Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Senator Russell M. FulcherHOME ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1166 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1166 rfulcherC~?overarch.com ~:.rv\- b ~°iJ ~-1 Idaho State Senate SENATOR RUSSELL M. FULCHER OFFICE ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0081 (208) 332-1340 FAX: (208) 332-1422 rfulcher~idaho.senate.gov jZECEIVE~ ~a~ ~ 7 zoos CITY OF MERIDIAN MAYOR'S OFFICE Jan. 15, 2008 Honorable Mayor of Meridian and Meridian City Council Members: This letter is in regard to the Castle Greens Hubble development project on Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel. I represent this area in the State Legislature. Also, my family and I own adjacent property to the north and east of this project. It was my intention to attend your Jan. 22 City Council meeting to comment on this project. Unfortunately, I will be in legislative meetings during this time. Please accept these comments as my testimony: Annexations outside planned areas of impact, such as this, cause developmental inconsistencies and other problems. In this specific instance, placing some 800 homes in a field surrounded by rural areas (as this development will do) exacerbates already strained infrastructure, transition, and growth problems. Eagle Road and the traffic congestion and safety problems associated with it would be at the top of this list of problems This type of development does not match the area or the long-term plan for Meridian. Since this property is outside the area of city impact, legal questions arise. Idaho code is conflicted as to whether or not annexations such as this are legal. Should this annexation occur and later be legally challenged, the city of Meridian and taxpayers that I represent may be exposed to the risk of such actions. To validate this point, I have attached supporting documents from the Idaho Attorney General's office along with opinions drafted by two different private law firms. On a related note: Myself, as well as ten other legislative colleagues and five individuals representating city and county government (including one member from the City of Meridian), are working to clarify the conflict in Idaho code stated above. We are committed to working with you to support changes necessary so that tools are available for local governments in high growth areas to plan and operate. It is my request that you continue to use wise and fair judgment in city expansion practices. Sincerely, Russell M. Fulcher State Senator WWW.STATE.ID.US/LEGISLAT/LEGISLAT.HTML ` ,. x . fill` STATE OF IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 111wRENCE G. wASDEN November 16, 2007 VIA E-IWAIL The Honorable Bill Killen Idaho House of Representatives wkillen@ctcweb:net Re: Our File No. 07-21192 -Annexation Dear Representative Killen: This letter is in response to your request for a copy of any Attorney General's opinion which has been written regarding Category A annexations at the request of a property owner outside of a city's area of impact. Two letters on this subject were written by this office for a client last year. We hoped to provide you copies but were unable to receive a waiver of the attorney-client communication prt\ritege. Enclosed, instead; for your consideration, are two memorandums on this issue penned by private taw firms. You. will note the authors reach opposite: conclusions. As you stated, the plain language ofi Idaho .Code § 67-6526 is that °[suubject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory." While it may be argued that it makes little sense to require the establishment of an area of impact only to allow annexation outside of that area, the fact is Idaho Code § 50-222 does not explicitly state that annexations may be made only from within the area of impact. !t simply states that an area of impact must be established. It is interesting to .note that, prior to 2002, Idaho Code § 50-222 explicitly allowed annexation "only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526 ° In 2002, Senate Bill 1391 ("S1391 °) repealed Idaho Code § 50-222 entirety, replacing it with a new section 50-222 that does not contain this language, makes no reference to Idaho Code § 67-6526, and states that "[c]ities have the authority to annex land into a city upon compliance with the procedures requimd in this secfion.°~ Further, S1391's Statement of Purpose declares ' Idaho Code § Sd-222(1) (emphasis added). See also Idaho Code § 50-222(5): °Annexation of lands into a city shall follow the procedures applicable to the category of lands as established by this section." (emphasis added) lntergoverremental & Fiscal L.aw DIVL4ion P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0010 Telephone: (208) 334-2400, FAX: (208) 854~808~ Located at 700 ~ SCate Street Joe R 1Mdliams Building, Ath Floor Representative Killen November 16, 2007 Page 2 of 2 that `[unneess all owners consent or unless a parcel is surrounded by a city [a general description of a category A annexation], cities would be required to develop annexation plans ....