mud findings memo final 10.16 · 2018-10-17 · mud memo kinder institute 12 size of muds with the...

1

4701 Sangamore Road | Suite S240

Bethesda, MD 20816

301.320.6900 | www.tischlerbise.com

MEMORANDUM

TO: Bill Fulton and Kyle Shelton

Kinder Institute, Rice University

FROM: Julie Herlands, AICP

Colin McAweeney

TischlerBise

DATE: October 16, 2018

RE: Municipal Utility District (MUD) Analysis Findings

I. Overview

TischlerBise is working with the Kinder Institute to research Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) as part of a

larger effort on Regional Governance intended to identify current roles, responsibilities, and revenue

sources of the city, the county, MUDs, and other special district agencies.

TischlerBise obtained datasets1 on MUDs from the Kinder Institute that includes basic information about

each MUD in the City of Houston ETJ, including: geographical location of each MUD, year of formation,

presence of overlapping jurisdictions, property values, and financial information (indebtedness, tax rates,

etc.). While the dataset includes other special districts in addition to MUDs, the analysis herein is limited

to MUDs only. In addition to the datasets provided by the Kinder Institute, TischlerBise downloaded a

dataset on Special Districts Rates and Levies from the Texas Comptroller for Tax Year 2015.2

This task includes the overall review and description of MUD characteristics as well as the development

of fiscal metrics dependent on data availability, such as, but not limited to: debt per acre, taxable value

per acre, debt to value ratios, and tax rates compared to value to allow comparisons among MUDs by

different variables.

1 Datasets are owned and maintained by Municipal Information Systems and provided to the Kinder Institute through a contractual agreement between Municipal Information Systems and the Kinder Institute. Data were provided for years 1991-2015. 2 The 2016 Report reflects Tax Year 2015 data and was the latest available at the time of the analysis. Older years are available. See https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/rates/index.php.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/rates/index.php

MUD Memo Kinder Institute

2

II. Municipal Utility Districts in the Houston Region

Using Tax Year 2015 data from the Texas Comptroller, TischlerBise summarized MUD characteristics for

MUDs located in the Houston region compared to the rest of the state. The Texas Comptroller data is

organized and provided at the County level therefore the findings below are for Harris County first,

followed by an expanded figure that includes Fort Bend and Montgomery counties. MUDs included in the

expanded counties may or may not be located within the Houston ETJ. Data on Houston ETJ MUDs is

provided and analyzed in later sections of this report.

Figure 1. Comparison of MUDs in Harris County to Statewide Totals


3

Figure 2. Comparison of MUDs in Houston Region Counties to Statewide Totals

• MUDs in Harris County comprise 40 percent of the total number of MUDs statewide3 and account

for 51 percent of the value.

• Expanding the catchment area to include all of Fort Bend and Montgomery counties, the figures

increase to 70 percent of the number of MUDs and almost 78 percent of the taxable value.

3 The number of MUDs (and related data) included in the Comptroller’s data does not equal the number from the

Municipal Information Services data due to issues related to self-reporting and changes in status.


4

Houston ETJ MUDs Overview

Houston ETJ MUDs (located in counties of Harris, Fort Bend, or Montgomery) as of Tax Year 2015 total

374 separate Municipal Utility Districts (some of which may be inactive). The number of MUDs represents

MUDs that are currently registered as of Tax Year 2015, so do not reflect those districts that have been

dissolved or disbanded due to annexation or other reasons. A map4 with current Houston ETJ MUDs

identified is provided in Figure 3 followed by a summary of the number of Houston ETJ MUDs by county.

4 Using the Municipal Information Services data, TischlerBise created a series of maps to investigate whether there are discernible patterns with MUDs in the Houston ETJ. We utilized data from 2015, reflecting present conditions and 1993, the earliest dataset that included an ETJ identifier to reflect initial conditions. These maps are included throughout this memo.


5

Figure 3. Map of Houston ETJ MUDs


6

Figure 4. Number of MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ

Source: Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data for Tax Year 2015; TischlerBise analysis.


