Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy

2012-2017 TEXOMA COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
TEXOMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

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 STRATEGY

TEXOMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WHAT IS 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
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
regional economy and home for businesses and workers.
1
2012- 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 also consider 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 these types 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, the collapse 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
2
engagement, individual/family/community support, legal/public safety, financial systems, sports & recreation, emergency services, government systems, and general economic development.
3
BACKGROUND
Percent Change
Since 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.
Texoma Population 2000-2010

1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2010 0.0%
Year
Source: American Factfinder
Population Growth 2000-2010

Geographic Region .Cooke County .Fannin County .Grayson County 2000 Census 36,363 31,242 110,595 2010 Census 38,437 33,915 120,877 % Change 5.70% 8.56% 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 their maximum 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
4
rate of change in local Diversity Index scores that measure the change in the percent population of nonwhite populations of counties.
Percent Population by Age for every County 2010

Cooke County Fannin County Grayson County 0%
County
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
16 years and over 62 years and over
Percent Population 18 years and over 65 years and over
21 years and over

Percent Population by Race for every County 2010

Fannin County Grayson County Cooke County 0%
County
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent Population 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)
5
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. Population Projections
Geographic Area .Cooke County .Fannin County .Grayson County 2012 37890 31679 114973 2013 38044 31763 115303 2014 38198 31827 115610 2015 38339 31890 115916 2016 38471 31943 116146 2017 38603 31999 116339
Source: Texas State Data Center
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 of Living
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.
6
10 U.S. Cities With the Cheapest Cost of Living

1. Brownsville, Texas Cost of Living Index: 80 Metropolitan Population: 383,171 Median Household Income: $30,034 Average Home Price: $209,177 2. Pueblo, Colorado Cost of Living Index: 84.1 Metropolitan Population: 153,814 Median Household Income: $40,805 Average Home Price: $194,302 3. Fort Hood, Texas Cost of Living Index: 84.8 Metropolitan Population: 368,682 Median Household Income: $46,183 Average Home Price: $210,383 4. Fort Smith, Arkansas Cost of Living Index: 85 Metropolitan Population: 288,468 Median Household Income: $37,363 Average Home Price: $235,168 5. Sherman/ Denison,Texas Cost of Living Index: 86 Metropolitan Population: 117,913 Median Household Income: $45,171 Average Home Price: $213,485
SOURCE: KIPLINGER WEBPAGE
6. Springfield, Illinois Cost of Living Index: 86 Metropolitan Population: 206,509 Median Household Income: $51,001 Average Home Price: $207,599 7. Waco, Texas Cost of Living Index: 86 Metropolitan Population: 228,639 Median Household Income: $40,038 Average Home Price: $240,543 8. Fayetteville, Arkansas Cost of Living Index: 87 Metropolitan Population: 441,652 Median Household Income: $45,757 Average Home Price: $227,723 9. Austin, Texas Cost of Living Index: 87 Metropolitan Population: 1,589,393 Median Household Income: $57,109 Average Home Price: $229,145 10. Springfield, Missouri Cost of Living Index: 87 Metropolitan Population: 417,635 Median Household Income: $41,632 Average Home Price: $222,830
7
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.
Railways
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.
SOURCE: DALLAS-GARLAND & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD (DGNO)
8
Airports
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
9
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 REGIONAL MAP, SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Highway 75.
NATIONAL MAP, SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
10
Commuting Patterns, Traffic, and Mobility of 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.
Percent Change Commute Patterns by

Percent Change 2000-2010
60% 50% 40% 30%
20% In 2002, there was high number of 10% workers travelling less than 10 miles 0% to go to work. The number of Grayson County Fannin County Cooke County workers travelling more than 50 Workers travelling outside the County line miles was also high, but people Source: OnTheMap travelling lower distances to go to work were greatest in number. The number of Texoma residents travelling more than 50 miles to get to work 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.
11
It has been observed 2010 that the workers with higher earnings are 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% coming from outside the Percent of Workers region. While the outflow of the high Less than 10 miles 10 to 24 miles 25 to 50 miles Greater than 50 miles Source: OnTheMap 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 Transportation
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 Means of Transportation and Carpooling Texoma to work carpooled, while the 2008 - 2010 Three Means of Travel 2000 Census remaining workers drove alone. This year estimates is a common trend for rural and exWorkers 16 and over 78,342 83,026 urban areas. Between 2008-2010, Car, truck, or van 93.89% 92.83% the number of people driving to work Drove alone 79.69% 79.50% decreased slightly, while people Carpooled 14.19% 13.41% using public transportation and other Public transportation 0.28% 0.64% means to work increased slightly. In (Excluding taxicab) 2010, number of workers driving or Bicycle 0.23% 1.47% walking to work decreased while Walked 1.65% 0.08% workers using other means of Taxicab, motorcycle, or 0.74% 1.20% transport increased. other means
Worked at home 3.21% 3.65%
Year
Commute distance for workers residing in Texoma Workers employed in Texoma, but living outside of the region, 2002 were higher in number in 2002 than 2010. Interestingly 2010 enough, there are a large amount of these 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% workers travelling Percent of Workers less than 10 miles to Less than 10 miles 10 to 24 miles 25 to 50 miles Greater than 50 miles get to work. But by Source: OnTheMap 2010, this number decreased considerably and Commute Distance for workers employed in Texoma the number of workers travelling more than 50 2002 miles to get to work increased.
Year
12
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 Number of Housing Units Texoma and more modern 90000 housing options and the 80000 ability for businesses to relocated to an area. 70000 The ownership of homes 60000 also provides more 50000 economic stability for a neighborhood and 40000 community, helping to 30000 maintain property values, which in turn, 20000 has benefits for the local 10000 taxing districts- namely 0 schools and city Total housing units Vacant housing units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied governments. housing units housing units
Number of Housing Units
Percent Change 2000-2010
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.
2000
2010
Percent Change Housing Units Texoma

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
0% Total housing units
Vacant housing units
Owner Occupied housing units
Renter Occupied housing units
13
Households with Severe Housing Problems Texoma, 2009

Housing cost burden 30.1% to 50%, none of the needs above Housing cost burden over 50%, none of the needs above
More than 1 person per room
Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 2000 4000 6000
8000 10000 12000 >95% AMI
<=30% AMI
30.1-50% AMI
50.1-60% AMI
60.1-80% AMI
80.1-95% AMI
NUMBER OF TEXOMA HOUSEHOLDS WITH SEVERE HOUSING COST PROBLEMS IN 2009, SOURCE: HUD CHAS 2009 DATA SET
Cost Burden By Household Type Texoma

Non-family, non-elderly Non-family, elderly Large family Small family, non-elderly Small family, elderly 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Cost burden is less than or equal to 30%
Number of Households
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 2009 SOURCE: HUD CHAS 2009 DATA SET
14
1200 1000 Rent (Dollars) 800 600 400 200 0 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom
Texoma, 2011 Fair Market Rent

Fannin Cooke Grayson
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
FAIR MARKETS RENTS FOR 2011; SOURCE: HUD FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR). NOTE: FMR IS THE 40TH PERCENTILE RENT OF THE STANDARD- QUALITY RENTAL HOUSING UNITS IN THE DEFINED LOCATION AND INCLUDES SHELTER RENT PLUS THE COST OF ALL TENANT-PAID UTILITIES, EXCEPT TELEPHONES, CABLE OR SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE, AND INTERNET SERVICE.
15
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 special waste, as well as construction and demolition debris. The facility does not accept hazardous or radioactive waste.
16
WATER MANAGEMENT
Water Usage by Community
2009 Water Use Survey Summary Estimates by City

Municipal Use in Acre2) Feet 164 1,348 NO RETURN 3,678 72 2,317 188 272 241 48 268 133 295 261 72 7,158 103 202 127 72 479 430 239
City or Place Name BELLS BONHAM COLLINSVILLE DENISON ECTOR GAINESVILLE GUNTER HONEY GROVE HOWE LADONIA LEONARD LINDSAY MUENSTER POTTSBORO SAVOY SHERMAN TIOGA TOM BEAN TRENTON VALLEY VIEW VAN ALSTYNE WHITESBORO WHITEWRIGHT
1) 2)
Population 1) Estimates 1,328 10,655 1,623 24,603 687 16,852 1,786 1,864 2,950 712 2,009 1,004 1,698 2,289 874 39,271 958 1,034 718 859 2,829 4,188 1,708
GPCD 110 113 NO RETURN 133 94 123 94 130 73 60 119 119 155 102 74 163 96 175 157 74 151 92 125
3)
Residential 4) GPCD 66 NO RETURN 119 74 56 64 56 56 76 82 72 72 64 64 60
July 1, 2009 Estimated Population (Source: Texas State Data Center.) 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 per capita (population) basis. These estimates, based on responses to questions recently added to the annual water use survey, are being published for the first time. The pilot display of this data should be viewed in the context that, since the reporting of such data had not been historically required, different systems may categorize and report residential water use differently. A dash ( - ) indicates that the primary utility for the city did not report appropriate residential volumes in the 2009 survey. No Return - The primary water utility for this city failed to return a 2009 water use survey.
17
Historical Water Use Summary by Groundwater (GW) and Surface Water (SW)
Unit: Acre Feet (ACFT)
COOKE COUNTY
Year 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2004 2004 Source GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total Municipal 4,544 0 4,544 4,309 0 4,309 5,287 0 5,287 5,398 0 5,398 Manufacturing 308 0 308 304 0 304 221 0 221 127 0 127 Steam Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 100 127 227 300 0 300 0 0 0 82 118 200 Mining 599 0 599 421 54 475 52 237 289 38 280 318 Livestock 869 739 1,608 1,009 1,009 2,018 881 881 1,762 475 1,202 1,677 Total 6,420 866 7,286 6,343 1,063 7,406 6,441 1,118 7,559 6,120 1,600 7,720
FANNIN COUNTY
Year 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2004 2004 Source GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total Municipal 2,039 1,423 3,462 2,052 1,678 3,730 2,500 2,047 4,547 2,225 3,503 5,728 Manufacturing 0 18 18 2 33 35 0 58 58 4 5 9 Steam Electric 136 5,897 6,033 206 6,520 6,726 503 8,022 8,525 139 2,301 2,440 Irrigation 0 14,195 14,195 362 930 1,292 1,158 3,450 4,608 921 78 999 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 9 9 Livestock 152 1,220 1,372 134 1,216 1,350 125 1,143 1,268 86 1,418 1,504 Total 2,327 22,753 25,080 2,756 10,377 13,133 4,286 14,732 19,018 3,375 7,314 10,689
GRAYSON COUNTY
Year 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2004 2004 Source GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total GW SW Total Municipal 11,639 5,111 16,750 9,702 4,483 14,185 10,473 10,587 21,060 7,822 16,337 24,159 Manufacturing 3,291 1,072 4,363 5,065 586 5,651 3,602 2,633 6,235 1,163 796 1,959 Steam Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 2,607 2,620 5,227 1,528 15 1,543 2,972 410 3,382 1,546 144 1,690 1,556 Mining 10 0 10 505 242 747 815 243 1,058 615 941 Livestock 211 1,316 1,527 101 923 1,024 130 1,167 1,297 70 1,212 1,282 Total 17,758 10,119 27,877 16,901 6,249 23,150 17,992 15,040 33,032 11,216 19,430 30,646
18
Historical Groundwater Pumpage Summary by County

Unit: Acre Feet (ACFT)
COOKE COUNTY
Year 1980 1990 2000 2008 2008 Aquifer TRINITY Total TRINITY Total TRINITY Total TRINITY WOODBINE Total Municipal 4,852 4,852 4,493 4,493 5,385 5,385 4,466 55 4,521 Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Steam Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 100 100 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 599 599 421 421 52 52 268 0 268 Livestock 869 869 1,009 1,009 881 881 152 76 228 Total 6,420 6,420 6,223 6,223 6,318 6,318 4,889 131 5,020
FANNIN COUNTY
Year 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2000 2008 2008 2008 2008 Aquifer TRINITY WOODBINE Total TRINITY WOODBINE Total OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total BLOSSOM OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total Municipal 102 1,936 2,038 580 1,609 2,189 0 582 2,399 2,981 109 109 263 2,690 3,171 Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steam Electric 0 136 136 0 206 206 0 0 503 503 0 0 0 486 486 Irrigation 0 0 0 0 362 362 1,158 0 0 1,158 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livestock 28 124 152 25 109 134 0 23 103 126 0 0 0 0 0 Total 130 2,196 2,326 605 2,286 2,891 1,158 605 3,005 4,768 109 109 263 3,176 3,657
GRAYSON COUNTY
Year 1980 1980 1980 1990 1990 1990 2000 2000 2000 2008 2008 2008 Aquifer OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total OTHER TRINITY WOODBINE Total Municipal 27 5,573 2,095 7,695 27 11,903 3,134 15,064 37 10,890 4,082 15,009 35 7,542 3,985 11,562 Manufacturing 0 0 98 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steam Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 304 0 2,303 2,607 27 0 1,501 1,528 0 0 2,972 2,972 0 0 0 0 Mining 0 0 10 10 0 197 309 506 0 349 466 815 0 0 20 20 Livestock 0 0 211 211 0 0 101 101 0 0 130 130 0 94 187 281 Total 331 5,573 4,717 10,621 54 12,100 5,045 17,199 37 11,239 7,650 18,926 35 7,636 4,192 11,863
19
INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY

Internet/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 are underway to make fiber broadband available in parts of rural East Texas, which would be greatly beneficial for the Texoma region.
20
21
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 Broadband/Internet Adoption Texas income, and rural populations. 60 Most of these people also do not Broadband Adoption State Average: 62% own a computer. In Texoma, Mobile Adoption State Average: 48% 50 these populations make up a large percentage of the overall 40 population. In another survey, called Business Technology 30 Survey, that was conducted 20 among businesses across the state, a high percentage of 10 businesses reported the adoption of internet and broadband in the 0 workplace. The means that the Broadband Adoption Mobile Adoption ability to use internet might no Rural Seniors Low Income longer be a personal choice, but a Source: Connected Texas
Percent of residents
Number of Businesses
workforce development issue, especially in Texoma. This survey lists the 30000 number of businesses by sector 25000 Retails Trade, Recreation, Food businesses with the service. 20000
15000 10000 5000 0
Businesses in Texoma without Broadband

that does not use a broadband service. and Lodging Sector has the highest number of
Retail Trade, Recreation, Food and Lodging
Professional and Financial Services
Business Sectors
Source: Connected Texas
Television Broadcasting
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.
Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing
Technology Intensive
Agriculture, Mining, Construction, Utilities
Health Care Services
All Other Businesses
Manufacturing
22
ENERGY SYSTEMS
About Electrical 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 using www.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, visit www.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 Natural 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 at www.atmosenergy.com).
23
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
24
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 arts venues

Downtown Sherman houses an Arts and Culture District. Some of the venues in downtown Sherman are 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
25
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
26
COMMUNITY & CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

2010 General Election Voter Registration and Voter Turnout Total Total Number of Total Population Registered Turnout Voters 38437 23778 9240 33915 120877 18879 73257 7334 26916 Percentage Turnout of Total Population* 24.03% 21.62% 22.26%
Cooke Fannin Grayson
SOURCE: TEXAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. *DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION POPULATION NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE
Annual Giving by County

Annual Income Number of Tax Returns Filed Average AGI per Tax Return Average Itemized Charitable Contributions per Tax Return
Cooke County, TX
Fannin County, TX
a. Under $10,000 b. $10,000 under $25,000 c. $25,000 under $50,000 d. $50,000 under $75,000 e. $75,000 under $100,000 f. $100,000 under $200,000 g. $200,000 or more Cooke County Total a. Under $10,000 b. $10,000 under $25,000 c. $25,000 under $50,000 d. $50,000 under $75,000 e. $75,000 under $100,000 f. $100,000 under $200,000 g. $200,000 or more
2,955 3,788 3,970 2,261 1,318 1,259 352 15,903 2,372 3,091 3,182 1,775 962 768 72
3,248 17,252 36,185 61,480 86,491 129,887 642,943 54,169 2,503 17,287 36,018 61,630 86,455 139,305 402,000
14 138 319 752 1,446 3,488 12,534 895 11 92 229 728 1,650 3,033 10,972
27
Grayson County, TX
Fannin County Total a. Under $10,000 b. $10,000 under $25,000 c. $25,000 under $50,000 d. $50,000 under $75,000 e. $75,000 under $100,000 f. $100,000 under $200,000 g. $200,000 or more Grayson County Total
12,222 10,392 13,559 13,141 7,315 4,341 4,064 950 53,762
41,112 3,566 17,257 35,899 61,400 86,416 130,478 479,652 47,487
576 13 108 373 876 1,546 3,428 12,655 848
28
HEALTH & HEALTH CARE

Health Outcomes
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, show highs 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).
29
Grayson County Health Outcomes Mortality Premature death Morbidity Poor or fair health Poor physical health days Poor mental health days Low birth weight Health Factors Health Behaviors Adult smoking Adult obesity Excessive drinking Motor vehicle crash death rate Sexually transmitted infections Teen birth rate Clinical Care Uninsured adults Primary care providers Preventable hospital stays Diabetic screening Mammography screening Social & Economic Factors High school graduation Some college Unemployment Children in poverty Inadequate social support Single-parent households Violent crime rate Physical Environment
80% 56% 8.10% 19% 25% 33% 265 127 27% 1,305:1 95 81% 56% 85 27% 25% 10% 25 258 64 65 19% 3.8 5.5 7.60% 56 47 8,920 134 133 137
Rank in TX (Grayson)
Cooke County
115 131
Rank in TX (Cooke)
Fannin County
138 136
Rank in TX (Fannin)
TEXAS
NATIONAL BENMARK
7,289 85 145 19% 3.6 2.9 8.30% 109 136 5.4 3.9 7.70% 73 36 19% 29% 12% 28 214 70 130 30% 2,261:1 89 72% 61% 67 75% 49% 6.60% 19% 90% 42% 8.80% 20% 27% 4,717:1 99 75% 59% 88 72% 55% 7.60% 23% 23% 27% 381 214 27% 223 172 32% 512 36 214 64 139 30% 1,050:1 80 80% 59% 26% 27% 16% 17 422 64 3.6 3.3 8.10%
5,564
10% 2.6 2.3 6.00%
15% 25% 8% 12 83 22
13% 631:1 52 89% 74%
92% 68% 5.30% 11% 14% 20% 100
30
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
31
INDIVIDUAL, FAMILY & COMMUNITY SUPPORT

Poverty in Texoma
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.
Percentage of FPL for a family of three, 100= Poverty Line

Percentage of FPL for a family of three, 100= Poverty Line 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
WIC Reduced-Price Free School School Meals Meals Food Stamps (SNAP) Max. Child Care Typical Child Care TANF Cash Assistance* 185% 130% 130% 243% 150%
Full-time min. wage: $15,080 per year (82% of poverty)
$42,703 $33,874 $33,874 $27,465 $23,803 $23,803
185%
$2,256
12%
TEXAS ELIGIBILITY FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, *INCOME LIMIT SHOWN IS FOR APPLICANTS ONLY. SOURCE: CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES (CPPP) POLICY POINT, POVERTY 101, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010.
32
SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND TEXOMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
33
34
EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING

Educational Institutions in Texoma
Cooke County Muenster ISD Gainesville ISD Valley View ISD Callisburg ISD Lindsay ISD Total Fannin Total Total Grayson County Enrollment County Enrollment Enrollment 473 Bonham ISD 1883 Bells ISD 748 Dodd City 2609 321 Collinsville ISD 538 ISD 629 Ector ISD 276 Denison ISD 4360 Honey Grove 1191 584 Howe ISD 975 CISD 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 Sadler784 Southmayd CISD 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.
35
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.
Occupational Clusters
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.
36
Texoma Baseline Occupational Cluster Analysis (2007)

Description Occupation Cluster Employment 7,235 9,115 4,918 912 902 3,105 1,405 6,505 1,189 425 6,677 5,434 495 965 1,642 1,309 1,326 932 33,867 14,603 5,828 Occ. Cluster Share of Total Emp. 7.3% 9.2% 5.0% 0.9% 0.9% 3.1% 1.4% 6.6% 1.2% 0.4% 6.8% 5.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9% 34.3% 14.8% 5.9% Occupation Cluster Employment LQ 0.87 1.22 0.94 0.77 0.86 1.04 0.61 0.81 0.62 0.97 4.49 1.07 1.00 0.96 0.85 0.66 1.18 0.76 0.99 0.99 0.72
Managerial, Sales, Marketing and HR Skilled Production Workers: Technicians, Operators, Trades, Installers & Repairers Health Care and Medical Science (Aggregate) Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Practitioners and Scientists) Health Care and Medical Science (Medical Technicians) Health Care and Medical Science (Therapy, Counseling and Rehabilitation ) Mathematics, Statistics, Data and Accounting Legal and Financial Services, and Real Estate (L & FIRE) Information Technology (IT) Natural Sciences and Environmental Management Crop and Livestock Workers Primary/Secondary and Vocational Education, Remediation & Social Services Building, Landscape and Construction Design Engineering and Related Sciences Personal Services Occupations Arts, Entertainment, Publishing and Broadcasting Public Safety and Domestic Security Postsecondary Education and Knowledge Creation Job Zone 2 Job Zone 1 Technology-Based Knowledge Clusters
37
Texoma Targeted Occupations 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.
38
39
EDUCATION
Educational Attainment
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.
40
Educational Attainment by County

