time - townnewsbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/...time amanda...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Kerry Hilbert and Sherry Hilbert; Wayne M. Cox and Bonnie M. Cox; Clyde Smith and Renee Smith, Trustees of the

Clyde & Renee Smith Family Trust; J. Martin Montgomery, Trustee of the Paul W

& Cledith M. Montgomery Revocable Trust;

Linda K. Stoddard; Neal Zimmerman and Debra Zimmerman; Mike Glisson and Brenda Glisson; Scott Rowland and Trina Rowland, Co-

Trustees of the Scott Rowland Revocable Trust;

Tommy Lee Lloyd, Jr. and Jodi Lloyd; Johnny Wayne Grant and Penny Grant; Colleen Lynch; Rex Murphy and Karla Murphy; Thomas Gaskins; Don Dawson and Imogene Dawson; Kevin Hope and Joy Hope; Glen Hayes and Debra Hayes; Petra Franzen; Darrell Butterfield; Shelli Snelson; Mark McKinzie and Windi McKinzie; and Clayton McKinzie;

Plaintiffs,

VS.

The City of Bristow, Oklahoma, a municipal corporation; and

Harlan Yocham and Tammy Sue Yocham,

Defendants.

FILED IN DISTRICT COURT CREEK COUNTY SAPULPA OK

APR 2 4 2014 Lu

Amanda VanOrsdol, COURT CLERK

Case No. CS-2Z4 2014 - 239 Lawrence Parish

TIME

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Kerry Hilbert and Sherry Hilbert, Wayne M. Cox and

Bonnie M. Cox, Clyde Smith and Renee Smith, Trustees of the Clyde & Renee Smith Family

1

Trust, J. Martin Montgomery, Trustee of the Paul W & Cledith M. Montgomery Revocable

Trust, Linda K. Stoddard, Neal Zimmerman and Debra Zimmerman, Mike Glisson and Brenda

Glisson, Scott Rowland and Trina Rowland, Co-Trustees of the Scott Rowland Revocable Trust,

Tommy Lee Lloyd, Jr. and Jodi Lloyd, Johnny Wayne Grant and Penny Grant, Colleen Lynch,

Rex Murphy and Karla Murphy, Thomas Gaskins, Don Dawson and Imogene Dawson, Kevin

Hope and Joy Hope, Glen Hayes and Debra Hayes, Petra Franzen, Darrell Butterfield, Shelli

Snelson, Mark McKinzie and Windi McKinzie, and Clayton McKinzie, (collectively Plaintiffs),

and for their claims and causes of action against the Defendants, the City of Bristow, Oklahoma

(Bristow) and Harlan Yocham and Tammy Sue Yocham (Yochams) (collectively Defendants),

allege and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for declaratory relief based, inter alio, on the actual existing

justiciable disputes between the Plaintiffs and the City of Bristow arising out of Bristow's recent

purported "strip" or "fence-line" annexation by ordinance 124-031404 of a 25' wide strip

approximately 93 miles long encircling, belting and girdling approximately 308 square miles of

Creek County in the State of Oklahoma — an area more than 100 square miles larger than the City

of Tulsa Oklahoma. A map or drawing showing full sections of land and depicting the strip or

fence-line is annexed hereto marked EXHIBIT "A" and incorporated herein. The requested

judgment in this action affects the interests of Yochams and Yochams are, therefore, joined as

defendants.

2. The Plaintiffs contend that the City of Bristow was without jurisdiction to annex

the territory depicted on Exhibit "A", and acted unreasonably, outside the scope of legislative

2

authority, and contrary to the law of the State of Oklahoma when it adopted the ordinance

purportedly annexing that territory. A copy of the City of Bristow's ordinance number 124-

031014 ("Bristow Ordinance 124-031014") purporting to annex that territory is annexed hereto

marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. The Plaintiffs also contend that Bristow's "fence-

line" annexation constitutes an arbitrary, real, unnecessary, and flagrant violation of liberty and

property rights guaranteed by the Constitutions of this State and the United States.

3. The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, judgment declaring that Bristow's annexation

ordinance is facially invalid, unlawful, void and of no force or effect.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction to provide declaratory relief pursuant to OKLA.

