Direction that came out

1. Start with facilities + 200 feet or facilities-only research, not a 500-acre area CCN.
2. Use a Water Supply Corporation structure for local control.
3. Keep Isaac/Phase A1 subdivision work moving on its own clock.
4. Check whether a Heritage CCN filing interferes with a possible Chalk Bluff sale path.
5. If filing prep and sale prep can run together, keep both warm until a written answer says they conflict.
6. Regather Tuesday with paperwork and source documents.

What this means operationally

• Zeke's work becomes the document pull, not the final authority.
• If a draft CCN application already exists, use it as the starting build file and audit missing attachments.
• Waco and Ross posture must be tied to the exact proposed map.
• Chalk Bluff remains a fallback, no-protest, interconnect, and sale comparator.
• Patricia Ferguson gets the timeline/legal-route questions.
• Ray Young or engineer source gets the upgrade/capacity questions.

June 6 internal meeting

• Lead path shifted toward Heritage-controlled WSC / facilities + 200 feet or facilities-only.
• Sale stays as fallback, but counsel must answer whether filing a Heritage CCN hurts sale optionality.
• Zeke is the document source: maps, agreements, draft application, engineer notes.
• The room specifically wants the actual CCN application if it was already started.
• Zane/Alex own the Phase A1 / road-frontage subdivision test.
• If local-control prep and sale prep can both continue without conflict, keep both lanes alive until the proof decides.
• Tuesday is the next paperwork checkpoint.

Chalk Bluff latest minutes

• May 12 minutes say Kathleen Dow reported everything looked good with Waco CCN and the next Waco update should be in July.
• May 12 minutes show CBWSC approved hydraulic mapping for $66,200.
• April minutes said that mapping/pressure-plane/hydraulic work should take about 20 weeks.
• April minutes also show CBWSC voted to move forward with a dual CCN map with Ross/RWSC.
• These support the "get actual maps and letters" lane; the signed Waco/Ross/Chalk package still has to be produced.

Project stance

• Keep Phase A1 moving in parallel with the WSC/F200 path.
• Ask Waco for three choices: serve Phase A1, consent/no-protest to our narrow route, or refuse in writing.
• Ask Zane whether a two/three-lot road-frontage filing can move faster than the full subdivision route.
• Ask Alex for the phase survey and road-frontage map needed to test that route.
• Use Isaac's deadline facts as schedule pressure, not as the reason to sell the whole water system.

Questions for Isaac / Zane / Alex

• What exact deadline or carrying cost is driving the sale clock?
• What proof would justify a 30-day pause before sale talks move forward?
• Has anyone asked Waco the narrow Phase A1 question in writing?
• What exact Waco document would let the parcel plat, title, and close?
• Can Phase A1 or nearby lots be filed two or three at a time with road frontage?
• Would repeated small filings create future subdivision problems?

Waco

City of Waco water CCN 10039 is the clear mapped gate. The planned F200 path needs Waco handled by consent, no-protest, dual certification, amendment, release, or another counsel-approved mechanism.

Ross

Ross WSC 11268 overlaps seven selected Halbert/Gholson/Homestead Gristmill parcels. The exact proposed F200 corridor must be checked before saying Ross is optional.

Chalk Bluff

Chalk Bluff WSC 10019 is an F200 facility-line CCN nearby. Current selected-parcel check does not show overlap, but Chalk Bluff still matters if the plan uses its facilities, interconnect, service, sale, or contract rights.

Chapter 67 WSC

• Nonprofit water/sewer corporation under Texas Water Code Chapter 67.
• Board-run, with members/customers and published rates/conditions.
• Fits the water job: own/operate facilities, apply for CCN, collect membership/tap/capital fees, keep local control.
• Still needs PUC-recognized authority before retail-billing conveyed lots.

Generic co-op

• Useful as plain English only if everyone means "member-owned utility."
• Texas Utilities Code Chapter 161 is for electric cooperatives, not a water CCN path.
• No evidence it reduces PUC/TCEQ/FMT burden for water.
• Creates avoidable confusion unless counsel says a different entity is better.

Why it stays warm

• The meeting raised a Lacy Lakeview mayor/data-center conversation tied to Brazos River access.
• Annexation could potentially bring sewer, road responsibility, and regional infrastructure capacity.
• Keeping the water system may make Heritage more valuable in that conversation, not less.
• It may become useful later if Heritage wants a larger service-area, city/incorporation, or regional utility strategy.

What must be written before it leads

• They identify the exact annexation/corridor route.
• They say who provides retail water and sewer after annexation, and under what authority.
• They identify every Waco/PUC/TCEQ action still needed.
• They put cost, capacity, rates, timing, taxes, road obligations, and required Heritage concessions in writing.
• They say whether the Heritage water system would be bought, contracted, connected, or left alone.

Useful leads from the call

• Engineers may be waiting on entity, ownership, contact, address, financials, and financial responsibility.
• Current system is reported around 45 meters, with about 5 more before capacity pressure.
• Zeke reports an engineer-related $20K-$25K upgrade estimate, but the item and trigger are not identified.
• Carl-source notes separately mention a filter-system upgrade around $30K-$40K.
• Zeke said he favors owning/managing the system if timing allows.
• Selling water to Chalk Bluff does not solve the separate sewer issue.

