By Eleni Himaras
reporter@ltview.com
Based on two separate studies, the City of Lakeway says the average customer would pay less if the city were to annex the MUD, while the MUD says that the majority of its customers believe it should remain independent.

 The City of Lakeway did a rate study to find out what would happen to customers rates if they were to annex, as the property tax would no longer exist or be included in a wastewater bill.
“We think using rates instead of property values is more fair,” Steve Jones said, adding that it gave customers more control over their bills as they were based on usage.
The two major findings of the study done by Water Resource Management, Jones said, are that the average MUD customer would pay less on a rate-based plan and that the LMUD appears to be subsidizing the wastewater services with money from water only customers.
The study compared the money recovered from water and wastewater bills to the required revenue for each and found that water bills produced more money than necessary while wastewater bills produced less.
“This is of particular concern as the District has 4,101 water meter equivalents and only 3,969 wastewater customers; indicating that not all water customers receive wastewater services,” the study says. “This cross subsidization is not a fair or equitable means of recovering costs from customers.
The study compared what customers’ average yearly bill increase or decrease would be with a rate-only structure and found that the average customer, who uses 10,000 gallons of water and 7,000 gallons of wastewater would save anywhere from $61.63 to $1,118.23 per year on their water bills. The rate structure would mean higher bills for those using 25,000 gallons of water and 17,500 per year and whose homes were valued at more than $450,000.
The Lakeway MUD says that a telephone survey of MUD customers shows that more than 75 percent believe the MUD should stay independent. The LMUD is sticking by the veracity of the study despite several members of the audience called into question its level of bias.
“This is in no way any kind of dissemination of news, it’s meant to be provocative,” said Elizabeth Christian, the LMUD’s recently hired public relations specialist, of the questions.
A large portion of the survey involved the pollster reading statements and then having the responder say whether they agreed or disagreed.
Such statements included:
“The Lakeway MUD has operated on its own and serviced its customers well since 1972, and the Lakeway MUD should be allowed to continue to operate as an independent organization as long as it continues to meet the needs of its customers.”
“The mere fact that the Lakeway City Council is requesting legislation to be authorized so it can annex/takeover the MUD is reason enough to be concerned.”
Seventy-six percent of the 206 completed responses agreed with the first statement and 69 percent agreed with the second.
“It is not every fact; the city of Lakeway may have thrown in different facts,” Christian said.
A second portion involved those surveyed saying whether a read statement made them favor or oppose annexation.
“Because of its independent and non-profit status, Lakeway MUD customers enjoy the lowest water rates in the area. If annexed/taken over by the City of Lakeway, customers’ rates would increase.”
“The annexing/taking over of the Lakeway MUD by the City of Lakeway would add a layer of bureaucracy which will result in longer response times and slower service.”
For both statements, the majority of responders said it made them oppose annexation.
“The pollster would not be doing his job if he weren’t being really provocative. We were giving them plenty of chances to say we don’t agree,” Christian said.
Mel Neese, who has been attending Lakeway MUD meetings for the past year, says the survey overlooks the main question, which is not service, but governance.
“Not one question was asked about the governance of the MUD or how your money was spent. It should be noted that 208 customers were contacted by Baselice and Associates, Inc., at a minimum cost to MUD customers of $11,215 or $53.92 per call.”
When questioned about the money that the MUD has spent so far on fighting the legislation, MUD General Manager Richard Eason said that it was all covered by the board decision to take any and all action necessary to fight the legislation. This vote, he said, trumped the spending limits that typically constrain him to $5,000 and the board to $10,000.
“I’m very happy with the service the MUD gives,” Neese said. “I’m very unhappy with the governance of the board.”