Riverchase Golf Club

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM RIVERCHASE GOLF CLUB
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Regarding the Suspension of Operations Beginning August 5, 2026

Issued August 2026

In Summary:

The city has shut down our golf course’s water from May - Aug which caused golf course conditions to dry up in 100 degree weather. The business lost over $150,000 and we eventually had to shut down on August 5th.

Riverchase Golf Club tried to replace the old water pump with a high-end, brand new water pump. The City of Coppell disapproved of installing the new water pump. Riverchase Golf Club tried hard to meet the permit requirement but we could not satisfactorily meet the city's very expansive permit request. If our water pump is disapproved, that means our golf course doesn’t get water. Therefore, Riverchase Golf Club was not able to water the grass for the past three months. Now the business has shut down. Below are the details for fact information that is related to the business shutdown.

Riverchase Golf Club has shut down because of financial loss from the business not having water supply to water the grass.

Riverchase Management invested over $1 million to Riverchase Golf Club since August 2025. We have not caused anything to deserve such a long, complicated, broad, and expansive permit requirement which led to the business shutdown. We terminated all of our employees.

Riverchase regretted not only investing in this water pump, but also the effect this situation has had on its employees, golfers, residents, and the broader Coppell community.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Riverchase Golf Club is sharing the following information in the interest of transparency. The purpose of this statement is:

• To explain the circumstances that led to Riverchase Golf Club’s temporary suspension of operations beginning August 5, 2026.

• To summarize Riverchase’s investment in the property, the replacement irrigation-pump project, communications concerning the permitting process, and the resulting operational and financial effects.

• To request a prompt, clearly defined, and independently reviewed path toward resolution with the City of Coppell.

This statement presents 9 key facts, followed by Riverchase Golf Club’s perspective, unanswered questions, and requested resolution.

────────────────────────────────────────
IMPORTANT CONTEXT
────────────────────────────────────────

This statement reflects Riverchase Golf Club’s understanding of the events based on emails, permit records, vendor and consultant communications, and management’s first hand recollection. It is not a judicial finding or formal legal opinion. All email records are original and will be disclosed on this platform.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
AT A GLANCE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
• Riverchase Golf Club invested $971,106.92 in machinery, equipment and the buildings from August 2025 through August 2026. This amount does not include certain smaller investments.

• The old irrigation-pump system was demolished on April 16, 2026. On April 22, 2026, the City notified Riverchase that permits and inspections would be required before the replacement pump could be installed.

• During the project, an undocumented historical municipal-water connection to the old pump was identified. That municipal-water connection to the old water pump has since been shut off and physically terminated.

• Riverchase Golf Club estimates that it has incurred more than $150,000 in business losses in addition to approximately $1 million investment because the City has not approved the replacement-pump permit and has conditioned approval on an expanded scope of work that Riverchase believes goes beyond the pump installation itself. As a result, the new pump could not be installed, contributing to financial loss to the business, and the temporary suspension of operations beginning August 5, 2026

• A central issue in the permitting process was that, for nearly three months, Riverchase and its consultants were unable to obtain a clear and consistent definition of the required scope of work. During that time, the requirements appeared to expand beyond the replacement-pump project, the new pump could not be installed, and the golf course remained without normal irrigation. As turf conditions deteriorated, the business continued to lose revenue and incur significant financial losses. The detailed facts and chronology below explain how this situation developed.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 1 — INVESTMENT IN RIVERCHASE GOLF CLUB
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

From August 2025 through August 2026, Riverchase Golf Club invested $971,106.92 in the golf course. All equipment listed below was purchased new and paid for in cash. The equipment is currently secured at Riverchase Golf Club. This total does not include certain smaller investments, including approximately $30,000 for a Verkada security, surveillance, and alarm systems.

• John Deere 2030A Sprayer with HP 300 Cab and Sonic Booms — $162,375.00
• Bernhard Express Dual Grinder — $61,307.00
• Bernhard Anglemaster — $34,069.00
• Salsco Roller — $32,268.49
• Compact Track Loader / Kubota Skid Steer — $92,813.79
• Trimax Snake S3 — $47,225.84
• Kubota MX6000 HST Tractor — $51,675.79
• Yanmar Excavator — $88,446.23
• John Deere Gator — $33,457.08
• Roof Replacement, F-Wave with 60-Year Warranty — $62,122.51
• MCI Flowtronex Irrigation Pump Station — $305,346.19

TOTAL INVESTMENT TO DATE: $971,106.92

────────────────────────────────────────
CANCELLED INVESTMENT
────────────────────────────────────────

Riverchase also planned to replace the existing hydraulic irrigation system with a modern, centrally controlled irrigation system at an estimated cost of $1,200,000. The supplier’s identity remains confidential.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 2 — MUNICIPAL WATER-LINE MAPPING
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

On June 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., Riverchase Golf Club representatives met with City of Coppell Development Services staff to discuss the scope of work required for the replacement irrigation-pump permit.

The meeting included the Riverchase owner, the golf course superintendent, the head golf professional, a licensed plumbing contractor, and City development officials.

The City’s permit manager did not attend the meeting. As a result, the required scope of work was not clearly defined or resolved at that time.

