20 - Year Growth Plan

Transcription

20 - Year Growth Plan
City of Kendleton, Texas
City of Kendleton 20‐Year Growth Plan August 2012
Prepared for:
Fort Bend County, Community Development Department
and
City of Kendleton, Texas
Prepared by:
Print date: August 28, 2012
Kendleton 20-Year Growth Plan
Acknowledgements
City of Kendleton:
Mayor Darryl Humphrey
Kendleton City Council
Lester Aldridge
George Jackson
Carolyn Jenkins
Carolyn Jones
Etta Patterson
Kendleton City Secretary
Veronica Harris
Kendleton Economic Development Corporation
Mike Flory
Fort Bend County:
Commissioner Richard Morrison
Michael Gutierrez
Marilynn Kindell
Community Planning Team
Kanzetta Allen
Richard Booker
Embry Carter
Bouche Mickey
Robert Petitt
Linda Picard
Flora Smith
Abraham Solomon
Daniel Villegas
Consultant Team:
EHRA
Christopher Browne, LEED AP
Nick Schmidt, AICP
Adrienne Bottoms
Matt Thornton
TEEX
Lisa Mutchler
Joan Quintana
Natalie Ruiz
Kendleton 20-Year Growth Plan
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Planning
1.2 Planning Process
1.3 Acceptance
2
3
4
Section 2: Vision and Goals
2.1 Public Outreach – 1st Meeting
2.2 Community Planning Team
2.3 Public Outreach – 2nd Meeting
Approaching and Encroaching Forces
Existing Physical Conditions
Population Estimate and Projection
Perceptions
11
11
15
18
18
Section 4: Land Use
4.1 Current Land Use
4.2 Future Land Use
4.3 Planning Factors
Existing Area Transportation Plans
Thoroughfare Analysis
Rail Impacts
Pedestrian Connectivity
Transportation Plan
21
23
25
Existing Housing
Housing Value and Housing Types
Housing Assistance
Housing Forecasts
27
29
33
34
34
37
37
38
40
40
Section 7: Economic Development
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Economic Historical Profile
Existing Employment
Employment Forecasts
Income
Sales Tax Revenue
Proposed Regional Developments
41
41
42
45
46
47
48
Section 8: Utilities
8.1 Current Status
8.2 Future Utility Needs
8.3 Maintenance
51
51
52
52
Section 9: Parks and Recreation
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
King-Kennedy Memorial Park
Bates M. Allen Park
Park Accessibility Standards
Future Park Linkage
53
53
54
56
56
Section 10: Community Resources
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
Police
Fire
Medical
Schools
Within
Within
Within
Within
2 Years
5 Years
10 Years
20 Years
61
64
65
65
61
57
57
57
59
59
Exhibits
I:
Current Land Use Map
II:
Future Land Use Plan
III:
Planning Factors Map
IV:
Transportation Plan
Appendix A: Kendleton Community
Assessment by TEEX
Appendix B: Public Involvement Comments
27
Section 6: Housing
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Appendices
21
Section 5: Transportation
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Section 11: Recommendations
5
5
7
9
Section 3: Community Assessment
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
1
Appendix C: Population Estimate
and Forecast
1.0
Introduction
The City of Kendleton, Texas, has undertaken the creation of a 20-Year Growth Plan in
order to pragmatically address the current and future needs of the community. The City
has recognized the imminent development forces which have the ability to transform the
entire western portion of Fort Bend County and desires to actively plan for the future so
that a balance can be found between the community’s existing rural character, desired
growth, and transportation-based new developments.
Figure 1-1: Location Maps
The City of Kendleton is located in western Fort Bend County at the intersection of US
Highway 59 and FM Road 2919, and borders the San Bernard River, which establishes
the boundary between Fort Bend and Wharton counties. The City Limits encompass 1.4
square miles (907 acres) with a 1/2 mile Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction encompassing an
additional 4.1 square miles (2,623 acres) for a total City of Kendleton jurisdictional area
of 5.5 square miles (3,530 acres). The 2010 Census indicates a population of 380
persons within the city limits. However, available data for the Census Tract shows that
587 persons reside within the Kendleton ETJ and general surrounding area.
Figure 1-2: City of Kendleton jurisdictional limits.
Source: Fort Bend County, GIS Department
20-Year Growth Plan
Figure 1-3: City of Kendleton on aerial photograph.
Aerial Source: Google Earth
1
Section 1.0 Introduction The city’s history can be documented back to the William E. Kendall plantation of the
1860’s. Following the Civil War, 100-acre plots were sold to newly freed African
Americans for $1.00 per acre and further subdivided by many families into 25-60 acre
plots. Many of these plots exist to this day along the route of old Highway 59, now Loop
541. In the 1880’s, the New York, Texas and Mexican Railway was constructed and then
extended from Rosenberg through Victoria, however no depot was constructed in
Kendleton. The Kendleton Post Office was constructed in 1884 and many other
community elements including churches and Powell Point School were added near the
turn of the century. Kendleton incorporated as a city in 1973. The community retains its
agricultural identity to this day and has experienced only minor growth during its
history. However, Fort Bend County has enjoyed consistent population and economic
growth for several decades, often counted in the top-ten fastest growing counties
nationwide. This growth trend is directly linked to the Greater Houston Area’s continued
westward expansion and the tremendous suburban growth occurring in the Sugar
Land/Rosenberg/Richmond area. As single-family home construction continues, new
infrastructure is being built and new jobs local to Fort Bend County are being created.
The predominance of inexpensive land and location in relation to the Houston Area has
allowed western Fort Bend County to be targeted as a prime location for new light
industrial and transportation related business growth. This 20-Year Growth Plan will
address the need for Kendleton to plan for the forthcoming development of such
industry and businesses which are slated to be constructed to the immediate east of the
City’s jurisdictional boundaries.
1.1
Purpose of Planning
Historically, communities have been planned and built with a kind of strange partnership
between governments which are tasked to protect the public and development forces
which seek to profit from the needs of the public. Municipalities use zoning and
subdivision ordinances to place land use controls on development so that growth occurs
in a managed process. The debate about which force should drive the actual built
environment has usually given way to the economic needs of the community. This fact
demonstrates the imperative of both regulation and the need for economic growth to
work together in forming communities.
Typically, communities change gradually, but the arrival or departure of a major
employer, sudden increases or decreases in growth rates, or significant improvements or
declines in environmental quality can signal forthcoming large-scale changes. Planning
support systems such as Comprehensive Planning, or in this case the Kendleton 20-Year
Growth Plan, can analyze shifts in factors such as land use, economic activity, and
environmental quality.
There are several overlapping goals for the Kendleton 20-Year Growth Plan: create a
flexible blueprint for the City’s future growth and economic development; provide
comprehensive background information to assist with procurement of future funding;
and provide a prioritized implementation schedule.
2
City of Kendleton
1.2
Planning Process
The 20-Year Growth Plan began with discussions between local leaders, county
government officials, stakeholders, and residents. On March 5, 2010 the City Council of
Kendleton passed a consent resolution in support of a Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) application. Fort Bend County Commissioners Court approved the
expenditure on December 21, 2010. The CDBG funds are administered through the
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) PlanSource program in coordination with Fort
Bend County. Edminster Hinshaw Russ & Associates (EHRA) was selected to perform the
study and a contract was executed in July 2011.
The largest economic factor concerning Kendleton’s future growth is the recent
construction of an intermodal rail facility immediately northeast of Kendleton’s City
Limits. When contrasted with the City’s primarily agrarian roots, this new facility has the
potential to dramatically affect the community. The 20-Year Growth Plan uses this
situation as the basis for the project approach. Since the future of the community is
directly related to the partnerships which will be formed between Kendleton and new
land developers, the project approach includes the following primary components:
•
•
•
•
•
Community Assessment
Economic Development
Land Use Planning
Public Participation
Stakeholder Interviews
As project consultants, EHRA teamed with the Texas Engineering Extension Service
(TEEX) in order to utilize their expertise in community assessment and allow EHRA to
focus on land use issues. The planning process began with the formation of a
Community Planning Team (CPT) composed of local and Fort Bend County leaders,
business owners, residents, and pastors. The first meeting was held in November 2010
while the CDBG funding details and consultant contract were being finalized. The
Community Planning Team met monthly which allowed EHRA and TEEX to become
intimately familiar with Kendleton, from both a built environment perspective and in
forming relationships with the community.
The CPT guided the project throughout the planning process by providing feedback and
resources in order to investigate the identified Growth Plan issues. Two community
outreach meetings were held, both at the Kendleton Church of God, in order to engage
the community and gather valuable feedback from residents. The first meeting was held
on July 23, 2011 and focused on identifying community needs and concerns. The second
meeting was held on November 19, 2011 and presented the residents with a visual
preference survey and achieved confirmation of proposed future goals. Each meeting
was very well attended, pointedly illustrating the interest that the community has in
guiding its future.
Further description of these and other meetings as well as survey results are presented
in Section 3.
20-Year Growth Plan
3
Section 1.0 Introduction 1.3
Acceptance
The 20-Year Growth Plan is a blueprint for the City to take action on the planning
processes which will make the goals and proposals contained herein a reality. Following
months of work by the Planning Consultant and the Steering Committee, the Growth
Plan document was forwarded to City of Kendleton City Council for acceptance. The 20Year Growth Plan document is a set of guidelines and recommendations, not ordinances
or laws. This document describes many changes to ordinances and laws which then
must be proposed and adopted by City Council in separate future actions. Acceptance of
the 20-Year Growth Plan thus prepares and enables the City to make informed decisions
about its future.
The City of Kendleton City Council accepted the 20-Year Growth Plan on August 28,
2012.
4
City of Kendleton
2.0
Vision and Goals Overview
During a total of four meetings spaced throughout the project timeline, EHRA and TEEX
encouraged all the various participants to dream about Kendleton’s future. Imagine that
there are no barriers to what the future could be. How has the community’s heritage
been preserved? What does Kendleton physically look like? How does Kendleton feel
about itself? These and many other critical questions began the thought processes and
formed the basis for all dialog about the 20-Year Growth Plan components.
2.1
Public Outreach - First Meeting
The first community outreach meeting was held on July 23, 2011 and attended by 63
guests. Facilitators from both EHRA and TEEX held discussion groups which rotated
through topics on existing and future Kendleton. After visiting each topic station, all
attendees were able to discuss both positive and negative aspects of their existing
community as well as hopes and concerns for their future.
Figure 2-1: July 23, 2011 Public outreach meeting photos
Using a marker-based voting system, participants placed sticker dots to mark aspects of
the community they felt were most important to address within the Plan. Voting was
divided into Existing Conditions and Future Needs/Concerns. The results tabulated below
indicate a fairly even distribution of concerns at first glance. However, there were four
categories of importance imbedded within the voting blocks:
•
•
•
•
Development Needed – business growth and new jobs
Community Character – the feel of Kendleton
Infrastructure – backbone of existing and new development
Public Safety – emergency services
20-Year Growth Plan
5
Section 2.0 Vision and Goals Table 2-A: 7/23/11 Public Outreach Meeting Results: Existing Conditions
Voting Results
9%
Availability of Shopping/Retail
21% Emergency Services
6%
Ordinance Enforcement
6%
Utility Availability
11% Perceptions/Image
1%
Unsafe Structures
10% Job Proximity
14% Public Safety
4%
Historical Protection
3%
Laid Back Feel
10% Flooding
5%
Gas Station Needed
Importance by Category
Development Needed
24%
35%
Community Character
Infrastructure
18%
23%
Public Safety
The categorical analysis yields an important result when contrasting Existing Conditions
with Future Needs/Concerns. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that Public Safety
was the highest concern currently. They elaborated that petty theft, law enforcement
response time and access to emergency services were their primary reasons for
prioritizing this category. The availability of shopping and employment was the next
highest concern. Even basic services such as groceries and gasoline require Kendleton
residents to travel to neighboring cities. Similarly, the availability of and proximity of
employment also requires residents to travel by car to areas outside of Kendleton, and
in some cases into adjacent Wharton County. Together, these two areas of concern
accounted for 59% of the voting.
Table 2-B: 7/23/11 Public Outreach Meeting Results: Future Needs /Concerns
Voting Results
11% Increased Traffic / Emergency Access
21% Property Values
6%
Job Growth
6%
Increased Noise
11% Project History
1%
Control Growth
10% Keep Small Community Feel
14% Light / Environmental Pollution
4%
Education
Importance by Category
11%
17%
33%
Development Needed
Community Character
Infrastructure
39%
Public Safety
Interestingly, when respondents dreamt about Kendleton’s future, the voting indicated a
shift toward a need to preserve the community’s character while still addressing the
need for development. A combined 71% of the voting shows that while addressing the
need for new development, protecting property values and the community’s heritage
must be considered. This resulting fact became the key in all future discussions and has
guided the 20-Year Growth Plan’s priorities and recommendations. Kendleton’s rich
heritage and historical agricultural land use are two of the community’s greatest assets.
Uncontrolled growth and continued lack of employment will jeopardize such assets and
damage the ability of the City to experience any meaningful growth.
6
City of Kendleton
2.2
Community Planning Team
Following the first public outreach meeting, TEEX assembled selected members from the
Community Planning Team as well as additional business leaders and Fort Bend County
economic development professionals on September 20, 2011 for a special visioning
exercise. The input and results from the outreach exercises grew into a strong desire to
reframe the discussion and talk about possibilities for the future. During a full morning
of discussion, the following goals were identified:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kendleton will embrace debate and the democratic process
The community’s churches are united and working together
Kendleton is a place for children to play, safely and securely
Maintain and enhance the community’s heritage
Kendleton wants to be visually attractive which will yield pride in the community
Show leadership in environmental issues by adopting new standards
Kendleton will manage its own destiny. “We are Kendleton, and this is where we
are going.”
Figure 2-6: Community Planning Team meeting
TEEX facilitated an extraordinary visioning exercise where each participant made a
declaration about what Kendleton would look like in less than 10 years. The participant’s
energy was infectious and solidified some very strong visions and goals for Kendleton’s
future. TEEX then synthesized the meeting’s feedback to create a matrix of goals and
priorities which would be reviewed at the next meeting.
20-Year Growth Plan
7
Section 2.0 Vision and Goals Members of the CPT participated in a day-long, out-of-town meeting and site visit to
Bryan, Texas on October 21, 2011 which was hosted by TEEX. The purpose of the day
was to visit several locations which demonstrate public-private partnerships, special
funding implementation and unique planning strategies. The group toured Downtown
Bryan which has experienced a renaissance of activity due to significant streetscape and
building revitalization. Although the scale of Downtown Bryan is very different, the CPT
was able to envision portions of Kendleton which could be linked by attractive sidewalks
and public art. Significant building façade codes have created an old-town feel in Bryan
and could be applied in Kendleton.
Figure 2-7: Photos in Downtown Bryan, Texas. The CPT observed the “old-town” character
and pedestrian environment created by trees, benches, overhangs and special paving.
The CPT group also toured Wolf Pen Creek Park which illustrated to everyone how trails
and walkways can create impressive views of natural environmental features. This
setting was of particular interest as an example of how Kendleton could use its San
Bernard River frontage as a pedestrian/equestrian attraction and how a public
amphitheater can function in a park setting.
Figure 2-8: Photos in Wolf Pen Park, Bryan, Texas.
The site visit culminated in a tour of the Brazos Valley African American Museum with its
impressive displays of African American culture and artifacts. Cues can be taken from
the facility and directly applied the Heritage Unlimited Museum in Kendleton’s Bates
Allen Park which already has an extensive artifact collection of its own. The BVAA
Museum also facilitated the group meeting to participate in further visioning exercises
and to discuss the matrix results of the SWOT analysis. Revisiting the SWOT issues
allowed the CPT group to solidify their goals and prioritize action items (see Appendix A,
page 48 for the complete SWOT analysis).
8
City of Kendleton
2.3
Public Outreach - Second Meeting
At the final community outreach meeting on November 19, 2011 EHRA coalesced the
opinions, comments, visions and goals into a series of visual preference exhibits. 33
guests were in attendance and listened as EHRA presented a slideshow describing how
the visual preference survey will affect the outcome of the 20-Year Growth Plan. The
Attendees again used the marker voting method to provide feedback on what styles and
elements would create the kind of Kendleton envisioned by the CPT and residents
previously.
Figure 2-9: November 19, 2011 public outreach meeting photos
As shown in Table 2-C, the visual preference survey voting results indicate that the
community desires walkable streets versus the look of strip retail, a natural landscape
feel, and prominent public art displays.
Table 2-C: Visual Preference Survey Results
Downtown Streetscape
Walkable streets (pedestrian scale, benches, low-rise buildings)
Transit/Commercial oriented streets (easy access parking, suburban style shops)
47%
53%
Neighborhoods
Low Density (single family homes, large lots )
Medium Density (single family homes, suburban style)
High Density (apartments)
Manufactured Homes
67%
14%
19%
0%
Landscaping
Natural setting (tree and shrub groupings, taller native plants versus mowed areas)
Park-like (somewhat manicured, treed walkways)
47%
53%
Parks and Activities
Outdoor Festival oriented activities preferred using existing parks.
Public Art and Museums
“Old-town” feel desired strongly over urban style. Murals desired strongly over individual artworks.
Throughout the public outreach process EHRA collected input from meeting attendees
by written response as well. During sit-down meetings, either with individual
stakeholders or CPT members, such feedback was obtained in meeting notes. During
public outreach meetings, group exercises resulted in cataloguing bulleted/condensed
feedback performed by the facilitators and comment sheets were solicited at the end of
each meeting. Appendix B contains this feedback and illustrates the breadth of vision
that the community considered. Many of these ideas and suggestions have become
goals with corresponding action items and are discussed in Section 11.
20-Year Growth Plan
9
This page left intentionally blank.
10
City of Kendleton
3.0
Community Assessment
To commence the research portion of the 20-Year Growth Plan, the EHRA Planning
Team spent significant time both on the ground in Kendleton and in meetings with
stakeholders to capture existing conditions, conduct market analysis and economic
planning data. Further, it is critical to view and understand the cultural and
governmental dynamics which have brought the City to this point in time.
EHRA and TEEX achieved the absorption of this information by performing a two-stage
community assessment with the overall goal of revitalizing the community from both a
commercial and governmental standpoint. Thus, the 20-Year Growth Plan will indicate
the best methods of targeting industry and commercial development to the City as well
as means of enhancing the quality of life for its existing and future residents.
As such, TEEX created a comprehensive Community Assessment document which is
included as Appendix A. This document is a broad-based survey of the City’s existing
demographics, income levels, infrastructure, business environment and quality of place
among other topics. As a stand alone document, it paints the picture that Kendleton has
great potential along with great heritage. Together with the land use planning issues
pursued by EHRA, the collected information, facts and figures are the backbone for the
economic projections contained herein.
3.1
Approaching and Encroaching Forces
The prime motivator for the City of Kendleton undertaking a 20-Year Growth Plan is the
fact that CenterPoint Properties and Kansas City Southern Railroad are partners in
developing a total of 800 acres immediately adjacent Kendleton’s north-eastern City
Limits. The Rosenberg Intermodal Center began operation in June 2010 and is operating
rail transfers on the newly rehabilitated Victoria-Rosenberg line which sits parallel to US
Highway 59. Two 5,000-foot spur tracks are currently in use.
Figure 3-1: KCS facility at Intermodal Center
20-Year Growth Plan
11
Section 3.0 Community Assessment Ultimately, the 636 acre industrial park which is being marketed by CenterPoint may
have 7.5 million square feet of warehouse/light industrial area, potentially bringing in $1
billion in economic impact to west Fort Bend County. The $300 million development
investment could translate to between 750-2000 new jobs.
Figure 3-2: CenterPoint Intermodal
Center conceptual plan
GBI International Business Park is a proposed 320 acre tract opposite US 59 from the
Intermodal Center which is also a potential location for future development. The tract is
currently set for auction sale. With only vehicular access to the site instead of rail,
potential uses may include office, light manufacturing, and industrial. Although nothing
is currently under construction, development over the long term may generate hundreds
if not thousands of additional jobs depending on the business or industrial uses
eventually constructed. Additionally, a 293 acre tract immediately north of the
Intermodal Center is currently for sale as shown in Figure 3-4. Altogether, at least 1,400
acres of land adjacent to Kendleton is being developed or is currently being marketed
for development.
Figure 3-: GBI International site
conceptual plan
12
Figure 3-4: Kendleton (in yellow),
CenterPoint Intermodal (in green),
GBI (in orange), and 293 acre tract
(in purple).
City of Kendleton
Fort Bend County is the beneficiary of tremendous westward expansion of the Greater
Houston area. As the City of Houston’s development pushed west, the Sugar Land area
experienced explosive housing market growth in the 1980’s which continues to this day.
The reconstruction of the US 59 bridge over the Brazos River and the addition of a third
“loop” around Houston known as the Grand Parkway has allowed massive new
development to occur south of the Richmond/Rosenberg area. The westward growth
trend is likely to continue in the coming decades which will further increase the
likelihood that smaller cities on US 59 like Kendleton and Beasley will experience some
level of growth.
Figure 3-5: Westward growth trend through Fort Bend County and proximity to Kendleton.
20-Year Growth Plan
13
Section 3.0 Community Assessment From a national and international perspective, the Intermodal Center at Kendleton sits at
the crosshairs of the KCS Lazaro Cardenas rail line and the Freeport Foreign Trade Zone
(FTZ). The importance of the rail line is that the route now begins at the Mexican port of
Lazaro Cardenas which is located on the country’s Pacific coast. This gives international
freight shippers the option of docking in Mexico to unload rather than traveling through
the Panama Canal. The rail line continues from Nuevo Laredo into the United States,
through Kendleton and ultimately to Kansas City. With the Intermodal Center now part
of the Freeport FTZ #149, it is evident that the number of rail cars and the tonnage of
goods arriving in Kendleton will be growing exponentially.
Figure 3-6: Texas Foreign
Trade Zones
Figure 3-7: Kansas City Southern
System Map
14
City of Kendleton
3.2
Existing Physical Conditions
Kendleton is located immediately east of the San Bernard River which is the boundary
between Fort Bend County and Wharton County. Kendleton is approximately 26 miles
along US Highway 59 from the City of Sugar Land which is near the eastern Fort Bend
County Line with Harris County. US 59, which is also designated as the I-69 Corridor,
bisects the City. An overpass replaced the at-grade crossing at FM 2919 in 2007 and
Kendleton now has eastbound and westbound exit ramps from the highway. FM 2919
extends to the north into Wharton County and intersects State Highway 60 south of the
City of East Bernard.
Figure 3-8: Map of western Fort Bend County
Source: Fort Bend County, GIS Department
20-Year Growth Plan
15
Section 3.0 Community Assessment The Kendleton area’s topography is relatively flat and characterized mostly by farm land.
In locations where the topography drops toward water courses, significant specimen
trees are found to exist, especially along the banks of the San Bernard River and low
lying flood plain areas. Additional creeks and streams also posses quality hardwood trees
and native plants.
Figure 3-9: San Bernard River
Figure 3-10: Brooks Branch
Figure 3-11: Floodplain areas
near Kendleton.
Source: Fort Bend County,
GIS Department
16
City of Kendleton
Loop 541 and the KCS Rail line are approximately 350-feet and 440-feet north of and
parallel to the US 59 frontage road respectively. This roadway and rail line combination
further bisects the City’s jurisdiction and creates an odd intersection spacing with FM
Road 2919 which is the city’s main arterial thoroughfare. Traffic issues regarding this
intersection are discussed in Section 5.
Figure 3-12: Railroad and Loop 541
intersection with FM 2919 in
Kendleton.
In early 2012, the City acquired additional land area through a voluntary annexation so
that portions of the eastern city limit are adjacent the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
of the City of Rosenberg. Rosenberg’s jurisdictional boundaries prevent additional
significant City Limit or ETJ acquisition to the east of the City. Due to the San Bernard
River being the Fort Bend County line, no additional ETJ can be acquired to the west of
the City either. Thus, future City of Kendleton jurisdictional growth must occur primarily
along the north-south axis of FM 2919.
