ASK THE MAYOR
Annexation decision based on needs of El Campo residents
MAYOR PHILLIP SPENRATH

To my fellow citizens living both within and outside of our existing city limits, this is the bottom line of annexation.

During an annexation workshop in early June 2007, your city council opened up dialogue concerning the merits and cost effectiveness of the 7- year-old Comprehensive Plan's recommendations.

After months and years of thought and planning, your city council is now faced with the fiduciary question of whether to proceed with the pre-established annexation recommendations found in the city's Comprehensive 2020 Plan. After attentively listening and evaluating the concerns and desires of residents living in areas of potential annexation, your city council must now consider and focus on the needs of the 11,000-plus city residents who voted us into office to make the right business decisions.

In the end, annexation is an established business practice used for insuring and sustaining a community's financial security, growth and economic development.

The price of petroleum, electricity and other energy sources is skyrocketing. In relation, the costs associated with pipes, concrete and machinery are also escalating at the same pace.

While the city of El Campo remains financially healthy, your city council does have a fiduciary duty, as your elected representatives, to plan for the future by preparing sound fiscal budgets that take into account rising operating expenses.

Again, El Campo has strong savings account (General Ending Fund Balance) due to the past city council and staff's efforts to conserve for the future.

However, it would be negligent to allow staff to annually prepare unbalanced fiscal budgets that habitually require yearly reductions from our savings in an attempt to offset uncontrollable increases in escalating operating costs. Consequently, all of the citizens of El Campo, including your city council, are faced with limited options.

From the outside looking in there is not a definite distinction between the citizens within the city limits and those bordering El Campo.

Overall, both are extremely generous and giving to the betterment of our community. The only real difference is, on the whole, that the burden to maintain this great community solely rests on those citizens residing within the city limits.

Existing residents' tax dollars have been implemented the best that we can to keep our streets paved, our emergency services prepared, parks manicured and maintained, Little League lights on, Aquatic Center in full service, museum available and much more.

Without an increased tax base there will come a point where even the most generous of citizens will be restricted in their ability to support the additional burden of rising costs.

Thus, we will have to explore other options such as the reduction and/or possible elimination of non-essential budget items. If our current city revenue levels off or decreases, and gasoline reaches next year's $4-per-gallon projection, our city coffers may not be able to maintain our existing support of many "quality of life" investments. For the majority of your city council, cutting the aforementioned programs is not a desirable option.

While elected representatives must always remain attentive of the needs and desires of their constituents, running a successful city generally mandates that your city council and staff approach it like a business. Similar to any business, there will be extremely tough decisions to be made and personnel issues to contend with. At the end of the day, it is imperative to remember that the citizens of El Campo have placed this city council and staff in charge of protecting and promoting the future economic growth and development of our great city. Therefore, the final decisions on annexation must be primarily based on the desires of, and in the best interests of, the 11,000-plus residents who trusted us with their future.

(Comments may be addressed to askthemayor@sbcglobal.net)