Infrastructure Financing Survey Report by qza17959

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 182

									                        Infrastructure
                        Financing Survey
                        Report



                        Region C

                        May 2002

                        Prepared for:
                        Region C Water
                        Planning Group



Thomas C. Gooch, P.E.




Simone F. Kiel


                        Freese and Nichols, Inc.
                        Alan Plummer
                        Associates, Inc.
                        Chiang Patel & Yerby,
                        Inc.
NTD01521
                                                       REGIONC
                   INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY REPORT


                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                                                                                          Page
1.   Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
2.   Infrastructure Financing Surveys ........................................................................... 1
      2.1 Surveys to Water User Groups ...................................................................... 1
      2.2 Financing Needs of Regional Water Providers .............................................. 3
3.   Current Funding Mechanisms ............................................................................... .4
4.   State Role in Financing Water Infrastructure ........................................................ 5
      4.1 Policy Statement .......................................................................................... 11


Appendices
Appendix A Survey Responses
Appendix B Follow-up Contact Documentation
Appendix C Financing Mechanisms
Appendix D Correspondence




                                                      List of Tables


Table 1 Summary of Water User Groups Financing in Region C ................................ 3
Table 2 Summary of Regional Water Providers Financing in Region C ..................... .4
Table 3 Summary of Funding Programs for Water Users in Region C ........................ 6
Table 4 Applicable Funding Programs for Non-Municipal Users ................................ 8
1.       Introduction

         The 200 I Regional Water Plans identified over $17 billion in improvements
(1999 dollars) needed by 2050 to meet the projected water demands in Texas. These
plans also recommended that the State increase funding for water supply to assist with
development of needed projects. In response to potentially significant increases in state
and local financial contributions for water infrastructure projects, the Texas Legislature
requested that an infrastructure financing survey be conducted to better assess the State's
role in financing the identified water projects.

         The purpose of this report is to identify the portion of capital improvements
recommended for Region C that will require outside financial assistance, identify
potential financing sources, and develop policy recommendations regarding the State's
role in financing water infrastructure.

2.       Infrastructure Financing Surveys

         The Infrastructure Financing surveys were mailed on January 16, 2002, to all
municipal water user groups in Region C with identified capital improvement costs
during the 50-year planning period. Surveys were also mailed to the region's five major
water providers (Dallas Water Utilities, Tarrant Regional Water District, Trinity River
Authority, NTMWD and Fort Worth) and two other regional wholesale water providers
(Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Greater Texoma Utility Authority). Many of
the proposed capital improvements recommended in the Region C regional water plan
would involve one or more of these water providers. Surveys were not mailed to
aggregated water user groups:       manufacturing, mining, livestock and steam electric
power.

2.1      Surveys to Water User Groups

         A total of 73 surveys were mailed, 66 directly to water user groups and seven to
water providers. Twenty-one surveys were mailed to entities with no identified capital
costs in the Region C plan. Most were entities associated with regional projects in Cooke,
Ellis, Fannin and Grayson Counties. For Cooke, Fannin and Grayson Counties, the



Region C Infrastructure Financing Report
capital costs of these regional projects were assigned to "County-Other" in the Region C
plan, but were proportioned to the potential participating entities for the IFR survey. The
Greater Texoma Utility Authority (GTUA), whose service area includes Cooke, Fannin
and Grayson Counties, was also surveyed regarding the county regional projects. GTUA
provided a response for many ofthe participating entities.

       For Ellis County, the Region C plan assigned the capital costs for the Ellis County
project to the Trinity River Authority (TRA). TRA was surveyed regarding financing the
full capital costs of the Ellis County project. Since TRA currently plans to finance the
Ellis County project, participating water user groups were advised that they do not need
to respond to the survey for this project. Four entities identified as participating in the
Ellis County project chose to respond to the survey. Four entities did not respond. Two
surveys were sent to the city of Annetta, one directly to the city and one to Deer Creek
Waterworks that provides water to Annetta.

       From the 66 water user group surveys, 36 responses were received. Copies of the
responses are included in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-I. Survey recipients
that did not respond by February 1, 2002, were contacted by phone or e-mail at least
twice. Documentation of the follow-up contacts is included in Appendix B.

        Eleven respondents to the survey indicated that they have changes to the
recommended strategies or strategy costs. Most of these changes are associated with
smaller communities. In the next round of planning, the Region C WPG plans to make a
special effort to reach out to these smaller communities so that their plans are reflected in
the regional plan. One respondent (Gainesville) had completed its recommended strategy
for year 2000.

        Five water user groups said they could not afford to pay for any capital
improvements with current revenue sources. Twelve water user groups plan to finance
100 percent of the capital costs for improvements identified in the survey. Of the
respondents with changed conditions, four entities stated that there would be little to no
capital costs with the modified strategies. The remaining respondents reported being able
to pay for a portion of the estimated capital improvements. For the portion of capital costs



Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                                    2
that the entities could not finance, respondents identified grants, bonds, rural water
development fund, private financing, TWDB funding and state participation loans as
possible funding mechanisms. Parker County Utility District No. 1 and OTUA identified
phasing the project into smaller pieces and/or alternative facilities as a means to meet
capital costs. A summary of the survey results for the water user groups is presented in
Table 1.

                                                 Table 1
               Summary of Water User Groups Financing Needs in Region C

                Total Cost of Strategies - WUOs surveyed                $1,143,787,720
                Total Cost of Strategies - IFR Responses                  $456,586,409
                Amount Respondents CAN Afford                             $307,747,840
                Additional Amount with State Participation                  $6,644,600
                Amount Respondents CANNOT Afford'                          $84,727,816
I.    This value is less than the difference between the total costs and amount the respondents can afford
      due to changes in water management strategies and non-specific responses.




2.2       Financing Needs of Regional Water Providers

          All seven regional water providers provided responses to the financing surveys.
OTUA and UTRWD reported that it is likely they can finance a portion of the total
capital improvements, but that State participation would also be required, especially for
region-wide projects. These providers also reported that the ability of the participants to
pay for regional projects would vary depending on circumstances and negotiations at the
time of development. Responses from Fort Worth, TRA and TRWD stated that each
provider intends to finance 100 percent of the identified capital improvements, but that
final decisions regarding financing will be made just before the project is begun. These
providers also stated that the users of the proposed projects might seek to use state
programs if the funding helps the project and the project meets the criteria for funding.
NTMWD stated that historically the District has been able to fund all previous water
supply projects through revenues generated from wholesale water rates. However, it is
uncertain whether projects planned for 2020 and beyond can be funded in the same



Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                                                 3
manner. Access to State funding may be needed. DWU reported that they could fund
approximately 60 percent of the estimated capital costs with current revenue sources. The
remainder of the capital costs will require grant assistance from the State or additional
rate adjustments that will need approval by City Council. Copies of the provider
responses are included in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-2. Table 2 provides
the financing needs for the regional water providers based on the survey results.

                                               Table 2
          Summary of Regional Water Providers Financing Needs in Region C

             Total Cost of Strategies - Providers                        $5,136,920,000
             Total Cost of Strategies - IFR Responses                    $5,136,920,000
             Amount Respondents CAN Afford                               $4,126,733,500
             Additional Amount with State Participation                     Non-specific
             Amount Respondents CANNOT Afford I                            $836,778,500
     1.   This value is less than the difference between the total costs and amount the respondents can
          afford due to non-specific responses.




3.        Current Funding Mechanisms

          Based on the survey responses, the water users in Region C can afford to pay for
approximately two-thirds of the capital costs identified for water supply infrastructure.
However, the survey responses represent only a fraction of the total capital improvement
costs recommended for Region C, and the capital costs needing financial assistance may
differ significantly. To bridge the gap between what the water users can afford and what
is needed, there are numerous funding programs available for municipal and non-
municipal water users with local, state and/or federal sponsors. Many of the programs
target municipal entities through loan and grant programs. There are also several
agricultural assistance programs that administer funds for rural and agricultural users.
Some of the funding options require a political subdivision to take the lead and establish
benefits to non-municipal water users. Other programs are not open to non-municipal
users, but non-municipal users (particularly manufacturers) may benefit from these
funding programs through purchasing water from eligible municipalities.



Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                                              4
         The current primary mechanisms for funding infrastructure projects in Region C
are financing through local bank loans and municipal bonds that are repaid through
increased fees and revenues. This funding mechanism places the burden of paying for the
capital improvements on the beneficiaries of the project. It also provides for local control
in the implementation and timing of the needed improvements. While local financing will
continue to be an integral component for financing water projects in this region, other
funding sources through state and federal sponsors have been utilized in the region and
may be accessed more frequently in the future as the region looks to develop new water
resources.

         The following are potential funding mechanisms that may be available for
infrastructure projects in Region C. These funding sources are discussed in more detail in
Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. Table 4 shows the potential funding sources for
non-municipal water users.

     •   Market financing (taxable and tax-exempt)
     •   Texas Water Development Board programs
     • u.s. Department of Agriculture programs
     •   Texas Department of Agriculture programs
     •   U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Public
         Works Program
     •   U.S. Small Business Administration programs
     •   Texas Department of Economic Development programs
     •   Corps of Engineers Sponsorship
     •   Local economic development incentives



4.       State Role in Financing Water Infrastructure

         Local financing has been and continues to be the primary source of funding for
water supply and infrastructure projects. Existing state and federal assistance programs
supplement local funding, especially for communities with limited revenue sources.




Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                                   5
                                                 Table 3

               Summary of Funding Programs for Water Users in Region C

      Program               State/ Agency*     Type          Eligible Water Supply Projects
                          Federal
                           / Local
Private Financing         NlA      N/A     All             All
Fees and Tax              Local    N/A     All             All
Increases
Municipal Bonds           Local   N/A      All             All
Drinking Water State State        TWDB     Loans           Water supply and source water
Revolving Fund                                             protection
Water and Wastewater State        TWDB     Loans           Planning, acquisition and construction
Loan Program                                               of water related infrastructure
Clean Water State    State        TWDB     Loans           Wastewater recycling and reuse
Revolving Fund                                             facilities
Program
State Participation       State   TWDB     Loans           Regional wastewater recycling and
Program                                                    reuse facilities
Agriculture Water         State   TWDB     Loans           Install efficient irrigation equipment
Conservation Loan                                          on private property
Water Infrastructure      State   TWDB     Loans           Water management strategies
Fund                                                       recommended in state or regional
                                                           water plans
Rural Water               State   TWDB     Loans       Development or regionalization of
Assistance Fund                                        rural water supplies
Farm Ownership            Federal USDA     Loans, loan Water conservation
Program                                    guarantees
Rural Utilities Service   Federal USDA     Grants,     Drinking water, wastewater collection
Water and Waste                            loans, loan and treatment facilities in rural areas
Disposal Loans and                         guarantees
Grants
Watershed Protection      Federal USDAIN Grants            Plan and install watershed-based
and Flood Prevention              RCS                      projects on private land
Program
Texas Capital Fund        State   TDA      Grants          Water and sewer infrastructure
Infrastructure                                             improvements
Development Fund




   Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                                    6
Table 3, continued

      Program          State/ Agency*         Type      Eligible Water Supply Projects
                      Federal
                      / Local
Linked Deposit        State   TDA       Interest     Water conservation, stock tanks, brush
Program                                 buy-down     control, and dam construction
Rural Development     State   TDA       Loans, loan Non-specific, includes water and
Finance Program                         guarantees wastewater systems, municipal
                                                    infrastructure projects
Loan Guaranty         State   TDA       Loan         Non-specific
Program                                 guarantees
Young Farmer Loan     State   TDA       Loan         Non-specific
Guarantee Program                       guarantees
Public Works Program Federal USDC       Grants       Water and sewer systems for industrial
                                                     use
7a Loan Guaranty      Federal SBA       Loan         Non-specific
Program                                 guarantees
Certified             Federal SBA       Loans        Improvements, utilities
Development
Company (504)
Program
Texas Capital Access State    TDED      Reserve      Non-specific
Fund                                    account
Texas Industrial Bond State   TDED       Bonds       Non-specific
Revenue Program
Texas Enterprise Zone State   TDED      Tax          Non-specific
Program                                 refunds,
                                        credits
Corps of Engineers    Federal COE        Cost        Those that meet a federal purpose, such
                                         sharing     as multi-purpose reservoirs, ecosystem
                                                     restoration projects
Local economic        Local   N/A        Tax         Non-specific
development                              abatements,
incentives                               etc.

* TWDB = Texas Water Development Board, USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS
= National Resources Conservation Service, TDA = Texas Department of Agriculture, USDC =
U.S. Department of Commerce, SBA = U.S. Small Business Administration, and TDED = Texas
Department of Economic Development.




   Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                             7
                                                                              Table 4
                                              Applicable Funding Programs for Non-Municipal Users

          Program              State/   Agency*       Non-             Type    Eligible Water Supply     Water Users with Potential to Receive Funding
                              Federal              Municipal                          Projects       Manufact- Mining Irrigation Livestock         Steam
                              / Local                Users                                            uring                                       Electric
                                                   Eligible to                                                                                    Power
                                                    Apply**
Private Financing             N/A       N/A       Yes            All           All                       x          x          x         x           x
Clean Water State Revolving   State     TWDB      No             Loans        Wastewater recycling       x          x          x                     x
Fund Program                                                                  and reuse facilities
State Participation Program   State     TWDB      No             Loans        Regional wastewater        x          x          x                     x
                                                                              recycling and reuse
                                                                              facilities
Agriculture Water             State     TWOB      Indirect       Loans        Install efficient                               x
Conservation Loan                                                             irrigation equipment on
                                                                              private property
Water Infrastructure Fund     State     TWDB      No             Loans        Water management           x          x         x          x           x
                                                                              strategies
                                                                              recommended in state
                                                                              or regional water plans
Rural Water Assistance Fund   State     TWDB      No             Loans        Development or             x                    x          x           x
                                                                              regionalization of rural
                                                                              water supplies
Farm Ownership Program        Federal USDA        Yes            Loans, loan Water conservation                               x          x
                                                                 guarantees
Rural Utilities Service Water Federal USDA        No             Grants,     Drinking water,             x          x         x          x           x
and Waste Disposal Loans and                                     loans, loan wastewater collection
Grants                                                           guarantees and treatment facilities                                                             I
                                                                             in rural areas
Watershed Protection and      Federal USDAINR Indirect           Grants       Plan and install           x         x          x          x
Flood Prevention Program              CS                                      watershed-based
                                                                              projects on private land
                                                                                                                                                             -
 Table 4, continued

          Program             State/   Agency*       Non-          Type      Eligible Water Supply            Water Users with Potential to Receive Funding
                             Federal              Municipal                          Projects
                             / Local                Users
                                                                                                       Manufact-     Mining   Irrigation Livestock     Steam
                                                  Eligible to
                                                                                                        uring                                         Electric
                                                   Apply**
                                                                                                                                                      Power
Texas Capital Fund           State     TDA       No             Grants       Water and sewer              x            x          x          x           x
Infrastructure Development                                                   infrastructure
Fund                                                                         improvements
Linked Deposit Program       State     TDA       Yes            Interest buy- Water conservation,                                 x          x
                                                                down          stock tanks, brush
                                                                              control, and dam
                                                                              construction
Rural Development Finance    State     TDA       Yes            Loans, loan Non-specific                  x            x                                 x
Program                                                         guarantees
Loan Guaranty Program        State     TDA       Yes            Loan         Non-specific                                         x          x
                                                                guarantees
Young Farmer Loan Guarantee State      TDA       Yes            Loan         Non-specific                                         x          x
Program                                                         guarantees
Public Works Program         Federal USDC        No             Grants       Water and sewer              x            x                                 x
                                                                             systems for industrial
                                                                             use
7a Loan Guaranty Program     Federal SBA         Yes            Loan         Non-specific                 x            x          x          x
                                                                guarantees
Certified Development        Federal SBA         Yes            Loans        Improvements, utilities      x            x          x          x
Company (504) Program
Texas Capital Access Fund    State     TDED      Yes            Reserve      Non-specific                 x            x          x          x
                                                                account
Texas Industrial Bond        State     TDED      Indirect       Bonds        Non-specific                 x            x                                 x
Revenue Program
However, some of the funding mechanisms described in the prevIous section are
ineffective financing tools because they are poorly funded, have burdensome application
processes, and/or utilize a prioritization process that can delay needed projects. State
funding is necessary to support communities truly in need of outside assistance. These
funding sources should be adequately funded to support and promote local and regional
projects that could not be completed independently. Funding mechanisms should
encourage long-range planning and not penalize communities that have the foresight to
plan and provide for their future needs.

       The Region C RWPG supports the following policy recommendations regarding
infrastructure development and financing:

    1. Where feasible, the users of the water should pay for required infrastructure
       through:
           a. Local funds and revenues, including funds borrowed locally,
           b. State loan programs,
           c. Federal loan programs, and
           d. Existing state and/or federal grant programs.
    2. If water users are unable to pay for required infrastructure, the state of Texas
       should assist communities with limited revenue sources in providing clean,
       reliable water supplies through:
           a. Existing state loan and grant programs,
           b. Federal programs for rural and economically distressed areas,
           c. Possible new state assistance programs for regional and/or non-traditional
               projects to assist small rural communities.
    3. State assistance programs should support cost effective regional projects.
    4. State assistance programs should be expanded to meet long-term water supply
        goals for communities that truly cannot afford the infrastructure necessary for
        clean, reliable water.




Region C Infrastructure Financing Report                                              10
                                                                                                               Table A-I

                                                                                      Water User Groups Surveyed and Responses Received
                                                                                                                                                Response to Questions:
                                                                                                                                    Amount Enlitiy Ca
                                                                                                      Respond    Amount Entity is                       Amount Entity
   County             Entity                        SB 1 Strategy                SBI Cost      Year                                   Pay with State                          Funding Options                                   Comments
                                                                                                       (YIN)      Able to Pay                             Cannot Pay
                                                                                                                                       Participation
                                       Add new well (capacity of 100 gpm) in                                                                              S235,OOO .     TDHCA, Rural Development
   Collin           Blue Ridge                                                   $260,000      2000      y           $25,000         $25,000· $50,000
                                       Woodbine Aquifer                                                                                                    $210,000      Pgm. Federally funded grants

   Collin             Dallas           See DWU strategies                                               NA
                                       Add new well in Woodbine Aquifer in
   Cooke        Cooke County-Other                                              $1,186,000     2010      Y             SO                   $0            $),186.000                 None
                                       Trinitv Basin
   Cooke        Cooke Count -Other     Cooke County Waler Supply Pro"eel        $5,742,)13     2010      y             SO                   $0            $5.742,113                 None
                                       Overdraft Trinity Aquifer in Red Basin
   Cooke        Cooke County-Other                                               $318,000      2000      Y             SO                   SO             $318,000                  None
                                       in 2000 (new wells)
                                       I MGD pipeline from Moss Lake
   Cooke            Gainesville                                                 $2,566,000     2000      Y         $2,566,000           No response      No response           Project complete
                                       Phose 1
                                       I MGD pipeline from Moss Lake
   Cooke            Gainesville                                                 $1,371,000     2010      Y         $1.371,000           $1,371,000       No response      TWOB funds. other loans
                                       Phase II
                                                                                                                                                                          TWDB funds. cost sharing
                                       Parallel pipeline for Cook.e County
   Cooke            Gainesville                                                 $20,048,317    2010      Y         $1.503,000           $1,500,000       $18,544.700     with other participants. other   Need to discuss the scope of these projects
                                       Water Supply Project
                                                                                                                                                                                     loans
   Cooke             Lindsay           Cooke County Water Suoply Projec1         $994,570      2010     •
   Cooke             Muenster          Lake Muenster
                                       Overdraft Trinity Aquifer in 2000 (new
                                                                                $11,023,000    2010
                                                                                                        •
   Cooke            Valley View
                                       well~l
                                                                                 $160,000      2000     •
   Dallas
   Dallas
   Dallas
                Dallas County·Other
                Dallas County·Olller
                Dallas County-Orner
                                       Marvin Nichols (I)
                                       Marvin Nichols (II)
                                       WTP Joe Pool (I)
                                                                                $80,646,000
                                                                                $49,191,000
                                                                                $51,765,000
                                                                                               2030
                                                                                               2050
                                                                                               2020
                                                                                                        ·
                                                                                                        •
                                                                                                        •
   Dallas       Dallas CountY-Other    WTP Joe Pool (II)                        $41,213,000    2040     •
   Dallas       Dallas Cou~Other       WTP Graoevine (I)                        $38,701.000    2020     •
   Dallas       Dallas County-Orner    WTP Grapevine (II)                       $29,967,000    2040
                                                                                                        •
   Dallas       Dallas County·Other    Expand WTP by 25 MOD                     $34,980,000    2030     •
   Dallas       Dallas County-Other
                       Irving
                                       Exoand     Wfp
                                       Lake Chapman
                                                        by 50 MGD               $44,974,000
                                                                                $97.500,000
                                                                                               2050
                                                                                               2010
                                                                                                        •          $97,500,000         No response       No response             No response
   Dallas                                                                                               Y
   Dallas              Irvin£          Marvin Nichols (I)                       $48,904,000    2030     Y          $48,904,000         $48,904,000       No response             No response
   Dallas              Irvin           Marvin Nichols (II)                      $29.152,000    2050     y          529,152,000         $29,152,000       No respOnse             No response
                                       Expand water treatment plant by 30
   Denton             DenlOn
                                       MGD
                                                                                $29,983,000    2040
                                                                                                        •
                                       Expand water treatment plant by 20
   Denton             Denton
                                       MGD
                                                                                $29,983,000    2000     •
                                       Expand water treatment plant by 30
   De."",             Denton
                                       MGD
                                                                                $29,983.000    2020     •
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Mustang water supply corp purchased Krugerville         I
                                       Two new wells (capacity of 210 gpm,
   Denton           Krugerville                                                  $547,000      2000     Y             NA                   NA                NA                      NA                   Water Works and they do not plan on drilling wells,
                                       each) in Trinity Aquifer
                                                                                                                                                                                                          TIley are receiving water from UTRMWD.

                                       Six new wells (capacity 400 gpm.
   Denton           Little Elm
                                       each) in Woodbine Aquifer
                                                                                $1,309,000     2000     •
                                       Pipeline from Fort Worth to Northeast
                                                                                                                                                                                                          New strategy is that only Keller. Southlake and
                                       Tarrant County serving Keller,
DentonfTarran        Southlake                                                  56,778.560     2010     Y          $6,778,560          $6,778,560            $0                      NA                   Westlake will participate, The estimated capital cost
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                       Roanoke. Southlake. Trophy Club,
                                                                                                                                                                                                          for Southlake is 510, I million.
                                       Westlake, and Lake Turner MUD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                            "

                                        ----- _. ---- - ---                                                                   $1,309,000        2010        Y     \       ~ 1 , ~(   ')t) ,( l( i, )
Ellis                  Ennis            pipeline through TRA. Includes water
                                        treatment plant.
                                        Ellis County Surface Water Supply                                                     $2,637,800        2010        NA
Ellis                  Ferris           Prn;p,('t (thrnllrl'h T'R A)                                                                                       ._--
Ellis     I             Italy
                                        - ... ---"-J - -- ---- - -
                                                ~



                                        Project (through TRA)
                                                                        -                                     ..              $1,912,405        2010        NA

                                        Ellis County Surface Water Supply                                                     $1,384,845        2010        NA
Ellis     I           Maypearl
                                        PrQject (through TRA)
 Ellis    I           Maypearl
                                        One new well (capacity 100 gpm) in
                                        Woodbine Aquifer
                                                                                                                               $228,000         2000        y                $25,000                        $25.000      I    $~()l


                                         Water Treatment Plant Expansion (2
 Ellis    I          Midlothian          ............   ,                                                                     $5,203,000        2030        Y             No response                      No response   I   No   1\"

                                        ,, __.w._                           •• - .. ~ • ....... yr·J ....... - ...
 Ellis    I           Midlothian         ,-         . .          ....              ,... -'                                I    $847,000         2020         Y            No response                  I   No response   I   No rl"

 Ellis        I       Midlothian        I:... . . . . _...
                                                      ..
                                                ·~           ~          J   .... : . : : :.... :' .... -_ • ..... -rr-J
                                                                                                                          I   $6,000,995        2020         y                   NA                    I       NA        I         to.;



                                        I:-u.~ '-v~~n.J UI~" : : :.... :. "'~""" ....... yp.;
  Ellis       I         Palmer                                                                                            I   $1,252,955        2020         y    I              NA                    I       NA        I         N


                                         ..... 1 • .,   _v".....]'          U'U.I"..........     U~"'"   ........1"1".;                                                                                                            N,,\
  Ellis                Red Oak                                                                                                $6,924,225        2020         y        I          NA                    I       NA        I
                                         Prolect (through TRA)
                                         Ellis County Surface Water Supply
  Ellis              Waxahachie                                                                                               $17.145.700       2020         n
                                         Project (through TRA)
 Fannin                Bonham            Fannin County Water Supply Project                                                   $6.303.068    I 2010 I         n

 Fannin           Fannin County-Other    Fannin County Water Supply Project                                                   $49.312.641   I 2010 I         n

 Fannin              Honey Grove         Fannin County Water Supply Project                                                   $6.651.090        2010        Y     I                  $0                I    Unknown      ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I    l',;kih,

                       Leonard           Fannin County Water Supply Project                                                   $4.601,626        2010        y     I         $200.000                   I    $500,000     I   $4. J() I,

                         Savoy           Fannin County Water Supply Project                                                   $1.585.434        2010        n

                        Trenton          Fannin County Water Supply Project                                               I   $2.204.140    I   2010   I    n


                                         ~uu new well (capacity of 120 gpm) ... ,
                       Fairfield                                                                                               $178.000
                                         Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer                                                                                 2030   I    y             $1,500,000                       $1.500,000        $2,400,(



                         Bells          Grayson County Water Supply Project                                               I   $2.504.332        2010        n

                      Collinsville      Gravson County Water Supply Project                                               I   $2.278.786        2010        n
                                                                                                                   Table A-I

                                                                                          Water User Groups Surveyed and Responses Received
                                                                                                                                                      Response to Questions:
                                                                                                                                          Amount Entitiy Call
                                                                                                          Respond    Amount Entity is                          Amount Entiay
     Couoty              Entity                        S81 Strategy                  S8l Cost      Year                                     Pay with State                          Funding Options                                 Comments
                                                                                                           (YIN)        Able 10 Pay                             Cannot Pay
                                                                                                                                             Participation
     Grayson     Grayson County-Other      Grayson County Water Supply Project      $36,128,949    2010                                                                                                       Response provided by GTUA
                                                                                                             "
                                           Overdraft Trinity Aquifer in 2000 (new
     Grayson     Grayson CouDry-Other                                                $835.000      2000
                                           well)                                                             "
     Grayson            Gunter             Grayson County Water Supply Project      13.030.492     2010                                                                                                       Response provided by GTUA
                                                                                                             "
     Grayson             Howe              Grayson County Waler Supply Projecl      $5,520,229     2010     y            Unknown               Unknown          Unknown                 Unknown               Response provided by CTUA
                                           Add new well & overdraft Woodbine                                                                                                                                  Currently constructing well, pump station and sloragt:
     Grayson    Luella Water Corporation                                             $152.000      2000     y            $500,000             No response      No response            Can pay for il
                                           Aauifer in 2000                                                                                                                                                    tank
     Grayson    Luella Water Corporation   Grayson County Water Supply Project      $1,511,742     2010     y       $200,000 - $300,000       No response      No response                                    Not sure it will be needed

