Petitions challenge annexations, call for repeal or vote
By SHANNON CRABTREE scrabtree@leader-news.com

L-N File Photo Voted Against City Councilwoman Gloria Harris makes a point during a recent meeting. A large group of residents have petitioned the city to undo Council's recent annexations, a move Harris opposed.

A group of more than 240 El Campo citizens filed three petitions at City Hall Thursday demanding Council either reverse most of the recent annexations or put the matter to a public vote.

Council will take up the issue during their upcoming meeting Monday.

The petitions target annexations along Hwy. 71 north including the Sandy Corner neighborhood, the Bode property on FM 2765 and land along U.S. 59 west of South Meadow Lane.

"We would like to have the ordinances repealed," said Attorney Jason Ryan of Houston's Baker Botts. "But if it goes to a vote, we are happy to let the citizens of El Campo decide."

The only drawback of an election, Ryan said, is the additional cost to El Campo taxpayers.

City Manager John Steelman confirmed receipt of the petitions Thursday saying he and City Attorney Ronny Collins would review them and signatures would be verified.

The petitions list 243 names calling for Council to "immediately reconsider the ordinance and, if the ordinance is not repealed, submit the ordinance to the voters of El Campo for approval or disapproval."

To be validated, each signature must be from a person eligible to vote in the El Campo city limits before the annexation took place - those in the annexed areas do not qualify to sign a petition calling for Council action.

"We were required to have 217 signatures on it. We have at lease 234," Ryan said. "The result shows there is quite a bit of a voice against it. These are signatures of votes in the city limits of El Campo that existed prior to the ordinance that passed. These are not the people directly affected (those in annexed zones). These are the people of the city of El Campo who will end up paying with what will eventually be a bond."

Under state election requirements, City Council - should it choose to Monday - could order a May election.

"The charter states that the ordinance or resolution in question would be 'suspended' upon certain action taken by the council," Steelman said. "Therefore, the service plan and/or other activi- activities would cease on the effective date of the ordinance (either the 14th or 15th of January) should council elect to place the issue before the voters in May or vote to deny the three ordinances being protested. Either way, the city codes will not be in effect after the effective date of the ordinance presented at Monday's meeting. Basically, the areas would not be in the city limits anymore."

The petitioners are claiming the annexations are improper because of "the enormous cost of financing the annexation, the negative effect of the fi- nancing on petitioners and other El Campo residents, the annexation's anti-growth effect on neighboring businesses, the annexation's anti-growth effect of added regulation on neighboring businesses and the overall negative financial effect."

Although city annexations were approved Dec. 11 and ordinance enforcement started Jan. 1, the city hasn't yet proceeded with tax notifications, Steelman said.

"We were waiting to do this until after the 30-day time period," Steelman said, adding the petitions were "part of the process. It's why we live in America so we can do this. I had heard one might be coming."

The Dec. 11 Council votes approving annexation were not unanimous.

Senior Councilwoman Gloria Harris stood against the proposals on most areas, although Councilman Anthony Collins voted against all.

The general citizenry is also opposed, Ryan said.

"I represent Ryan Services, but there are at least 234 interested persons very much against annexation and if they put it to vote, I think you'd see quite a few more."