Annexation of North San Antonio (Spring, Alamo: school districts, gated, utilities)

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Even though the state passed the bill requiring the vote of residents in areas identified for annexation, the current San Antonio city leadership is looking to place it on the ballot this November.



There was a very interesting exchange between the Mayor, and Councilman Brockhouse yesterday. Ordinarily, during the City Council meetings, people can drone on for long periods of time with no interruptions from the Chair (Mayor). However, as soon as Brockhouse made comments in opposition to the idea of adding annexation to ballot, Nirenberg immediately cut him off. Brockhouse was making the point that it was a waste of ~$250,000 of city resources to add the issue to the ballot as it is widely accepted that for the parcels along I-10W, Timberwood Park, and I-90/1604, the measure would be widely rejected by the residents.

Timberwood Park cannot be annexed until sometime in the 2020s I believe at the earliest.

Someone is ignorant.

[Randyk47]

Originally Posted by dastexan

Timberwood Park cannot be annexed until sometime in the 2020s I believe at the earliest.

Someone is ignorant.

Hopefully the very late 2020’s as 2020 is only 18 or so months from now.

[supfromthesite]

Originally Posted by Randyk47

Hopefully the very late 2020’s as 2020 is only 18 or so months from now.

Not if Nirenberg is mayor

[Randyk47]

Originally Posted by supfromthesite

Not if Nirenberg is mayor

At $250,000 +/- a pop you’d hope he gets the message pretty quickly. Again, can’t speak for other areas but I can’t see the greater Canyon Springs area ever voting to be annexed.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by dastexan

Timberwood Park cannot be annexed until sometime in the 2020s I believe at the earliest.

Someone is ignorant.

The area of Stone Oaj on the east side of Camp Bullis. They addressed it as Timberwood Park on the news.

I am aware of the non-annexation agreement for the east side of Camp Bullis. When the city staked their justification for annexation on protecting the training mission at Bullis, that very agreement was brought up, and the city didn't have an answer as to why 5hey would enter into long term non-annexation agreements if protecting Bullis was their goal. It is nothing short of a tax grab by the city.

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

The area of Stone Oaj on the east side of Camp Bullis. They addressed it as Timberwood Park on the news.

I am aware of the non-annexation agreement for the east side of Camp Bullis. When the city staked their justification for annexation on protecting the training mission at Bullis, that very agreement was brought up, and the city didn't have an answer as to why 5hey would enter into long term non-annexation agreements if protecting Bullis was their goal. It is nothing short of a tax grab by the city.

Its 2033.
https://nebula.wsimg.com/e36fd7d18da...&alloworigin=1

Signed non annexation agreement.

Though I"m sure the city would like to nullify that.

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

The area of Stone Oaj on the east side of Camp Bullis. They addressed it as Timberwood Park on the news.

I am aware of the non-annexation agreement for the east side of Camp Bullis. When the city staked their justification for annexation on protecting the training mission at Bullis, that very agreement was brought up, and the city didn't have an answer as to why 5hey would enter into long term non-annexation agreements if protecting Bullis was their goal. It is nothing short of a tax grab by the city.

Exactly, its because there are far too many ignorant people in charge of this damn city in the end.

And they want to get that money wherever they can in the end.

[Randyk47]

Originally Posted by dastexan

Exactly, its because there are far too many ignorant people in charge of this damn city in the end.

And they want to get that money wherever they can in the end.

Annexation was almost an impossible sell up here in the Canyon Springs area. Much of the area is under one HOA that represents something like 13 developments and 3,000 +/- homes. I think all but one of the communities is gated so no city street maintenance within the gated ones. I think most if not all communities have SAWS and CPS for which we pay a small surcharge for since we’re not in the city. There would be no impact on the independent school district. So what would we get? The “biggies” they tried to sell us was a drop in the utilities surcharge, police and fire protection, and road maintenance outside the gated communities. There were some other minor “benefits” that I don’t remember. My property taxes would have gone up around $3,000 a year per the city’s estimate. I don’t think so.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by Randyk47