                                           Poltsboro acquires water right in Lake                                                                                                                             We will rai~c water and   ~ewer   rates 10 (Over the hond
     Grayson           Pottsboro                                                     $990,000      2010      y           $300,000              $300,000          $690,000
                                           Texoma & Denison provides treatment                                                                                                                                payments,

     Grayson          Southmayd            Grayson County Water Supply Project      $2,648,395     2010                                                                                                       Response provided hy GTUA
                                                                                                            "
                                           Overdraft Woodbine Aquifer in 2000
     Grayson          Southmayd                                                      $439,000      2000
                                           (new well)                                                       "


•
     Grayson             Tioga             Grayson County Water Supply Project      $1,588,677     2010     Y               $0                    $V            $1.588,677             No response

    Grayson            Tom Bean            Grayson County Water Supply Project      $2,785,203     2010                                                                                                       Response provided by OTUA
                                                                                                            "


•
     Grayson          Van Alstyne          Grayson County Water Supply Project      $20,955,813    2010                                                                                                       Response provided by GTUA
                                                                                                            "
                                           Add new well & overdraft Woodbine
    Grayson           Van Alstyne                                                    $215,000      2000
                                           AQuifer in 2000                                                  "

~   Grayson           Whitesboro           Grayson County Water Supply Project      $11,448,640    2010                                                                                                       Response provided by GTUA                                   I
                                                                                                            "
     Grayson          Whitewright          Reallocate Trinity Aquifer (new well)     $577,000      2010
                                                                                                            "

•
I
    Grayson

    Henderson

    Henderson
                      Whitewright

                       Malakoff

                       Malakoff
                                           Grayson County Water Supply Project
                                           10" Plpeline toTRWD System and 1
                                           MGD Water Treatment Plant
                                           Add new well (capacity of 300 gpm) in
                                           Carriz()-Wilcox AQuifer
                                                                                    $3,914,741

                                                                                    $7,809,000

                                                                                     $281,000
                                                                                                   2010

                                                                                                   2010

                                                                                                   2000
                                                                                                            "
                                                                                                            y

                                                                                                            y
                                                                                                                         See note

                                                                                                                         See note
                                                                                                                                                                               USDA Rural grant and loan,
                                                                                                                                                                                    TOCA grant
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Re~ponse   provided by GTlJA
                                                                                                                                                                                                              City is in design stages ofprojecl. Cost is $2,350,000,
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Grants and loans have been received,
                                                                                                                                                                                                              This is no longer a strategy. Will use surface water




•
                                           Expand water treatment plant capacity
    Kaufman              Kemp                                                       $2,813,000     2010     y           $281,300                 $0            $2,531,700               Unknown               Would like to know what funding is available,
                                           by I MGD
                                           Expand water treatment plant capacity                                                                                                                              Terrell plans on expanding its WTP by 4 MOD in
    Kaufman             Terrell                                                     $2,813,000     2010     y          $2,813,000            $2,813,000            $V
                                           by I MGD                                                                                                                                                           2003. It will finance 100% of the improvement~




•
                                           Expand water treatment plant capacity
    Kaufman             Terrell                                                     $2,813,000     2020     y          $2,813,000            $2,813,000            $V
                                           by I MGD
                                           Expand water treabnenl plant capacity
    Kaufman             Terrell                                                     $2,8(3,000     2050     y          $2,813,000            $2,813,000            $0
                                           by I MOD




-
                                           Expand water treatment plant capacity                                                                                               The city proposes 10 pay for
     Navarro           Corsicana                                                    $2,813,000     2020     Y          $2,813,000            $2,813,000            $0
                                           by I MGD                                                                                                                                   full expansion
                                           Expand water treatment plant capacity                                                                                               The city proposes to pay for
     Navarro           Corsicana                                                    $2,813,000     2040     Y          $2,813,000            .$2,813,000           $V
                                           by I MGD                                                                                                                                   full expansion
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             --
4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,,
                                                                                                           Table A-I

                                                                                       Water User Groups Surveyed and Responses Received


                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ('''!''''','Ilb




                                                                                                                                                                                                                   . ' t,; IIIL




                                                                                $3,582,000      2010            $~40,OOO     $1,300,000    S2.742,()()()




                                                                                $3,582,()()()   2030           $1.800,000    $3,600,000

                                                                                                                                                           ~uprlerncnling    supply I'r,nil




     Weatherford   ;;6~JU       "'jl.U::,   "'"''"'''''',1<.,'''''' "J
                   15-mile pipeline (36") from Lake
                                                                         1'<'   $27,221,000                                                                    TWDB financing
                                                                                                                                                                              ~----
                                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                                              --'---
     Weatherford   n __ L   ___ '. fI._l ..... ____ . _ _ "0.0'._'              $9,000.000                                                                                                    I'nlJ~d y.1l1 he l'OIllI,klcJ 'prlllF :11\12
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ---~.---~                          ----,_._----


     Weatherford



I
I

I
I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ·Yl.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              '1,,:

                                                                                $4,OO3,()()()   2010              NA           NA             NA                     NA                                                                                       ·s;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~

                                                                                $1,178,880      2010           $1,178,880   $1,178,880         $0                    1\.-\

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .'i£
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ;:'1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              - ~,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,7.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,::,~

Ii                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       \1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~':.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ;:;;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               '~~
                                                                                                           Table A-I

                                                                                  Water User Groups Surveyed and Responses Received
                                                                                                                                          Response to Questions:
                                                                                                                                Amount Entitiy ea
                                                                                                  Respond    Amount Entity is                       Amount Entity
    County         Entity                     SBI Strategy                 SBI Cost        Year                                   Pay with State                                  Funding           Op(i()tl~                                                               ( 'IJJIIIlI,'nh
                                                                                                   (YIN)       Able to Pay                               Cannot Pay
                                                                                                                                   Participation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -----
                                  Water Trealment Plant Expansion of                                                                                                                                                                rhn.> .lrt' I l""')          c" j' .• [-,
    Tarrant       Mansfield                                               $15,469,000      2040      Y         $15.469.000         $15,469,000                 $0
                                  12MGD                                                                                                                                                                                             -:dpllal L()~t i., S4fl...l1 l"~~_ 4'1,\1(;])                                _
                                  Water Treaunent Plant Expansion of                                                                                                                                                                There ,ire t l'rl'f,\hl', ,''.[',:i
    Tarrant       Mansfield                                               $14,063,000      2010      Y         SI4,063,()()()      $14,063,000                 $()
                                  IOMGD                                                                                                                                                                                             "':.1 1IIall''''! l' ~ 1(' -I I Ililil(111 I"f .~'I                \1(;[ )
                                  Two new wells (capacity of 150 gpm,
                                                                                                                                                                                                -
    Tarrant      Pelican Bay                                               $655,000        2000     n
                                  each) in Trinity Aquifer                                                                                                                                                                                     ..
                                  Pipeline from Fon Wonh to Northeast
                                  Tarrant County serving Keller,
    Tarrant       Westlake                                                 $933,280        2010     n
                                  Roanoke, Southlake, Trophy Club,
                                  Westlake, and Lake Turner MUD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ...
                                                                                                                                                                             TCDP lo'r,1Tllll1nd, t:l\lIIA
                                  Add new well (capacity of 100 gpm) in                                                                                                                                                              \1',(     rd h.J'   .d[l   1   h                   I,ll,
     Wise          Alvord                                                  $ 177,()()()    2000     y            $58,400             $58,400              $118,6UO             funding, Rur:JI W<Jlcr
                                  Trinity Aquifer                                                                                                                                                                                   IldrTll'J " ' l
                                                                                                                                                                           Jc\ctopnwnllimd, toed 1'.1[1"

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \,) cU[i"!'!' IT'                                          \'J
                                  Add new well (capacity of 100 gpm) in                                                                                                                                                             \\('11, ["\10' ,,1;-        ,I,~',       ,1),[""
    Wi~e           Aurora                                                  $t77,()()()     2000     Y           Unknown             Not much                   All                      I :nknu\\n
                                  Trinity Aquifer                                                                                                                                                                                   III Ille 11111l!,',Ii,'[,' 11';1              II",
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         _~':~:"'::'lL'1l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ('II) pl"il' (lll LL<jUIfi
                                  Water Treatment Plant Expansion of
    Wise         Bridgeport                                               $2,813,000       2010     Y               $0                   $0              $:U; I 3.000          An: ,1Ild .1II,l\:lil'IIII,'                         rr"je"Lt      1'1111 ,'11    Llr:      "I,                       \!:!,
                                  0.5MGD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~(J(q
                                  Water Treatment   Plant Expansion of
    Wise         Bridgeport                                               $2,813,000       2030     Y          No response         No   re~pon;;c        No   re~ponse                                                              r,,,,t.Jlllli,lili"'I<'
                                  0,5 MGD
                                  Water Treannent   Plant Expansion of                                                                                                                                                              11,,\l' h,-,'II .1[1['1 " ,I                                Ir,"
    Wise      Community WSC                                               $2,813,()()()    2000     Y               $0                   $0                    $0            f{ur.Ji dn<'l"pTlll'llilulld
                                  0.5MGD                                                                                                      .--                                                                                   I )_c::~:!.T~~ £I~     1<'[ ,I         \I( ;, J 1,1."       1



                                  Water Treatment   Plant E"'pansion of                                                                                                                                                         H,!,,, be"n ,11'1'1',',,'.1                            "nlle'I'Ii"
    Wise      Community WSC                                               $2,813,000       2020     Y               $0                  $0                     $0            RurJi dc\c!opmcnllund
                                  0.5MGD                                                                                                                                                                                        T!c ~::L_1'_'~!2!_1 c::             ,1   ~ \11   j])   i': ,
                                  Water Treatment   Plant E"'pansion of
    Wise           Decatur                                                $2,813,000       2010     Y          $2,813,000          $2,813,000                 NA                    i.... o   re,pon~c
                                  0,5MGD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                     - - -_._---                                        _.

                                                                                                                                                                                    ~<) r(',p"!)'C _ _
                                  Water Treatment   Plant Expansion of
    Wise           Decarur                                                $2,813,()()()    2050     Y          $2,813,000          $2,813,000                 'A
,                                 0,5 MOD                                                                                                           _.               ...
                                  Add new well (capacity of 200 gpm) in
    Wise           Newark
                                  Trinity Aouifer
                                                                           $190,000        2000     n                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -
                                  Water Treatment Plant E"'pansion of
    Wise      Walnut Creek SUD                                            $14,977,000      2010     Y          $1,497,700          $1,497.700        $10,000,000                    f\.o      fl'''P(I[I.,(,
                                  10 MOD                                                                                                                                                                           --   ---     -------
                                  Water Treatment Piant E"'pansion of 2
    Wise      Walnut Creek SUD                                            $4,993,000       2020     Y          No response         No response       Nu rc;ponse                           rWDR
                                  MOD                                                                                                                                                                              _.                      -
                                  Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2
     Wise     Walnut Creek SUD                                            $4,993,000       2030     Y           $493,000            $493,000         $4,500.000                          'I \\'DR
                                  MOD                                                                                                                         - - - - I-- -             _.                     ._--                    -
                                  Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2
     Wise     Walnut Creek SUD                                            $4,993,000      2040      Y           $493,000            $493,000         $4500,000                             J'\VIlB
                                  MGD
                                                                                                                                                                                                               -        _..

                                  Water Treatmenl Plant E"'pansion of 2
     Wise     Walnut Creek SUD                                            $4,993,000      2050      Y           $493,()()()         $493,000         $4,500.000                            [\VIm
                                  MGD                                                                                                                                                                               "

                                  See Community WSC and Walnut
     Wise     Wise County-Other                                                                    NA
                                  Creek SUD                                                                                                              ._---                                      ---
                                                                                                                  Table A·2
                                                                             Regional Water Providers Surveyed and Responses Received
                                                                                                                                                       ~onsel~
                                                                                                                                                Amount Entitiy Can
                                                                                                        Respond     Amount Entity is                                  Amount Entity
Political Subdivision                    S81 Strategy                 Year        SBl Cost                                                        Pay with State                                 Funding Options                           Comn}t'nb
                                                                                                         (YIN)       Able to Pay                                       Cannot Pay

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Projed I~ complete hllldl1lJ; h.l'> bn'll
IFort Worth             IWater Treatment Plant Expansions in 2000        20001    ~~oo,oool               ~_      ~ ___ $p,300,oool                   ~                    NA                            NA             secured
Fort Worth              Water Treatment Plant EXDansions in 2010         2010       $82.096.000             y              $82,096,000                 NA                  NA                 See comments              Final ueCl\ions reg<lrJlng fil1JllClllg
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        will he made ..It the time of
Fort Worth              Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2030         2030       $52,113.000             y             $52,113,000                  NA                  NA                See comments               implementution. If appli..:~hk. St.ltt:
Fort Worth              Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2050         2050       $59,966,000    y                      $59,966,000                  NA                  NA                See comments               funding       progralll~   may be u:.ed
TRA                     Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2010         2010       $17.595,000"j                         517.595,000              No response         No response                            "
TRA                     WalerTreatment Plant E,!~nsions in 2030          2030       SI7,595.000 __ Yo                     $17,595,000              No response         No_response           See commems
TRA                     Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2040         2040       SI7.595,000    y                       SI7,595,~               No response                               See comments
TRA                     Ellis County Project                             2010       565,945,000    y                                               No response                               See comments
TRA                     Las Colinas Reuse                                2010        S5,493,000    y                         S.493.000             No response         Nor~~se               See comments
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            _.   dccisioll~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        regdrding fin<lllcing
TRA                     Joe Pool Reuse Phase I                           2020        S5,875.000    y                        15.875.000             No response                               See comments
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                m<lde m the time of
TRA           --        Joe Pool Reuse PhaSeII                           2040        56.031,000 Y                            6.031,000             No response                               Sce commcms
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,:11 I. ••


TRA                     Mountain Creek Reuse                             2020        S2,015,000                                                                                                                                           If applicable. Stale
                                                                                                   y                        12.015.000             No response         No response           See comments
TRA                     Ellis Coun~~Reuse                                2010       $22.958,000    v                                               No response                                                             ,Ulng progrJ.m~ milY be u~ed
                                                                                                                                                                       No response           See Comments
TRA                     Denton Counry Reuse                              2010        $2,653,000   v                                                No response         No response           See comments
TRA                     Tarrant County Reuse                             2010        SI,326.000v                            1.326.                 No response         No response           See comments
TRA                     Grapevine Lake Reuse Phase I                     2020        $1,000.000   y                        $1.000,000              No response         No response           See comments
TRA                     Grapevine Lake Reuse Phase II                    2040                $0   y                                     ..JIl      No response         No response           See s,()mmenls
                        Lake Chapman (Costs included with Irving's
hJTRWD                  cost 10 connect 10 Lake Chapman)                 2010                     $0       Y              NA
                        Buy Lake Chapman water in 2050 from tity-
                        of Commerce. (Costs included with Irving's
IUTRWD                  cost to connect to Lake Cha man)                 2050                $(1         ...L             NA
  rrRWD                 Indirect reuse of Chapman water                  2010        $1.000.000            y               $1.000.000                  ..1I}lOO.OOO                      UlNA
                                                                                                                                                                                             state P',lfticil"

IUTRWD                  I
                        Expand water treatment plant & transmission
                        caoacitv bv 2010                                 2010       'l:7Q d7Q   (){V1      y              'l:ctO 7ctO   "nn            $79.479.000         $J9,739,SOO I
                                                                                                                                                                                        program
                                                                                                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                                                        and TWDH

                                                                                                                                                                                        State Participalinn
                        Expand water treatment plant & transmission                                                                                                                     program <lnd cI WDU
UTRWD                   c"l'acity bv 2020                                2020      $123.776.000            y              $61.888.000                 $123.776.000         $61.888.00010005...                      I                                       __ ~
                                                                                                                                                                                        Statt: Partlclp;u!On
                        Expand waler treatment plant & transmission                                                                                                                     program <lnd TWDU
UTRWD                   capacity by 2030                                 2030       $99.969.000            y              $49.984.500                  599.969.000         $49.984,500 10,"5                        I
                                                             . .                                                                                                                        Siale Participation         I                          ---- ----
                        Expand water treatment plant & transmiSSIOn                                                                                                                     program and TWDB
UTRWD                   capacity by 2040                                2040        $99.969.000            y              $49.984.500                  $99.969.000         $49,984.50(]      I,,,,,                 j
                                                                                                                                                                                             S[<lte Par1icip~tion   I                                  .   ---~-.--.'



   RWD
   MWD
                        I
                        Expand water treatment plant & transmission
                        capacityb~
                                 II indirect reuse
                                                                        2050
                                                                       20iii
                                                                                    '1:7" OF...JfVlj
                                                                                                        ....l.                                           S.964.0(
                                                                                                                                                                                      program and TWDH
                                                                                                                                                                          $37.982,000 loans
                                                                                                                                                                                       $UI
   MWD                                                                  2010                            ....l.                                              2~6.()(
                                                                                                                                                                                     ..JIl
   MWD                                                                 2OiO         $68.777.000         ....l.            $68.77 7.000                      "7!i<                      $0
                                                                                                               Table A-2
                                                                                Regional Water Providers Surveyed and Responses Received
                                                                                                                                                                                 .                                                           ----1
                                                                                                     --------r---------------ro--c-~~~~~T'~U~'~'I~'o~n~'~'-----
                                                                                                     Respond     Amount Entity is                                         Amount Entit},
Political Subdivision                    S81 Strategy                    Year        SDI Cost                                                                                                                 Funding          ()ptj(fH~                                       (',,"Hln nl
                                                                                                      (YIN)       Able to Pay                                              CUnnot Pay
                                                                                                                                                                                                     --r-              --                        t
NTMWD                    Lower Bois d'Arc Creek Lake                        2020      $167,324,000      V             $167,324,()(X)            $HJ,662,()()O                                      )11\~.'l'l"'(lllllllell['                     11,1,,'        o,.,,'l! .. ' \1\1\'\'
NTMWD                   Marvin Nichols I Lake (Phase I)                     2030      $259,218.000      v             $259,218,000             $129.609,000                                       $()     Sec: ~\lill!l,elll~                        [.   ['II,d J"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ;'1, 'Ic', t .11:.r
NTMWD                   Marvin Nichols I Lake <Phase lI)                    2050      $132.387,000      Y             $132,387,000              $66,193.500                                       SII     ;"ce ,'"lIImerlh                           m,l: k 11(. L ,I
                        Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
NTMWD                   Expansions by 2010                                  2010      $194.409,000      y             $194,409,000             $194,409,OC)()                                      '}Ii
                        Water Treatment Plant and Transmission                                                                                                                                                                                   1
NTMWD                   Expansions by 2020                                  2020       $67.592.000      v               $67.592,000             $33,796,()()()                                    $(1 Sl'e cuIllrncrHS
                        Water Treatment Plant and Transmission                                                                                                                                                                                        J

NTMWO                   Expansions by 2030                                  2030      $187.240.000      y             $187,240,(X}()            $93,620,000                                       ~(l     S"l' cnIllJllt:nh                          ' ) tl'11,]     ~"
                        Water Treatment Plant and Transmission                                                                                                                                                                                       ['1     I;:"
NTMWD                   Expansions by 2040                                  2040      $168.490,000      v             $168.490,000              $84,245,000                                       $1)     .'iet.' ,'llmlllt:nh                       JIL!l, h'r,tc

                        Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
NTMWO                   Expansions by 2050                                  20S0      $183,724,000      y             $183,724,000              $91,862,000                                       SO St>" L"!lITHllents
                                                                                                                                                                                                     SUtt: P,H(iL'ip.ltl<lll                   ---t--
GTUA                    Cooke County Water Suoolv Proiect                   2010       $26,785,000      v           Willvarv                Will V:Jrv                           WdJ    varv              pml'!arn
                                                                                                                                                                                                    - Stell,,:    P.ll I:c   li\I[~'    ;'

GTUA                    Fannin County Water Supply Project                  2010       $52,3S8,OOO      y           Will vary               Will vary                            Will   V:ir\             ~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
                                                                                                                                                                                                          S{,lI<: 1',111[,")\111, il
GTUA                    Gra~on Coun~         Water Supplv Pro'ecl           2010       $94,316,000      v           Willvarv                Will varv              f---------    Will varv                ~'_~ __                                      ~'±':~ '~
                         Cedar Creek/Richland-Chambers pipeline
TRWD                     expansion (Phase I)                                2010       $24,681.000      y              $24,681.000         No response                          No respon~c

TRWO
TRWO
                         Cedar CreekIRichland-Chambers pipeline
                         expansion (Phase II)
                         Reuse (Phase I)
                                                                           2010
                                                                           2010
                                                                                      $233,967,{X)()
                                                                                       $34,294.000
                                                                                                      y
                                                                                                      y
                                                                                                                      $233,967J)(IO
                                                                                                                       $34,294,000
                                                                                                                                           No re~p()n~e
                                                                                                                                           N()rc~P;:)nsc
                                                                                                                                                                            Nt) Il'''P()Il\t:
                                                                                                                                                                            N(}rc~p~)n\e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ------ . - -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -.----- '"III f<: r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 j'
TRWD                     Reuse (Phase II)                                  2020        $40,874,000    y                $40,874,000         No resP;,mse                     No respon~c                                 ~------- - II
TRWD                     Marvin Nichols I (Phase I)                        2030       $402.081,(X)()  v               $402,081,000         No resnonsc                      No re500nsc                                  --------- IUIl',!1i1 '
'T'nu,o                  Marvin Nichols I (Phase II)                       2050       $271,285,000    Y               $271,28S,(XlO        No re~nse                        No rc~nse                                       --~
      D                  Oklahoma Water                                    2030        $99.931,000    y                $99,931.000         No rc~rnm~c                No n:w()n~t:
    .yO                  West Fork CO!lnection                    __          0        $60.539,000    y                $60,539,000         No respon~_             _  No~()n~~
OWU                      Return flows above lakes                          2000                  $0   v        NA                     NA                           NA
OWU                      Additional TempOrarv Overdraft                    2000                  $0   y        NA                     NA                           NA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -t-
OWU                      Extend EJm Fork Term Pennit                       2020           $SOO,OOO    y                   $500,000 NA                              NA
OWU                      Lake Fork Connection                              2010       $288,000,000    y               $173,()()(),00Q _     ---.1!73,~,OOO
OWU                      Lake Palestine Connection                         2020       $332,600.000    y
  VU                     Marvin Nichols I Lake (Phase I)                   2030       $220,796,000    v
                          [arvin Nichols I Lake (Phase II)                 20S0       $131,530,000    y                                         P9.000,OO()                                                                                       I~      ,11, "J II
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   d!hl,'lll   [,tit:
                          Idirect Reuse                                    2040       $124.000,000 -- y                $74,000.000              $74,OOO,()(X)                                                                                        IP))"          ',I h" (
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ilt:rrh
  vu                      rater Treatment Plant EXPansions in 2010         2010       $107,134,000    y                $64,OOO,()(X)            $64,(X)(),()()()                     $43, IOOJ}I)()                                               t\)'-.h

                          'ater Treatment Plant Expansions in 2020         2020       $153,351,000    Y                $92,000,000             $9:                                   $61.400,O()(1
                        l~ater Treatment Plant Expansions in 2030          2030        $67.369,000---'L                $40,000,000             $41                                   $27,4()().(}()(1
                                        :!!!. Plant Expansions in 2040     2040        $67,369,000    y                                       $4"o,OOO,(I(}I}                        $27AOO,()()()
Water User Group Responses
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       Alvord

Water Management Strategy Name:            New well in Trinity Aquifer

Capital Cost:     $177,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $58,400

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $58 400

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ 118,000.

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)

Grant funds through the local COG, FMHA funding, Rural Water Development Fund,
and local bank. Funding through these sources have already been applied for.



2-8-02
By Ricky Tow, recorded by Simone Kiel (F&N)
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
)


    Name of Political Subdivision:         Deer Creek Waterworks for the City of Annetta

    Water Management Strategy Name:              Two new wells (capacity of 100 gpm, each) in
                                                 Trinity Aquifer (2000)

    Capital Cost:     $374,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

)      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)



                                 '(71- I,? f\A'      WI--   LoJT7.      vol L
                                 11".J~ loA.   P.,J,/ c...    flit'"   t; .




                                                                                                  ....
                                                                                          --~.~~.~-----
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



    Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Arlington

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of25 MGD
                                               (2010)

f   Capital Cost:     $25,665,000


1   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ~ s: t,~S-:OcX) .
                                                        ;;   ;;
(   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
t      and tax increases?


D      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __


,   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?                           .


,      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I      sheets, if necessary)

,
,
,
                                                                                                  .r
                                                                                              I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                  ,
                                                                                              I
Name of Political Subdivision:        Aurora
                                                                                              I
Water Management Strategy Name:             New well in Trinity Aquifer                       I
Capital Cost:     $177,000


Background: The city of Aurora does not have a central city water system. All residents
use individual wells. The City does not plan to develop such a system in the near future.

1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ unknown

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how mUcHf the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ not much

3. How much of the capital costis the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay l.illJ.

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)

We have not discussed this. There are no future plans at this time.



2-8-02
recorded by Simone Kiel (F&N)
                                                     Fr~~$e         & NIChols,   ~ nt; •                  1::1'(   r'~:>   ','4':n




~r'
,                                  WATER INFRASTRUCl1JRE FINANCING SURVEY




,                  Name ofPolitkal Subdivi.ioa:

                   Water Manillement Strategy Name:                          Expand water treatment plant capacity by
                                                                             MOD (2020)



-                  CapitAl Cost:   _:::;:S2:;!..=-81;;.;:3~,OO=O   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __




-
,
                   1. Using c;urr~nt utility revenue sou~ including implementing necessary rate and tlX
                      im:rea.ses. how ml.1ch of the ea.pilal cost is the political subd.ivision able 10 pay for the
                      WilIer maMgemenl strategy identified above?

                       The political subdivision can afford 10 pay S                       /00    G/. .


