2003 status of rural texas (alamo regional profile)

OFFICE OF RURAL COMMUNITY AFFAIRS The Status of Rural Texas, 2003 Alamo Region

63


64

DEMOGRAPHICS

Population projections Between the years 2000 and 2040, population projections for the Alamo Region indicate that the population of the region will increase by 43.5 percent, as compared to 67.9 percent statewide. The majority of the population (95 percent) of this region falls within urban counties. From 2000 to 2040, the Hispanic population is expected to increase from 50.4 to 61.7 percent in urban counties. In the region’s single micropolitan county (Kerr County) the Hispanic population will almost double from 8,353 to 17,537. However, in all counties, the Anglo population is generally stable in numbers, but decreasing as percentage of the population (from 42.6 percent in 2000 to 29.7 percent in 2040).

Alamo: Population projections

42.6%

6.1%

49.5%

1.9%5.9%

2.7%5.5%

61.1%

3.7%

56.0%

35.4%

29.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Anglo Black Hispanic Other

20002020

2040

Source: U.S. Census Bureau


65

Alamo: Population projections

Anglo African-American Hispanic Other

Number % of total pop.




2000 708,451 41.4% 107,169 6.3% 863,162 50.4% 32,921 1.9%

2020 742,518 34.4% 129,938 6.0% 1,224,740 56.7% 61,402 2.8% Urban

2040 713,667 28.8% 138,828 5.6% 1,528,143 61.7% 96,192 3.9%

2000 34,097 78.1% 777 1.8% 8,353 19.1% 426 1.0%

2020 32,849 70.0% 885 1.9% 12,707 27.1% 503 1.1% Micro

2040 29,496 61.0% 819 1.7% 17,537 36.3% 504 1.0%

2000 27,113 51.6% 2,441 4.6% 22,620 43.1% 338 0.6%

2020 27,434 44.7% 2,363 3.8% 31,248 50.9% 391 0.6% Rural

2040 26,187 38.4% 2,213 3.2% 39,454 57.8% 368 0.5%

2000 769,661 42.6% 110,387 6.1% 894,135 49.5% 33,685 1.9%

2020 802,801 35.4% 133,186 5.9% 1,268,695 56.0% 62,296 2.7% Region

2040 769,350 29.7% 141,860 5.5% 1,585,134 61.1% 97,064 3.7%

2000 11,074,716 53.1% 2,421,653 11.6% 6,669,666 32.0% 685,785 3.3% 2020 11,735,043 42.3% 3,004,173 10.8% 11,742,820 42.3% 1,256,342 4.5% State

2040 11,382,992 32.5% 3,283,413 9.4% 18,391,333 52.5% 1,954,592 5.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Alamo: Population projections Total

Number Percent change from 2000

2000 1,711,703

2020 2,158,598 26.1 Urban

2040 2,476,830 44.7

2000 43,653 ---

2020 46,944 7.5 Micro

2040 48,356 10.8

2000 52,512 ---

2020 61,436 17 Rural

2040 68,222 29.9

2000 1,807,868 ---

2020 2,266,978 25.4 Region

2040 2,593,408 43.5

2000 20,851,820 --- 2020 27,738,378 33 State

2040 35,012,330 67.9



66

Population by age group When comparing the population characteristics of urban, micropolitan, and rural counties at the state level, all three county types have similar percentages for persons from birth to 19 years. Rural counties in Texas have fewer individuals aged 20 to 44 years than urban areas (30.8 percent of Texas’ rural population compared with 39.4 percent of Texas’ urban population). At the state level, rural counties have more individuals aged 65 and older than urban counties (17 percent of Texas’ rural population compared with 9 percent of Texas’ urban population). The micropolitan county in the Alamo region has fewer individuals aged 20-44 than urban and rural counties (rural, 34.5 percent; micropolitan, 26.7 percent; and urban, 37.1 percent) and has more individuals aged 65 and older than urban and rural counties in the region (rural, 17.6 percent; micropolitan, 24.9 percent; and urban, 10.8 percent).


Alamo: Population by age (2000)

Age group Urban Micro Rural Region Under 5 7.7% 5.3% 6.0% 7.6% 5-14 15.9% 12.9% 13.5% 15.8% 15-19 7.9% 6.7% 6.9% 7.8% 20-44 37.1% 26.7% 34.5% 36.8% 45-64 20.6% 23.5% 21.6% 20.7% 65+ 10.8% 24.9% 17.6% 11.3%

State: Population by age (2000) Age group Urban Micro Rural State Under 5 8.0% 7.1% 6.3% 7.8% 5-14 15.9% 15.2% 14.5% 15.8% 15-19 7.8% 8.4% 7.7% 7.8% 20-44 39.4% 34.5% 30.8% 38.5% 45-64 19.9% 21.1% 23.4% 20.2% 65+ 9.0% 13.7% 17.4% 9.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Alamo: Population by age, percent (2000)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban Micro Rural Region State

65+

45-64

20-4415-19

5-14

Under 5


67

Income levels and poverty status From 1998 to 2000, total personal51 income (farm and non-farm) grew by 11.5 percent in the urban counties in the Alamo region. The rural and micropolitan counties in this region experienced slower growth in total personal income during the same time period: 8.6 percent growth in rural counties and 7.3 percent in micropolitan counties. Personal income in the entire region grew at an average rate of 11.4 percent, slightly lower than the statewide increase of 13.6 percent for the same time period. While total personal income is an indicator of the economic strength of a community, county or larger region, median household income and per capita personal income can measure how well individuals and families are doing. The rural counties in the Alamo region had lower median household income and lower per capita personal income than the micropolitan and urban counties. Median household income and per capita personal income in the region as a whole were lower than the statewide averages. These numbers do not take into account any differences in the cost of living within or across the county types. Adding poverty rates to the mix helps make the picture clearer. The percent of individuals living below poverty in the rural counties in the Alamo region in 1999 was higher than the poverty rate in the micropolitan county and almost two percentage points higher than the rate in the urban counties. The region had an overall poverty rate 0.6 percentage points lower than the state rate.

