Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 November 10, 2005 Mayor Ron Silva and Council Members: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be on the agenda and discuss my project, which first started in 2001. 1 will give an outline of events leading up to this meeting: 1. 2001: 1. In mid 2001, I first visited with city staff in request of city sewer services for an 8.22 acres tract outside of the city limits. I was given directions to visit with the Waste Water Department to follow the necessary process for approval. 2. Waste Water assigned me to work with Mr. Josephs on this matter. 3. I was directed by Mr. Josephs to first prove the availability and capacity of the 6" sewer line at Dowling Road to obtain a recommendation to the City Council. 4. I had an engineer calculate the available capacity, which exceeded 100 housing units. My proposed 29 duplexes were only 58 housing units. 5. I received information too late to develop the property in a timely manner 6. First group of City staff. II. 2002: 1. I purchased lots in another area and did not start working with city staff until late in the year. 2. Second group of City staff. Council Meeting 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3 III. 2003 & 2004: 1. The head of Development and Planning assigned me to work with Natalie Reese on this project. 2. We worked together and were ready to go to the Council. In December, Council established a new policy not to allow City services outside of the City. 3. Third group of City staff. IV. 2005: 1. I started the process of voluntary annexation. 2. The city limit sign was now across the street, 100 L.F., from subject property. 3. I furnished the City staff with a number of Attorney General opinions, existing case law and even a Supreme Court Definition of Adjacent and Contiguous as it related to annexation. 4. In those meetings, I was made aware that the past August the City established a new policy to furnish a 1000 gallon per minute fire flow. 5. I obtained permission from Wellborn Special Utility District for the City allowing use for a fire flow from a private 8" water line. 6. I had to obtain permission from the owner of the water line to use the line for water for fire flow only. 7. I must install a meter to measure the amount of water used to credit the owner of the line. 8. I have petitioned for the annexation process. 9. The time line for the annexation process would be 4-6 months. 10. A change of use to the property would take 3-5 months based on the timing of the request. 11. Re-zoning process would take another 4-8 weeks. 12. Platting would take another 4-8 weeks. 13. If this process was started December 1, 2005, we may obtain approval by 2007. 14. Fourth group of City staff. It is my request to obtain permission for sewer service, at my expense. Allow me to plat the property as a rural subdivision to construct duplexes. Develop the property to City of College Station's specifications (curb and gutter, asphalt street, sewer and water and follow the building ordinances). This was the process I started in 2001 and was led to believe that sewer would be available and the construction of duplexes would harmonize with the existing duplexes and fourplexes that exist on abutting property. Council Meeting 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3 I would, at the Council's request, follow through with the annexation process. Given approval, I would be in the construction stage when the annexation process was complete. This would allow me to start the platting process now. I would develop the property, construct the duplexes and have them ready to occupy prior to September of 2006. I respectfully request that the Council allow me direction and permission to go forward with my requested process. When the project is complete, the duplexes would be in the City and developed to the City's specifications. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, 4 Anthony L. Jones Enclosures: Plat of 8.22 acres Aerial showing location Proposed duplex layout Council Meeting 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3 DOVE CROSSING, L.L.C. 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, TX 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 aggroup@txcyber.com August 31, 2005 Joey Dunn c/o City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 RE: Letter of Request to Start Voluntary Annexation on 8.22 Acres Dear Joey, Please find my letter of request to initiate the process of voluntary annexation on a tract of land within the College Station ETJ. We have discussed this matter for quite a while and it is my understanding that this letter will start the process. I have attached copies of the property along with additional background sheets. I would appreciate your help to start the process so that I can go before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council at the soonest time possible. I have also attached background letters that have been given regarding the four year process on this land. Given the City's initiation to allow a CCN for sewer service outside the city limits, I would prefer to acquire the CCN usage as to an annexation. Thank you in advance for all your help. 111 Sincer;4 "ony J: Ar Enclosures AGGIELAND DEVELOPMENT & REAL ESTATE, L.L.C. 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, TX 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 aggroup@txcyber.com December 14, 2004 Joey Dunn City of College Station I have set forth below, to the best of my memory and documentation, a history of my dealings with the City of College Station on these 8.22 acres off Cain Road: 1. In 2001, I first started communications with city staff regarding sewer service for areas outside the city limit line. 2. I worked with a Mr. Joseph at the Utility Building on Graham Road. My first request was could I obtain sewer service and what were the costs. The answer was I would have to prove that the 6" line at Dowling Road had the capacity to service this property. It was determined that if I went back to FM 2818/Dowling Road, there was an 8" line on the South side of FM 2818. If I brought the 8" line to Dowling Road/IGN right of way, there would be capacity for 129 dwelling units. The cost of sewer service had to be set by the City Council. This study was completed around June of 2002. 3. It was too late to start development for that year and we had purchased lots for 2003. So, these lots were not of need. 4. In 2003, around September, when talking to John Woody about starting the process of platting and developing, John made me aware of the City of College Station's plan to bring a new sewer line across Wellborn to the West side of the railroad. The cost without a lift station would be a more economical development. We have been anxiously awaiting the start of the sewer line construction. Page Two Letter to Joey Dunn City of College Station December 14, 2004 5. In January of 2004, Natalie Reese contacted me about a change the City Council was taking on services to areas outside the City of College Station. (I have attached a copy of the resolution, which was signed in January 2004). 6. In my meeting with you and Glen on Tuesday, December 7, we talked about the annexation possibilities. I brought a copy of a definition as to permissibility based on "adjacent and contiguous." These are definitions on other cases, but the definitions on both are the same. I've attached some other documentation for your review. 7. In our meeting, you made me aware of a new requirement adopted in August '04, that it is necessary to have a fire service of 1000 gal/min. This again was never a condition from any other conversation in the three year history on these 8.22 acres. Joey, I am asking for some help and with the above mentioned trials of attempting to go forward there seems to be a never ending growth of additional requirements toward this development. I am now working with the third set of staff members. Each time there have been continual changes and additional demands. I am not asking for favors or something for nothing, but to give consideration in my request to develop this property. I have tried diligently to satisfy all requests of the City. Each time has met with additional requirements. My requests are as follows: 1. May I both submit for annexation and zoning at the same time? 2. If it would be permissible with Edsel Jones, could I tap onto his 8"water line and bring it across the street for fire purposes only? The use of potable water would be serviced by Wellborn Water's 4" line located at Cain Road and Jones Bulter Road. 3. I have attached different examples regarding annexation, both use "adjacent" and "contiguous." Other sections of the government code define both"adjacent" and "contiguous." Both definitions are defined as next to public land, public easement, utility easement, a railroad right of way, or a right of way: A) in 43.021 (Authority of Home-Rule Municipality to Annex Area and Take Other Action Regarding Boundaries)talks about extending boundaries of the municipality and annex area"adjacent" to the municipality B) in 43.024 (Authority of Type A General Law Municipality to Annex on Request of Area Voters) states "is `contiguous' to a Type A General Law Municipality." C) in Chapter 51.714 (Adding Land by Petition of Landowner) defines "contiguous" D) in 711.003 defines "adjacent" Letter to Joey Dunn January 12, 2005 Page Two I believe that I have proven that the subject property could be legally annexed. Wellborn Special Utility District is preparing a letter to allow the City to provide water for fire control. I am prepared to argue for the zoning request based on location, conformity to neighboring property, and the active demand that is being requested. Time has become a major factor in this request. I would appreciate your help so that the necessary engineering work can be completed for my request. Thank you, 0 P Tony Jone AGGIELAND DEVELOPMENT & REAL ESTATE, L.L.C . 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, TX 77845 Tel: (979) 764-7788 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 January 12, 2005 Joey Dunn City of College Station Joey: I have with your request included a number of opinions and cases that I believe defines "adjacent and contiguous." I believe the Attorney General's Opinion No. GA-0014 clearly defines that the property in the ETJ of College Station is the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of College Station. Within Opinion GA-0014 it further defines "adjacent" that has been defined by the courts to mean "neighboring or close by" or"in the vicinity of and not necessarily contiguous or touching upon." It further states that in the context of requesting opinion that San Antonio's ETJ is "the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of the municipality and that is located...within 5 miles of those boundaries." (SA is over 100,000 in population, therefore it has 5 mile ETJ.) CS is less than 100,000 and therefore has a smaller radius. In the Westlaw copy of Court of Civil Appeals# 17093 under headnote #3 it defines "adjacent." Opinion 287 at the end of headnote #18 it states that the Texas Supreme Court has held that "adjacent" has the same definition. Joey, I am trying very hard to satisfy the question of whether I legally request voluntary annexation on the 8.22 acres on Jones Butler Road. I believe that I have shown the definition of "adjacent and contiguous"to further show that it is legal to be voluntarily annexed. In our last telephone conversation, you stated those challenges that I must counter: 1. Prove that the definitions to provide for my property to be annexed. 2. Obtain a letter from Wellborn Special Utility District giving permission for the City of College Station to provide water for fire control on my proposed property to be annexed, that falls in their C.C.N. 3. The question of zoning would be decided by the P&Z and the City Council and you could not guarantee this zoning. Letter to Joey Dunn January 12, 2005 Page Two I believe that I have proven that the subject property could be legally annexed. Wellborn Special Utility District is preparing a letter to allow the City to provide water for fire control. I am prepared to argue for the zoning request based on location, conformity to neighboring property, and the active demand that is being requested. Time has become a major factor in this request. I would appreciate your help so that the necessary engineering work can be completed for my request. CThank you, p y Tony Jones February 24, 2005 Joey Dunn c/o City of College Station College Station, TX HAND DELIVERED RE: Request for a Land Use Amendment Dear Joey: I am with this letter asking that my formal request for a land use amendment be placed on both the Planning and Zoning and City Council Agendas. It is my understanding from the submittal deadline dates given that my request prior to Monday, March 7th will allow me to be on the Agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 7, 2005, and the City Council Agenda for April 28, 2005. Hopefully, my understanding is correct. If I have to complete an application format, please forward this to my attention at the soonest possible time thereby allowing a timely submittal for the March 7th deadline. I have not gone through this type of submittal in the past, so please excuse my unawareness. Your help in this matter would be most appreciated. Thank you, To oO 3205 Earl Rudder Fwy. S. College Station, TX 77845 Office: 693-6699 Cell: 219-8669 e-mail: tonyjones@txcyber.coin Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 August 1, 2005 Mayor Ron Silvia and City Council Members City of College Station Dear Mayor Silvia: I am writing this letter in regard to an ongoing project that I have been working on since 2001. I am respectfully requesting to be on the agenda at either a workshop or regular City Council Meeting. Here visitors on the agenda would not accomplish my objective in that I need a dialogue between the Council and myself. I will give you a brief summary so that you may understand my request and dilemma. In mid 2001, I requested help and direction in obtaining permission from the City of College Station to receive sewer services for a parcel of property I own that is outside of the city limits. I was transferred to the Waste Water Department on Rock Prairie Road and eventually, Mr. Joseph was assigned to work with me on the project. It was after a couple of meetings that Mr. Joseph told me that I would first have to prove that there was sufficient capacity in the line to service my project. I hired an engineer to do the study, and the engineer's study showed that there was sufficient capacity to serve over 100 units. It was my intent to construct twenty-nine (29) duplexes or fifty-eight (58) units and thus a more than adequate capacity was available. I would have been required to install a lift-station to use the six (6) inch line on Dowling Road. Our study showed an eight (8) inch line going south across FM 2818 and then reducing to a six (6) inch line to service the water treatment plant on Dowling Road. The continued demand for duplexes then and now, have kept me trying to receive the use of the city's sewer line. I was not able to complete the engineer's study until the first part of 2002. The timing to complete the platting, designing, and development was to late to meet the construction of the duplexes so I purchased lots and would come back and do the development on a later date. In the later part of 2003 I met with John Woody in the Waste Water Department to continue the process of obtaining sewer service. It was in that meeting that John made me aware of the city's plan to extend a sewer line west and across FM 2154 (Wellborn Road) to service the newly annexed land. This line would be of a sufficient depth so that my requested line use would have a gravity fall to the city's new line. I immediately met 2 with Natalie Ruiz on this project and began the process in October. Natalie called me in the first part of January 2004 to let me know of a change in policy by the City Council to not allow the use of city services for property outside the city limits. This was signed by the mayor in January 2004. In February of 2004 I began the process to obtain sewer service by way of voluntary annexation. My 8.22 acres is across the street form the city limits. The only separation was by way of a 100' R.O.W., a Brazos County Road (Jones/Butler Road). It has always been my intent to develop the property within the guidelines of the City of College Station's specifications (asphalt streets, curbs, gutters, and lot sizes). Therefore, annexation was not an obstacle. Natalie Ruiz called to inform me of a possible legal problem as to whether the city could accept voluntary annexation in that the land was not contiguous or adjacent to the city limits. Again the process has eliminated the possibility of platting, designing, and developing the property in a timely manner to have the completed duplexes ready for the August rental market. In December of 2004 I met with Glen Brown and Joey Dunn about the continuation of the project. I had obtained legal advice about the possibility of voluntary annexation. We had found a number of legal cases in which the, definition of contiguous and adjacent were defined. One case stated that if the property was separated by a public R.O.W. it was considered contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. There were a number of other cases provided including a Supreme Court definition of contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. I was lead to believe that Harvey was not satisfied or was not totally agreeable with the information provided. It was in this same meeting that Joey Dunn made me aware of another obstacle that I had to overcome regarding the adoption of an ordinance, in August 2004, that required a 1000 gal/min fire flow. I immediately went to work trying to overcome this obstacle. There exists, within the County R.O.W. a private 8" water line. I could by way of permission of the owner of the water line, tap the line, install a meter and service the property with the 1000 gal/min fire flow. I also obtained permission from Wellborn Special Utility District to allow the City of College Station to service the fire flow only with all other water to be serviced by Wellborn Special Utility District. In April of 2005, I was informed that I had to go through a land plan change. My property is outside the city limits of College Station and is classified as rural residential and if annexed would come in as AO (Agriculture Open). On Tuesday of the week that I met with the Land Plan Committee, I was informed that I had to turn in all of the necessary information to the city by 10:00 am on Friday, of the same week. I could not timely meet those requirements. The next consideration period was ninety (90) days later. To reach my property down Cain Road you have to pass twelve (12) four plexes. The property immediately to the south has sixteen (16) duplexes. My plan to develop the property for duplex use is in a common use as it exists today. I have attached an aerial view of the area to help in understanding my request. 