HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Annexation Procedures.1975NA, ,?mom, . o;
ANNEXATION PROCEDURE
LL
• March 11, 1975
ENGINEERING CONCERNS RELATED
TO ANNEXATION OF AREA "J"
SILVERKING/SMUGGLER TRAILER COURT
I. Street System and Right -of Way
The general state of streets in this area is poor.
The street system suffers from bad intersection
design, poor alignment, and inadequate right-of-
way widths. One third of the public maintained
mileage has no all-weather surfacing. Costs have
been prepared for improving existing road surfaces,
but no attempt has been made to identify specific
costs related to the other problems. Any solution
to these problems would require considerable surveying,
engineering, legal, and administravtive costs in
addition to the actual right-of-way acquisition
costs.
II. Bridges
At present roughly 75% of both the Neal Avenue and
Mill Street bridges are within the City, but many
times other arrangements for expense have been
worked out with the county in regard to maintenance.
Future annexation should include either all or none
of the bridges. Although the Mill Street bridge
was widened and reconditioned less than three
years ago, it is of poor alignment and insufficient
load capacity. It's future replacement seems a
certainty as growth continues north of the Roaring
Fork. The Neal Avenue bridge is a bad traffic
hazard in its current alignment and condition.
The Hunter Creek bridge also needs to be improved
and/or replaced.
III. Water Service
At present the City has no obligation to serve new
developments in the county; once annexed, the
City is obligated to provide water service. Although
the developer would install the distribution system,
the City would have to bear the cost of improving
off -site transmission, distribution, and treatment
facilities. The restraints in the distribution
system which existed when Silverking (Phase IV)
requested water have not been eliminated, and the
capital improvements program is substantially
behind what was scheduled in 1974 during the water
system study. Present treatment plant data does not
indicate any reduction in the 10% annual growth
rate. If the growth rate remains near 10% instead
of the projected 5% through 1985, treatment capacity
will be exceeded within five years assuming no changes
in consumption characteristics (i.e., meters or rationing)
IV. Development Review
This item is difficult to accurately assess, but the
proposed subdivision fees reflect the administrative
costs involved in processing a plat. The major cost
would not be the subdivisions, but all the areas which
are already divided into tracts. Such tasks as
survey review for building permits,. issuance and
inspection of excavation permits, and general
information requests will increase. Of particular
concern is the status of, or lack of, any deeded
public right-of-way or easements. Problem areas
like this increase demands on staff time immensely.
CITY 017 ASPEN
aspen,colorado, 81611 box v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 1-975
TO: Members of Cite Council
FRO//�andra M. Stuller
RE: Motion on UMPTA Application
Annexation Study Session
Enclosed please find:
(1) An outline of the Colorado alternate
annexation procedures for your information in antic-
ipation of the March 18th meeting; and
(2) A copy of the Motion made by Jenifer
Pedersen Monday concerning the rail transit question
(which several of you have requested).
SS/pk
cc: M. Mahoney
J. Stanford
K. Hauter
I
MOTION BY JENIFER PEDERSEN
March 10, 1975
"I move that the City of Aspen join in the application for
the UMPTA grant subject to the ratification of this action
by the electorate at the May 6th, 1975, General Municipal
Election.
I further move to direct the City Attorney to draft for con-
sideration at the March 24th regular meeting, a resolution
submitting to the electorate at the General Municipal Election
to be held May 6, 1975, the question as to whether the City of
Aspen should join in an application for an UMPTA grant to
establish an electric rail system, alerting the citizenry that
the awarding of the grant will obligate the city to joint fund-
ing of the same, all as described in the UMPTA grant application
and accompanying reports.
I further move that the City Attorney draft for approval of the
Council on March 24th an official statement to accompany the
resolution describing the essential elements of the rail proposal
ana renuired financing,Whieh statement shall be approved by the
City Council, and be published with the notice of election so as
to afford the citizens of Aspen sufficient information to apprise
them of the full impact of the system in terms of anticipated
costs and land use effects."
I
F
N O T E S
S. Stuller
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965
I. Eligibility for Annexation
1. not less than 1/6th contiguity,
2. community of interest exists between territory
proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality, t
3. area to be annexed is urbanized or will be urbanized
in the near future,
4. area is capable of being integrated into the
annexing community,
the 2, 3 and 4 are rebutted by showing two of these three exist:
1. less than 50% of the residents of the annexed
territory make use of the facilities of the City
and fewer than 25% of them work in the City,
2. one-half of the land is agricultural and owners
express intention to continue agricultural uses
for at least five years,
3. it is not physically practical to extend urban
services into the area on the same terms and
conditions as they are made to the urban residents.