Alamo: income and poverty status Regional indicator Individual indicators

2000 total personal

income

Percent change in total personal

income from 1998

1999 median52 household

income

2000 per capita personal income

1999 percent of individuals living below

poverty Urban $43.7 billion 11.5% $39,120 $25,415 14.7%

Micro $1.1 billion 7.3% $34,333 $26,632 13.9% Rural $1.0 billion 8.6% $31,369 $19,192 16.6%

Region $45.8 billion 11.4% $38,793 $25,264 14.8% State $578.26 billion 13.6% $39,936 $28,131 15.4%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau

51 Persons consists of individuals and quasi-individuals that serve or act on behalf of individuals. Quasi-individuals include nonprofit institutions that primarily serve individuals, private noninsured welfare funds, and private trust funds. The total personal income of an area includes income that is received by, or on behalf of, all the individuals who live in the area. Per capita personal income is calculated as the personal income of the residents divided by the population of that area as of July 1. 52 Median household income for county types and regions was calculated using an abbreviated version of income distribution tables from the U.S. Census Bureau, compared to those used in Census Summary File 3. At the statewide level, this alternate methodology results in a 0.02 percent variation from the Summary File 3 figure.


68

Civic participation In the Alamo region, the micropolitan county has a high percentage of registered voters (94.6 percent), as well as the percent of voters that turned out to vote in the 2000 presidential elections (60.2 percent). The percent of registered voters in urban counties was slightly higher than the rural counties (87.9 percent compared to 84.1 percent). However, the percentage of voters that turned out to vote in rural counties was greater than in urban counties (54.6 percent compared to 49.2 percent). On a whole, the region falls above the state average for percentage of registered voters, but a lesser percentage of voters turned out in the 2000 elections.

Alamo: Civic participation (2000 presidential elections)

87.9%

94.6%

84.1%87.9%

82.2%

49.2%

60.2%

51.8%49.6%54.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Registered voters

Voter turnout

Source: Texas Secretary of State


69

AGRICULTURE

Land use From 1987 to 1997, micropolitan counties in the Alamo region experienced the greatest increase in the number of farms (33.2 percent). However, there was a significant decrease in the average farm size by 23.8 percent. For the same period, farmland acreage in rural counties increased by almost 4 percent. For the 10-year period from 1987 to 1997, rural counties showed an increase in the number of farms by 2.2 percent, and an increase in the average farm size by more than 8 percent. During the same time period, urban counties experienced a slight decrease in farm acreage (-0.65 percent), an increase of almost 3 percent in the number of farms, but a decrease in average farm size of –6.7 percent.

Alamo

Change in farmland acreage 1987 to 1992 1992 to 1997 1987 to 1997

Urban 0.54% -1.18% -0.65%

Micro -1.51% 3.14% 1.58%

Rural 6.90% -2.65% 4.07% Region 2.58% -1.67% 0.87%

State -0.54% 0.06% -0.48%

Change in Number of Farms Urban -3.78% 6.98% 2.93%

Micro 11.47% 19.51% 33.22%

Rural -0.63% 0.40% -0.23% Region -3.07% 5.45% 2.21%

State -4.69% 7.71% 2.66%

Change in Average Farm Size Urban 4.35% -10.59% -6.71%

Micro -11.69% -13.73% -23.81%

Rural 6.58% 1.54% 8.22% Region 5.23% -5.75% -0.82%

State 1.25% -7.30% -6.14% Source: Texas Agricultural Statistics Service

Agricultural production The 1997 Census of Agriculture includes the most recent county-level data on agricultural production. The census, which is conducted every five years, tracks the market value of agricultural products sold. Products include grains, hay, silage and field seeds, vegetables, fruits, nuts, nursery and greenhouse crops, and livestock, poultry and their products. In 1997, the Alamo region accounted for $388.5 million or 2.8 percent of the state’s $13.7 billion agricultural products market, ranking last among the 11 regions.


70

Market value of agricultural products by region (1997)Total market value for the state: $13.7 billion

0

123456

7

Alamo

Centra

l Tex

as

East T

exas

Lower

Gulf Coa

st

North C

entra

l

North T

exas P

lains

Panh

andle

Rio Gran

de

South

Texa

s Plain

s

Upper

Gulf Coa

st

West Te

xas

Dol

lars

in b

illio

ns

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service

Rural counties accounted for $113.2 million of the agricultural production in the Alamo region, or 29 percent, compared to the statewide average of 55 percent for rural counties. The region’s only micropolitan county added $7.1 million, or two percent, less than the statewide average of 23 percent. Urban counties contributed $268 million or 69 percent, higher than the statewide average of 22 percent for urban counties