Cooke County 2000
County & Year
Fannin Fannin Grayson Grayson Grayson County County County County County 2008-2010 2006-2008 2000 2008-2010 2006-2008 0%
Fannin County 2000
Cooke Cooke County County 2008-2010 2006-2008
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent Population Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Source: American Factfinder
41
Skills
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 needed skills 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 FROM WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS TEXOMA 2010 STRATEGIC PLAN
42
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 COUNTY
Year Filing Rate
2006 0.76
2007 1.31
2008 0.89
2009 1.69
2010 1.64
2011 1.18
Rank in TX 109
FANNIN COUNTY
Year Filing Rate
2006 1.46
2007 1.58
2008 2.18
2009 2.27
2010 2.30
2011 1.69
Rank in TX 62
GRAYSON COUNTY
Year Filing Rate
2006 1.88
2007 2.14
2008 2.38
2009 2.92
2010 2.79
2011 2.17
Rank in TX 23
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, http://www2.fdic.gov/recon/index.asp
43
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
Businesses per 1000 people
Ratio businesses to institutions
Banking, Finance and Insurance Commercial banks BANK OF AMERICA ATM LEGEND BANK PROSPERITY BANK Credit Unions CICOST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION DENISON DISTRICT TELEPHONE CU FANNIN COUNTY TEACHERS CU FANNIN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION NASCOGA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION TEXANS CREDIT UNION TEXAS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION TEXOMA EDUCATORS FCU TEXOMA EDUCATORS FEDERAL CU Sales Financing CHECK N TITLE CHECK N TITLE LOANS Consumer Lending AGRILAND FARM CREDIT SVC BARRY FONTAINE & ASSOC CASH EXPRESS CASH NOW CITY FINANCE COMMUNITY LOANS FANNIN CASH ADVANCE FEDCASH FINANCIAL SVC CTR FIRST CAPITAL FINANCE CO GOLD STAR FINANCE LIBERTY FINANCE MAIN STREET MANAGEMENT PURPOSE MONEY SECURITY BANK SERVICE LOAN CO SHERMAN FINANCE INC TEXAS CAR TITLE & PAYDAY LOAN Real Estate Credit Lending ADAMS FIRST FINANCIAL ASCENT HOME LOANS CALLENDER MORTGAGE FIRST COLONIAL MORTGAGE INC FIRST SOURCE CAPITAL MORTGAGE FIRST UNITED BANK MORTGAGE GRANITE MORTGAGE
314 7
100% 2.23%
$527,566,000 $197,913,000 $602,000 $65,224,000 $129,679,000
1,269 84 2 24 50 88 9 2 2 9 14 4 5 1 28 5 1 4 46 4 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 3 7 2 3 3 80 5 5 3 6 5 7 1 0.09 0.0029 0.09 0.0030 0.01 0.0003 0.06 0.0020 0.04 0.0012
12
3.82%
$20,504,000 $2,097,000 $466,000 $466,000 $2,097,000 $3,262,000 $932,000 $1,165,000 $233,000 $6,524,000
0.64%
$2,910,000 $582,000 $2,328,000
18
5.73%
$18,216,000 $1,584,000 $1,188,000 $396,000 $792,000 $792,000 $792,000 $792,000 $1,188,000 $792,000 $1,188,000 $396,000 $396,000 $1,188,000 $2,772,000 $792,000 $1,188,000 $1,188,000
17
5.41%
$15,920,000 $995,000 $995,000 $597,000 $1,194,000 $995,000 $1,393,000 $199,000
44
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
L R MORTGAGE LAFOY JANET MORTGAGE TECH INC PACIFIC AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO POINT MORTGAGE RCG W R STARKEY MORTGAGE WR STARKEY Miscellaneous Nondepository Credit Intermediation A-A-A TRADING POST & PAWN BEST PAWN SUPERSTORE DENISON PAWN & SPORTING ELDORADO JEWELRY & LOAN EZPAWN F & I PAWN SHOP LOAN STAR PAWN PAWN TECH INC WHITLOCK'S PAWN & JEWELRY WILD WEST PAWN Loan Brokerages AGRILAND FARM CREDIT Financial Transaction Processing BARRI REMITTANCE CORP CASH STORE CHECKS ARE US INC CLIFF'S CHECK CASHING STORE Investment and Securities Banking BOWEN RANDY DENNIS HESS FINANCIAL SVC DEXTER WARD & ASSOC INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL SVC CTR Securities Brokerages MOSELEY & ASSOC LLP WELLS FARGO ADVISORS Miscellaneous Financial Intermediaries B29 INVESTMENTS DUGGER MARQUES INVESTMENTS LPL FINANCIAL PIPELINE RESOURCES VRB INVESTMENTS LLC B29 INVESTMENTS 5 1.59% 2 0.64% 4 1.27% 6 1.91% 1 0.32% 12 3.82%
$597,000 $995,000 $796,000 $995,000 $199,000 $1,990,000 $1,194,000 $1,393,000 $3,608,000 $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 $528,000 $176,000 $176,000 $264,000 $352,000 $264,000 $420,000 $420,000 $5,936,000 $742,000 $371,000 $742,000 $1,113,000 $2,814,000 $804,000 $402,000 $1,206,000 $402,000 $3,216,000 $2,010,000 $1,206,000 $9,054,000 $1,509,000 $1,509,000 $1,509,000 $3,521,000 $1,006,000 $1,509,000
3 5 4 5 1 10 6 7 41 3 3 3 3 6 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 16 2 1 2 3 7 2 1 3 1 8 5 3 18 3 3 3 7 2 3 0.03 0.0008 0.01 0.0003 0.02 0.0007 0.03 0.0010 0.01 0.0002 0.06 0.0020
GOODS
45
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
DUGGER MARQUES INVESTMENTS LPL FINANCIAL PIPELINE RESOURCES VRB INVESTMENTS LLC Investment Advice Counseling Services ANDREA ALLEN FINANCIAL SVC ASSET PLANNING ATLAS FINANCIAL SVC LLC BARKER INVESTMENT SVC INC BROOKS & ASSOC PUBLIC RLTNS CHAFFIN ANN L EDWARD JONES ERIC BATEY FINANCIAL SVC ERIC BATEY RETIREMENT PLANNING FINANCIAL RESOURCES GAIN PLAN FINANCIAL M D PLANNING MANCHESTER FINANCIAL SVC INC MERRILL LYNCH MET LIFE RESOURCES PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SVC RAYMOND JAMES ROM FINANCIAL INC TEXOMA FINANCIAL SVC TIM HIGHTOWER & ASSOC WORLD FINANCE Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities JONES INVESTMENTS RICHARD KLEMENT INVESTMENTS SCHNEIDER JIMMIE L Direct Life Insurance INSURANCE BY DESIGN Health and Medical Insurance CIGNA HEALTH CARE Property Insurance 24 HOUR BAIL BONDS A A AMERICAN BAIL BONDS A AFFORDABLE BAIL BONDS AA-AMERICAN BAIL BONDS A-ACTION AA BONDING ABLE BAIL BONDS 19 6.05% 1 0.32% 1 0.32% 3 0.96% 31 9.87%
$1,509,000 $1,509,000 $3,521,000 $1,006,000 $41,216,000 $644,000 $644,000 $322,000 $1,288,000 $15,778,000 $644,000 $644,000 $966,000 $966,000 $966,000 $966,000 $966,000 $1,610,000 $2,254,000 $322,000 $1,932,000 $322,000 $966,000 $644,000 $1,288,000 $966,000 $8,280,000 $4,984,000 $2,492,000 $804,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $5,940,000 $5,940,000 $42,182,000 $2,751,000 $1,834,000 $917,000 $2,751,000 $1,834,000 $1,834,000
3 3 7 2 128 2 2 1 4 49 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 1 6 1 3 2 4 3 14 8 4 2 2 2 5 5 46 3 2 1 3 2 2 0.10 0.0032 0.01 0.0002 0.01 0.0002 0.02 0.0005 0.16 0.0052
46
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
