Levee district creates waves
Sienna Plantation entity stirs property tax debate as it seeks to sell tens of millions in new bonds
“There’s nothing like having citizens involved when you’re going to take their money away.” State Sen. Bob Hall, R-Canton
At the entrance to Sienna Plantation, an upscale residential development in Fort Bend County, an electronic sign offers “Welcome Home” greetings and announces events ranging from a homeowners’ association meeting to an adult softball game.
On a recent sunny weekday, residents in Mercedes-Benzes and Jaguars glided past landscaping trucks in front of stately homes, passing signs with Sienna Plantation’s motto, “Live Well, Play Hard, Have Fun.” A billboardsized sign promoting homes and a new elementary school being built declares “Happy 20th Birthday Sienna!” with a photo of a woman blowing out pink candles on a cupcake.
But there are smaller, less conspicuous signs
required under state law to mark the boundaries of the water districts that financed the infrastructure for this vast subdivision and all its roads, parks and other amenities.
They remind Tyler Dawson, a Sienna Plantation homeowner, of one thing: property taxes.
Beyond the property tax bills he receives from Fort Bend County and the Fort Bend Independent School District, he receives one from the Sienna Plantation Levee Improvement District, created in 1978 to control flooding across 10,000 acres of prairie land, and another from the Sienna Plantation Municipal Utility District 2, which Sienna Plantation’s developers created to finance community infrastructure. Add up all those bills, and Dawson’s property taxes total $8,643 a year, which he calls “outrageously high.”
So it is with considerable interest that he and some of his neighbors have been following a bill now making its way through the Legislature that would enable the Levee Improvement District to sell tens of million of dollars of new municipal bonds for parks and recreation facilities — and generate more property tax revenue to pay the debt service. If the bill passes before adjournment on Monday, the levee district would have pulled off the biggest power play by a water district this legislative session.
No one disputes that water districts and other so-called special purpose districts have played a critical role in financing levees, water and sewer systems, roads, recreational facilities and shopping centers across formerly vast rural expanses of rapidly growing Texas. But as these districts proliferate in Harris, Fort Bend and Montgomery counties around Houston and other burgeoning metro areas, concerns about their vast taxing authority and their transparency are proliferating, as well.
In Sienna Plantation, Dawson gives voice to the issues raised by some community development experts and conservative think tanks. He and his wife, Autumn, purchased a house in 2013 near Sienna Crossing Elementary School. The property taxes are now so high that they are considering a move to College Station.
Need OK from TCEQ
Not everyone agrees. Ben Carpenter, his wife, Tessy, and their 4-year-old daughter, moved last year from Houston to Sienna Plantation. Although they’re paying more in property taxes, Carpenter said he doesn’t mind because the tax dollars benefit his community, as opposed to being spread around the nation’s fourth largest city.
“If my tax rate goes up because we are trying to pay back bonds that go into the community, I’m all for it,” said Carpenter. He said based on Facebook groups of Sienna Plantation residents, he thinks a majority shares his perspective.
The Sienna levee district is among about 1,800 active water districts in Texas, a class of special purpose districts ranging from large river authorities, to tiny irrigation districts, to the ubiquitous municipal utility districts, known as MUDs. There are 949 MUDs across the state and 620 in Harris, Fort Bend and Montgomery County alone.
Special purpose districts, which include various types of water districts, are highly popular among Texas developers who hold enormous sway over how they’re created and benefit greatly from their ability to issue taxexempt bonds and levy property taxes to cover the costs of infrastructure and other projects. Often, the elections required by law to establish these districts and then authorize tens of millions in bond sales involve only a handful of people paid by firms working for developers to move onto a tract of open land and serve as “rent-avoters.”
Still, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for approving the amount of bonds a water district is authorized to sell, based on the tax base or projected tax base within the district. Proponents of special purpose districts, who include powerful law firms and lobbyists representing them, say TCEQ provides important oversight to control spending.
