HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-112-11/07/2006-RESPONDING TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2006 RELATING TO THE SOUTHWEST EN RESOLUTION 2006-112
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RESPONDING TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2006 RELATING TO THE
SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, the City Council (the "Council") adopted on Second
Reading Ordinance No. 137, 2006 (the "Ordinance"), thereby approving the Southwest Enclave
Annexation(the"Annexation") upon the terms and conditions contained in the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2006, Citizens Against Forced Annexation, LLC. ("CAFA")
delivered to the City a "Motion for Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 137, 2006" (the "Motion")
requesting that the Council reconsider the Ordinance for the reasons stated in the Motion; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to formally respond to the Motion; and
WHEREAS,the Council believes that the Annexation complies with all relevant provisions
of the law and is in the best interests of the City and further believes that it would not be in the City's
interests to reconsider the Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Council disagrees with the grounds upon which CAFA has objected
to the Annexation and hereby makes the following findings as to each of those grounds:
A. Phased Annexation. Annexing the Southwest Enclave in phases is not
contrary to the law, as alleged in the Motion. The Colorado courts have
consistently upheld the ability of a municipality's governing body to
determine the appropriate timing of annexations,as well as the size and shape
of parcels to be annexed, in deciding how best to promote the "natural and
well ordered development"of the municipality.
While neither the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 (the "Act")
nor Article II, Section 30 of the State Constitution contemplates or
specifically authorizes the phased annexation of an enclave, the Act and the
Constitution authorize municipalities in Colorado to annex any
unincorporated areas that have been entirely surrounded and contained within
their municipal boundaries for a period of not less than three years. The
Southwest Enclave meets these requirements and is therefore eligible for
annexation.
Accordingly, the Council hereby finds that the Annexation of the Southwest
Enclave, upon the terms and conditions contained in the Ordinance is
permitted by law, is in the best interests of the City and will promote the
natural and well ordered development of the City for the reasons stated in the
ordinance.
B. Right of Way. The strip of land adjacent to Taft Hill Road that forms part of
the boundary of the Southwest Enclave has never been dedicated or conveyed
as a public right of way, it has not historically been used as a public right of
way,and it is not currently used for such purpose. Therefore,using such strip
of land as part of the boundary of the Southwest Enclave does not violate
C.R.S. Section 31-12-1-6(l.1)(a) as alleged in the Motion.
C. Right of Way. The use of the Taft Hill Road right of way to establish
contiguity for the Coyote Ride No.2 annexation was not contrary to Colorado
law as alleged in the Motion. On the contrary, C.R.S. Section 31-12-
105(1)(e)(1) specifically states that, within the Fort Collins three mile area,
"the contiguity required by Section 31-12-104(1)(a) may be achieved by
annexing a platted street or alley, (or)a public or private right-of-way..." In
addition, this kind of alleged defect, even if it existed, is not one of the
grounds upon which a subsequent enclave annexation can be invalidated
under C.R.S. Section 31-12-116(2)(b).
D. Open Space. The use of City-owned open space or natural areas to form part
of the boundary of the enclave is not contrary to the law as alleged in the
Motion. In the case of County Commissioners v. Denver, 459 P.2d 292,
(Colo. 1969)the Colorado Supreme Court dealt with a similar argument that
tax exempt land may not be situated on the perimeter of an area to be
annexed, and used in meeting the contiguity requirements of the Act. The
court rejected that argument because the Act contains no such restriction,and
the Council believes that the reasoning of this case holds true for enclave
annexations. Since the Act contains no prohibition against using city-owned
open space or natural areas to form part of the boundary of an enclave, it is
permissible to use such areas for that purpose.
E. Intent of the Act. For the reasons stated above and in the Ordinance, the
Council disagrees with CAFA's contention that the Annexation thwarts the
intent of the Act or that the Council has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused
its discretion in annexing the Southwest Enclave under the terms and
conditions of the Ordinance.
Section 2. Accordingly, the Council hereby finds that the objections of CAFA as stated
in the Motion do not warrant reconsideration of the Ordinance, and the Motion is hereby denied.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th
day of November, A.D. 2006.
May r ,
ATTEST:
A
City Clerk