OCR Text |
Show rv r light print - ... THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19. 1972 THE DAILY RECORD Office of the Attorney General OPINION NO. 72-0- PAGE SEVEN State of Utah In Salt Lake City v. Revene. 101 Utah 504, 124 P.2d 537, the court a municipal corpora' It has been repeatedly stated by this court that no others: First and tlon possesses and can exercise the following powers, or those granted in express words; second, those necessarily fairly implied in xr Incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the 44 said: October 11, 1972 David E. V!?st, REQUESTED BY: Lake accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation simply convenient, but indispensable," citing many cases. Vernon B. BY: PREPARED City Attorney, North Salt QUESTION: Homer Rom?, Attorney General Hcl.r.jr. n. Assistant Attorney General Can a city an.-f- x territory lying contiguous in None of the foregoing powers are involved in a city annexing an area in an adjoining county. The statutes do not expressly or by necessary implication authorize such an annexation, nor is such annexation indispensable to another cr..:r-Ly- CONCLUSION: In the purposes of the city. N.;. 2 KcQuillin, k:.. is p. 37J. the following: Water Service Agreements "In come stnes a municipal corporation in one county-caextend its limits.: include territory in another county, but In other statu: u .cannot do so without expiess legislative L, Schauerhamer, Sixth Avenue. W. authority." We them have read as follows: tha cases cited in support of such annexation and G. S. Ilowells, 4363 1935 MA: 515 Portsmouth Savings Bank v. Smith, 74 Kan. 223, 86 P. 462: The court The extension of a city across a county boundary is so unusual end is attended with such manifest "metical inconveniences growing out. of the relation of the municipal rrui courity governments that an intention to authorize such an act should not be lightly inferred from the use of general language but should be evidenced by express terms. T. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dyson, 86 Iowa 310, 53 N.W. 245, Up to 1884 there seems to have been no express provision for the existence of a city lying partly in each of two or more counties. It then goes onto cite later statutes authorizing the creation of to cities lying in mere than one county, specifying the necessary machinery f! ; if c :ccT : J hnr'h'onicc ci;;, .nd :r. ;.y yr. r:... in: v cities cool J be insorperalctd to include more than one county the legislature must have inienced that a city could extend its boundaries into an adjoining Zara-hem- la Grant L. Heath, 1953 South Dan K. Ilinkley, 1332 East McCormick Street. MA:6262 S 440 E Murray, Utah. Douglas W. Mitchell, 2879 La Joya Drive. Effic Sherman, 28 Post Office Place. county. Hr Schildnecht v. City of Joplin, 2?.C fio. App. 7, 41 S.W. 2d court re7erreci to statutes which 'provided for incorporating cities and towns situated cn the county line and in two counties and i!so to statutes setting up the procedure in consolidating certain cities in adjacent counties. The 'iinexation statute uses general language giving power to extend the limits of the city over territory adjacent thereto and to extend or diminish the city limits in such manner as in their judgment and discretion may redound to the benefit of the city. The court says: "We can conceive of no reason why the same difficulties urged by appellants here (with reference to annexing territory in another county) could not be as well urged against the incorporation or consolidation of cities in different counties, and since these very same difficulties would not prevent the incorporation of cities in adjoining counties nor prevent the consolidation of two cities in adjoining counties, we can see no reason why this court should read into Section 6483 (the annexation statutate) The court said it was a a proviso such as contended for by the plaintiffs." matter for the legislature ar.i not the courts. Palmer v. Town of Ski a took, 203 Okla. 316, 51 P.2d 273. The court referred" to statutes wnicn expressly authorized the incorporation of tovns in The statute authorizing annexation contained no restric- two or more counties. i UThe c.'urt considered these ? OmOcuI . r th: i upon tc?y hlc,:' 1 v..t statute sufficient slatuicry for annexing property in t,, ..-i- ar. ' in iobor distinguishes the rulingstat-fl- adjoining . Dyson, Py. N.W. The court 310, 53 N.W. 2i0. 86 Iowa "The Oio ; Town Ralph E. Ellingson, mirth A, onvo. ""'-at- I one n:iUi:.g a city to be 1 oca Led in i.iOi'S provide that "When the inhabitants of any part of any ity a in city, they rc'jityV.ot ary city shall desire to to organized into As Tabor in stated commissi etc. oners," of beard to the jr.r-county of Wake- ?45, ouoted stove in Villa lii. r? I Life w this language city to be W.- . V l:-a- - I.-- -- 10-2- -1 & Louie Martinez, 4225 South Joe Duncansor, 747 Green Street. 