Bill seeks exemption
The Sienna Plantation Levee Improvement District bill began its expected journey to the governor’s desk in late April, when it was approved by the House Special Purpose Districts Committee. As voted out of committee, it exempted the district from being required to get state approval to sell additional parks and recreation bonds. Financed by Sienna Plantation homeowners, the district is paying $56,000 to a lobbying firm, Grace & McEwan.
State Rep. Ron Reynolds, the Missouri City Democrat who is the bill’s sponsor and lives in Sienna Plantation, referred to TCEQ’s involvement as an “unnecessary hindrance to efficient and robust development of the recreational facilities demanded by Sienna residents.” In an interview, he said other water districts around the state may ultimately want the same treatment.
But last week, state Sen. Joan Huffman, RHouston, unveiled a new version of the bill that would give the Sienna levee district the right to issue more bonds but would still make it subject to TCEQ approval.
Huffman, whose district includes Sienna Plantation, said she didn’t think the LID should be treated differently than other water districts.
The concern originated in Gov. Greg Abbott’s office, which wanted to maintain TCEQ approval of parks and recreation bond sales.
The Senate Agriculture, Water & Rural Affairs Committee voted 5-0 on May 18 to approve Huffman’s version of the bill. The Senate passed it Wednesday. If the House agrees with the Senate’s version, it would go to Abbott for his signature.
Richard Muller, a Sugar Land attorney representing the Sienna Plantation LID, had said the district needed the exemption because it does many of its parks projects on land owned by the Fort Bend ISD. Because construction has to occur over the summer, projects can be delayed for a year if the TCEQ approval process lags, he added.
Julie Peak, managing director of FirstSouthwest, a financial firm which advises several water districts on bond sales, said the TCEQ oversight is rigorous and a key to the success of water districts. “No other [bond] issuer has a state agency looking over their shoulder at every step for no other purpose than to make sure that the property owners are protected,” she said in January at a meeting of the statewide trade group for water districts, the Association of Water Board Directors-Texas.
But based on public records and interviews, TCEQ’s regulation is a light touch. The agency does not review the cost of selling bonds and could not cite any instances in which it denied a request to sell bonds.
Hugh Coleman, a Republican Denton County commissioner and critic of special purpose districts, said water districts need more scrutiny from TCEQ, not less.
“There’s a propensity for these districts to sell as much bonds as possible, mainly because people make so much money in the process. You have everybody getting upfront fees,” he said.
In 2009, Sienna levee district voters approved the sale of $49 million in parks and recreation bonds by a 535-296 vote.
‘Government extortion’
Water districts are capped in the amount of outstanding debt they can accumulate by selling parks and recreation bonds. That cap is an amount equal to 1 percent of the districts’ appraised property value.
Without a change to the 1 percent cap, the district would not be able to complete the projects from the 2009 bond election, said Muller, the Sugar Land attorney who represents the LID.
The bill as amended by the Senate Wednesday would increase the cap for the district to 2 percent only if residents approve the change at the ballot box, a requirement which Gov. Abbott’s office pushed.
If the voters say yes, the district could have up to $62 million in outstanding debt from parks and recreation bond sales.
“There’s nothing like having citizens involved when you’re going to take their money away,” said state Sen. Bob Hall, a Canton Republican and tea party favorite.
Muller said the district will not sell any more parks and recreation bonds if it triggers a property rate increase.
Dawson said he’s opposed to the LID spending more money on parks and recreation projects.
He and many other taxpayers struggle with the alphabet soup of MUDs and LIDs, and say they have no idea who serves on the boards, how they decide how many bonds should be sold, or how they set tax rates.
“They can raise the (rates) and set them at whatever they want. You have to pay it or you go to jail. As I told my wife, it’s basically government extortion,” he said.
Carpenter said he and his wife are pleased with their move from a neighborhood west of the Heights in Houston to Sienna Plantation.
“The big reason is for the schools; we got a lot more land, we got a cool house right next to the elementary school, we have a lake across the street and a pool in the back yard,” he said.
“I understand why a MUD exists and why a LID exists. It’s for development. I understand it’s a higher rate than I paid when I was back in the city. But we believe it is going right back into our community and we actually see the results of it.”