HomeMy WebLinkAbout630195.tiffone
r
A-
r
-X.
TO; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS a ALL COUNTIES, COLORADO
Enclosed is a memo written by Fritz Schneider., General Counselfox
the Colorado Commissioners' Association, to Governor Love, a.na.lyziov
Senate Bill P 257, pertaining to annexation of territory by mun-
icipalities, which was passed by the past legislaativice. eessi.on,
We are strongly urging the Governor to Veto this Bill, and need
your help. Mr. Schneider's memo outlines the problems Which will
be created by this Bill rich will hurt the whole State, The State
County Commicsioner s' Association, by Resolution, apposed such
legisl tit n, and Adams, Arap ataoe, and Jefferson Counties., who stand
to be hurt the most, have been doing everything possible to defeat
the legislation., but did not have the power during the session to
defeat it.
We are urging the Veto for the principal reason that all the Statk'
will be hurt, since the chances for any progress by the Governor's
Committee of 100 on urban problems will be defeated if this is
passed. The climate of good will between, urban and County officials
which will be necessary for dav success of this u:omlylittea;, will
be desr:royed before th' Committee starts
a rill you please do this:
or preferably ssuce a telegram to the Governor asking him to
ple se Veto "t 257 , Go, : in touch with nun i..cipal, officials in yrouL
County t!^k thcym r.o individually write or send a telegra to the,
}ve:catre asking hiu to Veto the Dill, The Colorado municipal.
league sDonscxed this legislation, but many munic:i.pal, officials
now .kE owi.nz atr:tf's will be: Ottrr c1 up by the Bill Want it
vet b„
Please help us, is you can, as this nay be our last chance for
many years of trying to zet at real solutions to urban problems,
other than the temporary ones such as the SB 257 proposes to give:.
WELD CO. COMMISSIONERS
GREELEY, COLO.
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 1963
e
BOARD 0. � (7,,f? wy t° NAT SS�;t:ONE! S
ARAPaHOE V CUNTL , 001/0". .D0
BY: &Att./a f.. , :t4
P1-0165
630195
ay
the , I y..lea,iug is ao analysis of Senate fail? 257 as passed 'o_
1
_ .., l tAssozdtbly (l t Regular Session),
van } 1. recognized that there can. bc ;mnagy benefits through an. -
. eaat .or , nowevet, these benefits must tie raid for by the taxpayers of
the Toa5 `ipali ties and such areas as are annexed by the municipalities.
.'a1; e t here is an increased tax burden to be born by these property owners,
ey should have same voice in determining whether or not ;They wish to
pay this increased burden. Titre, by annexation, an unincorporated
area may obtain additional services for such Increased tax burden., TI.ef.SS
-_ucsti_on should he
such area. One of
whether or not the
left to the majority of the taxpayers living within
the primary considerations that should be given is
citizens of the State of Colorado shall have imposed
upon them annexation against their will.
We must now point out that it is not suggested that a minority within
a given area should be empowered to impose its wishes and desires upon
the majority; but, likewise, we must protect that majority within an
unincorporated area from unilateral and arbitrary annexation by a municipality.
In using this approach, we will analyze Senate Bill 257 and see just
hat powers the legislature would give to municipalities where the wishes
and desires of the majority of the tax paying property owners in a given
unincorporated area would be aborted,
For simplification and better and rsl:and:! Ct ;, ?_t is desir;`:: i" to
je. ineate. property that cannot be annexed icier the bill, This tMoo1C' be
'_lroperty with less than i. e...sixth of the perimeter f t i area proposed.
U zv.
ee be annexed that is not contiguous i tb. the annexing i ualcipa .i' . `
property that has not been an enclave for three years eoitipj:isit g of to oty,
':.res or more which, together with iDeorovealents, has a,1
of 200,000 .00 or mores and .cicorpore.e. arcels. All ^.. 21'r p:.epet:ty ..