ANDALE FIANZAS CENTRAL BAIL BONDS CREDIT BAIL BONDS DOCK'S BAIL BONDS DOC'S BAIL BONDS EUGENE HAROLD LUND INSURANCE FANNIN COUNTY BAIL BONDS LIBERTY BAIL BOND LUCKY BAIL BONDS NORTH TEXAS BAIL BOND PERKINS FREEDOM BAIL BONDS RICK'S BAIL BOND SPANKY'S BAIL BONDS Title insurance SECURITY TITLE INC Insurance Agencies and Brokerages A PLUS SR22 AUTO INSURANCE A PLUS SR22/AUTO INSURANCE ACCEL INSURANCE ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE ALAN HOLDER INS & ANNUITIES ALETHA BRYAN INSURANCE ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE AMERICAN SENIORS INSURANCE AMO FARMERS INSURANCE LINES BACH INSURANCE GROUP BARRETT HEALTH INSURANCE BATEMAN INSURANCE BAYLESS-HALL INSURANCE BAYLESS-HALL INSURANCE INC BEALL & BEALL INSURANCE BEZNER INSURANCE BINGHAM INSURANCE BLT INSURANCE SVC BOB CORLEY INSURANCE BOBBY W EATON INSURANCE BRADFORD-WATSON CO INC BRIDIE & ASSOC BROWN INSURANCE BUCHANAN INSURANCE CARL RIDER INSURANCE 163 51.91 % 1 0.32%
$1,834,000 $1,834,000 $1,834,000 $5,502,000 $1,834,000 $917,000 $917,000 $4,585,000 $4,585,000 $2,751,000 $917,000 $917,000 $1,834,000 $924,000 $924,000 $142,086,000 $657,000 $392,000 $657,000 $438,000 $392,000 $219,000 $657,000 $657,000 $438,000 $438,000 $1,176,000 $196,000 $219,000 $1,095,000 $2,190,000 $657,000 $657,000 $219,000 $438,000 $657,000 $1,095,000 $438,000 $657,000 $219,000 $657,000 $219,000
2 2 2 6 2 1 1 5 5 3 1 1 2 3 3 651 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 6 1 1 5 10 3 3 1 2 3 5 2 3 1 3 1 0.84 0.0274 0.01 0.0002
47
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
CEVA BENEFITS GROUP CHANDLER BURNETT INSURANCE CHARLES HOLDER INSURANCE CIGNA CLAYTON INSURANCE CMRP INC COOKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU DANFORTH LIFE PARTNERS DANNY KNIGHT INSURANCE CO DAVID A MEANS INC DILLARD & GANN INSURANCE DON HUTCHERSON INSURANCE E E RANCHES INC EAGLE GROUP INS RESOURES INC FALLON CO FANNIN DEFENSIVE DRIVING FARM BUREAU INSURANCE FARM N' HOME FARM N HOME CASUALTY FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP FARMERS MUTUAL PROTECTIVE FIRST STATE BANK INS AGENCY FMW INSURANCE GALYON INSURANCE & TRAVEL GARLAND INSURANCE GERMANIA FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE GIBSON INSURANCE HARRIS BLANTON INC HATFIELD & SON HEALTH INSURANCE TEXOMA HEJNY INSURANCE HEMPKINS INSURANCE HUTCHERSON INSURANCE INGRAM INSURANCE GROUP INSURANCE OF VAN ALSTYNE INSURANCE SERVICES AGENCY INSURANCE SERVICES OF TEXAS J B COLE INSURANCE JACK B LILLEY INSURANCE JAMES AGENCY JAMES BUCKNER INSURANCE JAMES CROW INSURANCE
$1,176,000 $657,000 $657,000 $657,000 $657,000 $1,095,000 $876,000 $657,000 $438,000 $657,000 $657,000 $657,000 $28,470,000 $657,000 $438,000 $657,000 $1,971,000 $657,000 $2,628,000 $438,000 $657,000 $438,000 $219,000 $219,000 $438,000 $657,000 $876,000 $219,000 $876,000 $438,000 $438,000 $876,000 $219,000 $219,000 $219,000 $1,314,000 $657,000 $219,000 $219,000 $438,000 $1,095,000 $657,000
6 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 130 3 2 3 9 3 12 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 4 2 2 4 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 2 5 3
ASSN
48
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
JAMES H DONOHOE INSURANCE JAY BUCKNER INSURANCE JERRY HEJNY INSURANCE JESTIS INSURANCE JIM UTLEY INSURANCE JONES TERRY JONES-PHILLIPS INSURANCE JOY SMITH INSURANCE KATIE ANTIQUE STATION KELLY JOHNSON INSURANCE KEN BLANTON INSURANCE KEN JONES INSURANCE LAKE TEXOMA INSURANCE LARRY LANDRUM INSURANCE LINDA HAMILL INSURANCE LYNCH JR ALTON B MARK BROWN INSURANCE MARSHALL BRONSON AGENCY MARSICO & ASSOC MARTY ALLISON INSURANCE MASS MUTUAL FINANCIAL GROUP MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE MAYO INSURANCE MC CULLOUGH & PIERSON AGENCY MICHAEL MUNN INSURANCE MIKE AKINS & CO MIKE BARNES INSURANCE MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA MUENSTER FARM MUTUAL FIRE INS MURRAY INSURANCE NAT MC CLURE INSURANCE NATIONWIDE INSURANCE NEW YORK LIFE NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO NOBLE INSURANCE SVC NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FINANCIAL ODEN INSURANCE PERRY ROY INSURANCE PHILLIPS INSURANCE PIERCE INSURANCE SVC RELIABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO ROBERT HERMES INSURANCE
$219,000 $1,095,000 $219,000 $657,000 $438,000 $219,000 $876,000 $219,000 $438,000 $657,000 $1,095,000 $438,000 $438,000 $657,000 $438,000 $219,000 $438,000 $219,000 $3,723,000 $438,000 $657,000 $876,000 $438,000 $438,000 $196,000 $219,000 $1,095,000 $219,000 $438,000 $2,628,000 $1,314,000 $657,000 $438,000 $219,000 $219,000 $438,000 $219,000 $657,000 $876,000 $392,000 $6,132,000 $219,000
1 5 1 3 2 1 4 1 2 3 5 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 17 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 5 1 2 12 6 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 2 28 1
49
Business Type
Total Businesses
Estimated Sales
# Est. Employees
RON PERRY INSURANCE SAMPLE INSURANCE SANDRA PHILLIPS INSURANCE STAR H EQUINE INSURANCE STATE FARM INSURANCE STATHAM ZAN S TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS TIM FAULKNER'S INSURANCE TOM SHIELDS AGENCY TURNER MORGAN AFFORDABLE INS VOGEL AGENCY WALKER INSURANCE WALLACE CROP INSURANCE WALLACE INGLISH INSURANCE WILLIAM A JACO & ASSOC WOOD INSURANCE WRIGHT & WRIGHT INSURANCE ZAN PRINCE Claims Adjusters and Appraisers JACOBS' CLAIM SVC JEARL R GIBSON & ASSOC SCHAFER WOOD & ASSOC TRI COUNTY ADJUSTERS Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SPEC Miscellaneous Insurance Agencies AACON FUND CONTROL INC STEEN AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE Pension Funds BDA/ADMINISTRATORS Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts RONAL MANAGEMENT INC RONAL MANAGEMENT INC 1 0.32% 1 0.32% 1 2 0.32% 0.64% 4 1.27%
$657,000 $438,000 $657,000 $657,000 $657,000 $219,000 $657,000 $219,000 $219,000 $657,000 $876,000 $657,000 $438,000 $657,000 $196,000 $657,000 $657,000 $219,000 $3,066,000 $438,000 $657,000 $876,000 $1,095,000 $203,000 $203,000 $876,000 $657,000 $219,000 $384,000 $384,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000
3 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 4 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 14 2 3 4 5 1 1 4 3 1 4 4 2 2 2 0.01 0.0002 0.01 0.0002 0.01 0.0003 0.01 0.0002 0.02 0.0007
50
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.
Sports
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 Recreation

