This content was originally published by the Longmont Observer and is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
City council's Executive Summary, submitted by city staff:
As the City limits have grown over time, enclaves of unincorporated parcels have been created. Unincorporated parcels that have been completely surrounded by the City for at least three years are eligible for annexation to the City under state statutes. The attached map shows unincorporated parcels that currently, or will soon, meet that criteria for annexation. The map is color-coded to highlight parcels that would be zoned residential, mixed-use or nonresidential based on the corresponding Envision Longmont land use designation.
Staff is requesting direction of whether Council is interested in considering annexation of some or all of the enclave parcels. The attached table of enclave areas provides additional information and corresponds with numbers on the attached map.
The city council discussed city-initiated annexations under state law. There are 27 enclaves in question. Some are single and some are multiple parcels.
Council member Finley said she was not in favor of forcing annexing anyone, but it would be a cheaper way of doing it if the landowner wanted to be annexed by this method. She thought we should ask the property owners and those that wanted to should be able to.
Council member Peck agreed with Finley, with one exception: The land at 119 and Main St. (a local marijuana retail outlet).
Mayor Pro-Tem Christensen also agreed with Finley and did not believe we should annex, forcefully, anyone's land. The exception was the same as Pecks, the marijuana shop at 119 and Main St.
Council member Martin said that forced annexation is 'probably not who we are'. She thought if it were hazardous in some way, it should be considered, but otherwise should not be considered for annexation.
Council member Rodriguez asked if there were any legal issues with singling out any one property. The city attorney's office said, "No, with some exceptions". He also said he was not for forced annexation nor for singling out any one property.
Mayor Bagley said that his own ideological view is you never take away someone's properties rights. However, he also said these properties are enclaves that get a benefit from the city and getting all the benefits of being part of the community, but the question is, are they paying their fair share? He said the State of Colorado allows for any property that's fully surrounded by city property to be forcibly annexed, often for good reasons. He gave an example of people target shooting on a lot next to his old house, next to residential areas as the backstop. There's safety, fairness and value, which are important.
Bagley then said he personally didn't have a problem with doing it. If you're surrounded by the city and getting all the benefits, you should be paying like the rest of us. We should develop it into something we can all live with. He thinks we need to be heavy-handed to everyone or heavy-handed to no one. We should start by asking everyone first, and if the results aren't positive for the city, 'go from there'.
City Manager Harold Dominguez brought up that they pay 50% higher water rates and that the public safety issues (who has jurisdiction for legal issues) are real.
The city staff took the direction that they need to go out and talk with all the property owners and get a sense who would want to be annexed and who wouldn't and bring that back to the city council and they would go from there.
All the documents the council was working off of are embedded below:
