NTMWD · Cost of Service & Population Dashboard

FY2026 Total Budget

$902,000,000

+$82,000,000 (+10.0%) from FY2025

Population Served (Water)

2,300,000

~55,000 new residents/yr

Wholesale Water Rate

$4.14 / 1,000 gal

Member Cities FY26 +$0.29 (+7.5%)

FY2026 CIP Spending

$1,770,000,000

Capital Improvement Program

Debt Service

$492,000,000

54.5% of total budget

Cash & Investments

$2,200,000,000

As of June 30, 2025

Water Year Demand

126,700,000,000 gal

Aug 2024 – Jul 2025 (record)

Authorized FTEs

426

RWS 155 · RWWS 163 · UEFIS 26 · SS 82

Budget Growth — FY2019 through FY2026

Total adopted budget · Full fiscal year · Whole dollars

FY2025 Q3 YTD (9 Months Ending June 30, 2025)

All systems combined · Source: NTMWD Quarterly Financial Report

Metric	Amount
Total Operating Revenue YTD	$622,000,000
Total Expenditures YTD	$551,500,000
Amended Budget (Full Year)	$828,000,000
Budget Spent (9 of 12 months)	66.9%
Cash & Investments Balance	$2,200,000,000
ECP Notes Outstanding	$317,000,000
ECP Projects Authorized	$904,000,000
Weighted Avg ECP Interest Rate	3.16%
Vacancies (June 2025)	54
Annualized Turnover Rate	15.3%
Positions Filled YTD	202
Investment Portfolio Yield (Q3)	4.38%
3-Month T-Bill Benchmark	4.29%
Retirement Fund Return (CY2024)	+13.6% (+$17,900,000)

District Profile

Special District of the State of Texas · Created 1951 · Wylie, TX

Authority:: Section 59, Article 16, Texas Constitution
Executive Director:: Jenna Covington
CFO:: Jeanne Chipperfield, Assistant General Manager
External Auditor:: Crowe, LLP (FY2024 ACFR accepted Feb 2025)
Board of Directors:: 25 members from 13 Member Cities (2 per city with pop 5,000+; 1 for under 5,000)
Service Area:: 2,200 square miles across 10 counties (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Fannin, Grayson, Hopkins, Hunt, Kaufman, Rains, Rockwall)
Water System:: 13 Member Cities + 34 Customer Cities/Utilities = ~80 communities, ~2,300,000 people
Wastewater Systems:: Regional WW (RWWS) + Upper East Fork Interceptor (UEFIS) + 12 Small Sewer Systems — ~1,600,000 people in 24 communities
Solid Waste:: 5 Member Cities (Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, Richardson) — ~980,000 people
Water Sources:: Lavon Lake, Lake Texoma, Jim Chapman Lake, Lake Tawakoni, Bois d'Arc Lake, East Fork Raw Water Supply
Treatment Plants:: Wylie WTP (largest), Leonard WTP (2023), Tawakoni WTP (2011)
Unaccounted-for Water:: 2.8% (2024) — best-in-class via LAMP pipeline maintenance program

FY2025 Amended Budget by Operating System — Programmatic Detail

NTMWD operates five distinct enterprise systems, each with separate budgets, rate structures, and cost recovery mechanisms. "Wastewater" and "sewer" are related but refer to different organizational units:
Regional Wastewater (RWWS) = large regional treatment plants serving multiple cities · UEFIS = the Upper East Fork trunk interceptor sewer conveying flows to RWWS plants · Small Sewer Systems = 12 individual community-level collection and treatment systems operated by NTMWD under contract. All three handle sewage, but at different scales and cost structures.

① Regional Water System (RWS)

$508,797,530

Wholesale treated water to 13 Member + 34 Customer Cities · ~2,300,000 population · 155 authorized FTEs
Rate: $4.14/1,000 gal (Members) · $4.19/1,000 gal (Customers) · Effective Oct 1, 2025

Cost Category	FY2025 Amended	YTD Actual (9 mo)	% of Budget
Personnel	$19,300,000	$13,800,000	3.8%
Salaries, benefits, retirement (avg 11 vacancies/mo)
Operations & Maintenance	$187,800,000	$119,600,000	36.9%
Chemicals (chlorine, ozone, coagulants — seasonal)	incl.	below budget
Electric Power & Fuel (pumping, treatment)	incl.	below budget
System Maintenance (LAMP pipeline program, WTPs)	incl.	below budget
Wholesale Water Purchases	incl.	favorable
Consulting & Legal (dewatering, surplus property)	incl.	below budget
Capital Outlay / Escrows / Debt Service	$301,700,000	$196,300,000	59.3%
Revenue Bond Debt Service (principal + interest)	major	below — ECP refunding delayed
Extendable Commercial Paper Program
ECP Limit: $700,000,000
Projects Awarded to ECP: $592,000,000
ECP Outstanding: $191,000,000 @ 3.16%
Vehicle & Equipment Purchases	incl.	delayed deliveries
TOTAL RWS	$508,797,530	$329,644,581	64.8%

Water sold YTD 2% higher than prior year. Rainy summer tempered peak demand. Lavon and Bois d'Arc above conservation levels.

② Regional Wastewater System (RWWS)

$130,962,250

Large regional wastewater conveyance & treatment · 24 communities · ~1,600,000 pop · 163 FTEs
Charges based on annual flows from each participating city · Year-end adjustment to break-even basis

Cost Category	FY2025 Amended	YTD Actual (9 mo)	% of Budget
Personnel	$14,500,000	$13,900,000	11.1%
Avg 12 vacancies/mo through Q3
Operations & Maintenance	$38,400,000	$36,500,000	29.3%
Industrial WW treatment (Rowlett Creek — excess ammonia from industrial discharge)	incl.	additional expense
Wilson Creek: Hydromantics Model Development	incl.
Wilson Creek: Odor Control Study	incl.
Wilson Creek: Plant 2 Dissolved Oxygen Control Engineering	incl.
Floyd Branch: Blower Building HVAC Design	incl.
Electronic O&M Manuals Development	incl.
Vertical Asset Mgmt — Condition Assessment (Influent)	incl.
Capital / Escrows / Debt Service	$45,300,000	$40,600,000	34.6%
Mesquite RWWTP — $554,000 generator equipment (carryover)	incl.
ECP: $400M limit · $259M awarded · $123M outstanding @ 3.17%
TOTAL RWWS	$130,962,250	$90,961,505	69.5%

③ Upper East Fork Interceptor System (UEFIS)

$62,523,435

Major trunk interceptor sewer carrying flows from multiple cities to regional treatment plants · 26 FTEs
Charges allocated to participating cities based on flows · Year-end break-even adjustment

Cost Category	FY2025 Amended	YTD Actual (9 mo)	% of Budget
Personnel	$2,600,000	$2,500,000	4.2%
Avg 1 vacancy/mo (26 budgeted positions)
Operations & Maintenance	$13,500,000	$11,900,000	21.6%
Condition Assessment Program	incl.	in progress
Erosion ID for UEFIS Pipelines	incl.	in progress
Odor & Corrosion Control Master Plan Update	incl.	in progress
Multi-Sensor Sewer Line & Manhole Inspections	incl.
Proactive Cleaning of Sewer Lines	incl.
Spring Creek Lift Station Force Main Condition Assessment	incl.
Indian Creek Force Main SmartBall Inspection	incl.
Capital / Escrows / Debt Service	$30,800,000	$29,800,000	49.3%
ECP: $150M limit · $53M awarded · $3M outstanding @ 3.16%
TOTAL UEFIS	$62,523,435	$44,179,577	70.7%

④ Small Sewer Systems (12 Individual Systems)

$71,131,585

Community-level wastewater collection & treatment operated by NTMWD under contract · 82 FTEs
Each city's charges based on allocated costs · Year-end break-even adjustment

Cost Category	FY2025 Amended	YTD Actual (9 mo)	% of Budget
Personnel	$7,200,000	$6,800,000	10.1%
Avg 6 vacancies/mo (82 budgeted positions)
Operations & Maintenance	$18,500,000	$15,800,000	26.0%
Sabine Creek WWTP — emergency blower switchgear replacement	unbudgeted	over budget
Sabine Creek WWTP — bar screen repair	unbudgeted	over budget
Sabine Creek WWTP — non-potable water pump rebuild	unbudgeted	over budget
Sabine Creek — higher electric power & polymer from expansion		above budget
Lavon (Bear Creek) WWTP — additional dewatering capacity		over budget
Lavon (Bear Creek) — solids handling for higher loads/compliance		over budget
Capital / Escrows / Debt Service	$27,700,000	$27,600,000	38.9%
TOTAL SMALL SYSTEMS	$71,131,585	$50,173,002	70.5%

⑤ Regional Solid Waste System

~$55,000,000 (est.)

121 Regional Disposal Facility (landfill) + Parkway Transfer Station + Melissa Transfer Station + McKinney Transfer Station
5 Solid Waste Member Cities: Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, Richardson · ~980,000 population

Attribute	Detail
Rate Basis	Cost per ton from each participating city
Year-End Adjustment	Actual cost per ton allocated; adjusted to break-even
Revenue Bonds	Solid Waste Revenue Bonds for system capital; repaid from system revenues
Landfill	121 Regional Disposal Facility (121 RDF) — state-of-the-art, active monitoring
Methane Recovery	Partnership with Morrow Renewables — landfill gas to clean-burning renewable natural gas
Odor Management	Morning & evening odor patrols, perimeter monitoring, emission-detecting drones, methane probes
Transfer Stations	3 stations (Parkway, Melissa, McKinney) open to public with real-time wait times
FY2022 Rate Change	Cost per ton held flat (no increase in FY2020, FY2021, FY2022)

All Systems — FY2025 Amended Budget (Full Year)

~$828,000,000

System	Amended Budget	YTD Actual (9 mo)	% Spent	Personnel	O&M	Capital/Debt
① Regional Water	$508,797,530	$329,644,581	64.8%	$19,300,000	$187,800,000	$301,700,000
② Regional Wastewater	$130,962,250	$90,961,505	69.5%	$14,500,000	$38,400,000	$45,300,000
③ UEFIS (Interceptor)	$62,523,435	$44,179,577	70.7%	$2,600,000	$13,500,000	$30,800,000
④ Small Sewer Systems	$71,131,585	$50,173,002	70.5%	$7,200,000	$18,500,000	$27,700,000
⑤ Solid Waste & Other	~$55,000,000	~$37,000,000	~67%	est.	est.	est.
ALL SYSTEMS	~$828,414,800	$551,958,665	66.9%	$43,600,000	$258,200,000	$405,500,000

Wholesale Rate History & Cost of Service Analysis

Wholesale Water Rate Trend — Member Cities ($/1,000 Gallons)

Customer rate is always $0.05 higher than Member rate

Comprehensive Cost per Capita — All Systems Combined

FY2026 uses adopted budget; prior years use adopted budgets. Per-month = annual ÷ 12. Per-1,000-gal = water budget ÷ est. gallons delivered.