7

III. Trends in City of Houston ETJ Municipal Utility Districts

Time Frames for Houston ETJ MUD Formation

MUDs have been utilized since the 1960s in Texas. Below is a summary of the number of current MUDs5

formed during the time periods shown. The 1970s saw the largest number of MUDs created in the

Houston ETJ. The Houston area was in a recession during the mid-1980s with economic recovery beginning

in the late 1990s. The economy was in full recovery during the period 2000 through 2007 prior to the

Great Recession, which began to be felt nationally in 2008.6 MUD formation followed these regional

economic trends.

Figure 5. Number of MUDs (2015) Formed by Time Period


5 The data reflect MUDs that are registered as of the 2015 Tax Year. MUDs that may have been dissolved are not included in these totals. 6 Municipal Information Services, “Vital Statistics for Houston Area Water Districts,” Summer 2016.


8

Figure 6. MUD Formation by Decade Map Series


9


10

Figure 7. Houston ETJ MUDs (2015): Date of Formation Summary Map


11

To illustrate the growth over time in the region, including and beyond the City of Houston’s ETJ, Figure 8, lists the number of MUDs formed in 5-year intervals for Harris, Fort Bend, and Montgomery counties. Figure 8. Formation of MUDs by Time Period and County (Beyond the City of Houston’s ETJ)


12

Size of MUDs

With the high point of MUD formation in the 1970s, the largest amount of land area included in MUDs

also occurred in that time frame.

Figure 9. Size of MUDs by Time Period


The current summary of number of housing units and acres in Houston ETJ MUDs is shown below in Figure

10 with counties identified. Over 550,000 housing units are in MUDs on almost 260,000 acres, comprising

almost 400 square miles. This is slightly larger than the City of Dallas and slightly smaller than the City

of San Antonio.7 Houston is 627 square miles, within the municipal boundaries of the city.

7 The City of Dallas is 385 square miles; the City of San Antonio is 465 square miles.


13

Figure 10. Number of Housing Units and Acreage in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ


The relative sizes of Houston ETJ MUDs in number of housing units is shown in Figure 11. The map reflects

housing units in current MUDs (tax year 2015). No distinct pattern emerges; however, it does appear that

larger relative developments tend to have occurred in the MUDs on the edges of the ETJ.


14

Figure 11. Total Housing Units by MUD: Tax Year 2015



15

MUD Tax Value and Debt Trends

Tax value in Houston ETJ MUDs is currently at a total of approximately $123 billion as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Aggregate Tax Value in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ

With over 370 MUDs in the Houston ETJ, the value of each ranges greatly. To further explore trends in tax

value, TischlerBise analyzed tax value by date of formation as well as value per acre by date and

geography.


16

Figure 13. Current Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period


Figure 14. Average Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) per Acre by Time Period



17

Tax value per acre in Houston ETJ MUDs is shown below first for 1993 MUDs and then 2015 MUDs. The

calculation is per MUD, so smaller MUDs by land area with relatively higher values will have relatively

higher values per acre.

Values are provided in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation), so the visual is less about the actual

values and more about the minimum and maximums relative to geographic dispersal. While no clear

pattern emerges in either time frame, in the northwest quadrant of the ETJ, closer-in MUDs tend to have

higher values per acre in both time frames. Further, a higher relative value per acre occurs in the

northwest corridor between US 290 and the Tomball Parkway.


18

Figure 15. Tax Value per Acre: Tax Year 1993


19

Figure 16. Tax Value per Acre: Tax Year 2015


20

A key function of MUDs is to pay for infrastructure to serve new development. To do this, MUDs issue

debt and pay debt service through property taxes assessed within the MUDs. As of tax year 2015, Houston

ETJ MUDs have almost $5.8 billion in outstanding debt.

Figure 17. Aggregate Outstanding Debt in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ


A series of figures and maps are provided regarding outstanding debt in Houston ETJ MUDs. MUDs that

were formed in the 1970s still have a higher amount of outstanding debt than MUDs formed in recent

years given the larger number of MUDs formed at that time and still in existence today. The debt and tax

value for the MUDs formed between 1975 and 1979 make up almost 25 percent of the Houston ETJ

MUD total and almost 30 percent of the acreage.


21

Figure 18. Current Outstanding Debt (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period


In the most recent time period, 2010-14, there was only one MUD formed with a small size resulting in a

relatively large debt per acre when compared to the previous time periods.

