WTCMUD1’s “Cheaper Than Cedar Park” Claim Does Not Hold Up

From the Editor
1

WTCMUD1’s “Cheaper Than Cedar Park” Claim Does Not Hold Up

At the September 16 meeting, Director Chris Rocco said that WTCMUD1 residents pay less than Cedar Park residents after property taxes and utility bills are combined.

That comparison works only at the current 27.34-cent tax rate—a rate that does not maintain the District’s previous operating-tax support while paying the new bond debt.

Even cost parity would be a poor result for WTCMUD1 residents. Cedar Park provides a much broader municipal-service package, including full police and fire departments, streets, transportation planning, a library, code enforcement, development services and extensive public facilities. WTCMUD1 does not provide an equivalent package.

The current comparison

Using the same $442,244 taxable value for both:

  • WTCMUD1 property tax at 27.34 cents: $1,209

  • Cedar Park property tax at 37.793 cents: $1,671

WTCMUD1 initially appears to save a homeowner $462.

But WTCMUD1 residents pay higher utility charges. The District charges Cedar Park’s water and wastewater gallonage rates plus 10%, a $25 basic-service fee and a separate $35.35 monthly fire-protection fee.

At 5,000 gallons of monthly water and sewer usage:

  • WTCMUD1 utilities: approximately $1,315 annually

  • Cedar Park utilities: approximately $1,125 annually

The higher utility bill reduces WTCMUD1’s current advantage to approximately $272 per year.

The current rate is not financially sustainable

The District’s taxable value has already fallen approximately 5.4%, from about $941 million to $890 million.

The RM 620 widening threatens another $22.5 million of assessed value associated with affected properties—approximately 2.4% of the former tax base.

Meanwhile, the new bonds will eventually require approximately 4.4 to 4.5 cents of debt-service tax.

Keeping the total rate at 27.34 cents while assigning 4.5 cents to debt service leaves approximately 20–22% less property-tax support for operations.

The District will have to respond by raising taxes, increasing fees, spending reserves, cutting services or deferring maintenance. Holding the rate temporarily at 27.34 cents does not eliminate the cost. It postpones it.

The honest comparison

After the existing taxable-value decline and the identified RM 620 exposure, the remaining tax base would be approximately $867 million.

Maintaining the District’s former operating-tax revenue would require an M&O rate near 29.65 cents. Adding 4.5 cents for debt service produces a total rate near:

34.15 cents per $100

At that rate, using the same $442,244 taxable value:

Annual cost WTCMUD1 Cedar Park
Property tax $1,510 $1,671
Utilities at 5,000 gallons $1,315 $1,125
Combined $2,826 $2,796

WTCMUD1 becomes approximately $30 per year more expensive than Cedar Park.

The difference increases with water usage:

  • 5,000 gallons water and sewer: WTCMUD1 costs $30 more

  • 10,000 gallons water with a 5,000-gallon sewer average: $58 more

  • 10,000 gallons water and sewer: $86 more

But the problem is larger than those dollar differences suggest. If WTCMUD1 costs approximately the same as Cedar Park while providing substantially fewer services, residents are not receiving equal value for their money.

Parity is effectively a loss for WTCMUD1. Paying city-level costs without receiving city-level services is not a financial advantage.

The reason we are approaching city-level costs while receiving fewer services is straightforward: this Board overspends for the limited package of services it delivers. A well-managed, mature MUD should provide residents with a material cost advantage over a full-service city—not charge approximately the same amount.

Bottom line

Director Rocco’s comparison relies on an artificially low tax rate that reduces operating support while the District takes on new debt.

Once the calculation includes enough revenue to maintain operations, the future debt-service requirement, the existing decline in taxable value and the RM 620 exposure, WTCMUD1 costs as much as—or more than—Cedar Park while providing fewer services.

That outcome is evidence of overspending. The Board has not demonstrated that WTCMUD1 is more economical. It has demonstrated only that it can keep the advertised rate low temporarily by pushing today’s financial pressure into future budgets.

For WTCMUD1 to represent a genuine financial bargain, its combined taxes and mandatory fees should be materially below Cedar Park’s—not approximately equal to them.

Sources: WTCMUD1 tax rates, WTCMUD1 utility-rate order, Cedar Park utility rates.

2 Likes
2

Cedar Park also has $287M in bond debt, but it also has significant future commercial and high density development opportunities. The key to debt is how fast wealth is growing to pay it back. It would be interesting to do more in-depth to see where Cedar Park stands with depreciation and future growth, but I suspect forecasting would show future revenue shortfalls for them as well. They have an important tool the MUD lacks: Sales tax.