3 In summary of this project, I started in 2001 with the city under a group of City Staff that is no longer with the city. I was lead to believe I had to prove the capacity to obtain the right to use but had to come to the City Council for final approval and service costs. In 2003 I continued with staff to update and obtain direction. Those city staff members are no longer with the city. In 2004 the city initiated a change in policy that all but eliminated me from being able to develop the property, by a new policy not to allow city services outside the city limits and the 1000 gal/min fire flow. In 2005 1 started again with new city staff members that were not involved in past negotiations. Joey Dunn has been helpful, but cannot speak for the council. He is not sure the council will support my request and therefore, I am at a stand still. In my first request I was lead to believe that all I had to do was prove the capacity. All the new policies and requirements were not a consideration. I am respectfully requesting the City Council to consider allowing me to have the use of the city's sewer service. I will develop the property to the city's specifications and have obtained permission to allow the city's water service for the 1000 gal/min fire flow. When the city annexes this area in the future it will meet their requirements and specifications. Thank you for all of your time and consideration in this manner. Hopefully, I will be able to address this matter as an agenda item. Respectfully, C 0 PT Tony Jones Enclosures Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South --- College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 August 3, 2005 Joey Dunn City of College Station Joey, I have tried to visit with you about this letter but the timing always had you in another meeting or out of town. Joey, after a lot of time and consideration I have decided to ask the Council to place me on the agenda to discuss this matter. I started this process a long time ago, way before you returned to the City of College Station. I do appreciate all of our conversations but feel based on the time, requests, and staff turnovers that I am being penalized. I know you can not speak for the Council but I believe my continued attempts with staff and the changed in policy and ordinances have prevented me from developing this property. You have been helpful in our discussions but I have not been successful in my many attempts to develop this land. We discussed using this land for R-1. The use of R-1 next to existing duplexes and cross from fourplexes has a negative opinion with future buyers. This would turn into rental property and given that this theory is correct I believe my original request R-2 is the better use. My primary objective is to receive sewer service and the Council is the only one that can give that permission. Therefore, I am asking to be placed on an agenda either in workshop or a regular meeting to discuss the history and past dealings with staff. I was lead to believe initially that I had to prove the capacity was available and then we could go to the council for approval and how the service was to be charged. Today I am a long was from our initial discussions. I trust you will understand my reasoning and actions in this request. I do appreciate your help and conversation in this matter and hopefully I may receive permission from the City Council for sewer service. Thank You, C 0 l''Y Tony Jones ` /Li- c f (Siff CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services September 21, 2005 Mr. Tony Jones Dove Crossing, LLC 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South College Station, TX 77845 RE: 8.22 acre tract at Jones-Butler Road and Cain Road in Brazos County Dear Mr. Jones: Being in receipt of your request to initiate the process of voluntary annexation for the above-referenced property, I would like to provide you the following summary of the process that will result from your request. As you are aware from previous meetings with staff, there are several relevant issues to consider in this process. Annexation. As per policy set by Council resolution in January 2004, sewer services are extended through annexation. However,you did not want to include Jones-Butler right- of-way(which separates the 8 acres from the existing city limits), citing an Attorney General's opinion that properties separated from city limits by right-of-way could be considered "contiguous" property, for annexation purposes. We indicated to you that although it appeared annexation was possible,we did not recommend that a gap remain between your property and other city limit boundaries. Thus for annexation to proceed, an ordinance must be approved by the City Council directing the preparation of a service plan and setting dates for public hearings. This can begin in November. Subsequent to this, and upon completion of the service plan, required public hearings and annexation proceedings could be initiated in accordance with Section 43.063 of the Texas Local Government Code. In sum, this process would take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Upon annexation, other land use, zoning and infrastructure issues will need to be addressed based on related applications from you to pursue your planned development. P.O.BOX 9960•1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION •TEXAS•77842 979.764.3570 www.cstx.gov Mr.Tony Jones September 21,2005 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know if you have any further questions, or need assistance. Sincerely, Joey p nn, AICP Dir tor of Planning & Development Services CC: Glenn Brown, Interim City Manager Harvey Cargill, City Attorney John Woody, College Station Utilities Director Don Fazzino, Manager of Special Projects &Legislative Affairs S I / CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning&Development Services August 24, 2005 Tony Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South College Station, TX 77845 RE: 8.22 acre tract at Jones-Butler Road and Cain Road in Brazos County Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for visiting with Don Fazzino and me on Monday as a follow-up to your conversation with Mayor Silvia last week in reference to your August 1, 2005 letter to him and the City Council. I would like to briefly summarize in this letter what we have discussed over the past several months, with regard to the order of steps and issues that need to be resolved in order for you to develop the property referenced above. As you indicate in your letter, there have been numerous conversations with staff over the past four years about this property. More recently, in December 2004, you approached city staff about the possibility of the 8.22 acre tract to be annexed in order for you to receive sewer service from the City for the development of 29 duplex lots. At that time, we laid out the issues that needed to be resolved: 1. Annexation. As per policy set by Council resolution in January 2004, sewer services are extended through annexation. However, you did not want to include Jones-Butler right-of-way(which separates the 8 acres from the existing city limits), citing an Attorney General's opinion that properties separated from city limits by right-of-way could be considered "contiguous" property, for annexation purposes. We indicated to you that although it appeared annexation was possible, we did not recommend that a gap remain between your property and other city limit boundaries. 2. Land use and zoning. We indicated to you our concern regarding the amount of existing duplexes within the city as a whole, and that this area is reflected on the Land Use Plan as Rural Density Residential. If annexed into the city, both a Land Use Plan amendment(from Rural Residential to Residential Attached) and a zoning change (from A-O Agricultural Open to R-2 Duplex Residential) would be involved for the development of duplexes at this location. On March 1st, staff met with you and advised you to initiate a request to amend the Land Use Plan (from Rural Residential to Residential) as a first step, in order to get direction from Council on how receptive they might be to the development of duplexes at this location. We also recommended at that time that you consider development of single family homes, rather than duplexes, at this location. 3. Platting and fire flow requirements. We discussed that as part of the platting process, water and sewer lines would need to be extended to your property as a development cost. The property is also located within the Wellborn Special Utility District CCN (certificate of convenience and necessity) area. On January 13th you provided a letter from Wellborn SUD, stating that you could use an existing 8" private water service line that extends along Jones Butler Road, and that technically Wellborn SUD would allow City water to serve fire flow needs in their CCN area. Although it appeared that this issue was addressed through the Wellborn SUD letter, we voiced concern to you over the arrangement of having a long private water line serve fire flow to this property, and the inability to ensure the maintenance of this line in the event the City would need it to fight a fire at a duplex on your property. At our meeting this past Monday, August 22, 2005, you indicated that you wish to have the property annexed first, with the risk that the Land Use Plan or zoning would still need be changed, and other utility issues would have to be resolved to allow for duplexes to be developed on this property, after it comes into the City. Staff concurred that initiating annexation first could provide some direction from Council regarding duplex development, however land use and zoning would still be determined through separate processes. At this time, we would ask that in order to initiate the annexation process, please submit your request in simple letter format. Upon receipt of your letter, staff will prepare an annexation timeline for the request to come before the Council. If approved for annexation, the other issues outlined above (Land Use Plan amendment, rezoning, platting, water, and sewer)would need to be resolved, as discussed. Thanks again for meeting with me on Monday, and please let me know if you have any further questions, or need assistance. Sincerely, Joey Dunn, AICP Director of Planning& Development Services CC: Glenn Brown, Interim City Manager Harvey Cargill, City Attorney John Woody, College Station Utilities Director Don Fazzino, Manager of Special Projects & Legislative Affairs 1 Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South -r College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 August 1, 2005 Mayor Ron Silvia and City Council Members AUG - 3 2005 City of College Station Dear Mayor Silvia: I am writing this letter in regard to an ongoing project that I have been working on since 2001. I am respectfully requesting to be on the agenda at either a workshop or regular City Council Meeting. Here visitors on the agenda would not accomplish my objective in that I need a dialogue between the Council and myself. I will give you a brief summary so that you may understand my request and dilemma. In mid 2001, I requested help and direction in obtaining permission from the City of College Station to receive sewer services for a parcel of property I own that is outside of the city limits. I was transferred to the Waste Water Department on Rock Prairie Road and eventually, Mr. Joseph was assigned to work with me on the project. It was after a couple of meetings that Mr. Joseph told me that I would first have to prove that there was sufficient capacity in the line to service my project. I hired an engineer to do the study, and the engineer's study showed that there was sufficient capacity to serve over 100 units. It was my intent to construct twenty-nine (29) duplexes or fifty-eight (58) units and thus a more than adequate capacity was available. I would have been required to install a lift-station to use the six (6) inch line on Dowling Road. Our study showed an eight (8) inch line going south across FM 2818 and then reducing to a six (6) inch line to service the water treatment plant on Dowling Road. The continued demand for duplexes then and now, have kept me trying to receive the use of the city's sewer line. I was not able to complete the engineer's study until the first part of 2002. The timing to complete the platting, designing, and development was to late to meet the construction of the duplexes so I purchased lots and would come back and do the development on a later date. In the later part of 2003 I met with John Woody in the Waste Water Department to continue the process of obtaining sewer service. It was in that meeting that John made me aware of the city's plan to extend a sewer line west and across FM 2154 (Wellborn Road) to service the newly annexed land. This line would be of a sufficient depth so that my requested line use would have a gravity fall to the city's new line. I immediately met 09)s Hairuel CRMO &31,Cn ---70011 5��� t,D �1 , PaU-q0r (( - ( : ' vl D17rifl 2 with Natalie Ruiz on this project and began the process in October. Natalie called me in the first part of January 2004 to let me know of a change in policy by the City Council to not allow the use of city services for property outside the city limits. This was signed by the mayor in January 2004. In February of 2004 I began the process to obtain sewer service by way of voluntary annexation. My 8.22 acres is across the street form the city limits. The only separation was by way of a 100' R.O.W., a Brazos County Road (Jones/Butler Road). It has always been my intent to develop the property within the guidelines of the City of College Station's specifications (asphalt streets, curbs, gutters, and lot sizes). Therefore, annexation was not an obstacle. Natalie Ruiz called to inform me of a possible legal problem as to whether the city could accept voluntary annexation in that the land was not contiguous or adjacent to the city limits. Again the process has eliminated the possibility of platting, designing, and developing the property in a timely manner to have the completed duplexes ready for the August rental market. In December of 2004 I met with Glen Brown and Joey Dunn about the continuation of the project. I had obtained legal advice about the possibility of voluntary annexation. We had found a number of legal cases in which the, definition of contiguous and adjacent were defined. One case stated that if the property was separated by a public R.O.W. it was considered contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. There were a number of other cases provided including a Supreme Court definition of contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. I was lead to believe that Harvey was not satisfied or was not totally agreeable with the information provided. It was in this same meeting that Joey Dunn made me aware of another obstacle that I had to overcome regarding the adoption of an ordinance, in August 2004, that required a 1000 gal/min fire flow. I immediately went to work trying to overcome this obstacle. There exists, within the County R.O.W. a private 8" water line. I could by way of permission of the owner of the water line, tap the line, install a meter and service the property with the 1000 gal/min fire flow. I also obtained permission from Wellborn Special Utility District to allow the City of College Station to service the fire flow only with all other water to be serviced by Wellborn Special Utility District. In April of 2005, I was informed that I had to go through a land plan change. My property is outside the city limits of College Station and is classified as rural residential and if annexed would come in as AO (Agriculture Open). On Tuesday of the week that I met with the Land Plan Committee, I was informed that I had to turn in all of the necessary information to the city by 10:00 am on Friday, of the same week. I could not timely meet those requirements. The next consideration period was ninety (90) days later. To reach my property down Cain Road you have to pass twelve (12) four plexes. The property immediately to the south has sixteen (16) duplexes. My plan to develop the property for duplex use is in a common use as it exists today. I have attached an aerial view of the area to help in understanding my request. 3 In summary of this project, I started in 2001 with the city under a group of City Staff that is no longer with the city. I was lead to believe I had to prove the capacity to obtain the right to use but had to come to the City Council for final approval and service costs. In 2003 I continued with staff to update and obtain direction. Those city staff members are no longer with the city. In 2004 the city initiated a change in policy that all but eliminated me from being able to develop the property, by a new policy not to allow city services outside the city limits and the 1000 gal/min fire flow. In 2005 I started again with new city staff members that were not involved in past negotiations. Joey Dunn has been helpful, but cannot speak for the council. He is not sure the council will support my request and therefore, I am at a stand still. In my first request I was lead to believe that all I had to do was prove the capacity. All the new policies and requirements were not a consideration. I am respectfully requesting the City Council to consider allowing me to have the use of the city's sewer service. I will develop the property to the city's specifications and have obtained permission to allow the city's water service for the 1000 gal/min fire flow. When the city annexes this area in the future it will meet their requirements and specifications. Thank you for all of your time and consideration in this manner. Hopefully, I will be able to address this matter as an agenda item. Respectfully, /k/.I Tony Jones Enclosures Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 --- Fax : (979) 695-2941 August 3, 2005 Joey Dunn City of College Station Joey, I have tried to visit with you about this letter but the timing always had you in another meeting or out of town. Joey, after a lot of time and consideration I have decided to ask the Council to place me on the agenda to discuss this matter. I started this process a long time ago, way before you returned to the City of College Station. I do appreciate all of our conversations but feel based on the time, requests, and staff turnovers that I am being penalized. I know you can not speak for the Council but I believe my continued attempts with staff and the changed in policy and ordinances have prevented me from developing this property. You have been helpful in our discussions but I have not been successful in my many attempts to develop this land. We discussed using this land for R-1. The use of R-1 next to existing duplexes and cross from fourplexes has a negative opinion with future buyers. This would turn into rental property and given that this theory is correct I believe my original request R-2 is the better use. My primary objective is to receive sewer service and the Council is the only one that can give that permission. Therefore, I am asking to be placed on an agenda either in workshop or a regular meeting to discuss the history and past dealings with staff. I was lead to believe initially that I had to prove the capacity was available and then we could go to the council for approval and how the service was to be charged. Today I am a long was from our initial discussions. I trust you will understand my reasoning and actions in this request. I do appreciate your help and conversation in this matter and hopefully I may receive permission from the City Council for sewer service. Thank You i, I / �� onyJG es Anthony L. Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, Texas 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 --- Fax : (979) 695-2941 August 1, 2005 Mayor Ron Silvia and City Council Members City of College Station Dear Mayor Silvia: I am writing this letter in regard to an ongoing project that I have been working on since 2001. I am respectfully requesting to be on the agenda at either a workshop or regular City Council Meeting. Here visitors on the agenda would not accomplish my objective in that I need a dialogue between the Council and myself. I will give you a brief summary so that you may understand my request and dilemma. In mid 2001, I requested help and direction in obtaining permission from the City of College Station to receive sewer services for a parcel of property I own that is outside of the city limits. I was transferred to the Waste Water Department on Rock Prairie Road and eventually, Mr. Joseph was assigned to work with me on the project. It was after a couple of meetings that Mr. Joseph told me that I would first have to prove that there was sufficient capacity in the line to service my project. I hired an engineer to do the study, and the engineer's study showed that there was sufficient capacity to serve over 100 units. It was my intent to construct twenty-nine (29) duplexes or fifty-eight (58) units and thus a more than adequate capacity was available. I would have been required to install a lift-station to use the six (6) inch line on Dowling Road. Our study showed an eight (8) inch line going south across FM 2818 and then reducing to a six (6) inch line to service the water treatment plant on Dowling Road. The continued demand for duplexes then and now, have kept me trying to receive the use of the city's sewer line. I was not able to complete the engineer's study until the first part of 2002. The timing to complete the platting, designing, and development was to late to meet the construction of the duplexes so I purchased lots and would come back and do the development on a later date. In the later part of 2003 I met with John Woody in the Waste Water Department to continue the process of obtaining sewer service. It was in that meeting that John made me aware of the city's plan to extend a sewer line west and across FM 2154 (Wellborn Road) to service the newly annexed land. This line would be of a sufficient depth so that my requested line use would have a gravity fall to the city's new line. I immediately met 2 with Natalie Ruiz on this project and began the process in October. Natalie called me in the first part of January 2004 to let me know of a change in policy by the City Council to not allow the use of city services for property outside the city limits. This was signed by the mayor in January 2004. In February of 2004 1 began the process to obtain sewer service by way of voluntary annexation. My 8.22 acres is across the street form the city limits. The only separation was by way of a 100' R.O.W., a Brazos County Road (Jones/Butler Road). It has always been my intent to develop the property within the guidelines of the City of College Station's specifications (asphalt streets, curbs, gutters, and lot sizes). Therefore, annexation was not an obstacle. Natalie Ruiz called to inform me of a possible legal problem as to whether the city could accept voluntary annexation in that the land was not contiguous or adjacent to the city limits. Again the process has eliminated the possibility of platting, designing, and developing the property in a timely manner to have the completed duplexes ready for the August rental market. In December of 2004 I met with Glen Brown and Joey Dunn about the continuation of the project. I had obtained legal advice about the possibility of voluntary annexation. We had found a number of legal cases in which the, definition of contiguous and adjacent were defined. One case stated that if the property was separated by a public R.O.W. it was considered contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. There were a number of other cases provided including a Supreme Court definition of contiguous and adjacent to the city limits. I was lead to believe that Harvey was not satisfied or was not totally agreeable with the information provided. It was in this same meeting that Joey Dunn made me aware of another obstacle that I had to overcome regarding the adoption of an ordinance, in August 2004, that required a 1000 gal/min fire flow. I immediately went to work trying to overcome this obstacle. There exists, within the County R.O.W. a private 8" water line. I could by way of permission of the owner of the water line, tap the line, install a meter and service the property with the 1000 gal/min fire flow. I also obtained permission from Wellborn Special Utility District to allow the City of College Station to service the fire flow only with all other water to be serviced by Wellborn Special Utility District. In April of 2005, I was informed that I had to go through a land plan change. My property is outside the city limits of College Station and is classified as rural residential and if annexed would come in as AO (Agriculture Open). On Tuesday of the week that I met with the Land Plan Committee, I was informed that I had to turn in all of the necessary information to the city by 10:00 am on Friday, of the same week. I could not timely meet those requirements. The next consideration period was ninety (90) days later. To reach my property down Cain Road you have to pass twelve (12) four plexes. The property immediately to the south has sixteen (16) duplexes. My plan to develop the property for duplex use is in a common use as it exists today. I have attached an aerial view of the area to help in understanding my request. 0 p 3 In summary of this project, I started in 2001 with the city under a group of City Staff that is no longer with the city. I was lead to believe I had to prove the capacity to obtain the right to use but had to come to the City Council for final approval and service costs. In 2003 l continued with staff to update and obtain direction. Those city staff members are no longer with the city. In 2004 the city initiated a change in policy that all but eliminated me from being able to develop the property, by a new policy not to allow city services outside the city limits and the 1000 gal/min fire flow. In 2005 l started again with new city staff members that were not involved in past negotiations. Joey Dunn has been helpful, but cannot speak for the council. He is not sure the council will support my request and therefore, I am at a stand still. In my first request I was lead to believe that all I had to do was prove the capacity. All the new policies and requirements were not a consideration. I am respectfully requesting the City Council to consider allowing me to have the use of the city's sewer service. I will develop the property to the city's specifications and have obtained permission to allow the city's water service for the 1000 gal/min fire flow. When the city annexes this area in the future it will meet their requirements and specifications. Thank you for all of your time and consideration in this manner. Hopefully, I will be able to address this matter as an agenda item. Respectfully, Tony Jones Enclosures February 24, 2005 Joey Dunn c/o City of College Station College Station, TX HAND DELIVERED RE: Request for a Land Use Amendment Dear Joey: I am with this letter asking that my formal request for a land use amendment be placed on both the Planning and Zoning and City Council Agendas. It is my understanding from the submittal deadline dates given that my request prior to Monday, March 7th will allow me to be on the Agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 7, 2005, and the City Council Agenda for April 28, 2005. Hopefully, my understanding is correct. If I have to complete an application format, please forward this to my attention at the soonest possible time thereby allowing a timely submittal for the March 7th deadline. I have not gone through this type of submittal in the past, so please excuse my unawareness. Your help in this matter would be most appreciated. Thank y5 , 11/1,4.,-A / Tony Jones 3205 Earl Rudder Fwy. S. College Station, TX 77845 Office: 693-6699 Cell: 219-8669 e-mail: tonyjones@txcyber.com Wellborn SUD 979 690 1260 p. 2 WELLBORN S PECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT Board of Directors Jerry Ransom,President Gary Spence,Vice President Charles Robertson.Treasurer Theresa Schehin, Secretary A P. Boyd Kenneth Goodman MEMORANDUM: Mary Herron John Winder Jack Winslow DATE: January 13, 2005 TO: Mr. Tony Jones and The City of College Station, Texas 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South College Station, TX 77845 SUBJECT: Wellbom Special Utility District and City of College Station, Texas, provision of water for Domestic Use and Fire Flow Protection to 8.22 acre located on the West Side and adjacent to Jones Butler Road, North and West of its intersection with Cain Road Wellborn Special Utility District(WSUD) confirms the following: 1. The City of College Station shall be allowed, without objection from WSUD, to provide fire flow protection and service of water for such limited purpose to the planned development of the referenced 8.22 acre tract. 2. WSUD, subject to the developer meeting the requirements set forth in the District's Subdivision Policy and Rules and a Development Agreement to be executed, shall provide the domestic water service to the planned development within its certificated area. 3. WSUD would be able to provide the fire flow necessary to meet City's fire protection requirements in the event it became necessary or desired for the development. As stated in 1., above, however, the District does not object to the fire protection being provided by the City. Dated this /3 day of January, 2005. Wellborn Special Utility District By: S -phen Cast, ana er P.O. Box 250 • 4118 GREENS PRAIRIE RD. • WELLBORN, TX 77881 • PHONE (979) 690-9799 • Fax (979) 690-I260 AGGIELAND DEVELOPMENT & REAL ESTATE, L.L.C. 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, TX 77845 Tel: (979) 693-6699 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 aggroup@txcyber.com December 14, 2004 Joey Dunn City of College Station I have set forth below, to the best of my memory and documentation, a history of my dealings with the City of College Station on these 8.22 acres off Cain Road: 1. In 2001, I first started communications with city staff regarding sewer service for areas outside the city limit line. 2. I worked with a Mr. Joseph at the Utility Building on Graham Road. My first request was could I obtain sewer service and what were the costs. The answer was I would have to prove that the 6" line at Dowling Road had the capacity to service this property. It was determined that if I went back to FM 2818/Dowling Road, there was an 8" line on the South side of FM 2818. If I brought the 8" line to Dowling Road/IGN right of way, there would be capacity for 129 dwelling units. The cost of sewer service had to be set by the City Council. This study was completed around June of 2002. 3. It was too late to start development for that year and we had purchased lots for 2003. So, these lots were not of need. 4. In 2003, around September, when talking to John Woody about starting the process of platting and developing, John made me aware of the City of College Station's plan to bring a new sewer line across Wellborn to the West side of the railroad. The cost without a lift station would be a more economical development. We have been anxiously awaiting the start of the sewer line construction. Page Two Letter to Joey Dunn City of College Station December 14, 2004 5. In January of 2004,Natalie Reese contacted me about a change the City Council was taking on services to areas outside the City of College Station. (I have attached a copy of the resolution, which was signed in January 2004). 6. In my meeting with you and Glen on Tuesday, December 7, we talked about the annexation possibilities. I brought a copy of a definition as to permissibility based on"adjacent and contiguous." These are definitions on other cases, but the definitions on both are the same. I've attached some other documentation for your review. 7. In our meeting, you made me aware of a new requirement adopted in August '04,that it is necessary to have a fire service of 1000 gal/min. This again was never a condition from any other conversation in the three year history on these 8.22 acres. Joey, I am asking for some help and with the above mentioned trials of attempting to go forward there seems to be a never ending growth of additional requirements toward this development. I am now working with the third set of staff members. Each time there have been continual changes and additional demands. I am not asking for favors or something for nothing, but to give consideration in my request to develop this property. I have tried diligently to satisfy all requests of the City. Each time has met with additional requirements. My requests are as follows: 1. May I both submit for annexation and zoning at the same time? 2. If it would be permissible with Edsel Jones, could I tap onto his 8"water line and bring it across the street for fire purposes only? The use of potable water would be serviced by Wellborn Water's 4" line located at Cain Road and Jones Bulter Road. 3. I have attached different examples regarding annexation, both use"adjacent" and "contiguous." Other sections of the government code define both"adjacent" and "contiguous." Both definitions are defined as next to public land, public easement, utility easement, a railroad right of way, or a right of way: A) in 43.021 (Authority of Home-Rule Municipality to Annex Area and Take Other Action Regarding Boundaries) talks about extending boundaries of the municipality and annex area"adjacent"to the municipality B) in 43.024 (Authority of Type A General Law Municipality to Annex on Request of Area Voters) states "is `contiguous' to a Type A General Law Municipality." C) in Chapter 51.714 (Adding Land by Petition of Landowner) defines "contiguous" D) in 711.003 defines "adjacent" Page Three Letter to Joey Dunn City of College Station December 14, 2004 E) in 716.003 defines "adjacent to" F) Attorney General opinion GA-0014,regarding the annexation of property in extra- territorial jurisdiction but not contiguous with city limit line. Also, gives a definition of"adjacent" as defined by the courts. Joey, I am trying very hard to follow the rules, but the rules keep changing. The changes are more and more difficult for me to develop the acreage. I can not see where this request is not legal, and not to the City's financial benefit. I'm asking for your help! Sincere j Air. A Ar('411144010..- "ony J•-r'�s Enclosures. AGGIELAND DEVELOPMENT & REAL ESTATE, L.L.C. 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South — College Station, TX 77845 Tel: (979) 764-7788 — Fax : (979) 695-2941 January 12, 2005 Joey Dunn City of College Station Joey: I have with your request included a number of opinions and cases that I believe defines"adjacent and contiguous." I believe the Attorney General's Opinion No. GA-0014 clearly defines that the property in the ETJ of College Station is the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of College Station. Within Opinion GA-0014 it further defines "adjacent" that has been defined by the courts to mean"neighboring or close by" or"in the vicinity of and not necessarily contiguous or touching upon." It further states that in the context of requesting opinion that San Antonio's ETJ is "the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of the municipality and that is located...within 5 miles of those boundaries." (SA is over 100,000 in population, therefore it has 5 mile ETJ.) CS is less than 100,000 and therefore has a smaller radius. In the Westlaw copy of Court of Civil Appeals # 17093 under headnote #3 it defines "adjacent." Opinion 287 at the end of headnote #18 it states that the Texas Supreme Court has held that"adjacent" has the same definition. Joey, I am trying very hard to satisfy the question of whether I legally request voluntary annexation on the 8.22 acres on Jones Butler Road. I believe that I have shown the definition of "adjacent and contiguous"to further show that it is legal to be voluntarily annexed. In our last telephone conversation, you stated those challenges that I must counter: 1. Prove that the definitions to provide for my property to be annexed. 2. Obtain a letter from Wellborn Special Utility District giving permission for the City of College Station to provide water for fire control on my proposed property to be annexed, that falls in their C.C.N. 3. The question of zoning would be decided by the P&Z and the City Council and you could not guarantee this zoning. Letter to Joey Dunn January 12, 2005 Page Two I believe that I have proven that the subject property could be legally annexed. Wellborn Special Utility District is preparing a letter to allow the City to provide water for fire control. I am prepared to argue for the zoning request based on location, conformity to neighboring property, and the active demand that is being requested. Time has become a major factor in this request. I would appreciate your help so that the necessary engineering work can be completed for my request. Thank ou on, J.nes Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 1 of 6 Sat; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG... ABBOTT January 22, 2003 The Honorable Frank Madla Opinion No. GA-0014 Chair, Intergovernmental Relations Committee Re: Effect of certain annexations on the Texas Senate extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of P. O. Box 12068 San Antonio (RQ-0580-JC) Austin, Texas 78711-2068 Dear Senator Madla: You inform us that the City of San Antonio ("the city" or "San Antonio") is considering the annexation of a tract of land owned by the city and located in part in Medina County. (1) The land in question is known as the Mayberry tract. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. As of the date of your letter, the Mayberry tract is not contiguous with the San Antonio city limits, but separated from the city by other parcels of land. See id. attachment ("2002 Annexation Study Areas"). Thus, if the Mayberry Tract is annexed by the city, Mayberry's boundaries will not connect with the city's present boundaries. You ask whether the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction("the ETJ") will expand if it: (1) annexes the Mayberry tract and (2) subsequently annexes the properties that separate the Mayberry tract from the city's boundaries. See id. at 1. The city's ETJ will not expand if it annexes the Mayberry tract at a time when it is not contiguous with the city's boundaries. If San Antonio subsequently annexes the properties that separate the Mayberry tract from the city's boundaries, the boundaries will expand to include the unincorporated area within five miles of the city boundary that encompasses the Mayberry tract. You also ask whether the December 31, 2002, effective date of new annexation procedures adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th Texas Legislature will have an impact on the process of annexing these properties. See id. at 2. Local Government Code section 42.0225 applies to an annexation included in a municipality's annexation plan prepared under Local Government Code section 43.052, as amended by Senate Bill 89. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 42.0225, 43.052 (Vernon Supp. 2003). (24 If the area was not included in that annexation plan during the period from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2002, Local Government Code section 42.0225 will still apply to the annexation if the first hearing notice required by former section 43.052 was published on or after September 1, 1999. We turn to your first question, which relates to the expansion of a city's ETJ upon annexing additional territory. "The extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality is the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of the municipality and that is located . . . within five miles of those boundaries, in the case of a municipality with 100,000 or more inhabitants." Id. § 42.021(5) (Vernon 1999) (also setting out ETJ for cities of fewer inhabitants). San Antonio's population greatly exceeds 100,000 persons, and thus its ETJ http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/ga-0014.htm 1/10/2005 Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 2 of 6 extends five miles from its boundaries. See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 2000 Census of Population, available at http://www.census.gov/. A municipality may annex additional territory that is adjacent to its existing boundaries, within its ETJ. See City of Wichita Falls v. State ex rel. Vogtsberger, 533 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. 1976);see also Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 43.021 (home-rule city), 43.033-43.034 (general-law city) (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2003). "Adjacent" has been defined by the courts to mean "'neighboring or close by' or 'in the vicinity of and not necessarily contiguous or touch ng upon.' City of Waco v. City of McGregor, 523 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tex. 1975) (quoting State ex rel. Pan American Prod. Co. v. Texas City, 303 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. 1957); see also III Oxford English Dictionary 822 (2d ed. 1989) (contiguous means "touching, in actual contact, . . . meeting at a common boundary");Joaquin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fincher, 510 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1974, writ ref d n.r.e.) ("contiguous . . . districts must . . . touch one another [so] that all may be included in a common boundary line, without any intervening spaces"). "Adjacency is a question of law which must be determined in the context of the facts of each particular case." City of Waco, 523 S.W.2d at 653; City of Irving v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist., 383 S.W.2d 571, 576 (Tex. 1964) ("'Adjacency,' as between two Home Rule cities, must be tested by the facts in each case."). San Antonio, as a home-rule city, see Texas River Barges v. City of San Antonio, 21 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. denied), may "annex area adjacent to the municipality" according to rules provided in its charter and not inconsistent with the procedural rules of Local Government Code chapter 43. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.021 (Vernon 1999). The Mayberry tract is currently within San Antonio's ETJ, according to San Antonio, see Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1, but it does not have a common boundary with San Antonio. We do not know whether the Mayberry area is "adjacent" to the City of San Antonio as required by the annexation statutes, and, in any case,we have not been asked this question. We assume for purposes of your request that San Antonio may annex this tract, and we consider only whether the city's ETJ will expand if it does so. When a city annexes an area, "the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality expands with the annexation to comprise, consistent with Section 42.021,the area around the new municipal boundaries." See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 42.022(a) (Vernon 1999). Thus, when a city of 100,000 or more inhabitants annexes an area, its new ETJ would generally comprise the unincorporated area contiguous to the new city boundaries within five miles of the new boundaries. See id. § 42.021(5). However, Local Government Code section 42.0225, adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th Legislature, would provide a different answer with respect to San Antonio's annexation of the Mayberry tract. See id. § 42.0225 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Senate Bill 89,which adopted numerous changes to the annexation process,took effect September 1, 1999, but compliance with some of its provisions was delayed until December 31, 2002. See Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 17, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4090 (effective date and transition clause). In addressing your first question, we consider only the effect of section 42.0225 on an annexation to which it applies and defer considering whether it applies to a proposed annexation until we address your last question. Section 42.0225 applies: only to an area owned by a municipality that is: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/ga-0014.htm 1/10/2005 Tex. Atty Gen. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 3 of 6 (1) annexed by the municipality; and (2)not contiguous to other territory of the municipality. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 42.0225(a) (Vernon Supp. 2003). "Notwithstanding Section 42.021,the annexation of an area described by Subsection(a) [quoted above] does not expand the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality." Id. § 42.0225(b). The Mayberry tract is owned by San Antonio and is not contiguous to other territory of the city. Pursuant to this provision, the annexation of this tract will not expand San Antonio's ETJ. You next ask whether the city's ETJ will expand if it subsequently annexes the properties that separate the Mayberry tract from the boundaries of the rest of the city. We understand that annexation of the intervening land will connect the Mayberry tract to the rest of San Antonio and make its boundary continuous with the boundary of the main part of the city, and our answer is premised on this understanding. No special provision comparable to Local Government Code section 42.0225 addresses these circumstances, and we accordingly look to Local Government Code section 42.022, the general provision on expansion of the ETJ through annexation. When a city annexes an area,the city's ETJ ordinarily expands to provide a new ETJ consistent with section 42.021. See id. § 42.022(a) (Vernon 1999); see also id. § 42.022(c) (a city's ETJ will not expand through annexation to include any area in the existing ETJ of another municipality). San • Antonio's ETJ is "the unincorporated area that is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of the municipality and that is located . . . within five miles of those boundaries." Id. § 42.021 (5). Thus, if San Antonio annexes the property separating the Mayberry tract from the main part of the city, San Antonio's ETJ will expand to include the unincorporated area within five miles of the city boundary that encompasses the Mayberry tract. You also state that the annexation of the properties mentioned in your letter may occur prior to December 31, 2002, when new annexation provisions adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th session will become fully applicable, and you ask whether the December 31, 2002, date will affect the annexation of the properties. See Request Letter,supra note 1, at 2. See also Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 17, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4090 (effective date). We lack sufficient information to apply the transition and effective date provisions of Senate Bill 89 to specific properties and will accordingly deal generally with the impact of the December 31, 2002, date on annexations. The city will have access to the information necessary to determine how the effective date provisions apply to a property it wishes to annex. Senate Bill 89 changed the municipal annexation process in a number of ways, among other things, "requiring cities to implement advance annexation planning procedures and providing for the timely provision [of] services to the annexed areas." See Senate Research Ctr., Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 89, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999) (enrolled version "Digest"). Under this enactment a city must prepare an annexation plan specifying the annexations that it intends to implement in three years' time. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.052 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Written notice of the adoption or amendment of the plan must be provided to each property owner in the affected area and to certain entities providing services there within ninety days of the time the plan is adopted or amended. See id. § 43.052(f). After a proposed annexation has appeared in the annexation plan for three years, the city has thirty- one days from the end of the three-year period to complete the annexation. See id. § 43.052 httn://www.oaa.state.tx.us/oninions/on50abbott/aa-0014.htm 1/10/2005 Tex. Afty Gen. Op.No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 4 of 6 (g); see also id. § 43.056 (annexing city would have to provide full services to the annexed area within two and one-half years, with certain exceptions). Senate Bill 89 also adopted Local Government Code section 42.0225, the subject of your first question. See Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 1, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074. Senate Bill 89 took effect September 1, 1999, but compliance with its changes to the annexation process has been phased in over a period of time ending December 31, 2002. See id. § 17, at 4090. Section 17 of the bill,the effective date provision, requires each municipality to adopt an annexation plan as required by Local Government Code section 43.052, as amended by Senate Bill 89, on or before December 31, 1999, to become effective December 31, 1999. See id. Local Government Code section 43.052 requires a municipality to prepare an annexation plan "that specifically identifies annexations that may occur beginning on the third anniversary of the date the annexation plan is adopted." Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.052(c) (Vernon Supp. 2003). A municipality may annex an area identified in the plan only as provided by section 43.052. See id. § 43.052(b). With certain exceptions, a city may not annex an area without including it in the annexation plan. See id. § 43.052(c), (h). See also House Research Org., Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 89, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999) at 3-5. An area not included in the annexation plan may be annexed until December 31, 2002, pursuant to annexation law as it was before the effective date of Senate Bill 89, unless the first public hearing of the annexation procedure was conducted on or after September 1, 1999. See Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 17(c), (d), 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4090. In the latter case, certain changes in the law as specified in section 17(d) of the bill apply to the annexation. See id. See also id. § 17(e) (specifying changes in the law applicable to the annexation of an area not required to be included in a municipal annexation plan if the first hearing notice is published on or after September 1, 1999). Subsection 17(f) of Senate Bill 89 provides when Local Government Code section 42.0225, the provision we addressed in answering your first question, will apply to annexations. Subsection 17(f)provides that the change made by section 1 of Senate Bill 89, which adopted Local Government Code section 42.0225, applies only to: (1) an annexation included in a municipality's annexation plan prepared under Section 43.052, Local Government Code, as amended by this Act; and (2) an annexation of an area that is not included in the municipality's annexation plan during the period beginning December 31, 1999, and ending December 31, 2002, if the first hearing notice required by Section 43.052, Local Government Code, as it existed immediately before September 1, 1999, is published on or after that date. Id. § 17(f). Prior to its amendment by Senate Bill 89, Local Government Code section 43.052 required the governing body of a municipality to conduct two public hearings preceded by notice published in a newspaper before instituting annexation proceedings. See Act of May 1, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, § 1, sec. 43.052, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 707, 751 (nonsubstantive revision of statutes relating to local government), amended by Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 4, sec. 43.052, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4075. Pursuant to http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/ga-0014.htm 1/10/2005 Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 5 of 6 subsection 17(f) quoted above, Local Government Code section 42.0225 applies to an annexation included in a municipality's annexation plan prepared under Local Government Code section 43.052, as amended by Senate Bill 89. If the area was not included in the annexation plan during the period beginning December 31, 1999, and ending December 31, 2002, Local Government Code section 42.0225 will still apply to the annexation if the first hearing notice required by former section 43.052 was published on or after September 1, 1999. Accordingly, if San Antonio annexes land that it owns and that is not contiguous with its boundaries before December 31, 2002,the land will be subject to Local Government Code section 42.0225: (1) if the land is included in its annexation plan, or (2), with respect to land that is not included in its annexation plan during the period from December 31, 1999, to December 31, 2002, if the first hearing notice required by former section 43.052 was published on or after September 1, 1999. If neither circumstance exists,the law prior to the September 1, 1999 effective date of Senate Bill 89 applies to the annexation. SUMMARY Section 42.0225 of the Local Government Code, as adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th Legislature, provides that a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction will not expand if it annexes an area that it owns and that is not contiguous to other territory of the municipality. If the city subsequently annexes the properties that separate the noncontiguous land from its boundaries, the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction will expand pursuant to Local Government Code section 42.021 to include, in the case of a city with a population of 100,000 or more, the unincorporated area within five miles of the city boundary. If a city annexes such land before December 31, 2002, the land will be subject to Local Government Code section 42.0225: (1) if it is included in its annexation plan, or (2), with respect to land that is not included in its annexation plan during the time period from December 31, 1999, to December 31, 2002, if the first hearing notice required by former section 43.052 was published on or after September 1, 1999. Very truly yours, /4418, altir GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas BARRY MCBEE First Assistant Attorney General NANCY FULLER Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel RICK GILPIN Deputy Chair, Opinion Committee http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/ga-0014.htm 1/10/2005 hex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 6 of 6 Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee Footnotes 1. See Letter from Honorable Frank Madla, Chair, Intergovernmental Relations Committee, Texas Senate, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (July 22, 2002) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter]; see also Zeke MacCormack, S.A.'s Moves Bring Worry to Medina; The area's leaders see possible annexation as part of a bid for lake water, San Antonio Express-News, May 21,2002, at O1B; 2002 WL 20698316. 2. See Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, §§ 1, 4, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4075-77. POST OFFICE BOX 12548,AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL:(512)463-2100 W W W.OAG.STATE.TX.US An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Home I Opinions http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/Qa-0014.htm 1/10/2005 Page 2 of 10 Westlaw. 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 1 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) H annexing city's boundaries is law question. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175. Fort Worth. [3]Municipal Corporations €29(4) 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases CITY OF ARLINGTON,Texas,Appellant, "Adjacent" within statute granting home-rule cities v. power to annex adjacent territory means contiguous CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE,Texas,Appellee. and in the neighborhood of or in the vicinity of a municipality.Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175. No. 17093. [4]Municipal Corporations €29(4) Feb. 6, 1970. 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases Rehearing Denied March 13, 1970. That, at time annexing ordinance was adopted on first reading, area sought to be annexed was adjacent to land that city had included under first One city sued another for injunction restraining reading of other annexing ordinances previously annexation of area and for judgment declaring area adopted did not satisfy requirement that annexed to be part of plaintiff The District Court, Tarrant land be adjacent to limits of annexing city. County, Harold Craik, J., declared area to be part of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 970a, 1175. plaintiff and granted permanent injunction against [5]Municipal Corporations ?29(4) defendant which appealed. The Court of Civil 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases Appeals, Brewster, J., held that statute, effective Land included in annexing ordinance adopted by March 13, 1969, validating extension of boundary city only on first reading is not yet a part of city and lines of city as of date of incorporation proceedings may not be considered in determining whether other validated the act of passing ordinance on first land sought to be annexed is adjacent to city limits. reading annexing land not adjacent to plaintiff city Vemon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 970a, 1175. in 1955 and the act in passing that ordinance at [6]Municipal Corporations 0=33(2) second reading in 1961, whether or not land was 268k33(2)Most Cited Cases then adjacent to annexing city, and area became Under Municipal Annexation Act making any integral part of plaintiff in 1961, and therefore any pending annexation proceeding not completed by validation of two 1963 annexation ordinances of November 20, 1963 null and void, effectiveness of defendant was ineffective to give defendant any first reading in 1958 of annexation ordinance rights in area, but that plaintiff was not entitled to expired by operation of law when annexing city injunction. failed to complete annexation prior to November 20, 1963. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 970a, 1174e. Part of judgment declaring rights affirmed and part [7]Municipal Corporations€ )33(2) granting injunctive relief reversed, and judgment 268k33(2)Most Cited Cases rendered denying injunctive relief. Statute validating all ordinances, resolutions and proceedings passed and adopted prior to March 1, West Headnotes 1961 by home-rule cities undertaking to annex [1] Municipal Corporations '29(4) adjacent and contiguous territory did not validate 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases ordinance whereby city sought to annex land that City cannot legally annex land that is not adjacent was neither adjacent to nor contiguous to its to its city limits. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175. boundaries at time ordinance was passed at first [2] Municipal Corporations X29(4) reading, even if land was contiguous when 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases ordinance was passed on final reading on May 15, Whether land sought to be annexed is adjacent to 1961. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1174e. Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 3 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 2 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) [8] Municipal Corporations €29(4) annexation ordinance had by virtue of being passed 268k29(4)Most Cited Cases on first reading in 1958 expired by operation of law That area sought to be annexed was adjacent to on November 20, 1963, where there were no second limits of annexing city at time annexing ordinance or final readings adopted, and ordinance was void was passed on second reading did not validate from and after that date. Vemon's Ann.Civ.St. art. annexation proceedings, where land was not 970a. adjacent at first reading. Vemon's Ann.Civ.St. art. [15]Municipal Corporations€33(2) 1175. 268k33(2)Most Cited Cases [9] Municipal Corporations€29(1) City by initiating annexation proceedings calling 268k29(1)Most Cited Cases for hearing in 1969 on whether to annex area did Validating act of legislature, in absence of any not abandon prior ordinances whereby it attempted constitutional prohibition, can validate all to annex or claim that area. annexation proceedings of city, even though such [16]Municipal Corporations€33(9) annexation proceedings are totally void ab initio. 268k33(9)Most Cited Cases [10]Municipal Corporations€29(1) Even though area was already part of one city, trial 268k29(1)Most Cited Cases court erred in granting injunction enjoining a Statute, effective March 13, 1969, validating second city from in any way interfering or extension of boundary lines of city as of date of attempting to annex or in any way usurp any incorporation proceedings validated the act of jurisdiction or control over the area, where all that passing ordinance on first reading annexing land not had occurred was that city council of the second adjacent to city in 1955 and the act in passing that city had published a notice calling for a hearing to ordinance at second reading in 1961, whether or not be held on question of whether it should annex the land was then adjacent to annexing city, and area area. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 970a. became integral part of city in 1961. Vernon's [17]Appeal and Error ="1054(1) Ann.Civ.St. arts. 970a, 974d-13, 1174e. 30k1054(1)Most Cited Cases [11] Municipal Corporations€33(2) [17]Evidence€320 268k33(2)Most Cited Cases 157k320 Most Cited Cases Ordinances purporting to annex strips of land 50 In suit for judgment declaring area to be part of feet wide adjoining annexing city and ending by plaintiff city and therefore not subject to being adjoining onto limits of another city 12 1/2 miles annexed by defendant city, studies made by plaintiff away were void on ground that land sought to be were inadmissible as hearsay to defendants but, in annexed was not adjacent to annexing city. the nonjury trial of the complicated case, overruling Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175. of objections to give judge time to study question of [12] Municipal Corporations€29(1) whether he should consider them in deciding case 268k29(1)Most Cited Cases was not reversible error. Validation, pursuant to validating act, of two [181 Appeal and Error€931(6) annexation ordinances as of date of annexation 30k931(6)Most Cited Cases proceedings in 1963 would be ineffective to give Court of Civil Appeals would presume that trial city any rights in subject area where validating act court in nonjury case considered only admissible had already made area in question a part of another evidence in arriving at decision in declaratory city as of 1961.Vemon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 974d-13. judgment feature of case. [13] Municipal Corporations€33(1) *286 Stanley Wilkes, City Atty., Arlington, Saner, 268k33(1)Most Cited Cases Jack, Sallinger & Nichols, and H. Louis Nichols, City that first commences legal proceedings Dallas, for appellant. asserting authority over territory thereby acquires jurisdiction over it and that jurisdiction cannot H. P. Kucera, Dallas, Jerry D. Brownlow, City thereafter be defeated by another city later trying to Atty., Grand Prairie, for appellee. assert jurisdiction over such area. [14] Municipal Corporations€33(2) *287 OPINION 268k33(2)Most Cited Cases Under municipal annexation act, whatever effect BREWSTER,Justice. Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 5 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 4 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) which territory included the subject area which was prior to March 1, 1961, by a Home Rule City the subject matter of the Grand Prairie Ordinance undertaking to annex adjacent and contiguous 1039. This particular Arlington ordinance was territory. never adopted on second or final reading. We believe and hold that Art. 1174e, V.A.C.S. did In 1963 the Legislature passed Art. 970a, V.A.C.S. not have the effect of validating Grand Prairie's This Statute was known as the Municipal Ordinance 1039 because by the terms of the Statute Annexation Act. It provided that any annexation it only validated those ordinances of a Home Rule proceeding that was pending on March 15, 1963, City undertaking to annex adjacent and contiguous that was not completed within 90 days after the Act territory to its corporate limits. became effective (thus by November 20, 1963) shall become null and void. Arlington did not ever Here, as illustrated and held above, the subject area complete the annexation proceedings that it started sought to be annexed by Grand Prairie Ordinance by adopting on first reading the May 16, 1958, 1039 was neither adjacent to nor was it contiguous ordinance that had included the subject area. to the boundaries of Grand Prairie at the time the ordinance was passed on first reading. When Arlington failed to complete prior to November 20, 1963, this annexation of subject area Therefore by the very wording of the validating that it had started on May 16, 1958, the statute it was inapplicable to the action of the City effectiveness of such earlier first reading ordinance Commission of Grand Prairie in passing Ordinance of the City of Arlington expired by operation of 1039 on first reading and did not have the effect of law. Red Bird Village v. State, 385 S.W.2d 548 validating the action of such City Commission in (Dallas Civ.App., 1964,writ ref.). passing that ordinance on first reading for the reason that the subject area sought to be annexed by The Supreme Court held in City of Pasadena v. Ordinance 1039 was not contiguous to or adjacent State ex rel. City of Houston, supra, that an to the City limits of Grand Prairie. annexation proceeding that was pending when Art. 970a, V.A.C.S., was passed and which proceeding *289 This first reading phase of such Ordinance was not finally completed by November 20, 1963, 1039 is the only part of such annexation was thereafter void. proceedings that Art. 1174e could possibly have any application to, because such Ordinance 1039 Arlington contends that the trial court committed was not passed on final reading until May 15, 1961. material error by concluding that this May 16, 1958, Article 1174e by its own terms limits its validating fust reading ordinance of the City of Arlington was effect to annexing ordinances passed by Home Rule void. We overrule this contention. Under the Cities prior to March 1, 1961. Since Ordinance Supreme Court holding it was certainly void and of 1039 was not adopted by Grand Prairie on final no further effect from and after November 20, 1963. reading until May 15, 1961, Art. 1174e did not apply to it because the wording of the statute One contention made by Arlington under its third excluded ordinances passed after March 1, 1961 point is that the trial court erred in holding that the from the operation of the statute. annexation of the subject area under Ordinance 1039 had been validated by Art. 1174e,V.A.C.S. [8] We also believe and hold that under the record made in this case that at the time Ordinance 1039 The trial court concluded that the annexation of the was passed on second reading on May 15, 1961, subject area in dispute under Ordinance 1039 by that the subject area was then adjacent to the City Grand Prairie had been validated by the Legislature limits of Grand Prairie. This is true because the under Article 1174e,V.A.C.S. record shows that Ordinance 1128 was finally passed on second reading by Grand Prairie on [7] In 1961 the Legislature enacted this validating December 19, 1956, and the land annexed by this statute. It provided that it validated all ordinances, ordinance became a part of Grand Prairie and was resolutions and proceedings passed and adopted adjacent to and contiguous to the subject area at the Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. }lttn //»tint wectlaw rnm/r1Pli,,P,-.7 1,t,,,17aon+-�+-6..97.-F,.4......,,+-TTrrr,IT n 0___�_•i Page 4 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 3 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) The City of Grand Prairie sued the City of The trial court held that the subject area was not Arlington seeking to enjoin Arlington from adjacent to the City limits of Grand Prairie at the annexing certain land, which we will here call the time such Ordinance 1039 was passed on first subject area, and seeking a declaratory judgment reading. That holding is correct. City of Irving v . declaring the subject area to be a part of the City of Callaway,supra. Grand Prairie and therefore not subject to being annexed by Arlington. Both cities are Home Rule [3] The Texas Supreme Court has held that _ ' cities. 'adjacent' as the word is used in Article 1175, V.A.C.S., means 'contiguous and in the A non jury trial was held that the trial judge neighborhood of or in the vicinity of a rendered judgment declaring the subject area to be a municipality.' City of Pasadena v. State ex rel. City part of Grand Prairie and therefore not subject to of Houston,supra, and State v.Texas City, supra. any attempted annexation by Arlington, and granted a permanent injunction enjoining Arlington from The location of this subject area did not satisfy attempting to annex such area. these requirements in order to make it adjacent to Grand Prairie's boundaries. From this judgment Arlington has appealed. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Home Rule Charter of the We affirm the declaratory judgment feature of the City of Grand Prairie also provided that the City trial court's judgment and reverse that part of such Commission should have power to annex territory judgment granting injunctive relief against laying adjacent to such City. Arlington and here render judgment denying Grand Prairie any of the injunctive relief it sought in this The act of the City Commission of Grand Prairie case against Arlington. on November 17, 1955, in adopting its Ordinance 1039 on first reading, seeking to annex this subject On November 17, 1955, Grand Prairie adopted on area, was therefore void because it sought to annex first reading its annexation Ordinance 1039 seeking land which was not adjacent to its City limits in to annex the subject area. At the time such action violation of both Article 1175, V.A.C.S., and the was taken the subject area was not located provisions of such City's charter. City of Houston contiguous to the then City limits of Grand Prairie. v.Harris Co. Eastex Oaks W. & S.Dist., supra. The scales on the maps in evidence show the nearest City limit of Grand Prairie to be about two [4][5] It is true that the subject area at the time miles distant from this subject area and counsel for Ordinance 1039 was adopted on first reading was both sides agreed in their arguments that this was a contiguous and adjacent to land that Grand Prairie fact. had under first reading under other ordinances that it had previously adopted. But this did not satisfy [1] It is settled in Texas that a city cannot legally the requirement that in order for a city to be able to annex land that is not adjacent to its city limits. annex certain land that such land *288 must be Article 1175, Vemon's Ann.Civ.St.; State v. Texas adjacent to the city limits of the annexing city. City, 303 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Sup., 1957); City of Land included in an annexing ordinance that has Houston v. Hanis Co. Eastex Oaks W. & S. Dist., been adopted by a city only on first reading is not 438 S.W.2d 941 (Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 1969, yet a part of such city. Such land does not become ref., n.r.e.); and City of Irving v. Callaway, 363 a part of the city until the annexing ordinance has S.W.2d 832(Dallas,Tex.Civ.App., 1962,ref.n.r.e.). been passed on second and final reading. City of Irving v.Callaway, supra. [2] The question of whether or not land sought to be annexed is adjacent to the City of Pasadena v. [6] Before any validating acts that are relied on in State ex rel. City of Houston, 442 S.W.2d 325 ( this case by the parties to the suit were passed, Tex.Sup., City fo Houston, 442 S.W.2d 325 Arlington passed on first reading on May 16, 1958, (Tex.Sup., 1969). an ordinance that annexed a large territory which was adjacent to the then City limits of Arlington and Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 6 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 5 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) time Ordinance 1039 was finally passed on May 15, Article 974d--13, V.A.C.S., validated 1961. This, however, did not validate the incorporations, boundary extensions, and all annexation proceedings covered by said Ordinance governmental proceedings performed by the 1039 because it was also necessary in order for the governing bodies of cities and towns falling under entire proceedings to be valid, that the land covered the Act. by the ordinance be adjacent to the boundaries of Grand Prairie at the time the ordinance was passed The following is from the case of Jamison v. City on first reading. City of Irving v. Callaway,supra. of Pearland, 401 S.W.2d 322 (Waco Tex.Civ.App., 1966,no writ hist.): We hold to be correct the trial court's conclusion that at the time Ordinance 1039 was adopted on 'The Legislature may ratify what it could have final reading on May 15, 1961, that the land authorized originally, absent constitutional covered by such ordinance was then adjacent to the prohibition. *290Perkins v. State, (Tex.Sup., then permanent City Limits of Grand Prairie. We 1963), 367 S.W.2d 140, 145; State v. Bradford, 121 think this holding is correct for the reasons Tex. 515,50 S.W.2d 1065, 1078. mentioned in the next paragraph above. However, even if subject area was not adjacent to Grand 'Curative or remedial legislation, such as Art. 966h, Prairie City limits when Ordinance 1039 was is to be 'given the most comprehensive and liberal enacted on second reading, we think the same result construction possible.' City of Mason v. West Texas would be reached because of a later validation act. Utilities Co., 150 Tex. 18, 237 S.W.2d 273, 280; 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, (3d ed.) Sec. Another contention made by Arlington under its 2214,p. 138; 53 Tex.Jur.2d Statutes, Sec.20,p. 36. third point is that the trial court erred in holding that the Legislature validated Grand Prairie's annexation 'Art. 966h, in our opinion, validated any deficiency proceedings of the area in question when it passed complained of in the extension of the boundary Art. 974d--13,V.A.C.S.,in 1969. lines and the corporate limits of appellee by the ordinances complained of Duncan v. City of We overrule this contention. We hold that the Waco, 125 Tex. 189, 81 S.W.2d 57; State v. Legislature did validate Grand Prairie's annexation Bradford, 121 Tex. 515, 50 S.W.2d 1065; State ex proceedings as represented by its Ordinance 1039 in rel. American Manufacturing Co. of Texas v. City its entirety when it passed the above Statute. of Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 339 S.W.2d 707, writ ref. n.r.e.; Bute v. League City, Tex.Civ.App., 390 Article 974d--13, Sections 3 and 4 provided: S.W.2d 811; Lefler v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 231. Affirmed.' 'Sec. 3. The boundary lines of all such cities and towns, including both the boundary lines covered by [9] A validating act of the Legislature, in the the original incorporation proceedings and any absence of any constitutional prohibition, and there subsequent extensions thereof are hereby in all are none here, can validate all annexation things validated. proceedings of a city, even though such annexation proceedings are totally void ab initio. Perkins v. 'Sec. 4. All governmental proceedings performed State, 367 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Hunt v. by the governing bodies of all such cities and towns Atkinson, 17 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Comm.App., 1929); and all officers thereof since their incorporation or Duncan v. City of Waco, 125 Tex. 189, 81 S.W.2d attempted incorporation are hereby in all respects 57 (Tex.Comm.App., 1935); Mason v. Kansas City, validated as of the date of such proceedings.' 