Judge orders mediation in Hudson, Lochbuie annexation battle

HUDSON and LOCHBUIE — A Weld County District Court judge has ordered the towns of Hudson and Lochbuie into mediation over conflicting annexations around the planned BNSF Railway Co. intermodal facility and logistics park.

Judge Kimberly Baird Schutt, in a June 24 order, directed that “the parties shall within the next 21 days schedule a mediation to be held as soon as practicable, but within the next 60 days.”

The two towns have been embroiled in multiple disputes over annexations on the east side of Interstate 76, where BNSF plans a massive facility that experts have claimed could generate billions of dollars in economic impact. Lochbuie has filed three lawsuits against Hudson in an effort to force annexation elections due to overlapping rights of way. 

SPONSORED CONTENT

The 5 C’s to Reopening Your Corporate Café

A Spice of Life Café Division shares the 5 C’s to Reopening Your Corporate Café to bring people back to the office!

The first such action — over conflicts between Lochbuie’s South Weld Annexation Nos. 2 and 3 and Hudson’s MSLCAT annexation — was dismissed after Weld County vacated a portion of Weld County Road 41 at BNSF’s request. That right of way was used as a flagpole annexation by Hudson to reach property south of the BNSF project. Vacation of the right of way rendered Hudson’s annexation null and void.

But two other actions remain open, with Lochbuie claiming that Hudson’s Ranchos East annexation overlaps with portions of its BNSF Annexation Nos. 2 and 3. 

BNSF in early May requested annexation of 2,367 acres to the town of Lochbuie.

A memo from Lochbuie community development director Chris Kennedy and town attorney Keith Martin noted that parts of the BNSF annexation conflict with Hudson’s annexation of the Ranchos East area.

“Acceptance of Petitions 2 and 3 sets up separate conflicting annexations with Hudson’s proposed Ranchos East Annexation, triggering a statutory process for conflicting annexation elections that will be initiated by the Town with a district court filing in accordance with state law,” the memo states.

The Ranchos East Annexation No. 1 encompasses 80 acres, not counting rights of way. The properties are owned by Shawn and Susan Wiant, and Rancho De Los Tiempos Buenos Partnership LLC. The parties applied to Hudson for annexation on March 29.

Disputed annexations normally are stayed pending the outcome of an annexation election. Hudson had argued in a May 28 filing that Lochbuie’s BNSF Annexations 2 and 3 are invalid because they depend on BNSF Annexation No. 1, which Hudson claims did not comply with Colorado statute.

“Hudson asserts that (the) statutory process … regarding comprehensive planning disputes, was not followed for BNSF No. 1. Therefore, Respondent contests the validity of the Town of Lochbuie’s Resolution 24-21, finding substantial compliance for BNSF No. 1,” Hudson stated in the filing.

Lochbuie claims that Hudson has taken action to pursue the Ranchos East annexations despite a stay, and the town sought on June 21 to have the judge confirm the application of the automatic stay as outlined in state law.

But Baird Schutt said the court had no authority to determine the validity of Hudson’s actions.

““The Town of Hudson filed an Answer on May 28, 2024 which appears to acknowledge the application of the automatic stay under the cited statute in paragraph 27 of its Order,” Baird Schutt wrote. “To the extent it has taken any annexation actions in violation of that provision, it has done so at the risk of having those actions determined invalid in this action. The Court cannot make any determination as to the validity or invalidity of those actions based simply on the allegations and pleadings before the Court at the present time.”

Baird Schutt further noted that no mediation occurred in the South Weld/MSLCAT dispute, as that case was dismissed by stipulation of both parties.

“Based upon the filings in this case as well as in the previously dismissed case of Weld County 24CV30092, of which this Court can take judicial notice, it is evident that there are a number of disputes arising between these two municipalities as it relates to their respective annexation efforts. The Court has no evidence that mediation occurred in that prior action, since it was dismissed by stipulation of the parties. The Court thus hereby Orders that the parties shall within the next 21 days schedule a mediation to be held as soon as practicable, but within the next 60 days, pursuant to C.R.S.§ 24-32-3209. That mediation shall, at a minimum, address the comprehensive plan area and the issues raised in this action, in an effort to resolve these ongoing annexation disputes.”