( f
7t1 Section TIT of tht,, act is set out the C c
_s.arato. .t.l.' }?t1":'(ls among
are. "to' enf'.ou:'sge ' atura1'. and v,111 .t ; .f e 'd dE v ?.Lopmeot me3ni. -
t; oiaities", 1t. cursory e7cmi.'r:al ion oE 4.le bill will reveal, that the pracric,:
application would ha...re the oz,posit.e effect "To distribute fairly and
equitably the costs of municipal services among those persons who benefit
therefrom These persons are paying y
c.n.g their fair share for .,u,711
services as sewage and water and, in many ;Lnstances, a great deal more.
ft has been suggested that these parsons are not paying for fire and
police protection, but it must be noted that they are not the beneficiaries
of such protection when living
in i'fuincorporat ed areas ,>
►! .Q simplify
voernmental structure in urban areas", This bill would have the opposite
effect. It would have the pr.actical result of creating many stra:l,l :in=
corporated cities and towns upon. the fringes of a core city. Such a
result would be caused by the desires of individuals l ing in fringe
areas surrounding the core city to maintain their identity away from
such city and retain local control. "To reduce friction among contiguous
or n. ighboring municipalities". On the contrary, this would create friclon
in that there would be a race between municipalities in an effort first
to annex a given area in a given time.
We must now determine the methods of annexation of unincorporated
areas. This will be separated into two distinct categories9 the first
being annexation by ordinance alone and the second being annexation with
permissive elections. In the first category falls enclaves. When any
unincorporated area is entirely contained within the outer boundaries of
a municipality, the city may, by ordinance, annex such .erritory en its
own motion° This may be done even though all the residents and all the
land owners oppose such annexation, There need not be in such enclave
compatability with integration or urbanisation or community of interest.
Also in this category are unincorporated areas which have had more than
two-thirds boundary contiguity for a period of at least three years with
the annexing municipality. The only requirements here are an adoption
r r
ii .i:: �. .'r'.. _ :.i,....r'�:. :,.l 'r a:l�K �: . .•:a.''1 r•�r i,.!'t i..�-. .
• c;
• •-f5;;. :it..i' '��.'+ .t'' •....!'
2r. i s-.► F .; Caen nu
In the S'EeCOPei. category .Y falls all other types of annexation o First
termust be f ) end a peti :ion for annexation by the land owners of more
than fifty percent of the territory desi.xed ::o be arl?le e ,: ►per.. T e .c
. . s a
presumption that th con:mun . t ' of interest. the urbanizatit3n. of the -ea
and the compatabih�.s:u of integration with the municipality exi. st.s,
e±.;s of what the true feats may be..
In order to successfully.! overcome thi presumption and prevent ne•
..
:at-i..on .. the ob ec, ting ct zeds or officials l.a.i..'---" must show to city counci
thai at eat two of OK fin/lowing exist (a) That )eye i'hrt flay
( i�:: is the '.)ri..l.Itti.'U'':'J)(`rated area make. use of
) ( 'r-'ati. a t: s c .i '
F: Z CJ 11 I i,.�i7'C [)f. -� , �'E: �` :zl :±�:[1 di.iS"t'%::_
of the annexin;! �j-3Je''' ;aijf%. v.j d 1G. that less thi twenty-five
rf the .dul i::Iert c,
i ,:he land 1_Y) 1`:1P d?',7a ..
be annexed is , gri,:mitut al and that ;-?t,' :and owners of such egricui! ( t':"a?
iitd, under, oath, express the aotc ltion to devote the Lind to such
cultural use for a period of not Less than five ),ears; (c) That i,I
nor physically practicable t.c extend to the proposed b :area j�z op7;,..a�. c• *?n;rex:-ta
urban services whl h the annexing miafl.'.C 7p li y provides in c Cir.mv- n zc, i
( I is j c i ti ens , upon cl-fe same terms and r o: di t ►
.;. C tit* as 1. ..t,ii.;T. s F'.. .' i' F' : ?e
made available to sue:c::i.Ci Lens As a fortu:7? r.,alter, 1. .