103 Kan. 275, 173 P. 535 (1918). This Statute became effective on March 13, 1969. If the acts of the Grand Prairie City Conmussion, ul adopting Ordinance 1039, were void, as we have Grand Prairie's Ordinance 1039 was passed on first held, at the time the Municipal Annexation Act reading on November 17, 1955, and on second became effective in 1963, then under the facts of reading on May 15, 1961. this case at least a part of the subject area at that Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 7 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 6 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) time became a part of the extra-territorial *291Art. 974d--13, V.A.C.S., validated such jurisdiction of the City of Arlington because the proceeding even if it was void. For this reason, Municipal Annexation Act so provided. since it does not affect a decision in the case, we have refrained from discussing some of appellant's And such part of subject area continued to be in points relating to whether or not subject area was Arlington extra-territorial jurisdiction from the then adjacent to the limits of Grand Prairie. We effective date of the Municipal Annexation Act in overrule such points as being immaterial to a 1963 down to March, 1969, the effective date of the decision here. validating act(Art.974d-- 13,V.A.C.S.). In its point 7 Arlington contends that the trial court This fact did not make any difference in so far as erred in holding that its Ordinance 1544 was void. this case is concerned because the validating act ( Arlington contends that even if it was void that Art. Art. 974d--13, V.A.C.S.) provided in effect that the 974d--13, V.A.C.S., passed by the Legislature proceedings that it validated 'are hereby in all validated such ordinance. respects validated as of the date of such proceedings.' On August 6, 1963, Arlington adopted Ordinance 1544 on first reading and adopted it on final reading [10] The two acts of the City Commission of Grand on September 17, 1963. This ordinance purported Prairie which we deem to have been validated by to annex a strip of land 50 feet wide, which strip this Art. 974d--13, V.A.C.S., were: (1) the Act of adjoined onto the City limits of Arlington for 50 the Commission in passing Grand Prairie Ordinance feet and then took off across country for 12 1/2 1039 on first reading on November 17, 1955; and miles and ended up by adjoining onto the limits of (2) the Act of such Commission in passing that the City of Mansfield on the other end. Ordinance 1039 on second reading on May 15, 1961. On August 6, 1963, Arlington also adopted on fust reading Annexing Ordinance 1549 and adopted it When these two acts of the Grand Prairie City on final reading on October 1, 1963. It also Commission were validated by that Statute as of the covered a 50 foot strip and was connected with date of such proceedings then Art. 974d--13, Arlington for a distance of only 50 feet on one end V.A.C.S., had the effect of making subject area an and then went down the west side of subject area integral part of the City of Grand Prairie as of May and and then went on down toward and connected 15, 1961, before Art. 970a, V.A.C.S. (the with the City of Mansfield, which ending was about Municipal Annexation Act)became effective. 12 1/2 miles on down the way. The Legislature had the power to pass a validating Arlington contends that the adoption of these statute that would have the effect indicated above ordinances effectively cut Grand Prairie off from because as was held in Jamison v. City of Pearland, the subject area to where it is no longer adjacent. supra, 'The Legislature may ratify what it could have authorized originally, absent constitutional [11] The acts of Arlington in passing both such prohibition.' ordinances were void under the holding of the Supreme Court in City of Pasadena v. State ex rel. What we have said here about Art. 974d--13, City of Houston, supra. That case held void a V.A.C.S., validating Grand Prairie's annexation similar ordinance that annexed a strip of land proceedings of subject area would be true similar to the ones involved in the two ordinances in regardless of whether or not at the time said question. The ordinance was there held void Ordinance 1039 was passed on second reading the because the land sought to be annexed was not subject area was then adjacent to the boundaries of adjacent to the limits of the annexing city. We hold Grand Prairie. This is true because if subject area that these two Arlington Ordinances, 1544 and was not then adjacent to Grand Prairie, the effect of 1549, are void for the same reason. this would be to render the act of passing Ordinance 1039 on second reading void. We have held that Arlington contends that even if this was true that Copr.©2004 West.No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/deliveiy.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 8 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 7 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) Art. 974d--13, V . A.C.S., validated these by virtue of its Ordinances 1544 and 1549 which ordinances,also. were not started or passed fmally until 1963. We think that this has to be the law for the same reasons As indicated above the effect of this validation that the holding of the Supreme Court in the Beyer statute, by its own provisions, was to validate the case,that is set out above,is the law. proceedings that it did validate as of the date of such proceedings. In its point 5 Arlington contends that the trial court erred in holding that Arlington abandoned the This being true the effective date on which Grand annexation of the area described in its ordinance of Prairie's annexation proceedings of subject area May 16, 1958,which area included the subject area. were completed under Ordinance 1039 was May 15, 1961. This was the date the City Commission [14] The facts are clear relative to what happened fmally passed such ordinance on fmal reading. As to this ordinance. It was passed on first reading on of that date, because of this applicable validation May 16, 1958. It has never to this date been act, this subject area became an integral part of the adopted on second or final reading. By the terms of City of Grand Prairie. the Municipal Annexation Act, Art. 970a, whatever effect this ordinance had by virtue of being passed [12] Arlington's Ordinances 1544 and 1549 were on first reading expired by operation of law on both adopted on first and fmal reading during the November 20, 1963, and was void from and after year 1963. We hold that a validation of these two that date. Arlington ordinances by the validating act as of the date of such proceedings in 1963 would be In a sense this was an abandonment of such - ineffecitve to give Arlington any rights in and to the annexation proceedings in that after passing the subject area because the validating act had already ordinance on first reading, no more was done made the area in question a part of Grand Prairie as relative to it, and the effect created by passing it on of the year 1961. first reading was allowed to expire by operation of law. We overrule Arlington's contention in this [13] The Supreme Court in Beyer v. Templeton, respect. 147 Tex. 94, 212 S.W.2d 134 (1948) held that in Texas the city that first commences legal The trial court held that Arlington is barred by proceedings asserting authority over a territory laches and is estopped to assert any claim to the thereby acquires jurisdiction over same, and that subject area. Arlington contends that such holding this jurisdiction cannot be thereafter defeated by is erroneous. another city later trying to assert jurisdiction over such area. This record does not present any facts on which it could be held that Arlington is estopped or barred After the passing of the validation act in question by laches from making claim to this area. No we think the rights of the parties, Grand Prairie and purpose could be served by discussing those matters Arlington, to *292 this subject area were just the here other than to unduly lengthen this already long same as they would have been had each of their opinion, because even if there was error by the trial proceedings been valid in the first instance. court in that respect, it is harmless. Grand Prairie is entitled to win the subject area for the reasons In other words, Grand Prairie's annexation heretofore set out in this opinion regardless of their proceedings under Ordinance 1039 of the subject contentions as to laches and estoppel. area became complete as of May 15, 1961, by virtue of the applicable validating act. As of this Arlington's 9th point is that the trial court erred in date the subject area became an integral part of the holding that by calling for a hearing to be held by City of Grand Prairie. the City Council of Arlington on May 12, 1969 to consider annexing the area in question, Arlington We hold that under these circumstances Arlington abandoned all other prior ordinances and attempts acquired no rights whatever in or to the subject area to annex or claim any of the area in question. Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&datajdAOO5 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 9 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 8 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) [15] The City Council of Arlington did call for case for the reasons cited in the cases just below. such a hearing and the trial court held that by initiating the annexation proceedings which called The following is from City of Dallas v. Couchman, for the May 12, 1969 hearing on whether to annex 249 S.W. 234 (Dallas Civ.App., 1923, writ ref.): subject area, that Arlington abandoned all other 'The decree of the court, therefore, enjoins a prior ordinances and attempts to annex or claim the legislative act of the board of commissioners. It is area in question. well settled by the authorities in this state that a court of equity will not lend its processes to the We have been cited to no authority and we have accomplishment of this character of interference by been unable to find any that holds that such conduct injunction with the legislative functions of a by the City Council would have the legal effect of municipal corporation; the corporation being constituting an abandonment by Arlington of all its endowed with such functions by special legislative other prior ordinances and attempts to annex or authority. The rule is that the enactment of a void claim the subject area. ordinance will not be enjoined, although its invalidity clearly appears, unless it also clearly We hold that such conduct would not constitute appears that the mere enactment of the ordinance of such an abandonment. itself will work irreparable injury without the intervention of some wrongful act under its We believe that whether the trial court was right or authority. The enactment of an ordinance by the wrong in its holding on this point is wholly legislative body of a city is a sovereign act of immaterial because what we have heretofore said government. It is the exercise of duly conferred decides this case. Whether Arlington abandoned its legislative authority. It is an expression of the will other ordinances as held by the trial court cannot of the Legislature through the instrumentality of the make any difference in a decision here for *293 the board of commissioners, upon which the Legislature reasons heretofore stated. If such holding was error has chosen to confer a part of the governmental it is harmless . power reposed in it. Since our system of government is divided into the legislative, By its 10th, 11th, and 12th points, Arlington executive, and judicial depaihuents, whose spheres contends that the trial court erred in granting the are clearly defined, no one of them, and least of all injunction feature of the judgment that it rendered the judicial department, should attempt to exceed in the trial court. the limits set about it and invade by such interference the domain of another. The mere [16] In its judgment the trial court permanently enactment of an ordinance of the nature of that enjoined Arlington from in any way interfering or under consideration could not operate to impair any attempting to annex or in any way usurp any of the rights of appellees. If it were void, that fact jurisdiction or control over subject area. alone would work no injury. Only after acts were impending or steps were already taken to construct This injunction was granted on the theory that the tracks could the basis for the relief here sought subject area was already a part of Grand Prairie and exist. When such exigency arose, then, and not that any attempt by Arlington to annex such area before, in any event, could the authority of a court would be illegal. be invoked to restrain the injury. City of Dallas v. Dallas Consol. Electric St. Ry. Co., 105 Tex. 337, At the time Grand Prairie filed this case on May 148 S.W . 292; Garitty v. Halbert (Tex.Civ.App.) 12, 1969 all that had occurred was that the City 225 S.W. 196.' Council of Arlington had published a notice calling for a hearing to be held under Art. 970a, V.A.C.S., To the same effect are Garitty v. Halbert, 225 S.W. on the question of whether or not Arlington should 196 (Dallas Civ.App., 1920, no writ. hist.) and City annex the subject area. of Dallas v. Dallas Consolidated Electric St. Ry. Co., 148 S.W. 292 (Tex.Sup., 1912). See also 39 We believe that it was error for the trial court to Tex.Jur.2d,p. 594, Sec. 266. render the injunction feature of the judgment in this Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?de st=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 8 00000... 12/29/2004 Page 10 of 10 451 S.W.2d 284 Page 9 451 S.W.2d 284 (Cite as: 451 S.W.2d 284) [17] By its 13th point Arlington says the trial court denying Grand Prairie any of the injunctive relief it erred in admitting into evidence over objection sought in this case. plaintiffs Exhibits 19 to 35, inclusive, same being studies made by the City of Grand Prairie, over the Costs of court are taxed equally against both objection that they were hearsay as to the City of parties to the suit. Arlington. 451 S.W.2d 284 We do not believe that these exhibits were admissible. However, this was a nonjury trial of a END OF DOCUMENT complicated case and the trial judge very wisely overruled Arlington's objections to such exhibits in order to give himself time to study the question *294 of whether or not he should consider them in deciding the case. With the law as it is on this point we believe that it is wise for a trial judge to follow such procedures when the ruling is difficult. The following is from 57 Tex.Jur.2d, p. 328, Sec. 571: 'But the same strictness in applying rules regarding the admission of evidence * * * is not required in a case tried by the judge alone as in a jury case. The judge may receive evidence tentatively, and disregard it when it is shown to be inadmissible. 'On appeal from conclusions or findings of the court, where there is independent evidence supporting the judgment, it is presumed that the trial judge disregarded evidence improperly received, and that the inadmissible evidence was harmless, unless prejudice is shown to have resulted.' [18] In this opinion we have set out the reasons why we hold the subject area to be a part of the City of Grand Prairie. There is certainly evidence in the case other than that contained in these complained of exhibits that go to establish the facts material to such holding. We therefore presume that the trial court considered only such admissible evidence in arriving at a decision on the declaratory judgment feature of this case. Certainly no reversible error is presented in connection with this point. From what has been said above we affirm all of that part of the trial court's judgment that declares the rights of the parties relative to the matters in dispute between them and that declares the subject area to be an integral part of the City of Grand Prairie . That part of the trial court judgment that grants injunctive relief against Arlington is hereby in all respects reversed and judgment here rendered Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 2 of 8 Westlaw. Page 1 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 C Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness Local Government Code(Refs&Annos) Title 2. Organization of Municipal Government Subtitle C.Municipal Boundaries and Annexation Chapter 43.Municipal Annexation(Refs&Annos) cig Subchapter B. General Authority to Annex(Refs&Annos) -►§ 43.021. Authority of Home-Rule Municipality to Annex Area and Take Other Actions Regarding Boundaries A home-rule municipality may take the following actions according to rules as may be provided by the charter of the municipality and not inconsistent with the procedural rules prescribed by this chapter: (1)fix the boundaries of the municipality; (2) extend the boundaries of the municipality and annex area adjacent to the municipality; and (3)exchange area with other municipalities. CREDIT(S) Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. REVISOR'S NOTE 1999 Main Volume V.A.C.S. Article 1175 is the enabling legislation for the home-rule amendment to the Texas Constitution. The revised law refers to an affected municipality as a "home-rule municipality," a name used throughout this code for the sake of uniformity. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2004 Electronic Pocket Part Update 1999 Legislation Sections 1 to 4 of Acts 1999,76th Leg., ch.3 provide: "Sec. 1. Effect of Annexation on Voting Rights and Right to File for Candidacy. (a) This section applies only to a home-rule municipality with a population of 110,000 or less as shown by the most recent federal decennial census. "(b) Notwithstanding other law, in a municipal election held on or after the 90th day after the effective date of an annexation,the municipality shall permit: Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 3 of 8 Page 2 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 "(1)all qualified voters residing in the area annexed to vote in any municipal election; and "(2) any otherwise qualified person residing in the area annexed to file as a candidate for municipal office if the person satisfies the residency requirements to be eligible for candidacy by any combination of residence in the municipality or the area annexed. "Sec. 2. Extension of Filing Deadline in Certain Circumstances. In an election held under Section 1 of this Act, if the filing deadline for a candidate's application for a place on the ballot in a municipal election expires by other law before the effective date of this Act, the filing deadline is extended to the third day after the effective date of this Act for purposes of permitting a person who resides in the area annexed to file for candidacy. "Sec. 3.Expiration Date of Act.This Act expires January 1,2000. "Sec.4.Application of Act.The change in law made by this Act applies: "(1) only to an election held on or after the effective date of this Act; and "(2)to annexations that occur before,on,or after the effective date of this Act." 1999 Main Volume Prior Laws: Acts 1913,33rd Leg.,p. 307, §4. Rev.Civ.St.1911,art. 1096d. Acts 1921,37th Leg.,p. 169,ch. 87, § 1. Acts 1963, 58th Leg.,p.447,ch. 160,art. II. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175, subd. 2. CROSS REFERENCES Home rule municipality, generally, see V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 9.001 et seq.; Vernon's Ann.Const.Art. 11, § 5. LIBRARY REFERENCES 1999 Main Volume Municipal Corporations 29(2). C.J.S.Municipal Corporations § 43. RESEARCH REFERENCES 2004 Electronic Pocket Part Update Encyclopedias TX Jur. 3d Municipalities § 74,Delegation Of Power To Home Rule Cities. TX Jur. 3d Municipalities III A REF,Divisional References. Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 4 of 8 Page 3 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 Forms Texas Jurisprudence Pleading&Practice Forms 2d Ed § 176:14,Introductory Comments. Texas Jurisprudence Pleading & Practice Forms 2d Ed § 176:19, Petition-For Judgment Declaring Annexation Ordinance Void And Injunction Against Exercise Of Municipal Powers Over Territory Sought To Be Annexed. Treatises and Practice Aids 22 Tex.Prac. Series § 1.13,Territory-Annexation. NOTES OF DECISIONS Adjacency 3-7 Adjacency-In general 3 Adjacency-Adjacency to more than one city 6 Adjacency-Adjacency to other area being annexed 5 Adjacency-Extraterritorial jurisdiction of other municipality 7 Adjacency-Shape or connection 4 Adjacency to more than one city 6 Adjacency to other area being annexed 5 Description of boundaries 8 Extraterritorial jurisdiction of other municipality,adjacency 7 Power of municipality 2 Shape or connection, adjacency 4 Validity 1 1.Validity Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175 (now, this section) permitting home rule cities to annex adjacent territory, and charter of city of Dallas permitting council to make annexation without territory's consent did not violate inhibition of Const. art. 1, § 17 against taking private property for public use without compensation to the owner, nor art. 1, § 19, prohibiting taking of property without due course of law. Smallwood v. City of Dallas (Civ.App. 1948) 216 S.W.2d 272.Eminent Domain€2(1.1) Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175, subd. 2 (now, this section) authorizing home rule cities to extend their boundary limits and annex adjacent territory was not invalid as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to municipal corporation, as Home Rule Amendment to Constitution(Const. art. 11, § 5) authorized such cities to fix and extend their boundaries and annex territory, subject to limitations in general laws. Dallas County Water Control & Imp. Dist. No. 3 v. City of Dallas (Sup. 1950) 149 Tex. 362, 233 S.W.2d 291, certiorari denied 71 S.Ct. 571, 340 U.S. 952,95 L.Ed. 686. Constitutional Law€63(2);Municipal Corporations C= 29(1) 2.Power of municipality Texas home rule cities are unbridled in their method of annexation and their actions thereon. Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Tex., S.D.Tex.1964, 226 F.Supp. 456, affirmed 343 F.2d 162, certiorari denied 86 S.Ct. 85, 382 U.S. 837, 15 L.Ed.2d 80.Municipal Corporations €-a 29(2) Citizens of city chartered under home-rule amendment(Const. art. 11, § 5) and enabling act [Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175, subd. 2 (repealed; now, this section)], transferring to cities of more than 5,000 inhabitants the power to fix boundary limits previously vested in the Legislature, had absolute right to adopt that method of extending the Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&foi uiat=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 8 00000... 12/29/2004 Page 5 of 8 • Page 4 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 limits of their city which they desired to prescribe in their charter so long as the method did not violate the Constitution or general laws of the state. Willman v. City of Corsicana (Civ.App. 1948) 213 S.W.2d 155, affirmed 147 Tex. 377,216 S.W.2d 175.Municipal Corporations €33(1) Legislature has power to limit annexation powers of home rule cities. Deacon v. City of Euless (Sup. 1966) 405 S.W.2d 59.Municipal Corporations 64 City may annex territory lying adjacent to it, and city is not required to annex any particular block of land or annex any other property in vicinity which might be undesirable or not in best interests of city under circumstances. City of Pasadena v. Houston Endowment, Inc. (Civ.App. 1969) 438 S.W.2d 152, ref. n.r.e.. Municipal Corporations 29(4) 3.Adjacency--In general The word "adjacent" in subd. 2 of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175 (now, this section) granting home-rule cities power to provide for the annexation of additional territory lying adjacent to city was used in the sense of being "contiguous" and "in the neighborhood of or in the vicinity of' without reference to the character of the land or the use to which it is put. State ex rel. Pan Am. Production Co. v. Texas City (Sup. 1957) 157 Tex. 450, 303 S.W.2d 780,appeal dismissed 78 S.Ct. 533, 355 U.S. 603,2 L.Ed.2d 523.Municipal Corporations C=29(4) The term "adjacent" as used in statute authorizing annexation of adjacent territory by municipalities means the territory must be contiguous to the existing city and in any event did not authorize annexation of territory more than six miles from existing city limits. City of Irving v. Callaway (Civ.App. 1962) 363 S.W.2d 832, ref. n.r.e.. Municipal Corporations€29(4) Each and every tract of land sought to be annexed need not adjoin or be contiguous to the annexing municipality. City of Houston v. Houston Endowment, Inc. (Civ.App. 1968) 428 S.W.2d 706, motion denied 438 S.W.2d 935, - ref. n.r.e..Municipal Corporations€29(4) "Adjacent" within Vemon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175 (now, this section) means contiguous and in the neighborhood of or in the vicinity of a municipality. City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairie (Civ.App. 1970) 451 S.W.2d 284, ref.n.r.e..Municipal Corporations C=29(4) 4. ----Shape or connection,adjacency An unincorporated subdivision was "adjoining" or "adjacent" to city of Dallas, within charter and Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1175, subd. 2 (now, this section) authorizing annexation, though a long strip of land 10 feet wide connected the property with city limits. Lefler v. City of Dallas (Civ.App. 1943) 177 S.W.2d 231. Municipal Corporations C=29(4) Annexation of territory by the City of Orange to west of its original boundaries, by using a right-of-way of federal highways to reach the main body of the land annexed was not invalid on the ground that the territory so annexed did not adjoin the original city limits. State ex rel. City of West Orange v. City of Orange (Civ.App. 1957) 300 S.W.2d 705,ref. n.r.e..Municipal Corporations €29(4) Territory adjacent to only one home rule city is not made "adjacent" to another home rule city by mere fact that it can be reached and encircled by boundary lines which at some point are contiguous with boundary lines of such city. City of Irving v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist. (Sup. 1964) 383 S.W.2d 571. Municipal Corporations 29(4) Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&datajd=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 6 of 8 Page 5 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 Where territory described in ordinance of City of Irving to annex levee improvement district was for most part a long sliver of land, about one half mile wide and about six miles long, and it had its base on southeastern boundary of City of Irving and pointed like finger into very heart of industrial development along boundary lines of City of Dallas, and boundaries of territory on east and west were co-incident with City of Dallas boundaries for its entire length, most of territory was "adjacent" to City of Dallas and not to City of Irving and could not be annexed by City of Irving. City of Irving v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist. (Sup. 1964) 383 S.W.2d 571. Municipal Corporations 29(4) Landowner's property, which was located within boundaries of territory specially annexed to city by 1913 ordinance, and which was connected to city by a stem or strip of land 6 1/8 miles long, was "adjacent" to the city. City of Houston v. Houston Endowment, Inc. (Civ.App. 1968) 428 S.W.2d 706, motion denied 438 S.W.2d 935, ref.n.r.e..Municipal Corporations re=29(4) City of Houston's ordinance purporting to annex meandering 50-mile long, ten-foot wide strip of land which contained 97.3 acres and encircled 44,637 acres which ran adjacent to city of Pasadena's boundary for five miles and touched Houston's boundary only on strip's two ends was invalid because land included in annexation did not lie adjacent to Houston. City of Pasadena v. State ex rel. City of Houston (Sup. 1969) 442 S.W.2d 325. Municipal Corporations C=33(2) Ordinances purporting to annex strips of land 50 feet wide adjoining annexing city and ending by adjoining onto limits of another city 12 1/2 miles away were void on ground that land sought to be annexed was not adjacent to annexing city. City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairie (Civ.App. 1970) 451 S.W.2d 284, ref. n.r.e.. Municipal Corporations =33(2) "Spoke" ordinance whereby city annexed .11 square miles of land which was in fact right-of-way of highway from boundary of city and which was 116.16 feet in width by five miles in length was not void on ground that such annexed strip of land was not adjacent to city. Fox Development Co. v. City of San Antonio (Sup. 1971) 468 S.W.2d 338.Municipal Corporations'29(4) Ordinances which annexed strips of land that were 10 feet wide and 5,280 feet long, touched city limits, and constituted part of right-of-way of public roads or highways or touched prior annexed lands were not void since land annexed was contiguous and adjacent to city and did not exceed the city's one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. May v. City of McKinney(Civ.App. 1972)479 S.W.2d 114,ref.n.r.e..Municipal Corporations C=33(2) There was compliance with requirement that area annexed by municipality be adjacent to existing boundaries where narrow strip annexed by city by series of three ordinances was contiguous to the boundaries of the city to the extent of the width of a highway. City of Wichita Falls v. State ex rel. Vogtsberger (Sup. 1976) 533 S.W.2d 927, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 298, 429 U.S. 908, 50 L.Ed.2d 276. Municipal Corporations€ 29(4) Fifteen-foot wide industrial buffer strip created by one city's zoning ordinance and touching that city for 15 feet on either end and touching a second city for approximately 1.8 miles and encircling large industrial area not annexed by either city was invalid for reason that strip was neither adjacent to first city when ordinance was passed nor at any subsequent time and ordinance extended boundary line of first city by annexation into extraterritorial jurisdiction of second city. City of West Orange v. State ex rel. City of Orange (Sup. 1981) 613 S.W.2d 236. Municipal Corporations 29(4) 5. ----Adjacency to other area being annexed That, at time annexing ordinance was adopted on first reading, area sought to be annexed was adjacent to land that city had included under first reading of other annexing ordinances previously adopted did not satisfy requirement Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format—HTMLE&dataid=A0055 8 00000... 12/29/2004 Page 7 of 8 Page 6 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 that annexed land be adjacent to limits of annexing city. City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairie (Civ.App. 1970)451 S.W.2d 284,ref. n.r.e..Municipal Corporations 29(4) Land included in annexing ordinance adopted by city only on first reading is not yet a part of city and may not be considered in determining whether other land sought to be annexed is adjacent to city limits. City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairie(Civ.App. 1970)451 S.W.2d 284,ref.n.r.e..Municipal Corporations 29(4) 6. ----Adjacency to more than one city Unincorporated territory may be equally adjacent, or substantially so, to two or more home rule cities, in which event either or any one of them will have authority to annex all of it. City of Irving v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist. (Sup. 1964)383 S.W.2d 571.Municipal Corporations€29(4) Trial court properly concluded that territory annexed by city ordinance was, at the time of passage of ordinance, adjacent to city, even though much of the territory annexed was closer to other city than it was to annexing city. City of Clute v. City of Lake Jackson (Civ.App. 1977) 559 S.W.2d 391, ref. n.r.e.. Municipal Corporations€ 29(4) 7. ----Extraterritorial jurisdiction of other municipality, adjacency Territory within exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction of one city is not adjacent to any other city as a matter of law. City of Waco v. City of McGregor(Sup. 1975)523 S.W.2d 649.Municipal Corporations€29(4) Territory within exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction of one city is not "adjacent" to any other city, for purposes of annexation, as a matter of law. City of Nassau Bay v. City of Webster (Civ.App. 1980) 600 S.W.2d 905, ref. n.r.e. 608 S.W.2d 618.Municipal Corporations€29(4) 8.Description of boundaries Not-withstanding inadvertent misdescription therein of excepted areas, Port Arthur ordinance validly annexed land to city. Town of Port Acres v. City of Port Arthur (Civ.App. 1960) 340 S.W.2d 325, ref. n.r.e.. Municipal Corporations 33(2) Where city's annexation ordinances stated that part of boundary of land to be annexed ran "along an imaginary line parallel and at right angles to" another line, problem arising from fact that line could not run "parallel and at right angles" could, in light of another description stating that boundary line ran "along an imaginary line perpendicular and at right angles to" another line, be resolved by discarding the words "and at right angles". City of Houston v. Harris County Eastex Oaks Water and Sewer Dist. (Civ.App. 1969) 438 S.W.2d 941, ref. n.r.e. Municipal Corporations€33(2) Although defects in annexation ordinances' description of boundaries of land to be annexed were such that description could not be literally applied on account of inaccuracy, descriptions were adequate where a reasonable construction could be made by examining the whole of the provisions of the ordinances in order to cany into effect the intent of the city which enacted them. City of Houston v. Harris County Eastex Oaks Water and Sewer Dist. (Civ.App. 1969)438 S.W.2d 941,ref.n.r.e.Municipal Corporations € 33(2) An annexation ordinance's description of boundaries of land to be annexed are not construed with the same strictness as are descriptions outlining the boundaries in grants and contracts. City of Houston v. Harris County Eastex Oaks Water and Sewer Dist. (Civ.App. 1969)438 S.W.2d 941,ref. n.r.e.Municipal Corporations 33(2) Descriptions of boundaries of cities are not required to have the particularity ordinarily found in deeds. City of Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.con/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 8 of 8 Page 7 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.021 West Orange v. State ex rel. City of Orange (Civ.App. 1980) 598 S.W.2d 387, reversed 613 S.W.2d 236. Municipal Corporations 33(2) Although two competent surveyors presented by West Orange testified that there was no "C. L. Brown 32.8 acre tract" as referred to in first call of description of land enclosed in 15-foot buffer strip ordinance of City of Orange, two competent surveyors presented by Orange gave their opinion that although they could not find the "C. L. Brown"tract,when they eliminated reference to such tract they had no difficulty in locating the beginning point on the ground, it was not error to find that the ordinance contained a legal description of the territory annexed. City of West Orange v. State ex rel. City of Orange (Civ.App. 1980) 598 S.W.2d 387, reversed 613 S.W.2d 236. Municipal Corporations 33(2) V.T. C.A.,Local Government Code § 43.021,TX LOCAL GOVT § 43.021 Current through the end of the 2004 Fourth Called Session Copyright©2004 by West,a Thomson business.All rights reserved. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... 12/29/2004 Page 2 of 4 Westlaw Page 1 V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 43.028 C Vemon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated Currentness Local Government Code(Refs&Annos) Title 2. Organization of Municipal Government Subtitle C. Municipal Boundaries and Annexation "u Chapter 43. Municipal Annexation(Refs&Annos) cd Subchapter B. General Authority to Annex(Refs&Annos) .4§ 43.028. Authority of Municipalities to Annex Sparsely Occupied Area on Petition of Area Landowners (a)This section applies only to the annexation of an area: (1)that is one-half mile or less in width; (2)that is contiguous to the annexing municipality; and (3)that is vacant and without residents or on which fewer than three qualified voters reside. (b)The owners of the area may petition the governing body of the municipality in writing to annex the area. (c) The petition must describe the area by metes and bounds and must be acknowledged in the mariner required for deeds by each person having an interest in the area. (d)After the 5th day but on or before the 30th day after the date the petition is filed, the governing body shall hear the petition and the arguments for and against the annexation and shall grant or refuse the petition as the governing body considers appropriate. (e) If the governing body grants the petition, the governing body by ordinance may annex the area. On the effective date of the ordinance, the area becomes a part of the municipality and the inhabitants of the area are entitled to the rights and privileges of other citizens of the municipality and are bound by the acts and ordinances adopted by the municipality. (f) If the petition is granted and the ordinance is adopted, a certified copy of the ordinance together with a copy or duplicate of the petition shall be filed in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the municipality is located. CREDIT(S) Acts 1987,70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. REVISOR'S NOTE 1999 Main Volume (1) The source law requires a petition to be acknowledged by each "person or corporation" having an Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.coin/delivery.html?dent=atn&format=NTlvtl.FR'r-latairl= nnccQnnnnn 1 7/�nmnnn Page 3 of 4 Page 2 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.028 interest in the area. The reference to "corporation" is omitted from the revised law because under the definitions section of the Code Construction Act(Section 311.005, Government Code) a person includes a corporation. (2) The revised law omits as unnecessary Section 2 of V.A.C.S. Article 974g relating to the cumulative effect of the source law. It is an accepted principle of statutory construction that all statutes are given cumulative effect unless they provide otherwise or unless they are inconsistent. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 1999 Main Volume Prior Laws: Acts 1949, 51st Leg.,p.451, ch.243. Acts 1953, 53rd Leg.,p. 367, ch. 93, § 1. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 974g, § 1. CROSS REFERENCES Qualified voters, see V.T.C.A.,Election Code § 11.001 et seq; Vernon's Ami.Const.Art. 6, § 1 et seq. LIBRARY REFERENCES 1999 Main Volume Municipal Corporations€ '29(4). C.J.S.Municipal Corporations §46. RESEARCH REFERENCES 2004 Electronic Pocket Part Update Encyclopedias TX Jur. 3d Municipalities § 76,Home Rule And General-Law Cities. TX Jur. 3d Municipalities § 95, Generally. Forms Texas Jurisprudence Pleading&Practice Forms 2d Ed § 176:14,Introductory Comments. Treatises and Practice Aids 22 Tex. Prac. Series § 1.13,Territory-Annexation. NOTES OF DECISIONS Contiguity 1 Errors and Irregularities 3 Separate tracts 2 Copr. ©2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dent=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5800000... 