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 nonprofit organization in Denison organizes an annual rodeo in the region.
51
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EDA Economic Distress Criteria
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 eighty percent 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) U.S. Texoma Texoma Threshold Figure Figure Threshold Standard Comparison 24- month Average Unemployment Rage (BLS, period ending in January 2010)
One percentage point above national average
7.73%
6.40%
-1.33%
2007 Per Capita Money Income (ACS)
80% or less of US average 80% or less
$26,178 $21,590
82.47%
2007 Per Capita Personal Income (BEA)
of US average 80% or less
$38,615 $29,865
77.34%
2000 Per Capital Money Income (Decennial Census) of US

average
$21,587 $18,173
84.18%
52
ECONOMIC DISTRESS CRITERIA- GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS (NEWEST DATA AS OF 2010)
County
24 Month Unemployment 4.90 % 7.33% 6.78%
Threshold Comparison -2.83% -0.4% -0.95%
ACS PCMI
BEA PCPI
Threshold Comparison $36,787 $25,258 $28,901
Census PCMI (2000) 95.3% 65.4% 74.8%
Threshold Comparison 82.9% 74.4% 87.4%
Cooke Fannin Grayson
$22,403 85.6% $18,955 72.4% $22,063 84.3%
53
Texoma Agriculture Fast Facts

Texoma Land in Farms by Type of Land 3% Woodland Cropland Pasture Other uses Number of Farms 9%
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
Source: USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture
Texoma Farms by Size
50%
38%
1-9
10 - 49
50 - 179 180 - 499 500 - 999 1000+
Acres/Farm
Source: USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture
Table- Acreage Totals

Year Irrigated Cropland
Dry Cropland
Non-Native Pasture
Native Rangeland
Wildlife Management
Forests
Other
Total
1997 2002 2007 Change
3,854 368,706 201,339 757,980 5,154 500,679 219,596 596,447 8,173 308,561 277,407 712,455 4,319 -60,145 76,068 -45,525
0 1,076 6,752 6,752
0 8,855 0 0
68,980 78,361 75,483 6,503
1,400,8 59 1,410,1 68 1,388,8 31 -12,028
Market Value- Dollars per Acre Area Average Texas Average Year $/Acre Year $/Acre 1997 $828 1997 $500 2002 $1,246 2002 $677 2007 $2,679 2007 $1,196 Farm Count by Size Class
Year 1-100 100-500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000 & More
1997 2002 2007
3,376 3,794 4,409
2,153 1,928 1,856
324 335 273
159 180 148
98 101 103
Acre Count by Size Class

Year 1-100 100-500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000up Total Acres
1997 2002 2007
133,156 147,545 157,040
442,062 401,408 391,646
216,616 229,335 183,280
218,340 244,365 197,972
364,312 360,814 399,722
% Change 1997-
1,374,486 1383467 1329660
--0.03889 -0.03261
54
Texoma Innovation Index and Analysis

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 perspectives and 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.
Human Capital
Economic Well- Being
Innovation Index
Economic Dynamics
Productivity and Employment
FIGURE 1. SUB-COMPONENTS OF THE INNOVATION INDEX. FOR A FULL LIST OF SUB- COMPONENT WEIGHTS SEE APPENDIX B.
This index is structured to reflect the dynamics of four broad areas of innovation: human capital, economic dynamics, productivity and employment, economic well-being. These sub- categories are inputs to the overall calculated Innovation Index Score. The weight for each sub-category is 30% human capital, 30% economic dynamics, 30% productivity and employment, and 10% economic wellbeing. The data used in each sub-category was derived from varied sources: both official government
55
statistical agencies and several private sources, including Moodys economy.com, Innovation Economy 360, and Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI).1 In updated research using a descriptive cross-sectional regression model, the research team found that the following indicators have a positive and significant relationship to increases in GDP per worker: 1. Change in high-tech employment share 2. Average small establishments per 10,000 workers 3. Percent of population, ages 25-64, with some college or an associates degree 4. Population growth rate for ages 25-44 The Innovation Index is designed to highlight factors that indicate a region is more or less ready to participate in the knowledge economy. The index is not by itself intended to directly guide decisions about investments in the region as the data used to calculate the analysis may not be the latest available and, therefore, unable to reflect recent events in Texoma. Interpreting the Innovation Index (also referred to as the portfolio index) can get complex given its broad, multi-metric nature with both innovation inputs and outputs. In order to identify those specific factors with the greatest influence on economic growth, while controlling for some non-innovation factors, the Innovation Index research team statistically analyzed the innovation input data. Interpreting the results is simpler than the portfolio approach because there is only one output measureeconomic growth (i.e., GDP-per-worker growth). Texomas Innovation Index score is 86.6 and scores higher than the State of Oklahoma but lower than the State of U.S. Texas. The U.S. Innovation Score sets Oklahoma the curve for relation on Texas all state and regional index scores. These Texoma scores are shown in 75 80 Figure 5. A closer look sub-component scores Texoma for each region helps Innovation Score 86.6 explain areas of strength and weakness that affect SOURCE: STATSAMERICA.ORG the overall Innovation Index score.
A complete list of calculations, models, and definitions used in the Texoma Innovation Index is available from http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/reports/sections2/C.pdf.
1
Innovation Index
100 83.7 94.2 86.6 85 Texas 94.2 90 95 100 U.S. 100
Oklahoma 83.7
56
Patents (Sherman/Denison MSA)

