There's only a few days left to get your holiday item out to our overseas troops as Mary Scantilin will soon be mailing out her care packages as part of her "Good News for Soldiers" outreach project.
Mary Scantlin is a Pointe Royale resident who created "Good News for Soldiers" a few years ago as a way to support overseas troops. She and her growing volunteer base work to send out as many packages as possible—mostly at key holidays but randomly throughout the year as well.
For the December holiday season, Scantlin wants to send special gifts to the soldiers rather than the ordinary (although necessary) items like aspirin and wet wipes. If you are wishing to make a donation for the holiday care packages, use your imagination and think of something that would brighten the season, she suggested. Some examples are Christmas lights, candles, hot cocoa and marshmellows, afghans, Santa hats, CDs or DVDs, games, puzzles and chocolate. "They really crave chocolate and we can send it now that it's cooler and won't melt," she said. Gift donations are due by Friday, November 30.
Katrina Chapman, owner of the Book Nook on Hwy 90-A in the McDonald's center, is running a similar project this holiday season by offering cards for a reduced price of $1 to customers to write their own message to "any soldier." She has packaged up 52 cards so far but there is still time to add to the box! Chapman will mail out the boxes by December 4.
A flat rate box costs $9 to send so Chapman sells chocolate to raise mail money while Scantlin says donations are helpful. You can show your support by stopping by Chapman's store to pick out a card or by donating items, money, or your time to Scantlin's "Good News for Soldiers" outreach program.
And, if you know a New Territory resident serving in the military overseas, please pass on their name and information to Scantlin, she said. Scantlin's group recently met a soldier from New Territory who had received their packages and was on a short leave from a tour of duty in Iraq. "He brought cakes for us and I tell you it was hard to keep a dry eye as he thanked us profusely…" she said of their meeting with Michael Dinh Truong.
You can contact Scantlin at: spgndy@yahoo.com and Chapman at: nckj@alltel.net .
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
New Territory Residents Voice Concerns Over Development Project
RESIDENTS VOICE CONCERNS OVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Some Greystone Place residents have threatened to sue the NTRCA if the board allows a financial investor to develop property behind their homes, on the south side of the levee, said homeowner Paul Hillegeist in an October 19 email to board members. “Please be aware that Greystone Place residents living along the Brazos River levee will pursue litigation as necessary to the full extent of the law to prevent any activity behind Greystone Place that would significantly change or restrict the current landscape and privacy as this is directly opposite to the spirit of the original developer, Markborough, and subsequently Coventry Homes and Newmark (sic, who sold homes in Greystone),” wrote Hillegeist.
In a subsequent phone conversation, Hillegesit said the threatened litigation does not refer to plans by LID 7 to raise the levee (see story, page 6 ).
Rather, residents are concerned about the construction of any recreational or commercial facilities in the NTRCA owned property behind their homes because the NTRCA entered into a contract in 2006 with financial investor Frank Marx that gave him an exclusive, five year option on the land and which gave the NTRCA the unconditional right to approve or reject any proposed project by him. The land includes two tracts south of the levee. One tract, 66 acres, exists west of U.S. 99 and south of the Sports Complex, parking lot, and Brandons Point subdivision. The other tract, 96 acres, is east of US 99, south of Greystone Place, Watermill, and runs all the way down to US 59. Because Markborough, the developer of New Territory, attached restrictions for future use and development on that land, the NTRCA would have to remove those restrictions in order for Marx to proceed with plans . Marx is reportedly expected to hire an attorney, at his expense, to negotiate with Markborough for the release of the restrictions, said NTRCA Community Manager Dwayne Lowry. While Marx has not proposed anything specific for the land behind Greystone Place or Watermill, he has considered building a hotel and/or shopping center in the land adjacent to US 59, said Lowry. The NTRCA could retain ownership of the land and control over what is built there, he said. But they could lease it to a developer and possibly even share in the revenues, he said. “New Territory could benefit, year after year, and get full say on what is developed there,” commented Lowry.
Even if the restrictions were lifted, the land comes with another problem: it’s in a floodway. In order to build a commercial structure, the developer would have to obtain a permit which entails a mitigation plan and a drainage detention plan, said a representative in the Fort Bend County Engineering Department. “I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it sounds like it would be really
challenging and tremendously expensive to do something like that...to get (the land) adequately prepped and to get the right elevations,” said Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director for the City of Sugar Land.
Hatfield noted that Marx indicated that “engineering solutions were available” and the project could be “economically feasible.”
However, “until... an answer on the restrictions is obtained, it is perfectly clear why Mr. Marx has not spent any money to start the necessary studies,” commented NTRCA President, Bart Hatfield in a letter to residents.
Hillegeist said he is “fine” with development in the section along US 59 but is opposed to any development south of the residential areas in New Territory. “We all paid premiums for our lots,” he said. “Please note that Greystone Place would be vigorously opposed to any NTRCA support of plans that would allow for any changes or alterations to the viewable green space and tranquility within the green space along the levee…” he said in the email.
Lowry said that Marx had discussed the construction of recreational facilities in that area, such as a nine-hole golf course, hiking trails, or relocating sports fields from the sports complex there but said, “nothing was fleshed out,” for any such projects.
“We recognize there are homes behind there and want to preserve the landscape, but there is another long strip near Telfair,” he said, referring to the land that extends down to US 59.
Greystone Resident Shari Chadderdon also voiced concern that the NTRCA may be considering a proposal to relocate the athletic fields to one of the two tracts and build a commercial center on the sports complex site. Lowry said there are no specific plans for the sports complex but acknowledged that Marx had proposed building bigger, better fields and a parking lot south of the levee system, at no charge to the NTRCA.
Lowry added that it was his understanding that Markborough had originally zoned the sports complex for commercial development, including another grocery store and a strip center. They bowed to opposition from another New Territory commercial developer, however, and built the Sports Complex instead, Lowry said.
Marx also has an option on the three drill sites in New Territory but there has been no substantive discussion on developments in those areas, said Lowry.
Hillegeist said the Greystone Place neighbors have not hired an attorney or taken steps towards filing legal action against the NTRCA. But it may come to that, he said. “I don’t know why they are so against green space...they are not a commercial development agency or a for-profit association and they should leave well enough alone,” he said.
“There seems to be a conflict of interest among those board members who think our community is in the business of making money with a developer who incidentally has ties to the landscaping company instead of protecting our property values,” Chadderdon wrote in an October 19 email to the board. Marx is married to the owner of HLS, the NTRCA’s contracted landscaper/groundskeeper, and that is how he learned of the NTRCA owned land, said Hatfield.
The NTRCA board has not publicly addressed the complaints. Lowry commented that the NTRCA would retain control of any developments authorized by the board. A significant and ongoing revenue stream could offer opportunities for financial stability and/or future improvements that would benefit the entire community, he said.
But, without an answer from Markborough on whether they are willing to lift the restrictions, “it makes no sense for us to spend any time evaluating potential ideas or answering detailed inquiries on what he might propose,” said Hatfield.
