Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report_2-2014Citizens Advisory Committee
Final Report
MUNICIPAL
UTILITY
DISTRICT
Jim Hase, Chairman
Neil Twomey, Co -Chairman
Mike Buck
Wallace Carlson
Larry Hoover
Pete Reincke
February 2014
t, /111 tI ul'�
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
HistoricalBackground....................................................................................................................................................3
ExecutiveSummary .........................................................................................................................................................4
CommitteeRecommendation........................................................................................................................................5
Scenario1......................................................................................................................................................................5
Scenario1......................................................................................................................................................................5
Scenario3.....................................................................................................................................................................5
Scenario4......................................................................................................................................................................6
Exhibit A (Chapter 43.076 Texas Water Code)..........................................................................................................................8
Exhibit 8 (PID Annexation Into MUD)......................................................................................................................................10
ExhibitC(Rote Order Comparisons).........................................................................................................................................11
Exhibit D (Opportunity Loss to MUD if Solana Deannexed....................................................................................................11
Exhibit E (Comparison of MUD as Ongoing Entity vs. Acquisition by Towns)....................................................................13
Appendix (CD of Models Developed By Committee)
...............IS
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 2
HlsWrical BadWround
Before the Town of Trophy Club (the "Town) was incorporated, the area we now know as Trophy Club consisted of
five planned municipal utility districts ("MUDs"). A municipal utility district is a governmental entity with ad
volorum taxing authority. A MUD is granted certain authority under the laws of Texas, including the authority to
construct and operate water, sewer, and drainage systems and to develop and maintain afire department.
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 ('TCMUDI") was the original MUD in Trophy Club and was formed in
1975. In the early 1980's, MUDs 2 and 3 were formed as development began to occur in the areas they
encompassed. In 1981, the partnership that was building the area now known as Solana in Westlake approached
TCMUDI to request water, sewer and fire protection services. TCMUDI had the capability to provide these services
and the Town of Westlake did not. With an agreement from Westlake, Solana was annexed into TCMUDI in 1983.
In 1985 the Town of Trophy Club was incorporated. In July, 1990, MUDs 2 and 3 consolidated into what was known
as MUD2. Subsequently, there was a letter agreement between MUD 1 and the Town of Trophy Club that all
remaining land would become part of MUD2 rather than creating any new MUDs. In October, 2000, the Trophy
Club Master DistrictJoint Venture was formed for the purpose of managing both TCMUDI and MUD2.
In 2009, the Town of Trophy Club Town Council placed on item on the agenda to dissolve MUD2. Dissolution of
MU02 by the Town only required a vote of the Town Council because the MUD was located wholly within the
corporate boundaries of the Town. The Board of Directors of both TCMUDI and MUD2 opposed the dissolution
because they determined it was not in the best financial interest of MUD customers. After the MUDs filed an
injunction against the Town to prevent the dissolution by the Town, the Denton County judge ruled that an election
should be held to allow residents to decide the fate of MUD2. In 2009 an election was held and the residents voted
to combine all the MUDs into a single MUD, resulting in the current Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1
('TCMUDI"). The election results in May 2009 indicated that Trophy Club residents were opposed to the Town of
Trophy Club dissolving the MUD.
In December 2011, the Town and TCMUDI began working on an amended contract for water and wastewater
supply to the Town's Public Improvement District ("PID"). The existing contract was not a long-term contract and
did not address how the Town's PID customers would pay their fair share of future system improvements, including
the currently planned wastewater treatment plant improvements. TCMUDI provided a draft agreement to the
Town during March 1013. On May 21, 2013, the Town of Trophy Club rejected the agreement that the two entities
had been working on and instead proposed a Strategic Partnership Agreement ("SPA") to the Town of Westlake
and to Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1. The purpose of the SPA was to abolish TCMUDI and allow
Westlake to become the water and wastewater service provider to the area of TCMUDI located in Westlake, and to
allow the Town to become the provider of water and wastewater service to the area of TCMUDI located within the
Town of Trophy Club. Because there were no financial benefits provided by the Town to TCMUDI for dissolution,
the TCMUDI Board of Directors rejected the SPA.
