SECTOR SNAPSHOT Municipal Utility Districts · 2016-01-21 · tantly, economic diversification – eventually restored a more stable economic base to many Texas real estate markets.

SECTOR SNAPSHOTMunicipal Utility Districts One of a series of sector reports on key risk factors and trends in the Texas municipal utility district market

E X P E R I E N C E C O M M I T M E N T S T R E N G T H

Texas Municipal uTiliTy DisTricTs ____________________________________________________ 1

Texas MuD secTor overview _________________________________________________________ 2

Key creDiT characTerisTics/consiDeraTions _______________________________________ 4

MuDs hisTorical perforMance ______________________________________________________ 8

MuDs in The currenT environMenT __________________________________________________ 9

annexaTion __________________________________________________________________________ 14

challenges facing MuDs ___________________________________________________________ 14

naTional public finance guaranTee corp. exposure To MuDs ___________________ 14

appenDix a ___________________________________________________________________________ 19

TABLEof Contents

1 National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation 113 King Street Armonk, NY 10504 914-765-3333 www.nationalpfg.com

TExAS MuNiCiPAL uTiLiTy DiSTRiCTS

We are pleased to present you with this study of issues and trends affecting Mu-

nicipal Utility Districts (“MUDs”) in the State of Texas. This report is part of a con-

tinuing series we at National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”)

initiated to illustrate our analytical approach to various sectors and to discuss the

unique challenges facing each in the current economic environment.

Because MUDs are sensitive to economic cycles and housing trends, we have developed specific criteria to identify those

issuers who are better able to withstand adverse circumstances, primarily through underwriting based on location, develop-

ment benchmarks and affordability of debt repayment. Since 1979, when we wrote our first MUD policy, we have insured 181

Texas MUDs with current gross par outstanding of $702 million. This report is based upon the most current publicly available

data; it does not provide specific investment recommendations. For a complete listing of National’s insured portfolio, please

refer to our website at www.nationalpfg.com.

This report is organized into six sections:

° Texas MUD Sector Overview

° Key Credit Characteristics/Considerations

° Historical Performance

° Current Environment

° Summary of National’s top 20 MUD exposures

° Listing of all of National’s existing MUD exposures (Appendix A).

We hope you find the information useful and look forward to discussing the report or any transaction inquiries with you. Ad-

ditional sector studies on other asset classes within National’s portfolio are available on our website, www.nationalpfg.com,

where you can also find a complete and interactive listing of our entire insured portfolio.

For questions on this sector or on a specific transaction please contact:

cara lapicola christopher chafizadeh Senior Analyst Managing Director (914) 765-3404 (914) [email protected] [email protected]

National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation 113 King Street Armonk, NY 10504 914-765-3333 www.nationalpfg.com 2

A Municipal Utility District (“MUD”) is a political subdivision of the State of

Texas under the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Qual-

ity (“TCEQ”). The purpose of a MUD is to fund infrastructure such as water,

sewer and drainage facilities, as well as improvements like parks, street light-

ing and fire prevention facilities, where such resources are outside the reach

of existing municipal utility systems. Its goal is to promote residential and

commercial development in outlying areas.

Typically, MUDs are created by real estate developers who own all or most of

the property in these outlying districts. The strong real estate market in Texas

in the early 1980s provided the impetus for widespread creation of MUDs, as

developers used this financing technique to facilitate development of infra-

structure necessary to build out their projects. However, by the mid-1980s,

the region’s economy suffered when oil prices dropped dramatically (see

Table 1) and unemployment spiked upward (see Table 2). The economic re-

cession adversely affected both the value of existing homes and the level of

new home construction. Newly created MUDs were impacted disproportion-

ately as they had not yet reached a sufficient level of development to afford-

ably service their debt. The recovery of the oil industry – and more impor-

tantly, economic diversification – eventually restored a more stable economic

base to many Texas real estate markets. This experience led to regulatory

changes in the creation of MUDs as described in the text below, and vali-

dated and reinforced National’s underwriting criteria for evaluating MUDs.

