Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell council annexation covenants tied to water service are coercive; council proceeds with first reading
Summary
Homeowners at the public-comment period said the city's practice of requiring annexation covenants to obtain city water leaves residents little choice; councilors heard examples and approved a first reading of an annexation ordinance after a planning-commission recommendation.
Residents urged the Westminster City Council to reconsider a policy that ties access to city water to signing annexation covenants.
"This is not a real choice," said Leticia Marsengill, who told the council that county and city practices require homeowners outside the city to sign annexation covenants to get city water service and that the practice effectively forces annexation. She said many residents did not understand that paperwork for water service included a legal agreement enabling future annexation and said those disclosures are not clearly explained.
Leticia cited state legislation introduced by Sen. Rex Rice (Senate Bill 703) intended to stop cities from using utility service as leverage to pressure annexation. "Access to water should never require someone to surrender control of their property," she said.
Neil, a neighbor whose property is the subject of a potential annexation, said he was given paperwork at the time he signed up for water and did not realize he had signed an annexation petition. "When somebody says this is your signature, right, you didn't read each and every line ... I didn't even know what is the annexation until a few months ago," Neil said, asking councilors to separate documents so homeowners understand what they sign.
Mayor and staff responded that the paperwork is a separate document and that staff would revisit how forms are presented. The mayor said the annexation paperwork “plainly states” its purpose where a signature is required, and staff noted that the county and state processes shape how annexation petitions are handled.
On the council agenda, members conducted a first reading of Ordinance 2102602, described as "an ordinance annexing property under a 100% annexation method and assigning zoning classification." City staff (Reagan) said the planning commission recommended annexation by a 3–1 vote with a zoning designation of R‑20.
Council members discussed transparency and form design and then called the first reading to a vote; the reading moved forward as scheduled. Further discussion of the annexation policy and state proposals was deferred to future meetings and, in some cases, to follow-up with staff for clarification.
The council did not adopt a final annexation ordinance at this meeting; the item was recorded as a first reading that will return for later action.
