HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Memorandum Re-Annexation GIVENS PURSLEYJIFIP
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
MEMORANDUM
TO: Meridian Development Services; Meridian City Attorney's Office
FROM: Deborah Nelson; Thomas Marts
RE: Annexation of Meridian Fields Project
DATE: December 15, 2025
BACKGROUND
Applicant Idaho Holdings, LLC is submitting an application with the City of Meridian for
a mixed-use community ("Project") on 480 acres west of Owyhee Storm Avenue and south of
McMillan Road("Property"). The application includes a request for the Property to be annexed
into the City. The eastern portion of the Property directly borders Meridian city limits along
Owyhee Storm Avenue. The Property is crossed by two irrigation facilities, Phyllis Canal and
Five Mile Creek. This memorandum analyzes how the Property meets the contiguity
requirements for annexation based on the facts provided and current Idaho law.
FACTS
The western portion of the Property straddles two irrigation facilities, Phyllis Canal and
Five Mile Creek, as depicted in Figure 1.
ra
- o
. Jf
Figure I
Phyllis Canal. Pioneer Irrigation District operates and maintains the Phyllis Canal.
Pioneer Irrigation District does not object to the annexation and has provided its consent.
Applicant owns or controls the properties on each side of the canal including up to the centerline
of the canal on the east side, and Applicant has provided consent to annex these properties. The
MEMORANDUM -Page 1 of 4
western 50'from the centerline of the canal has been omitted from the adjacent western
property's ownership since 1897, showing the last owner of record as W.C. Bradbury. This 50'
remnant appears to be the result of an error in how the western property was surveyed and
deeded over time. No identifiable heir to Bradbury's interest in the property is currently known
to obtain consent.
Five Mile Creek. Applicant owns or controls the properties on each side of Five Mile
Creek, and Applicant has provided consent to annex these properties. The Bureau of Reclamation
(the `BOR") owns approximately 130' of fee simple right-of-way for the operation and
maintenance of Five Mile Creek west of Phyllis Canal. The 130'wide BOR-owned canal is
approximately centered on Five Mile Creek, except for what appears to be the result of a
surveying error that caused the boundary of the canal to abruptly jog 90'to the north(instead of
following the canal's southeast turn). This surveying error resulted in an off-centered segment of
the BOR canal that runs approximately 1,362'to the western edge of the Phyllis Canal, as
depicted in Figure 2.
21
p
." -
Figure 2
LAW
Idaho Code Section 50-222 governs annexation by cities and requires annexed lands to be
contiguous to city limits: "no city of this state shall annex land unless and until the following
requirements are met: (a) the subject land is contiguous to or surrounded by the city...." I.C. §
50-222(3)(a). This contiguity requirement applies where, as is the case here, the prospective
annexation is requested by landowners, and"consent has been given by the landowner or
landowners of a contiguous parcel or parcels..."I.C. § 50-222(5)(a) (emphasis added).
Section 50-222 defines "contiguous" as "sharing a common border" and further provides
that"land is not contiguous if the only common border is along a shoestring connection."I.C. §
50-222(2)(b). Determining whether land is contiguous is a fact-intensive question. Hendricks u
City of Nampa, 93 Idaho 95, 101 (1969) (holding that an annexation was valid despite the fact
MEMORANDUM - Page 2 of 4
that portions of the annexed land were not contiguous prior to the enactment of the annexation
ordinance). "[T]hese [contiguity] rules ... are subject to a reasonable interpretation under the
particular factual situation."Id.
The Idaho Supreme Court has determined that"land may be `contiguous or adjacent'to a
municipality although the two are separated by a watercourse."People ex rel. Redford a City of
Burley, 86 Idaho 519, 523 (1964)). In Burley, the city limits of Burley extended to the south
border of the Snake River, and the city sought to annex land on the river's north border,
including the river itself, which was owned by the State of Idaho.Id. at 521-22. The Court
reasoned that, despite being separated by a watercourse under State ownership, the land across
the river was still contiguous to the city, noting the general rule that"[t]erritory is contiguous to a
municipality ... if it is separated from it only by a watercourse that is or may be spanned by a
bridge."Id. at 523 (applying I.C. § 50-222's substantively similar predecessor I.C. § 50-303)
(citation cleaned up). Thus, the Court concluded"that an intervening river does not constitute a
barrier to complete amalgamation of the communities upon its opposite banks" and held that the
annexation was valid. Id. at 524.
The holding of the Burley case finds support among other jurisdictions.' In Arundel Cnty.
u City of Annapolis, the Maryland Supreme Court cited Burley in support of its conclusion that a
peninsula separated on all three sides by bodies of water was nonetheless contiguous to land on
the other side of the rivers flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. 721 A.2d 217 (Md. 1998). "Other
states that have addressed this issue have concluded that municipal corporations may extend their
boundaries across a waterbody even if the annexed land would be separated completely from the
original city or town limits by that body of water."Id. at 230.
As applied to irrigation ditches specifically, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that a
ditch was analogous to natural waters under a statutory provision allowing annexation across "a
lake, reservoir, stream or other waterway,"resulting in the court holding that land on the other
side of the ditch was contiguous to the city. Rice a City of Englewood, 362 P.2d 557, 558-59
(Colorado 1961).
ANALYsis
Applying I.C. § 50-222 and current Idaho caselaw to the facts summarized above, it is
reasonable to conclude that land separated from a city by only an irrigation facility is contiguous
to the city under I.C. § 50-222(2)(b). Consistent with Hendricks, it is a"reasonable interpretation
under the particular factual situation"to conclude that the two intervening watercourses here do
not break the Property's contiguous border with the City because, like Burley, the Property to be
annexed includes the beds of the canals and is separated from the City"only by a watercourse
that is or may be spanned by a bridge."Burley, 86 Idaho at 523. For the purposes of contiguity,
land separated by a canal is functionally analogous to land separated by a river—neither would
prevent the"amalgamation of the communities upon [their] opposite banks."Id. at 524. In this
case, because the land across both irrigation facilities could reasonably be accessible via bridge,
the contiguity of the City is preserved in the same manner that a bridge crossing a river preserves
'Johnson a Rice,551 So.2d 940,945 (Ala. 1989)(property separated from city by body of water that otherwise met
all annexation criteria was contiguous as a matter of law); Garner v Benson,272 S.W.2d 442(Ark. 1954)(same);
McGraw a Merryman, 104 A.540,544(Md. 1918)(same); Vogel a City of Little Rock, 15 S.W. 836,836-37(Ark.
1891),aff'd 19 S.W. 13 (1892)(same).
MEMORANDUM -Page 3 of 4
the contiguity of a city. That Phyllis Canal and Five Mile Creek also include ancillary upland
used for access and maintenance does not change the contiguous character of the Property. This
ancillary land exists only to serve the canal and is integral to the canal; it is not a separate parcel
or used for any other purpose.
As applied to the portion of Property separated by the Phyllis Canal, the parcel west of
the canal is contiguous to the parcel east of the canal under Burley despite the intervening 50'
strip under a portion of the canal. In Burley, the Court found that the property to the south of the
river was contiguous to the property to the north of the river despite the intervening watercourse
and owner. Here, the Applicant owns or controls the parcels to the west and the east of the canal
and has provided written consent to annex both properties. These parcels are contiguous to each
other because the 50'remnant land west of the centerline of the canal is spannable by a bridge.
As in Burley, the contiguity of the City on each side of the canal is preserved in the same manner
that a bridge crossing a river preserves the contiguity of a city, despite an intervening owner of
the watercourse. Because the west and east sides of the canal are contiguous, the contiguity
requirement of Section 50-222 is met, and the City may annex through and including the
intervening watercourse property. Further, it is worth noting that there is no known objection to
the annexation. The long-time operator of the canal, Pioneer Irrigation District, consents to the
annexation. The owner of the 50'remnant west of the centerline is not known or readily
ascertainable due to a surveying error dating back to 1897. Given that the eastern 50' of the canal
land was conveyed with the eastern property, the western 50' likely was intended to be conveyed
with the western property.
As to the portion of the Property separated by Five Mile Creek, the land north of Five
Mile Creek is contiguous to the land south of it for the same reasons explained above. Under
Burley, the portions of the Property to the south and north are contiguous despite the intervening
owner of the watercourse because the land to be annexed would include the bed of Five Mile
Creek and is separated from the City"only by a watercourse that is or may be spanned by a
bridge."Burley, 86 Idaho at 523.Applicant owns or controls the land on either side of Five Mile
Creek and has provided written consent to the proposed annexation. These properties are
contiguous to each other across and through the BOR-owned portion of the canal because Five
Mile Creek is spannable by a bridge and preserves contiguity of the city on either side of the
watercourse consistent with Burley. Pursuant to I.C. § 50-222, the contiguity requirement is
satisfied, and having the consent of both contiguous parcels, the City may annex through and
including Five Mile Creek. The fact that a portion of the BOR-owned segment is not centered on
Five Mile Creek due to a surveying error does not change this analysis. The BOR-owned right-
of-way is the same approximate width (130') along the entire border—a spannable distance—
and it only serves BOR's access to and maintenance of the irrigation facility.
The City has requested Applicant seek consent from the owners of the Phyllis Canal and
Five Mile Creek.Although we conclude that consent is not required based on the Court's
decision in Burley,Applicant is nevertheless willing to continue seeking that consent to mitigate
any risks associated with this proposed annexation. To that end,Applicant is actively seeking
consent from BOR and, if needed,Applicant is willing to pursue a quiet title action of the west
50' strip of the Phyllis Canal given the difficulty in ascertaining a living owner.
MEMORANDUM - Page 4 of 4