12/29/2004 Page 4 of 4 Page 3 V.T.C.A.,Local Government Code §43.028 1. Contiguity Ordinance annexing strip of land which lay far beyond one-half mile from boundaries of annexing city and which had never been adjacent to city at any time was invalid under Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 974g (repealed; now, this section), limiting annexing city to territory "contiguous and adjacent" and no more than one-half mile in width, and annexations of three other tracts which, with invalidation of the ordinance and of city's incorporation of fringe area along lake, were not contiguous or adjacent to annexing city also failed. City of West Lake Hills v. State ex rel. City of Austin (Sup. 1971) 466 S.W.2d 722. Municipal Corporations € 29(4); Municipal Corporations' 33(2) 2. Separate tracts Unoccupied property, state's property interest in right-of-way, and occupied property were three separate tracts of lands, different in character, which were not capable of unified annexation as single tract and, therefore, municipality seeking to annex land was required to obtain consent from property owner of unoccupied land before annexing property. City of Northlake v. East Justin Joint Venture (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 873 S.W.2d 413, rehearing denied,rehearing overruled,writ denied. Municipal Corporations€=>29(4);Municipal Corporations «34 3.Errors and Irregularities Landowner's withdrawal of his consent for city to annex his property was not merely a procedural irregularity in annexation process, as would require quo warranto proceeding to attack annexation, but raised question of whether city exceeded its statutory authority by unilaterally annexing the property, and thus, executrix of landowner's estate, as sole landowner whose property was affected by annexation ordinance, established a burden peculiar to herself, such that she had standing as a private party to challenge such ordinance. Town of Fairview v. Stover(App. 5 Dist. 2002)2002 WL 1981371,Unreported,rule 53.7(f)motion granted.Municipal Corporations C 33(9) By failing to hold a hearing on landowner's petition for voluntary annexation within the 30-day time limit, city did not comply with first step of statutorily prescribed deliberative process for annexation, and thus, its attempted annexation of property was void, even though city proceeded with subsequent steps of annexation process by providing public notice, holding a public hearing, and promulgating ordinance. Town of Fairview v. Stover (App. 5 Dist.2002)2002 WL 1981371,Unreported,rule 53.7(f)motion granted.Municipal Corporations C'33(1) V.T. C.A.,Local Government Code §43.028, TX LOCAL GOVT§ 43.028 Current through the end of the 2004 Fourth Called Session Copyright©2004 by West, a Thomson business.All rights reserved. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©2004 West.No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dent=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055 800000... 12/29/2004 1 cX• Any(len. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 1 of 6 ay!K i2: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT January 22, 2003 The Honorable Frank Madla Opinion No. GA-0014 Chair, Intergovernmental Relations Committee Re: Effect of certain annexations on the Texas Senate extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of P. O. Box 12068 San Antonio (RQ-0580-JC) Austin, Texas 78711-2068 Dear Senator Madla: You inform us that the City of San Antonio ("the city" or "San Antonio") is considering the annexation of a tract of land owned by the city and located in part in Medina County.-W The land in question is known as the Mayberry tract. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. As of the date of your letter,the Mayberry tract isnot contiguous with the San Antonio city limits,but separated from the city by other pmarcels of land. See id. attachment ("2002 Annexation Study Areas"). Thus, if the Mayberry Tract is annexed by the city, Mayberry's boundaries will not connect with the city's present boundaries. You ask whether the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction("the ETJ") will expand if it: (1) annexes the Mayberry tract and (2) subsequently annexes the properties that separate the Mayberry tract from the city's boundaries. See id. at 1. The city's ETJ will not expand if it annexes the Mayberry tract at a time when it is not contiguous with the city's boundaries. If San Antonio subsequently annexes the properties that separate the Mayberry tract from the city's boundaries, the boundaries will expand to include the unincorporated area within five miles of the city boundary that encompasses the Mayberry tract. You also ask whether the December 31, 2002, effective date of new annexation procedures adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th Texas Legislature will have an impact on the process of annexing these properties. See id. at 2. Local Government Code section 42.0225 applies to an annexation included in a municipality's annexation plan prepared under Local Government Code section 43.052, as amended by Senate Bill 89. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 42.0225, 43.052 (Vernon Supp. 2003). (2 If the area was not included in that annexation plan during the period from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2002, Local Government Code section 42.0225 will still apply to the annexation if the first hearing notice required by former section 43.052 was published on or after September 1, 1999. 4 icx. titt,y Lien. Op. No. GA-0014 (2002) -- Greg Abbott Administration Page 2 of 6 extends five miles from its boundaries. See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 2000 Census of Population, available at http://www.census.gov/. A municipality may annex additional territory that is adjacent to its existing boundaries, within its ETJ. See City of Wichita Falls v. State ex rel. Vogtsberger, 533 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. 1976); see also Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 43.021 (home-rule city), 43.033-43.034 (general-law city) (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2003). "Adjacent" has been defined by the courts to mean "'neighboring or close by' or 'in the vicinity of and not necessarily contiguous or touching upon."' City of Waco v. City of McGregor, 523 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tex. 1975) (quoting State ex rel. Pan American Prod. Co. v. Texas City, 303 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. 1957); see also III Oxford English Dictionary 822 (2d ed. 1989) (contiguous means "touching, in actual contact, . . . meeting at a common boundary");Joaquin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fincher, 510 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1974, writ ref d n.r.e.) ("contiguous . . . districts must . . . touch one another [so] that all may be included in a common boundary line, without any intervening spaces"). "Adjacency is a question of law which must be determined in the context of the facts of each particular case." City of Waco, 523 S.W.2d at 653; City of Irving v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist., 383 S.W.2d 571, 576 (Tex. 1964) ("'Adjacency,' as between two Home Rule cities, must be tested by the facts in each case."). San Antonio, as a home-rule city,see Texas River Barges v. City of San Antonio, 21 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. denied), may "annex area adjacent to the municipality" according to rules provided in its charter and not inconsistent with the procedural rules of Local Government Code chapter 43. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.021 (Vernon 1999). The Mayberry tract is currently within San Antonio's ETJ, according to San Antonio, see Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1,but it does not have a common boundary with San Antonio. We do not know whether the Mayberry area is "adjacent" to the City of San Antonio as required by the annexation statutes, and, in any case, we have not been asked this question. We assume for purposes of your request that San Antonio may annex this tract, and we consider only whether the city's ETJ will expand if it does so. When a city annexes an area, "the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality expands with the annexation to comprise, consistent with Section 42.021,the area around the new municipal boundaries." See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 42.022(a) (Vernon 1999). Thus, when a city of 100,000 or more inhabitants annexes an area, its new ETJ would generally comprise the unincorporated area contiguous to the new city boundaries within five miles of the new boundaries. See id. § 42.021(5). However, Local Government Code section 42.0225, adopted by Senate Bill 89 of the 76th Legislature, would provide a different answer with respect to San Antonio's annexation of the Mayberry tract. See id. § 42.0225 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Senate Bill 89, which adopted numerous changes to the annexation process, took effect September 1, 1999, but compliance with some of its provisions was delayed until December 31, 2002. See Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1167, § 17, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4074, 4090 (effective date and NationalLawLibrary The law bibray you heed.m die lowest possible price... Prey Sec 1 MetierSec I hri*it sion 1 TXCeiteatians I Nee..iniisd'iaion TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Title 2.ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Subtitle C.MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION Chapter 43.MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION Subchapter B.GENERAL AUTHORITY TO ANNEX Current through End of 2003 Regular Session §43.021.Authority of Home-Rule Municipality to Annex Area and Take Other Actions Regarding Boundaries. A home-rule municipality may take the following actions according to rules as may be provided by the charter of the municipality and not inconsistent with the procedural rules prescribed by this chapter. (1)fix the boundaries of the municipality; (2)extend the boundaries of the municipality and annex ar a adjacent t the municipality;and (3)exchange area with other municipalities. HOME I SEARCH I COLLECTIONS I PRICING I SIGN UP I NEWSLETTER I SUPPORT I ABOUT ©2003,National Law Library,a subsidiary of JunSearch.Com LLC.All rights reserved. For technical support contact suoDortOitislaw.com.For Editorial support contact editoriaICo)_itislaw.com. View our Privacy Statement. l of l 11/22/2004 2:33 PM National LawLibrary The law library vary aced.al Ilw layout pamlile puce... t mum Reams In List GoToAcWioll Page iPrint Minim( liras Seamilt f TX GallleCiars U new Juitielkeran 43.11211.Anfinuitir of Type A tri!-Lam Nksalicipality to/lumen Area on Request of Area Voters. TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Title 2.ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Subtitle C.MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION Chapter 43. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION Subchapter B.GENERAL AUTHORITY TO ANNEX Current through End of 2003 Regular Session §43.024.Authority of Type A General-Law Municipality to Annex Area on Request of Area Voters. (a)This section applies only to the annexation of an area that (1)is one-half mile or less in width;and (2) ous to Type A general-law municipality. (b)If a majority of the qualified voters of the area vote in favor of becoming a part of the municipality, any three of those voters may prepare an affidavit to the fact of the vote and file the affidavit with the mayor of the municipality_ (c)The mayor shall certify the filed affidavit to the governing body of the municipality_On receipt of the certified affidavit,the governing body by ordinance may annex the area. On the eneciliwe dale of the ordinance,the area becomes a part of the municipality and the inhabitants of the area are entitled to the rights and privileges of other citizens of the municipality and are bound by the acts and ordinances adopted by the municipality. © 2003 JuriSearch HOME I SEARCH I COLLECTIONS I PRICING I SIGN UP I NEWSLETTER I SUPPORT 1 ABOUT V 2003.National Law library,a subsidiary of JuriSearch.Com LLC.All rights reserved For technical support contact suoportei?itislaw.com.For Editorial support contact editorial(d_ritislaw.com. View our Privacy Statement. 1 of 1 11/22/2004 2:12 PM NationalLawLibrary The Jaw Oran,you,teed,at the Immo passage)rice... Return fila List[ Gni Adistal Isaac l PrintVanikat[: New ch TI canoe:Nom i Um Juzischetion §51-714Adtkag Land try Pon of Landowner- TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE WATER CODE Title 4.GENERAL LAW DISTRICTS Chapter 51.WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Subchapter O.ADDING AND EXCLUDING TERRITORY AND CONSOL®ATING DISTRICTS Current through End of 2003 Regular Session §51.714.Adding Land by Petition of Landowner. The owner of land may file with the board a petition requesting that the land described by metes and bounds in the petition be included in the district Notwithstanding any municipal ordinance,resolution, or any other statute to the contrary,a municipality may not require the annexing district or the landowner who is requesting annexation to obtain the municipality's consent to the district's annexation of the additional land if,at the tate the petition is filed,ttie ilild to be annexed is contiguous to the district and at any time witty",the preced n:,12 mgInths wan notit yin an area mated by ordinance or resolution of the rr,s;;oar s ff7s..--.:71Erg keley as , _n:ci -Y .,#-� r s and sewer see area or corporate Brits,arddistrict . ,s pr y,,.,L's Y iss,ed a -bonded indebtedness_The land shall be nt'n;'sc�`' p-1 'i rP iG ccY ars "'tis fi 15°' � ---S7de i---- • _ '-ter v -ti- ,.cM _ �..} . err ht of A il!'� �'r F`. :- c�€ .s..<.. ,t.r' ,s �' '�" 100r rc n in ;y on calendar year.A municipalit's.x,-,,, c+ _ _ .t,. 7. `� -.:-.:.-.:- ...-2,..:-.-z-, ._. boundaries of a ? ct p�a:..�Z3 a az—f,::7.v.,:-...._ :y ;y=..-.-A w`r"�=u`e mo ws wil'. .-`.undaties. El © 2003 JuriSearch HOME I SEARCH I COLLECTIONS I PRICING I SIGN UP I NEWER i SUPPORT j ABOUT ©2003,National Law Ldsrary,a subsidiary of JuriSeaach.:Gom LLC.AM riglaft reserved.. For technical support contact suv0ortDitislaw.cocrs.For Editorial support cam im't -w€.na rt_ View our Privacy Statement. I of 1 11/22/2004 2:02 PM r §711.033.Property Acquisition by Cemetery Organization; Recording Title. TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE Title 8.DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF1HE BODY Subtitle C.CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIES Chapter 711.GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CEMETERIES Subchapter C.CEMETERY ORGANIZATIONS Current through End of 2003 Regular Session §T11.033.Property Acquisition by Cemetery Organization;Recording Title. (a)A cemetery organb-215fel„, may acquire by p.-127a. t - mausoleum, a crematory and oolurnber-iumor artr7.-S 1-1-:;-„, _ law. (b)A cemetery organization operating a cemetery located and operated in accordance with the distance requirements prescribed in Section 711.008 may acquire land adjacent to the cemetery for cemetery purposes. In this subsection, adjacent mewis that part et c...zity to be acuired has a common bErJr_ e•Ectienleity easement or am tbe ce-,an—Rbry. In no evenZ.sh.-.::thre fa-Lis th€-. t:".- 11-2'40 feet apart (c)A cemetery orgari-uation that acquires property may record title to its property with the county clerk of the county .4,--ttict the pNwrty is ictate4 if its fr,-.. -7epA ather authorized officer ackrimi.edge e rit-Typerty and declares the emery intil-atian to use the protty or a pan_of tro6 wcip,erty for interment purposes. (d)Firm tevier is of V- ct-±- of t.77--2 for interment • - - -;-Zf:121 il'e4tm-t1 7.7:P..4 be iltrrect. History.Ameriett by ALls 2'a7-1, 77th Len., Cr ;. 2, Of © 2003 JuriSearch of 1 11/22/2004 3:02 PM §716.003.Location Of Crematory. TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE Title 8.DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY Subtitle C.CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIES Chapter 716.CREMATORIES Subchapter A.GENERAL PROVISIONS Current through End of 2003 Regular Session §716.003.Location Of Crematory. (a)A crematory may be constructed on or adjacent to a perpetual care cemetery or adjacent to a funeral establishment (b)A crematory,other than a crematory registered with the commission on September 1,2003, must: (1)be adjacent to a perpetual care cemetery or funeral establishment;and (2) be owned or operated by the person that owns or operates the perpetual care cemetery or funeral establishment. ' (c)In this section,"adjacent to"means that a part of the property on which the crematory is to be constructed has a common boundary with: (1)the perpetual care cemetery or property on which the funeral establishment is located; or (2)a public easement,a utility easement,or a railroad right-of-way that has a common boundary with the perpetual care cemetery or property on which the funeral establishment is located. History.Added byActs 2003,78th Leg.,ch. 178,Sec. 2, eff. 9/1/2003. Related Legislative Provision: SeeActs 2003, 78th Leo.. ch. 178,Sec. 16. 0 © 2003 JuriSearch 1 of 1 11/22/2004 3:03 PM From: Harvey Cargill To: Carla Robinson; Joey Dunn; Roxanne Nemcik; Trey Fletcher Date: 11/1/2005 10:11:40 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: [ATTY-LIST] Separate annexations of two or more tracts Harvey Cargill, Jr. City Attorney 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Phone: 979.764.3507 Fax: 979.764.3481 E-mail: hcargill@ci.college-station.tx.us This e-mail and/or attachment is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and paper copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank You. >>> SBoundsOLSONOLSON.COM 11/01/05 10:08 AM >>> David, Sorry to get off topic. Actually I understood your description well without pictures (I think). I could not think of any Texas law that will help you and I certainly do not understand the law anywhere else. Texas Local Government Code 43.052(i) provides that a"municipality may not circumvent the requirements of this section (exceptions for annexing certain properties without service plan) by proposing two or more areas described by Subsection (h)(1) if not reason exists under generally accepted municipal planning principles and practices for separately annexing the areas." The Texas Supreme Court is presently considering a case regarding an annexation related to this rule. See Hughes, Executor v. City of Rockwall, 153 S.W.3d 709 (Tex.App.Dallas 2005)(writ pending); see also City of Arlington v. City of Grand Prairie, 451 S.W.2d 284 writ refd n.r.e 1970 (chain annexation) Scott Original Message From: Municipal Attorney List[mailto:ATTY-LIST aC�LISTSERV.MUNICODE.COM1 On Behalf Of David Pardys Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:27 PM To: ATTY-LIST(c�LISTSERV.MUNICODE.COM Subject: Re: [ATTY-LIST] Is it Kitty or Catty-cornered Why did I think that this would be the road that the conversation would take. Next time I'll draw pictures. David F. Pardys Swanson, Martin & Bell 847-949-0035 dpardyssmbtrials.com Original Message From: Municipal Attorney List[mailto:ATTY-LISTCcLISTSERV.MUNICODE.COM1 On Behalf Of Judy Skousen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:34 PM To: ATTY-LISTLISTSERV.MUNICODE.COM Subject: Re: [ATTY-LIST] Is it Kitty or Catty-cornered In Arizona its"kitty corner" Judy Skousen Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 4008 Mail Stop 602 Chandler, AZ 85244-4008 480-782-4640 The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (480-782-4640), and delete the original message. Thank you. This service provided by Municipal Code Corporation and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. www.municode.com To unsubscribe from the Municipal Attorneys' list go to : http://listserv.municode.com/archives/attv-list.html There you will find a link to"Join or leave the list." A confimation message will be sent to your account. This service provided by Municipal Code Corporation and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. www.municode.com To unsubscribe from the Municipal Attorneys' list go to : http://listserv.municode.com/archives/atty-list.html There you will find a link to"Join or leave the list." A confimation message will be sent to your account. This service provided by Municipal Code Corporation and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. www.municode.com To unsubscribe from the Municipal Attorneys' list go to : http://listserv.municode.com/archives/atty-list.html There you will find a link to"Join or leave the list." A confimation message will be sent to your account.