Alamo: Market value of agricultural products (1997) Total sales: $388.5 million

$268,164,000$7,192,000

$113,234,000

Urban

MicroRural

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service


71

CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE Statewide spending for criminal indigent defense increased by approximately $20 million between 2001 and 2002. At the state level, all county types (urban, micropolitan, and rural) experienced increased costs for criminal indigent defense. Total court expenses include attorney fees, investigative expenditures, expert witness expenditures, as well as other litigation expenses. Between 2001 and 2002, at the state level, total court expenses increased by $20,018,577 or 24.5 percent (urban, 25 percent; micropolitan, 22.2 percent; rural, 19.6 percent). Between 2001 and 2002, at the state level, attorney fees increased by $15,321,855 or 20.6 percent (urban, 20.8 percent; micropolitan, 21.8 percent; rural, 17.2 percent). In the Alamo region, total court expenses increased from approximately $6.4 million to approximately $7.6 million for a total increase of $1.2 million or 19.1 percent (urban, 19.9 percent; micropolitan, 10.7 percent; rural, 0.9 percent). All county types showed an increase in total court costs, but the cost increases in the Alamo region were less than the state average increase for total court costs (when expressed as a percentage). In the Alamo region, attorney fees increased from approximately $6.2 million to approximately $6.5 million for a total increase of $379,165 or 6.2 percent (urban, 5.7 percent; micropolitan, 20.2 percent; rural, -6.6 percent). Costs for attorney fees increased in the Alamo region for metropolitan and micropolitan counties but decreased for rural counties.

Alamo: Criminal indigent defense expenditures

Urban Micro Rural Region State Population, 2000 1,711,703 43,653 52,512 1,807,868 20,851,820 Baseline Attorney Fees, 2001 $5,773,076 $290,401 $96,557 $6,160,033 $74,387,230 Attorney Fees, 2002 $6,099,994 $349,016 $90,188 $6,539,198 $89,709,085 Attorney Fees, Change in % (01-02) 5.66% 20.18% -6.60% 6.16% 20.60% Attorney Fees, Change in $ (01-02) $326,919 $58,615 $(6,369) $379,165 $15,321,855

Baseline Total Court Expenses, 2001 $5,926,812 $345,353 $99,792 $6,371,956 $81,784,849 Total Court Expenses, 2002 $7,105,865 $382,366 $100,689 $7,588,920 $101,803,406 Total Court Expenses, Change in % (01-02) 19.89% 10.72% 0.90% 19.10% 24.48% Total Court Expenses, Change in $ (01-02) $1,179,054 $37,013 $897 $1,216,964 $20,018,557 Source: Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense


72

ECONOMY

Workforce and jobs Alamo: Employment and unemployment

Civilian labor force estimate

Unemployment rate

July 2003

Change from

July 2002

July 2003

July 2002

Urban 918,265 3.6% 5.9% 5.7%

Micro 19,747 2.2% 3.3% 3.4% Rural 22,928 1.7% 5.4% 5.4% Region 960,940 3.5% 5.8% 5.6%

State 11,104,209 2.0% 7.1% 6.9%

Source: Texas Workforce Commission

Alamo: Class of Workers (2000)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban

Micro Rural

Region Stat

e

Unpaid family

Self-employed

Government

Private wage & salary


Alamo: Net gain/loss in number of businesses

Firms 1st quarter 2001

Firms 1st quarter 2003 Percent change

Urban 30,739 31,253 1.7%

Micro 1,304 1,340 2.8% Rural 1,472 1,487 1.0%

Region 33,515 34,080 1.7% State 436,149 441,375 1.2%

Source: Texas Workforce Commission

In 2000, 66 percent or more of the workers in all county types of the Alamo region were private wage and salary workers. Rural counties had the highest percentage of people (19.9 percent) who worked for the government. Kerr County, the only micropolitan county, had the highest percentage of self-employed workers (14.3 percent) compared to 12.7 percent in rural counties and 6.8 percent in urban counties. Unpaid family workers were a very small percentage of workers in all county types: 0.3 percent in urban counties, 0.6 percent in the micropolitan county and 1.1 percent in rural counties.

From July 2002 to July 2003, the civilian labor force in the rural counties in the Alamo region grew an estimated 1.7 percent, while the unemployment rate remained steady at 5.4 percent. In comparison, the labor force in the region’s other county types grew more rapidly: 2.2 in the micropolitan county and 3.6 percent in the urban counties. The unemployment rate dropped 0.1 percent in the micropolitan county and rose 0.2 percentage points in the urban counties during this time frame.

The total number of businesses in the Alamo region grew from 2001 to 2003 in all county types. The micropolitan county experienced the highest growth rate (2.8 percent) compared to a 1.7 percent net gain in urban counties and a 1.0 percent gain in rural counties. During the same period, the state saw a net increase of 1.2 percent in the number of businesses.


73

4A/4B economic development sales tax One tool available to communities for economic development is the economic development sales tax. In 2002, economic development corporations in the rural counties of the Alamo region collected $233 thousand, the urban counties $6.26 million, and the micropolitan county $1.79 million.

Alamo: Economic development sales tax (2002)

Type of tax Urban Micro Rural Region State

4A $636,979 $0 $0 $636,979 $119,725,505

4B $5,625,902 $1,793,122 $233,065 $7,652,089 $203,897,495

Total $6,262,881 $1,793,122 $233,065 $8,289,068 $323,623,000

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

In the Alamo region, the eight economic development corporations in urban counties experienced a 57-percent increase in tax revenue from 1997 and 2002 (in 2002 dollars). The single corporation in the region’s micropolitan county saw revenue jump by 20 percent during the same timeframe. In contrast, the economic development corporation in one of the region’s rural counties experienced nearly a 25-percent drop in sales tax revenue.