In August, 2013, the TCMUDI Board of Directors approved the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee to study
the financial impacts to TCMUDI customers if it were dissolved. Applications were received from interested
residents and on September 17, 1013, the TCMUDI Board appointed a six member committee with representatives
that lived within TCMUDI and the PID. The committee included:
Jim Hose (TCMUDI) Wallace Carlson (PID)
Neil Twomey (TCMUDI) Mike Buck (PID)
Larry Hoover (TCMUDI) Pete Reincke (TCMUDI)
At their first meeting on September 25, 2013, the committee elected Jim Hose as Committee Chair and Neil Twomey
as Co-chair.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 3
aecutive Summary
The Citizens Advisory Committee worked diligently over several months to build finoncial models that will project
the financial impact to all Trophy Club customers if TCMUDI were dissolved, the committee identified revenue
streams that would be affected, identified scenarios that should be modeled, and identified the parameters that
should be included within each model. The committee refined the assumptions that would be included in each
scenario through data provided by TCMUDI staff. The data included historical financial trends related to revenues
and expenses and data accumulated through research with the Denton and Tarrant County Tax Assessors, the City
of Fort Worth, and the Town of Trophy Club. At each committee meeting a specific model was dissected and
refined to ensure accurate data and accurate future projections. Committee members also reviewed the models on
their own between meetings to identify any possible conflicts or inaccuracies.
The committee agreed that to determine all financial impacts to TCMUDI customers, four scenarios should be
modeled and included in the final report:
• SCENARIO 1: Base Model— as is
• SCENARIO 2: Base Model with Solana Growth
• SCENARIO 3: PID Annexation into TCMUDI
• SCENARIO 4: TCMUDI Dissolution (Takeover by Town of Trophy Club and the Town of Westlake)
As the committee collected the financial data for each of the four Scenarios, two models were finalized
incorporating the fourScenarios that addressed the projected financial impact on the TCMUDI and PID residents.
Each scenario and its associated assumptions are described in this report. The source spreadsheets are available on
CD as Appendix A.
The Town of Trophy Club Town Council also formed a citizens committee, known as the Blue Ribbon Panel ("BRP"),
to study the issues related to dissolution of TCMUDI. The BRP divided its members into two subcommittees: the
governance subcommittee, formed to study governance issues related to having a single governing body within
Trophy Club, and the finance subcommittee, formed to study financial impacts of TCMUDI dissolution. An open
invitation was extended to the BRP finance subcommittee to participate in CAC weekly meetings. Members of the
BRP attended a few meetings and expressed overall approval of the CAC models with a few changes to
assumptions. CAC agreed with the requested changes and they are reflected in the models presented herein. The
BRP agreed with the financial models created by the Citizen Advisory Committee.
As the committee considered financial impacts if TCMUDI dissolution were to occur, bond defeasance became a
major factorfor consideration. The committee requested assistance from TCMUDI financial advisors and bond
counsel and learned there ore complex legal and financial considerations related to dissolution and bond
defeasance. The financial impact to residents will vary according to how TCMUDI bonds are addressed should
dissolution be considered; therefore the committee requested the Town of Trophy Club provide information related
to its proposed plan for bonds if dissolution were to occur.
The committee was never provided the Town's plan of action for payment and/or defeasance of TCMUDI
outstanding bonds. The lack of specificity by the Town related to this major issue causes serious concern to the
committee. The committee felt compelled to note that they could only make assumptions regarding bond
defeasance and therefore actual bond defeasance costs are not included in the model. Our estimate of defeasance
cost is five hundred thousand dollars.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 4
Committee Recommendation
For reasons explained within this report the committee recommends the following to the TCMUDI Board of
Directors, customers and the property owners of the District:
• Maintain the Utility District as an ongoing separate entity as it is the most cost effective course of
action that benefits all of its taxpayers and customers.