1 Like
3

I have heard the argument ‘Cheaper than Cedar Park’ since I first became involved in the MUD back in 2017. Usually the person making the claim tacks on the difference being $100. Per month? Per year? That’s never defined but it’s always $100. Not once has any board member considered the disparity of services provided by the same tax dollars. It’s masterclass gaslighting.

4

WTCMUD1 vs. Cedar Park: An Apples-to-Apples Cost Comparison

I’ve been looking more closely at Tom’s comparison between living in WTCMUD1 and living inside the City of Cedar Park.

I think there is another layer that needs to be separated if we want this comparison to be as fair and accurate as possible.

Simply comparing the total Cedar Park property-tax rate with the total WTCMUD1 property-tax rate does not tell the entire story, because the two governments fund services differently.

I think the cleanest way to compare them is to separate the costs into four categories:

1. Maintenance & Operations, including fire
2. Debt service
3. Separately billed monthly services
4. What services residents actually receive

1. MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS + FIRE

Cedar Park’s adopted FY2026 property-tax rate is:

M&O: 19.3554¢ per $100
Debt service: 16.6446¢ per $100
Total: 36.0000¢ per $100

WTCMUD1’s published 2025 property-tax rate was:

M&O: 27.34¢ per $100
Debt service: 0¢
Total: 27.34¢ per $100

But that is about to change because WTCMUD1 has now issued approximately $5.8 million in Series 2026 bonds.

For purposes of this analysis, I am using approximately 4.5¢ per $100 as a working estimate for the MUD’s future debt-service requirement.

That 4.5¢ is a projection. It is NOT an adopted 2027 debt-service tax rate.

If the MUD kept its total property-tax rate at 27.34¢, the modeled split would look approximately like this:

27.34¢ total tax rate
minus 4.50¢ debt service
= 22.84¢ M&O

Now comes an important difference between Cedar Park and WTCMUD1.

WTCMUD1 residents pay a separate monthly fire-protection fee.

Cedar Park residents do not receive a comparable separate monthly fire-protection charge on their utility bill. Cedar Park operates its fire department as part of the City’s broader General Fund operation.

That does NOT mean Cedar Park’s 19.36¢ M&O property-tax rate by itself pays for the entire fire department. The General Fund also receives sales taxes, fees and other revenue.

But when comparing the household cost of receiving fire protection, I think the MUD’s separate fire charge needs to be accounted for.

Using Tom’s example of a home valued at approximately $442,244 and a monthly MUD fire charge of $35.35:

$35.35 x 12 = $424.20 per year

On a $442,244 home, $424.20 is equivalent to approximately:

9.59¢ per $100 of taxable value

So for this particular example home:

WTCMUD1 modeled M&O: 22.84¢
Fire-fee equivalent: 9.59¢

WTCMUD1 modeled M&O + fire equivalent:

32.43¢ per $100

Cedar Park M&O property-tax rate:

19.36¢ per $100

Again, the 9.59¢ is NOT an actual MUD tax rate.

It is simply the tax-rate equivalent of the separate $424.20 annual fire charge for a $442,244 home.

Because the MUD fire charge is a flat fee, the tax-rate equivalent will be different depending on the value of the home.

2. DEBT SERVICE

Now let’s separate debt from day-to-day operations.

Cedar Park FY2026 debt service:

16.64¢ per $100

WTCMUD1 working estimate for the new Series 2026 bond:

approximately 4.5¢ per $100

So Cedar Park currently dedicates considerably more of its property-tax rate to debt service.

This helps explain why Cedar Park can have a higher total property-tax rate while having a lower M&O rate.

For this comparison:

Cedar Park:
M&O = 19.36¢
Debt = 16.64¢
Total = 36.00¢

WTCMUD1 working model:
M&O = 22.84¢
Debt = approximately 4.50¢
Total = 27.34¢

But the MUD household also pays the separate fire fee.

For the $442,244 example home, that fire fee is equivalent to approximately another 9.59¢.

So:

WTCMUD1 tax + fire equivalent = approximately 36.93¢

Cedar Park property tax = 36.00¢

Again, 36.93¢ is not the MUD’s actual tax rate.

It is a household-cost comparison that combines the modeled MUD property-tax rate with the separate fire charge.

3. SEPARATELY BILLED SERVICES

This is another important distinction.

Both Cedar Park and WTCMUD1 send residents monthly utility bills.

Therefore, water and wastewater should primarily be compared:

utility bill vs. utility bill

They should not simply be included in a property-tax comparison.