-
                   2, If you could IICce!! the StlUe 'Panieipation Program. how much of the capital cost is
                      the political subdivision able to pay for the wa.ter managemem straregy identifled
                      above using currem utility revenue 5CIurces, including implementing necessary rate
                      and ta.'C increase,?
~
     --                The political subdivisioD can afford to PlY $                       I Ot) °/4


"
-
                   3. How much of the capital COST is the political subdi"i~ion ~ to pay for the water
                      management strllcgy identified above?

                       The political subdivisioD cannot afford to pay S                        Nfr
                   4, For the costs the political wbdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,

~                     ifaflY. state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                      sheets, if neceuary)


~                              ()OI\.~S w,'ll b~ ~o[c9 -fo j:"lCi~Ce                                                   tAR.
                            {2~PQ.Mjn- ~ teu~c....>. w~ ~~ Mc..Lt pc:..yme.nf:r
-                           c.Jh. 'f-k C1~J i.~ .                     r
-
~    (



~
i)
~                                                                   8172496965                                                       P.04
         FEE-11-2002   09:35
                         WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SUlWEY



         Name of Political Sabdjvlllon:                                    6'   7BeDbrook'4-t~k ~~et={;afffby
         WA~r Manaacmcnt StnltecY                                      Name:    Eltpanci water treatmBnt plant capacity by O.S
                                                                                MGD(2040)

         Capital COle:                                             _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
                          _.,.,;:;.S.:..z1~..;..406=.L'O;;..;O;,.;;O




         1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing neeanary rale and tax
            increases, how much otlhe capital cost is the political. subdivision able to pay for the
            water management stnItegy identified above'?'

              The political subdivision eanaffurd to pay S __/l,.;u~o_O~r..=-_.

         2. If you could access the Stale Panicipation Program, how much of the capital cost :s
            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
            above using curren; utility revenue 10urces, including implementing necessary rite
            and tax increuc:s?

              The political subdivision can afford to pay S                              (() 0   to
         3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay for the wattr
            management straIegy identified above?

              The political subdivi5icn cannot afford to pay $                              )J 11

         4.   For the costs the political 5Ubdivision cannot pay, what opticn(s) is proposed? What.
              if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision coniider? (usc additional
              sheets, if necessary)


               ~l"r\~S ~l) f ~ SDtj                                             "\\)   ~il\~i\Cc. fl, t.               '2/{A/lJ;rfl-.,
              {-hCVh. rQ.         U      e.n CA. e.. w; I( m.J(..c..                    po.. f me.~d,J    t.Il..   ~     (J on.cfl   /

               f mi:..

                                                                                                                                                l
                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                TOTAL P.I:\S
                                                                                                                                                I
FEB-11-2002   09:35                                                     8172496965                                                       P.05   I
I·
I~
                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



I    Name of Political Subdivision:        City of Blue Ridge

I    Water Management Strategy Name:             Add new well (capacity of 100 gpm) in
                                                 Woodbine Aquifer (2000)

I    Capital Cost:     $260,000


     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?
I       The political subdivision can afford to pay $   ZS, 000 . ':!! .
I    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I       and tax increases?


P       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ZS   000 -   ~Q 000. ~
                                                                     ,

     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above? -

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ Z3S; ceo -        z-Iq oGO.~
     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)
        -rDHc.A:
        'k'. . I2.A'L- 'O::--va..oPrnetJr ~E:lof.AM s
        ~ ~               ~ j:"\).kJDEb 6~n.
        ~-=--~
           . -
                 . . . . -- \.
                 '~~'~~, ~~n'ply               Plans and IFR Survey


                                 '~"-" ~,' t'\:pand its water treatment plant by 1.0 mgd by 2005. (The
   ----~                           " "~,~ <'\:,'ansions.) I told him that he could put that on his survey and
                                 ','v\,'\;::),i ,'fp\anning next summer and contacting water user groups        1
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                •
                                                                                                                I

                                                                                                                ]
-'--------iii-iiiiiiiII--
       ..•
J."~


I')                          WATER-INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



I            Name of Political Subdivision:        City of Brideeport

I            Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 0.5 MGD
                                                        (2000)

I            Capital Cost:      $2,813,000


I            1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivi!>ion able to pay for the
                water management strategy identified above?
I               The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _--.:o~____
               FUNDS WOULD BE ACQUIRED THROUGH GRANT OR DEBT. THEN RATES ADJUSTED TO REPAY DEBT
I            2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I               and tax increases?


P               The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
               SAME AS # I ABOVE
             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                management strategy identified above?
I
                The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ 2.813.000

I              WITH CURRENT REVENUES!
             4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional

I               sheets, if necessary)
                ANY & ALL AVAILABLE


I                WE COMPLETED A TRACER STUDY UPRATING FROM 2.0 - 2.5 KGD IN APRIL 2001.
                 WE ARE ANTICIPATING A PLANT EXPANSION TO BE IN PLACE SUMMER OF 2004.
                 SEE ATTACHED GRAPH:

I
I
I)
I
I
                                                                                                                   1

                                                                                                                   1
                                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

                                                                                                                   1

                     Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Brjd~eport                                           1
                     Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 0.5 MGD
                                                                (2030)                                                 1

                     Capital Cost:     $2,813,000
                                                                                                                       1

                     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax               1
                        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                        water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                                           1
                        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                                           1
                     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate                     1
                        and tax increases?
                                                                                                                               1
                        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

                     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water                  1
                        management strategy identified above?

                        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

                     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                        sheets, if necessary)
                        TOO FAR IN THE FUTURE TO EVEN CONSIDER!




'0)



                                                                                                                   ---
      ,   --   --~    ----
    J

    ,
  I
 I
 I
I
I       II)




I       -
        1U

        -
        en

,       c

        -
        ftS
        0:
        c
        CD
        E
        1U
                    )

        I!!
        t-
         ....
        .!
        ~



,

                )
II.                     "'


~
                                             WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


II                           Name of Political Subdivision:       Community WSC


-
II
                             Water Management Strategy Name:


                             Capital Cost:     $2,813,000
                                                                       Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 0.5 MGD
                                                                       (2000)




II                           l. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the

II                              water management strategy identified above?

                                The political subdivision can afford to pay                   _
                                                                              $ __;_...:(:::;.'J __

II                           2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                                the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

II                              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                and tax increases?

                                The political subdivision can afford to pay $ __           __
                                                                                    -_c::.(} -__
III:)
,
                             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water

II                              management strategy identified above?

                                The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $      ~.   0 --
II                           4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                                if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
II                              sheets, if necessary)

                             WE HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A LOAN FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
II                           COST OF A PLANT EXPANSION. TO BEGIN IN A FEW MONTHS.



II                           &/ddwdo;h ~&~r:Jv~
II
II    ,...   '~   ...
                  )
II
II
\
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



    Name of Political Subdivision:       Community WSC

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion ofO.S MGD
                                               (2020)                                             i
    Capital Cost:     $2,813,000
                                                                                                  I
    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the   I
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _   ____
                                                         -_0 -                                    I
    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                  a
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _- _
                                                        _    __
                                                             0 -__
                                                                                                  a
    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                                  I
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ __           __
                                                           -----'0'--_- _                         I
    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                  I
       sheets, if necessary)

     WE HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A LOAN FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A /?~.
                                                                                                  a
     ';;;;;d0'j;;}b' ;:;?F':;?;Jjudfl10 d~:
      V":'I"_~_   .• :::.1..   ';"',.0.11.)   ,~.-:• ...:..     ,,~• • • '

      02120/02      WED lS: 03 FAX 817 660 JJ~:l




                    WATERINFRASTRUCTI1REFJNANClNG SURVEY



                     NaDle ofPolitieal Subctivwon:                                                Cocke C.:IWlly

                     Water Managemellt Strategy Name:                                                      Cooke County Water Supply Project
                     Capital Cost:                            $;::.5~.74~2:::.;,1~1.::.3   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


                     5. Usill" I.:um:uL utility rCValue sources, 1.:1c:1Udini\ implementing necessary rate and tax
                               iru:reases, how mucb of the capital cost is the political. subdivision able to pay for the
                               water managcmcm stra1egy identified above?

 f                             The political subdivision can. afford to pay                                 S
                      1,       If you could access the State Participation Prog:nun. how much of the capital cost is
 I                             the political subdlviswn able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                               abovc usinS; current utility revenue sources, including implementing nL'll".esSRrY rate
                               and tax increases?
 I                             The political subdivision can afford to pay $

 t)                  2. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision ~J' to pay for the water
                        managcment strategy identified above?

 I                             The political subdivision ClIlIl10t afford to pay S                                 4(,0/ 1
                      3. For 1he costs the political subdivision cannot pay. what option(s) is proposed? What,

 I                             if any, state funclins. sources would the political subdivision consideJ'? (use additional
                               ~,nn~~)                                                                               .
                                                                                                                ;VcJw-L--
I
I
I

,
I)
       FEB-21-2002              17:02                                                       817 860 3339               96%                     P.02
    · -:"
    •• , , , ' .
                   '"""
                   w   ••




WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FlNANClNG Sl""RVEY



Name of PoildcGl Subdmlloll:                            Cookl! CUWllY

Water Mana,cment Strategy Name:                                Add New Well, Woodbine Aquifer, Trlnhy
                                                               B8!in
                                       O_OO~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ClIpl1R.1 Con: $;.:1""',1:..:;R.;;;;6,....



1. Using                    CUlTent   utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision                  able to pay fur the
   water management ~ey itlt:nri£iod above?

   The politial subdivision Cill1l1fford to pay $

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able: to pay for the water manafem~"t ~rnrtegy ideJrlifie<i
   above using cwrcnt utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and t:gc increases?                                            '

   The puliLiclll sUbd1v1sJon can a!I'ord to pay S                    (1./ l/ lr/ ~   .

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay for the water
   management ~tfID' id~.nti:fied above?

   The political su'bdivUiOIl ca.uuul lUTord 10 pay $

4. }/cr the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is pIoposcd? What,
   if my. state fundini sources 'WOuld the political SIlbdivi~;nn t:n11o;ider? (w:e additional
   sheets, if ncccssary)                                         e..-
                                                                        N ()   rV




                                                  817 8613 3339                96%                             P.133
      02121102   THe 17 :57 r.U" 617 coL      ..i;'I .. , ~I

 1.---;zj20/02   WED 15:01 FAX 811 &611




I')               WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

I
                  Name of Folltk. l SublJlvJaion:
                                ..                                  Cooke CountY
I                 Water MaDal:ement Stratea Name:                         Overdraft Trinity Aquifer m Red Basin
                                                                          (new~ns)

 I                Cilpitill Cost:   S_3_1_8!I.;::O~OO~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __



I                 1. Using current utility revenue sources. includini implementing nec-A'_'jSary rate and U-,,(
                     iDcreases, bow much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the

I                    watEr Jll2nagement Itrategy icieDti1ied above?

                      The pvliLi\;al ~ubillvision can affbrd to pay $

I                 2   If you could access '!he State Participation Program. how much. of the capital cost is
                      the political subdivision &h1e tt'l l'lly for the wl.ter managemont E1ratagy idelllificd
                      above usini current utility revenue sources, includiIlg impiementin& necessary rate
I                     ancl 'tDX increascs'?

                      The political subdivision can afford to pay $
b                 3. How l11uth of the capital. cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay for the water
                     managemeIlt stntesy identifiad 3bove?

                      The political subdivision C;BDDot afford to pay $ _ _.:..A.:!..--flJ--I1~'

                  4. For the costs the political. subdivision cannot pay. what option(s) is proposed? What,
                     if any. !ltate funcline SCIllrc.eS would the political subdivision COnllider? (use I1dditional
                     ~ts, if IlCCCSsa.ry)




        FEE-21-2002    17:02                                   817 860 3339           96%                             P.04
-----
•   02/20/02
                   -----,.
               WED 15:01 FA!. 817 880 ~:l~g                                   A.LAN PLllID[ER                                             --   ::-- ~




               WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                                                      ..
               Name of Political SubdivWon:                              CoQla= CuunLy

               Water Muaagement ~tratel:Y Name:                                    Overdraft Trinity Aquifer in Trinity Basin
                                                                                   (ncwwells)                                  .

               Capital C.oat:   $~1.::;.60;:.l!'::;'OO:;;.:O:.-   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


               1. Using current utility revenue sources, includini implementing necess3!j' rate and tax
                  incrcascs, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able TO pay for the
                  water management !ltrateeY iclr:nti£ed above?

                  The politieJU .subdivision                       = afford   to pay $

               2. If you could acctl$s the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                  the political subdivision able to pay for the water mana2eml'mt ~egy identified
                  above using current utility revenue sources, inoluding implementing necessary rate
                   8JJd tax increases'1

                   The puliLiClll .!Iubdivlsioo can afford 'to pay S                           f/tJv      A-.


               3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay for the WIlter
                  management ~mtP.gy irle.ntified above?

                   The political :subdivision ClUWuL lLfIunl                     10                A_v_:f+--'
                                                                                      pay S _ .......

               4• .l:'or the costS the political subdivision caDI10t pay, what optiOll(S) is proposed? What,
                  if any. state funding sources would the politioBI !!Uhrl;vi~;nn consider? (use additional.
                   sheets, if necessary)




    FEB-21-2002   17:03                                            817 860 3339                     96%                            P.05
                                    ....... '"...    "   ....... --'-'-' '--   ,'--._   ...
                                                                                                                    PHONE NO. : 9724425405
     FROM   NTMWD
I
I~                                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

I
                    Name of r'olitlcal Subdivisioll:                            City of Corsicana
I                   WAter   Management Strategy Name:                                         Expand water treatment plant capacity by
                                                                                              MGD (2020)
I                   Capital Cost:                   $2,813,000

I                   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for thc
I                      water management strategy identified above?

                       The political subdivision can afford to pay $                               _-!..'oo~~otr..:O::::-_
I                   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                       the political subdivision able to pay for the water managemcnt stratcgy identified

I                      above u$ing current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                       and tax increases?


P                      The polit.ioal subdivision can afford to pay $

                    3. l-:low much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the waler
                       management strategy identified above?
I                      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $

I                   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) i$ proposed? What,
                       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                       sheets, if necessary)
I                       The c...; ~ fl'(o pOSJ!"S -\-0 po.~ ~l \ ~e CO~+ \-or

I                           €¥ po \'\               S.     0 "'-.) .




I




Ii          JAN-24-2002     13:46                                         9724425405                              93%                        P.e2
                                                                                         5724425405




                            WA TF.JUNFRASTRUCTUREFINANCING SURVEY



            NAme of Political Subdivision:       City of Corsicana

            Water Management Strategy Name:            Expand water treatment plant capacity by
                                                       MGD (2040)

            Ca"ilKI Cost:     $2,813,000
                                                                                                                 I
            J. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
               increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the          I
               water management strategy identified above?

               The political subdivision can afford to pay $      I CX,) Of i)                                   I
            2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
               the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified                I
               above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
               and tax increases?

               The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ___ I QD    10
                                                                                                                 I
            3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay foe the water             I
               management strategy identified above?

               The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $                                                  I
            4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
               ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
               sheets, i f necessary)




                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
:)                                                                                                               I
                                                                                                                 I
     J~N-24-2002   13:45                     9724425405                    95%                            P.01   )
                     WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



     Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Decatlir

     Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 0.5 MGD
                                                (20fO)

     Capital Cost:     $2,813,000


     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ Full Amount

     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

I       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax increases?




"
        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ Full Amount

     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _N....;.I_A_ _ __
I    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I       sheets, if necessary)



I
I
I
I)                                                                                                 .r


I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:           City of Decatur

Water Management Strategy Name:                 Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 0.5 MGD
                                                (2050)     .

Capital Cost:       $2,813,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ Full AmolIDt

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ Full AmolIDt

3. How much of. the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _...:N.;..:c/.;:.A:..-_ __

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                          "'.'.IT       u~     t:..1'1"'.l~,                              u   •   ~   -' ....' .•   ,
            f~H      14 2UU2          l:~~~n                                                    '1\

                                                                 Freese & Nlchols. Inc.                                       817 735 7491              P.ElS/ElS
                    "FEB--I1l8-2002    16: 08




                                                WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



                            Name ofPoliticaJ Subdivision:                            City of Ennis


I                           Water Managemellt Strategy ~ame:                                   Connect 10" pipeline to TRWD's Cedar
                                                                                               CreeklRichland-Chambers pipeline through
                                                                                               TRA Includes water treatment plant. 2010
I                                                                                               59,182.000 (2000)                  .

                            Capital Cost:         _~U;.:;,3:;.;09~,O;.;:O~0   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I
                             1. Usirl1 cunent utility revenue sources, including impl~enting necessary rate and tax
I                                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                 water management strategy identified above?

                                                                                                      4' ?'YJ{:;» .
I                                The political subdivision can afford to pay S

                             2. If you could access the State Participation Program. how much of the capital cost is

I       /   .....
                                the political subdivision able to pAy for the water management strategy identified
                                above \Ising current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                and tax increases?                                                        .

P                                The political subdivision can afford to pay S ~                       3'1 c..llJ
                             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision YIl!bk to pay for the water
I                               management strategy identified above?

                                                                                 ______
                                 The political subdivision cannot afford to pay sO
I                            4. For the cost$ the political subdivision cannot pay, what optiori(s) is proposed? What,
                                if any, stale funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (usc additional
I                               sheets, if necessary)


I
I
Ii ..
    ".......




I                    FEB-14-2002        13: 41.                                 972 872 9817                        95%                                         P.03
        _.....   --



                      WATER I:NF-RASTRUCTURE FINANCING SlJRVEY



Name ofPoii:icai Subdivision:            Citv ofFairlielc(Z..)
                                                   a,.)     ,
                                                                 -n:t::s LlIVi 1"(1 )
                                                                           ck;o    ~
                                                                                                      I
Wllter Managemel1t Strategy Name:               Addynew wellS (capacity of ~ gpm) In
                                                Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer fp)   h .:?oae
                                                                                                      l
                                 ~          ..yCO ~ (!! ~G-~ #r ~sg"flGln.t
Capit2tCost:
                       ::>
                             •       4N d. ,AiM1P" -rA.-.4.Ns UN'ki nyc. -1';?,"-CIf,('V
                                            i                             ;hVSON      /. '50 "':!""
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                 sr--s.9 s".,~
1. Using current utilit)' revenue sources, including implementing necessary rafe and taX
   increases, how l11uch of the capital cost is thepoliticaJ subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                      1
                                                           ~
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $      /,    ({!q     .
                                                                                                      l
2. If you cOl.4ld ilc~ess the Stat~ Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing ne~essary rate                 I
   and tax increases?

   The poMical subdivision can a..~ord to pay $                                                       I
3. How mueh of the capital cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay. for the water
   management strategy identified above?                                                              l
    The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $

4. For the COstS the political subdivision CaIUlot pay. what option(s) IS proposed? What,
                                                                                                      I
   if any, State funding sources would the political subdivision consider'? (use additional
    sheet s, if necessary)                                                                            I
                                                                                                      I
              FROM   LESLIE-CITY OF GAINESvILLE             FRX NO.                                   _C',.   _ ...   .:.....__ ,_ _




                                         WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FTNANCING SURVEY



                        Name of Political Subdivision:          City of Gainesville-

                        Water Management Strategy Name:               1 MGD pip cline from Moss Lake Phase I

                        Capibll Cost:        $2,566,000


                        1, Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                           increase..~ how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                           water management strategy identified above?

                              The politi cal subdivision can afford to pay $ 2   'S' ~ C. f-99-'L-.
    I                   ..,   If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                              the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strateh'Y identified
                              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   J                          and tax increases?


  D                           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _'

                        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for thc water

  I                        management strategy identified above?

                              The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _'

 I                      4     For the costS the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                              if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional

 I                            sheets, if necessary)



 I
I
I
I   ..
 ~", -~   "


 ',',')'"


'"
                 JRN-31-2002     15:08                    940 668 4536                    96%                                          P.05
""'\i
                          WATER 1,FRASTHUCTCRE               fl:'lA~CL'\G    SlRVfY




        l'\llme of Political Subdivision:       Citv of Ga.inesville

        Water Management Strategy Name:               I MGD pipeline from Moss Lake Phase n                  i
        Capital Cost:          51.371,000
                                                                                                             I
        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how mueh of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management stra!egy identified above?
                                                                                                             I
           The political subdivision can afford to pay $    -L.31 1, 000       '                             1
        2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                             1
           and tax increases?

            The political subdivision can afford to pay $   .J..,3.! 1,000 ,                                 I
        3. How much of the capital cost is tbe political subdivision ~ to pay for the water
           management strate~'Y identified above?
                                                                                                             1
            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                             I
        4, For the costS the political subdivision cannot pay, what oplion(s) is proposed? What,
            if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (usc additional
            sh~ets. i~necessary) "'1 IA,.o t) e, '?.\l....,J~ ~.   "oJ                                +
                                                                   Y O>+~ .. ,,(. 1...... , .... {IR.... ~
                                                                                                             I
            .1\"' ...... (..,\ •
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
    t:·RO~ : lESLl E-C ITT' OF GA I NESV IlLE                     ;:-RX 1<.•




    I
r                                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



                 Nllme ofPolitical SubdIvision:                       City of Gaine.wille
                                                                                                                                         ....




                 Water Management Strategy Name:                               Parallel pipeline for Cooke C()unty Water
                                                                               Supply Project

                 Capital Cost:              $20,048,317


                  1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax

I                    increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                     water management strategy identified above?

                     The political subdivision can afford to pay $                    1.5"0 5. 000 .
                  2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capita) cost is
                     the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                     above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary Tate
                     and lax increases?

                     The political subdivision can afford to pay $                    )1   50fJ I~O~.
                  3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision                    unahl~   to pay for the water
                     management strategy identified above?

                     The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $                      18 ,5tf~ ,70~ .
                 4. For the cost!; the political subdivision cannot pay. what option(s) is proposed? What,
                    if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                     sheets, if necessary)                T'w ~ ~ - ~ . . .""olb - LO'5-+ Shtull'..-j wl'i/,
                        O-{{, ... 12.   rOI.4
                                                N
                                                    +r.   ~-tIc.\fA-",-tS.. !'J ",coP 4" oI\·s'.(~;5 ~~)... >cof Z
                       ot 1+-1.,1.         ~~S'ic.         '*5.                                               j.
                                                                               R,Sz.({.~1V              /13   IO
                                                                                                                   "Z-




         JAN-31-20e2      15:~9                                94~   668 4536                   96%                               p.e?
    ~
    I
    ]
            January 25. 2002

    I
    I       Mr. Tom Gooch
            Freese and Nichols
            4055 International Plaza. Suite 200
            Fort Worth. Texas 76109-4895

            Re: Region C Water Planning Group Survey
1           Dear Tom:

            The Water Infrastructure Financing Survey that relates to Grapevine's intent to
J           initiate a direct 'reuse project from Grapevine Wastewater Treatment Plant to
            three golf courses in 2010 is no longer a viable project. Grapevine entered into a
I:)         contract with DCPCMUD to purchase the return flow from the Grapevine WWTP
            and utilize the bed and banks of Lake Grapevine for transmission.

I           The capital cost is no longer viable. Grapevine will pay a fee/1 000 gallons that is
            adjusted based on the CPI for this region.

)           Please note this correction in the Region C Water Planning Document.


I           sw~
I           Matt Singleton
            Assistant Director of Public Works

I           c Jerry L.
              File
                         Ho~.      Director of Public Works


1
I
,,)
                                         w~w~~ r~.$rasfi.~

I                                         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                                              OPERATIONS DIVISION
        THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE P,O. Box 95104 • Grapevine. Texas 76099. Phone Metro 817/410·3330. Fax 817/41()"3051
                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                  I
January 28, 2002                                                                                                  I
Mr. Tom Gooch
Freese and Nichols, Inc
4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
                                                                                                                  I
Fort Worth, Texas 76109-4895
                                                                                                                  I
Dear Mr. Gooch;
                                                                                                                  II
I appreciate the time you spent to enlighten me on the phone as to the nature of the survey and the overview
of the plans. As I stated on the phone, it is difficuh for a town of 1700 people to project the availability of
funds 18 years down the road.                                                                                     II
CuJTently the city has two large debts. One is a million dollars for the new water treatment plant just
completed and the other is S700,000 for the renovation of City HalL We currently have a long-term debt
obligation of SI,OOO for each person living in our city. This is the largest long-term debt the city has ever     II
faced.

Our increase in ad valorem taxes is more than offset by the increase in expenses. The city has implemented
plans to increase our tax base through new homes but the success is limited. We have an excellent school
                                                                                                                  I   ,
system and are close to both Paris and Sherman. Hopefully the city will see dividends in the future.

The water treatment plant is being partially funded by a $4.50 fee per water meter. This generates
$41,400.00 per year in revenue plus interest. The debt will be liquidated in 2012, if nothing unforeseen
occurs. The liquidation of the city ball debt is through normal channels of revenue. This debt will be
liquidated in 2011. This would allow the city an extra S9O,000 per year in funds if the fee stays on water
                                                                                                                  --
                                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                                      ,
                                                                                                                      ,



meters. However, it is very difficuh to project the needs of the city in 2012 or the availability of grant
funds to meet these needs.

I do not foresee the city being able to contribute anything prior to 2012. I do believe the need for surface
water will be there and the city should prepare for this need. I think the lower Bois D'Arc water system is
the most viable and all water systems in the county should plan for this.

Hopefully this fills in some of the gaps on the survey.




Don Morrison
City Administrator
H-tn'\) (1.L'W-t.
                                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                  I
                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



              Name of Political Subdivision:          City of Honev Grove

    II        Water Management Strategy Name:               Fannin County Water Supply Project


II            Capital Cost:      $6,651,090



III           1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                 increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                 water management strategy identified above?

II               The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 0 pr j or to -2012


II            2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                 the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                 above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate

II               and tax increases?

                 The political subdivision can afford to pay $ Not sure
b
I             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                 management strategy identified above?

~
I
                 The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ -UUo;ln,ijS~U~r;..liil_--

It            4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                 if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additioaal
                 sheets, if necessary)
II




II
II
     :··~')
       .-'




II
I
                            CITY OF HOWE
L,                                116 East Haning· Post Office Box 518
                                           Howe, Texas 75459
                                             903-532-5571
I
I
I     February 6,2002


I
I     Tom Gooch
      Freese & Nichols, Inc.
      4055 International Plaza Suite 200
I     Fort Worth, TX 76109-4895

      Dear Mr. Gooch:
I     This letter is regarding the water infrastructure financing survey.

b     The City of Howe has an immediate need for an overhead water storage tank to meet our
      growth. Long range plans include updating water and sewer lines for future growth.

I     Also, the letter states a certain amount of money slated for Grayson County and asks how
      much we will be willing to pay. This is hard to figure without knowing how much we



,
      will get and how the payments will be made. Will it be a bond where we have a certain
      number of years to pay?