Some Greystone Place residents have threatened to sue the NTRCA if the board allows a financial investor to develop property behind their homes, on the south side of the levee, said homeowner Paul Hillegeist in an October 19 email to board members. “Please be aware that Greystone Place residents living along the Brazos River levee will pursue litigation as necessary to the full extent of the law to prevent any activity behind Greystone Place that would significantly change or restrict the current landscape and privacy as this is directly opposite to the spirit of the original developer, Markborough, and subsequently Coventry Homes and Newmark (sic, who sold homes in Greystone),” wrote Hillegeist.
In a subsequent phone conversation, Hillegesit said the threatened litigation does not refer to plans by LID 7 to raise the levee (see story, page 6 ).
Rather, residents are concerned about the construction of any recreational or commercial facilities in the NTRCA owned property behind their homes because the NTRCA entered into a contract in 2006 with financial investor Frank Marx that gave him an exclusive, five year option on the land and which gave the NTRCA the unconditional right to approve or reject any proposed project by him. The land includes two tracts south of the levee. One tract, 66 acres, exists west of U.S. 99 and south of the Sports Complex, parking lot, and Brandons Point subdivision. The other tract, 96 acres, is east of US 99, south of Greystone Place, Watermill, and runs all the way down to US 59. Because Markborough, the developer of New Territory, attached restrictions for future use and development on that land, the NTRCA would have to remove those restrictions in order for Marx to proceed with plans . Marx is reportedly expected to hire an attorney, at his expense, to negotiate with Markborough for the release of the restrictions, said NTRCA Community Manager Dwayne Lowry. While Marx has not proposed anything specific for the land behind Greystone Place or Watermill, he has considered building a hotel and/or shopping center in the land adjacent to US 59, said Lowry. The NTRCA could retain ownership of the land and control over what is built there, he said. But they could lease it to a developer and possibly even share in the revenues, he said. “New Territory could benefit, year after year, and get full say on what is developed there,” commented Lowry.
Even if the restrictions were lifted, the land comes with another problem: it’s in a floodway. In order to build a commercial structure, the developer would have to obtain a permit which entails a mitigation plan and a drainage detention plan, said a representative in the Fort Bend County Engineering Department. “I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it sounds like it would be really
challenging and tremendously expensive to do something like that...to get (the land) adequately prepped and to get the right elevations,” said Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director for the City of Sugar Land.
Hatfield noted that Marx indicated that “engineering solutions were available” and the project could be “economically feasible.”
However, “until... an answer on the restrictions is obtained, it is perfectly clear why Mr. Marx has not spent any money to start the necessary studies,” commented NTRCA President, Bart Hatfield in a letter to residents.
Hillegeist said he is “fine” with development in the section along US 59 but is opposed to any development south of the residential areas in New Territory. “We all paid premiums for our lots,” he said. “Please note that Greystone Place would be vigorously opposed to any NTRCA support of plans that would allow for any changes or alterations to the viewable green space and tranquility within the green space along the levee…” he said in the email.
Lowry said that Marx had discussed the construction of recreational facilities in that area, such as a nine-hole golf course, hiking trails, or relocating sports fields from the sports complex there but said, “nothing was fleshed out,” for any such projects.
“We recognize there are homes behind there and want to preserve the landscape, but there is another long strip near Telfair,” he said, referring to the land that extends down to US 59.
Greystone Resident Shari Chadderdon also voiced concern that the NTRCA may be considering a proposal to relocate the athletic fields to one of the two tracts and build a commercial center on the sports complex site. Lowry said there are no specific plans for the sports complex but acknowledged that Marx had proposed building bigger, better fields and a parking lot south of the levee system, at no charge to the NTRCA.
Lowry added that it was his understanding that Markborough had originally zoned the sports complex for commercial development, including another grocery store and a strip center. They bowed to opposition from another New Territory commercial developer, however, and built the Sports Complex instead, Lowry said.
Marx also has an option on the three drill sites in New Territory but there has been no substantive discussion on developments in those areas, said Lowry.
Hillegeist said the Greystone Place neighbors have not hired an attorney or taken steps towards filing legal action against the NTRCA. But it may come to that, he said. “I don’t know why they are so against green space...they are not a commercial development agency or a for-profit association and they should leave well enough alone,” he said.
“There seems to be a conflict of interest among those board members who think our community is in the business of making money with a developer who incidentally has ties to the landscaping company instead of protecting our property values,” Chadderdon wrote in an October 19 email to the board. Marx is married to the owner of HLS, the NTRCA’s contracted landscaper/groundskeeper, and that is how he learned of the NTRCA owned land, said Hatfield.
The NTRCA board has not publicly addressed the complaints. Lowry commented that the NTRCA would retain control of any developments authorized by the board. A significant and ongoing revenue stream could offer opportunities for financial stability and/or future improvements that would benefit the entire community, he said.
But, without an answer from Markborough on whether they are willing to lift the restrictions, “it makes no sense for us to spend any time evaluating potential ideas or answering detailed inquiries on what he might propose,” said Hatfield.
No Increase in New Territory HOA Dues for 2008
There will be no assessment increase for 2008 and annual dues will remain at $870, the NTRCA board voted in their October meeting.
The board had considered raising assessments by a nominal amount to cover outstanding debt from 2007, but they plan to use $57,000 in the contingency line item to cover this debt. Although this leaves the NTRCA budget without any emergency funds for 2008, the board expects to re-establish a contingency fund when they sell a strip of land along to LID 7 for their levee elevation project, said Community Manager Dwayne Lowry.
Some residents at the October meeting expressed concerns that the $5.82 million budget is too tight and that the NTRCA could slip into debt, as they did in 2006, when they experienced what ended up being a $219,000 shortfall.
Unexpected increases in electricity costs and insurance premiums were partially to blame for the 2006 deficit, but Lowry said he believes estimates from vendors have been more accurately forecasted for 2008.
Program participation and a significant forecasting error are effecting the Club’s, 2007 year-end financials although, staff members are working to avoid these problems in 2008.
For 2007, the Club will be about $50,000 over budget in Adult Recreation expenses and about $91,000 behind in projected income.
“Moving forward, we need to consider cutting programs,” commented one resident at the October meeting.
Gymnastics was one area that did not generate income as projected because the coaching staff and several participants left the program this Spring, said the Club director. Plus, a $60,000 mathematical, forecasting error showed Gymnastics to be superficially low in income for 2007, she said. Gymnastics is forecasted to end the year with a $95,000 loss. But with the increase in fees next year and continued re-building of the program, Gymnastics is projected to bring in about $100,000, expend $85,000, and net $15,000 in 2008, said Lowry.
The Early Learning Program at the Club, the Club’s biggest money-maker, will also increase fees for 2008 after generating about $30,000 less than what was projected. This was due to the loss of several enrolled students and to an unexpectedly late start in the school year for 2007, said Lowry. The ELP is budgeted to bring in $230,000, spend $167,000, and net $63,000 in 2008.
Youth Recreation, which consists of Volleyball, Basketball, and Soccer, generated about $9,000 more than what was projected in 2007 due to higher participation and the 2008 budget reflects that expectation.