WTCMUD1’s monthly bill includes charges for things such as:

• Water/wastewater
• Trash
• Fire protection

Cedar Park also separately bills residents for its water and wastewater utility services.

So when we eventually calculate the complete household cost, we should compare those monthly bills separately.

Fire is the unusual item because WTCMUD1 places a separate fire charge on the monthly bill while Cedar Park operates its own municipal fire department through the City’s broader government structure.

That is why I separated the MUD fire fee and converted it into a tax-rate equivalent for this analysis.

4. WHAT SERVICES ARE RESIDENTS RECEIVING?

This may be the most important part of the comparison.

Cedar Park operates a full municipal government.

Its General Fund supports functions that include:

• Police
• Fire
• Emergency management
• Municipal court
• Public works
• Streets and transportation-related services
• Engineering
• Development services
• Parks and recreation
• Library
• Finance
• Human resources
• Information technology
• City administration
• Other municipal services

WTCMUD1 performs a much narrower set of governmental functions.

The MUD is primarily involved with things such as:

• Water and wastewater infrastructure
• Drainage-related responsibilities
• District facilities
• Parks
• Landscaping
• Administration
• Engineering
• Certain contracted services

Water, wastewater, trash and fire also generate their own separate fees or revenues and should not automatically be treated as if property taxes alone are paying for them.

Law enforcement is also different.

Cedar Park operates its own municipal police department.

WTCMUD1 residents remain under county law enforcement jurisdiction, although the District can separately contract for additional security or patrol services.

So when someone says:

“The MUD tax rate is lower than Cedar Park’s tax rate,”

that statement by itself does not answer the bigger question.

We also need to ask:

What portion goes to operations?

What portion goes to debt?

What are residents paying separately each month?

And what services are residents receiving for those dollars?

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

For the $442,244 example home:

CEDAR PARK

M&O: 19.36¢
Debt: 16.64¢

Total property-tax rate:

36.00¢

Approximate annual city property tax on $442,244:

$1,592

WTCMUD1 WORKING 2027 MODEL

M&O: 22.84¢
Debt: approximately 4.50¢

Total property-tax rate:

27.34¢

Approximate annual MUD property tax on $442,244:

$1,209

Then add the separate annual fire fee:

approximately $424

Total MUD property tax + fire:

approximately $1,634

That translates to a combined tax-and-fire equivalent of approximately:

36.93¢ per $100

compared with Cedar Park’s:

36.00¢ per $100

And we still have not completed the next step:

comparing the actual monthly utility bills side by side.

That is where water, wastewater, trash and any other separately billed services need to be compared.

WHY I THINK THIS FORMAT MATTERS

I’m not trying to force the numbers into one conclusion.

I want to make sure we are comparing the same things.

For me, that means keeping four buckets separate:

1. M&O + the equivalent fire cost
2. Debt service
3. Monthly utility charges
4. Services received

That prevents us from comparing a service paid through one government’s operating structure with a service that another government charges separately.

It also prevents us from treating water and wastewater as a MUD-only expense when Cedar Park residents also receive monthly utility bills.

There are still two numbers that I want to refine further.

First, the $5.8 million WTCMUD1 bond is real and has been issued, but the approximately 4.5¢ debt-service figure is still a working projection, not an adopted 2027 debt-service tax rate.

Second, once we have the final Cedar Park FY2027 tax-rate split and the final WTCMUD1 debt-service requirement, those numbers should replace the estimates used here.

For now, I think this gives us a much clearer framework for an apples-to-apples discussion.

Sources used for the underlying figures:

• City of Cedar Park FY2026 Adopted Budget
• WTCMUD1 Financial Information / Current and Prior Year Tax Rates
• WTCMUD1 2026 Bond Issue information
• Cedar Park and WTCMUD1 utility and fire-service information

5

You’re assuming that a future board will stick to its promise that the bond will not cause tax rates to go up (that they can shift from M&O to I&S). Assuming 2028 taxes are similar to this year’s and the MUD plans to operate a balanced budget, look at the 2027 budget and tell me where you can cut $250k to make that shift.

1 Like
6

At this point in time with the current Board members continuing to try and apply more and more HOA style rules to the MUD and wasting tax dollars on Deed Restricted Community signs I’d much rather be annexed into the City of Cedar Park and fully dissolve the MUD. I’m tired of dealing with rules being made that are more for an HOA than a MUD. I’m willing to pay more if that is the case in taxes to not have to deal with this drama and overreach all the time.

1 Like