      I can say that ifwe are to receive any assistance, I am sure the City of Howe will pay its
      part.


I     Yours truly,



I     ~yv1G)7
      City Administrator
~
,
,~)

,
                          WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
'")


          Name of Political Subdivision:         City ofIrving

          Water Management Strategy Name:              Lake Chapman Supply

          CapuaICost:$_9_7~,5_O_O~,O_O_O   _________________________________________


          1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
             increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
             water management strategy identified above?

              The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 97,500,000,

          2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
              the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
              and tax increases?

              The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ ___

          3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
             management strategy identified above?

              The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ ___

          4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
              if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
              sheets, if necessary)




    ')
.... .,
"

"
I··
                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



      Name of Political SubdivisiGIl!          City ofIrving

I     Water Management Strategy Name:                 Marvin Nichols (phase I)

      Capital Cost: $ 4.;.:8::.l;,9:;..;0::....4~,0:...:0:...:0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ' -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
                     __
I
I     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
          increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
          water management strategy identified above?

I         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 48,904,000


I     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate

I        and tax increases?

          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 48,904,000

      3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?
I         The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

I     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
         sheets, if necessary)
I
I
I
I

.)
I

I
                                                                                                         I
                ~FRASTRUCTURE             FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                                         I
             ,tical Subdivision:          City ofIrving                                                  I
            agement Strategy Name:               Marvin Nichols (phase II)
                                                                                                         I
Capital Cost:   $:;.,;2::.;9'"'-,1:.,:5:.;:2;,;:..,0:...;0;,.;.0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

                                                                                                         I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                         I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 29,152.000

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                         -
                                                                                                         I
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 29 , 1 52 , 000
                                                                                                         I
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay forthe water
   management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                         I
   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __                                         I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional               I
   sheets, if necessary)

                                                                                                         I

                                                                                                         II

                                                                                                         -
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
    I     *************** -CaMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE FEB-0?-2002                          *****   TIME 15:09   ***   P.01


              MOD=   ~   I'\!i:I'\ORY TRANSM 1SS 1ON



          STN NO.        COM      ABBR NO.             STATION NAME/TEL.NO.            PAGES      DURATI ON

                          OK      "


          ************************************ -Freese & Nicnols-
                                                                                        -Frrese & Nichols. Inc.

                                                                                        ***** -           817 73S 7491-   _"'*
    ,
    I                                         4055 International Plaza, Suite 200. Fort Worth 76109-4895
                                              s1ir735-7300      FAX 817n35-7491

        FREESE· NICHOLS

                                                             FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
                                                                   L~aJ,1
                                                                        ku·hv.
I                                                         To:

                                                                  r!J61 ~
                                                                    q 2;) - 483 -,:J.3 OV
I                    D=s &: Spillways             Fax No.:
                                                        From:      Sim~                 )~cj

I                                                       Date:       ;J. - t, - {);;.
                                                                Total number of pages, including transmittal sheet:

b
,                    Floocl M.magcmeDt




,
,                     Plumbing Design




,
,                    Site o.v.:lapmcat




,                              Utilities

                Solid Wute Fad1itics
                                                                If there is a problem receiving any pages, please call __
                                                                 ~h!.g kiiJ                  at 817ms-7I../c,I(,.

,C)
t
                                  WA1ER lNFRASJRUCfURE FINANCING SURVEY



                Name of Political Subdivision:

                Water Management Strategy Name:

                Capital Cost:    j. I! 11 ~! f gO.


                1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                   water management strategy identified above?

                   The political subdivision can afford to pay $   I DO 10    .   .L          _1     <; vJ{.l6..1a
                    Kel\~(      p(us ..&0 ~"--'-o     4-ktiy 'f'orh"UYI %rTl\A.4 C.h,         CTI,    0              •
                2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                   and tax increases?

                   The political subdivision can afford to pay $   I00 r1-(0
                3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                   management strategy identified above?

                    The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _·..,.::0=:-____

                4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                   sheets, if necessary) ~ A




                   T{I(~khu tvY\utrstL+Urvt tN;~                    Ed ~h.V\.tr) 3-1-01. .
                                                               k'i(.(   (tr.~).
                         te c..ov--cu.4 b~ S{ M.o"\,u.




    '.-.~')."
J: ,"
j    ..
 1_  lIL, J..i'   .:.UU~

              ;:'"ES-15-2002
                            .. .,) .... ":i   J:~

                                                :5:28                       Freese 8. Nicho)"s. Inc.                            817 7.3S 7491
                                                                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                                                                   P.0S/tJ5




 ~                                                    "WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


 I                         NlUIlc orrolitical Sobdiw'isioa:                                  City of1<anp

 I                         Waler MaD:IIECIIleDf Strategy Name:                                     Expand water treatment plam capacity by 1
                                                                                                  MGD(2010)

I                          Capita) Cost:              _5;;,;;;;;t.8;..;1_3~,O_O.;...O   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __



II                         1. Using a.u:rent ut:rlity revcnue sources. including implementing necessary r.ttC Md tax
                             . increases. hew much of the capital cost is the politicaJ subdivision able to pay tor the
                                   wafer managetnCDt stTalesY                           ideDtifled above?
II                                The political subdivision can alford to pay $

I                          2. 1£ you could acceS!I the Stare Participation Program. how much of the capital cost is
                              the politic:aJ subdivision able to pay for the water management struegy identified
                              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing nClOeSSary rate
I ,,-.                        and taX increases?

                                                                                                            eH
•
II
                                  The political subdivision can afford to pay 5

                           3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable
                              management suategy identified above?                       .
                                                                                                                          to   pay for the water




,                                 The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $                          qQOZ 0
                           .4. For the costs the political mbdivisioll cannot pay. what option(s) is proposed? WbaI,
                               if any. State tunding sources would the political subdivision tansidet7 (use additional                                  U
                                                                                                                                                                  ....
                                                                                                                                                            Ii Gl't (
                                  sheets, ifnccc:ssary)                  W~~                    ~'lib '            56u...r-a s      a I'L-         (J   ~,l.
I                                                                                           "         . _    ~           OTiL .\1\~             Rv.rJ\~b
I                                      ~ u~ \j)0~l be. \jj\.\ll~ .h>.~ ~~ l~ r4t'\f\l~
                                       CUXl.\\<\.~\-(. ~N6<'rcl-l't1 OUr- lJ.Yt~Y\.t-J dJX~ ~
I                                     _~ COJ                           ~'f yY\~, ~ e\.~
11                                            ~~                 Au              lflL&~~                (UieS·


I.;
II
-         FEB-18-2002                         11:02                                                               97%
                                                                                                                                            TOTAL P.BS

                                                                                                                                                    P.02
    I
                                MUSTANG WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION

    Iy.                                             5315 Hwy. 371 S. Suite B
                                                     Aubrey. Texas 76227
                                                       (940) 440-9561

    I
          Janwuy 24, 2002

I
I         Mr. Tom Gooch
          Freese and Nichols, Inc.
I         4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
          Fort Worth, TX 76109-4895


I         Mr. Gooch:

          We received the Water Infrastructure Financing Survey, and have had some changes since the survey was
          completed. Mustang Water Supply Corporation purchased Krugerville Water Works in late 2000. At this
I         time, we are purchasing smface water from Upper Trinity Regional Water District, and have no plans to
          drill wells to support Krugerville.


P         If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (940) 440-9561, ext. 203


          Thank you,
I
I         ~~~
          Susan Parker
          Finance Manager
I
I
I
I

,
l'j                                                                                                               J




I
.••   ~           FEB. 8,2002

                  MR. TOM GOOCH
                  FREESE AND NICHOLS. INC.
                  4055 INTERNATIONAL PLAZA. SUITE 200
                  FORT WORTH. TX 76109-4895

                  DEAR SIR:

                  IN RESPONSE TO YOUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY I
                  HAVE VERY FEW ANSWERS BUT SEVERAL QUESTIONS. THE CITY HAS A
                  TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT OF $247,000 PER
                  YEAR. A $4,000,000 PROJECT SUCH AS YOU PROPOSE WILL REQUIRE OUR
                  TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE NEXT 16 YEARS.
                  SORRY I WAS UNABLE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC BUT THE SURVEY WAS
                  VAGUE IN HOW MUCH OF THE PROJECT THE CITY WOULD BE
                  RESPONSIALE FOR. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT ME AT
                  (903) 587-3334.

                  SINCERELY.


                  GEORGE HENDERSON
                  CITY ADMINISTRATOR




          FEE-08-2002   17:03                              96%                      P.02
I
                           WATER INFRASTRUCfURE FINANCING SURVEY



          Name of Political Subdivision:         Gry",- ~ d~
I         Water Management Strategy Name:              f~~.                          Pr-ri u:t:
          .Capital Cost
I
          1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
I             increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
              water management strategy identified above?

1             The political subdivision can afford to pay $   .J 0 0 , I    0l.f0.

          2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
I            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
             above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
             and tax increases?                                      --
I             The political subdivision can afford to pay $   ::00 (       17'tTO.' -

13        3. ffow much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
             management strategy identified above?

I             The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $   !l..kn<.~ $J~ /                  tiU /   d{rO


J         4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
             if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
             sheets, if necessary)

I
I



:   -')
,
                                                                                                    I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                                    I
Name of Political Subdivision:           Luella Water Corp.                                         I
Water Management Strategy Name:               Add new well & overdraft Woodbine Aquifer
                                              in 2000 (:t '''' ..... )                              I
                                                  ....
Capital Cost:        $152,000        ,            >00
                                                          )
                                                              U"-P!J
                                                                                                    I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
     increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the       l
     water management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision can afford to pay $                                                  I
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able. to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                    I
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                                    I
     The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                                    I
   management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                    I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources'would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                    I
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                    I
  Lt/~ Jv~ JvpOJ'6 ~
~ -th.-t 'f'("O~ ~F kov . . c £;..I:v(
                                  r-GJ~.m:; ~                                                       I
 ~S'lVuc:f- ~ N~' t,J~) fJtJvY'-pJ~ ~                                                               I
J:I-.o I/~ -+I'!r~. N ~ c ~ Prh1 Y&o V                                             ..-a-
LJ   ~-u,       t-- VV II   ~.~   V'.M1 .~ ·n-vJ..~   -       h..,     Vi..   ~ ~r.n·~-?(/I
                                                                                  ,             -
                                                                              N~'~I
                                                                               ~/~
                                                                               Yl1~~j'''\           I
                                                                                                    I
    I"·
    ~
                          WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I         Narne of Political Subdivision:      Luella Water Corp.

I         Water Management Strategy Name:           Grayson County Water Supply Project




•
I
          Capital Cost:     $1,511,742


          L Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
            increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
            water management strategy identified above?
                                                               ~ ~o 55,' bf "(      :J.. 0   {) /   ~0   .   J. ro JISVU
I            The political subdivision can afford to pay $
                                                                ,kY'      ?''''R ~~ ~ hJA~
                                                                                                                           I
          2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
I            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
             above using current utility revenue sources, inciuding implementing necessary rate
             and tax increases?

             The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

          3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
             management strategy identified above?

I            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __


I         4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
             if apy, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
             sheets, if necessary)
I
I
I
I



I
                                                                                             I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                             I
Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Malakoft.                                       I
Water Management Strategy Name:           10" Pipeline to TRWD System and 1 MGD
                                          Water Treatment Plant 2010 $7,809,000              I
                                          (2000)

Capital Cost:     $2ii~       $ 2,350,000                                                    I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax      I
   increases, how much ofthe capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                             I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                                                                                             I
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                             I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                             I
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?                                                     I
   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _'

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                                                                                             I
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)                                                                     I
   City is in design stage of project for the above facilities.
   Financing sources are:                                                                    I
                                  USDA Rural Development grant $ 1,650,000
                                    II    II        II   loan      450,000                   I
                                  TDCA CD Block Grant              250,000
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                             WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
        -;
        I
             Narne of Political Subdivision:      City of Malakoff

             Water Management Strategy Name:            Add new well (capacity of 300 gpm)            In
                                                        Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer (2000)

             Capital Cost:     $281,000


    J        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                water management strategy identified above?

                The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'

    I        2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

I               above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                and tax increases?


D               The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
I               management strategy identified above?

                The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

             4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I               sheets, if necessary)


I             City of Malakoff has determined that adding another well in the
              Carrizo-Wilcox will not be a long-term or cost effective strategy.
I             With receeding water levels in the aquifer and Malakoff being on
              or near outcrop, City has opted for surface water.




I
.'
I
    "
         )
         "
  Simone Kiel

----from:                       Tom Gooch
    'Dent:                      Tuesday, February 12, 20022:06 PM
   To:                          Simone Kiel
   Subject:                     FW: Region "C· Water Infrastructure Financing Survey




  -Original Message-
  From: Bud Ervin [mailto:Bud.Ervin@cLMansfield.TX.US]
  Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1 :38 PM
  To: tcg@freese.com
  Subject: Region "C· Water Infrastructure Financing Survey                                                               l
   Tom,                                                                                                                   I
   The treatment plant expansions listed for Mansfield are a little off.

   There will in alllikelyhood be four expansions instead of two.                                                        l
   Our rate structure coupled with impact fees should be adequate to fund the expansions. Therefore, any state funding
   would need to be below our available bond rated finanCing.
                                                                                                                         1
  Expansion Size         Year   Estimated Cost
   7MGD
   14 MGD
   14MGD
                      2005
                       2010
                       2020
                              $ 6,000,000
                               $10,500,000
                              $12,900,000
                                                                                                                         I
:)14 MGD               2030   $17,000,000

                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                         I
       *************~* -COMM. JOURNAL- ****~*********** DATE FEE-e7-2002                       ***** TIME 15:16 *** P.01

            MODE   ~   MEMORY TRANSMISSION                             START~FEE-07    lS:09         END-FEE-07 15: 16
              FILE NO.- 007

       STN NO.         COM      AEER NO.       STATION NAME/TEL. NO.         PAGES     DURATl ON
                       OK
                                "
                                                                               -Freese & Nichols. Inc.

      ************************************           -Fre~se    & Nichols- ***** -               817 73S 7491-     *********
                                           4055 International Plaza, Suite 200, Fort Worth 76109-4895
                                           Sr1n35-7300       FAX 817/735-7491

    FREESE - NICHOLS

                                                     FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
                                                  To:    ~l~/~~~d~~~,~l~~~~~~fn~______________
                                                         Cttiq 01 !11&j pePA1
                   Dams &: Spillways         Fax No.:    -.J-q1.J..!.~~-4..L..JZ...~S'~-.::;...20_8~;l._ _ _ _ __
                                                From;    ....::St.,.;t:/..J(n~fz\.g.~:.........<t:::::l..lo·e"'")___________
                                                 Da~;   ____________________________                                  ~   __

                                                        Total number of pages, including transmittal sheet;            o




                   Sile DeveI<>pIDeD1

                 streets &: Highways




                             UtiUlios



          Wa... R.eoaurcc PI""';"!
                                                        If there is a problem receiving any pages, pl~e call __
                                                         £fw"y tJd                      at   817n3S·   ·1i.f1/6.
)      Waler TrzasmWiOl1 Systems

     War.e.rlWuteWatCf &giD.eering
                                              Fr~~se     L   N1Ch~I$1   Inc.                   917 1::;5 74!?1   p.0:;..-06




                                      WATER INFRASTRUCI1JR! I~ANCING SURVEY



                    N. rue or Polltlc."Il Subdivision:         City of Maypearl

                    Water MlInlllement St~lfU Name;                 Elli! County Surface Water Supply Project
                                                                    (through 1llA) (2010)

                     C.pit,,1 COlt:   _S).3g~,S45



                     I. U$in& current utility raV.DUe sources, including implementing necessary rate and fAx
                        increases, bow much or the c:apita.l CO,t is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                        wattr management strategy idemified above?            .
                                                                                  ,,/,,'
                        The po!;tical subdivision can afford 10 pay S _. "" a'=>,      ern   I -
                                                                                                  .


                     :. If you could access the State Panicipation Program, how much of the clpitlll cost it
                        the political 5U!)divisilln able to ~y for the water mlLDlIscmcnt strlltcgy identified
                        ibove using cumnt utility rcvcnue source" including imph:rnenling nI!C8ssary rlte
                        IN! tax incfCsscs'1

                          The poiitical 5UbdivisJoll can afford to pay S __ _

                     3. How nluch (If the capital cost is the political subdlv\'ioD   ~       to pay for the water
                        mlnagemllnt strategy identified above?
                                                                                            ;:)LkKTI. _
                          The political subdivision cannol afford to pay S _ _ _'_ _ ,IlU
                                                                              .    V'CrfJ_.


                     4. For the costs lhe political subdivision cannot pay. whllt optionls) i, proposed? Whru,
                        if Any. Slate funding SOutC85 would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                        sheets. if nece9~ary)



                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                     1




,
    "-.')
        .
                                                                                                                 TOT~   P.1!!6




                                                             9724352082               94%                                     P.03
            FEB-08-2002    08:28
                                                ::r~~se         & 'lc~~;.s,   :no.




lCJ .-.                          WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I               Nnme of PolitiCAl Subdivision:                      City of Maypurl

                WRter MaDRgement StrateI)' Name:                          One new well (capacity       100 spm) in
1                                                                         Woodbine Aquifer (2000)
                Cnpltal Co,t:    _S;;.;2;.;;2~g,r.;.OO.;.;O~   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
j
                 , . UsinS current utility reVCP\lC SOllICes, im:ludillg implementing necessary rate and tax
I                    incre~e&, how much of thc capital con il the political ,ubdivision able 10 pay for ttu:
                     water malUlgemem straIcg)' identified above?

I                     The political subdivision can afford to pay S                  ~5 J   m '--:-
                 2. If you could Ace~s the State ParticipAtion Program, how much of the CApital cosl is
J                   the politics; subdivi5ion :l.ble 10 pay for the waler management strategy identifIed
                    Above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing nccessary rate
                    end tax increases?

I     r'.
                      The politi~a1 subdivisbn ca!\ afford to pay S              .is)@, -
                 3. How much of the CApital cost is the political subdivision ~ to pay for the water


"
I
                    managemenl strategy identified above?

                      The political subdivi,ion cannOT afrol'll to PlY $               '803) m., -:-
                 4. For Uwr COlli tbe politie&l 5ubdiviJlor. C&nllOt pay, whllt option(s) is proposed? What,
                    If any, Slate funding sourcet would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I                   sheel!, if neeesS&ry~



I
I
I
I
I~)
I
I       FEB-~B-2~~2    ~8:2B                                     9724352~B2                     94%                  P.04
                                                                                                                                          I
                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE F1NANCING SURVEY                                                                       I
          Region Name:         ..;.R~e;;;og::..:io;.;;n....;C;..·   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __                                I
          Name of Political Subdivision:                                  City of Midlothian
                                                                         ~~~~~~~----------------                                          I
          Contact Person:              Jim Grigsby                                         Title: Director of Utilities

          Telephone:         (972) 775-7105                                                E-mail:                                        I
          Background: On January 5, 2001, Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPGs) all across                                               I
          the State of Texas formally submitted 16 adopted regional water plans to the Texas Water
          Development Board (TWDB) per requirements of Senate Bill 1 (75 th Texas Legislature).
          The adopted region.aJ water plans examined and analyzed the water supply needs for all                                          I
          water users in the State. Based on the analysis, the RWPGs identified water management
          strategies necessary to ensure a sufficient supply of water for the 50-year planning period.
          The RWPGs also developed preliminary capital cost estimates for each of the strategies                                         I
          recommended in the approved regional water plan.

          Senate Bill 2 (77Th Texas Legislature) eA'Panded the RWPG's assignment. Senate Bill 2                                          I
          charges the RWPGs with examining what financial assistance, if any, is needed to
          implement the water management strategies and projects recommended in the most
          recently approved regional water plan.                                                                                         I
           Senate Bill 2 specifically requires that the RWPG report .to the TWDB how political
           subdivisions all across Texas propose to pay for future water infrastructure needs.                                           I
           The purpose of this survey is to complete this charge with your input.
                                                                                                                                         I
           Please return the completed su",ey by February 1, 2002 to:

                                                                             1\.11'. Tom Gooch                                           I
                                                                         Freese and Nichols, Inc.
                                                                    4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
                                                                       Fort Worth, TX 76109-4895                                         I
                                                                        (817) 735-7491 facsimile
                                                                     E-mail address:tcg@freese.com
                                                                                                                                         I
           If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact.:
           Stephanie Griffin at (817) 735-7300
                                                                                                                                         I
 - 10 .......... /
              ~ "r IL I'\.C'UJ                                                           ~ ~ ~.( (VLj~ -f-t--.            L   ~          I
   C,i.(,.yv-c..-- -f {) If' LV L't. i.{) ">'Lj                                          ~ "1' f ~ o.l-t""" I'I..ot. nI/o( S •
   Lu 0(.. W\ 0. j d..-u.;.J ~                                                             ~(fL~ Mev~f.                                  I
                                                                                                      T ___    C,--l~ ~
FEE-11-2002          16:31                                               9727752456                  94%                          P.02
                                                                                                                                         I
                           MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

     By:               Tom Gooch
     Date:             Week ofJanuary 21,2002 (written January 28)

     With:         Scott Albert
     Representing: Palmer
     Phone:        972/845-3288

     Owner:            Region C Planning Group
     Project:          NTD-01521, Infrastructure Financing Report
     File:             NTDO I 521 :ITlmcmlsurvey\lclephone memoslP]almer.doc


     Subject:          Palmer Water Supply Plans and IFR Survey

II   Copies to:        Terrace Stewart, Jim Parks, Bill Smith, Virginia Towles


I    I.         Scott Albert called to discuss the Infrastructure Financing Report survey and Palmer's
                response to it. He said that the strategy shown for Palmer (participation in TRA's Ellis
                County system) was not what Palmer plans to do. They are seeking TWDB financing for a
                new well in the Woodbine aquifer and a reverse osmosis treatment system. They hope to
                proceed this summer.



•
II
     2.         I told Scott that he could put that in his survey, and that we would be starting a new round of
                planning this summer and would meet with Palmer to make sure we understood their current
                plans.

                Scott and I discussed Palmer's plans:
                   • I told him that TWDB has new regulations that require that project it funds be
                       consistent with regional water supply plans unless TWDB grants a waiver. I said that
                       I didn't know how TWDB would be applying those rules and that Region C had tried
                       to make it clear that a wide range of projects would be consistent with our plans.
                   • I also told him that the data we have available indicate that the Woodbine is already
                       over-pumped in Ellis County. I emphasized that we had not studied the aquifer in
                       detail but had adopted TWDB numbers from previous studies. TWDB 1996 pumping
                        data show Ellis County pumping from the Woodbine to be in ex.cess of the long-term
                        reliable supply.
                   • Scott said that the Wallace Group from Waco had studied the aquifer for Palmer and
                        had indicated that there is supply available. I told him that TWDB would be
                        restudying the Woodbine in.North Texas and was supposed to have some results by
                        2004.
                   • Scott discussed the idea of coming before the Region C group to ask that Palmer's



')                      current plans be brought into the Region C Plan. He also said that he would follow
                        up with TWDB on Palmer's project and how he should proceed. I agreed that this




-
                        was a good idea.
                                                                                     /




-
                                     .......,. :l.lr""'i~i '~';::,:,u"'U"':r :"';"'r--: ..,
                ~·'\'I·1/i·if-l;·:iI ., ,II--'r,-I
            I
                •» I;'
                IlIi111 JlJl
            JI.-.:...


                 ~
                            '~ ..

                      ":!.r::,
                                =:c...·
                                                    ,   '1""
                                                .-~-- ws:a. .... --.,. .. ,
                         ;..j.,~"'I'~~i~pt~'~";'.1J8:III.IQ·.·~~~.'
                                                                          . :'=':..>..;--.•.
                                   . . -; ~;~.-,-.,.......... ..;, .f! .,., 'r~' - .
                                                                                             .
                                                                                       l'M'.' :: I
                                                                                           l...i         -
                  ,..~...,~:, . .':\.=-
                                                                                                         -
                       ... ~:                                       - f · ... =--=..:::;)
                                :.                                         ~                 '-
                    •     . .•.
                          U          'r-            ~.~
                                                     -.~ .
                                           City of Palmer


January 30? 2002
                                           P.O. Box 489
                                           Palmer. Texas 75152
                                           972-845-3288     .
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
Mr. Tom Gooch
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
                                                                                                         I
Fort Worth. Texas 76109-4895
                                                                                                         I
Dear Mr. Gooch:

The following letter is a response to the Region C Water Infrastructure Financing Survey.
                                                                                                         II
As we discussed January 24, 2002, the City of Palmer is working on a water project,
which is contrary to the strategy, adopted for Ellis County by the Region C Water
                                                                                                         I
Planning Group. Below is a brief outline of steps taken by Palmer to enhance the city's
water supply.                                                                                            a
Since 1983 the City of Palmer has been in violation of the State Drinking Water
Standards. In 1999 Palmer entered into a contract with Halff Associates to study
alternative water supplies. The study revealed the following alternatives:
                                                                                                         a
   •    Purchase treated water from Waxahachie - The City of Waxahachie would sell
                                                                                                         II
        Palmer only 271,000 gallons per day. Cost of project $6,400,000.

   •
        (palmer has had peak days at 500,000 MGD)
        Purchase treated water from E.nnis - The City of Ennis did not want to be·the sole
                                                                                                         I
        water supply for Palmer. Cost of project $2,800,000.
    •   Construct Water Treatment Facility - Limited to only 271,000 gallon per day via
        vested water rights. Cost of project $5,500,000
                                                                                                         II
    •   Purchase water from Rockett Special Utility District - RSUD purc;hases water
        from Waxahachie and had no limitation on the amount of water Palmer could
        acquire. Cost of project $800,000

Palmer went forward with the RSUD project until April of 2001. City Council after
further review determined RSUD project was not cost effective. City Council requested
                                                                                                         II
stafi'to investigate other alternatives available to the community.