FY	Total Budget	Pop Served	$/Capita/Yr	$/Capita/Mo	Water Rate $/1,000 gal	Δ from Prior	¢ Increase	% Increase
FY2017	$459,000,000	1,600,000	$287	$23.92	$2.56	—	—	—
FY2018	$480,000,000	1,650,000	$291	$24.24	$2.78	+$0.22	+22¢	+8.6%
FY2019	$494,000,000	1,700,000	$291	$24.22	$2.92	+$0.14	+14¢	+5.0%
FY2020	$526,000,000	1,800,000	$292	$24.35	$2.99	+$0.07	+7¢	+2.4%
FY2021	$536,000,000	1,900,000	$282	$23.51	$2.99	$0.00	0¢	0.0%
FY2022	$590,000,000	2,000,000	$295	$24.58	$2.99	$0.00	0¢	0.0%
FY2023	$648,000,000	2,100,000	$309	$25.71	$3.24	+$0.25	+25¢	+8.4%
FY2024	$743,000,000	2,200,000	$338	$28.14	$3.55	+$0.31	+31¢	+9.6%
FY2025	$820,000,000	2,250,000	$364	$30.37	$3.85	+$0.30	+30¢	+8.5%
FY2026	$902,000,000	2,300,000	$392	$32.68	$4.14	+$0.29	+29¢	+7.5%

Rate held flat for 3 years (FY2020–2022) during COVID and contract renegotiation. Since FY2023, rate has increased $1.15/1,000 gal (+38.5%) driven by $1.77B CIP.
Total budget cost per person per month has risen from $23.92 (FY2017) to $32.68 (FY2026) — a 36.6% increase over 10 years.

Rate Composition — $4.14/1,000 Gallons

Fixed vs. Variable components of the wholesale water rate

Fixed Costs (~85%)~$3.52/1,000 gal

Variable Costs (~15%)~$0.62/1,000 gal

Fixed: Debt service on revenue bonds, O&M labor, system maintenance, facility expansion, insurance
Variable: Chemicals, electric power for pumping/treatment, purchased water
Variable cost rebates issued annually if actual usage is less than budgeted contract amounts

Wastewater & Solid Waste Charge Methods

Each system uses a different rate mechanism

System	Rate Basis	Participants	Year-End Adj.
Regional Wastewater (RWWS)	Est. cost/1,000 gal based on budgeted flows; allocated by city	24 communities	Actual flows → break-even
UEFIS (Interceptor)	Est. cost/1,000 gal for interceptor conveyance	UEFIS participants	Actual flows → break-even
Small Sewer Systems	Allocated costs per individual system	12 community systems	Due to/from adjustments
Solid Waste	Cost per ton	5 cities (Allen, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, Richardson)	Actual cost/ton → break-even

Capital Improvement Program — FY2026

FY2026 CIP Total

$1,770,000,000

Water System CIP

$1,300,000,000+

73% of total CIP

Texoma Two-Step

$605,000,000

Two new pipelines

Maintenance / Rehab

$259,000,000

15% of CIP

Emergency Preparedness

$60,000,000

TCEQ / state compliance

CIP Spending Trend

Annual capital improvement investment

Texoma Two-Step Program Detail

Critical water supply expansion project

New Capacity:: +90,000,000 gallons/day pipeline capacity by 2029
Investment:: $605,000,000 for two pipeline corridors
Construction Start:: Late 2026
Completion:: Late 2029
Route:: Lake Texoma → Leonard WTP and Wylie WTP
Method:: Blend salty Texoma water with Lavon and Bois d'Arc Lake water
TWDB Savings:: Estimated $95,000,000 via Texas Water Development Board state funding
Eastern Service:: $250,000,000+ for Leonard WTP pump station & pipeline to Farmersville, Josephine, Nevada

FY2026 CIP by Category

Approximate allocation of $1,770,000,000

Texoma Pipes

$605,000,000

Other Water

~$700,000,000

Wastewater

~$250,000,000

Maintenance

$259,000,000

Emergency

$60,000,000

Population History & Estimates — NCTCOG 2025 Data + Texas Population Atlas Projections

Service Area

2,200 sq mi

10 North Texas counties

Annual Growth

55,000

new residents per year

Record Water Year

126,700,000,000 gal

Aug 2024 – Jul 2025

Water Loss Rate

2.8%

Unaccounted-for water (2024)

NCTCOG Population Estimates — All NTMWD Member & Major Customer Cities

Source: NCTCOG 2025 Population Estimates Publication (May 2025) · Exact NCTCOG numbers

City	Type	County	Sq Mi	2020	2025	PPA 2020	%BO 2020	2030	2050	2100	PPA 2100	%BO 2100
— 13 MEMBER CITIES (Water System Partners & Debt Guarantors) —
Plano	Member (1951)	Collin/Denton	71.58	285,494	299,262	6.23	77.9%	295,315	312,193	340,320	7.43	92.9%
Garland	Member (1951)	Dallas/Collin	57.08	246,159	251,932	6.73	84.2%	249,393	255,532	267,661	7.33	91.6%
Frisco	Member (2001)	Collin/Denton	69.10	200,509	235,615	4.53	56.7%	263,692	331,481	353,495	7.99	99.9%
McKinney	Member (1951)	Collin	62.21	195,308	226,181	4.91	61.3%	233,111	283,630	316,005	7.94	99.2%
Mesquite	Member (1951)	Dallas	46.02	150,108	157,436	5.10	63.7%	155,171	164,839	185,817	6.31	78.9%
Richardson	Member (1973)	Dallas/Collin	28.56	119,469	122,745	6.54	81.7%	123,081	129,114	138,570	7.58	94.8%
Allen	Member (1998)	Collin	26.29	104,627	107,328	6.22	77.7%	112,189	122,696	132,496	7.87	98.4%
Wylie	Member (1951)	Collin	21.04	57,526	62,918	4.27	53.4%	69,139	87,756	105,209	7.81	97.7%
Rockwall	Member (1951)	Rockwall	27.68	47,251	53,390	2.67	33.3%	58,429	82,226	125,223	7.07	88.4%
Princeton	Member (1951)	Collin	7.40	17,027	43,126	3.60	44.9%	24,711	34,471	37,837	7.99	99.9%
Forney	Member (1951)	Kaufman	13.14	23,455	31,224	2.79	34.9%	31,860	48,355	65,433	7.78	97.3%
Royse City	Member (1951)	Rockwall	15.01	13,508	24,313	1.41	17.6%	19,566	35,955	69,571	7.24	90.5%
Farmersville^S	Member (1951)	Collin	4.00	3,612	4,976	1.41^S	17.6%	6,201	11,471	22,759	6.47	80.8%
MEMBER SUBTOTAL (13)			449.11	1,464,053	1,620,446	—	—	1,641,858	1,899,719	2,160,396	7.49	93.6%
— SELECT CUSTOMER CITIES & UTILITIES (Water Purchasers — No Board Seats, No Debt Guaranty) —
Rowlett	Customer	Dallas/Rockwall	19.89	62,535	67,519	4.91	61.4%	67,179	75,572	90,178	7.08	88.6%
Little Elm	Customer	Denton	14.57	46,453	61,343	4.98	62.3%	59,427	71,409	74,598	8.00	100.0%
Prosper	Customer	Collin/Denton	22.58	30,174	46,087	2.09	26.1%	61,305	106,847	115,610	8.00	100.0%
Sachse	Customer	Collin/Dallas	9.79	27,103	30,630	4.33	54.1%	31,864	39,772	48,387	7.72	96.5%
Fate	Customer	Rockwall	5.81	17,958	28,772	4.83	60.4%	24,945	29,278	29,747	8.00	100.0%
Melissa	Customer	Collin	10.11	13,901	26,234	2.15	26.9%	27,192	47,282	51,763	8.00	100.0%
Murphy	Customer	Collin	5.65	21,013	21,172	5.81	72.6%	23,364	26,419	28,656	7.92	99.1%
Terrell	Customer	Kaufman	19.63	17,465	18,485	1.39	17.4%	18,984	22,324	32,386	2.58	32.2%
Sunnyvale	Customer	Dallas	16.54	7,893	9,491	0.75	9.3%	11,638	23,476	65,902	6.23	77.8%
Fairview	Customer	Collin	15.51	10,372	11,282	1.04	13.1%	15,078	28,888	67,038	6.75	84.4%
Lucas	Customer	Collin	12.60	7,612	8,378	0.94	11.8%	10,647	19,465	48,749	6.05	75.6%
Lavon^S	Customer (SUD)	Collin	2.40	4,469	11,396	2.91^S	36.4%	16,360	30,673	39,870	6.56	82.0%
Josephine^S	Customer	Collin	1.88	2,119	3,054	1.76^S	22.0%	4,402	9,763	16,461	3.96	49.5%
Caddo Mills^S	Customer (SUD)	Hunt	3.80	1,495	5,909	0.61^S	7.7%	8,885	18,086	24,342	6.34	79.2%
Parker^S	Customer	Collin	8.00	5,462	6,240	1.07^S	13.3%	6,689	8,326	11,440	2.10	26.3%
CUSTOMER SUBTOTAL (15)			168.76	276,024	355,992	—	—	387,959	557,580	745,127	6.36	79.4%
NTMWD GRAND TOTAL (28)			617.87	1,739,936	1,976,438	—	—	2,029,817	2,457,299	2,905,523	7.16	89.5%

Click any city name to open the Texas Population Atlas detail panel — full density timeline, absorption to build-out, projections to 2100, and analyst commentary.
Sq Mi = Census 2020 land area (corporate limits) · NCTCOG = NCTCOG 2025 estimates · PPA = persons per acre (2020 density) · %BO = absorption toward 8-PPA build-out capacity · 2030/2050/2100 = Texas Population Atlas v3 projections (CityBase.Net) · 2100 PPA & %BO use the Atlas's fixed-perimeter convention except for synthesized cities (annexation-aware land trajectory). · Italic + ^S = synthesized forecast (5 entities not in Atlas top-500; methodology below) · Subtotals/Grand Total: PPA/%BO at 2020 omitted because cross-city aggregates aren't meaningful at the city-density level; 2100 figures are population-weighted across the group's land area.
Lavon (+39.8%), Princeton (+29.6%), and Caddo Mills (+26.1%) are the fastest-growing communities in the NTMWD footprint.
Annexation caveat: Lavon and Josephine's small Census-2020 footprints (2.40 and 1.88 sq mi) underrepresent current effective area — both cities have annexed substantial master-planned-community land since 2020. Forecasts implicitly assume continued corporate-limit expansion.

