The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About850601.tiff RESOLUTION RE: PREPARATION OF BALLOTS IN DETERMINING ESTABLISHMENT OF CHALK BLUFFS PEST CONTROL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, has received a Petition for the formation of a pest control district, to be called the "Chalk Bluffs Pest Control District, " and which Petition is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as Exhibit "A, " and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Title 35 , Article V, CRS, as amended, said Petitioners constitute at least twenty-five (25%) of the resident landowners and lessees in the proposed district, said district being more particularly described in Exhibit "A. " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, accept said Petition (s) and direct the Weld County Extension Service to prepare ballots for the determination of the establishment of the Chalk Bluffs Pest Control District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Weld County Treasurer, Weld County Assessor, and the Director of the Cooperative Extension Service be, and hereby are, appointed as a Board to count the ballots as they are returned and make a report thereof as provided by statute; said count to take place on the 11th day following the mailing of the ballots (or first working day thereafter where the 11th day falls on a weekend or holiday) at 8 : 00 a.m. O6(2°4 hey °so on 1 Page 2 RE: PREPARE BALLOTS - CHALK BLUFFS PEST CONTROL DISTRICT The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 8th day of July, A. D. , 1985 . 1 t 4&.vt .Wt4to,j BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS ATTEST WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Boa a line J nson, Chairman eputy County erk ene R. Brantner, Pro-Tem A_HPReVED AS TOFORM,:-77)L r I C. W. ACirb� 4-+, County Attorney �Z x Gor c F k Yama chi N ClOPE!ATIVE GLASS1A)1'PE6 OR RANGE CATERPILLAR CON'ITOL�I�Anii PETITION JUN 37.1986 t•, �' For the Establishment of ad. Ll' PEST CONTROL DISTRICT GREELEY. COLO. To the Honorable Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld , State of Colorado: We, the undersigned petitioners, constituting at least twenty-five percent of the resident landot.ners or lessees within a contiguous territory in said county, and being desirous of forming a pest control district pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Title 35, CRS 1973, as amended, do hereby petition said Board of County Commissioners for that purpose and represent as follows: 1. That the proposed district is to be known as the Chalk Bluffs Pest Control District. 2. That the description of the boundaries of the proposed district are as follows: T12N, R64W: All of Section 30; W1 Section 19; Tl2N, R65W: All of Sections 13,14,15 in Colo. ; All of Section 21,22,23,25,27,35; All of Section 24 (less NE'4SEi -i E12 Section 26, T11N,-R65W. NE1, W1 Section 1, All of Section 2; NW', NWkSWI, W§NEta, NEkNE' Section 12, T12N, R64W: S1/2S1/2 Section 20. 3. That the said proposed district has been invaded, or is Jr. danger of being invaded, by grasshoppers, range caterpillar, other insect pests, noxious weeds, or plant diseases, injurious to agricultural crops, trees, fruits or pasture. 4. That the specific pest or diseases against which said petitioners desire to he protected Grasshoppers (Malanoplus sanguinipes; Amphitornus coloradus) 5. That the terminat ion date of the proposed district is June 15, 1986 1986 6. That each per ,,a signing the petition ot-°ns or leases five (5) or more acres of land within tin boundaries of the proposed district and has his legal residence within this county or within .in aclj .cent county in the State of (Hie: ado; that a description of the land nt•i, Jd ly each petitioner within the T12N, R64W: All of Section 30; W1 Section 19; T12N, R65W: All of Sections 13,14,15 in Colorado; All of Sections 21,22,23,25,27,35; All of Section 24 (less NE'SE') ; E1/2 Section 26; T11N, R65W: NE1, W1 Section 1; All of Section 2; WW1/4, NW'SW1i, W'NEt , NE'NE' Section 12, T12N, R64W: SAS' Section 20. (. • COOPERATIVE GRASSHOPPER OR RANGE CATERPILLAR CONTROL PROGRAM Petition for. to Establishment of a Pest Control District (Cont. ) boundaries of the proposed district, together with the proper signature and address of each such petitioner nod the date of signing this petition, is as follows: SIGNATURE AND DATE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND TRUE RANCHES T12N, R64W: All of Sec. 30; W1 Sec. 19 P.0_ DRA T12N R65W: All of Sec. 13 14 15 in Co o. ; (Signature) DATR /CA3PER, WY 82602 All of Sec. 21,22,23,25,27,35; All Sec. 24 TRUE D;te — (less NE'SE') ; Eli Sec. 26. _ _-- - — -- T11N, R65W: NEB, W1 Sec. 1; All Sec. 2; NW', NWkSW', NEkNE'a Sec. 12, (Signature) T12N, R64W: S'S' Section 20. Date (Signature) Date -_- - ---- - ----- — -' I, iFVit7 4 . /Pu P , certify - that: The signature of each of the above petitioners was affixed to the petition within 90 days preceding the date of said verification. All matters and things stated in the petition are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of the affiant. All signers have had au opportunity to read the petition. it, s 47_e GA,// te Signature D<. (The petition is dated at the time of its filing in the office of the Board of County Commissioners. ) • State of_ i� rtyy /y ✓/J��n l SS. County of 4� ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of — - �"� , 193T \11'1'NESS MY HAND AND OFFIClIl SEAL My Commission Expires / ', C —8 / ---- _ ---.