Blue Ridge residents urge council to delay annexation and pause hiring of city administrator amid concerns over developers

Dozens of residents packed the public-comment portion of the Blue Ridge City Council meeting on April 1 to demand the council delay annexation of two properties and postpone hiring a city administrator until after the May 3 election and additional legal reviews.

Tammy Barber, a Blue Ridge resident, thanked the council for increased transparency but said, “We oppose the annexation of the 2 properties and documentation referred to as Bellavia and Kiara.” She asked the council to continue seeking “an appropriate candidate for city administrator that can ensure all local and federal laws are adhered to and record transparent record management.”

Multiple speakers raised procedural concerns about the council’s minutes and public notices. Barbara Isaac told the council the March 10 minutes are “incorrect currently” and said she had submitted an open-records request and would turn over employment records she said raised questions about candidate Jeff Stanley. Ronald Debner urged the council to “get an opinion from the attorney general on section 4.22 of the developer's agreements relating to the anti boycott anti Israel boycott” and to delay actions until a newly elected council is seated.

Residents repeatedly said infrastructure — water, fire protection, roads and policing capacity — is insufficient for the scale of the proposed developments. Jennifer Yock and other speakers said impact fees and service capacity had not been demonstrated for the kind of neighborhood planned. “We've had several other neighborhoods that have been denied because the infrastructure was not there,” a resident said.

Several speakers also alleged the properties are affiliated with religiously organized developments and warned of cultural or legal incompatibility. Those claims ranged from concerns about self-segregation and religious governance to direct allegations of ties to extremist groups. For example, one speaker alleged that property owners “are associated with terrorist groups.” Those assertions were made by members of the public in remarks and were not supported by documentary evidence presented at the meeting.

Council responses during public comment focused on procedure and next steps; the council accepted packets and petitions from residents and agreed to correct omissions in the March 10 minutes before approving them. After an executive session later in the meeting, council members voted to table the resolution appointing a city administrator (no action taken on hiring during this meeting) and to grant a petition to remove specified property from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 42.

The public record shows several organized actions opposing the annexation: speakers referenced a Change.org petition with more than 233 signatures and individual petition packets presented to council. Residents asked for additional legal review from state officials cited by name (attorney general, Texas Rangers) and requested that council delay major decisions until after the May election and any pending state inquiries are complete.

What’s next: The council did not finalize the appointment of a city administrator at this meeting. Residents asked for corrected minutes and for formal review of developer agreement clauses (including the cited section 4.22). Those requests and the petitions submitted will remain part of the administrative record as the city proceeds to future agenda items and hearings.