Figure 19. Average Debt per Acre (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period



22

Outstanding MUD debt per acre is shown for both tax year 1993 and 2015. Few clear patterns emerge;

however, it does appear that MUDs on the outside edges of the ETJ are carrying higher debt per acre than

closer in MUDs. This makes sense as these are the MUDs generally that are relatively younger and

therefore have new debt that is currently outstanding.

Figure 20. Debt per Acre: Tax Year 1993


23

Figure 21. Debt per Acre: Tax Year 2015


24

To identify potential stress in MUDs, debt to value ratio is analyzed, which is a common municipal financial

indicator. The above sections have explored both tax value and outstanding debt in Houston ETJ MUDs.

More recent MUDs—with less value created to date—have a much higher debt to value ratio than older

MUDs. Figure 22 provides detail.

Figure 22. Outstanding Debt to Value Ratio (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period

To identify specific MUDs with higher relative debt to value ratios, the following two maps are provided.

The first depicts debt to value ratios for 1993 MUDs followed by ratios for current (2015) MUDs. Following

on the patterns that emerged from the outstanding debt discussed above, the same potential pattern

emerges where the debt to value burden is greater for those MUDs on the outside edges of the ETJ. This

is intuitive as these MUDs are the “youngest” with debt issued to construct infrastructure with property

values accruing as developments get built. However, for those MUDs that had relatively high debt to value

ratios in 1993 and continue to do so today, further attention may be necessary.


25

Figure 23. Debt to Value Ratio: Tax Year 1993


26

Figure 24. Debt to Value Ratio: Tax Year 2015


27

Below, the MUDs that had the top five highest debt to value ratios in 1993 are listed along with their 1993

tax rates, 2015 debt to value ratio, and 2015 tax rate. Noted earlier, a high debt to value ratio may only

indicate that the district is recently created and taken on a large amount of debt, but growth has yet to

occur.

In 1993, Northwood MUD #1 had one of the highest debt to value ratio and the highest tax rate, while the

other four districts had relatively average or low tax rates. Additionally, all the MUDs listed were formed

by 1986, which signals that only marginal growth had occurred in the first 5-10 years for these districts.

Since 1993, these five districts have seen a significant decrease in their debt to value ratio as debt is

reduced and development occurs. However, Fort Bend County MUD #50 and Cinco MUD #1 have

increased their tax rate. The decrease in debt to value ratio is a positive feature, but the increase in tax

rate for the two MUDs may be a sign that revenue generation has been lower than anticipated or

additional expenditures have been incurred.

Figure 25. Debt to Value Ratio, Top Five Highest Ratios in 1993

In Figure 26, the MUDs with the top five highest debt to value ratios in 2015 are listed. The MUDs

highlighted are within the top 50 of highest tax rates as well. All MUDs listed below were established in

the early 2000s, except for Baybrook MUD #1 which was formed in 1984. It is anticipated that within the

first 10 years, the debt to value ratio will be relatively high, so the debt to value ratio in Figure 26 is

expected from those formed in the early 2000s.

Figure 26. Debt to Value Ratio, Top Five Highest Ratios in 2015

Fort Bend County MUD #50 2493% $0.73 10.2% $0.91

Cinco MUD #1 1791% $0.34 1.3% $0.44

Northwood MUD #1 468% $10.25 6.5% $1.25

Northwest Harris County MUD #19 254% $1.25 12.0% $0.88

Harris County MUD #216 112% $1.50 4.1% $0.70

MUDs

1993 Debt to

Value Ratio 1993 Tax Rate

2015 Debt to


Harris County MUD #504 34% $1.39

Fort Bend County MUD #134B 19% $1.45

Grand Mission MUD #2 15% $1.25

Fort Bend County MUD #133 14% $1.43

Baybrook MUD #1 13% $1.11

MUDs

2015 Debt to



28

Tax Value and Tax Rates over Time

Using the Municipal Information Services database, annual tax value is shown in Figure 27. This data

reflects current year values (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) and shows the increasing value capture in

MUDs over time.