Scenario 1
In Scenario 1, the committee collected the basic financial data from existing audit reports, financial reports,
approved budgets of the TCMUDI and 2013 tax valuation data from Denton Central Appraisal District and the
Tarrant Central Appraisal District.
The above information was used to develop a base line model in which various projections of TCMUDI revenue and
expenses were calculated. The model reflects maintaining TCMUDI as it is today and projects future revenues and
expenses and the associated affects to Trophy Club residents and oil TCMUDI customers, including those in the
Westlake area ("Solana").
In this Scenario, Solana is currently 19.1% of the TCMUDI. It contributes over $500,000 in taxes and water net
proceeds annually to the TCMUDI and enables all its customers to realize the lowest rate order in the area. (even
after including associated taxes)
Scenario 2
In Scenario 2, the committee augmented the Base Model by noting the recently announced $500 million
commercial and residential developments planned for the Solana area. The committee then addressed the impact
of the new Solana developments on TCMUD1's valuations and water revenue in the future.
The result of these future developments in the Solana area is a dramatic reduction in the TCMUD1's tax rates. The
model's projections indicate the TCMUD1's tax rates will drop by over 50% while still maintaining the lowest water
and wastewater rates in the area.
The result is a cost effective utility that benefits its customers better than any other alternative.
Scenario 3
In Scenario 3, while the committee was not tasked with making a recommendation regarding the potential PID
annexation into TCMUDI, the committee was requested to explore the potential impact to the TCMUDI and PID
residents. In the case that the PID requests annexation in to TCMUDI the committee used the Base Model with
Solana Growth to derive the financial impact of annexation to all of the residents. The committee augmented the
Base Model with additional Tabs pertaining to the PID to facilitate providing all TCMUDI and PID residents the
necessary information regarding annexation.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 5
rerrnrd. or",
The results from calculating the future TCMUDI tax rates, if annexation of the PID was requested and approved,
indicate the after the initial year annexation occurs, there is a positive financial benefit to the PID homeowners.
The model contains data regarding the tax rates and PID fees. This data was sorted into a summary that compares
the PID continuing to pay fees to the Town of Trophy Club versus the TCMUDS's tax rates if annexation is approved.
The annexation summary allows an individual PID resident to take the projected fees and rates to determine how
the projected PID annexation would impact their personal financial situation.
Scenario 4 -1
In Scenario 4, the committee augmented the Base Model with Solana Growth to address the Town of Trophy Club's
proposed Strategic Partnership Agreement ('SPA") to the Town of Westlake and to Trophy Club Municipal Utility
District No. 1 to determine impact to the residents.
In addition, this Dissolution Scenario also analyzed the August 19, 2013 proposal by the Town of Westlake to
TCMUDI to de -annex the Solana area from TCMUDI boundaries.
Numerous inquiries were made to the Town of Trophy Club on the methods to be used to facilitate this transaction.
To date we have not received requested information from the Town of Trophy Club as to how they would deal with
the outstanding debt of the district. Likewise the committee worked to understand the possible cost savings the
Town proposed. These estimates of cost savings showed a lack of thoroughness one would not expect on such an
aggressively pursued transaction. The lack of a cohesive plan by both the Town of Westlake and the Town of
Trophy Club denotes a failure by both entities to have performed the due diligence to understand the impact to its
citizens. Their collective failure to adhere to the applicable sections of the Texas Water Code regarding a Municipal
Utility District is a disservice to its taxpayers. (Texas Water Code 43.076)
The most current cost savings submitted to the committee by the Trophy Club Town Manager were used in the
models. However, the committee believes there are significant unrecognized one-time expenses that would exceed
those savings for many years to come. Additionally, the financial burden to PID residents would be significantly
higher than the burden to TCMUDI residents under the Town's proposal.
More specifically, a TCMUDI resident would incur an effective eight cent tax rate increase, if the Town of Trophy
Club's proposal to dissolve TCMUDI is realized.
From a financial standpoint the Town of Westlake's proposal reduces overall revenues of TCMUDI by more than
$1.8 million in the next four years and over $23 million over the next twenty years.
