Missouri City held the first of two public hearings on a proposed annexation of a portion of the Sienna Management District on Oct. 13, where staff described the area, potential fiscal impacts and next steps.

City Attorney Ejoy Jiamu told the council the area under consideration has an estimated population of about 1,100 people and includes roughly 860 multifamily units across three apartment complexes. She said the Sienna Management District was created in February 2003 and that a 2016 strategic partnership agreement between the district and Missouri City authorizes annexation; that agreement expires in 2026.

The nut of staff’s presentation was that many services already reach the area. “A lot of the services that are already provided in this area are provided by the management district,” Jiamu said, and added the district currently provides water and sewer, and contracts provide animal services and fire protection. She said the annexation would not dissolve the Sienna Management District and that no district assets or liabilities would transfer to the city.

Why now: staff said the proposal responds to confusion about which rules apply in parts of the area (some parts lie in the city’s limited-purpose boundary and some in the extraterritorial jurisdiction) and to a separate legal matter involving a traveling housing finance corporation located in the subject area. Staff also noted that properties must be within city limits by Jan. 1 to appear on the city’s tax rolls for the tax year assessed in September or October.

City staff presented a conservative fiscal estimate that the city would see about $540,000 in net property tax revenue per year after removing fire fee amounts paid now to the district; staff cautioned the number could increase because portions of the land remain undeveloped. The city manager (unnamed in the record) told council that directors across departments reviewed projected service impacts and reported them as “nominal,” and staff concluded no new city hires would be required initially.

Council members pressed staff on details: whether annexation creates new city debt (staff: no), which roads are city responsibility (Sienna Parkway already inside city limits), whether multifamily owners were notified (staff: property buyers receive notice at purchase and the city has followed state-law publication requirements but had not provided recent targeted mailings), and the number and nature of calls for service to the complexes (staff said roughly 700–800 calls from Jan. 1 to about October, of which less than 10% were law-enforcement calls and many were medical).

Public commenter Bruce Zombrowski spoke against annexation, asking, “Why are you annexing this MUD? What is the purpose to get extra tax revenue?” He urged the council to wait until December or January after the election when a newly seated council could decide.

Jiamu and staff described the process ahead: the council will hold the second public hearing and consider ordinance readings (staff identified a first-reading date of Nov. 17 and a second/final reading in December). Staff also said that, if annexed, the land would come into the city under the city’s annexation/zoning process (staff said annexed land initially comes in as “SD” and would be returned to the council for official zoning within a few months). The city manager said staff would return with more detailed expense assumptions and additional data requested by council (for example, unit counts, a side‑by‑side of current payments versus post‑annexation tax liability, and confirmation whether complexes allow pets).

Council did not take a formal vote on the annexation at the Oct. 13 special meeting; the item remained at the public-hearing stage with ordinance readings planned.

For residents and property owners, staff said the practical differences would include clearer land‑use regulation under city code, possible changes to which jurisdiction taxes the property beginning in the next tax cycle if annexation proceeds, and continued provision of certain services by the management district under contract. Staff also said the district would continue to exist and provide its services unless the district and city later take separate action to change that status.

The council asked staff to supply the more detailed revenue/expense comparisons, unit and resident counts, and any additional public-notice steps before the next hearing.