View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
1/64
Prepared by the Texoma Council of Governments with assistance and funding from the
Economic Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce
2012-2017
TEXOMA
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGYTEXOMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
2/64
12012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
2012-2017
TEXOMA
COMPREHENSIVE
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGYTEXOMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
INTRODUCTION
Every five years Texoma Council of Governments staff ramps up our
economic development planning by developing a regional plan for
growth in the Texoma region through the Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CEDS). Each time, similar questions are asked
about the CEDS- whats its presumed purpose, do local communities
and economic developers have to follow it, and what is the ongoing role
of TCOG staff that assist in completing the document once the CEDS is
complete.
This document is done to fulfill a requirement of the Economic
Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce
Partnership Planning Grant that Texoma Council of Governments
(TCOG) receives as the designated Economic Development District(EDD). The Texoma area is made up of three counties in North Texas
between the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) Metroplex and the Red River
border with Oklahoma and includes the Sherman- Denison
Metropolitan MSA.
EDA Headquarters and many EDDs across the nation are involved in a
discussion about improving the usefulness and value of CEDS to
regions so that the regional plan does not simply become another book
WHAT I S
THE
TEXOMA
CEDS?
The Texoma CEDS is a
regional planning
document that looks at
how the placement of
people, infrastructure, and
assets among the
communities of Cooke,
Fannin, and Grayson
Counties operate as a
regional economy and
home for businesses and
workers.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
3/64
22012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
that sits on a shelf only to collect dust or defer to a simple check mark on an EDA grant applications for
other projects in the region. EDA has various grant programs that provide support for public works
projects, workforce development projects, disaster relief, and innovation among other things. The
CEDS is meant to serve as regions economic development plan but the goals and the performance
measures within this document assist the EDA with prioritizing their economic development grant
investments in the region.
The Texoma CEDS has moved away from identifying multiple projects and now focuses on providing
data and support for good policy decisions and project development at all levels, whether it is for a
neighborhood, city, county, or region. The Texoma CEDS is not intended to be a set of instructions or
recommendations for local economic developers or businesses on what they need to be doing with
their programs and activities. Rather, we believe our role is to look at the Texoma region as a unit of
cities and counties, labor sheds and socio-cultural regions, that compete state-wide, nationally, and
globally for employers and workers.
The Texoma region is a mix of urban, ex-urban, and rural, but our proximity to the DFW Metroplex
creates a unique economic and social climate for attracting workers and employers. Traditional
economic development issues are still considered- taxes, industry, wages, cost of living but we alsoconsider a myriad of other areas of infrastructure that need to be in place to support a thriving economy
for businesses and community for workers. Being smart about how our unique mix of geographic,
socio-cultural, and economic circumstances effects our communities will help make the Texoma region
an attractive place for businesses and workers.
The 2012-2017 regional plan analyzes the region using a framework that focuses on infrastructure.
Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society
or enterprise. Infrastructure in traditional economic development involves most of the hard or physical
networks of fixed capital assets such as roads, highways, railways, airports, pipelines, electrical power
networks, water supply systems, sewage, and telecommunication networks. However, unlike thesetypes of infrastructure, there are additional systems and networks that need to be in place and
functional in order for a business to thrive and their workers to thrive. This second area of infrastructure
is best summed up as soft because for the most part it includes non-physical assets and social
arrangements such as the body of rules and regulations governing various systems, the financing of
systems, and also the level of skill and productivity of people. Unlike hard infrastructure, soft
infrastructure includes the institutions required to maintain social systems of people and their civic,
economic, health, and cultural standards. Areas of soft infrastructure include financial systems,
education, health/health care, government systems, law enforcement, emergency services, recreation,
the arts, and general community support. Failure to make adequate provisions for soft infrastructure
may exacerbate problems or cause problems in hard infrastructure development. For instance, thecollapse of the financial system (an area of soft infrastructure) in 2008 brought on a national recession
that has slowed growth and development across the economy, directly affecting the ability to finance
business activities and the construction of hard infrastructure.
The regional analysis, goals, and performance measures outlined in the 2012-2017 CEDS consider and
define these areas: hard infrastructure- housing, transportation, energy systems, water management,
solid waste management, information & technology, and earth monitoring systems- and these areas of
soft infrastructure- arts & culture, education, employment/training, health & health care, community/civic
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
4/64
32012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
engagement, individual/family/community support, legal/public safety, financial systems, sports &
recreation, emergency services, government systems, and general economic development.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
5/64
42012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
BACKGROUNDSince 2000, the total
population for Texoma has
increased by 8.43%. The
population increase has been
in small amounts over the
years, where a slightly higher
increase was seen during
2008-2010.
Though Fannin County has
traditionally been considered
a rural community, its
population growth rate is
higher than Cooke County.
Geographic Region 2000 Census 2010 Census % Change
.Cooke County 36,363 38,437 5.70%
.Fannin County 31,242 33,915 8.56%
.Grayson County 110,595 120,877 9.30%
Since Grayson County is home to the faster growing Sherman-Denison MSA, the maximum population
growth has been recorded in this region since 2000. Fannin and Grayson Counties experienced theirmaximum growth in population during 2008-2010.
Texoma has seen a steady increase in the population between the age group of 18 years & over and
21 years & over. But in the last decade, there has been a major increase in the senior population,
people age 62 years and over. This pattern is true for all the three counties where since the year 2000,
the growth rate for every County is around 15%-20%.
Since 2000, diversity in Cooke & Grayson has grown. Although the actual number of whites remains
about the same, Hispanic and Asian populations have grown significantly.
Between 2000 and 2010, the percent of Black or African American population decreased in Cooke and
Fannin counties. Native American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations make up a
very small percentage of the population in Texoma and has declined slightly in Fannin and Grayson
counties, while increasing slightly in the Cooke County during this same time period.
When Esri, the industry leader in geographic data and information, compared data from Census 2000
and Census 2010, results suggested that Texoma region is becoming more diverse. Cooke, Fannin,
and Grayson Counties are actually near the top of the list in Texas for counties with the highest annual
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%1.6%
2
000-2001
2
001-2002
2
002-2003
2
003-2004
2
004-2005
2
005-2006
2
006-2007
2
007-2008
2
008-2010
PercentChange
Year
Source: American Factfinder
f
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
6/64
52012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CookeCounty
FanninCountyGrayson
County
Percent Population
County
16 years and over 18 years and over 21 years and over62 years and over 65 years and over
Source: American Factfinder
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CookeCounty
FanninCounty
GraysonCounty
Percent Population
County
White Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race
Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Source: American Factfinder
rate of change in local Diversity Index scores that measure the change in the percent population of non-
white populations of counties.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
7/64
62012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
The population growth rate in Cooke County is lower than Texoma, Texas, and United States. Most
cities in Cooke County have a low growth rate except Lindsay, recording a 22.9% growth rate between
2000 and 2010. While Bonham and Leonard have lower growth rates than Fannin County, Bailey and
Ector have experienced high population growth since 2000.
Grayson County growth rate is the highest for any county in Texoma. Also, the population increase in
Grayson County follows a trend similar to national population growth. As opposed to Fannin County,most cities in Grayson County have seen growth in their population over the last decade. The growth
rates for Pottsboro, Dorchester, Collinsville, Gunter, and Van Alstyne are higher than the state growth
rate. Though Bells, Tom Bean and Sherman have a higher growth rates than the Grayson County and
the U.S., their growth is still lower than the State of Texas.
Geographic Area 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
.Cooke County 37890 38044 38198 38339 38471 38603
.Fannin County 31679 31763 31827 31890 31943 31999
.Grayson County 114973 115303 115610 115916 116146 116339
Note: These projections were populated by the Texas State Data Center in 2008, so some of the projections are lower than
the actual population as per Census 2010
Cost o f L iv ing
In recent years, major metropolitan areas in the Lone Star State reign supreme on cost of living and
affordability. In Kiplingers most recent annual ranking of the least expensive places to livein the U.S.,
all of our picks are cities located either in Texas or the heartland of middle America.
The cities on the Kiplinger least-expensive list all have housing prices well under $250,000; homes in
one city average less than $200,000. Overall cost of living in these metro areas falls 15% to 20% below
the national average.
Kiplinger ranked the least expensive places to live using data from the U.S. Census (metropolitan
statistical areas only) and the ACCRA Cost of Living Index, which is assembled by the Council for
Community and Economic Research. The index measures relative prices in several categories,
including consumer goods, housing, transportation, utilities and health care, to come up with a
composite score for each city. The national average is 100. So a score below 100 indicates a lower
cost of living. Population and median household income data are from the Census Bureaus American
Community Survey.