Synthesis Methodology — Five Entities Not in Atlas Top-500

Texas Population Atlas v3 covers Texas's 500 largest cities · these 5 NTMWD entities required derivation

How the Forecast Is Built

Anchor on Census 2020 (hard baseline) + NCTCOG 2025 estimate (most recent observed)
Compute the observed 2020-2025 CAGR for each entity
Cap the forward CAGR at a peer-derived ceiling — recent 20-40% rates are not sustainable for 75-year windows in DFW exurban context (peer cities of comparable size and corridor exposure typically settle at 4-9% CAGR over 20-yr decadal windows)
Decay the CAGR by 35-60% per decade (mirrors Atlas v3 logistic curve flattening as cities approach build-out)
Constrain end-state population by an 8-PPA Atlas-standard build-out cap × land area; Parker uses 1-acre-min zoning ceiling instead
Cross-check against Texas Demographic Center Vintage 2024 county-level mid-scenario projections (Collin Co: 2.20M @ 2050, 2.90M @ 2060; Hunt Co: ~150k @ 2050) so city-level totals don't exceed the parent county envelope

Synthesized Forecast Summary

City	2025	2030	2050	2100
Farmersville	4,976	6,201	11,471	22,759
Lavon	11,396	16,360	30,673	39,870
Josephine	3,054	4,402	9,763	16,461
Caddo Mills	5,909	8,885	18,086	24,342
Parker	6,240	6,689	8,326	11,440
5-Entity Total	31,575	40,617	58,433	67,755

Click any synthesized city name above (italic, with ^S) to view full timeline, density, and methodology commentary.

Sensitivity: Annexation policy (corporate-limit expansion vs. ETJ retention), the regional housing-starts pipeline, NTMWD water-supply commitments, and infrastructure capacity (sewer, schools, roads) all swing these numbers by ±25%. Sources consulted: NCTCOG 2025 Population Estimates · Texas Demographic Center Vintage 2024 county projections · TWDB 2026 Regional Water Plan (Region C) population methodology · individual city comprehensive plans (Parker 2050, Josephine 2023, Farmersville master plan signals) · DR Horton plat filings · NCTCOG 2050 Demographic Forecast (City) — referenced but not fetched directly. Confidence: Higher for Parker and Farmersville (slow, predictable trajectories); moderate for Josephine and Lavon (depends on master-plan absorption pace); lower for Caddo Mills (Hunt County data sparser, 30%+ recent CAGR introduces wider error bars).

Service Area Population Projections

Texas Population Atlas v3 (CityBase.Net) · NTMWD Long Range Water Supply Plan horizon

At 55,000 new residents/year, service area population reaches approximately 3,700,000 by 2050 and 5,100,000 by 2075. Annual water demand could exceed 250,000,000,000 gallons. NTMWD maintains 25 water management strategies in its Long Range Water Supply Plan to address the next 50 years.

Texas Population Atlas v3 cross-check — bottom-up sum of the 23 member & major customer cities with Atlas coverage projects 1,987,280 by 2030, 2,378,980 by 2050, and 2,790,651 by 2100. Adding the 5 synthesized entities (Farmersville, Lavon, Josephine, Caddo Mills, Parker — methodology above) contributes ~42,537 by 2030, ~78,319 by 2050, and ~114,872 by 2100, plus unincorporated service-area population on top.

Water Demand History

Water years (Aug–Jul) · Four consecutive record years

Period	Population	Total Demand (gal)	Gal/Capita/Day	Δ YoY
1954	32,000	—	—	—
2015	1,600,000	~103,000,000,000	~176	—
2020	2,000,000	~112,000,000,000	~153	—
2022–23 WY	2,100,000	117,000,000,000	~153	+14,000,000,000
2023–24 WY	2,200,000	126,200,000,000	~157	+9,200,000,000
2024–25 WY	2,300,000	126,700,000,000	~151	+500,000,000

13 Member Cities — Board Representation & Growth Analysis

Member City Population Ranking — NCTCOG 2025

25 Board Directors total · 2 per city with population 5,000+ · Farmersville has 1 seat (pop 4,976)

Growth Leaders (2024 → 2025)

NCTCOG estimates · Member cities only

City	2024	2025	Added	%	Context
McKinney	214,871	226,181	+11,310	5.3%	Largest absolute gain in NTMWD
Princeton	33,288	43,126	+9,838	29.6%	Fastest % growth in all of DFW
Plano	294,152	299,262	+5,110	1.7%	Densification and infill
Frisco	231,768	235,615	+3,847	1.7%	Nearing build-out
Mesquite	155,382	157,436	+2,054	1.3%	Steady mature city growth
Garland	250,099	251,932	+1,833	0.7%	Redevelopment driven
Royse City	22,546	24,313	+1,767	7.8%	Eastern corridor boom
Forney	29,692	31,224	+1,532	5.2%	Kaufman County growth

Cost Allocation — 2020 Amended Contract

Phased 13-year transition from peak-demand to actual-usage

2020–2028:: Gradual adjustment of annual minimums (contractual commitments) toward actual usage patterns
2029–2032:: Hybrid allocation: adjusted minimums combined with actual water consumed
2033 onward:: 5-year rolling average of actual consumption determines each city's proportional cost share
Customer Premium:: Non-member customers pay $0.05/1,000 gal above member rate ($4.19 vs $4.14 in FY2026)
Debt Guaranty:: Members are joint guarantors of all NTMWD water system revenue bonds; customers are not
Board Seats:: Only member cities appoint directors — customers have no board representation
PUC Settlement:: The 2020 contract settled pending wholesale water rate cases before the Public Utility Commission of Texas

Water Supply Sources & District History

Peak vs Average Daily Demand · Capacity Headroom

FY24-25 record water year (126.7B gal) · July 12, 2022 system peak (628 MGD) · 946.6 MGD treatment capacity

Avg Day Demand

347 MGD

FY24-25 (126.7B gal ÷ 365)

Record Peak Day

628 MGD

Jul 12, 2022 · prior record 603 MGD (2011)

Observed Peaking Factor

1.81×

peak ÷ FY24-25 avg

WTP Treatment Capacity

946.6 MGD

Wylie 840 · Leonard 70 · Tawakoni 30 · Bonham 6.6

WTP Headroom over Peak

319 MGD

34% spare (66% used at peak)

Demand vs Capacity Comparison · MGD

Capacity Headroom Today

Comparison	Demand	Supply	Used
Peak Day vs WTP Capacity	628	946.6	66%
Peak Day vs Raw Water Pumping	628	~2287	27%
Annual Demand vs Reliable Yield	347	422.4	82%
Peak day stresses treatment. Annual demand stresses long-term reliable supply. Raw-water intake pumping is over-provisioned (~3-4× peak day) so the binding constraint is WTP throughput in summer and reservoir refill in droughts.

2050 Forward — Peaking Sensitivity

Scenario	Avg Day	Peak Day	vs 946.6 WTP
2050 base · 3.7M pop · 151 gpcd · 1.6× peak	559	894	94%
2050 base · 1.8× peak (current observed)	559	1,006	106%
2050 base · 2.0× peak (drought)	559	1,118	118%
2075 · 5.1M pop · 151 gpcd · 1.8× peak	770	1,386	147%
By 2050 the system requires +150-450 MGD additional treatment capacity at observed peaking factors. Wylie WTP IV expansion (in progress), Leonard WTP expansion, and Texoma Two-Step (+90 MGD raw, by 2029) are the immediate planned responses.

Methodology & sources: Average day = annual gallons ÷ 365. Peak day = NTMWD-published 628 MGD record from July 12, 2022 ("NTMWD pumping 628 million gallons over the 24-hour period"). Peaking factor = peak ÷ avg. WTP capacity from FY2025 ACFR Statistical Schedule (Wylie I/II/III/IV = 70/280/280/210 = 840 MGD permitted; Bonham 6.6 + Tawakoni 30 + Leonard 70 = 946.6 total). Raw-water reliable yield (422.4 MGD) is annual-basis safe yield from State Water Plan Region C. 2050 forward demand uses the existing dashboard's 3.7M service-area population × 151 gpcd × peaking factor sweep.

2025 → 2100 Capacity Build-Out · Expansion Schedule to Stay Within TCEQ §291.93 Triggers

Planned WTP capacity additions sized so peak day demand never crosses the 85% TCEQ Planning-Report trigger across the 75-year horizon

2025 Peak Day

629 MGD

66% of 946.6 capacity

2100 Peak Day

1695 MGD

77% of 2197 capacity (with expansions)

Total Capacity Added

+1250 MGD

across 3 expansion events

2100 Total Capacity

2197 MGD

2.3× current installed

85% Compliance

100%

All 76 years stay ≤85% of installed

Required WTP Capacity Expansion Schedule (2025-2100)

Commission Year	Add (MGD)	New Total (MGD)	Project	Peak Util at Commission
2025 (today)	—	946.6	Existing — Wylie I-IV (840) + Leonard (70) + Tawakoni (30) + Bonham (6.6)	66%
2038	+300	1246.6	Wylie WTP V (Phase 1)	65%
2054	+400	1646.6	Leonard WTP Expansion	65%
2076	+550	2196.6	Tawakoni WTP Expansion	64%
Total Net Addition	+1250	2197	4 phased expansions over 75 years	77% in 2100

Without Expansions — Status Quo Capacity Holds at 946.6 MGD

TCEQ Trigger	Year Crossed	Required Action
75% · 710 MGD	2031	Begin master planning
85% · 805 MGD	2038	TCEQ §291.93 Planning Report required within 90 days
95% · 899 MGD	2044	Construction must be underway
100% · 947 MGD	2047	System non-compliant w/ §290.45

With Phased Expansions — Sized to Stay Compliant

Phase	Online	Add	Triggers Avoided
Phase 1 — Wylie WTP V (Phase 1)	2038	+300	Avoids the 2038 §291.93 trigger entirely
Phase 2 — Leonard WTP Expansion	2054	+400	Holds peak ≤85% through 2054
Phase 3 — Tawakoni WTP Expansion	2076	+550	Holds peak ≤85% through 2076
2100 outcome	—	1250	Peak 1695 MGD = 77% of installed

Sizing logic: Each expansion is triggered when peak day demand is projected to reach 80% of installed capacity within 7 years (planning + design + construction lead time). The added capacity is sized in 50 MGD increments to bring peak day utilization back to ≤65% at commissioning, leaving ~20 years of headroom before the next expansion. Module sizes (300, 400, 550 MGD) reflect typical North Texas WTP expansion economics — Wylie WTP III alone is 280 MGD; new greenfield WTPs are typically 200-300 MGD per module.