Figure 3-13: Potential jurisdictional
expansion
Other existing physical
community factors such as
roadway conditions and
housing stock assessment are
fully described in Sections 5
and 6 respectively.
20-Year Growth Plan
17
Section 3.0 Community Assessment 3.3
Population Estimate and Projection
According to the 2010 Census, Kendleton’s current population within its corporate limits
is 380 and has an estimated population of 473 within its ETJ. Compared to Fort Bend
County, Texas, and the United States, Kendleton sees the largest percentage change in
population between 2010 and 2040 as shown in Table 3-A. However, this does not
necessarily mean Kendleton will grow the most or the fastest. With a projected
population of about 1,500 by 2040, Kendleton will hopefully retain elements of its
agricultural character, despite larger population increases elsewhere.
Table 3-A. Kendleton Population Estimate and Projection
Kendleton 1
Fort Bend County 2
%
Forecast
Change
%
Change
Texas 3
Year
Forecast
2010
473
2015
566
19.7%
584,531
14.7%
23,625,653
3.6%
325,539,790
4.9%
2020
722
27.6%
668,680
14.4%
24,330,687
3.0%
341,386,665
4.9%
2025
938
29.9%
757,120
13.2%
24,942,836
2.5%
357,451,620
4.7%
2030
1,236
31.8%
847,630
12.0%
25,449,114
2.0%
373,503,674
4.5%
2035
1,647
33.2%
935,102
10.3%
25,830,944
1.5%
389,531,156
4.3%
509,645
Forecast
%
Change
US 4
22,802,983
Forecast
%
Change
310,232,863
Sources:
1
2
3
4
Please see Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
Texas State Data Center
US Census
3.4
Perceptions
During the public outreach and interview portions of the Growth Plan, it became
apparent that perceptions regarding Kendleton vary greatly between residents and nonresidents. Although such generalizations may not be fair, it is clear that residents and
business owners in Kendleton regard the City in a positive light while admitting that
much work needs to be done to achieve a greater future. For example, many residents
describe Kendleton as a great place to raise children and as a community made up of
hard working individuals. Many fears also exist about what will happen to Kendleton as
the Intermodal Center grows and new residents move in to Kendleton from other areas.
Current residents wonder about the resulting property values and whether or not
residents could be “priced out” of their homes and property. Such perceptions and
concerns must be addressed through protective codes allowing equitable use of
property.
Conversely, non-residents tended to regard Kendleton as simply a farming community
with little prospects for future growth. Addressing this perception will likely change with
time as the Intermodal Center grows. Kendleton can potentially capitalize on this growth
by offering services which cater to both residents and new business. Additionally, the
proximity of farm land in and around Kendleton could become a known and desired
commodity. The recent desire for farm-fresh produce has been evidenced by the growth
of local farmer’s markets as an alternative to suburban grocery stores. This trend could
work to Kendleton’s advantage if a Farmer’s Market were created within the City, thus
18
City of Kendleton
creating a destination for surrounding communities to visit Kendleton and an opportunity
enhance the local economy.
Until very recently, there were more than a few dilapidated structures, especially near
US 59 and Loop 541, which contributed to an overall unkempt feel. These structures
were highly visible and contributed to a perception that the city was in a state of
decline. In partnership with Fort Bend County and nearby religious organizations, as well
as efforts such as “Keep Kendleton Beautiful”, many of these structures have been
removed or renovated. The result is that travelers on the major arteries no longer see
undesirable properties and several homes are now able to be occupied. Thus, in general,
the condition of the majority of streets and homes are good and indicative of the hard
work the community has invested.
Unfortunately there are two very prominent locations which continue to exhibit the kind
of deterioration that the City does not want to be known for. The northwest corner of
US 59 frontage road and FM 2919 was the location of a gas station and restaurant which
closed for business and burned over a decade ago. Today, only the pump island
canopies still exist and are in a dilapidated state. The site itself is being remediated for
ground water contamination issues even though the underground fuel storage tanks
have long since been removed. First sampled in 1996 and again in 2000, work
commenced in 2005 to begin removal of gasoline which is floating on top of the
groundwater. Remediation visits occur on a quarterly basis and no timetable for
complete remediation is known. Redevelopment of the site will likely not occur until the
site receives a closure letter from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Figure 3-14: Former gas station
and Hilltop Restaurant site at the
corner of US 59 and FM 2919.
The other location in need of attention is the City’s King-Kennedy Memorial Park site.
Dedicated in 1989, the park’s entry feature is seriously deteriorating and the roads are
in very poor condition within the park. The constructed lake is often completely dry,
leaving very few park features with any value to the community. The City has plans for
the park’s rehabilitation as discussed in Section 9.
20-Year Growth Plan
19
Section 3.0 Community Assessment Lingering perceptions such as the longstanding belief that US 59 through Kendleton is a
“speed trap” are now unfounded due the fact that Kendleton’s police department was
disbanded in the early 2000’s. After the construction of the FM 2919/US 59 overpass,
the perception has grown that Kendleton is not worth stopping for.
In fact, the historical locations and natural beauty of the
San Bernard River make Kendleton a potential destination
for a variety of persons. What is required is a concerted
effort to protect, improve and market these assets in order
to begin changing perceptions. Recommendations to
achieve this goal are presented in Section 11.
Figure 3-16: One of many historical
markers found throughout Kendleton.
3.5
References
2
Fort Bend County, 2005-2035 Population Forecast Data, Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
Fort Bend County and State of Texas, 2000-2040 Population Projections, Texas State Data Center
US Census, Projected Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the US,
July 1, 2000 to July, 2050
3
4
20
City of Kendleton
4.0
Land Use
One of the most important planning tools available to accurately describe the current
makeup of a community is Land Use Mapping. A land use survey is a map-based
description of the actual observed use of properties within the study area at a given
moment in time. Colors are assigned to each land use and the resulting information can
then be analyzed to create an Existing Land Use Map. The Existing Land Use Map clearly
illustrates predominant uses, proximity of different uses to each other, and distribution
of population and businesses. Such insights into the City’s physical character will inform
decision making about the future and allow creation of a Future Land Use Plan, which
can be thought of as a blueprint for the types and locations of land use appropriate for a
healthy community in the future.
It is important to distinguish a Land Use Plan from a Zoning Map. Land Use Maps and
Plans are observational in nature and do not direct, instruct or require a specific use of
any individual property, and are thus non-binding. A Zoning Map describes use
requirements and potential use of an individual property and must be approved by City
Council action.
4.1 Current Land Use
Prior to the EHRA and TEEX team conducting public meetings regarding the 20-Year
Growth Plan, it was necessary to collect a vast amount of current visual information. A
“windshield” visual survey of all land within Kendleton’s jurisdictional boundaries was
conducted using property ownership information obtained by the Fort Bend County
Appraisal District. The observed land uses were added to an aerial map of Kendleton
and are compiled in Exhibit I (a sample version appears in Figure 4-1 below).
Figure 4-1.
Existing Land
Uses
20-Year Growth Plan
21
Section 4.0 Land Use As shown on the Existing Land Use Map, the predominant land use remains agricultural,
comprising 1,737 acres of land which translates to approximately 50% of all land in
Kendleton’s jurisdiction. Considering Kendleton’s long history of farming, it is not
unexpected that the City still retains its agricultural character. The fact that so many
acres are devoted to active farming speaks to the vitality of the industry in Kendleton.
Nearly 1,000 acres of land was observed to be undeveloped. It is possible that some of
these acres were previously for agricultural use or were simply not active for farming at
the time of the survey. Public park land and road right-of-way (ROW), including the US
59 ROW account for another 500 acres of land. Altogether, these top four land uses by
acreage account for over 92% of all land in Kendleton’s jurisdiction. This is highly
significant because each of these uses is not taxable and the City receives no benefit
from the land value. It is important to note that any undeveloped land which is not used
for agricultural purposes does have a taxable land value, but the point remains that a
huge percentage of overall land is not revenue generating for the City of Kendleton.
Most of the 154 acres of total residential land is located north of the KCS rail line and is
concentrated together as shown on the Existing Land Use Map. From a planning
standpoint, this is a desirable arrangement in that residential property should be located
adjacent other residential property. This keeps land values consistent, consolidates city
services like water and wastewater, and enhances the sense of community. A total of
173 residential units, be they single family homes or manufactured housing units, are
located within Kendleton’s jurisdiction.
Commercial tracts currently account for only 2% of all land in Kendleton and total
approximately 71 acres of land. Commercial land use describes not only retail
storefronts but also private businesses. The 12 observed commercial tracts are spread
throughout the City, primarily on major circulation routes which is appropriate for
customers and necessary deliveries. Church locations are also spread throughout the
community, mostly near residential tracts, which obviously locates places of worship
near home sites. This is a very important aspect of everyday life in Kendleton due to the
multitude of services and programs the churches offer, and is another way that the
community fabric is enhanced.
A total of 254 acres of parkland is within Kendleton’s jurisdiction, contained within only
two park locations. King Kennedy Memorial Park is a 33 acre city park north of US 59,
west of FM 2919. Bates M. Allen Park is a Fort Bend County Park south of US 59, east of
the San Bernard River. Each of these parks is discussed in detail in Section 9. With
regard to park facilities as a portion of land use, the most accepted measurement of
required park acreage for communities was developed by the National Recreation and
Parks Association (NRPA). The NRPA guidelines are written as number of acres per
1,000 residents as described in Section 9, Table 9-A. By acreage, the residents of
Kendleton are more than adequately served by these two parks. Judged by distance
from neighborhoods however, less than half of the residents of Kendleton are within
NRPA guidelines for a walkable distance to recreational land use.
22
City of Kendleton
4.2
Future Land Use
As discussed earlier, the Future Land Use Plan is simply a blueprint for appropriate
future development. The 20-Year Growth Plan includes a Future Land Use Plan (Exhibit
II) in order to inform the community and its leaders as to where locations for future
businesses, farm land, homes, parks and other land uses are best located. Particular
care must be taken to preserve the agricultural heritage of Kendleton and, if possible,
balance the need for new growth.
When considering the best locations for future land uses, the following factors, among
others, were considered:
•
•
•
•
•
Location of existing similar land uses
Proximity to existing city services
Location of future roads and road improvements
Likelihood of development within the 20-year study period
Effect of CenterPoint Intermodal Center and GBI International Business Park
Figure 4-2. Future Land Use Plan
Working on the premise that the CenterPoint Intermodal Center will drive much of the
required land use modifications for the next twenty years, there is a resulting need for
new residential land use in order to provide housing for at least a percentage of the jobs
created at the facility. Existing residential development patterns in Kendleton allow for a
large number of homes to be constructed as infill. That is, there are many vacant tracts
between existing homes which are prime locations for future residential land use.
20-Year Growth Plan
23
Section 4.0 Land Use Such tracts are already served by existing utilities and thus would require a minimal City
expense. Building on the vacant lots will enhance the community by creating a tighter
neighborhood fabric and removing undesirable structures or discarded refuse. Should a
residential developer desire to create a new neighborhood, utility availability will play a
key role in its location, but the expense of new connectivity will be the burden of the
developer. Thus, infill residential is a reasonable assumption with little municipal
investment and great results. 44 acres of residential land use can be added simply as
infill lots, primarily on Willie Melton Boulevard next to King Kennedy Memorial Park, on
lots accessed by Collins Street, and in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Streets neighborhood. This
represents a 129% increase in residential land use acreage.
New residences, the proximity of potentially 2,000 or more jobs at the Intermodal
Center, and the desire to enhance retail opportunities in Kendleton necessitates
additional commercial acreage. Again, the potential to use an infill technique along the
most viable roadways holds the most promise for the future. Kendleton’s commercial
center is undoubtedly at and near the intersection of US 59 and FM 2919. The former
gas station site on the northwest corner of this intersection should be seen as the
highest profile commercial tract. Complementary retail on the southwest corner will
enhance the US 59 exits and add customer base for Belle’s, the existing
restaurant/general store on the southeast corner. New commercial infill can also occur
on Loop 541, which has direct access to the Intermodal Center and thus has great
potential to attract large numbers of customers. If an overpass connection from West
Tavener Road to US 59 is constructed, it is reasonable to assume some commercial
activity can occur at that intersection as well. As shown on the Future Land Use Plan,
there is a potential for 119 acres of new commercial acreage, representing a 268%
increase in total acres for this taxable land use.
The impact of new commercial development to the west of the Intermodal Center on
existing farm land and agricultural land use has been a concern of Kendleton residents
and of the 20-Year Growth Plan Community Planning Team from the study’s inception.
The concern centers on the possibility that agricultural land values may increase as
commercial properties increase in number and proximity to existing farm land. In the 20
year scope of this study, it is unlikely that many acres of farmland will be displaced for
new uses due to the existence of nearly 1,100 acres of already proposed commercial
development. There is great potential for additional commercial uses of similar light
industrial and warehouse business on the east side of West Tavener Road and along the
newly proposed Petitt Boulevard. Many of the tracts in this area were voluntarily
annexed into the City of Kendleton City Limits in early 2012, likely with designs on
becoming commercial opportunities for their owners. Further conversion of farm land is
unlikely to occur between Brooks Branch and Petitt Boulevard, with very little impact
north of Pink-Taylor Road. South of US 59, there are fewer existing roads, a condition
which makes new development unlikely.
24
City of Kendleton
Table 4-A compares existing and future land use acreages within the Kendleton
jurisdictional boundaries, demonstrating how the infill strategy of utilizing currently
vacant tracts can have dramatic impact on the overall taxable land value. A total of 162
acres are proposed to be converted from undeveloped/vacant land to other uses, which
is a 16% decrease in undeveloped land and an additional 64 acres of taxable land inside
the City Limits. An additional 54 acres of commercial and residential land is immediately
adjacent the City’s current corporate limits. If annexed, that 118 acres in additional
taxable land represents a 209% increase in value. This fact alone illustrates how infill
projects can yield extremely positive results for Kendleton as the City grows.
Table 4-A. Kendleton Existing and Future Land Uses
Existing
Acres
Agricultural
Future
Percentage Acres Percentage
1,737
50 %
1,730
49 %
Undeveloped
988
Parks
254
28 %
826
23 %
7%
254
7%
Road Right-of-Way (ROW)
Residential
261
7%
267
8%
154
4%
198
6%
Commercial
71
2%
190
5%
Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW)
35
1%
35
1%
Church
20
0.6 %
20
0.6 %
Cemetery
5
0.2 %
5
0.2 %
Municipal
4
0.1 %
4
0.1 %
Utilities
1
0.1 %
1
0.1 %
4.3
Planning Factors
There are many areas of concern that impact future land use decisions. Exhibit III
visually shows some of the major planning factors that impact long range planning
decisions, which are discussed in detail in the following sections.
20-Year Growth Plan
25
26
City of Kendleton
5.0 Transportation
Kendleton’s transportation system is an essential component of the 20-Year Growth Plan
due to the expected increases in truck and rail based traffic. The community is
centered on a major interstate interchange on US 59 with FM 2919, which directly
impacts land development, commercial growth, and existing infrastructure. Land uses,
both existing and future, determine the capacity and traffic flow of the roadways.
Addressing transportation issues is a delicate balance between accommodating heavy
traffic moving through the community and preserving Kendleton’s rural character and
identity.
The purpose of this section is to assess Kendleton’s existing transportation systems and
to provide recommendations for future improvements. Existing and previous area
transportation projects and plans are summarized herein. This discussion is followed by
a thoroughfare analysis including an existing road inventory, assessment, and traffic
volume counts. Rail impacts and pedestrian connectivity are also assessed. Finally, a
transportation plan illustrating short and long-term goals is presented. Detailed
transportation related recommendations discussed later in Section 11.
5.1
Existing Area Transportation Projects and Plans
Interstate 69 (I-69) Extension
I-69 is a proposed interstate route, consisting of primarily existing highway footprints,
extending from Michigan to Texas. Although there are several proposed alternatives for
the route northeast of the Houston Metro area, it is anticipated that I-69 will utilize the
existing US 59 footprint within and near Kendleton as shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1. I-69 Segment Three Recommendations
20-Year Growth Plan
1
27
Section 5.0 Transportation The I-69 Extension will be completed in phases over several years, and there are no
plans for additional studies within Segment Three. Therefore, this transportation project
will have no direct impacts to travel routes or land use patterns in Kendleton at this
time. Future lane widening within the current ROW will bring the total travel lanes to six.
Fort Bend County Master Transportation Plan
The Fort Bend County Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) is a planning document amended
every three to five years on average and was last amended in 2007. Since then, the
previously proposed US 59 / FM 2919 interchange located in the center of Kendleton has
been constructed. As of July 2012, the Fort Bend County Engineering Office did not
note any changes in road designations listed on the plan within or near Kendleton.
Therefore, the County does not show any changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on
county roads within or near Kendleton. The County noted a proposed map amendment
for the realignment of West Tavener Road east of Kendleton. However, as of the
completion for this 20-year growth plan, no changes have been approved. The MTP is
not a construction plan, and there are no anticipated county road construction projects
within the Kendleton ETJ at this time.
Figure 5-2. Fort Bend County Major Thoroughfare Plan (MTP)2
28
City of Kendleton
5.2
Thoroughfare Analysis
a. Existing Road Inventory and Assessment
Kendleton’s thoroughfare system consists of four road classifications based on
functional capacity. These thoroughfares range from providing mobility for major
traffic flows to providing direct access to adjacent properties. Road conditions
were assessed through several site visits to the community. The road inventory
and assessment is also shown in Exhibit III. Planning Factors.
Freeways: These thoroughfares have long, uninterrupted travel and operate at
the highest level of mobility and at the highest speed for the longest trip lengths.
Freeways have full or partial access control, often with grade separations at
major intersections.
US 59 is the only freeway within Kendleton. As noted in Appendix A: Kendleton
Community Assessment, 2012, US 59 spans the entire eastern area of Texas
which is part of the trade corridor extending from the U.S. / Mexico border into
the northeastern United States. The existing grade-separated interchange for the
intersection of US 59 and FM 2919 was constructed in 2008. The overpass was
designed using optional TxDOT standard design details which lend a unique
character to the intersection when travelling at ground level. Landscape
enhancements were also added several years after completion.
Figure 5-3. Existing interchange at US-59 and FM 2919
20-Year Growth Plan
29
Section 5.0 Transportation Arterial Roads: These major thoroughfares are for trips of moderate length at
a lower level of mobility than freeways. They are continuous routes which join
expressways, collector roads, and other arterial roads with controlled access onto
any abutting properties.
FM 2919 is the only arterial road currently within Kendleton and is in good
condition. The US 59 / FM 2919 interchange includes all direction stop signs at
grade level on each side of the overpass. With current traffic volumes, the stop
signs provide adequate traffic control. A two-way stop sign at the intersection of
FM 2919 and Loop 541, immediately to the south of the KCS railroad crossing,
allows cross traffic along FM 2919 to flow freely north/south across the rail tracks
(Figure 5-4). The existing two-way stop sign may cause future transit issues if
traffic volumes accessing the US 59 interchange westbound on Loop 541 were to
increase.
Figure 5-4. Intersection of FM 2919 and Loop 541 looking northwest, showing the two-way stop sign on Loop
541 and the KCS railroad crossing to the north on FM 2919
On the south side of US 59, FM 2919 becomes Lum Road at the intersection with
Roberts Lane. This intersection includes a two-way stop sign, allowing Lum Road
to flow freely north/south while stopping Roberts Road traffic in each direction.
Collector Roads: These streets are for trips at a lower degree of mobility than
arterials, at a lower speed, and for shorter trip lengths. They collect and
distribute traffic from the arterial roads. Access to adjacent property is allowed
but should be placed along local roads. Durst Road, Loop 541, Lum Road south
of US-59, and Pink Taylor Run Road are the four existing collector roads within
Kendleton and are all in good condition.
30
City of Kendleton
Local Roads: These streets have a small proportion of total vehicle miles of
traveled. However, these roads represent the largest percentage of public road
networks in terms of mileage. Local roads provide direct access to adjacent
parcels. The layout and design of local streets usually promotes local traffic
while limiting through traffic or fast moving traffic. The following are local roads
within Kendleton:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1st St.
2nd St.
3rd St.
Braxton Rd.
Charlie Roberts Ln.
Crawford St.
Easley Cir.
Elm View Rd.
Ervin Harris St.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gin Rd.
Guess Ave.
Hilltop Rd.
Jackson St.
King Rd.
Knapp Rd.
Lum Rd.
Oak Terrace
Pecan Trail
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Petitt Rd.
Sugar Haven Ln.
Taylor Cir.
T.E. Mitchell
Washington St.
W. Tavener Rd.
Wicks St.
Willie Melton Blvd.
Wright Ln.
Due to existing agricultural land uses, there are few local roads in the northeast
part of Kendleton, a condition which creates very deep parcels with little cross
access. If farming continues to be the primary land use in this area of Kendleton,
the local road network is sufficient. Should redevelopment occur east of the
CenterPoint Intermodal Center, some additional roads will be required in order to
access smaller tracts.
Poor road surface conditions can be characterized as paving surfaces which have
been compromised by potholes, excessive cracking, or other surface failures
which should be addressed before more significant safety related failures occur.
Based visual inspections, portions of the following local roads are in poor
condition: 1st Street, 2nd Street, 3rd Street, Crawford Street, Hilltop Road, Jackson
Street, Knapp Road, Lawson Street, Lum Road, Prairie Avenue, and Wright Lane.
Significant portions of Petitt Road and Charlie Roberts Lane are in very poor
condition with extreme potholes and pavement degradation. Road conditions are
also illustrated in Exhibit III. Planning Factors.
b. Traffic Volume
Measuring traffic volume changes is an important indicator in determining future
and use changes and long-term infrastructure needs. The community’s
commercial center is located at the intersection of US 59 and FM 2919 and is
dependent heavily on traffic traveling along these routes. Fluctuations in traffic
volume directly impact neighboring commercial activity in Kendleton.
Traffic volume data was obtained at ten (10) key locations in Kendleton, which
are shown on the map in Section 4, Figure 4.3: Planning Factors. This data was
acquired and combined from the H-GAC / TxDOT Houston Regional Traffic Count
Map, TxDOT Houston District Maps (AADT), and the TxDOT Statewide Planning
Map. Markers are located on arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads.
20-Year Growth Plan
31
Section 5.0 Transportation Table 5-A: Daily Traffic Counts shows the changes in traffic volume within
Kendleton over the past eleven years. FM 2919, the sole arterial road within
Kendleton, has seen gradual increase in daily traffic counts over the past four
years. Pink Taylor Run Road and Emmanuel King Road are two local roads that
have seen increased volume comparable with FM 2919.
Marker #2 (Loop 541 at FM 2919) and Marker #9 (11330 S. US-59), which are
located close to the US 59 / FM 2919 interchange, had significantly higher daily
traffic counts in 2008 compared to other thoroughfares in Kendleton. The
construction of the grade separated interchange in 2007 perhaps generated
enough temporary interest for traffic to leave US 59 and pass through Kendleton,
if only momentarily. However, due to the lack of retail and commercial properties
the interchange serves primarily local traffic today. This conclusion is evidenced
by 2010 daily traffic counts in these two areas having sharply decreased relative
to other thoroughfares in the city.
Table 5-A: Average Daily Traffic Counts
Marker
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Address
FM 2919
Loop 541
100 Lum (local road)
13500 Taylor Run Road
13400 Emmanuel King Road
14400 S. US-59 *
14000 Willie Melton Blvd. **
Gin Road
12000 Spur 541
11330 S. US- 59
Average Daily Traffic Counts
20013
80
50
70
130
290
60
490
20063
220
60
100
130
170
300
100
10
20084
1100
1400
770 4
-
2010
1400 5
280 6
200
-
6
Change
+27 %
-80 %
+175 %
+20 %
+42 %
0%
+3 %
-74 %
-98% ***
Sources:
3
H-GAC
4-6
TxDOT
* This local street is located within an existing park
** This off-ramp was closed several years ago
32
City of Kendleton
5.3
Rail Impacts
The KCS rail line parallel to Loop 541 and US 59 serves the CenterPoint Intermodal
Center east of the City Limits. This new facility is the basis for most of the economic and
population growth projections contained herein. Its location is entirely based on the
availability of rail service to site via the recently reconstructed rail line between
Rosenberg and Victoria. Several spur lines are already in use and several more are
planned throughout the development of the Intermodal Center. The increase in rail
traffic on this line will be significant in the next 20 years and due to forecasted build out
potential of the site. The fact that the line runs through Kendleton will have an effect on
the City and its citizens. The intersection with FM 2919 has crossing arms in each
direction and Loop 541 which parallels the tracks has a two-stop signs. The increased
number of trains and trucks associated with the Intermodal Center’s operations as well
increased local traffic may require enhanced signalization at this intersection in the
future.