Pursuant to Texas law, creation of a MUD requires that the majority of prop-

erty owners in a proposed district petition the TCEQ. Developers will often

constitute the majority. The TCEQ evaluates the petition, holds a public hear-

ing, and grants or denies the petition. As a key stipulation for approval, TCEQ

requires developers to pay for at least 30% of the development costs. This

requirement for the developers to bear a significant level of risk effectively

aligns the interest of the developers with those of the future residents by

providing greater assurance of project completion.

Once the MUD receives regulatory approval, a Board of Directors consisting

of landowners within the District is elected. The initial Board is made up of

individuals appointed by the developers and approved by the TCEQ. Develop-

ers of the District are not permitted to be board members as outlined by the

TExAS MuD SECTOR OvERviEw

Chapter 54 of the texas Water CodeChapter 54 of the Texas Water Code, titled “Municipal Utility Districts,” was created in 1971. The purpose of Chapter 54 was to provide guide-lines governing the creation and op-eration of MUDs. Major provisions of Chapter 54 include Creation and Conversion, Power and Duties, Ad-ministrative Provisions, Issuance of Bonds, Taxes and Levies, Consolida-tion, and Dissolution.

texas Commission on environmental Quality (“tCeQ”) The TCEQ is the environmental agency for the state of Texas. It cur-rently has 2,980 employees in 16 re-gional offices. Its mission is to pro-tect the State’s human and natural resources consistent with sustain-able economic development and to ensure clean air, water and the safe management of waste.

3 S E C T O R S N A P S H O T : M u N I C I P a l u T I l I T y D I S T R I C T

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

CostPer

Barrel

199019891988198719861985198419831982198119801979

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

9.0%

19901989198819871986198519841983198219811980

TABLE 1: 1980s OIL PRICE DROP

TABLE 2: 1980s TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT RATES


Texas Water Code, nor can they be employees of or affili-

ated with any board member. An election is held every five

years for taxpayers to elect or re-elect board members.

The MUD’s board has the authority to authorize bonds, set

rates and levy taxes to pay debt. State oversight continues

after creation as any debt issuance is subject to approval

by TCEQ, in addition to the relevant County Commission.

The application process for debt issuance can take from 60

days to one year once the application is submitted to the

TCEQ. The TCEQ will review the feasibility of the bond issue

to make sure that the financing meets all the rules put in

place by the Texas Water Code. The TCEQ will also review

construction documents, capacity requirements and overall

quality of the system being financed with bond proceeds.

The following illustrates in detail all the areas of consider-

ation National’s analysts use to evaluate the credit strength

of a MUD:

Location

The location of a MUD is the most critical credit factor

in our credit analysis. Past defaults have occurred when

the uninsured MUD is located in a geographically isolated

area and development fails to occur. Only MUDs located

next to major employment centers or with easy access

to major metropolitan areas are considered acceptable

credit risks by National.

Security

MUD debt is secured by a pledge of property taxes on all

taxable property within the district. While some districts

are subject to a property tax cap, most districts are able

to pledge their property taxes without limits as to rate

or amount. Despite such a pledge, there is an implicit

economic limit since inordinately high tax rates can be-

come unaffordable and suppress or deter development.

If a tax cap is in effect, National analyzes the issuer’s flex-

ibility to operate within that cap. In addition to ad valorem

property taxes, MUDs may additionally pledge utility rev-

enues and other fees to further secure debt repayment,

although this additional pledge tends not to be an impor-

tant factor in our analysis.

naturaL Hazard riSk

Given MUDs’ typically small size (often less than one

square mile), a district’s susceptibility to natural disas-

ters must be assessed. Compared to larger cities, for

example, smaller MUDs may be more susceptible to

catastrophic damage from floods, hurricanes or torna-

does and may experience difficulty fully recovering from

a natural disaster. For example, when Hurricane Ike hit

Texas in 2008 causing billions of dollars in damage,

some MUDs in the Galveston area experienced signifi-

cant damage. Fortunately, no defaults were recorded

by the Texas Municipal Advisory Council or any bonds

insured by National.