The Town of Westlake's proposal was found to be completely inadequate by the committee. As offered it would
financially impair the TCMUDI property owners while it also appeared to violate applicable Water Code Statutes.
The Town of Westlake proposed converting tax bonds to revenue bonds as a means of de -annexing the Solana area
from TCMUDI. However, utilizing revenue bonds to finance the defeasance of existing TCMUDI debt would
materially increase the cost of the debt service expense by over$500,000. This extra debt service would be paid by
all Trophy Club residents.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 6
6�
Therefore the CAC recommends maintaining the Utility District as an ongoing separate entity as it is the most cost
effective course of action that benefits all of its taxpayers and customers.
The CAC would like to thank the TCMUDI staff and especially District Manager McKnight for
their time and efforts in assisting the committee in producing this report.
Jim Hose, Chairman
Neil Twomey, Co -Chairman
Mike Buck
Wallace Carlson
Larry Hoover
Pete Reincke
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 7
Exhibit A
§ 43.076. ABOLITION OF WATER -RELATED SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT BECOMES PART OF MORE THAN ONE
MUNICIPALITY.
(a) This section applies to a municipality that contains, as a result of the annexation by or the incorporation of the
municipality, any part of the area in a water control and improvement district fresh water supply district or
municipal utility district organized for the primary purpose of providing municipal junctions such as the supplying of
fresh water for domestic or commercial uses or the furnishing of sanitary sewer service, if.
(1) the balance of the area in the district is located in one or more other municipalities;
(1) the district is not created by a special act of the legislature and the balance of the area is located in one or more
other municipalities and in an unincorporated area; or
(3) the district is a conservation and reclamation district of more than 10,000 acres which provides water and
sanitary sewer service to households and parts of which are located in two or more municipalities, one of which has
a population of more than 1.6 million.
(b) The municipality succeeds to the powers, duties, assets, and obligations of the district as provided by this
section. This section does not prohibit the municipalityfrom continuing to operate utilityfacilities in the district that
are owned and operated by the municipality on the date the part of the district area becomes a part of the
municipality.
(c) If the district is located wholly in two or more municipalities, the district may be abolished by agreement among
the district and the municipalities in which the district is located. Subject to Subsection (f), the agreement must
provide for the distribution among the municipalities of the property and other assets of the district and for the pro
rota assumption by the municipalities of all the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the district. The assumption by
each municipality must be based on the ratio that the value of the property and other assets distributed to that
municipality bears to the total value of all the property and other assets of the district. The determination of value
may be made on an original cost basis, a reproduction cost basis, a fair market value basis, or by any other
valuation method agreed on by the parties that reasonably reflects the value of the property and other assets,
debts, liabilities, and obligations of the district. The agreement must specify the date on which the district is
abolished.
(d) If the district is located wholly in two or more municipalities and in unincorporated area, the district may be
abolished by agreement among the district and all of the municipalities in which parts of the district are located.
The abolition agreement must provide for the distribution of assets and liabilities as provided by Subsection (c). The
agreement must also provide for the distribution among one or more of the municipalities of the pro rato assets
and liabilities located in the unincorporated area and must provide for service to customers in unincorporated areas
in the service area of the abolished district. The municipality that provides the service in the unincorporated area
may charge its usual and customaryfees and assessments to the customers in that area.
