SA Annexation push

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by ged_782

School taxes represent the largest chunk of the Property Tax bill, and the tax rate is the same, regardless of whether the property is inside city limits or not. The services the school district provides also are the same inside or outside city limits.


The County also taxes the same, regardless of whether the property is inside or outside city limits; but the County provides many of the services (like fire/EMS, law enforcement, infrastructure repair/maintenance) that the city would provide, if the property was inside city limits. It isn't just the city wanting to grab some of those areas to add to the tax base, the County is looking to reduce the burden on them to provide services to some of those populated areas.

In the case of the NW I-10 parcel, it was nothing but a tax grab, period. Having attended a number of the public hearings, and hearing the city's case for annexation, and seeing the city's representatives unable to answer, or respond to questions made this pretty clear.

For the I-10 W parcel, the city made the argument that the main reason for annexation was to shield the training mission at Camp Bullis. However, the training mission at Camp Bullis is already shielded from encroachment through a number of mechanisms. First, there are Army Compatible Use Buffers, or ACUB parcels. The ACUB program offers land owners that border military installations financial compensation to enter into agreements to shield the installation from encroachment from light, development, vertical hazards, etc. The land owner essentially agrees to not place lighting that will interfere with the training mission, not sell to developers, and not erect structures that would interfere with the training mission. Then there is the Bullis Dark Skies ordinance that limits upwards facing lighting to prevent interference with Night Observation Devices/Night Vision Goggle (NOD/NVG) training.

Secondly, if protecting the training mission at Camp Bullis were paramount to CoSA, why would they have entered into a 30 year non-annexation agreement for the large parcels of land on the eastern side of Camp Bullis, along Blanco Rd?

[Bo]

Originally Posted by flashfearless

If the last bond issue / vote in November should tell you if anything is that Bexar county people will vote in any tax increase that mentions schools. They may make out better in the long run.

Roads and libraries seem to be popular, too. I've never seen a tax or bond issue involving those things not pass in Bexar County.

[Randyk47]

I was thinking about this thread in light of the change to Federal income tax for tax year 2018 that limits the deduction for state income and property tax to a total of $10,000. Obviously Texas doesn’t have a state income tax but it has some of the higher property taxes in the US. What does all that have to do with annexation? Well in my case right now we’re just below the $10,000 property tax ceiling. Annexation would have, even by the city’s conservative estimate, raised our taxes around $3,000 and would have put us above the new Federal limit. I would think the already very slim chance that areas like Canyon Springs where we live would vote in favor of annexation has gone the realm of virtually impossible. Might add that I may have missed it but I’m not aware of San Antonio or any other major Texas city or town challenging the new Texas annexation law.

[TXStrat]

The City of San Antonio is currently trying a stealthy end-around maneuver with "Limited Purpose Annexation". I am sure there will be a legal challenge in light of the recently approved legislation. On it's face, it appears to be annexation-light, and an effort to subvert the requirement of a public vote.

[Randyk47]

I remember prior to the new annexation law there was some discussion about a “Limited Purpose Annexation” agreement up here in the Canyon Springs area. At the time I thought the city was offering that as a potential “olive branch” as the Canyon Springs HOA was one of the several and larger HOAs lobbying for the annexation vote law. I haven’t heard much, actually nothing, about the city’s plans since the law passed and they haven’t posted anything to the city’s annexation webpage in ages. Of course that doesn’t mean they aren’t quietly and somewhat secretly working on it. When I think back about how close we came to being annexed back around 2005 I can’t help but think some within the city bureaucracy are kicking themselves for a clerical mistake that killed that effort at the last minute.

[TXStrat]

Thankfully, voters made their voices heard. In what will likely be one of the most lopsided votes in area history, the residents of the Camp Bullis annexation voted 96% to 4% against proposed annexation. Lackland AFB was a little less one sided, with 85% against, to 15% for.



Fully expect to see this issue continuing to pop up in future elections.

[Randyk47]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Thankfully, voters made their voices heard. In what will likely be one of the most lopsided votes in area history, the residents of the Camp Bullis annexation voted 96% to 4% against proposed annexation. Lackland AFB was a little less one sided, with 85% against, to 15% for.



Fully expect to see this issue continuing to pop up in future elections.

Nice. Not living in either area I don’t know what effort the city put into putting the annexation vote on the ballot and what if any public relations events, mailers, etc., were done in support of the vote. At an estimated $225,000-$250,000 a pop you’d think the city would like to do a lot better than 15% in favor. Maybe, which is probably wishful thinking, they’ll give up.

[smitty12]

Originally Posted by Bo

There's a lot of grumbling in the thread about the city making a "push" for annexation, but there's more to the story than that. The Bexar County judge may actually want annexation to happen more than the city does. The Commissioner's Court is fed up with having to provide services to dense residential areas, with limited budgets and limited ability to raise taxes to improve the budget. If you live in a neighborhood in unincorporated Bexar County, Nelson Wolff is not ashamed to admit that he wants your neighborhood to be shuffled into a city and out of his primary services area.

Not only that but I imagine a majority of the tax payers in Bexar county support that point of view and vote for Commissioner and County Judge with that in mind. I know I do.

[Cuero]

[Mod edit: orphaned]

If you make enough to be able to support over $24K in itemized deductions then you were almost certainly having those deductions limited already under the Pease rule. If someone isn't paying close attention to their taxes they wouldn't know that though. The new tax law has everyone pay at the same rate regardless of what type of property they live in. That's really more fair for everyone.