— -- ---_----- Notary Public Y 7 to ^ R s • 2 a .2.4 n, �3G I I ► ° isii I • /. I : 2 _i a y .I 70 N -1 1 ..w..... /- n I ''Ia I •,n7- • • • -(--;..1. O „. .p I " j r l • 2 I 0. •n r\ . : . . :C r _ ^_ - I 1 A Y 2 I ��YR` =�_��.lam- _-- • I � � Ra \ / a a, a • I i- = �... -_ - - - et - R' _t. _ in . --- -- -- 1 �� ^ L�� - ._ r �,.. --,' ^ '/ - 0''' ,L VI / - " ./ I . / ir._4_4._. ._.4...._ • - , • � F ' Al N f1 0 0 g • e �$ M ^ et ^ et ^ - ^ ^ ao !V STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF PLANT INDUSTRY /6 Co)°R Telephone: (303) 866-2838 -Out*A 1525 Sherman Street Denver,Colorado 80203 I` (303) 866-2811 nuV•v^^"C '+ ,a76 e - Richard D. Lamm, Governor JUL 0 H 1985 Timothy W.Schultz, Commissioner Donald Svedman, July 1, 1985 GREE-EY. Deputy Commissioner Agricultural Commission Naioma Benson, Sterling Perry Christensen, Grand Junction Stephen Driftmier, Lakewood MEMORANDUM Ben Eastman, Hotchkiss TO: Chairmen, Boards of County Commissioners John Hotchkiss County Extension Office Denver Elton Miller, FROM: R. I. Sullivan, Director Fort Fort Lupton Division of Plant Industry \�/ Don Moschetti, Center SUBJECT: Petitioning into Established Pest Control Districts William Webster, Greeley Clede Widener, Enclosed for your reference and information is a ruling regarding Granada pest control district formation from the Attorney General's Office which is self-explanatory. RIS:eg Enclosure • • ea ryv'}, 1/W KS— • • • or c0 'Tgn,, O 1828 Duane Woodard Attorney General �G Charles B. Howe L1Tr ;Jtatr of LntnraIIiu STATE SERVICES BUILDING Chief Deputy Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street Richard H. Forman DEPARTMENT OF LAW Denver.Colorado 80203 Solicitor General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Phone 866-3611 &866-3621 June 26, 1985 r,^Y O -- MEMORANDUM {{ get • tl TO: R. I . Sullivan, Director Division of Plant Industry Colorado Department of Agriculture FROM: Suzanne Saunders Assistant Attorney al Regulatory Law Section RE: Petitioning into pest districts; annexation under section 35-5-104 ( 5) , C.R.S. (1984) . AG Alpha No. AG PI YPI AG File No. CRL8503021/BW Your memo dated May 22 , 1985, poses questions about the annexa- tion provisions of the Colorado statute governing pest control districts. Section 35-5-104(5) , C.R.S. (1984) , provides for an- nexation by petition of adjacent lands into a district. That section reads as follows: (5) If the owner or lessee of any lands adjoining an established pest control dis- trict desires to have such lands included within the district, he may petition the board of county commissioners of the county in which the district is located and to which district annexation of his land is desired. The petition shall contain a de- scription of the boundaries of the lands so desired to be annexed and shall be signed by the petitioner. The board shall act on said petition within ten days after the re- R. I . Sullivan Page 2 ceipt thereof. If the board finds that the petition is in order, that the boundaries of the lands described in the petition are accurate, that the lands adjoin the estab- lished district, and that the petition is properly signed, it shall, by order, de- clare that the lands petitioned to be an- nexed to the district shall be included as a part of the district. Within ten days after such action upon the petition, the board shall notify the petitioner, the county assessor, the district advisory com- mittee of the district in which such lands are to be included, and the department of agriculture of its action. Two or more owners and lessees of lands adjoining an established pest control district may join in and sign a single petition for annexa- tion of their adjoining lands to an estab- lished district in the manner prescribed in this subsection ( 5) . Your questions pose a situation where such consensual annexations of adjoining lands have occurred in such a way that a landowner who has not petitioned for inclusion into the district finds his land literally encircled by other lands which are part Of the district, either by the terms of the district ' s formation or by later annexation. You have asked: 1. Can this landowner be deemed to be liable as the owner of land included in the district? (Bear in mind that the process whereby the district