Maturity/degree of deveLopMent

Also extremely important to us is the current status

of development. Before insuring a MUD, National typi-

cally requires the district to be at least 50% developed

and owner-occupied. This reduces reliance on the

credit of the developer to pay taxes and ensures credit

* * *

KEy CREDiT CHARACTERiSTiCS/CONSiDERATiONS


stability. National also typically requires a site visit in

order to fully evaluate the maturity of the development

and the overall marketplace.

tax BaSe

The composition of the tax base is another critical con-

sideration. A more residential tax base will provide greater

taxpayer diversity and stability in tax revenues. Residential

development is generally preferred to heavily commercial

districts or areas with a high concentration in one activity (for

example, auto dealerships). Generally, the largest taxpayer

should not account for more than 10% of the assessed val-

uation of the district, and the top five taxpayers should not

account for more than 30%. A MUD with a tax base within

these guidelines provides a more stable tax base and re-

duces the risks associated with large corporations or other

dominant taxpayers that could have an undue impact on

the tax base. Steady, not necessarily spectacular, growth

in the tax base is also viewed as a strong positive indicator.

Size

National’s underwriting guidelines require a MUD to con-

sist of at least 400 acres and include a minimum of 700

completed and occupied homes. Population should be in

excess of 2,200. These parameters provide for a critical

mass of development.

deBt Burden

National assesses a district’s tax base and its ability to

comfortably accommodate the payment of pro forma

maximum annual debt service assuming no tax base

growth and no additional development. Instead, the pay-

ment of annual debt service should be accomplished with

a sustainable and affordable tax rate. As a guideline, the

overall debt burden of the district should not exceed 15%

to 20% of assessed valuation. Level or descending debt

service schedules are preferred in order to comply with

our requirement that we not rely on future growth or devel-

opment. Bullet maturities, floating rate debt, interest rate

swaps and deferred amortization are not acceptable capi-

tal structures for National in the MUD sector.

tax rate

The tax rate within the district should not be considerably

higher than that of the surrounding area, and generally

should not exceed an overall tax rate of $3.60 per $100

of assessed value. Higher than average tax rates can re-

sult in making homes located in a MUD less attractive to

homebuyers. This can cause a downward spiral, whereby

slower than anticipated growth requires higher tax rates,

resulting in a less competitive development. If a tax cap is

in place, the current tax rate relative to the cap must be

carefully assessed to ensure that no additional tax base

growth is needed in order to meet pro forma maximum

annual debt service requirements.

tHe SySteM

The utility system must have adequate capacity to meet

the needs of its current customers and support future

growth. The district’s level of maturity is highly relevant

to current capacity and future growth requirements. For

example, a rapidly expanding district with considerable

undeveloped land may require additional debt to provide

sufficient capacity for the expected future development.

Additional debt needs for either capacity or regulatory

purposes must be determined, and the MUD’s ability to

comfortably service this debt must be analyzed on a pro

forma basis. In our analysis, we typically do not rely on

utility revenues to pay debt service.


HouSing Market

A review of the area’s housing market is of utmost impor-

tance when evaluating a MUD. The median home value

should be in line with the surrounding area, and foreclo-

sure rates in the immediate area of the MUD must be

analyzed. National utilizes recognized real estate ranking

companies to determine foreclosure rates down to the

zip code level, and often visits the site to fully evaluate

local market conditions.

financeS

National reviews and analyzes at least three years of au-

dited financial statements. A positive trend of operating

surpluses with increasing unreserved general fund bal-

ances, coupled with a solid balance sheet, are key indi-

cators of the district’s health.

MUDs as a whole have typically performed well over the

last 30 years despite some defaults due in part from de-

veloper bankruptcies in the early 1970s and the economic

impact on the region from the 1986 oil price decline. There

have been no defaults in the National portfolio.

