Crockett residents press council to put CIDC termination on ballot; council moves to call election amid legal questions

Residents and petition supporters pressed the City of Crockett Council on Aug. 19 to put a citizen petition before voters asking whether to terminate the Crockett Economic and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDC). Jonathan Barnes, introduced himself as a resident of Crockett and told the council the petition had garnered sufficient signatures and "does not seek to permanently abolish the CIDC, but rather to address the current distrust between the public and the corporation," and urged the council to place the question on the ballot.

The council debated procedural and legal questions about the petition throughout the meeting. A city speaker (identified in the transcript as an attorney during discussion) flagged that the certified petition combined two propositions—termination of the CIDC and adoption of a sales/use tax—and noted that the council could, if it chose, call separate elections for each proposition. Councilmembers made several motions: at least one motion to consider and approve the petition (item 19) died for lack of a second; later motions to call elections related to terminating the CIDC and adopting a half-percent sales/use tax were moved and seconded, and were recorded in roll-call discussion. One councilmember asked for a written legal opinion from the city attorney to clarify whether the combined language in the certified petition violated incorporation articles and whether separate votes were required.

Why it matters: the CIDC is funded by a half-percent local sales and use tax; terminating the CIDC or changing the use of that tax could shift how economic-development funds are collected or returned to property-tax relief. Petitioners said putting the issue to voters would allow citizens to decide the entity's future and restore trust.

What the council did: the transcript records multiple motions, some of which were tabled or died without a second; other motions to call for an election were made and recorded, and council members asked for legal counsel to provide a written opinion before some votes were finalized. The mayor announced an executive-session consultation with the city attorney on the petition under Code 551.071. The transcript ends with council discussion and votes recorded on related items, but it does not record a final sealed outcome resolving all legal questions.

What happens next: council requested legal advice and signaled intent to pursue the procedural steps needed to set an election date if legally appropriate. The record in the meeting shows petitions certified on 08/12/2024, motions to call elections (including one referencing a May 3, 2025 general election date in a motion), and a planned executive-session legal consultation; the council did not, in the public record of this meeting, complete a final uncontested resolution to place both propositions on the ballot.