There are limitations against bisecting lands (unless separated by
a roadway) under single ownership without the consent of the owner:
31-3-105.
II. Initiation of Annexation - done by:
1. Petition for Annexation
2. Petition for Annexation Election
cannot initiate annexation of any area which is the same area in which
an annexation election has be--n held within the previous 12 months.
N O T E S
S. Stuller
Page 2
A. Petition for Annexation
1. you are familiar with this form,
2. must be signed by owners of more than 50%
of the land to be annexed,
3. must also submit a surveyed boundary map
of the area to be annexed,
4. no person signing the petition may withdraw
his name after submission of the petition to
the City Clerk.
If the petition is signed by owners of 100% of the land, and no
additional conditions are to be imposed by the City Council, the
Council may annex by merely adopting an annexation ordinance.
If less than 100% of the ownerships are represented, then:
1. Council must set a public hearing to
determine if the area is eligible for
ann,-:,xat.ion, the hearing must be held not less
than 30 and not more than 60 days after the
date of the resolution setting the hearing.
2. At the hearing, the Council must (in order for
the proceedings to continue) determine:
(a) if additional terms or conditions are to
be imposed on the annexation (e.g. payment
of annexation fee), and
(b) whether or not an election is required - an
election is required if a Petition for
Annexation Election is filed at least 10
days before the hearing on the Petition for
Annexation is scheduled (this provides
for the electorate to have a veto power over
N O T E S
S. Stuller
Page 3
annexation when it commands that an election
petition take precedence over a petition for
annexation signed by owners of more than
50% of the land).
3. If no election is required and no additional terms
are imposed, then Council may annex by ordinance, i.e.
this method allows annexation without the approval of
the electorate.
B. Petition for Annexation Election
1. must be signed by at least 40 qualified electors
or 10% of said electors, whichever is less, who
are resident in and who are landowners of the
area proposed to be annexed,
2. must be accompanied by a survey boundary map of
the area to be annexed,
3. must request of the Council to set an annexation
election,
4. if the petition is found to be in compliance with
the statutory requirements, the Council passes a
resolution of intention to annex subject to notice, hear-
ing and election.
If Council wishes to proceed, then:
1. Council must set a public hearing to determine if the
area is eligible for annexation. The hearing must
be not less than 30 and not more than 60 days after
the date of the resolution setting the hearing,
2. at the hearing the Council determines whether all
the statutory requirements have been met and whether
additional conditions should be imposed (e.g. payment
of annexation fee),
3. then request the District Court to call an annexation
election,
N O T E S
S. Stuller
Page 4
4. Court appoints three commissioners to call the
election,
S. the following may vote:
(a) owners in fee of any undivided interest in
a given parcel even if not a resident,
(b) resident landowners who are eligible
to vote under the general election laws of
the State of Colorado,
(c) may vote by absentee ballot
6. if the annexation question is defeated, all proceedings
terminate; if approved, the City Council may annex
by ordinance,
7. the City assumes all costs and expenses connected
with the annexation election,
8. the annexation is effective 30 days after the effective
date of the annexing ordinance except that for purposes
of general taxation it shall be deemed effective on
and after the first day of January of the following
year.
i • • rx
/�, ,
GI'TY OF ASPEN
aspen ,eol ora Rio, sisii box v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 26, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller
RE: Proceedings for Annexing Unincorporated
Areas Partly Surrounded
There remains adjacent to the City limits two tracts
of land which appear to have two-thirds contiguity with the
City and may be eligible for annexation as "Partly Surrounded
Land" within the provisions of C.R.S. 1973 §31-3-106(2) of
the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act. The tracts under
consideration are (1) the area of Pitkin Mesa Subdivision
west and adjacent to Red Butte Subdivision, and (2) the
area west of Herron Park and east of Brownell Subdivision.
Council requested that before we undertake consideration of
the annexation I summarize the application proceedings. They
are as follows:
1. 10 be eligible, a tract must comply with the
requirements of annexation and, in addition, have had
more than two-thirds boundary contiguity with the
annexing municipality for a period of not less than
three years.