Figure 5-5. Aerial plan view of Loop 541 at FM 2919 and the KCS Rail Line.
20-Year Growth Plan
33
Section 5.0 Transportation 5.4
Pedestrian Connectivity
Kendleton has little to no existing pedestrian/bicycle connectivity within the community.
Automobile and rail traffic dominates the transportation network as evidenced by US 59,
FM 2919, and the KCS Railroad. All north-south traffic is directed onto FM 2919, which
provides the only access to US 59, Loop 541, as well as businesses and residential
streets and tracts on both sides of the freeway. These arteries have higher levels of
vehicular traffic and are not suited for pedestrian/bicycle traffic.
Kendleton’s existing development is enclosed within 1.4 square miles which affords short
travel times for local traffic via any travel mode when moving between the north and
south parts of the City. The San Bernard River and Brooks Branch run essentially
parallel to FM 2919 through Kendleton and both are within relative walking distance of
the thoroughfare. These natural north-south spines are ideal locations for multi-use
trails and can provide alternative transportation routes for north-south local traffic within
Kendleton. US-59 also has existing infrastructure at both of these locations with
adequate below-grade clearance for multi-use trails as shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7.
Access along the San Bernard River can serve as a pedestrian/equestrian route between
King-Kennedy Memorial Park and Bates Allen Park.
Figure 5-6. US-59 Overpass at San Bernard River
(western entry to Kendleton)
Figure 5-7. US-59 Overpass at Brooks Branch
(eastern side of Kendleton)
5.5
Transportation Plan
Exhibit IV. Transportation Plan coordinates with Exhibit II. Future Land Use Plan to
ensure a transportation system that can meet the needs of existing and future land
uses. This plan is localized to the Kendleton area by combining the Fort Bend County
Major Thoroughfare Plan elements, newly proposed streets and street extensions, and
needed street routing to promote greater mobility. The TxDOT Yoakum District currently
has the Braxton Road bridge over Brooks Branch scheduled for replacement. Completion
of the project will allow Braxton Road to be extended to the east to a potential
intersection with West Tavener Road which was recently upgraded to serve the
Intermodal Center. The Fort Bend MTP includes a US 59 overpass for West Tavener
Road which will allow truck traffic to connect to eastbound US 59 without travelling
through Kendleton. Local route planning includes the addition of a new north/south road
east of Brooks Branch to connect Pink Taylor Road to Braxton Road, as well as the
extension of King Road east to West Tavener Road.
34
City of Kendleton
Proposed transportation improvements are discussed in depth in Section 11:
Recommendations.
5.6
References
1.
I-69 Segment Three Committee Report Recommendations. Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT)
2007 Major Thoroughfare Plan. Prepared by Fort Bend County GIS
H-GAC/TxDOT Houston Regional Traffic Count Map
http://ttihouston.tamu.edu/hgac/trafficcountmap/disclaimer.html
TxDOT Houston District Traffic Map (AADT)
2008:http://www.txdot.gov/travel/traffic_maps/2008.htm
TxDOT Statewide Planning Map
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
TxDOT Houston District Traffic Map (AADT) 2010
http://www.txdot.gov/travel/traffic_maps/2010.htm
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
20-Year Growth Plan
35
36
City of Kendleton
6.0 Housing
Planning for the maintenance of sound housing stock is an important component of any
comprehensive plan. Whether it is improving existing structures, providing the tools for
infill housing, or assessing the long term needs generated by new development,
Kendleton must be ready to accommodate long term growth. Housing is also an
indicator of a town’s wellbeing by indicating where the City of Kendleton begins and
where the country ends.
The purpose of this section is to measure the strengths of Kendleton’s existing housing
stock and housing assistance, and to forecast future housing needs. Kendleton’s
housing stock within the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) has been inventoried and
classified. This is followed by an explanation of census data on housing value and
household types in the community. Housing assistance is also reviewed followed by
long term housing forecasts. Detailed housing recommendations are discussed later in
Section 11.
6.1
Existing Housing
Kendleton’s existing housing stock is a mixture of single-family residential and
manufactured housing. Housing types and structural conditions are described as follows:
Single-Family Structure: a permanent, detached residential structure used by one or
more individuals or family.
Manufactured Housing or Mobile Home: a HUD-code manufactured home or a
mobile home and collectively means and refers to both, as defined in the City of
Kendleton Ordinance 2011-02, Article 1.
Vacant: a building or a portion of a building, which is unoccupied and unsecured, or
unoccupied and secured by boarding or other similar means, or unoccupied and a
dangerous structure, or unoccupied with multiple code violations. Vacant uses may
extend to existing concrete pads for former residential structures with masonry
construction. For purposes of this document, existing concrete pads are also considered
to be in poor condition.
Good Condition: showing no physical problems other than minor items of needed
repair such as flaking paint. The structure will have deteriorated no more than ten
percent (10%) of its highest value.
Fair Condition: showing physical problems ranging from limited structural damage,
foundation problems, to roof deterioration, and rotted siding. The structure will have
deteriorated from ten percent (10%) to fifty percent (50%) of its highest value.
Poor Condition: showing significant physical problems including, but not limited to,
severe foundation problems, extensive structural damage, roof deterioration, electrical
problems, and plumbing problems. The structure will have deteriorated more than fifty
percent (50%) of its highest value.
20-Year Growth Plan
37
Section 6.0 Housing Several windshield surveys were conducted to observe the conditions of housing
structures within the Kendleton ETJ. The locations of these structures are identified in
Exhibit III: Planning Factors Map. Table 6-A identifies and classifies the housing stock.
Table 6-A: Housing Stock Inventory and Classification
Housing Type and
Classification
Total
Percentage of
Total
173
76.9%
Single-Family Structure,
Good Condition and Vacant **
1
.4 %
Manufactured Housing or Mobile Home
Good Condition
27
12 %
Single-Family Structure, Fair Condition
4
1.9 %
Singe-Family Structure
Fair Condition and Vacant **
2
.9 %
Fair Condition
5
2.2 %
Fair Condition and Vacant **
2
.9 %
Poor Condition **
3
1.3 %
Poor Condition and Vacant *,**
5
2.2 %
Poor Condition **
3
1.3 %
225
100 %
Single-Family Structure, Good Condition
Total Existing Housing Units
∗
**
Includes concrete building pads.
Areas of concern
The overwhelming majority of Kendleton’s existing housing stock is in good condition, of
which single-family structures has the highest percentage (76.9%) followed by
manufactured housing or mobile homes (12%). The biggest areas of concern (**) with
Kendleton’s existing housing are poor and/or vacant structures (7.1%).
6.2
Housing Value and Household Types
Housing value is an important indicator of what the City can expect its future housing
stock to contribute to Kendleton’s economy. As shown in Table 6-B, an additional 13
owner-occupied units were added to Kendleton between 2000 and 2010, an 11%
increase. In 2000, about 70% of the housing was valued at less than $50,000, and
about 30% of the housing was valued at $50,000-$99,999. However, by 2010 the ratio
reversed. About 28% of the housing was valued at less than $50,000, and about 70%
of the housing was valued at $50,000-99,999. Comparisons to Fort Bend County and
Texas housing values were omitted due to the wider range in existing housing values.
38
City of Kendleton
Table 6-B: Housing Value of Owner-Occupied Units: 2000-2010
2000 1
2010 2
Percentage
Change
Houses Percent Houses Percent
Less than $50,000
81
69.2
36
27.7
-41.50%
$50,000 to $99,999
34
29.1
92
70.8
41.70%
$100,000 to $149,999
2
1.7
0
0.0
0
$150,000 to $199,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
$200,000 to $299,999
0
0
2
1.5
1.50%
$300,000 to $499,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
$500,000 to $999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
$1,000,000 or more
Total
Median (dollars)
0
0
0
0.0
0
117
100
130
100.0
--
41,000
65,200
Sources:
1,2
2010 US Census
The number of owner-occupied housing units increased at a slower rate than renteroccupied housing units at the county, state, and national level between 2000 and 2010,
as shown in Table 6-C. Fort Bend County showed the largest increase in both owneroccupied and renter-occupied housing units from 2000 and 2010. Kendleton saw a
decrease in the number of owner-occupied housing units within the same timeframe.
Table 6-C: Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing: 2000 - 2010
Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
housing units
housing units
US
2000
3
69,815,753
35,664,348
105,480,101
2010
4
75,986,074
40,730,218
116,716,292
8.8%
14.2%
% Change
Texas
2000
3
4,716,959
2,676,395
7,393,354
2010
5
5,685,353
3,237,580
8,922,933
% Change
Fort Bend
County
Total
20.5%
21.0%
2000
3
89,656
21,259
110,915
2010
6
149,749
37,635
187,384
67.0%
77.0%
132
46
178
109
49
158
-17.4%
6.5%
% Change
Kendleton 2000
3
2010
7
% Change
Sources:
3-7
2010 US Census
20-Year Growth Plan
39
Section
n 6.0 Housing 6.3
Housing Assistance
e
The Fort
F
Bend Co
ounty Housin
ng Rehabilita
ation Program, which is administere
ed through
the Fort
F
Bend Co
ounty Community Develo
opment Depa
artment, pro
ovides assisttance to low
to mo
oderate-inco
ome homeow
wners using grant funds from the U.S. Departme
ent of
Housing and Urban Developm
ment (HUD).. Since the program’s in
nception in 1993,
1
a totall
8 homes in Kendleton
K
ha
ave been reh
habilitated th
hrough this program.
p
In
n addition,
of 48
the Fort
F
Bend Co
ommunity Re
evitalization Projects (CO
ORPS), a non
n-profit agen
ncy, providess
minor home repa
airs for elderrly, disabled and low-income homeo
owners. To date,
d
Fort
m
repair assistance
a
to
o 54 individu
ual households and has
Bend CORPS has provided minor
c
four homes in the City. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 sho
ow Fort Bend
d CORPS
also constructed
volun
nteers improving existing
g housing in Fort Bend County.
C
Figuress 6-1 and 6-2. Ty
ypical Fort Bend CORPS projects in Fort Bend Cou
unty
8
Housing Forecasts
6.4
bit II: Future
e Land Use Map
M identifie
es 123 poten
ntial home sites and/or dwelling
d
unitts
Exhib
for fu
uture residen
ntial uses. Although
A
mo
obile homes/manufacture
ed housing constitute
c
aboutt 15% of the
e existing ho
ousing stockk as shown previously
p
in Table 6-A, Kendleton
K
prefe
ers this housing type to be
b a smallerr percentage
e of future re
esidential. Of
O the total
new residential
r
sites, an estim
mated 24 mobile home//manufacture
ed housing dwelling
d
units could be ad
dded. This esstimate assu
umes that sim
milar use existing acreag
ge in
y built out, ra
ather than allowing
a
sporradic placem
ment within the
t City.
Kendleton is fully
6.5
Referenc
ces
1.
T Census 200
00 Summary Fille 3 (SF3): DP--4 Profile of Selected Housing
g Characteristiccs
Kendleton TX,
Kendleton, 2006-2010 Am
merican Commu
unity Survey, 5 - Year Estimattes, DP04 Seleccted Housing
Characteristtics
Kendleton, Fort Bend Coun
nty, TX, US, Ce
ensus 2000 Sum
mmary File 1 (SF1), DP-1 Pro
ofile of General
Demograph
hic Characteristics
US, 2010 Ce
ensus Summarry File 2, DP-1 Profile of Gene
eral Population and Housing Characteristics
C
Texas, 2010
0 Census SF1, QT-H1
Q
Genera
al Housing Characteristics
Fort Bend County:
C
2010 Census
C
Summarry File 1: QT-H1: General Hou
using Characteristics: 2010
Kendleton city:
c
2010 Censsus Summary File
F 2, DP-1 Pro
ofile of General Population and
d Housing
Characteristtics
Photo Gallery: Hearts & Ha
ammers Projeccts. Fort Bend CORPS. http:///www.fbcorpss.org/photos.cfm
m
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
40
C of Kendleto
City
on
7.0 Economic
c Developm
ment
Econo
omic development can be
b defined as a commun
nity’s ability to
t generate,, retain, and
d
reinve
est money to maintain or
o improve quality
q
of life
e. As a smalll rural comm
munity,
Kendleton’s long--term health
h, both financially and ph
hysically, is largely
l
influe
enced by
e
de
evelopment. Local resid
dents have expressed ma
any concerns for better
new economic
shopp
ping and em
mployment opportunities in the area.. There is alsso a direct re
elationship
betwe
een econom
mic developm
ment actions and the Visiion and Goals discussed in Section 2.
2
7.1
Economiic Historica
al Profile
Figure 7-1: Henry G and
d Annie B. House
e
1
Figure
e 7-2: Little Zion Missionary Bapttist Church
2
o understand
d how Kendle
eton’s econo
omic history was shaped
d as a
It is important to
nity and how
w economic fa
actors contributed to itss stagnant grrowth. The
farming commun
s
large
ely by the co
onstruction of
o US 59 in th
he 1960s.
City in its currentt form was shaped
G Green Hou
use1,
Accorrding to the National Register Reporrt regarding the Henry G.
Kendleton was a remote agriicultural ham
mlet of housiing with limited commerrcial uses and
severral churches that directlyy served the
e local popula
ation (Figure
es 7-1 and 7-2).
7
Altho
ough the railrroad was bu
uilt through Kendleton
K
in
n the 1880’s,, the City did
d not have a
depott. Any limite
ed regional commercial
c
traffic in Ken
ndleton was dependent on old
Highw
way 59, now
w designated
d Loop 541. Apart from
m the smallerr lots near FM
M 2919 and
Old Highway
H
59, most of the
e lots within the hamlet were
w
small farms
f
on 25--60 acre lotss
locate
ed along Old
d Highway 59.
When
n constructed, the new US
U 59 did no
ot cause sign
nificant land development to occur
within
n or near Ke
endleton. An
n at-grade in
nterchange at
a FM 2919 less
l
than ½ mile south
of the
e traditional town centerr on FM 2919 did not dissrupt existin
ng limited reg
gional
comm
mercial traffic activity en
ntering and le
eaving Kend
dleton. Histo
orically, farm
ming
dominated the lo
ocal economyy; however, the city did have a mill and a handfful of small
local retail storess. However, the
t new US 59 bisected Kendleton along
a
a high
h-speed easthe few local commercial uses directlyy serving the
e
west access and disrupted th
munity. Many of the old
der 25-60 lots along the
e south side of Old Highw
way 59 were
e
comm
subdiivided or tak
ken through eminent dom
main with th
he US 59 con
nstruction an
nd were left
unpra
actical for ag
gricultural usses. The old
der commerccial center of Kendleton may have
furthe
er deterioratted as US 59
9 allowed ea
asy access to
o regional co
ommercial ce
enters
elsew
where in Fortt Bend Coun
nty.
20-Yea
ar Growth Plan
n
4
41
Section 7.0 Economic Development Apart from a gas station/convenience store/restaurant at the northwest corner of US 59
and FM 2919, there was no commercial activity near the interchange. Additionally,
these commercial uses became entirely dependent on vehicular traffic using US 59. In
retail terms, groupings of retail sites often bring more customers. In other words,
customers desire choices. The gas station and restaurant, which had become
Kendleton’s only visible commercial site on US 59, failed to compete with similar
establishments elsewhere.
7.2
Existing Employment
Kendleton currently has a limited number of businesses that employ more than one
person. After the closure of the gas station over a decade ago, the site remains vacant
to this day. Belle’s Country Store opened on the southeast corner of US 59 and FM 2919
and serves home-style meals and has a small retail component. The former mill in
Kendleton had long since converted to a lumber mill operation and began operation as
Associated Lumber Enterprises under new ownership in October 2010.
Figure 7-3. Associated Lumber
Enterprises grand opening
Figure 7-4. Belles Country Store
According to the TEEX Kendleton Community Assessment (Appendix A), Table 7-A,
below, lists the businesses as Kendleton Lumberyard (Associated Lumber), Belle’s
Country Store, and the City of Kendleton, all of which are located near the center of
town.
Table 7-A: Employers within Kendleton
Marker
Number of Employees
Associated Lumber
Two full time and 3 part time
Belle’s Country Store
Three part time
City of Kendleton
Three full time and 2 part time
The US Census defines the civilian labor force as the sum of civilian employment and
civilian unemployment, who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions. As
shown in Table 7-B, Kendleton’s population 16 years and over is 308 people, of which
128 people are in the civilian workforce. Of the 128 people, 125 people are employed
and 3 people are unemployed (3%).
42
City of Kendleton
Table 7-B: Current Employment / Unemployment
Population 16 years and over
Civilian labor force
Employed
Texas
Estimate
18,380,464
%
Fort Bend County
Kendleton
Estimate
%
Estimate %
398,850
308
11,962,847
65.10
273,604
68.60
128
41.60
11,125,616
60.50
259,598
65.10
125
40.60
Unemployed
837,231
4.60
14,006
3.50
3
1.00
Not in labor force
6,314,812
34.40
124,905
31.30
180
58.40
Sources:
3
2010 US Census
Although Kendleton has a lower unemployment rate than Fort Bend County or Texas,
the city has a higher percentage of the total population that is 65 years of age or older,
as shown in Figure 7-5. Fort Bend County, Texas, and the US as a whole have a more
even distribution of people within each age group.
Figure 7-5: Population By Age: 2010 (Percent)
65 years and over
100.0
90.0
50 to 64 years
80.0
40 to 49 years
70.0
30 to 39 years
60.0
25 to 29 years
15 to 24 years
50.0
5 to 14 years
40.0
Under 5 years
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Kendleton, TX
Fort Bend
County, TX
Texas
US
Sources:
4-7
2010 US Census
20-Year Growth Plan
43
Section 7.0 Economic Development Figure 7-6 shows that the Fort Bend County unemployment rate is lower than the State
of Texas and the United States rates since 2007. However, the unemployment rates of
all three have increased over the past decade as a result of Fort Bend County’s
continued growth during the recent national recession.
Figure 7-6: Annual Unemployment Rates: 2002-2012
Fort Bend County
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
Texas
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
US
Sources:
8
Texas Workforce Commission
Fort Bend County’s workforce is growing at a faster rate than both Texas and the United
States as shown in Table 7-C. Since 2003, the county’s workforce expanded at an
annual average rate of 4.17%, compared to Texas at 1.36%, and the United States at
0.25%. The workforce has continued to contract at the national level starting in 2008
and in Texas for one year in 2009. Fortunately, Fort Bend County’s workforce continued
to expand but at a slightly slower rate in 2009, and is currently on track to grow at an
even faster rate than earlier in the previous decade.
Table 7-C: Average Annual Change (%) in Employed Labor Force:
2003-2010
Year
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Average
Fort Bend County
5.18
2.09
4.53
4.13
4.19
4.73
4.57
3.91
4.17
Texas
1.75
-0.08
1.52
1.46
1.95
1.60
1.53
1.12
1.36
United States
-0.58
-3.77
-0.47
1.12
1.90
1.78
1.10
0.92
0.25
Sources:
8
Texas Workforce Commission
44
City of Kendleton
The three largest sectors in Kendleton’s workforce are education services, other services
except public administration, and retail trade. Professional, scientific, and management
jobs make up a larger share of the county work force than Kendleton. Manufacturing
jobs make up a larger share of the state workforce, however none of the Kendleton
workforce works in manufacturing.
Table 7-D: Employment by Industry
Kendleton
Fort Bend County
Texas
Estimate
%
Estimate
%
Estimate
%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting, and mining
0
0.0
11,617
4.5
325,101
2.9
Construction
5
4.0
16,394
6.3
960,632
8.6
Manufacturing
0
0.0
24,910
9.6
1,081,154
9.7
Wholesale trade
2
1.6
10,303
4.0
368,938
3.3
Retail trade
16
12.8
27,840
10.7
1,282,840
11.5
Transportation and
warehousing, and utilities
9
7.2
13,485
5.2
630,728
5.7
Information
8
6.4
4,489
1.7
241,446
2.2
Finance and insurance, and
real estate, rental and
leasing
0
0.0
19,981
7.7
768,942
6.9
Professional, scientific, and
mgt, and administrative and
waste mgt services
9
7.2
33,715
13.0
1,170,818
10.5
Educational services, and
health care and social
assistance
39
31.2
60,464
23.3
2,312,346
20.8
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accom/food
services
3
2.4
15,203
5.9
915,429
8.2
Other services, except
public administration
20
16.0
11,364
4.4
578,173
5.2
Public administration
14
11.2
9,833
3.8
489,069
4.4
125
100
259,598
100
11,125,616
100
Total
Sources:
9
2010 US Census
7.3
Employment Forecasts
The following employment forecasts are for the entire workforce and do not take
unemployment into account. As discussed previously in Table 7-B, Kendleton’s current
work force was established as 128 persons in 2010. For purposes of this planning
document, it is assumed that employment will increase proportionately with the
population. Table 7-E uses Kendleton population forecasts previously discussed in
Section 3 to forecast employment through 2035. This forecast also takes into account
proposed commercial/industrial uses in the region discussed previously in Section 3.1.
20-Year Growth Plan
45
Section 7.0 Economic Development Table 7-E: Kendleton Employment Projections: 2010-2035
Kendleton
Year
Population
Projections
2010
380
Employment
Projections
4
128
4
2015
491
164
2020
638
214
2025
832
279
2030
1,089
365
2035
1,430
480
Sources:
4
2010 US Census.
7.4
Income
a. Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI)
PCPI is defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as income that is
received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the personal income of
the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area. The
BEA uses the Census Bureau’s annual midyear population estimates.
According to TEEX, Fort Bend County’s PCPI is higher than both the state and
national average with the 10th highest county PCPI in Texas (Table 7-F). Fort
Bend County’s PCPI is 119 % of the state average ($38,609) and 116% of the
national average ($39,635). The PCPI decreased in Fort Bend County at a
smaller rate between 2008-2009 at 2.0%, versus the state rate of 3.1% or the
national rate at 2.6%. These numbers correlate with the average annual change
in employed labor force discussed previously in Table 7-B. Between 2008-2009,
Fort Bend County saw an increase in 4.53%, whereas Texas saw a decrease of
0.08% and the United States saw a decrease of 3.77%.
Table 7-F: Per Capita Personal Income
Area
46
2009
PCPI
PCPI %
2008-2009
1999
PCPI
1999-2009 Average
Annual PCPI Growth Rate
US
$39,635
-2.6
$28,333
3.4
Texas
$38,609
-3.1
$26,399
3.9
Fort Bend County
$45,798
-2.0
$30,328
4.2
City of Kendleton
b. Median Household Income
Kendleton’s median household income increased slightly less than the Texas
median between 2000 and 2011 but was higher than Fort Bend County and the
United States medians (Table 7-G).
Table 7-G: Median Household Income
Kendleton Fort Bend County
Texas
US
2011
30,272
10
88,454
10
58,142
10
50,046
11
2000
21,563
12
63,83112
39,927
12
41,994
12
Percent Change
40.39%
38.58%
45.62%
19.17%
Sources:
10-12
2010 US Census
7.5
Sales Tax Revenue
Figure 7-7 shows the annual percentage change, not dollar amount, in sales tax revenue
in Kendleton, Fort Bend County, and Texas. Due to the community’s very small
commercial base, the arrival and departure of even one business in the City can cause
severe fluctuations in sales tax revenue. Fort Bend County and the State of Texas both
saw a steep drop in quarterly tax revenue in 2008 through 2010 likely due to the
recession, but have both recovered to their pre-2008 levels. Despite, the severe
fluctuations in revenue, Kendleton has a slight upward trend through the last decade.