STAT. tit. 12, § 1651, et seq. which explicitly authorize District Courts to determine the validity

of any municipal ordinance. Venue lies in this Court under OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 1653

because the annexed territory is located in Creek County, Oklahoma, the municipal party is

situated in Creek County, Oklahoma, the Defendants Harlan Yocham and Tammy Sue Yocham's

land is situated in Creek County and said Defendants may be served in Creek County, and

because the alleged acts and omissions occurred within Creek County, Oklahoma.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiffs, Kerry Hilbert and Sherry Hilbert, Wayne M. Cox and Bonnie M. Cox,

Clyde Smith and Renee Smith, Trustees of the Clyde & Renee Smith Family Trust, J. Martin

Montgomery, Trustee of the Paul W & Cledith M. Montgomery Revocable Trust; Linda K.

Stoddard, Neal Zimmerman and Debra Zimmerman, Mike Glisson and Brenda Glisson, Scott

Rowland and Trina Rowland, Co-Trustees of the Scott Rowland Revocable Trust, Tommy Lee

3

Lloyd, Jr. and Jodi Lloyd, Johnny Wayne Grant and Penny Grant, Colleen Lynch, and Rex

Murphy and Karla Murphy, are each owners of interests in areas of the land purportedly annexed

by Bristow Ordinance 124-031014. Plaintiffs Thomas Gaskins, Don Dawson and Imogene

Dawson, Kevin Hope and Joy Hope, Glen Hayes and Debra Hayes, Petra Franzen, Darrell

Butterfield, Shelli Snelson, Mark McKinzie and Windi McKinzie, and Clayton McKinzie, are

each owners of interests in areas of land within the area encircled and girdled by the annexation

and the rights and privileges arising in connection with their respective interests in said lands

have been affected adversely by being surrounded by but not annexed into the City of Bristow.

6. Defendant, the City of Bristow, Oklahoma, is a charter city in Creek County,

Oklahoma having all the powers, functions, rights, privileges, franchises and immunities granted

to charter cities by the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma including the power and

right pursuant to the authority of OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, §§ 21-101 to add territory adjacent or

contiguous to its corporate limits by ordinance.

7. Defendants Harlan Yocham and Tammy Sue Yocham own a tract of land

consisting of 320 acres or more situated at and reached after the end of the first 4 miles of the 25'

strip. Defendants Yocham consented to the annexation of their land. Defendants Yocham's tract

was included in the lands annexed by the subject annexation ordinance. Therefore Defendant

Yocham has or claims an interest which would be affected by the outcome of this action.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On or about March 10, 2014 the City of Bristow, in Creek County, Oklahoma, by

action of its City Council, adopted ordinance 124-031404 purporting to annex a 25' wide strip

approximately 93 miles long encircling, belting and girdling approximately 308 square miles of

4

Creek County in the State of Oklahoma — an area more than 100 square miles larger than the City

of Tulsa Oklahoma. The map or drawing showing full sections of land and depicting the strip or

fence-line is annexed hereto marked Exhibit "A."

9. Among other findings, the Ordinance recites that the owners of at least a majority

of the acres to be annexed have consented in writing to be annexed.

10. Yochams are believed to be the only landowner consenting to the annexation. The

requested judgment in this action affects the interests of Yochams and Yochams are, therefore,

joined as defendants.

11. Yochams' tract is one of roughly 340 tracts of land crossed by the strip

purportedly annexed by the ordinance. Of those 340 or so tracts, the Yocham tract is believed to

be the only consenting tract.

12. The Yocham tract is not adjacent or contiguous to the City of Bristow. As

described in the ordinance, the purported annexation begins at the southern boundary line of

Bristow with a strip 25' in width. The 25' strip then extends south through Section 6 for roughly

one mile, then it turns west extending for roughly 3 more miles to reach Yochams' half section

of land. The 25' strip then commences again at the west boundary of the Yocham tract and

continues for roughly 87 miles in a strip or fence line configuration to girdle, loop, or encircle

roughly 308 square miles. The only point where any of the territory purportedly annexed is

adjacent or contiguous to the City of Bristow is at the 25' width at the initial point of connection.

13. As depicted on Exhibit "A", the City of Bristow's municipal limits prior to this

purported annexation contain fewer than 4 square miles of the 308 square miles more or less

girdled or looped by the purported annexation.

5

14. The "strip" or "fence-line" is roughly 490,000 feet long but is connected to the

former corporate limits of Bristow only by 25 feet. The width is five one hundred thousandths of

the length (0.00005).