Alamo: 4A/4B economic development sales tax revenue trends

# of corporations53

1997 taxes collected

1997 taxes adjusted for inflation54

2002 taxes collected

Percent change55

Urban 8 $1,445,276 $1,618,709 $2,540,672 57%

Micro 1 $1,331,554 $1,491,340 $1,793,122 20.2%

Rural 1 $59,016 $66,098 $49,693 -24.8%

State 318 $163,429,972 $183,041,569 $200,941,947 9.8%

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts In terms of sales taxes these economic development corporations collected in 2002, revenue in rural counties was way off the urban and micropolitan marks. The single rural corporation collected less than $50,000, compared to an urban average of $317,500 (based on 2002 taxes collected divided by the number of corporations), and revenue of $1.8 million in the single micropolitan corporation.

53 Only those corporations in operation in both 1997 and 2002 were used for this trend analysis. One 4B corporation in an urban county was omitted because 1997 totals were reported incorrectly. 54 Total 1997 revenue was converted to 2002 dollars using the Inflation Calculator from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. 1997 actual collections were multiplied by a factor of 1.12 to calculate the value in 2002 dollars. 55 Percent change was calculated from a comparison of inflation-adjusted 1997 sales tax collections and actual 2002 collections.


74

Tourism and the economy In the Alamo region, destination spending increased by 27.4 percent from 1997 to 2002, reaching a total of $3.6 billion. Spending in rural counties increased from $45.2 million in 1997 to $65 million in 2002, an increase of 43.8 percent, compared to 27.3 percent growth in urban counties and 19.9 percent in the micropolitan county in the same time frame. Destination spending contributes to significant tax revenue at local and state levels. Rural counties in the Alamo region added $1.4 million to local coffers in 2002 as a result of tourism.

Alamo: Destination spending Alamo: 2002 tax revenue 1997 2002 % change Local sales tax State sales tax

Urban $2.7 billion $3.5 billion 27.3% $74.6 million $269 million

Micro $55.9 million $67 million 19.9% $1.2 million $4.4 million Rural $45.2 million $65 million 43.8% $1.4 million $4.4 million

Region $2.8 billion $3.6 billion 27.4% $77.3 million $278 million

State $23.18 billion $28.8 billion 24.2% $631 million $2.17 billion

Source: Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tourism

Alamo: Travel-related employment

1997 jobs 2002 jobs 2002 earnings

Urban 52,130 52,440 $1.2 billion

Micro 1,730 1,730 $27.4 million

Rural 830 1,010 $17 million Region 54,690 55,180 $1.27 billion

State 449,240 450,900 $11.9 billion Source: Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tourism

The positive economic effects of tourism can also be seen in the employment sector. Statewide, earnings related to nearly 451,000 travel-related jobs hit $11.9 billion in 2002. In the Alamo region, the bulk of the travel-related jobs are in the urban counties: more than 52,000 jobs in 2002. From 1997 to 2002, the number of these jobs increased slightly in the rural and urban counties in the region, while holding nearly steady in the micropolitan county.


75

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT When comparing the Alamo region with statewide averages, rural counties in the region have more citizens whose highest educational attainment is high school graduation (30 percent, rural Alamo; and 24.8 percent, state average) and fewer that have a Bachelor or higher (15 percent, rural Alamo; and 23.2 percent, state average). When compared with state-level rural figures, rural areas of the Alamo region have more citizens that failed to complete high school (32.3 percent, rural Alamo; and 30.2 percent, rural state average). Alamo: Educational attainment (2000)

Urban Micro Rural Region Less than high school, % 22.9% 18.8% 32.3% 23.1% High school, % 25.5% 29.2% 30.0% 25.7% Some college or Associate, % 29.6% 28.7% 22.8% 29.4% Bachelor and higher, % 22.1% 23.3% 15.0% 21.9%

State: Educational attainment (2000)

Urban Micro Rural State Less than high school, % 23.3% 30.7% 30.2% 24.3% High school, % 23.7% 29.7% 33.4% 24.8% Some college or Associate, % 28.1% 25.2% 23.7% 27.6% Bachelor and higher, % 24.9% 14.4% 12.7% 23.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Alamo: Highest level of educational attainment, by percent (2000)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Urban

Micro Rural

Region Sta

te

Less than high school

High school

Some college orAssociate

Bachelor and higher



76

HEALTHCARE

Healthcare professionals Assuring “adequate” access to healthcare services for Texas citizens is a major issue for many communities. Many factors contribute to the access problems faced by residents, such as difficulty recruiting and retaining healthcare professionals in rural areas and the closure of local hospitals. Recruiting and retaining a sufficient workforce is dependent on factors such as: existing well-trained providers, access to services, adequate facilities, and the quality of care.

Alamo: Number and ratio56 of healthcare professionals (2002)

Primary Care Physicians (PCPs)57 Dentists Pharmacists

Licensed Psychologists

and Counselors

Registered Nurses (RNs)

Number Ratio Number Ratio Number Ratio Number Ratio Number Ratio

Urban 1238 72.3 704 41.1 1414 82.6 1,307 76.36 13,269 775.2 Micro 49 112.2 22 50.4 44 100.8 44 100.79 444 1017.1 Rural 39 74.3 15 28.6 39 74.3 20 38.09 277 527.5

Region 1326 73.3 741 41.0 1497 82.8 1,371 75.84 13990 773.8 State 14979 71.1 7735 36.7 16,035 76.2 13028 62.48 141094 670.1

Source: Texas Department of Health • Ninety-three percent of all PCPs in the Alamo region were in urban counties. Rural and

micropolitan counties had a significantly lower number of PCPs compared to urban counties—(rural, 39; micropolitan, 49). All county types were above the state ratio for the Alamo region—(region, 73.3; state, 71.1).

