Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Etj Release topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies petition to release 26.5 acres from Dripping Springsextraterritorial jurisdiction
Summary
Council voted to deny RABD Holdings LLC's application to be released from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction for a 26.5‑acre property at 12299 Troutwine Road after hearing legal argument and staff analysis that the property had been voluntarily petitioned into the ETJ; applicant warned of a likely mandamus challenge.
The City Council denied an application by RABD Holdings LLC asking that 26.5 acres at 12299 Troutwine Road be released from Dripping Springs' extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) following legal presentations and a closed session on attorney consultation.
An advocate for the property (who identified himself as Robert Abraham) urged the council to grant release, arguing the parcel lies in the comprehensive plan's rural reserve, is remote from city services and, in his view, was not voluntarily annexed into the ETJ. He argued the specific bracket in the state disannexation statute that excludes certain areas (including Hays County) is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge for being a special or locally tailored law, and said he intended to seek mandamus relief if the council refused.
City Attorney Aniselani and staff reviewed the statutory framework for petitions for release from an ETJ, noted statutory exclusions for areas that had been voluntarily annexed into an ETJ in counties meeting specific census‑bracket criteria, and said the city had an ordinance (dated March 5, 1985) showing a property petition that supported staff's conclusion that the property was voluntarily included. Based on that analysis staff recommended denial.
Council took the matter into executive session to discuss legal questions with the city attorney. After coming back into open session, the council moved, seconded and voted to deny the application for redress by RABD Holdings LLC regarding 12299 Troutwine Road. The council did not adopt a detailed legal ruling on the constitutionality of the state statute in public session; staff noted that a judicial process would ultimately resolve constitutional challenges and that the attorney general could intervene if the applicant filed notice of a constitutional challenge.
The applicant said he plans to file a mandamus action in the appropriate appellate court and warned that litigation costs to the city could follow if the council denied the petition and the applicant pursued legal remedies.