Rank
1 2 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Organization
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED B.A.G. CORPORATION FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. ENVIROSPECIALISTS, INC. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS GLOBITECH, INC. BIOLOGICAL TARGETS, INC. COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. FUJITSU LIMITED METSO MINERALS INDUSTRIES, INC. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED RAYTHEON COMPANY TRICON PRECAST, LTD.
Total Patents 2005 through 2009

40 9 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Industry
Cooke County The total numbers of establishments for all industries increased by about 43% from 2000 to 2009 as opposed to the meager 4.2% increase in the number of jobs. The average weekly wages for federal, state and local government have also increased by around 23% since 4th Qtr 2005 to 4th Qtr 2011. But there has been a higher increase of 36.17% in the number of wages for private industries during the same time frame. The increase in wages can be attributed to the inflation over the years. There was a negative change in the number of establishments and jobs for most industries from 2002 to 2003. After 2003, no significant trend was observed in either establishments or jobs. There was a big increase in the number of jobs in the mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction industry during 2004-2005 due to the emerging fracking and natural gas establishments. Some other industries faring well are wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, professional, scientific and technical services, management of companies and enterprises and administrative support and waste management. Fannin County There was a higher increase in the number of 67.92% in industry establishments from 2000 to 2009 than the number of jobs where the increase was around 22.5%. The average weekly wages for federal government declined by 18.3% while those in the local government, state government and private sector increased by around 9%-12% since 4th Qtr 2005 to 4th Qtr 2011. Some of the industries that are making progress in Fannin County are mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction, transportation and warehousing, information, arts, entertainment and recreation along with administrative support and waste management.
57
Grayson County Though the number of establishments improved by 44.62% a mere 1% increase in the number of jobs was seen from 2000 to 2009. The average weekly wages in state government, private sector, local government and federal government experienced an increase by around 11%-20%. Highest wages are seen with the federal government. Stronger industries in Grayson County include agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction, transportation and warehousing, professional, scientific and technical services, management of companies and enterprises and administrative support and waste management.
Texoma Industry Clusters

The industry cluster analysis helps the practitioner to see networks of businesses that are creating wealth in their local or regional economy. The tool focuses on seventeen clusters across the United States in order to provide a framework that is easy to understand. It also allows users to combine individual counties to define custom regions. Close geographic proximity and engagement in similar or related economic activities are the key factors leading to development of clusters. These characteristics enhance the likelihood of exchanges among cluster firms, facilitating mutual support, and economic growth. When members of a cluster are located in close proximity, they can capture synergies that increase productivity, innovative capacity and new 2 business formation. The linkages between spatial proximity and innovation potential are particularly important from a regional development perspective. In particular, supportive policies and a nurturing business environment may further strengthen the innovative milieu and thus enhance regional advantages. Industry clusters help to describe how industries in a region compare to each other, identify growth trends through regional location quotient analysis, reveal emerging industries in a region, analyze the mix of clusters in a diverse region that might include both rural and urban areas, rethink business expansion strategies, reveal groups of industries that have similar workforce needs, prioritize groups of firms that have growth potential, and create regional identities and improve marketing effectiveness. On average, U.S. counties specialize in slightly more than two industry clusters (LQ > 1.2, meaning that the clusters share of employment in the county is at least 20 percent higher than the clusters share of 3 employment nationally). With data provided by this tool, users can create a matrix to show industry employment location quotients for each county in the region and for the region as a whole. This matrix enables practitioners to see the overall competitive strengths of the regions economy. However, cluster analysis must be used judiciously because it relies upon historical data, and the past is not a perfect predictor for the
Porter, M. 2001. Clusters of innovation: Regional foundations of U.S. Competitiveness. Available from http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Clusters-of-Innovation/Clusters-of-Innovation.pdf. 3 Unlocking Rural Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters. Available from http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/reports/trifold_single_pages.pdf.
58
future. For example, a region currently specialized in a particular cluster may not have a bright future if the national and global outlook for that cluster is one of decline. Texoma Baseline Industry Cluster Analysis (2008) 4
Industry Cluster Employment LQ Industry Cluster Annual Wages LQ
Description
QCEW 5 ClusterEstablishments
Industry Cluster Establishments LQ 6
QCEW Cluster Employment
QCEW Cluster Wages
Total, All Industries Advanced Materials Agribusiness, Food Processing Apparel & Textiles Arts, Entertainment, Recreation & Visitor Industries Biomedical/ Biotechnical (Life Sciences) Business & Financial Services Chemicals & Chemical Based Products Defense & Security Education & Knowledge Creation Energy (Fossil & Renewable) Forest & Wood Products Glass & Chemicals Information Technology & Telecommunications Transportation & Logistics Manufacturing Supercluster Primary Metal Mfg
4184 86 156 27 120
1.00 1.32 2.34 0.71 0.98
65,955 564 915 12 963
1.00 0.22 0.59 0.02 0.37
$2,384,881,506 1.00 $23,457,140 0.18 $38,446,998 0.85 $315,487 $22,138,936 0.02 0.31
408
4.01
4,106
1.81
$170,190,906
1.82
536 49
0.83 1.51
3,005 1,223
0.52 1.10
$121,079,033 $51,555,838
0.32 0.99
106 79 402 76 15 150
0.76 0.87 1.46 0.84 1.49 0.75
982 5,873 4,590 787 55 736
0.30 0.93 1.16 0.65 0.21 0.24
$45,655,682 $193,101,943 $210,816,846 $28,440,922 $2,489,080 $30,848,206
0.28 0.91 1.02 0.69 0.26 0.16
101 125 8
1.07 1.94 2.88
1,283 6,061 442
0.66 1.92 2.04
$58,564,270 $376,155,484 $20,192,759
0.84 2.43 2.02
A list of the detailed six-digit NAICS definitions for each of the 17 industry clusters is available from http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/reports/sections/appendix_I.pdf. 5 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 6 Location Quotient (LQ)
59
Fabricated Metal Product Mfg Machinery Manufacturing Computer & Electronic Product Mfg Electrical Equipment, Appliance & Component Mfg Transportation Equipment Mfg Mining Printing & Publishing
62 22 13
2.20 1.57 1.48
1,692 649 1,363
2.25 1.12 2.24
$66,996,159 $37,947,017 $172,809,560
2.36 1.45 4.23
0.59
0.00
$0
0.00
18 8 65
2.52 1.44 0.71
1,917 0 295
2.39 0.00 0.23
$78,209,989 $0 $10,331,495
1.94 0.00 0.17
60
GOALS & OBJECTIVES

