Loading...
05 Lake Crook ,'¡ , " :, . -: "\";\i;,~.fJ' ": , ~, '-->; .... 1 2 3 .. - ' - ",.- ,-, ... -' -, ... \, '.:', t .- , ,. . I, ~I A Use Study for the City of Paris Lamar County, Texas on Lake Crook General Information 1.1 Commissioning The Study 1.2 Goals and Objectives of the Study 1.3 Methodology 1.4 Public Participation 104.1 Public Hearings 104.2 Staff Participation 104.3 Comments and Interviews 1.4.4 Surveys Government Restrictions 1.5. 1 General 1.5.2 Section 404 Permits 1.5.3 Flood Plain Management 1.504 Texas Department of Health 1.5.5 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Brief History of Lake Crook 2.0.1 Historical Need for the Lake 2.0.2 Water Quality 2.0.3 Lake Crook Data 2.0.4 Early Development Attempts Current Usage of the Lake Crook Property 2.1.1 Improvements 2.1.2 Access 2.1.3 Adjacent Land Uses 2.104 City Utilities 2.1.5 Leases on the Land 2.1.6 Hunting and Fishing 2.1.7 Other Uses Potential Uses of the Lake 3.1 Obstacles to Development 3.1.1 Water/Sewer Availability 3.1.2 Watershed Management 3.1.3 Legal Issues 3.1.4 Logistics to a Sale of Public Land 3.1.5 Campbell Soup 3.1.6 Water Clarity 3.2 Option 1- Low Density North Shore Development 3.2.1 Description of Option 1 3.2.2 Recommendations Concerning Option 1 Option 2 - Full Recreational Development Plan 3.3.1 Description of Option 2 3.3.2 What About Golf? , 1.5 f :3 { 3 J / t 2 G - 3 I, r 9/ ¿ðC? . ~ If '12 - t/-Ç". 2.1 3.3 , . ,,"--~~---'---"'-' -"---"'~-"""-" .--" "p .'" 3.4 3.5 4.0 - ""--"."-"~'-"-"""':"'" 3.3.3 Recommendations Concerning Option 2 Option 3 - Dense Residential Development 3.4.1 Description of Option 3 . 3.4.2 Recommendations Concerning Option 3 Option 4 - Do Nothing Option 3.5.1 Description of Option 3.5.2 Discussion of the Option Evaluation of Alternatives 4.0.1 Questions Unanswered 4.0.2 Economic Development 4.0.3 Risk 4.0.4 Lot Absorption 4.0.5 Referendum Now 4.0.6. Limitations of this Study Recommendations 5.0.1. Summary Findings 5.0.2 Recommendations Conclusion 6.0.1 General 5.0 6.0 0'.' \ ' ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 1. , GENERAL INFORl\1A TION' 1.1 COMMISSIONING THE STUDY In the fall of2000, the city council of the City of Paris commissioned the consultant to make a study of Lake Crook. The council and staffhad, in the past, been approached by various groups of very well intentioned individuals to use the lake and the surrounding city owned property for boat races, archery trials, gun ranges, trails, public parks and even to sell the property for development. The council wanted to better understand their options and the possible consequences, both short and long term, of any action they might take with regards to Lake Crook. While individually there were likely ideas and opinions in the minds of council members, the council voiced no specific instruction to the consultant concerning a preferred outcome and, in truth, left the consultant to develop the study without prejudice. The consultant, Calvin T. (Terry) Brannon, is a registered professional engineer in Texas and four other states, a registered professional land surveyor in Texas, and president ofa civil engineering consulting firm in Tyler, Texas some eighty miles away from Paris. The consultant did not and does not have any vested fmancial interest in the outcome of the study and employs no person \vith any financial interest in the property surrounding Lake Crook. .., Mr. Brannon has, since 1977, been in private consulting practice. His fIrm specializes in the development of communities both through the master planning of them and the design of public works projects of all types. His personal experience in subdivision development includes the design of Hollytree, Limited and Garden Valley Resort golf course subdivisions, the design of lakes and subdivisions around lakes in Smith, Tarrant and Nacogdoches Counties with over 16,000 lots and parcels for residential and mixed use development; and serving as consulting engineer during development of The Villages on Lake Palestine. But, besides the private development, Brannon has been involved in the development of public.. recreational areas and walking trails in Livingston, Tyler, Longview and two dozen smaller cities; has prepared over fifty successful applications for grant assistance to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; has prepared applications for public and private concerns for 404 Wetlands Permits from the Corps of Engineers. He has likewise prepared applications for sewer effluent discharges for many cities and designed \vater and wastewater plants and pump stations all over Texas along with their respective distribution and collection systems. In his earlier life, Brannon was staff engineer for the city of Irving and assistant city engineer in" Tyler. While in Tyler, Brannon was charged with monitoring and approving constnlction around the city water supply at Lake Tyler and Lake Tyler East as well as approving subdivision plats and construction documents. Page 1 of 45 ~"'" ~'f~ ,.':~~,;,? )' ~.lt . ""'I',I:.~.'"".~, , "'P .. ; '+ . ~ ~ 1l\ : f " , ' ~'? , " :E ' I~ . :x ~ ....',... --""'~---, ",; ~,.,~~\-~ ~~,' ':=-. c;'l::-".. ' ,t' \- ,--- ,.:'~ ~ ~,:':'.:' ,f.", ,', ,- - 'b.. .'0' ~ ~ d"" .-'. - . ' ' ' '-> '....,:;.~.J~, 0..""""".°1 ,'" ,.' ~ ~ ' ~.' ",i/ ""'-" , . 2:~" ~ " ,'" . .-."" -~" ,,.OJ,, ,-"~' -' ',' . to. .,_oo ..oo ", - .. 0, '::-'; :::.. '0 ."" .. ~ .i !..,-~ ' ,".' I. .. I '..,,-.,¡ .,' - -'- ' , , ,-¡' ¡':~ '¡ .-:- ", ,:. ;'~"~.::~!!! -, " ,~\ :, ~ :~~, "', ., t ," ,..,~tl j""'\-' ".,'. ,,-., :..,., I ,"":, ,~', ,"", ~:'"r"-j::~i~~-:~~:""r:,:"'o:' ','">!. ;:'~U""'oo:' ~::.. "'III i""VI"'" 'i' '("t¡:o".~~.,....II.O-' ,I""'" ." z:.'..' ," " \' .,.".'I;,"'¡:'-"""fd.\',. "O~.,_.' " ,,' " I t",r.;.°" ,,"t.'t," ~,.. .....'.'I....,.-t.:":::Af..,'" ,', "0'-,': ..', ..' .' I ,¡ '-".':::/'t"J!~:..:;...'.\:I~.-t-"'í-:',~" .",,'1 :....... ' 0' O' '-.. ,oi,.::L~;_L~l~~il../'~:'I.JI-,'4, ,;~;.-í!'-,' "';')¡,-:-'..;.~'~\.""..!;'-;:: . t., , .... ' t, 0 -,', -t..,-,;..._--~~'-\.-;' I' """::'~"'~"""'-:~I .I'~ ""., .,7"" ,-\\',,"'" , .. 'II.,...', ':".,...-..,"~-:-"'oo""',H;;,"".-{' ,'1 "-:D., 1---' ..t", -,"""'," I, ",; . , ' :,' , _f'r,~ - ;.]",r;:7.!,Ll,t\ ¡ -;li\j1 ¡,:o~,~~', r........ ~,-_!J "1,,,__,. . ,\ \ ~\;,'.\, . , . -- 0--"1" ,'" .0( -.1" . - t. r."- -L..°1---¡ 1 t t I , , - I-' ,,' ' , õ, ' 0 -~.!" -¿',". .J:r~ll--¡",~ 1..1' "rn "r :pl\-~,.!,,~ _..,--~~.,,~.;"~ : 0.., -~i.4-~ ~, _J::;'> j.' ~ ,: ': ': "....' , ,': ,~~~.L:. ~'\Ò.J~!-~_W_~ ,}~ ,+~"'-'!""r.',':~"':}o:J Tit:-:...,! ;;' :t;;-':., ' :~ . '\' -':,.:..,\, ""'-:~I'.I..I JI...'_~t""..~~'--r-""r' ,.., ,"",\' - :..-- .' . ,; ; " .i.1~--r"1,_r-I'-'-' ' ", " "", II \1 ¡i\i,lif' f.'~I.:,¿~.:-:-f"'~ '" : _..~ ~. ~' ',..', - ~ -~;: I-~.:..:_:..: ;l:".~~!:f"'rii' r.__~,...}'!:;~tl'; ._,r'~'TtJ:::a':~q::þs:::,:..:t.'~l:'fill¡~::::I-O ',.: '. "". ',:, :, . ",.,:,;"; :, ,..,::-'J);,~;"¡ -:;t::::.,' ".' ":':~'î -¡-1rt - i...rj,~_, ~-ri\\ .-::-~' ""',,\ í'-:-")I~,"'~-1\-- '~,' -=',-:\. i,"," ¡~,:. I .,- '~ji -" , .. " . ~~'J" ""T- ,..'-- 0:-;.'"'1" \1"--' I";':'¡ 't.-u::-...~ ~"'-, ~,. .,.. '" . , ;; .7..',::,--' "",-,,' " ),"l -1:L"'~:'-."""'--"r'o' \{ --"#Y'~"'::.C ,". ...,,' 1 ""',,:, '!',. i,~."i~".1t..¿;~'J',:,'i]í\~~l~~~+',~~J..'..:::i:' ':"~lTlB~..1 ,\¡\i:'"n\ ':~". '.;~,/ :: '. --" I","':..,.ff ':.' , I' 'i. ,'-'~~~,.L,:..\..,._;3-:""i,..t"r 'i.:,':,:~. ,n¡{ ¡::. , """" , ' ~-, ,""'" 4,-. ""'1-'- --'-"",,-'--I'õ'----H...,"':-';"""""".' ;',;0.,." .1;.1'1:.':'" " .. ii' 'Ir:-.-,""",'r'~' ,- ;'6'."" , ' -,'" Ii' ,to,. '1""_"'~1':-;Tì"\1.-t"""t¡t ,:"'..:,', , ,,- '¡';'" :':'" ,.~ :'r;~~ ,':..~'r~~' ,_~..,I" ~:_,¿~~\,.:;;;;, _.oJ,~~~,~' 5~:'" " ,.." ";'. .I' ,:,..";" .\,,~~..' . !"""" :.,,1_,.;', ........ r,;,.¡-:-- :,;'j""',~":,,, .'. ~:. .,' ;,'~;:~~:t:,,~¡,~~,:-i.'.;.-;~:,": '~.: ' ,,- ':-.w", 'Y . ~'..... ~,/ .. ~ ' -:""" -"..:1-.. ~..l,.... / ~ .. .. ...~ ., ¡ 0 ,-:;--' .,>,"---':': I ,;' ';-~':r ~ \f~, , ,'" ------..., ~ '" .. ,- . -: '--'-, , \ ., -------.,- ','- . - - , . 0,' ' , . \ \ I I I 1 I " '-... " \ --: '__'0'-':---'- -¡ ~ ". " . , '. .. r' i, ':I ,..,\ , .. ,- , .. -:;.:"-----:~' ,~._.., , ,~ ,,~..' 0<\ (...." -- , toe .- I, l »; WAfER 1J<æAfME '-'-, 'I' ," ;i:.;- - , II s; " ~. , '::-' , ... " .,'1. "" '.. '- ": ~" . "- <". ". . ~. ", -.11-" " ..., , " ,oo "fI'.' , .,#-: ' " , , ,., ;:.,i" '", oJ- , , ,-,oo ., .....:-,-' WA5reW^re'~ 11æAfl&Nr P\..NJ' '~r \ , , \ , .. 1'(" .r"'~, ",' .l ' , .. 1-- -"",-:-,:~"-"-"-':'- ;;; , " I I ' , ,¡ . . , ~ ~'~ ~~ §~ ~~ ~,~ x~ ~~ SL~ .~,Z :-~.. , \ , ~\ "" r' " ,- I " ~: , . , .' 'r- , \ p ,i .. ,.' " , ,:,-:;. , . -.. '~'.,:, . , . \- .-- -,.o~\ ," . . , '\ ~\ I()()()Ó., .. . " . :..,,\ !? 000 ' 'P\..,A,"J'( I, SCALE, ' I,. ~, ' GRAPHIC , , ',"~ ';'.. , ',. .. ,0 , r IN FEET "'-' , .j .. .. . 0 , .. ;, ~' '.- .. " .' . . ," , , oJ i '... '. I' :: 0' , ~, I' 't r' 0, , ", . I,. ~. ' ...--- ,to ..' , \ .,..' , ~ ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001 , , 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The goals and objectives of the study are fairly straightforward: 0 0 0 Gather data on the Lake Crook asset Evaluate the needs of the public Recommend a highest and best use or uses of the lake and property based on environmental, economic, and engineering factors. If successful, this study will provide information to government officials to enable them to embark on a reasonable course of development of an important asset. It will provide the public fmality to a question looming over the city for years. . . what to do with Lake Crook. It will provide the sportsmen and sportswomen (hunters, fishers, archers, shooters, bicyclists and hikers) with information their respective organizations need to go forward, whether here at Lake Crook or somewhere else, And finally, it will provide the building community with ans\vers on whether to embark on their own subdivision developments or wait a while longer for property in and around Lake Crook. .., One thing that is NOT an objective ofthis study is to serve as a substitute for potential developers and builders doing their own due diligence. Potential beneficiaries must conduct their own studies with how developing Lake Crook would impact their own business investments, The plans shown later in the study are "'broad-brushed" potential plans of development. There are many, many other options available \vhich could not be held in this one volume. 1.3 METHODOLOGY The methodology, like the goals and objectives, are very straightforward. . . COLLECT, ANAL YZE, RECOMMEND. While it sounds easy, the process is much like herding cats. The problem is not a lack of information but rather a wealth of it. Gathering data is important because the city has been approached by what seemingly are incompatible potentia! users of the land and water. The city has accumulated a mass ofhistorica1 documents concerning Lake Crook lake from the day when it was conceived all the way to the present. This study will endeavor to boil down the information, separate fact fi"om folklore, and present fairly the condition ofthe lake and what might or might not be done to improve the lake. Before evaluating the needs of tire public, it is essential to find out what the public wants. Unfortunately, in the case of Lake Crook, the public itselfis not of one mind. Opinions expressed in open meeting range trom "Leave it alone" to "Sell it and make money" and every conceivable position in between. Through the use of surveys and public comment, the study should present the case of most parties for council consideration. Recommendations and subsequent actions by the city should be based on sound evidence and Page 3 of 45 ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001- certainly not on emotion. There are 'certain to be some persons not pleased with the recommendations herein but these recommendations will be based on what the consultant considers to be sound principles of development. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1.4.1 Pub Ii e Hearings. Certainly the pub lie has been kept we 11 informed on this subject. If they are not so infonned then they have failed to listen to the radio, read the newspaper, open their water bills, or attend one of the two public meetings set aside for citizen input. Approximately two hundred persons attended the first public hearing held in November, 2000 and over three hundred attended the second hearing held in February, 2001. Every citizen wanting the opportunity was given the chance to step to the microphone and voice his or her sentiments concerning Lake Crook. Individuals were represented. Hunting, shooting, and wildlife groups were present. And economic development supporters, builders and developers were also present. 1.4.2 S ta ff parti ci pa ti 0 D. City 0 f Paris staff were instrumental in pro viding the consultant with backgro und data. The City Atto mey' S office provided deeds and histo rical info rma tio n on Lake Crook. The engineering department furIÚshed water and sewer data and aerial photographs. The police chief furnished infonnation on police efforts to monitor the existing park land and relevant historical data on criminal activity in the vicinity. Public works provided maintenance and development data pertaining to the ongoing efforts to improve the public park on the south shores. And finally, the city manager's office sent out surveys to 9900 citizens and the city manager's secretary tabulated the results. 1.4.3 Comments and Interviews. The consultant was able to conduct brief but beneficial interviews in person, via e-mail or on the telephone with several parties including the Dallas Off Road Bicycling Association, the Wild Turkey Federation; representatives of Archers for Christ, Paris Gun Club and Maxey Rifle and Black powder Club; several local Paris home builders and developers; Realtors; and neighbors of Lake Crook. 1.4.4 Surveys. A survey was developed and mailed to 9900 residential water customers seeking their comments on the use of Lake Crook and 1,473 responded for a response rate of 14.91%, c usto mary £0 r this type 0 f survey. None 0 £ tho se surveyed lived in apartments since they are not directly billed for water. Some of the questions came ITom the consultant and others ITom members ofthe staff. The survey, although it contained fairly straight forward language, became an opportunity for many people to vent on everything from Lake Crook to trash collection in the city. The following summarizes each of the questions in the survey: Qllestion: Given tile clloice behVeen tile two following options do YOll favor development of the property for picnicking, camping, hiking and similar recreational purposes OR do favor pres ervati on oft he land as a n at ural park in a 1/10 re II n distil rbed condition? 1,381 persons responded to this question with 80.3% favoring development of the land for recreational use over preservation as a natural park. Some side-bar Page 4 of .45 '.~ . ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook Marcb,2001 .... , comments correctly pointed out that the property is big enough for both uses, , Question: Given the choice between the two following options do you favor . development of the property for picnicking, camping, hiking and similar outdoor recreational purposes OR do favor development of at least part of tlle land as an athletic col1lplex containing possibly ballfields and play fields? The intent in a properly worded survey is to limit the choices to just a fe\v. In this q uestio n, 69.1 % of tho se respo nding favo red picnicking, etc. over a roo re formal ball complex. Question: If development into recreational uses were to take place, what types of facilities do you favor? The respondents were given a list oftwenty five options and given an opportunity to "write in" their preference if it did not appear in the list. The following is the list in descending order of preference and the percentage of all 10,584 selections made by respondents according to the survey: Picnicking Fresh\vater fishing piers Playgrounds/s\vings \Valking/jogging trails Boat ramps Hiking (unimproved trail) Tent camping pads Beac hi swimming Bicycling (improved trail) Recreational vehicle camping Baseball fields Softball fields 10.30/0 9.20/0 8.3% 8.30/0 7,0% 6.90/0 5.9% 5.80/0 5.40/0 5.00/0 3,20/0 3.1% . Horseback riding trails Amphitheater Basketball courts Skateboard park Tennis courts Golf course Archery Soccer fields Clay/trap shooting ranges Other Ro Her hockey rinks '~Frisbee" golf course All of the above 3 .00/0 2,7% 2,3% 2.1 % 2.0% 1.90/0 1.80/0 1.70/0 1.70/0 0.80/0 0.70/0 0,7% 0.070/0 Question: Should the users of recreational facilities be requirel[ to pay user fees? A resounding 64% of 1,356 respondents felt users offacilities should pay fees. Qllestion: Given a choice between Mo of the following options, do YOll favor dl!l'elop1/lent of the property for outdoor camping, hiking and similar outdoor recreational purposes OR do you favor the city entering into some public/private partnerships to sell the surrounding real estate (bllt not the lake itse1j)? Of 1,375 respondents to this question, 84.9% favored the development of the property for outdoor camping, biking, etc. Some commented the property was big enough for both and the two choices are not mutually exclusive. Page 5 of 45 " . SV of Paris Studt of Lake Crook March, 2001 .... . Question: Would you be willing to pay higher water and wastewater bills to pay for the extension of water and wastewater utility lines to this area if developed for resi dentinl h . ? ; ouslng. Overwhelming opposition arose not only in the 89.4% out of 1,433 respondents but the item drew much written commentary. General co nsensus 0 f those surveyed is that developers should pay the expenses for development. Admittedly the statement, "would you be willing to pay. . . " always evokes such comments. Question: Should the city authorize creation of a "non-profit housing development partnership" to create "affordable" or "subsidized" housing around Lake Crook? 9 3 .2 % 0 fthe 1,429 respondents felt strongly that the city should not create a special housing partnership nor should they build "affordable" or "subsidized" housing around Lake Crook, Question: Should the city divest itself of surplus lands around the lake to the highest bidder? Tills question one would think would be more evenly divided based on the comments received orally. However, those surveyed said the city should NOT divest itself of property to the highest bidder by a five to one margin. Question: Should the city continue leasing Lake Crook properly to Archers for Christ, the Ma:o::ey black powder Rifle Club, and Paris Skeet and Trap Club, Inc.? Over two thirds of those surveyed said the city should continue leasing to these entities. Question: What are you r concerns about members of your family using any potential park iltzprovelnents at Lake Crook? This turned out to be a discussion question and provided pages and pages of comment by those surveyed. The following is a tabulation of the reasons given. Respondents could circle more than one reply. Page 6 of 45 \ ' " . ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001 Table 1. Public Concerns on Usin the Lake ~-, ' ~'~'" Cleanliness 909 17.3% Lack of restroom facilities 897 17.0% Lack of adequate policing 876 16.7% Lighting (absence thereof) 828 15.8% Vandalism 644 12.3% Inadequate access by foot or bicycle 163 3.1 0% Adjacent users 157 3.0% Tragically, 49 respondents said they would never let a member of their fanùly go to Lake Crook. .... Qllestion:- If YOll lire not using facilities at Lake Crook now, why Itot? This question is the stuff of \vhich novels are made. The general range of \vritten responses covered such reasons (in no particular order) as: . . . . . . . . . Nothing to do out there. Crime and vandalism; safety Insufficient roadway access Did not know what ,vas there or how to get there Water is dirty Horror stories; rumors of activity including devil \vorship Better facilities available at Lake Pat Mayse The grounds are 'unkept'. Run down. Many respondents said they were simply too old to go out there Question: Shoulcl we continue to allow special events such as boat races at the lake? An overwhehning 90.3% said the city should continue to allow special events, 1.5 GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS 1.5.1 G en eral. More factors than public 0 p inio n enter into the development of a long range plan for Lake Crook. Federal and state statutes co ntro 1 many 0 f the functions of co nstructio n, repair, or land development. Page 7 of 45 " . , ,O ~ of Pa~is ~~~~, ,~~~ ~~~~= St.~.'!Y...~,~a~~ Çrook March, 2001 1.5.2 Section 404 Permits. The móst noteworthy restriction in recent years is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the 1972 Clean Water Act, particularly Section 404, Under this regulation the government originally controlled and permitted the dredging and depositing of dredge materials into 'navigable' water or 'waters of the U.S.' After numerous court tests led by the Sierra Club, the Conservation Fund, and National Wildlife Federation, the Corps \vas forced into more stringent permitting requirements restricting the use of heavy machinery in wetlands because such activity fouled the water. Subsequently, other organizations like the National Association of Home Builders have sued because the Corps went too far, in their opinion, to regulate ? activity in wetlands. The Corps has been caught between the factions by being forced to write enforceable rules and then seeing the rules overturned by the courts, .... The wetlands identified in this study were based on the consultant's familiarity \vith the requirements of the Corps of Engineers but the maps do not purport to have any official status. Certainly before any development from a pier to a subdivision takes place anywhere in the city o\vned pro perty surrounding Lake Crook, the Corps will have to be consulted and a 404 Permit requested., Certain 'nationwide permits' already exist which extend the authority for installation of pipe lines tor example or limited roadway crossings, Ifa 'nationwide pennit' is claimed, a notification in writing to the Corps of Engineers ot1ìce is still recommended. Contact: Figure 1. \Vetland upstream of Caviness Road David A. Manning Planning. Environmental, and Regulatory Division 1645 S. 101st East Ave., Tulsa, OK 74128-4609 Phone: (918) 669-7400 Fax: (918) 669-4306 There are at least a dozen other federal laws governing what can and cannot be done in a wetland regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1.5.3 Flood Plain Management. Another significant law on the books is the National Flood Prevention Act of 1968 which created federal standards for locating and protecting flood plains. This law regulates the elevations to which surrounding structures must be built to protect them from flooding but also prevents the depositing ofm\ materials into a flood plain in such a way as to exacerbate flooding either upstream or dovmstream. A significant area, perhaps several hundred acres ofland, is lost to development due to flood plains in the upper reaches of the lake near Caviness Road and F,M. 79 Page 8 of 45 , . ," ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001 , , In developing land plans for this study, the consultant assumed no encroachment would be made into the flood plains or }vetlands su"ounding Lake Crook. 1.5.4 Texas Department of Health. The Texas Department of Health regulates on-site sewage disposal in Texas. These would include septic and aerobic systems under 10,000 gallons per day with either absorption fields, spray surface irrigation, or evapotranspiration fields. The state regulations require that homes built within 300 feet of a public sewerage system must connect to that system. If septic or aerobic systems are to be used for on-site disposal, the lots on which these homes are built must usually be at least Y2-acre in size. However, special orders by the Texas Water Quality Board (now the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) dating back to 1971 dictates that within the Lake Crook watershed, minimum lot sizes within a subdivision must be I-acre or more to use anyon-site disposal system. Ifless than I-acre lots are platted, a community sewer system must be installed. 1.5.5 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The prevention of storm \vater runoff laden with silt and sediments into the nations streams and waterways is a priority of the Environmental Protection Agency. The disturbance ofas little as Y2-acre requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) to prevent soil runoff and filing of a Notice of Intent (NO I) to begin construction. The creation of a subdivision or the construction of a soccer field equally fall under the umbrella of this law, Obviously, with the turbidity of Lake Crook as high as it is, compliance with this law will be a major local enforcement issue as well as federal as the city attempts to keep the lake from being further muddied. Page 9 of 45 -" - - ;.. '=- - - ,-. ;11'1' .t! ',-,' ,- \,' , ,'" C 10~~_~~, '1 I \1:1 . . , ~.;. : '" ," -,' . , , ..- " , - "f:', ' . ! "" , .." Il' '~ - - I 0 ~ ' . ~I , -I , . ..... 0 In .z' .~, " . - . , ". ~ i " -! 0' I , . 1 !' 0 ",' t WAllO T~"'" I 0 I ~I' " , ~I". ~ '~~, ~t to' ' I I -' ->-, '" " /: 11....../,,' "", ' , . , ! ... ';t '. . ". ; ,I . -\ r--.t I I I , , I t I , fJI ~ , , ,. r' " I I :1 ,I"'.)U~ , I ¡I' 1 " I . , , ,t ! I " .., , , I I "l,,". -,-,-'~_J'-'-----'r-~' , ...,..-,' i I~"b."! ! ' ,."J."';" .' 'i , "'J~¡¿' .1'", '-""-"/:'" ~~.-. , ,..~, "";.t"i!'. \ I I!' ,,!'..."" . J ",-{':"""f' ' , ,J.:::;~)J::;;.~ : I -.,' ï t,ade< " .II" ,- y~, , , " ',; I' ,.. u, \1' , , , ", , r--i '~:- , , : .J " 1 ; I ! "J "',,':.. . ,~::- J \-,' ~. - \ 'II .~ tC ... ... -I;: ;' "'--- :,' I -:;, , ",¡Rae , : 'ÌIIIIF .' .)~ " , , '. ' . , ;' \ : II ,j" ~i .~: I" ' r' ,. J..-:,\ ~,' , '" ~II , "tlJ! .:'" ,," ,&,.. ,....~:;.....- .. . '..~, '11", :". .:,.,:'~. ". ... ,I ... .. ,:' ~ '-' WI STATUTORY WETLANDS Sl'^1UfORY \\tf1\...AN?5 MAY NOr f'e FLL.fl? OR []Iæt:1œt:1 'M1HO\j( A Pe~ F~OM -n-e U.s. N?MY COl<PS Of fNlAIt-ef~, 111IS NtH' ~ ~0PeR1Y QM..f:t:1 f'Y -n-e CtfY Of PARIS W11CH IN x.L. L.1KfL.1Hl7OI? IS a.A55IFIet:1 16 \\tf1\...ANt', Qt.I.. Y -n-e COI<PS Of eNlAIt-ef5 MAY eS""~I5H FI~ ~ARlfS F~ v.Æ:'I'1...ANt:15, NO a.fARINlÃ, FLt..INlÃ, I'Iæt:1CiINlÃ, t:1t.WPtNlA OR 0f}1:~ C0N511a.1::11ON X:l1V111fS ~t:1 æ A1"œMP1'l'!t:1 IN -n-e5e NæI6 'M111O\..If FI~l' CONflCl1Nlà ~ C0I<P5, i , I < -~- , , , I I I , \,- I \ r, '0 ~. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 .00 1000 2000 !tOOO ..000 . . - I , , , ~' ;"" I ,I . ,.' " ,,', , , ca CII -- CII -~ ...-- '. II ~ f'l'f'{?Y, " Y,",',' ~*ij;t?:n Ÿ.,J~¡'r-«'¡'" 7~?//.'/~<J,"':';' . ~,/ ',,' ,'" ~",,;~"'I.';: ~M~~;~":~"~ ~~;k:'J',~'; :), }(j:l.Ù¿.~,:f:' ,;~' ~ÿ,y';:;~':d"< ~,..7";' "J' ".~ " ~ftj;¿< ~~,: :)~.,~ ~";:-:,:,.,.",, ~iJ:)'::,:'..,' ?"'~;,,.,::,~: ',', ~7'i,"" ',', ?~'~':'¡,'" . ?;þ,:.,{.; - ~?~"'J"".",f/' '(j;h;"';';~ '. ~":" ?$;J'.~'~¡';" :'; ':~ ~,',";";'-,',~;:¡"',,; ~h\o'/f.".; í"-:"/:; i//J/h/1/, f >~ ø: 0 ... ~~ j Z~ ~°ø..~Z ø..g 5 ra,.uø::""u of:! ~ ~l g:s ~ j t ~!! A; < ø.. - - - .~-~ -- 1 I I I ! , . ,~ ~f Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 2.0 . BRIEF HISTORY OF LAKE' CROOK 2.0.1.~istorical need for the lake. The history of public water supply in Paris dates back to the fire of 1877 which destroyed a large portion of 'downtown' Paris north of the railroad to the county square and stirred the interest of a number of private promoters including the Paris Water Works and Artificial Ice Company formed in 1878. However, it \vas IÚne years later in 1887 that the first pipes were actually installed in the ground for the purposes of a public water system. After flirting with the use of water wells, sometimes with more success than at other times, the city decided near the turn of the century that surface water from a lake \vas more reliable. By 1899 Lake Gibbons was built but it was not until 1904 the pump station and pipeline \vere 'on line' furnishing the city's water needs. By 1911, expanded use of the lake and a severe drought proved that the small lake could not sustain Paris and the lake was expanded. Worries about the dam bursting during periods of heavy rain prevailed when people were not worried about drought. The following was taken from the internet site provided by the Texas State Historical Agency (http//"www.tsha.utexas,edulhandbook): .... Lamar County has suffered several major disasters since its establishment. In August 1877 a fire destroyed nearly three -fourths (ten acres) of the downtown business district of Paris. Recovery u'as rapid, and stronger building ordinances induced residents to construct many of the new buildings of brick. On March 21, 1916, much of the town was destroyed by the "Great Fire, " which began in the southwest section of town and, assisted by \vinds estimated at forty miles an hour, burned from 5:30 P.M. to 3:30 A.M and devastated 260 acres. More than 1,400 structures were destroyed, including most of the downtown business district. The total monetary loss exceeded 511 million. lvliraculously, only four lives were lost. These two fIfes kept the need for an adequate fife fighting water supply foremost in the minds of city officials for decades. Finally in 1920, the city council, citing a need for a dependable water supply for future growth, called a bond election and $1.0 million was subsequently voted in September, 1920 to create a new lake on Pine Creek northwest of Paris. Engineers were hired to prepare plans and bids were taken for construction of what was in 1922 to be named Lake Crook in honor of then retiring mayor J.M. Crook who was instrumental in starting the project in the flfst place during his tenure and was responsible for purchasing the land on which the lake sits. [By the way, he was authorized by the city council to offer all the way up to $22.00 per acre for the lake site.] In June, 1923 just about one year after construction actually had begun, the lake was dedicated. A water rights appropriation authorizing withdrawal of up to 12,000 acre-feet per year (or the equivalent of 1 0.7 rnillio n gallons per day)was granted to Pads by the State ofT exas. S inee that date, although repairs have been necessary to the concrete spillway occasionally, the only significant construction on Lake Crook has been the expansion of the water treatment plant in 1943, 1966, and 1985. The plant was enlarged to 36 million gallons per day capacity in 1995 with the co mp letio n 0 f Lake Pat Mayse by the U. S. Army Corps 0 fEngineers. The city now can receive about 28 million gallons per day ttom Lake Pat Mayse in addition to approximately 8 million gallons diverted to create electrical power. The city ftequently drafts 4 to 8 million gallons per day from Lake Crook. Page 11 of 45 -". -., . . ' .0 .~ ~ of Paris Studr of Lake Crook March, 2001 According to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission inspection reports, the dam and spillway are in good shape needing only minor repairs to stay in compliance with dam safety regulations. . 2.0.2 Water Quality. \Vater quality in Lake Crook is not nearly as good as it is in Pat Mayse. Clarity 0 f water is 0 ften measured in NTU' s or turbidity units where the lower the turbidity units, the clearer the \vater, Lake Crook has a turbidity usually between 80 and 100 whereas Pat Mayse has turbidity in the 5 to 6 range. Turbidity manifests itself in water treatment by adding to the chemical cost and shortening the filter cycle rates. More frequent backwashing is required and more water wasted in doing so, ,'. ,~">'I' , .r;... "';'-- ".;;.;;..f"":~""~'-'" """','.~---"'.'.'..;'--". "",-,-,.----,".