(e) An agreement made under Subsection (c) or (d) must be approved by an ordinance adopted by the governing
body of each municipality and by an order or resolution adopted by the governing board of the district before the
date specified in the agreement for the abolition, distribution, and assumption.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 8
(f) If the abolished district has outstanding bonds, warrants, or other obligations payable in whole or in part from
the net revenue from the operation of the district utility system or property, the affected municipalities shall take
over and operate the system or property through a board of trustees as provided by this section. The municipalities
shall apply the net revenue from the operation of the system or property to the payment of outstanding revenue
bonds, warrants, or other obligations as if the district had not been abolished. The system or property shall be
operated in that manner until all the revenue bonds, warrants, or obligations are retired in full by payment or by
the refunding of the bonds, warrants, or other obligations into municipal obligations. The board of trustees must be
composed of not more than five members appointed by the governing bodies of the municipalities. The trustees are
appointed for the terms and shall perform the duties as provided by the agreement made under Subsection (c) or
(d). The board also shall perform the duties and other functions that are imposed by law or by contract on the
abolished district and its governing board and that relate to the outstanding revenue bonds. The board shall charge
and collect sufficient rates for the services of the system or property and shall apply the revenue to comply with
each covenant or agreement contained in the proceedings relating to the revenue bonds, warrants, or other
obligations with respect to the payment of principal and interest and the maintenance of reserves and other
funds. When all the revenue bonds, warrants, and other obligations are retired in full, the property and other assets
of the district shall be distributed among the municipalities as provided by Subsection (c) or (d). On the distribution,
the board is abolished.
(g) When the pro rota share of any district bonds, warrants, or other obligations payable in whole or in part from
property taxes has been assumed by the municipality, the governing body of the municipality shall levy and collect
taxes on all taxable property in the municipality to pay the principal of and interest on its share as the principal and
interest become due and payable.
(h) The municipality may issue general obligation refunding bonds in its own name to refund in whole or in part its
pro rota share of any outstanding district bonds, warrants, or other obligations, including unpaid earned interest on
them, that are assumed by the municipality and that are payable in whole or in partfrom property taxes. The
refunding bonds must be issued in the manner provided by Chapter 1207, Government Code. Refunding bonds must
bear interest at the some rate or at a lower rote than that borne by the refunded obligations unless it is shown
mathematically that a different rate results in a savings in the total amount of interest to be paid.
(i) The municipality may issue revenue refunding bonds or general obligation refunding bonds in its own name to
refund in whole or in part its pro rota share of any outstanding district bonds, warrants, or other obligations,
including unpaid earned interest on them, that ore assumed by the municipality and that are payable solely from
net revenues. The municipality may combine the different issues or the bonds of different issues of both district and
municipal revenue bonds, warrants, or other obligations into one or more series of revenue refunding bonds. The
municipality may pledge the net revenues of the district utility system or property to the payment of those bonds,
warrants, or other obligations. The municipality may also combine the different issues or the bonds of the different
issues into one or more series of general obligation refunding bonds. An originally issued municipal revenue bond
may not be refunded into municipal general obligation refunding bonds. Except as otherwise provided by this
section, Subchapter 8, Chapter 1502, Government Code, applies to the revenue refunding bonds, but an election for
the issuance of the bonds is not required. Revenue refunding bonds or general obligation refunding bonds must be
issued in the manner provided by Chapter 1107, Government Code. The revenue refunding bonds and the general
obligation refunding bonds must bear interest at the some rate or at a lower rate than that borne by the refunded
obligations unless it is shown mathematically that a different rote results in a savings in the total amount of
interest to be paid.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, 41, ef. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1997, 75� Leg., ch. 1339, 41, eJf. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch.