• Ninety-five percent of all dentists in the Alamo region were in urban counties. Rural and

micropolitan counties had a significantly lower number of dentists compared to urban counties— rural, 15; micropolitan, 22; urban, 704. The ratio of dentists in micropolitan counties was significantly higher than the state and region.

• Ninety-four percent of all pharmacists in the Alamo region were in urban counties. Rural and

micropolitan countie s had a significantly lower number of pharmacists compared to urban counties—rural, 39; micropolitan, 44; urban; 1,414. The ratio of pharmacists in urban and micropolitan counties was above than the state ratio.

• Ninety-five percent of all licensed psychologists and counselors in the Alamo region were in

urban counties. Rural and micropolitan counties had a significantly lower number of licensed psychologists and counselors compared to urban counties—rural, 20; micropolitan, 44; urban, 1307. The ratio of licensed psychologists and counselors in urban and micropolitan counties was much greater than the state—urban, 76.36; micropolitan, 100.79; state, 62.48.

56 Ratio for healthcare professionals is per 100,000 population. 57 Primary care physicians include general practitioners, family practitioners, internal medicine and pediatricians.


77

• Ninety-five percent of all RNs in the Alamo region were in urban counties. Rural and micropolitan counties had a significantly lower number of RNs compared to urban counties— (rural, 277; micropolitan, 444; urban, 13,269). The ratio of RNs in urban and micropolitan counties was much greater than the state—urban, 775.2; micropolitan, 1017.1; state, 670.1.

Staffed hospital beds The number of staffed beds is an important healthcare indicator, which is dependent upon the number of healthcare providers available. Staffed beds are licensed and/or operational beds for which there is staff on hand to attend to the patient who occupies the bed. There is a correlation amongst the number of staffed beds and healthcare providers available to tend to patients, which expresses the importance of recruiting and retaining healthcare providers.

Staffed Beds per 100,000 Population, 1999

283324

258 283 284

050

100150200250300350

Urban

Micro Rural

Region Stat

e

Staffed Beds per100,000Population

Source: Texas Department of Health

When comparing the Alamo region, the region had fewer staffed beds per 100,000 population than the state in 1999. Urban and rural counties in the Alamo region had fewer staffed beds per 100,000 population than the micropolitan county—urban, 283; rural, 258; micropolitan, 324. Urban counties in the Alamo region had a total of more staffed beds than rural and micropolitan counties (rural, 129; micropolitan, 142; urban, 4,710).

Alamo: Number and ratio of staffed beds (1999)

Staffed Beds per 100,000 Population

Total Staffed Beds

Urban 283 4,710

Micro 324 142

Rural 258 129

Region 283 4981

State 284 56,993


78

Uninsured population

Source: Health and Human Services Commission

In the Alamo region, all county types were slightly above the state percentage of uninsured for those under 19 years of age—(urban, 15.3 percent; micropolitan, 14.4 percent; rural, 15.6 percent). For those under 19 years of age, urban counties comprise 96 percent of the uninsured population. In this region, those 19-64 years of age were also above the state estimated percentage of uninsured—urban, 28.7 percent; micropolitan; 30.4 percent, rural, 35.3 percent; state, 28.2.

Alamo: Percentage of uninsured population (2002)

28.7%30.4%35.3%

28.9%

14.0%

28.2%

15.3%14.4%15.6%15.3%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Percent Uninsured Under Age 19 Percent Uninsured Ages 19 - 64

UrbanMicroRuralRegionState

Source: Health and Human Services Commission

Alamo: Estimate of uninsured (2002)

Population Under 19

Estimated Uninsured Under Age

19

Estimated Percent

Uninsured Under Age

19

Population Ages 19 -

64

Estimated Uninsured Ages 19 -

64

Estimated Percent

Uninsured Ages 19 -

64

Urban 518,126 79,348 15.3% 1,049,755 301,424 28.7% Micro 10,437 1,505 14.4% 22,602 6,868 30.4%

Rural 13,299 2,069 15.6% 30,819 10,867 35.3%

Region 541,862 82,921 15.3% 1,103,176 319,159 28.9% State 6,315,450 886,000 14.0% 13,057,578 3,680,601 28.2%

The availability of healthcare with or without insurance is a major reason why approximately 24 percent of Texans do not have insurance. The largest population of the uninsured in Texas is adults (ages 19-65), which affects an individual’s access to care, incidence of illness, prognosis for recovery, and financial well-being.


79

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Housing units In 2000, Texas had a total of 8.15 million housing units. The rural counties and the single micropolitan county in the Alamo region had more vacant housing units relative to population than the urban counties. The estimated increase in housing units from 2000 to 2002 for the urban counties (4.13 percent) outpaced growth in the micropolitan and rural counties. Rural counties showed the slowest housing growth with an increase of 1.49 percent.

Alamo: Housing units

2000 housing units 2002 estimated housing units 2000

population Total Vacant Total Percent change

from 2000

Urban 1,711,703 648,593 47,328 675,370 4.13%

Micro 43,653 20,228 2,415 20,756 2.61%

Rural 52,512 21,041 3,323 21,355 1.49% Region 1,807,868 689,862 53,066 717,481 4.00%

State 20,851,820 8,157,575 764,221 8,502,060 4.22%

Source: US Census Bureau

Alamo: Percentage of units lacking complete plumbing (2000)

Total units Units lacking

complete plumbing Percentage

Urban 648,593 6,900 1.06%

Micro 20,228 223 1.10%

Rural 21,041 530 2.52%

Region 689,862 7,653 1.11%

State 8,157,575 103,238 1.27%

Source: US Census Bureau

The percentage of units without complete plumbing in the rural counties was more than twice the rate in the urban and micropolitan counties, and almost twice the statewide rate.