Figure 7-7: Sales Tax - Annual Percentage Change 2003-2011
50.00%
Kendleton
40.00%
30.00%
Fort Bend County
20.00%
10.00%
Texas
0.00%
-10.00%
-20.00%
-30.00%
-40.00%
2011
2010
2010
2008
Sources:
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
-50.00%
13
20-Year Growth Plan
47
Section 7.0 Economic Development 7.6
Proposed Regional Commercial/Industrial Developments
There are several proposed developments within or adjacent to Kendleton’s ETJ as
discussed previously in Section 3.1. These include the CenterPoint Intermodal Center
(which includes the Kansas City Southern Railroad facility) and GBI International
Business Park. There is also a 293 acre tract being marketed immediately to the north of
the Intermodal Center which likely has a similar light industrial and warehouse use. The
proximity of these regional developments to each other as well as their location along
US 59 adjacent to the Kendleton ETJ will create higher land use intensity.
These developments will also create a multitude of additional jobs. It is very likely that
many of these employees will live nearby in Kendleton and commute to work outside of
the ETJ. Tables 7-H through 7-J are broad estimates of the number of employees
generated by land uses that might be within these three developments. Given its
location on the edge of Fort Bend County, industrial uses are estimated at 4,000 square
feet per employee and warehouse uses are 7,500 square feet per employee.
Each table includes employee estimates based on different combinations of land uses.
This is also assuming each development is at full build-out. Three different
combinations of land uses are shown in each table to reflect the variety of potential
employee numbers in each development. At the time of this planning document’s
adoption, it is impossible to determine the exact size or proportion of land uses,
commercial revenue generated, or the number of future employees who will live in the
Kendleton ETJ.
Table 7-H: Estimated Employees at CenterPoint Intermodal Facility
Gross Area: 27,704,160 SF (636 Acres)
Leasable Area: 7,500,000 SF (27% of Gross Area)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
50%
Warehouse
50%
Light Industrial
75 %
Warehouse
25%
Light Industrial
25%
Warehouse
75%
Light Industrial
3,750,000 SF
3,750,000 SF
5,625,000 SF
1,875,000 SF
1,875,000 SF
5,625,000 SF
500
937
750
468
250
1,406
Total Employees: 1,437
Total Employees:1,218
Table 7-I: Estimated Employees at GBI Site
Leasable Area: 4,181,760 SF (assume 30% of Gross Area)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
50%
Warehouse
50%
Light Industrial
75 %
Warehouse
25%
Light Industrial
25%
Warehouse
75%
Light Industrial
2,090,880 SF
2,090,880 SF
3,136,320 SF
1,045,440 SF
1,045,440 SF
3,136,320 SF
278
522
418
261
139
1,698
Total Employees: 800
48
City of Kendleton
Table 7-J: Estimated Employees at 293 Acre Northern Tract
Leasable Area: 3,828,924 SF (assume 30% of Gross Area)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
50%
Warehouse
50%
Light Industrial
75 %
Warehouse
25%
Light Industrial
25%
Warehouse
75%
Light Industrial
1,914,462 SF
1,914,462 SF
2,871,693 SF
957,231 SF
957,231 SF
2,871,693 SF
225
478
717
239
127
717
From an economic development perspective, the locations of these three large
developments will not bring in additional commercial revenue to Kendleton since they
are located outside of the City Limits. Some potential employees of these sites may
reside within the city limits. However, the few existing businesses discussed previously
in Section 7.2 may be too small to accommodate a larger population, and new residents
will need to travel outside of Kendleton for shopping, entertainment, etc. In addition, a
larger population will also put additional strain on existing infrastructure (roads, utilities)
and public facilities, such as the parks.
Exhibit II: Future Land Use Plan identifies key locations for residential and nonresidential development within the existing ETJ that offset these three developments.
These include, commercial infill along Loop Road 541 and a new commercial
development at a potential overpass connection at West Tavener Road and US 59.
Additional non-residential development may also occur along proposed Petitt Boulevard.
Retail services desired by current residents are difficult to justify due to the current
population size. As the City and the surrounding area grows, this condition may change,
allowing retail uses to be included in the potential commercial development proposed on
the Future Land Use Plan.
The Future Land Use Plan is a 20-year projection that does not show actual construction
or development and does represent future land sales or uses. New proposed road
construction on the east side of Kendleton will potentially allow existing tracts to change
use, however there is significant undeveloped land which can be used before any
agricultural land use conversion occurs. The pace of development at this time, as well as
the proposed land use pattern, does not illustrate any significant changes in agricultural
property values.
In conclusion, Kendleton is located just outside of a rapidly growing commercial/light
industrial area along US 59. This Growth Plan projects future land uses in strategic
areas of the City’s ETJ. The Future Land Use Plan places some degree of use planning
controls on development, at least suggesting future highest and best use. However,
due to its current corporate boundary, Kendleton can only capture a small slice of the
sales revenue that may be generated from new regional developments. The lack of a
solid commercial base in town will also keep sales tax revenue down as new employees
and residents shop elsewhere until new local retail can be established.
20-Year Growth Plan
49
Section 7.0 Economic Development 7.7
References
1.
National Register Report Reference Number 96001016. Green, Henry G. and Annie B., House
2012 Calendar. FBC Heritage Unlimited Museum.
Kendleton City, Fort Bend County, Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA, Texas: 2006-2010 ACS 5Year Estimates, DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics.
Kendleton city: 2010 Census Summary File 2, DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010
Fort Bend County, TX: CSA Census Summary File 2, DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010
Texas, 2010 Census Summary File, Dp-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics:
2010
US, 2010 Census Summary File 2, DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics
Texas Labor Market Information. Texas Workforce Commission
American Community Survey, 2006-2010 5-Year Estimates, DP03 Selected Economic
Characteristics for Kendleton, TX, Fort Bend County, TX, and State of Texas
US Census, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5 – Year Estimates
US Census, 2010 American Community Survey 1 – Year Estimate
US Census, 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)
Kendleton Annual Sales Tax Report: 2002-2011, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
50
City of Kendleton
8.0
Utilities
Water and wastewater systems in Kendleton have undergone upgrades or replacement
in a seemingly continuous pattern for many years. Due the age and/or condition, in
conjunction with pipe size and capacity issues, many individual components of the City’s
system have needed to be addressed. Today, the overall system is much improved over
only a few years ago when wastewater pipe and treatment plant issues were of a critical
nature. Past utility reports have indicated many failures and citations, however upgraded
water line sizes, sewer line rehabilitation and completion of a new wastewater treatment
plant in September 2011 have alleviated many issues. Most of these projects were
completed using various grant funds in conjunction with Fort Bend County due to the
large expense and taking into account the City’s relatively low annual budget.
8.1
Current Status
The current water and wastewater systems layouts adequately serve the existing
residents. Trunk lines for the water system are located in the FM 2919 ROW and along
Braxton Road which connects the City’s two water sources for redundancy. Force mains
for the wastewater system are also located in FM 2919 ROW and along the west side of
Brooks Branch. Utility line connections to these major lines primarily branch east and
west to serve neighborhoods in Kendleton. The current population of fewer than 500
persons is well within the design capacity of both the water and wastewater systems
which can serve up to 3,000 residents.
The water supply system uses two pump
locations, a ground level storage tank and
an elevated storage tank with a total
capacity of 94,000 gallons. The new
wastewater treatment plant has a .15 million
gallons per day capacity. Previous utility
studies and reports have cited limited
population growth in the past, yet have
called attention to the designation of US 59
as the I-69 Corridor for the potential to have
an effect on the City’s population. While the
20-Year Growth Plan obviously
acknowledges this fact, the CenterPoint
Intermodal Center is now the prime driver of
population growth in the area and could
have a much more dramatic effect.
Figure 8-1: Kendleton’s 145’ tall water tower.
20-Year Growth Plan
51
Section 8.0 Utilities 8.2
Future Utility Needs
While it is unlikely that the 3,000 person threshold will be reached within 20 years, the
utility system should be continuously monitored and will need to be analyzed for future
improvements, especially in reference to existing underground utility lines. New
construction will require tie-ins to existing utility lines which could create opportunities
for spot maintenance or improvements. As new homes and businesses are connected,
there may be additional stress placed on older portions of the system. Any development
which may occur in the ETJ will likely require construction of entirely new distribution
and collection systems. It is anticipated that most new development may occur between
Brooks Branch and West Tavener Road, north of the KCS rail line. Depending on the size
of any development, new water service may require additional booster pumps and new
wastewater service may require construction of new lift stations. Such planning will need
to be performed and evaluated as new projects are proposed.
8.3
Maintenance
The longevity of any of the utility systems depends on regular and proper maintenance.
The City must appropriately budget for maintenance costs on a yearly basis in order to
avoid even more costly repairs or service outages. The critical nature of proper
maintenance cannot be stressed enough. As the City continues to pursue and receive
grant funding for special infrastructure projects, it is very important to note that many
new grant applications and funding partnerships require maintenance agreements to be
included in the award. If the City budget does not include maintenance costs, does not
allocate funds to an appropriate level, or fails to perform the maintenance service, there
is a risk that the grant or partnership agreement could be forfeited or held in
noncompliance. There would therefore be potential for the City to be liable for damages
caused by improper maintenance which would cost the City additional expenses beyond
what regular maintenance would cost in the first place, or worse yet, cause a system to
prematurely fail entirely.
Figure 8-2: Kendleton’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
52
City of Kendleton
9.0
Parks and Recreation
A total of 254 acres of park land is within Kendleton’s jurisdiction, contained within only
two park locations. King-Kennedy Memorial Park is a 33-acre city park north of US 59,
west of FM 2919. Bates M. Allen Park is a Fort Bend County Park south of US 59, east of
the San Bernard River, and is located in the City’s ETJ.
Figure 9-1: Aerial view of Kendleton’s park facilities
9.1
King-Kennedy Memorial Park
This City of Kendleton park facility is a favorite location for Juneteenth Celebrations each
year and affords large open space to hold such events. The site includes 5 picnic
pavilions, a large lake area with a wooden water overlook platform, play equipment,
basketball courts, a vehicular loop trail, and camp sites. Although the park’s size and
features are assets to the City, the general condition of the park is poor, given by the
deteriorated entry building, broken concrete drives, missing basketball nets, and poor
lake conditions. The lake is likely filled using stormwater runoff which has been in short
supply in recent years, yet the soils seem too sandy to maintain a water level for long
periods. The original entry off US 59 is now closed after construction of the FM 2919
overpass likely caused a safety issue with the new freeway mainlanes.
20-Year Growth Plan
53
Section 9.0 Parks and Recreation The play equipment at King-Kennedy Memorial Park includes various climbing structures
which were recently installed and are in excellent condition as well as several swing
sets. This western are of the park seems well-used, as does the far eastern area which
currently is home to possibly a dozen hitch-style travel trailers. The camp sites are being
used primarily by employees working on the Eagle Ford Pipeline. Some dirt road
degradation has occurred at the entry/exit which connects to Loop 541.
Figure 9-2: Park entry near Hilltop Road
Figure 9-3: Play equipment
In general, the King-Kennedy Memorial Park is in need of some care and attention so
that it can be a source of great pride for the community. A consistent maintenance
program is needed as well some facility rehab. Grant funding for park maintenance is
difficult to come by at this time, where as construction grants are somewhat more
available. The City is exploring additional RV facilities within the park to generate
revenue for the city which may include park restoration and maintenance funds.
9.2
Bates M. Allen Park
Owned and operated by Fort Bend County, Bates M. Allen Park is a vast site with an
array of attractions. Near the park’s entry is the Fort Bend County Heritage Unlimited
Museum. The museum has an excellent collection of photos, histories and objects
cataloguing the lives of African Americans from the Kendleton area. The museum
includes a church interior recreation and host a variety of activities throughout the year.
A second building has been moved to the site and is in the process of being refurbished
in order to hold meetings and larger events.
Figure 9-4: Park entry
54
Figure 9-5: FBC Heritage Unlimited Museum
City of Kendleton
The interior of Bates M. Allen Park
includes a wetlands area, several large
pavilions, playground equipment,
picnic areas, and restrooms. The
County’s maintenance building is
located adjacent several large parking
lots which allow easy access to all the
park’s facilities. Similar to the City’s
King-Kennedy Memorial Park, this
facility’s size makes any large event
possible.
Figure 9-6: Pavilion and playground area in Bates M. Allen Park
Of special note is the fact that the park is also home to a
historic cemetery containing the markers of many original
settlers of Kendleton, including the City’s first Postmaster,
Benjamin Franklin Williams. Before settling in Kendleton,
Williams was a Texas State Legislator and former
preacher. The grave markers are easily accessible and
provide a tangible tie to the area’s rich heritage.
The western side of the park is a lush river bottom area
characterized by tall hardwood trees and Cypress trees
along the water’s edge of the San Bernard River. Extensive
trails, a canoe ramp, and fishing pier highlight the uses in
this area. The river area is a highly used portion of the
park by fishermen and canoe enthusiasts. Dozens of
organized canoe trips take place in the park.
Figure 9-7: Historic grave marker
Figure 9-8: San Bernard River in Bates M. Allen Park
20-Year Growth Plan
55
Section 9.0 Parks and Recreation 9.3
Park Accessibility Standards
As discussed briefly in Section 4.1, the most accepted measurement of required park
acreage for communities are the NRPA guidelines, which specify the number of park
acres needed per 1,000 residents. By acreage, the 254 acres of existing parks more than
adequately serve the residents of Kendleton. Judged by distance from homes and
neighborhoods however, less than half of the residents of Kendleton are within NRPA
guidelines for a walkable distance to recreational land use. Maintenance is a significant
yearly expense for jurisdictions to incur, be it on infrastructure like sewer lines or on
parks. Proposing new park facilities simply to place them near existing homes makes
little fiscal sense and even less common sense due to the size of the two existing parks.
Table 9-A. NRPA Park Guidelines
Type
Size / Acres
Service Area
Acres per 1,000
Population
2,5000 sf – 1 Acre
Less than ¼ mile
distance in residential
setting
Variable
Neighborhood
Park
1 – 15 Acres
One neighborhood ¼
to ½ mile radius
1.0 – 2.0 Acres
Community
Park
16 – 99 Acres
Several neighborhoods
2 mile radius
5.0 – 8.0 Acres
100 – 499 Acres
Several communities
under 1 hour driving
Variable
Varies
No applicable standard
Variable
Sufficient width to protect the
natural resource and provide
maximum use
No applicable standard
Variable
Resource availability and
opportunity
Variable
Variable
Mini-Park
Regional Park
Special Use
Areas
Greenways /
Linear Park
Natural
Resource
Areas
Source:
1
National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA)
9.4
Future Park Linkage
A more responsible idea is to better link residential areas to the parks by constructing
multi-use trails along thoroughfares and use the natural features in Kendleton such as
Brooks Branch to facilitate alternative transportation modes. Multi-use trails on Brooks
Branch and along the San Bernard River can easily allow pedestrians, horses, and
bicyclists to travel under US 59, linking the two parks together, better connecting the
northern and southern halves of the City, and allowing more residents to be within
walking distance of recreational facilities.
9.5
1
56
References
Open Space Standards and Guidelines. National Recreation and Park Association. 4th Printing.
1990.
City of Kendleton
10.0 Community Resources
Resources including public safety, fire protection, and medical care ensure cities are a
safe, healthy, and enjoyable place to live. The purpose of this section is to identify and
assess Kendleton’s major regional community resources including police, fire, hospitals,
and schools as shown in Figure 10-1 on the following page. Table 10-A lists these
resources and their proximity to Kendleton’s city center.
10.1 Police
All police services are currently handled by the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office, which
is located 13.0 miles from Kendleton. However, as discussed previously, the city’s
population is forecasted to potentially triple over the next twenty years. Other
communities which currently rely on the county sheriff also are experiencing a
significant amount of long term growth. This will place additional strain on existing
county resources. Even if Kendleton continues to retain its rural character, increased
intensity of land uses outside of the ETJ equate to higher traffic moving through
Kendleton, which in turn, leads to greater chances of opportunistic crime.
10.2 Fire
The Beasley City Fire Department and the East Bernard Volunteer Fire Department
provide fire protection and emergency service to Kendleton. Both departments are
located about 7.5 miles from Kendleton. Much of the housing stock in Kendleton is older
frame construction and in generally good condition. However, there are also several
vacant structures identified in Exhibit III – Planning Factors Map, several of which have
noticeable signs of former fires. Several vacant properties are also overgrown with trees
and weeds that are several feet in height. Dry summers combined with irregular house
repair and brush clearing can ultimately turn properties into tinderboxes, which
increases the chances of uncontrolled fires.
Because fire departments are not tasked with post-fire building repairs and construction,
the long-term visual impacts of fire-damaged structures creates a negative experience
while travelling through the community. As Kendleton grows in population, additional
strain will be placed on existing water resources as well. Kendleton is most likely not
the only community relying on outside help for fire protection. However, as discussed
previously with police services, long-term growth in Fort Bend County will place
additional strain on limited resources in the area.
20-Year Growth Plan
57
Section 10.0 Community Resources Figure 10-1: Major Regional Community Resources
Table 10-A: Major Regional Community Resources
Community Resource
Address
Distance from Kendleton
City Center
Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office
1410 Williams Way Blvd,
Richmond, TX
13.0 Miles
East Bernard Volunteer Fire
800 Leveridge Street
East Bernard, TX
7.4 Miles
Beasley City Fire Department
214 South 3rd Street, Beasley,
TX
7.3 Miles
Oak Bend Medical Center
1705 Jackson St.,
Richmond, TX
Fort Bend County Emergency Medical
Service
4336 Highway 36 S, Rosenberg,
TX
14.7 Miles
Triumph Hospital Southwest
1550 First Colony Blvd.
Sugar Land, TX
27.6 Miles
St. Lukes Sugarland
1317 Lake Pointe Parkway,
Sugar Land, TX
28.1 Miles
Southwest Surgical Associates /
Methodist Sugarland
16651 Southwest Freeway
#360, Sugar Land, TX
28.1 Miles
Bay Ridge Christian College
3626 FM 2919,
Kendleton, TX
2.4 Miles
Lamar Consolidated High School
4606 Mustang Avenue,
Rosenberg, TX
17.9 Miles
Lamar Junior High
Rosenberg, TX
17.9 Miles
Wessendorff Middle School
Rosenberg, TX
18.6 Miles
Beasley Elementary
7511 Avenue J,
Beasley, TX
7.3 Miles
58
19.1 Miles
City of Kendleton
10.3 Medical
Kendleton’s location along US 59 affords easy access to major regional medical facilities.
Fort Bend County Regional Medical Services provides local emergency services primarily
to the adjacent Fort Bend County Fairgrounds. Sugar Land provides several regional
hospitals located approximately 30 miles to the northeast. Many of these facilities
provide a full range of services including emergency care, intensive care, specialized
services, rehabilitation, inpatient and outpatient facilities, and several adjacent medical
professional offices. Texas Medical Center, the largest medical campus in the world, is
located in central Houston, approximately 50 miles to the northeast of Kendleton.
Despite Kendleton’s gradual growth projections over the 20 years, there are no drastic
changes in the population. Kendleton’s population is a healthy mix of age groups that
do not pose any significant increase in nearby medical facilities. Because both
Kendleton and the regional medical facilities are located along US 59, the biggest long
term threat to easy access to quality medical care is increased travel times/road
congestion along US 59.
10.4 Schools
Approximately 80 school age children in Kendleton attend Lamar Consolidated ISD. A
description of District and four schools can be found in Appendix A, pages 27-29. Lamar
Consolidated ISD annexed Kendleton area students into the District in 2010, leaving the
historic Powell Point School, established in 1904, mostly idle. As the student population
grows in the next 20 years along with overall population projections, it may become
advantageous for the District to use the school once again.
Figure 10-2: Historic Powell Point
School Site
Kendleton is also home to Bay Ridge Christian College, a two-year liberal arts junior
college established in 1953. The oldest college in Fort Bend County, the college is
currently reorganizing and is due to open in 2013.
20-Year Growth Plan
59
60
City of Kendleton
11.0 Recommendations
While exploring economic growth opportunities, it is clear that the community strongly
desires that Kendleton’s rich agrarian past and history be preserved. To that end, the
following recommendations are made as a result of over a year of study, community
input and feedback, and planning efforts. Following adoption of this document by
Kendleton City Council, the recommendations made herein can be considered policy, but
not law. Council action in the form of specific resolutions and ordinances must take
place in order for any portion of this plan to become legally binding.
Over the 20-year window of this plan, there are elements which should be implemented
sooner than others. Either by ease of implementation or by return on investment, the
decision to recommend a specific action item sooner than another is still just a
recommendation. Therefore, as a matter of language, the following recommendations
are made and presented as actions which should occur “within X number of years.”
11.1 Within 2 Years
City Ordinance and Code Updates: The ability for the City of Kendleton to affectively
provide governance is directly related to the quality of the City’s ordinances and
codes. Without well-written and well-planned codes of ordinances, the City will
likely find itself playing defense against developers and individuals looking to
take advantage of lax or non-existent laws. Existing ordinances must be updated
and organized in a collection of documents or a database which is searchable
and which can be easily modified over time. All ordinances should be available on
the City’s website in order to minimize City Staff time dealing with questions.
New ordinances which address missing or deficient codes must be created. City
Council should proceed to adopt a new code of ordinances as soon as possible.
All existing codes should be reviewed and amended as needed, and new codes
recommended for study and adoption. Importance should be placed on the
following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Subdivision Ordinance
Manufactured Homes
Billboard and Sign Ordinance
Streets and Sidewalks, including building setbacks
Litter, distressed properties and structures, junkyards
Animals
Noise Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance: The most stringent, yet most effective, way for cities to protect and
guide the development of land is through zoning laws. The adoption of a zoning
ordinance would designate and govern land uses with Kendleton. The goal would
be to locate appropriate uses adjacent to one another. Zoning codes define what
uses are best as neighbors to each other. Existing structures are “grandfathered”
as long as the current use does not change. Appeals and zoning use changes can
be made by any landowner or developer and would be considered by City
Council. Adopting a zoning ordinance requires significant planning and support
20-Year Growth Plan
61
Section 11.0 Recommendations but will afford the City the type of control it desires in order to protect
agricultural uses, historic properties, and existing neighborhoods while
encouraging growth in appropriate areas. A zoning map designates each
property’s assigned use and is formed in conjunction with land use maps and
thoroughfare plans in order to make the best land use judgments prior to
adoption.
Economic development action plan: The City should work with the Kendleton Economic
Development Corporation and the Fort Bend County EDC to create a
comprehensive economic development action plan. Such a plan can take the 20Year Growth Plan and add detailed study of potential revenues from commercial
land development, study business partnerships, and offer solutions for job
growth. The City needs to focus on attracting business growth near the
CenterPoint Intermodal Center and at the US 59/FM 2919 Interchange.
City Limit signs relocated: Recent annexations have moved the city limit lines in several
locations. The most prominent location would be on westbound US 59.
Braxton Road Bridge: The TxDOT Houston District which oversees federally and state
funded roadway projects in Fort Bend County currently has the Braxton Road
bridge over Brooks Branch scheduled for replacement. As of April 2012, the
environmental assessment and ROW coordination has been completed. The next
project step is to bid and construct the bridge. Completion will allow Braxton
Road to be extended to the east to a potential intersection with West Tavener
Road which was recently upgraded to serve the Intermodal Center.
Membership – Central Fort Bend Chamber Alliance: The Alliance granted the City of
Kendleton membership in 2011 and waived the associated fee due to the City’s
economic constraints. The City should do all it can to continue membership, for
example, by working with the Kendleton EDC and the Fort Bend County EDC to
seek sponsorship. As representative of the area’s economic interests, the
Chamber encourages business and industrial investment. This scope fits perfectly
with the needs of Kendleton as the Intermodal Center is realized.