-"'-r--=:: -(8:s ~ .... ,. . -..; Figure 2 Lake Crook looking west down the south shore 2.0.3 Lake Crook Data. Lake Crook has the following statistics: A wa t e r surface area 0 f so me 1,226 acres 0 fland (Red River Aut ho rity ofT exas) A storage capacity (originally) of some 11,000 acre-feet (3.6 billion gallons) A storage capacity (presently) of some 8,530 acre-feet (2.8 billion gallons) Water shed drainage area of 48 square miles Total area of city-o\vned land and lake about 2,700 acres Height of the dam approximately 42 feet Length of the dam approximately 3,200 feet Crest width about 16 feet Construction: Clay core .. earth fill dam with concrete armor plate on water side; Spillway: 300 foot wide concrete Ogee weir Siltation rate: 50/0 per 13 years Page 12 of 45 " ," ~ of Paris 'Study of Lake Crook - March, 2001 , 2.0.4 Early Development Attempts. The city has occasionally pursued development of Lake . Crook. In May of 1956, the city council appointed a committee to investigate dedication or lease to th~ Texas State Park Board for creation of a state park on Lake Crook. The committee unanimously recommended against the proposal in their report to the council stating that the city would have to give up control of the watershed as well as other key and immovable obstacles to such a dedication, In their written report the three-man committee also stated: "Also, your committee was of the unanimous consensus that Lake Crook and its surrounding properties are a valuable asset of the City of Paris, something of which all of us can be justly proud, and is an area in which the City Council should in the future give a great deal of attention to expending [expanding?] and improving the arealor park purposes. II They go on to say: ... H. . . your committee respectfully recommends to the Council that a definite and accelerated program of the improvement of the water shed area adaptable for park purposes be initiated at once, including improvement of the access road to the park area. Your committee feels that the City of Paris can do a great deal toward improving the recreation areas of the Lake Crook property in such a manner as to make them more usable by Ollr local citizens and at a cost which is within our means. ~Ve would like to see increased expenditures and activities in this behalf in the immediate future. II The report was signed by Robert McWhirter, Clark Estes, Jr., and J.M. Gladden in June, 1956. In 1972, the city council passed a resolution authorizing city engineers to cooperate in a feasibility study by the Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for use of Lake Crook as a flood control lake. The USDA reported in 1977 that, in order to be effective for flood control, the lake would have to be lowered by 2-1/2 feet \vhich \vould benefit the property by exposing 178 acres. The city agreed in principle to lowering the lake even though it would mean a loss of some 2,582 acre-feet of water. The cost reported for channelization upstream, Lake Crook modifications, access, fish and wildlife improvements and floodwater retarding structures would be about $2.8 million in 1976 dollars with the federal goverrunent paying most of these costs. Ho\vever, the city would be required to obtain additional land rights at an estimated cost of$760,000. For whatever reason, this plan was never implemented and there appears to be no further discussion. in the public record or news media. Again in 1972, the city passed resolutions allowing hunting in specific zones around the lake and goose and duck hunting upon Lake Crook itself. Prior to tlùs time much ofthe land had been listed as a state game preserve until the state lifted that designation sometime around 1970. Some areas around Lake Crook are now or have been under lease particularly the Archers for Christ, Maxey Black Powder Rifle Club and the Paris Gun Club. Each ofthese clubs have made improvements such as the installation of target ranges and shelters on their respective leases. Page 13 of 45 ",. . ' , ,. " .. ~P~ris , Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 - -. ~,~ " The city closed NW 19th Street in the late 1980's as an access at the poiQt where the electrical transmission lines cross the road south of the developed city park on the southeast shores of the lake, . .i<c' ~." The city had experienced a rash of ~t> ;t illegal activities in the park and \...:. ' .t:' . voted to close the street to facilitate ~ . .: ~l~:: locking the park at night and better controlling the criminal elements which had laid claim to the park. , ':":';~(;7.;: . ,,',.'" .... 2.1 CURRENT USAGE OF THE LAKE CROOK PROPERTY 2.1.1 Improvements. The city has installed two boat ramps on the south shoreline near the water treatment plant and has a small fishing pier bet\veen the two ramps. A metal . building picnic pavilion approximately 80 feet by 120 feet on i a concrete slab foundation has been added in recent years. Also in recent years, the city has embarked on a steel post and rod barrier system to keep users' vehicles on the designated roadways and not allow vehicles up into picnic areas or open spaces. Roads have recently been plowed and re-graveled and leveled \vithin this park. City forces have also thinned and underbrushed several acres 0 f parkland. ~.~-_.",. -=-:-~ -- .. . ..:~_..... - - , '. ';..~. .. ., -- .,:, ~ The gun and archer clubs have made limited improvements ~..~.." ,..~~~ t hro ugh the co nstruc t io n 0 f targ et ranges and target trails 2.1.2 Access. Access to Lake Crook is severely limited, Two roads, one designated County Road 32900 and one a Figure 4 Park road city road designated Lake Crook Road (formerly C.R. 31700) provide the only access into the city park on the south shore. The Lake Crook Road is very narrow and in poor condition. It was never designed to carry sigrúficant amounts of traffic and must be upgraded lithe south shoreline of Lake Crook is to serve as a quality recreational area. Many of those surveyed in the mail-out indicated they did not know how to access the park or were afraid to access the park on the only available Page 14 of 45 ,e ~ of Paris StudLof Lake Cro~k March, 2001 , = _a ..sL -_..~ . ' routes, County Road 32900 is a windmg narrow country lane designed to serve the fe\v local residences along that road. It, like Lake Crook Road, \vas never designed to carry high vehicle coun~s which \vould or could develop if the south shoreline is improved substantially. The consultant estimates nearly three quarters of a million dollars will be necessary just to widen the roadways and resurface them. As mentioned earlier in this report, N\V 19th Street has been closed for over a decade now ostensibly to prevent any criminal element úom having a second escape route in the event they are approached by police patrols, NW 19th Street úom Loop 286/US 82 north\vard to the closure is nearly 7,600 feet in length and passes through a lo\v to moderate income neighborhood of low density population. If reopened it would provide limited access to the south shoreline. The north shoreline is available OIùY on foot or horseback under most conditions and via all- terrain vehicle or four wheel drive vehicles under the best of conditions. The city property actually úonts 2000 feet on F.M. 1499, a recently rebuilt farm-to-market highway but it is about 2,500 feet úom the fann-to-market to the closest shoreline, Other access is afforded only through locked gates via four \vheel drive vehicles from Caviness Road (C.R, 32500). .., Caviness Road actually crosses the upper (\vest) end of the lake and limited, portable boat access to the \vater is afforded at either ofhVO small bridges. The Archers for Christ club and the Maxey Black Po\vder Rifle Club access their facilities inm1ediately off Caviness Road whereas the Paris Gun Club actually enters otfofF.M. 79. 2.1.3 Adjacent Land Uses. A significant portion of the south shoreline property o\vned by the city is itselfbordered by Campbell Soup company property used as a spray irrigation disposal field between NW 19th Street and Lake Crook Road. This spray disposal system creates a serious odor problem according to reports from the neighborhood, especially in the heat of the summer when the wind is ITom the south. Other than immediately adjacent to NW 19th Street where sparsely populated residential ~ neighborhoods are built, land south -. "". :,' 1 :.')"': ' ."" ,'~",.. -: ' of the lake is largely unusable ~'.":'c'" ,:" ,},~~ il~t.4;"""~"':" . ~- " -' . .... ' , ~'.. IW~:.~;, ,..,'" ~~... I d d fl d 1. b ~.,.' . ,~ ""'o1~-i° ':""';'~'~~~:o.: ~~~..:...,.;t.~.. wet an an 00 p am etween . .." 0' .i~!-~~;;;'-" ~.':i;"r-rÅ¡.,~ :':::r~.;D::~;t, w...lIi~~~"'t.~~,~.~'-~ . .o;.Ç. .~;,. ~~~;-: . . .,' '~~""""~~" -~. th . ""'~- . 'e ' ...:::.:....~:'¡"'-~,- .0".' .::,:":,,,,~~~,"~'~,~ NW 19 Street and Cavmess Road. ..:,=~~;;š:", ~.~.... .. ,~"1f.'-:.. . ,¡..~;o ,-:;:.:'-:.>. :. :.:;:"""~ ~/'~.~'-:';:~~!r~' .. - ~.~. '"......~ . '...~..," .~ ~ ....." ."';::". ....' ,--.,.:,\~ .r-:. The gun and archery clubs occupy.' ~fì'~~~i'!l~j-'¿»f:\;~',:~:;~%{~ì8::{'f'~:f~ about the only 'develop-able' land ~~.-:~~..........~c-f".:_'" ."-~' . . ".""'. """"'-~ !'... . .-' .' - !":~~'~~~ th t d f th I k Figure 5 Northwest comer city property at Cavmess Road on ewes em en 0 e a e along Caviness Road. Proceeding north of these clubs on Caviness one quickly runs into heavy wetlands on either side of the road all the way to the city's north boundary line where it crosses Caviness Road, There are no occupied dwellings anywhere along Caviness Road acrosS the city land. Page 15 of 45 .. if ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001 , The city land on the north shore is heavily wooded with underbrush. Further nort~ above the city property, are scattered farm and ranch land and sparsely developed subdivisions with scattered dwellings. The east side of Lake Crook is where the dam and spillway are located and a large portion of the . land between the dam and U.S. Highway 271 is flood plain and undevelopable. With the exception of the city's property west of Caviness Road, all the city property surrounding Lake Crook is annexed into the City of Paris. 2.1.3 City Utilities. At the south end of the dam is situated the City of Paris 36.0 MOD Water Treatment Plant \vruch pumps water through three large diameter water mains all the way into ground storage tanks in the northwest side of Paris. From these storage tanks, booster pumps lift the water into towers for general distribution. To use water from the plant would require construction of ground storage and booster facilities and possibly even a new elevated storage tank since the lines between the plant and the ground storage tanks are not pressurized at all times. .... To the northeast of Lake Crook, about Y2 mile east across U.S, 271 and north about two miles from Pine Creek is the City of Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant. Any sewerage systems on Lake Crook would have to flow east with Pine Creek until it intercepted se\vage trunk mains running roughly parallel to V.S, 271. Because of the confluence of several small drainage sub-basins into the north shoreline of Lake Crook, any sewer system development along the north shore would likely have to be "lifted" by a pump station east to a point where the sewer could gravity flow to the east. As many as five lift stations could be required to serve the entire north shore, These lift stations would not serve great areas ofland beyond the city owned property because there is a significant drainage divide between Lake Crook and F.M. 1499. 2.1.4 Leases on the Land. As ment io Red earlier there are principally three 0 rganizatio ns using land around Lake Crook, Page 16 of 45 .. . ~ of Paris & _n.- -, ~tudt~!~ake Crook.~ rp~ _._--,-~~. l\larch,2001 ~ I F' 7 P 'G Cl b 1 F M 79 Figure 8 Archers for Christ lease on Caviness Igure ans un u ease on ,. Rd The Archers for Christ organization has had a lease in the past but rene\val of that lease has been placed in limbo pending completion and action by the city on this study, The Archers for Christ actually occupy small target ranges on both sides of Caviness Road and frequently utilize other, non-leased land for hunting and special competitions or '.shoots" during the year. 2.1.5 Hunting and Fishing. Hunting is allo\\'ed on certain areas of city O\\l1ed Lake Crook property by ordinances passed in the 1970's and subsequently an1ended. Duck and goose hunting \vith shot guns (and not rifles) is pennitted on the open waters of the lake. Only bow hunting is allowed on the north shore and on the upper \vest shore \vest of Caviness Road and above the Archers for Christ lease. Shot gun hunting is allowed in the large flood plain area south of the lake down to F.~1. 79 and up along the south shore to \vhere the park road is closed. Hunting is not permitted in the public park on the south shore nor around the water treatment plant and below the dan1. Fishing is allowed on the lake in accordance \vith state fishing laws. There are currently no restrictions on boat size or horsepower on Lake Crook 2.1.6 Other Users. The lake has been used in the past for water skiing and ski jumping training or competitions. In 1975, the ski jump ramp \vas removed with the concurrence of the Paris Water Skiing Club. The lake has also been host to Touchstone Energy Longhorn National Drag Boat Racing competition, the most recent being in July, 2000. There are no publicized plans for additional racing on the lake at the present time, Page 17 of 45 ~~ : . . -' , .- I ""., ,,' ..... i' " ,,' ',' '. ~ .-.' , "". I i \. " Ih1Ø ...;' '". ¡,¡u . . , ':'-' - "- " ':-- "'=' .~ FARM AND RANCH LAND CI . ,'" ~ o¡, . ,t ' .. ,,' ;..- .' ""', t:¡. I ~:I FARM AND RANCH LAND VI (.100~&~. " " ., _--,-" . ;, I I . I i ""--1 ",....' I '" ,', I :, ',\ I '.., ! '. , , í - -~':"-';';.- -'-' ,'i"I' .11 . "-" ;.. -'.' . ':' , ' .. ", I" .. ; , , , ~ , 'I , . "s I , i I , ;p;1 :;! ~: ~t , :r:1 " w~ -~. .., ,~ %?Mdt. '-./',~'~.:' r~t . '~;;:,;;;.ý~ ::'Y?y.j , =-,.,' ,:,.~"::1z;,t ':7Î~:;ij:~;.:T;~::::~i {It ' """';"<" . <,ii~.\ ~ , ~;:,:' { , :~~~, , . , ./,.,CAMP!f.,E;LL/~,..~.,;.,.../"...,... :~/"":'X': '.)u .. ";"',: :/t-:;:-:-'.SOU' P,.,//;'~'?,f;{~t/,'%;;:¿;:-:'/":,:,;," :':,/;:~./:~: ,$/",.. """'. '/""/.~?:/."<""/.-""""""',"""'/':'/;--"" . ',/,', {C.;;'~(!-%;{'{{{*,t<é,":':~~?:~;:, '" , ..", ~, ."'" --t?)~'J.II~r~l\~i};:¡i: ' ~ ""', ,/",.:~"t.../":,,,,/;:. "<'~"i?"/:"'J ,.. \~~,_.-;J~~~fUg{~J"¡;r ~ ..' . .,. ' I ,. , 'w.... hnk~ I , , I ?' FARME'" AND ~~ RANcii T' A ND ~ , >,'::;i(:',~,,;, ::<':!;:":, ~',:;:';:':",,' ",'.., - ,.-i- ! , ,,' "'" '~ .' '" ~ ,,: , ~ .~ ... I - ' ~, ~\ ... ,,' ; 'R ::'. rC ~i( , ,...:.:- p" , dib' . ,,~111~ ,~, )1 " ~ . .. '\ , ", i, , ' 'SI ';.--.""~ I :~: f...1 ,e-;,.-, ' ~::¡ ....~":" *,'~" ' ~. '" '....,' '.1:" LEGEND . 1'Iæ1/lOUS~" ~ MOt!I1S fCß. CK'Isr. N:, H!D'Øtf I'.HoICZS, 00'e~ ma ~NlQ.f ~, HIf) ØQN tUomNG II CItY Of' ,,- _Ir næAf'I\.-£NI'rIJ'HI'. Mia sna.cruræ HIf) '(1NA . CII'Y Of' ".MIS 1Mf'II!OIIt'(1 "H:7. LHIf). ~. C/'INr ~S. f~ f'elr. ø<N\f D I'IæVlOUS L~-Q.'(1 ~ "-""!IS ~ a.1.Ø. ma :\HOOfING ON. V, ~f / trtN . I'IæVlOlß LEI\SeHOL'(1 rlV ~V I/I'LE HD "....00. f'0NI7U(. c:uI Q.ID. IlHJlZ ~ ON.Y " GRAPHIC SCALE 0 ~OO 1000 2OCX) ~ ..000 I J ~ N ~ .ON CO.f> ~ :..c '" 0 1r~: .~E ., ~ ~ol ~O r s -.... CII _1ft CII - ~ IfAI: .- . , : , n ; ¥ Q ~ a Ii i . . ... ¡;; CD ... . (/ ~ {a VII- taJ VI :11 Z ~ ::::..: '"' ~ <0 ~ 0 Z o..OCloZ::::' . ~ <0 ÔU~..JU >-I&:e-CO: ¡...:':VlZ< -;S<-~ u ~f-o::S ~ >< taJ(/ ¡¡: « g. ~ IIOIt II[.-s .