Problems generally occurred from:

° No regulatory oversight

° Overly aggressive assumptions of future tax base growth

° Inadequately capitalized developers with little to no

equity invested

° Tax base concentration, usually represented by developers

° Increasing annual debt service requirements creating

unaffordable tax rates

° Locations outside the larger Texas metropolitan areas

* * *

MuDS HiSTORiCAL PERfORMANCE


The Municipal Utility District sector has benefited from im-

proved regulatory oversight, which was prompted by Hous-

ton’s economic crisis in the mid-1980s. National’s portfolio

has performed within original underwriting expectations

over the last 30 years. With the Texas economy currently

slightly outperforming that of the nation, and the state not

as severely affected by economic recession, we believe this

sector is relatively well positioned to weather further eco-

nomic challenges. For example, the state’s unemployment

rate for December 2009, although high at 8.0%, is still be-

low the national average of 10.0%. Texas’ overall foreclo-

sure rate increased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009, while the na-

tional rate increased 20.1% for the same period as reported

by recognized real estate ranking companies. The strong

financial health of the State of Texas impacts the economic

health of the local municipalities, including MUDs.

The large majority of MUDs are located in the greater Hous-

ton area. Of National’s top 20 exposures, 17 are within the

Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), two are within

20 miles of the MSA and one is located in the Austin metro-

politan statistical area. Houston’s housing market has fared

much better than similarly sized MSAs such as Riverside-

San Bernardino-Ontario, CA or Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,

AZ. During the housing bubble of 2005, the Houston hous-

ing market remained stable, never appreciating more than

7% while other areas experienced 30% to 40% annual ap-

preciation. Given the limited appreciation that did occur,

Houston, and Texas in general, avoided the dramatic de-

creases in value experienced elsewhere as seen in Table 3.

The typical cost of buying a house in the Houston area nev-

er consumed more than 20% of average annual income. In

contrast, these costs for a home in the Los Angeles metro

area peaked at 73% of the region’s average annual income

in 2006. Although the median home price in Los Ange-

les has fallen 41.9% from 2006 to 2008, the cost of buy-

ing a median-priced home still required 38% of the region’s

average annual income. In Houston the cost of buying a

median-priced home accounted for just 16% of the region’s

average annual income during the same period, reflecting a

much more affordable area and provided additional stability

to the housing market.

Houston’s foreclosure rate for the period of December 2008

to December 2009 was 1.7%, comparing favorably to Los

Angeles at 6.4% and Phoenix at 8.0%. The national average

was 1.9% as reported by RealtyTrac. Houston’s unemploy-

ment rate for November, 2009 was 8.2% compared to the

national average of 10.0%.

MuDS iN THE CuRRENT ENviRONMENT

S E C T O R S N A P S H O T : M u N I C I P a l u T I l I T y D I S T R I C T 10

-30-25-20-15-10

-505

101520253035 California

Arizona

Texas

2Q20091Q20094Q20083Q20082Q20081Q20084Q20073Q20072Q20071Q20074Q20063Q20062Q20061Q20064Q20053Q20052Q20051Q20054Q20043Q20042Q20041Q2004

-30-25-20-15-10

-505

101520253035

California

Arizona

Texas

2Q20

09

1Q20

09

4Q20

08

3Q20

08

2Q20

08

1Q20

08

4Q20

07

3Q20

07

2Q20

07

1Q20

07

4Q20

06

3Q20

06

2Q20

06

1Q20

06

4Q20

05

3Q20

05

2Q20

05

1Q20

05

4Q20

04

3Q20

04

2Q20

04

1Q20

04

TABLE 3 HOUSING PRICE INDEX COMPARISON BY STATE

%

QUARTER


($ in 000)

ISSuER (MuD)

BaSE CuSIP

yEaR FORMED

CuRRENT SIZE

(aCRES)

GROSS EXP.