15. But for the strip running from Bristow to connect to the girdle or loop, none of the

"strip" or "fence-line" purportedly annexed is within 4 miles of Bristow's former corporate

limits, the southern leg of the "strip" or "fence-line" is 11 miles away, the northern leg of the

strip is roughly 5 miles away, most of the west leg of the "strip" or "fence-line" is roughly 9

miles away, and, at its closet, the eastern leg appears to be more than 5 miles away.

16. The City of Bristow by copies of the document attached hereto marked Exhibit

"C" made public pronouncements concerning the proposed annexation prior to conducting public

hearing to explain what the fence-line is for and what was going to be considered at the hearing.

17. Exhibit "C" includes the following pronouncement:

"All the annexation does is create a 25 foot wide fence-line surrounding territory currently outside the City of Bristow to protect it and prevent it from being annexed in the future by another jurisdiction."

FIRST CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Not Adjacent or Contiguous)

18. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 17 and

hereby incorporate them into their First Claim for Relief.

19. The territory purportedly annexed to the City of Bristow by Bristow ordinance

124-031404 was not territory adjacent or contiguous to Bristow's corporate limits within the

meaning of and as required by the provisions of OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 21-101.

6

20. The ordinance is facially invalid and fails to show there was due compliance with

the law's requirement that the annexed property be adjacent or contiguous to Bristow, and

Bristow was without jurisdiction to annex that territory.

21. The ordinance on its face is not in reasonable compliance with the statutory

prerequisite for adjacency or contiguity.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants on their First Claim For

Relief as follows:

A. Judgment declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 is contrary to the laws of the

State of Oklahoma because it is adopted in violation of, inter alia, OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 21-

101.

B. Judgment declaring that the City of Bristow and its governing body acted outside the

scope of legislative authority when it adopted ordinance 124-031404.

C. Judgment declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 in its entirety is invalid, void

and of no force or effect.

D. Awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs and other relief to Plaintiffs as the

Court deems just and proper.

SECOND CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (No Community of Interest)


hereby incorporate them into their Second Claim for Relief.

23. But for the strip running from Bristow to connect to the girdle or loop, none of the

"strip" or "fence-line" purportedly annexed is within 4 miles of Bristow's former corporate

limits, the southern leg of the "strip" or "fence-line" is 11 miles away, the northern leg of the

7

strip is roughly 5 miles away, most of the west leg of the "strip" or "fence-line" is roughly 9

miles away, and, at its closet, the eastern leg appears to be more than 5 miles away.

24. The treatment that Plaintiffs and their property receive under the ordinances of the

City of Bristow is disparate and far different from the treatment that persons and property within

the former corporate limits of Bristow receive for all uses including non-agricultural use, and

such disparate treatment is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Such

disparate treatment shows that the territory purportedly annexed does not share community of

interest with and is not unified with the mass or territory otherwise constituting the City of

Bristow.

25. The ordinance is facially invalid in that it fails to create, result in or show on its

face a unified body with a community of interest, gathered into a single mass with recognized

and well-defined boundaries, not separate and disconnected areas. The ordinance on its face

shows, instead, long narrow strips or ribbons of land separated by many miles from the single

mass otherwise constituting the City of Bristow.

26. The ordinance on its face does not reasonably comport with the meaning and

concept of municipality.

27. While the City of Bristow claims by its annexation the 'benefit" of preventing the

surrounded territory from being annexed by another jurisdiction, neither the annexed lands nor

the surrounded lands receive anything at all in return.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants on their Second Claim For

Relief as follows:

8

A. Judgment declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 is contrary to the laws

of the State of Oklahoma because it is adopted in violation of, inter alia, OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, §

21-11)1.

B. Judgment declaring that the City of Bristow and its governing body acted

-.1:ireasonably and outside the scope of legislative authority when it adopted ordinance 124-

031404.

C. Judgment declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 in its entirety is

invalid, void and of no force or effect.

D. Awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs and other relief to Plaintiffs as

the Court deems just and proper.

THIRD CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Arbitrary and Unreasonable — Subversion of the Requirement for Contiguity)


hereby incorporate them into their Third Claim for Relief.