1064, 4 37, eff. Sept 1, 1999.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 9
(Exhibit B)
PID Annexation into TCMUD
Average
Impact of
Net MUD
(2%
PID
Federal
Taxes
Appreciation)
Unannexed
Average
Home
Income
After
XPIDAverage
TEND
Nome
Merged
MUD
Taxes
Federal
YEAR
Home Value
Fees
Annual Fees
Tax Rg(g
Annual Taxes
28%Hy g
Income Taxes
99ttQ
2013-2014
$
382,966
$ 0.08738
$334.64
2014-2015
$
390,625
Si 0.10861
$424.24
$0.15484
$604.83
$ 169.35
$ 435.48
$ (11.24)
20152016
$
398,438
$ 0.08930
$355.80
$0.11623
$463.11
$ 129.67
$ 333.44
$ 22.36
2016-2017
$
406,407
$ 0.07772
$315.87
$010109
$41as3
$ 115.03
$ 295.79
$ 20.08
2017-2018
$
414,535
$ 0.076M
$318.54
$0.09941
$412.08
$ 115.38
$ 296.70
$ 21.94
2018.2019
$
422,825
$ 0.07648
$323.37
$0.09927
$419.72
$ 11752
$ 302.20
$ 21.17
2019-2020
$
431,282
$ 0.07612
$328.30
$009904
$422.81
$ 11839
$ 304.42
$ 23.88
2020.2D21
$
439,908
$ 0.07577
$333.33
$0.09741
$42851
$ 119.98
$ 308.53
$ 24.81
2021-2072
$
448,706
$ 0.07543
$338.46
$009677
$434.23
$ 121.58
$ 312.64
$ 25.92
2022-2023
$
457,680
$ 0.07510
$343.70
$009613
$439.97
$ 123.19
$ 316.78
$ 26.92
2023-2024
$
466,933
$ 0,07477
$349.03
$007680
$35&51
$ 10038
$ 25813
$ 90.90
2024-2025
$
476,170
$ 0.07444
$354.48
$0.07648
$364.19
$ 101.97
$ 262.22
$ 92.26
2025-2026
$
495,693
$ 0.07413
$360.03
$007619
$370.07
$ 103.62
$ 266.45
$ 93.58
2026-2027
$
495,407
$ 0.07382
$365.70
$0.07589
$375.97
$ 105.27
$ 270.70
$ 95.00
2027-2078
$
505,316
$ 0.07351
$371.47
$0.07559
$381.99
$ 106.95
$ 275.03
$ 96.44
2028-2029
$
515,422
$ 0.07322
$377.37
$0.07530
$38811
$10967
$279.44
$ 97.92
2029-2030
$
525,730
$ 0.07292
$383.38
$0.07501
$394.36
$ 110.42
$ 283.94
$ 99.44
2030-2031
$
536,245
$ 0.07264
$389.51
$0.07473
$400.73
$ 112.20
$ 28852
$100.98
2031-2032
$
546,970
$ 0.06495
$355.26
$006922
$378.63
$106.02
$272.61
$ 92.65
2032-2033
$
557,909
$ 0.05467
$360.83
$0.06891
$384.43
$ 10764
$ 276.79
$ 94.04
2033-2034
$
569,067
$ 0.06440
$366,51
$0.06959
$390.35
$ 109.30
$ 281.05
$ 85.46
Assumptions
Estimated PID Annexation Expenses in 2014-2015 in O&M Taxes $5,000 cost of the special PID election and $195,000 in PID Annexation
expenses in 0&M Expenses.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 10
(Exhibit C)
Rate Orders Comparisons
Annual Cost of Water and Sewer Services for 20,000 Gallons a Month.
%Higher
UINL
Residential Water Sewer Total TCMUD
Tmphy Club MUDI $ 853.92 $ 512.52 $ 1,366.44
Town of Westlake
$ 1,582.80
$ 1,497.60
$ 3,080.40
125.43%
hap://www.westiake-N.org/DommentCenter/Home/View/187
City of Roanoke
$ 1,313.76
$ 600.36
$ 1,914.12
40.08%
hftp://www.roanoketexas.Wm/index.wpx?NID-253
City of Keller
$ 985.68
$ 895.80
$ 1,881.4B
37.69%
http://www.cityofkeller.mm/index. aspx 7page=6234Res W Rate
City of Southlake
$ 1,257.48
$ 961.92
$ 2,219.40
62.42%
hnp.//www.cityofsomhlake.com/index.aspx?NlD=627
Commercial
Actual Sol ana Commend at Meters (31 meters)
$351,298.14
$130,616.10
$483,914.24
Estimated Solana meters using the Westlake 2013 Rate Order
$623,927.24
$277,562.40
$901,489.64
67.06%
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page i2
tcmxd. o g
(IX)llb!t D)
Opportunity Loss to the TCMUD if Solana Deannexed
NETWater
Tax
Total
Cumulative
YEAR
Revenue
Proceeds
Revenue & Taxes