80

Homeownership The 2000 statewide homeownership rate was 63.8 percent. Homeownership rates for the Alamo region were higher than the state average in all county types: 64.5 percent for the combined urban counties; 73.3 percent for the micropolitan county; and 74.4 percent for rural counties.

Alamo: Occupied housing units by type (2000)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Renter-occupiedOwned



81

Telephone service

Alamo: Occupied housing without telephone service, by type and percent (2000)

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%


Owner: No telephone

Renter: No telephone

Total: No telephone


The percentage of occupied housing units without telephone service in the Alamo region is lower than the state average (region, 2.8 percent; and state, 3.2 percent). Within the Alamo region, owners in rural areas are less likely than their urban counterparts to have phone service (3.1 percent go without in rural compared with 1.5 percent in urban). Almost nine percent of renters in rural counties in the region occupy housing units without telephone service, compared with 5.9 percent of renters statewide and 5.3 percent of urban renters in the region.

Alamo: Occupied housing units without telephone service (2000) Availability of telephone Urban Micro Rural Region Owner: No telephone 1.5% 0.9% 3.1% 1.5% Renter: No telephone 5.3% 3.4% 8.6% 5.3% Total: No telephone 2.8% 1.6% 4.5% 2.8%

State: Occupied housing units without telephone service (2000)

Availability of telephone Urban Micro Rural State Owner: No telephone 1.4% 2.8% 3.3% 1.6% Renter: No telephone 5.4% 9.6% 11.7% 5.9% Total: No telephone 2.9% 4.7% 5.2% 3.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau


82

TAX BASE

Property values and deductions In 2002, property in Texas had a total taxable value of nearly $1.02 trillion; in the Alamo region, $67.2 billion; in rural Alamo, $1.9 billion.

Alamo: Total taxable value (2002)

Urban Micro Rural Region Property value subtotal $74,003,638,635 $2,218,972,682 $2,241,098,925 $78,463,710,242 Total deductions $10,465,306,045 $443,836,238 $387,982,889 $11,297,125,172 Total taxable value (TTV) $63,538,332,590 $1,775,136,444 $1,853,116,036 $67,166,585,070

State: Total taxable value (2002)

Urban Micro Rural State Property value subtotal $1,014,473,172,205 $65,644,334,401 $80,033,143,196 $1,160,150,649,802 Total deductions $127,351,429,297 $8,618,566,339 $8,994,631,385 $144,964,627,021 Total taxable value (TTV) $887,121,742,908 $57,025,768,062 $71,038,511,811 $1,015,186,022,781 Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Single-family residences constitute the biggest property class in Texas, at 47.2 percent, and also in the Alamo region, at 56.3 percent. Oil, gas, and minerals constitute the largest property class in rural Texas, at 27 percent, with single -family residences next, at 22 percent. In rural Alamo, rural real property constitutes the largest property class, at 34.8 percent, with single -family residences next, at 33.8 percent.

Alamo: Property classification (2002) Urban Micro Rural Region State

A Single family residences 57.1% 54.7% 33.8% 56.3% 47.2% B Multi-family residences 4.3% 2.9% 1.3% 4.2% 4.6% C Vacant lots 3.2% 3.1% 1.5% 3.2% 2.2% D Rural real (Taxable) 3.7% 16.3% 34.8% 4.9% 4.5% F1 Commercial real 16.4% 12.3% 11.9% 16.1% 14.6% F2 Industrial real 1.4% 0.1% 0.5% 1.3% 6.1% G Oil, Gas, Minerals 0.1% 0.0% 3.8% 0.2% 3.5% J Utilities 2.4% 2.7% 5.0% 2.5% 3.5% L1 Commercial personal 7.7% 4.5% 4.5% 7.5% 7.5% L2 Industrial personal 2.4% 0.6% 1.5% 2.3% 4.7% M Other personal 0.7% 2.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% N Intangible personal & uncertified 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% O Residential Inventory 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% S Special inventory 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts


83

The state mandated homestead exemption represents the largest percentage of deductions at the state level (43.7 percent) and for all three county types (urban, 42.2 percent; micropolitan, 53.1 percent; and rural, 56.1 percent). The over-65 assigned freeze loss is the second largest percentage of deductions at the state level (24.3 percent) and for all three county types (urban, 24.6 percent; micropolitan, 21.9 percent; and rural, 21.6 percent). In rural Alamo, the largest deduction is also the state mandated homestead exemption, at 44.4 percent, and the second largest deduction is the over-65 assigned freeze loss, at 38.6 percent.

Alamo: Deductions (2002) Urban Micro Rural Region State

State Mandated Homestead (15,000) 51.7% 38.6% 44.4% 50.9% 43.7% Over 65 Homestead (10,000) 10.5% 12.6% 11.6% 10.6% 7.5% Disabled Veterans and/or surviving spouse 2.3% 1.7% 1.0% 2.3% 0.9% Over 65 Assigned Freeze Loss 27.8% 45.6% 38.6% 28.9% 24.3% Abatement Exemptions 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Tax Increment Finance Exemptions 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.9% Freeport Exemptions 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 6.9% Pollution Control Exemptions 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.5% Deferred Payment Homestead Exemptions 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% Other Exemptions--Solar and Wind 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% Assigned 10% Capped value loss 4.4% 1.2% 4.4% 4.2% 9.8% Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Sales tax base Gross sales of $172.45 billion for the first quarter of 2003 represented an increase of 7.9 percent compared to the same quarter a year earlier. Statewide, 27.6 percent of gross sales (products and services) were subject to the state sales and use tax: a total of $47.6 billion taxable sales for the quarter. Rural counties in the Alamo region experienced a two percent loss in gross sales from 2002 to 2003 (first quarter), while the micropolitan county saw a 20.7 percent increase, more than twice the state growth rate. The percentage of gross sales subject to state sales and use taxes in rural counties (37.4 percent) and the micropolitan county (36.8 percent) was higher than the state average. Relative to population, rural counties have a significantly smaller sales and use tax base for the quarter: $1,159 of taxable sales per person, compared to $2,163 per person in the micropolitan county and $2,218 per person in the urban counties.