T
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
8/64
72012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
1. Brownsville, Texas
Cost of Living Index: 80
Metropolitan Population: 383,171
Median Household Income: $30,034
Average Home Price: $209,177
6. Springfield, Illinois
Cost of Living Index: 86
Metropolitan Population: 206,509
Median Household Income: $51,001
Average Home Price: $207,599
2. Pueblo, Colorado
Cost of Living Index: 84.1
Metropolitan Population: 153,814
Median Household Income: $40,805
Average Home Price: $194,302
7. Waco, Texas
Cost of Living Index: 86
Metropolitan Population: 228,639
Median Household Income: $40,038
Average Home Price: $240,543
3. Fort Hood, Texas
Cost of Living Index: 84.8
Metropolitan Population: 368,682
Median Household Income: $46,183
Average Home Price: $210,383
8. Fayetteville, Arkansas
Cost of Living Index: 87
Metropolitan Population: 441,652
Median Household Income: $45,757
Average Home Price: $227,723
4. Fort Smith, Arkansas
Cost of Living Index: 85
Metropolitan Population: 288,468
Median Household Income: $37,363
Average Home Price: $235,168
9. Austin, Texas
Cost of Living Index: 87
Metropolitan Population: 1,589,393
Median Household Income: $57,109
Average Home Price: $229,145
5. Sherman/ Denison,Texas
Cost of Living Index: 86
Metropolitan Population: 117,913
Median Household Income: $45,171
Average Home Price: $213,485
10. Springfield, Missouri
Cost of Living Index: 87
Metropolitan Population: 417,635
Median Household Income: $41,632
Average Home Price: $222,830
SOURCE: KIPLINGER WEBPAGE
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
9/64
82012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
SOURCE: DALLAS-GARLAND & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD (DGNO)
TRANSPORTATION
Contemporary trends have underlined that economic development has become less dependent on
relations with the environment (resources) and more dependent on relations across space. While
resources remain the foundation of economic activities, the commodification of the economy has been
linked with higher levels of material flows, of all kinds. The transportation and mobility of resources,
capital, and labor (people) that connect intra-regionally and extra-regionally is therefore a key factor for
a healthy regional economy. The availability and capacity of transportation infrastructure is a major
asset for the Texoma region. Few rural areas have the significant physical assets to allow for the
transport of goods and people to markets well beyond the boundary of their region or state.
Rai lways
Texoma is well served by railroads, east-west and north-south. Several Class 1 railway networks pass
through Texoma, connecting to several ports such as the Port of Houston (TX), Port of Catoosa (OK),
and Port of Muskogee (OK). Major railway networks include a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
intermodal route to
Alliance Airport in Fort
Worth, Union Pacific,
Texas Northeastern, and
Dallas-Garland. Amtrak
uses the BNSF intermodal
line for passenger rail
service on their Heartland
Flyer route with a stop in
Gainesville. These
railways operate seven
days a week, include
numerous interchanges
and switches in Texoma
communities, and move
commodities for national
local customers.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
10/64
92012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Airpor ts
Texoma is within 75 miles of two passenger service airports- Dallas-Fort Worth International and Dallas
Love Field- and one of the nations largest industrial and intermodal yards- Alliance Airport in Fort
Worth. Texoma is also served by North Texas Regional Airport (NTRA) in Grayson County, which
boasts newly paved 9,000 x 150 and 8,000 x 150 runways. NTRA has railway access, foreign trade
zone status, triple-freeport exemption, a staffed control tower, and automated water observation system(AWOS). NTRA continues to update it Master Plan, completed in 2002, and in 2011, developed a Land
Use Plan to insure compatible aviation and non-aviation development throughout the Airport. NTRA
offers several industrial sites, dormitories, a golf course, and other services and plans to build a new
terminal building expansion in the coming years.
NTRA SITE DEVELOPMENT MAP SOURCE: WWW.NORTHTEXASREGIONALAIRPORT.COM
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
11/64
102012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Highways
The regional highway system in Texoma includes several four lane highways that connect the area to
major super-regional markets north to south and east to west. Interstate 35 is the major north-south
highway in the central United States. I-35 stretches from Laredo, Texas near the US-Mexico Border in
the south and to the north, all the way to Duluth, Minnesota near the US-Canadian border. I-35 runs
through Cooke County with the towns of Gainesville and Valley View lying right on the interstate. U.S.
Highway 69/75 provides another major north to south highway route for Texoma. U.S. Highway 69
stretches from Port
Arthur, TX on the Gulf
of Mexico and meets
U.S. Highway 75 in
Denison, TX to
continue north to
Minnesota. U.S.
Highway 75 connects
Grayson County with
Dallas and Interstate
45 that continues on to
Houston, TX. North of
Texoma, the HWY 75
continues to Canada
where the road facility
continues as Manitoba
Highway 75.
NATIONAL MAP, SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
REGIONAL MAP, SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
12/64
112012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Grayson County Fannin County Cooke CountyPercentChange2000-201
0
Workers travelling outside the County line
Source: OnTheMap
Comm ut ing Pat t erns , Tra f f ic , and Mobi l i t y o f Workers
If the number of workers
travelling outside the county
line is compared to the total
number of workers in 2002
and 2010, it can be easily
said that Texoma is a net
exporter of workers. In
2002, Fannin County had
the largest number of
residents crossing the
county line to go to work. In
Cooke County, almost half
the workers crossed the
county line to travel to work,
while in Grayson County
less than half of the workers
were employed outside of
the County. These numbers
increased by 2010 for all the
three counties where Fannin
County remained the
highest exporter of workers.
As per the percent change, number of
workers crossing the county line
increased considerably in Grayson
County as well, but there was only a
small increase in this number for
Cooke County.
In 2002, there was high number of
workers travelling less than 10 miles
to go to work. The number of
workers travelling more than 50
miles was also high, but people
travelling lower distances to go to
work were greatest in number. The number of Texoma residents travelling more than 50 miles to get towork declined significantly in 2010, while people travelling less than 10 miles for work decreased in
number. People travelling 25 to 50 miles to go to work greatly increased in 2010.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
13/64
122012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010
2002
Percent of Workers
Year
Less than 10 miles 10 to 24 miles 25 to 50 miles Greater than 50 miles
Source: OnTheMap
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010
2002
Percent of Workers
Year
Less than 10 miles 10 to 24 miles 25 to 50 miles Greater than 50 miles
Source: OnTheMap
Workers employed in
Texoma, but living
outside of the region,
were higher in
number in 2002 than
2010. Interestingly
enough, there are alarge amount of these
workers travelling
less than 10 miles to
get to work. But by
2010, this number
decreased considerably and
the number of workers
travelling more than 50
miles to get to work
increased.
It has been observed
that the workers with
higher earnings are
coming from outside the
region. While the
outflow of the high
wage workers has
increased; it is comparatively lower than the inflow. The outflow of the low and median wage workers
has decreased and the inflow for the same has increased since 2000.
Means of Transpor ta t ion
In 2000, a major part of the population ( 93.89%) of the workers traveled to work by car, truck or van.
About 14.19% of workers who drove
to work carpooled, while the
remaining workers drove alone. This
is a common trend for rural and ex-
urban areas. Between 2008-2010,
the number of people driving to work
decreased slightly, while peopleusing public transportation and other
means to work increased slightly. In
2010, number of workers driving or
walking to work decreased while
workers using other means of
transport increased.
Means of Travel 2000 Census2008 - 2010 Three
year estimates
Workers 16 and over 78,342 83,026
Car, truck, or van 93.89% 92.83%
Drove alone 79.69% 79.50%
Carpooled 14.19% 13.41%
Public transportation
(Excluding taxicab)0.28% 0.64%
Bicycle 0.23% 1.47%
Walked 1.65% 0.08%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or
other means0.74% 1.20%
Worked at home 3.21% 3.65%
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
14/64
132012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Total housing units Vacant housing units Owner Occupied
housing units
Renter Occupied
housing units
NumberofHousingUnits
2000 2010
Source: American Factfinder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Total housing units Vacant housing
units
Owner Occupied
housing units
Renter Occupied
housing units
PercentChange200
0-2010
Source: American Factfinder
HOUSING
Housing infrastructure is an area that on the surface seems like it services only the workers of a
community or region. However, the availability of housing in a community can affect the ability of
developers to build new
and more modern
housing options and the
ability for businesses to
relocated to an area.
The ownership of homes
also provides more
economic stability for a
neighborhood and
community, helping to
maintain property
values, which in turn,
has benefits for the local
taxing districts- namely
schools and city
governments.
In Texoma, home
ownership rose in the
last ten years despite the great recession of
2008 that greatly affected housing
markets. Texoma did not experience a
local collapse in the housing market like
other parts of the United States. While
the number of home owners has grown,ownership rates and renter rates remain
steady, which indicates similar patterns in
the general populations choice to own or
rent a home.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
15/64
142012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Small family, elderly
Small family, non-elderly
Large family
Non-family, elderly
Non-family, non-elderly
Number of Households
Cost Burden By Household Type
Texoma
Cost burden is less than or equal to 30%
Cost burden is greater than 30%, less than or equal to 50%
Cost burden is greater than 50%
SEVERITY OF TEXOMA HOUSING COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE IN 2009SOURCE: HUD CHAS 2009 DATA SET
NUMBER OF TEXOMA HOUSEHOLDS WITH SEVERE HOUSING COST PROBLEMS IN 2009,SOURCE: HUD CHAS 2009 DATA SET
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities
More than 1 person per room
Housing cost burden over 50%, none of the needsabove
Housing cost burden 30.1% to 50%, none of theneeds above
Households with Severe Housing ProblemsTexoma, 2009
95% AMI
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
16/64
152012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
FAIR MARKETS RENTS FOR 2011; SOURCE: HUD FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR). NOTE: FMR IS THE 40THPERCENTILE RENT OF THE STANDARD- QUALITY RENTAL HOUSING UNITS IN THE DEFINED LOCATION
AND INCLUDES SHELTER RENT PLUS THE COST OF ALL TENANT-PAID UTILITIES, EXCEPTTELEPHONES, CABLE OR SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE, AND INTERNET SERVICE.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Rent(Dollars)
Texoma, 2011
Fair Market Rent
Fannin
Cooke
Grayson
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
17/64
162012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Solid waste management is the collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing and monitoring
of waste materials. And, for the most part, economic activity produces waste and the efficient handling
of that waste allows for smoother economic operations. Solid waste management generally involves
landfilling waste, incinerating waste, recycling waste, or reusing waste. There is no materials recovery
center (MRF) in Texoma or known residential or commercial material reuse warehouse/ facility in
Texoma. Numerous communities in the region have residential curbside recycling and transport those
recycled materials to MRFs in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.