Revenue & Taxes
2013-2014
$227,356.68
$271,312.32
$ 498,669.00
$ 498,669.00
2014-2015
$286,305.26
$275,983.03
$ 562,288.29
$ 1,060,957.29
2015-2016
$304,038.93
$324,012.17
$ 628,051.11
$ 1,689,008.40
2016.2017
$323,587.58
$575,993.93
$ 899,581.51
$ 2,588,589.91
2017-2018
$344,535.00
$785,166.43
$1,129,701.43
$ 3,718,291.34
2018-2019
$366,979.98
$802,061.66
$1,169,041.64
$ 4,887,332.98
2019-2020
$391,028.23
$817,640.08
$1,208,668.31
$ 6,096,001.28
2020.2021
$416,792.89
$821,978.06
$1,238,770.96
$ 7,334,772.24
2021-2022
$444,395.07
$932,661.60
$1,277,056.67
$ 8,611,828.91
2022-2023
$473,964.34
$843,325.86
$1,317,290.21
$ 9,929,119.12
2023-2024
$505,639.41
$853,974.46
$1,359,613.87
$11,288,732.99
2024-2025
$539,568.71
$650,520.06
$1,190,098.77
$12,478,821.76
2025-2026
$575,911.08
$661,104.01
$1,237,015.09
$13,715,836.85
2026-2027
$614,836.54
$671,661.35
$1,286,497.98
$15,002,334.73
2027-2028
$656,527.00
$682,418.27
$1,338,945.27
$16,341,280.00
2028-2029
$701,177.17
$693,378.78
$1,394,555.95
$17,735,835.95
2029-2030
$748,995.42
$704,546.93
$1,453,542.35
$19,189,378.30
2030-2031
$800,204.73
$715,926.89
$1,516,131.62
$20,705,509.92
2031-2032
$853,345.24
$727,522.89
$1,580,868.13
$22,286,378.05
2032-2033
$910,205.58
$695,800.78
$1,606,006.36
$23,892,384.42
2033-2034
$971,046.15
$706,386.13
$1,677,432.28
$25,569,816.70
Assumption
Tax Valuations appreciate 2%annually.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 12
(Exhibit E)
MUD Dissolution 2% Appreciation
February
18, 2014
Comparison
of MUD as an Oneoine
Entity
(No PID Annexation) to its Acquisition
by Westlake
and Trophy
Club
1.11509739 (Freeze
Adjustment
Factor)
Apples to Aooles
Impact of a
MUD
Trophy Club
Additional
Average Home
TCMUD
Acquisition of TCMUD
Town Tax
Value
Tax Rate Plus
Additional Taxes
Per Home
Additional
Year
TC Denton County
Revenue
Bond
MUD Tax Rate
IDenton County)
Town Tax over Mud Tax
2013-2014
$273,163
$
0.13339
2014-2015
$278,626
$
0.18262
$ 0.23833
$
155.22
$
0.05571
2015-2016
$294,199
$
0.14689
$ 0,21338
$
188.97
$
0.06649
2016-2017
$289,983
$
0.12518
$ 0.20%1
$
244.75
$
0.08443
2017-2018
$295,680
$
0.12266
$ 0,20969
$
254.38
$
0,08603
2018-2019
$301,594
$
0.12230
$ 0.20963
$
263.36
$
0.08732
2019-2020
$307,626
$
0.12047
$ 0.20854
$
270.95
$
0.08908
2020-2021
$313,778
$
0.11945
$ 0.20983
$
280.43
$
0.08937
2021-2022
$320,054
$
0.11844
$ 0.20380
$
289.21
$
0.09036
2022-2023
$326,455
$
0.11741
$ 0,20924
$
299.79
$
0.09183
2023-2024
$332,994
$
0.09085
$ 0.18154
$
301.98
$
0.09069
2024-2025
$339,644
$
0.09031
$ 0.18269
$
313.75
$
0.09238
2025-2026
$346,437
$
0.08975
$ 0.18360
$
325.13
$
0.09385
2026.2027
$353,365
$
0.08920
$ 0.18483
$
337.92
$
0.09563
2027-2028
$360,433
$
0.08865
$ 0.18590
$
350.50
$
0.09724
20292029
$367,641
$
0.08812
$ 0.18742
$
365.06
$
0,09930
2029-2030
$374,994
$
0.08760
$ 0.18874
$
379.26
$
0.10114
2030-2031
$382,494
$
0.08708
$ 0.19050
$
395.55
$
0.10341
2031-2032
$390,144
$
0.08215
$ 0.19412
$
397.82
$
0.10197
2032-2033
$397,947
$
0.08159
$ 0.18590
$
415.07
$
0.10430
2033-2034
$405,906
$
0.08105
$ 0.18746
$
431.91
$
0.10641
-
$
6,261.03
Assumptions
Assumes a MUD Dissolution 10/1/2014
The Debt Service of the MUD's Revenue
Bond is
included
as a tax supported expense.