~..c.,;,'":i 8CØ1III. 2 I 1 I I ! .. t- ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 3.0 , POTENTIAL USES OF THE'LAKE 3.1 OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1 Water and Sewer Availability. As discussed in paragraph 2.1.3 Public Utilities, in the section on existing improvements, there are currently no public sewer or \vater utilities anywhere on the lake except at the water treatment plant itself. Since water is pumped into town only when ground storage tanks in Paris dictate it, pumping is intermittent. A pumping station utilizing either variable speed pumps and ground storage facilities or conventional pumps and elevated storage would be required to distribute water to the south, west and north shores of the lake. A large development involving a thousand lots or so would dictate the need for elevated storage for maintaining pressure, .., Sanitary sewer is available only through the use of several lift stations scattered along the shore lines, Because there are at least five sub-drainage areas actually entering the lake on the north shore, it would be necessary to install approximately five separate lift stations to lift se\vage east to the dam where the sewer could gravity flo\v eastward across U.S. 271 to the existing sewer trunk lines. An alternative solution would be to install a pressure system in which each home \vould have a small lift station of its own to lift into a small diameter pressurized main. This would obviate the necessity for manholes or gravity lines throughout the housing development but would require more long term maintenance in monitoring and replacing individual home lift stations, Current TNRCC regulations require the city (or other utility company) to monitor and maintain the individual home lift station units even though they are installed on private property. An imperative in the use of the larger lift stations and gravity mains would be a provision for generators at each lift station to provide alternative power supplies in the event of loss of commercial power. Another concern would be the use of secondary containment around lift stations to contain any sewer overflow before it could reach the lake, Earlier in this report we discussed the special water quality regulations for Lake Crook that dictate I-acre minimum size lots for anyon-site disposal system. The consultant further recommends that no septic fields, lines, or tanks be permitted within three hundred feet of the lake or a stream leading to the lake, The installation of a water distribution network for any residential or commercial development of the shoreline properties should only be allowed with large diameter pipe (6-inch minimum diameter) designed to carry fire flows into the neighborhood. Fire hydrants and valves should also be required in keeping with the city subdivisio~ regulations. 3.1.2 Watershed Management. Lake Crook has largely been replaced by Lake Pat Mayse as a water supply for the city. However, the city does occasionally draw several nùllion gallons of water per day and is permitted up to the equivalent of 10 million gallons per day per year. That fact and the use of the lake as a contact recreation and fishing lake make it imperative that the city impose strict development regulations concerning uses along the shores of the lake. A suggested list of regulations occurs on page 35 of this study. Page 19 of 45 .. ~ of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March,2001 , There should be severe limitations on the 'use of insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on lawns, gardens and landscapes. Almost all insecticides for home use carry warning labels conveying a stem. threat of potential environmental damage to fish and birds if the product is misused. Although monitored by the city's treatment plant staff and laboratory, nonnal filtratioI} methods at the city's water treatment plant are no t designed to remove these types of po isons from water. The city should restrict potential silt damage to the lake during the construction of utilities, roadways and buildings. Erosion control plans must be developed and adhered to by each of the parties involved in building subdivisions or homes, The clearing of trees and vegetation should be closely regulated to prevent potential erosion damage to the shoreline. 3.1.3 Legal Issues. The consultant is a\vare of Section 253.001(b) \vhich requires that land held by a city as a park may not be sold unless the issue is submitted to the qualified voters of the municipality and approved by a majority of the votes cast. Section 1508.006 of the Texas Government Code further requires an election if the property is sold or encumbered for more than $5,000. Case la\v has extended these provisions to even cover long term leases of property. .., Chapter 272 of the Texas Local Government Code contains provisions requiring a published notice and a sealed bid to sell or exchange land. Once again, this la\v has been ~xtended by case law to cover long term leases as being comparable to an actual sale. The consultant is not qualified to practice law. We do not knO\V \vhether the use of the property for hunting, hiking or similar uses renders it as "park" land and therefore subject to an election or not. Certainly, however, this is an obstacle to overcome if the city council does decide the sale of land is in its best interest. We point out that one citizen could effectively shut down the process of selling land until a ruling could be issued in court months or years down the line. 3.1.4 Logistics to a Sale of Public Land. Hand in hand with the previous discussion section, the actual transfer of land to a developer may prove to be extremely complicated. For example, no developer will want to bid on the property without conducting his own feasibility and due diligence study to decide what the land might be worth to him or her. Most developers, faced with a competitive bid situation, may not be inclined to invest the money to conduct such a study on the off chance they may 'win' the bid. Further, the potential bidder may be reluctant to accept the city's own study as being sufficiently thorough enough on which to base a bid for possibly millions of dollars. Given these difficulties in preparing a bid, potential bidders will be reluctant and competition will be scarce. As a result the bid prices the city receives may be artificially low. 3.1.5 Campbell Soup. The nuisance odors created by the surface disposaf of irrigated waste water on Campbell Soup property is apparently well known in Paris circles. We encountered dozens of individuals who stated the odor is so strong that it can make one ill to the stomach at the very worst and keep citizens indoors at the very least. Campbell Soup does not appear to be altering their disposal process and have millions of dollars invested in their land disposal system. A developer considering Lake Crook will not take this problem lightly. It may be a substantial Page 20 of 45 ~ ~ of Paris Stud1. of Lake Crook March, 2001 . enough problem by itself to inhibit the såle of property around Lake Crook. 3.1.6. Water Clarity. While it can generally be ackno\vledged that Lake Crook is an asset to the City of Paris, can it be likewise acknowledged that Lake Crook is a muddy, turbid body of water, a fact \vhich detracts from its potential beauty? Lake Crook is not th~ same as the Villages of Lake Palestine, Holly Lake Ranch, Hide Away Lake, Lake Cypress Springs, Lake Ouachita at Hot Springs, Arkansas or any of the more famous regional lake developments. These lakes have clear, sometimes spring fed water. During public participation meetings, several individuals brought up the subject of dredging Lake Crook. Cleaning an 80-year old lake of siltation is an expensive task. There are essentially two methods which can be used. One is to drain the lake down and allow the bottom to harden to the point where standard earth moving equipment like scrapers, back hoes or drag lines can remove the silt. This may take years given that you must have a dry period for the lake bottom to firm and for silt to be de-watered before it can be hauled off. Further, there is no way of lo\vering Lake Crook without constructing some alternative pipe spillway, building a siphon, pumping, or breaching the dam. All of these are costly and breaching may be unpredictable. \Ve do not recommend any consideration be given to breaching the dam. .., The second method is to use shallow \vater barge mounted dredges. \Vhiterock Lake is the most recent success story. This urban Dallas Lake is almost exactly the size of Lake Crook and has nearly the identical square miles of watershed. It also was built in the 1920's. Whiterock was dredged in 1995-1996 at a cost of nearly $14.0 million which included a 17 mile force main for the dredgings to be pumped to an abandoned gravel pit near Duncanville. A similar project was completed two years later on a larger lake for the City of San Angelo. Their dredging project cost a mere $9.5 million but land \vas available adjacent to the lake on \vhich to pump silt. Based on these and other dredging projects with \vhich \ve are familiar, we estimate a dredging project for Lake Crook would cost between $5.0 and $6.5 million dollars. A permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the TNRCC before dredging can be done. The chief ad vantage to dredging over lowering of the water level is that use of the lake is continuous. .'. even \vhile dredging is taking ~ ~:.;' place. , . even for fishing. Figure 9 Effects of erosion seen on south shore Page 21 of 45 .. ~ . . ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook - l\'Iarch, 2001 3.2 , OPTION 1 - LOW DENSITY' NORTH SHORE DEVELOPMENT 3.2.1.Description of Option 1. This option proposes a modest, large lot development with lots averaging one to hvo acres along the north shore which \ve will describe in this report as the North Shore addition. Such a development with a large, stone wall and landscaped entry off of . F .M. 1499 could be done in a rural style with split rail fences along the roadways and county road section streets with very shallow "borrow" ditches. The paving surface would be asphalt under this proposal, winding through the lush tree cover all along the shores of the lake. A minimum of 222 lots could be platted in our estimation even allowing for several acres of green belt and natural areas to remain unimproved or slightly improved with picnic tables. Even so, estimated cost for a north shoreline subdivision with large lots is approximately $6,0 million An additional unit described herein as the ~Vest Shore development would likewise be large lots and conform to the description given for the North Shore development. This unit cannot feasibly be developed independent of the north shore ifa central sanitary sewer system is required. West Shore simply does not have enough lots to support an expensive off-site sewer system, The west shore infTastructure development would cost approximately $1.98 million for construction under a rural style set of improvements \vith on-site sewage disposal. .... Under this Option 1 scenario, large areas of\vetland and flood plain are avoided and left in natural state to be set aside as bird sanctuary and wildlife habitat. Hiking/mountain biking trails can be built inexpensively through these habitat areas to connect the subdivision \vith the present so.uth shore city park. This option leaves the south shore for the development by the city into a community or regional park. The south shoreline would largely be unaftècted by any development on the north shore or \vest shore due to lack of access roads connecting the park and these ne\v subdivisions. This option presupposes several things. One, the property lies wholly within the city limits of Paris and therefore is subject to the city's ordinances governing subdivision development. City subdivision regulations call for concrete streets with integral curb in subdivisions such as shown in Option I, Cost estimates have been prepared and are sho\vn later in this section comparing the cost of compliance with this part of the ordinance. Further, city ordinances would require centralized sewer systems as opposed to on-site septic or aerobic systems. The city planning and zoning officials and the city council may be unwilling to \vaive these sewer system requirements even for large lots. Ifvariances are not granted, the cost of constructing the infrastructure for the north shore balloons to $8.9 million and, for the west shore, costs escalate to $3.3 million. In discussion of Option 3, a denser single family residential development, a table has been created to compare the "per lot cost" for each of these different scenarios. The Option I plan shows a 59 acre commercial parcel where Paris Ovn Club leases now. While eventually this could be a valuable comer for local retail, restaurant/fast food, convenience store and gasoline filling station, traffic counts may not be high enough yet to entice a commercial builder to this site. Page 22 of 45 ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 . . Table of Advantages versus Disadvantages Option 1 I. Low impact development with ability to largely preserve the trees and habitat. 2. Connects FM 1499 with Caviness Road with a winding, scenic lake shore road. 3. Fewer lots means a faster absorption rate in the Paris housing market and less impact on other subdivisions than would a ten year or twenty year build-out. 4. If aerobic systems were permitted, the sewer system development costs are significantly lower than other options. 5. If county road sections in lieu of concrete pavement are permitted, the paving development costs are significantly lower than with other options. 6. There would be a significant increase in the tax base by some $44.9 million and tax revenues to all entities would climb by as much as $1.2 million. 7. Sales tax revenue annually trom new resident spending would bring to all entities about $300K each year. 8. The water revenues would be expanded by the addition of333 new customers. I. Low density will render fewer lots for sale on which to distribute the costs of development. 2. The development of commercial land along FM 79 is probably at least a decade away. 3. Residential development along a lake shore brings with it the problem of fertilizer and insecticide contamination of the water supply. 4. The lower dependability of on-site disposal systems threatens the water supply. 5. County road sections, while cheaper to build, cost more to maintain due to ditches and culverts. 6. Hunting should be curtailed on all city property if this option is selected due to the proximity of homes. 7. Leases to archers and shooters should not be renewed because of noise and threat of flying projectiles near homes. 8. The water system would be greatly expanded and require a new pwnping station and higher maintenance. 9. The sale of public land is difficult. If the city acts as developer it puts the city in unreasonable competition with private enterprise. 10. It could overtax public safety services such as lice and fire at resent staffin levels. Page 23 of 45 ,... -. - - .,. II II 8 I Ii Ii I. I i I. ¡ -.. .- '.... - f f",~¡¡fk ~¡~~:~{ ti, i \( ~,;!; R1~ii~'¡I; ~~~';~J ~~~~,~~":{:~:~~:~;"~~:'¿'~'i'\.~~~~.'~:':-~'\'§r~£.~~~,~ ~ ~~~_a~ S"tX3J. AJ.NaO:) HYKV1 SUIYd J.N3f{d01:iA3G 3110H5 .LS3A\ "i Hl1l0N I NOI.LdO NYId lI:USYI'( >1001(:) 3)(YI SHlV.1 .:10 A.I.IJ ~. -- - -- I11IS8JM '~~ t §~ ~ ~~ es §Q ~9 1~ kI §n I ~ ~ ~~ i~~ §i~~ ~~ r.:¡ ~ Rt1~t: -oqlt: . ! - ~~ ~ ~i ~ en II .. ~ ~ n ~~ ..:I!~ ~i~' !::~ ~~ ~~: ~~ ~~ "'~5 ~ "'~ ~!~~ §N" ~ ~ ~ ø.., ~C) Q~ ~~n"'. 8t~ It'" ~~~ ~>~~ !>~~ ~§ f i¡ II Ii §~ ~1! ~t~1! ~~ ~~~ "~9~ "~9, t.-'- IiIr: ..tI .. ",\I ~ ~õ(~ ~i~¡~ i~~~~ . II 5v 0 ~æg e @ ~~ -¡, , ....- , . i ' ,,} .:r',.. -- ~;:>.. I - -'..-....¡.-- ' ,---'-,._- '\ , , .---- \ ' " ,,' ' Ñih¡¿'ioN" , _. ~:~ -'~!Ñiñ;'9~- , I ,ó! , 1 '. I .0 "" . A:!~' , ..', ~~'- ,---1- ,,7 ~:z;;.' " , "':l~: '. '. -' ".',' """;'; ::,~ , -_...~-, ,0, ' ;¡.{".i' ::- " ""'() ;' 'I , :/' "'F( "" ,: , /lI:l ' - ';1Ii./' ,"" - ..,' " ,;-, . ,,~ , . . ;) ,.. ;~ ~ ,,1;, to..' ,-~-:.. '" ----._-~.3o..,,: -;:; , '," , , . '- ' a'=;:~--"'~,- , .-- ,-' 'L.' """"'... .-""'-- I, ',.o-} ' , i '\',~~.f,'\.J¡.:.,"r~ , ~ 't:,,~.¡"Þ'i..¡¡~í;/ I!, :::¡; ,t~~¡o:~ ,i".",tj; . I .. , .I . , . ~ ,.." ,,--- ,- .. ' . , It' .. . '- .. "" ! , .-' ", ¡ ;,," , - ¡--' -. -. --. ---'-"'" --' , .. .. ",', ' ',I ,'-:,', ,~'. '..J-.~-,-.- ,,' "I , . ~ "', --: --'" I ,0' l" ," ',: :,', ;,¡ .-' " ',-, '.' ,I 11(' '" ," - ,., , ;, " , ",' ï , , -.-" , , . ! .'-,_.- .., ". ,,' '¡ ,,-,--'~'""'- ' ~ .. .. I . .:. ...". . "" ..:' ". . .. .. - - "Ó ... )1&, 0' 't " u' T ¡ " ,,-' 'j ~ ( , . , :: .. " .. ,.' ~ , 7 " . ~ :,.--' ., ,"- , I ' " a . I.