Compliance result: All 76 forecast years (2025-2100) hold peak day demand at 66-81% of installed capacity — strictly below the 85% TCEQ §291.93 Planning Report trigger. The 95% and 100% thresholds (where construction must be underway / new capacity must be in service per §290.45) are never reached with this schedule. The system stays planning-ahead, not catching-up.

Caveats: (1) Population trajectory assumes 2.30M (2025) → 3.70M (2050) → 5.10M (2075) → 6.20M (2100); higher growth would advance every expansion. (2) 151 gpcd held constant — material conservation gains (e.g., 130 gpcd) would defer expansions ~10 years; sustained drought / hot summers (1.95× peaking factor) advance them. (3) Raw water supply must scale in parallel — Bois d'Arc (56 MGD) and Texoma Two-Step (+90 MGD by 2029) are already in flight; Phase 2/3 expansions would require additional reservoir or reuse-water supply development.

Capital Cost — WTP Treatment + Raw Water Supply (2025 $ & Nominal $)

All figures in whole dollars · Treatment plant costs separated from lake/reservoir/pipeline costs · ENR CCI 4.5% inflation for forward projections

WTP Program (2025 $)

$9,450,000,000

3 expansions over 75 years

Raw Water Program (2025 $)

$16,354,980,000

4 supply additions (already planned + future)

Combined (2025 $)

$25,804,980,000

2025-2100 total program in constant dollars

Combined (Nominal $)

$167,959,634,010

paid in commissioning-year dollars

Annual Run Rate (Nom)

$2,209,995,184

avg/year over 75 years

A. Water Treatment Plants (WTP)

In-plant treatment cost only — does NOT include raw water source, dam, intake, or raw-water pipelines (those are in section B below).

NTMWD WTP Project Precedents (whole dollars)

Project	MGD	Total Cost	$/MGD	Era
Leonard WTP I (greenfield, 70 MGD plant + pump station)	70	$356,000,000	$5,085,714	2018-23
Leonard WTP II Expansion (modular, 70 MGD)	70	$76,900,000	$1,098,571	2025-27
Wylie WTP IV original 70 MGD expansion	70	$110,000,000	$1,571,429	~2018-21
Wylie WTP IV Expansion No. 2 (70 MGD, ARCO/Murray-McCarthy)	70	$202,500,000	$2,892,857	2025-29

Modular plant-IV expansions (Leonard II $1,100,000/MGD, Wylie IV original $1,571,000/MGD) are cheaper because they reuse existing intake, pumping, ozone, and chemical facilities. Greenfield plants (Leonard I $5,086,000/MGD all-in) carry the full cost of land, raw-water pipeline, pump station, and treatment train.

2025 WTP Cost Benchmarks

Project Type	$/MGD
Existing-site modular expansion	$3,000,000
On-site major addition / new module	$7,000,000
Greenfield new WTP (full)	$10,000,000

Industry: Conventional WTP $6,500,000-$7,500,000/MGD (AUC, EPA cost curves); Advanced (UV/ozone) $8,500,000-$10,500,000/MGD; Austin Water Forward 2024 = $7,300,000/MGD for 36 MGD plant.

WTP Forward Cost Projection

Commission Year	Add (MGD)	Project	$/MGD (2025)	$/MGD (Year-of)	Total — 2025 $	Total — Nominal $
2038	+300	Wylie WTP V (Phase 1)	$7,000,000	$12,405,373	$2,100,000,000	$3,721,611,804
2054	+400	Leonard WTP Expansion	$6,000,000	$21,504,219	$2,400,000,000	$8,601,687,582
2076	+550	Tawakoni WTP Expansion	$9,000,000	$84,951,944	$4,950,000,000	$46,723,569,279
WTP TOTAL	+1,250	3 phased expansions	—	—	$9,450,000,000	$59,046,868,665

WTP Per-Expansion Cost · 2025 $ vs Nominal $

B. Raw Water Supply (Lakes, Reservoirs, Pipelines)

Reservoir construction, dam, intake structures, raw-water pipelines, environmental mitigation, easements, water rights — everything upstream of a treatment plant. Yields are MGD reliable annual supply.

NTMWD Raw Water Supply Precedents

Project	Yield MGD	Total Cost	$/MGD	Era
Bois d'Arc Lake (full program — dam, lake, pipelines, mitigation, roads, WTP)	56	$1,600,000,000	$28,571,429	2014-23
Bois d'Arc Lake (lake + raw conveyance only, ex-WTP)	56	$1,244,000,000	$22,214,286	2014-23
Bois d'Arc Dam (concrete intake + 173-ft dam structure)	56	$173,000,000	$3,089,286	2018-22
Texoma Two-Step (84" parallel pipelines, 90 MGD conveyance)	90	$605,000,000	$6,722,222	2026-29

Bois d'Arc Lake was the first new major Texas reservoir in ~30 years. The full $1,600,000,000 program included the dam ($173,000,000), 35-mile 90" raw pipeline, intake tower + pump station, 25-mile treated water pipeline, ~$80,000,000 in utility relocations + 11 miles of roads, 17,000+ acres environmental mitigation, and the $356,000,000 Leonard WTP. Net of WTP, raw-supply portion = $1,244,000,000 for 56 MGD reliable yield = $22,214,000/MGD.

2025 Raw Water Cost Benchmarks

Project Type	$/MGD reliable
Conveyance pipeline only (no new reservoir)	$6,700,000
Reuse / indirect potable reuse	$15,000,000
Greenfield reservoir + delivery (full program)	$25,000,000
Brackish desalination + delivery	$35,000,000

Texoma Two-Step ($605,000,000 for 90 MGD = $6,722,000/MGD) is pure pipeline conveyance — water rights and reservoir already exist. New reservoirs cost 4× more because of land acquisition, mitigation, and dam construction.

Raw Water Forward Cost Projection

Commission Year	Add (MGD)	Project	$/MGD (2025)	$/MGD (Year-of)	Total — 2025 $	Total — Nominal $
2032	+90	Texoma Two-Step (already planned, +90 MGD raw)	$6,722,000	$9,147,713	$604,980,000	$823,294,190
2042	+150	New Reservoir Project A (or major import)	$25,000,000	$52,834,420	$3,750,000,000	$7,925,163,037
2058	+200	New Reservoir Project B (or major import)	$25,000,000	$106,850,755	$5,000,000,000	$21,370,150,912
2080	+250	New Reservoir Project C (or major import + reuse)	$28,000,000	$315,176,629	$7,000,000,000	$78,794,157,206
RAW WATER TOTAL	+690	4 supply additions	—	—	$16,354,980,000	$108,912,765,345

Raw Water Per-Project Cost · 2025 $ vs Nominal $

Combined Capital Program 2025-2100 (whole dollars)

Program	2025 $ (Constant)	Nominal $ (Year-of)	Inflation Multiplier
A. Water Treatment Plants	$9,450,000,000	$59,046,868,665	6.2×
B. Raw Water Supply (lake, dam, pipelines)	$16,354,980,000	$108,912,765,345	6.7×
COMBINED TOTAL	$25,804,980,000	$167,959,634,010	6.5×

Note: All values in whole dollars. The Leonard WTP I cost ($356,000,000) is NOT double-counted — it's the WTP portion of the $1,600,000,000 Bois d'Arc program. The raw-water side of Bois d'Arc ($1,244,000,000 for the lake, dam, pipelines, mitigation, etc.) is separate from the $356,000,000 WTP. Future projections keep this separation.

Inflation methodology: ENR Construction Cost Index averages 4.5% CAGR over 1990-2024. Recent 2020-2024 spike was 7-9% but normalizing. The 4.5% is standard for utility infrastructure planning.

WTP methodology: Anchored on four NTMWD projects (Leonard I $5,086,000/MGD all-in, Leonard II $1,100,000/MGD modular, Wylie IV original $1,571,000/MGD, Wylie IV #2 $2,893,000/MGD). Phase 1 (2038, +300) and Phase 2 (2054, +400) sized as on-site major additions. Phase 3 (2076, +550) assumes greenfield approach.

Raw water methodology: Anchored on Bois d'Arc Lake ($1,244,000,000 for 56 MGD ex-WTP = $22,214,000/MGD) and Texoma Two-Step ($605,000,000 for 90 MGD = $6,722,000/MGD). Future projections assume 2 new reservoirs/imports at $25,000,000/MGD (mid-range new reservoir) plus a third at $28,000,000/MGD (incorporates more reuse/desalination as easy reservoir sites diminish). Texoma Two-Step is already in NTMWD's CIP as 2029.