                                                                                                     .
                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                         I
                                                        1
                                       Equal Opportunity Employer
                                                                                                         I
 1--;   The staff investigation revealed the following alternatives:
           • Purchase water from the City of Dallas - Cost per 1,000 for treated water .68.
 I             Uncertain on how soon a capital project could commence or estimated cost.
           • Move tap point on TWCID raw water line near Palmer - Cost per 1,000 for raw
               water .67 Moving the tap point will involve a long political process with an
               uncertain outcome and Palmer would need additional water rights.
           • Obtain Water Rights & Treat water - Palmer currently has 271,000 in surface
               water rights. The availability of water rights in the region is basically non-
 I             existent.
           • Construct off-channel storage & treat effluent - Time and cost of this project is
               undesirable. Possible alternative for additional water supply in the future.
 I         • Reverse Osmosis- Best alternative for an immediate solution other than RSUD.
               Capital cost reasonable yet operation and maitnenace cost are a concem

        City staff recommends the construction of a water treatment facility (reverse osmosis)
        and two additional wells (Woodbine Aquifer). But the recommendation by staff conflicts
        with the Region C Plan in two areas.
I          1. The Region C Plan states, " Current use of groundwater exceeds the reliable long-
              term supply available in many parts of Region C". The City of Palmer water
I             project calls for using exiting wells and constructing new wells in the Woodbine
              Aquifer. City staff and council received a report from The Wallace Group in
              November of2001 stating the following facts regarding the Woodbine.

                  a. The water level in these wells has remained relatively stable over the past

 t                   50 years.

                  b. The water table dropped only 26 feet from 1973 to 1998 or 1 foot per year.

I          2. The Region C strategy for Palmer entails an Ellis County Surface Water Supply
              Project (through TRA). The City of Palmer water project involves constructing a

I             water treatment facility with Reverse Osmosis, drilling additional wells and
              blending Reverse Osmosis water with well water in order to meet state drinking
              water standards.

I       Palmer supports a regional water supply however, we believe the construction of a water
        surface project through TRA will not occur within an appropriate time frame to resolve

I       our needs. As stated in the beginning of this letter the City of Palmer has been in
        violation of state drinking water standards since 1983. To wait for a regional surface
        water project would require cooperation by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
I       Commission and other regulatory agencies that may levy fines/enforcement actions
        against the City of Palmer.


I
I
                                                  2
I
                                                                                                              I
-=  ~~                          ::
                   ~'C'U!' iinancial survey Palmer could afford the $1,252,955 however, the
-----:: -:: ~"-"'>e 0UT water crisis today has forced Palmer to find an alternative water
                                                                                                              I
=--...-~ :l...~_ ~'s proposed water supply project will substantially increase the
-         i

~=:J·c;:...
         t::-::!!
                       !Ii   c:::s .:Q. ~ice and unfortunately make it impossible to commit to an
                              s::."::::ll5on in capital improvements ie., Ellis County Surface Water Supply
                                                                                                              I
    -   c::;;;::::,


~ -~ ::: ~ 'will request an amendment to the Region C water pIan with the .
                                                                                                              I
- -""\",~'"£:::: ~ Reverse Osmosis project.

==~..:... ~ .s....~ ~ns. feel free to call my office at (972) 845-3288.
                                                                                                              I

                                                                                                              I
----~-
                                                                                                              I
                                     ~   Wallace Group Study on the Woodbine Aquifer

                                                                                                              I
                      :-=:a- ~ P.E. Chair Region C Water Planning Group
                      -~ ..~. The Wallace Group                                                               I
                         ~":!.. A.dvanced Water Technology Services
                      -;;::.-
                      ~ <.' - ... Director of Public Works
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I

                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              I
                                                                3
                                                                                                              I
->
-'J
II
                               WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



               Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Palmer


-
II
               Water Management Strategy Name:


               Capital Cost:     $1,252,955
                                                          Ellis County Surface Water Supply Project
                                                          (through TRA) (2020)




II             I, Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax



-
                  increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                  water management strategy identified above?

                  The political subdivision can afford to pay $   \~    *
II             2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                  the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

II                above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                  and tax increases?



•                 The political subdivision can afford to pay $        *

-
               3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                  management strategy identified above?

                  The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ---..:.*-P----
II             4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,




-
                  if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                  sheets, if necessary)

                                     o...~\....~    \~\\~('.

II
II
II
III   ."
           )

II
II
                                                                                                                                    I
                  WAnR. tNfRASTR.UCTUR~ FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                                                                   I
  Name    or PolitieaJ l5ubdwi!ion:       .Parket' County
                                          (Wiathtnot'd) .
                                                                       Utility,   DiJ:tricr       No.   1                           I
  Warer Management Stratqy Name:                 Pl:aso n of tr~tod water trammi~iioD lines
                                                 (IS") to Southeut I»arket County (Ineludt$
                                                                                                                                    I
                                                 pump JtatiOtl) (2030)

  CaJ)kAJ Cost:       S3,SB2,OOO                                                                                                    I
  1. Uslbg current utility rtYenue sources, including implementins nca;$$&r)" rue and tax
     increases. how much ctthc capita.! (;QSt is the politlc&.l subdivision able ll) pay fer ~
                                                                                                                                    I
     _ter mz&nI.gcment strztegy idc!ltified llbov.?

     :rhe politiCAl subdivision ee,n affOrd   to pay ~l epo
                                                       !         000
                                                                                                                                   I
..l. Ii you could access the StlltCl P1I1icipatioc Pr05T&m, ho..... much oftho cApital coSt is
     the political sL1bdivi~ion abies to J)&Y for tho watllT marlAs.mont ,tr&to~ identified
     lbo'lre usin!! current utility rcvcnt,lc 50UrCC$. includin: implcmeming necessary rate
                                                                                                                                   I
     and tax lncreues?

     The politlcal subc:!i"ision un alTord tc .,lay S' 3.600.000
                                                                                                                                   I
 3, How much of the capitai COst is 1he political auWivifiion l.m.1b1& to pay for the water
    mana..--emcnt .trll1egy identitled a.bove?                             .                                                       I
     The political $ubdivjsion cannot at:'ord to pay S! .800. OQQ_,

 4. Pot the costs tho I'olitical~ubdivisio~ can.not pay, what opuon(s) is propo~c? Wnat.
                                                                                                                                   I
    if any, stale rucding SOUl'GC& would the political illbc1ivia,ioJl ;oll5idcl7 (lise addition.1
     5hms. ifne;O$aary)               .
     Opt1oDl. ~eU\8 cons1der6d to make the proj'ecl: morcllffordablc include;
                                                                                              .                                    I
     1)    Phau.na the project: into amalhr phcas;
     2)

     3)
           nown8ia~~'the fa~il~t1~~ 1dent1f1ed and aupplement:1n, supply
           fro~ other sources;
           Using & 8ta~e participation loan or USDA grant/loan to lower
                                                                                                                                   I
           f1nonc:ing coats.
                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                .~
                                                                                                        TOTAl.. p, e5              I
                                                                                                                                   I
                                      cteL0GcL18           ·ON   3t~OHd                                      Nl:;jMS ll::l   W~~   I
r
 ~                                   WATER IN7MS'X'RtrCTt.'lUt FINANCING SURVEY


1
                Namt o(Politic;QI        Subdi~ision;       :Parker      CoUJl~               Utillty           Dinrict       No.       1

I                                                            (Weatherford) .

                                                                   Phase 1 t:1f neated. water trwmistlol'l lines
                                                                   (16") to Southeast Plltker COWlty (lnch:des
I                                                                  pump station) (2010)

                                        $3,582.000

I               L U5ing current utility l'C.veztuc sourcos. including implemcntlns ncccs$&l}' rate and taX
                  increistS. how m1:lch of the capital C05t is the political iubdii.lision able to pay for the
I                     water management strategy identified ~ve?              .J

                                                                                                    -..... -"
                      ~    flolitical subdivision can afford to pay   S8:.;;4~O:..t.':::'OO:::.!p,,--_ __

I               2 .. If you could accw the State Panicipation i'ro;ram. how InUCl\ of the capital                              ~st is
                      the politic:a.\ 6Llbdivi5ion able to pay for the WI1Cf mam~ent strat~ identified
                      above LlsinS current utility Icvenu~ ~OurCCli, inel!.lding irnplememtins n_nary n.te
I                     8l\d ux hiore......?                                     . '

  ..                  Tho poiitical ,~bdivbion can afford to pay S 1. "500. DOD
0               3. Row mucb of the capital CO$t is the pOlitical rubdivision Iml.lI.!! to pay fur !he water
                   manaSllmorrt strate~ identified I.bov~?

I                     The political subdivision ca.nnot afford to pay S 2 742. 000I




              . '4. For the      co,u the polWc:a1 ~~bdivbion CAnnot pay, what optlon(s) is pro?Osee? What,
I                     jf any.   sta.te f\w1lng sources wO\lld tlte political subd!vllion C'Q11.lder? (U5C adaltional
                      sheetS, ifneceuary)                                                                                 .
                 Opt:!lons bt::ik\8 conaidered co 1II&ke thA project lIIore affordable 'include'
I                1) PhaSing the project into .lIIal1er p i e c e s ; '
                 2) DOlII'n.a1z:l.ng tb. fac11it·.l.ca'idenhfifld end supplementing supply
                        from other sources;
                                                                                                                                    I




                 3)     U.in~ /I state p&rticip .. Hon lo&n or USIlA grant/loan to lower'
I                       Unanc1ng costa.




I
I
I   . C'-'\
         )




                                                         ctBL0ZCLt8           'ON 3NOHd
                                                                                                                       -
                                                  ClTY POTTSBORO                                      PAGE     !l2
                                             ALAN PU,IJlik                                                   iii 004




WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCINC SURVEY
                                                                                                                       Ii
                                                                                                                       -
                                                                                                                       -
                                         City ofPousbxo

                                                 Port.shorc ~ ..,.lllA" riJbt in lAb
                                                 Temma ~ DezI1Jqn pvlde. batlQenL
C.pmMCd":S~9~90~._OO~O~      ______________________________________


1. UsiaC Cl1lTmt utility ",venua 101Il'O", includin, implem_iDt _ . . " , ~\e atlel tu
   iQC.ftU.... hO'W rnuoh ..r f~ _pita! CQ$t i, dill: politioal llIbdivUion able to IMY fgr the
   WICC'I' m~eJlt .su.teEY identifi~ .bo"c?
                                                                                                                       -
                                                                                                                       a
     11le politicU .ubdivi.iclI\ ~ l1'tord to pay $

l.   rt)'Oli oowd act'·o,
                                                      ;;t:J!;.Ct!:O.oO.
                        W StaEe Panh,ipatiOil Program, how m~ch of the ~tIIl tost is
                                                                                                                       Ii
     the politi~l 5ubdi"i.ion able to pur for the "".tcr nlanqCInc.nt nnlef;y identifi.~
     .bQvc usinl clI(Rnl utility ~~ue SOUt'C1::5. i.Qclu41na impltJl\~nl Meetswy r8'1C
     aM t.a jgr;rcul17
                                                                                                                       I
     The politic.! ,~bQiyiaiq~ Clin afford 10 IMY S    ~,():X) 0
                                                                      0
                                                                          .
                                                                                                                       a
                                                                                                                       -
2. How mudl of lhc capi~l COlt is the polilir.al .ubdivil>ion ~ 10 p.y ror thc water
   lIIAD8cement 5trs1elY icte..'ificli above'?
             .           .                                    cO
   The polioc:al iNbdivisioD QMOI alTord to pay S Q90 cx::x>     .
J. For the cons t~c political subdivision cannot r-)'. what optioa(J) ;. p~po..d? Whal,
   If any. ItllC f\ln.C!.in& 'OI.l(CCJ would T.hc: political lubd.i"isioll oontlder7 (use eddirion~                    a
     sheet$. ifn~)                      .        \.).)~ ~cn S.lh..,JQ..A..
        \)..)t.. v..,>J-9        ~~                                                                                    II
           ~-0~ ~ 1boldp~~.
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                       I
   Stephanie Griffin

-from:                   Tom Gooch
   )ent:                 Wetlnesday, January 23, 2002 5:33 PM
   To:                   'Ken J. Pfeifer'
   Cc:                   Stephanie Griffin
   Subject:              RE: Region C Water Infrastructure Financing Survey


   Thank you. We will take this as your reply. We will be starting a new round of regional
   water planning this summer. At that time, we will get with you and get the information we
   need to revise our regional plan appropriately.

                       Tom Gooch

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Ken J. Pfeifer [mailto:kenpfeifer@juno.com)
   Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 7:16 PM
   To: tcg@freese.com
   Subject: Region C Water Infrastructure Financing Survey


   The City of Red Oak will receive its water from the City of Dallas. We
   are currently negotiating a contract. Your survey questions do not seem
   to apply to our City.

   GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
   Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
   Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
   http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.


o




  )
- -'

                                                        1
                 WATER INFRASJRUCTIJRE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:         J-mA fA {eJe g          <


W..... Mana_...tStratogyNam.                    f~ I-ryry, 6UJ
Capital Cost:   $ (p ) 172 .t; Co
                                I      ()
     A.VAJ      ~ ~                         -   :t/O, I ~'V1                                    l
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                I
     The political subdivision can afford to pay $                                              I
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                I
   and tax increaseS?

     The political subdivision can afford to pay $   I tru   cia                                 I
3.   How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water       I
     management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision cannot afford to pay _--...:::0::::"'...1.1;:....=;)__
                                                     $                                           I
4.   For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
     if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional     I
     sheets, if necessary) ;J! A-
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
                  0ff~- ~~ J~, ~{oJr:J
                    ()JLJ~h ~ I:u fW,~~                                                          I
                                                     bj Pe d         f""",            ~av6i~~..k I
                                                 jIJ.~ ~ ~flL                                    I
                                                       - ;)-/ /I I0 c9-                          I
                                                                                                  I
FREESE· NICHOLS




                      TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
TO:            File                     [NTDO 1521)T:\memIsurveyltelcphonc mcmoslterreU.doc


FROM:          Simone Kiel

SUBJECT:       IFR response - City of Terrell

WITH:          Sonny Groessel, city of Terrell (972-551-6635)

DATE:          February 26, 2002


Sonny Groessel with the city of Terrell called regarding the IFR survey. The Region C plan calls for
three 1 MGD expansions for the City's water treatment plant in 2010,2020 and 2050. The city of
Terrell is planning on expanding their water treatment facilities by 4 MGD sometime in 2003. This
expansion is currently under design and the City has a budget of $10 million. Terrell plans on
financing all of the capital costs.




          FREESE AND NICHOLS. 4055 INTERNATIONAL PLAZA. SUITE 200 • FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76109-4895
                      TELEPHONE: 817-735-7300. METRO: 817-429-1900. FAX: 817-735-7491
I:   •   •   ...




                                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



                   Name of Political Subdivision:         City of Tioga

                   Water Management Strategy Name:              Grayson County Water Supply Project

                   Capital Cost:      $1,588,677


                   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                      increases; how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                      water management strategy identified above?

                      The political subdivision can afford to pay $   _-,=O~_ _ __


                   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                      the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                      above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                                 l
                      and tax increases?

                      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _--"'0"'--_ _ __
                                                                                                                 I
                   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                      management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                                 I
                       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ I; 5 is, , t"p11                         I
                   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                      if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional    I
                      sheets, if necessary)

                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
    I
    I'




    ~                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


 I                                            Walnut Creek SUD
         Name of Political Subdivision:

         Water Management Strategy Name:           Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 10 MGD
                                                   (2010)

 J       Capital Cost:       $14,977,000


 I       L Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?
 J
            The political subdivision can afford to pay $   1192 70 &.
J        2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
I           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
            and tax increases?

b           The political subdivision can afford to pay $   /.   Y' If? 2 () () ,
         3, How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
I           management strategy identified above?

            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $     It!. (JOG. ()OC).
I        4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
            if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I           sheets, if necessaryl


I
I
I
I ,")
 ,
I ~.
I
                         ------ -""----
                                                                                              I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                              I
Name of Political Subdivision:       Walnut Creek SUD
                                                                                              I
Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2 MGD
                                           (2020)
                                                                                              I
Capital Cost:     $4,993,000
                                                                                              I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                                                                              I
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                              I
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                              I
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?                                                                         I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                              I
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,      I
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              !
II·
~.                           WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


II           Name of Political Subdivision:       Walnut Creek SUD

II           Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2 MGD
                                                        (2030)

II           Capital Cost:     $4,993,000


             1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                water management strategy identified above?

                The political subdivision can afford to pay $

             2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

II              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                and tax increases?

                The political subdivision can afford to pay $

             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                management strategy identified above?

                The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $   'f :f'OO. 000.
             4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
III             sheets, if necessary)




--
1II·,j.' 1
                                                                                                           .f




II
                                                                                              (
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                              I
Name of Political Subdivision:       Walnut Creek SUD                                         I
Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2 MGD
                                           (2040)                                             I
Capital Cost:     $4,993,000
                                                                                              l
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                                                                              1
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $    t/7l60 g
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                              l
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?                                                                         I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $    i9 }J~o CJ     .
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                              I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $
                                                                                              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,      I
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
•••
~                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


II    Name of Political Subdivision:       Walnut Creek SUD

II    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2 MGD
                                                 (2050)

II    Capital Cost:     $4,993,000


II    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $

      2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
         and tax increases?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $      elf} 600.
      3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?



.-       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $    f,SOO,(!)eJO .
      4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
II       sheets, if necessary)



III
1)                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



                Name of Political Subdivision:       City of Weatherford
                                                                                                                     I
                Water Management Strategy Name:            IS-mile pipeline (36") from Lake Benbrook                 (
                                                           Qncludes pump station) (2010)

                Capital Cost:     $9,000,000                                                                         I
                1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                                                                                                     I
                   water management strategy identified above?

                   The political subdivision can afford to pay $   't 000 000.
                                                                    I
                                                                          I
                                                                                                                     t
                2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                   the political subdivision able. to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                                     a
                   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                   and tax increases?
                                                                                                                     I
                   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _.

                3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                   management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                                     a
                   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                                     I
                4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what opiion(s) is proposed? What,
                   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                                     I
                   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                     I
'" ;.0)
,                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                     I
          FEB-14-2002   13:46                    817 598 4138                                                 P.03   I
    I
                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



              Name of Political Subdivision:        City of Weatherford

              Water Management Strategy Name:            IS-mile parallel pipeline (36") from Lake
                                                         Benbrook (Includes pump station) (2030) ..

I             Capital Cost:      $13,375,000


I             1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                 increases, how much ofthe capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                 water management strategy identified above?
I
                 The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (p,~ttl ,500          .
I             2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                 the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

I                above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                 and tax increases?

                  The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ~ 0 2. ~ OOQ
(J                                                                                   .
              3. How much of the capital cost -ts the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                 management strategy identified above?
I                 The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $   ~ '3 SD 000 .
                                                                          j




I
,             4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                 if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                 sheets, if necessary)

                         -thIS  floJtrS J~ (J. r~l·olA.Q.1 . fro jec...t
I                          ~(.CtS5 to -r~/D g .f; f'lQ.MCli\j'

I




I       FEE-14-2002   13:46                    817 598 4138                   97Y.                         P.04
                                                                    .- ......   "   .... '




)                         WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



          Name- of Political Subdivision:               City of Weatherford

          Water Management Strategy Name:                   Expand water treatment plant by 12 MGD
                                                            (2030)

          Capital Cost:        $27.221,000                                                                       I
          1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
             increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                                                                                                 I
             water management strategy identified above?

             The political subdivision can afford to pay $        I?, felD, 500 .
                                                                                                                I
          2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
             the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                                I
             above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
             and tax increases?       .                                                                          I
              The political subdivision can afford to pay $       I~, 3~ 2J ~ 0 D.
          3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                                                 I
             management strategy identified above?

              The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $         ID,r F~/IDO.
                                                                                                                I
          4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
             if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                                I
             sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                                I
                    t~;~          ffoj(l{       I   S    ~ ('~l·DVla.1                       projt L+)
                      ().. <:.C(.;f (   1'1)   1vJ D& f.-" 001A ~I '-II , •                                     I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                I
    FEB-14-2002   13:46                        817 598 4138                                  97%         P.0S   I
Regional Water Provider Responses
~
,
I


                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY




-
i



      Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

I     Water Management Strategy Name:            Return flows above lakes


I,    Capital Cost: _..:::.$,;;:..0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __




--
II
      1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA.


II    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate


--
,
         and tax increases?




'i
         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA.

      3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?
II,      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ NA .

      4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
         sheets, if necessary)




II
II
u
                                                                                              I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                         I
Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU
                                                                                              I
Water Management Strategy Name:            Additional Temporary Overdraft                     I
Capital Cost:     $0
                                                                                              I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA.                                          I
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                              I
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water      I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ NA.                                       I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional    I
   sheets, if necessary)




                                                                                              ~   ,


                                                                                              If
                                                                                              ~   !

                                                                                              --
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
    Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

I   Water Management Strategy Name:           Extend Elm Fork Term Permit


I   Capital Cost:     $500,000



I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $500,000.


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA.
I   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ NA.

I   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

Water Management Strategy Name:            Lake Palestine Connection

Capital Cost:     $332,600,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 200 million.

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         l
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 200 million.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water      I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 132.6 million.              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional    I
   sheets, if necessary)

       Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
                                                                                              I
       or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
       between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
       grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
                                                                                              I
       approved by the Council on an annual basis.
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
    Name of Political Subdivision:         DWU

I   Water Management Strategy Name:              Marvin Nichols I Lake (Phase I)


I   Capital Cost:       $220,796,000



I   1.   Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?
I        The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 133 million.

I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 133 million.
I   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 87.8 million.

I   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I           Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
            or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
I           between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
            grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
            approved by the Council on an annual basis.
I
]
I
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

Water Management Strategy Name:            Marvin Nichols I Lake (Phase II)

Capital Cost:     $131,530,000
                                                                                              1
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate arid tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 79 million.                    1
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         I
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              t
   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 79 million.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water      I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 52.5 million.
                                                                                              a
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                              I
   sheets, if necessary)

       Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
                                                                                              I
       or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
       between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
       grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
                                                                                              I
       approved by the Council on an annual basis.
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              J
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
    Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

I   Water Management Strategy Name:            Indirect Reuse


I   Capital Cost:     $124,000,000



I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

I      The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 74 million.


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 74 million.
I   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 50 million.

J   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I          Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
           or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
I          between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
           grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
           approved by the Council on an annual basis.
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                         I
Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU
                                                                                              1
Water Management Strategy Name:            Lake Fork Connection                               l
Capital Cost:     $288,000,000
                                                                                              I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the   l
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 173 million.                   r
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         I
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 173 million.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water      I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 115 million.
                                                                                              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What.
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                              I
   sheets, if necessary)

       Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects.
                                                                                              I
       or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
       between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
       grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
                                                                                              I
       approved by the Council on an annual basis.
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
I
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


1
-
    Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU



,   Water Management Strategy Name:

    Capital Cost:     $107.134,000
                                               Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2010




I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

I      The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 64 million.


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 64 million.

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 43.1 million.

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)

           Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
           or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
           between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
           grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
           approved by the Council on an annual basis.




I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2020

Capital Cost:     $153,351,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 92 million

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         I
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 92 million.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                              I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 61.4 million.
                                                                                              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                              I
   sheets, if necessary)

       Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
                                                                                              I
       or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
       between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
       grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
                                                                                              I
       approved by the Council on an annual basis.
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
I
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I   Name of Political Subdivision:         DWU

I   Water Management Strategy Name:              Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2030


I   Capital Cost:       $67,369,000



I   1.   Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?
I        The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 40 million.


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 40 million.
I   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 27.4 million.

I   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I            Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
             or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
I            between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
             grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
             approved by the Council on an annual basis.
I
I
I
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       DWU

Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2040

Capital Cost:     $67,369,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 40 million.

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay approximately $ 40 million.

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay approximately $ 27.4 million.

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)

       Assuming no change in regulatory constraints, existing priorities for the projects,
       or other criteria that may affect the department's capital program, the difference
       between the total project cost and Dallas' ability to fund this project will require
       grant assistance from the State or additional rate adjustments that will need to be
       approved by the Council on an annual basis.
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
-
    Name of Political Subdivision:       Fort Worth

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2000

    Capital Cost:     $27,300,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ NA (project completed).

    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                           I
Name of Political Subdivision:         Fort Worth
                                                                                                I
Water Management Strategy Name:              Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2010           I
Capital Cost:       $82,096,000
                                                                                                I
1.   Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
     increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
     water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                I
     The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 100%.                                        I
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                I
   and tax increases?

     The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                I
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water        I
   management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __                              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional      I
   sheets, if necessary)

The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest        I
rates, project schedule, total project cost. compatibility with other local plans and
policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
                                                                                                I
entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding. The
balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before the
project is begun.
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I   Name of Political Subdivision:        Fort Worth

I   Water Management Strategy Name:             Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2030

    Capital Cost:
I                      $52,113,000



I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 100%.


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate

I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

I
,   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __


I
,
    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)



,   The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
    rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
    policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
    similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
    entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding. The
I   balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before the
    project is begun

I

,
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:         Fort Worth

Water Management Strategy Name:              Water Treatment Plant Expansions in 2050           I
Capital Cost:       $59,966,000


1.   Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
     increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
     water management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 100%.

2. If you could access the State Participation Program. how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                                II
   and tax increases?

     The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

     The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)

The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors. including interest        I
rates. project schedule. total project cost. compatibility with other local plans and
policies. etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years. projects
similar to this have used local financing. However. the users of this project should be         II
entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding. The
balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before the
project is begun                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                III
                                                                                                II
                                                                                                I
I
I                   WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


1   Name of Political Subdivision:        GTUA

I   Water Management Strategy Name:             Fannin County Water Supply Project


I   Capital Cost:      $52,358,000

    Background provided by Jerry Chapman of GTUA: The financing mechanisms for the
    proposed regional project in Fannin County has not been established Most likely, if this
I   project goes forward it will be constructed in phases as needed and the entities involved
    will participate in the finanCing. At this time, most of the identified partiCipants for this
I   project are not familiar with this strategy and associated costs. The capital costs
    identified above ($52,358,000) does not accurately reflect the proposed phasing and
    implementation of the Fannin County water supply project. Actual costs to the
I   participants may differ.

    It is unlikely that the participants will be able to finance much of the proposed capital
I   costs. The rates in the GTUA service area are already high (some of the highest in North
    Texas). In 2001, water rates rangedfrom $lJ to $40.86for 5,000 gallons per month. Two
    thirds of the entities had rates greater than $22 per month. One city within the service
I   area recently raised their rates by $22.50 per month. Most cities minimum bills are $50
    per month and cannot support significant increases.

I   The background and answers provided in this survey are also applicable to the Cooke
    and Grayson County projects.

I   I. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much ofthe capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $                    . The ability to pay will
       vary, depending on the size of the participant. All participants will require some state
I      assistance. Some will require assistance for all or most of the capital costs, especially
       for components necessary for the regional system.

I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
J      and tax increases?

        The pofitica1 subdivision can afford to pay $                    . The ability to pay will
I       vary with participants. Most likely the amount will be small.


I
t
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ . This will also vary
   with participants.