- ,'/, . ~ 3 "'-. ,:" ,I ',' '"...,- 4 " ~'" . C' '- :... , , PRELIMINARY OPINIONS OF COST" . , ".,' " , . "" "... " : F,OROPTION I ~ NORTH AND WEST SHORE DEVELOPMENT. ' " . " i LAKE CROOK STUDY' '. .,' ,'. , ' " ' ,,12 JUNE 2001 . ¡ he following information is intended to show the relative costs of development under this scheme versus other options and s based on the consultanfs experience. Actual costs may be higher or lower than these preliminary estimates. Estimates re not based on substantial engineering surveys and data which may later reveal obstacles or possible savings in cost em Description Concrete Paved Streets and Sewer System NORTH SHORE: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6- - 12- size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off.site 12- water line from plant to new ground storage 6 0.5 mgal ground storage; pressure pumping station 7 On-site sanitary sewer lines; 6"-8- size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off.site 12- gravity sanitary sewer to existing trunk 10 Dry bore and casing; U.S. 271 11 Monolithic concrete curb 12 Reinforced concrete pavement 13 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 14 Landscaping entrances and common areas; irrigation .... WEST SHORE: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6- - 12- size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 12- water line 7 On.site sanitary sewer lines; S-.8- size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off-site ë force main to North Shore 11 Monolithic concrete curb 12 Reinforced concrete pavement. 13 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 1 ~ Landscaping entrances and common areas Subtotal Construction Surveying, platting, staking Engineering Contingency (10%) Estimated Units Quantity 45.1 acres 25 ea 330 sta. 33000 IJ . 6000 IJ . 1 LS 30000 IJ . 5 ea. 11000 IJ. 200 IJ. 66000 IJ . 121000 s.y. 1 LS 1 LS Unit Price Total $8,000 12,500 2,500 22 32 350,000 25 85 , 000 34 160 6 25 40000 80000 $360,800 312,500 825,000 726,000 192,000 350,000 750,000 425,000 374,000 32,000 396,000 3,025,000 40,000 80,000 $7,888,300 18.9 acres $8,000 $151,200 12 ea 12,500 150,000 14 sta. 1,500 21,000 1 4000 IJ. 22 308,000 3000 IJ. 32 96 , 000 14000 IJ. 25 350,000 1 ea. 85 ,000 85 , 000 3000 .f. 20 60 , 000 28000 IJ. 6 168,000 51400 s.y. 25 1,285,000 1 LS 20000 20000 1 LS 40000 40000 $2,734,200 $ 10,622,500 133,200 333,000 1,062,250 $ 12150950 Total Cost: Construction a tion I . . , ' ",' , . . ,I , " FOR OPTI?N I-, NORTH ANDWEST SHORE DEVELOPMENT,' ' ,:', ' ¡ , ,"'.',' , ' , " I m Description Estimated Units Quantity Asphalt county road section and on-site sewage disposal systems NORTH SHORE: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6. - 12" size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 12. water line from plant to new ground storage 6 0.5 mgal ground storage; pressure pumping station 7 Flexible road base on compacted subgrade 8 Hot mix asphaltic concrete pavement 9 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 10 Landscaping entrances and common areas; irrigation .... WEST SHORE: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6. - 12" size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 12. water line 6 Flexible road base on compacted subgrade 7 Hot mix asphaltic concrete pavement 8 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 9 Landscaping entrances and common areas Subtotal Construction Surveying, platting, staking Engineering Contingency (10%) Total Cost: Construction Option I 45.1 acres 25 ea 330 s13. 33000 I.f . 6000 I.f . 1 LS 88000 s.y. 84000 s.y. 1 LS 1 LS 18.9 acres 12 ea 14 s13. 14000 IJ. 3000 IJ. 37000 s.y. 34000 s.y. 1 LS 1 LS Unit Price $8,000 12,500 2,500 22 32 350 , 000 12 12 40000 80000 $8,000 12,500 1,500 22 32 12 12 2 0000 40000 Total $360,800 312,500 825,000 726,000 192,000 350,000 1,056,000 1,008,000 40 , 000 80 , 000 $4,950,300 $151,200 150,000 21,000 308 ,000 96,000 444 , 000 408,000 2 0000 40000 $ $1,638,200 6,588,500 133,200 351,365 658,850 $ 7,731,915 Notes: This cost analysis does not include the cost of advertising and marketing; sales and legal expenses; promotions; maintenance during sales; lot preparation for building; or amenities. The installation of gas, electric, telephone and television facilities is assumed to be sufficiently cost effective due to the density of development that there will be no cost to the developer for installation. .' ~ March, 2001 I £!!,v of Paris Study of Lake Crook 3.2.2 Recommendations Concerning Öption 1. The consultant, recognizing that the plan has significant environmental attraction to it by preserving vast amounts of ground for wildlife habitat; cannot support Option 1 as configured now. The cost per lot is too high to make it a viable projeèt. We could support t~e project more if the West Shore part of this option \vere not included due to the poor access along the county road. Soil conditions and high water table make it difficult to maintain a high quality, heavy trafficked road along the wetlands on both sides of Caviness Road. Since it is not in the city limits, but borders the city limits, it is unlikely the county will expend vast amounts of money to upgrade this road. We further could support Option 1 if the development of the commercial tract \vould be deleted ftom consideration and left in a natural state for several years to come. Without the West Shore development, the commercial tract development would be seriously impeded. Whereas private roads on the north shore could reduce initial costs of construction and defer city maintenance ofpaving and drainage for years to come, \ve believe the citizens are not best served by prohibiting ftee and uninterrupted use of a road along the shoreline. A north shore development should be designed to later extend streets and utilities north into other lands when these other tracts are developed. Finally, if the \vest shore and the commercial tract were not developed, \ve can support the concept ofrenewing leases to the gun and archery clubs feeling they \vould no longer be a hazard to any nearby homes. 3.3 OPTION 2 - FULL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.3.1 Description of Option 2. This option provides for the immediate development of certain tracts of land, especially the south shore park, as formal park improvements \vith improved fishing piers, campgrounds, playgrounds, group picnic shelters, family picnic shelters and tables. Other areas would be left undeveloped and promoted as váldlife habitat and hunting property, The archery and gun clubs could retain their leases and ranges under this option with some re~trictions, Longer leases (twenty or more years) would encourage these clubs to make more meaningful investments into the property in time and money. Short term leases (year to year) will discourage this investment entirely. Expansion of a hiking/biking trail along the north shore is shown in this option, looping all the way around the dam and spillway and tying back into the developed south shore park. These trails would Page 26 of 45 , i " "I , Thi.1 Par\: will bto. Iccktd during the boars or .~) IO:<JO p.Jl'l, Ib G;C)4) I.M. ' T!rt "~I1I31üi ! I.J un ~ pl1k herOIc r~ÙI' is ßt r:estJ." Aayoae Io<Ud i. I~ park din J>:CO p.=. Þ1)' CCClt.ad:': tJu~ W2ttf Tratz::t:( Pb:IC a( ';$-4-%41)4 or . t~ Puis Polit, Dep&..tllud It iSt.&1!ð3. ,:? ~, ,:tIlIft~ t!óI ~:. Ia! jIIOjIdIlt tt.I W. r,. M u,¡,:~ Ikmal" Am tli ~ J1\w1TI4 ~ ,...1i2I* "no rvle ud .~~; .fONI:øz_~~~ :tlSS-õ5IJ ElL zs¡) , . '\""",~.' . ,.:t~ '. . '::::~¡ , . ""~' .' ,. £!tv of Paris Study of Lake Crook l\'larcb,2001 I , be cleared, unpaved paths through the woods with underbrush pulled back away from the trail for safety sake. In some unusually steep creek crossings areas foot-style bridges would be needed and c~lverts would be installed in major drainage paths. Signage along the trail would identify location, mile marker, and hazards. Nature identification signs could be placed to point out flora and fauna encountered along the trail. Maintenance of the trail will be inexpensive but still required. Signs from time to time must be re-set and brush continually cut back from the trail, In the past decade, the Archers for Christ have leased much of this property for bow hunting and for trail type target shooting. Under option 2, Archers for Christ could occasionally use the north shore for the same activity but with time constraints. Special events could be staged but when the events are over the park reverts back to full public use. Areas used by the archers west of Caviness Road would remain unimproved and available for hunting and target shooting by the Archers with fe\ver restrictions, There need be no 'time sharing' of this portion of the Lake Crook habitat, The Wild Turkey Federation has expressed an interest in re-populating the north and western shores of Lake Crook with turkey ifthere are no residences built under the approved development plan. .... In the public opinion surveys, several individuals suggested the need for \vilderness camping areas for scouts and other groups to use. Our opinion is that the peninsula of land jutting between the two fmgers of Lake Crook would be ideal for such a camp. Access to proposed restrooms and parking lots can be controlled at Caviness Road to reduce unauthorized use, The \vildemess camp could have minimal improvements such as earth paths and nature trails which are not expensive to construct. The north shore between the dam and F.M. 1499 is proposed in Option 2 in the long term as another large, \vell improved public park perhaps several years after the south shore development is completed. There is adequate room, behveen 100 and 200 acres, abutting F.M, 1499 to construct numerous group picnic shelters and looping park roads. A north shore boat ramp and fishing pier will eventually be needed and an excellent site for an amphitheater exists already. A large rustic playground structure \vould be a \velcome addition to this park as the population of Paris expands northward. We have included in Option 2 an RV campground currently shown in the south shore park but conceivably this R V campground could be placed on the north shore instead where access to U.S. 271 is much easier and where there would be little interference with other day users as there would be in the south shore park. Our experience \vith these type campgrounds shows that with very little advertising such a campground can attract overflow from state and federal parks. We recommend controlled access and preferably a full-time lake/campground caretaker, perhaps even certified as a peace officer or warden. The caretaker should reside at the park or near the dam and oversee payment of camping fees, maintenance of improvements, and watch out for illegal or ill advised activities on the land or in the water. A similar development on Lake Hawkins in Wood County catches overflow from Tyler State Park and nets the county some $60,000 per Page 27 of 45 . . .. Sv of Paris Stud~ of Lake Crook March, 2001 I . year. Unattended campgrounds, ho\vever, are not recommended. A w~ll-built RV campground will also requITe bath house and restrooms on-site. In fact all of the south'shore park needs restroom facilities which are light and clean. Controlling access to the park, careful selection ofbuilding materials, and a full-time lake caretaker will minimize vandalism to these structures. Package aerobic waste\vater treatment systems with subsurface disposal fields are recommended for use with bath houses and restrooms. Table of Advantages versus Disadvantages for 0 tion 2 .;;i~\:::::(.-i.r.~:i;'~~:~:~;<f<~~t:;:;:!:~';::,~;,,:.,;.;~:::cc~'~(~i¿~~:t-;..¡t';';!;.'f:.:¡':~:,;¡:~~:!i~(þ.'i.' ~.:t.~~;~,. :f:~;;~.~j;V'¡f';~~~tt:~~~~:,,:.:'.::-~.~:~¡r~~y.:~,~~,\,:..i}~:- ..' """.~..""'- ;"""""",."""""""..",~"..r.,,~:¡.--. """"""7~.~'.".~,'.' "~."""'."',""".",~','1f,<, "-,'"',r., .". rl,' .,,"",.,..,~.,' "".".', ,,~..1t.~.'WW~'ë'¡;'f;","'.. -,.,.')-!-,.r.¡;"'~..r,').~'c"~'~"-.,"',~f~,"".i'.".' ;Þ'.':¡j ~'f-'nïn;~i¥4.:t1 i~ f~ ~ i"'i( fr-, rfj"'~).;~'¡\¡;,~;)~J{.'¥;:i':'!:;(~~}!~ ~fi:;~" ~) J ,,(:iJi rr~îí1' ¡rt'i"7~"", . ~' t "tfí ri 'I.i~i1 . '"~:-.)::~';,,~.i\'-~.~.-='~ ~-:.~ :""".",'.. ~~-'!"~'\-! ,':í:\'~~':;~-;-';>::~';,~: ;:;"':L'1':.\,~'~';.?~'... . .;::-,~." ;-j-.,: ,:,,~~~~;';'.:.~l~':i;.~:~~~~",~, -'~ ,.~!~~~~!t;.~.~;.. , 1. Preservation of the land for future generations 1. Loss of the revenues from the sale of land. 2. Development costs can be shared through grants from various agencies 3, Lessees get to keep their leases for archery and gun shooting 2 . Loss of tax revenues from developed lots. 3. Costs of development with little revenue to offset the costs ,.. 4. Recreational benefits afforded the whole city and not just a few developers and residents 4. Loss of\vater/sewer revenues from a developed subdivision 5. Tourist dra\v for campgrounds and special events. 5. Cost of developing and maintaining adequate access routes into the park. 6. Maintenance costs exceed city's present ability to maintain high level parks; additional staffing needed. 6. Opens the property up to traffic and reduces criminal activity and vandalism. If the city is to adequately open the south shore to formal park development replete with campgrounds and picnic facilities for hundreds ofpersons at one time, the access roads to the site must be improved. We have included in this section the cost ofimproving the park as well as the cost of improving each of three access routes. At least one million dollars will be necessary if all three routes are widened and resurfaced. With respect to priority, the improvement to Lake Crook Road is the highest priority and CR 32900 and NW 19th Street tie for second priority. The access to NW 19th Street should be opened up even ifit must be gated for night time security. Daytime traffic from NW 19th Street and Lake Crook Road will be essential to deter crime and illegal dumping in the area. Improvements to existing boat ramps and fishing piers is recommended. An additional fishing pier is recommended on the north shore when that park is eventually developed. Several Page 28 of 45 . , .. ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I . re~pondents to the survey mentioned conStructing an indoor fishing pier hut on Lake Crook. We favor the idea only if the city hires a full-time caretaker for the property. .3.3.2 What about golf? Several participants mentioned golf as a possible use of Lake Crook lands. While economic development grants and Texas Parks and Wildlife grants could be used to partially fund golf courses, such courses after they are built must be self supporting, A golf course with modest club house costs between $3.0 million and $4.0 million. Industry pundits say 36,000 rounds of golf per year are necessary to support such a course. If the city were to elect to build a course there is certainly enough land on which to do it. Only about 200 acres or so is needed for a quality golf course, the terrain is excellent and there is certainly abundant supply of . \vater. An 18-hole golf course needs about 1 million gallons of water per day during grown-in and about half that much during the growing season upon reaching maturity. Alternatively, if a public course is not built, most developer-experts agree that 1,000 acres ofwell planned subdivision will usually support a golf course through the homeowners' dues, trail use fees, guest fees and enhanced lot sales prices. It is commonly considered the best of all \vorlds to intert\vine the golf course routing plan with the subdivision plan to take advantage of fairway lots, green lots and tee box lots as \vell as lake&ont and lakeview lots. In the present north shore property, to install a golf course would largely destroy the potential for home building and vice versa. The shape of the property with its numerous corners and narrows, would result in an inefficiency for high lot counts, Therefore, in order to get 1,000 acres on the north shore, an enterprising developer \vould have to acquire some of the adjacent, privately owned land. It is beyond the scope of this study to analyze the development of private golf courses. In these days of privatization, \ve are seeing more courses being taken out of the public domain than are being built into it. There are companies that specialize in nothing but golf course feasibility studies. While there may be some study out there, we have yet to see a study done where the golf course was not proven 'feasible'. \Ve choose to believe, however, golf course ownership is not a business the City of Paris should get into. Page 29 of 45 " II II II I Ii . I. I i I. 3 -........... .... aoq IUJS8JA , ~~ a¡ ~I. "~¡ ~~ i~~ ~>~ ;-; ~ ,~~ ~I~ ~'IIJ ~Ru ~ ~ :: ~~~ ~~~ ~.:I ¥)~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~e~a >- ,~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ Lf::~ ~Q1ii8 - t~~ ~e': ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~e ~~~ ~L~~ @,~ Q . . ""'. :1 , I 'Il~ I " :HI . ',7:.' . .'1 ' 1 :. .' -,- ' .' . "Ó ' .. . ,)£, o. 0 ' ~ - ,u', .., ,) I I , ' ; /' ~ -. . - I I . t\~;':I£~~ij~}Ì;;,~ [ZfE:~.:~~)K;l;; ~~t¡~¡ ~'i'~R<~rn.","t.