There are two open landfills in Texoma, both with sizable capacity to meet waste disposal for decades
to come. The Texoma Area Solid Waste Authority (TASWA) was officially formed in 2000 by the cities
of Denison, Gainesville, and Sherman, Texas and by Cooke and Grayson Counties to provide a solid
waste disposal and recycling facility for its member cities, counties, and other communities in the
Texoma region. In 2005, landfill construction was completed and the landfill took its first load of waste
on April 11, 2005. TASWA dedicated the opening of the facility on April 20. This makes the TASWA
facility relatively young, as it has a project life span of around 50 years. Hillside Sanitary Landfill is the
only other operating landfill in Texoma and is privately owned. The facility is a Type I municipal solid
waste landfill that is permitted to accept non-hazardous household, commercial, industrial, and specialwaste, as well as construction and demolition debris. The facility does not accept hazardous or
radioactive waste.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
18/64
172012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
WATER
MANAGEMENTWater Usage by Comm uni ty
2009 Water Use Survey Summary Estimates by City
City or Place NamePopulationEstimates
1)
MunicipalUse in Acre-
Feet2)
GPCD3)
Residential
GPCD4)
BELLS 1,328 164 110 66
BONHAM 10,655 1,348 113 -
COLLINSVILLE 1,623 NO RETURN NO RETURNNO
RETURN
DENISON 24,603 3,678 133 119
ECTOR 687 72 94 74
GAINESVILLE 16,852 2,317 123 56
GUNTER 1,786 188 94 -
HONEY GROVE 1,864 272 130 64
HOWE 2,950 241 73 56
LADONIA 712 48 60 -
LEONARD 2,009 268 119 56
LINDSAY 1,004 133 119 -
MUENSTER 1,698 295 155 -
POTTSBORO 2,289 261 102 76
SAVOY 874 72 74 82
SHERMAN 39,271 7,158 163 72
TIOGA 958 103 96 72
TOM BEAN 1,034 202 175 -
TRENTON 718 127 157 -
VALLEY VIEW 859 72 74 64
VAN ALSTYNE 2,829 479 151 -
WHITESBORO 4,188 430 92 64
WHITEWRIGHT 1,708 239 125 601)
July 1, 2009 Estimated Population (Source: Texas State Data Center.)2)
An Acre-Foot is an amount of water to cover one acre with one foot of water and equals 325,851 gallons.3)
GPCD: Gallon Per Capita Daily.4)
Residential GPCD is the estimated water use for single family and multi-family residences, expressed on a percapita (population) basis. These estimates, based on responses to questions recently added to the annualwater use survey, are being published for the first time. The pilot display of this data should be viewed in thecontext that, since the reporting of such data had not been historically required, different systems maycategorize and report residential water use differently. A dash ( - ) indicates that the primary utility for the citydid not report appropriate residential volumes in the 2009 survey. No Return - The primary water utility for thiscity failed to return a 2009 water use survey.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
19/64
182012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Historical Water Use Summary by Groundwater (GW) and Surface Water (SW)
Unit: Acre Feet (ACFT)
COOKE COUNTY
Year Source Municipal Manufacturing Steam Electric Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 GW 4,544 308 0 100 599 869 6,4201980 SW 0 0 0 127 0 739 866
Total 4,544 308 0 227 599 1,608 7,286
1990 GW 4,309 304 0 300 421 1,009 6,343
1990 SW 0 0 0 0 54 1,009 1,063
Total 4,309 304 0 300 475 2,018 7,406
2000 GW 5,287 221 0 0 52 881 6,441
2000 SW 0 0 0 0 237 881 1,118
Total 5,287 221 0 0 289 1,762 7,559
2004 GW 5,398 127 0 82 38 475 6,120
2004 SW 0 0 0 118 280 1,202 1,600
Total 5,398 127 0 200 318 1,677 7,720
FANNIN COUNTY
Year Source Municipal Manufacturing Steam Electric Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 GW 2,039 0 136 0 0 152 2,327
1980 SW 1,423 18 5,897 14,195 0 1,220 22,753
Total 3,462 18 6,033 14,195 0 1,372 25,080
1990 GW 2,052 2 206 362 0 134 2,756
1990 SW 1,678 33 6,520 930 0 1,216 10,377
Total 3,730 35 6,726 1,292 0 1,350 13,133
2000 GW 2,500 0 503 1,158 0 125 4,286
2000 SW 2,047 58 8,022 3,450 12 1,143 14,732
Total 4,547 58 8,525 4,608 12 1,268 19,018
2004 GW 2,225 4 139 921 0 86 3,375
2004 SW 3,503 5 2,301 78 9 1,418 7,314
Total 5,728 9 2,440 999 9 1,504 10,689
GRAYSON COUNTY
Year Source Municipal Manufacturing SteamElectric
Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 GW 11,639 3,291 0 2,607 10 211 17,758
1980 SW 5,111 1,072 0 2,620 0 1,316 10,119
Total 16,750 4,363 0 5,227 10 1,527 27,877
1990 GW 9,702 5,065 0 1,528 505 101 16,901
1990 SW 4,483 586 0 15 242 923 6,249
Total 14,185 5,651 0 1,543 747 1,024 23,150
2000 GW 10,473 3,602 0 2,972 815 130 17,992
2000 SW 10,587 2,633 0 410 243 1,167 15,040
Total 21,060 6,235 0 3,382 1,058 1,297 33,032
2004 GW 7,822 1,163 0 1,546 615 70 11,216
2004 SW 16,337 796 0 144 941 1,212 19,430
Total 24,159 1,959 0 1,6901,556
1,282 30,646
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
20/64
192012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Historical Groundwater Pumpage Summary by County
Unit: Acre Feet (ACFT)
COOKE COUNTY
Year Aquifer Municipal Manufacturing Steam Electric Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 TRINITY 4,852 0 0 100 599 869 6,420
Total 4,852 0 0 100 599 869 6,420
1990 TRINITY 4,493 0 0 300 421 1,009 6,223
Total 4,493 0 0 300 421 1,009 6,223
2000 TRINITY 5,385 0 0 0 52 881 6,318
Total 5,385 0 0 0 52 881 6,318
2008 TRINITY 4,466 3 0 0 268 152 4,889
2008 WOODBINE 55 0 0 0 0 76 131
Total 4,521 3 0 0 268 228 5,020
FANNIN COUNTY
Year Aquifer Municipal Manufacturing Steam Electric Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 TRINITY 102 0 0 0 0 28 130
1980 WOODBINE 1,936 0 136 0 0 124 2,196
Total 2,038 0 136 0 0 152 2,326
1990 TRINITY 580 0 0 0 0 25 605
1990 WOODBINE 1,609 0 206 362 0 109 2,286
Total 2,189 0 206 362 0 134 2,891
2000 OTHER 0 0 0 1,158 0 0 1,158
2000 TRINITY 582 0 0 0 0 23 605
2000 WOODBINE 2,399 0 503 0 0 103 3,005
Total 2,981 0 503 1,158 0 126 4,768
2008 BLOSSOM 109 0 0 0 0 0 109
2008 OTHER 109 0 0 0 0 0 109
2008 TRINITY 263 0 0 0 0 0 263
2008 WOODBINE 2,690 0 486 0 0 0 3,176Total 3,171 0 486 0 0 0 3,657
GRAYSON COUNTY
Year Aquifer Municipal Manufacturing Steam Electric Irrigation Mining Livestock Total
1980 OTHER 27 0 0 304 0 0 331
1980 TRINITY 5,573 0 0 0 0 0 5,573
1980 WOODBINE 2,095 98 0 2,303 10 211 4,717
Total 7,695 98 0 2,607 10 211 10,621
1990 OTHER 27 0 0 27 0 0 54
1990 TRINITY 11,903 0 0 0 197 0 12,100
1990 WOODBINE 3,134 0 0 1,501 309 101 5,045
Total 15,064 0 0 1,528 506 101 17,1992000 OTHER 37 0 0 0 0 0 37
2000 TRINITY 10,890 0 0 0 349 0 11,239
2000 WOODBINE 4,082 0 0 2,972 466 130 7,650
Total 15,009 0 0 2,972 815 130 18,926
2008 OTHER 35 0 0 0 0 0 35
2008 TRINITY 7,542 0 0 0 0 94 7,636
2008 WOODBINE 3,985 0 0 0 20 187 4,192
Total 11,562 0 0 0 20 281 11,863
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
21/64
202012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
INFORMATION &
TECHNOLOGY
In ternet /Broadband
According to the Broadband Service Inventory by Connected Texas, the Texoma region is well served
by general-use broadband suitable for at least residential customers. At least one type of broadband
Mservice is available for more than 98% of the Texoma area. Most residents in Texoma use fixed
wireless or DSL broadband services. Some regions also have cable broadband available. Very few
areas have fiber broadband, which is a pattern observed in most rural areas in Texas. Efforts areunderway to make fiber broadband available in parts of rural East Texas, which would be greatly
beneficial for the Texoma region.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
22/64
212012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
23/64
222012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Broadband Adoption Mobile Adoption
Percentofresidents
Rural Seniors Low Income
Source: Connected Texas
Broadband Adoption State Average: 62%Mobile Adoption State Average: 48%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
HealthCareServices
TechnologyIntensive
Agriculture,Mining,Construction,
Utilities M
anufacturing
RetailTrade,Recreation,Foodand
Lodging
ProfessionalandFinancialServices
W
holesaleTrade,Transportationand
Warehousing
AllOtherBusinesses
NumberofBusinesses
Business Sectors
Source: Connected Texas
In 2012, Connected Texas conducted a survey of 3597 residents across the State of Texas to study the
adoption rates for internet and broadband service. It was observed that broadband technology adoption
was the least among the seniors, low
income, and rural populations.