Figure 27. Tax Value per Tax Year (not adjusted for inflation) 1986-2015


The average MUD tax rate for all Houston ETJ MUDs has stayed relatively stable between $.567 and $.869

per $100 in tax value. It should be noted that this is not a weighted average, rather an average of Houston

ETJ MUD tax rates in that tax year.


29

Figure 28. Average MUD Tax Rate 1986-2015

Source: Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data; TischlerBise analysis.

As MUDs mature, debt is retired, and expenses can shift to operations. However, the trend shown below

in Figure 29 is counter to this phenomenon where new MUDs are shown to have higher operating and

maintenance rates relative to debt service rates. One explanation may be that newer MUDs require higher

start-up costs prior to issuing debt, and these newer MUDs formed at the end of the Great Recession have

yet to start development in earnest.


30

Figure 29. Average Tax Rates (Operating and Debt Service) by Year of Formation

Source: Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data; TischlerBise analysis.

Finally, we provide a scatter plot of Tax Rates (per $100 in Tax Value) compared to Tax Value for each

MUD in the Houston ETJ to try to identify relationships between tax values and tax rates. Almost 65

percent of the ETJs have a current tax value between $100 and $500 million. However, tax rates range

from low to high without a statistical relationship to value.


31

Figure 30. Tax Rates by Tax Value (Tax Year 2015)

Source: Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data (Tax Year 2015); TischlerBise analysis.

Further investigation of MUD tax rates is provided below by time and geographic location.

The takeaway from these graphics is other than a potential trend of areas of higher tax rates on the

outer edges of the ETJ MUDs, there really is no discernible pattern.


32

Figure 31. MUD Property Tax Rate: Tax Year 1993

It should be noted that the MUD with the highest rate of $10.25 per $100 in value in 1993 is under a bankruptcy plan in 2015.


33

Figure 32. MUD Property Tax Rate: Tax Year 2015


34

Limited Purpose Annexation Agreements

The City of Houston currently has Limited Purpose Annexation (LPA) agreements with special purpose

districts in the ETJ. A total of 227 LPAs are active as of Fiscal Year 2017, generally with revenue sharing

agreements for 50 percent of sales tax generated within the special purpose district. Special purpose

districts include MUDs and other types of districts such as Planned Unit Developments (PUD), however

the figure below only depicts MUDs. Cross-matching the City’s LPA list with the MUD database identifies

187 MUDs with current LPAs. The graphic below provides detail on the number of MUDs with LPAs.

Figure 33. MUDs and Limited Purpose Agreements: Tax Year 2017

MUDs with vs without an LPA (FY2017)


35

The following figure compares MUDs with LPAs to other utility districts with LPAs. Figure 34. MUDs vs. Other Utility Districts with LPAs

MUD vs Non-MUD LPAs (FY2017)


36

IV. Comparison of Houston ETJ MUDs to City of Houston

It is telling to compare Houston area MUDs to the City of Houston itself. Houston ETJ MUDs are those

MUDs that are located (a) in the Houston ETJ; (b) outside of the City of Houston; and (c) in unincorporated

Harris, Ft. Bend, and Montgomery counties. The Houston ETJ MUD area is approximately two-thirds the

physical size of the City of Houston with about two-thirds the taxable value. However, the Houston MUDs

have almost double the outstanding debt as the City of Houston.8

Figure 35. Population Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs

8 City of Houston debt measured is debt that is backed by property taxes (General Bonded Debt Outstanding) as compared to debt that is backed by other sources of revenue such as utility rates and/or fees.


37

Figure 36. Size Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs

Figure 37. Tax Value and Outstanding Debt Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs


38

Figure 38. Outstanding Debt Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs

Figure 39. Detailed Comparison Data

Note: The data comparing the City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs excludes MUDs located inside the

City of Houston. This differs from Section III where all MUDs are included in the analysis.