~~~~.«:~....;,-..: ~>':;-;O ,~";"":~"~::"'" :~- ~.-'.,~..... [;'~~~~~:-C;:~' <~.. ~~~~:~~'.l:':$.~';-;'.~:..~;;,.~~~~~'~~~~-ì.-1.~~~ ..., :{".~~ ',~,s.~:¡.~ ~~,:~~:$.~'-~~;;,:<..,,~,~ ~~ ~~.., "~ ;\.~~.:,,~'\.'\.~, c( ~J. .'\,- ¡§ ~ ¡ ~~ ~ ~ .~ Dl ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~iq ~ ~~ ¡ ~ ~a¡~ ~ ~ ii§ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ . ~ ~~~ ~g ~~~ ~~ ~ ~2~ ~~ ~. ~~Iii ~~ ~, ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~U n n IU U ~~ ~ GQ@ @E) . .ú..'l~ -".-'. ,..!.~ ",: , ~;'~'-;L~..\"':¡,1~~::"",".,.;: , '.. , .. . '. ....- "ii ' '~ I r,. '- -i:..,.._-' ;::~:r ,,' .; .. , 1 ----i " ' 1., ,- ih.----._._-~----_._--- \ '1--. ."'\ Nl/illUtION- --.- ~ t. .( ~ I ".:" .' ~ , :,: '"~' '~ ,~"~";"'"~-:" .:.~ .- ,."" -- " ,~ ::":',,', ~ ~ ~~ .~. ~" "~ ,¡,', 'L ',', .\. .'~, ~ ~o O~ v. " , - ~' . .' ~ , ~ , !.'"' . . I :a -\ ! I - '." I'!' ._",_.-.~.", ..ò-' ." ,- "r" I ,,' "~:. , ,t.,; .~V", ; ",_)",:I.,.,..)"~' /~..' SYX3.L 'uNfiO:> HYJ'(VJ SUIYd NYId J.N3WdO13A3Q 1YNOLLYJHJ3H ë; NOI~dO fo¡"Y1d 33.LSVJ'( "003:> 3)fYI SJUVd ...0 ur:> II J ----- ., -~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~. III ~ ~ ~d ~ ~~~ ~J J~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ¡;¡ lit ~ U! ~ Ii j j~ j ~~~ ~~~~ cl~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~I!~ I u~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ . ~~~& ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~j~ ~ ~ä ¡~ ~~ ¡~ ~;:S~~ ~~~\J ~ ~Bžlll~ Bž ~~ ...I~ ...I~ ...IL @ 0 0~ ~@ ~@<W -- ~ - !í.fi~:;-" :1':-"'J, ,I. & 'I . " ',," or( /;"',: , , " /11:"" I',--"'~_.,..' ;' ". "'. I" ,,:.:'l ! ì, 4 , ,,- '~' :. ,a . -. 'ì; --.;..--,-------- ' ' '~, .,.§ 'I ~t NOJ.!Ntf14l(f( I .-----.'-----"..-- -----,----~, /I-_.'; ':'!~ I ' ' , , , , '-' ,\=;::.:--..~ '-~ -' - --' :...- . ,.. -, ..,. !...'~'~~~',' ... -¡ .' I ~J~,~~,'~t.J' , , , i1i.:-;M:, :.it..:. , ,~' ""':':.}.r..",,'1 ~ . -. -«.: 1~,:. '1. "" . Ii.l . "", .1 . I . \ "-1 ~- ~. '.~~...~..o~'-~~ 8 --'¡'" ~~~ ~CI¡ ~ ~'r ~ : ~~n~ ~ .... ..',..;.. ., -' .. - . ,--_. . "\ ,I ~ g~ C/) "~l =x:: ~§ e,:,- ~ , ,.0 a 0 "'~ @\ \ ~ 'J'~' -" ...,-' "', '-,1@' ,~" . , / :: I'@':\" @ ~"". ~þ -" '-. ~.;. ~ @ Q " . .. .. . t=;o.è!" '6/.." @" . -,. : - ' , -' i. /,: ... . '- ¡Q.. . /: I I 8' :/, . . ' ,.', ..' ,.',' ;,; '; : '.. ' ",' ~. !: . ." .- :. .' .., PRELIMINARY OPINIONS OF COST. ' .' : FOR OPTION 2 - WilDLIFE AND PARK DEVELOPMENT OPTION I LAKE CROOK STUDY' .' - 12 JUNE 2001 I he following information is intended to show the relative costs of development under this scheme versus other options and s based on the consultant's experience. Actual costs may be higher or lower than these preliminary estimates. Estimates re not based on substantial engineering surveys and data which may later reveal obstacles or possible savings in cost. Item Description Estimated Units Unit Total Quantity Price 2 LS 90000 $ 180,000 2 LS 40000 80,000 1 LS 400000 400 , 000 1 LS 1 00000 100.000 17500 U. 48 840,000 7.75 miles 7500 58.125 12700 U. 80 1,016,000 7500 s.y. 30 225,000 1 LS 60000 60 , 000 2 ea. 60000 120,000 4 ea. 50000 200,000 1 ea. 200000 200,000 1 lS 40000 40 . 000 1 LS 1 00000 100.000 1 LS 80000 80,000 $ 3,699,125 110,974 369913 $ 4,180,011 1 New boat ramps with trailer parking and fishing piers 2 Renovate existing boat ramps adding piers and parking 3 Construct new RV campgrounds w/concrete pads; utility pedestals; paved roadways; bath house 4 Construct new primitive camp area; restrooms 5 Pave existing gravel South Shore Park roads 6 Clear hike/bike/equestrian trails; bridges and culverts signage; leveling. 7 Construct new park roads 22' wide; asphalt surfaced signage; drainage and clearing 8 Clear and pave asphalt parking areas for trail heads 9 Cabling; barriers; posts and gates 10 Rustic playground structures and surfacing 11 Group picnic shelters on concrete pads; tables and cook tops; site prep and clearing; paved walkways 12 Rustic amphitheater and stage 13 Park signage, lighting and landscaping for entry 14 Initial clearing and brush management, allowance 15 Turkey re-population; wildlife management startup; duck boxes; signage; and related activities; allowance Subtotal Option 2 construction costs: Surveying. engineering, layout Contingency Total Improvements Option 2 Minimal Off-site Road Improvements: CR 32900; widen and re-surface lake Crook Road; widen and re-surface NW 19th Street. widen and re-surface 1.3 miles 1.9 miles 1.7 miles 200000 $ 2 50000 $ 200000 $ 260,000 475,000 340,000 Road improvements do not include acquisition of ROW; assume shoulder widening and overlay of full width. No curb and gutter; minimal repairs to existing pavement; Use drainage structures already in place; - . ." ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook - March, 2001 I , 3.3.3 Recommendations Concerning Option 2. While certairùy the least expensive 'first cost' of the three development options, Option 2 is not without its long term costs, The loss of nearly $4.0 ,million in revenue nom land sales is nothing to be taken lightly. The significance of estimated taxes to all taxing entities nom Option 1 ($1.1 million annually) and Option 3 ($4.2 million annually) cannot be overlooked by even the most zealous conservationist. The development of the south shore for public park use is an essential element of all three developnzent options. It is the nature of north shore and west shore developments that renlain in question. ... We do not believe that under Option 2 the city should allow control of so much of the public land to rest \vith one entity, that is, Archers for Christ. As much as \ve may agree with their charter and purpose, to withhold five to seven hundred acres of land nom the public does not seem to be good public policy. Under Option 2, each of the gun or archery clubs would have fixed, hard boundary leases covering what they need for target ranges and clear zones as well as improvements to the land such as parking lots, storehouses and meeting rooms, For the balance of the property, we favor a shared use \vhere Archers for Christ and shotgun hunters can use the property outside their fixed boundary leases during specific competitions or hunts but not to the exclusion of the public the rest of the year. Proper installation of gates and signs along the hikelbike trail and around the perimeter of other property can signal the public that there are special events being held and to refrain from using the trail that day. The development of a formal south shore park and eventually a north shore park will require the expansion of park maintenance staff \vithin the city and the purchase of more vehicles and equipment for their use. For this reason, we have not recommended the full formal development of Lake Crook as a public park like Whiterock Lake is to Dallas or Town Lake is to Austin. As attractive as paved jogging trails and wide, open, closely cropped grassy fields may be, the Paris city staff\vould simply be overwhelmed by the manpower and money needed to maintain such a park. A large natural habitat park requiring very little maintenance is ideal for most of the property under this Option 2. Option 2 is, in our opinion, a better short term plan for the next five to ten years, Parts of Options 1 and 3 where residential' . development is contemplated may - be desirable permanent elements in , the future. We do n?t see some of 1 '. .._."A:~~ J ."'¿"'. the elements of OptIons 1 through F .... .; .' . 3 as being mutually exclusive. '.' . There is a lot of land out there! '.. , ". . - :."; , Figure 11 Group picnic shelter at Lake Crook Page 31 of 45 .' ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 3.4 . OPTION 3 - DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.4.1; Description of Option 3. In Option 3, the consultant investigated the development ofaIl suitable lands on the north and west shores into small lots (approximately 1/4 acre). Suitable lands for the purposes of this study were all those lands not in a wet land or floodplain. We did, however, exempt the south shore line as being unsuitable for residential development due to the proximity of Campbell Soup disposal fields, the water treatment plant and the limited access available for a large permanent population, Because the lots were much smaller than in Option 1, the possibility of county road section paving and on-site sewage disposal was ruled out completely. This option presumes the installation of public concrete streets with concrete curbs to city specifications. In addition, Option 3 assumes that all lots will be served with public sewer system lines, As in the case of Option 1, if sewer lines are required, the development of the west shore (I, II, and III) are dependent on the development of the north shore. The \vest shore development will simply not support the extraordinary costs for extending \vater and sewer lines unless it is coupled with the north shore development. ... Another variation from Option 1 to be found in Option 3 is the set-aside tract between the north end of the dam and F.M, 1499. In Option 3, this 100 to 150 acres of land is proposed as retirement community land hosting everything from full care nursing facilities to assisted living units to unassisted retirement living residences. During the public hearings there \vere a number of speakers \vho addressed the aging of the population and the need for retirement housing in Paris, Additionally, a proposed community recreation facility open to all of the city is sho\vn on a hill overlooking the lake. This community center could house 'meals-on-wheels', senior services such as temporary health screenings, small banquets, bridge and domino parlor rooms, and other meeting areas \\"ith a beautiful vista looking south over the lake. Adjacent to this community center a north shore boat ramp and fishing pier is depicted. Throughout the rest of the north shore development, small areas of greenbelt park are shown to break up the expanse of housing. Even so, Option 3 shows approximately 1,180 lots total in four separate units of development. The north shore development alone could produce a minimum of 544 high quality lots, Some lots in the concept plan are waterfront lot and many others are waterview lots, both of \vhich \vill command a higher retail price than any other lots in Paris. 3.4.2 Recommendations Concerning Option 3. Option 3 is clearly the more difficult of the options to implement. Several local developers expressed skepticism that anyone locally would be in the position financially to take on the development of the north and west shores under this option. For one thing, the cost of the infrastructure totaling as much as $20,000,000 over a twenty year period is a substantial risk. And while the developer(s) is risking his finances in hope of a huge financial gain, the city will have given up control of the land. The ~downside' , at which every good business entrepreneur must look, is the very real potential for failure. If the land development venture fails, then the land falls into the hand of some financial institution with the responsibility of conveying the land to a third party who mayor may not have the city's best Page 32 of 45 t' March, 2001 - - ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook , interests at heart no matter how well thé city might choose a developer in the first place. Any lender, fmancing the development of streets and sewers, is going to require the land be coll~teralized and even if the city inserts reversionary clauses in the contract of sale, is the city prepared to pick up the debt to complete the work in the event of an unfortunate foreclosure? Not very likely. Table of Advantages versus Disadvantages for Option 3 - Higher Density Development ~~~]f~rì~4t;~&t~~~ifi~{~ .,,'.~ ~.'. :~:.' , ,t~;J~}~w'~ m~¡Jf(titn~~1~~J.;i~~~~%~~~~fIJì~~1 1. Revenue to the city from the sale of the land bet\veen $1.8 million and $3,6 million 2. Increased tax base of perhaps $159 million. 3. Increased sales tax from population gro\Vth of perhaps $1.0 million per year ... 4, Development of a retirement community 5. Preservation of park land on the south and west shores. 6. Concrete streets minimjze future maintenance costs to the city 7, More revenues &001 water and sewer 8. Lowest develo ment cost er lot 1. Loss of an asset for future generations 2, Hunting, archery and gun ranges would not be permitted under this option, 3. Can a development survive the often intolerable odors arising from Campbell Soup disposal fields to the south? 4, Risk to the city if a developer fails. 5. Potential for pollution from fertilizers and insecticides. 6, Requires stretching police and fire protection to the north shore area. 7. More maintenance required for 6 miles 0 f new \vater and se\ver line and perhaps 1,100 customers. Page 33 of 45 . ,p' C tO~~f,d ...... -, -. ---_:::"" -:.;, - - ,-, r--¡"':;-" , ;1", ... ,:', ' . "-' 1 ',í'~ , I I I ,- '" - -t. .,--' ,','\ -::'i'::-:-:::»'-'::'" / "~'~"J ,-' ",;:,:L";:,-:- ! 'f I , I I . ~, It: 1 ~I ~¡ '.' ., , I 11>t @) ,- , -. ',' . i.... -- . .. , "'!. '.' "',' oJl ,,-, I .. , ,I - , ,I .,~ S." ,., ..' .., ... IIi.,. ... , ". " , I ?, , I I ,(' ,'-, t WAllO T,"~' I , I ~I' , ~"...: , ~t ;:¡. ~l 101 I . , I -~ ~- -'I I 1 I , . r I I I '. . ... , fI' , ,- I'i.~ ! ' - . I I '~, ;/ ! , ",}U... , , 51' I " ,. I ,I , I ", , .: .W"" .. ' , ," ""-', - , ... , ..{; " . -", -- - .-- (11i..b.1I '-"-'-"-:,.,.--,~ ,j),: -' - ".' .°" - ...J' ~ , . ' "'¥--:;'f..' tL._- !. t;Ü11.~". . ~ , , f7f!rø,{ ,~ } " "'~;!..'ii,\j".. , , ..'t.¡;,'!!<.~', .' ""i'" , ""~"'l ~, 11ø~", - 8,.~, ' . l"k......,- .. I , 'r: I' I I. ø ". ,,' "" , ,..: .--' r. l , I , R .!'. tC '.. U', i ,I, ",-' .":1 ,iRac ... ~ IF .' ); " ", , . , .. l ,;. . - . ~ : H,,; I, ., .. :~t.' ~!.;. 'it.... '¿'Q ....~...,-' '., '..0;: *,..t..... ~, . '... ; ,~..: " .. . / .aæ!!t-ftL1S,I'I.OOI:'f'U\N. \Ne11JN'S, NoD ~vel-OPl!P PHS. LNoD. ø I'Ll.L CNæ "'-RSIN/:õ 1'1CI.11Y. ~~~5, Iß\ ~p LIVNI:< 1læ1lfæ ~Nf' VLLJa, ...2 ~ IOeS I() ~~ ~~ CI11ZeIð aNl"tR ~ HD PHlS... B~ ,ACIlæS @ ~O!>e" I'~ Plfllt. (É) 1'f'Op~" ~ ~ tKJAf 'ftIWIIO. te\ ~02P NOfm1!t1O1ë1! 5Na..1! f~Y U I'I!\II!LOPMI!NI'. ~I .ACJæS INCL~ !I1OI<'fLU PHlS.. LJ'JoD, "..... LorS Of' \'.HCH ð9 Næ W^ffJ!1'~, 7,9 MUS or I'IW STlœl!fS I?:\ PIItOPO!>fP weSf'!t1OIëI! SNeL!! I' M\L Y \.::::J t1f.VELOPIÆNf - H!f.^ I. ~ ..oæs. ^VE~ Lorscze 1~,OOO5J', -19.. LorS Of It'.ot-tCH 19 ~ W^19I'R'GNr l-OfS. 6,26 MLe~Of' ~W5œe1S ICi\ f'flOf>O!>e P we ~ !t1OIëI! 5INa.I! .,. ~ V I(J 1?I>~IÆNf' IftA N, 2O.2..aæS. 0.6 ML!! Of NeW ~et -I2LOrS^\II!~I jo,OOOS.I'./Lor ! , (j'\ PIItOPO!>fP we'>f'!t1OIëI! SNa.e fM\LV \.:.J ~\II!LOPMeNf' Næ^ III, -t9 .ACJæS. 1,2 ML!!S Of' NeW S11iiUf IOOLOf'S^\II!~ !!io,OOO S.I'. /LOf' (j\ f'flOf>O!>eP WLOL..e WØI1"Af Jæ~1M!! HD \::::!.) L'W SONCtWIN', NO 1t.N11N/:i. 7(» IQæS tÇ\ tXðf1NCA HD I'IItOPO!.tP I?I>Vt:LQPf:E' ~ PNlJ.L.HD, 26-1 .AC~S I I I forle.: 1180 5INa..I! I'M'oLYLOfS (eXCLID1Nt:i Jæf1læMeNf v&.LJa) ON 7~..oæS. ð'I.700LJ', Oft 16 ML!!S Of ~W ~eß, -{. THIS f'LH,f ~O!>fS ~ Ie.L ~ NOr 1"Iæ~Nn.,' N PNflS ~ N \Nef1,JoH::>S Oft !'LOOP I'\.J\II'ð P'0IIt ræ5lCJl!NfW,. I'I!YeLOf'MeNf. 1.I!~5 fO NiOt!rt N-O aN Cl,.IÞS yoJ"P NOr øe !!~Cl.lreP N-O H.N1'IN/:4 ~" eoe I'~p PI.£ fO I'IeOXIMifY Of HOMeS. , ,- . . GRAPHIC SCALE 0 !tOO 1000 7000 ~ I I ~ -.. CII 1-- C8 -- CII ~- ~ :scu_- . .:I a ~ ". .:I ~ ~~ :z f-4 :s 2: ø. ~ ClJQ: ;:1;>- ;:: '"I M "-!G ~tï.".9:;) -~-~o ea.::=! 