According to Riverchase’s contemporaneous meeting notes, a City staff member explained verbally that the City’s municipal water-line maps and records may be incomplete. The staff member stated that some older water lines may not appear on the available maps because
historical mapping and recordkeeping practices were not always comprehensive.

Riverchase believes this information is significant because, during the pump-replacement project, an apparently undocumented municipal-water connection to the old water pump (later terminated) had already been discovered.

In Riverchase’s view, the discovery supports the possibility that the connection was a historical condition that may not have been accurately reflected in either the City’s records or the information available.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 3 — CONDITION OF THE OLD IRRIGATION-PUMP SYSTEM
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The old irrigation pump and hydraulic control system were more than 30 years old and were believed to have been installed when the golf course was originally built back in late 1980s.

Hydraulic irrigation-control systems of this type are now outdated and are no longer commonly used. Riverchase was also advised that replacement parts for the existing system were no longer readily available.

The old pump was connected to a pressure tank approximately eight feet tall and five feet wide. Management observed visible leaks, cracks, and evidence of previous welded repairs.

The pump also had to be turned off and restarted every day, placing additional stress on an already aging system.

Golf course superintendents warned management that the aging pressure tank could rupture or explode when the pump was started each morning. Because of this serious safety risk, management directed that only the owner or the golf course superintendent could operate the pump. All other staff members were prohibited from using the pump switch.

For these reasons, Riverchase considered replacement of the old system necessary, not only to improve irrigation reliability and course conditions, but also to protect the safety of employees. Riverchase explained the condition of the old system and the associated safety risks to the City’s permit office in email.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 4 — THE REPLACEMENT PUMP AND RIVERCHASE’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Riverchase Golf Club selected MCI Flowtronex to replace the aging irrigation-pump system with a modern, prefabricated pump station.

MCI Flowtronex is a Dallas-area company that designs and manufactures irrigation pump systems for golf courses and other large-scale irrigation operations. Its systems are widely regarded within the golf industry as a gold standard for irrigation pumping and water management. Its pump systems are used at hundreds of golf facilities, including many professional tournament and championship venues. Prominent users include but not limited to:

Augusta National Golf Club,
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club,
Oakmont Country Club,
Riviera Country Club,
Royal Portrush Golf Club,
Fields Ranch East at PGA Frisco.

MCI representatives advised Riverchase that, in more than 40 years of supplying pump systems, they had not previously encountered a municipal permit requirement for a comparable golf-course pump replacement.

Based on the experience of MCI and the installation contractors, Riverchase initially understood that replacing the existing pump with a prefabricated pump station would not require the extensive permitting and broader investigation later requested by the City.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 5 — DEMOLITION OF THE OLD SYSTEM AND HALT OF THE REPLACEMENT-PUMP INSTALLATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Riverchase Golf Club scheduled the complete replacement of the old irrigation pump, and the severely dilapidated pump shed that housed it. which measured approximately 13 feet by 21 feet by 9 feet.

The planned work included:
• Demolition and removal of the old pump and shed
• Preparation and leveling of the installation area surface
• Placement of the new prefabricated MCI Flowtronex pump station by crane
• Connection of the new pump to the existing pond-water irrigation system
• Activation of the new system before the extreme heat of summer

MCI Flowtronex and the installation contractors advised Riverchase that they had not previously been required to obtain a municipal permit for a comparable golf course pump replacement.

APRIL 16, 2026 — DEMOLITION OF THE OLD SYSTEM

The old pump and severely dilapidated shed were demolished on April 16, 2026.

Riverchase’s original plan was to complete installation of the new pump by May 4, 2026, before the beginning of the hot summer season.

From April 16 forward, the golf course no longer had normal pump-driven irrigation.

APRIL 22, 2026 — CITY NOTIFIES RIVERCHASE THAT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED

On April 22, City Permit Manager Stephen-David Schubert notified Riverchase that permits and inspections would be required before the replacement pump could be installed.

Riverchase responded that the permit requirement was unexpected. Management explained:
• The dangerous condition of the old pump and pressure tank
• The employee-safety concerns that made replacement necessary
• The significant investments already made in the golf course
• The urgent need to restore irrigation before the summer heat
The possibility of an estimated $250,000 to $300,000 in business and course-related losses if irrigation cannot be restored

Riverchase also requested that the permit manager visit the property and inspect the pump site before imposing a broad range of permit requirements.

According to Riverchase’s records, no representative from the City’s permit office inspected the pump site when the installation was placed on hold. The City permit manager later visited the property to discuss the expanded scope of work, including broader inspection requirements, but did not visit or inspect the actual pump location. As of the date of this statement, the pump site has not been inspected by the City’s permit office.

APRIL 23, 2026 — INITIAL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS REQUESTED

On April 23, Mr. Schubert informed Riverchase that permits and inspections would be required for:

• The replacement irrigation pump
• Changes to the irrigation system
• Electrical work
• Demolition of the old structure

The City also stated that the demolition required an asbestos survey under the authority of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

These initial permit and inspection matters were later completed, addressed, or cleared.