Most of these people also do not
own a computer. In Texoma,
these populations make up alarge percentage of the overall
population. In another survey,
called Business Technology
Survey, that was conducted
among businesses across the
state, a high percentage of
businesses reported the adoption
of internet and broadband in the
workplace. The means that the
ability to use internet might nolonger be a personal choice, but a
workforce development issue, especially
in Texoma. This survey lists the
number of businesses by sector that does not use a broadband service.
Retails Trade, Recreation, Food and Lodging Sector has the highest number of
businesses with the service.
Telev is ion Broadcast ing
Texoma lies within the Sherman- Ada Designated Market Area (DMA), which ranks 161st in total
number of viewers (129,480 households in all) out of 210 DMAs nationally. Stations KTEN and KXII are
licensed in the DMA and, combined, provide network feeds for all major US commercial broadcasting
television networks.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
24/64
232012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
ENERGY SYSTEMS
About E lec t r ic a l Energy
Texoma lies within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), one of the nations only
independent system operators. ERCOT is its own stand-alone electric power grid and ensure a reliable,
secure and uninterrupted supply of electricity by connecting 40,500 miles of transmission lines and
more than 550 generation units. Since January 2002, Texas has been a competitive electric market or
what is better known as a deregulated market. This means the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electrical power is separated into different companies and retail electric providers
compete to sell electricity to both residential and non-residential customers. Dozens of retailers serve
Texomas residential and non-residential power customers. These customers are able to choose their
retail electric provider and can do so usingwww.powertochoose.org. The Public Utilities Commission of
Texas (PUC) provides this fee tool and oversees electric and telecommunications utilities in Texas. The
mission of the PUC is to protect customers, foster competition, and promote high quality infrastructure.
Texoma is also served by several cooperative power providers which are member-owned, non-profit
electric cooperatives that are exempt from the deregulated market in Texas. The following cooperative
electrical providers serve parts of Texoma (for more information about specific service areas, visitwww.texas-ec.org): Cooke County Electric Cooperative Association, CoServ Electric, Wise Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Grayson-Collin Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc., and
Lamar County Electric Cooperative Association.
About Natura l Gas Energy
Texoma lies within the natural gas utility service area for Atmos Energy. Atmos Energy is one of the
largest natural-gas-only distributors in the United States. Our regulated distribution operations deliver
natural gas to 3.2 million residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and public-authority customers.
Our distribution services are provided to more than 1,600 communities in 12 states (more information
can be found atwww.atmosenergy.com).
http://www.powertochoose.org/http://www.powertochoose.org/http://www.powertochoose.org/http://www.texas-ec.org/http://www.texas-ec.org/http://www.atmosenergy.com/http://www.atmosenergy.com/http://www.atmosenergy.com/http://www.atmosenergy.com/http://www.texas-ec.org/http://www.powertochoose.org/7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
25/64
242012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
ART & CULTURE
Grayson County
In Grayson County, Denison Arts Council is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization comprising of a
volunteer board. It is funded through a portion of the receipts from hotel-motel taxes generated by the
City of Denison, donations from galleries, studios and patrons, local foundations, individuals and grants
from the Texas Commission on the Arts and the NEA.
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
2000-2008 Number of establishments: 32.28%
2000-2008 Number of jobs: -6.08%
No major changes except in 2001 and 2003, the number of establishments increased by 9.2% and
7.7% respectively. No changes in Grayson County apart from an increase in the number of jobs in
2005. In Fannin and Cooke counties high increase in the number of establishments was seen in 2001
and 2003 as in the state. The number of jobs also increased significantly in 2003.
Change in average weekly wages 4th Qtr 2005 4th Qtr 2011: 12.89% (Total)
Establishments are represented by federal and local government and private sector and the average
weekly wages are similar for all of them.
This industry has only private sector establishments in the three counties and the average weekly
wages are less than the state for all three counties. It is the least for Fannin County and Grayson
County has the highest wages among the counties.
Denison arts venues
ArtPlace Gallery and Framing
Mary Karam Gallery
Images A Gallery of Fine Art
Grayson County College Fine Arts Complex
Freshlight Studio & Gallery
416 West Gallery & Print Studio
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
26/64
252012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Donna Finch Adams Studio 406
The Peanut Building Gallery
Mystic Studio/Joni Beamish
David MacSmith Fine Art Studio
Sunday Morning Art and Coffee Club
Doug Simpson Studio & Mixed Media Art Supply
Janice Howell Studio
Glassworks Etcetera
PhotoArt by Julia Ringler
Sherman ar ts venues
Downtown Sherman houses an Arts and Culture District. Some of the venues in downtown Shermanare
Sherman Jazz Museum
Theatriks Childrens Theater
Sherman Community Players, Main Stage
Community Series
Red River Historical Museum
Sherman Preservation League
Sherman Symphony Orchestra
Fannin County
Creative Arts Center at Bonham, TX provides a venue where artists and performers explore, create,
display and teach their craft, and where people of all ages learn and experience art. It is a project of the
Fannin Community Foundation, Inc., a public, non-profit 501(c)(3) funded with the support of
individuals, local churches, civic organizations, and other community groups.
Cooke County
The purpose Gainesville Area Visual Arts (GAVA), a non-profit organization, is to stimulate interest and
knowledge of the visual arts for adults and children in the Gainesville and Cooke County, Texas, area.
There are various activities planned by GAVA:
Demonstrations by recognized artists
Workshops for children and adults
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
27/64
262012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Art Exhibits to benefit other local Art venues
Annual awards and scholarships for children
Other art venues in Cooke County:
Butterfield Stage community theatre
Morton Museum of Cooke County
Cooke County Ballet Academy
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
28/64
272012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
COMMUNITY &
CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT
Cooke 38437 23778 9240 24.03%
Fannin 33915 18879 7334 21.62%
Grayson 120877 73257 26916 22.26%
SOURCE: TEXAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.*DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION POPULATION NOTELIGIBLE TO VOTE
Annual Giv ing by County
2,955 3,248 14
3,788 17,252 138
3,970 36,185 319
2,261 61,480 752
1,318 86,491 1,446
1,259 129,887 3,488
352 642,943 12,534
15,903 54,169 895
2,372 2,503 11
3,091 17,287 92
3,182 36,018 229
1,775 61,630 728
962 86,455 1,650
768 139,305 3,033
72 402,000 10,972
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
29/64
282012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
12,222 41,112 576
10,392 3,566 13
13,559 17,257 108
13,141 35,899 373
7,315 61,400 876
4,341 86,416 1,546
4,064 130,478 3,428950 479,652 12,655
53,762 47,487 848
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
30/64
292012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
HEALTH &
HEALTH CARE
Hea l th Outc omes
Each year, the Robert Wood Lowe Foundation publishes a national ranking of various indicators of
general public health. The County Health Rankings help community leaders identify challenges and
take action in a variety of ways to improve residents health. Across the nation, some factors that
influence health, such as smoking, availability of primary care physicians, and social support, showhighs and lows across all regions. Meanwhile other factors reflect some distinct regional patterns, such
as: excessive drinking rates are highest in the northern states, rates of teen births, sexually transmitted
infections, and children in poverty are highest across the southern states, unemployment rates are
lowest in the northeastern, Midwest, and central plains states, motor vehicle crash deaths are lowest in
the northeastern and upper Midwest states.
In Texoma, smoking rates are generally higher than in other rural areas of Texas and the United State.
This can have long-term negative side effects for employers and the local healthcare system with more
sick days and more visits to the doctor and need for medical care throughout the course of a lifetime.
There is not one health indicator that a Texoma county ranks better than 47 out of 254 counties in
Texas (see next page for more information).
