We need all people (cafa members and city residents) to help Anna Mowery fight this group and to challenge their spin. Please read there statements and get ready to speak the truth about "FORCED ANNEXATION BY MONEY HUNGRY , LAND GRABBING CITIES". A smart elected group (Counsel members, State Rep's, Senators and etc) should not Alienate a large group of people. See, we the people elect you "the elected officials" into office not an organization like TML or our organizations. Thank about it!!!! Please give us your opinions!!!

CITY OFFICIALS SHOULD STEP UP OPPOSITION
TO BAD ANNEXATION BILL

As we reported in last week’s TML Legislative Update, Representative Anna Mowery (R-Fort Worth) has filed H.B. 568, a bill that would significantly (perhaps fatally) erode municipal annexation authority. The bill would:

(1) prohibit unilateral annexation, including limited purpose annexation, of an area unless: (a) the voters in the area proposed for annexation vote in favor of the annexation at an election held for that purpose; and (b) the voters in the city vote in favor of the annexation at a separate, city-wide election.

(2) repeal the authority of a general law city to: (a) annex on petition of area voters; (b) unilaterally annex an adjacent navigable stream, a city-owned reservoir, an adjacent road, a municipal airport, or area that the city owns; (c) unilaterally annex a populous area to which the city is providing water or sewer service; (d) disannex sparsely-populated area.

(3) provide that a city may annex an area by petition only if: (a) each owner of real property in the area signs the petition, and (b) a majority of the vote at a city-wide election is in favor of the annexation.

(4) provide that any affected person may file a petition in district court to compel disannexation if a city that annexes an area for limited purposes does not: (a) develop a land use and intensity plan within one year, (b) include the area in the city’s long range financial forecast within two years, (c) include the area in the city’s capital improvements program within three years, or (d) annex the area for full purposes within three years.

(5) provide that a city must disannex an area pursuant to a vote in favor of disannexation if: (a) the voters in the area proposed for disannexation vote in favor of the disannexation at an election held for that purpose, and (b) the voters in the city vote in favor of disannexation at a separate, city-wide election.

(6) allow the board of trustees of a school district to petition a city to annex an area if the area is vacant and without residents.

(7) allow a home rule city that has a common boundary with a municipal utility district (MUD) to annex the MUD if the MUD is located entirely in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a single general law city.

On January 30, Representative Mowery was named Chairwoman of the House Land and Resource Management Committee, the committee to which H.B. 568 will be referred. Thus, the committee that Representative Mowery chairs will consider her bill.

We have also learned that two Fort Worth councilmembers (and other candidates for municipal office in Fort Worth) support H.B. 568, and can be expected to testify for the bill when it is the subject of a committee hearing.

To date, H.B. 568 has seven co-sponsors. They are:

Cities face an uphill battle since some prominent city officials are lined up with anti-annexation forces and because the bill’s author chairs the committee that will consider the bill. Any city official who is interested in retaining annexation authority should now begin writing letters to senators, representatives, the governor, and the lieutenant governor. A sample letter can be found on page 4 of this update.

For reasons that have been fully laid out in previous editions of the TML Legislative Update, annexation authority is critical to many Texas cities. Now is the time to begin the long struggle to keep that authority.

Major newspapers in Texas have traditionally sided with cities on this issue. The following editorial appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on February 1, and is reprinted here with permission.

No annexation vote
Star-Telegram, February 1, 2003

For decades, Texas cities have had the right to engage in involuntary annexation of outlying areas as a means of controlling development on their edges and expanding their tax base.

Cities unquestionably should retain that right.
Through the power of annexation, cities can help ensure quality development, long-term enhancement of property values and stronger environmental safeguards in fast-growing urban areas such as North Texas.

State Rep. Anna Mowery, R-Fort Worth, has filed a horribly ill-conceived bill that would require a popular vote before a city could annex property.

Fort Worth City Councilmen Chuck Silcox and Clyde Picht are inexplicably and irresponsibly backing the legislation. They ought to know better, given their experience in municipal government.

Currently, Texas cities can annex outlying areas over the objections of affected property owners, who sometimes oppose annexation because they don't want to pay city taxes or face municipal regulations such as building codes.

In many instances, those who oppose annexation by a larger city such as Fort Worth work in that city and regularly engage in recreational activities within its boundaries. They benefit from the city's services without paying municipal property taxes.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of annexations undertaken by Fort Worth and other North Texas cities have been voluntary annexations supported by developers and residents who desire city services.

Mowery's House Bill 568 would require that a contested annexation be approved by a simple majority of voters living in the area proposed for annexation and in the city attempting to annex it.

City council members are elected by the people to make tough decisions on a variety of issues, including proposed annexations. There's not a need to have a costly public election every time a city considers an annexation that draws some opposition.

State law grants considerable rights to property owners annexed into a municipality. In exchange for levying taxes on these property owners, cities must provide municipal services such as police and fire protection.

Cities' attempts to annex areas already have been made more difficult by legislation passed in 1999. That law provided additional protection for property owners subject to the potential of annexation.

This has been a hot issue in Fort Worth, where the city faces a lawsuit by property owners opposed to the annexation of 7,700 acres predominantly west of Eagle Mountain Lake.

Fort Worth initially was considering the involuntary annexation of 55 square miles in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, but scaled back to 18.5 square miles after receiving heavy protests from affected residents.

Mowery said her proposed legislation "is a property-rights bill to prevent people from being forced to annex without a voice in the process."

But that's a gross mischaracterization of what happened in Fort Worth. Although the City Council and city staff initially erred in considering the annexation of too much territory at one time, they listened for months to protests from irate property owners subject to possible annexation.

Those residents clearly had a voice in the process. Their complaints were a huge factor in the council scaling back the amount of territory that it is considering annexing.

By and large, Texas' annexation laws -- including the right of cities to undertake involuntary annexations -- have served the state well. Any attempt to abolish municipalities' right of involuntary annexation is shortsighted and foolish.

In a legislative session in which thousands of bills will die for lack of support, Mowery's legislation merits the earliest possible funeral.

SAMPLE ANNEXATION LETTER


<<<DATE>>>
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________

Dear _________________:
We are aware that municipal annexation authority will again come under attack during this legislative session. I am disappointed and disturbed that this is happening, because annexation authority was thoroughly debated and revised in 1999 when the legislature passed S.B. 89, a bill that has just recently gone into full effect.

We understand that some lawmakers will seek legislation (H.B. 568) that would allow residents in areas proposed for annexation to reject annexation at an election. This, of course, would end annexation in Texas and would do major harm to our city.

Annexation is the only way that we can address growth and development issues in our immediate area. And it is the only way that the entire local population base can equitably share in the financing of infrastructure that serves the entire region.

If, through state legislation, we create “non-annexation” zones around our cities, new development will take place in those areas, and not in the city.

(Please include a paragraph or two that focus on specific benefits of annexation to your city.)
You are aware that Texas cities, unlike the cities of other states, don’t beat a path to your door asking for state financial assistance or state revenue-sharing. We don’t ask the state to help us fund the facilities and services on which the region and state rely. But we do ask that our authority to take care of ourselves not be eroded. The power to annex is one of those key authorities, and to lose it would be very detrimental to cities and the state.

Please don’t stand with those who would further erode our authority to take care of ourselves. We ask that the 1999 legislation be given time to work in the way it was intended, and we ask that you carefully consider the negative effects of any further erosion of municipal authority.