City stops anti-annex effort, group cries foul
AT ISSUE: City Attorney Ronny Collins advised Council that considering annexation petitions would be illegal; however opposing council Jason Ryan is saying the law has changed.
By SHANNON CRABTREE scrabtree@leader-news.com

Petitions challenging recent El Campo annexations were all but shredded Monday night when City Council was warned that taking any action on them would be a breach of state law - although opponents are saying that the case law cited is out of date.

Opposing Attorney Jason Ryan of the Houston law firm Baker Botts is requesting the city place the issue on the upcoming Jan. 28 agenda or face a legal challenge.

"If he sends me something that shows that he's correct, absolutely we'll consider it," City Attorney Ronny Collins said Tuesday. lins Tues-

Collins said he consulted with the Texas Municipal League prior to advising City Council.

Three petitions - calling for either the repeal of annexations of Sandy Corner, Hwy. 71 North, the Bode property on FM 2765 and land on U.S. 59 west of South Meadow Lane or a May vote on the issue - were presented at City Hall last Thursday and promptly placed on Monday's City Council agenda.

At 7:36 p.m. Monday, Mayor Phillip Spenrath introduced Agenda Item 12, the first dealing with petitions, and was promptly given advice from City Attorney Ronny Collins.

"You cannot act on items (involving the annexation petitions)," he told Council, adding state law overruled the City Charter petition provisions.

"If you act on them, you commit an illegal act - one I'd recommend you not engage in," Collins said.

A similar case happened in the city of Hitchcock, the attorney said, adding the court ruled a petition could not force an annexation to a public vote.

The case was appealed and sent to the Texas Supreme Court.

"The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear (the case)," the municipal attorney told Council, adding that decision means, "This is the law of the land."

"So if we act either way we violate the law?" Mayor Spenrath asked.

"The ordinance stands as approved by Council," Collins said.

Ryan, who represents the annexed Ryan Services, disagreed following the end of the Council session.

"No action is the same as pulling back," he said, adding it may be up to the courts to decide.

"It's too late it follow the Charter," Ryan said, adding throughout the petition process he was not told it would be invalid for challenging annexation.

"I assure you they spent the last five days coming up with a reason," he said, adding he was "disappointed in Council's inaction."

Tuesday, Ryan said the Hitchcock case is from 1978 and, that since then, changes have been made in the law.

"We plan to take it up with the court, if the city does not reverse its course," he said in a telephone interview with the Leader-News.

A letter will be sent to City Attorney Collins advising him off that opinion as well as a request Council revisit the issue.

"They had two options and chose not to take action. In my opinion that invalidates it altogether, he said, but added, "I think to avoid protracted litigation they should reconsider. To avoid that (a lawsuit), we would be happy for the town to vote on it. We're not trying to do a gotcha on the city. We're willing to give them one more Council meeting, but not months."

Ryan added he doubted the city could qualify for bond funding with a pending lawsuit.

"I think it's in the best interests of everyone that this be resolved as quickly as possible," he said. "If I'm wrong and the citizens want annexation, we'd be happy to live with the decision of the people."

A lawsuit would delay the project, Collins said, adding if one were filed, he would advise Council not to borrow dollars to proceed.

That would increase costs, he said. "It seems like a poor decision to me for someone to take that course of action because they don't agree with it (annexation)," Collins added.

City Council voted to accept annexation of these plots Dec. 11 making the measure effective that day. Later, an unofficial decision delayed enforcement of city ordinances in the area until Jan. 1 - a move largely designed to allow three fireworks stands in the annexed area to sell supplies banned in the city, but ordered before the Council vote.

Once that annexation was formally approved, there are few, if any, provisions to step backward, Collins said.

Those opposed could challenge in a court of law arguing a violation of annexation procedures, he said, but added the city was diligent in following all requirements.

The only other possibility, he said, would be to convince Council to vote for a "deannexation." But in that case, those no longer annexed would be required to pay for all costs incurred in the initial effort.