° From this statement, an inference may be made that if all owners consent or the parcel is already surrounded by the city, an annexation plan concerning that parcel is not required. That conclusion, however, would be in con#iict with the assurances given by Representative Gagner, who presented amended Senate Bill 1391 to the House Local Government Committee, that "[t]his legislation does not allow new annexation outside the area of impacY'? Since the question of whether a city may annex territory outside of its area of impact has not. been; resolved by an Idaho court, it is not Possible -to know, with certainty, the answer. Given the differences of opinion conceming this issue, it is certain that the answer to this question could be clarified through legislation. I hope that this letter, with enclosures, is responsive to your request. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Since~eiy, l E. O ANSKI Deputy Attorney neral MET/mdw Enclosures Memorandum from Stephanie Bonney and Susan Buxton, dated 8/17/06 Memorandum from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & walker, LLP, undated 2 Minutes of House Local Government Committee meeting, March 4, 2002. a ).~.,(/~ } f~aul, Hattlnpt, Jsnottlry b Watlcer w Pa~.il / luSLl n9S 515 South Flower Slrezt • 25th Floor • los Angeles, CA 90071.2728 ArrowvErs tdephone 213683 6000 • facsimile 2136270705 • vnvw.pault-astings.com MEMORANDUM Issue: Does § 67-65261 (the "Area of Impact Statute"), when read in conjunction with § 50-222 (the '"Armex~tion Statute"), precluded cities from annex 'c'ng ptopert9 outside of their Areas of Impact. ;zhort Answer: The Area of Impact Statute precludes cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact because: l) when the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes are read is part tauterral, the legislative intent to limit cities' ability to annex only within Areas of Impact is clear, 2) the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes must be read in harmony and aIlowiag annexation outside Areas of Impact would be contrary to the purpose of orderly and rational planning and annexation. ;and 3) the two statutes relate to the same subject matter, so the more specific statute, the Area of Impact controls over the more.general statute, the Annexation Statute. The question presented is whether Idaho cities may annex property outside of their Areas of Impact. pursuant to the Annexation Statute, there aze three categories of annexation: (a) Category A: Annexations wherein all private landowners raise no • objection to annexation, oz annexations of any residential enslaved ]ands of less that [than] one hundred (100) privately-owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which ate bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by lands for which owner approval must be given pursuant to snbsectioa (S)(b)(v) of this section, or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the dry's area of city impact. (b) Category B: Annexations wherein: (i) The subject lands contain less than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation; or (n) The~subject lands contain mote than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (50%) of dre area of the subject private lands have evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process; oz (ui) The lands aze the subject of a development moratorium or a wattr or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agendes; provided such lands shall not be counted• for • purposes of determirting the number of separate private ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category. (c) Category C: Annexations wherein the subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record ~ All statutory references are to the Idaho Code. LE(' US_W # 53450716.] TO: Steve Price Ada County .Highway Department Errarl Style not defined. Page 2 and where landowners owtung inoxc than fifty percent (50%} of tl~e area of the subject private lands have not evidenced their consent to annexation at the uut~et of the annexation process. . § 50-222(3){a)-(c). The Anriexad.ou Statute clearly states that property to be annexed uztksC be within the Area of Impact. Annexations for categories B and C requite that "tile land are contiguous or adjacent to the city and lie within the e:ity's al.