Growth Management: Recent Developments in Municipal Annexation and Master Plans

• Publication year: 2002
• Pages: 61
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 2 Pg. 61

31 Colo.Law. 61 Colorado Lawyer 2002.

2002, March, Pg. 61. Growth Management: Recent Developments in Municipal Annexation and Master Plans

---

61

Vol. 31, No. 2, Pg. 61

The Colorado Lawyer
March 2002
Vol. 31, No. 3 [Page 61]

Specialty Law Columns
Government and Administrative Law News
Growth Management: Recent Developments in Municipal Annexation and Master Plans
by Greg Clifton

This column provides information to attorneys dealing with various state and federal administrative agencies, as well as attorneys representing public or private clients in the areas of municipal, county, and school or special district law

This month's article was written by Greg Clifton, City Attorney for Montrose, the Interim Manager for

Ridgway, and President of the Colorado Municipal League

(970) 240-1442

This article addresses legislative changes concerning municipal annexation and master plans, as enacted in the fall of 2001. This concise summary is intended to be useful for attorneys who practice in areas of land use, real

property, and local government.

In recent years, the Colorado legislature has hotly debated the issue of growth management, considering numerous and varied proposals. Many proposals have been specific to certain growth-related topics.1 However, others have represented a more comprehensive approach toward growth management, covering a wide array of issues such as master planning, municipal annexation, and local government dispute resolution.

Of the comprehensive proposals that have been introduced, the debate has focused on two divergent positions toward growth management in general. The first represents an institutional approach that would keep intact local control to make land use decisions by enabling better collaborative planning between cities and counties.2 The second is a more prescriptive approach, which would establish statewide mandates and procedures that, in varying degrees, serve to preempt local decision-making authority regarding growth management.3

As the debate continues over which of these approaches, if either, best addresses the "growth problem" in Colorado, the lack of consensus on this complex topic is becoming evident. After addressing more than thirty growth-related bills during the regular session in 2000, the 62nd General Assembly adjourned without passing any significant growth management legislation.

In the months that followed, proponents of a "Citizen Management of Growth" initiative circulated petitions to place a growth management proposal on the ballot in the November 2000 election. This initiated measure, also referred to as "Amendment 24," would have amended the Colorado Constitution by restricting development to specifically committed areas of local jurisdictions or locations subject to voter approval. Colorado voters soundly defeated Amendment 24.

The 63rd General Assembly ended its first regular session in 2001 with a similar outcome to that of the previous year, having considered twenty-seven bills relating to growth and land use, but passing none. The Governor's call for the first "extraordinary" session immediately on conclusion of the regular session on May 9, 2001, resulted in no new legislation. The Governor proclaimed his call for a second extraordinary session to commence on September 20, 2001, primarily to address the issue of redistricting and growth management. The call enumerated several narrowly defined growth topics related to master plans, alternative dispute resolution of conflicts between local governments, municipal annexation, regional planning, and the application of uniform authority relative to city and county land development charges ("impact fees").

Ultimately, three bills were passed during the special session concerning municipal annexation (H.B. 1001), and the master planning process (H.B. 1006 and H.B. 1020). This article provides a legal analysis of this new legislation, preceded by a general discussion of both topics.4

Municipal Annexation

Municipal annexation is governed by the Municipal Annexation Act and the Colorado Constitution.5 As the Colorado Supreme Court recently affirmed, the General Assembly has "virtually unlimited" power over the setting and changing of municipal boundaries.6

With few exceptions, annexations in Colorado are accomplished through voluntary petitioning by property owners. The petitioning property owners must comprise more than 50 percent of the total property owners being annexed and own more than 50 percent of the land area being annexed.7 In some limited circumstances, usually involving jurisdictional enclaves or the annexation of municipally owned property, a municipality may unilaterally annex property.8

Three basic requirements for annexation are as follows:

1. Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the property to be annexed may be contiguous to the annexing city or town.

2. There must exist a "community of interest" between the territory proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality.

3. The territory proposed for annexation is or will be urbanized and is capable of being integrated into the annexing municipality.9

If the first requirement of contiguity is met, it may provide the basis for a finding that the second and third requirements are satisfied. Contiguity may be established by a series of annexations completed together, and may be achieved using streets, alleys, rights-of-way, lakes, reservoirs, streams, or other natural or artificial waterways. However, if streets or alleys are being annexed, the entire width of the street or alley must be annexed.10

As a precondition to any valid annexation, the area to be annexed must not have the effect of extending the municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction in a single year. This three-mile limitation may be exceeded if at least 50 percent of the annexed parcel, under identical ownership, lies within the three-mile boundary or if necessary to annex property located within an enterprise zone. Consistent with this limitation, all annexations must be in accordance with the municipality's plan for the three-mile area. This plan must generally establish the facilities, infrastructure, municipal services, and land uses to be provided within such area, and must be updated annually.11

Other restrictions exist to address situations where...