Fair points.

Becoming a city may very well be a necessity one day, but I just don't see it right now as the current model works so very well.

The town may be growing, but it is a very desirable place to live (its really hard to buy a house here) and very efficient with the revenue that it receives in maintaining quality infrastructure and public services.

As you said, the risk is in the unknown and as I understand it, once we become a city there is no going back to our township form.

coolerguy12 said:

---

If it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't live in the woodlands but I work there and I can't imagine thinking that place needs anything fixed. It's the bees knees.

Also, LOL at the poster that used the phase "if done correctly" when referencing government. You must have been asleep for the past 18 months.

---

That's exactly why I used that caveat. It should be done correctly. It could be done correctly. Whether it actually would be is probably a stretch.

But I do have more faith in our local Township leadership than I do in anyone associated with Harris or Montgomery County. Of course, "faith in leadership" is pretty much an oxymoron these days.

As far as the current status quo - it's is great. I think a legitimate worry though, is creep and over-reach by the surrounding county governments. Annexation is probably off the table, but that doesn't mean Harris and Montgomery Counties couldn't disrupt this great thing we have going.

Correct, I did not know the issues with Harris County when I moved here. And Hidalgo wasn't the County Judge at that time anyway. Things have changed significantly since I moved here.

I tried to get in Montgomery County, but unfortunately, I moved here during the great ExxonMobil migration of 2012-2013. The housing market then was almost as bad as it is now.

I don't personally have an issue with Montgomery County. But I know they are difficult to deal with and don't care one bit about working with The Woodlands leadership. There have been several spats over the past few years, including the Ironman fiasco, and the fights over the Woodlands Parkway and Gosling expansions. Montgomery County and The Woodlands "governments" don't get along and often have competing interests. I don't expect this to improve with time.

Historically, the township and county governments have gotten along very well. The Woodlands could not have become what it is today without close collaboration and partnership. The friction seems pretty recent.

I've only lived here about 9 years, but I think you're probably right. As The Woodlands has grown and become more affluent, I think some jealousy/sour grapes has developed, causing the friction.

More government is NEVER the answer. Escalating will always bite you in the ass.

City managers have PhDs in ****ing things up.

Resident of The Woodlands until recently. Vote NO.

I don't live in the The Woodlands. It seems to be going well for you. What's more likely, becoming a city makes life better or screws it up?

The Woodlands is doing fantastically well. Nearly everyone that moves to the Houston area is told that they ought to live there if they want a place in the 'burbs. Property is at a premium compared to other places in the area, it has a legit business presence, and the mega HOA route actually seems to work to keep it desirable.

Local politics is never done right. It is synonymous with corruption and crony BS from every one horse hick town to NYC.

Same thing with the ISD or County "decreasing the tax rate." Valuations went up so much last year that even decreasing the rate slightly results in more taxes.

Noble07 said:

---

Same thing with the ISD or County "decreasing the tax rate." Valuations went up so much last year that even decreasing the rate slightly results in more taxes.

---

Part of that is due to new state law regarding taxes and the 3% rule.

Basically the taxes paid by the rate payer cannot exceed 3% over prior year. So if the tax rate stays the same but valuations increase which results in taxes being higher than 3% then the district, by law, has to reduce the tax rate to be at or under 3%. I'm on my MUD, and we no longer carry bonds, so this is something that doesn't impact us directly but I've sat in on a number of seminars on the subject.

So the MUDs are a sticking point, but I've understood it differently from what you posted (maybe I'm wrong).

There are 11 MUDs in The Woodlands, which includes the ones in Mo Co and Harris Co.

I'm in Harris Co, so my MUD (386) is the newest. Despite being promised that our tax rate will go down, it actually went up from 0.465 to 0.49 in 2019. I didn't even realize this happened because I've protested my HCAD value several times, so my tax bill actually decreased. But my tax rate increased despite the fact that the area my MUD serves has probably doubled in the number of residents since I've lived here. I guess I'm supposed to be grateful, though, because the rate back in 2010 was 0.99.

There 4 MUDs in the older parts of The Woodlands that have zero debt. But all of the MUDs still do have a tax rate. The rates range anywhere from 0.035 to the 0.49 that I pay.

The four MUDs with zero debt have the lowest tax rates, ranging from 0.035 to 0.125.