Adult Recreation, which consists of Adult Softball and Adult Soccer, is forecasted for a $18,000 loss in 2007 because of increased referee fees and because of a line-item change to the budget which moves field lighting costs from the general fund to the Club.
Babysitting operated at a $7,000 loss in 2007 because participation dropped when higher fees were implemented, said Lowry. Budgeted income for Babysitting has been lowered to $16,300 for 2008 which is in line with 2007, year-end projections.
Some residents complained that the Club should cut Babysitting and any such program that are “subsidized” by other, profitable programs or by resident assessments. “Babysitting is strictly a service. It has been never been budgeted to make an income,” said Club Director Robin McGuire.
“There’s always been a debate on whether the Club should be partially subsidized or remain revenue neutral,” said NTRCA President Bart Hatfield. “Different people have different opinions...some people believe the Club offers a valuable service and helps with Resale. Others say they don’t use the Club and don’t want to pay for it,” he said. “We’ve tried to strike a balance.”
The only other budget item discussed by residents in the October meeting was a $76,000 increase in Patrol Services which is to cover a 10% salary increase for officers, required by Fort Bend County. The pay increase actually starts in October,
2007, leaving Patrol Services with a $17,500 shortfall for that year and a $30,000 increase for 2008.
Residents asked if there was documentation supporting any reduction in criminal activity within New Territory since the NTRCA hired a fourth deputy last year. Hatfield responded that there were no records of such. A Safety Committee had been charged with the task of compiling records but they did not meet in 2007, he said.
Correction from October, 2007 issue: Annual Assessments were not raised from $750 to $870 in 2006. They were raised from $800.
The board had considered raising assessments by a nominal amount to cover outstanding debt from 2007, but they plan to use $57,000 in the contingency line item to cover this debt. Although this leaves the NTRCA budget without any emergency funds for 2008, the board expects to re-establish a contingency fund when they sell a strip of land along to LID 7 for their levee elevation project, said Community Manager Dwayne Lowry.
Some residents at the October meeting expressed concerns that the $5.82 million budget is too tight and that the NTRCA could slip into debt, as they did in 2006, when they experienced what ended up being a $219,000 shortfall.
Unexpected increases in electricity costs and insurance premiums were partially to blame for the 2006 deficit, but Lowry said he believes estimates from vendors have been more accurately forecasted for 2008.
Program participation and a significant forecasting error are effecting the Club’s, 2007 year-end financials although, staff members are working to avoid these problems in 2008.
For 2007, the Club will be about $50,000 over budget in Adult Recreation expenses and about $91,000 behind in projected income.
“Moving forward, we need to consider cutting programs,” commented one resident at the October meeting.
Gymnastics was one area that did not generate income as projected because the coaching staff and several participants left the program this Spring, said the Club director. Plus, a $60,000 mathematical, forecasting error showed Gymnastics to be superficially low in income for 2007, she said. Gymnastics is forecasted to end the year with a $95,000 loss. But with the increase in fees next year and continued re-building of the program, Gymnastics is projected to bring in about $100,000, expend $85,000, and net $15,000 in 2008, said Lowry.
The Early Learning Program at the Club, the Club’s biggest money-maker, will also increase fees for 2008 after generating about $30,000 less than what was projected. This was due to the loss of several enrolled students and to an unexpectedly late start in the school year for 2007, said Lowry. The ELP is budgeted to bring in $230,000, spend $167,000, and net $63,000 in 2008.
Youth Recreation, which consists of Volleyball, Basketball, and Soccer, generated about $9,000 more than what was projected in 2007 due to higher participation and the 2008 budget reflects that expectation.
Adult Recreation, which consists of Adult Softball and Adult Soccer, is forecasted for a $18,000 loss in 2007 because of increased referee fees and because of a line-item change to the budget which moves field lighting costs from the general fund to the Club.
Babysitting operated at a $7,000 loss in 2007 because participation dropped when higher fees were implemented, said Lowry. Budgeted income for Babysitting has been lowered to $16,300 for 2008 which is in line with 2007, year-end projections.
Some residents complained that the Club should cut Babysitting and any such program that are “subsidized” by other, profitable programs or by resident assessments. “Babysitting is strictly a service. It has been never been budgeted to make an income,” said Club Director Robin McGuire.
“There’s always been a debate on whether the Club should be partially subsidized or remain revenue neutral,” said NTRCA President Bart Hatfield. “Different people have different opinions...some people believe the Club offers a valuable service and helps with Resale. Others say they don’t use the Club and don’t want to pay for it,” he said. “We’ve tried to strike a balance.”
The only other budget item discussed by residents in the October meeting was a $76,000 increase in Patrol Services which is to cover a 10% salary increase for officers, required by Fort Bend County. The pay increase actually starts in October,
2007, leaving Patrol Services with a $17,500 shortfall for that year and a $30,000 increase for 2008.
Residents asked if there was documentation supporting any reduction in criminal activity within New Territory since the NTRCA hired a fourth deputy last year. Hatfield responded that there were no records of such. A Safety Committee had been charged with the task of compiling records but they did not meet in 2007, he said.
Correction from October, 2007 issue: Annual Assessments were not raised from $750 to $870 in 2006. They were raised from $800.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Strategic Partnership Agreements meetings scheduled for each MUD
The public is invited to attend public input sessions for their particular MUDs this month. By law, the MUDs must hold their meetings within the boundaries of their district. They meetings are as follows:
MUD 111 - October 22, 7:00 p.m., at Sartartia Middle School
MUD 69 - October 23, 6:00 p.m., at the Pecan Park gazebo.
MUD 112 - October 23, 5:30 p.m. at the Sports Complex covered pavillion
MUD 67 - October 29, 6:30 p.m., at the Club
MUD 68 - October 30, 7:00 p.m., at Brazos Bend Elementary School
The MUD boards may take action on the Strategic Partnership Agreements following their scheduled meetings.
MUD 111 - October 22, 7:00 p.m., at Sartartia Middle School
MUD 69 - October 23, 6:00 p.m., at the Pecan Park gazebo.
MUD 112 - October 23, 5:30 p.m. at the Sports Complex covered pavillion
MUD 67 - October 29, 6:30 p.m., at the Club
MUD 68 - October 30, 7:00 p.m., at Brazos Bend Elementary School
The MUD boards may take action on the Strategic Partnership Agreements following their scheduled meetings.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
New Territory MUDs and City of Sugar Land Reach Agreement for Annexation
Annexation negotiations between the City of Sugar Land and the five New Territory MUDs nearly fell apart following a September 25 joint, MUD meeting but a last-minute concession by the MUD 112 board resulted in an agreement by all parties.
The draft Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), which has been in the works for five years, will be presented this month at various City and MUD public hearings and brought before City Council at their November 6 meeting.
The item of extreme controversy related to the City’s proposed expansion of the wastewater treatment plant at the far west end of New Territory Blvd. as MUD 112 directors fought to limit the size of the site.