is created involves a vote of the owners of land in the designated area; unanimity at such election is not required in order to form a district to which even the "no" vot- ers belong. ) 2. Can this landowner be required to control the pests on his property, or be subjected to having the district conduct the pest control and add the costs to his taxes? My conclusion, based on the research and reasoning set out below, is that the answer to these questions is "no" . This memorandum does not constitute an official opinion of this office; rather, it sets forth my reasoning and conclusions . R. I . Sullivan Page 3 For the hypothetical "surrounded" landowner to become liable to the pest control district, his property would have to be annexed to the district. Even though his property may become completely surrounded by other parcels of land which are part of the dis- trict, the only way his property can be annexed is the one method of annexation found in the statute: petition by the property owner or lessee. There is no nonconsensual method of annexation set forth in the statute. The law is clear that municipalities (and special districts) have only the annexation powers which they have been given by the state constitution or the general assembly. See, 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Muncipal Corporations, sec. 63 . Illustrative Colorado cases have dealt with cities' efforts to use various methods of annexa- tion, including methods not requiring the consent of the owners of the annexed land. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated that "the legislature may give to municipalities the power to annex upon any condition it chooses to impose. " Adams v. City of Colo- rado Springs, 178 Colo. 241 , 496 P. 2d 1005 , 1006 ( 1972) . In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals said: In the absence of express constitutional provisions to the contrary, the General As- sembly has unlimited power over annexation of territories, and even a denial of the rights to notice and to vote upon annexa- tion is not a denial of due process of law. Board of County Commissioners v. City and County of Denver, 193 Colo. 321 , 566 P. 2d 340 ( 1977) . Annexation is a legislative function and it is within legislative com- petence to prescribe who may challenge an- nexation proceedings. City and County of Denver v. District Court, 181 Colo. 386, 509 P.2d 1246 (1973) . Berry Properties Inc. v. City of Commerce City, 667 P.2d 247 (Colo. App. 1983) . The clear implication of the quoted passages is that annexation is a power of the legislature, and may be given by the legisla- ture to municipalities and to special districts in whatever fash- ion the legislature desires . R. I . Sullivan Page 4 Furthermore, the power to annex must be exercised strictly in ac- cordance with the legislative enactment. Scott v. Merrill , 16 Wis. 2d 91, 113 N.W. 2d 846. There is no foundation in the stat- ute in question, or in Colorado case law, to support a theory of "annexation by default" of the hypothetical pocket of land in your memo. The only method of annexation in the pest control district act is the petition method described above; if the owner or lessee of a parcel of land has not gone through that process, the land, un- less originally in the district when it was created, is not part of the district. It follows, then, that the land may not be assessed any costs by the pest control district. The statutory scheme as a whole is keyed to the eradication of pests within pest control districts. See, sections 35-5-108 , 109, 110 , and 111, C.R.S. ( 1984) . Even the section designating pests and their carriers are public nui- sances is keyed to them being "which such area" (the district) . Section 35-5-110 , C.R.S. ( 1984) . There may, however be other methods by which the landowner in question could be required to control the pests on his property. (For example, in the case of a grasshopper emergency, as provided for in section 35-5-116 , C.R.S. (1985) . ) For purposes of this memo, I have only construed the pest district statute in question and have not assessed other provisions of Colorado law. WELD COUNTY ce,:,fss;c gut j� e o,242 JUN 261985 15y9 / WC, / O /' off° , Loerod , loco. CZ- kirc �0 A--ry (Co Al en e o,✓F-/L_5 / _.5 k,,.t 1 1 7TP J C-0 en n All /..5 7a N DT/ F y you of P2oPG,C7 Dm r-ul c--%'- PO % TO /,✓FL57,e7709 DF GKA55 AyO/Pf�s F/i-O.-� P2"Pr- ee 1 Y A0✓oi.�/AJe ado/f? /vl r P�oitiC i Y iS N Z ) N � r t 7-Y , izy SO,_e /O ) 7 /✓ ) ,e ��I A.1/440 7>if A fro nv/4/ /5 5� Nw / 5C %y ) 54c /O / 7--/ A/) /2 �s In,1t, /J C# ' "v?" / 5 .95 / / t p $Ch / 8SW / 7/z lFST CO,✓7-Az•edL ACS 35 _ `/ - /07 , S, ,vcZ" Cov.JTY Pi-.5 /Al 5n-c?O,eS ,//1 ✓c -pet Q2/G- Ta b,✓P•o.Gc£ 77.'6 P/eo v/ /040- o P Lil O P-,-/Acre w. L ^/O % l y. � Thy ) TN/S Pf -06Lt / U 432- tLiM '.✓t7# w ,7yv/n/ / S DMY$ . 2 y 7,,4./ /IBS 14 rti,,;� '7/ hr Hello