Water Supply Portfolio

Six supply sources feeding three water treatment plants

Source	Type	Location	Key Facts	Status
Lavon Lake	Surface Reservoir	Collin County	Original supply since 1956; adjacent to Wylie WTP campus	✓ Active
Lake Texoma	Surface Reservoir	Grayson County	~28% of supply; salty water requires blending with fresher sources	✓ Active
Jim Chapman Lake	Surface Reservoir	Delta/Hopkins County	Also known as Cooper Lake; water rights obtained 1966	✓ Active
Lake Tawakoni	Surface Reservoir	Hunt/Rains County	WTP operational since 2011; first used during historic drought	✓ Active
Bois d'Arc Lake	Surface Reservoir	Fannin County	First new major TX reservoir in ~30 years; completed 2022; feeds Leonard WTP	✓ Active
East Fork Raw Water	Indirect Reuse	Collin/Dallas County	Treated wastewater effluent returned to Lavon Lake supply chain	✓ Active

Treatment Plants

Three major WTPs in the regional system

Wylie Water Treatment Plant

Largest facility · Multiple treatment trains · Wylie campus HQ · Ozone disinfection since 2013 · Texoma blending

Leonard Water Treatment Plant

Operational 2023 · Eastern service area · TCEQ Texas Optimization Program award winner · Bois d'Arc Lake supply

Tawakoni Water Treatment Plant

Operational 2011 · Lake Tawakoni supply · Activated during historic 2011 drought (hottest year on record)

District Timeline — 75 Years of Service

1951 → 2029

1951District created by 52nd Texas Legislature · 10 founding cities · Pop 32,000

1956First treated water plant begins operations at Wylie

1973Richardson joins as 11th Member City

1998Allen joins as 12th Member City

2001Frisco joins as 13th Member City

2011Tawakoni WTP operational · Drought plan initiated (hottest year on record)

2013Ozone disinfection facilities begin service at Wylie WTP

2014Texoma-to-Wylie pipeline completed · Restores 28% of water supply

2020Population exceeds 2,000,000 · New 13-year water supply contract signed with all member cities

2022Bois d'Arc Lake completed · First new major Texas reservoir in ~30 years

2023Leonard WTP operational · TCEQ TOP award · Eastern service area supply

2025Population exceeds 2,300,000 · 4th consecutive record water year · $2.2B cash/investments

2026$902M budget · $1.77B CIP · Texoma Two-Step construction begins · Workday ERP implementation

2029Texoma Two-Step pipelines complete · +90,000,000 gallons/day capacity

3D Architectural Site Plan — Wylie WTP V Phase 1 (300 MGD)

Drag to orbit · Scroll to zoom · Click any building or process unit to see its purpose, capacity, and footprint · 2038 commission · ~50-acre greenfield site

Wylie WTP V — Phase 1

Capacity	300 MGD
Commission	2038
Site	~50 acres
Cost (2025 $)	$2,100,000,000
Cost (nominal)	$3,722,000,000

Process Components

• 4 Flocculation @ 75 MGD

• 3 Sedimentation @ 100 MGD

• 3 Ozone Contactors @ 100 MGD

• 12 Filters @ 25 MGD

• 60 MG Clearwell

• 540 MGD HSP Station

Support Buildings

• Administration / Lab

• Chemical Storage

• Electrical / SCADA

• Maintenance Shop

• Solids Dewatering

Click any building, basin, or pad to see capacity, sizing, and role. Try Sedimentation Basins, Filter Building, or Ozone Building.

Site plan basis: Architectural-style site layout for Wylie WTP V Phase 1 (300 MGD greenfield, 2038 commission). Realistic plant footprint (~50 acres) with process areas, support buildings, perimeter security fence, access roads, and parking. Component counts (4 floc basins, 3 sed basins, 12 filters in 1 building, 3 ozone contactors, 60 MG clearwell) match typical 300 MGD WTP designs in North Texas.

Wastewater Treatment — Capacity, Cost & Forward Plan (whole dollars)

11 RWWTPs + 12 small sewer systems · 1.6M served · 163 MGD avg daily flow today · TCEQ §291.93 capacity-trigger logic mirrors the WTP analysis

Today's Avg Daily Flow

163 MGD

~102 gpcd × 1.6M served

Wet-Weather Peak (2025)

~326 MGD

2.0× peak factor

2100 Avg Flow

440 MGD

on 4.31M served

Capacity Adds (2025-2100)

+350 MGD

3 expansions over 75 years

Program Cost (Nominal)

$18,131,097,971

vs $4,200,000,000 in 2025 $

Current NTMWD WWTP Inventory

Plant	Service Area	Avg MGD	Peak MGD	Notes
Rowlett Creek RWWTP	Plano, surrounding Collin Co	24	95 (planned)	Phase 1 expansion completed Nov 2021 (60→77.5 MGD peak)
South Mesquite Creek RWWTP	Mesquite/Forney/Kaufman Co	33 → 41	82.5	Expansion 33→41 MGD avg by 2026 ($70,000,000 program)
Muddy Creek WWTP	Wylie, Murphy	12.5	~25	Expanded 5→10→12.5 MGD; further expansion planned
Bear Creek WWTP	Lavon, Sachse area	~10-15	~25-30	NACWA Silver Peak Performance recognition
7 smaller plants	Various small communities	~30-50	~75-100	Includes 12 small sewer systems
SYSTEM TOTAL	1.6M served · 24 communities	~200	~450	Treats 163 MGD daily on average · 240+ miles of pipelines · 23 lift stations

NTMWD WWTP Project Precedents

Project	Add MGD	Total Cost	$/MGD
South Mesquite Creek expansion (33→41 MGD avg)	8	$70,000,000	$8,750,000
S. Mesquite CMAR amendment (Archer Western)	subset	$11,900,000	—
Rowlett Creek Phase 1 (60→77.5 MGD peak)	17.5 (peak)	est. $60,000,000	est. $3,500,000

South Mesquite expansion is the cleanest recent NTMWD WWTP cost reference: $70,000,000 for 8 MGD avg = $8,750,000/MGD. Rowlett Phase 1 was peak-flow management (less expensive per peak MGD because no new average-flow capacity was added).

2025 WWTP Cost Benchmarks

Project Type	$/MGD avg
On-site secondary treatment expansion	$8,750,000
Conventional secondary RWWTP (new module)	$12,000,000
Advanced (BNR / nutrient removal / MBR)	$20,000,000
Greenfield new RWWTP (full)	$25,000,000

Industry: Secondary treatment $6,500,000-$7,500,000/gallon (AUC); Tertiary advanced $8,500,000-$10,500,000/gallon. WWTPs typically cost 1.5-2× the equivalent WTP because of biological/nutrient removal infrastructure. Fort Bend MUD 142 (1.2 MGD plant): $25,700,000 = $21,400,000/MGD (small plant, no economies of scale).

2025 → 2100 WWTP Capacity Build-Out (TCEQ §291.93 compliant staircase)

WWTP Forward Cost Projection (4.5% CCI inflation)

Commission Year	Add (MGD)	New Total	Project	Util at Commission	Total — 2025 $	Total — Nominal $
2025 (today)	—	200	Existing — Rowlett (24) + S. Mesquite (33) + Muddy Creek (12.5) + Bear Creek + 7 small plants	82%	—	—
2032	+100	300	South Mesquite Creek RWWTP Expansion (Phase II)	64%	$1,200,000,000	$1,633,034,197
2049	+100	400	Rowlett Creek RWWTP Expansion	65%	$1,200,000,000	$3,451,216,601
2070	+150	550	New Eastern Regional WWTP	62%	$1,800,000,000	$13,046,847,173
WWTP TOTAL	+350	550	3 phased expansions	80% in 2100	$4,200,000,000	$18,131,097,971

WWTP Per-Expansion Cost · 2025 $ vs Nominal $

WWTP forecasting methodology: Population served grows proportionally with the NTMWD water service area (1.6M today → 4.31M by 2100). Per-capita inflow held at 102 gpcd (current observed: 163 MGD ÷ 1.6M served). Wet-weather peak factor of 2.0× — typical for a regional system with a mix of older and newer collection systems. Each expansion sized to bring avg-flow utilization back to ≤65% at commissioning, leaving ~20 years of headroom.

Cost basis: $12,000,000/MGD avg in 2025 dollars, anchored on South Mesquite Creek RWWTP expansion ($70,000,000 for +8 MGD = $8,750,000/MGD) plus a premium for tertiary/nutrient removal compliance increasingly required in north Texas. Forward inflation at 4.5% CCI CAGR.

Bottom line: WWTP capital program 2025-2100 = $4,200,000,000 in 2025 dollars or $18,131,097,971 in nominal dollars. This is in addition to the WTP + Raw Water capital program above. Combined NTMWD long-range capital plan (water supply + treatment + wastewater): $30,004,980,000 in 2025 $ or roughly $186,090,731,981 in nominal $.

3D Architectural Site Plan — South Mesquite Creek RWWTP Phase II (+100 MGD)

Drag to orbit · Scroll to zoom · Click any building or process unit to see its purpose, capacity, and footprint · 2032 commission · ~80-acre site (existing + expansion)

South Mesquite RWWTP — Phase II

Capacity	+100 MGD avg
Peak	200 MGD
Commission	2032
Site	~80 acres
Cost (2025 $)	$1,200,000,000
Cost (nominal)	$1,633,000,000

Process Components

• Headworks (4 screens + grit)

• 4 Primary Clarifiers @ 25 MGD

• 4 Aeration BNR @ 25 MGD

• 6 Secondary Clarifiers @ 17 MGD

• UV Disinfection (200 MGD)

Solids Handling

• 4 Anaerobic Digesters @ 3 MG

• Biogas / CHP (~1 MW)

• Solids Dewatering

Support Buildings

• Administration / Lab

• Electrical / SCADA

• Maintenance / Chemical

Click any building, tank, or basin to see capacity, sizing, and role. Try Aeration Basins, Anaerobic Digesters, or Solids Handling Building.

Site plan basis: Architectural-style site layout for South Mesquite Creek RWWTP Phase II expansion (+100 MGD avg / 200 MGD peak, 2032 commission). Realistic plant footprint (~80 acres) with process train, solids handling, support buildings, perimeter, access roads, and parking. Component counts (4 primary clarifiers, 4 aeration trains with BNR, 6 secondary clarifiers, 4 anaerobic digesters with biogas storage) reflect typical 100 MGD RWWTP designs.

Net Pension Liability

$100,788,022

FY2025 · 59.8% funded

Net OPEB Liability

$12,063,323

FY2025 · 53.5% funded

Discount Rate

7.25%

Both pension & OPEB

FY25 Pension Contribution

$16,500,000

ARC: $14,195,000

Active Plan Members

945

Payroll $83,301,000

Financial Condition Evaluation - Pensions & OPEB

An assessment of NTMWD's pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) obligations against the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) framework and Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) peer benchmarks

⚠

Pension Funded Ratio

59.8% · CAUTION

Below 80% threshold; Net Pension Liability (NPL) up 3.6× since FY16

⚠

OPEB Funded Ratio

53.5% · CAUTION

Most TX peers do not pre-fund OPEB at all; trend warrants attention

✓

Contribution Discipline

116% of ARC · STRONG

$16.5M paid vs. $14.2M Actuarially Required Contribution (ARC) in FY25

⚠

Investment Risk

64% Equity · ELEVATED

29-pt return swing FY16-FY25 (-10.6% to +18.6%) driven by equity exposure

Governing GASB Standards

Source: GASB Statements 67/68 (pensions) and 74/75 (OPEB)

GASB 68 — Pensions (Employer Reporting)

Effective FY2015. Replaced GASB 27.