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary). The GTUA service area will require state participation until the
   cities grow to receive more revenues. Long-term, it is unknown as to the amount of
   state participation needed




                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             ~
I
I                   WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
    Name of Political Subdivision:        GTUA

I   Water Management Strategy Name:             Grayson County Water Supply Project


I   Capital Cost:      $94,316,000

    Background provided by Jerry Chapman of GTUk The financing mechanisms for the
t   proposed regional project in Grayson County has not been established Most likely, if
    this project goes forward it will be constructed in phases as needed and the entities
    involved will participate in the financing. At this time, most of the identified participants
t   for this project are not familiar with this strategy and associated costs. The capital costs
    identified above ($94,316,000) does not accurately ref/ect the proposed phasing and
    implementation of the Grayson County water supply project. Actual costs to the
    participants may differ.

    It is unlikely that the participants will be able to finance much of the proposed capital
    costs. The rates in the GTUA service area are already high (some of the highest in North
    Texas). In 2001, water rates rangedfrom $11 to $40.86for 5,000 gallons per month. Two
    thirds of the entities had rates greater than $22 per month. One city within the service
    area recently raised their rates by $22.50 per month. Most cities minimum bills are $50
    per month and cannot support significant increases.

~   The background and answers provided in this survey are also applicable to the Cooke
    and Fannin County projects.

    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
I       The political subdivision can afford to pay $                    . The ability to pay will
        vary, depending on the size of the participant. All participants will require some state
J       assistance. Some will require assistance for all or most of the capital costs, especially
        for components necessary for the regional system.

I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $                    . The ability to pay will
I       vary with participants. Most likely the amount wi/roe small.


I
I
                                                                                             I
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?
                                                                                             I
   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . This will also vary
   with participants.
                                                                                             I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,     I
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary). The GTUA service area will require state participation until the
   cities grow to receive more revenues. Long-term, it is unknown as to the amount of        I
   state participation needed

                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                        ..   ,
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
I
I                   WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

I
    Name of Political Subdivision:         GTUA
I   Water Management Strategy Name:              Cooke County Water Supply Project

I   Capital Cost:      $26,785,000

    Background provided by Jerry Chapman oj GTVA: The financing mechanisms jor the
I   proposed regional project in Cooke County has not been established. Most likely, if this
    project goes jorward it will be constructed in phases as needed and the entities involved
    will participate in the financing. At this time, most oj the identified participants jor this
I   project are not jamiliar with this strategy and associated costs. The capital costs
    identified above ($26,785,000) does not accurately reflect the proposed phasing and
    implementation oj the Cooke County water supply project. Actual costs to the
I   participants may differ.

    It is unlikely that the participants will be able to finance much oj the proposed capital
I   costs. The rates in the GTVA service area are already high (some oj the highest in North



-
    Texas). In 2001, water rates rangedfrom $11 to $40. 86jor 5,000 gallons per month. Two
    thirds oj the entities had rates greater than $22 per month. One city within the service
    area recently raised their rates by $22.50 per month. Most cities minimum bills are $50
    per month and cannot support significant increases.

    The background and answers provided in this survey are also applicable to the Fannin
    and Grayson County projects.

    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $                   . The ability to pay will

I      vary, depending on the size ojthe participant. All participants will require some state
       assistance. Some will require assistance jor all or most oj the capital costs, especially
       jor components necessary jor the regional system.

    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       .and tax increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $                     . The ability to pay will
        vary with participctTtts. Most likely the amount will be small.
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . This will also vary
   with participants.

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary). The GTUA service area will require state participation until the
   cities grow to receive more revenues. Long-term, it is unknown as to the amount of
   state participation needed




                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
I
I                                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
    (
I'
                 Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD

I                Water Management Strategy Name:            Additional indirect reuse


I                Capital Cost:     $1,000,000



I                1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                    increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                    water management strategy identified above?
I                   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 1.000.000.

I                2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
                    the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                    above using current utility revenue sources, including imp1ementing necessary rate
I                   and tax increases?



'I      ..   '
                    The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 1.000.000.

                 3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                    management strategy identified above?

                    The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _0_,

                 4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                    if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                    sheets, if necessary)
I
I
I
I
I
  (
I
I
                                                                                                   1
                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                         I
     Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD
                                                                                                   I
     Water Management Strategy Name:            Additional Lake T exoma                            I
     Capital Cost:     $5,286,000
                                                                                                   I
     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the   I
        water management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 5,286 000                                    I
     2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         I
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax increases?
                                                                                                   I
        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 5,286,000 .

     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                                   I
        management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ~.
                                                                                                   I
     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                   I
        sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   I
c·
                                                                                                   -
                                                                                                   ,
II
II                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



 *
'II   Name of Political Subdivision:

      Water Management Strategy Name:
                                              NTMWD

                                                    Oklahoma water

II    Capital Cost:      $68,777,000



II    l. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?
II       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 68,777 000.

      2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
         and tax increases?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 68,777,000.

      3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?
III      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ....Q....


--    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
         sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                  I
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                          I
    Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD
                                                                                                  I
    Water Management Strategy Name:            Lower Bois d'Arc Creek Lake                        I
    Capital Cost:     $167,324,000
                                                                                                  I
    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including imj)lementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the politic'l subdivision able to pay for the   I
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ *167.324,000.                                I
    2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         I
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?
                                                                                                  I
       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 83,662,000,
(
    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                                                                                                  I
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ .JL.
                                                                                                  I
    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                  I
       sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  ,
    *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
    revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
    it is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
    can be funded in the same manner~ therefore, access to the State Participation Program
    may be necessary,
                                                                                                  ,
I
I                      WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

,-
       Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD
I      Water Management Strategy Name:            Marvin Nichols I Lake (phase   n
I      Capital Cost:      $259,218,000


I      L Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?
I         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ *259,218,000.

I      2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
          the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
          above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
          and tax increases?

          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 129,609,000.

       3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
          management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision cannot afford to
                           '"
                                                        pay~$~.
                                                          ..
                                                           ~~




     - 4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)



I
       *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
       revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
       jt is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
       can be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program
       may be necessary.
,.                      WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
I
\




        Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD

        Water Management Strategy Name:            Marvin Nichols I Lake (phase II)

        Capital Cost:     $132,387,000


        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $*132.387,000.

        2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
           and tax increases?
                                                                                                          1
           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 66 193,500.

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water          I
           management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ~.
                                                                                                          I
        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                          I
           sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                          I
        *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
                                                                                                          I
        revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,       "
        it is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
        can be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program
                                                                                                          I
        may be necessary.
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                           I
    l
                                                                                                          ,I
I
I                   WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



    Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
                                               Expansions by 2010
I   Capital Cost:     $194,409,000


I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I      water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $194.409,000.
I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
I      above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

t
,      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 194,409,000.

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water


,      management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ~.


,   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional


,      sheets, if necessary)




I
I
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
(
    Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
                                               Expansions by 2020

    Capital Cost:     $67,592,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ *67,592,000

    2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 33,796 000.

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ -L.
                                                                                                    {
    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)




    *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
    revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
    it is impossible' at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects .
    can be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program
    maybe necessary.
                        WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
    !
    i


I

-
        Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD



,       Water Management Strategy Name:


        Capital Cost:     $187,240,000
                                                   Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
                                                   Expansions by 2030




        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ * 187,240,000.

        2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
           and tax increases?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 93,620,000.

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
           management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ~.

        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)



        *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
        revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
        it is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
        ~an be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program
        may be necessary.



II
lie·

--
                                                                                                           I

(
                             WATER INFRASTROCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                         I
             Name of Political Subdivision:        NTMWD
                                                                                                           I
             Water Management Strategy Name:             Water Treatment Plant and Transmission            I
                                                         Expansions by 2040

             Capital Cost:     $168,490,000                                                                I
             l. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax       I
                increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                           I
                The political subdivision can afford to pay $ *168.490.000.

             2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is       I
                the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                and tax increases?                                                                         I
co-..
    ......
                The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 84.245 000 .
                                                                                                           I
             3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                           I
                The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ...Q...

             4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                                                                                                           I
                if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                sheets, if necessary)                                                                      I
             *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
                                                                                                           I
             revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
             it is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
             can be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program .
                                                                                                           I
             may be necessary.
                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                           (
                                                                           .,
                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                           I
I
I                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


".  (




-
               Name of Political Subdivision:       NTMWD



,              Water Management Strategy Name:


               Capital Cost:     $183,724,000
                                                          Water Treatment Plant and Transmission
                                                          Expansions by 2050




               I. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
                  increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                  water management strategy identified above?

                  The political subdivision can afford to pay $* 183 724.000.

               2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is



-
                  the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified



,
                  above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                  and tax increases?

        •...      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ 91.862,000.




-              3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
                  management strategy identified above?

                  The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ~.

               4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                  if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                  sheets, if necessary)


               *Historically, the NTMWD has been able to fund all previous water projects through
               revenues generated from its wholesale rate. For projects envisioned in 2020 and beyond,
               it is impossible at this time to predict with any certainty whether or not future projects
               can be funded in the same manner; therefore, access to the State Participation Program
               ~ay be necessary.
                         WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
I    (
j
I·

         Name of Political Subdivision:       Trinity River Authority

         Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion         In   2010
                                                    (Tarrant Co Customers)

         Capital Cost:     $17,595,000


         1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
            increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
            water management strategy identified above?

            The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100%. _ _ _ __

         2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
            above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
            and tax increases?

            The political subdivisionc_an afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

         3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
            management strategy identified above?

            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

         4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
            if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
            sheets, if necessary)

            The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
            rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
            policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
            similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
            entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
            The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
            the project is begun.
I
I   (
                        WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


1
        Name of Political Subdivision:       TRA
                                             ~~~------------------------------
I       Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion m 2030
                                                   (Tarrant Co Customers)
I       Capital Cost:     $17,595,000

I       1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax.
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I          water management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ __ 100%_____.
I       2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
I          above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
           and tax. increases?

le_        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ___________

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
I          management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ___________
I       4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,

I          if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)


I          The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
           rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
           policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects

I          similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
           entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
           The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
I          the project is begun.
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
(

    Name of Political Subdivision:       TRA
                                        ~~--------------------------------

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Water Treatment Plant Expansion         In   2040
                                               (Tarrant Co Customers)

    Capital Cost:     $17,595,000


    I. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
                                                                                                    I
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ 100%______.
                                                                                                    I
    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                    I
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?                                                                           I
c      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ ____________
                                                                                                    I
    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ ___________
                                                                                                    a
    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,        II
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)

       The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
                                                                                                    a
       rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
       policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
       similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
       entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
       The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
                                                                                                    I
       the project is begun.
                                                                                                    I

                                                                                                    II
                                                                                                    II
I(                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
       Name of Political Subdivision:        TRA
                                             ~~----------------~---------
I      --Water Management Strategy Name:           Ellis County Project

I      Capital Cost:      $65,945,000



I       1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?
I          The political subdivision can affordto pay $ _100%_ _ _ __

I      2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
          the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
          above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I         and tax increases?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _.
~'-'
        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
           management strategy identified above?
I          The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _________

I       4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)
J
           The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest

I          rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
           policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
           similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
           entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
           The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
           the project is begun.
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       _TRA==-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Water Management Strategy Name:            Las Colinas Reuse

Capital Cost:     $5,493,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ 100%,_____.

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __                                I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                I
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                (
   The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
   rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
   policies, etc. as they exist at the time the dfcisions are made. In recent years, projects
                                                                                                I
   similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
   entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
   The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
                                                                                                I
   the project is begun.
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
I
I                     WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I     Name of Political Subdivision:       .-:TRA==-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I     Water Management Strategy Name:            Joe Pool Reuse Phase II

I     Capital Cost:     $6,031,000




-
I
      1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
         water management strategy identified above?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100% _ _ _ __

I     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I        and tax increases?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
le_   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?
I        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

I     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional

I        sheets, if necessary)



I        The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
         rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
         policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
I        similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
         entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
         The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
I        the project is begun.
                                                                                                    l
(
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
                                                                                                    l
    Name of Political Subdivision:       ....;T~RA=:....-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                    t
    Water Management Strategy Name:            Joe Pool Reuse Phase I                               I
    Capital Cost:     $5,875,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                    a
       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100% _ _ _ _ __                               t
    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                                    a
(   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water        I
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                    I
       The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
       rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
       policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
                                                                                                    I
       similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
       entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
       The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
                                                                                                    I
       the project is begun.
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
I
I                        WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

I
         Name of Political Subdivision:       TRA
I        Water Management Strategy Name:            Mountain Creek Reuse

I        Capital Cost:     $2,015,000


I        l. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
            increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
            water management strategy identified above?
I           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100% _ _ _ _ _.

I        2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
            the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified

I           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
            and tax increases?

I,          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    '-   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water

I           management strategy identified above?

            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

I        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
            if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
I           sheets, if necessary)



I           The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
            rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
            policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
I           similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
            entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
            The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
I           the project is begWL
                           WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
(

           Name of Political Subdivision:       ....;TRA=::...:...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

           Water Management Strategy Name:             Ellis County Reuse

           Capital Cost:      $22,958,000


           1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
              increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
              water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                            l
              The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ 100%_____,                                  1
           2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
              the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified            t
              above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
              and tax increases?
                                                                                                            I
              The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _'

           3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water         I
              management strategy identified above?

              The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'                               I
           4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
              if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
                                                                                                            I
              sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                            I
               The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
               rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
               policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
                                                                                                            a
               similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
               entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
               The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
                                                                                                            a
               the project is begun.
                                                                                                            I
    r-,.
                                                                                                            I
    '"
       •
                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                            I
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY

1
    Name of Political Subdivision:      ....;TRA==-=-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Denton County Reuse

    Capital Cost:     $2,653,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100%,_ _ _ __

    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)


       The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
                                                                                                    l
                                                                                                    I
       rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
       policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
       similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
       entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
       The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
       the project is begun.
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING smh'EY
(

    Name of Political Subdivision:       TRA
                                        ~~~---------------------------------

    Water Management Strategy Name:            Tarrant County Reuse

    Capital Cost:     $1,326,000


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100% ________.

    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _____________

    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?

       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _______

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                    1
       The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
       rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other looe.I plans and
       policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
                                                                                                    I
       similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
       entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
       The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
                                                                                                    I
       the project is begun.
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
c                                                                                                   I
,
I

,                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



        Name of Political Subdivision:       _TRA::..::::.;==-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I       Water Management Strategy Name:            Grapevine Lake Reuse Phase I

I       Capital Cost:     $1,000,000


I       1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?
I          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100% _ _ _ __

 I      2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
 I         and tax increases?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
           management strategy identified above?
    I      The political subdivision cafHlot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)


           The final decisions regarding fmancing are based on several factors, including interest
           rates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
           policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
           similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
           entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
           The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
           the project is begun.
                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
(


     Name of Political Subdivision:        TRA
                                          ~~~------------------------------

     Water Management Strategy Name:             Grapevine Lake Reuse Phase II

     Capital Cost: __. ;:.$.:. 0________________________________________


     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax:
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _100010 _ _ _ __

     2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax: increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ __________'
(-   3, How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __                                I
     4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional      I
        sheets, if necessary)

        The final decisions regarding financing are based on several factors, including interest
                                                                                                     I
        Tates, project schedule, total project cost, compatibility with other local plans and
        policies, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent years, projects
        similar to this have used local financing. However, the users of this project should be
                                                                                                     I
        entitled to use the state program if it helps the project and meets criteria for funding.
        The balance of all factors will be determined and the final decision made just before
        the project is begun.
                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                     I

                                                                                                     I
I

,
I                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



     Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

I    Water Management Strategy Name:            Cedar CreeklRichland-Chambers          pipeline
                                                expansion (Phase I)

I    Capital Cost:     $24.681.000


I    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I       water management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est. 100%).
 I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
I       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax increases?

 I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
I       management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
I    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)

        Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
        cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
        with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
        years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
        However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
        the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
        TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
        TWDB funding.
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

Water Management Strategy Name:            Cedar CreeklRichland-Chambers          pipeline
                                           expansion (Phase II)

Capital Cost:     $233,967,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $(est. 100%).

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?                                                                         1
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                              1
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?
                                                                                              I
   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,      I
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                              I
   Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
   cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
   with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
                                                                                              I
   years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
   However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
   the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
                                                                                              I
   TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
   TWDB funding.                                                                              I

                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I
    Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

I   Water Management Strategy Name:            Reuse (Phase I)


I   Capital Cost:     $34,294,000



I   1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $(est. 100%).


I   2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
I   3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

I   4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I      Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
       cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
I      with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
       years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
       However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
I      the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
       TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
       TWDB funding.
I
I
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

Water Management Strategy Name:            Reuse (Phase II)

Capital Cost:     $40,874,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est. 100%).

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              i
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water      I
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __                              I
4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional    I
   sheets, if necessary)

   Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project    I
   cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
   with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
   years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
                                                                                              l
   However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
   the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
   TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
                                                                                              I
   TWDB funding.
                                                                                              a
                                                                                              a
I
I                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I                                         TRWD
     Name of Political Subdivision:

I    Water Management Strategy Name:            Marvin Nichols I (Phase I)


I    Capital Cost:     $402,081.000



I    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?
I       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est. 100%).


I    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I       and tax increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
I    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?
I       The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

I    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)
I       Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
        cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
I       with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
        years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
        However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
 I      the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
        TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
        TWDB funding.
 I
 I
J
1
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

Water Management Strategy Name:            Marvin Nichols I (Phase II)

Capital Cost:     $271,285,000
                                                                                              I
1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                              ,
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est. 100%).                                 l
2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
                                                                                              1
   and tax increases?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                                                              l
3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional    I
   sheets, if necessary)

   Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project    I
   cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
   with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
   years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
                                                                                              II
   However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
   the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
   TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
                                                                                              I
   TWDB funding.
                                                                                              II
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY


I   Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

I   Water Management Strategy Name:            Oklahoma Water


I   Capital Cost:     $99,931,000



I   L Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
      increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
      water management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est 100%),


I   2, If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
I      and tax increases?

       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __
I   3, How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
I      The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

I   4, For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)
I      Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
       cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
I      with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
       years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
       However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
I      the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
       TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
       TWDB funding.
I
I
I
I
                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



Name of Political Subdivision:       TRWD

Water Management Strategy Name:            West Fork Connection

Capital Cost:     $60,539,000


1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
   increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
   water management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ (est. 100%).

2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
   the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         1
   above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
   and tax increases?
                                                                                              l
   The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

3. Howmuch of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water       l
   management strategy identified above?

   The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _______'

4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
   if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
   sheets, if necessary)

   Project financing decisions will be based upon various factors, including total project
   cost, interest rates, current debt service requirements, project schedule, compatibility
   with other local plans, etc. as they exist at the time the decisions are made. In recent
   years, TRWD projects similar to this have proceeded utilizing local financing.
   However, the users of this project should be entitled to use programs administered by
   the Texas Water Development Board, if it is beneficial to the wholesale customers of
   TRWD, would support completion of the proposed project and meets criteria for
   TWDB funding.
                                                                                              1*
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              a
I
I                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
  (
I
      Name of Political Subdivision:        UTRWD
I     Water Management Strategy Name:              Lake Chapman (Costs included with
                                                   Irving's cost to connect to Lake Chapman)
I     Capital Cost: $:.....:,.0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


I     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I        water management strategy identified above?

         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
I     District will reimburse Irving for our share o/the cost/rom rate income over the life 0/
      the asset. Current rates may have to be increased to provide adequate/unds.
I     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
~­       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
         and tax increases?

I        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

      Not Applicable since construction is undenvay. State Participation will not apply.
I     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water

I        management strategy identified above?

          The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

I     Not Applicable, see answer to No. 1.


I     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
         sheets, if necessary)
 I    Not Applicable, see answer to No. 1.

 I
 Il
  J
                      WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
(

        Name of Political Subdivision:       UTRWD

        Water Management Strategy Name:              Buy Lake Chapman water in 2050 from
                                                     City of Commerce (Casts iaeluded with
                                                     h ....iag' s cast ta C6f1f1ect t6 Lake CfiapHU'di)

        Capital Cost: Unknown at this time.


        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

           To be determined by circumstances and negotiations at the time.

        2. !fyou could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
           and tax increases?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        To be determined by circumstances and negotiations at the time.

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
           management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _~
                                                                                                          l
        To be determined by circumstances and negotiations at the time.                                   I
        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
           ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional.
           sheets, if necessary)
                                                                                                          I
        To be determined by circumstances and negotiations at the time.                                   I
                                                                                                          I
    l
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          I
I
I                    WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
 (
1
     Name of Political Subdivision:          UTRWD
I    Water Management Strategy Name:               Indirect reuse of Chapman water


I    Capital Cost:   $;,...;I:l.,O..;...O:....:O"'"',O:....:O~O_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __




I    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?
1       The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

 I      District can pay for total amount

     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, ho:w..much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        State Participation not neefled.

,    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        District can pay for total amount

     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
        if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)

         District can pay for total amount




 l
                                                                                                             I

("
        WA TER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                                               I
     Name of Political Subdivision:            UTRWD
                                                                                                             I
     Water Management Strategy Name:                 Expand water treatment plan & transmission
                                                     capacity by 2010
                                                                                                             I
     Capital Cost:   $:....7;..:9-'-,4.:..;.7...:.9.z.;,0;..:0...:.0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __   I
     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax                 I
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
        water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                             I
        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        District can afford to pay approximately one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.               I
     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified                   I
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
("      and tax increases?
                                                                                                             I
         The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        District will need State Participation for at least one-half of the costs.
                                                                                                             I
     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                             I
         The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __                                         I
         Cannot afford to pay for more than one-half of the capital cost ofthe strategy.

     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                                                                                                             I
        ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)                                                                                I
         Texas Water Development Board participation in excess (future) capacity ofsystem
         improvements and Texas Water development Board Loans.                                               I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
I
                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY



      N arne of Political Subdivision:          UTRWD

      Water Management Strategy Name:                  Expand water treatment plan & transmission
                                                       capacity by 2020
I     Capital Cost: $:.. ;1:..:2:;:3..!. :,7. ,:.7. ;:6:..:,0. ;:0.:. 0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


I     1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
         increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I        water management strategy identified above?

          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
I         District can afford to pay approximately one-halfof the capital cost of the strategy.

I     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
         the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
         above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
~~,      and tax increases?

          The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I         District will need State Participation for at least one-half of the costs.

I     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
         management strategy identified above?

I         The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

          Cannot afford to pay for more than one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.

      4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
         ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
         sheets, if necessary)                                                                 .

          Texas Water Development Board participation in excess (future) capacity of system
          improvements and Texas Water development Board Loans.
                                                                                                                 I
(
                      WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                                      1
    Narne of Political Subdivision:             UTRWD
                                                                                                                 I
    Water Management Strategy Name:                    Expand water treatment plan & transmission                I
                                                       capacity by 2030

    Capital Cost: $:. . ;9:. . :9-1.;,9;. ;6:. :.9. :. ;,0:. . :0:. : .0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax                      I
       increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
       water management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                                 I
        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        District can afford to pay approximately one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.
                                                                                                                 I
    2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
       the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
                                                                                                                 I
       above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
       and tax increases?                                                                                        I
        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'

        District will need State Participation for at least one-half of the costs.
                                                                                                                 I
    3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
       management strategy identified above?
                                                                                                                 I
        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

        Cannot afford to pay for more than one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.

    4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
       ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
       sheets, if necessary)                                                                                     I
        Texas Water Development Board participation in excess (future) capacity of system
        improvements and Texas Water development Board Loans.                                                    I

                                                                                                                 .
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 I
I
I                   WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY
 (
I
     Name of Political Subdivision:       UTRWD
I    Water Management Strategy Name:            Expand water treatment plan & transmission
                                                capacity by 2040
I                                              _
     Capital Cost: $_9'-9-'-,9_6....;.9-'-,0_0_0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


I    1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax
        increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
I       water management strategy identified above?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __
I       District can afford to pay approximately one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.

     2. If you could access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
        the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified
        above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
        and tax increases?

        The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __


,       District will need State Participation for at least one-half of the costs.

     3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
        management strategy identified above?

I        The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _'


I
,
         Cannot afford to pay for more than one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.

     4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, wha.t option(s) is proposed? What,
        ifany, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
        sheets, if necessary)

         Texas Water Development Board participation in excess (future) capacity of system
         improvements and Texas Water development Board Loans.
(
                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING SURVEY                                          -II
        Name of Political Subdivision:       UTRWD

        Water Management Strategy Name:            Expand water treatment plan & transmission
                                                   capacity bv 2050

        Capital Cost: $_7-'5....:.,9_6_4'-'-,0_0'-'0'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __          I
        1. Using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate and tax       III
           increases, how much of the capital cost is the political subdivision able to pay for the
           water management strategy identified above?

           The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ __

           District can afford to pay approximately one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.     I
        2. IfYQu..couid access the State Participation Program, how much of the capital cost is
           the political subdivision able to pay for the water management strategy identified         II
           above using current utility revenue sources, including implementing necessary rate
(   .      and tax iacreases?

            The political subdivision can afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ __

           District will need State Participationfor at least one-half of the costs.

        3. How much of the capital cost is the political subdivision unable to pay for the water
           management strategy identified above?

            The political subdivision cannot afford to pay $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

            Cannot afford to pay for more than one-half of the capital cost of the strategy.

        4. For the costs the political subdivision cannot pay, what option(s) is proposed? What,
                                                                                                      II
           if any, state funding sources would the political subdivision consider? (use additional
           sheets, if necessary)                                                                      I
            Texas Water Development Board participation in excess (future) capacity oj system
               improvements and Texas Water development Board Loans.                                   II
                                                                                                       II
                                                                                                       II
                                                                                                       I
          Appendix B
Follow-up Contact Documentation
                                                                                         Table B·1
                                                                                   IFR Survey Contact Log


                                                                                                 Message Left                                         Date of
                                        Telephone                                    Spoke with on V oicemail or        Actions Taken by             Follow up
        WUGName      Contact Person      Number         Fax Number      Date Called   Contact? with Assistant?             Consultant                  Call        Follow up Action     Receive Survey
                                                                                                   yes/no and
                                                                                                 which method E-mailed or faxed survey;
                                                      (if applicable)                  yes/no         used       contact a different individual                                         (date received)
Dallas (D WU)     Terrace Stewart     214-670-3144                    February          yes                      E-mailed survey.                                                         411912002
                                                                                                                 Spoke with Larren Clayton.
                                                                                                                 Mr. Clayton said Judge
                                                                                                                 Jackson will not be responding
Dallas County     Judge Lee Jackson   214-653-7011                           2n12oo2     no         Assistant    to the survey.