2. To initiate annexation the Council must adopt
a resolution setting forth an intent to annex.
3. Next, the Council must establish a date to
conduct a hearing to determine the eligibility of the
tract for annexation. The hearing must be held
not less than thirty (30)nor more than sixty (60)
days after the date of adoption of the resolution of
intention.
4. Notice of the hearing must be published five (5)
times in the Times.
IL
F,
Members of City Council -2-. June 26, 1975
SS/pk
5. Any person living within the area proposed to be
annexed, any owner of lands within the area, and any
resident of Aspen may appear at the hearing and present
evidence to the Council on the question of eligibility.
6. At the conclusion of the hearing the Council
must determine in writing that the proposed annexation
complies with the requirements of the Annexation Act
and include such determination in the minutes of the
meeting.
7. In the event of compliance, the City Council
may annex by ordinance with the usual first readings,
publication, ;public hearing, second reading, and
finally second publication. After ordinance adoption
the annexation plat is recorded with certain local
and state agencies and the annexation is complete.
Very truly yours,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,c®l ora coo, at«tt box v
August 8, 1974
Mr. Greg R. Knirlberger
R. 0. Box 1244
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Knirlberger:
The Petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen of Lot 5,
Block T, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision located at 1055 Red Butte
Road is insufficient. Please contact City Attorney Sandra
Stuller at 925-2020, extension 53 as soon as possible
for further information.
Sincerely,
Lorraine E. Graves
City Clerk
LEG:ap
cc: Sandra Stuller, Esq.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
We, the undersigned, being landowners within the
esterior boundaries of the territory hereinafter described,
do hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, to annex said territory to the City in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 139, Colorado Re-
vised Statutes, 1963, as amended, and allege as follows:
` 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such
territory be annexed to the Municipality.
2. That the requirements of Sections 139-21-3,
CRS. 163, as arnended, and 139-21-4, CRS. 163, as amended,
exist or are met.
3. That the signers of the Petition comprise the
landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in
the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and
alleys.
4. That the legal description of the area to be
annexed is as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND OWNED
Z- o c T A�/ g,4 Sc,6,D
7 `^
c �
OW • NAME
OWNE 111AIM
O
j.
MAILING ADDRESS
DATE OF SIGNATUzv
RE
r J
r . 1L..
J. D. AREHART
Director
WALTER J. TOMSIC
Deputy
John F. Tomaic
Wesley D. Letz
Robert L. Ekland
Dodie Gale
• rL_�
Nit S Nf N J�`HE
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
July 25, 1973
MEMORANDUM
TO: City and Town Clerks
State of Colorado
FROM: J. D. Arehart
Director
SUBJECT: House Bill 1055, 1973 Session
of the Legislature.
CJ
1550 Lincoln Street, Room 210
Denver, Colorado 80203
303-892-2156
As you may already know with the passage of H.B. 1055 the
requirement that cities and towns file annexation ordinances
and annexation maps with the Secretary of State has been trans-
ferred to the Division of Local Government. Effective July 1,
1973, therefore, all annexation papers should be filed only
with the Division of Local Government.
The purpose for this change was to remove a duplication
in the law which did require cities and towns to file annex-
ation papers with both the Secretary of State and the Division
of Local Government. After researching the files in both of-
fices it is apparent that some cities are filing with one of-
fice, some with both, and some have not been filing with
either office. The latter may be because there have been no
annexations for several years, however, the state has no way
to verify this.
I'm certain you can appreciate the nearly impossible job
it would be to try to "build" accurate, up-to-date data on the
boundaries of every city and town in Colorado from these cur-
rent files. It appears to us that the only way to bring the
files up-to-date is to request from each municipality a certi-
fied map and legal description of the boundaries as of July 1,
1973 or as close to this date as possible, and any annexation
papers which would include territory after the map was drawn.
If you cannot supply this information, please notify us as to
the reason and perhaps we can assist you in compiling it.
Your cooperation will be very much appreciated. Information
which should be filed with the state is: (1) the ordinance,
IL
•
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 1973
Page two
including the legal description, dates of publication, date
of final adoption b the council, and the effective date of
the ordinance; and (y2) a map of the territory to be annexed.
This same information should also be filed with the County
Clerk and such filing should be so noted on the copy filed
with the state.