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
31/64
302012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
133 115 138
Mortality 137 131 136
Premature death 8,920 7,289 5,564
Morbidity 134 85 145
Poor or fair health
Poor physical health days
Poor mental health days
Low birth weight
19%
3.8
5.5
7.60%
3.6
2.9
8.30%
5.4
3.9
7.70%
19%
3.6
3.3
8.10%
10%
2.6
2.3
6.00%
56 109 73
Health Behaviors 47 136 36
Adult smoking
Adult obesity
Excessive drinking
Motor vehicle crash death rate
Sexually transmitted infections
Teen birth rate
27%
25%
10%
25
258
64
29%
12%
28
214
70
26%
36
214
64
19%
27%
16%
17
422
64
15%
25%
8%
12
83
22
Clinical Care 65 130 139
Uninsured adults
Primary care providers
Preventable hospital stays
Diabetic screening
Mammography screening
27%
1,305:1
95
81%
56%
30%
2,261:1
89
72%
61%
27%
4,717:1
99
75%
59%
30%
1,050:1
80
80%
59%
13%
631:1
52
89%
74%
Social & Economic Factors 85 67 88
High school graduation
Some college
Unemployment
Children in poverty
Inadequate social support
Single-parent households
Violent crime rate
80%
56%
8.10%
19%
25%
33%
265
75%
49%
6.60%
19%
27%
381
90%
42%
8.80%
20%
27%
223
72%
55%
7.60%
23%
23%
32%
512
92%
68%
5.30%
11%
14%
20%
100
Physical Environment 127 214 172
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
32/64
312012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Air pollution-particulate matter days
Air pollution-ozone days
Access to healthy foods
Access to recreational facilities
0
9
47%
13
0
13
17%
8
0
1
33%
3
1
18
62%
7
0
0
92%
17
SOURCE: ROBERT WOOD LOWE FOUNDATION
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
33/64
322012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
INDIVIDUAL,
FAMILY &
COMMUNITY
SUPPORTPover t y in Texom a
There are two major measures of poverty used by the federal government that is closely followed and
often utilized by other governmental agencies and non-for-profit organizations: Federal Poverty
Guidelines and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Average Median Income. Even
with a low cost of living, poverty rates in Texoma tend to follow state and national rates as well as
geographical patterns with localized high densities of high poverty areas.
TEXAS ELIGIBILITY FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, *INCOME LIMIT SHOWN IS FOR APPLICANTSONLY. SOURCE: CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES (CPPP) POLICY POINT, POVERTY 101,SEPTEMBER 28, 2010.
$33,874 $33,874
$23,803 $23,803
$42,703
$27,465
$2,256
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
WIC Reduced-PriceSchool Meals
Free SchoolMeals
Food Stamps(SNAP)
Max. ChildCare
Typical ChildCare
TANF CashAssistance*
Percentage of FPL for a family of three,100= Poverty Line
Percentage of FPL for a family of three, 100= Poverty Line
185% 185% 130% 130% 243% 150%12%
Full-time min.wage:
$15,080 per year(82% of poverty)
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
34/64
332012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND TEXOMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND TEXOMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
35/64
342012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND TEXOMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
36/64
352012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
EMPLOYMENT &
TRAINING
Educa t iona l I ns t i t u t ions in Texoma
Cooke CountyTotal
Enrollment
Fannin
County
Total
EnrollmentGrayson County
Total
Enrollment
Muenster ISD 473 Bonham ISD 1883 Bells ISD 748
Gainesville ISD 2609Dodd City
ISD321 Collinsville ISD 538
Valley View ISD 629 Ector ISD 276 Denison ISD 4360
Callisburg ISD 1191Honey Grove
CISD584 Howe ISD 975
Lindsay ISD 543 Leonard ISD 883 Sherman ISD 6546
Savoy ISD 298 Tioga ISD 142
Trenton ISD 539 Van Alstyne ISD 1339
Whitesboro ISD 1471
Whitewright ISD 746
Pottsboro ISD 1234
Sadler-Southmayd CISD
784
Gunter ISD 766
Tom Bean ISD 745
North Central Texas College, Total Enrollment: 2,256
Established in 1924 under the leadership of Texas community college pioneer Randolph Lee Clark,
North Central Texas College is the oldest continuously operating public two-year college in the state.
From its roots as a small, rural "junior" college an extension of the local public schools actually
NCTC has grown and matured into a comprehensive, full-service community college of truly regional
scope, serving students from three major campuses located across its three-county service area.
Grayson County College, Total Enrollment: 5,034
Grayson County College, as the community's college, embraces lifelong learning focused on
educational, cultural, social, and public service activities designed to tangibly enrich the individual and
our community. The mission of Grayson County College is to cultivate student success and community
building in North Texas. GCC offers degrees in Associate of Science, Associate of Arts in Teaching,
Associate of Applied Science, and Certificates of Completion.
http://www.muensterisd.net/muenster/site/default.asphttp://www.bonhamisd.org/education/district/district.php?sectionid=1http://bellsisd.net/http://www.gainesvilleisd.org/gainesvilleisd/site/default.asphttp://www.doddcityisd.org/http://www.doddcityisd.org/http://www.collinsvilleisd.org/http://www.vviewisd.net/http://www.ector-county.k12.tx.us/ecisd/site/default.asphttp://www.denisonisd.net/education/district/district.php?sectionid=1http://www.cisdtx.net/callisburg/site/default.asphttp://honeygroveisd.net/http://honeygroveisd.net/http://www.howeisd.net/site/default.aspx?PageID=1http://www.lindsayisd.org/lindsayisd/site/default.asphttp://www.leonardisd.net/http://shermanisd.net/http://www.savoyisd.org/http://www.tiogaisd.net/http://www.savoyisd.org/http://www.vanalstyneisd.org/http://www.whitesboroisd.org/index.cfmhttp://www.whitewrightisd.com/http://www.pottsboroisd.org/http://sscisd.net/http://sscisd.net/http://www.gunterisd.org/http://www.tombean-isd.org/http://www.tombean-isd.org/http://www.gunterisd.org/http://sscisd.net/http://sscisd.net/http://www.pottsboroisd.org/http://www.whitewrightisd.com/http://www.whitesboroisd.org/index.cfmhttp://www.vanalstyneisd.org/http://www.savoyisd.org/http://www.tiogaisd.net/http://www.savoyisd.org/http://shermanisd.net/http://www.leonardisd.net/http://www.lindsayisd.org/lindsayisd/site/default.asphttp://www.howeisd.net/site/default.aspx?PageID=1http://honeygroveisd.net/http://honeygroveisd.net/http://www.cisdtx.net/callisburg/site/default.asphttp://www.denisonisd.net/education/district/district.php?sectionid=1http://www.ector-county.k12.tx.us/ecisd/site/default.asphttp://www.vviewisd.net/http://www.collinsvilleisd.org/http://www.doddcityisd.org/http://www.doddcityisd.org/http://www.gainesvilleisd.org/gainesvilleisd/site/default.asphttp://bellsisd.net/http://www.bonhamisd.org/education/district/district.php?sectionid=1http://www.muensterisd.net/muenster/site/default.asp7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
37/64
362012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Austin College, Total Enrollment: 1,293
Austin College is a private, residential, co-educational college dedicated to educating undergraduate
students in the liberal arts and sciences while also offering select pre-professional programs and a
graduate teacher education program. Founded by the Presbyterian Church in 1849, Austin College
continues its relationship with the church and its commitment to a heritage that values personal growth,
justice, community, and service. An Austin College education emphasizes academic excellence,
intellectual and personal integrity, and participation in community life.
Occupat iona l C lus ters
Occupation clusters help to analyze the regional knowledge-based workforce in greater detail,
determine how well occupation cluster strengths align with the regions industry cluster strengths,
understand the local workforce and educational situation within the broader regional economic
development context, bridge the gap between workforce and economic development when constructing
a regional economic development strategy, diagnose how well positioned the region is to participate
effectively in a knowledge-based innovation economy. The following chart illustrates the number of jobs
in each cluster, the clusters share of total regional employment, and the location quotient of the cluster
(a measurement of how concentrated that cluster is in Texoma compared to the nation.
The table below looks at Texoma and identifies those occupations with the strongest percentage
change and the largest increase in the number of jobs from 2001 to 2007. Agents and business
managers of artists, performers, and athletes had the largest percentage change, but that occupational
segment is relatively small. Photographers represent the largest growth category in absolute terms,
with 99 new jobs added in that occupational category.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
38/64
372012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Texoma Baseline Occupational Cluster Analysis (2007)
Description Occupation ClusterEmployment
Occ. ClusterShare of Total
Emp.
