Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> cutting. Both require weeds to be cut to • <br /> certain length. The existing ordinance states <br /> that anyone that owns property in the City of <br /> Louisville is responsible for cutting their weeds <br /> and the City of Louisville is a land owner by all <br /> legal definitions. <br /> Leary roved that council direct the City Attorney <br /> draft this ordinance for first reading at the next <br /> council meeting and at that time put it out for <br /> publication as an ordinance. Cussen seconded, and <br /> the notion was carried unanimously. <br /> ANNEXATION <br /> PETITION The second petition directs the City Council to <br /> annex and zone certain pro^arty located east of <br /> Highway 42 which is not currently annexed to the <br /> City. Rautenstraus related some general <br /> statements in the State Statutes with regard to <br /> actions that can be taken on initiative petitions. <br /> These options are 1 ) adopting the ordinance as <br /> proposed, 2) set an election with the election <br /> taking place between 60 and 150 days after said <br /> petition is filed, 3) state that the matter is <br /> inappropriate for initiative and therefore , would <br /> not be something that would fall into that <br /> statute. <br /> Leary sowed that the ordinance identified in this <br /> petition be set for an election on Tuesday, March <br /> 19, 1985. Cussen seconded . The motion was <br /> carried unanimously. <br /> Morris related concerns that the property owners <br /> theaselves were not requesting annexation and if <br /> in fact the proposal goes through, what the legal <br /> ramifications would be. These questions according <br /> to Rautenstraus should be addressed after said <br /> election. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated <br /> that the right to the election itself seems to be <br /> paramount and then at that time the rights of the <br /> property owners can be determined. <br /> AQUARIOUS WATER <br /> RIGHTS Hundley referred to a memo that Council received <br /> as part of their packet and asked them to direct <br /> any questions to the City's Water Attorney, <br /> Stephen Williamson. Williamson gave Council <br /> background in the issue and indicated that Brock <br /> is dissatisfied with the way the City is handling <br /> the water rights and has requested that Council <br /> take action. If it is not resolved, Brock has <br /> intention to consider litigation. <br /> 4 <br />