19.1% 407.6°,/0 6.6% 83 6.2°!0 106 7.5% ? 2R R 9°/; 5?4 i qi 2Q,8~% 64 4.8% 91 6.5% 105 7.3% 811.5% 15.410 56 4.2% 74 5.3°.~ 95 6.6% 598.3% 28.4% $47,099 $52,629 $58,105 71.2% 1C.4% $36,634 $40,586 $44,173 73.9% 8.8% $18,353 $18,923 $19,618 74.3% 3.7°.%0 Exhibit H -Page 2 w r i i i i Employment and Business 1990 2000 2006 Census Census Estimate Age 16 + Population 2,104 2,685 3,068 In Labor force 1,192 56.7% 1,650 61.5% 1,875 61.1% Employed 1,120 93.9% 1,576 95.5% 1,822 97.2% Unemployed 74 6.2% 74 4.5% 53 2.8% In Armed Forces 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not In Labor Force 912 43.3% 1,035 38.6% 1,193 38.9% Number of Employees (Daytime Pop) 453 Number of Establishments 74 Emp in Blue Collar 841 53.3% Occupations Emp in White Collar 736 46.7% Occupations Housing Units 1990 2000 2006 Census Census Estimate Total Housing Units 1,284 1,580 1,743 Owner Occupied 782 60.9% 1,082 68.4% 1.144 65.6% Renter Occupied 224 i 7.5% 260 16.5% 255 14.6% Vacant 277 21.6°Jo 238 i5.1% 344 19.8% Vehicles Avail able 1990 2000 2006 Census Census Estimate Average Vehicles Per i.80 1.60 2.00 Nhld 0 Vehicles Available 59 6.8 ;! 48 3.6°%0 40 2.9% 1 Vehicie Available 358 35.2% 427 31.8% 430 30.7% 2+ Vehicles 590 58.0% 867 64.6% 929 66.4% Percent Change 2011 1990 2006 to Projection 2011 2000 3,339 27.6% 8.8% 2,035 60.9% 38.4% 8.5% 1,979 97.3% 40.8% 8.6% 56 2.8% 0.0% 5.7% 0 0.0% N/A% N/A% 1,305 39.1% 13.6% 9.4% Percent Change 2011 1990 2006 to Projection 2000 2011 1,858 23.1% 6.6% 1,180 63.5% 38,4% 3.?~/. 250 13.5% 16.0% -2.0% 427 23.0% -14.0% 24.1% Percent Change 2011 1990 2006 to Projection 2011 2000 2.OU -9.8% 4.5% 34 2.4% -30.5% -15.0°%0 429 30.0°,~ 19.1% -0.2% 968 67.7% 47.0% 4.2% Exhibit H -Page 3 bl l e a Avai Marital Status Percent Change 1990 2000 2006 2011 1990 to 2006 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2011 Age 15+ 2,145 2,736 3,124 3,394 27.6% 8.7% Population Married, 1,311 61.1% 1,648 60.2% 1,878 60.1% 2,040 60.1% 25.7% 8.6% Spouse Present Married, 31 1.4% 114 4.2% 131 4.2% 141 4.2% 267.6% 7.6% Spouse Absent 1% 196 9 276 10.1% 317 10.2% 345 10.2% 41.2% 8.8% Divorced Widowed . 199 9.3% 211 7.7% 241 7.7% 260 7.7% 6.0% 7.9% Never Married 408 19.0% 488 17.8% 559 17.9% 610 18.0% 19.5% 9.1% Educational Attainment Percent Change 1990 2000 2006 2011 1990 to 2006 to Census Census Estimate Projection 2000 2011 Age 25+ 1,793 2,340 2,578 2,817 30.5% 9.3% Population Grade K - 8 257 14.3% 237 10.1% 334 12.9% 346 12.3% -7.8% 3.9% Grade 9 - 12 261 14.5% 266 11.4% 264 10.3% 259 9.2% 2.1% -1.9% High School 528 29.4% 748 32.0% 841 32.7% 937 33.3% 41.6% 11.4% Graduate Some College, 386 21.6% 508 21.7% 563 21.9% 615 21.8% 31.5% 9.2% No Degree Associates 51 2.8% 120 5.1% 143 5.5% 167 5.9% 135.1% 16.8% Degree Bachelor's 23513.1% 26411.3% 301 11.7% 343 12.2% 12.3% 14.3% Degree Graduate 76 4.2% 117 5.0 o 132 5.1% 149 5.3% 54.1% 12.9% Degree No Schooling 81 3.5% Completed C __ _ _ ___ . ,y+rpnt year data i --- -_ _ - s for the year 2006, 5 year projected data is for the y~a~ ~ Demographi c data ~ 2006 by Experiar/Applied Geographic Solution,. Crime data ©2006 by Ex perian/Applied Geographic Solutions. Exhibit H -Page 4