Membership – West Fort Bend Management District: The District can provide a variety of
services and partner in improvement projects to the benefit of the City. Traffic
control, security, roadside landscape maintenance, and grant writing are services
the District can provide. They can also assist with street lighting, signage and
sidewalks projects among other things. Currently the WFBMD has 1,000-foot
wide corridors along portions of Highway 90 through Richmond and Rosenberg,
as well as parts of SH 36. Along US 59, the district runs from near Greatwood to
Beasley. The West Fort Bend Management District is very interested in extending
their boundaries to the Fort Bend County line and thus through Kendleton. All
that is required is for the City of Kendleton and the WFBMD Board of Directors to
adopt resolutions to make this occur. Once the resolutions are in place, the
entities can begin focusing on projects and funding mechanisms.
62
City of Kendleton
Utility Maintenance: Fort Bend County has expressed concerns with maintenance at the
City’s new wastewater treatment plant. Steps should be taken immediately to
follow the maintenance schedule established by the design engineer in order to
prolong the life of the facility and save the City repair costs.
City of Kendleton Website: The City’s website has evolved recently and is now a better
representation of the community and its values. The site needs to be updated
regularly, with correct contact information, public meeting notices, online codes
once available, and other pertinent community information. Once the City’s
finances allow, a website consultant or webmaster should be contracted.
Job Training Program – Attack Poverty: As new businesses arrive and development
begins to occur near Kendleton, it is increasingly important to be able to provide
a skilled and trained workforce. Attack Poverty and similar job training programs
are an excellent way to provide interview skills support and specialty training so
that Kendleton’s workforce can compete for these positions. The City and EDC
should continue support such programs and offer an increasing variety of
training.
Community and Image Enhancement: Past efforts such as Keep Kendleton Beautiful and
partnerships with Fort Bend County have made impressive and visible
improvements in the City. These clean up efforts must continue in order to
eradicate dangerous structures and remove hazardous trash. Cleaning up the
City is the first step toward redevelopment of existing land, which as has been
illustrated herein, is much less expensive from an infrastructure standpoint than
creating new streets and neighborhoods. Cleaning up existing neighborhoods
must be a priority in order to raise civic pride and impress new investors in the
community.
Grants & P3’s: The Kendleton EDC and the City should continue striving for any available
grant funding and look to create public-private partnerships (P3) in order to
achieve development goals. P3’s can include local and regional business partners
or non-profit partners such as the Fort Bend CORPS. Grant funding and P3’s are
excellent ways to leverage funding dollars for projects. Teaming with the West
Fort Bend Management District can provide another grant funding avenue.
YMCA Bates Allen Park Camp: Much work has already gone into creating a new YMCA
camp in Bates Allen Park and an agreement between Fort Bend County and
YMCA is expected soon. The resulting program will bring regional day campers,
guided adventure outings and canoeing to the park. Plans call for new facilities
to be constructed within the park to allow overnight camping. Exposing young
persons to the beautiful outdoor aspects at the San Bernard River and the
incredible historical attributes found in the park and in Kendleton, will create
educational opportunities and lasting memories of Kendleton to a new
generation. Growing the YMCA program is both a marketing opportunity and an
economic boon for Kendleton.
20-Year Growth Plan
63
Section 11.0 Recommendations 11.2 Within 5 years
Code Enforcement: Following adoption of new and improved ordinances, enforcement
will be an even greater issue in order to guarantee compliance.
Police Department, Town Marshall: The City should investigate recreating a police
presence. Reliance on Fort Bend County Sheriffs is difficult for certain situations,
such as code enforcement, and response times can be long due to distances
traveled. Past law enforcement issues have become only memories and it is time
for the citizens to once again have their own police force.
KCS emergency plan: Work with KCS to create an emergency plan for Kendleton.
Train horn quiet zone: Work with KCS to create a quiet zone through Kendleton. Special
crossing enhancements will be needed on FM 2919.
Low Impact Development: Enact a Low Impact Development (LID) code to cover
roadside drainage ditches, park areas, and trails. LID techniques use native
vegetation and shaped drainage swales to minimize water use while creating
attractive vegetated areas. LID ties in directly with the City’s desire to be a
“green” city.
Park enhancements: The Mayor’s Office and City Council have stressed the desire to
improve King-Kennedy Memorial Park. Prepare a Park Plan to restore courts,
improve picnic areas, demolish unsafe structures, add trees and other
enhancements.
Landscaping on transportation corridors: In partnership with the West Fort Bend
Management District, establish maintenance agreements for US 59 and FM 2919
so that the community’s attractiveness can remain at a high level. Additional
landscaping funded through grant programs or roadway adoptions can add
additional landscaping to further enhance the community.
Gateway signage: Create a large, permanent set of gateway signs on US 59 each
direction. Constructed of stone or other sturdy material, the signs should be
easily read at highway speed and illuminated at night. The Community Planning
Team recommends that the signs read: “Welcome to historic Kendleton:
Gateway to Fort Bend County.”
Images of America Book: Over one-hundred small communities throughout the country
have participated in the Images of America book series. Written by local authors
and historians, each title features more than 200 vintage images, capturing often
forgotten bygone times and bringing to life the people, places, and events that
defined a community. This is a perfect tie to the incredible work found at the
Heritage Unlimited Museum who can provide the research. The books are often
found for sale in local stores including drug stores. Portions of the proceeds can
go to the Museum. Reference www.arcadiapublishing.com.
64
City of Kendleton
Remediation efforts: Cleanup of contaminated groundwater at the former gas station
site on US 59 at FM 2919 should be expedited by making continual requests of
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) so that the site remains
on an active cleanup list. Once the gasoline contamination is removed and TCEQ
remits a closure letter, the site can be redeveloped.
Annexation Plan: The City should investigate additional voluntary annexations to acquire
properties likely to develop into commercial uses and future residential
neighborhoods. The tax values of land adjacent to the CenterPoint Intermodal
Center are of highest importance, as well as tracts south and east of the current
boundary on US 59.
Farmer’s Market: Highlight the local farming economy by creating a regularly occurring
Farmer’s Market. Regional residential communities are likely very interested in
purchasing top quality, farm fresh produce from Kendleton.
11.3 Within 10 years
Update Growth Plan: Comprehensive Plans such as the 20-Year Growth Plan must be
revisited to verify findings and suggest new courses of action based on
development which has or has not occurred since the adoption of the plan. It
should be possible to secure grant funding for the plan’s update.
Infill Development: Within 10 years, the possibility that infill development in Kendleton
has taken place should be high. The land use plan and/or zoning plan if adopted
should be studied to identify additional areas for growth which have a light
impact on the City budget due to the presence of existing utilities.
Multi-Use Trails: Implement the Growth Plan’s proposal to connect King-Kennedy
Memorial Park and Bates Allen Park with a multi use trail along the San Bernard
River. Other trails along Brooks Branch may be feasible as well to create a
natural trail system.
New Restaurants and Entertainment: As Kendleton and the surrounding areas grow, the
demand for services and restaurants will grow as well. The US 59/FM 2919
interchange should develop further so that local residents and travelers can
patron restaurants, a gas station, or other services as needed. The population
and additional traffic volumes should make this a possibility within 10 years.
11.4 Within 20 years
Downtown business district: As the City continues to grow, a quality downtown area can
be created, with walkable streets (sidewalks and protected pedestrian zones),
viable businesses, and can be linked to City Hall and a Community Center. The
population and demand will likely have grown sufficiently to accommodate such
development in 20 years.
20-Year Growth Plan
65
KENDLETON COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT, 2012
Appendix A: Kendleton 20‐Year Growth Plan February 2012
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF KENDLETON
430 FM 2919
P. O. BOX 809
KENDLETON, TEXAS 77451
PREPARED BY:
TEXAS ENGINEERING EXTENSION SERVICE
KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING
301 Tarrow Street
College Station, Texas 77840
Lisa Mutchler, Economic Development Program Director
Joan Quintana, Economic Development Specialist
Natalie Ruiz, Project Manager
0
TableofContents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 SummaryofFindings ............................................................................................................................................ 4 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Location ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Population ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 INCOME ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Highways/Roads ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Rail .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Air ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25 NaturalResources ............................................................................................................................................... 25 EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE.......................................................................................................................... 27 Education............................................................................................................................................................... 27 PrimaryEducation ........................................................................................................................................... 27 CollegeEducation............................................................................................................................................. 31 FAVORABLE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 45 FinancialVitality .................................................................................................................................................. 45 LocalSalesandUseTax ...................................................................................................................................... 46 SWOTAnalysis...................................................................................................................................................... 48 QUALITY OF PLACE .......................................................................................................................................... 49 HealthCare............................................................................................................................................................ 49 RecreationalActivities........................................................................................................................................ 50 Appendix A, Page 1
2
EXECUTIVVE SUMM
MARY
Background
Located outside o
of th
he greater Houston majo
or metropolittan area, thee city of Ken
ndleton is a small communitty of approximately 1.4
4 square miles. Given the recent business invvestments in
n the CenterPoiint Multimod
dal Center, po
ositive growth
h is expected
d for the City of Kendleton
n. The difficu
ulty is trying to q
quantify the amount of grrowth that w
will occur in teerms of job growth, popullation and ho
ousing demands.. The followin
ng are the thrree major driving forces off new growth
h in Kendleton
n: 1. C
CenterPoint Intermodal Center. C
CenterPoint recently r
con
nstructed an intermo
odal rail facility surrounded by approximately 636 acres for an industrial park. The n
new park haas the poteential to support up to
o 7.5 million
n square feeet of indusstrial space. Many m
major distribu
utors have exxpressed in
nterest and/or pu
urchased p
property for distribution facilities in
ncluding Waalmart, Volkkswagen, T
Toyota, Nissan
n and Whirlp
pool. All C
Mu
Multimodal
Cen
nter in Kendleeton, Texas
raail traffic between Mexico
o and the CenterPoint
central and eastern e
portions of the United Stattes will passs through Keendleton and
d the m
multimodal ce
enter. 2. Complimentar
C
ry Businessess & Similar Development
D
t Opportunities. Given the t impact of o the m
multimodal ce
enter, there w
will be other d
distribution‐b
based businessses that will locate nearbyy. • Kansas City Southeern owns app
proximately 165 1 acres near the new intermodal faacility. They are also purssuing major distribution d
u
users includin
ng automobile makers su
uch as Ford aand General M
Motors. • GBI Grroup Internattional owns approximatelyy 320 acres accross Highway 59 from thee new multim
modal facility with plans fo
or complimen
ntary distributtion‐based bu
usinesses. • Suppo
ort services such as placess to stay, livee, eat, shop aand recreate will be need
ded to serve both temporary and perm
manent resideents. 3. Highway H
59. The Texas Department D
o Transportattion is curren
of ntly working with local leeaders e
exploring mod
difications to Highway 59 that could significantly im
mpact Kendleton. Constru
uction iss not funded aat this time. Appendix A, Page
P
3
City leaders are currently working with the Governor’s Office on potential grants for new infrastructure to support the development spurred by the intermodal facility including new roads, water and waste water connections. SummaryofFindings
•
Population •
According to the Texas Water Development Board, Kendleton, Fort Bend County and the state of Texas will continue to grow in population over the next 50 years. Most recent projections show a population growth rate of 82% for the state of Texas, 199% for Fort Bend County and 257% for the City of Kendleton. The projected population for Kendleton in 50 years, the year 2060 is just over 2,000. Land Availability •
There is a large amount of vacant land available for purchase and development throughout the city. Vacant tracts are also available for redevelopment closer to the Highway 59 and FM 2919 intersection. The city of Kendleton has taken an active role in demolishing dilapidated structures in highly visible areas preparing the land for new development opportunities. Land surrounding the CenterPoint Multimodal Center is vacant today; however, many distributors have purchased property to be within close proximity to the rail station. Given the recent demand for industrial land and complementary businesses in Kendleton, a Land Use Plan is needed to help guide the proper use of vacant land. Designations should include land for industrial uses, housing, commercial uses, preservation of natural resources and a healthy balance of land uses to secure a future tax base for Kendleton. Infrastructure As Kendleton continues to grow and attract new businesses and residents, the physical infrastructure must be upgraded. In addition to more traditional forms of infrastructure such as streets, utilities and drainage, Kendleton should also consider non‐traditional forms such as technology‐based infrastructure, park systems and natural resources. Free wireless internet access should be provided to better serve the business community and travelers. Broadband accessibility has become an important tool in providing convenience for businesses and tourists. Highway 59 provides the majority of vehicular access to and through the city of Kendleton. The Texas Department of Transportation is currently working with local leaders exploring modifications to Highway 59 that could significantly impact Kendleton. Construction of these modifications are not funded at this time. However, city leaders must remain actively involved and prepared for the community impacts to the state highway system. The rail service passing through Kendleton provides international connections from Mexico, including ports along the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean, through CenterPoint’s multi‐
modal center to the central United States. 4
Domestic water supply and waste water treatment capacities may limit the types of new development in Kendleton. However, the city is aware of these issues and is currently pursuing relief and financing options. •
Education In July 2010, the Kendleton school district was annexed into the neighboring Lamar Consolidated Independent School District (LCISD). Students in Kendleton no longer attend a local school and must travel to Beasley for elementary school or Rosenberg for intermediate and high school. In order to accommodate future growth and upgrade existing facilities, a $249 million bond package was passed by voters on November 8, 2011. However, the improvements included in the package were based upon growth projections developed in 2010 ‐ before Kendleton was incorporated into LCISD. Projected growth within the LCISD was shown east of Kendleton with new housing developments planned in Rosenberg and Richmond. The next bond package is estimated to go before voters in 2014. It is critical that Kendleton partner with LCISD now regarding future growth issues of the district and the city. •
Tourism Potential Kendleton has a rich history as a rural, predominantly African‐American farming community. There is a tremendous opportunity to build upon this heritage and provide tourism opportunities. Pursuing state historical markers is one way to document historical significance and become part of a larger tourism effort. In addition, the natural assets available in Kendleton also provide opportunities for nature tourism including working farms, the San Bernard River and existing parks. •
Health Care There are currently no doctors or medical facilities within Kendleton; however, there are numerous physicians in nearby Richmond and Rosenberg. There are seven providers of more comprehensive medical care available within a 34 mile radius of Kendleton. The two facilities closest to Kendleton are the Gulf Coast Medical Center located in Wharton, approximately 12 miles away; and, the Oak Bend Medical Center located in Richmond, approximately 18 miles away. Memorial Hermann Hospital and Methodist Hospital both have locations in Sugar Land which is approximately 25 miles from Kendleton. •
Housing Most of the housing within the city of Kendleton is single‐family dwelling units and show clear signs of aging and wear. New residential units will be needed in order to accommodate housing of new families moving to the area. In addition, temporary or rental housing will be needed for workers and permanent employees of the CenterPoint multi‐modal center. Currently, temporary contractors are staying in nearby Richmond and Rosenberg. Appendix A, Page 5
6
DEMOGRAPHICS
Location
Kendleton is a small community of 1.4 square miles. As a city of less than 5,000 inhabitants, Kendleton’s current extraterritorial jurisdiction spans ½ mile from city limits. Located near the Houston‐Sugar Land‐ Baytown metropolitan area of southeast Texas, Kendleton’s proximity to the Sugar Land and Houston areas offers the benefits of small town life combined with easy access to the variety and amenities found in larger cities, including several top‐rated hospitals located within the county, Memorial Hermann and St. Luke’s, as well as numerous opportunities for entertainment and recreation. Fort Bend County is predicted to grow to over 1,000,000 residents by 2030, according to the County web site, and has been named one of the safest communities in America. Kendleton is located in Fort Bend County with the cities of Richmond (the county seat), Arcola, Beasley, Fulshear, Meadows Place, Missouri City, Orchard, Rosenberg, Simonton, Stafford, Sugar Land, and Weston Lakes as well as numerous unincorporated areas. Portions of the cities of Katy and Houston have also expanded into the Fort Bend County, though they are incorporated in Harris County. Fort Bend County is a part of the Houston‐Sugar Land‐Baytown metro area and is a member of the Houston‐
Galveston Area Council of Governments. The county is approximately 875.0 square miles (562,560 acres) in area. Sugar Land is its largest city with a population of 78,817 as of 2010. The county’s most populous city is Sugar Land, followed by Missouri City. In 2007 Fort Bend County had one of the highest percentages of families in the nation with 84% of the population in family households and an over 83% homeownership rate.1 Population
According to the Texas State Historical Association, Kendleton, Texas has a long history dating back to the William E. Kendall Plantation. Kendall divided this plantation in the 1860s, creating small farms which he then sold to former slaves. The New York, Texas, and Mexican Railway Company laid track between Rosenberg and Victoria, passing through Kendleton, in 1882, foreshadowing a future in which over a hundred years later rail would still be a vital part of the city’s growth.2 By 1890 Kendleton was home to 25 residents and a general store, though by 1896 the city had grown to include 3 general stores and 2 churches, which served approximately 2,000 people from the surrounding rural area. In 1903 a town documented by the 1900 census as home to 116 residents was also home to a thriving school district with 2 schools for 12 white students and three schools for 202 black students. Kendleton was incorporated in 1973 with a population of more than 600 after decades of fluctuation. In 1990 Kendleton’s population had fallen and would decrease again slightly in the 2000 census with a 1
Fort Bend County in Association with CDS Market Research, Copyright 2008 Knudson LP. 2007. “Fort Bend
County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update 2007.”
<http://www.centerforhoustonsfuture.org/cmsFiles/Files/Fort%20Bend%20Co%20Master%20Plan%2020072012.pdf>
2
Wikipedia, July 2011, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendleton,_Texas>
Appendix A, Page 7
population of 496, 3 though a positive growth trend is expected and, with coming business investment, may increase sharply above current predictions. The 2010 Census indicates a population of 380 persons. Figure 1 shows the estimated population for Kendleton, Fort Bend County, the Gulf Coast Workforce Development Area and the state as projected by the Texas Workforce Commission. These estimates project that Kendleton will continue to gain residents in coming years, with the county gaining approximately 462,593 residents for the same time period, 1990‐2015. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Kendleton’s population in 2000 was 466. Figure 1: Kendleton Population – Sites on Texas Area Kendleton Fort Bend County Gulf Coast WDA Texas Total 1990 2000
2010
2015 Percentage Change
1990‐2000 2010‐2015
519
515
1,253
1,455
-0.8%
16.2%
225,421
354,452
568,120
688,014
57.2%
21.1%
3,897,143
4,854,447
6,048,284
6,654,679
24.6%
10.0%
16,986,524
20,851,820
25,046,555
27,445,155
22.8%
9.6%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission/Sites on Texas
According to the Texas Water Development Board, Kendleton, Fort Bend County and Texas will continue to grow in population over the next 50 years by 257%, 199%, and 82% respectively, as seen in Figure 2. Figure 2: 2006 Regional Water Plan Population Projections 2000 – 2060 Area Kendleton Fort Bend County Texas Total 2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
n/d
601
775
1,000
1,290
1,664
2,147
310,242
550,121
719,737
898,875
1,090,710
1,348,851
1,643,825
25,388,403
29,650,388
33,712,020
37,734,422
41,924,167
46,323,725
20,747,282
2050
2060
Source: Texas Water Development Board
Population estimates for 2010 indicate Kendleton is a predominantly African American community, with lower percentages of white individuals than the state or county and lower percentages of Hispanic individuals than the state. 3
Smyrl, Vivian Elizabeth. n.d. “Kendleton, TX.” Handbook of Texas Online.
<http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hlk05> Accessed 27 June 2011.