Acreage Sq. Miles

Housing Units

(2015) Source

Tax Value

($1,000s) (2015) Source

Outstanding Debt

($1,000s) (2015) Source

Debt to

Value %

Population

(2015) Source

Harris County 1,137,280 1,777 1,660,235 [a] $350,425,713 [d] $2,536,215 [d] 0.72% 4,538,028 [d]

City of Houston 401,280 627 927,107 [a] $187,823,028 [e] $3,018,008 [e] 1.61% 2,239,558 [e]

Houston ETJ MUDs in Harris County

[outside City of Houston]176,797 276 409,728 [b] $81,675,716 [b] $3,891,287 [b] 4.76% 1,119,936 [f]

Harris County Remainder [outside

City and MUDs]559,203 874 323,400 [c] $80,926,969 [c] na 1,178,534 [c]

Houston ETJ MUDs in Ft. Bend and

Montgomery Counties81,208 127 142,817 [g] $41,427,891 [g] $1,877,258 [g] 4.53% 400,148 [h]

TOTAL in Houston ETJ MUDs 258,005 403 552,545 $123,103,607 $5,768,545 4.69% 1,520,084

Sources:

[a] US Census, ACS 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates

[b] Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data for Tax Year 2015. Any part of MUDs that are in Harris County, per data.

[c] Calculated (estimated) from above figures

[d] Harris County FY17 CAFR: FY 2015 Taxable Assessed Value; FY 2015 General Bonded Debt Outstanding; Population Estimate

[e] City of Houston FY17 CAFR: Fiscal Year 2015 Taxable Assessed Value; FY 2015 General Bonded Debt Outstanding; Population Estimate

[f] TischlerBise estimate based on Housing Units and Harris County average persons per unit (calculated from above)

[g] Municipal Information Services, 2016 Data for Tax Year 2015. Any part of MUDs that are in Harris County, per data.

[h] TischlerBise estimated based on Housing Units and average persons per housing unit by County from US Census

* General bonded debt outstanding


39

V. MUDs in the City of Houston

MUDs located in the City of Houston are identified and discussed in this chapter, some of which are either

wholly or partially in the City limits. Figure 40 shows those MUDs located in the City of Houston.

Figure 40. City of Houston MUDs


40

To understand the growth of MUDs in the City of Houston, the number of MUDs formed in the City in five-

year intervals is illustrated in Figure 41. From 1970 to 1999 there was a steady rate of two to five new

MUDs formed every five years. Between 2000 to 2009 the average doubled to eight new MUDs every five

years.

Figure 41. Formation of MUDs by Time Period, City of Houston



41

The total acreage of MUDs in the City of Houston is much smaller than in the City’s ETJ. The number of

acres located in MUDs in the City was largest during the 1970s, despite an average level of MUDs being

formed during that time period.

Figure 42. Size of MUDS by Time Period, City of Houston



42

To explore trends in tax value, TischlerBise analyzed tax value by date of formation (Figure 43) as well as

average value per acre by date of formation (Figure 44).

Figure 43. Current Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period, City of Houston


Figure 44. Average Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) per Acre by Time Period, City of Houston



43

To identify potential stress in MUDs, debt to value ratio is analyzed, which is a common municipal financial

indicator. More recent MUDs—with less value created to date—have a much higher debt to value ratio

than older MUDs. However, there is one MUD (Baybrook MUD #1) which was formed in 1984 that has the

highest debt to value ratio (13%) of any MUD in the City of Houston which brings the time period’s average

above all others.

Figure 45. Outstanding Debt to Value Ratio (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period, City of Houston


