Friday, April 19, 2024
County and city officials have agreed to review a Memorandum of Understanding that involves Granbury’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
County officials raised the issue, citing confusion among the public with the county sometimes getting blamed for matters pertaining to the city.
They also noted that an examination of the long-held agreement is particularly relevant since the Legislature eliminated forced annexations in 2019.
Under the agreement, the county has jurisdiction over water wells and septic systems. The city has authority to regulate plats and to approve related permits.
There are circumstances in which the Texas Department of Transportation, another state or federal agency, or a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity regarding retail water or sewer utility service is involved, which can compound confusion.
Added to the mix is grandfathering that protects some properties after laws changed, and the fact that the county’s regulations differ from the city’s ordinances.
Further, as City Manager Chris Coffman put it, “all the different layers of law” that affect plats adds to the “murkiness.”
The topic of the MOU was discussed at a county workshop on Monday, March 28, and at an interlocal government workshop that took place at Granbury City Hall two days later, on Wednesday, March 30.
Members of the Granbury City Council, Hood County Commissioners Court, and Granbury ISD were present at the interlocal government gathering. They discussed a range of topics.
At both meetings, Precinct 3 Commissioner Jack Wilson and Precinct 4 Commissioner Dave Eagle expressed the opinion that the MOU needs to be reviewed.
“The agreement’s specific, but the circumstances have changed,” Eagle said.
Wilson stated the belief that permit fees charged by the city to people in the ETJ is “taxation without representation” since those people are not allowed to vote in city elections.
The MOU automatically renews unless one of the parties chooses to opt out. Opting out requires a 45-day notice. The current agreement is set to expire on June 17, according to Wilson.
Coffman said that the city adheres to state law in its dealings but noted that the agreement with the county has not been reviewed since 2008. He stressed that the city is willing to work with the county on any issues that need to be addressed to create an agreement that both parties are happy with.
He noted that an agreement between the city and county about the ETJ is required by law.
City and county officials agreed that the county’s development director, Clint Head, will meet with city staff to begin a review process of the MOU.
Coffman indicated that the June 17 expiration date is not an important factor in moving forward since the agreement can be amended.
“I would rather take our time and be diligent… and not do something on the fly,” he said.