-ea of city impact." §§ 50-222(5)(b), (c)(i). Moreover, some voluntary annexaaol>.s (catcgatq A) must be "bomldecl on all sides by lands within a city and by rile boundary of the citl>'s area of city impact." § 50-222(3) (a). However, cities are making an argument that some properties within category A need not be within. a city's .Area of Impact because the first sentence of ~ 50-222(3)(a) states "Annexation where all private landowners raise n.o abjection to annexation, ~..." Thus, they argue, the last line of that section, which refers to Areas of Impact, does not apply to those properties. They argue that, per y 50-222(5)(a), properties where all private landowners agree to.be annexed .need only be "lying contiguous or adjacent to anp city in the State of Idaho." Such an interpretation allows cities to annex property which is contiguous to city limits but not in an urea of Impact, and even allows annexation of property that is located in another city's Area of Impact. This interpretation of the statutory language is absurd given the rules of statutory constrnction, the intent of the Idaho Legislature, and sound planning and zoning principles. "Statutes ate in pari material if they relate to the carne subject. Such statues are construed together to effect legislative intent. Where two statutes appear to apply to the same case or subject matter, the specific statute will control aver the more general statute." Gooding County v. W/ybenga, 46 l'.3d 18 (Id. 2002) (internal citations omitted). The Annexation Statute and the Area of Impact Statutes are obviously related since they both relate to the rational development and annexation of property into cities, and as discussed below, the Area of Impact Statute is more specific. They must 6e read together and. construed as one s}*stem. .Sc~ Gity of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Independent I-Iighway District, 879 P.2d 1078, 1083 (Id. 1994). The .Areas of Impact Stature clearly states that "Subject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of cit}>impactrnust be established before a cif znav___Tannex dj-scent territory." § 67-652G(a). in other words, so long as the procedures of §50-222 are followed, a city can annex contiguous property within its Area of Impact. This phrase does not mean that the Area of Impact Statute is subordinate to the .Annexation Statute, because to do so would cause an unhatmonious readings of the statutes. Tf the cities' interpretation were to stand, then the Area of Impact Statute would be meaningless £or all properties where the landowner wanted to be annexed into a city. However, landowner choice of jurisdiction is r_ot the purpose of these statutes: the purpose is to provide rational and orderly development which ensure adequacp of public facilities and stops leapfrog growth. If the Legislature was not concerned about disarclerly growth and leapfrog development then it would not have gone to the trouble of adopting the Area of Impact and Annexation Statutes. LEGAL..U~.W # Si4S071h.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Errors Style not defined, Page 3 It should be noted that in Coeur D ~91ene Induslria! Pork Properly 0lvnerr Asf'a v. Girt' of Cower D ;41ene, 702 P.2d 881 (Id. 1985), the court held that a city's power to annex was not conditioned upon compliance with the Local PIanning Act, including the Area of Impact Statute. The annexation law under consideration in that case did not once refer'to Areas of Impact or state as its purpose orderly development and efficienry of pmvision of public services. In 1995, the Legislature changed §50-222 to specifically mention areas of impact and require cities to comply with the procedures in the Area of Impact Statute: On and after January 1, 1995, any land lying contiguous or adjacent to any city is the state of Idaho, oz to any addition or extension thereof may be annexed by the city only if the land is lying in the azea of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526... If a city has not adopted an area of dry impact prior to January 1, 1995, the city shall not be prohibited from annexing adjacent territory if an azea of city impact has been adopted in accordance with the provisions of section 67-6526 prior to annexation and all other requirements for annexation have been met. You have to assume that the Idaho Legislature knew about the CocurDAlene cast and prior construction when it changed the Annexation Statute. `°I'he court has declared that the mere fact that the legislature enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one...It has been held that it can be presumed that [the I,egaslature] was aware of the prior construction of the term in questions in the original act and deliberately linvted the scope of the new acK." lA SUTEiExLAND STAZVII~RY CONSTRUCT'I~N §22:30 (6~' ed ). Therefore, the Idaho Legislature specifically changed the Annexation Statute to incorporate the terms of the Areas of Impact Statute. A wozd of caution, however, because the 1995 statute also stated (rulmediately after the above quoted section) that "An owner of land of any size may request that the tract of land be annexed into the dty whether the land is or is not contained in the ciity's azea of impact by submitting such request in writing to the city councsl." One might interpret this as following from the previous sentence such that al~ough any landowner may request annexation into the city, the city cannot take cannot take action until the city, first, adopts the area of impact that includes the subject property. However, ass altematme interpretation might be that voluntary and involuntary annexation are to be treated differently for purposes of Areas of Impact. However, this rationale does not comport with the policies underlying rationale growth and orderly provision of infrastructure, as discussed further below. We discuss the 1995 revision because it is the first amendment that makes mentions of the Area of Impact Statute. The Annexation Statute was amended to its current form (with some minor amendments not relevant to this discussion). Though the cities might argue that voluntary annexation did not have to be in the Area of Impact is the previous rendition of the statute, nor do they here. However, this argument is erroneous, because, unlike the 1995 statute, in its current form, annexations are separated into 3 categories (cited above), but the categories aze not simple breakdowns of voluntary and involuntary annexations. Category A includes 100% voluntary and island annexations, Category B includes invohintary annexations, LEGAL_US_W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Depamncnt Euorl Style not defined Page 4 voluntary annexations, and land which are subject to development moratoria, and Category C includes an involuntary annexation. Category B, which includes a type of voluntary annexation is required to be in the Area of Impact §50-222(5)(b)(i). Thus, there is not differentiation based on whether it is voluntary or involuntary. This makes sense since the issues, as discussed further below, is one of orderly development and service provision, not of landowner choice. The declared purpose of the Annexation Statute is to assure orderly development of cities "to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tag-supported and fee-supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from cost-effective aval7ability of municipal scrvices in urbanizing azeas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe." §50-222(1). In other words, the Legislative latent of the statute was to ensure that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing thac property. This purpose is consistent with the Area of Impact Statute which requires that dties and counties negotiate azea of impact and determine whether the dty's or count}~s ordinance will apply or if a mutaally agreed upon plan and ordinances will apply. The Area of Impact Statute recognizes that planning must be regional Municipalities are not isolated enclaves, far removed from the concerns of the region in which they are situated. As subdivisions of the state, thry do not exist solely to serve their own residents, and their Iaad use decisions aze required to promote the general welfare, both within and outside their boundaries. KOPPELMAN & >\ZERRIAM, REGIONAL GENERAL WELFARE: THE END OF A TREND?, § 2.02 (Zoning and Eminent Domain, Matthew Bender, 1985). It is through proper statutory delegation of this power that the state's subdivisions are empowered ro enact land use regulations. Id. Indeed, regional planning is so important that §50-T306 requires counties to transmit subdivision plats to cities if the property to be subdivided is within 1 mile of the city limits, even if no Area of Impact has been adopted The city review may include utility systems and drainage provisions. This makes sense because Ada County is the only county that has adopted Areas of Impact, yet the state wants to require regional cooperation and provision of infrastructure: This concept is further set forth in sections of the Planning and Zoning Statute (Chapter 65, Tide 67). §67-6502 states: The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety, and general welfaze of the people of the state of Idaho as follows: ... (b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. (c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected. (d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected. LEGAL_US_W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway llepartment Error! Style not defined. Page S *,~* (fl To encourage urban and urban-type development within incorporated cities. §50-222(5)(a) states that upon finding that a property proposed for annexation meets the requirements for Category A, a city nay initiate planning procedures for such. property in accordance a*ith Chapter 65, title 67'(the planning and Zoning Starute). If a city