12/31/09

DIRECT DEBT

OVERall DEBT/aV

lEVEl DEVElOPED

(1)

TaX BaSE RESIDENTIal

/ COMM.

aNNEXaTION FaCTORS

Montgomery #46

613910 1981 4,775 $56,005 $114,325 10.0% 99% 88% / 12% Houston City can annex after 2014.

Clear Brook City

414210 1972 1,918 $30,685 $62,750 16.7% 82% 94% / 6% Houston has limited annex

rights; full rights begin

in 2032.

Brazoria Co. #26

106060 2002 1,705 $29,485 $57,935 20.6% 68% 87% / 13% Pearland City can annex any time. 90 days

notice required

North Mission Glen

661164 1980 669 (2005)

$25,540 $28,270 12.2% 100% (2005)

98% / 2% (2005)

City of Houston

can annex any time.

Northwest Harris #5

667488 1976 2,111 $22,560 $87,895 16.3% 78% 99% / 1% City of Houston

can annex any time.

Fort Bend Co. #25

346901 1978 1,473 $20,105 $66,355 15.4% 81% 86% / 14% City of Houston

can annex any time.

W. Harris Co. #10

953086 1979 692 $17,780 $43,425 13.8% 100% 91% / 9% City of Houston

can annex any time.

Fort Bend Co. #26

346800 1978 553 $16,405 $16,405 15.1% 83% (2007)

86% / 14% (2007)

City of Missouri

can annex any time.

Kingsbridge 496165 1978 1,002 $15,875 $34,085 12.0% 96% 86% / 14% City of Houston

can annex after 2034

Brazoria Co. #6

106050 1987 804 $15,120 $31,200 13.1% 100% 87% / 13% Can be annexed

any time by Pearland or

Manvel Cities

TaBlE 4: SuMMaRy CREDIT DaTa ON NaTIONal’S 20 laRGEST MuD EXPOSuRES


($ in 000)

ISSuER (MuD)

BaSE CuSIP

yEaR FORMED

CuRRENT SIZE

(aCRES)

GROSS EXP.

12/31/09

DIRECT DEBT

OVERall DEBT/aV

lEVEl DEVElOPED

(1)

TaX BaSE RESIDENTIal

/ COMM.

aNNEXaTION FaCTORS

(1) Development is based on developable acreage that has utilities

(2) Under the Strategic Partnership Agreement the City of Sugarland is expected to annex the District December 1, 2009

Harris County #53

414930 1973 1,478 $12,675 $36,730 11.4% 95% 93% / 7% City of Houston can annex any time.

Harris County #110

414902 1976 1,153 $12,555 $28,475 12.5% 91% 70% / 30% City of Houston can annex after 2033.

Fort Bend Co. # 23

346907 1978 1,303 $12,590 $57,140 15.4% (2007)

92% 93% / 7% Can be annexed any time by Houston or Missouri Cities.

Horsepen Bayou (2)

440748 1979 653 (2005)

$10,225 $14,395 10.6% 96% (2005)

88% / 12% (2005)

City of Houston can annex after 2032.

W. Harris Co. #11

953087 1981 985 (2007)

$9,610 $39,415 14.2% 85% (2007)

63% / 37% (2007)

City of Houston can annex any time.

Harris Co. #354

413945 1991 757 (2007)

$9,555 $29,785 17.8% 100% (2007)

100% / 0% (2007)

City of Houston can annex any time.

Harris Co. $153

413919 1977 971 $8.8 $22.0 12.8% 98% (2007)

95% / 5% (2007)

City of Houston can Annex after 2035.

Fort Bend Co. #1

34679M 1972 833 $9.0 $18.7 16.8% 100% (2005)

80% / 20% (2005)

The City of Sugar Land can annex at any time (2).

Fort Bend Co. #118

346816 1998 616 $8.6 $35.4 16.6% 94% 95% / 5% City of Houston can annex anytime.

Lakeway 512503 1972 1,858 $7.4 $20.2 6.2% 87% 96% / 4% Lakeway City and Hills Village can annex at any time.