One program that will benefit your individual city or
town from these data is a computerized system of mapping which
will provide a check on the legal description and all subse-
quent annexations. This program is now on the drawing board
and a county is being selected for a pilot program to evaluate
what we hope will be an extensive computerized data bank for
research which would be available to local governments as well
as to the state.
Another reason for this change relates to the revenue
sharing program. This office was required to certify municipal
boundary changes to the U S. Department of the Treasury for the
calendar year 1972 for cities of 5,000 population and over.
This proved to be most difficult as some cities have not been
filing with the state and some ordinance did not contain the
information required by the federal government.
In order to be more accurate for calendar 173 we are
requesting that each annexation ordinance be accompanied by
the attached receipt form in duplicate. The original will
be signed and returned to you for your file. The duplicate
copy will enable the Division of Local Government to be more
accurate in certifying this information to the federal govern-
ment. This procedure should eliminate the cost of using certi-
fied mail which some cities are presently using as a receipt.
Hopefully, this procedure will enable the Division of Local
Government to work more effectively with its municipalities in
this area.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can
be of any assistance.
L.
NOTICE OF RECEIPT
Attached is a certified copy of Ordinance Number
of the 19 series which annexes territory to the city/town
of
day of , 19
and is effective on the
Certified by:
—Clerk
Date:
The Division of Local Government of the State of Colorado
hereby acknowledges receipt of Ordinance Number of
the 19 series for the city/town of
Dated this day of 19
By:
Title:
Please fill out this form in duplicate, attach to ordinance
for annexation and file with the:
Division of Local Government
1550 Lincoln Street, Room 210
Denver, Colorado 80203
•
Ll
August 21, 1973
State of Colorado
Division of Local Government
1550 Lincoln Street, Room 210
Denver, Colorado
Attention: Mr. J. D. Arehart, Director
Dear t it . Arehart:
I am enclosing our most up-to-date annexation map of the
City.
We hav` riot `:ad any new annexations s i nce 1972, all
previous annexations were sent to your office for recording.
As you can see from the schedule on the ma, for awhile we
had a multidude of annexations. If copies of all those
annexations are required, please notify this office.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Craves
City Clerk
Enc.
ANNEXATIONS
1. Riverside 20.5958 l�
2. Berumen 6.113
3. Eames Addition
4. South 160.962
5. North _ 325.871
6. Adkins 1.19
7. Segl 0.368
8. West Aspen (Filing #1) 19.664
9. Lot 22 (West Aspen Subdivision) 0.425
10. Alpine Lodge 0.572
11. Lot 8 (West Aspen Subdivision) 0.287
12. West Aspen (Filing #2,Part #1) 13.227
13. Broxmell 1.474
14. Wes.t Aspen (Filing #2 Part YP2) 9.38
15. Lot 23 (West Aspen Subdivision) 0.498
16. Open Space Annex. No. 1 214.947
17. Aspen Hills 0.152
18. West Aspen (Filir.- YE3) 2.260
.19. Fothergill and Cutting 1.41.9
TOTAL AREA ANMMATIONS (ACRES)
ORIGINAL ASPEN MJNS IIT,,
-AST ASPEN TUMIS ITE
TOTAL AREA OF ASPEN
•
779.4048
250.0518
19.31.29
1048.7695 acres
• I C:t� cl,v k,
ANNEXATION PROCEEDURE
1. Annexation Petition must be filed with the City Clerk
within 180 days of the date of the earliest siqnature,
along %Ath 4 copies of the official Annexation map,
and the affidavit of the Circulator.
2. The Clerk refers the Petition to the Council, and the
Council makes a resolution setting a date, time, and
place for public hearing. If the Council should make
a finding that the following conditions have not been
substantially met, it does not have to hold a hearing.
A. One -sixth contiguity between tLe City and
the area seeking annexation.
B. That a communit;- of interests exists be-
tween the territory to be annexed and the
City, as evidenced by the fact that at
least two of the following conditions have
been met:
a. 'lore than 50 per cent of the adult
residents of the area to be annexed
use part or all of the recreational,
civic, social, religious, industrial
or commercial facilities of the city
and more than 25 per cent of the
adult residents are employed in the
city.
b. Less than one half of the land to be
annexed is agricultural.
