Fruita council authorizes eminent-domain proceedings for portions of 19 Road amid public opposition

Fruita — The Fruita City Council on Jan. 21 voted 5-0 to authorize staff to start eminent-domain proceedings in court to acquire narrow strips of private property needed to finish the 19 Road reconstruction project.

The council approved two separate resolutions — Resolution 2025-05 to acquire right of way at a parcel commonly referred to as 966 19 Road and Resolution 2025-06 for a parcel at 993 19 Road — after city planners and the project manager summarized months of negotiations, appraisals and notices and explained why staff recommends court action.

The issue matters because the 19 Road project is a multi‑phase safety and circulation improvement tied to the city’s circulation plan, CDOT coordination and local development. City staff said the pieces of land sought are relatively small but necessary to place the roadway, utilities and storm infrastructure where engineers have designed them.

“Very common cities establish circulation plans … this sets forth a way that we can … not deviate from what sections of right of way and what road classifications get built,” said Dan Karas, the city’s planning and development director, describing why the corridor standard was set and why the city is pursuing the project now. Project manager Steve Martinez explained the right‑of‑way acquisition steps, including surveys, title research, appraisals and offers, and said the city followed the statutory process for notices and appraisal opportunities.

Public commenters urged the council to reconsider widening 19 Road. Sarah Bolton, who identified herself as a Fruita resident and petition organizer, told council she brought a petition with more than 1,700 signatures opposing “19 road expansion projects.” “These aren’t just numbers. They’re members of our community … At what point will you listen? Instead of pushing forward against the will of Fruita citizens, I urge you to pause, reconsider,” Bolton said.

Property owner Shelby Beto, who lives in unincorporated Mesa County on 19 Road, told council she and other neighbors believe the road is misclassified and that the city’s designation has driven the scope of the project. “19 Road is not classified as a major arterial like you have it, but only as a minor collector as specified in CDOT’s official road classifications,” Beto said during public participation.

City staff and the city attorney said those objections were considered but that most affected parcels along the corridor have reached negotiated settlements. Steve Martinez and city staff described the calendar of outreach: the city hired a professional right-of-way firm in early 2023, completed title and survey work, sent a notice of intent to acquire on Feb. 1, 2024 with a statutory 90‑day period for appraisals and allowed each owner to obtain a second appraisal at the city’s expense. Staff said the city made offers, received counteroffers in some cases, and extended time for appraisals and negotiations where appropriate.

For the property covered by Resolution 2025-05 (commonly referred to in staff materials as the Beto parcel), staff said appraisals were completed and the property owners declined the city’s final offer after the city issued a 10‑day final notice. Martinez said the strip of land the city seeks is roughly 6,000 square feet (about 20 feet by 300 feet), and that Mesa County staff confirmed the acquisition would not change the owner’s livestock allowances under county rules. City Attorney Mary Elizabeth Geiger said the 14‑foot multipurpose easement that already existed on the parcel further reduced the practical impacts of the acquisition.

Geiger described the eminent‑domain process to council: notice of intent and the 90‑day appraisal period were followed, owners were given the option of a second appraisal at the city’s expense, and the city then made an offer and issued final notices when negotiations did not reach agreement. “This is a statutory process. These steps are outlined in the statute for the initial notice of intent to acquire, the 90 days, the ability to get that second appraisal,” Geiger said. She added that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right‑of‑way acquisition manual provides additional guidance the city followed.

The second parcel (Resolution 2025-06, the Barlow parcel) presented a different complication: staff said the recorded owner is deceased, there was no clear title holder able to sign to convey the property and certified mail to the address produced little or no response. The owner’s daughter, identified to staff as Nicole, told the city she was pursuing probate to get legal title; staff said she has been given information and was told condemnation does not prevent payment to a rightful owner once title is established.

Because there is not currently a person with authority to sign for the Barlow property and because the irrigation and utility work must be completed before irrigation water is turned on in spring, staff said court‑ordered access and, if necessary, possession will allow the city and contractors to complete time‑sensitive grading, power‑line relocation and irrigation improvements. Geiger said a court can order immediate possession so the city can begin work prior to final conveyance, and that funds the city places into the court registry would be held until a legally entitled owner claims them.

Councilors emphasized the city’s efforts to negotiate and the sensitivity of using eminent domain. Councilor Miller noted that the city’s offers remain on the table even after initiating court proceedings and that settlement conversations can continue. Councilor Parrish and others thanked staff for the time and effort spent communicating with owners and described the acquisitions as “small slivers” of land rather than wholesale taking of farms.

Following the presentations and public comment, the council voted to approve both resolutions. The roll calls recorded all five present councilors voting yes on each resolution, enabling staff to begin the statutory condemnation process for the two parcels and to seek court orders for possession if required by project timing.

What happens next: staff said the city will deposit funds into the court registry consistent with appraisal evidence if the city proceeds through condemnation. Geiger and Martinez said a court‑appointed commission will ultimately determine just compensation if the case proceeds through the full process, and that negotiations or probate proceedings could still resolve ownership before final court determinations. City staff said they expect an order for possession can be sought and obtained relatively quickly (staff estimated possession could be sought/obtained on an expedited schedule in the range of weeks to a few months), but final compensation and conveyance timelines may be longer depending on probate or litigation.

Councilors and staff repeatedly noted timing urgency tied to CDOT requirements, relocation of power and utility lines, and the need to complete irrigation and underground work before irrigation water is turned on for the season. “There’s the timing; we’re out of time,” Martinez said, describing coordination needs with utilities and contractors.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025-05 (authorize eminent-domain proceedings, parcel at 966 19 Road): motion approved 5-0 (Councilors Hancey — yes; Parrish — yes; Downs — yes; Miller — yes; Williams — yes).

- Resolution 2025-06 (authorize eminent-domain proceedings, parcel at 993 19 Road): motion approved 5-0 (same recorded votes).

Staff, owners and court process

The city reiterated that acquisition offers included payment for real property value plus improvement and relocation costs (fences, sprinkler systems, trees and other items are included in valuation). Staff said the city often paid to relocate improvements when needed and that appraisal schedules accounted for improvements and relocation benefits. For the Barlow parcel, staff said any funds deposited in court will remain in the registry until a legally entitled owner is determined through probate or court order.

The council’s action does not mean the city will stop negotiating: staff said settlements remain possible for either parcel, and initiating court proceedings preserves the city’s ability to meet tight construction and utility relocation deadlines while continuing to seek negotiated outcomes.

The 19 Road project is intended to improve safety, circulation and pedestrian/bicycle access across a corridor used by commuters and students and to address CDOT concerns at the Highway 6 intersection. Staff noted other benefits including new sewer access for some properties and updated stormwater infrastructure. A small number of property owners continue to resist parts of the design; the council majority said staff had shown adequate outreach and that starting court proceedings was a last resort tied to project timing.