Fossil Creek

Possible Future Annexation by San Antonio

Watch This Space for On-Going News

As many of you know, the city of San Antonio has announced its intention to annex Fossil Creek and several surrounding communities in December 2005. Some time this summer they will announce--primarily through the city's web site--dates, times, and locations for meetings with the affected communities to establish the services required and available to the communities they annex. The Fossil Creek Board of Directors has allied Fossil Creek with other nearby affected communities and has chosen Eric Johnson and Randy Gurley to represent our community at the upcoming service negotiations. Please watch this space for news of upcoming events in the annexation process...and, as always, please stay in touch with your Board with your ideas and concerns.

Property Owner Annexation Survey Results and Findings

Background:

Fossil Creek Annexation Appointees, Randy Gurley and Eric Johnson, requested the FC BOD circulate a survey to property owners for the purpose of determining their positions on a variety of topics relating to city services preferences in advance of meeting with the City to discuss our requirements. What follows is a summary of the information obtained from these surveys and my first draft interpretation of the results. I welcome any comments or observations you want to add for Randy and I. I request your permission to release these results to appointees of other neighborhoods now in the San Antonio annexation plan.

Findings and Observations:

Summary – The details below give the best picture we’ve had to date of what our residents think about annexation. Property owner’s service priorities appear to fall out in the following order: Fire/EMS, Police, Environmental Protection, Street Maintenance, Parks/Playgrounds, Trash Collection, Library.

In general they seem to believe that the services provided by the City, if staffed and funded properly, will be of better quality than those provided by Bexar County or Selma Volunteer Fire Department, however they still oppose annexation under any circumstances. My guess is opposition to annexation is rooted in the belief that between Bexar County and San Antonio we aren’t going to be treated fairly. We will still pay the same tax to Bexar County even though they will no longer provide police and other services while paying City taxes and not receiving full services because we’re a gated community.

There are demographic differences between our neighborhood and the average neighborhood assumptions the San Antonio planning departments make. City assumptions on population density and age distribution should be checked carefully in the negotiation process.

Detailed results are listed below by category –

1. A total of 44 property owners participated in the survey giving us a sample of 52% of total owners. This far exceeds anything we’ve gotten in previous surveys. I believe people responded better to this one for the following reasons:
a. Better explanation of the issues built their energy to participate
b. We explained why we were making the survey.
c. We made it easy to respond with prepaid postage return envelopes
d. Responses were confidential
2. Eighty nine percent of those responding reside in FC or are currently building a home here.
3. Average number of people per home was 3.2. This average is 14% higher than the 2.8 residents per home assumption used by San Antonio in making their service plans. The larger homes in Fossil Creek and other neighborhoods tend to have more people than the city average. City planners may tend to underestimate the resources required to provide appropriate services as a result.
4. About half of those responding never received written notice from the City advising them the Evans/Bulverde Area had been placed on the list of areas for annexation.
5. Police Protection:
a. Eighty four percent of respondents prefer San Antonio to Bexar County police services as long as the City provides the statutorily required number of officers.
b. Eighty four percent of respondents want SAPD to provide daily random patrols of our streets as part of their services.
6. Fire and EMS Protection:
a. Eighty two percent of respondents want the City to equip the Bulverde Road fire station with equipment for fighting brush fires
b. Eighty two percent of respondents prefer SAFD to the Selma Volunteer FD EMS services if the City provides the resources necessary to provide quicker response times
c. Ninety one percent of respondents want EMS services to be manned 24/7
d. Ninety five percent of respondents want EMS services to be provided from the new Bulverde Road fire station
7. Street Maintenance/Highways:
a. Sixty four percent of respondents want Fossil Creek to remain gated even if we pay full City taxes while still maintaining our own streets
b. Eighty two percent of respondents would prefer that the City provide a tax rebate to the HOA for street maintenance
c. Ninety eight percent of respondents want the City to designate Evans, Bulverde, Marshall and other roads in our area as scenic corridors
d. Sixty one percent of respondents oppose the concept of funding Highway 281 modernization and expansion by converting it to a toll road
8. Other Services:
a. Fifty two percent of respondents think that a full time library is either not important or not at all important.
b. Seventy percent of respondents prefer City trash collection to WM
c. Eighty percent of respondents want the City to provide parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and other recreational facilities in our area
d. Eighty two percent of respondents want the service plan to specify that the City cannot grant exceptions to the Aquifer Protection Ordinance for commercial businesses in our areas
9. Annexation:
a. Ninety five percent of respondents oppose annexation if the City fails to provide full details of the service plan for our area
b. Eighty percent of respondents oppose annexation even if the City provides a service plan that fully meets statutory requirements as well as capital improvements.

Annexation Update - 10/27/04

While our legal efforts to block annexation are ongoing, the city finally started the services negotiation process in accordance with Texas state law. The two processes are separate and distinct; we are negotiating with the city in case annexation occurs, but the negotiations do not imply that we give up our rights to try to deter the city from annexing us. Following is our committee's update (provided by Eric Johnson) from a meeting held 10/27/04...

The following is an update on a meeting attended last evening by Cheri
Franklin, Randy Gurley, Ed Berger and myself along with representatives from
Canyon Springs/Summerglen, Sendero Ranch, Indian Springs, Oliver Ranch.
Buddy Socks and David Erle attended as attorneys representing neighborhoods
within the proposed annexation area.

We met with a city delegation headed by Assistant City Manager Jelynne
Burley along with Planning Director Emil Moncivais, their attorney Susan
Rocha and several others on City staff.

The meeting was facilitated by Tracy Watson, an Austin based consultant in
mediation, facilitation and arbitration under contract with the City.

The meeting began with introductions and a summary of the SB 89 service plan
requirements by Susan Rocha. Shortly after this presentation David Erle,
representing Canyon Springs/Summerglen, explained his position that the City
had violated SB 89 so completely that they had no legal right to convene a
meeting of the neighborhood representatives and if no remedy could be found
through the City Attorney he intended to file an injunction. David Erle and
his clients then left the meeting.

Evans/Bulverde representatives remained after consulting with our attorney
Buddy Socks. The group reached an understanding with the City leadership
that our further participation in this meeting and service negotiations in
no way jeopardized our right to pursue a legal challenge to the annexation
process.

It was clear from our discussions that the various neighborhoods are in very
different situations with regard to negotiation prep. Evans/Bulverde is the
most advanced followed by Canyon Springs/Summerglen with the others very far
behind. We intend to share as much of our information as possible with the
others including a neighborhood polling document they can use to get input
from their residents.

We persuaded the City not to conduct further public meetings until we had
gotten much further along on the specific levels of service proposed by the
City.

We established a joint time line with the City as follows:

November 15, 2004 - Representatives submit as many of their requests for
services information as possible to Jelynne Burley. This date is a target
for us to hit. We can still submit questions after November 15 but they
need to be as timely as possible. Jelynne Burley will set up an internet
site that will contain these questions and the City responses so we will all
have equal access to the information.

December 1, 2004 - The City will present to the representatives the specific
levels of service they propose for police, fire, trash, etc.

December 8, 2004 - City and representatives will meet to discuss the plan
for understanding and to review the status of our questions and information
provided by the City.

January 2005 - Begin service plan negotiation sessions.

March 2005 - Service plan negotiations completed by this time or move to
arbitration of our differences. If agreement is reached at this point,
public meetings would be held to review the plan and ask for input.

Zoning Issue Hotlinks

City of San Antonio