8
Figure 3: Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity 2010 Race/ethnicity Texas 2010 Fort Bend 2010
Kendleton 2010
White 69.4%
54.1%
13.7%
Black 11.5%
20.7%
71.8%
0.5%
0.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4%
Asian or Pacific Islander 3.7%
15.3%
1.5%
12.1%
7.2%
10.9%
2.8%
2.3%
2.1%
Hispanic Ethnicity 36.5%
23.1%
25.9%
Not Hispanic or Latino 63.5%
76.9%
74.1%
Some Other Race Two or More Races Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s http:www.sitesontexas.com
According to projections as per Figure 4, Kendleton’s diversity will slightly increase over the next five years with small amounts of growth predicted in the Hispanic sector of the community. This sector has been increasing since 2000 and are predicted to continue to do so. Figure 4: Projection Race/Ethnicity Distribution for Kendleton Race/ethnicity White Black 2000 2000 percentage 2010 estimate 2010 percentage 2015 2015 projection percentage 60
11.6%
171
13.7%
197
13.5%
367
71.3%
900
71.8%
1,050
72.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Asian or Pacific Islander 1
0.1%
19
1.5%
28
1.9%
Some Other Race 73
14.2%
Two or More Races 14
2.8%
136
26
10.9%
2.1%
151
29
10.4%
2.0%
Hispanic Ethnicity 118
22.9%
324
25.9%
390
26.8%
Not Hispanic or Latino 397
77.1%
397
77.1%
1,065
73.2%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s http:www.sitesontexas.com Appendix A, Page 9
PopulationbyAge
The age distribution of an area’s citizens can provide valuable insight into the region’s economic composition and income potential. Texas has a relatively young population by national standards (33.7 years). Kendleton’s median age is older than that of Texas or the county with a median age of 42.7 years. Figure 5: City, County and State Population by Age: 2010 and 2015 Estimate Age Age 0-4
Age 5-14
Age 15-19
Kendleton % 2010 Fort Bend County Texas % Kendleton % 2010
2010
% 2015
Fort Bend County % 2015 Texas % 2015
5.7%
7.2%
8.1%
5.2%
6.9%
7.7%
12.3%
14.9%
15.1%
10.5%
13.9%
15.2%
6.4%
7.5%
7.1%
6.0%
7.2%
6.9%
Age 20-24
8.5%
7.3%
7.1%
8.3%
7.1%
6.8%
Age 25-34
10.4%
15.2%
14.5%
8.8%
14.4%
13.8%
Age 35-44
8.6%
14.0%
13.9%
7.6%
13.5%
13.5%
Age 45-54
10.7%
15.0%
13.4%
9.1%
13.7%
13.0%
Age 55-64
20.6%
11.3%
10.2%
22.6%
13.0%
11.3%
Age 65-74
9.8%
4.9%
5.9%
13.6%
7.0%
7.1%
Age 75-84
4.3%
2.0%
3.3%
5.4%
2.5%
3.5%
Age 85+
2.8%
0.7%
1.5%
2.8%
0.7%
1.3%
42.7
33.5
33.7
50.5
35.3
34.8
Median Age
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s http:www.sitesontexas.com Kendleton’s largest population group is comprised of persons aged 45 and older. Individuals in this age group are typically either working or retired and contributing to the city’s well‐being. The second largest age group in Kendleton is comprised of persons aged 20‐44. This age group encompasses the greatest share of the labor force. An important group for benchmarking community health, decreases in the size of this group can indicate negative perceptions of the community’s economy as citizens may be moving away from an area they consider a poor labor market. The third largest group is comprised of those individuals aged 0‐19. Individuals aged 0‐19 are the up‐and‐coming workforce and taxpayers of a community, which means they are of great importance to Kendleton’s future. The need to retain and attract businesses that cater to youth and young adults will be paramount as Kendleton grows in coming years. 10
Figure 6: Age Distrib
bution of Ken
ndleton, 201
10 Kendle
eton Age
e Distribu
ution
Age 0‐19
Age 20‐‐44
Age 45
5‐older
24%
48%
28%
Source: Texas
Te
Workforc
ce Commission’s http:www
w.sitesontexas..com Appendix A, Paage 11
12
INCOME
PerCapitaIncome
Per capita personal income is defined as “the income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance. This measure of income is calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area. In computing per capita personal income, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the Census Bureau’s annual midyear population estimates”. Per capita personal income (PCPI) is summarized below for the United States, Texas, and the Houston‐
Galveston Area Council region (H‐GAC), which includes Fort Bend County. Fort Bend County’s per capita personal income is currently higher than both the state and national average, and it is also the second highest in the H‐GAC region. The average growth rate for the H‐GAC region was 4.65 percent for years 1999‐2009, with Fort Bend County experiencing a 4.2 percent growth rate, the seventh highest growth rate for a county in the region. Neighboring counties are Austin, Brazoria, Harris, Waller, and Wharton. Figure 7: Per Capita Personal Income Area 2009 PCPI
PCPI % Increase 2008‐09
1999 PCPI 1999‐2009 Avg. Annual Growth rate of PCPI
United States Texas Austin Brazoria Chambers $39,635
-2.6
$28,333
3.4
$38,609
-3.1
$26,399
3.9
$38,954
-0.7
$25,059
4.5
$37,523
-1.3
$25,204
4.1
$45,257
-1.5
$25,937
5.7
Colorado Fort Bend Galveston Harris Liberty Matagorda $36,525
-0.3
$22,525
5.0
$45,798
-2.0
$30,328
4.2
$41,621
-0.5
$27,363
4.3
$48,337
-6.1
$32,701
4.0
$33,729
-0.6
$20,078
5.3
$30,409
1.7
$20,671
3.9
$45,490
-1.8
$29,938
4.3
$25,072
3.0
$15,861
4.7
$33,798
-1.5
$19,114
5.9
$33,400
-0.8
$21,577
4.5
Montgomery Walker Waller Wharton Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Appendix A, Page 13
Fort Bend County had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $45,798 in 2010. This led to a ranking of 10th among the 254 Texas counties that year. This number represents 119 percent of the state average of $38,609, and 116 percent of the national average, $39,635. This 2010 PCPI for Fort Bend County represents a decrease of 2.0 perfect from 2008, a smaller decrease than experienced by the state where the growth rate was ‐3.1 percent or the national change of ‐2.6 percent. In 1999 the Fort Bend PCPI was $30,328, which ranked 11th in the state. The 1999‐2010 average annual growth rate of PCPI for Fort Bend County was 4.2 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 3.9 percent and 3.4 percent for the nation. Total person income (TPI) is “a widely used measure of regional economic health while per capita income is generally used to compare the relative well‐being of residents across areas. The personal income of an area is the income that is received by, or on behalf of, all the individuals who live in the area; therefore, the estimates of personal income are presented by the place of residence of the income recipients”.4 Total personal income for Texas and counties in the Houston‐Galveston Area Council of Governments region are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Total Personal Income Area United States Texas Austin Brazoria Chambers Colorado Fort Bend Galveston Harris Liberty Matagorda Montgomery Walker Waller Wharton 2009 TPI (thousands) TPI % Increase 2008‐2009
1999 TPI 1999‐2009 Average annual (thousands)
growth rate of TPI
$12,168,161,000
-1.7
$7,906,131,000
4.4
$956,807,519
-1.2
$542,719,630
5.8
$1,061,431
0.1
$579,583
6.2
$11,602,475
1.3
$5,988,589
6.8
$1,422,461
5.4
$661,772
8.0
$754,236
-0.4
$458,492
5.1
$25,503,482
2.4
$10,413,675
9.4
$11,937,436
-1.1
$6,810,547
5.8
$196,779,227
-4.0
$109,864,459
6.0
$2,555,939
unchanged
$1,378,555
6.4
$1,124,476
1.5
$783,322
3.7
$20,366,481
2.0
$8,510,524
9.1
$1,607,591
3.9
$975,098
5.1
$1,234,627
unchanged
$606,750
7.4
$1,369,401
-0.5
$886,172
4.4
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
In 2010 Fort Bend county had a total personal income (TPI) of $25,503,482*. This TPI ranked 8th in the state and accounted for 2.7 percent of the state total. In 1999 the TPI of Fort Bend county was 4
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2008. *Total Personal Income estimates are in thousands of dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 14
$10,413,675* and ranked 9th in the state. The 2010 TPI reflected an increase of 2.4 percent over 2009‐
2010. The 2009‐2010 state change was a 1.2 percent decrease, while the nation decreased 1.7 percent. The 1999‐2010 average annual growth rate for the state was 5.8 percent, and the nation’s was 4.4 percent while Fort Bend County’s average annual TPI growth rate was 9.4 percent, indicating a more healthy economic growth rate. A person’s total income includes net earnings, dividends, interest, and rent, as well as total personal current transfer receipts. A definition of each of these items has been placed below the table. The table below summarizes the components of total personal income as percentages of TPI in 1999 and 2010. Figure 9: Components of Total Personal Income (%) Area
Net Earnings
Dividends, Interest,
Rent
Total Personal Current Transfer
Receipts
2010
69
17
15
1999
74
15
11
2010
79
14
7
1999
81
14
5
Texas
Fort Bend
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Net earnings by place of residence is earnings by place of work less contributions for government social insurance, plus an adjustment to convert earnings by place of work to a place of residence basis. Earnings by place of work are the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income. Dividends: This component of personal income consists of the payments in cash or other assets, excluding the corporation’s own stock, made by corporations located in the United States or abroad to persons who are U.S. residents. It excludes that portion of dividends paid by regulated investment companies (mutual funds) related to capital gains distributions. Interest: This component of personal income is the interest income (monetary and imputed) of persons from all sources. Rent: Rental income is the net income of persons from the rental of real property except for the income of persons primarily engaged in the real estate business; the imputed net rental income of the owner‐
occupants of nonfarm dwellings; and the royalties received from patents, copyrights, and the right to natural resources. Personal current transfer receipts refer to payments to persons for which no current services are performed. It consists of payments to individuals and to nonprofit institutions by Federal, state, and local governments and by businesses. Appendix A, Page 15
16
INFRASTRUCTURE
In community development terms, infrastructure generally refers to the elements providing a supportive framework to the community, particularly roads, railroads and airports. Figure 10: Map of Kendleton and Surrounding Area Source: Fort Bend County, GIS Department
Appendix A, Page 17
Figure 11: Map of Kendleton
Source: Fort Bend County, GIS Department Highways/Roads
Fort Bend County is part of the Houston District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) with a district area office located in Rosenberg, approximately 14 miles from Kendleton. There are six other maintenance offices located in the Houston district as well. The City of Kendleton is served by one major highway, US Hwy 59. US 59 traverses the center of the County from northeast to southwest, and spans the entire eastern area of the state, running north‐south between the cities of Texarkana and Laredo. As a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), US 59 forms a portion of the trade corridor ranging from the U.S./Mexico border to the industrial northeastern portion of the United States and Canada. US 59, according to the Texas Department of Transportation, experiences the highest traffic utilization in the Houston metropolitan area. There are numerous currently funded TXDOT projects that will affect Fort Bend County, and several others are proposed for the future. The table below summarizes the TXDOT funded projects in the Fort Bend County area and their estimated costs. 18
Figure 12: Current and Planned Highway Projects, Fort Bend County Area Highway Type US 90A
Traditional
US 90A
Funding Bid Date Description Unfunded
Estimate $22,735,931.14
2014-03
Stimulus
Funded
$1,740,866.10
2009-04
US 90A
Traditional
Funded
$427,444.27
2009-01
US 90A
Traditional
Funded
$776,453.66
2009-05
US 90A
Traditional
Funded
$414,816.95
2010-08
US 59
Traditional
Unfunded
$270,511,426.98
2030-08
US 59
Traditional
Funded
$2,709,624.32
2012-10
US 59
Traditional
Unfunded
$1,761,255.81
2013-12
US 59
Traditional
Funded
$1,010,623.91
2011-01
US 59
Traditional
Funded
$7,501,370.33
2010-09
FM 521
Stimulus
Funded
$1,178,514.42
2009-04
SP 10
Traditional
Unfunded
$25,271,015.37
2014-09
SH 36
Stimulus
Funded
$1,901,212.63
2009-04
SH 36
Traditional
Funded
$94,911,164.47
2014-09
SH 36
Traditional
Funded
$117,117,220.72
2014-09
SH 36
Traditional
Funded
$7,943,517.80
2012-05
SH 6
Traditional
Funded
$126,935.89
2010-05
SH 6
Traditional
Funded
$266,663.86
2011-07
IH 10
Traditional
Funded
$2,100,850.43
2011-12
FM 360
Traditional
Funded
$415,062.56
2010-12
FM 1952
Traditional
Funded
$505,344.94
2012-10
FM 359
Stimulus
Funded
$16,217,082.14
2010-02
FM 359
Traditional
Funded
$945,076.97
2011-04
FM 359
Traditional
Funded
$49,190,259.45
2012-10
FM 359
Traditional
Unfunded
$58,809,478.05
2016-01
FM 359
Traditional
Funded
$13,223,641.60
2013-01
FM 762
Traditional
Funded
$678,135.79
2011-06
FM 442
Traditional
Funded
$423,731.68
2010-12
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
CENTER TURN
LANES
INSTALL/UPGR
ADE DRAINAGE
STRUCTURES
INSTALL/UPGR
ADE ROADWAY
LIGHTING
WIDEN
ROADWAY
REPAIR
ROADWAY
INSTALL
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
REBUILD
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
NEW ROAD
REPAIR
ROADWAY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
INSTALL/UPGR
ADE ROADWAY
LIGHTING
CONSTRUCT
RAISED MEDIAN
CONSTRUCT
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
REPAIR
ROADWAY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
FRONTAGE
ROADS
WIDEN
ROADWAY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
REBUILD
ROADWAY
REPAIR
ROADWAY
Appendix A, Page 19
CS
Traditional
Funded
$159,068.97
2010-08
CS
Stimulus
Funded
$16,352,376.09
2010-03
CS
Traditional
Funded
$501,780.29
2014-09
CR
Traditional
Funded
$1,973,045.77
2009-04
CR
Traditional
Funded
$217,279.14
2011-07
CS
Traditional
Funded
$640,174.39
2009-12
CS
Traditional
Funded
$2,545,400.47
2009-11
CS
Traditional
Unfunded
$26,280,043.70
2014-02
CS
Traditional
Funded
$5,549,922.97
2011-12
VA
Traditional
Funded
$3,827,005.20
2013-08
VA
Stimulus
Funded
$300,147.96
2009-09
VA
Stimulus
Funded
$3,616,426.89
2010-03
CR
Traditional
Funded
$438,959.14
2013-08
CR
Traditional
Funded
$485,022.75
2013-05
CR
Traditional
Funded
$377,992.59
2013-05
CS
Stimulus
Funded
$1,043,179.62
2010-05
CS
Traditional
Funded
$988,959.61
2010-08
CR
Traditional
Unfunded
$349,433.14
2013-10
CR
Traditional
Unfunded
$1,118,749.67
2013-10
VA
Traditional
Funded
$1,016,109.12
2012-10
VA
Traditional
Funded
$705,228.83
2011-06
FM 1092
Stimulus
Funded
$3,382,580.15
2009-10
FM 1092
Traditional
Funded
$1,287,192.24
2011-04
FM 1093
Traditional
Funded
$1,954,056.00
2012-06
FM 1093
Stimulus
Funded
$1,453,262.34
2009-04
FM 1093
Traditional
Funded
$1,073,011.22
2013-03
FM 1462
Traditional
Funded
$2,641,883.71
2012-09
FM 1464
Stimulus
Funded
$19,558,906.85
2010-02
FM 1489
Traditional
Funded
$536,428.91
2010-12
20
INSTALL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WIDEN
ROADWAY
REBUILD
ROADWAY
REPLACE
BRIDGE
REPLACE
BRIDGE
CONSTRUCT
CENTER TURN
LANES
INSTALL
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY
WIDEN
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
NEW ROAD
ENHANCEMEN
T PROJECT
LANDSCAPE
INSTALL
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY
REPLACE
BRIDGE
REPLACE
BRIDGE
REPLACE
BRIDGE
WIDEN AND
REHABILITATE
ROADWAY
REBUILD
ROADWAY
REPLACE
BRIDGE
REPLACE
BRIDGE
INSTALL/UPGR
ADE DRAINAGE
STRUCTURES
LANDSCAPE
INSTALL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
REPAIR
ROADWAY
INSTALL/UPGR
ADE DRAINAGE
STRUCTURES
WIDEN
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
FM 2218
Traditional
Funded
$18,802,694.95
2010-05
FM 2218
Prop 14
Funded
$217,823.88
2009-11
FM 2234
Traditional
Unfunded
$73,870,629.28
2025-08
FM 2234
Traditional
Funded
$1,695,247.80
2012-06
FM 2759
Traditional
Unfunded
$1,455,399.28
2015-09
FM 2919
Traditional
Funded
$264,288.15
2009-01
FM 3155
Stimulus
Funded
$294,856.70
2009-04
SH 99
Traditional
Funded
$826,667.54
2008-11
SH 99
Traditional
Funded
$3,155,276.46
2008-12
WIDEN
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
WIDEN
ROADWAY
ENHANCEMEN
T PROJECT
REPAIR
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
RESURFACE
ROADWAY
CONSTRUCT
CENTER TURN
LANES
CONSTRUCT
NEW ROAD
Source: Texas Department of Transportation
Traditional: Projects funded by legislative appropriations and bond issuances. Most TxDOT projects are funded through theses sources. Stimulus: Projects funded by the federal government under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The projects include funding for roads and bridges. Prop 14: Select projects built using funds from bonds backed by the state highway fund. These projects have been identified for accelerated development. Appendix A, Page 21
Rail
The Kansas City Southern Railway Company runs through Kendleton as part of its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) highway. Kansas City Southern Is an international transportation holding company comprised of three primary railroads: the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR), Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM) and Panama Canal Railway Company (PCRC). Figure 13 – Kansas City Southern Rail Company, Source: Kansas City Southern Railroad online
22
Figure: 14 Texas Freight Density Image courtesy of Texas Department of Transportation5
5
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/plan/ch3.pdf
Appendix A, Page 23
Figure 10 – Annual Rail Tons, East Texas
Source6
6
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/plan/ch3.pdf
24
Air
Nearby airports include Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and William P. Hobby Airport (HOU) in Houston. Located miles from 53 miles from Kendleton, Hobby offers five scheduled passenger airlines and one charter service. Hobby’s largest air carrier is Southwest Airlines, though several other carriers also offer domestic flights at Hobby. Hobby offers only domestic air service—all international flights in Houston are flown from George Bush Intercontinental Airport. IAH is located approximately 65 miles from Kendleton and is currently served by 17 scheduled passenger airlines as well as passenger charter airlines also operating in the airport. More than 40 million passengers flew by Houston’s largest airport, IAH, in 2010.7 Continental Airlines offers the largest number of flights from IAH. They, with other carriers, offer more than 176 domestic and international nonstop flights from IAH.8 Sugar Land Regional Airport is the fourth largest airport in the greater Houston area and the general reliever airport in the city’s southwest sector. There is currently a capital improvements program underway there, and the facility is focused on corporate aviation as well as general community aviation needs. Amenities include: a new 20,000‐square‐foot corporate aviation terminal, a state‐of‐the‐art air traffic control tower and radar system; a reinforced, concrete runway measuring 100 feet wide by 8,000 feet in length, accommodating the largest of the corporate‐type business jets; and an instrument landing system and high‐intensity lighting. A 60‐acre General Aviation Center was completed in 2009 and more than 100 Fortune 500 companies use the airport annually. Westheimer Air Park is located near the city of Fulshear. It is a privately‐owned, public use airport, as are Happy Landings Airport near Beasley and Houston Southwest Airport near Beasley. The area is also home to private heliports and one airport privately owned for private use, the Cardiff Brothers Airport. NaturalResources
Fort Bend County has approximately 11 square miles of surface water in rivers, creeks and small lakes. The County is drained by the Brazos and San Bernard Rivers as well as Oyster Creek. The Brazos River formed a broad alluvial valley, up to ten miles wide in places. The resulting fertile soils have been a major contributing factor to the agricultural industry in the County. The three permanently floatable waterways in Fort Bend County are the Brazos River, the San Bernard River south of Farm to Market Road 442, and Oyster Creek south of State Highway 6. The San Bernard River south of Interstate Highway 10 is a seasonally floatable waterway, shared on the west with adjacent counties. Soils vary from the rich alluvial soils in the Brazos River Valley to sandy loam and clay on the prairies. Native trees include pecan, oak, ash and cottonwood, with some old bottomland forests remaining along waterways. Mineral resources include oil, gas, and sulfur. Sand, clay, and gravel are commercially produced. 7
8
Houston Airport System. 2010. “Airline Information.” <http://www.fly2houston.com/iahAirlines> Houston Airport System. 2010. “Airline Information.” <http://www.fly2houston.com/iahAirlines> Appendix A, Page 25
26
EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
Education
PrimaryEducation
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced on March 25, 2010, that as of July 1, 2010, Kendleton School District would be annexed to neighboring Lamar Consolidated Independent School District (ISD), where Kendleton students already attended middle and high schools. Lamar Consolidated ISD is officially located in Rosenberg, a city approximately 15 miles from Kendleton. LCISD is an accredited school district with art, music, and band facilities, which previously were not maintained in Kendleton ISD due to funding issues. Ninety‐nine percent of students in Kendleton, according to the Statesman and based on TEA data, are considered economically disadvantaged. According to the Texas Education Agency, the drop‐out rate of students in the Lamar Consolidation ISD is 6.5 percent while the state averages 9.4 percent and region averages 9.1 percent. Figure 15: Lamar Consolidated ISD Drop‐out Rate Class Lamar Consolidated ISD Drop‐out Rate State Average Region Class of 2009 Class of 2008 District 9.4%
9.1%
6.5%
10.5%
9.2%
10.7%
Source: Texas Education Agency, Lamar Consolidated District Report Card
Lamar Consolidated ISD encompasses 385 square miles in the western portion of Fort Bend County. Lamar Consolidated ISD serves 23,272 students at four high schools, four junior high schools, three middle schools, and twenty‐one elementary schools as well as four special sites. It is a TEA Recognized school district with 28 of 30 LCISD campuses (94 percent) ranked in the upper tiers of academic performance. LCISD has 18 schools (60 percent of campuses) ranked Exemplary and 10 more earning Recognized. The district is divided into four high school “tracks”, creating 4 systems within the larger district. One of these systems is based in Rosenberg and receives Kendleton students. Appendix A, Page 27
The Lamar Consolidated ISD campuses and their locations are: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
John and Randolph Foster High School Richmond George Ranch High School Richmond Lamar Consolidated High School Rosenberg BF Terry High School Richmond Andrew Briscoe Jr. High School Richmond George Junior High School Rosenberg Lamar Junior High Rosenberg Rosenberg Navarro Middle School Henry Wertheimer Middle School Rosenberg Wessendorff Middle School Rosenberg Stephen F. Austin Elementary Richmond Beasley Elementary Beasley Bowie Elementary Rosenberg Bess Campbell Elementary Sugar Land Susanna Dickinson Elementary Sugar Land Samuel Miles Frost Elementary Richmond Richmond Joe Hubenak Elementary Huggins Elementary Fulshear Irma Dr Hutchinson Elementary Richmond Andrew Webster Jackson Elementary Rosenberg H.F. McNeill Elementary Richmond John Christain Meyer Elementary Richmond Thomas Lane Pink Elementary Richmond Taylor Ray Elementary Rosenberg Juan Seguin Elementary Richmond Richmond Dear Smith Elementary Cora Thomas Elementary Richmond William B. Travis Elementary Rosenberg William C. Velasquez Elementary Richmond Manford Williams Elementary Richmond Alternative Learning Center Rosenberg Community Center Richmond Fort Bend County Alternative Rosenberg Fort Bend County Juvenile Detention Center Richmond Kendleton students are on the Lamar High School Track, which includes 9 schools. Kendleton students attend the following schools and included are their academic ratings. • Lamar Consolidated High School (Grades 9‐12) Academically Acceptable • Lamar Junior High(Grades 7‐8) Recognized • Wessendorff Middle School (Grade 6) Exemplary Recognized (2009), Academically • Beasley Elementary (K‐5) Acceptable (2010) 28
