Ellinger Poised for Big Growth With Grant?

The Fayette County Commissioners Court met Wednesday, Dec. 6, to select and prioritize several projects for the County’s $4.8 million grant application to the Texas General Land Office’s (GLO) Regional Mitigation Program.

The GLO’s Regional Mitigation Program, a part of the State’s recovery efforts following Hurricane Harvey in 2017, provides funds to protect communities against future disasters. Terms of the grant require that half of the funds must be used to benefit low to moderate income (LMI) areas of the County.

At previous meetings, the Commissioners had discussed various projects that could be completed with the grant funds. On Wednesday, they prioritized a list of three projects: • radio communication upgrades for first responders in the Schulenburg and Winchester areas;

• wastewater system improvements Ellinger Sewer and Water Supply Corporation; and

• drainage improvements in the Plum, Winchester and Flatonia areas.

The proposed sewer system upgrade for Ellinger Sewer and Water Supply Corporation (ESWC) could lead to some big changes in that part of the County.

“What we’ve done over the past few years is this,” said ESWC Secretary Michael Schlabach. “Ellinger had a bad arsenic problem. We got with the Texas Water Development Board and got an arsenic treatment plant being installed now. We’ve got a brand new ground storage tank. We can get money from the State to get clean water. But with brown water, we can’t hardly get any funding.

“Our (sewer) system is outdated,” he added. “We’re up to about 90 percent capacity. Right now, we’re getting 18 new apartment units being built, but the company wants to do 38. We have commercial property people who want to buy. They can’t. We’ve probably got 60 city lots. They can’t (be developed) because we do not have the capacity for the sewer.”

Schlabach said the sewer upgrades would allow Ellinger to grow, leading to an increase of property tax and sales tax revenue for the County.

“Look at the return on investment – the jobs it will create and the tax it will bring in – it’s a no-lose situation for everybody,” he said. “We drastically need this. Our sewer plant is at capacity. We’re right there on a major corridor between Austin and Houston. Everything’s ready to go. The doors are ready to open.”

James Weishuhn of Weishuhn Engineering estimated the cost of the Ellinger sewer project at around $2 million.

The radio upgrades, while not the costliest project, ranked high on the list of the Commissioners’ priorities. The upgrades would improve radio signal reception inside buildings.

“The biggest threat we are trying to mitigate in Schulenburg … is not having indoor coverage,” said EMS Director Josh Vandever.

Vandever said there are also “indoor gaps” in coverage in the Winchester area. He said upgrades to the Winchester radio tower could also improve reception in the rural areas south of Kirtley and towards Cistern.

The Ellinger sewer project and the communications upgrades in Schulenburg and Winchester all benefit areas of the county that are considered low-to-moderate income. Grant writer Tyler Payne of Langford Community Management Services estimated the costs of the Ellinger project and the communications upgrades, along with engineering and grant administration services, which covers the amount allocated for the County’s LMI areas.

That leaves another roughly $1.8 million that could be spent in the rest of the County. Engineering and administration fees would leave about $1.4 to $1.5 million for actual construction. Pct. 1 Commissioner Jason McBroom advocated for drainage improvements in the Plum, and Winchester areas. Pct. 3 Commissioner Harvey Berckenhoff discussed the need for drainage improvements near Flatonia.

“The next time we get a seven to ten inch rain, the Town of Plum will flood,” McBroom said.

McBroom said he believes construction of the new gravel pit along Old Plum Highway changed the flow of stormwater runoff in the area. Compounding the matter, he said the ditches that drain the Plum area were built decades ago on private property. Those ditches need to be periodically cleared. But State law prohibits the County from performing maintenance on private property.

“Winchester is sitting in a hole and it’s dammed up by the railroad tracks,” Mc-Broom added. “It just needs some way to alleviate that issue.”

“We could fund the acquisition piece with the grant – either permanent easements, buying the land, or whatever you had to do,” Payne said. “My advice is if that’s the direction you want to go, I would recommend that the Court be unified in this to do what it takes to actually fix the problem.”

“So are you talking about being willing to go as far as eminent domain to address the issue?” asked Vandever.

“Potentially,” Payne said. “That’s the issue. If you’re not willing to do that, and we get three years into this project only to start over. Then you lose all sorts of time and money. So if you’re not willing to do that, it might not be the best project.”

McBroom said the project in Plum would only involve two property owners right now. Payne advised McBroom to speak with the landowners to gauge their interest in conveying the land or a permanent easement to the County. McBroom said he believes the project would benefit the landowners.

Pct. 3 Commissioner Harvey Berckenhoff brought up another drainage problem in the Flatonia area.

“The water backs up and it has no place to go,” Berckenhoff said.

“How do we fix the problem?” asked County Emergency Management Coordinator Angela Hahn.

“That’s a question for the back of the room,” McBroom said, pointing James Weishuhn and his engineering staff.

“What we really need is a general estimate for construction of the drainage to see how much of that $1.4 to $1.5 million,” Payne said.

Weishuhn said he will visit the sites and begin preparing cost estimates.

The Commissioners also discussed a fourth smaller project that would supply water to Fayette Regional Air Center for aerial firefighting operations. The airport water line project could become part of the grant if enough funds remain after budgeting for the other three projects.

Construction on any of these projects won’t begin any time soon.

“We still have to go through the application process, the contracting process, the environmental review – so you’re not going to see that money for at least 18 months, or probably closer to two years,” said Payne.