Harris County MUD 553 owes $0 and has never been confirmed by voters. On November 3 it asks for confirmation and $685 million in bonds.

Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 553 owes nothing, taxes nothing and has never been confirmed by the voters who live in it. On November 3 the same ballot asks them to confirm the district, elect its first five directors, approve $685 million in bonds and authorize a maintenance tax of up to $1.50 per $100 of value.

Why it matters

Utility district debt is repaid by the property owners inside the district, which is why these elections draw no countywide attention and almost no coverage. This desk found none on MUD 553. Eight utility districts have debt questions on the Harris County ballot this year and 553 is by far the largest.

By the numbers

From the Harris County Clerk’s posted sample ballot and the district’s own bond order, both read October 11.

Proposition A. Confirmation of the district, and the election of five permanent directors, under Section 49.102 of the Texas Water Code.
Proposition B. $370,000,000 in bonds for water, sanitary sewer and drainage, plus $555,000,000 in refunding bonds.
Proposition C. $280,000,000 for paved roads, plus $420,000,000 in refunding bonds.
Proposition D. $35,000,000 for parks and recreation, plus $52,500,000 in refunding bonds.
Proposition E. An annual operation and maintenance tax not to exceed $1.50 per $100 of taxable value.
$685,000,000 of new borrowing across B, C and D, by this desk’s addition. Counting the refunding authority, the ballot’s maximum is $1,712,500,000.
$0.00. The district’s outstanding principal, its outstanding interest, and its debt service tax rate, each stated in the order.
Created by House Bill 4298 of the 85th Legislature in 2017, codified as Chapter 7997 of the Special District Local Laws Code. Nine years later it has still not been confirmed.

The other side

This is how greenfield development finances itself in Texas, and the alternative is worse for everyone reading this. A MUD puts the cost of water lines, sewers, detention and streets on the rooftops that use them instead of on the countywide tax base. Residents who have not moved in yet are the ones who will pay.

Authorization is a ceiling, not a spend. Districts routinely seek decades of buildout capacity in one election because calling another costs money, and most never issue the full amount. Refunding authority is not new money at all; it refinances bonds already sold, usually to lower the interest. The $1.50 is a cap on a rate nobody has set, and a new district with no residents and no tax base has to ask for headroom it does not yet need.

None of that makes the numbers small. It makes them conditional, and the ballot does not say which.

What to watch

October 19 through October 30, early voting. October 23, mail ballot deadline. November 3, election day.
Whether the district publishes a projected tax rate before the vote. The order does not contain one.
Who the five permanent directors are. They are on the same ballot as the bonds they would issue.

Bottom line

For comparison, Harris County itself adopted a rate of 67.147 cents this year. Proposition E asks for a ceiling of $1.50, more than twice that, for operations alone, in a district that does not yet have a tax rate at all. That may never be levied. It is still what the ballot authorizes.