Final decision on Banning Lewis Ranch made Tuesday in Colorado Springs

The Colorado Springs City Council ended a six-hour meeting Tuesday by voting in favor of an amended annexation agreement with developers on the Banning Lewis Ranch property.

Council members voted 7-2, with Yolanda Avila and Bill Murray casting the dissenting votes.

The meeting was marked by extensive discussion by council members, city staff and several dozen people who spoke for and against the revised agreement.

Murray criticized the council’s decision, saying it was a settlement and not a negotiated agreement, limiting the city’s ability to act in the best interests of citizens.

Critics said the amended agreement will end up costing taxpayers in the long run, because development of the ranch will been unable to pay for itself.

Councilman Andy Pico strongly disagreed with that belief and voted for the agreement.

Controversy over the large parcel began in 1988 when the city first annexed the property and said the original developer failed to follow through with development plans.

An economic recession in 2008 forced some developers and home builders into bankruptcy, and Oakwood Homes took over as a primary builder.

Because of those issues, critics said, development moved around the ranch and went to the nearby community of Falcon, as well as to other unincorporated areas of El Paso County.

City leaders, including Mayor John Suthers, said a new agreement will lead to more homes being built in the area’s hot housing market and will allow the city to benefit through sales tax revenue, property tax revenue and economic growth.

The former 30,000-acre ranch in the city’s northeastern corner was envisioned as the future of Colorado Springs, projected to have 175,000 residents over the next 30 to 50 years.

Those plans led Colorado Springs Utilities to invest $2 billion in building the Southern Delivery System, a pipeline to ensure the community’s future water supply.

It’s unclear if the ranch will ever reach its original lofty projections, but developers said they wanted an agreement that didn’t hold them to certain requirements to build infrastructure and parks.

The council also sought a guarantee from developers to preserve the ranch’s natural resources.