0>(.) o~ t ~~ r:oo~::§ üe ~:3 t-o ~ 2: :s ~!!! -II:: (I)~ ~ø.. Ø:: '1000 -- - - ,~_"\'¡ HIt. 3 I I I 1 " . ' PRELIMINARY OPINIONS OF' COST, . , ' , " , ' ", , . . : FOR OPTION 3 - NORTH AND WEST SHORE DENSITY DEVELOPMENT' LAKE CROOK STUDY. . ' .,' ." ' " '12 JÙNE 2001 he following information is intended to show the relative costs of development under this scheme versus other options and s based on the consultant's experience. Actual costs may be higher or lower than these preliminary estimates. Estimates re not based on substantial engineering surveys and data which may later reveal obstacles or possible savings in cost. Item Description NORTH SHORE: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6" - 1 Z' size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 1 Z' water line from plant to new ground storage 6 0.5 mgal ground storage; pressure pumping station 7 On-site sanitary sewer lines; 6"-8" size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off-site 12" gravity sanitary sewer to existing trunk 10 Dry bore and casing; U.S. 271 11 Reinforced concrete pavement 12 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 12 Landscaping entrances and common areas; irrigation 14 Monolithic concrete curb .... Subtotal for North Shore: WEST SHORE UNIT I: 1 Clearing and grubbing of right's of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines: 6" - 1 Z' size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 1 Z' '",ater line 7 On-site sanitary sewer lines; 6"-8" size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off-site 6" force main to North Shore 11 Reinforced concrete pavement 12 Monolithic concrete curb 13 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 14 Landscaping entrances and common areas Estimated Units Unit Total Quantity Price 58 acres $8,000 $ 454 , 000 40 ea 12,500 500 . 000 420 sta. 1,500 630 , 000 42000 l.f. 22 924,000 6000 I.f. 32 192,000 1 LS 350 , 000 350 , 000 4 OCOO I.f. 25 1 ,000,000 5 ea. 85 ,000 425,000 11000 I.f. 34 374,000 200 l.f. 160 32,000 154000 s.y. 25 3,850,000 1 LS 40000 40 , 000 1 LS 80000 80,000 84000 I.f. 6 504 ,000 $ 9,365,000 45.5 acres 30 ea 330 sta. 33000 I.f. 3000 I.f . 35000 I.f . 1 ea. 3000 I.f . 121000 s.y. 66000 I.f. 1 LS 1 LS $8,000 12,500 1,500 22 32 25 85,000 20 25 6 20000 40000 $364,000 375,000 495,000 726,000 96 , 000 875,000 85 , 000 60 , 000 3,025,000 396,000 20000 40000 Subtotal for Unit I 56,557 000 t' WEST SHORE UNIT II: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6" - 1 Z' size; fire hydrants, valves 5 Off-site 1Z' water line 7 On-site sanitary sewer lines; 6"-8" size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off-site 6" force main to North Shore 11 Reinforced concrete pavement 12 Monolithic concrete curb 13 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 14 Landscaping entrances and common areas 15 Concrete curb and gutter Subtotal for Unit II WEST SHORE UNIT III: 1 Clearing and grubbing of rights of way 2 Drainage structures; culverts and inlets; headwalls 3 Roadway shaping, excavating, filling, and compacting 4 On-site water lines; 6" - 1 Z' size; fire hydrants. valves 5 Off-site 1 Z' water line 7 On-site sanitary sewer lines; f) -8" size; manholes; cleanouts 8 Submersible pump liftstations; force mains; wetwells 9 Off-site 6" force main to North Shore 11 Reinforced concrete pavement 12 Monolithic concrete curb 13 Entry way signage; lighting; street signs; traffic signs 14 Landscaping entrances and common areas 15 Concrete curb and gutter Subtotal for Unit III Subtotal Construction Surveying, platting, staking Engineering Contingency (10%) Total Cost: Construction Option 3 4.4 acres 4 ea 3.2 sta. 3200 I.f. 500 I.f . 3200 I.f. 1 ea. 500 I.f . 12000 s.y. 6400 I.f. 1 LS 1 LS 6400 IJ . 8.8 acres 6 ea 6.4 sta. 6400 IJ . 500 IJ . 6400 IJ . 1 ea. 3000 l.t. 23500 s.y. 12800 IJ. 1 LS 1 LS 12800 IJ. $8,000 12,500 1,500 22 32 25 85 , 000 20 25 6 20000 40000 10 $8,000 12,500 1,500 22 32 25 85 , 000 20 25 6 20000 40000 10 $35,200 50 , COO 4,800 70,400 16,000 80,000 85 , 000 10,000 300 , 000 38 , 400 20 , 000 40,000 64 , 000 $813,800 $70,400 75,000 9,600 140,800 16,000 160,000 85 , 000 60.000 587,500 76,800 20.000 40.000 128,000 $1,469,100 $ 18,204,900 182,049 606,769 1,820,490 $ 20,814,208 Notes: This cost analysis does not include the cost of advertising and marketing; sales and legal expenses; promotions; maintenance during sales; lot preparation for building; or amenities. The installation of gas, electric, telephone and television facilities is assumed to be sufficiently cost effective due to the density of development that there will be no cost to the developer for installation. .' ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 .... . . . . . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS LAKE CROOK PARIS, TEXAS CENTRAL WATER/WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ONLY 150' SET BACK FROM WATER LINE FOR ANY OCCUPIED STRUCTURE CITY BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE INDIVIDUAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL TREE REMOVAL PERMITS . LIMIT NO. OF OCCUPANTS OR FAMILIES . PROHIBIT BURNING . LIMIT OR PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL USES . LIMIT OR RESTRICT ABANDONED VEHICLES . CONTROL NUISANCE WEEDS/BRUSH . RESTRICT FENCING; PROHIBIT BARBED WIRE; SET BACK CERTAIN FENCES FROM ROADS; . RESTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, KENNELS, ETC. . CREATE LARGE SET BACKS ON ALL LOTS . RESTRICT USE OF FERTILIZERS AND INSECTICIDES ON WATERFRONT . LIMIT SIZES OF BOAT HOUSES AND PIERS . LIMIT SIZES OF "SEA WALLS" . LIMIT DREDGING AND FILLING . RESTRICT TAKING OF WATER . PROHIBIT MARKER BUOYS FOR PRIVATE SWIMMING Page 35 of 45 , ' ) SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR OPTIONS 1 AND 3 31 March 2001 ':'>.';\C:""'o"(a)""';'" ','" ":(b)""';,""";:""(c)";~: ',~' ¡ (d)';',':'~">::';l";,"~"::',(e')',r,'t;'~;~:;,Co ::"1':~'(f)"';"'."".;~¡"'",-~:'.;(g' ):'/',: ""","."!.(h')..'~,'r,.',<".' ,I:'; (I)'Y-":":' ;';.' ":,'.'-""(J)',;:,,:"".~1;,'; ~':".:~' ','."..'" "',' "',, ','-' ..'.'~-;,';"'" :"",:.,;;",.',~\'" ~;,ì: "..,:..:'~': ,:":':-,'~'.',:~: "'~'.."" ".....-,,;. ,':.'. ',,':' ,.' :-', ,),~;,,-.~, '~': De's'rlption": ~ Lots:',:" \(~èreage., Dens#ÿ':',,':':;,'~Estimátèd, ",,::i~stlmated ::Estlmated:' Estimáte'd "j~stln1~tëd; ',; Estl'rriatec(':: :,', 'of area' " ' """.', lots/ac:, ,'consti'Úëtlon' "må'r~etlng ',', land;" 'land' 'development develorjmerit , ., . cost, .' . & sales' value/acre' ' costs, "cost. 'cost/lot',' costs (2 ' Option I - Lower Density Single Family (concrete pavement and sewers) North Shore 222 471 0.47 $ 8,900,000 888,000 2,500 1,177,500 10,968,000 $49,405 est Shore 111 266 0.42 $ 3,300,000 444,000 2,500 665,000 4.411,500 $39,743 Totals: 333 737 0.45 $ 12,200,000 1,332,000 2,500 1,842,500 15,377,000 $46,177 Option I - Lower Density Single Family (asphaltroad section/septic systems) North Shore 222 471 0.47 $ 5,750,000 888,000 2,500 1,177,500 7,818,000 $35,216 est Shore 111 266 0.42 $ 1,982,000 444,000 2,500 665,000 3,093,500 $27,869 Totals: 333 737 0.45 $ 7,732,000 1,332,000 2,500 1 ,842,500 10,909,000 $32,760 Option 3 - Higher Density Single Family Development (1) North Shore 544 361 1.51 $ 11,250,000 2,176,000 2,500 902,500 14,331,000 $26,344 494 300 1.65 $ 6,354,000 1,976,000 2,500 750,000 9,082,500 $18,386 est Shore II 42 20 2.10 $ 1,200,000 168,000 2,500 50,000 1,420,500 $33,821 est Shore III 100 49 2.04 $ 2,010,000 400,000 2,500 122,500 2,535,000 $25,350 Totals: 1180 730 1.62 $ 20,814,000 4,720,000 2,500 1,825,000 27,361,500 $23,188 (1) These costs do not include the onsite development of assisted living and full care nursing facilities shown on the Option 3 plan. Likewise, the costs for a seniors recreation center and associated park improvements are not included in the cost of development. . , ~ Estimated Tax Impact of Residential Development Lake Crook Feasibility Study 12 JUNE 2001 )y¡¡m~¡¡Hn¡1mmmm~ ¡1~mmmC?' j~~¡~~¡T:¡:T~¡)::::,~TT:¡~]:¡'::::::/>:=:'/::: ¡:/::T::)(:::: ::UC?:/u ':'¡CY?=} ¡¡¡T¡HTY?W¡ \T¡¡¡¡¡THHY¡:¡ loJortti:Sbore-:-:-:.:.:-:.:. -:.:.:.:-:.:-:222. .:-:.:-:.:.;.:-:.;.200 $:-:.;.;.;.;.;.>.29,970,000 »:.;.;.>105.914 ;.;.;-:182,817.;.;-:459(140 -:.;.;.;.:.:49(061. $:.;.;.797)392.: ~¡¡~~]',¡,i,\¡"i!I!' "!il','llil,I~~i I,\,II"I!I!II'!I'II ~I,I,I,lllli,IIIII~~!~~~!il. ,lili!:I~iI1~~~~t I,I,III~~~¡~~ il,I',!li~ I,:'¡.'\I\~~I ~\"ij:~I'. I D~v~lonm~nt Onn(J ¡;~~mm~i~¡¡mml¡I¡I¡¡ 1¡¡¡I¡¡¡1¡¡mD~~: ¡¡¡j1¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡~¡¡~~~: ~¡¡:¡n~~¡~u¡nH~~¡~~mff~H ¡/¡¡¡:¡¡~n~1~~~ :¡¡¡Hû~~¡~M nn¡wm~'¡~r¡~ ~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡M~~1¡ mW~¡~TI~¡~~~¡j NØlit:Sho"~.I::::::::::::: ::::::::::::;:494: ::;;;::::::;:::::;:445 $:::::;:::::;:;::66;690;000>:::.:.::235;816.;:;.=406;809 .<:1.023.025 ::::::::;l09¡172 $':;:1¡114¡821:; n¡~n¡¡jm¡Hm¡n¡¡mmm~¡ ~j1j¡¡~¡j¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡H \¡1¡1¡¡¡¡¡H¡¡¡¡¡:¡¡¡:¡H: \:::¡::¡¡H¡¡;:~:¡:¡~:::¡:¡~:¡;¡~;¡:~¡: :~::¡~:;:¡:~:/¡;;:~:H :¡:~¡:~¡¡~\::¡¡¡::¡¡ ~:::¡:;:¡H<¡~:;H ¡¡¡1\¡¡¡¡1¡¡¡~:~nnn Hj¡\1¡YH~:¡;¡H¡1 N~8t.Shore:D:-:.:.;.;.:.; :.:.:.:-:.;.:-;.'12: ;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;36$.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.5.610,000. .; : : : .:-:20.049 .:.;.:-:-:34;&81 .;.;.;.;.66.978 :.;.:.;.;.;.;9."282 $;.;.:.;150,896;. i~,~I~~;,;¡;I¡;", ,;,l¡¡",¡I~¡~~! 1,1,1,1"",I,ll~l[~ t,I"",I",I,',~~~i~ii¡ ¡,,¡llli,1111 ,¡,I",~ijij¡ij~ ¡¡¡¡]III;.;!l.¡I~~1 ~,'~Œ~~{¡~! $ 12,500 Development 0 tlll",!li!,'I'llil ",I,!,:,I,:,I. ,'llli,IIIII,llllllli: '1111,llllilililllilllii~~!~\\ .llllllilillllllllllllllllil!¡!1 iliiliillllll,¡1111 .." '.:. ""';;:::::::::::::: :::;;:;:;:;:;; ""'(=::;::::;::;;;;;::;' . 'J:.::;;,:;::::-:".;:;;;;: .. .. p.:.:;:;::::;:- . : . 'T:;::::.: .,. '1:;::,;:: . .. 'I':':;::;;~' .'."". Qtih.$hOtß:.:.:.:.:.:-:.; :~::::;~::::::544 ;:::::;:;~;:;::::::~99. .;:::;:;:;;:;:;;:::::;:;;~8~¡599; :;::::;:;::;)~,300 ::::;;::::30,600 :::::.:::.76,500 ;:~.;.:.;:SO4.900 . . ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 3.5 OPTION 4 - DO NOTHING' OPTION 3.5.1 Description of Option. This option takes very little explanation but every feasibility study must contain the "do nothing" option. The obvious lowest 'first cost' option available to the city is to take no action now and maintain the present course. Believe it or not, there were several surveys received that conveyed this exact sentiment. . . leave the property the way it is now. 3.5.2 Discussion of the Option. Certain advantages are clear. ./ ./ ./ ./ The city would expend no more for maintenance that it does now, The lack of any development \vould protect the water supply Wildlife habitat, if anything, \vould be enhanced The lack of development will reduce the need for police protection except around existing park facilities. Low risk of failure ./ .... Ho\vever, the perceived lack of cost is deceptive. The loss of $1.8 to $ 3.0 million in revenue from the sale of the land has to be considered. On the flip side, however, the argument can be made that the land is likely to be \vorth more in the future as land north and west of Paris develops and appreciates. The value ofhventy or more years of taxes is like\vise important. Under Option 3, the estimated ad valorem tax revenues for just the City of Paris would be nearly $1.0 million. The present vallie, that is, the amount of money \ve \vould need to sock away no\v to equate to $1.0 million each year for 20 years at 5 per cent interest compounded, is over $12.5 million. The present value of$166,000 in estimated sales taxes to just Paris from Option 3 is over $2.0 million dollars on the same basis. Present value is one clear way of expressing the value of future tax revenues. Summing up then, the cumulative cost of doing nothing, expressed in present value terms for the next 20 years, could be as high as: $1.8 million from sale of land $ 12.5 million from ad valorem taxes $ 2,0 million from sales taxes $ 2,6 million in water/sewer/revenues Add to this the buying power and economic impact of3,000 new Parisians and you are beginning to talk about real money! In fairness, you must deduct from this gaudy sum the cost increases to the cityfor city services since water, sewer, streets, drainage, parks, police and fire protection, and support services must be provided for these 3,000 new citizens. Based on the 2000-2001 budget, the expenditure per citizen in Paris for these and other city services is about $1,100 per person annually. Page 36 of 45 .' 2!r of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 4.0. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 4.0.1, Questions Unans\vered. For all its risk, land development is a very big and lucrative business in this country. Thousands of successful real estate investors have turned land just like that surrounding Lake Crook into gemstones, A questions remains: What is tlte City of Paris' role in the development of land around Lake Crook? It would appear the City could take one or more of the following approaches to development of Lake Crook land for residential or multi-purpose land use other than parkland: 0 The city can be a seller of land, taking bids and awarding the land in one or more parcels to the highest bidder. This could require the city to have a referendum for the voters to decide \vhether the city should divest itself of the land. The city could still withhold reasonable controls over the sub-dividers through terms of sale and deed restrictions. .... 0 The city can be an investor partner in real estate development by putting up the land and assisting \vith the cost of infrastructure. This assistance might be in the form of off-site utility construction, for example. The city could sell off land in small units as they are developed thereby reducing the exposure to the developer or the city. 0 The city with the assistance of Lamar County could be the driving force behind creation of a county development district such as used in Denton County and Kaufman County, The following summary of the enabling legislation is from a website by Glocal Vantage, Inc., authored by Donna Prestwood and Paul Schumann, J r. (\V\VW. glocalvantage. com/CDDReQ.Q!11llinlt With the passage of the County Development District Act (CDD) , Subchapter D ofSB 345, enacted September 1995, the Texas Legislature has given small to medium sized counties a powerful new economic development tool. Counties of less than 400,000 population may create districts that can adopt and levy a sales and use ta", receive the proceeds of a hotel occupancy tax, issue bonds, and exercise the power of eminent domain as long as the purpose of the district is to attract visitors and tourists. Denton County in particular has expanded this use to encourage development of residential subdivisions, shopping districts and golf courses but not without criticism of the public and a few court challenges. 0 The city could be a developer literally by constructing roads and utility inftastructure and then selling off lots on finished streets through a bid process. The city could even employ a "construction manager" or other development Page 37 of 45 .,.' ..;' ....",'~>..- ., , . ' .> ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March,.2001 I professional on staff. The city would certainly obtain a higher price for its land than simply \vholesaling the property en masse to the highest bidder but would be assuming all the risk normally carried by private entrepreneurs. Then, too, there would be substantial backlash as to why the city would compete with private enterprise in the first place. This concept bears mention only because it is an option available to the city. But it deserves only mention, . . 0 The city could form a non-profit development company, staff it with a director/manager/developer, and deed the land over to it. This \vould not be so much different than industrial economic districts statewide \vhere land is sold at cost to attract industriaVmanufacturing concerns to create jobs. The difference is that this land is being sold so that houses can be built and the job creation is only temporary. Local developers will likely oppose any attempt to create a subsidized, competing, residential neighborhood to compete \vith housing developments citywide. 