Ultimately, the board reportedly conceded to the City’s terms on this issue as long as the City agreed, in the SPA, to preserve existing landscaping and natural vegetation on the north site of the site and to construct any necessary berms or walls on our inside the boundary line.
Because an SPA with the City can only be adopted if all five MUDs sign it, the expansion site controversy created a rift between MUD 112 and the other four districts who expressed support for the proposed agreement.
MUD 112 wanted to negotiate further on the wastewater treatment plant expansion site, saying they didn’t believe the City would walk away from the opportunity to annex New Territory. “We are a pretty good prize for the City. They want us to participate in the expense of the fire station (to be built in Telfair) and their ground water reduction plan,” said MUD 112 Director Jim Grotte. “We’ve negotiated a pretty decent agreement, the best we could...but I am not satisfied,” he said in the meeting.
But the City’s representative at the meeting, Director of Utilities SuEllen Staggs, said the City’s proposed SPA is their best and final offer and that city officials had not expressed a willingness to negotiate further on the issue.
“The decision is yours, whether you are comfortable with this agreement or not...and whether or not you want to be part of the City,” she told the 22 MUD directors present at the meeting.
Several years ago, the City purchased the land surrounding the New Territory wastewater treatment plant with the long-term plan to increase treatment capacity in order to serve future development in their ETJ. These developments include what has become Telfair and two other tracts north of US 90A.
The current plan is to expand the New Territory plant, now 2.5 million gallons per day capacity, to 6.5 mgd by 2012, and to 7.5 mgd in 2019. The most they would expand it would be 10.5 mgd when their north plant behind Target on US 59 reaches the end of its useful life (perhaps around 2025), Staggs said.
The City also agreed to certain terms in their proposed expansion, including minimizing noise pollution by installing blowers inside the buildings, complete odor control mitigation, minimizing light pollution, providing landscape screening, and building the expansion facilities as far west and south as possible, she said. “You’ll just see the trees, you won’t know the plant is there,” said Staggs referring to heavy landscaping that she promised would not be removed during the expansion process.
While these terms were acceptable to MUD 112, they expressed concern that the SPA ties the treatment capacity of 10.5 mgd to the City’s master plan, a document that can be amended in as few as two city council meetings. “They are a City, they are bureaucratic. There is no telling what will happen five or ten years from now,” said Grotte. “They are unwilling to give us a binding commitment on capacity so the only way is
to bind the size of the site,” explained MUD 112 President Carl Dase.
At their regular board meeting in September and at the joint MUD meeting, MUD 112 said they would sign the SPA if the City restricts land usage to an area south and east of the existing facility for a 35-year period. The rest of their acreage would be designated parkland and placed under the control of the NTRCA.
Staggs said the City would agree to MUD 112’s preferred site, but only if certain contingencies were attached to agreement. The City needs the flexibility to expand into an additional 250-feet of property east of the site if necessary, Staggs explained. These contingencies include: equipment failure at the existing plant which would necessitate the construction of new treatment structures, future regulatory changes that would require additional treatment and facilities, and an increase in the flood hazard area determined by FEMA which would eliminate use of some their land.
Staggs said if the MUDs didn’t agree to the contingencies, the City would build their own 8 mgd facility adjacent to New Territory’s plant. Referring to a diagram presented by Staggs showing an example of an 8 mgd facility on the city-owned property, Dase said, “I really don’t think that what they have laid out is useable. But that’s the $68,000 question.”
“The question is, is it reasonable for the City to build a plant in an area that is very limited and where they would have to deal with, possibly, a very messy permitting process. Can they, will they? Nobody really knows,” commented the MUD attorney.
“You may be willing to call their bluff, but we are not,” commented MUD 111 Director Jennifer Weinecke. Matt Shepard, also a MUD 111 Director, said he supports the proposed SPA because it establishes a site for a fire station near the New Territory border. If the proposed SPA is not approved, the City could elect to move the fire station to a more central location within Telfair—further east from New Territory. “We are talking about life safety, response time, and human life,” he said. That wastewater treatment plant isn’t going to kill anyone. But response time is critical,” he said.
Directors with MUD 68, the district furthest from the proposed fire station site, said they are not happy with all the terms of the SPA but want to “stick with New Territory as a whole.”
MUD 67 concurred. “You have more power working from within rather than being the rebel district,” advised Director Leanne Pfister. “For the good of the whole team, it is in our interest that 112 signs the SPA,” she urged.
“We’ve got no aces,” said MUD 69 Director Bart Hatfield. “It comes down to trust and there is no way to answer that,” he said. “Going away from this agreement will cost us a lot,” he said, referring to the possible loss of opportunity for annexation.
The attorneys said that the four districts could possibly negotiate an SPA with the City, without MUD 112, but advised that it would be in the best interest of residents to maintain unity within the community. “The appeal of a master planned community is the uniformity it offers,” said the attorney.
Hatfield, who is also on the NTRCA board, said splitting New Territory into “city” and “non-city” units would be a disaster for the homeowner’s association. “Almost everything in the NTRCA’s structure is consistent with us existing as one political entity," he said.
Following the meeting, MUD 112 directed their attorney to contact the City and express their willingness to accept the SPA as long as no landscaping or vegetation in front of the plant site is removed without their permission and that any flood plain protective barriers are located on or within the proposed boundary line.
The draft Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), which has been in the works for five years, will be presented this month at various City and MUD public hearings and brought before City Council at their November 6 meeting.
The item of extreme controversy related to the City’s proposed expansion of the wastewater treatment plant at the far west end of New Territory Blvd. as MUD 112 directors fought to limit the size of the site.
Ultimately, the board reportedly conceded to the City’s terms on this issue as long as the City agreed, in the SPA, to preserve existing landscaping and natural vegetation on the north site of the site and to construct any necessary berms or walls on our inside the boundary line.
Because an SPA with the City can only be adopted if all five MUDs sign it, the expansion site controversy created a rift between MUD 112 and the other four districts who expressed support for the proposed agreement.
MUD 112 wanted to negotiate further on the wastewater treatment plant expansion site, saying they didn’t believe the City would walk away from the opportunity to annex New Territory. “We are a pretty good prize for the City. They want us to participate in the expense of the fire station (to be built in Telfair) and their ground water reduction plan,” said MUD 112 Director Jim Grotte. “We’ve negotiated a pretty decent agreement, the best we could...but I am not satisfied,” he said in the meeting.
But the City’s representative at the meeting, Director of Utilities SuEllen Staggs, said the City’s proposed SPA is their best and final offer and that city officials had not expressed a willingness to negotiate further on the issue.
“The decision is yours, whether you are comfortable with this agreement or not...and whether or not you want to be part of the City,” she told the 22 MUD directors present at the meeting.
Several years ago, the City purchased the land surrounding the New Territory wastewater treatment plant with the long-term plan to increase treatment capacity in order to serve future development in their ETJ. These developments include what has become Telfair and two other tracts north of US 90A.