Alamo: Sales tax base

1st quarter 2003 Sales subject to state sales & use tax

Number of outlets

reporting Gross sales

% change from 1st qtr

2002 Amount Percent

Population

Urban 34,430 $13,939,764,213 16.6% $3,796,875,715 27.2% 1,711,703

Micro 1,222 $256,312,563 20.7% $94,427,866 36.8% 43,653

Rural 1,320 $162,502,165 -1.5% $60,837,162 37.4% 52,512

Region 36,972 $14,358,578,941 16.4% $3,952,140,743 27.5% 1,807,868

State 462,100 $172,452,316,168 7.9% $47,614,211,317 27.6% 20,851,820

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts


84

TRANSPORTATION

Bridges As of November 14, 2003, 132 bridges in the Alamo region had posted load restrictions or were recommended for a restriction. Counties own 92 of these bridges. Most of the load restricted or recommended bridges (78.7 percent) are located in urban counties.

Alamo: Number of load restricted bridges and bridges recommended for restriction (2003)

City owned County owned Federally owned State owned Total

Urban 31 69 0 4 104 Micro 3 2 0 0 5 Rural 2 21 0 0 23

Region 36 92 0 4 132 State 560 3649 19 489 4717

Source: Texas Department of Transportation

Roads

In the Alamo region 90 percent of the FM road miles are located outside city limits, slightly lower than the statewide average of 91.8 percent. Statewide, 46.3 percent of the total FM miles are located in rural counties, 19.2 percent are in the micropolitan county and 34.5 percent are in urban counties. Compared to the state averages, the Alamo region has a lower percentage of FM roads in rural counties (26.4 percent) and the micropolitan county (four percent), and a higher percentage in urban counties (69.5 percent).

Alamo: Centerline miles of state-maintained roads (2002) Farm to Market roads Highways Rural City Rural City

Urban 1,210.4 181.2 2,102.73 1,018.20 Micro 76.0 4.2 262.41 35.48 Rural 513.1 15.6 898.64 49.18 Region 1,799.49 201.03 3,263.77 1,102.86 State 37,679.85 3,306.78 65,762.37 13,650.19

Source: Texas Department of Transportation, December 31, 2002 The Alamo region has a higher percentage of paved county roads (60.2) compared to the state average of 37.5 percent. This percentage is boosted by the percentage of paved roads in the micropolitan county (91.1 percent) and rural counties (43.3 percent), both significantly higher than the state average for these county types. The region’s rural counties also have a higher percentage of paved city streets (89.4 percent) compared to the statewide average for rural counties (48.8 percent).


85

Alamo: Centerline miles of paved/unpaved roads by owner (2002) Certified county roads City streets Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved

Urban 3,338.13 2,044.47 4,654.41 499.35 Micro 413.98 40.21 181.65 28.60 Rural 622.28 813.82 144.08 64.93 Region 4,374.40 2,898.51 4,980.14 592.88 State 53,319.65 89,156.92 65,339.76 13,308.68

Source: Texas Department of Transportation, December 31, 2002 Private roads are not included in this analysis because the state does not collect data for these roads. The state does not collect separate data for roads in colonias. If these roads fall within city limits or are maintained by the county, they are reported within those categories.


86

WATER RESOURCES Municipal water usage in the Alamo region accounts for almost 57 percent of water use for urban counties, followed by approximately 28 percent used for irrigation. The primary water use in the micropolitan county is municipal usage at 60 percent, followed by irrigation at almost 27 percent. In rural counties, manufacturing is the la rgest water comprising 41 percent of water usage, followed by municipal usage at about 36 percent.

Alamo: Percent of water use across sectors (2001)

Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam Electric Irrigation Livestock Total

(acre-feet)

Urban 56.71% 5.65% 1.30% 5.40% 27.93% 3.00% 523,539

Micro 60.13% 4.03% 2.47% 0.00% 26.95% 6.41% 7,016 Rural 7.47% 0.13% 0.21% 0.17% 89.52% 2.51% 120,785

Region 35.86% 41.05% 2.00% 9.77% 3.90% 7.42% 596,463

State: Percent of water use across sectors (2001)

Municipal Manufacturing Mining Steam

Electric Irrigation Livestock Total (acre-feet)

Urban 52.60% 16.07% 1.12% 5.24% 23.90% 1.07% 7,761,866

Micro 9.38% 3.89% 1.84% 5.95% 76.36% 2.58% 2,702,585 Rural 3.93% 4.08% 1.08% 1.43% 86.97% 2.51% 6,068,869

State 27.67% 9.68% 1.22% 3.96% 55.63% 1.85% 16,533,320 Source: Texas Water Development Board

Alamo: Source of available water (2000)

97.76%

2.24%

Groundwater

Surface water

Source: Texas Water Development Board

58 For the purposes of this report, water stored in multi-county reservoirs was not included. This amount represents approximately 8 percent of the state’s total available water.