Annexation was almost an impossible sell up here in the Canyon Springs area. Much of the area is under one HOA that represents something like 13 developments and 3,000 +/- homes. I think all but one of the communities is gated so no city street maintenance within the gated ones. I think most if not all communities have SAWS and CPS for which we pay a small surcharge for since we’re not in the city. There would be no impact on the independent school district. So what would we get? The “biggies” they tried to sell us was a drop in the utilities surcharge, police and fire protection, and road maintenance outside the gated communities. There were some other minor “benefits” that I don’t remember. My property taxes would have gone up around $3,000 a year per the city’s estimate. I don’t think so.

Agree completely. The city cannot provide road maintenance inside the current city limits, half of the city streets look like a tank battalion has been conducting urban warfare training. The city cannot provide adequate police and fire coverage within the current boundaries. A stroke of the pen will somehow magically make all these things possible for large tracts of land added to the city? As with the Canyon Springs area, the I-10W corridor is much same with the majority of the neighborhoods being gated communities responsible for their own roads. The I-10W parcel is already in the Camp Bullis Dark Skies area with limits on lighting, so not sure what other benefits would be gained through city administration. There is a already a physical barrier that separates Fair Oaks Ranch from Camp Stanley, and further East, Camp Bullis. That is Ralph Fair Road. The city limits already extend north on Ralph Fair to the northern boundary of the installations. Encroachment on the training missions is physically impossible from a land development perspective except on the North, or East side of installation, neither of which the city is seeking to annex at this time. Their argument makes absolutely no sense in this regard. Finally, in the I-10W parcel, we are all already on SAWS, and CPS, so no change there. The only possible changes would be trash, and I am fine with our current provider (Texas Disposal), and natural gas, which again I am fine with our current provider. (Grey Forest)

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by Randyk47

Annexation was almost an impossible sell up here in the Canyon Springs area. Much of the area is under one HOA that represents something like 13 developments and 3,000 +/- homes. I think all but one of the communities is gated so no city street maintenance within the gated ones. I think most if not all communities have SAWS and CPS for which we pay a small surcharge for since we’re not in the city. There would be no impact on the independent school district. So what would we get? The “biggies” they tried to sell us was a drop in the utilities surcharge, police and fire protection, and road maintenance outside the gated communities. There were some other minor “benefits” that I don’t remember. My property taxes would have gone up around $3,000 a year per the city’s estimate. I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Agree completely. The city cannot provide road maintenance inside the current city limits, half of the city streets look like a tank battalion has been conducting urban warfare training. The city cannot provide adequate police and fire coverage within the current boundaries. A stroke of the pen will somehow magically make all these things possible for large tracts of land added to the city? As with the Canyon Springs area, the I-10W corridor is much same with the majority of the neighborhoods being gated communities responsible for their own roads.

I can see the argument, in cases where you have developments outside city limits, which are higher-end, with private streets inside gated communities, with mandatory HOAs, and fees that go towards maintaining that infrastructure. An extra $3K per year in property taxes with Homestead Exemption means a property assessment well north of $500K. Coupled with HOA dues that have to be adequate to maintain that infrastructure, that's a big bite. But does Bexar County really provide fire, police, EMS, and street maintenance response and service equal or better compared to COSA? One thing annexation will get you, is eligibility to vote in COSA city elections.


Personally, if not being annexed is a critical issue, I would avoid buying in a development within COSA's ETJ, given the annexation pattern over the last 75 years. It seems to pretty much be a question of not if, but when? Many older subdivisions that are now well within COSA City Limits, were outside at the time they were established.

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Finally, in the I-10W parcel, we are all already on SAWS, and CPS, so no change there. The only possible changes would be trash, and I am fine with our current provider (Texas Disposal), and natural gas, which again I am fine with our current provider. (Grey Forest)

Grey Forest serves a number of areas inside COSA on the NW side. For example, they provide gas service to many developments bounded by Huebner, IH10, 1604, & Bandera Rd. In those cases, CPS provides electric-only. I wouldn't expect any change with annexation.