Denton            Howard Manin        940-349-8230                          21512002      No          Voicernail                                     211112002


Little Elm        Mike Gibson         972-294-1821                          2/512002      Yes                      None                              2127/2002


Southlake         Pedram Farahnak     817-481-2320                          2/512002      No          Voicemail                                      2/1112002   Completed over phone     211112002


Ennis             Steve Howerton      972-878-1234    972-875-9086          21812002      No          Assistant    Faxed to Sylvia.                                                       211412002
                                                                                                                   Discussed Ellis Co. Project.
                                                                                                                   Advised Ferris that the capital
                                                                                                                   costs would be financed by
                                                                                                                   TRA for the purpose of this
Ferris            Charlie James       972-544-21 iO                         216/2002      Yes                      survey. No response is needed.                                            NA
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,
                                                                                                                   Faxed copy. Advised that
                                                                                                                   capital costs would be                                                                 I

Italy             Lyall Kirton        972-483-7329                          21612002      Yes                      financed by TRA.                                                          NA


Howe              Steve McKay                                               215/2002      Yes                                                                                             21712002
                                                                                                                   Faxed copy. Advised that
                                                                                                                   capital costs for Ellis Co
                                                                                                                   project would be financed by
MaYl"'ari         Linda Jackson       972-435-2380                          21612002     Yes                       TRA.                                                                   21812002


Waxahachie        David Bailey        972-937-7330                          2/6/2002      No         voicemail                                       211212002




                                                                                                                                                                                                          B-1
                                                                                        Table B-1
                                                                                  IFR Survey Contact Log


                                                                                                  Message Left                                        Date of
                                        Telephone                                   Spoke with   00Voicemail or             Actions Taken by         Follow up
     WUGName         Contact Person      Number       Fax Number    Date Called      Contact?    with Assistant?               Consultant               Call       .'ollow up Action   Receive Survey


Fairfield         Mike Gokey          903-389-2633   903-389-6327        2/6/2002      No             voicemail                                      2112/2002   Faxed     surv~y        21 I 212[X)2

                                                                                                                                                                 Faxed to Melinda
Kemp              Norman Oliver       903-498-3191   903-498-3209        21612002      No             Assistant                                      211512002   Oliver.                 2/17/2002


Terrell           Sonny Groessel      972-551-6635                       216/2002      No             Assistant                                      2115/2002   Left message            2/25/2002

Deer Creek
Waterworks        Doyle Handley       817-551-6635                       2/6/2002      No             Assistant                                                                          2113/2002


Parker Co-Other   Mark Riley          817-598-6148                       216/2002      No             Assistant                                      2115/2002   Left message

                                                                                                                   Returned call. Faxed letter and               On staff agenda for
Springtown        Rebecca Young       817-220-4834   817-523-3179        2/612002      No             yoicemail    survey.                           2115/2002   2119/02


Parker CUD # 1    Al Swan             817-220-5585                       21812002      No              Brother                                                                           211112002


Weatherford       Kraig Kahler        817-598-4250                      2/612002       Yes                                                           2/812002                            2/14/2(X)2


Benbrook SWA      David Wasson        817-249-1250   817-249-6965       2nJ2002        Yes                         Faxed copy.                                                           2/11/2002


Kennedale         Linda Royster       817-478-5418                      2nl2002        Yes                                                           2115/2002   Left message


Pelican Bay       Nancy Nold          817-444-1234                      2nJ2002        Yes                                                           211512002



Westlake          Trent Petty         817-430-0941                      21812002       No             voicemail                                      211512002   Left message

                                                                                                                   Completed survey over the
Alvord            Ricky Tow           940-427-5916                      2/8/2002       Yes                         phone.                                                                2/8/2002

                                                                                                                   Completed survey over the
Aurora            Tresia Kelly        817-638-2465                      2/8/2002       Yes                         phone.                                                                2/8/2002


                                                                                                                                                                                                        lJ-2
                                                                                       Table B-1
                                                                                 IFR Survey Contact Log


                                                                                               Message Left                               Date of
                                       Telephone                                   Spoke with on Voicemail or         Actions Taken by   Follow up
      WUGName       Contact Person      Number       Fax Number    Date Called      Contact? with Assistant?             Consultant         Call       Follow up Action     Receive Survey
                                                                                                                                                     Bridgeport will fax
Bridgeport       David Turnbow       940-683-5906                       2/8/2002      Yes                                                211112002   survey                   211412002


Newark           Chris Cromeo        817-489-2201                       2/8/2002      No          Assistant                              2115/2002


Community WSC    Doris Hollyfield    817-444-2112                       2/812002      Yes                                                                                     2114/2002
                                                                                                                                                     E-mailed survey and
                                                                                                                                                     faxed example of
Fort Worth       Dale Fisseler       817-871-8207                     2/1112002       No         Assistant                               212712002   completed survey         4/2412002


TRWD             Jim Oliver          817-335-2491                     211112002       No         VoicemaiI      Faxed copy, 2112102      2/2712002                            4/22/2002

                                                                                                                                                                                             I
TRA              Danny Vance         817-467-4343                     211112002       No           E-mail                                2127/2002   E-mailed survey           3/6/2(MJ2     I


                                                                                                                                                                                             I
NTMWD            Jim Parks           972-442-5405                     211112002       No         Assistant                               2/26/2002                            3/25/2002


GTUA             Jerry Chapman       903-786-4433                     211112002       Yes                                                                                     2/15/2002


Midlo(hian       Jim Grigsby         972-775-7105                     211112002       No         Assistant                                                                    211112002


Keller           Ed Ischlner         817-431-1055   817-431-9225      211112002       No         Assistant      Faxed letter.            212712002   Completed over phone      31112002


~!ield _ _ ~ _   Bud Ervin           817-477-1210                     2/1112002       Yes                                                                                     2112/2002
                 --------




                                                                                                                                                                                             8-3
                                                                                                                                                                       Table 8-2


           Water U.., .. Group   I County
                                     NIUDe
                                                I       APAI
                                                        Survey
                                                        (0=110.
                                                                       _....
                                                                       hlitially


                                                                       So""             ..."M ........
                                                                                            .....
                                                                                        FoUowup
                                                                                                      S«ond
                                                                                                      Followup
                                                                                                                  CODtactTltle
                                                                                                                  (MrlMrslMs)
                                                                                                                                   Cnalad
                                                                                                                                  FirstN_
                                                                                                                                               Contact La5t
                                                                                                                                                     N._
                                                                                                                                                              APAI IFR Survey Followup Log

                                                                                                                                                               Coalactln
                                                                                                                                                               Confirm
                                                                                                                                                              Address, Etc.
                                                                                                                                                                              Fine Telephone
                                                                                                                                                                                 FoUowup
                                                                                                                                                                                 ContKa
                                                                                                                                                                                                F.Kd Copy 01
                                                                                                                                                                                               SUlYer After First
                                                                                                                                                                                                  TelephoBe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Fir.;t i'oiIowup Commenl                       "'.m!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Tdephooe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   FoUowup
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Faud Copy of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Suf"fty Arkr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Second Telephone
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I                Sftond Followup Comment



                                                        I=yes)

                                                                  y
                                                                  N
                                                                        (YIN)



                                                                                   N
                                                                                                                 M,.
                                                                                                                 M,.
                                                                                                                                  ..,
                                                                                                                                 Wilben
                                                                                                                                             Sellman
                                                                                                                                             Block
                                                                                                                                                               114/02 VLS
                                                                                                                                                               1/4102 VLS
                                                                                                                                                                                    NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                2J71fJ2 VLS
                                                                                                                                                                                                   FoUowup

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Returned SIII"IC .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     No answer. Could nOl.lea~e a me~~age
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    CanlKl

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 lf20102 BKM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Fnllowup

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Mr. Block n:quc.ted another copy of the ~urvey



                                  Coo",
 Muel\~lcr                                                        N                N                             M,              Linda       Wehb              1/4102 YLS       217102 VLS                           Some confu"on about whemer ,une) received. 11                2120102 BKM                          \...,u ~ Rl'''dge for ~h W~hb
                                  Cook<                                                                                                                                                                              ""II.!; ~ceived
Valley View                                                       N                NA                            M,.             Royo;e      Martin            114102 VLS       217/00 VLS                           Valley V", ... buy. all of its walU from Iht Bolivar            NIA                               NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     WSc. TherefOR:, Valley Vicw will see 110 capil~1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    COSts, and lhey do not need 10 be sUl'\leycd. CapilllJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    costs will be borne by "Coumy-Othcr."

Coumy-Otller                                                                                                                                                                                                         Left a me>.~ge for Judge Fr~man                         I    2120mSKM I                        Iludse Freeman ..aId thallbe county" "nol m the water
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     bu~incss." I e~plamed the rea>:on why he had been ~lecled
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     10 receive the survey. Judge Freeman requesled another
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     wpy of the survey I »em a new copy oflhe sUl'\ley thai
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     mcluded the waler management Slrat~gy to ~rve Valley
                                 lfOOke                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              View
 Bonham                          I                                N                N                             M,              Mike        GI=               114/02 VLS       217102 VLS             Y             Mr. Gl~ requCl>led anOlber copy of the sUl'\ley             2120102 BKM                         uft a me"age for Mr. Gla"



                                  Fannm
 Ho~
l<_d
          Gro~e                   Farmin                          Y
                                                                  N
                                                                                                                 M,.
                                                                                                                 M,.
                                                                                                                                 "",
                                                                                                                                 BulCh
                                                                                                                                             Mom".,n           IM/o2 VLS
                                                                                                                                                               1/4/02 VLS
                                                                                                                                                                                   NIA
                                                                                                                                                                               211fCJ2 VLS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    NIA                                                              NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       r\/A
                                                                                   Y                                                         Henderson                                                              TIle City of Leonard has .JJrc:iKIy I1:turncd their                                                NlA
                                  Fannin                                                                                                                                                                            '"~ 10 Freese.l: Nichols.
 Sa~o                             Fannm                           N                N                             M,              Jim         Garretson         1/4102 VLS      217!O2 VLS                           Left a mesS<! for Mr. Garretson                              2120102 BKM                          Remmdl'd Mr. (larre,,,,n 10 re~d the surVey
                                                                                                                 M,
Trenlon                                                           N                N                  WiUNOI                     L""         D~~is             114/02 VLS      217102 VLS                           Lefl a message for Mayor Da~i,.                              2I20I02 BKM                         Lefl a me''"'ge for Mayor DI~IS. A rc:presenlali~e of Ill.:
                                                                                                      Respond                                                                                                                                                                                                       Clly ofT rc:nton lold me Ihal Ma~or DI~i~ ha.~ nOi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    completed Ihe >urvcy and Ih31 sbe thinks he does nut
                                  Fannm        .J.                I                I              I                                                                                                                                                                                                                  lR1CIllI In do ... ,
County-Other·                    I              I'                IN               IN             I
                                                                                                                 The Honorable Derrell
                                                                                                                 M,.
                                                                                                                                             Han               1/4/02 VLS      217/02 VLS                           Ldt a message for Judge H.JJI                                2120102 HKM    Yes, ",nt a copy to Left I mc:s:.age for Judge Hall. Judge Hall rClumed my (all
                                                                                                                               David         Bam::u                                                                                                                                             Mr. DaVId Barren ,along wilh Mr. Da,'ld BarrcII and lold me Illal Mr. Barren.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    the chairm311 of the: local W~lCr conlJol and iml'm~"mcnt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    dlstnct formed 10 e~alu:l1e Water supply i~,ue\ In Fannin
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Count~. would be lhe be,t per~on w re.pond to the ~urvey
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Mr. B~1Tl'1\ requ(\lrd I copy of li">e 'I.rvey .md em~i1ed "'"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    a descnpuon of waleJ pruJecb under con,iJeralion in
                                  Farmin                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            fumrr.£ounIV,
8<1"                                                              N                N                             M,.             David       Draper            1/4/02 VLS      217102 Vl.S                          Mr. Draper rcque~led anOlhcr copy of the ~ul'\ley            2120/02 BKM                        Left Imc~"ge lur Mr. DJ~per
                                  Grayson
Collinsville                      Gra son           I             N                N                             M,              M,'"        Paltt;rson        J/4/Q2 VLS      217fCJ2VLS                           Left amc:s!Ia for Mr. Panerson                               2I2OI02BKM                         Left a mc:,,,, r for Mr Paucp,on
iGunter                                                           N                N                  GTUA       M,              James       Donohoe           1/4102 VLS      217102 VLS             Y             Mayor Donohoe reque~trd another copy of the                  2120102 BKM                        Ms~or Donohoe forwarded [h., sUl'\lcy for the C1IY of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    survey.                                                                                         Gunl~   10 Mr JefT)' Cllapm311 lithe Grc:.u"r Tu .... nla

H._                               Grayson
                                  Gra son           \             N                                              M,.             Steven      McKa             \/4/02   VLS     217102 VLS                           Left   i mc:~s     e r.... r Mr. McKa                            NIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    UUhl ""III""ly
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    NIA
Luella                            Gra son                         Y                                              M,              W=,         Williams         1/4/02   VLS         NIA                              NlA                                                              NIA                            NIA
Poruboro                          G.~                             N                N                    Y        M,              Denise      Smith            1/4102   VLS     217!02 Vl.S                          Left a messa e for Ms. Smith.                                2120102 8KM                        Ms. SmUll r uesled another c         oflhe surve .
Southmayd                                                         N                N                  GTUA       M,.             Billy       K<IT             1/4/Q2   VLS     217!02 VLS                           Left a meS5allc for Mayor Kerr.                              212002 BKM                         Left a lTItlio.age for Mayor Kerr. Mayor Kerr rc:turned my
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   !call and said that he forwatdc:d the ~ul'\ley for the City of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Southmayd 10 Mr. letT)' Chapman II the GrealerT
                                  Grayson                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           UhlilVAuthoril
ITi"Oia                           Gra.....,o        I             Y                                              M,.             Siank       K,m              114102 VLS           NIA                              NIA                                                             NIA                             NIA
ITom Bean                                           I             N                N                             M,              Catherine   Robles           1/4/Q2 VLS       217Ir:11.VLS                         Ms. Robles will check 105eC if the survey lias been          212OO2BKM             Y            Ms. Robles requc,trd anOlller copy of [h., survey
                                  Grayo;on                                                                                                                                                                          ~lumed.
IVan Alstyne                                        I             N                N                             M,.             David       Hall             114102VLS        217102 VLS                           Mr. Hall says that the survey has been returned.             2120102 BKM                        Mr. Hall lias I.!iked the Cily Administrator to complete tile
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~urvey. He will check 10 liCe if Illis hal; been done_ Mr. Hall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    said tllal Van Alstyne IS growing quickly and does 001 ha~e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    much m<lfIey available w keep up witll currenl irowdL Van
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Al\tyne lIa, a 101 of agms watc:r pIpe
                                  Grayson       !                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                D-4
                                                                                                                                                                Table B-2
                                                                                                                                                       APAI IFR Survey Followup Log

        Water User Group            I County
                                      Name
                                                I   APAI
                                                    Suney        ........ .........
                                                                 Initi.Uy          fl'"
                                                                                 FoU01I'up
                                                                                             ""~.
                                                                                             FoUowup
                                                                                                        CoDlact Til'"
                                                                                                        (MrlMrs/Ms)
                                                                                                                        I  Contact
                                                                                                                          First Name
                                                                                                                                         Conuel Lasa
                                                                                                                                             N.~
                                                                                                                                                        Contact 10
                                                                                                                                                        Contino
                                                                                                                                                                      flrstTelepbonel
                                                                                                                                                                        FoUowop
                                                                                                                                                                                          FuedCopyol
                                                                                                                                                                                        Survey After First
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           first follo""\Ip C(IJIlIJIenl
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      "'00'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TeIqlbone
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Fued Copy or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Suney After
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~und     t'llIlo,.lIp Comment

                                                    (0=00.
                                                    I=yes)
                                                                  S."'"
                                                                  (YIN)          50"",
                                                                                             Returned
                                                                                              Sunoey
                                                                                                                                                       Addrns, Etc.      u.otact            Telephone
                                                                                                                                                                                            Followup
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Followup
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Contact
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Sn:oDd Telephone
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Follo.. op
                                                                                  fYlN)      .J.YiliL
Whitesboro·                                                                 N                           'I"             Do,            ,Zielke          1/4/02 VLS      217102 VLS                           Left mei\,~e for Mr. ZIelke.                          Zll0J02 BKM                      Ldla me~-.lge for Mr. Z,eI~e, Mr, ZIelke returned my c~1J
                                                                                                        M"              A)~            Bame~                                                                                                                                                        and said that he h,,-, forwarded the ~"rvey to Mr. Alan
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Bames. the City Manager for Whjte~boro Left J me~'agc
                                    Grayson                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         for Mr. Barne~
Whitewright                                                  N                                          Mr.             IBili          Good.'>On        114102 VLS      211102 VLS              y            Mayor Goo.::bon requested      aoo~1   copy of (he    2120102 BKM                      Mr Good~on .'Jld lhal ht h..., r>o, yel re~ponded to the
                                    GrilV50ll                                                                                                                                                                survey.                                                                                ,urvey. H~ ,~ys matjjnance, ~r~.".real light"
County-Other                                                 N              IN                GTUA      11le Honomble IHorace          Groff            1/4/02 VLS      217102 VLS                           left mes.'>iI8e for Su<.lge Groff.                    2I20J02 BKM                      Ldt a mc:"age for Judge Groff. Judge Grofr~ !>ecretary
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .'ald that lhe Judge hJ.... forwarded the '"rvey for Gray.wn
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    County to Mr. Jerry Ch~pman alII", Greater Tt~om~
                                    Gr~Y'.on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Utrlnv AUlhnrit
Grc~lerTexoma Utility   Authority   Grayson                                                             'I"             Jerry          Chapman                                                                                                                    2120102 BKM                       Fr..'<!>ot & Nichol, ,uf'.'eyed tht GTUA. but bccJu,e ,..;vnul
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     water uscr group' h~ve forwanJed thtlr survey, 10 Mr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Jerry ChapmJn al GTUA. r called Mr. Chapm.. n to dl'CU"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     them, He ,aId thaI many of the .. maller wluer u>er group'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    arc nOI famIliar WIth thr: "'Jler management ,Irates""
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     proposed fur Ihem and do nOI lnow where tho.: capilal ""1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     number.; come from, In Jddllion.1lI' "lid Ihal il is d,fli<:ult
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    for my ptrwnncllo fnrtca,t funtlmg .'<Jurce' for Ihe nnl
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     50 yeID




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              E-5
    Appendix C
Financing Mechanisms
Appendix C - Financing Mechanisms


       This appendix reviews funding programs available to water users in Region C for
water supply infrastructure projects. For each program discussed below, the purpose of
the program, eligible applicants, restrictions on the use of funds, the loan maturity, the
interest rate, and the total available funding are reported where available. Water users that
are interested in one of these programs should contact the program manager to determine
whether additional restrictions apply.

1.0    Market Financing

       Market financing through local bank loans and municipal bonds that are repaid
through increased fees and revenues are the primary mechanisms for funding municipal
infrastructure projects. This funding mechanism places the burden of paying for the
capital improvements on the beneficiaries of the project. It also provides for local control
in the implementation and timing of the needed improvements. Private and local
financing (both taxable and tax-exempt) will continue to be an integral component for
financing water infrastructure, especially for non-municipal users. This is because most
non-municipal water users are involved in for-profit activities, and most public water
supply infrastructure funding programs are available only to non-profit entities. It will be
necessary for many non-municipal users to locate private financing sources.




2.0     Texas Water Development Board Programs

        Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) programs are targeted towards
political subdivisions and non-profit water supply corporations and districts. Three
programs benefit colonias and state-designated economically distressed areas. Since
Region C does not have any colonias or economically distressed counties, these programs
would not be applicable. Other programs specific to municipalities include the Drinking
Water State Revolving Loan Fund, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program


                                                                                         C-l
(CWSRF), Development Fund II Water and Wastewater Loan Program, State
Participation Program (SPP), and the Water Infrastructure Fund.

       Five TWDB programs that may provide indirect benefits to non-municipal users
are the CWSRF, SPP, Agriculture Water Conservation Loans, the Rural Water Assistance
Fund, and the Water Infrastructure Fund. The CWSRF and the SPP provide assistance for
development of wastewater recycling and reuse projects. With the exception of livestock
water use, the non-municipal water uses are well suited for wastewater reuse projects. In
particular, the Region C Water Plan I recommended nine reuse strategies to supply water
for steam electric power generation in eight counties.

       Each of these TWDB programs is discussed below.

Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund

       The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) provides low interest
loans to finance projects for public drinking water systems. Additional subsidies are
available for disadvantaged communities.       The purpose of this program is to assist
applicants in providing water that meets drinking water regulations. Applicants may be a
political subdivision of the state, non-profit water supply corporation, privately owned
water system or state agency.

       The loans can be used for planning, design and construction of projects to upgrade
or replace water infrastructure, purchase additional capacity, and/or purchase land
integral to the project. This land could be for the construction of the project or to protect
the source water from potential contamination, such as nitrate contamination of a
municipal well field.

       Applicants to the DWSRF program must submit an information form to the
TWDB each year for inclusion in the TWDB's intended use plan for the year. The
TNRCC prioritizes potential DWSRF projects and funding is distributed based on the
priority rating and applicant's readiness to proceed. The interest rate is 1.2 percent below
open market and the maximum repayment period is 20 years after completion of
construction. The DWSRF program has a budget of approximately $606 million in 2002.



                                                                                         C-2
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program

        The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) provides low-interest
loans for planning, design, and construction of wastewater recycling and reuse facilities 2 .
The applicant for assistance from the CWSRF program must be a political subdivision.
Therefore, any reuse project to provide reclaimed water for non-municipal users must
also benefit a political subdivision, and the political subdivision must plan, design, and
construct the project.

        Applicants to the CSWRF program must submit an information form to the
TWDB each year for inclusion in the TWDB's intended use plan for the year. The
TWDB identifies priority projects and requests funding applications for these projects.
Depending on the source of funds, interest rates vary from 0.7 percent to 1. 7 percent
below market interest rates. The maximum repayment period is 20 years after completion
of construction. The CWSRF program has a budget of approximately $400 million in
2002.

State Participation Program

        Deferred interest loans from the TWDB's State Participation Program may be
used for regional systems where the project sponsors are unable to assume debt for an
optimally sized faciliti. In return for state participation, the TWDB may acquire
ownership interest in the project. The benefits of assistance from the State Participation
Program include deferred payments until the customer base grows into the project
capacity and no interest on the deferred payments. TWDB participation is limited to the
maximum of the excess project capacity or 50 percent of the project. Remaining costs
may be eligible for funding from other TWDB programs.

        Applicants must be political subdivisions or water supply corporations that are
sponsoring construction of a regional project, which may include new water supplies,
reuse or transmission from a developed supply. In Region C, this program may be
applicable to new reservoir projects, regional projects in Cooke, Grayson and Collin
Counties and regional reuse projects. For non-municipal users, a political subdivision
must take the lead. Applications are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. An


                                                                                         C-3
application must consist of an engmeenng feasibility report and environmental
infonnation, as well as general, fiscal, and legal information.

       The maximum repayment term for assistance from the State Participation
Program is 34 years. The repayment schedule may be obtained from the TWDB. State
Participation Program funding will vary depending on funds received from ongoing
participation projects.

Texas Water Development Fund II

        The Development Fund II is a pure state loan fund used for financing water
supply, water quality enhancement, flood control and municipal solid waste. This
program provides financing for water supply infrastructure as well as acquisition of water
rights. The applicants can be political subdivisions of the state and water supply
corporations with applicable projects.

        Interest rates for the loans will vary depending on the length of the loan and other
factors. The maximum length of a loan is 50 years. System revenues and/or tax pledges
are typically required to secure the loans.

Agriculture Water Conservation Loans

        Under this program, the TWDB loans money to borrower and lender districts,
such as soil and water conservation districts, irrigation districts and underground water
conservation districts. In turn, these districts make loans to individual borrowers to
purchase and install more efficient irrigation equipment on private property for
                                              4
agricultural water conservation purposes          •   Eligible applicants include soil and water
conservation districts, underground water conservation districts or districts authorized to
supply water for irrigation. Although only these public entities may apply for funding
under this program, the purpose is to encourage lending to individual borrowers.
Therefore, non-municipal water users may indirectly benefit from this funding program.

        Funds may be used for the following purposes: capital equipment or materials,
labor, preparation costs and installation costs to improve water-use efficiency in existing
irrigation systems; preparing irrigated land to be converted to dryland conditions;


                                                                                            C-4
prepanng dryland for more efficient use of natural precipitation; brush control; and
precipitation enhancement programs.

        The interest on the loan to the district is tied to the TWDB's cost of funds. In
February 2002, the TWDB interest rate for an agricultural loan was 2.16 percent. The
interest rate on the district's loan to a borrower is up to I percent greater than the
district's interest rate. Since 1995. the TWDB has loaned $37.1 million to 17 districts
across the state.

Water Infrastructure Fund

        Senate Bill 2, passed in 2001 during the    77th   Session of the Texas Legislature,
created a Water Infrastructure Fund and a Rural Water Assistance Fund. Using the Water
Infrastructure Fund, the TWDB will provide funding at below-market interest rates for
water management strategies recommended in the state or regional water plans. Only
political subdivisions are eligible to apply. Therefore, to use funds from this program to
implement a recommended water management strategy for non-municipal users, a
political subdivision must lead the project.

        Funds may be used for eligible projects and for planning and design costs,
permitting costs, and other costs associated with state or federal regulatory activities with
respect to a projects. An eligible project is "any undertaking or work, including planning
and design activities and work to obtain regulatory authority, to conserve, mitigate,
convey, and develop water resources ofthe state, including any undertaking or work done
outside the state that the board determines will result in water being available for use in
or for the benefit of the state. s"

        The Water Infrastructure Fund is a new program and is not yet funded.

Rural Water Assistance Fund

        Using the Rural Water Assistance Fund, the TWDB will provide low-interest
loans for development of rural water supplies or for regionalization of rural water
supplies. Eligible applicants are rural political subdivisions, defined as a "nonprofit water
supply or sewer service corporation, district, or municipality with a service area of 10,000
or less in population or that otherwise qualifies for financing from a federal agency or a

                                                                                         C-5
county in which no urban area exceeds 50,000 in population. 6" Non-municipal water
users are not eligible for this program, but these users may be able to work with eligible
rural political subdivisions to obtain funding for water supply infrastructure projects.
Joint applications between a rural political subdivision and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Texas Department of Agriculture, or the Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs are permitted.

        Funds may be used for the following purposes: water or water-related projects,
including the purchase of well fields, the purchase or lease of rights to produce
groundwater, and interim financing of construction projects; to enable a rural political
subdivision to obtain water supplied by a larger political subdivision or to finance the
consolidation or regionalization of neighboring political subdivisions, or both; or as a
source of revenue for the repayment of principal and interest on water financial assistance
bonds issued by the board if the proceeds of the sale of these bonds will be deposited into
the fund 6 . The term of the loan cannot exceed 120 percent of the average estimated useful
life of the project.