However, the replacement pump still could not be installed. The permitting process later expanded to include broader questions about the municipal-water and irrigation systems, further delaying the pump installation and prolonging the period during which the golf course remained without normal irrigation.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 6 — DISCOVERY AND TERMINATION OF AN UNDOCUMENTED MUNICIPAL-WATER CONNECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The old irrigation system used two separate water sources for two different purposes:

• Pond water supplied the irrigation water applied to the golf course. The pond is supplied primarily by rainfall and surrounding runoff.

• Municipal water was used only to pressurize approximately one-quarter-inch clear control tubing that turned the sprinkler heads on and off within the old hydraulic irrigation-control system. Municipal water was not used to irrigate the turf. It was used only to pressurize the control tubing that turned the sprinkler heads on and off. This water-pressure control is why the old system is described as hydraulic. Modern irrigation systems generally use electrical controls instead. Usage was minimum.

During the pump-replacement project, an undocumented municipal-water connection to the old water pump was discovered. Riverchase believes this connection had existed since, or near, the original construction of the golf course approximately 30 years ago. The current ownership inherited the system and operated it for approximately five months before the old pump and control system were demolished on April 16, 2026.

Riverchase was unaware that the municipal-water line originated outside the golf course property and believed that it was connected through the clubhouse water meter. Because Riverchase did not possess an underground municipal-water map, management had no practical way to confirm the line’s historical routing before the replacement project exposed it. Once the connection was identified as undocumented by the city, the line was shut off and physically terminated.

The new irrigation pump:
• Uses pond water only
• Does not require municipal water
• Does not use the City’s potable-water supply
• Does not connect to the previously identified municipal-water line

Despite the termination of that connection, the City requested broader documentation of the golf course’s irrigation system to determine whether any other municipal-water connections or backflow risks might exist.

For more than three months(May – Aug), Riverchase was unable to obtain a clear understanding of the scope of work required for the permit or exactly what the City was asking Riverchase to do. The difficulty arose in part because the City appeared to be asking Riverchase to investigate and prove that a condition did not exist, rather than identify and correct a specific existing condition. By the time Riverchase finally understood the City’s requested scope of work in early August, Riverchase had invested more than $970,000 to the golf course and estimates that it had incurred more than $150,000 in business losses while the replacement pump remained on hold and additional $40,000 to $100,000 burden survey/investigation quote.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 7 — THE CITY’S STATED REQUIREMENTS AND RIVERCHASE’S REQUEST FOR LEGAL AUTHORITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE CITY’S STATED REQUIREMENTS (Current request content in Aug)

The City has stated that it requires engineering documentation confirming one of the following:

• The irrigation system is completely separated from the municipal-water supply; or
• An appropriate backflow-prevention assembly is installed, registered, and tested.

The City has described this requirement as a standard public-health safeguard intended to prevent non-potable water from entering Coppell’s drinking-water system.

Because a previously undocumented municipal-water connection was discovered under the current ownership, the City’s position is that the current property owner must verify that no other connections exist.

The City has also stated that Riverchase’s Certificate of Occupancy application has been reviewed and approved, with payment and inspections remaining.

According to the City, the replacement-pump permit cannot be issued until the requested engineering documentation is submitted.

RIVERCHASE’S POSITION

Riverchase agrees that Coppell’s drinking-water system must be protected and that all valid cross-connection and backflow requirements should be followed.

The disagreement is more specific:
Does the City have the legal authority to make a property-wide investigation of the irrigation and domestic-water systems a condition of installing and operating an independent pond-water pump after the historical municipal-water connection has been physically terminated?

Riverchase emphasizes the following facts:

• The current ownership did not install or conceal the historical municipal-water connection. City agrees.

• The replacement pump did not create, modify, or depend on that connection.

• The replacement pump uses pond water and has no connection to the City’s potable-water supply.

• The historical municipal-water connection has been shut off and physically terminated.

• The City’s available records and maps apparently did not clearly identify the historical connection.

• If a cross-connection, contamination risk, or inadequate backflow protection existed for approximately 30 years, the installation of the new pump would not create or change that historical condition. The replacement pump uses pond water, does not connect to the City’s potable-water system, and would not alter the municipal-water configuration that existed before the current ownership acquired the golf course. Riverchase therefore questions why an investigation of the entire irrigation system is being made a condition of the replacement-pump permit when the pump itself would not create, modify, or continue the historical municipal-water connection. Riverchase also requests an explanation of the legal basis for placing responsibility for a decade-old condition on the current owner, who acquired the golf course approximately one year ago and discovered the issue only after investing in a new pump intended to improve the golf course and benefit the community.

────────────────────────────────────────
RIVERCHASE’S QUESTIONS TO THE CITY
────────────────────────────────────────
Riverchase respectfully requests written answers to the following questions:

1. What specific City of Coppell ordinance, adopted code provision, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rule, or other legal authority permits the City to condition approval of this pump replacement on an investigation of the broader irrigation or domestic-water system?

2. What present hazard does the City believe remains after the historical connection was physically terminated and the replacement pump was confirmed to be independent of municipal water?

3. What factual determination triggered the requirement for a system-wide engineering investigation, and what precise portion of the property’s water or irrigation system must be documented?

4. What legal authority makes the current owner responsible for investigating or correcting a historical connection that the current owner did not install and that apparently was not identified in the City’s available utility records?