The current plan is to expand the New Territory plant, now 2.5 million gallons per day capacity, to 6.5 mgd by 2012, and to 7.5 mgd in 2019. The most they would expand it would be 10.5 mgd when their north plant behind Target on US 59 reaches the end of its useful life (perhaps around 2025), Staggs said.
The City also agreed to certain terms in their proposed expansion, including minimizing noise pollution by installing blowers inside the buildings, complete odor control mitigation, minimizing light pollution, providing landscape screening, and building the expansion facilities as far west and south as possible, she said. “You’ll just see the trees, you won’t know the plant is there,” said Staggs referring to heavy landscaping that she promised would not be removed during the expansion process.
While these terms were acceptable to MUD 112, they expressed concern that the SPA ties the treatment capacity of 10.5 mgd to the City’s master plan, a document that can be amended in as few as two city council meetings. “They are a City, they are bureaucratic. There is no telling what will happen five or ten years from now,” said Grotte. “They are unwilling to give us a binding commitment on capacity so the only way is
to bind the size of the site,” explained MUD 112 President Carl Dase.
At their regular board meeting in September and at the joint MUD meeting, MUD 112 said they would sign the SPA if the City restricts land usage to an area south and east of the existing facility for a 35-year period. The rest of their acreage would be designated parkland and placed under the control of the NTRCA.
Staggs said the City would agree to MUD 112’s preferred site, but only if certain contingencies were attached to agreement. The City needs the flexibility to expand into an additional 250-feet of property east of the site if necessary, Staggs explained. These contingencies include: equipment failure at the existing plant which would necessitate the construction of new treatment structures, future regulatory changes that would require additional treatment and facilities, and an increase in the flood hazard area determined by FEMA which would eliminate use of some their land.
Staggs said if the MUDs didn’t agree to the contingencies, the City would build their own 8 mgd facility adjacent to New Territory’s plant. Referring to a diagram presented by Staggs showing an example of an 8 mgd facility on the city-owned property, Dase said, “I really don’t think that what they have laid out is useable. But that’s the $68,000 question.”
“The question is, is it reasonable for the City to build a plant in an area that is very limited and where they would have to deal with, possibly, a very messy permitting process. Can they, will they? Nobody really knows,” commented the MUD attorney.
“You may be willing to call their bluff, but we are not,” commented MUD 111 Director Jennifer Weinecke. Matt Shepard, also a MUD 111 Director, said he supports the proposed SPA because it establishes a site for a fire station near the New Territory border. If the proposed SPA is not approved, the City could elect to move the fire station to a more central location within Telfair—further east from New Territory. “We are talking about life safety, response time, and human life,” he said. That wastewater treatment plant isn’t going to kill anyone. But response time is critical,” he said.
Directors with MUD 68, the district furthest from the proposed fire station site, said they are not happy with all the terms of the SPA but want to “stick with New Territory as a whole.”
MUD 67 concurred. “You have more power working from within rather than being the rebel district,” advised Director Leanne Pfister. “For the good of the whole team, it is in our interest that 112 signs the SPA,” she urged.
“We’ve got no aces,” said MUD 69 Director Bart Hatfield. “It comes down to trust and there is no way to answer that,” he said. “Going away from this agreement will cost us a lot,” he said, referring to the possible loss of opportunity for annexation.
The attorneys said that the four districts could possibly negotiate an SPA with the City, without MUD 112, but advised that it would be in the best interest of residents to maintain unity within the community. “The appeal of a master planned community is the uniformity it offers,” said the attorney.
Hatfield, who is also on the NTRCA board, said splitting New Territory into “city” and “non-city” units would be a disaster for the homeowner’s association. “Almost everything in the NTRCA’s structure is consistent with us existing as one political entity," he said.
Following the meeting, MUD 112 directed their attorney to contact the City and express their willingness to accept the SPA as long as no landscaping or vegetation in front of the plant site is removed without their permission and that any flood plain protective barriers are located on or within the proposed boundary line.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sugar Land Housing Remains Strong
Texas housing remains strong, with risk scores below 140, which means that there's less than a 14% chance that our markets will decline over the next two years, vs. California, Arizona, Florida and Nevada metros that predict at least a 50% or more chance that their housing prices will decline over the next two years. This may help buyers understand that Texas is the place to buy. According to the scale, the risk factor for Houston is about 8% according.
The top 50 major metros rated by their risk of a decline in the next two years , by Marilyn Lewis
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.'s new U.S. Market Risk Index tries to assess the future direction of markets across the U.S. by looking at recent price volatility, affordability (including per-capita income, appreciation and mortgage rates) and employment, among other factors.
On average, there's a 34.6% chance that home prices will drop in the nation's top 50 markets in the next couple years, with many of the riskiest markets falling in areas that saw steep run-ups in prices in recent years, followed by decreased affordability and drops in the rate of appreciation.
The risk scores for the top 50 major metros are listed as whole numbers in the table below. A score of 652 means there is a 65.2% chance that market will decline over the next two years.
Metropolitan statistical area
*Risk score
Annual house price appreciation
1st qtr 2007 (in %)
1st qtr 2006 (in %)
% change
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
652
4.14
21.64
-17.49
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottdale, Ariz.
646
4.52
37.33
-32.81
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev.
614
1.69
16.08
-14.39
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, Fla.
607
-2.16
28.12
-30.28
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif.
586
4.82
23.57
-18.76
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, Calif.
577
0.85
19.85
-19.01
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, Calif.
572
-0.90
18.63
-19.53
Orlando-Kissimmee, Fla.
563
7.94
32.52
-24.59
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, Calif.
560
-4.41
12.98
-17.39
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.
555
-1.92
8.20
-10.12
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, Fla.
542
2.68
29.38
-26.70
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, Fla.
524
11.44
28.70
-17.26
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.
506
5.11
26.74
-21.64
Boston-Quincy, Mass.
501
-1.32
5.45
-6.76
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va.
500
3.65
21.67
-18.03
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
491
2.28
17.56
-15.28
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Va.-N.C.
476
7.88
22.01
-14.14
Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y.
445
2.25
12.91
-10.66
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, Calif.
411
1.32
14.83
-13.51
Baltimore-Towson, Md.
400
6.64
19.94
-13.30
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, R.I.-Mass.
397
0.85
9.13
-8.27
Jacksonville, Fla.
394
7.46
21.95
-14.49
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, Ore.-Wash.
389
11.00
21.46
-10.46
Edison, N.J.
362
2.21
14.97
-12.76
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Wash.
343
12.56
18.62
-6.06
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, Mass.
336
-0.50
4.41
-4.90
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minn.-Wisc.
322
1.69
6.59
-4.90
New York-White Plains-Wayne, N.Y.-N.J.
322
3.93
16.07
-12.15
Newark-Union, N.J.-Pa.
314
3.63
13.65
-10.02
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich.
284
-2.98
1.20
-4.18
Philadelphia
237
5.63
13.72
-8.08
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, Mich.
236
-1.75
1.36
-3.12
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga.
212
4.02
4.85
-0.83
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wis.
189
3.42
7.83
-4.41
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.
182
4.22
7.17
-2.95
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, Tenn.