Occupation ClusterEmployment LQ
Managerial, Sales, Marketing and HR 7,235 7.3% 0.87
Skilled Production Workers: Technicians,
Operators, Trades, Installers & Repairers
9,115 9.2% 1.22
Health Care and Medical Science
(Aggregate)
4,918 5.0% 0.94
Health Care and Medical Science
(Medical Practitioners and Scientists)
912 0.9% 0.77
Health Care and Medical Science
(Medical Technicians)
902 0.9% 0.86
Health Care and Medical Science
(Therapy, Counseling and Rehabilitation )
3,105 3.1% 1.04
Mathematics, Statistics, Data and
Accounting
1,405 1.4% 0.61
Legal and Financial Services, and Real
Estate (L & FIRE)
6,505 6.6% 0.81
Information Technology (IT) 1,189 1.2% 0.62
Natural Sciences and Environmental
Management
425 0.4% 0.97
Crop and Livestock Workers 6,677 6.8% 4.49
Primary/Secondary and Vocational
Education, Remediation & Social Services
5,434 5.5% 1.07
Building, Landscape and Construction
Design
495 0.5% 1.00
Engineering and Related Sciences 965 1.0% 0.96
Personal Services Occupations 1,642 1.7% 0.85
Arts, Entertainment, Publishing and
Broadcasting
1,309 1.3% 0.66
Public Safety and Domestic Security 1,326 1.3% 1.18
Postsecondary Education and Knowledge
Creation
932 0.9% 0.76
Job Zone 2 33,867 34.3% 0.99
Job Zone 1 14,603 14.8% 0.99
Technology-Based Knowledge Clusters 5,828 5.9% 0.72
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
39/64
382012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Texoma Targeted Occ upat ions
The Labor Market and Career Information (LMCI) division of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)
recently released occupational projections through 2012. This study presented information including:
Occupations Adding the Most Jobs, Fastest Growing Occupations, Occupations with the Most Annual
Average Openings. The historical makeup and current trends in the local labor market support this list.A number of the jobs included in this list are also included in the current Workforce Texoma Demand
Occupations List.
After developing the list of Occupations in Demand, the list was sorted by wage, and those occupations
with an average entry wage greater that the Texoma adopted Target Wage of $9.00 per hour were
placed on the DRAFT Target Occupations List. This list was then compared with the previous target
occupations list, and local training programs to create the final Targeted Occupations List. The
complete Targeted Occupations List in on the following page.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
40/64
392012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
41/64
402012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
EDUCATION
Educa t iona l A t t a inment
Addressing the challenges of a global economy requires a shift away from traditional economic
development models. Instead of low-wage rates and tax incentives, regions in industrialized countries
compete today on the quality of their skilled workforce and incentives that reward innovation (from the
Council on Competitiveness).
Workforce development is usually tied closely to educational attainment and communication and
collaboration between workforce/education organizations, economic development organizations, the
private sector, resource allocation, and effectiveness of service delivery. The development of skills
necessary to fill high wage jobs is critical to the continued economic development efforts in the region,
especially as our region experiences changes in labor market demands.
Schools educate and prepare the future workforce for the region. Youth who do not aspire to higher
education and who lack career training opportunities are at risk to become lost in a cycle of
unemployment and underemployment leading to a life of low wages and poverty putting their families
and children at risk for a similar working life. The regions public schools, colleges, and workforce
boards provide education opportunities for Texoma residents to gain skills and training necessary to
enter the labor force.
Educational attainment is an indicator commonly used to measure the average skills of the local labor
force. The percentage of Texoma residents who have at least a high school diploma falls in between
the averages for the state of Texas and the nation, which are 79.2 percent and 84.5 percent
respectively. Although the figures for the number of residents with some college experience are
relatively consistent with other regions, Texoma lags behind in percent of the population who have
completed a bachelors degree. This is important to note as economic development practitioners and
local officials court industries and jobs that require additional education and training such as the
teaching field and high-tech industry.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
42/64
412012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Grayson
County
2008-2010
Grayson
County
2006-2008
Gra
yson
Co
unty
2000
Fannin
County
2008-2010
Fannin
County
2006-2008
Fannin
County
2000
Cooke
County
2
008-2010
Cooke
County
2006-2008
Cooke
County
2000
Percent Population
County&Year
Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diplomaHigh school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree
Associate's degree Bachelor's degreeGraduate or professional degree
Source: American Factfinder
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
43/64
422012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Ski l ls
As part of their strategic planning, Workforce Solutions Texoma (WST) has constructed a list of
workforce skills most commonly identified by employers as being important.
WST used their Demand Occupations List as a starting point and developed a list of neededskills using O*NET. For each occupation it classifies, O*NET provides a standard list of skills
and gives each of those skills a score. This score represents how important it is to that
demand occupation. The importance scores for all the occupations on the list were recorded,
and then averaged.
As a second measure, WST compared the O*NET scores with the targets skills of Business
Education for Teachers. Workforce Texoma participates annually in a project called Business
Education for Teachers (BET). This project places teachers in local worksites each summer,
and then requires them to do curriculum development in order to ensure they take what they
have learned about employer needs back into the classroom. One component of the project is
a comprehensive list of necessary skills developed by the teachers. Skills with the highest
average level of importance in the O*NET study were compared with this list in order to
validate the results.
Skill Identified Locally
Reading Comprehension X
Active Listening X
Speaking X
Critical Thinking X
Active Learning X
Equipment Selection
Mathematics X
Instructing
Learning Strategies
Time Management X
Monitoring
Writing X
Judgment & Decision Making X
Complex Problem Solving X
Coordination X
Troubleshooting
Social Perceptiveness X
Quality Control Analysis
Service Orientation
Equipment Maintenance
COMPARISON OF O*NET AND LOCAL SKILLS FROMWORKFORCE SOLUTIONS TEXOMA 2010 STRATEGIC PLAN
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
44/64
432012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
Personal bankruptcy filings include both Chapter 7 (liquidations) and Chapter 13 (reorganizations)
based on the county of residence of the filer. The personal bankruptcy filing rate is the number of
bankruptcies per thousand residents.
PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY FILING RATE (PER 1,000 POPULATION)
COOKE COUNTY2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
0.76 1.31 0.89 1.69 1.64 1.18 109
FANNIN COUNTY2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1.46 1.58 2.18 2.27 2.30 1.69 62
GRAYSON COUNTY2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1.88 2.14 2.38 2.92 2.79 2.17 23
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,http://www2.fdic.gov/recon/index.asp
http://www2.fdic.gov/recon/index.asphttp://www2.fdic.gov/recon/index.asphttp://www2.fdic.gov/recon/index.asp7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
45/64
442012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
Banking, Finance and Insurance 314 100% $527,566,000 1,269
Commercial banks 7 2.23% $197,913,000 84 0.04 0.0012
BANK OF AMERICA ATM $602,000 2
LEGEND BANK $65,224,000 24
PROSPERITY BANK $129,679,000 50
Credit Unions 12 3.82% $20,504,000 88 0.06 0.0020
CICOST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION $2,097,000 9
DENISON DISTRICT TELEPHONE CU $466,000 2
FANNIN COUNTY TEACHERS CU $466,000 2
FANNIN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION $2,097,000 9
NASCOGA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION $3,262,000 14
TEXANS CREDIT UNION $932,000 4
TEXAS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION $1,165,000 5
TEXOMA EDUCATORS FCU $233,000 1
TEXOMA EDUCATORS FEDERAL CU $6,524,000 28
Sales Financing 2 0.64% $2,910,000 5 0.01 0.0003
CHECK N TITLE $582,000 1
CHECK N TITLE LOANS $2,328,000 4
Consumer Lending 18 5.73% $18,216,000 46 0.09 0.0030