5. What investigation has the City conducted into its own historical records to determine:

• Who installed or authorized the connection;
• Whether a meter or backflow-prevention assembly previously existed; and
• Whether prior City personnel knew about the connection?

6. Why can the replacement-pump permit not be reviewed separately while any historical cross-connection concerns are addressed through a separate, clearly defined, and properly documented compliance process?

────────────────────────────────────────
POSSIBLE REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL RECORDS
────────────────────────────────────────

Riverchase may submit a request under the Texas Public Information Act for records relating to the property and the historical municipal-water connection, including:

• Historical utility maps
• As-built drawings
• Work orders
• Water-meter records
• Irrigation and plumbing permits
• Backflow-prevention records
• Inspection records
• City correspondence
• Records concerning the installation, authorization, modification, or abandonment of the historical connection

Riverchase may request clear answers regarding why the current owner is being held responsible for this historical condition, what present hazard remains after the connection was terminated, and what specific legal authority allows the City to prevent installation of an independent pond-water pump until a broader investigation is completed.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 8 — CHRONOLOGY OF CHANGING AND EXPANDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Riverchase’s principal concern is that the required scope of work was not clearly defined at the beginning of the permitting process. Over the past three months, the requirements appeared to become broader and more detailed while the replacement pump remained on hold and the golf course continued operating without normal irrigation. The following chronology summarizes the relevant communications. Supporting emails and documents will be released separately so the public may review them in full context.

APRIL 23, 2026 — PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, DEMOLITION, AND ASBESTOS SURVEY

Mr. Schubert informed Riverchase that permits and inspections were required for:

• The replacement irrigation pump
• Changes to the irrigation system
• Electrical work
• Demolition of the old pump shed
• An asbestos survey under the authority of the Texas Department of State Health Services Riverchase reports that these initial requirements were later completed, addressed, or cleared.

At the time these requirements were imposed, Mr. Schubert had not visited the property or inspected the pump site. When Riverchase explained that its pump manufacturer and installation contractors had advised that they had never previously been required to obtain
a municipal permit for a comparable golf-course pump replacement,

Mr. Schubert responded as follows in his original email:

“If the vendors are purposely omitting obtaining permits and inspections for their scopes of work, then I will have no choice but to revoke their ability to work within the City’s limits and file with the state agency over them for additional enforcement.”

Riverchase was concerned by this response because the phrase “purposely omitting” appeared to suggest intentional misconduct by the vendors, even though they had advised Riverchase based on their professional experience. Riverchase also understood the response as a warning that the vendors could lose their ability to work within the City and could face additional enforcement action. At that time, however, no City permit representative had visited or inspected the actual pump site.

MAY 18, 2026 — REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING SCHEMATIC
After the undocumented municipal-water line was discovered, Mr. Schubert requested additional documentation. Because Riverchase and its consultants were unclear about what the City required, Riverchase retained Allbright Services LLC to assist with the permit process.

Mr. Schubert responded as follows in his original email:│
“Please provide a site plan identifying the location of the scope of work. Please provide plumbing schematic to clearly identify that there is not any source water connected to the municipal supply. City records indicate that there is a municipal supply for the irrigation system.”

Riverchase’s concern was that the request did not clearly define the required scope of work. The request for a “plumbing schematic” was also technically ambiguous because it appeared to require Riverchase to prove that a connection did not exist while, at the same time,stating that City records indicated a connection to the irrigation system.

────────────────────────────────────────
The request did not specify whether the required documentation applied to:
────────────────────────────────────────
• The replacement-pump location
• The new pump station
• The area surrounding the clubhouse
• The entire irrigation system
• The entire golf course property

Riverchase and its professional consultants were therefore uncertain about what they were expected to inspect, document, and submit. The request did not identify a clear system boundary, a specific existing condition requiring correction, or the precise code requirement supporting the requested scope.

At that time, no City official had visited or inspected the pump site after the undocumented line was discovered. Riverchase therefore questioned what factual information the City relied upon in determining that broader site plans and irrigation-system documentation were necessary.

────────────────────────────────────────
Riverchase also sought clarification regarding:
────────────────────────────────────────
• What specific condition the City believed still existed
• What portion of the irrigation system needed to be documented
• Why that broader documentation was necessary for the replacement of an independent pond-water pump

By May 19, 2026, Riverchase had submitted all of the information that it reasonably understood the City to be requesting at that time. (Site plan and irrigation map of the golf course)

────────────────────────────────────────
MAY 29, 2026 — ENGINEERED PLUMBING PLANS AND CSI INSPECTION ADDED
────────────────────────────────────────

On May 29, Mr. Schubert sent Riverchase an additional request for signed and sealed plumbing plans and a Customer Service Inspection, or CSI. This requirement expanded the scope of work without a clear explanation of why the additional inspection was necessary. Approximately two months later, Mr. Schubert advised Riverchase that the CSI was no longer required, but no written explanation was provided for removing it from the permit requirements. The following is an excerpt from the original email. The wording and spelling are presented as written:

“Please provide plumbing plans. Plans must be designed, signed, sealed and dated by a professional engineer or a TSBPE license master plumber.