177
8.32
9.02
-0.69
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.
175
5.07
10.66
-5.59
Denver-Aurora, Colo.
156
1.09
3.12
-2.03
Austin-Round Rock, Texas
136
10.94
7.63
3.32
Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.
136
2.51
4.71
-2.20
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C.
125
8.47
6.06
2.41
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Ohio
121
-0.31
2.29
-2.60
San Antonio, Texas
102
10.53
9.31
1.22
Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Ken.-Ind.
97
2.27
3.99
-1.72
Columbus, Ohio
93
0.97
3.61
-2.63
Indianapolis-Carmel, Ind.
84
2.31
3.07
-0.76
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas
79
5.93
5.52
0.41
Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas
75
3.66
3.80
-0.14
Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
74
4.02
3.43
0.59
Pittsburgh
64
2.66
5.22
-2.57
NOTES: *For the first quarter 2007; **Scores show risk of home values falling in 2009 in all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas and divisions. Risk index scores are whole numbers. By moving the decimal one point to the left, they are expressed as the % chance of dropping prices. For example, Riverside has a risk score of 652 --- a 65.2% chance home values will fall in two years. Also shown: appreciation in first quarters of 2006 and 2007. Source: PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.
The top 50 major metros rated by their risk of a decline in the next two years , by Marilyn Lewis
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.'s new U.S. Market Risk Index tries to assess the future direction of markets across the U.S. by looking at recent price volatility, affordability (including per-capita income, appreciation and mortgage rates) and employment, among other factors.
On average, there's a 34.6% chance that home prices will drop in the nation's top 50 markets in the next couple years, with many of the riskiest markets falling in areas that saw steep run-ups in prices in recent years, followed by decreased affordability and drops in the rate of appreciation.
The risk scores for the top 50 major metros are listed as whole numbers in the table below. A score of 652 means there is a 65.2% chance that market will decline over the next two years.
Metropolitan statistical area
*Risk score
Annual house price appreciation
1st qtr 2007 (in %)
1st qtr 2006 (in %)
% change
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
652
4.14
21.64
-17.49
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottdale, Ariz.
646
4.52
37.33
-32.81
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev.
614
1.69
16.08
-14.39
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, Fla.
607
-2.16
28.12
-30.28
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif.
586
4.82
23.57
-18.76
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, Calif.
577
0.85
19.85
-19.01
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, Calif.
572
-0.90
18.63
-19.53
Orlando-Kissimmee, Fla.
563
7.94
32.52
-24.59
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, Calif.
560
-4.41
12.98
-17.39
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.
555
-1.92
8.20
-10.12
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, Fla.
542
2.68
29.38
-26.70
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, Fla.
524
11.44
28.70
-17.26
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.
506
5.11
26.74
-21.64
Boston-Quincy, Mass.
501
-1.32
5.45
-6.76
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va.
500
3.65
21.67
-18.03
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.
491
2.28
17.56
-15.28
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Va.-N.C.
476
7.88
22.01
-14.14
Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y.
445
2.25
12.91
-10.66
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, Calif.
411
1.32
14.83
-13.51
Baltimore-Towson, Md.
400
6.64
19.94
-13.30
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, R.I.-Mass.
397
0.85
9.13
-8.27
Jacksonville, Fla.
394
7.46
21.95
-14.49
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, Ore.-Wash.
389
11.00
21.46
-10.46
Edison, N.J.
362
2.21
14.97
-12.76
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Wash.
343
12.56
18.62
-6.06
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, Mass.
336
-0.50
4.41
-4.90
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minn.-Wisc.
322
1.69
6.59
-4.90
New York-White Plains-Wayne, N.Y.-N.J.
322
3.93
16.07
-12.15
Newark-Union, N.J.-Pa.
314
3.63
13.65
-10.02
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich.
284
-2.98
1.20
-4.18
Philadelphia
237
5.63
13.72
-8.08
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, Mich.
236
-1.75
1.36
-3.12
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga.
212
4.02
4.85
-0.83
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wis.
189
3.42
7.83
-4.41
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.
182
4.22
7.17
-2.95
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, Tenn.
177
8.32
9.02
-0.69
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.
175
5.07
10.66
-5.59
Denver-Aurora, Colo.
156
1.09
3.12
-2.03
Austin-Round Rock, Texas
136
10.94
7.63
3.32
Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.
136
2.51
4.71
-2.20
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C.
125
8.47
6.06
2.41
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Ohio
121
-0.31
2.29
-2.60
San Antonio, Texas
102
10.53
9.31
1.22
Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Ken.-Ind.
97
2.27
3.99
-1.72
Columbus, Ohio
93
0.97
3.61
-2.63
Indianapolis-Carmel, Ind.
84
2.31
3.07
-0.76
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas
79
5.93
5.52
0.41
Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas
75
3.66
3.80
-0.14
Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
74
4.02
3.43
0.59
Pittsburgh
64
2.66
5.22
-2.57
NOTES: *For the first quarter 2007; **Scores show risk of home values falling in 2009 in all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas and divisions. Risk index scores are whole numbers. By moving the decimal one point to the left, they are expressed as the % chance of dropping prices. For example, Riverside has a risk score of 652 --- a 65.2% chance home values will fall in two years. Also shown: appreciation in first quarters of 2006 and 2007. Source: PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
New Territory & Telfair Raising Levees
Telfair’s LID 17 and New Territory’s LID 7 are working full steam ahead to raise their levees to levels recommended by a Fort Bend County Technical Review Committee before FEMA releases preliminary flood maps in early 2008 which are expected to show many areas of the county to be in the 100-year flood plain. Although the maps wouldn’t become effective for perhaps another two years and the area wouldn’t be classified to be in a 100-year flood plain until that time, the two communities are taking proactive measures to avoid potential complications.
LID 17 is concerned that home sales in Newland Communities’ Telfair development could be effected by even an unofficial, floodplain designation. “We are shooting to get the recertification package to FEMA before the preliminary maps are released,” said the engineer for LID 17. They are also working on the levees to raise them six inches in order to meet the recommendations of the technical review committee which said that local levees should be four feet above the 100-year flood level. The west levee borders New Territory and is shared with LID 7. The New Territory LID agreed to give LID 17 the necessary easement to raise the levee and LID17 is incurring the construction costs, said the attorney. “We agreed to work together to reduce construction hours and noise,” she said.
It should take about four months to complete the west levee project, said the engineer.
That levee between the two communities will become redundant and unnecessary once LID 7 raises and completes the New Territory levee and once LID 17 ties into it at the southwestern corner, said the LID 7 engineer. However, LID 17 is working on raising the internal levee anyway because the preliminary flood maps will be released before the New Territory LID is able to raise their levees and they don’t want it noted that Telfair is in a 100-year flood plain.
According to the technical review recommendations, New Territory’s LID 7 will have to raise their south (along the river) and west (from Cambridge Park to High Meadows) about four feet. There is no levee behind High Meadows and in order to complete a U-shape, as required by FEMA, LID 7 is proposing to build an eight foot concrete wall from the point where the levee ends to 90-A. They prefer this type of levee over a dirt one because limited right-of-way in that area due to a power line and road would make it more expensive to build.