3075 Eait. Charles L. Soimtag, Pauline E. Newman, 1231 2217 South 18th East. Claybourne Avenue. Henry D. Braaford, 1371 Film ore Street. J. Coombe, 3779 South 23rd East. W. Ben N. Taylor, 1674 Garfield Avenue. E. A. Staab, 1263 East 4130 South. L. B. Parrish, 1334 Avenue. Douwing-to- n Joseph John P. Stephens, 1476 East 4230 South. , in I, jio rat, ea in only one county arid hence restricts annexation to territory r.. cnir,c county. The :;rovisi::.s for holding an election, canvasing the votes conn iss loners and fixing the classification of the city by the board of county in organizing the city is no good reason why construction. citify this same limitation should urea in one county, this ,t Lhwjld he rcst'. ivUd to As stated in the Dyson not apply in extending its boundaries by annexation. to annexation of as "llio statute contains several provisions ' t virri: provisions abutting' or contiguous territory to municipal corporations but these of the words ,, u.c.j;. any wirds Wicatirq an enlargement or restriction tc the county m i:.j pi uv i si on for original incorporation in respect Tl-er- y . the territory is situated. 1055 Timothy P. Apgood, 7443 South Bourne Avenue. Ronald T. Branca, 1461 South Ninth East First Julie Brighton, 548 Lowell Avenue. Charles B. Dowda, 934 Lorraine Avenue. James J. DeBry, 904 Military Drive. Max J. Evans, 2720 John Wiekins, 360 West Sixth North. Dear-bou- rn Street. Eco. Dynamics Inc. , 733 Genesee Avenue. Zwick Construction, 2380 Creek Road. West B. C. Gary, 57 North Nineth West. Steven Rasmussen, 155 McClelland Street Dale C. Casady, 747 S 1st W. ;: loo, locate'1 within one county. It "The exteusion or a ciLy P. t.J.i., ijUi u ur.usu.-and so attended with manliest mcenven-- , and county govemnents hat ",n' .... Hi'.: .elation wf the municipal cji. gf be not should ar. act lightly inferred from the inUYition to authorize such be evidenced express terms or by the should , by ".1 , t;. i, 'i j., : the foiluvinu'fr-.- .! f.I is so ,1 cim.'Iv 7-- iv See. 10: l I inplicjtioii." Bank v. This same language was used by the court in Portsmouth Savings which 86 P. 462, 74 Kan. 223, in connection with an annexation statute the corporate limits but priT,5 gave the city council power to enlarge to county lines. by its terms restrict such enlargement -- . Claudette Christensen, 885 Monument Park Circle. Jerry R. Franklin, D. J. E. Felt, 1625 Seventh South 17th East Robert L. Black, 543 South Ninth East. Thomas K. Brown, 6695 James R. Bell, Slim Lindsay, 1514 Emerson Avenue. W. Daniella J. D. Cone, 1532 Bryan Avenue. Melvin Jay Harman, 864 Bryan Avenue. James H. Roberts, Fifth North. Marcel Beavbain, 986 East 13th South. 540 Post Street. South 1620 East. 1169 Glor-ie- ta Drive. Jim Williams, 416 Bryan Avenue. ' In Countv of Mateo v. City of Palo Alto, 335 P.2d 1013, 116 Cal. App. qpri did i.t Frear, Crofts Inc. , 1882 South West Temple. James Quigley, 24 Virginia Street. 1078 W. Dupont Avenue. 1713 1211 Ricliard J. Keiser, 234 South 11th West. W - cituvi-s- t 717 13th West. Ricliard Titus, 3124 South J. E. Jackosn, Fourth North. Howard L. Mattingly, West North Temple. East 3835 South. 633-- F MA:925 E 9:h S John R. Taylor, Avenue. 711 Lowell F. Wilson, 2745 Lester N. Johnson, Chicago Street. of Tabor was incorporated and the provides 'the inhabitants of py part of any county1 may incorporate the organization court says: 'The 3Ct permittirg original incorporation limits to 'the inhabitants of any part of any county,' and we think a fair construction of the previsions for annexation moms that extensions may be trade within the be a at the county. No reason exists to cur minds why there should one limitation and then a of to county, of an incorporation part original organization i' n, to rzkazn parts or two or more counties. The reasons hv r, urn. jt it, as actual ana manifest in one case as in the against such an crccmzacionhe are Iowa case was not in point. The court then conether1" TO .aurt said as strues the I.ebioShj statutes permitting annexing area in another county. It refers to a statute which permits the inhabitants of any village situated in two or more counties to become incorporated and providing the machinery for Its administration in harmony with the counties' jurisdiction. ?Ar Ky. 37f, 53 S.W. M 5?2, the court Muj!y,r"in an annexation statute authorizing towns annex territory' did ;.oi authorize a municipality to in mother county; 'any tcreit'.ry' meaning any.annexable territory. uses the same language as the quotation from C.J.S. above given. to annex 'any 1 Court. i 252, 133 Village of Wakefield v. Utecht, 90 Neb. Co. v. Smith 141-1- 43 North Monsen Profit Sharing Trust, 250 Orchard Place. county. where Loveless, Howard L. Mattingly, West North Temple. 'Tarol Jean Hermansen, 928 McClelland Street. : W. Glade M. Tischner East 6400 South. 16th East. Robert C. Jackson, 136 Edith. Richard East. 1440 Drive. first states: as fellows: not 1 territory The court Richard Blatnick, 1078 W. 1446 4230 South. Ronald A. Millang, 1344 California Avenue. East Louis S. Rogoof, 1759 South' Ninth East. Brent G. Ericson, 2624 East Lanborne Avenue. Lawrence P. Martin, 2098 Donclson Lane. E. M. Tischner, 2936 South! i hi Sc Out Dry Cleaning, 1527 South 15th East. Lee Balka West. 547 North 8th Richard Pearson, W. 2509 Maywood Drive. Dennis S. Rose, 6699 South 1530 East. 1 |