Plans must be to-scale and clearly identify municipal water lines, type(s) of connections, and backflow devices.

This is for the domestic water on site. By law, the City must have verification of what is connected to the domestic water supply on this site to ensure the public's safety.

This would include a CSI inspection as required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Our records indicate that the irrigation system is connected to the municipal supply and there are no records identifying that it was ever separated. Therefore, this permit must include complete identification of what is connected.”

At this stage, a CSI inspection had been added to the permit requirements. This requirement was later removed.

Riverchase’s concern was that the May 29 email still did not clearly define the required scope of work or the boundaries of the system that needed to be documented.

In Riverchase’s view, requiring signed and sealed, engineering-level documentation identifying all municipal-water lines, connections, and backflow devices appeared to expand the project beyond a single replacement-pump permit and into a broader investigation of the property’s water systems.

────────────────────────────────────────
At that time, Riverchase had not received:
───────────────────────────────────────
• A formal written cross-connection violation identifying a specific existing condition;
• A clearly defined boundary showing which part of the property’s water or irrigation system had to be investigated;
• Confirmation of the physical condition the City believed still existed; or
• A specific explanation of the factual or legal trigger for the expanded engineering and CSI requirements.

Riverchase viewed this as an expansion of the permit scope without a clearly documented decision or explanation. From Riverchase’s perspective, the City appeared to be acting on the conclusion that a broader risk existed without clearly identifying the factual determination that led to that conclusion, what triggered the CSI requirement, or the portion of the system to which the requirement applied.

Riverchase and its consultants remained unclear about exactly what the City was requesting. What was clear, however, was that the business continued to suffer while the golf course remained without normal irrigation

────────────────────────────────────────
JUNE 9, 2026 — CONSULTANT CLARIFIES THE PROJECT SCOPE; CITY STATES THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
────────────────────────────────────────

On June 9, Riverchase’s consultant contacted the City to clarify that the replacement pump used pond water and did not include any municipal-water connection. The consultant also asked the City to reconsider whether signed and sealed plumbing plans were required for the pump permit. If the City still required documentation concerning the historical municipal-water component, the consultant asked the City to identify the specific disconnection, isolation, shutoff, or backflow documentation needed. The following email excerpts are presented as originally written.

EMAIL FROM RIVERCHASE’S CONSULTANT

│
“Good afternoon Mr. Schubert and Team, Thank you for the review comments. We would like to clarify the project scope for permit BLDC26-05-038340 and respectfully request that the plumbing plan comment be re-reviewed. The new prefabricated pump house and pump system being submitted under this permit does not include a municipal water connection. The new pump system is designed to operate from the existing pond water source. The submitted pump station drawings show the pump station equipment, pump assemblies, piping, and related equipment associated with the pond water irrigation system. The municipal water component referenced by the owner is part of the prior existing hydraulic irrigation control system and is not part of the new prefabricated pump house or new pump
system scope being submitted under this permit. No new municipal water line, municipal water connection, or municipal source water connection is being installed as part of this permit scope. Based on this clarified scope, we are requesting that the City re-review whether signed and sealed plumbing plans are required for this permit. If the City still requires documentation related to the existing municipal water component from the prior system, please clarify whether the City is requesting a specific disconnection, isolation, shutoff, or backflow documentation item rather than full plumbing plans for the new pump station scope. We also want to respectfully note that timing is important for the property. The pump house replacement is needed so the golf course can restore proper irrigation and protect the existing turf conditions. We are trying to provide the City with the correct information as quickly as possible while also making sure the permit record accurately reflects the actual scope being performed. Our goal is to
provide the City with the correct documentation for the actual scope being submitted and avoid preparing plumbing plans for a municipal water connection that is not included in this project.”

1:15 P.M. — RESPONSE FROM MR. SCHUBERT
“There are no documents submitted to the City that clearly identify what you are stating. As such, the City cannot move forward with any permitting until this is resolved by uploading the required documents.”

2:18P.M. — RESPONSE FROM MR. SCHUBERT
“Please provide plumbing plans. Plans must be designed, signed, sealed and dated by a professional engineer or a TSBPE license master plumber. Plans must be to-scale and clearly identify municipal water lines, type(s) of connections, and backflow devices.”

2:24 P.M. — EMAIL FROM THE RIVERCHASE OWNER TO THE CONSULTANT
“Adam, Please double check as I remember we already turned this in.”

2:31P.M. — RESPONSE FROM RIVERCHASE’S CONSULTANT
“Yes sir. The documents/schematics for the new pump house were uploaded on the original permit application. The documents/schematics show that there is no municipal water being used for this system. Unsure why we were then asked to provide plumbing schematics when the review was completed on 05/21/2026 when this was originally sent for review. The review did ask for a site plan, which we promptly uploaded to the permit application.”

2:42 P.M. — RESPONSE FROM MR. SCHUBERT
“There is potable water to site. The documents received do not clarify whether or not the domestic system is connected to the pump or the irrigation system. This will be corrected in order for the permit to proceed. This is a non-negotiable requirement.”

