Missouri City held a public hearing during a special meeting on the possible annexation of a portion of the Sienna Management District, city Attorney Ejos Yamo said, noting the area contains an estimated 1,100 people and that a strategic partnership agreement authorizing annexation was executed in 2016 and expires in 2026.

The matter matters to the city because annexation would bring the parcels fully into Missouri City’s jurisdiction, clarify which zoning and local regulations apply, and would yield an estimated net property tax benefit to the city of about $540,000 per year after deducting current fire fees, Yamo said. The proposal would not dissolve the Sienna Management District and would not transfer the district’s assets or liabilities to the city, he said.

Former public commenter Bruce Zombrowski told the council, “Why are you annexing this MUD? What is the purpose to get extra tax revenue? You’ll eliminate their MUD tax so you’ll get city property taxes instead. You annex Sienna MUD number 2, that’s gonna be a disaster.” That comment came during the meeting’s public-comment period before the public hearing opened.

Yamo told council members the district was created in February 2003 and entered the strategic partnership agreement with Missouri City in 2016. He said much of the subject area already receives services from the management district and in some places is already inside the city’s limited-purpose boundary or in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. “The city would certainly come in to provide additional services as it relates to code enforcement, law enforcement, permitting,” Yamo said, and added that water and sewer are already provided by the management district and those services would not change under annexation.

Council members asked staff for fiscal and operational detail. City Manager Joyce said staff responses indicated any increase in required city staffing would be “nominal” given the area’s history. Joyce said the area in question consists of three separate multifamily apartment complexes totaling about 860 units, with each apartment-complex property valued at about $40,000,000; she called those numbers estimates. Joyce also reported the city’s review of calls for service for the properties showed “there were approximately 700 calls” from January through about October, and that most of those calls were medical in nature with fewer than 10 percent being law-enforcement calls.

On questions about notice, Yamo said the city has followed state-law requirements for notification and that purchasers of property in the management district receive notice at closing that land may be annexed under the strategic partnership agreement; he said the city has not individually mailed new notices to each property owner within the last two weeks but has published legally required notices in the newspaper.

Yamo described next steps if council directs staff to proceed: the council would hold the first and second public hearings now, then consider an ordinance on first reading on Nov. 17 and a second and final reading in December; if the property is to be taxed by the city the parcels must be in the city by Jan. 1 to appear on the tax rolls for that tax year.

No ordinance or annexation motion was adopted at the special meeting. Staff told council it will return with additional slides showing a side-by-side of current assessments and projected city revenue and with more specific estimates of service costs and resident counts.

The public hearing opened and closed during the special meeting; council members discussed zoning process and timing but took no formal action on annexation at the session.