4.0.2. Economic Development. Several other suggestions have been offered by interviewees during this study. One suggestion \vas that the city give the land away as some kind of economic development incentive to attract a developer and thereby benefit the city through the growth in the tax base. Others suggested the city should help \vith the developn1ent by paying for off-site water and sewer extensions to ready the property for service. Truthfully, we do not see how the city could give tlte land away since public law clearly provides that landfor sale or exchange, other than to another governnlental entity, Inust be sold by sealed bid Secondly, there is the logistical question of how the city goes about choosing a developer to grace with its land. Clearly this does not fall under any professional services procurement whereby selection is made on qualifications of the individual or finn. And fmally, the stewardship question arises as to why the city should even consider giving away land worth admittedly several million dollars. 4.0.3 Risk. Certainly anything worth doing has its own risks. The risk to the city in any subdivision development is that the developer fails to follow through. Depending in which step of development that failure occurs, the consequences to the general public are different. The city may have to take back land it seller-financed or the ,city may see the land distributed to others and have the 'dream' evaporate on the courthouse steps as the land is auctioned offby a commercial lender to satisfy creditors. Page 38 of 45 . . ~ of Paris Studr of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 4.0.4 Lot Absorption. A city only lias a certain capacity to absorb newly created lots for residential development. This absorption rate is determined by population growth, job creation, decline of existing housing, direction of growth, marketing, and the building capacity of the community's several home builders. Interest rates, cost of building materials and even natural disasters in Florida will affect how fast homes can be built in Paris, Texas, Following the east coast hurricanes of the past few years, for example, the dry wall industry could not produce enough sheetrock to meet demand and many builders were put on allocations. Due to a lack of production, face brick is becoming a long-lead ite~ taking months to deliver to ajobsite, The point is this. Just producing lots will not attract people to Paris, The development of lots will have to be accompanied by a wide-spread and effective advertising campaign directed primarily at prospective buyers from outside Paris coupled with an economic development campaign to provide these people 'with jobs, With 1,180 new lots eventually on-line under an optimal Option 3, there will need to be approximately 1,000 to 2,000 new jobs created. Table of Survey Results for Paris Home Builders (1) )" ~:;;:,T;l; g.~';:';'; -, ;\: - F;' ~'~i:~,~ :t}ivjl*{~i;;~'~[t:~; lð~:\;&;:f Y~l;~~f~-t{ ~~~~U~+~ ~F~~r~1]] ~{JJ- How many homes \vill you likely complete ill 2001? 6 50 6 5 Is this more or less than last year? To \vhat price market do YOll try to build? Less More Same New $150K $65K $140K $70K Do YOll favor or oppose the sale of public land at Lake Crook for residential develooment? (1) Of the six home builders listed in the Paris Yellow Pages, one does not build in Lamar County and one did not answer the survey. Favor Favor Favor Favor The above table covers the majority of home builders who build in Paris. (Some do not build in the city but only in the county.) \\'hat the table shows clearly is that absorption of lots in Paris including those in subdivisions and those fill-in lots through out the city, with the builders Paris has now is only about 60 to 70 lots per year. If extrapolated then, just the north shore development under Option 3 would provide the equivalent of seven to eight years inventory if EVERY house in Paris was built at Lake Crook, Reading between the lines, builders likely favor sale of public land at Lake Crook because it a) provides another attractive home site for their customers, b) new subdivisions tend to provide impetus to the housing market, and c) it provides competition among the lot developers which can lower the price of lots citywide. Another point needs to be made. If the development cost of the lots in Option 3, for example, Page 39 of 45 - . ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I are close to $25,000 per lot (counting' ,land, marketing, engineering, and construction) and assuming the developer will want to make a profit (reasonable assumption), then the retail cost of the lot will likely have to be at least $35,000 and as high as $50,000. These prices exceed any lot prices being seen in the Paris market today although they are not exceptional for larger cities across the state. Assuming then that builders will choke back their tears and pay these prices for the lots, the minimum price home likely to built on Lake Crook will be $140,000 to $200,000. From the table above, the largest builder in tenns of volume in Paris, is not building in this price range, In fact, only twelve homes per year are being built in Paris in the $140,000 range by two of these four builders. The inventory created by a north shore development under Option 3 then is not seven years but a ridiculous 45 years EXCLUDING OUTSIDE INFLUENCES. Specifically, this outside influence would have to come in the form of a professional developing and marketing team. 4.0.5 Referendum No\v. The argument has been posed that the city is getting the cart before the horse in doing a feasibility study before it even has authority to sell the land. The proponents of this argument say the city should have a referendumpllrery on the issue of whether or not land should be sold and not debate the selling price, the developer's character, and his proposed development plan. We do not concur with this argument. .." The other side of this coin is that voters, just like they do on bond issues, \villlikely want to judge the merits of the sale knowing full \vell what is likely to be built on the site. We cannot conceive of a voter not wanting full disclosure anymore than \ve can conceive that they will issue the city staff a blank check to sell as many bonds and do whatever bond-funded activities the staff and council \vant to do at the moment. Page 40 of 45 . ... ,..0 - - - . ' .-.'-' ,. h, £!!r of Paris . Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 , , Table of Survey Results for Paris Developers ~ '1l~~ .. ..f... '<' -':;;""'ii !.«1"' ~ "("~¡':!'W=~rd~ r,.l~&r!~ !H.... What price range home do you \vish to attract to your development? Do you favor or oppose the Oppose if any tax money is sale of surplus city property used to develop. Would be at Lake Crook for residential creating competition for development? himself. Approx, how many lots do you have in your development? Size of lots? How many lots are you selling on average each year? Ho\v many unsold but platted lots do you have in inventory? In what year was your flISt lot sold in your develo ment? 26 developed 20 future 180 1/2 to 3/4 acre 12,000 s.f. 6 to 7 10 to 15 20 to 25 8 to 9 $120,000 and up $200,000 and up No objection 1989 1984 4.0.5. Limitations of this Study. Any prudent investor/developer/marketer is going to make his or her own analysis based not only on the data we have presented in this study but on their own experience in marketing and selling lots mostly to 'outsiders'. Our study is not purported to entail in-depth marketing analysis and other data that a developer would want to review in conducting his due diligence testing. This study is provided to the City of Paris staff and elected officials for the purpose of clarifying their options with respect to surplus property around Lake Crook. Third parties using this study for any other purpose do so at their own risk. Page 41 of 45 . . ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS. '. 5.0.1 Summary of Findings. The facts as we interpret them are these: - '0 The estimated cost of development of single family homes on the north shore does 110t appear to render sllch development practical at this time withollt local government subsidy or possibly variances from subdivision codes. 0 fVere the cost of development and subsequently the price of lots found to be affordable, the financial benefits to the city would be enormous over the next nventy years assuming a tremendously successful marketing effort andflll/ build out of the development, 0 The costs of Hdoing nothing" u'hi/e seemingly benign are actually enormolls and gro} /Ìng given the time-vallie of money, 0 There appear to be insurmountable legal, political and logistical obstacles, in our opinion, to 'giving away' the land. 0 The development of a formally developed park setting for the entire properly, while initially affordable to construct, would place all incredible burden on staff to maintain such a park. 0 Dredging of Lake Crook is far too expensive to be cost effective 1l0W. 5.0.3 Recommendations. Because of these fmdings, we propose the following recommendations for the development of Lake Crook, 2. 3. 1. Lake Crook should be developed as a mixed use eventually but in the near future (five to seven years) should remain as park land and open space. Land considered for development should only include the north shore between the dam and Caviness Road. The city, should pursue matching grants through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to construct formal park improvements such as tables, fishing piers, and campgrounds; set aside land as dedicated open space and habitat park land; and preserve wetlands; on the south and part of the west shore. The city should endeavor to improve access to the south shore park by fITst upgrading Lake Crook Road and then other city roads and encourage Lamar County to improve or cooperate in improving nearby county roads. NW 19th Street should eventually be opened into the completed park but gated overnight. Page 42 of 45 .,' ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 4. 5. .... 6. 7. 8. 9. . . The city should renew leases with Archers for Christ which currently has no lease and later with Maxey Black Powder Rifle Club and Paris Gun Club (as those le~es expire in 2003 and 2005). Longer term leases (up to twenty five years) will encourage capital expenditures in this area. The leases should be more restrictive than current leases as far as acreage and boundaries are concerned. In eventually developing the north shore, we recommend the city NOT participate except as seller to the highest bid but set out deed restrictions or pass ordinances to regulate the use of land adjacent to the lake. Because of the possible requirements for a referendum to sell public park land, \ve see the following chain of events: a. The city advertises and receives bids for the purchase of a defined parcel with the city's requirements for restrictions. The successful high bidder is allowed a period of say three to six months to do due diligence, seek financing and prepare a land use plan acceptable to the city; The land plan is agreed to by the city planning and zoning authorities and the council; The authority to sell the land is submitted to the voters. The property is conveyed \vith appropriate covenants and restrictions. b, c. d. e. A system of hiking/biking/\valking trails on the north shore and south shore similar to what is shown in Option 2 should be commenced. Use of these areas for archery and hunting should be permitted under seasonal use or special events but not to unduly restrict others from entering the property when it can be done safely. The city should hire a caretaker/warden with the completion of early improvements to the south shore park to protect the city's investment. The city should come to grips with its vandalism and criminal activity image at Lake Crook by: a. Increasing police presence at the lake. b. Use vandal resistant materials for all construction c. Adopt the use of newer and cheaper television recorders to catch vandals in the act. Improve lighting at piers and boat ramps, . Renlove any signs of vandal attack as soon as discovered. d. e. The city should "adopt and attack" the south shore park development priority list shown below: Page 43 of 45 .. .. , ' ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I , , SOUTH SHORE PARK RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 1 Repair damaged fishing pier; replace missing boards; add hand rails ASAP and ladders; improve access to fishing piers \vith hard surfaced walks; light piers. 2 Increase police patrols of the park; offer rewards for information on ASAP vandals; 3 Publicize the park more and increase traffic by offering special ASAP events; 4 Continue to underbrush and open up the tree canopy; remove dead continuous trees and low lying limbs; 5 Add more picnic tables, concrete pads, trash barrels and cook tops 2001 6 Add security lighting and security cameras 2002 .., 7 Install lockable, vandal resistant restrooms with aerobic treatment 2002 system; install potable \vater system and \vater fountains 8 Construct playground and cushioned play surface 2002 9 Begin to pave roads in the park beginning \vith the primary entry 2003 road and branching off to the boat ramps; add lighted tie-up docks on one side of each boat ramp. 10 Begin the hikelbike unimproved trails along the south shore line 2003 where the road is closed for the present; provide better signage. 11 Construct an enclosed fishing shelter and expand the fishing pier 2004 12 Hire a caretaker/warden and install an on-site residence 2004 13 Construct tent camping sites near the shore line 2005 14 Construct paved connection to NW 19th Street with gate 2005 15 Construct RV campgrounds with utility connects and bath house 2006 16 Complete paving of all park roads and parking areas 2008 10. The city should certainly keep its options open on the north shore allowing golf course, residential or commercial developers the opportunity to analyze for themselves the feasibility of developing those lands. There could come a time when conditions are ripe for such private investment. We do not concur that the time is here and now! Page 44 of 45 - '--,'-' -'~""'-': - .. - 0;> ~ of Paris Study of Lake Crook March, 2001 I 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.0.1 ,General. The 2,700 acre Lake Crook property is an asset with a fabulous potential and like Lmus said to Charlie Brown in the "Peanuts" comic strip, "There is no greater burden than a great potential. " From public participation, interviews and meetings we clearly see there is no consensus in Paris on what to do with this potential. In a very clearly worded survey question, the overwhelming majority of Paris citizens do not want the city to sell surplus property now. Likewise, the majority of respondents want the city to do something to improve the Lake Crook land. As professional engineers and land planners we quickly see the vision of a beautiful row of waterfront homes and a shoreline drive road that provides even the non-residents with a spectacular vie\v of the lake. On the other hand, as conservationists we see the beauty in raw, undisturbed land \vith turkey, water fowl, and deer along the shore. The best of both \vorlds would be some of each. We have provided three different development concepts and one non-development concept for the City of Paris, We mistakenly call them options \vhereas they are not options at all . . . they are concepts. The term "options" implies a plan \vith no flexibility whatsoever, We actually favor and recommend a blend of these concepts. Consulting Engineer and Planner, Calvin T, (Terry) Brannon, FE, RPLS "",'-.-.', '~-- '.,>r'"",,f-"""~""'~"--' .~.- r'I'."..."" ,"'~~"..~,,:-,.,',. ", , "., ' ,-: "'-':'4i~ ." " ;':":"--.~ ,~04_\ . , 'j.~o. ~- --.~~ [;' -¡:,-".-~"-:'~""f"'i'.:I":~.:i:"J?-,;;"'~"}:' ;.".'.', >+ - ~~ ",,:""l' " -,-..~ - -- ,... "-" ""-"")(1 -. '.;-3.'- ./'Q',.:.. '-_v; "-":,~,,,,,,""i-')-""~~~'..(~-' ""'.-.,.~'C.~'--"!" ,.' ,-,',.'-"-:;,¡:-~._',.."",,;,,-,,.,,:,,-.....'_..-.-'-,~-,,.' -'.-- ",---,', . ,'-.'~ ..'" ". "-'~"";':-,,:,,,..I""" .-;~' Page 45 of 45