29. The use of one landowner's consent to annex a strip or ribbon of land the width of

which is five one hundred thousandths of the length (0.00005), which extends for more than 93

miles, configured as this one is as a lasso or loop encircling some 308 square miles for the stated

purpose of preventing the possibility of annexation by other jurisdictions of the lands thus

surrounded is arbitrary and is an unreasonable and impermissible exercise of the annexation

a-ithority delegated to the City of Bristow by the State of Oklahoma and mocks the requirement

for contiguity.

30. The large expanses of intervening territory separating the lasso or loop from the

former corporate limits of Bristow make it impossible or practically unfeasible for Bristow to

9

serve and honor in the annexed territory the essential and distinctive objects for the existence of

cities and towns including location and grading of streets, laying sewers, and provision of fire

protection and law enforcement, resulting in provision of such services within Bristow's former

corporate boundaries and absence of such services to the annexed territory. Bristow cannot

feasibly provide such normal governmental services to the owners of the lands annexed as those

governmental services it provides within its former corporate limits.

31. The point of connection of the strip or ribbon of land to the former corporate

limits of Bristow, being as it is five one hundred thousandths of the length (0.00005), is illusory

and lacking in reality, substance and genuineness.

32. The purported annexation fails on its face to comply with the statutory

requirements for adjacency or contiguity when such words are read in the primary and obvious

sense and is an arbitrary and unreasonable action subverting the primary and obvious

requirements of the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants on their Third Claim For

Relief as follows:

A. Judgment declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 is contrary to the laws

of the State of Oklahoma because its adoption was arbitrary and an unreasonable and

impermissible exercise of the annexation authority delegated to the City of Bristow by the State

of Oklahoma.


outside the scope of legislative authority when it adopted ordinance 124-031404.

10





FOURTH CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Arbitrary and Unreasonable Act Harming Liberty and Property Interests)


hereby incorporate them into their Fourth Claim for Relief.

34. With respect to Plaintiffs Thomas Gaskins, Don Dawson and Imogene Dawson,

Kevin Hope and Joy Hope, Glen Hayes and Debra Hayes, Petra Franzen, Darrell Butterfield,

Mark McKinzie and Windi McKinzie, and Clayton McKinzie, the acts of the City of Bristow

encircling and surrounding said Plaintiffs lands unreasonably limit and harm said Plaintiffs'

liberty and property interests including, inter alia, their rights to seek annexation to and the

municipal services and protections of other municipalities, and the City of Bristow's purported

legislative act constitutes an unlawful and unreasonable exercise of absolute and arbitrary power

over the liberty and property interests of said Plaintiffs.

35. In Exhibit "C" the City of Bristow clearly states that the fence-line prevents the

surrounded territory from being annexed in the future by another jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants on the Fourth Claim For

Relief as follows:

A. Judgment declaring that the acts of the City of Bristow encircling and

surrounding said Plaintiffs lands unreasonably limit and harm said Plaintiffs' liberty and property

interests, and that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 is contrary to the laws of the State of

11

Oklahoma because its adoption was arbitrary and an unreasonable and impermissible exercise of

the annexation authority delegated to the City of Bristow by the State of Oklahoma.







FIFTH CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Constitutional Rights Violations)


hereby incorporate them into their Fifth Claim for Relief.

37. The large expanses of intervening territory separating the lasso or loop from the

former corporate limits of Bristow make it impossible or practically unfeasible for Bristow to

serve and honor in the annexed territory the essential and distinctive objects for the existence of

cities and towns including location and grading of streets, laying sewers, and provision of fire

protection and law enforcement, resulting in provision of such services within Bristow's former

corporate boundaries and absence of such services to the annexed territory. Bristow cannot

feasibly provide such normal governmental services to the owners of the lands annexed as those

governmental services it provides within its former corporate limits.

38. While the City of Bristow claims by its annexation the 'benefit" of preventing the

surrounded territory from being annexed by another jurisdiction, neither the annexed lands nor

12

the surrounded lands receive anything at all in return while the residents within the former

corporate limits of Bristow receive the full spectrum of governmental services.

39. Exhibit "C" includes the following pronouncement: "The annexation will not

affect property taxes or require compliance with any city codes." The treatment that Plaintiffs

purportedly annexed receive under the ordinances of the City of Bristow is disparate from the

treatment that persons within the former corporate limits of Bristow receive for all uses including

non-agricultural use and such disparate treatment is not rationally related to a legitimate

governmental interest.