The options for the MUDs at incorporation would be to 1) leave them the way they are, 2) abolish them all and make a city utility, or 3) make some sort of hybrid system that would involve refinancing the MUDs with existing debt to prevent inequity among residents who live in MUDs with zero debt.

This is a recent recommendation - prior to that, the idea was to simply leave the MUDs as they are.

I guess the short version of the story is, if a new city absorbed the MUDs and we paid a tax above and beyond whatever fee we pay for water, some people's would go up (those in MUDs that are debt free) while other's would go down (like mine).

Personally, I don't think that's fair, even though I would stand to benefit. I'd be all for consolidating the operations of the utility (our MUD leadership and governance is not very good) but having fees differ among residents, at least until all of the MUD debt is paid off.

As far as the comparison to school districts goes, we are in Tomball ISD, and they HAVE lowered our tax rate - twice since 2014. We've gone from $1.36 to $1.29. They are expecting to lower it another 0.04 for 2021-2022.

This is despite passing a $275 million bond in 2017 and having a $567 million bond on the Nov. ballot.

So, I KNOW it can be done fairly. It's just a matter of having the right leadership.

Noble07 said:

---

Same thing with the ISD or County "decreasing the tax rate." Valuations went up so much last year that even decreasing the rate slightly results in more taxes.

---

That's why you HAVE to protest. I think I've done it 3 times. Up until 2019, my house was valued at what I paid in 2013. I've protested every increase, and while my value still went up, it didn't go up as much as HCAD wanted it to.

My 2020 value was less than 2019, and I protested again this year and got my increase lowered. I'm up $76 from 2019.

This became super important this summer when two houses on my street sold (they were the first sales in over 2 years). My CAD value is now only 79% of the closest/most recent comparable sample.

BQ04 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Because, if done correctly, it wouldn't be another layer of government or tax. It would be a replacement for the Harris County government that currently calls the shots where I live.

---

Incorporating into a city does not make Harris County go away; the proposed city would be a political subdivision of the state and county. It just adds to your tax bill and bureaucracy.

You will still pay your current tax bill and ADD a city tax. So, you will pay 3x for "police protection".

---

So, when I first moved here, The Township sent out an itemized list of exactly what your township taxes paid for (they don't do this anymore).

If I'm not mistaken, some services that were duplicated were prorated from the county tax. I could be wrong about that, though, because it's been so long since I saw that information.

But I wouldn't be paying three times for law enforcement. I pay twice now - once to Harris Co and once to The Township. If they incorporated, worse case scenario is I'd still be paying twice.

I do think it's important to note that my Township taxes are less than 10% of my total tax bill.

I pay about $9k in taxes total, and less than $800 of that goes to the Township. By law, any tax rate increase above 3.5% would have to be improved by all voters.

So, if my rate went up from the current rate of 0.2231 to 0.23, in reality, that would only amount to about another $26 in annual taxes. The benefits of incorporation are worth more to me than $26 a year.

Any increase more than that would be subject to a vote of all city residents.

Edit: I realize they could increase the rate by 3.5% every year to avoid the vote, but I think if city leadership did that, they'd be voted out pretty quickly.

Residents here do not depend on or expect non-essential city services or handouts.

I will say, though, any doubt I have about incorporation comes from what you just said - even as a city, we would still probably still be under the thumb of Harris County. But, as a city with an elected mayor, I would hope they would go toe-to-toe with any county officials who try to overstep their bounds. That would require a backbone, though, and I'm not sure any elected officials actually have one of those.

Quote:

---

But I wouldn't be paying three times for law enforcement. I pay twice now - once to Harris Co and once to The Township. If they incorporated, worse case scenario is I'd still be paying twice.

---

I think you are right as it relates to the number of officers.

If you have 10 officers patrolling now (5 sheriff's deputies and 5 extra paid constables) and you replace them with 10 new city police…then your personnel costs shouldn't change.

What has been challenged though is that ALL of the other costs of running a judicial system (admins, IT, HR, legal, jail, correctional officers, municipal courts, clerks, motor pool maintenance, etc) is being split up among 4.7 million other people (in Harris County) which keeps your costs low.

After incorporation, a city of 113,000 people will be solely responsible for that judicial system and all of the G&A and shared services costs that goes with it.

You'll still pay your county taxes, but you will lose those services that the county provides, and you will have to replace them with your city tax.

The same goes for road and bridge maintenance.