"A government employer that participates in a single-employer or agent multiple-employer pension plan should recognize a liability equal to the net pension liability... measured as the total pension liability... less the amount of the pension plan's fiduciary net position." — GASB 68 ¶20

Why it matters: Forced recognition of NPL on the balance sheet (instead of footnote-only). NTMWD's $100.8M NPL is a direct GASB 68 reporting requirement.

GASB 75 — OPEB (Employer Reporting)

Effective FY2018. Replaced GASB 45.

"An employer should recognize a liability for its proportionate share of the collective net OPEB liability... a measure of the total OPEB liability less the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position." — GASB 75 ¶52

Why it matters: The Net OPEB Liability (NOL) line on NTMWD's books ($12.1M) only exists because GASB 75 mandated it. Pre-2018 it was a Required Supplementary Information (RSI) note.

GASB 67 — Pension Plan Reporting

The plan-side counterpart to GASB 68.

"The discount rate should be the single rate that reflects (1) the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments to the extent that the plan's fiduciary net position is projected to be sufficient to pay benefits..." — GASB 67 ¶40

Why it matters: NTMWD's 7.25% discount rate is the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments — defensible only if the trust remains adequately funded.

GASB 74 — OPEB Plan Reporting

The plan-side counterpart to GASB 75.

"Plans should disclose the components of the total OPEB liability... and a sensitivity analysis of the net OPEB liability calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point higher and 1 percentage point lower." — GASB 74 ¶57

Why it matters: The discount-rate and healthcare-trend sensitivity tables shown later (cards G & H) are direct GASB 74 disclosures.

Texas-specific framework: Most NTMWD pension obligations flow through TMRS, which itself is governed by Title 8, Subtitle G of the Texas Government Code (Sec. 851 et seq.). TMRS is a statewide, agent multiple-employer plan; each member city/district has its own benefit profile but pools investment assets for efficiency. Annual valuations are performed by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company (GRS) under TMRS Board oversight.

STRENGTHS

Above-peer contribution discipline. NTMWD pays 116% of the Actuarially Required Contribution (ARC) in FY25 ($16.5M vs. $14.2M required) and has met or exceeded ARC every year of the GASB 68 era.

Pre-funded OPEB trust. Fiduciary Net Position (FNP) of $13.9M for OPEB places NTMWD in the small minority of Texas governmental entities that pre-fund retiree health benefits at all; the typical peer carries $0 in plan assets and pays benefits on a cash basis.

Standard, transparent benefit terms. TMRS structure (5% employee match, 2:1 employer matching, 5-year vesting) avoids the exotic Deferred Retirement Option Programs (DROPs) and 3% multipliers that drive runaway liabilities elsewhere.

Moderate discount-rate sensitivity. A 1% drop in discount rate moves Net Pension Liability (NPL) to ~$135M (+34%) — meaningful but not destabilizing relative to the operating budget.

CONCERNS

Funded ratio is declining despite contributions. Pension funded ratio fell from approximately 74% in FY16 to 59.8% in FY25 even though NTMWD has consistently exceeded ARC — a sign that demographic and assumption changes are outpacing funding.

NPL growing faster than payroll. Net Pension Liability grew 3.6x (from $28M to $101M) over nine years; covered payroll grew far less, raising the NPL-to-payroll ratio — a key GASB 68 disclosure metric.

Aggressive equity allocation. 64% of plan assets in equities (24% fixed income, 8% alternatives, 4% cash) creates a procyclical funding pattern: a 2008-style 30%+ equity drawdown could wipe out roughly 20 points of funded ratio in a single year.

Discount rate at top of peer range. The 7.25% expected return is above the 6.9% U.S. public-plan median (per NASRA Public Fund Survey, 2024). Any future TMRS Board reduction would mechanically inflate the reported NPL.

Bottom Line

Synthesizing GASB 67/68/74/75 disclosures across the FY16-FY25 trend

NTMWD's pension and OPEB obligations are manageable but not comfortable. The combined unfunded liability of $112.9M (Net Pension Liability of $100.8M plus Net OPEB Liability of $12.1M) is meaningful relative to operations, and the funded ratios sit below the 80% threshold that public-finance analysts and rating agencies (Moody's, S&P, Fitch) generally treat as a soft credit-quality boundary. That said, NTMWD's contribution discipline is above-peer, the OPEB plan is among a small minority of Texas entities pre-funding the obligation through a trust, and benefit terms are standard TMRS rather than enhanced. The single largest forward risk is investment volatility: a 30% equity drawdown could swing the funded ratio 15-20 points in one year, requiring a multi-year recovery. Continued ARC-plus contributions, paired with a thoughtful future review of the 7.25% return assumption, would put both plans on a steady de-risking trajectory consistent with GASB 67 paragraph 40 expectations.

📖 Understanding Pensions & OPEB — Quick Primer

Read first if pension/OPEB is unfamiliar

What is the Net Pension Liability (NPL)?

NPL = Total Pension Liability − Plan Fiduciary Net Position

TPL: Actuarial present value of benefits earned by current and retired employees, calculated using the discount rate (7.25%).

FNP: Current fair value of pension plan investment assets — what's actually in the trust.

The NPL is the unfunded portion. NTMWD's NPL grew from $28M (FY16) to $101M (FY25).

GASB 68 vs GASB 75 — what's the difference?

GASB 68 (FY15+): NPL on balance sheet — previously buried in footnotes.

GASB 75 (FY18+): Same for OPEB (retiree healthcare).

Combined NPL + NOL is now $112.9M, ~4.4% of total net position.

Why the Discount Rate matters

The discount rate (7.25%) converts future benefit payments to today's dollars. Higher rate → smaller TPL.

Sensitivity (FY2025): 1pp drop in rate jumps NPL significantly.

Set by actuary to equal expected long-term return on plan investments.

How to read the Schedule of Changes in NPL

Top half (TPL): Service cost + Interest + plan changes + gains/losses + assumption changes − benefit payments

Bottom half (FNP): Contributions + Investment income − benefit payments − admin

NPL = TPL ending − FNP ending. "FNP as % of TPL" is the funded ratio.

A. Pension — Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios

North Texas Municipal Employee Retirement System · 10-Year history · whole dollars (×1,000) · GASB 68

Line Item	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	CAGR (full period)
Service cost	$3,058,000 --	$2,517,000 -17.7%	$2,897,000 +15.1%	$3,428,000 +18.3%	$3,712,000 +8.3%	$3,726,000 +0.4%	$3,726,000 0.0%	$4,949,000 +32.8%	$6,911,000 +39.6%	$7,769,000 +12.4%	+10.9%
Interest on total pension liability	$6,614,000 --	$7,643,000 +15.6%	$8,582,000 +12.3%	$9,451,000 +10.1%	$10,062,000 +6.5%	$12,542,000 +24.6%	$12,449,000 -0.7%	$13,718,000 +10.2%	$15,719,000 +14.6%	$17,140,000 +9.0%	+11.2%
Effect of plan changes	$0 --	$0 --	$(843,000) --	$0 +100.0%	$0 --	$13,026,000 --	$0 -100.0%	$0 --	$0 --	$(145,000) --	—
Effect of economic/demographic gains or (losses)	$8,442,000 --	$(2,503,000) -129.6%	$6,366,000 +354.3%	$5,496,000 -13.7%	$(1,312,000) -123.9%	$2,104,000 +260.4%	$3,480,000 +65.4%	$9,111,000 +161.8%	$5,367,000 -41.1%	$2,263,000 -57.8%	-13.6%
Effect of assumptions changes or inputs	$(6,899,000) --	$(1,115,000) +83.8%	$(1,928,000) -72.9%	$(3,039,000) -57.6%	$(243,000) +92.0%	$4,794,000 +2072.8%	$8,389,000 +75.0%	$18,540,000 +121.0%	$0 -100.0%	$0 --	—
Benefit payments	$(2,617,000) --	$(3,092,000) -18.2%	$(3,507,000) -13.4%	$(4,517,000) -28.8%	$(4,749,000) -5.1%	$(5,057,000) -6.5%	$(7,424,000) -46.8%	$(8,307,000) -11.9%	$(8,658,000) -4.2%	$(9,862,000) -13.9%	—
Net change in TPL	$8,599,000 --	$3,450,000 -59.9%	$11,568,000 +235.3%	$10,819,000 -6.5%	$7,469,000 -31.0%	$31,135,000 +316.9%	$20,620,000 -33.8%	$38,011,000 +84.3%	$19,339,000 -49.1%	$17,165,000 -11.2%	+8.0%
TPL beginning	$82,486,000 --	$91,085,000 +10.4%	$94,534,000 +3.8%	$106,102,000 +12.2%	$116,921,000 +10.2%	$124,390,000 +6.4%	$155,525,000 +25.0%	$176,145,000 +13.3%	$214,156,000 +21.6%	$233,495,000 +9.0%	+12.3%
TPL ending	$91,085,000 --	$94,535,000 +3.8%	$106,102,000 +12.2%	$116,921,000 +10.2%	$124,390,000 +6.4%	$155,525,000 +25.0%	$176,145,000 +13.3%	$214,156,000 +21.6%	$233,495,000 +9.0%	$250,660,000 +7.4%	+11.9%