Under Texas law, annexation when referring to MUDs

is the formal acquisition of the MUD area by the city in

which it lies. If a district is within the extraterritorial juris-

diction of a city, the city may annex the district without

the consent of the district or its residents (Chapter 42 of

the Texas Local Government Code). The city is required

to prepare an annexation proposal that outlines the areas

it intends to annex and notifies the MUD’s Board of its in-

tent. On the third anniversary of the proposal the annex-

ation occurs, which sets in motion two key events: the

district is abolished within 90 days after annexation, and

the city automatically acquires the land and the districts’

assets and liabilities including all outstanding MUD debt.

This could lead to an improvement in credit quality as the

smaller MUD is integrated into a larger city utility system.

Some districts enter into a Strategic Partnership Agree-

ment (SPA) with the city when the MUD is created. The

SPA provides the terms and conditions under which ser-

vices would be provided and funded by the parties and

under which the district would continue to exist for an ex-

tended period if the land within the district were to be an-

nexed for full or limited purpose by the city. The terms of

the SPA are determined by the city counsel and the MUD

board upon creation of the MUD. Of National’s top 20

exposures, six entered into SPAs at the time of creation.

The major challenge facing MUDs in today’s economy

is the decline in the housing market. The reality of in-

creasing foreclosure rates and higher unemployment has

the potential to put significant stress on the less mature,

more recently created developments. These MUDs typi-

cally have higher debt burdens, resulting in higher tax

rates and unfavorable comparisons with other develop-

ments. As home values decline, districts that issued

debt anticipating a degree of future growth could now

be realizing revenues below what is required to pay debt

service. National’s top 20 exposures, however, consist

of older, well-developed MUDs that are more stable, as

they do not rely on future development or growth and

have manageable debt burdens and tax rates.

National’s current exposure to the MUD sector is quite

granular and includes 120 issuers with a total gross par of

$702.5m and an average deal size of approximately $6m.

The portfolio’s final maturity occurs in 2035, and it amor-

tizes steadily with 50% retired in 10 years as illustrated on

the following page.

ANNExATiON

* * *

CHALLENgES fACiNg MuDS

* * *

NATiONAL PuBLiC fiNANCE guARANTEE CORP. ExPOSuRE TO MuDS


23.2%

50.5%

75.0%

92.3%

Gross Par Outstanding ($000s)

TABLE 5: NATIONAL’S EXPOSURE TO MUD SECTOR

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

The insured penetration by par in the MUD sector since January 1970 has been 45%. Pursuant to our reinsurance contracts

with MBIA Insurance Corporation and Financial Guarantee Insurance Corporation, National insured 19% of Texas’ total issu-

ance in this sector since 1970. In keeping with our philosophy of portfolio transparency, Appendix A provides a full listing of

all MUDs insured by National.

23.2%

50.5%

75.0%

92.3%

Gross Par Outstanding ($000s)

TABLE 5: NATIONAL’S EXPOSURE TO MUD SECTOR

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009


Sold Without

Insurance

26%

Insured byNational

19%

Insured Other

55%

TABLE 6: NATIONAL’S MARKET SHARE OF TEXAS MUDS SINCE 1970

National’s portfolio of Texas MUDs has performed in accordance with original underwriting expectations with all transactions

currently performing and supporting internal investment grade ratings. We remain committed to this sector with a team of

highly experienced analysts and risk managers available to discuss our criteria and screen issues for insurability or purchase.


Justia US Laws. Texas Water Code.

http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/wa/004.00.000054.00.html

Illinois Oil & Gas Association. History of Illinois Basin Posted Crude Oil Prices.

http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

Texas Ahead. (November 20, 2009). Tracking the Texas Economy.

http://www.texasahead.org/economy/tracking/

Economagic. Unemployment Rate: Texas; Percent.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/laust48000003

Fox, Z. (July 14, 2009). A few chinks in even the strongest armor.

http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CDID=A-9758302-11361

Federal Housing Finance Agency. Housing Price Index.

http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=215

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. History of the TCEQ and its predecessor agencies.