Claims to correct or prove

• "All three must consent" is not proven as a blanket legal rule.
• No PUC rule found creates a hard 45- or 50-meter CCN limit.
• $20K-$25K is not a budget until the engineer writes the scope, reason, and timing.
• Keep the $20K-$25K capacity/CCN estimate separate from the $30K-$40K filter estimate until the engineer confirms they are the same job.
• 18-24 months is an experience estimate, not a rule.
• Signed/draft agreements must be produced before relying on them.

Upgrade questions for Carl / Zeke

1. What exact component is this: filter, storage tanks, pressure, pump, treatment, controls, meters, backflow, sampling, or mapping?
2. Who gave the number and when?
3. What written engineer email, memo, quote, or plan/spec note supports it?
4. What problem does it fix: TCEQ compliance, PUC FMT proof, pressure, storage, peak demand, or added meters?

Why it matters

1. If required for TCEQ compliance, it may be urgent operations work.
2. If required for PUC CCN proof, it may belong in a capital improvement plan.
3. If required only for extra meters, it may not block a Phase A1/Waco written-answer sprint.
4. If it is just a rough capacity tweak, it should not drive a sale decision.

Use this in the room

• "The number is not the answer. The scope is the answer."
• "If this is TCEQ compliance, say so. If it is PUC FMT proof, say so. If it is capacity for new meters, say so."
• "We can test the Heritage-controlled path only if the engineer gives the item, reason, cost, and trigger."
• "Selling now because of an undefined upgrade is a bad decision."

Documents to pull

• Engineer email or memo behind the $20K-$25K number.
• Operator notes, TCEQ reports, sampling results, and any filtration/treatment deficiency.
• Storage, pump, pressure, well, permit, and daily/peak-demand numbers.
• As-builts, meter list, facility map, and old CCN map package.

Use our live numbers

• Start with reported 45 meters, then verify from the meter list.
• Put only the new taps Heritage would actually serve into Year 1-5; keep Waco/Phase A1 separate unless counsel says those lots belong in the Heritage filing.
• Separate operator cost, testing, electricity, chemicals, repairs, insurance, admin, and professional fees.

Backer math

• Minimum backstop equals the 5-year projected O&M shortfall.
• If required plant work exceeds $100K, add a signed funding commitment or loan approval for that work.
• Backer can cover temporary cash shortages only if the backer passes a leverage test.

Ask today

• Can the existing water-operation books be separated from church/property books?
• What is the real current rate and tap/connection fee?
• Are the $20K-$25K and $30K-$40K items under the $100K trigger alone or part of a bigger required CIP?

Dates we cannot skip

• The June 6 meeting raised a possible PUC 30-day review clock and 180-day contested-case clock; counsel needs to confirm exactly what those clocks apply to.
• If PUC says the packet is incomplete, the fix window is usually about 30 days.
• After notice goes out, people usually have 30 days to object or intervene.
• Newspaper notice runs two weeks, and proof of notice has its own deadlines.
• After a final CCN order, the map change must be recorded in county records by day 31.
• Sale/STM also has clocks: 120-day runway, at least 30-day intervention, and 180-day closing window.

What is mostly on us

• There is no required waiting period before filing. We can move as fast as the packet is complete.
• There is no guaranteed PUC order date after filing.
• PUC speed depends on clean maps, clean finances, clean notice, and no protest.
• TCEQ only becomes a major timing problem if real construction, treatment, or system changes must be approved first.

Leadership / Carl

1. Has anyone already pursued the narrow F200 route, or only a broader route?
2. Has Waco ever been asked the narrow Isaac/Phase A1 question in writing?
3. Where are the signed Waco agreement, drafted Chalk Bluff agreement, Ross correspondence, and old maps?
4. Who at Waco can give a written posture?
5. What relationship exists with Ross, and who is trusted there?
6. What exact document does county/title/lender need before lots can move?
7. Can we get water-specific books today: current cash, AR, AP, debt, net assets, rates, fees, and O&M?

Isaac / Zane / Alex

1. What exact deadline or carrying cost is creating sale pressure?
2. What Waco answer or plat proof would change that timing concern?
3. Can Phase A1 or a smaller set of lots move by road-frontage/minor-plat route?
4. What road width, drainage, cul-de-sac, or county/Waco condition blocks it?
5. Would repeated small filings create future subdivision problems?

Zeke / engineer / counsel

1. Why exactly do Waco, Ross, and Chalk Bluff each need to sign?
2. What map was used for that conclusion?
3. What limits the next meters: well, storage, treatment, pressure, permit, or rules?
4. What exactly is the $20K-$25K upgrade, and is it the same as the $30K-$40K filter item?
5. Is the upgrade required before filing, before PUC approval, before adding meters, or only for long-term capacity?
6. What entity name and financial proof are you waiting on?
7. Does filing a Heritage WSC CCN application make a later Chalk Bluff sale/transfer harder?