C. It is physically practical to extend
normal urban services to the area to
be annexed, on the same terms and
conditions as such services are avail-
able to the residents of the city.
C. There should also be a finding that no land
held in identical ownership has been divided
by the boundaries of the territory to be
annexed, without the written consent of the
owners.
D. Also, no land held in identical ownership com-
prising 20 acres or more, together with the
buildings thereon, having an assessed value in
excess of $200,000.00 for the preceeding year,
shall be annexed without the consent of the
owner.
3. The date for the public hearing must be not less than
30 days no more than 60 days from the date of the
resolution setting the hearing. The Clerk publishes
a cony of tl,t; .resolution or the Annexation Petition
wit,hout signatures, together with a notice of the time
Pnd date anr'. place of hearing, once a week for four
weeks. The first publication must be at least 30 days
prior to the date of the hearing.
4. The hearing must be recorded, and the record preserved?
until at least 45 days after the effective date of the
ordinance.
5. After the hearing the Council must make findings of
fact on the coi►tiquity, the corrdiunity of interest, and
all the conditions stated above in paragraph 2, and it
must determlrie wIlet.'ler or not an election is required.
A. An election is required if at least 40 qualified
electors or 10 per cent of the electors who are
residents and land owners of the area to be
annexed petition for an election.
B. If an election is not required the city goes
ahead and annexes by ordinance.
c. If there is a proper election petition, or if
the Council wishes to impose any terms and con-
ditions on the area to be annexed, then an
election is called and the city petitions the
District Court to hold it.
6. Within 30 days after the effective date of the annexing
ordinance, the City Clerk or City Attorney should:
A. File one copy of the annexation map, if any,
with the original of the annexation ordinance
in the office of the clerk of the annexing
municipality.
B. rile one certified copy of the annexing ordi-
nance and one copy of the annexation map, if any,
with the secretary of state.
C. File for recording one certified copy of the
annexation ordinance and one copy of the
annexation map, if any, with the clerk and
recorder of the county in which the land was
located prior to annexation.
-2-
7. The annexation is effective for tax purposes on
January 1, of the ensuing year, but from other
purposes oil the effective date of the annexing
ordinance.
8. Zoning ordinance may be passed immediately after
annexation 6rdinance.
-3-
• 0
THE CARL S. BECKER CO.
1730 GAYLORD
DENVER, COLORADO
333 3855
October 28, 1966
Honorable mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal re-
garding annexation policies and practices of the City of Aspen.
If given this assignment, we will approach the problem as
follows:
1. We Will examine all existing laws, State statutes,
and City ordinances and make recommendations for modi-
fication as appropriate.
2. We will examine administration policy as it impinges
on the annexation problem and make recommendations as
appropriate.
3. We Will examine annexation practices and procedures,
including:
a. the need to annex an area;
b. obtaining the application;
C. processing the application;
d. passing the ordinance;
e. related evaluation necessary to annexation.
We Will recommend changes as appropriate, to improve
the procedure.
Honorable mayor and -2- October 28, 1966
Members of the City Council
4. We will evaluate total annexation policy and develop
an approach which Will make possible the expeditious
handling of all annexation -based problems.
5. We will develop a public relations approsoh to encourage
annexation.
6. We will review existing conditions in the Aspen area
which affect prospective annexations and will recommend
policies and procedures which will encourage an orderly
and mutually beneficial growth, through annexation, to
the City of Aspen.
Upon completion of our work, we will prepare and deliver to
you a management report, in fifteen (15) copies, and will do so
within 90 days after receipt of authorization to proceed.
Our fee for this work, as outlined above, will be $950 plus
expenses for travel, food, and lodging, payable forty percent
(40%) when the work is fifty percent (50%) complete and the re-
mainder upon delivery of the report.
We look forward to Working with you to enhance Aspen's
future, and your approval of this proposal will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Carl S. Becker
The Carl S. Becker Co.
Management Consultants
CSB:de
JAN'E7r K. GAYLOBD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 605
ASPEN, COLORADO 816U
TELEPHONE 92S-3529
June 20, 1966
Mrs. Lorraine Graves
City Clerk, City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Lorraine:
I have been requested to produce a certified copy
of the minutes of City Council pertaining to the
North Annexation proceeding, and also a certified
copy of the advertised notice.
I'll need these by the end of the week. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janet K. Gaylord
City Attorney
City of Aspen
JKG:ac