Heritage / Homestead Water Meeting Readout
Source transcript: 01-source-materials/meetings/2026-06-06-heritage-homestead-water-meeting/2026-06-06-heritage-homestead-water-meeting-transcript.txt
Meeting date: 2026-06-06

Bottom line from the meeting
The room moved toward testing a Heritage-controlled water path instead of treating a sale to Chalk Bluff as the default. The favored first path is a narrow facilities + 200 feet CCN or possibly facilities-only CCN, because it matches the system already being served, limits service obligations, and should be easier to defend than a large area-based CCN. Sale remains a fallback/comparator, but the next work is to find the actual maps, letters, draft application, and professional proof.

Direction that came out of the meeting
1. Start with facilities + 200 feet / facilities-only research, not a 500-acre area CCN.
2. Build a Water Supply Corporation structure for local control.
3. Keep the subdivision/plat route moving in parallel, especially for Isaac/Phase A1, but do not make the whole water plan about Isaac's sale pressure.
4. Check whether filing a Heritage CCN application would materially interfere with a possible sale path. If both can run without creating legal/process confusion, keep both alive until the facts force a decision.
5. Regather with paperwork/research on Tuesday.

People and roles mentioned
- Zeke: source for existing maps, agreements, and possibly the already-started CCN application. Also a possible licensed-operator candidate if he wants it.
- Zane: Waco/subdivision contact. Need him on the platting/Phase A1/three-lot route.
- Ray Young: engineer contact. Need engineering/capacity/upgrade clarity.
- Patricia Ferguson: Clifton-area attorney mentioned by Isaac; has water/municipal/WSC experience. Need her read on timelines, filing strategy, and whether a Heritage CCN filing hurts sale optionality.
- Alex: survey/map/plat source for phases and possible three-lot filings.
- Isaac French: interested private party/property owner with timing concern; useful research input, not the driver of the whole strategy.
- Noah Smith: Chalk Bluff board connection mentioned as potentially useful.

Claims and assumptions to verify
- Zeke says there is a signed Waco document or agreement, but it needs to be found and read.
- There is something from Ross, possibly an older letter or agreement, but it may be dated and may not be the exact document needed now.
- Chalk Bluff may not need to consent if it does not overlap, but a no-protest letter could remove a delay risk.
- Waco likely matters first because of the larger service-area position.
- Ross likely matters if the facilities/lines/parcels fall in Ross territory.
- The room discussed a PUC 30-day review clock and 180-day contested-case clock. This needs exact-law verification before relying on it.
- Attorney feedback reported by Isaac says new CCN work can still take 18-24 months best case in practice. That should be tested against the actual PUC rules and recent dockets.
- Facilities-only and facilities + 200 feet may be similar, but the exact difference and practical benefit needs to be verified.

Cost and operating points from the meeting
- Possible licensed operator budget discussed: about $15,000-$20,000 per year.
- Zeke was discussed as the best operator candidate if he wants the role; Streamline or another company/person was also discussed.
- The meeting repeatedly referenced roughly 45 existing meters and capacity for about 5 more, but this must be verified against the meter list and engineer/operator records.
- $20,000 meter/tap fees were discussed as a possible forward-looking pro forma assumption; actual rates/fees need to be set and documented.
- The meeting debated a $100,000 reserve/backstop idea. Isaac reported attorney feedback that the rule may not require one fixed cash number; instead the filing needs to demonstrate financial solvency through a pro forma, system donation, rates, expenses, and backing.
- The unclear upgrade item remains unresolved. The transcript references Zeke's $25,000-ish upgrade comment and reserve/tank/water-supply concerns, but does not clearly identify the exact work, engineer, reason, or scope.

Main timeline picture from the meeting
- Immediate: get maps, agreements, draft application, engineer/operator information.
- By Tuesday: regroup with paperwork/research.
- Near term: send exact PUC timing/legal question to Patricia Ferguson and ask whether the 30-day/180-day reading changes her 18-24 month warning.
- Filing prep target discussed: potentially 4-5 months if maps, letters, finance proof, operator, engineer, and application materials can be assembled quickly.
- Desired outcome target discussed: within 12 months if uncontested and if the packet is strong.
- Reality check: attorney-reported practical timeline is 18-24 months for new CCN work. The real delay drivers are likely deficiencies, protests/hearings, neighboring utility posture, and missing professional proof.

Subdivision / Isaac / Phase A1
- Isaac's issue was discussed, but Bro Carl did not want the whole plan framed around Isaac's deal.
- Still, the group wants a back-door or parallel subdivision path if the CCN process stalls.
- The possible route is to ask Zane about filing two or three lots at a time with road frontage, where it may be a replat/minor plat rather than the larger subdivision process.
- Need Alex/Zane to confirm road frontage, road standard, county/city requirements, and whether repeated small filings cause future problems.
- Phase A1 remains a Waco/subdivision question, not a Chalk Bluff question.

Documents to get from Zeke immediately
1. Existing Waco signed letter/agreement.
2. Existing Ross letter/agreement.
3. Chalk Bluff letter or older letter addressed to Waco.
4. Any draft CCN application already started.
5. Any maps already drawn, especially facilities + 200 feet / facilities-only maps.
6. Engineer documents, capacity notes, and upgrade scope.
7. Any correspondence with Waco, Ross, Chalk Bluff, PUC, TCEQ, or engineers.

Questions to send attorney / counsel
1. For a facilities + 200 feet or facilities-only CCN, what exact PUC timeline applies after filing?
2. Does the 30-day review clock apply to this filing type, or only to a sufficiency/admin review step?
3. If uncontested, what is a realistic order timeline from complete filing to granted CCN?
4. If contested, what are the fixed clocks and what can still drag beyond them?
5. Does filing a Heritage WSC CCN application make a later sale/transfer to Chalk Bluff materially harder?
6. What exact consents, releases, or no-protest letters should be gathered from Waco, Ross, and Chalk Bluff?
7. Is a no-protest letter enough, or does it need to be a service-area agreement / consent / release in PUC form?
8. What exact financial exhibits are required when the applicant is a new WSC receiving an existing system by donation?
9. What is the best entity structure: Heritage-owned WSC, member-owned WSC, cooperative, or another nonprofit utility entity?

Practical next actions
1. Phineas/Addison: keep building the packet from actual law, maps, application forms, and source docs.
2. Zeke follow-up: ask for everything by easiest method, not only folder upload.
3. Zane meeting: test Phase A1 / three-lot / road-frontage strategy.
4. Ray Young call: get actual engineering and upgrade scope, including any filtration/treatment/reserve/tank issue.
5. Attorney email: ask the timeline/filer/sale-option questions with the exact PUC rule attached.
6. Build five-year pro forma: 45 meters, 5 possible new meters, proposed rates, $15K-$20K operator, testing, electric, chemicals, repairs, insurance, admin, professional fees, and reserve/backer assumptions.
7. Decide first filing map: facilities + 200 feet vs facilities-only vs small area-based map.