Recent district achievements include: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Texas Education Agency rated 94 percent of Lamar CISD campuses – 28 out of 30 campuses – in the upper tiers of academic performance Eighteen campuses – 60 percent – are rated Exemplary, with another 10 campuses earning Recognized 2008 and 2006 National Blue Ribbon School 2009 recipient of HEB Award for Excellence in Education, Large District Bowie, Long, Pink, Ray and Velasquez elementary schools received Distinguished Performance Awards from the Texas Education Agency’s Division of “No Child Left Behind” coordination. The LCISD Board of Trustees was named the Region IV Honor Board for 2009 and one of five finalists for the state honor.9 Wessendorff Middle School o a 2011 National Title I Distinguished Performance School, 2011 NCEA Higher Performing Schools in Texas o 2011 National Red Ribbon Contest 3rd place winner o 2010, 2011 Katy Choir Festival 1st Place Superior Trophy o 2008, 2009 TBEC Honor Roll School recognizing the top 4% performing school in the State of Texas o 4 TEA Gold Performance Awards 2009 o 2008, 2010 TEA Exemplary Campus o 2006,2007, 2009 TEA Recognized Campus10 9
Lamar Consolidated Independent School District. <http://lcisd.org>
<http://legacy.lcisd.org/schools/middleschools/wessendorffmiddleschool/>
10
Appendix A, Page 29
Figure 16: Map Showing Select Area Universities and the Previous Location of Kendleton ISD Figure 17: Lamar Consolidated Independent School District Source: Google Maps 30
CollegeEducation
The University of Houston System at Sugar Land campus is located 22.9 miles from Kendleton at the intersection of U.S. 59 South and University Boulevard. It is a part of the University of Houston system and offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in more than 20 areas of study from partnering University of Houston Universities that offer degree programs at Sugar Land. The University of Houston, University of Houston‐Clear Lake, and University of Houston‐ Victoria partner to offer degree programs while also working with Wharton County Junior College, Houston Community College, and other local community colleges to facilitate smooth student transitions. University of Houston System—Cinco Ranch is located in Katy, Texas, approximately 30 miles from Kendleton. The University of Houston System at Cinco Ranch is a “teaching center” located in the Cinco Ranch neighborhood of Katy. Three University of Houston System universities: University of Houston, University of Houston– Clear Lake, and University of Houston– Victoria, collaborate to provide junior, senior, and graduate courses leading to more than thirty bachelor's and master ’s degrees. Students enroll for an upper division or graduate class at the Cinco Ranch facility but are, in fact, enrolled at one of the 4 UH system universities. To further ease the transition process, the UH System at Cinco Ranch partners with Houston Community College – Northwest and the other local community colleges to assist in the transfer of freshman and sophomore credits. The facility is a 36,000‐square‐foot building with twenty classrooms, computer labs, a virtual library, a student lounge, and videoconferencing rooms. The building recently underwent enhancements for electronic delivery of courses, a mobile computer lab, library access, and a wireless network. More than thirty degree and certificate programs are offered at the UH System at Cinco Ranch, with more programs to be added in the near future. The teaching center provides significant access to higher education for the entire west Houston/Katy area. The UH System at Cinco Ranch partners with the Houston Community College‐Northwest to provide community college graduates the opportunity to complete bachelor's degrees. The Houston Community College System’s Southwest district features eight campuses located in southwest Houston and within driving distance of Kendleton. These facilities include: Alief Campus, Applied Tech Center, Greenbriar Annex, Gulfton Center, Missouri City Center, Scarcella Center, Stafford Campus, and West Loop Center. These eight locations represent at least twice as many district facilities as located in each of the other five Houston Community College districts. Houston Community College is one of the largest institutions of higher education in the country, enrolling more than 70,000 students each semester. The Houston Community College System is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associate degrees in Arts, Arts in Teaching, Science, Applied Science, and various certificates. The system graduated 4,946 students with degrees or certification in 2010, and 2,204 students graduated with a completion of core curriculum as well as 1,045 with a Marketable Skills Achiever program award. Enrollment at the end of 2010 was 73,606, with 39,880 full‐time equivalent and 5,008 international students. The average class size in 2009 was 23.1 students. Appendix A, Page 31
Wharton County Junior College’s districts spans Wharton County and also serves the counties of Fort Bend, Matagorda, Colorado, and portions of Jackson and Austin Counties. WCJC has a central campus in Wharton and extension campuses are located in Sugar Land, Richmond, and Bay City. WCJC partners with the University of Houston System facilities at Sugar Land to facilitate the entrance of WCJC students to the University of Houston System, including at the Sugar Land campus. The Richmond campus, commonly known as the Fort Bend Technical Center, partners with Texas State Technical College to offer a full range of technical, vocational, and academic programs. The college served 10,118 students in the 2008‐09 school year. It is located approximately 12 miles from Kendleton. The city of Houston also offers universities close to Kendleton, including prestigious Rice University, located 40 miles from Kendleton; the University of St. Thomas, 42 miles; Houston Baptist University, 34 miles; University of Houston‐University Park, approximately 50 miles; and Texas Southern University, 43 miles. 32
Workforce
Trends in employment are used by planners for local workforce planning, research, and businesses looking to relocate. The table and figure following depict the concentration of residents living in Kendleton and their demographic characteristics (age, earnings and industry) regarding employment. According to the Census Bureau’s Work Area profile analysis, there were no workers employed in the Kendleton census tract as of 2009. Figure 18: Jobs by Industry Type for Residents of Kendleton, Texas Total All Jobs 2009 Total All Jobs Jobs by Worker Age Age 29 or younger Age 30‐54 Age 55 or older Jobs by Earnings Paid $1,250 per month or less $1,251 to $3,333 per month More than $3,333 per month Jobs by Industry Type Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Count 206
Count Share 100%
Share 50
24.3%
128
62.1%
28
13.6%
Count Share 46
22.3%
89
43.2%
71
34.5%
Count Share 2
1.0%
5
2.4%
3
1.5%
13
6.3%
21
10.2%
4
1.9%
25
12.1%
6
2.9%
4
1.9%
7
3.4%
6
2.9%
7
3.4%
0
0.0%
11
5.3%
34
16.5%
28
13.6%
Appendix A, Page 33
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Public Administration 3
1.5%
10
4.9%
9
4.4%
8
3.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau LED on the Map
Figure 19: Employers in Kendleton Employers in Kendleton, TX # of Employees Organization City of Kendleton 3 FT & 2 PT
Kendleton Lumberyard 2 FT & 3 PT
3 PT
Belle’s Country Store Figure 20: Largest Employers in Fort Bend County as of April 2011 Organization # of Employees Organization # of Employees Fort Bend ISD 9,492 Noble Drilling Services 274 Lamar CISD 2,884 Wharton County Junior College 273 Fluor Corporation 2,500 Champion Technologies, Inc. 264 Fort Bend County 2,225 Yokogawa Corp. of America 260 Schlumberger Technology Corp. 2,150 CSM Bakery Products, NA 248 Richmond State School 1,448 Hudson Products 248 Methodist Sugar Land Hospital 1,400 City of Rosenberg 229 Texas Instruments 1,150 Sunoco Logistics Partners 223 Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice 1,109 Allied Concrete 210 34
United Parcel Service 924 Thermo Process Instruments 185 Oak Bend Medical Center 678 Houston Community College 178 City of Sugar Land 649 City of Katy 174 St. Luke’s Sugar Land Hospital 600 Suntron Corporation 173 Nalco Company 496 Benedittini Cabinetry 160 Frito‐Lay, Inc. 463 Kelsey‐Seybold Clinic 143 Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital 454 AT&T 142 Texana Center 463 City of Richmond 142 Baker Petrolite, Inc. 437 Global Flow Technologies 140 Tramontina 433 Biotics Research Corporation 139 Fiserv Output Solutions 427 Classic Chevrolet 139 Puffer‐Sweiven 420 Crown Cork and Seal 137 Tyco Valves and Controls 311 Accredo Packaging, Inc. 129 National Oilwell Varco, Inc. 300 City of Stafford 123 City of Missouri City 293 CenterPoint Energy 119 Fairfield Nodal 282 Silver Eagle, Inc. 111 SouthWest Water 277 General Technologies, Inc. 110 Flextronics 274 Appendix A, Page 35
Wages
The total of all occupations working in the Gulf Coast Workforce Development area can expect to earn a median cash salary of $33,449 or $16.08 per hour. The median wage is the 50th percentile wage estimate‐‐50 percent of workers earn less than the median and 50 percent of workers earn more. The median salary for people working in this occupation and industry is $2,595 more than the statewide average of $30,854 ($14.83 per hour). Half of the people in this job earn between $21,130 ($10.16 per hour) and $54,223 ($26.07 per hour)(i.e., between the 25th and 75th percentiles). An entry level worker can expect to earn $18,411 ($8.85 per hour) while an experienced worker can expect to earn $57,792 ($27.78 per hour). Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly wage by a "year‐round, full‐time" hour’s figure of 2080 hours. For those occupations where there is not an hourly wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data. These estimates are based on 10,387 mail surveys of establishments in the area taken through November 2010 and have a relative standard error of 0.72%. The relative standard error (RSE) is a measure of the reliability of a survey statistic. The smaller the relative standard error, the more precise the estimate can be considered. According to Zoom Prospector.com, the median household income in Kendleton was $26,666 as of 2010 and, in 2004, city‐data.com cites the average salary as $20,768 based on income tax returns. The Texas average salary for this time period was $41,947. However, City‐data.com also describes the cost of living in Kendleton as significantly lower than the national average; it scored an 85.6 relative to a U.S. average of 100, leading to a rough approximation of living in Kendleton as costing 15% less than the national average. WagesbyOccupation
The following table summarizes wages by major occupational title for jobs in the Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board Area. This data is not available at the county level. Occupations with the highest entry level wage are listed first. Figure 21: Gulf Coast WDA Wages by Occupation 2008 Occupation Number Employed
Total all occupations 2,613,580
Management Occupations Architecture and Engineering Occupations Computer and Mathematical Occupations 36
125,390
87,030
62,590
Mean Wages
Entry Experienced Wages
wage Median Wages
$44,665
$21.47
$108,249
$52.04
$87,697
$42.16
$18,411
$8.85
$52,498
$25.24
$45,535
$21.89
$57,792
$27.78
$136,125
$65.44
$108,778
$52.30
$33,449
$16.08
$92,466
$44.45
$78,783
$37.88
$74,923
$36.02
$43,471
$20.90
$90,650
$43.58
$71,498
$34.37
Business and Financial Operations Occupations Legal Occupations Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Community and Social Services Occupations Education, Training, and Library Occupations Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations Construction and Extraction Occupations Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations Office and Administrative Support Occupations Production Occupations Protective Service Occupations 111,310
$69,251
$33.29
$38,398
$18.46
$84,677
$40.71
$60,525
$29.10
19,060
$98,511
$47.36
$38,301
$18.41
$128,616
$61.83
$73,583
$35.38
31,310
$76,966
$37.00
$35,356
$17.00
$97,771
$47.01
$62,254
$29.93
125,350
$68,920
$33.13
$34,146
$16.42
$86,308
$41.49
$58,968
$28.35
21,200
$44,295
$21.30
$28,079
$13.50
$52,402
$25.19
$40,072
$19.27
164,470
$50,140
$24.11
$25,184
$12.11
$62,618
$30.11
$48,541
$23.34
113,040
$41,362
$19.89
$24,135
$11.60
$49,976
$24.03
$38,599
$18.56
177,150
$38,242
$18.39
$23,072
$11.09
$45,827
$22.03
$33,172
$15.95
24,600
$45,666
$21.95
$21,556
$10.36
$57,722
$27.75
$39,923
$19.19
436,470
$33,250
$15.99
$20,045
$9.64
$39,853
$19.16
$30,359
$14.60
195,720
$34,977
$16.82
$36,936
$17.76
$33,226
$15.97
$19,329
$9.29
$18,822
$9.05
$17,615
$8.47
$42,801
$20.58
$45,994
$22.11
$41,032
$19.73
$30,574
$14.70
$33,494
$16.10
$27,121
$13.04
1,070
$26,834
$12.90
$16,283
$7.83
$32,109
$15.44
$22,697
$10.91
63,250
$25,210
$12.12
$37,826
$18.19
$16,231
$7.80
$15,997
$7.69
$29,700
$14.28
$48,741
$23.43
$22,845
$10.98
$23,352
$11.23
59,840
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations Healthcare Support Occupations 181,820
Sales and Related Occupations 270,430
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations Personal Care and Service Occupations Food Preparation and Serving‐
Related Occupations 76,830
$21,252
$10.22
$15,496
$7.45
$24,130
$11.60
$18,989
$9.13
60,480
$24,527
$11.79
$15,353
$7.38
$29,113
$14.00
$18,283
$8.79
205,160
$19,314
$9.29
$15,237
$7.33
$21,352
$10.27
$16,821
$8.09
Source: Texas Workforce Commission www.tracer2.com *The median is a more useful measure when the data is not evenly distributed – as with salaries in organizations where most people will be in the lower to middle pay groups and fewer will be at the top. When average is used the number is skewed due to outliers. WagesbyIndustry
The following table summarizes wages by industry (highest entry wage listed first) for jobs in the Gulf Coast Texas Workforce Development Board area. Industries employing the most number of employees are Health Care and Social Assistance, Manufacturing and Retail Trade. Appendix A, Page 37
Figure 22: Wages by Industry Gulf Coast Texas Workforce Development Board, 2008 All Industries Estimated Employees
Mean Wage ($)
All industries 2,613,580
$44,665
$21.47
$78,122
$37.56
$18,411
$8.85
$31,178
$14.99
$57,792
$27.78
$101,595
$48.84
$33,449
$16.08
$62,381
$29.99
$64,485
$31.00
$70,237
$33.77
$71,674
$34.46
$30,161
$14.50
$29,944
$14.40
$28,311
$13.61
$81,647
$39.25
$90,383
$43.45
$93,355
$44.88
$52,772
$25.37
$52,785
$25.38
$56,531
$27.18
$48,760
$23.44
$55,072
$26.48
$47,963
$23.06
$27,401
$13.17
$25,592
$12.30
$24,599
$11.83
$59,440
$28.58
$69,811
$33.56
$59,645
$28.68
$41,006
$19.71
$47,094
$22.64
$42,166
$20.27
$55,225
$26.55
$44,549
$21.42
$50,671
$24.36
$47,629
$22.90
$47,061
$22.63
$38,353
$18.44
$23,982
$11.53
$23,407
$11.25
$22,271
$10.71
$22,063
$10.61
$21,865
$10.51
$19,098
$9.18
$70,846
$34.06
$55,119
$26.50
$64,870
$31.19
$60,412
$29.04
$59,660
$28.68
$47,980
$23.07
$39,737
$19.10
$35,341
$16.99
$37,511
$18.03
$37,043
$17.81
$44,925
$21.60
$29,226
$14.05
272,440
$46,050
$22.14
$18,542
$8.91
$59,804
$28.75
$34,185
$16.43
178,090
$34,483
$16.58
$16,729
$8.04
$43,360
$20.85
$25,562
$12.29
1,120
$28,085
$13.50
$16,421
$7.89
$33,917
$16.31
$21,467
$10.32
66,960
$32,979
$15.86
$16,156
$7.77
$41,391
$19.90
$25,014
$12.03
274,800
$27,731
$13.33
$27,330
$13.14
$16,135
$7.76
$15,621
$7.51
$33,529
$16.12
$33,184
$15.95
$20,859
$10.03
$19,214
$9.24
$20,094
$9.66
$15,162
$7.29
$22,560
$10.85
$16,588
$7.98
Management of Companies and Enterprises Utilities
22,420
Mining
91,480
18,110
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Public Administration
187,080
Entry Wage Experienced ($)
Wage ($) Median Wage
115,020
Information
38,290
Transportation and Warehousing
Finance and Insurance
119,940
Construction
90,140
201,040
Wholesale Trade
Manufacturing
143,370
241,460
Educational Services
259,550
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Health Care and Social Assistance
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Retail Trade
52,920
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
29,230
210,130
Source: Texas Workforce Commission www.tracer2.com *The median is a more useful measure when the data is not evenly distributed – as with salaries in organizations where most people will be in the lower to middle pay groups and fewer will be at the top. When average is used the number is skewed due to outliers. 38
Employm
mentbyIndu
ustry
ndustry percentages in Figure 23 indicate the top three industries in the Gulf Coast The employment by in
Workforce Developme
ent Board areea are : 30% all other industries (repreesenting a su
um of all indu
ustries not labeleed here), retaail trade at 11
1%, education
nal services aat 10%, and health care aand social serrvices, also 10% of employme
ent. Fort Ben
nd County ran
nks in the top 3% in the n
nation for em
mployment grrowth and its sh
hare of emplo
oyment in the Houston CMSA has incrreased from 3.28% in 198
80 to 14.49% as of 11
2005. Figure 23
3: Employment by Indusstry, Gulf Co
oast WDA Employyment Byy Industry
C
Construction
8%
M
Manufacturing
9%
30%
R
Retail Trade
11%
Professional, Scien
P
ntific, and Technicaal S
Services
Administrative and
A
d Support and Wasste M
Management and Remediation Services
E
Educational Service
es 7%
8%
H
Health Care and So
ocial Assistance
7%
10%
10%
A
Accomodation and
d Food Services
All Other Industries
A
Source: Texas
Te
Workforc
ce Commission www.tracerr2.com
11
Fort Bennd County in Association
A
withh CDS Markett Research, Coppyright 2008 Knudson
K
LP. 20007. “Fort Bennd
County Parrks, Recreation
n, and Open Sppace Master Plaan Update 20007.”
<http://ww
ww.centerforhoustonsfuture.org/cmsFiles/Fiiles/Fort%20Beend%20Co%200Master%20Pllan%2020072012.pdf>
A
Appendix
A, Paage 39
Unemployment
Unemployment for Fort Bend County has started to decrease in 2010. Due to recent widespread economic instability, both Texas and Fort Bend County’s 2010 unemployment increased at a higher rate than previous years, as seen in Figures 24 and 25. Figure 24: Unemployment Rate 2000‐2011 Year Fort Bend
County Texas
2000 3.6
4.4
2001 3.9
5.0
2002 5.2
6.4
2003 6.1
6.7
2004 5.5
6.0
2005 5.2
5.4
2006 4.8
4.9
2007 4.1
4.4
2008 4.5
4.9
2010 7.1
7.6
2010 8.0
8.2
2011 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 8.1
7.8
7.8
7.4
8.5
8.2
8.1
7.7
Source: Texas Workforce Commission www.tracer2.com
40
However, as demonstrated below, Fort Bend County’s unemployment rate is consistently below that of Texas, although it does mirror the movement of the Texas rate. Figure 25: Graph of Unemployment Rate 2000‐2010
Unemployment Rate 2000‐2010
9
Percent Unemployment
8
7
6
5
Fort Bend County
4
Texas
3
2
1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: Texas Workforce Commission www.tracer2.com The Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board area represents a wide range of counties with varied economic interests, such as the highly urbanized Harris County region and rapidly growing Fort Bend County or more agrarian counties such as Waller. In order to offer a more detailed picture of the Fort Bend County economy, Figure 26 describes statistics specifically for Fort Bend County. This data captures the median income and workforce sectors prevalent specifically in this area. There are 254 Texas counties and, as shown below, Fort Bend County has one of the lowest poverty rates in the state. Appendix A, Page 41
Figure 26: Overview of Fort Bend County Overview for Fort Bend County, Texas Value Rank in State People & Income Overview (By Place of Residence) 556,870
10
147.00%
4
Households (2009) 140,542
10
Labor Force (persons) (2009) Unemployment Rate (2009) Per Capita Personal Income (2008) 272,021
10
7.2
122
$44,265
11
Median Household Income (2009) $80,548
1
7.5
250
H.S. Diploma or More ‐ % of Adults 25+ (ACS 2005‐2009) 87.5
16
Bachelor's Deg. or More ‐ % of Adults 25+ (ACS 2005‐2009) 38.9
3
Value
Rank in
State
Covered Employment 129,114
11
Avg wage per job $47,462
12
Manufacturing ‐ % all jobs in County 10.00%
65
15
1.90%
122
55
Health Care, Social Assist. ‐ % all jobs in County 11.50%
60
40
2.90%
88
$71,043
5
Population (2009) Growth (%) since 1990 Poverty Rate (2009) Industry Overview (2009) (By Place of Work) Transportation & Warehousing ‐ % all jobs in County Finance and Insurance ‐ % all jobs in County Avg wage per job Source: Statsamerica.org
According to the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council, Fort Bend has been in the top 20 U.S. counties for economic excellence and population growth for more than 15 years. The county is 39% college educated, 83% comprised of families, and the average household income in $119, 831. Fort Bend
County’s economic growth in recent years, a 44.2% increase in total labor force in the last ten years, has created an area with high median and average wages and well as low poverty rates and graduation rates that are 16th in the state, impressive for a large, highly populated county (2.28% of the state total, in fact). 42
Figure 27: Fort Bend County Labor Force Information Labor for Fort Bend County, TX Labor Force Annual Averages in 2009 Total Labor Force 5‐year % change 10‐year % change Employed 5‐year % change 10‐year % change Unemployed 5‐year % change 10‐year % change Unemployment Rate 5‐year % change 10‐year % change Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Number % of State
State Rank in State
272,021
2.28%
11,930,847
20.5%
-
8.0%
10
44.2%
-
16.4%
10
252,315
2.29%
11,020,226
20
-
6.1%
10
-
12.8%
8
2.16%
910,621
21
-
36.6%
10
-
88.3%
37
94.74%
7.6
24
-
26.7%
122
-
61.7%
99
46
Source: Statsamerica.org
Appendix A, Page 43
44
FAVORABLE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
FinancialVitality
According to the FDIC, there are no banks in Kendleton as of May 2010. There are, however, numerous financial institutions in Fort Bend County. Figure 32: Banks near Kendleton Bank Locations of Offices in Fort Bend County Amegy Bank 6 offices in Fort Bend County located in the cities of Katy, Missouri City, Needville, Rosenberg, and 2 in Sugar Land Offices located in Katy and Missouri City. American First National Bank Bank of America, National Association Bank of Fort Bend 2 offices in Katy, 2 in Richmond, 1 in Rosenberg, and 3 in Sugar Land Sugar Land BOKF, National Association 3 offices in Sugar Land Capital One, National Association Citibank, National Association Katy, Missouri City, Richmond, Rosenberg, 2offices located in Sugar Land Sugar Land Comerica Houston, Katy, 2 in Sugar Land Commercial State Bank of El Campo Fulshear Compass Bank Missouri City, Richmond, 3 in Sugar Land Encore Bank, National Association Sugar Land First Community Bank, National Association First National Bank Texas Katy, Missouri City, Richmond, Rosenberg, 3 in Sugar Land Missouri City, Richmond, Stafford First Victoria National Bank Katy, Richmond, Rosenberg Founders Bank, SSB Sugar Land Golden Bank, National Association Sugar Land Appendix A, Page 45
Houston Community Bank, National Association Huntington State Bank Stafford and Sugar Land Sugar Land Icon Bank of Texas, National Association 2 offices in Katy International Bank of Commerce Missouri City, Richmond, Sugar Land J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National Association Metrobank, National Association 2 in Katy, 3 in Missouri City, Richmond, Rosenberg, 9 in Sugar Land 2 in Sugar Land Newfirst National Bank Needville, Rosenberg, Sugar Land Post Oak Bank, N.A. Sugar Land Prosperity Bank Regions Bank 2 in Katy, as well as an office in Needville and one in Richmond, 2 offices in Sugar Land Katy, Sugar Land Southwestern National Bank Sugar Land Sterling Bank Texas Citizens Bank, National Association Stafford Rosenberg The Frost National Bank Missouri City, Stafford, Sugar Land The Moody National Bank Sugar Land The State Bank of Texas Stafford Source: FDIC www.fdic.gov LocalSalesandUseTax
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts returns (or allocates) money to cities for their local sales tax collection. Allocation amounts generally represent taxes collected on sales made two months or more prior to the allocation payment. 46
Figure 33: City of Kendleton Total Allocations from Texas Comptroller Month 2008 2009
2010 2011
January $1,531.76
$1,069.50
$1,046.20
$1,104.06
February $1,615.56
$1,934.37
$1,723.91
$2,245.50
March $1,201.26
$1,211.52
$1,723.91
$1,522.11
April $1,189.47
$1,168.71
$1,223.35
$1,334.69
May $1,178.48
$1,205.88
$1,448.80
$2,222.27
June $1,250.07
$1,182.08
$1,298.06
$1,144.18
July $1,091.81
$1,158.28
$1,302.93
$1,432.55
August $1,385.51
$1,435.10
$1,493.70
$1,197.73.
