HomeMy WebLinkAbout960538.tiff '.;LLD CCU::TY
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
March 12,1996 I^tsa I.: 7 15 !il 9: 16
Board of Weld County Commissioners CLERK
P.O.Box 758 ) THE.
Greeley CO 80632
Subject:Legality of flag-pole annexations by municipalities using county public right of ways
Ladies and Gentlemen:
To further support the fact that the use of flag-poling is contrary to the intent, meaning and wording of the
Colorado Revised Statutes,please consider this: CRS 31-12 -104(1)(a)"Elegibility for Annexation" states:
"Contiguity shall not be AFFECTED by the existence of a public right of way between the
annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed."(emphasis mine, ommissions from wording
only those not applying to this specific situation, read the complete 31-12-104 if in doubt).
This sentence states clearly that annexation shall not be AFFECTED; it does NOT say contiguity shall (or
can)be ESTABLISHED by a public right of way between the annexing municpality and the land proposed
to be annexed.
This means clearly that:
1. The Statute does not give permission to use a public right of way as a devise to CREATE contiguity.
2. When the municipality is not contiguous to the land proposed to be annexed,contiguity cannot be
CREATED by the devise of using a(non municipality owned, in particular)public right of way that
doesn't lie between them,but has one END at the municipality and the other END at the area to be
annexed with no municipality land on either side of the right of way.
3. The one sixth contiguity requirement is irrelevant and not applicable in this situation.
The only reason that flag-poling is rampant is that county authorities will not acknowledge and act on
their duty to protect their county constituencies from the usurpation of county right of ways and,as a
consequence in addition, land from the county's jurisdiction(flags)by a devise that is clearly not within
the meaning of the Statutes.
There is a case law decision precedent(543 P2d 521)which can be cited in proceeding against the
municipalities using flag-poling methods, formally or informally. In addition,there is the clear wording of
the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, 31-12-104 on the basis of which to establish new precedent,
narrowly, on this specific issue only, if need be.
Unfortunately,there is a perception growing that government officials believe their responsibility is first
to the accommodation of other govenment officials and not to their constituents:a sort of Fifth Estate
(church, nobility,the common people,the press and now, government officials).Reluctantly,a group in
my area,with legal counsel,has been formed to oppose by every legal means the way we are being ridden
over roughshod by developers making inappropriate use of the land with the assistance and non feasance
of government officials.
I request that you begin whatever actions are necessary based on the argument above, those presented in
my letters of March 5, 1996 and February 1, 1996 and others of which the county attorney's office might
be aware to stop the practice of flag-poling so that sensibly planned growth can occur_
page 1 of 2
l.% 3( I$1 n pc : Pt 960538
page 2 of 2
"The general assembly hereby declares that the policies and procedures in this part 1 are necessary and
desirable for the orderly growth of urban communities in the State of Colorado..."
Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, 31-12-102, in part
"Because the creation of municipal satellites,which are sought to be prohibited by this subsection(2),
violates both the purpose of this article as expressed in 31-12-102 and the limitations of this article, any
annexation which uses any boundary in violation of this subsection(2)may be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be void ab initio in addition to other remedies which may be provided."
Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, 31-12-104(1)(b), in part
Very truly yours.
John S. Folsom
PC Weld County Attorney
Hello