Employer contributions	$4,999,000 --	$5,957,000 +19.2%	$6,765,000 +13.6%	$6,450,000 -4.7%	$6,808,000 +5.6%	$8,108,000 +19.1%	$6,300,000 -22.3%	$9,203,000 +46.1%	$13,472,000 +46.4%	$13,900,000 +3.2%	+12.0%
Member contributions	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$98,000 --	$347,000 +254.1%	$577,000 +66.3%	$783,000 +35.7%	$978,000 +24.9%	$1,221,000 +24.8%	$1,517,000 +24.2%	—
Investment income net of investment expenses	$(1,337,000) --	$5,284,000 +495.2%	$9,686,000 +83.3%	$(5,315,000) -154.9%	$15,158,000 +385.2%	$8,101,000 -46.6%	$14,387,000 +77.6%	$(13,199,000) -191.7%	$13,359,000 +201.2%	$12,422,000 -7.0%	—
(Benefit payments — FNP side)	$(2,617,000) --	$(3,092,000) -18.2%	$(3,507,000) -13.4%	$(4,517,000) -28.8%	$(4,749,000) -5.1%	$(5,057,000) -6.5%	$(7,424,000) -46.8%	$(8,307,000) -11.9%	$(8,658,000) -4.2%	$(9,862,000) -13.9%	—
Administrative expenses	$(195,000) --	$0 +100.0%	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	—
Net change in FNP	$850,000 --	$8,149,000 +858.7%	$12,944,000 +58.8%	$(3,284,000) -125.4%	$17,564,000 +634.8%	$11,729,000 -33.2%	$14,046,000 +19.8%	$(11,325,000) -180.6%	$19,394,000 +271.2%	$17,977,000 -7.3%	+40.4%
FNP beginning	$61,828,000 --	$62,678,000 +1.4%	$70,827,000 +13.0%	$83,770,000 +18.3%	$80,486,000 -3.9%	$98,050,000 +21.8%	$109,779,000 +12.0%	$123,825,000 +12.8%	$112,500,000 -9.1%	$131,894,000 +17.2%	+8.8%
FNP ending	$62,678,000 --	$70,827,000 +13.0%	$83,771,000 +18.3%	$80,486,000 -3.9%	$98,050,000 +21.8%	$109,779,000 +12.0%	$123,825,000 +12.8%	$112,500,000 -9.1%	$131,894,000 +17.2%	$149,871,000 +13.6%	+10.2%

Net Pension Liability	$28,407,000 --	$23,708,000 -16.5%	$22,331,000 -5.8%	$36,435,000 +63.2%	$26,340,000 -27.7%	$45,746,000 +73.7%	$52,320,000 +14.4%	$101,656,000 +94.3%	$101,601,000 -0.1%	$100,788,000 -0.8%	+15.1%

FNP as % of TPL	68.81% --	74.92% +8.9%	78.95% +5.4%	68.84% -12.8%	78.82% +14.5%	70.59% -10.4%	70.30% -0.4%	52.53% -25.3%	56.49% +7.5%	59.79% +5.8%	-1.5%
Covered payroll	$30,085,000 --	$31,778,000 +5.6%	$33,587,000 +5.7%	$41,022,000 +22.1%	$42,877,000 +4.5%	$53,290,000 +24.3%	$49,341,000 -7.4%	$66,021,000 +33.8%	$73,399,000 +11.2%	$78,958,000 +7.6%	+11.3%
NPL as % of covered payroll	94.42% --	74.61% -21.0%	66.49% -10.9%	88.82% +33.6%	61.43% -30.8%	85.85% +39.8%	106.04% +23.5%	153.98% +45.2%	138.42% -10.1%	127.65% -7.8%	+3.4%

B. Pension — Schedule of Employer Contributions

Actuarially Determined vs Actual · 10-Year history

Line Item	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	CAGR (full period)
Actuarially Determined Contribution	$4,600,000 --	$5,034,000 +9.4%	$5,213,000 +3.6%	$5,195,000 -0.3%	$6,510,000 +25.3%	$7,599,000 +16.7%	$9,478,000 +24.7%	$11,762,000 +24.1%	$13,324,000 +13.3%	$14,195,000 +6.5%	+13.3%
Actual Employer Contribution	$4,999,000 --	$5,957,000 +19.2%	$6,765,000 +13.6%	$6,450,000 -4.7%	$6,808,000 +5.6%	$8,108,000 +19.1%	$6,300,000 -22.3%	$12,500,000 +98.4%	$13,700,000 +9.6%	$16,500,000 +20.4%	+14.2%
Contribution Deficiency (Excess)	$(399,000) --	$(923,000) -131.3%	$(1,552,000) -68.1%	$(1,255,000) +19.1%	$(1,598,000) -27.3%	$(249,000) +84.4%	$3,178,000 +1376.3%	$(738,000) -123.2%	$(376,000) +49.1%	$(2,305,000) -513.0%	—

Covered Payroll	$30,085,000 --	$31,778,000 +5.6%	$33,587,000 +5.7%	$47,598,000 +41.7%	$54,413,000 +14.3%	$53,444,000 -1.8%	$58,287,000 +9.1%	$72,059,000 +23.6%	$77,774,000 +7.9%	$83,301,000 +7.1%	+12.0%
Contributions as % of Covered Payroll	16.62% --	18.75% +12.8%	20.14% +7.4%	13.55% -32.7%	12.51% -7.7%	15.17% +21.3%	10.81% -28.7%	17.35% +60.5%	17.62% +1.6%	19.81% +12.4%	+2.0%

C. Pension — Money-Weighted Rate of Return

Annual investment return on pension plan assets · GASB 67

Fiscal Year	Money-Weighted Rate of Return
FY2016	-2.15%
FY2017	+8.36%
FY2018	+13.48%
FY2019	-6.29%
FY2020	+18.56%
FY2021	+8.18%
FY2022	+13.16%
FY2023	-10.58%
FY2024	+11.64%
FY2025	+9.20%

Trendline (10-year)

D. OPEB — Schedule of Changes in Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios

NTMWD OPEB Plan · 9-year history (begins FY2017 with GASB 75) · whole dollars (×1,000)

Line Item	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	CAGR (full period)
Service cost	$432,000 --	$406,000 -6.0%	$374,000 -7.9%	$405,000 +8.3%	$473,000 +16.8%	$482,000 +1.9%	$917,000 +90.2%	$1,317,000 +43.6%	$1,384,000 +5.1%	+15.7%
Interest on total OPEB liability	$826,000 --	$832,000 +0.7%	$953,000 +14.5%	$923,000 -3.1%	$1,015,000 +10.0%	$1,405,000 +38.4%	$1,573,000 +12.0%	$1,736,000 +10.4%	$1,795,000 +3.4%	+10.2%
Changes on benefit terms	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$2,267,000 --	$(817,000) -136.0%	$0 +100.0%	$0 --	—
Effect of economic/demographic gains or (losses)	$(1,258,000) --	$1,046,000 +183.1%	$(1,677,000) -260.3%	$(828,000) +50.6%	$4,782,000 +677.5%	$732,000 -84.7%	$1,390,000 +89.9%	$575,000 -58.6%	$1,468,000 +155.3%	—
Effect of assumptions changes or inputs	$104,000 --	$(634,000) -709.6%	$(83,000) +86.9%	$662,000 +897.6%	$481,000 -27.3%	$(164,000) -134.1%	$1,935,000 +1279.9%	$(538,000) -127.8%	$(792,000) -47.2%	—
Benefit payments	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$(1,963,000) --	$(3,125,000) -59.2%	$(2,705,000) +13.4%	$(2,150,000) +20.5%	$(2,547,000) -18.5%	—
Employer contributions (TOL)	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$2,128,000 --	$0 -100.0%	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	—
Net change in total OPEB liability	$104,000 --	$1,650,000 +1486.5%	$(433,000) -126.2%	$1,162,000 +368.4%	$6,751,000 +481.0%	$1,597,000 -76.3%	$2,293,000 +43.6%	$940,000 -59.0%	$1,308,000 +39.1%	+37.2%
Total OPEB liability beginning	$10,581,000 --	$10,685,000 +1.0%	$12,335,000 +15.4%	$11,902,000 -3.5%	$13,065,000 +9.8%	$19,816,000 +51.7%	$21,413,000 +8.1%	$23,706,000 +10.7%	$24,646,000 +4.0%	+11.1%
Total OPEB liability ending	$10,685,000 --	$12,335,000 +15.4%	$11,902,000 -3.5%	$13,065,000 +9.8%	$19,816,000 +51.7%	$21,413,000 +8.1%	$23,706,000 +10.7%	$24,646,000 +4.0%	$25,954,000 +5.3%	+11.7%

OPEB Employer contributions	$600,000 --	$696,000 +16.0%	$0 -100.0%	$50,000 --	$0 -100.0%	$3,125,000 --	$2,705,000 -13.4%	$2,150,000 -20.5%	$3,547,000 +65.0%	+24.9%
OPEB Net investment income	$600,000 --	$428,000 -28.7%	$227,000 -47.0%	$565,000 +148.9%	$1,650,000 +192.0%	$(1,798,000) -209.0%	$1,016,000 +156.5%	$2,106,000 +107.3%	$1,082,000 -48.6%	+7.6%
OPEB Benefit payments (FNP)	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$0 --	$(3,125,000) --	$(2,705,000) +13.4%	$(2,150,000) +20.5%	$(2,547,000) -18.5%	—
OPEB Net change in FNP	$1,200,000 --	$1,124,000 -6.3%	$227,000 -79.8%	$615,000 +170.9%	$1,650,000 +168.3%	$(1,798,000) -209.0%	$1,016,000 +156.5%	$2,106,000 +107.3%	$2,082,000 -1.1%	+7.1%
OPEB FNP beginning	$5,669,000 --	$6,869,000 +21.2%	$7,993,000 +16.4%	$8,220,000 +2.8%	$8,835,000 +7.5%	$10,485,000 +18.7%	$8,687,000 -17.1%	$9,703,000 +11.7%	$11,809,000 +21.7%	+9.6%
OPEB FNP ending	$6,869,000 --	$7,993,000 +16.4%	$8,220,000 +2.8%	$8,835,000 +7.5%	$10,485,000 +18.7%	$8,687,000 -17.1%	$9,703,000 +11.7%	$11,809,000 +21.7%	$13,891,000 +17.6%	+9.2%

Net OPEB Liability	$3,816,000 --	$4,342,000 +13.8%	$3,682,000 -15.2%	$4,230,000 +14.9%	$9,331,000 +120.6%	$12,726,000 +36.4%	$14,003,000 +10.0%	$12,837,000 -8.3%	$12,063,000 -6.0%	+15.5%

E. OPEB — Schedule of NTMWD Contributions

9-year history · OPEB plan operates on PAYGO with irrevocable trust

Line Item	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	CAGR (full period)
Actuarially Determined Contribution	$669,000 --	$832,000 +24.4%	$864,000 +3.8%	$819,000 -5.2%	$905,000 +10.5%	$1,539,000 +70.1%	$2,428,000 +57.8%	$3,037,000 +25.1%	$3,042,000 +0.2%	+20.8%
Actual Employer Contribution	$600,000 --	$696,000 +16.0%	$0 -100.0%	$50,000 --	$0 -100.0%	$3,125,000 --	$2,705,000 -13.4%	$2,150,000 -20.5%	$3,547,000 +65.0%	+24.9%
Contribution Deficiency (Excess)	$69,000 --	$137,000 +98.6%	$864,000 +530.7%	$769,000 -11.0%	$905,000 +17.7%	$(1,586,000) -275.2%	$(277,000) +82.5%	$887,000 +420.2%	$(505,000) -156.9%	—

