31-12-110. Findings.

Statute text

(1) Upon the completion of the hearing, the governing body of the annexing municipality, by resolution, shall set forth its findings of fact and its conclusion based thereon with reference to the following matters:

(a) Whether or not the requirements of the applicable provisions of section 30 of article II of the state constitution and sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 have been met;

(b) Whether or not an election is required under section 30 (1)(a) of article II of the state constitution and section 31-12-107 (2).

(2) The governing body shall also determine whether or not additional terms and conditions are to be imposed.

(3) A finding that the area proposed for annexation does not comply with the applicable provisions of section 30 of article II of the state constitution or sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 shall terminate the annexation proceeding.

History

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1084, 1, effective July 1. L. 2010: (1) and (3) amended, (HB 10-1259), ch. 211, p. 917, 7, effective August 11.

Annotations

Editor's note: This section is similar to former 31-8-110 as it existed prior to 1975.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since 31-12-110 is similar to former 31-8-110 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Specific findings required for proposed area for annexation. In a unilateral annexation pursuant to 31-12-106 (2), the legislative body with annexing authority must make specific findings at a hearing that the proposed area to be annexed has had the requisite boundary contiguity for the requisite period of time before such an area is eligible for annexation by the governing body. Cesario v. City of Colo. Springs, 200 Colo. 459, 616 P.2d 113 (1980).

Findings of ultimate fact are sufficient where they are based on evidence not specifically controverted by other evidence in the record made before the city council. Pomponio v. City of Westminster, 178 Colo. 80, 496 P.2d 999 (1972).

Capricious or arbitrary exercise of discretion can arise where an administrative board neglects to use reasonable care in procuring such evidence as it is authorized by law to consider such applying to a city council when it is attempting to employ or administer the municipal annexation act. Johnston v. City Council, 177 Colo. 223, 493 P.2d 651 (1972).

A city council implicitly is authorized to consider all competent evidence with regard to the contiguity requirement by virtue of the fact that it has to make a finding thereon being under a duty to use reasonable diligence in searching for and procuring such evidence. Johnston v. City Council, 177 Colo. 223, 493 P.2d 651 (1972).

Findings as to school districts other than Denver. When the city and county of Denver is the only city in the state whose boundaries are coexistent with those of the school district, the trial court can take judicial notice that the only occasion upon which annexation will cause territory in Colorado to be detached from one school district and attached to another is when territory is annexed by the city and county of Denver, such being the case, there is no necessity for evidence to support the finding concerning school districts in proceedings not involving Denver. Breternitz v. City of Arvada, 174 Colo. 56, 482 P.2d 955 (1971).