CDS Community Development Strategies
  • Home Page
  • Who We Are
    • Our Team >
      • Steve Spillette
      • Brenda Crenshaw
      • Michael Prats
      • Ty Jacobsen
      • Scott Reineking
    • Our Clients
    • Testimonials of our Work
    • Work with Us
  • Services
    • Market Analysis & Feasibility Studies
    • Economic & Demographic Analysis
    • Public Plans & Special Districts
    • Housing and ResIntel Studies
    • GIS Services
    • Surveys & Primary Research
  • Newsworthy
  • Lot Price Survey
  • Contact

What's Not Being Said About MUDs

8/25/2016

Comments

 
Steve Spillette
CDS Community Development Strategies

This week, the Houston Chronicle published an article about a Municipal Utility District and the dissatisfaction of some homeowners that the MUD might issue bonds, which they believe could raise they property tax rates. The article, in my opinion, was slanted toward an angle that MUDs represent a developer-run local government agency run amok, with little oversight and unchecked taxation power. What this article fails to provide is the overall economic benefit that MUDs provide, and the reason for their existence in the first place. It also doesn’t explain who truly bears the cost of the initial infrastructure – the developers.
The article from the Chronicle: ​​Municipal Utility Districts in Texas have sweeping power to sell bonds, levy taxes

All development, in an economically advanced society, needs to have access to safe water supply, sanitation services, and drainage infrastructure for each household or business. In rural areas, on-site wells, septic systems, and on-site detention and permeable surface typically satisfy this need for households because residential lots are usually large enough to adequately accommodate these facilities. Conventional suburban development doesn’t have this luxury, however, so common systems shared by all the property owners must provide such services. Obviously these common systems are not free to construct; in fact, they comprise a very significant component of development costs.

MUDs successfully facilitate an economical, fair and efficient provision of this infrastructure in several ways.
  1. They properly allocate the financial risk to the developer. Unlike the portrayal in the Chronicle, MUD bonds don’t fund the water / sewer / drainage infrastructure; it is the DEVELOPER that funds these items, up front. MUD bonds are a means of paying back the developer for the common (public) portions of this infrastructure at a later date when enough property value has been generated to adequately fund debt service through property taxes. Thus it is the developer’s risk – fail to successfully execute and market the development, then there won’t be a payback through bonds.
  2. The fact that MUDs reimburse developers for their risk-taking expenditures create financial feasibility for new development that might not have otherwise existed. If there were no future reimbursement, a developer would have to either convince a nearby city to annex the project and fund the infrastructure (which may not be considered very fair to that city’s existing taxpayers), or recover the up-front infrastructure costs by increasing the sale prices of the homes or lots. In the latter case, this means that new homes would be more expensive, and some entry-level home markets might not be served at all.
  3. In the city annexation scenario, a developer has to wait for municipal approval processes to play out and deal with political risk. These also add cost, plus they slow down the provision of housing, which can also lead to increased home prices in a strong-demand market, decreasing affordability. Developments in MUDs still have to meet infrastructure and subdivision standards and receive consent from the city whose extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), so it’s not as if the city has zero control to ensure a quality development, even if annexation is not intended in the near term.
  4. Ultimately, of course, the incidence of MUD taxes (the group that truly bears the cost) falls on the property owners within the district. And that’s as it should be. One of the great economic “tests” of taxes is whether those bearing the incidence are also those who receive the benefits of the projects or services funded, and MUDs meet this test. Property owners outside the MUD bear no tax burden from the district’s water / sewer / drainage infrastructure and services at all, unless the district is annexed by a city and the MUD dissolved.
  5. While MUDs, like any government entity, need to abide by good government and open meetings rules and be subject to oversight, the taxation issue discussed in the Chronicle article neglected to mention that there is a natural check on excessive MUD taxation, particularly in districts (such as the Del Webb Sweetgrass community highlighted) where new home development is still occurring: the market. Raise taxes too high, and the developer and builders will have difficulty marketing lots and homes at desired pricing levels, because the end consumers – the home buying public - won’t find it palatable.

​Hopefully leaders in the development industry will work to educate the Texas citizenry that MUDs exist for very good reasons, and hopefully the media will provide equal time for this information.

​About the Author: Steve Spillette is President of CDS Community Development Strategies and has performed a variety of market studies and financial pro-forma analyses for both private and public clients. Mr. Spillette has several years of experience in retail market analysis and multiple degrees related to real estate and planning--including an MBA from Texas A&M University.

​UPDATE:
Steve's article has been picked up as an opinion editorial by the Houston Chronicle. To read the article click on the image below. 
Picture
Comments

    Follow CDS

    RSS Feed

    Search

    Categories

    All
    CDS In The Press
    CDS Projects
    Commercial Real Estate
    Cost Of Living
    Demographics
    Dense Development
    Employment
    Focus Groups
    GIS
    Grocery Stores
    Housing
    Housing Preferences
    Infrastructure
    Land Use
    LPS
    Market Analysis
    Market Trends
    Master Planned Communities
    Mixed Use
    Multifamily
    Municipal Utility Districts
    Office
    Parking
    Parks And Open Space
    Population Growth
    Race And Ethnicity
    Recreation Planning
    Redevelopment
    Rented Housing
    Research
    Residential
    Retail
    Rural Development
    School Districts
    Self-Storage
    Senior Housing
    Single Family Residential
    Small Towns
    Special Districts
    Student Housing
    Survey
    Taxing Policy
    Urban Planning
    Walkability

    Archives

    July 2021
    September 2019
    August 2019
    February 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    January 2014
    March 2013
    May 2011
    October 2010
    November 2009
    September 2009
    January 2009
    June 2007
    March 2007
    January 2007
    July 2006
    May 2006
    August 2001


​connect with us here

CONTACT US: 
1001 Dairy Ashford, Suite 450
Houston, TX 77077
Phone: 281-582-0847


​© 2023 CDS - All rights reserved.  
​CDS is an InterDirect USA Ltd. Subsidiary
  • Home Page
  • Who We Are
    • Our Team >
      • Steve Spillette
      • Brenda Crenshaw
      • Michael Prats
      • Ty Jacobsen
      • Scott Reineking
    • Our Clients
    • Testimonials of our Work
    • Work with Us
  • Services
    • Market Analysis & Feasibility Studies
    • Economic & Demographic Analysis
    • Public Plans & Special Districts
    • Housing and ResIntel Studies
    • GIS Services
    • Surveys & Primary Research
  • Newsworthy
  • Lot Price Survey
  • Contact