3rr. c':i exist ..
The on1 y other wa; Coat a ala, `}ri ty of
=ion rrti ,'c,F1t .:arn.exat. i.er is by ::e b fling r1}r of ct pe.e i : 7.i.
?.tick by t: .,: E �.'scgt.c
] 'Ctt denial St ' 81.1. by ;:;(,'F1. ;;':explessl.ou of
rc si ctevc C i
cat e•1 ,i..5 at r an. : ns,�i.�r�:, (&(t i t,n
$[, `.:Sit7:it ECt t•4 a Muni 4.a.1.'? 0 thl,(..liI'h plans and c: ► )
using Jo -:c by Ci''.. i z+' y it
requirements of the petition for annexation election will disclose that
the petitioners for such an election must be qualified electors who are
residents and land owners in the unincorporated area and who had ad
valorem tax liability in the preceding year, There is the further re-
quirement that the petition for election must be signed by the land owners
of fifty percent of the territory included in the area proposed to be
annexed° In the petition there shall be an allegation that it is desirable
and necessary that such territory be annexed to the municipality; an alleg-
ation that the area is eligible for annexation and in no way excluded from
eligibility by the limitations as set forth in Section 5 of the act; and
"a request that the annexing municipality approve the annexation of the
area proposed to be annexed. In counties of more than 25,000 inhabitants
the petition shall be signed by at least seventy-=five qualified electors
who are resident in and who are land owners of the area proposed to be
annexed° In counties of 25,000 or less, the petition shall be signed by
at least forty such electors° It is obvious that from these requirements
a petition for election would die aborning° Such procedures in and of
themselves preclude the objectors from having a fair hearing before any
city council whose desires are to annex a territory°
The act provides for Judicial review, but only on the question of
whether the city council has exceeded its jursidiction or abused its
discretion ° Since the appelent in such proceedings would be bound by the
petition for annexation election, which admitted that the action by the
city council was proper and the" the statutory requirements were met, such
review would be meaningless and an idle ceremony.
Among the glaring inconsistencies of the bill is the provision that
in paragraph 18 once an annexation proceeding has been instituted it can
stop all proceedings, and yet in paragraph 14 will permit another muni-
cipality to commence annexation proceedings°
There isSc xa .it:y of this
a 54"'i �.1. � ,...Eii.. . _� i�i of the -ti�slr;'l.i tu'.�." .c {�L.it1.`�
l T `s
-for it totally disregards the vested and proprietary rights of the eil,eetc�s
and resident land owners, in that these rights are protected and guaranteed
by the due process of equal protection clause of both the State and Federal
Constitutions,
People have purchased their homes, made theri investments, determined
their way of life under existing laws, Under SB 257 they have no right of
self determination., The existing annexation law provides an orderly means
for people to petition and through democratic process become annexed to
a city. SB 2.7 permits a city council to determine the destiny of people
without their vote or franchise. The law which was set up to be remedial
will only create critical fiscal problems for schools, special districts
and counties and chaotic, disorderly geo-political warfare, It will upset
orderly established zoning and planning practices of counties and will
lead to land grabs and confusion, such as never has existed in the State
of Colorado.
The most horrible thought that can come to one would be what would
happen if the Supreme Court would determine this law to be unconstitutional,
and we believe the Supreme Court will so determine. Proceedings which would
be instituted under SB 257 would create abysmal chaos such as has never
existed in the State of Colorado from the time of its becoming a State,
The impact of this thing would make the confusion that resulted from
the Merris Decision pale into insignificance. Instead of creating harmony,
the counties will be pitted against cities -municipality one against the
other -neighbor against neighbors, The dream of metropolitan cooperation
will be crushed forever.
Respectfully submitted
J. FRED SCHNEIDER
4
Hello