Limited District Information

Information on the Limited District that is a part of the Strategic Partnership Agreement made with the City of Austin

This page is presented as a source for all the information the District has on Limited Districts, and specifically, how the idea of a limited district came about in relation to Anderson Mill. If a fact is presented, material will be shown to back it up. If an opinion is given - it will be presented as an opinion. Any viewpoint, even opposing viewpoints, that the district becomes aware of, will be posted or linked to if possible. If there are opposing viewpoints, The M.U.D. directors or staff will try to address them calmly, with facts, figures, and informed opinions. Claims will not be made that "totalitarian" plots are involved, and no one will try to squash anyone's "American Dream".  Information will be presented and any questions will be answered, so that the residents of Anderson Mill can make an informed decision.

---

What is Anderson Mill Limited District?

History behind the idea of Anderson Mill's Limited District

The COA has considered annexing Anderson Mill several times over the years: 1983, 1987, 1993, and in 1997. Public hearings with residents were held in some of these instances, some of the primary issues for the residents have been fire protection, police, EMS, parks and pools. The Board of Director’s of Anderson Mill MUD have attempted to document the level of services through those years to make sure the city had an established standard to meet. The Board’s goal has always been to be sure that the COA has the capabilities to provide the same level of services to which our residents are accustomed. In 1995, when the Texas legislature passed the Strategic Partnership Agreement law, the board saw it as a way for a smooth transition to annexation, and the provision for a Limited District was a way to assure that the parks and pools would remain as our residents want them.

In 1997, board directors David Harper and Bill Burke started negotiations with the COA to enter into a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). As negotiations were on going, the issue was on the board meeting agenda for the following meetings, two of which were published Public Hearings:

The headlines of the Anderson Mill newsletters in the November 97 and December 97/January 98 issues covered the Strategic Partnership Agreement, the articles discussed in detail the Limited District and the provision for an escrow fund that would go to the Limited District. The SPA held annexation off for six (6) years until the end of 2004.

In late 2002, the Board of Directors started negotiation to extend the Strategic Partnership Agreement to the limit allowed by State law - 10 years, until the end of 2008.
Again Board meetings were held in October 2002 and throughout 2003 with the SPA extension negotiations on the published agendas, these meetings were held:

A letter notifying all the residents of the SPA extension was sent out the week after the October 27, 2003 Public Hearing. The November 2003 Anderson Mill newsletter announced the SPA extension negotiations and that they were expected to be complete in December of 2003.

The Anderson Mill M.U.D. Board of Directors took every effort available to engage the residents and to keep them informed of this process. The majority of the residents who came to any of the meetings or public hearings voiced approval of the Board’s efforts to enter into the SPA and subsequently form a Limited District.

Response to Some Opposing Viewpoints or Questions

Question: Why was there no Board Director election in 2006? Were the "expired terms" of the directors up for election "automatically renewed"?

Answer:   There was a election called by the Board for the Place 4 and Place 5, the terms for these Places were up in May of 2006. Director Burke and Director Grampp ran for the election and no one applied to run against them - they were unopposed. Notice of the election was posted on the web site and on the Community sign board on Lake Creek Parkway, but no one chose to run opposing Directors Burke and Grampp. It did not seem a fiscally responsible decision to hold an election for positions that were uncontested at a cost to the taxpayers of between $2000 and $3000, so as State law allows - the polling was called off and Directors Burke and Grampp won the election and new terms by default.

Statement: "The AMMUD website provides a cost comparison with and without a Limited District. They propose that by using Limited District tax dollars to pay for solid waste services you as a tax payer will save hundreds of dollars and get a tax write off. At this time the AMMUD Board is paying an additional $3.00 per house, per month over what appears on your monthly utility bills to the company that provides our solid waste services. Where is the money coming from for this supplemental payment? Per the AMMUD Board, profits the MUD makes from utility payments. The AMMUD Board is hiding the true cost of this service. Further, the current contract for this service expires December 31,2008 and at this time the MUD General Manager has been unsuccessful in obtaining bids for the upcoming year. There is no GUARANTEE that our solid waste costs won't rise dramatically. The AMMUD Board is finding out it is not financially cost effective for a solid waste service provider to service our neighborhood." (Statement from CleanuptheMUD web site)

Answer:  The Cost comparison that is mentioned is available at this link: Comparison of Proposed Taxes and Service Fees after Annexation with a Limited District and Without a Limited District for Average Homeowner  Please note the title of the document : Comparison of Anderson Mill Taxes and Fees Before and after Annexation; this document lists all of the property taxes and utility fees charged by Anderson Mill M.U.D., the City of Austin, and what will be the Anderson Mill Limited District. Anderson Mill M.U.D. provides many services and uses the revenues from all sources - taxes and fees to pay for those services. At times our costs increase and the Board determines whether it is necessary to increase taxes or fees to meet these additional costs. For example, the City of Austin has increased the rate the M.U.D. pays for water by 3-6% each year for a number of years yet it has been several years since the MUD board has raised the resident's water rates - because the district had the other revenues to cover the cost increases without raising our resident's water rates. Was the purpose to hide the actual cost of water? No. The actual reason was that no one likes having higher utility rates - not the residents, and not the board members (who are also residents). The board directors WOULD raise the rates if the revenue wasn't there to cover the costs - but the revenue IS already there, so there has been no need to raise the rates for water or for trash collection. Will trash collection costs go up in the future? Yes - the Cleanup the MUD web site is correct on that point.

How will the Limited District be Funded?

Answer:  The Limited District will be funded from three primary sources; first, the Limited District will have taxing authority. The SPA stipulates that the tax rate can range between $0.10 per $100 valuation and $0.50 per $100 valuation. The board has so far discussed rates between zero and $0.20 per $100. The second source is revenues from service fees. The pool fees in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 amounted to revenues of approximately $134,000. The third source is interest revenue from investments. The interest revenue in the last fiscal year ranged between 3% and 3.5% of the investments. If the rates remain at similar levels the interest revenues from the approximate $10,000,000 escrow fund that the Limited District will start off with will be $300,000 to $350,000 annually.