The Universal City City Council on Oct. 7 moved to amend a proposed extension of non‑annexation agreements for properties in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction and to table final action until the council's second meeting in December.

Mr. Michael Kasai, who presented the item for staff, described 13 properties in the city's ETJ totaling about 148 acres and identified six parcels that lie partially in a mapped floodplain. He told the council that the non‑annexation agreements executed about 10 years earlier include a clause requiring voluntary annexation upon expiration: "upon the expiration of this agreement, the landowner and the landowner's successors, Earsworth assigns, agree to the voluntary annexation of the property With this agreement serving as a petition for voluntary annexation," Kasai said during the presentation.

Kasai outlined three options for the council: annex the properties now (which requires legal notices, two ordinance readings and an update to the city's boundary map), allow the existing agreements to expire in January, or extend the non‑annexation development agreements by mutual consent and record any extension in county deed records.

Council members and members of the public raised multiple concerns including airport compatibility zones near Randolph Air Force Base, potential changes of use by property owners, the city’s prior investments in infrastructure and the obligation to provide utilities. Staff noted investments including an emergency access road across the creek (about $2,000,000) and an earlier water main running along FM 1518 on the east side of the creek that cost about $1,170,000; one council member said total expenditures in the area exceed $3 million.

Several council members argued for giving property owners more time but not an open‑ended extension. After discussion, a council motion amended the proposed extension from 10 years to five years; the amendment was seconded. Council then moved to table the annexation resolution so staff could pursue extension signatures and status checks and to return the item for a decision at the second council meeting in December.

City staff clarified that extending the agreements requires property owners' signatures and recording the extensions at the county. Staff also said that for owners who decline an extension or who have materially changed a property's use, the council would decide whether to proceed with annexation at the December meeting. Staff recommended tabling the resolution to avoid renoticing the public hearing; the council agreed to table until the second meeting in December.

No final annexation ordinance was adopted on Oct. 7. The council's action directs staff to seek signed extensions where possible, inspect properties for changes in use that could trigger annexation under the agreements, and return to council for a formal vote in December.