        The Rural Water Assistance Fund is a new program and has recently been funded
with an initial $25 million.




3.0     U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs

        The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers the Farm Ownership program
(through its Farm Service Agency), the Rural Utilities Service, and the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Program. Each of these is discussed below.

Farm Ownership Program

        The Farm Ownership program provides direct loans or loan guarantees to be used
for purchase of farmland, construction or repair of buildings or other facilities,
development of farmland to promote soil and water conservation, or refinancing of debt.
Eligible applicants must be U.S. citizens; must have sufficient education, training, or
experience in managing or operating a farm or ranch; must be unable to get credit


                                                                                       C-6
elsewhere; must not have received debt forgiveness from the Farm Service Agency (with
some exceptions); must not be delinquent on any federal debt; and must be the owner or
tenant operator of a family farm after the loan closes 7 .

        The maximum loan guarantee amount is the lesser of 90 percent of the loan
amount or $759,000. The maximum direct loan amount is $200,000. The maximum term
of the loan is 40 years. The interest rate is negotiated with the lender and must not exceed
the rate charged to the lender's average farm customer. Under the Interest Assistance
program, the Farm Service Agency may subsidize 4 percent of the interest rate.

Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants

        The Rural Utilities Service Water and Environmental Programs division provides
loans, grants, and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
storm drainage facilities in rural areas or in cities of 10,000 people or less 8 • Eligible
applicants are public bodies, non-profit organizations, and recognized Indian tribes. Non-
municipal water users are not eligible for this program, but these users may be able to
work with eligible public bodies, non-profit organizations, or recognized Indian tribes to
obtain funding for water supply infrastructure projects.

        Direct loans and grants have been set aside for communities along the U.S.-
Mexico     border     designated    as    "colonias;"    areas   designated   Empowerment
Zones/Enterprise Communities and Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; certain
projects where at least 50 percent of the users of the facility/project are Native
Americans; rural Alaskan villages; and water emergencies and disaster relief.

         Loans and grants may be used to construct, repair, modify, expand, or otherwise
Improve water supply and distribution systems and waste collection and treatment
systems, including storm drainage and solid waste disposal facilities; acquire needed
land, water sources, and water rights; and pay costs such as legal and engineering fees
when necessary to develop the facilities 8 .

         Grants may be made for up to 75 percent of eligible project costs. The maximum
term of a loan is the lesser of 40 years or the useful life of the facilities being financed.



                                                                                         C-7
The interest rate may be a poverty rate of 4.5 percent, a market rate, or an intermediate
rate, depending on the project.

       In Fiscal Year 2001, the Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal
program provided nationwide approximately $883 million in direct loans, $75 million in
guaranteed loans, and $564 million in grants.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program

       The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, also known as the
Small Watershed Program or the PL566 Program, is operated by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). This program provides grants and technical assistance to
local sponsoring organizations, state, and other public agencies to voluntarily plan and
install watershed-based projects on private lands9 . Eligible watershed projects include
watershed protection; flood prevention; water quality improvements; soil erosion
reduction; rural, municipal and industrial water supply; irrigation water management;
sedimentation control; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement; and creation and restoration
of wetlands and wetland functions 9 . Eligible applicants include state or local agencies,
counties, municipalities, towns or townships, soil and water conservation districts, flood
prevention/flood control districts, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, or other
governmental subunits. Projects are limited to watersheds containing no more than
250,000 acres 10.

        Although only governmental subunits may apply for funding, projects funded
under this program are targeted at private land and can be used for rural and industrial
water supply. Therefore, this program is indirectly applicable to non-municipal users.

        Projects involving more than $5,000,000 of federal assistance or involving a
single structure having a storage capacity of more than 2,500 acre-feet require approval
from Congress lO • Other plans are approved administratively. Typical projects entail $3.5
million to $5 million in federal assistance lO .

        In Fiscal Year 2000, the funding available from the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Program was an estimated $99.4 million nationwide.



                                                                                         C-8
4.0    Texas Department of Agriculture Programs

       The Texas Department of Agriculture administers the Texas Capital Fund
Infrastructure Development Program. Funding from this source may be used for water
supply infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Texas Agricultural Finance
Authority (TAFA), a public authority within the Texas Department of Agriculture,
administers the following finance programs: the Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure
Development Program, the Linked Deposit Program, the Rural Development Finance
Program, Loan Guaranty Program, and the Young Farmer Loan Guarantee Program.

       The Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program and the Linked
Deposit Program specifically mention use of funds for water supply infrastructure
projects. The Rural Development Finance Program, the Loan Guaranty Program and the
Young Farmer Loan Guarantee Program do not specifically mention water supply
infrastructure projects, but the rules are very general, and this use of funds may be
acceptable. At the very least, funding from these programs may allow non-municipal
water users to shift funds from other uses to water supply infrastructure projects. Each of
these programs is reviewed below.

Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program

       The Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program provides grants to
non-entitlement communities to assist in economic development. Eligible applicants
include incorporated city or county governments that are not entitled to receive
Community Development funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. In addition, eligible cities must have a population of less than 50,000
people. Non-municipal water users are not eligible for this program, but these users may
be able to work with eligible city or county governments to obtain funding for water
supply infrastructure projects.

       Funds from the Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program may be
used for public infrastructure to assist a business that commits to create and/or retain
permanent jobs, primarily for low- and moderate-income persons. Funding may be used
for the following public infrastructure improvements: water and sewer; road/street


                                                                                       C-9
improvements; natural gas lines; electric, telephone, & fiber optic lines; harbor/channel
dredging; purchase of real estate related to infrastructure; drainage channels and ponds;
pre-treatment facilities; traffic signals and signs; and railroad spurs II.

        Award amounts are directly related to the number of jobs created and to the
matching funds available. In the regular program, the minimum award is $50,000, and the
maximum award is $750,000. Up to an additional $750,000 may be awarded if the
project creates a sufficient number of permanent jobs (the "jumbo" program). The award
may not exceed 50 percent of the total project costs.

Linked Deposit Program

        The T AF A Linked Deposit Program encourages private commercial lending at
below market rates. The Linked Deposit Program is an interest buy down program and
not a guaranteed loan program 12. Eligible applicants are businesses that are in the
business Of12: processing and marketing agricultural crops in Texas; producing alternative
crops in Texas; producing agricultural crops in Texas, the production of which has
declined markedly because of natural disasters; producing agricultural crops in Texas
using water conservation equipment; developing water conservation projects; or
providing nonagricultural goods or services in a rural area.

        Eligible water conservation equipment includes: underground pipe; in-line valves;
pipe increaserslreducers; gate valves; fittings and bushings; flow meters and accessories;
complete circular watering systems; drip irrigation systems complete with installation;
and any other equipment which can be identified and verified as water conservation
equipment for use within the state J2 . Eligible water conservation projects include: brush
control projects, stock tank renovation or construction; dam renovation or construction;
or any other project that can be identified as a water conservation project J2 .

        Maximum loan amounts range from $250,000 to $500,000, depending on the use.
The interest rate is "determined on the date the loan is funded and based on matching the
loan maturity date to the closest treasury bill/note maturity date or the end of state's fiscal
biennium (August 31 of each odd numbered year)." 12




                                                                                          C-I0
Rural Development Finance Program

       The T AF A Rural Development Finance Program provides loans and loan
guarantees to municipalities, water supply corporations and non-agricultural businesses
located in rural Texas. Eligible applicants must be located within Texas and must
"provide significant benefits for rural areas, show evidence of creation or retention of
employment, and prove evidence of reasonable equity in the project. 13" Eligible political
subdivisions include a non-metropolitan statistical area, unincorporated area, or city with
a population under 20,000 that does not adjoin a city or group of cities with an aggregate
population of 50,000 or more l4 .

       Funds may be used for purchase of land, improvements, equipment, water and
wastewater systems, municipal infrastructure projects, and other projects that can be
identified to improve or assist in the economic development of rural areas. Loan amounts
range from $100,000 to an amount determined by the lender and the T AF A. The
Authority Board approves the interest rate, and the terms of the loan are determined on a
case-by-case basis. Projects financed with anticipation notes have a maximum maturation
of 30 years from the issuance of the notes.

       Two other T AF A programs are similar to this one: the Direct Loan Program and
the Participation Purchase program. Information about these programs is available from
the Texas Department of Agriculture.

Loan Guaranty Program

        The TAF A Loan Guaranty Program provides "financial assistance through loan
guarantees to agricultural businesses that are, or propose to be, engaged in innovative,
diversified, or value-added production, processing, marketing, or exporting of an
agricultural product or other agricultural-related rural economic development projects. IS"
Eligible applicants must be located within the state and must "provide significant benefits
for Texas agricultural products, show evidence of creation or retention of employment,
and prove evidence of reasonable equity in the project. 14" Funds may be used for the
purchase of real estate, improvements, equipment and working capital. Loan guarantee
amounts range from $30,000 to $5 million. The typical interest rate for this program is


                                                                                      C-ll
the Wall Street Journal Southwest Edition prime rate plus 2 percent. The maximum term
of the loan is 20 years or the life of the assets being financed.

Young Farmer Loan Guarantee Program

        The TAFA Young Farmer Loan Guarantee Program provides loan guarantees to
applicants wishing to "establish or enhance their farm and/or ranch operation or establish
an agricultural-related business. l b Applicants must be at least 18 years of age but less
than 40 years of age. Funds may be used to "provide working capital for operating the
farm and/or ranch including the lease of facilities and the purchase of machinery and
equipment, or for any agriculture-related business purpose, including the purchase of real
estate for the agricultural-related business, as identified in the plan. IS" The maximum
loan amount is $250,000. Interest rates are determined by the lender and approved by the
TAF A. If eligible, the applicant and lender may apply for the Interest Reduction Program,
which reimburses the applicant up to 3% of the fixed interest rate. The maximum loan
term is 10 years or the useful life of the assets being financed.




5.0     U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
        Public Works Program

        Through its Economic Development Administration (EDA) Public Works
Program, the U.S. Department of Commerce provides "direct grants, on a cost-share
basis, for projects that will create and retain private-sector jobs and leverage public and
private investment in distressed areas. 17 " Funds may be used for public works and
development facilities to support industrial, commercial, and technology-based
employment. In particular, water and sewer systems for industrial use are eligible for
funding. Eligible applicants include units of state and local government, Indian tribes.
economic development districts, public and private non-profit organizations, universities,
and other institutions of higher learning.

        Although non-municipal water users are not strictly eligible for funding, projects
funded under this program are targeted at industrial and commercial development and can


                                                                                      C-12
be used for public works facilities to support this development. Therefore, this program is
indirectly applicable to non-municipal users.

       Projects must be consistent with the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) approved by the EDA for the project area. Applicants must develop a
preapplication for review by the EDA that shows how the project will address economic
development needs and objectives outlined in the CEDS. Upon approval of the
preapplication, applicants will be invited to submit a full application.

       Public Works Program grants generally require a 50 percent match from applicant
contributions, state and local grants and loans, general obligation bonds, and other public
       ·          ·b·
an d pnvate contn utlOns 16 .




6.0     U.S. Small Business Administration Programs

        Among other programs, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) offers the
7a Loan Guaranty Program and the Certified Development Company (504) Program. The
7a Loan Guaranty Program does not specifically mention financing for water supply
infrastructure projects, but the rules are very general, and this use may be acceptable. At
the very least, funding from the 7a Loan Guaranty Program may allow non-municipal
water users to shift funds from other uses to water supply infrastructure projects.

        Each of the SBA programs is reviewed below.

7a Loan Guaranty Program

        The 7a Loan Guaranty Program offers loan guarantees to small businesses that are
unable to secure financing on reasonable terms through normal lending channels 18. The
proceeds may be used for most business purposes, including purchase of real estate to
house the business operations; construction, renovation or leasehold improvements;
acquisition of furniture, fixtures, machinery, and equipment; purchase of inventory; and,
working capital 17 . The 7a Loan Guarantee Program is available to small businesses that
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. These include,
but are not limited to, retail and service businesses with annual receipts of $3.5 million to

                                                                                       C-13
$13.5 million, construction businesses with annual receipts of $7 million to $17 million,
agricultural businesses with annual receipts of $0.5 million to $3.5 million, wholesale
businesses with no more than 100 employees, and manufacturers with 500 to 1,500
employees.

        The maximum loan guarantee amount is $1 million, and the maximum loan to
which the guarantee may be applied is $2 million. For loans of $150,000 or less, the
maximum guarantee is 85 percent. For loans of more than $150,000, the maximum
guarantee is 75 percent. The maximum loan term is 25 years for real estate and
equipment and 7 years for working capital. Interest rates may be fixed or variable, and
they depend on the size of the loan. For a loan of more than $50,000, the interest rate
must not exceed the prime rate plus 2.25 percent if the loan maturity is less than 7 years
and must not exceed the prime rate plus 2.75 percent if the loan maturity is 7 years or
more.

Certified Development Company (504) Program

        The Certified Development Company (CDC) Program offers businesses long-
term, fixed-rate financing for major fixed assets, such as land and buildings 19 . A CDC is a
non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of economic development. There are
approximately 270 CDCs nationwide, each covering a specific geographic area. CDCs
that serve portions of Region C include the Central Texas Certified Development
Company, the Dallas Business Finance Corporation, the East Texas Regional
Development Company, Inc., the Fort Worth Economic Development Corporation, the
East Texas Certified Development Company,              and   the North Texas        Certified
Development Corporation2o .

        Proceeds from loans may be used for the following purposes: purchasing land and
improvements, including existing buildings; grading, street improvements, utilities,
parking lots and landscaping; construction of new facilities, or modernizing, renovating
or converting existing facilities; or purchasing long-term machinery and equipment 18 .
Eligible businesses must have a tangible net worth of less than $6 million and an average
net income of less than $2 million after taxes for the preceding two years. In general, the
business must also create or retain one job for every $35,000 provided by the SBA.

                                                                                        C-14
       A typical project includes "a loan secured with a senior lien from a private-sector
lender covering up to 50 percent of the project cost, a loan secured with a junior lien from
the CDC (backed by a 100 percent SBA-guaranteed debenture) covering up to 40 percent
of the cost, and a contribution of at least 10 percent equity from the small business being
helped. 18 " Loan maturities of 10 and 20 years are available. Interest rates are pegged to
an increment above the current market rate for 5-year and 1O-year U.S. Treasury issues.




7.0    Texas Department of Economic Development Programs

       The Texas Department of Economic Development offers several financing
programs, including the Texas Capital Access Fund, the Texas Industrial Revenue Bond
Program, and the Texas Enterprise Zone Program. Other programs are also available, but
these appear to be the most general in scope. None of these programs specifically target
water supply infrastructure projects, but each could allow non-municipal water users to
shift other funds to water supply infrastructure projects. Each of the above programs is
reviewed below.

Texas Capital Access Fund

       The Texas Capital Access Fund targets businesses and non-profit organizations
that face barriers in accessing capital. The program establishes a reserve account at a
lending institution to act as a credit enhancement. Eligible applicants include small
businesses (100 or fewer employees), medium businesses (l00 to 500 employees), or
non-profit organizations. Eligible applicants must be domiciled in Texas or have at least
51 percent of its employees located in the state. Proceeds from this program may be used
for "working capital or the purchase, construction, or lease of capital assets, including
buildings and equipment used by the business. 21 " The lender determines loan terms. The
state contribution to the reserve account may range from 100 percent to 200 percent of
the combined contribution of the borrower and the lender, depending on the project.




                                                                                       C-15
Texas Industrial Revenue Bond Program

        The Texas Industrial Revenue Bond Program provides tax-exempt bond financing
for land and depreciable property for industrial and manufacturing projects. Cities,
counties, and conservation and reclamation districts may form non-profit industrial
development corporations or authorities to issue taxable and tax-exempt bonds for
eligible projects in their jurisdictions22 .

Texas Enterprise Zone Program

        The Texas Enterprise Zone Program encourages job creation and capital
investment in areas of economic distress using state and local incentives. With the
exception of Wise and Jack Counties, enterprise zones have been created in every county
in Region C. Qualified businesses must be nominated for the program by a city or county
that governs the enterprise zone. A qualified business must be active within an enterprise
zone, and 25 percent of its new employees must live in the jurisdiction of the governing
body or be economically disadvantaged 23 . State incentives may include refunds of state
sales taxes or use taxes, franchise tax benefits, or franchise tax economic development
credits. The Enterprise Zone program also requires that the governing body offer at least
                                22
one local financial incentive        .




8.0     Corps of Engineers Assistance

        The Corps of Engineers has traditional been involved in large-scale flood damage
reduction projects through the construction of reservoirs. In Region C, there are nine
Corps-operated reservoirs. The Corps of Engineers offers federal financing opportunities
through partnering and constructing projects with a federal purpose. Examples of such
projects include new reservoir construction and wastewater reuse projects. The Corps can
participate in multipurpose reservoir projects through their existing flood damage
reduction, ecosystem restoration and water supply authorities. The cost sharing
agreements for reservoir projects may vary with the local sponsor and ability to pay.
Generally, under current policies the total non-federal interest should be a minimum of 35
percent of the project for flood control, 35 percent for the ecosystem restoration portion

                                                                                     C-16
of the project and 100 percent for water supply. Reservoir projects that are primarily for
water supply would not benefit from Corps assistance.

        Water supply through reuse could be sponsored with the Corps through the
ecosystem restoration authority. The purpose of this authority is to improve ecosystem
functions to produce environmental benefits. The proposed reuse projects in Region C
that utilize constructed wetlands could potentially qualify under this authority. For
ecosystem restoration projects, the federal contribution is 65 percent for that portion of
the project.




9.0     Local Economic Development Incentives

        More than 20 local economic development agencies in Region C offer incentives
for businesses to locate in certain areas. Incentives may include tax abatements, electric
rate discounts, economic development grants, sales tax rebates, permit/development fee
waivers, and infrastructure cost participation. The level of the incentives is generally
predicated on the number of jobs that the business will create, the average wage and the
gross payroll generated, the amount of capital investment, and the new taxes generated by
the project. Economic development incentives that are not specifically targeted toward
water supply infrastructure projects may still allow a potential water user to shift other
funds to water supply infrastructure projects.




         1   Region C Water Plan, prepared for the Region C Water Planning Group by Freese and Nichols,
Inc., Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., and Chiang, Patel & Yerby. Inc., Fort Worth, January 200 I.

        2    "Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program," Texas Water Development Board, available
online at http://www.twdb.state.tx.usiassistancelfinancialifininfTastructure/cwsrffund.htm. Austin, March
2002.

        3    "State Participation Program," Texas Water Development Board, available online at
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistancelfinancial/fininfrastructureiStatePalticipation.htm. Austin, March
2002.

                                                                                                     C-17
         4   "Agricultural Water Conservation Loan Program," Texas Water Development Board, available
online at http://www.twdb.state.tx.lls/assistallcelfinanciallfininfi·astructure/AgLoan.htm. Austin, March
2002.

         5   "Water Infrastructure Fund," Texas Administrative Code, Title 3 I, Chapter 382, available online
at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/rulesiCh382 0 I 02.pdf, March 2002.

         6   "Rural Water Assistance Fund," Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Chapter 384, available
online at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/rules/ch384 0 I 02.pdf, March 2002.

         7   "Farm Loan Programs," Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, available online
at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafl/default.htm. Washington, D.C., March 2002.

         8   "Water and Waste Disposal Programs Fiscal Year 200 I," Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, available online at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/docs/wwfact.pdf:
Washington, D.C., March 2002.

         9   "NRCS PL566 Watersheds," Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, available online at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/pI566/pI566.html. Fort Worth, March 2002.

         10   Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection, Second Edition, Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication EPA 841-B-99-003, Washington, D.C., December 1999.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund/wfund.pdf, March 2002.

         11   "Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program," Texas Department of Agriculture,
available online at http://www.agr.state.tx.us/eco/ruralecodevo/capitalfund/fininfrastructure.htm.
Austin, March 2002.

         12   "Linked Deposit Program," Texas Department of Agriculture, available online at
http://www.agr.state.tx.us/eco/financeagdevelopment/tafalfinlinked.htm. Austin, March 2002.

         13   "Rural Development Finance Program," Texas Department of Agriculture, available online at
http://www.agr.state.tx.us/ecolfinanceagdevelopment/tafa/finrdfp.htm. Austin, March 2002.

         14   "Rural Development Finance Program, Municipal Financing Options" Texas Department of
Agriculture, Fax received from Robert Kennedy (T AFA) to Simone Kiel (F&N), May 6, 2002.

         15   "Loan Guaranty Program," Texas Department of Agriculture, available online at
http://www.agr.state.tx.us/ecolfinanceagdevelopment/tafalfinloanguar.htm. Austin, March 2002.




                                                                                                        C-J8
        16   "Young Farmer Loan Guaranty Program," Texas Department of Agriculture, available online at
http://www.agr.state.tx.lls/ecolfinanceagdevelopment/tafa/finyfarmer.htm. Austin, March 2002.

        17   "EDA Preapplication Process," Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, available online at hup://www.doc.gov/edaJpdtllH6 preappQ      Abroch.pdt~   Washington, D.C.,
March 2002.

        18   "Financing Your Business -7a Loan Programs," U.S. Small Business Association, available
online at hup://www.sba.gov/financing/fr7aloan.html. Washington, D.C., March 2002.

        19   "Financing Your Business - Loan Programs - CDC/S04," U.S. Small Business Administration,
available online at hltp://www.sba.gov/financing/frcdcS04.html. Washington, D.C., March 2002.

        20   "Certified Development Companies for SBA 504 Program - TX," U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2000. Available online at http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Local-
Information/Certified-Development-Companies/cdctx.txt, March 2002.

        21   "Texas Capital Access Fund," Texas Department of Economic Development, available online at
hup://www.txed.state.tx.us/TexasCapitaIAccess/. Austin, March 2002.

        22   "Industrial Revenue Bonds," Texas Department of Economic Development, available online at
hltp://www.txed.state.tx.us/TexasIRBProgram/. Austin, March 2002.

        23   "Texas Enterprise Zone Program Application and Benefit Updates," Texas Department of
Economic Development, Austin, January 2002. Available online at
http://www.txed.state.tx.us/T exasEnterpriseZone/EZincentives. DOC, March 2002.




                                                                                                    C-19
 Appendix D
Correspondence
                   TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Nales H. Madden. Jr.. Chairman                                                                                          Jack Hunt, Vice Chairman
William W Meadows, Member                                        Craig D. Pedersen                                Thomas Weir Labatt Ill, Member
Dario Vidal Guerra, Jr., Member                                Executive Administrator                                E. G. Rod Pittman, Member

         May 9,2002


         Mr. James M. Parks
         North Texas Municipal Water District
         P.O. Box 2408
         Wylie, Texas 75098-2408

         RE:      Regional Water Planning Grant Contract Between the North Texas Municipal Water Dist.
                  (NTMWD) and the Texas Water Development Board (Board), Contract No. 2002-483-430,
                  Review of Draft Final Reports Entitied "North Texas Municipal Water District, Region C,
                  Infrastructure Financing Survey Report"

         Dear Mr. Parks:

         Staff members of the Texas Water Development Board have completed a review of the draft
         report under TWDB Contract No. 2002-483-430. As stated in the above referenced contract,
         the NTMWD will consider incorporating comments from the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
         shown in Attachment 1 and other com mentors on the draft final report into a final report. The
         NTMWD must include a copy of the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR's comments in the final
         report.

         The Board looks forward to receiving one (1) electronic copy, one (1) unbound single-sided
         camera-ready original, and nine (9) bound double-sided copies of the final report on this
         planning project

         Please contact Ms. Virginia Towles at (512) 475-2056 if you have any questions about this
         contract

         Sincerely,




         William F. Mullican, III
         Deputy Executive Administrator
         Office of Planning

         Cc:       Virginia Towles, TWDB



                                                                    Our Mission
  Provide leadership. technical sen,ices andfmancial assistance to support planning. conservation. and responsible development afwa/error Texas.
                                       ,   P.O. Box 13231 • 1700 N. Congress Avenue' Austin. Texas 787 J 1-3n I
                                                      Telephone (512) 463-7847 • Fax (512) 475-2053                             rJ:;
                                                        1-800-RELAYTX Ifor the hearing impaired)
                                                         URL Address: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us
                                                           E-Mail Address:info@twdb.state.lx.us
                                               TNRIS - The Texas lnfonniltion Gateway· ww\v.mris.state.tx.us
                                               A Member of 'he Texlis Geographic informaTioll Council (TGIC J                   ~ 11"-1,<.,,,1,,,,,,,,,..,.. ,,,,,,,,,,,
                                    ATIACHMENT 1
                           TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
                              TWDS Contract No. 2002-483-430

REPORT COMMENTS

1. The first sentence of Section 3 of the Region C IFR states "Based on the survey responses,
   the water users in Region C cannot afford to pay for approximately one-third of the capital
   costs identified for water supply infrastructure." This statement appears to be in conflict with
   the data provided in Table 1 located on Page 3 of the body of the report. Please confirm the
   correctness of this information or consider revising the report text to elaborate on how the
   on-third estimate was obtained.


2. Please submit a copy of the notice of the April 29, 2002 meeting approving the report.




                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
RESPONSE TO TWDB COMMENTS


  1. The wording was modified to reflect that the water user groups in Region C could
     afford to pay for approximately two-thirds of the estimated capital improvements.
     This estimate is based on the amount the respondents said they could afford plus
     the additional amount with State participation.

  2. A copy of the notice of the April 29, 2002 meeting follows this response. The
     notice was filed with the 16 county clerks, posted on the Texas Register Open
     Meetings site, sent to TWDB for posting, and posted at TRA Central.
               REGION C WATER PLANNING GROUP

                                     OPEN MEETING

                      MONDA Y, APRIL 29, 2002 AT 1:30 P.M.
                        THE MEETING WILL BE HELD AT
                   CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        6500 W. SINGLETON BOULEVARD
                             GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS


                                         AGENDA


I.      ROLLCALL


II.     APPROV AL OF MINUTES - MARCH 4. 2002


III.    PRESENT ATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT


IV.     RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT


V.      APPROVAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING REPORT


VI.     REVIEW POPULATION PROJECTION INFORMATION FROM TEXAS WATER
        DEVELOPMENT BOARD


VII.    REVIEW STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR NEXT ROUND OF PLANNING


VIII.   DISCUSSION

        a.   Confirm Date of Next Meeting
        b.   Other Discussion
        c.   Acknowledgement of Guests/Comments


IX.     ADJOURNMENT


                                       SUBMITIED BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
                                                            TERRACE STEWART
                                                            Chainnan
                                       DATE: April 22, 2002

POSTED BY:
DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:

								
To top