PROJ00211

• Contract/PO #: C153471
• Contractor Name: Frederick, Town of
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• County: Weld
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Contract Documents

31,35-402

Government - Municipal

810

811

sary or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted in this section. or
in the performance of its covenants or duties. or in order to secure the pay-
ment of its bonds if no encumbrance, mortgage, or other pledge of property,
excluding any pledged revenues, of the municipality is created thereby, and
if no property. other than money, of the municipality is liable to be forfeited
or taken in payment of said bonds, and if no debt on the credit of the munici-
pality is thereby incurred in any manner for any purpose: and
(j) To issue water, or sewer, or joint water and sewer, refunding revenue
bonds to refund, pay, or discharge all or any part of its outstanding water,
or sewer, or joint water and sewer, revenue bonds issued under this part
4 or under any other law, including any interest thereon in arrears or about
to become due, or for the purpose of reducing interest costs or effecting
other economies or of modifying or eliminating restrictive contractual limita-
tions appertaining to the issuance of additional bonds or to any municipal
water facilities or sewerage facilities, or both, as provided in section
31-35-412.

Source: L. 49, p. 714, 92: CSA, C. 163, 927(2); CRS 53, 9 139-52-2:
L. 62, p. 281,92; C.R.S. 1963,9139-52-2.

I. General Consideration.
II. Taking of Land Outside District.
III. Fees.
IV. Bonds.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATtON.

Am. JUl". See 56 Am. Jur.2d. Municipal
Corporations. Etc" ~ 226.
C.J.S. See 63 CJ.S.. Municipal Corpora-
tions. ~ 105!.
Law review. For article. "One Year Review
of Real Property", see 36 Dicta 57 (1959).
^ quasi.municipality is not obligated to fur.
nish services to persons outside Its district
boundaries, but it may do so by contracts.
Brownbriar Enterprises. Inc.. v. City &
County of Denver. ]77 Colo. 198.493 P.2d
J;2 (19721.
II. TAKING OF LAND OUTSIDE DISTRICT.

A municipality does not have the absolute
velo power over a project of 8 bordering sanita-
tion district. The general assembly did not
intend to authorize sewer districts and pro-
vide for their management. operation. control
and financing on the one hand. and on the
other give a municipality bordering on the
district through which the facilities must of
necessity be extended. either extensively or
slightly. the absolute right of veto over a
project. If such a right were vested in any
municipality it could prevent the development
of any area on the four sides of its bound-
aries. Town of Sheridan v. Valley San. Disl..
]J7 Colo. 3]5. 324 P.2d ]038 (]958).
The veto power of a municipality is limited to
a reasonable exercise thereof consistent with

Ill. FEES

Municipalities are au tho
operate, and maintain a se
to prescribe reasonable f'
such facility. City of AUf
Colo. 1198,489 P.2d 1295 (
Heights Land Corp. v. Cit)
Colo. 464. 362 P.2d 155 (191

And express statutory II
quasi-municipality to collect
fOf the direct or indirect c,
facilities. Brownbriar Enler
& County of Denver. 177 (
352 (]9721.

For services furnished. Tt
fees under this statute pre
struction and operation of :.
as the fees are for "service
of Aurora v. Bogue. 176 Cl
. 1295 (197]).

the police power in the protection of the health.
safely. and welfare of the inhabitants of the
municipality. Town of Sheridan v. Valley
San. Dist.. 137 Colo. 315. 324 P.2d 1038
(1958).
Under 9 I of art. XX, Colo. Consi'.. the city
and county of Denver is not required to obtain
the consent of an incorporated town before
acquiring title and possession of rlghts-or.way
through such town by condemnation proceed-
ings. but may be required to comply with
reasonable construction standards lawfully
established by such town. Town of Glendale
v. City & County of Denver. 137 Colo. 188.
322 P.2d ]053 (1958).
Thus, this section cannot limit Denver's con-'
stltutional authority. The authority of the city
and county of Denver being by constitutional
grant. this section if construed as limiting
such power. would be of doubtful validity.
Town of Glendale v. City & County of
Denver. ]37 Colo. 188.322 P.2d 1053 (1958).
However, Denver cannot with impunity and
without regard to local ordinances of a trn-
ersed municipality, construct its sewer lines in
its streets irrespective of water lines. water-
works. sewers or wells in line of or in the
vicinity of the proposed construction. At the
point where the public health and safety
become involved. a municipality traversed
can withhold its consent unless proper. safe
and healthful construction methods are fol-
lowed. Denver may be bound and may be
required to comply with reasonable construc-
tion standards lawfully established by a
municipality traversed. Town of Glendale v.
City & County of Denver. 137 ('olo. 188.321
P.2d 10;3 (]958).

Rates must no~ be per 54
excessive. A city operating
its proprietary capacity ma
charges not per se excessi'
for service within the mun
the expense of connection'
Western Heights Land Cc
Collins. 146 Colo. 464. 362

Rate charges cannot 'be
The rates adopted by cit
reference to its water a
cannot be considered as
imposed llnd collected hy
nance not heing a -rcvCI
designed to defray expense
ity directed against those
Western Heights Lan'd C,
Collins. 146 Colo. 464. :\f,:!

31-35-403, Author
struction. reconstru(
any water facilities 01
pation of the collecti
funds to pay the cost
of the governing body
by a vote of a majorit
(2) The governing
~nd estimated costs 0
fiscal. and legal exp'
the construction or 01
one year thereafter 0
rowed pursuant to tn
of financial. professi(
administralive. operal
during such acquisiti