The Average Home Value is adjusted for
the Town's Tax Rate due to tax Freeze for over 65 and Disabled
residents.
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 13
0
MUD Dissolution 2% Appreciation
February 18, 2014
Comparison of MUD as an Ongoing Entity [No PID Annexation) to its Acquisition by Westlake and Trophy Club
Impact of a
Apples to Apples
Trophy Club
Average Home
Unannexed
Acquisition of TCMUD
Town Tax
0
Value
PID
Additional Taxes
Per
Home
Additional
Year
TCPID
Fees
MUD Tax Rate
Per Home (PID)
Town
Tax over Mud Tax
2013-2014
$382,966
$
0.087380
2014-2015
$390,625
$
0.1086D6
$ 0.23833
$
506.72
$
0,12972
2025-2016
$398,438
$
0.089299
$ 0.21338
$
494.38
$
0,12409
2016-2017
$406,407
$
0.077723
$ 0.20961
$
536.02
$
0.13189
2017-2018
$414,535
$
0.076843
$ 0.20869
$
546.57
$
0.13185
2018.2019
$422,825
$
0.076479
$ 0.20963
$
562.99
$
0.13315
2019-2020
$431,282
$
0.076123
$ 0.20854
$
571.11
$
0.13242
2020-2021
$439,908
$
0.075774
$ 0.20883
$
585.31
$
0.13305
2021-2022
$448,706
$
0.075431
$ 0.20880
$
598.43
$
0.13337
2022-2023
$457,680
$
0.075096
$ 0.20924
$
613.95
$
0.13414
2023-2024
$466,833
$
0.074766
$ 0.18154
$
498.48
$
0.10678
2024-2025
$476,170
$
0.074444
$ 0.18269
$
515.42
$
0.10824
2025-2026
$485,693
$
0.074127
$ 0.18360
$
531.69
$
0.10947
2026-2027
$495,407
$
0.073817
$ 0.18483
$
549.95
$
0.11101
2027-2028
$505,316
$
0.073513
$ 0.19590
$
567.91
$
0.11239
2028.2029
$515,422
$
0.073215
$ 0.18742
$
588.64
$
0,11420
2029-2030
$525,730
$
0.072923
$ 0.18874
$
608.87
$
0.11581
2030-2031
$536,245
$
0.072636
5 0.19D50
$
632.02
$
0.11786
2032-2032
$546,970
$
0.064950
$ 0.19412
$
651.81
$
0.11917
2032-2033
$557,909
$
0.064675
$ 0.19590
$
676.32
$
0.12122
2033-2034
$569,067
$
0.064405
$ 0.18746
$
700.24
$
0.12305
$11,536.80
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 14
Icnunt. org
APPENDIXA
COMMITTEE MODELS
Citizens Advisory Committee Final Report Page 15
Comparison of Monthly Water and Sewer Bill
Residential - 18,000 Gallon
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
Westlake97.80 90.60188.40
Argyle86.7_? 9a08180.31
Denton 77.J_5
• ISEi 40149.96
Southlake
Keller
Roanoke
124.70
141.95
141.81
Euless 124.21
TCMUD 107.27
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
■ Water ■ Sewer