Navasota joins the fray over ETJ

After meeting in Executive Session at the Nov. 27 Regular Meeting, Navasota city council members approved denying Pecan Hill Acquisition LLC’s request for de-annexation from the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. In a second motion, council approved to join Grand Prairie’s lawsuit against the State of Texas. Both actions were prompted by Senate Bill 2038 which became law Sept. 1 and allows not only registered voters but landowners in an ETJ to request de-annexation.

Constitutionality questioned

Pecan Hill Acquisition LLC is comprised of 1,151.66 acres off SH 90 east of Navasota in the city’s ETJ and is owned by Pilot Grove Management LLC in Las Vegas, Nevada, highly successful in the gaming industry.

Moving to deny Pecan Hill’s request for removal of property from Navasota’s ETJ, council member Pattie Pederson said, “SB 2038 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and it conflicts with the City’s grant of discretionary legislative authority in Local Government Code section 42.023. The City does not consent to the reduction of its ETJ.”

Pecan Hill’s request for de-annexation first appeared on council’s agenda Sept. 23. The Examiner reported in the Sept. 25 edition that the bill was sponsored by State Representative Keith Bell (R-Forney) on behalf of Forney residents feeling the encroachment of Dallas, an hour away, and provides two options to be removed from an ETJ. One is a petition signed by more than 50% of the registered voters in the area or a majority of those who own titles to land in the area. The second is an election prompted by a petition signed by 5% of the voters in the ETJ.

City Manager Jason Weeks said, “Unfortunately, there are people in development who have ties to this legislation and were able to get things changed and it was revised to say ‘landowners.’”

Cities fight back

On Oct. 25, Grand Prairie filed a lawsuit in Travis County’s 261st District Court against the state. With Monday’s vote, Navasota joins cities like Lockhart in the lawsuit challenging the legality of SB 2038.

In addition to the violation of the Local Government Code cited by Pederson, declarations sought by Grand Prairie’s lawsuit are that the law violates separation of powers, is constitutionally vague, violates due course for lack of notice, violates equal protection and violates Texas Government Code 311.032.

Supporters point to the ability to expedite development to keep up with the housing demand. In November, the online publication, therealdeal.com, reported dozens of de-annexation requests along the IH-35 corridor around towns like Buda, Georgetown, Pflugerville, Taylor and Uhland.

The Austin Business Journal reported that “several Texas towns are fighting back against SB 2038 which allows developers to remove themselves from a city’s ETJ, bypassing bureaucratic steps in de-annexation and minimizing regulations,” and speculated the Grand Prairie case “could make it to the Texas Supreme Court.”

View council meetings at www.navasotatx.gov/government/city_council/agendas___minutes.php.