10281996 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

47 Regular Meeting October 28, 1996 Page 6 representation the citizens would receive is the right to vote. Mr. Cox added these people would also have the right to run for office. Brad Parlson, Willow Creek, asked why the Ridge I was not being addressed in this annexation. Mr. Patterson stated the Ridge Section I would be addressed in the future, but one reason it is not being looked at during this annexation is because it depends on Crystal Clear Water for service. Mr. Hart stated the road that leads to the Ridge I is a private road and not county maintained and asked how that would effect the annexation. Mr. Patterson stated it would continue as a private road. Mr. Parlson stated the fire and police protection would not be increasing their manpower and questioned the response time. Mr. Cox stated the City is not immediately adding money to the budget at this time, but as the City grows the money issue would be addressed. He also stated this annexation was not strictly for the taxing benefit, but the law gives the City the right to annex. He stated in data he has gathered if areas are not annexed, they begin to show a decline in tax base and in the quality of development surrounding the area. He stated he felt this was for the benefit of a greater San Marcos and was in favor of the annexation. Mr.. Hart stated he realizes the citizens in this area are receiving adequate services at this time; however, he views this as being a geographical alignment problem. He feels the alignment doesn't make sense and questions why certain areas are being omitted from the annexation. Mayor Moore stated the waterlines, poles, drainage, etc... that were in the annexation were built to city standards with the intention of bringing these residents in to the City under the master plan. He stated this was not about revenue, but about the benefit of being a part of this community. Mr. Parlson asked if the residents would be required tq connect to the City's sewer system in the future at their own expense. Mr. Gilley stated the septic systems already in place would be allowed to continue; however, if the sanitary sewer system was extended to that area and they lie within 300 feet of the system, they would be required to connect to the system. In addition, Mr. Gilley stated the people would not be required to pay for the construction of that sewer system. Mr. Guerra stated although the City has the right to annex, he felt the citizens living outside the city limits should have a right and a voice in the annexation. Mr. Parlson stated the citizens need to be more informed of why the City is wanting to annex this area. Mr. Cox asked if there was a practical problem City vs. County fire and police with only part of a street being annexed. Mr. Gilley stated the potential of a problem did exist; however, in emergency situations, both agencies would respond and then the parties would determine in which jurisdiction the problem existed. Mr. Gilley stated part of the problem would be dealt with in the 9-1-1 address system. On roll call the following vote was recorded: AYE: iVlihalkanin, Cox. NAY: Hart, Moore, Guerra. ABSTAIN: Hughson. Mayor Moore stated the residents in this area need to be aware they are a target for annexation in the future and requested more dialogue occur between city and the residents. Mr. Guerra stated the Council needs to be more informed in the future of the annexations and perhaps be involved with public meetings prior to the request for annexations. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration Item 12.D.(8) removed from the consensus agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK ElvTROVENIENTS PROJECT, PHASE I TO AT YOUR SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Guerra moved for adoption of the Resolution and Ms. Hughson seconded the motion. Ms. Hughson asked in what year this was funded. Mr. Gilley stated CDBG funding from 1994-1995. Ms. Hughson asked why this project was taking so long. Mr. Patterson stated part of the delay was due to survey work, county renovations, county engineers and leveraging. Mr. Gilley stated another delay was due to the work on San Antonio Street. Ms. Hughson asked if the plans were