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/about/tceqhistory.html

Justia US Laws. Local Government Code.

http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/lg/002.00.000042.00.html

Rosen, P. (1992, September 14). City using MUDS to spur development. Houston Business Journal, pg. 1.

Sablatura, B. (1994, September 4). Growth lag puts utility district in financial bind; ‘80s expectations turn to ‘90s bankruptcies

for some MUDs. The Houston Chronicle, pg 1.

National Public Finance Guarantee would like to extend its appreciation to Ms. Julie Peak of First Southwest Company for her

assistance in the preparation of this report.

This material is intended to be used for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a solicitation, offering or recommendation by National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation of any securities. This information should not be construed as financial, investment, insurance, accounting, tax, legal or other advice in general or, in particular, as an analysis or advice as to the value or the investment merits of securities or issuers of securities, and should not be relied upon in mak-ing any investment or other decision.

Furthermore, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation does not purport that the securities discussed are appropriate or suitable for any particular investor. This information has been obtained from and/or is based upon public or third-party sources which are believed to be reliable. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation cannot and does not guarantee the timeliness, validity, completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein. Users of this information should not regard it as a substitute for the exercise of their own sound judgment. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation does not have a duty to update this information. This information is subject to alteration, modification or addition on a regular basis by National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation to reflect statistical or credit related changes that National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation determines in good faith are necessary.

REfERENCES


1 Montgomery County Municipal Utility District #46 GO 613910 Montgomery $56,005

2 Clear Brook City Municipal Utility District GO 18450C Harris $30,685

3 Brazoria County Municipal Utility District #26 GO 106060 Brazoria $29,485

4 North Mission Glen Municipal Utility District GO 661164 Fort Bend $25,540

5 Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District #5 GO 667488 Harris $22,560

6 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District #25 GO 346901 Fort Bend $20,105

7 West Harris County Municipal Utility District #10 GO 953086 Harris $17,780


9 Cinco Municipal Utility District #1 GO 17239C/17239Y Fort Bend $16,005

10 Kingsbridge Municipal Utility District GO 496165 Fort Bend $15,875


12 Harris County Municipal Utility District #53 GO 414930 Harris $12,675

13 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District #23 GO 346907/34679R Fort Bend $12,590

14 Horsepen Bayou Municipal Utility District GO 440748 Harris $10,225




18 Woodlands Metro Center Municipal Utility Dist GO 979686 Montgomery $9,215


20 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District #1 GO 34679M Fort Bend $8,620


22 Block House Municipal Utility District GO 93674 Williamson $8,260

23 Harris County Municipal Utility District #26 GO 414214 Harris $8 ,000

24 Horizon Regional Municipal Utility District GO 44044T El Paso $7,800

25 Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District #30 GO 66748T Harris $7,700

26 Lakeway Municipal Utility District GO 512503 Travis $7,401




30 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District #119 GO 34681L Fort Bend $6,690


32 Westlake Municipal Utility District #1 GO 960444 Harris $6,585

($ in 000)

EXPOSuRE RaNk

lEGal NaME

BaSE CuSIP

COuNTy

GROSS EXPOSuRE

APPENDix A


($ in 000)