Covered-employee Payroll	$31,778,000 --	$33,587,000 +5.7%	$47,598,000 +41.7%	$54,413,000 +14.3%	$62,977,000 +15.7%	$58,287,000 -7.4%	$72,059,000 +23.6%	$77,774,000 +7.9%	$83,301,000 +7.1%	+12.8%
Contributions as % of Covered Payroll	1.89% --	2.07% +9.5%	0.00% -100.0%	0.09% --	0.00% -100.0%	5.36% --	3.75% -30.0%	2.76% -26.4%	4.26% +54.3%	+10.7%

F. OPEB — Money-Weighted Rate of Return

Annual investment return on OPEB plan assets

Fiscal Year	Money-Weighted Rate of Return
FY2017	+10.68%
FY2018	+5.94%
FY2019	+3.41%
FY2020	+0.50%
FY2021	+19.15%
FY2022	-17.14%
FY2023	+11.69%
FY2024	+21.70%
FY2025	+9.17%

Trendline (10-year)

G. Sensitivity to Discount Rate & Healthcare Cost Trend

FY2025 — what happens to the liability if assumptions change ±1pp

Net Pension Liability — Discount Rate Sensitivity

	1% Decrease (6.25%)	Current (7.25%)	1% Increase (8.25%)
NPL	~$135M	$100,788,022	~$72M
Δ from current	+34%	—	−28%

A 1pp drop in expected investment return adds ~$34M to the unfunded liability.

Net OPEB Liability — Discount Rate Sensitivity

	1% Decrease (6.25%)	Current (7.25%)	1% Increase (8.25%)
NOL	$14,250,833	$12,063,323	$10,081,840
Δ from current	+18%	—	−16%

Net OPEB Liability — Healthcare Cost Trend Sensitivity

	1% Decrease (5.5%→3.5%)	Current (6.5%→4.5%)	1% Increase (7.5%→5.5%)
NOL	$9,524,967	$12,063,323	$15,041,828
Δ from current	−21%	—	+25%

OPEB liability is driven mostly by medical inflation. 1pp uptick adds ~$3M.

H. Plan Description & Key Facts (FY2025)

From ACFR Notes 10 (Retirement) and 14 (OPEB)

Pension Plan

Plan Name:: NTMWD Employee Retirement System
Plan Type:: Single-employer defined benefit
Reporting Date:: September 30, 2025
Measurement Date:: December 31, 2024
Actuarial Cost Method:: Entry Age Normal
Inflation:: 2.50%
Investment Return:: 7.25% net of expenses
Discount Rate:: 7.25%
Active Members:: 945
Inactive/Retiree:: 120 + spouses

OPEB Plan (Retiree Healthcare)

Plan Type:: Single-employer defined medical & dental
Eligibility:: 20 yrs service = 100% paid; less than 20 yrs = 5% discount/yr
Trust:: Irrevocable trust; PAYGO + pre-funding
Discount Rate:: 7.25%
Healthcare Cost Trend:: 6.5% in FY26 declining to 4.50% ultimate
Active Members:: 945 medical / 945 dental
Retirees + Spouses:: 120 / 122
Total Participants:: 1,065 / 1,067

I. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position — Asset Composition

January 1, 2025 (latest measurement date)

Asset Class	Jan 1, 2024	Jan 1, 2025	% of Total (2025)
Cash and cash equivalents	$6,223,971	$6,399,360	4.3%
Fixed Income	$31,547,940	$35,893,162	23.9%
Alternative Investments	$13,215,203	$11,686,906	7.8%
Stocks	$80,906,443	$95,892,113	64.0%
Total Investments	$125,669,586	$143,472,181	95.7%
Net Position Restricted for Pensions	$131,893,557	$149,871,541	100.0%

Heavily equity-weighted (64% stocks, 24% fixed income, 8% alternatives, 4% cash). Supports 7.25% expected return but creates volatility (range: −10.6% to +18.6%).

FY2025 ACFR Statistical Section (Unaudited) - Selected 10-Year Schedules

Detailed Balance Sheet & Income Statement — 11-Year History (FY2015-FY2025)

Pulled from NTMWD's 11 ACFRs · whole dollars · select fund below to filter

Select Fund: Em-dash means no value reported in that fund/year combination

Source & methodology: All 11 ACFRs were parsed for the proprietary-fund Statement of Net Position and Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position. The fund selector switches between the 5 enterprise funds (Water, Regional Wastewater, Small Systems, Solid Waste, Interceptor), the consolidated Total Enterprise Funds, and the Internal Service Fund (when present). Some line items appear only in certain years due to GASB rule changes (GASB 75 OPEB FY2018, GASB 87 leases FY2022, etc.).

Loading 11-year financial statements…

Trend View — One Line Item Across All Funds & Years

Pick a line item from the dropdown to see how it has trended across all funds over 11 fiscal years

Select Line Item: Em-dash means no value reported in that fund/year combination

Schedule 1 - Net Position by Component

Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited)

Component	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Net invest. in capital assets	942,119,408	1,055,668,099	1,077,370,618	1,206,866,459	1,309,031,458	1,430,006,844	1,585,820,870	1,734,270,828	1,840,638,282	1,979,036,293
Restricted - debt service	141,312,557	147,826,838	192,006,392	221,897,098	242,546,402	231,587,717	234,821,681	262,426,104	315,470,369	372,960,977
Restricted - PFAS settlement	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	57,120,568
Unrestricted	126,729,695	130,713,207	182,514,170	190,419,144	198,229,568	162,992,241	132,685,408	111,030,991	153,156,904	161,529,642
Total	1,210,161,660	1,334,208,144	1,451,891,180	1,619,182,701	1,749,807,428	1,824,586,802	1,953,327,959	2,107,727,923	2,309,265,555	2,570,647,480

Source: Statement of Net Position for the NTMWD

Year	Oper. Revenue	Oper. Expenses	Oper. Income	Nonoper. Rev/(Exp)	Change in Net Pos.
2016	398,068,222	224,688,538	173,379,684	(47,488,552)	125,891,132
2017	439,923,445	253,691,088	186,232,357	(57,091,638)	129,140,719
2018	484,209,991	264,672,663	219,537,328	(101,854,292)	117,683,036
2019	516,892,284	289,482,162	227,410,122	(60,118,601)	167,291,521
2020	616,687,602	394,966,412	221,721,190	(86,900,548)	134,820,642
2021	644,002,832	458,971,448	185,031,384	(110,252,010)	74,779,374
2022	671,729,828	449,258,007	222,471,821	(93,730,664)	128,741,157
2023	763,307,939	558,775,188	204,532,751	(50,132,787)	154,399,964
2024	827,125,583	594,244,625	232,880,958	(31,465,243)	201,537,632
2025	924,359,515	656,372,979	267,986,536	(6,802,625)	261,381,925

Year	Water Produced	Water Consumed	Unbilled	% Unbilled	Member $/kgal	Cust $/kgal
2016	100,282,548,000	97,345,239,000	2,937,309,000	2.9%	$2.29	$2.34
2017	97,942,133,000	95,123,951,000	2,818,182,000	2.9%	$2.53	$2.58
2018	106,625,709,000	103,273,501,000	3,352,208,000	3.1%	$2.78	$2.83
2019	95,027,289,000	92,691,956,000	2,335,333,000	2.5%	$2.92	$2.97
2020	108,773,163,000	106,274,528,000	2,498,635,000	2.3%	$2.99	$3.04
2021	105,003,880,000	103,586,223,000	1,417,657,000	1.4%	$2.99	$3.04
2022	119,164,500,000	117,316,142,000	1,848,358,000	1.6%	$2.99	$3.04
2023	118,987,069,000	117,547,424,000	1,439,645,000	1.2%	$3.39	$3.44
2024	127,498,030,000	126,199,028,000	1,299,002,000	1.0%	$3.64	$3.69
2025	127,932,945,000	126,745,937,000	1,187,008,000	0.9%	$3.85	$3.90

Year	WW Treated (gal)	SW Disposed (tons)
2016	42,949,703,000	950,220
2017	37,569,619,000	1,009,236
2018	40,299,162,000	985,521
2019	47,223,091,000	1,010,166
2020	43,637,993,000	947,925
2021	44,283,500,000	967,522
2022	40,824,445,000	1,009,405
2023	46,497,307,000	1,043,430
2024	52,420,119,000	1,101,438
2025	50,405,143,000	1,080,241

Type	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Water - Member Cities	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13
Water - Customer Cities	27	28	29	29	30	29	30	30	31	34
Total Water	40	41	42	42	43	42	43	43	44	47
WW - Regional	17	17	17	17	17	17	17	17	17	17
WW - UEFIS	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
WW - Small Systems	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
Solid Waste Members	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5

FY2026 Adopted Budget — Line Item Detail (Accordion)

Total Revenue

$997,505,781

Total Expense

$997,286,955

Expense Funds

Budget Line Items

6,179

Object-level detail

Expenditures by Fund → Department → Category → Object

Click any row to expand. Non-zero line items only. Source: NTMWD FY2026 Adopted Budget Raw Format.

▶ Water System $549,551,250

▶ WasteWater System $144,562,475

▶ Support Fund $94,896,270

▶ Upper East Fork Interceptor System $78,508,300

▶ Solid Waste System $49,765,730

▶ Panther Creek WWTP $19,417,930

▶ Muddy Creek WWTP $13,528,715

▶ Stewart Creek WWTP $12,130,770

▶ Sabine Creek WWTP $11,929,360

▶ Buffalo Creek Inter $8,798,370

▶ Mustang Cr Inter $3,616,810

▶ Lower East Fork Inter $2,461,175

▶ S Rockwall WWTP $2,279,035

▶ PreTreatment $2,046,875

▶ Terrell WTF $731,120

▶ Plano WTF $674,285

▶ Forney Inter $612,325

▶ Seis Lagos WWTP $495,730

▶ Parker Creek Inter $461,230

▶ Parker Creek Par Inter $394,025

▶ Muddy Creek Inter $206,680

▶ Kaufman Four-One $131,020

▶ Sabine Creek Inter $81,715

▶ Rockwall Pump Station $5,760

Revenue by Fund → Source

Click any fund to expand revenue line items.

▶ Water System $549,684,823