There is also work to be done to US 90-A where the levee will end. LID 7 will need to raise the east bound side and median of US 90A to a level that will match or exceed the level of the west bound side. TxDOT will construct the improvements, but at the LID’s expense, said LID 7 engineer.
In order to raise the dirt levee four feet, LID 7 will have to acquire from the NTRCA a 2.1 mile stretch of right-of-way along the south levee, said the engineer. In the June board meeting, the NTRCA directed Community Manager Dwayne Lowry to determine fair market value for the land and propose a sales price to LID 7.
The LID 7 attorney said the district has enough bonds authorized to fund the project, estimated to cost $8 million, and that they probably won’t have to raise LID taxes to do so. The engineer estimates it will take 12 to 18 months to raise the levees, which will probably leave them enough time to get the preliminary FEMA maps recertified before the final maps become effective.
LID 7 will likely schedule a public meeting on the subject of the FEMA maps and raising the levees, said the LID 7 attorney.
LID 17 is concerned that home sales in Newland Communities’ Telfair development could be effected by even an unofficial, floodplain designation. “We are shooting to get the recertification package to FEMA before the preliminary maps are released,” said the engineer for LID 17. They are also working on the levees to raise them six inches in order to meet the recommendations of the technical review committee which said that local levees should be four feet above the 100-year flood level. The west levee borders New Territory and is shared with LID 7. The New Territory LID agreed to give LID 17 the necessary easement to raise the levee and LID17 is incurring the construction costs, said the attorney. “We agreed to work together to reduce construction hours and noise,” she said.
It should take about four months to complete the west levee project, said the engineer.
That levee between the two communities will become redundant and unnecessary once LID 7 raises and completes the New Territory levee and once LID 17 ties into it at the southwestern corner, said the LID 7 engineer. However, LID 17 is working on raising the internal levee anyway because the preliminary flood maps will be released before the New Territory LID is able to raise their levees and they don’t want it noted that Telfair is in a 100-year flood plain.
According to the technical review recommendations, New Territory’s LID 7 will have to raise their south (along the river) and west (from Cambridge Park to High Meadows) about four feet. There is no levee behind High Meadows and in order to complete a U-shape, as required by FEMA, LID 7 is proposing to build an eight foot concrete wall from the point where the levee ends to 90-A. They prefer this type of levee over a dirt one because limited right-of-way in that area due to a power line and road would make it more expensive to build.
There is also work to be done to US 90-A where the levee will end. LID 7 will need to raise the east bound side and median of US 90A to a level that will match or exceed the level of the west bound side. TxDOT will construct the improvements, but at the LID’s expense, said LID 7 engineer.
In order to raise the dirt levee four feet, LID 7 will have to acquire from the NTRCA a 2.1 mile stretch of right-of-way along the south levee, said the engineer. In the June board meeting, the NTRCA directed Community Manager Dwayne Lowry to determine fair market value for the land and propose a sales price to LID 7.
The LID 7 attorney said the district has enough bonds authorized to fund the project, estimated to cost $8 million, and that they probably won’t have to raise LID taxes to do so. The engineer estimates it will take 12 to 18 months to raise the levees, which will probably leave them enough time to get the preliminary FEMA maps recertified before the final maps become effective.
LID 7 will likely schedule a public meeting on the subject of the FEMA maps and raising the levees, said the LID 7 attorney.
What Fort Bend Residents Need to Know about Flooding, Remapping, and Insurance
Why is FEMA re-mapping Fort Bend County? Is it because of Hurricane Katrina?
FEMA is revising the flood maps for Fort Bend County as part of their National Map Modernization Program which was started several years ago, said a FEMA representative. “The initiative is to update outdated maps for flood plain management purposes,” she said. “The issue of whether the levee provides base flood protection needs to be addressed” in the map modernization process, it says on the FEMA website.
Based on population growth and other criteria, Fort Bend County was selected to undergo map revisions about three years ago, said an employee with the Fort Bend Drainage District, well before Hurricane Katrina struck southwest Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005.
When was the last time FEMA mapped Fort Bend County?
The last floodplain study done for Fort Bend County was thirty years ago and utilized less accurate methods and technology. New Lidar data provides true ground elevations so the new maps will be very accurate.
Is the Brazos River getting higher and is New Territitory at more risk of flooding?
According to the Brazos River Authority’s measurements taken of the river height, river levels at Richmond have been stable over the last ten years, said a BRA representative. Flood stage at the Richmond location (the Brazos River Bridge) is 48 feet gage height. A 50-foot height is considered a major flood stage. The last time the Brazos River reached a 50 foot level was in 1994, said the spokesperson. The levees were not breeched during that event, she said. “There’s only been a handful of times in the last forty years that it has reached these stages,” she said.
Why do the levees have to be raised?
A study by FEMA contractor Michael Baker finds that the levees, designed to protect against a 100-year storm event, would be unable to do so. In other words, the levees must protect against a 1% annual chance of flood. So, in the 1% chance that we experience an extreme event, our area might flood.
What safety mechanisms are launched when the River approaches 48 feet?
The LID’s Operator, ECO Resources, implements emergency measures such as ensuring that the generators are well fueled in case of power outages so that the pumps can continue to work pumping water out of lakes and Ellis Creek. They make sure the flood gates are closed to prevent high water levels in the Brazos River from filling up Ellis Creek.
Should I get flood insurance?
FEMA does not require homeowners in New Territory to have flood insurance at this time but it is the only policy which will provide you with coverage (up to $250,000 for building repairs and $100,000 for contents) in the unlikely event that the area floods. Your basic homeowner’s policy does not provide coverage for damage due to flooding. It takes 30 days for flood insurance to go into effect so your home will not be covered if you purchase it shortly before a major storm event that results in flooding.
How can I get information about river levels?
For a 31-day graph and statistics of river levels and precipitation, as well as real-time data, measured at the Richmond site, go to:www.brazos.org and click on water levels and then river levels. Click on the part of the river in the lower basin.
This last month, the Brazos River at Richmond reached a maximum height of 42.5 feet for a few days in early June. Based on the last four years of records, the median height at the Richmond location is 12.66 feet.
FEMA is revising the flood maps for Fort Bend County as part of their National Map Modernization Program which was started several years ago, said a FEMA representative. “The initiative is to update outdated maps for flood plain management purposes,” she said. “The issue of whether the levee provides base flood protection needs to be addressed” in the map modernization process, it says on the FEMA website.
Based on population growth and other criteria, Fort Bend County was selected to undergo map revisions about three years ago, said an employee with the Fort Bend Drainage District, well before Hurricane Katrina struck southwest Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005.
When was the last time FEMA mapped Fort Bend County?
The last floodplain study done for Fort Bend County was thirty years ago and utilized less accurate methods and technology. New Lidar data provides true ground elevations so the new maps will be very accurate.
Is the Brazos River getting higher and is New Territitory at more risk of flooding?