Alamo: Available water in acre-feet (2000)58

Groundwater Surface water Total Urban 1,374,510 50,296 1,424,806 Micro 946,100 0 946,100 Rural 72,194 4,460 76,654

Region 2,392,804 54,756 2,447,560

The Alamo region relies primarily on groundwater (97.76 percent), which is similar to the statewide breakdown of 95.8 percent groundwater, and 4.2 percent surface water. The great majority of the region’s water is located in urban and micropolitan counties, with only 3 percent in the rural counties.


87

Changes in water availability between 2000-2040

Alamo State Urban -3.69% -55.49% Micro -2.16% -4.83% Rural -35.47% -1.93% Total -3.85% -8.14%

Source: Texas Water Development Board In the Alamo region, the number of public water systems serving fewer than 1,000 connections generally follows the state averages. In most regions across the state, the micropolitan counties have a larger percentage of public water systems with 1,000 or fewer systems, wherein the statewide average for those counties is almost 90 percent. In the Alamo region, the micropolitan county has the greatest percentage at 98 percent. Alamo: Public water systems (2003) Number of systems Percent 1,000 or fewer

connections Greater than 1,000

connections All systems 1,000 or fewer connections

Greater than 1,000 connections

Urban 328 43 371 88.4% 11.6% Micro 99 2 101 98.0% 2.0% Rural 29 6 35 82.9% 17.1%

Region 456 51 507 89.9% 10.1% State 5,805 923 6,728 86.3% 13.7%

Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Compared to some of the other regions in the state, Alamo will not experience a significant change in their water supplies during the next 40 years, except in rural counties, which are expected to see a decrease in their water availability by almost 35 percent.


88

Alamo regional summary This profile of the Alamo region is a snapshot of the present and recent past. The extent to which the future will reflect this past can only be determined by the people who live, work, and play in the region. The non-metropolitan counties (both rural and micropolitan) certainly face challenges similar to those faced by other rural areas across Texas and across the United States. However, dwelling on the particular challenges illustrated by the Alamo region data is not likely to resolve them. On the other hand, the data also suggest that the rural areas of the Alamo region have their own unique character and set of possibilities. Acknowledging and building on these opportunities may offer a powerful alternative to focusing on potential obstacles. What does this profile suggest about the rural Alamo region and what do the data reveal? One of Texas’ least rural regions • The Alamo region is pr imarily urban. Three of the region’s 12 counties are rural, one county is

micropolitan (Kerr), and the remaining eight counties constitute a single urban core. Ninety-five percent of the region’s population lives in those urban counties.

A mature and educated population • In Kerr County, one-quarter of the population is 65 or older, compared with 13.7 percent for

micropolitan counties statewide. • In the rural counties, the population group 20-44 represented 34.5 percent, compared with 30.8

percent for rural counties statewide. • In rural counties, 15 percent of the population earned a bachelor degree or higher, compared with the

statewide rural average of 12.7 percent. In Kerr County, 23.3 percent of the population earned a bachelor degree or higher, compared with the state average of 23.2 percent and the statewide micropolitan average of 14.4 percent.

A growing tourism-based economy • Between 1997 and 2002, destination spending in rural counties in the Alamo region increased by 43.8

percent, almost twice the state average of 24.2 percent. During this period, Gillespie County had a net gain of 180 travel-related jobs, which is an increase of more than 30 percent, compared to 3.6 percent statewide.

• In micropolitan Kerr County, a relatively large number of jobs (1,730) are travel-related. Kerr County also experienced significant net growth in businesses between the 1st quarter 2001 and the 1st quarter 2003, increasing by 2.8 percent. In addition, this county showed an increase of 20.7 percent in gross sales between the 1st quarter of 2002 and the 1st quarter of 2003, compared to the statewide average of 8 percent.

Healthcare professionals to serve the aging population • In Kerr County, the number of healthcare professionals was above the state and regional averages

across all professions in 2002. • In the rural counties, the ratio of primary care physicians (PCPs) is higher than the overall statewide

ratio for PCPs.


89

Transportation infrastructure • The state average for all county types for paved county roads is 37.5 percent. Rural counties in the

Alamo region have paved 43 percent of county roads; Kerr County has paved 91 percent of its county roads.

Available water • The Alamo region has a considerable amount of water, primarily in the form of groundwater. The

majority of water is located in micropolitan and urban counties. What does this mean for the nonmetropolitan counties in the region? The greater than average percentage of older and working-age Texans in the nonmetropolitan counties of the region coupled with a growing economy indicate that these counties are desirable places to live, work, and retire. In 1990, two of the four nonmetropolitan counties in the region were designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as “retirement-destination counties.” The data also suggest that these counties have successfully promoted themselves as travel destinations. Proximity to San Antonio – which as a city is the top leisure destination in the state – will likely ensure continued growth opportunities in the tourism sector for nonmetropolitan counties provided that these counties market their local amenities. The region includes two major healthcare hubs in Bexar and Kerr counties. Kerr County has a developed healthcare infrastructure to support its population. Given the Alamo region’s largely urban character and the fact that two interstate highways serve the region, the region is likely to continue to urbanize. Four counties previously considered nonmetropolitan were added to the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area by the Office of Management and Budget in June 2003 doubling the number of metropolitan counties in the region. In conclusion, the nonmetropolitan counties of the Alamo region should continue to be attractive to potential residents, tourists, and a wide range of businesses.


90

This page intentionally left blank.

2003 status of rural texas (alamo regional profile)

Documents

rural counties

hispanic population

status of rural texas

anglo population

alamo region

population projections42

urban counties

census bureau alamo