Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINCOLN JR. HIGH SCHOOL SECOND ANNEXATION - 13-98A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION2. Since the petition for the second annexation proposal consists of land area comprising Lincoln Junior High, (according to Leanne Herter's June 3,1998 letter is approximately 48.7 acres in size) it would appear all the requirements of section 31-12-108.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes should be met. Section 31-12-108.5 outlines all the provisions for annexation impact reports. I have reviewed the published impact report filed with the six (6) tax funded entities,plus one (1) privately held utility. I have concluded that sections (a) (II), (a) (III) (b), and section (a) (III) (f) were not adequately addressed. Again picking and choosing which statute will be observed. The Vine Drive Basin is currently undergoing a drainage study. The County asked that Irish Elementary School annexation be dropped because of this same project and it was. Those taxpaying landowners residing within 500/1000 feet of Lincoln Jr.High also are within the Basin project area. We are the primary community landowners which the statutes refer to. Any attempt to drag in the entire school district as representing the community, certainly is stretching the statutes very thin and makes any arbitrary decision subject to judicial review. Finally, I beg the question whether any tax funded entity such as a school district falls within the meaning of LANDOWNER as defined in section 31-12-103 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This section clearly defines landowner as the owner in fee of any undivided interest in a given parcel of land. Section 31-12-103 (9) defines a Qualified elector as a resident landowner of the area proposed to be annexed I realize the ambiguity of the language of the statute, never -the -less, if we are to be observers of our laws, then we are obligated to adhere to that part which governs our actions, whether we agree with that law or not. It is crystal clear, Petitioner does not fit the description. In view of the foregoing cited statutes I suggest the Fort Collins City Council dose not approve Lincoln Junior Highs' petition for annexation. Since ours is a country of laws which prides itself before the entire world as the foremost example of democracy, then I submit when nearly 90 percent of landowners within the immediate vicinity of Lincoln Junior High School signing the PROTEST petition (as filed with the Council) should be provided democratic due weight in the decision making process regarding the Lincoln Jr. High annexation. It should be clear to the Council at least 90 percent of the landowners wish to preserve their status of Country Folk - Sincerely c AAA �' 64 Cleo F. Shoultz Cleo F.Shoultz 1705 W.Vine Dr. FLCollins,Colo. 80521 City of Fort Collins Community Planning & Environmental Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins,Co.80522 And June 18,1998 The Fort Collins City Council City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins,Co. Dear Public Official: I go on record as insisting the use of the so-called flagpole annexation in order to gain the required 1/6 contiquity to existing city limits falls in to the rehn of dirty tricks. We are supposed to be a country guided by law and reason. Public officials,whether elected or appointed, should be held to a higher standard than the ordinary citizen. Keeping that in mind, let us consider just a few of the Statutory Laws, which this lay person suggests the City Planning Services and the Fort Collins City Council should observe. CRS 31-12-108 SETTING HEARING DATE - NOTICE GIVEN Sec. (2) The clerk shall give notice as follows; A copy of the resolution or petition as filed, (exclusive of the signatures) together with a notice that, on a given date and at a given time and place set by the governing body,the governing body shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the annexing municipality or upon the petition for the purpose of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements and is considered elielble for annexation. (End of quote) Consideration of this applicable statute poses a problem here. Since flagpole annexation is only used, (and I quote Leanne Herter's June 3,1998 letter here) "in order to gain the required 116 contiquity to existing City limits" it appears sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 in applicable part is being violated. Section 31-12-104 (a) states in pertinet part, "Contiquity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley,a public or private right-of-way,a public or private transportation right-of-way or area, public lands, whether owned by the state,the United States, or any agency thereof,". Annexation of Vine Drive in the first annexation clearly violates this section, and brings in to play other governing statutes, which I respectfully submit may need appealing to the courts to resolve. EXAMPLE: Section 31-12-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes sets forth a series of requirements which must be met by the Petitioner for annexation. I can find no evidence that. all these many requirements for Petition for annexation has been met. I submit, it behooves those municipal authorities for which the statutes were specifically written, to asure that all statutory requirements are met. I understand flagpole annexation has been used before. Regardless, one cannot simply pick and choose that part of a statute which one wishes to apply and ignore that which does not serve our purposes.