44

VI. List of Figures

Figure 1. Comparison of MUDs in Harris County to Statewide Totals .......................................................... 2 Figure 2. Comparison of MUDs in Houston Region Counties to Statewide Totals ....................................... 3 Figure 3. Map of Houston ETJ MUDs ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Number of MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ ......................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Number of MUDs (2015) Formed by Time Period ......................................................................... 7 Figure 6. MUD Formation by Decade Map Series ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 7. Houston ETJ MUDs (2015): Date of Formation Summary Map ................................................... 10 Figure 8. Formation of MUDs by Time Period and County (Beyond the City of Houston’s ETJ) ................ 11 Figure 9. Size of MUDs by Time Period ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 10. Number of Housing Units and Acreage in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ ..................... 13 Figure 11. Total Housing Units by MUD: Tax Year 2015 ............................................................................. 14 Figure 12. Aggregate Tax Value in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ .................................................. 15 Figure 13. Current Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period ................................................................... 16 Figure 14. Average Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) per Acre by Time Period .................................................... 16 Figure 15. Tax Value per Acre: Tax Year 1993 ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 16. Tax Value per Acre: Tax Year 2015 ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 17. Aggregate Outstanding Debt in MUDs Located in City of Houston ETJ ..................................... 20 Figure 18. Current Outstanding Debt (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period ...................................................... 21 Figure 19. Average Debt per Acre (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period ............................................................ 21 Figure 20. Debt per Acre: Tax Year 1993 .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 21. Debt per Acre: Tax Year 2015 .................................................................................................... 23 Figure 22. Outstanding Debt to Value Ratio (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period ............................................ 24 Figure 23. Debt to Value Ratio: Tax Year 1993 ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 24. Debt to Value Ratio: Tax Year 2015 ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 25. Debt to Value Ratio, Top Five Highest Ratios in 1993 ............................................................... 27 Figure 26. Debt to Value Ratio, Top Five Highest Ratios in 2015 ............................................................... 27 Figure 27. Tax Value per Tax Year (not adjusted for inflation) 1986-2015 ................................................. 28 Figure 28. Average MUD Tax Rate 1986-2015 ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 29. Average Tax Rates (Operating and Debt Service) by Year of Formation ................................... 30 Figure 30. Tax Rates by Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 31. MUD Property Tax Rate: Tax Year 1993 ..................................................................................... 32 Figure 32. MUD Property Tax Rate: Tax Year 2015 ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 33. MUDs and Limited Purpose Agreements: Tax Year 2017 .......................................................... 34 Figure 34. MUDs vs. Other Utility Districts with LPAs ................................................................................. 35 Figure 35. Population Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs............................................... 36 Figure 36. Size Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs .......................................................... 37 Figure 37. Tax Value and Outstanding Debt Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs ............ 37 Figure 38. Outstanding Debt Comparison: City of Houston to Houston ETJ MUDs ................................... 38 Figure 39. Detailed Comparison Data ......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 40. City of Houston MUDs ................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 41. Formation of MUDs by Time Period, City of Houston ............................................................... 40 Figure 42. Size of MUDS by Time Period, City of Houston .......................................................................... 41 Figure 43. Current Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period, City of Houston ........................................ 42 Figure 44. Average Tax Value (Tax Year 2015) per Acre by Time Period, City of Houston ......................... 42 Figure 45. Outstanding Debt to Value Ratio (Tax Year 2015) by Time Period, City of Houston ................. 43


45

VII. Sources and Resources

Sara C. Galvan, Wrestling with MUDs to Pin Down the Truth about Special Districts, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 3041 (2007). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss6/14 Municipal Information Services, Datasets provided to Kinder Institute.

Municipal Information Services, “Vital Statistics for Houston Area Water Districts,” Summer 2016.

Texas Comptroller, Tax Rates and Levies, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-

tax/rates/index.php

Texas Senate Research Center, “Research Spotlight. Invisible Government: Special Purpose Districts in

Texas,” October 2014




46

VIII. Appendix

The Municipal Information Services dataset has the following data fields. (Note: This is from the 2015

database; earlier files can and do have different data fields as more information was added over the

years.)