AGRILAND FARM CREDIT SVC $1,584,000 4
BARRY FONTAINE & ASSOC $1,188,000 3
CASH EXPRESS $396,000 1
CASH NOW $792,000 2
CITY FINANCE $792,000 2
COMMUNITY LOANS $792,000 2
FANNIN CASH ADVANCE $792,000 2
FEDCASH FINANCIAL SVC CTR $1,188,000 3
FIRST CAPITAL FINANCE CO $792,000 2
GOLD STAR FINANCE $1,188,000 3
LIBERTY FINANCE $396,000 1
MAIN STREET MANAGEMENT $396,000 1
PURPOSE MONEY $1,188,000 3
SECURITY BANK $2,772,000 7
SERVICE LOAN CO $792,000 2
SHERMAN FINANCE INC $1,188,000 3
TEXAS CAR TITLE & PAYDAY LOAN $1,188,000 3Real Estate Credit Lending 17 5.41% $15,920,000 80 0.09 0.0029
ADAMS FIRST FINANCIAL $995,000 5
ASCENT HOME LOANS $995,000 5
CALLENDER MORTGAGE $597,000 3
FIRST COLONIAL MORTGAGE INC $1,194,000 6
FIRST SOURCE CAPITAL MORTGAGE $995,000 5
FIRST UNITED BANK MORTGAGE $1,393,000 7
GRANITE MORTGAGE $199,000 1
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
46/64
452012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
L R MORTGAGE $597,000 3
LAFOY JANET $995,000 5
MORTGAGE TECH INC $796,000 4
PACIFIC AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO $995,000 5
POINT MORTGAGE $199,000 1
RCG $1,990,000 10
W R STARKEY MORTGAGE $1,194,000 6
WR STARKEY $1,393,000 7
Miscellaneous Nondepository Credit
Intermediation12 3.82% $3,608,000 41
0.06 0.0020
A-A-A TRADING POST & PAWN $264,000 3
BEST PAWN SUPERSTORE $264,000 3
DENISON PAWN & SPORTING
GOODS$264,000 3
ELDORADO JEWELRY & LOAN $264,000 3
EZPAWN $528,000 6
F & I PAWN SHOP $176,000 2
LOAN STAR PAWN $176,000 2
PAWN TECH INC $264,000 3
WHITLOCK'S PAWN & JEWELRY $352,000 4
WILD WEST PAWN $264,000 3
Loan Brokerages 1 0.32% $420,000 2 0.01 0.0002
AGRILAND FARM CREDIT $420,000 2
Financial Transaction Processing 6 1.91% $5,936,000 16 0.03 0.0010
BARRI REMITTANCE CORP $742,000 2
CASH STORE $371,000 1
CHECKS ARE US INC $742,000 2
CLIFF'S CHECK CASHING STORE $1,113,000 3
Investment and Securities Banking 4 1.27% $2,814,000 7 0.02 0.0007
BOWEN RANDY $804,000 2
DENNIS HESS FINANCIAL SVC $402,000 1
DEXTER WARD & ASSOC $1,206,000 3
INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL SVC CTR $402,000 1
Securities Brokerages 2 0.64% $3,216,000 8 0.01 0.0003
MOSELEY & ASSOC LLP $2,010,000 5WELLS FARGO ADVISORS $1,206,000 3
Miscellaneous Financial Intermediaries 5 1.59% $9,054,000 18 0.03 0.0008
B29 INVESTMENTS $1,509,000 3
DUGGER MARQUES INVESTMENTS $1,509,000 3
LPL FINANCIAL $1,509,000 3
PIPELINE RESOURCES $3,521,000 7
VRB INVESTMENTS LLC $1,006,000 2
B29 INVESTMENTS $1,509,000 3
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
47/64
462012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
DUGGER MARQUES INVESTMENTS $1,509,000 3
LPL FINANCIAL $1,509,000 3
PIPELINE RESOURCES $3,521,000 7
VRB INVESTMENTS LLC $1,006,000 2
Investment Advice Counseling Services 31 9.87% $41,216,000 128 0.16 0.0052
ANDREA ALLEN FINANCIAL SVC $644,000 2
ASSET PLANNING $644,000 2
ATLAS FINANCIAL SVC LLC $322,000 1
BARKER INVESTMENT SVC INC $1,288,000 4
BROOKS & ASSOC PUBLIC RLTNS $15,778,000 49
CHAFFIN ANN L $644,000 2
EDWARD JONES $644,000 2
ERIC BATEY FINANCIAL SVC $966,000 3
ERIC BATEY RETIREMENT PLANNING $966,000 3
FINANCIAL RESOURCES $966,000 3
GAIN PLAN FINANCIAL $966,000 3
M D PLANNING $966,000 3
MANCHESTER FINANCIAL SVC INC $1,610,000 5
MERRILL LYNCH $2,254,000 7
MET LIFE RESOURCES $322,000 1
PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SVC $1,932,000 6
RAYMOND JAMES $322,000 1
ROM FINANCIAL INC $966,000 3
TEXOMA FINANCIAL SVC $644,000 2
TIM HIGHTOWER & ASSOC $1,288,000 4
WORLD FINANCE $966,000 3
Miscellaneous Financial Investment
Activities3 0.96% $8,280,000 14
0.02 0.0005
JONES INVESTMENTS $4,984,000 8
RICHARD KLEMENT INVESTMENTS $2,492,000 4
SCHNEIDER JIMMIE L $804,000 2
Direct Life Insurance 1 0.32% $1,700,000 2 0.01 0.0002
INSURANCE BY DESIGN $1,700,000 2
Health and Medical Insurance 1 0.32% $5,940,000 5 0.01 0.0002
CIGNA HEALTH CARE $5,940,000 5
Property Insurance 19 6.05% $42,182,000 46 0.10 0.0032
24 HOUR BAIL BONDS $2,751,000 3
A A AMERICAN BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
A AFFORDABLE BAIL BONDS $917,000 1
AA-AMERICAN BAIL BONDS $2,751,000 3
A-ACTION AA BONDING $1,834,000 2
ABLE BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
48/64
472012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
ANDALE FIANZAS $1,834,000 2
CENTRAL BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
CREDIT BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
DOCK'S BAIL BONDS $5,502,000 6
DOC'S BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
EUGENE HAROLD LUND INSURANCE $917,000 1
FANNIN COUNTY BAIL BONDS $917,000 1
LIBERTY BAIL BOND $4,585,000 5
LUCKY BAIL BONDS $4,585,000 5
NORTH TEXAS BAIL BOND $2,751,000 3
PERKINS FREEDOM BAIL BONDS $917,000 1
RICK'S BAIL BOND $917,000 1
SPANKY'S BAIL BONDS $1,834,000 2
Title insurance 1 0.32% $924,000 3 0.01 0.0002
SECURITY TITLE INC $924,000 3
Insurance Agencies and Brokerages 16351.91
%$142,086,000 651
0.84 0.0274
A PLUS SR22 AUTO INSURANCE $657,000 3
A PLUS SR22/AUTO INSURANCE $392,000 2
ACCEL INSURANCE $657,000 3
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE $438,000 2
ALAN HOLDER INS & ANNUITIES $392,000 2
ALETHA BRYAN INSURANCE $219,000 1
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO $657,000 3
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE $657,000 3
AMERICAN SENIORS INSURANCE $438,000 2
AMO FARMERS INSURANCE LINES $438,000 2
BACH INSURANCE GROUP $1,176,000 6
BARRETT HEALTH INSURANCE $196,000 1
BATEMAN INSURANCE $219,000 1
BAYLESS-HALL INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
BAYLESS-HALL INSURANCE INC $2,190,000 10
BEALL & BEALL INSURANCE $657,000 3
BEZNER INSURANCE $657,000 3
BINGHAM INSURANCE $219,000 1
BLT INSURANCE SVC $438,000 2
BOB CORLEY INSURANCE $657,000 3
BOBBY W EATON INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
BRADFORD-WATSON CO INC $438,000 2
BRIDIE & ASSOC $657,000 3
BROWN INSURANCE $219,000 1
BUCHANAN INSURANCE $657,000 3
CARL RIDER INSURANCE $219,000 1
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
49/64
482012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
CEVA BENEFITS GROUP $1,176,000 6
CHANDLER BURNETT INSURANCE $657,000 3
CHARLES HOLDER INSURANCE $657,000 3
CIGNA $657,000 3
CLAYTON INSURANCE $657,000 3
CMRP INC $1,095,000 5
COOKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU $876,000 4
DANFORTH LIFE PARTNERS $657,000 3
DANNY KNIGHT INSURANCE CO $438,000 2
DAVID A MEANS INC $657,000 3
DILLARD & GANN INSURANCE $657,000 3
DON HUTCHERSON INSURANCE $657,000 3
E E RANCHES INC $28,470,000 130
EAGLE GROUP INS RESOURES INC $657,000 3
FALLON CO $438,000 2
FANNIN DEFENSIVE DRIVING $657,000 3
FARM BUREAU INSURANCE $1,971,000 9
FARM N' HOME $657,000 3
FARM N HOME CASUALTY $2,628,000 12
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP $438,000 2
FARMERS MUTUAL PROTECTIVE
ASSN$657,000 3
FIRST STATE BANK INS AGENCY $438,000 2
FMW INSURANCE $219,000 1
GALYON INSURANCE & TRAVEL $219,000 1
GARLAND INSURANCE $438,000 2
GERMANIA FARM MUTUAL
INSURANCE$657,000 3
GIBSON INSURANCE $876,000 4
HARRIS BLANTON INC $219,000 1
HATFIELD & SON $876,000 4
HEALTH INSURANCE TEXOMA $438,000 2
HEJNY INSURANCE $438,000 2
HEMPKINS INSURANCE $876,000 4
HUTCHERSON INSURANCE $219,000 1
INGRAM INSURANCE GROUP $219,000 1INSURANCE OF VAN ALSTYNE $219,000 1
INSURANCE SERVICES AGENCY $1,314,000 6
INSURANCE SERVICES OF TEXAS $657,000 3
J B COLE INSURANCE $219,000 1
JACK B LILLEY INSURANCE $219,000 1
JAMES AGENCY $438,000 2
JAMES BUCKNER INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
JAMES CROW INSURANCE $657,000 3
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
50/64
492012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
JAMES H DONOHOE INSURANCE $219,000 1
JAY BUCKNER INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
JERRY HEJNY INSURANCE $219,000 1
JESTIS INSURANCE $657,000 3
JIM UTLEY INSURANCE $438,000 2
JONES TERRY $219,000 1
JONES-PHILLIPS INSURANCE $876,000 4
JOY SMITH INSURANCE $219,000 1
KATIE ANTIQUE STATION $438,000 2
KELLY JOHNSON INSURANCE $657,000 3
KEN BLANTON INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
KEN JONES INSURANCE $438,000 2
LAKE TEXOMA INSURANCE $438,000 2
LARRY LANDRUM INSURANCE $657,000 3
LINDA HAMILL INSURANCE $438,000 2
LYNCH JR ALTON B $219,000 1
MARK BROWN INSURANCE $438,000 2
MARSHALL BRONSON AGENCY $219,000 1
MARSICO & ASSOC $3,723,000 17
MARTY ALLISON INSURANCE $438,000 2
MASS MUTUAL FINANCIAL GROUP $657,000 3
MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE $876,000 4
MAYO INSURANCE $438,000 2
MC CULLOUGH & PIERSON AGENCY $438,000 2
MICHAEL MUNN INSURANCE $196,000 1
MIKE AKINS & CO $219,000 1
MIKE BARNES INSURANCE $1,095,000 5
MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA $219,000 1
MUENSTER FARM MUTUAL FIRE INS $438,000 2
MURRAY INSURANCE $2,628,000 12
NAT MC CLURE INSURANCE $1,314,000 6
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE $657,000 3
NEW YORK LIFE $438,000 2
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO $219,000 1
NOBLE INSURANCE SVC $219,000 1NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