40. The disparate treatment set forth above is therefore unconstitutional and denies

said Plaintiffs their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

41. Bristow's purported annexation of a 25' wide strip approximately 93 miles long

encircling, belting and girdling approximately 308 square miles of Creek County in the State of

Oklahoma constitutes an arbitrary, real, unnecessary, and flagrant violation of property rights

guaranteed by the Constitution of this State and the United States.

42. Accordingly, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants on the Fifth Claim

For Relief as follows:

A. Judgment declaring that the acts of the City of Bristow encircling and

surrounding said Plaintiffs lands results in disparate treatment not rationally related to a

legitimate governmental interest, and declaring that Bristow ordinance 124-031404 denies said

Plaintiffs their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law and violates the

constitutionally guaranteed property rights of Plaintiffs and is therefore unconstitutional.

13







WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand Judgment against Defendants for the relief demanded

under Plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief and for such other or

different relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM R. DILL, OBA# 2361 401 West Main Street, Suite 380 Norman, Oklahoma 73069 Telephone:(405) 360-9707 Facsimile: (405) 329-0171 [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Kerry Hilbert and Sherry Hilbert, Wayne M. Cox and Bonnie M. Cox, Clyde Smith and Renee Smith, Trustees of the Clyde & Renee Smith Family Trust, J. Martin Montgomery, Trustee of the Paul W & Cledith M. Montgomery Revocable Trust, Linda K. Stoddard, Neal Zimmerman and Debra Zimmerman, Mike Glisson and Brenda Glisson, Scott Rowland and Trina Rowland, Co-Trustees of the Scott Rowland Revocable Trust, Tommy Lee Lloyd, Jr. and Jodi Lloyd, Johnny Wayne Grant and Penny Grant, Colleen Lynch, Rex Murphy and Karla Murphy, Thomas Gaskins, Don Dawson and Imogene Dawson, Kevin

14

Hope and Joy Hope, Glen Hayes and Debra Hayes, Petra Franzen, Darrell Butterfield, Shelli Snelson, Mark McKinzie and Windi McKinzie, and Clayton McKinzie

15

- Will WI lid Mil 11111111111M riliarl IIIIMINE NMI , - - : In i

ht -- in rii tingur it i ru

III rim! yr Ail

t - :- lull 5 .Ame mill null Elle, pp -

S amro k- . ■ TR !

40, IIIM111P r„.......,,

. ... .....

Ilielitilill-111111511- Imor I

ria ...... :Pr's

Dep.

..... 1,1 _.......,5•4700.0.46,.1,

. ..... • ....

__ ...

prii-p, 0 60m.,... ,1

....... Ix ..... ...

no . _

ism a aim El_ ....E: lick ....... ...... ...... .... .,..... ....11 ..... _, 1 .... momon

■ ...... _.......... ..... i ...... II

1111 ..... ...... ....... el

.... II in ..... um ..,...

................. olimem..... Legend

1=1,..c.Ln. Bo.nds,

.7,Jay laa Bo,ndan

='.1..w ,,,Tann lona

S.rnn um.

KO...no & Ira-gat.

- Roads l S.oes

0 0.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 Mika

I a snob Lail•In

EXHIBIT "A"