After considering the regions competitive advantages, these regional goals and objectives were designed to provide a roadmap that helps guide the actions and priorities of regional development. Most importantly, they will further a unified, coordinated regional approach for economic growth and stability. These measures will also build upon the unique assets and abilities of the region and the Texoma Council of Governments to support key areas of and local economic activity and community capacity building, particularly in underutilized or economically distressed areas. These goals and objectives will aid in the advancement of the Texoma Regions ability to evolve into a robust regional economy that supports the needs of businesses and workers in all dimensions of soft and hard infrastructure. The following are the regional goals and objectives for the 2011 Texoma CEDS:
GOAL 1: TO IMPLEMENT UNIFIED REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITATIVES

Objectives Develop mechanisms to guide the implementation of regional economic development initiatives Foster and promote regional economic and workforce development Strengthen and expand economic cooperation and collaboration intra-regionally and beyond the regions borders that engages local government, business, and citizen leaders in Texoma with each other and leaders in nearby regions Develop mechanisms, as appropriate, to respond to unexpected economic losses and economic disasters Activities Create an economic forum for local governments, businesses, and citizens to come together and discuss important regional issues in soft and hard infrastructure. Engage with neighboring regional planning organizations in Texas through the Texas Association of Regional Councils and leaders in Southern Oklahoma through the Texoma Regional Consortium. Assist communities that address hard and soft infrastructure projects that cater to regional needs. Assist communities with funding applications to the Economic Development Administration, especially those that address the regional development of hard or soft infrastructure assets.
GOAL 2: TO ADVANCE THE REGIONS ECONOMIC PROGRESS THROUGH THE USE OF CURRENT AND PERTINENT DATA
Objectives Maintain and expand data and information collection capacity for regional analysis and performance evaluation, particularly in each of the areas of hard and soft infrastructure Proactively identify and assess the challenges and changes in the economic and demographic conditions, focusing on the state of hard and soft infrastructure in the region Identify and quantify emerging and changing conditions of business and industry as well as quality of life measures
61
Activities Develop and update the TCOG Community & Economic Development website, www.texomaedd.org. The website will have relevant data, information, and news about the region and provide a library of resources for local governments, nonprofits, businesses, and citizens. Release the Texoma Regional Economic Dashboard (TRED) quarterly in partnership with Workforce Solutions Texoma, Denison Development Alliance, and Sherman Economic Development Corporation. Publish a regional labor shed report that analyzes where employees of the largest businesses in Texoma reside in order to define commuting patterns in Texoma and the reach that our businesses have outside of the region. Begin participation in the C2ER Cost of Living Index (COLI) study for Gainesville and Bonham Micropolitan Areas Establish regional benchmarks against other regional counterparts in each of the areas of soft and hard infrastructure.
GOAL 3: TO INCREASE THE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS OF THE REGION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Objectives Work with local economic development professionals and communities to market the region as a cohesive economy and dynamic home for businesses Expand regional capacities to inventory and market sites and buildings for the regions economic development Assist communities with data needs related to economic development and business recruitment Activities Promote the use of the Texoma Prospector tool on www.texomaedd.org with local commercial realtors, businesses, and economic development recruiters Conduct a pilot regional business retention and expansion survey in partnership with local Chambers of Commerce and Economic Development Corporations in order for our communities to better understand the business environment in Texoma.
GOAL 4: ADVANCE HIGH-QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE & COMMUNITY

IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL FABRIC
Objectives Create a regional land-use plan and analysis for communities to use as a point of context for future development decisions Support community-driven initiatives that improve neighborhood, urban and town centers that stimulate economic activity and promote the development of quality communities Increase the capacity of local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to improve the nature of hard and soft infrastructure in their communities and the region Foster the development of regional projects that improve the functionality and usefulness in any area of hard and soft infrastructure for the overall improvement of the business environment and quality of life for workers. Activities Inventory the regional soft and hard infrastructure assets and visually present them using GIS Create How To guides or factsheets for downtowns regarding topics such as ordinance development, policy development, streetscaping practices, and market analyses. Maintain information on park planning and development at http://www.texomaedd.org that gives communities access to information on current techniques and practices.
62
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Texoma Council of Governments will report CEDS performance measures on the GPRA form submitted to the EDA and will provide these figures on the TCOG Community & Economic Development Program website, www.texomaedd.org. Number of jobs created or retained in the region Amount of private investment in the region Number of business formations and expansions in the region Number of people receiving job training in the region Number of people receiving training on economic development, soft infrastructure, or hard infrastructure at TCOG workshops Number of requests for assistance with data collection, data analysis, or data development in the region. Number of visitors to the www.texomaedd.org website and the Texoma Zoom Prospector Tool.
63

Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Texoma Compresensive Economic Development Strategy

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2012-2017 TEXOMA COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

TEXOMA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

2012-2017 TEXOMA COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

WHAT IS THE TEXOMA CEDS?

regional economy and home for businesses and workers.

Texoma Population 2000-2010

Source: American Factfinder

Population Growth 2000-2010

Percent Population by Age for every County 2010

16 years and over 62 years and over

Percent Population 18 years and over 65 years and over

21 years and over

Percent Population by Race for every County 2010

Source: Texas State Data Center

10 U.S. Cities With the Cheapest Cost of Living

SOURCE: DALLAS-GARLAND & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD (DGNO)

NTRA SITE DEVELOPMENT MAP SOURCE: WWW.NORTHTEXASREGIONALAIRPORT.COM

NATIONAL MAP, SOURCE: TEXOMA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Commuting Patterns, Traffic, and Mobility of Workers

Percent Change Commute Patterns by

Percent Change 2000-2010

Source: American Factfinder

Percent Change Housing Units Texoma

0% Total housing units

Vacant housing units

Owner Occupied housing units

Renter Occupied housing units

Source: American Factfinder

2012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS

Households with Severe Housing Problems Texoma, 2009

More than 1 person per room

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 2000 4000 6000

8000 10000 12000 >95% AMI

Cost Burden By Household Type Texoma

Cost burden is less than or equal to 30%

Texoma, 2011 Fair Market Rent

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

2009 Water Use Survey Summary Estimates by City

Residential 4) GPCD 66 NO RETURN 119 74 56 64 56 56 76 82 72 72 64 64 60

2012- 2017 TEXOMA CEDS

Historical Groundwater Pumpage Summary by County

INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY

Businesses in Texoma without Broadband

Retail Trade, Recreation, Food and Lodging

Professional and Financial Services

Source: Connected Texas

Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing

Agriculture, Mining, Construction, Utilities

Health Care Services

All Other Businesses

About Electrical Energy

About Natural Gas Energy

ART & CULTURE

Denison arts venues

Sherman arts venues

COMMUNITY & CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Cooke Fannin Grayson

Annual Giving by County

12,222 10,392 13,559 13,141 7,315 4,341 4,064 950 53,762

41,112 3,566 17,257 35,899 61,400 86,416 130,478 479,652 47,487

576 13 108 373 876 1,546 3,428 12,655 848

HEALTH & HEALTH CARE

10% 2.6 2.3 6.00%