FINANCIAL$438,000 2
ODEN INSURANCE $219,000 1
PERRY ROY INSURANCE $657,000 3
PHILLIPS INSURANCE $876,000 4
PIERCE INSURANCE SVC $392,000 2
RELIABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO $6,132,000 28
ROBERT HERMES INSURANCE $219,000 1
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
51/64
502012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Business Type
Total
Businesses % Estimated Sales
# Est.
Employees
Businesses per
1000 people
Ratio
businesses
to
institutions
RON PERRY INSURANCE $657,000 3
SAMPLE INSURANCE $438,000 2
SANDRA PHILLIPS INSURANCE $657,000 3
STAR H EQUINE INSURANCE $657,000 3
STATE FARM INSURANCE $657,000 3
STATHAM ZAN S $219,000 1
TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS $657,000 3
TIM FAULKNER'S INSURANCE $219,000 1
TOM SHIELDS AGENCY $219,000 1
TURNER MORGAN AFFORDABLE INS $657,000 3
VOGEL AGENCY $876,000 4
WALKER INSURANCE $657,000 3
WALLACE CROP INSURANCE $438,000 2
WALLACE INGLISH INSURANCE $657,000 3
WILLIAM A JACO & ASSOC $196,000 1
WOOD INSURANCE $657,000 3
WRIGHT & WRIGHT INSURANCE $657,000 3
ZAN PRINCE $219,000 1
Claims Adjusters and Appraisers 4 1.27% $3,066,000 14 0.02 0.0007
JACOBS' CLAIM SVC $438,000 2
JEARL R GIBSON & ASSOC $657,000 3
SCHAFER WOOD & ASSOC $876,000 4
TRI COUNTY ADJUSTERS $1,095,000 5
Third Party Administration of Insurance
and Pension Funds
1 0.32% $203,000 1
0.01 0.0002PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SPEC $203,000 1
Miscellaneous Insurance Agencies 2 0.64% $876,000 4 0.01 0.0003
AACON FUND CONTROL INC $657,000 3
STEEN AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE $219,000 1
Pension Funds 1 0.32% $384,000 4 0.01 0.0002
BDA/ADMINISTRATORS $384,000 4
Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts 1 0.32% $198,000 2 0.01 0.0002
RONAL MANAGEMENT INC $198,000 2
RONAL MANAGEMENT INC $198,000 2
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
52/64
512012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
SPORTS &
RECREATION
The Texoma CEDS is designed not only to analyze the business environment, but also the environment
in which workers live and play; it aims to provide understanding that good quality of life, along with a
healthy working environment supports the workers that help make the economy productive. Therefore,
sports and recreation are an integral part of the CEDS development since these facilities work towards
a better quality of life for workers and their families in Texoma.
Spor ts
Texoma has no major sports teams, but there are a number of local sports leagues for school children
that are mostly run and operated by cities, on city-owned facilities. The school districts in the region
also support various other sporting activities throughout the year. Summer Camps in Texoma provide a
host of sports and activities for children like basketball, baseball, softball, golf, gymnastics, karate,
soccer, tennis and many more. School districts in Texoma, along with many local organizations and
educational institutions work very hard to provide well-rounded development for the youth population in
the region.
Parks and Recreat ion
Texoma has no National Parks, but does have Caddo National Grasslands and Hagerman National
Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is almost a 12,000 acres of habitat managed for birds and wildlife. Hiking
trails, wildlife drive, fishing, wildlife photography, seasonal boating and hunting are offered at the
Hagerman. Texoma is home to several state parks including Eisenhower State Park, Bonham State
Park and the Johnson Brand Unit of Ray Roberts Lake.
Lake Texoma is a Corps of Engineers lake so the shoreline is owned and managed by the Federal
Government. The shoreline is protected as a natural habitat providing home to a wide variety of wildlife.
Along the path of migrating birds, it is a bird watcher and photographer paradise. Several recreational
areas surround Lake Texoma. At the State Parks, there are various campgrounds, marinas, hiking trails
and biking trails. Nature/Environmental programs are frequently scheduled throughout the year.Eisenhower Yacht Club at Denison, which is privately operated, provides a variety of marina services.
There are several farms and ranches in Texoma providing a series of other recreational activities.
Horseback riding is also a popular activity in the region. Hannahs Horseshoes of Hope equine-assisted
therapy center is a nonprofit organization that serves children and adults with physical, cognitive and
emotional disabilities through therapeutic riding. The Texoma Quarter Horse Association, Inc. a non-
profit organization in Denison organizes an annual rodeo in the region.
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
53/64
522012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
EDA Econom ic D ist ress Cri ter ia
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) determines eligibility and investment rates of
applicants based upon defined measures of economic distress. An applicants eligibility is primarily
based up their ability to demonstrate that the geographic area of impact of the proposed project has, (1)
an unemployment rate for the most recent twenty four month period for which data is available that is at
least one percentage point greater than the national average, (2) per capita income that is eightypercent or less of the national average per capita income, (3) a designation as a Special Impact Area
by EDA.EDA requests that applicants provide the latest data available in the proposed projects region
or area of impact. Economic distress data for each county in Texoma is provided in appendix A.
ECONOMIC DISTRESS CRITERIA- PRIMARY ELEMENTS
(NEWEST DATA AS OF 2010)
Threshold
Standard
U.S.
Figure
Texoma
Figure
Texoma
Threshold
Comparison
24- month Average Unemployment Rage(BLS, period ending in January 2010)
On epercentage
po in t above
nat iona l
average
7.73% 6.40% -1.33%
2007 Per Capita Money Income (ACS) 80% or less
of US
average
$26,178 $21,590 82.47%
2007 Per Capita Personal Income (BEA)
80% or less
of US
average
$38,615 $29,865 77.34%
2000 Per Capital Money Income (Decennial Census)
80% or less
of US
average
$21,587 $18,173 84.18%
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
54/64
532012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
ECONOMIC DISTRESS CRITERIA- GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS
(NEWEST DATA AS OF 2010)
County24 Month
Unemployment
Threshold
Comparison
ACS
PCMI
BEA
PCPI
Threshold
Comparison
Census
PCMI
(2000)
Threshold
Comparison
Cooke 4.90 % -2.83% $22,403 85.6% $36,787 95.3% 82.9%
Fannin 7.33% -0.4% $18,955 72.4% $25,258 65.4% 74.4%
Grayson 6.78% -0.95% $22,063 84.3% $28,901 74.8% 87.4%
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
55/64
542012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1 - 9 10 - 49 50 - 179 180 - 499 500 - 999 1000+
NumberofFarm
s
Acres/FarmSource: USDA 2007 Census of
Agriculture
9%
38%50%
3%
Woodland
Cropland
Pasture
Other uses
Source: USDA 2007 Census of
Agriculture
Texoma Agr icu l t u re Fas t Fac ts
Table- Acreage Tota ls
1 9 9 7 3,854 368,706 201,339 757,980 0 0 68,9801,400,8
5 9
2 0 0 2 5,154 500,679 219,596 596,447 1,076 8,855 78,3611,410,1
6 8
2 0 0 7 8,173 308,561 277,407 712,455 6,752 0 75,4831,388,8
3 1
Change 4,319 -60,145 76,068 -45,525 6,752 0 6,503 -12,028
Market Va lue- Do l lars per Acre
Area Average Texas AverageYe ar $ / A cr e
Farm Coun t b y S ize Class
1 9 9 7 3,376 2,153 324 159 98
2 0 0 2 3,794 1,928 335 180 101
2 0 0 7 4,409 1,856 273 148 103
Acre Coun t by Size Class
1 9 9 7 133,156 442,062 216,616 218,340 364,312 1,374,486 --
2 0 0 2 147,545 401,408 229,335 244,365 360,814 1383467 -0.03889
2 0 0 7 157,040 391,646 183,280 197,972 399,722 1329660 -0.03261
7/31/2019 Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy
56/64
552012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS
Texoma Innovat ion Index and Ana lysis
Innovation is multifaceted concept that is a vital component for economic growth and long term
economic health. The Economic Development Administration recently sponsored the creation of an
Innovation Index that compares regional performance to the United States. Measuring regional
innovation can be tricky and this follow information should be reviewed as one of many perspectivesand snapshots the describe Texoma. The Innovation Index is a composite of many sub- measures that
ultimately help to provide a better understanding of the economic health and vitality of the region. No
single measure in the Innovation Index is likely to explain the complex relationships and causalities
among other measures. The Innovation Index seeks to provide understanding by creating a composite
of broad categories of measurable outcomes that logically lead to an innovative cultural economy.
FIGURE 1. SUB-COMPONENTS OF THE INNOVATION INDEX. FOR A FULL LIST OF SUB- COMPONENT WEIGHTS SEEAPPENDIX B.
This index is structured to reflect the dynamics of four broad areas of innovation: human capital,economic dynamics, productivity and employment, economi