Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2007

Home

July 1, 2007\ Volume 1\ No. 13 property owned by Costco and Wells. Specifically, the Nike property stood between the city boundary and one side of the Wells property. The city continued annexation procedures for the other properties, claiming that the island annexation statute did not prohibit the an- nexation of only part of an island. illtimately, it passed an ordinance annexing the property owned by Wells and Costco. Both landowners appealed the decision to the land use board of appeals. The board affirmed the city's annexation of the properties, and Wells appealed that decision to court; Costco did not seek further re- view.The court found that, under the statute, "the territory to be an- nexed must be completely enclosed by and contiguous with the corpo- rate boundaries of the annexing city" and found in Wells' favor. The city appealed. Decision: Affirmed. . The statute in question stated in relevant part that: "When territory not within a city is surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or by the corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean shore or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water, it is within the pow- er and authority of that city to annex such territory." To determine how the statute applied to the territory in question, the court had to consider the plain and ordinary meaning of the language when read as a whole. The court found that the words "surrounded by" were mostly aptly defined as "to form a ring around: extend around or about the edge of: constitute a curving or circular boundary for: lie adjacent to all around or in most directions." The city relied on the latter part of the definition, arguing that-once the island was formed--city boundaries surrounded any and all parts of the territory within the island. The city argued that its boundaries need only be adjacent to prop- erty within the island "in most directions," but the court did not agree with this interpretation of the statute. The court found that if "sur- rounded by" meant only that the boundaries were adjacent in most directions, then the statute would not have imposed the requirement that city boundaries "completely and contiguously encircle the terri- tory to create an island" in the first place. The city argued :furLher that, in passing the statute, the legislature invested it with broad authority to annex property-including all or part of an isl~ld as defined by the statute. The coun found that the statute authorized only the annexation of "such property" that was defined previously as an island. The court stated that: "The most straightforward reading of the statute.. . [was] that the territory that 5 163