September $1,152.93
$1,189.24
$1,147.81
October $4,627.43
$1,188.28
$1,380.10
November $1,555.10
$1,546.51
$1,262.24
December $1,265.85
$1,008.84
$1,135.51
$19,045.23
$15,298.31
$15,768.56
Total for the year Source: Texas Comptroller https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/allocation/AllocHist.jsp
Sales tax amounts have remained low and fairly stable across the last three and a half years, with the 2008 total of $19,045.23 representing a nearly $10,000 increase over 2007, and an impressive increase from 2005, when the year total was $294.87. As demonstrated in the chart below, allocations have been largely within the approximately $9,500 to $16,000 range since 1988. Figure 34: Sales Allocation History over the Years 1988‐2010 Local Sales Tax Allocation History Total Amounts for Each Year
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
$20,000.00
$18,000.00
$16,000.00
$14,000.00
$12,000.00
$10,000.00
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Appendix A, Page 47
SWOTAnalysis
TEEX employees have created a visual demonstrating the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) facing the continued economic development of Kendleton, Texas. This information is based upon this community assessment, employee observations, and a series of interviews and round‐table discussions with Kendleton representatives, citizens, and interested investors/developers in order to create a snapshot of Kendleton today and the desires of its citizens, and well as the challenges that must be addressed as development continues and the city moves forward. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats in Kendleton, TX. Figure 35: SWOT Analysis Strengths •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Weaknesses •
•
•
Location: West Fort Bend County, Highway 59, New Highway 69 and within Houston's MSA Available land for purchase, preservation and development. Strong entrepreneurial spirit based in agriculture industry. Great place to live and raise a family. Lamar ISD ‐ new programs and low dropout rate. Strong sense of history, heritage and pursuit of excellence. Strong church foundation. Leadership of faith‐based organizations in the community. Great people and community spirit rooted in history. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Opportunities •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
48
Preserve Kendleton internally. Allow residents to control their destiny as a community versus outside forces. Develop and assist local businesses. Preserve the uniqueness of Kendleton ‐ heritage and rural roots. Tourism opportunities. Enhance youth attractions and activities Support for new entrepreneurs & businesses Expand tourism opportunities Promotion of multi‐purpose/expanded use of county and city parks. Build upon strong history & agricultural roots. New housing. Improve community appearance. Return to agricultural roots ‐ green businesses and approach to development. Become business‐friendly. Community‐building opportunities through public‐private partnerships. Lack of local businesses. Job training. County mapping ‐ Potential of property disputes with adjacent land owners. Much of the responsibility falls upon a few residents. Limited service businesses such as gas stations, grocery, food service, etc. Community appearance ‐ deteriorating buildings and highly visible properties need maintenance. Loss of local school district and youth programs. City leadership still overcoming past issues. No common vision for the community. Not prepared for growth ‐ new infrastructure. Codes and ordinances for new development. Reputation issues. Threats •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Losing Kendleton's identity, charm and personality. Future growth from the transit center could "overpower" and "take over" Kendleton. Threat of losing Post Office. Lack of activities for youth. Loss of unique opportunities available in Kendleton ‐ not in Houston. Community pride ‐ instilling pride through Kendleton's youth. Losing Kendleton's quality of life with new growth. Loss of natural resources including land. Growth in the county ‐ outside city limits. Personal agendas vs. community vision. Not being prepared for anticipated growth. QUALITY OF PLACE
HealthCare
There are currently no doctors or medical facilities located within Kendleton city limits, but numerous local physicians practice in nearby Richmond and Rosenberg. Rosenberg is also home to a pediatric care center. The following facilities are located within 34 miles of Kendleton: • Gulf Coast Medical Center is located in Wharton, Texas, approximately 12 miles from Kendleton. The facility is a regional health care provider serving Wharton and the surrounding 6 counties through a partnership with more than 50 area physicians, making it the largest comprehensive medical center between Houston and Victoria. Diagnostic, medical, specialty, surgical, and women’s health services are available at the Gulf Coast Medical Center. • Oak Bend Medical Center is located approximately 18 miles from Kendleton in Richmond, Texas. The center provides emergency services and describes cancer, heart, stroke, and women’s care as its “signature services” although the facility also features nursing, clinical, wound care, and senior care, as well as a cath lab and a health and fitness center. • Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital is located in Sugar Land, Texas, approximately 24 miles from Kendleton. The facility offers services in back pain, cancer, children’s care, diabetes education, heart and vascular care, an imaging center, neuroscience, outpatient care, physical and occupation therapy, sports medicine, women’s care, and wound care. • Methodist Sugar Land Hospital, approximately 24.8 miles from Kendleton and located within Houston, is nationally ranked in 13 specialties by U.S. News and World Report as a part of the Methodist Hospital System. The Methodist Sugar Land hospital, specifically, offers a birthing center, a cancer center, cardiovascular services, emergency care, gastroenterology, an ICU, imaging and diagnostic services, laboratory services, nursing, a pharmacy, and physical therapy/ rehabilitation services. • Sugar Land Surgical Hospital, approximately 26 miles, performs over 3,800 surgeries and procedures per year in 4 operating rooms and 2 endoscopy rooms. There are over 50 physicians on staff and surgeons perform procedures in the specialty areas of: ear, nose, and throat; general surgery; gynecology; orthopedics; pain management; pediatric surgery; plastic surgery; and podiatry. • Triumph Hospital Southwest, located approximately 27 miles from Kendleton, is an acute long‐
term care facility with an 18‐bed ICU and 87 medical/surgical beds. Services offered include an Appendix A, Page 49
•
on‐site hemodialysis suite allowing for dual patient dialysis; hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) chamber for complicated wound cases; CT plus radiology/fluoroscopy suite; 24‐hour in house physician coverage and the full complement of clinical ancillary services. Areas of care addressed include: respiratory therapy; physical, occupational, and speech therapy; nutritional services; special procedures; wound care; and case management. Memorial Hermann Katy, approximately 34 miles, offers services in cancer care, children’s care, continence care, diabetes self‐management, digestive health, heart and vascular care (including a Chest Pain center), imaging, laboratory needs, a Memorial Herman Rehabilitation Hospital—
Katy, neuroscience, orthopedics, sports medicine and rehabilitation, weight‐loss surgery (bariatrics), and women’s care. The facility offers emergency care and the only Level IV trauma center in Katy, with the equipment to stabilize patients for transfer to Memorial Hermann‐Texas Medical Center and Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital when a higher level of care is required. Memorial Hermann Life Flight ensures fast transfer to the Texas Medical Center. RecreationalActivities
Fort Bend County owns and operates Bates M. Allen Park, located just outside Kendleton city limits (though the address for the park is Kendleton, TX). The 235 acre park includes a canoe ramp, fishing pier, grills, a historical site, a lake, and observation deck, two pavilions, a play area, a sand volleyball court, toilet facilities, walking trails and wetlands. The largest park in the Fort Bend County System, Bates Allen Park was used by only 2.0% of surveyed county residents. The 2007 Master plan, as a result of this study, recommended that the relatively new regional park would benefit from strategies to publicize and promote usage, including more programming through development of strategic partnerships.12 Persons who responded that they did utilize county parks identified the following reasons for doing so: 25%, walking; 17%, use of playground equipment; 16%, use of picnic areas and pavilions; 11%, biking; 10%, watching kids play; 8%, running or jogging; 8%, fishing; 6%, soccer; 6%, baseball/softball. Therefore, connectivity of pedestrian trails as well as the maintenance/creation of hiking/biking trails should be a priority, according to the 2007 Master Plan update. The random telephone survey was administered in June 2007 to 400 respondents, providing a confidence level of 95 percent. 13
Kendleton is also home to the King‐Kennedy Memorial Park. Kendleton Historical Museum 12
13
2007 Master Plan, Fort Bend County Recreation Plan.
2007 Master Plan, Fort Bend County Recreation Plan.
50
Kendleton proper does not currently offer a substantial number of recreational activities, but many opportunities are available within just mile radius, including: •
•
•
•
Golf o Pecan Grove Plantation Golf, Richmond o Greatwood Golf Club, Sugar Land o River Point Golf Club, Richmond State Parks o Brazos Bend State Park, Sugar Land 5,000 acre park featuring over 300 species of birds and wildflowers. o George Observatory The nation’s largest, open‐to‐the‐public telescope is within the 4,897 acres of Brazos Bend State Park. Challenger Learning Center also nearby. • The center is operated through the Houston Museum of Natural Science and allows people of all ages to get a hands‐on learning experience on space exploration. The two‐hour mission can involve up to 40 people, who are split up into two groups. One group mans mission control, while the second climbs on board the space station located in a separate room. The goal of the mission is to have the participants build a space probe and launch it into Haley's Comet to collect data. Any group, whether it is an elementary science class or a senior citizens organization, can participate in a mission. Paintball o BSG Paintball, Richmond o Katy Paintball, Katy Bowling/Family Entertainment o AMF Stafford Lanes, Stafford o Times Square Entertainment, Katy Also features arcade games, 2500 square foot laser tag arena, billiards, and a sports bar and grill. o Fun Tiki, Missouri City Arcade games, go‐karts, miniature golf, moonwalks, café, day care, reception rooms o Sugar Land Ice and Sports Center o Laserzone, Sugar Land Appendix A, Page 51
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
52
Karate o Blue Tiger Martial Arts, Rosenberg o Tae Kwon Do Karate School, Rosenberg o Unity Tae Kwon Do, Richmond o ATA Tae Kwon Do Center o Lone Star Karate and Self Defense, Richmond Movie Theatres o Cinemark, Rosenberg o Plaza Theatre, Wharton o AMC Theatres, Sugar Land o Alamo Drafthouse, Houston Fitness Little League and the Lamar Soccer Club exist for kids. Toyota Center Reliant Discovery Green Hermann Park YMCA, Rosenberg RV Parks o Shiloh RV Park, Richmond o River City RV Park, Richmond o Riverbend RV Park, Richmond Minute Maid Park Reliant, other benefits of Houston within driving distance Performing Arts o Stafford Center 1,100 seat performing arts center with 25,000 square feet of meeting, banquet, and exposition space as well as over 28 acres of outdoor festival space. George Ranch Historical Park o 23,000 acre working ranch with tours of an authentic 1890s Victorian mansion and the opportunity to witness life from the 1830s‐1940s, including roundups and the making of soap, etc. Visitors are greeted by authentically costumed characters who accompany them on tours through the restored homes, barns and buildings on the grounds. The George Ranch Historical Park is open to the public daily year‐round and for scheduled adult and school group tours throughout the year. In addition, corporate and convention groups can rent the ranch facilities and programs for special functions. •
Museums and Historical Buildings, Historical Sites o Kendleton o Fort Bend Museum The Fort Bend Museum provides visitors with a display of artifacts and memorabilia presenting 100 years of history beginning with Stephen F. Austin’s original colony of 300, who traveled up the Brazos River to settle in Fort Bend County in 1822. The museum serves as the area's history resource. Past residents of Fort Bend County are remembered there, including famous Texas such as Jane Long, Deaf Smith, Mirabeau Lamar and Carrie Nation. Permanent exhibits focus on the Texas Revolution and the Republic of Texas and an exhibit on "Richmond, A True Texas Town." The museum also offers information on walking tours through downtown Richmond. Long‐Smith Cottage, part of the museum complex. Mrs. Long was known as the Mother of Texas, and her land grant covered most of present‐day Richmond. It is open for tours and has the same hours as the museum. John M. Moore Home, also part of the museum complex was the home of Congressman John M. Moore. The neoclassical mansion was built in 1883 by architect Thomas Culshaw of Liverpool, England, and was remodeled in 1905. It was lived in continuously by the Moore family until 1974 when it was given to the museum. Renovation of the home was completed in 1997. The Fort Bend Museum also owns Decker Park, which contains a collection of historical buildings. Visitors can view a 1901 Southern Pacific Railroad Depot; the McNabb House, which was constructed in the 1850s and was home to Carry Nation's daughter; and a log cabin similar to those of the county's earliest settlers. Across the street from Decker Park is the 1896 County Jail, a magnificent structure of Richardsonian Romanesque style architecture. The building was used until 1955 and contains living quarters used by the sheriff and his family. The jail has been refurbished and is now the center for the Richmond Police Station. o Rosenberg Railroad Museum o McFarlane House, a home built in 1882‐83 by merchant Isaac McFarlane, has been restored to serve for the administrative offices of the Fort Bend Museum Association and the visitor’s center for the City of Richmond. The building played a significant part in the 1889 Jaybird‐ Woodpecker Battle. o Morton Cemetery The cemetery was founded in 1825 by William Morton and is the final resting place to William Kinchen Davis, a member of the Mier Expedition; Robert Gillespie, whose grave is marked with the oldest Masonic monument in Texas; Robert J. Calder, a valiant defender at the Battle of San Jacinto; Mirabeau B. Lamar, second president of the Texas Republic; Jane Long; and Thomas Jefferson Smith, who fought in the battle for Texas’ independence and later served as sheriff of the county. Appendix A, Page 53
Fort Bend County Courthouse The Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and noted for its 3‐storied rotunda. It was built in 1908 and restored in 1980. o Historic Churches A historical marker denotes the Calvary Episcopal Church, 806 Thompson Road, which was organized in 1859 and had many famous people in its early congregations. St. John’s United Methodist Church, the earliest continuing church congregation in the county, is located at 400 Jackson Street. It was founded in 1839 and the present building with its beautiful stained glass was constructed in 1923. First Baptist Church of Rosenberg was honored with a marker in 1996. Sugar Land Town Square o A32‐acre city center with retailers, businesses, restaurants, a hotel and conference center as well as a 1.4 acre plaza for festivals and important events. The area is organized as a pedestrian‐oriented, main‐street city center and a central business district within walking distance of stores, services, restaurants, sidewalk cafes, entertainment, and the hotel and conference center The Galleria is 13 miles from Fort Bend County o The Galleria is the #1 shopping and tourist destination in Houston with over 24 million annual visitors. The Galleria features more than 375 fine stores and restaurants, an ice rink and two Westin hotels. This world‐class shopping complex showcases famous names in retailing including Neiman Marcus, Cartier, Gucci, two Macy's stores, Tiffany & Co., Saks Fifth Avenue, Ralph Lauren Collection, Louis Vuitton and Houston's only Nordstrom. With the expansion that opened in March 2003, The Galleria became the fourth largest mall in the nation highlighted by nine types of stone, suspended glass balconies, three types of wood, glass skylights, and leather seating. 26 miles to downtown Houston, which features districts filled with arts and entertainment, including theaters, bars and clubs, educational activities, event venues, hotels, medical care facilities, museums, parks, opportunities for recreation and fitness, restaurants, shops and services, sights and attractions, sporting events and tours. The Houston Astros’ home, Reliant Park, is located in the area. o
•
•
•
54
Sugar Land is also home to a variety of restaurants, gym facilities, dance schools, soccer clubs, and martial arts studios. There are also performing arts, cheer studios, numerous parks, and other possibilities for entertainment in the Fort Bend county area. Furthermore, Galveston Island, a popular tourist and vacation beachfront destination, is only approximately 83 miles from Kendleton. Appendix A, Page 55
Appendix B: Public Involvement Comments
Each of the public involvement meetings held during the course of the 20-Year Growth
Plan study effort yielded tremendous insight into the desires of the residents of
Kendleton to frame their city’s future. The same two questions were asked at each
meeting. Written feedback was requested and has been captured as follows:
Please describe any additional ideas or concerns regarding future
development in Kendleton (streets, services, nuisances, etc.):
New Business in Kendleton
“Section 8” Housing Dept.
Cleaning up the Area
Need unity of residents
Drugs Sales
Thefts
Clean-ups
Loud music from motorist in city
Thefts
Sales of drugs in city
Abandoned property
The city has no city signage as you enter community on FM 2919.
The lack of fuel purchasing services are at closest 8 miles in any direction.
Emergency services I think are needed more than anything else in the area.
For medical needs time is the difference between life and death.
We need Beasley & East Bernard routes changed to Kendleton Routes.
New businesses should support the local post office.
The post office is over 100 years old. “Celebrate”.
We need law enforcement today. There are too many laws being broken.
The loud noises most of the night.
People (or kids) using fire works when it is so dry.
Extend First Street all way out to 2919.
Clean out ditches.
Kendleton needs public safety services closer.
Kendleton’s property owner should be mandated to clean up their property i.e. old
houses torn down, grass mowed, etc.
Overpass at railroad crossing of FM 2919.
Law enforcement patrol and attention to the educational and recreational needs of our
children.
YMCA activities.
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix B, Page 1
Appendix B:Public Involvement Comments Please describe any additional ideas or concerns regarding the kinds of
businesses or services Kendleton needs:
Sheriff sub-station
Police Dept.
Medical Clinic
Fire Dept.
Housing Authority Dept.
Chamber of Commerce Division/Dept.
Community Center for Seniors, etc.
Rehab Clinic/Center
Gas station
Grocery station
Bank
Dental clinic
Medical clinic
Beauty shop/barber
Cleaner
Police dept.
Fire dept.
Bank & Gas station
New homes
Some job growth would also raise the community’s value.
Most people that aren’t involved in Agriculture have to travel a distance to go to work.
Protect property values, promote agriculture and ranching, preserve historical, create
positive image of Kendleton.
Need more business with gas stations like grocery stores.
Kendleton should have the image: beautiful small town with neat buildings bordered by
industry.
Medical clinic
Dental clinic
Retail Stores
Fast food places
Service Stations
Police dept.
Fire Dept.
EMS (local)
I would like new business to come and provide jobs.
Property values, new business such as medical clinics, theatres, supermarket, dry
cleaners, laundry-mat, newspaper stand for three papers, restaurants, farm
equipment store and flower shop, advertising and promotion for local events
(rodeo).
2
City of Kendleton
Breakout session notes as transcribed by the EHRA Team:
Describe Kendleton:
Kendleton is family-oriented
“Best kept secret”
Laid-back
Historical
Retirement community
Quiet
Isolated
Taken advantage of, disrespected
Nearest shopping:
Rosenberg
Wharton
Sealy
East Bernard
Sugar Land (convenient, easy to access once there)
Beasley (for gas)
Residents would like to see:
Gas Stations – biggest issue
Food – biggest issue
Entertainment
Medical Facilities
Job creation
Concerns
Flooding – Powell Point, Pigtail Run Road, the “hill”
Drainage
Pollution
Rail car label enforcement
No train horn noise
Blocking crossing
Truck traffic from rail hub on 541
Speed of trucks
Trucks tearing up Pink Taylor Road
Buildings “shaking”
911 response issues, 911 addressing issues, confusion
Physically divided – 59 separates the community
Kendleton is Kendleton, not Beasley, not East Bernard
Mail route issues
Historical Preservation
Restoration
7 churches, many over 100 years old
Education – educate residents IN Kendleton
Preserve rural character - agriculture
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix B, Page 3
4
City of Kendleton
Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast
This appendix provides detailed information on data and methodologies used to
estimate current population within the Kendleton ETJ and forecast long-term population
through 2035. Data is provided by the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) 2035
Regional Growth Forecast available at http://www.hgac.com/community/socioeconomic/
forecasts/archive/2035.aspx. H-GAC provides population estimates and projections in
various types of study sizes, including at the city level. However, Kendleton is much
smaller in size and located farther away from areas within rapid growth. As a result
Kendleton’s population estimate and forecast is skewed according to far larger study
areas.
Three study areas are reviewed in this Appendix: regional analysis zones (RAZ), zip
codes, and census tracts. Estimates and forecast data is available as spreadsheets and
geographic information system (GIS) shapefiles.
C.1
Population Estimate
According to the US Census 1, Kendleton’s current population within its corporate limits
is 380. However, most of the community’s long-term growth addressed in this
document will likely occur within its ETJ. Kendleton ETJ population estimate is based on
published estimates of other study areas identified by H-GAC.
GIS shapefile data shows the three study areas that intersect Kendelton’s ETJ are RAZ
#148, Zip Code #77417, and Census Tract #6758 (Figures C-1 through C-3).
Kendleton’s ETJ has an area of 3,530 acres. Table C-A shows three different 2010
Kendleton ETJ population estimates based proportionately on each of these study areas.
Table C-A. 2010 Kendleton ETJ Population Estimates Based on RAZ #148, Zip
Code 77417, Census Tract #6758
RAZ
#148
2
Zip Code
77417
3,498
3
Census Tract
#6758
4,708
4
Population
9,476
Acres
69,096
37,274
80890
Size of Kendleton ETJ
Compared to Each Study
Area
3,530 /
69,096 = .05
3,530 /
37,274 =
.09
3,530 / 80890 =
.04
Kendleton Population
Estimate
.05 x 9,476
= 473
.09 x 3,498
= 314
.04 x 4,708
=188
Sources
2,3,4
H-GAC
As Table C-A shows, the estimated ETJ population derived from Census Tract #6758
and Zip Code 77417 is even less than the actual population within Kendleton’s corporate
limits. This suggests that both of these study areas are even more rural than Kendleton.
The next step is to determine which of the three study areas has population
characteristics similar to the current population of 380. Table C-B compares the
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix C, Page 1
Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast population densities (persons per square mile) within Kendleton corporate limits and the
three study areas.
Table C-B. Population Densities of Kendleton Corporate Limits, RAZ #148, Zip
Code 77417, and Census Tract #6758
Kendleton
Corporate Limits
RAZ #148
2
Zip Code
77417
3
4,708
4
Population
380
9,476
Acres
907
69,096
37,274
80890
Square Miles
1.4
180.0
58.2
126.4
380 / 1.4
= 271.4
9,476 / 180
= 52.6
3,498 / 58.2
= 60.1
4,708 / 126.4
= 37.2
Population Density
(persons / sq. mi)
3,498
Census Tract
#6758
Sources
2,3,4
H-GAC
The population density within Kendleton’s corporate limits is 271.4 persons/square mile,
which is far greater than the population densities in the other study areas. However, all
of Kendleton’s population is concentrated within less than 1.5 square miles. As
discussed previously Kendleton’s ETJ has an area of 3,530 acres (5.5 square miles)
which is almost four times the geographic size of the Kendleton corporate boundary. As
discussed previously in Section 4. Land Use, agricultural uses constitute 49% of all
future land uses. It is unlikely that the population density within the ETJ will equal the
population within the corporate limits but rather have a similar density to the other
study areas. RAZ #148 has the largest population density of all three study areas and is
the preferred study area to estimate population. Based on Table C-A, the 2010
estimated population within Kendleton’s ETJ is 473.
C.2
Population Forecast
Population forecasting, unlike estimating, predicts future growth. As discussed in
Section C.1, population density was used to determine RAZ #148 as an ideal study area
for estimating Kendleton’s ETJ 2010 population. However, all three study areas (RAZ
#148, Zip Code 77417, and Census Tract #6758) are used to create a composite
exponential trend line that will forecast future growth.
There are several steps required to produce Kendleton’s population forecast. First,
2010-2035 forecast data is obtained for RAZ #148, Zip Code 77417, and Census Tract
#6758. Second, the data for each of these study areas is reduced proportionately to
reflect the smaller size of Kendleton’s ETJ. Third, the modified data is used to prepare a
scatter chart. An exponential trend line with an equation is generated that explains the
long term data behavior within each study area type. Fourth, trend lines generated
from each study area type are used to create a composite exponential trend line and
equation. Finally, the equation is populated to determine the growth forecasts for
Kendleton.
2
City of Kendleton
a. Population Forecast Based on RAZ #148’s Forecast
Figure C-1 shows the location of RAZ #148, Kendleton ETJ. Table C-C shows
Kendleton ETJ’s population forecast based on RAZ #148’s forecast from 20102035. When forecasting population, Kendleton’s ETJ 2010 population for each of
these study areas is based on the population forecast for each study area. In
Table C-C, the 2010 ETJ population based on RAZ #148 is 488, which is greater
than 473 discussed in previously in Section C.1. However, the 473 will be used
later in the composite exponential trend line to forecast future population.
Figure C-2 shows the trend line for Kendleton’s ETJ based on RAZ #148’s
forecast.
Figure C-1. Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ) #148
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix C, Page 3
Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast Table C-C. 2010-2035 Forecasts: RAZ #148 and Kendleton ETJ
RAZ #148
Kendleton ETJ
69,096 Acres
3,530 Acres (5.15% of RAZ #148)
Year
H-GAC Forecast 2
Kendleton ETJ Modified Forecast
(5.15% of RAZ #148)
2010
9,476
488
2015
11,309
582
2020
14,785
761
2025
21,330
1,098
2030
28,939
1,490
2035
35,046
1,805
Sources:
2
H-GAC
b. Population Forecast Based on Zip Code 77417 Forecast
As shown in Figure C-3, Kendleton’s ETJ is located entirely within Zip Code
77417. Table C-D shows the Kendleton ETJ population forecast based on Zip
Code 77417’s forecast from 2012-2035. Figure C-4 shows the trend line for
Kendleton’s ETJ based on Zip Code 77417’s forecast.
4
City of Kendleton
Figure C-3. Zip Code 77417
Table C-D. 2010-2035 Forecasts: Zip Code 77417 and Kendleton ETJ
Zip Code 77417
Kendleton ETJ
37,274 Acres
3,530 Acres
(9.47% of Zip Code 77417)
Year
H-GAC Forecast 3
(9.47% of Zip Code 77417)
2010
3,498
331
2015
4,381
415
2020
5,747
544
2025
7,707
730
2030
11,672
1,105
2035
14,930
1,414
Sources:
3
H-GAC
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix C, Page 5
Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast c. Population Forecast Based on Census Tract #6758 Forecast
As shown in Figure C-5, Kendleton’s ETJ is located entirely within Census Tract
#6758. Table C-E shows the Kendleton ETJ population forecast based on
Census Tract #6758 forecast from 2012-2035. Figure C-6 shows the trend line
for Kendleton’s ETJ based on Census Tract #6758’s forecast.
Figure C-5. Census Tract #6758
6
City of Kendleton
Table C-E. 2010-2035 Forecasts: Zip Code 77417 and Kendleton ETJ
Census Tract #6758
80,890 Acres
Kendleton ETJ
3,530 Acres
(4.36% of Census Tract #6758)
Year
H-GAC Forecast 4
(4.36% of Census Tract #6758)
2010
4,708
205
2015
6,106
266
2020
9,876
431
2025
13,773
601
2030
20,903
911
2035
26,433
1,152
Sources:
4
H-GAC
d. Composite ETJ Trend Line
All of the trend lines generated from each study area are combined on one chart
to create a composite exponential trend line (Figure C-7). The Composite ETJ
trend line has an exponential equation of y = 437.91 e 0.0521x which is slightly
modified to account for the population estimate of 473 determined previously in
Section C.1. Table C-F shows the population forecasts for Kendleton based on
the exponential equation.
20-Year Growth Plan
Appendix C, Page 7
Appendix C. Population Estimate and Forecast Table C-F. Kendleton Population Forecast
Year
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
C.3
1.
2.
3.
4.
8
Population
473
566
722
938
1,236
1,647
References
Kendleton, 2010 Census SF2, DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics.
HGAC 2012-2035 Population Forecasts, Regional Analysis Zone (RAZ) # 148
HGAC 2012-2035 Population Forecasts, Zip Code 77417
HGAC 2012-2035 Population Forecasts, Census Tract #6758
City of Kendleton

20 - Year Growth Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

2014 dice run Big Flyer Poster

Cotton Defoliation Turn Row Meeting

Mini tours flyer - Dallas Fort Worth Area Tour Guide Association

Diez Y Seis de Septiembre flyer Spanish and English FINAL

Fort Bend PeoPle - Sugar Land Magazine

Amangalla RB 111011

VIP Services - Fort Bend Cares

Hillside Home Showcases Veteran Builder`s