Another point is that right now we vote for our Sheriff who leads our law enforcement. In a city, the City Manger hires the police chief.

Quote:

---

Any increase more than that would be subject to a vote of all city residents.

---

The city council may decide to avoid raising taxes (so they can get re-elected) and instead reduce expenses slowly over time to avoid notice. They may cut back on landscape maintenance or those green trollies, or they may take down play grounds or cut back pool hours or charge an additional fee for trash service. They may lay off maintenance staff or let fire fighters or LEO's go.

This is similar to what the City of Sugarland has done recently
What budget cuts in Sugar Land could mean for the city

The budget cuts didnt fix all their problems so they are also raising taxes
Sugar Land City Council approves several tax rate hikes

Notice that while they may only be able to raise your rate by 3.5% annually, they can institute several other fees and if they absorb the MUDs, they can raise your rates or add fees.

All good points. And I still have a lot of questions about exactly what services a city would absolutely HAVE to provide.

The Township already has some of the city infrastructure - like IT and HR departments. Legal is currently contracted out, and the incorporation report recommends continuing to do that and just hiring one paralegal as a city employee.

Would we have to have a jail? The incorporation report states we would rely on the county jail and just need a temporary holding facility - which we already have access to via the MCSO annex on Grogan's Mill Rd.

Based on the Township study, it looks like they are only planning on a municiple court with about 10 employees, including one judge. This would basically just handle traffic fines and fines for violating local ordinances.

As a city, it should also have the ability to issue bonds to pay for things like road maintenance. It doesn't necessarily have to be paid for by taxes/tax increases.

Public works and utilities seem to be the biggest issues, and there still is no consensus on how to handle those.

I posted on the other thread that the idea a city hall and police station would have to be built really irks me. I'm sure there is enough available commercial space that could be used to house those services, at least in the short-term.

I do think there is a gap in the information provided (by both sides) that needs to be better addressed before bringing this up for a vote. And I don't think any resolution to incorporate has a chance of passing until all of those questions are sufficiently addressed.

I would really like to see some hard numbers put to incorporation. Total number of city employees, what new departments would be created (vs what do we already have in place). Some of this is addressed in the incorporation report, but it's mostly done in the context of total dollars, which to me, doesn't tell the whole story. For being such a big change, I feel like that report lacks in detail.

Also, that report is 300+ pages, and most people don't read.

When all they give are $, it's hard to assess if they are over-planning or under-planning.

agnerd said:

---

Tomball only lowered its tax rate because property values went up by that much. Without the bonds, they would've lowered taxes a lot more. You're right on the money about the MUD rates. Your numbers also show that taxes in a paid-off MUD are about 10 times lower than taxes in a city. I don't understand why anyone that's paying a tax rate of 0.035 would want to go to something like a 0.56 city tax rate. You won't get 15 times better service on anything. And a city will never pay off their infrastructure and reduce the tax rate. They'll just find a convention center or sports stadium or some other nonsense to spend your tax dollars on.

I appreciate you understanding that you have the most to gain in a new MUD and also acknowledging that it's unfair. Most people seem to only care what's best for them and are looking to screw everyone else when it comes to political issues.

---

Thanks. I try to see the pros and cons of every issue and be somewhat objective in my assessment (while also noting that I am biased because I live in Harris Co).

And, honestly, five or so years ago, I would not have thought incorporation should be on the table. Why fix what isn't broken?

But, changes in how Harris County govt is operated along with the mess created by Harvey has made me think that incorporation will be necessary in order to maintain the standard of living we have all come to expect and appreciate here. I just don't know WHEN it needs to happen. My thought is "not right now", but that's not a good answer for the long term.

Tomball ISD is in a unique position. Enrollment has grown by 32% in the last five years and it's not slowing down. So, in addition to property values going up, there is a lot of new property tax revenue (and with that has come urgent need for new schools).

You can't say the same for The Woodlands. It's not really growing anymore and is almost completely built out when it comes to single-family homes. Heck, you could probably even start talking about "gentrification" when it comes to the very oldest parts. The have starting tearing down some of those original starter homes and putting seven-figure mini-mansions in their place.

There are a couple of pockets of unincorporated land around me in Harris County that could ask to be absorbed into The Woodlands (the developers of one 50 acre tract have already done just that), but it shouldn't affect the overall population that much.