Proposed Bristow Fenceline 2013

OROINANCE-StIMBEFt 124411014 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE OMITS OF THE CITY OF BRISTOW, OKLAHOMA, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ANNEXING AN AREA ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF BRISTOW IN SECTIONS 3,10, 15, 22, 25, 28 AND 27, T14N R7E, AND SECTIONS 25, 26, 27, 28, 29AND 30, T14N R8E, AND SECTIONS 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AND 30, T14N R9E, AND SECTIONS 3, 10, 15, 22,'2,1,428, 29 AND 30, T14N R10E, AND SECTIONS 13, 14, 18, 22, 27 AF•10 34, TV% R7E, AND SECTIONS 5, 8, 9,10, 17 AND 10, T15N R8E, AND SECTIONS0 AND '7,716N R9E ;ANC SECTIONS 5, 7 8, 18,,..19, 20, 214:A.,..27 AND 34, T15N RIVE, AND SfOtiONS 3,10,15,22, 21, sktsArita 31:, 'MN R7E, AND -ssatiONS-4111 32, TIEN ROE, AttoieClIo094,M.Atip 12, Tlekl'ASE, AND SECTIONS 7, 8, 18, 19, 29, 30 AND 32,71431PR1OE, AND SECTIONS 34; 35ANDI3,' TI N R7E, AND SECTIONS 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35, T17N R8E, AND *ICTIONS 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35, TIINJOI, ALL IN CREEK COUNTY, OKLAHOMA INTO AND AS A PART OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE ' BRISTCIW; DESIGNATING THE TRACTS TO BE ANNEXED; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONIN9 AND : CLASSIFICATION OF THE ANNEXED AREA PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECORfiltG;AM GENCY.' „ „ , WIIRREINCepioriOsal has been presented to the City Council of the Citif ,Of Bristow, Oklahonwilla4 sidartatiOn, -10ProWal 0nd ,passage of an ordinance extentlingand erntftrigirito the corporate of Bristow certain real property adjacent or contiguous to the City undei oi'ehieter of the City of Si15t6*, Bristow City Code, and the laws of the State of Oklahoma, and WHEREAS, after due consideration of the facts and being sufficiently advised, the City Council, hereby finds-that all requirements necessary for annexation of the following described real property into the Citytif Bristow and;to extend the oorporate limits thereof have been complied with as provided by the Charter of the City of Bristow, the Bristow. City Code and"the laws of the State*of Oklahoma as set out In TIN 11 Ofdtitibma Statutes, Section 21- . , _ 101, et sect, including but not IIMIted to, the folk:Ming: a, That the property to be annexed Is adjacent or contiguous to properly aireadywithltt corporate limits of the elly of Bristow, Oklahoma; and b. That the owners of at least a majority of the acres to be annexed have consented In writing to be annexed to and Into the corporate limits of the City of Bristow; and c. That notice of the proposed annexation and public hearing has been published and mailed In compliance with statutory mandate; and d. That a public hearing of such annexation has been held by the governing body following publication and mall, Ing of said notice in compliance with statutory mandate, NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BRISTOW, OKLAHOMA; Section 1. Annexed Territory. That the following described tracts Of land lying adjacent or contiguous to the pres-ent corporate limb of the City of Bristow, Oklahoma, to-wit: BEGINNINGAT A POINT INTERSECTING THE SE•CORNER OF SECTION 31 718N RANGE 9 EAST AND THE NE CORNER OF SECTION 0, T15N RANGE 9E, AND CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BRISTOW, THENCE ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SEC-TIONS 8, T15N RANGE 9E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 7, T15N R9E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTION 7, T15N R9E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FRET OF SECTIONS 12 AND 11, T15N R8E; and THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 10, T15N R8E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9, T15N R8E, LESS THE WEST

25 FEET OF SECTION 8, T15N R8E; and THE EAST 35 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 5 AND 8, T15N R8E; and THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTION 32, T1I3N, R8E, LESS THE SOUTH 25 FEET

OF THE WEST 25 FEET and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTION 31, T16N R8E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 34, 35, AND 36,T18N R7E; and THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 34, 27, 22, 15, 10 and 3,T16N'R7E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE WEST 186 FEET OF SECTION 34, T17N, R7E; and THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTION 34, T17N R7E, LESS THE NORTH 25 FEET

OF SECTION 34, T17N R7E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 34, 35, AND 36.T17N R7E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 AND 36.T17N R8E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 31, 32, 33, 34, AND 35, T17N R9E, LESS

THE EAST 25 FEET OF SECTION 35, T17N R9E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 35, T17N R9E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE EAST 209 FEET OF SECTION 35, T17N R9E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 2, TIEN R9E; ' and THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 11, T1eN R9E, LESS THE NORIR 25 FEET

OF THE EAST 25 FEET;

EXHIBIT "B"

and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTION 12, T16N R9E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE'NORTH 50•FEET OF SECTION 7, T16N R10E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE W/2 OF SECTION 8, T1PN R10E; eneTta ffE10)43F-. THE-W/2 %F-SET-Ief449t-T1.43NR-1•OET-LESS .T-14E40104#1MOWAND-

' SOUTH '26,PEET; , -

and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF THE W/2 OF SECTION 8, T16N R10E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF THE E/2 OF SECTION 7, T16N R10E, AND THE

SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE E/2 OF SECTION 7, T16N R10E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTIONS 18 AND 19, T16N R10E; and TH•SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 30, T16N ,R113E, AND

THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE E/2 OF SECTION 30, TVA .R10E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTION 29, T16N R10E, LESS THE EAST 25 FEET; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 29 AND 32, T16N R10E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 5, T15N R10E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 8, T15NR10E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 8, T15N R10E, LESS THE EAST 25 FEET; and THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE S/2 OF SECTION 7, T15N R10E; and THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 7, T15N R10E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTION 18, T15N. R10E; and THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE EAST 50'FEET OF SECTION 19, T15N R•OE; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 20, 21 AND 22,

T15N R10E, LESS THE EAST 25 FEET; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 22, 27 AND 34,T15N R10E; and THE WEST 25 FEET OF THE EAST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 3, 10, 15, 22 AND 27.T14N R10E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 27, 28, 29 AND 30,T14N R10E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AND 30, T14N R9E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AND 30, T14N R8E; and THE NORTH 25 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 25, 26, AND 27, T14N R7E; and THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 27, 22, 15, 10, AND 3, T14N R7E; and THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 34, 27, 22 AND 15, T15N R7E; and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTIONS 15, 14 AND 13,T15N R7E and THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE NORTH 50 FEET OF SECTION 18, T15N R8E; and THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF SECTION 17, T15N R8E, (collectively hereinafter the "Territory"), be and the same are hereby annexed to the City of Bristow, Oklahoma, and the corporate limits of said City an hereby extended to include the above described tracts of land. After the effective date of this ordinance, all prop erty located therein, and all persons residing or otherwise occupying said land shall be subject to the jurisdictioi of this City and all laws made pursuant thereto. The City Council hereby expressly finds that all requirements c 11 O.S. Section 21-103 necessary for annexation of the described real property Into the City of Bristoln Oklahoma have been fully complied with in advance of the issuance of this ordinance. Section 2. Map. The annexation of the above-described land is represented as identified on the map attache hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Section 3. Zoning Classification. Said land shall, upon and after inclusion into corporate limits, be assigns the applicable zoning classification of AG. Section 4. Ward Classification, Said land shall, upon and after inclusion into corporate limits, be assigned t and made a part of Ward 1 of the City. Section 5. Severability. If any one or more of the sections, sentences, clauses or parts of this ordinance she for any reason be held invalid, the invalidity of such section, sentence, clause or part shall not affect or prejudic In any way the applicability and validity of any other section, sentence, clause or provision of this ordirfttriae7 , Seetion-57-Emergency. - Bialrig irriftgadittely necessary that the provisions of this ordinance be put. into full fore and effect for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the City of Bristow, Oklahoma, an ems gency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect after Its passage, approv; and publication as required by law.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of March 2014; with emergencyclause ruled and voted upon sapi rately. DATED this 10th day of March, 2014.

Ralph Barnett, Mayor ATTEST: Sabrina Mounce, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kelly Hake City Attorney

110 West Seventh Street Bristow, Oklahoma 74010

Re: Public Hearing on Question of Annexation

To Whom It May Concern:

The City of Bristow, Oklahoma is going to consider annexing certain public hearing on March 10, 2014. The purpose of the annexatio protective fence-line for the City to protect its investment in the erritory ,surnDurlded - by.. the fence-line. Enciosedjs, a-Race-- annexation and public hearing. This letter , is to further clarify and ex fence-line is for and what is going to be considered at the hearing.

All the annexation does is create a 25 foot wide fence-line surrounding t currently outside the City of Bristow to protect it and prevent it from annexed in the future by another jurisdiction.

Outlying protective borders called "fence-lines" are common with citi Bristovv does not have one in place. This means that the territory acijacen outside the City is unprotected and could be annexed by another jurisdiction.

The reason Bristow needs a protective fence-line now is because the City is planning to extend 90 plus miles of waterlines into this unprotected territory. The City cannot make such an investment in the area and risk that another, jurisdiction might someday annex it in the future.

THE LAND ENCIRCLED BY THE FENCE-LINE WILL NOT BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AND WILL REMAIN COUNTY PROPERTY.

THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT AFFECT PROPERTY TAXES 0 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CITY CODES.

Should you have any questions regarding this, please contact the Bri Offices at 918-367-6233.

aJ, 17 or (918) 367-2207 (fax)

EXHIBIT "C"

time - townnewsbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/...time amanda...

Documents