Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing on annexation petition draws county planner and neighbors; annexation motion fails
Summary
At a March 22 Rawlins City Council meeting, petitioners and county staff described a de‑annexation/annexation petition and its statutory, zoning and service implications; council tried a motion on the proposal and announced the motion failed after online voting.
Rawlins — Petitioners and county staff presented an annexation/de‑annexation request at the Rawlins City Council meeting on March 22, and council members weighed residents’ objections and potential zoning consequences before a motion on the proposal failed.
Seth Jenkins and Alicia Jenkins identified themselves during a second public hearing on an ordinance described in the transcript as seeking annexation (the transcript also uses the terms 'annexation' and 'de‑annexation') and provided materials for council review. Arden County Planning Director Sarah Brugger told the council the county received a petition dated 12/14/2021, prepared a statutorily required impact report within a 60‑day window, and forwarded that report to the city for its consideration.
Brugger said that, under the county’s reading of statute, approval of municipal de‑annexation would likely return the parcels to ranching/agriculture/mining zoning (described in the transcript as 'RANZ' or similar). She said the parcels discussed include roughly a 10‑acre parcel and a roughly 2‑acre parcel and that the county’s minimum parcel size for ranching/agriculture/mining is 35 acres; under that zoning the smaller parcels would be preexisting nonconforming and owners would need to apply for zone changes before obtaining building permits for residential uses.
Former owner Jim Fishee offered historical council records from 1999 and said his legal advice indicated state statute governs the process and that neither the city nor county would gain fiscally from the change. Multiple neighbors who spoke (identified in the transcript as residents) said they had not been notified through a normal public‑notice process, expressed concern about how emergency and municipal services would be affected, and urged the council to seek more public input in addition to the county’s written report.
Council members acknowledged receiving calls from residents and said they were considering what would best serve the city. During the formal motion and online vote, the chair announced the motion related to the annexation petition 'failed' (the transcript records the outcome but does not provide a detailed roll‑call tally for that motion).