3:42 P.M. — RESPONSE FROM MR. SCHUBERT
“Again, this must be part of the permit set. It is required by the City and TCEQ. As I am unable to receive the required documents from you, please procure the services of a Texas-licensed professional engineer specializing in plumbing and have them contact me so I can identify the data required.”

3:49 P.M. — RESPONSE FROM THE RIVERCHASE OWNER
“With all do respect sir, We are still in question what we are asking to engineer to draw. We would appreciate it if you could be more specific because we’re losing time And soon we’re gonna lose $100,000 in a month. What is the document that you are requesting?”

4:19 P.M. — RESPONSE FROM MR. SCHUBERT
“This has already been explained at length and I have asked to please have them contact me. A state-licensed engineer specializing in plumbing will completely understand what I need. This question has already been answered. This is for the domestic water on site. By law, the City must have verification of what is connected to the domestic water supply on this site to ensure the public's safety. This would include a CSI inspection as required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Our records indicate that the irrigation system is connected to the municipal supply and there are no records identifying that it was ever separated. Therefore, this permit must include complete identification of what is connected.”

────────────────────────────────────────
RIVERCHASE’S CONCERN
────────────────────────────────────────

This scope of work (CSI inspection) was later dismissed. Riverchase’s consultant had explained that the replacement pump used pond water and that no municipal-water connection was included in the project. The consultant also asked the City to identify whether a specific disconnection, isolation, shutoff, or backflow document would satisfy the City’s concern. The City continued to require signed and sealed plumbing plans addressing the domestic-water and irrigation systems and described the requirement as non-negotiable. Riverchase repeatedly asked what specific document the engineer was expected to prepare. However, Riverchase and its consultant remained uncertain about the exact system boundary, the full extent of the investigation, and the precise documentation required for the permit to proceed. A CSI inspection was also included in the City’s stated requirements on June 9. The CSI requirement was later removed from the permit scope. Riverchase simply wasted time which incurred business loss because of it.

────────────────────────────────────────
JUNE 10, 2026 — PROPERTY-WIDE DOMESTIC-WATER PLAN REQUIRED
────────────────────────────────────────
On June 10, Mr. Schubert provided a more detailed description of the documentation the City required.

The following is an excerpt from the original email, reproduced as written:
“I am sorry if there is a misunderstanding. At this time, the City requires a Texas-licensed professional engineer that specializes in plumbing to provide a plumbing plan identifying the domestic water service from the meter to the furthest point of connection
to any structures and any outlets on the domestic service line to include all backflow devices. The plans must have the PE's stamp, signature and date as required by state law. The PE will have the onus of ensuring that there are not any illegal connections
to that domestic service. If there are, then the correction of those will also be identified on the plans and be a part of this permit.

This information was requested first on 5/18/26. The fastest path to getting the permit issued is by providing the required information. The City is not responsible for the data provided by the applicant. That is the applicant's responsibility.

Sincerely,”

────────────────────────────────────────
RIVERCHASE’S CONCERN
────────────────────────────────────────
At this stage, the permit scope expanded to include both a Customer Service Inspection (CSI) and PE-stamped, signed-and-sealed plumbing plans. Although the City referred generally to public safety and TCEQ requirements, Riverchase did not receive a specific explanation of why these additional requirements were added to the replacement-pump permit, what condition triggered them, or what portion of the property’s water system they were intended to cover.

Riverchase questioned what factual determination justified expanding a replacement-pump permit into a professionally certified investigation of the property’s domestic-water system, particularly because the City’s permit office had not inspected the discovered connection
or the actual pump site.

Riverchase also noted that the City’s May 18 email did not clearly state that a property-wide, PE-certified investigation would be required. A CSI inspection was later added to the requirements and then removed without a
clear written explanation.

As the requested documentation continued to change or become broader, Riverchase and its consultants remained uncertain about the precise scope of work required, while the replacement pump remained on hold and the golf course continued without normal irrigation.

────────────────────────────────────────
JUNE 26, 2026 — CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND ENFORCEMENT WARNING ADDED
────────────────────────────────────────

By June 26, the City was aware that the golf course remained without normal irrigation and that the delay was continuing to harm the business. Riverchase’s consultants submitted additional information concerning the replacement pump and again requested clarification of the required scope of work because the previous instructions remained unclear.

The following is an excerpt from Mr. Schubert’s original email, reproduced as written:

“That is Incorrect. You need a licensed master plumber or professional engineer to provide a plumbing plan for the water service identifying what is connected to.

(because City records show that it is connected to the irrigation system and we are required to obtain updated plans identifying that it is not), and you need a certificate of occupancy to be able to occupy and use the property.

the plumbing schematic requirement has been provided to you several times since April and has not changed. If we cannot obtain the schematic and you do not obtain a CO, we will have to take enforcement measures.”

Riverchase and its consultants became even more confused about the required scope of work while the business continued to suffer without an operational replacement pump.

────────────────────────────────────────
The communication did not clearly state whether the required plumbing plan was limited to:
────────────────────────────────────────
• The replacement-pump area
• The new pump station
• The entire irrigation system
• The domestic-water system
• The entire golf course property

Riverchase also understood this communication as adding the Certificate of Occupancy, or CO, to the unresolved pump-permit process and warning that enforcement measures could follow if the plumbing schematic and CO were not obtained.

Riverchase management asked whether the City could provide the original as-built irrigation plans so that the Club would not have to create an entirely new nderground irrigation map from the beginning. According to Riverchase’s records, no response was received to that request.

────────────────────────────────────────
At this stage, Riverchase had not received a formal cross-connection violation notice identifying:
────────────────────────────────────────
• The exact condition the City believed still existed
• The portion of the system affected
• The specific corrective action required
• The legal basis for the expanded requirement
• The process for challenging or appealing the determination

Riverchase also states that no City inspection had confirmed that a system-wide risk existed.

At 3:09 p.m., Mr. Schubert responded as follows:
“Yuki, what you are saying is not in alignment with my instructions that I have been providing since April.

Again: May 29th 11:55 am
Please provide a site plan identifying the location of the scope of work. Please provide plumbing schematic to clearly identify that there is not any source water connected to the municipal supply. City records indicate that there is a municipal supply for the irrigation system.

Again: June 9th 2:18 pm
Please provide a site plan identifying the location of the scope of work. Please provide plumbing schematic to clearly identify that there is not any source water connected to the municipal supply. City records indicate that there is a municipal supply for the irrigation system.”

Riverchase’s concern was not simply whether a plumbing schematic had been requested. The concern was that the term “plumbing schematic” did not provide a clear, stable, and actionable definition of the required investigation.

Riverchase and its consultants still did not understand the precise system boundary, the factual condition being investigated, or the complete work necessary for the replacement-pump permit to proceed. Now the scope of work was CSI inspection, PE stamp and CO requirement as condition to water pump installation permit.

────────────────────────────────────────
JUNE 30, 2026 — MEETING WITH CITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF
────────────────────────────────────────

On June 30, Riverchase representatives met with City of Coppell Development Services Administrator Matt Steer and other City staff to discuss the unresolved permit requirements.

Mr. Schubert did not attend the meeting. Riverchase strongly requested that Mr. Schubert visited the property and clearly explained the exact scope of work required for the replacement-pump permit.

Following the meeting, Mr. Steer sent the following email. The email is reproduced as originally written:

“Yuki,

Nice meeting with you and your team. Please let us know when you and your engineer can be available on site, so we can schedule a meeting. Steve isn’t back in the office
until Thursday, and we have Friday off as a holiday.

Hopefully, we can help you and your engineer understand the scope of what is required and the timing of the permit review. I believe the CO is the only other permit required, but we can confirm that with Steve when he’s back.

For the future projects you mentioned, we’ll have to do some research and get back to you.

Thanks,

Matt”

────────────────────────────────────────
RIVERCHASE’S CONCERN
───────────────────────────────────────

As of June 30—more than two months after the replacement-pump installation was placed on hold—Riverchase still did not have a final, clear, and confirmed explanation of the complete scope of work required for the permit to proceed.

────────────────────────────────────────
JULY 6, 2026 — FIRST ON-SITE VISIT BY THE CITY PERMIT MANAGER
────────────────────────────────────────

On July 6, Mr. Schubert visited Riverchase Golf Club for the first time. Riverchase asked whether he wanted to visit and inspect the actual pump site.

According to Riverchase’s recollection, Mr. Schubert responded:
“All I need is documents from the engineer. Where is the Engineer?”

Riverchase explained that the engineer was participating by telephone from another location in Texas. Then, Mr. Schubert mentioned.

“Then I did not have to come here, we could just talk over zoom call.”

Because the discussion was entirely verbal, this is not word-for-word. However, Riverchase understood from the discussion with Mr. Schubert in person that the City required a site plan of the area surrounding the clubhouse showing the underground irrigation lines.

Riverchase believed that this site plan was the remaining documentation needed. However, no final written description of the required scope of work was provided following the meeting. As a result, Riverchase still lacked confidence that it fully understood what the City required. However, at the time, our engineers mentioned over the phone that the scope of work is “very easy to accomplish, and I can be there and get it done in a few days.” Mr. Schubert was there to hear this.

By this point, Riverchase believed that the summer golf season had largely been lost, and the business was continuing to suffer significant financial losses.

To conserve moisture, Riverchase had to limit mowing because shorter turf dries out more quickly. Three full-time staff members used three water trucks to water the greens manually. Without normal irrigation and regular mowing, the greens, fairways, rough, and teeing areas could not be mowed and continued to decline, and customer traffic began to decrease.

Even if the permit had been approved at that time, the pump-installation contractor had an estimated scheduling delay of approximately one month. Riverchase therefore expected the course conditions and resulting business losses to continue worsening before the pump could be installed.

Although Mr. Schubert visited the property to discuss the required documentation, he did not visit or inspect the actual pump location

Riverchase can call back the engineer at the meeting and ask him what was requested of Mr. Schubert at the Riverchase meeting. His schedule was busy and we did not follow up. We were disappointed to hear that installation of the pump was at least a month ahead. Thi would be too late for our business to come back this summer. This delayed our responses back to the city.

────────────────────────────────────────
8/3/2026
────────────────────────────────────────

Based on what we heard from Mr. Schubert on July 6th, we hired Global land surveying inc. Scope of work explained by the owner of RCGC was below, cc’d Mr. Schubert,

Hi
Ben,

Thank
you for your call,

Please see below for the scope of work, The parts that say Area 3.