According to the Brazos River Authority’s measurements taken of the river height, river levels at Richmond have been stable over the last ten years, said a BRA representative. Flood stage at the Richmond location (the Brazos River Bridge) is 48 feet gage height. A 50-foot height is considered a major flood stage. The last time the Brazos River reached a 50 foot level was in 1994, said the spokesperson. The levees were not breeched during that event, she said. “There’s only been a handful of times in the last forty years that it has reached these stages,” she said.
Why do the levees have to be raised?
A study by FEMA contractor Michael Baker finds that the levees, designed to protect against a 100-year storm event, would be unable to do so. In other words, the levees must protect against a 1% annual chance of flood. So, in the 1% chance that we experience an extreme event, our area might flood.
What safety mechanisms are launched when the River approaches 48 feet?
The LID’s Operator, ECO Resources, implements emergency measures such as ensuring that the generators are well fueled in case of power outages so that the pumps can continue to work pumping water out of lakes and Ellis Creek. They make sure the flood gates are closed to prevent high water levels in the Brazos River from filling up Ellis Creek.
Should I get flood insurance?
FEMA does not require homeowners in New Territory to have flood insurance at this time but it is the only policy which will provide you with coverage (up to $250,000 for building repairs and $100,000 for contents) in the unlikely event that the area floods. Your basic homeowner’s policy does not provide coverage for damage due to flooding. It takes 30 days for flood insurance to go into effect so your home will not be covered if you purchase it shortly before a major storm event that results in flooding.
How can I get information about river levels?
For a 31-day graph and statistics of river levels and precipitation, as well as real-time data, measured at the Richmond site, go to:www.brazos.org and click on water levels and then river levels. Click on the part of the river in the lower basin.
This last month, the Brazos River at Richmond reached a maximum height of 42.5 feet for a few days in early June. Based on the last four years of records, the median height at the Richmond location is 12.66 feet.
New Territory and Telfair Raising Levees
Telfair’s LID 17 and New Territory’s LID 7 are working full steam ahead to raise their levees to levels recommended by a Fort Bend County Technical Review Committee before FEMA releases preliminary flood maps in early 2008 which are expected to show many areas of the county to be in the 100-year flood plain. Although the maps wouldn’t become effective for perhaps another two years and the area wouldn’t be classified to be in a 100-year flood plain until that time, the two communities are taking proactive measures to avoid potential complications.
LID 17 is concerned that home sales in Newland Communities’ Telfair development could be effected by even an unofficial, floodplain designation. “We are shooting to get the recertification package to FEMA before the preliminary maps are released,” said the engineer for LID 17. They are also working on the levees to raise them six inches in order to meet the recommendations of the technical review committee which said that local levees should be four feet above the 100-year flood level. The west levee borders New Territory and is shared with LID 7. The New Territory LID agreed to give LID 17 the necessary easement to raise the levee and LID17 is incurring the construction costs, said the attorney. “We agreed to work together to reduce construction hours and noise,” she said.
It should take about four months to complete the west levee project, said the engineer.
That levee between the two communities will become redundant and unnecessary once LID 7 raises and completes the New Territory levee and once LID 17 ties into it at the southwestern corner, said the LID 7 engineer. However, LID 17 is working on raising the internal levee anyway because the preliminary flood maps will be released before the New Territory LID is able to raise their levees and they don’t want it noted that Telfair is in a 100-year flood plain.
According to the technical review recommendations, New Territory’s LID 7 will have to raise their south (along the river) and west (from Cambridge Park to High Meadows) about four feet. There is no levee behind High Meadows and in order to complete a U-shape, as required by FEMA, LID 7 is proposing to build an eight foot concrete wall from the point where the levee ends to 90-A. They prefer this type of levee over a dirt one because limited right-of-way in that area due to a power line and road would make it more expensive to build.
There is also work to be done to US 90-A where the levee will end. LID 7 will need to raise the east bound side and median of US 90A to a level that will match or exceed the level of the west bound side. TxDOT will construct the improvements, but at the LID’s expense, said LID 7 engineer.
In order to raise the dirt levee four feet, LID 7 will have to acquire from the NTRCA a 2.1 mile stretch of right-of-way along the south levee, said the engineer. In the June board meeting, the NTRCA directed Community Manager Dwayne Lowry to determine fair market value for the land and propose a sales price to LID 7.
The LID 7 attorney said the district has enough bonds authorized to fund the project, estimated to cost $8 million, and that they probably won’t have to raise LID taxes to do so. The engineer estimates it will take 12 to 18 months to raise the levees, which will probably leave them enough time to get the preliminary FEMA maps recertified before the final maps become effective.
LID 7 will likely schedule a public meeting on the subject of the FEMA maps and raising the levees, said the LID 7 attorney.
LID 17 is concerned that home sales in Newland Communities’ Telfair development could be effected by even an unofficial, floodplain designation. “We are shooting to get the recertification package to FEMA before the preliminary maps are released,” said the engineer for LID 17. They are also working on the levees to raise them six inches in order to meet the recommendations of the technical review committee which said that local levees should be four feet above the 100-year flood level. The west levee borders New Territory and is shared with LID 7. The New Territory LID agreed to give LID 17 the necessary easement to raise the levee and LID17 is incurring the construction costs, said the attorney. “We agreed to work together to reduce construction hours and noise,” she said.
It should take about four months to complete the west levee project, said the engineer.
That levee between the two communities will become redundant and unnecessary once LID 7 raises and completes the New Territory levee and once LID 17 ties into it at the southwestern corner, said the LID 7 engineer. However, LID 17 is working on raising the internal levee anyway because the preliminary flood maps will be released before the New Territory LID is able to raise their levees and they don’t want it noted that Telfair is in a 100-year flood plain.
According to the technical review recommendations, New Territory’s LID 7 will have to raise their south (along the river) and west (from Cambridge Park to High Meadows) about four feet. There is no levee behind High Meadows and in order to complete a U-shape, as required by FEMA, LID 7 is proposing to build an eight foot concrete wall from the point where the levee ends to 90-A. They prefer this type of levee over a dirt one because limited right-of-way in that area due to a power line and road would make it more expensive to build.
There is also work to be done to US 90-A where the levee will end. LID 7 will need to raise the east bound side and median of US 90A to a level that will match or exceed the level of the west bound side. TxDOT will construct the improvements, but at the LID’s expense, said LID 7 engineer.
In order to raise the dirt levee four feet, LID 7 will have to acquire from the NTRCA a 2.1 mile stretch of right-of-way along the south levee, said the engineer. In the June board meeting, the NTRCA directed Community Manager Dwayne Lowry to determine fair market value for the land and propose a sales price to LID 7.
The LID 7 attorney said the district has enough bonds authorized to fund the project, estimated to cost $8 million, and that they probably won’t have to raise LID taxes to do so. The engineer estimates it will take 12 to 18 months to raise the levees, which will probably leave them enough time to get the preliminary FEMA maps recertified before the final maps become effective.
LID 7 will likely schedule a public meeting on the subject of the FEMA maps and raising the levees, said the LID 7 attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)