EXPOSuRE RaNk

lEGal NaME

BaSE CuSIP

COuNTy

GROSS EXPOSuRE

33 Newport Municipal Utility District GO 652139 Harris $6,540

34 Morton Road Municipal Utility District GO 619385 Harris $6,240



37 Fort Bend County Levee Improvement District #14 GO 34679E Fort Bend $6,180



40 Timberlake Improvement District GO 887097 Harris $6,075


42 Northwest Park Municipal Utility District GO 667736 Harris $5,425


44 Memorial Municipal Utility District GO 585904 Harris $5,250

45 Northampton Municipal Utility District GO 663662 Harris $5,225

46 Harris County Municipal Utility District #370 GO 41419Y Harris $5,100

47 Rayford Road Municipal Utility District GO 754632 Montgomery $5,015

48 Sienna Plantation Municipal Utility District #2 GO 82620N Fort Bend $4,955



51 Fort Bend County Levee Improvement District #7 GO 346789 Fort Bend $4,790




55 Galveston County Municipal Utility District #2 GO 364221 Galveston $4,370

56 South Shore Harbour Municipal Utility District #6 GO 84020L Galveston $4,355


58 Renn Road Municipal Utility District GO 759724 Harris $4,100

59 Northtown Municipal Utility District GO 667052 Travis $4,050





64 Lumberton Municipal Utility District GO 550225 Hardin $3,800





68 Ranch at Cypress Creek Municipal Utility District #1 GO 751882 Williamson $3,745

69 Galveston County Municipal Utility District #3 GO 364222 Galveston $3,610

70 Meadowhill Regional Municipal Utility District GO 58320L Harris $3,520

71 Tara Glen Municipal Utility District GO 876088 Galveston $3,460

72 Palmer Plantation Municipal Utility District #1 GO 696878 Fort Bend $3,400

73 Cypress-Klein Utility District GO 232797 Harris $3,375


75 Cimarron Municipal Utility District GO 171840 Harris $3,040



78 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District #2 GO 897060 Denton $2,800

79 First Colony Municipal Utility District #9 GO 319762 Fort Bend $2,775

80 Hunter's Glen Municipal Utility District GO 445787 Harris $2,745

81 Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District GO 843393 Montgomery $2,693


83 Fern Bluff Municipal Utility District GO 315024 Williamson $2,510


85 Cinco Municipal Utility District #9 GO 17239A Fort Bend $2,350



88 Pecan Grove Municipal Utility District GO 705116 Fort Bend $2,254



91 Woodcreek Municipal Utility District GO 979259 Harris $1,925


93 Nottingham Country Municipal Utility District GO 669763 Harris $1,875


95 Travis County Municipal Utility District #3 GO 89438E Travis $1,785



98 River Place Municipal Utility District GO 768339 Travis $1,566


100 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility Dist #113 GO 34680V Fort Bend $1,270

($ in 000)

EXPOSuRE RaNk

lEGal NaME

BaSE CuSIP

COuNTy

GROSS EXPOSuRE




103 Harris County Municipal Utility District #341 GO 41419L Harris $1,100

104 Cornerstones Municipal Utility District GO 219228 Harris $1,100



107 Woodlands Municipal Utilitiy District #2 GO 979688 Montgomery $1,075



110 Mills Road Municipal Utility District GO 601166 Harris $1,050

111 Harris County Municipal Utility District #158 GO 414967 Harris $900

112 Cy-Champ Public Utility District GO 232425 Harris $857

113 River Plantation Municipal Utility District GO 768347 Montgomery $845

114 New Caney Municipal Utility District GO 643161 Montgomery $710

115 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District #67 GO 346910 Fort Bend $590


117 Reid Road Municipal Utility District #1 GO 759261 Harris $535

118 Williamson-Travis Counties Muni Utility District #1 GO 970046 Williamson $525

119 Trophy Club Municipal Utility District #1 GO 897059 Denton $480

120 Montgomery County Municipal Utility District #47 GO 613914 Montgomery $475

121 Faulkey Gully Municipal Utility District GO 312035 Harris $425


123 Forest Cove Municipal Utility District GO 345622 Harris $355


($ in 000)

EXPOSuRE RaNk

lEGal NaME

BaSE CuSIP

COuNTy

GROSS EXPOSuRE

E X P E R I E N C E C O M M I T M E N T S T R E N G T H

NaTIONal PuBlIC FINaNCE

GuaRaNTEE CORPORaTION

113 King Street

Armonk, NY 10504

914-765-3333

www.nationalpfg.com

04/2010

SECTOR SNAPSHOT Municipal Utility Districts · 2016-01-21 · tantly, economic diversification – eventually restored a more stable economic base to many Texas real estate markets.

Documents