x

Name

Debt

BFB_12.31.15

2015_DS_T/R

86_TaxValue

87_TaxValue

88_TaxValue

89_TaxValue

90_TaxValue

91_TaxValue

92_TaxValue

93_TaxValue

94_TaxValue

95_TaxValue

96_TaxValue

97_TaxValue

98_TaxValue

99_TaxValue

00_TaxValue

01_TaxValue

02_TaxValue

03_TaxValue

04_TaxValue

05_TaxValue

06_TaxValue

07_TaxValue

08_TaxValue

09_TaxValue

10_TaxValue

11_TaxValue

12_TaxValue

13_TaxValue

14_TaxValue

15_TaxValue

86_TaxRate

87_TaxRate

88_TaxRate

89_TaxRate

90_TaxRate

91_TaxRate

92_TaxRate

93_TaxRate

94_TaxRate

95_TaxRate

96_TaxRate

97_TaxRate

98_TaxRate

99_TaxRate

00_TaxRate

01_TaxRate

02_TaxRate

03_TaxRate

04_TaxRate

05_TaxRate

06_TaxRate

07_TaxRate

08_TaxRate

09_TaxRate

10_TaxRate

11_TaxRate

12_TaxRate

13_TaxRate

14_TaxRate

15_TaxRate

86%Coll

87 % Coll

88 % Coll

89 % Coll

90 % Coll

91 % Coll

92 % Coll

93 % Coll

94 % Coll

95 % Coll

96 % Coll

97 % Coll

98 % Coll

99 % Coll

00 % Coll

01 % Coll

02 % Coll

03 % Coll

04 % Coll

05 % Coll

06 % Coll

07 % Coll

08 % Coll

09 % Coll

10 % Coll

11 % Coll

12 % Coll

13 % Coll

14 % Coll

16 Debt Serv

17 Debt Serv

18 Debt Serv

19 Debt Serv

20 Debt Serv

21 Debt Serv

22 Debt Serv

23 Debt Serv

24 Debt Serv

25 Debt Serv

Location

Census Tract

Acreage

SD Name 1

SD Lots 1

SD Lot Val 1

SD Houses 1

Sd Hou Val 1

SD Name 2

SD Lots 2

SD Lot Val 2

SD Houses 2

Sd Hou Val 2

SD Name 3

SD Lots 3

SD Lot Val 3


47

SD Houses 3

Sd Hou Val 3

SD Name 4

SD Lots 4

SD Lot Val 4

SD Houses 4

Sd Hou Val 4

SD Name 5

SD Lots 5

SD Lot Val 5

SD Houses 5

Sd Hou Val 5

SD Name 6

SD Lots 6

SD Lot Val 6

SD Houses 6

Sd Hou Val 6

SD Name 7

SD Lots 7

SD Lot Val 7

SD Houses 7

Sd Hou Val 7

SD Name 8

SD Lots 8

SD Lot Val 8

SD Houses 8

Sd Hou Val 8

SD Name 9

SD Lots 9

SD Lot Val 9

SD Houses 9

Sd Hou Val 9

SD Name 10

SD Lots 10

SD Lot Val 10

SD Houses 10

Sd Hou Val 10

SD Name 11

SD Lots 11

SD Lot Val 11

SD Houses 11

Sd Hou Val 11

SD Name 12

SD Lots 12

SD Lot Val 12

SD Houses 12

Sd Hou Val 12

SD Name 13

SD Lots 13

SD Lot Val 13

SD Houses 13

Sd Hou Val 13

SD Name 14

SD Lots 14

SD Lot Val 14

SD Houses 14

Sd Hou Val 14

SD Name 15

SD Lots 15

SD Lot Val 15

SD Houses 15

Sd Hou Val 15

SD Name 16

SD Lots 16

SD Lot Val 16

SD Houses 16

Sd Hou Val 16

SD Name 17

SD Lots 17

SD Lot Val 17

SD Houses 17

Sd Hou Val 17

SD Name 18

SD Lots 18

SD Lot Val 18

SD Houses 18

Sd Hou Val 18

SD Name 19

SD Lots 19

SD Lot Val 19

SD Houses 19

Sd Hou Val 19

SD Name 20

SD Lots 20

SD Lot Val 20

SD Houses 20

Sd Hou Val 20

Apartments

Raw Acres

Raw Value

Comm Acres

Comm Val

Imp Value

Exempt Acres

Developer 1

Developer 2

Attorney

Tax A/C

Bookkepper

Engineer

Fin Advisor

Operator

Auditor

Oper Fund Bal

Const Fund Bal

Other Fund

Other Fund Bal

Note 1

Note 2

Note 3

Note 4

Note 5

Note 6

Note 7

Note 8

Paying Agent

Tax Collector

School District

15 ISD Tax Rate

School District

15 ISD Tax Rate

County

12 Co Tax Rate

College

15 Coll Tax Rate

RFPD

15 RFPD Tax Rate

RFPD

15 RFPD Tax Rate

Other 1

Other 1 15 Tax Rate

Other 2

Other 2 15Tax Rate

ETJ

Creation Date

Jur Code

MUDMap

mud findings memo final 10.16 · 2018-10-17 · mud memo kinder institute 12 size of muds with the...

Documents