This is probably both a blessing and a curse when it comes to incorporation. We aren't really going to grow anymore, so why change? But because we are not going to grow much more, we know and understand our demographics very well and don't really have to worry about "outsiders" coming in and taking over because of sprawl.

I've enjoyed this discussion, if for no other reason than it reminds me what a unique community I live in. I went for a walk around The Waterway today, and I just feel so thankful to live here. I didn't purposefully choose it - a series of very unfortunate circumstances brought me here. But it really is a great place to live - and despite what the ad campaign wants you to believe, I don't think incorporation would destroy that. Change it, yes, but not destroy it.

Quote:

---

I do think there is a gap in the information provided (by both sides) that needs to be better addressed before bringing this up for a vote. And I don't think any resolution to incorporate has a chance of passing until all of those questions are sufficiently addressed.

---

My understanding is that the township board pushed this on the ballot the day of deadline after they had promised that the vote would be on an even numbered year. During even numbered years, conservative voters come out of the woodwork to vote for races like congress, governor, presidential. That conservative block would most likely vote down anything that increases the authority / power of government and raises taxes. It has the best chances of passing during an odd election year with lower voter turnout. The board is very pro-incorporation (it gives them more power) so they put it on the ballot this year.

If people are undecided, then I think the best thing is to vote "no" this year. This issue won't go away. If voted down this year it will probably be right back on the ballot in the future. Hopefully it will be on an even numbered year and after people have a better understanding of the facts. My understanding is that you can not vote to un-incorporate. Once a city you are always a city.

So the land near me that's being brought into The Woodlands is actually inside the boundaries (it's completely surrounded by The Township). If you look on Google maps, just north of Creekside Forest but south of Carlton Woods Creekside, on the east side of Kuykendahl, is an almost perfectly rectangular spot of land.

The total size is about 200 acres. It's bordered on the north by Cindy Ann Lane and to the south by Indian Hill Rd. Developers own about 50 acres of it, and they asked to be incorporated into The Woodlands to 1) access utilities, and 2) increase the value of the property (they want to build single family homes).

From what I understand, the request was approved. But this was not initiated by The Woodlands - it was a request by the developer, and the developer was told to fulfill a bunch of criteria before the board would approve it (they were initially denied). I think the request has been approved, but my memory may be playing tricks on me. I get email updates since my mini-'hood backs up to that area, but I kind of started ignoring them because my neighbors were making a mountain out of a mole hill (they don't want anything built back there).

The rest of the 200 acres is either zoned commercial or is still owned by private individuals. I'm not sure if the commercial parts (basically the frontage along Kuykendahl) is part of The Woodlands.

If you look other places on Google maps, you can see areas similar to this one that I'm referring to. I think there might be one just south of the Branch Crossing YMCA, but it backs up to the Spring Creek, and that area along the creek flooded badly in Harvey.

But, yes, The Woodlands can't expand in any N, S, E, or W direction.

But since the boundaries can't expand, I would not expect our population to grow significantly. There is basically no land left on which to build more housing. Even if that full 200 acres north of me is developed, it's not going to be enough houses to significantly increase the population.

The population is going to flat-line at some point (I think it probably pretty much has already), which means we shouldn't have increasing costs due to population growth.

That's not really a fair comparison. Kingwood was invaded by Houston. They didn't have any say in the matter.

The Woodlands becoming its own city (via a resident vote) is very different (but obviously not without concerns).

The problem with the other examples is those developments are not even close to being the same size as The Woodlands.

Cinco Ranch - population 16.5k
Bridgeland - population 9k (may end up with 65k and 20k homes at completion, but they've got a long way to go)
Lago Mar: can't find the population, but it will only be 4500 homes when built out. The population of Texas City is only 48k.

The Woodlands has roughly 45k homes and 110k-120k residents.

Also, according to GCAD, homes in Lago Mar pay a 0.51 tax rate to Texas City. The total tax rate there is 3.65.

My tax rate is only 2.75, and I live in the newest/most expensive MUD that services The Woodlands.

Bridgeland has a tax rate of 3.5 to 3.63.
Cinco Ranch has a tax rate of 2.3 to 3.28.

BQ04 said:

---

Let's dive into the most sought after, top selling neighborhoods / parts of town to live in.

The Woodlands
Cinco Ranch
Bridgelands
Lago Mar

---

According to what/who? If you are going make things up, at least be plausible. Lmao.