The city doesn't have built schematic drawings, but only a site plan attached.

It seems the city wants us to add a municipal city water line to this image, signed by engineers, to confirm no contamination to the water line.

How we understand this is that we need to add a water line to this building site plan. I do not know how much we need to investigate with the underground survey company to know all the whereabouts of the municipal city water line.

Hopefully we can get this signed within a few days, as I need to go back to WA for a month. A lot has been going on there.

Below is Steve's contact.

Stephen-David
Schubert, CBO, BSBM

City of Coppell Chief Building Official
265 Parkway Blvd, Coppell, TX
972-304-3506
[email protected]
TSBPE I-3211

Response
from Mr. Schubert
Good afternoon. Yuki's statement would be inaccurate. The City needs a plan set identifying that there are either no municipal water supply connections to the irrigation system or that there is an appropriate backflow preventer in place that has been properly registered and tested annually. This plan set must be signed, sealed, and dated by a Texas-licensed professional engineer. Part of this will include identifying whether or not there are any outlets on the irrigation system that would trigger the state-required non-potable water signs.Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

After seeing this message. The owner immediately contacted Mr. Schubert. As this seemed that this was not the scope of work described by Mr. Schubert in person on the July 6th visit.

This last email finally enabled Riverchase to understand what Mr. Schubert seemed to try to accomplish and at the same time, we realized how unfair this request was to a local small business.

Per the owner's conversation over the phone with Mr. Schubert, he mentioned that "This problem is not something you grand-fathered in, You cannot say that. This is your problem so you need to fix it."

At this time, we decided we are not going to apply for a new water pump installation permit. Our consultant's project fees for the requested service are a minimum of $20K projected to be a lot more based on additional requests in scope.. We have no intention of doing so, as we finally learned that this has nothing to do with the water pump permit.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FACT 9 — SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Riverchase Golf Club suspended operations beginning August 5, 2026. This was a financial and operational decision, not a political protest.

Riverchase currently employs highly experienced golf-course professionals, including certified golf course superintendents and former PGA Tour superintendents. Because of the experience and quality of the management team, Riverchase’s payroll costs are higher than those of many public golf courses.

Without normal irrigation, turf conditions continued to decline, customer traffic decreased, and revenue fell. Riverchase ultimately determined that it could no longer sustain its payroll and continuing operating losses. In fact, having a golf course open for three months under TX heat without water would be a surprise to any golf course operators.

The suspension is not necessarily permanent. Riverchase may reopen when projected cash flow becomes positive. However, without a functioning irrigation pump, course conditions will depend heavily on rainfall, and Riverchase may face repeated suspensions and reopenings based on weather, course conditions, and the financial condition of the business.

Riverchase sincerely regrets the effect this situation has had on its employees, golfers, nearby residents, and the broader Coppell community.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
OUR PERSPECTIVE AND REQUESTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

MCI Flowtronex advised Riverchase that it had not encountered a comparable municipal permit requirement in more than 40 years of supplying irrigation pump systems. Riverchase therefore considered the City’s expanded requirements unusual for a replacement-pump project.

Riverchase believes the replacement pump and the broader investigation of the property’s irrigation and domestic-water systems are separate matters. The replacement pump uses pond water and does not connect to the City’s potable-water supply. The historical municipal-water connection discovered during the project was shut off and physically terminated.

For more than three months, Riverchase and its consultants were unable to obtain a clear and consistent definition of the required scope of work. During that time, the replacement pump remained on hold, the golf course remained without normal irrigation, and Riverchase estimates that it incurred more than $150,000 in business losses.

The current ownership did not install or conceal the historical municipal-water connection. It acquired the golf course approximately one year ago and discovered the issue while investing in a new pump intended to improve employee safety, irrigation reliability, course conditions, and the experience of Coppell residents.

Riverchase requests:
• A written explanation of the legal authority supporting the expanded requirements.
• Separate consideration of the replacement-pump permit from investigation of historical water connections.
• An independent review of how the permit requirements were defined, expanded, and communicated.
• A different City representative from the permit department to manage Riverchase’s future permit applications.

Until the matter is resolved, Riverchase may be required to operate without a functioning irrigation pump. Future openings and closures may depend on rainfall, course conditions, and the financial condition of the business.

In hindsight, Riverchase believes that the deterioration of the golf course, the lost time, and the significant financial losses all began with one decision by the new ownership: investing in a replacement irrigation pump.

For the past three months, that investment has been tied to an expanding permit process that prevented the pump from being installed while the business continued to suffer without normal irrigation.

From Riverchase’s perspective, the practical result has been clear: an investment intended to improve the golf course and benefit the community instead led to additional costs, operational delays, course deterioration, and substantial business losses.

Without clear assurances that future improvement projects will not face the same uncertainty and expansion of requirements, Riverchase cannot responsibly continue investing in the golf course. The business risk is simply too high.

Riverchase regret investing in CIty of Coppell, the effect of our investment has had on its employees, golfers, residents, and the broader Coppell community. If we hadn't invested, no one would have to suffer.