Wolf Air Park nears de‑annexation as residents gather signatures; council weighs legal, service risks

Residents of Wolf Air Park updated the Manville City Council that they have gathered owner signatures for a petition to de‑annex most of the air park from city limits and that the effort is nearly complete. The petitioner, Chad Newman, told council volunteers had collected signatures for roughly 75 small lots and that two owners (three lots) had not responded. Newman estimated he had spent about $5,000 so far on the effort, mainly survey costs and staff time.

The city attorney and staff outlined legal and financial implications if de‑annexation proceeds without every owner’s consent. City Attorney Bobby (surname not specified) said proceeding without 100% owner consent exposes the city, however small, to “a claim by the property owners for back taxes, minus the cost of services provided, back to the full time they’ve been in the city limits.” The attorney said the original council condition for the action had been 100% consent from property owners; he described the council-set target as such.

Participants discussed risk‑mitigation options. One option considered was an agreement in which the Wolf Air Park homeowners association (HOA) would accept responsibility for potential claims by absent owners; the city attorney cautioned that an HOA’s ability to pay or exist 20 years later cannot be guaranteed. Staff estimated worst-case exposure to the city for back‑tax claims at about $20,000, based on total property taxes paid from the Wolf Air Park parcels in the most recent year (roughly $31,000 total across the tract). Chad Newman said the county sheriff’s office had attended a community meeting and that Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office Officer Donald Patterson told residents the sheriff’s office could support policing after de‑annexation.

Council members discussed short‑term fixes to city ordinances related to fire suppression and building requirements but expressed caution about changing rules retroactively: Keith (surname not specified), a city fire official, said staff could study ordinance amendments for future development but did not favor changing rules because something had already been done. The fire official and staff described some possible amendments for future developments (fire and building code details) while noting the city prefers not to set precedent by adjusting requirements to cover already-constructed situations.

Council direction: Staff proposed a two‑week follow-up. The council asked Chad to continue outreach to the two remaining property owners and asked staff to prepare draft ordinance and agreement language for council review at the next meeting. If the two owners remain unreachable after the follow-up period, staff said they would present options, including a possible HOA indemnity agreement, and a timeline for the public‑hearing and ordinance process. No formal council vote to approve de‑annexation was taken at the workshop.

Ending: Council agreed to return in two weeks with documentation of outreach and staff recommendations on legal protections and ordinance language so the council can decide whether to proceed with a public hearing and ordinance to effect the de‑annexation.