were allowed to annex properties under Category A that were not in an Area of Impact, then any such planning for those properties would be contrary to the purposes of the Planning and Zoning Law because there would be no assurance of adequate public facilities, protection of environmentally sensitive lands or compact and contiguous development, and the city's economy .may be endangered by the need to spend excessive sums on new infrastructure. This would be a disharmonious readuig of the statutes. Reading these statutes together, it becomes cleaz that cities in Ada County cannot annex property outside its azea of impact, lest the purpose and intent of the entire planning and annexation. process in the Cour~tq be thwarted. Moreover, the Area of Impact Statute is the most specific statute that must appI}~ fox all annexations in those counties that have Areas of Impact. The Annexation Statute. sets forth the general guidelines for annexation for all counties, regardless of whether they have adopted Areas of Impact. However, fox Ada County, which has adopted Areas of Impact, the .Area of Impact statute must overly the Annexation Statute, so as not to frustrate the purpose of the statute. M~JORE SMITH ~I.TX'~'®N ~ ~"UI~.CI~~, CH.~IZ~E~.EI~ ATTORt~ EYS AND COUNSBLOIiS AT LAW 950 W. Bannock Street, Suitr. 820; Bals>:, m 83~oz T6Larxatve: {208> 3.31-1800 FAx: (208) 331-1?A2 www.msbtlaw.com Sr~H.aNtsl• BoNxrx lvnn' 1. MrPAnntvu•r SUSAN E euxrot+•' of Gourmet M1t1U1EL C. MOOtt~t PAU[. J. FITLER ' Afso admitted in thegon BRUCE M. $MfTH =Also admitted in Washington PAULA. TURCK6° 'Also admitted in South Dakota 'CAtiLStYA. ZAItAHP 'Atco admitted in ~'~v Yte7aco 1VIEIVIn.RANDUM 'r®: City of Eagle FROM: Stephanie J: I3onney, Susan. E. Buxton RE: .Legal Analysis of Annexation (hltside the Area of Impact The City has a.Sked our office to condYlct a legal review of tl~e opinion issued by California attorney, Paul 'Hastings, on behalf of Ada County, which declares that cities cannot annex outside their area of impact. Issue: Does Idaho Code §67-6526 (the Area. of Impact Statute), when read in conjunction with §50-222, (the Annexation. Statute) preclude cities from annexing property outside their areas of impact? Mr. Paul Hastings has issued an opinion on behalf of Ada County that declares property owners cannot voluntarily annex property into a city if the property lies outside of a city's area of impact: Mr. Hastings' analysis is flawed and his opinion incorrect. :Mr. Hastings' opinion relies on several incorrect interpretations and assumptions about Idaho law. First, he claims when Titles 55 and 67 are read ill, conjunction,. the legislature intended to limit cities' ability to annex onlywithin impact areas.. His assertion ignores the fact that neither statute contains any language to that effect. The only limitation that Title 67 imposes on a city's ability to annex is a requirement that the city have established an area of city impact. Such a requirement is clearly an incentive to each city to establish an area of impact. 'I'i.tle 67 does nat require that a city establish an area of impact covering all land that the city may annex. Ln fact, §67-6526 specifically identifies §50-222 as providing the procedures and limitations for ttrulc.xation. Yet Mr. Hastings en-oneousty argues that the plain language of the statute cannot actually mean what it says and limits the justification for his conclusion on §67-6526 to the exclusion of §50-222. His only justification for his position is that reading Titles 67 and SO together would be "inharmonious" is that it somehow thwarts rational and orderly development. Mr. Hasting never explains why city planning of property next to its own boundaries contributes to disorderly development. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that where a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, courts are constrained to follow that plain meaning, and neither add to the statute nor take away Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 2 by judicial construction.l In fact, where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.2 Thus, lv1r. Hastings' arguments concerning statutory construction are not relevant as the language in §67-6526 cleazly and plainly states that annexations are governed by the controlling annexation statute, §50-222. Additionally, Section 50-222 was amended in 2002, several years after the adoption of Title 67. Thus §50-222 is the most recent legislative statement on annexation, another significant fad ignored in Mr. Hastings. Section 50-222 divides annexations into 3 categories. The first category, category A, is comprised of voluntary annexations or "island" annexations. A category A annexation is either voluntary by unanimous consent; or enclaved property surrounded by city land, by city land and fair/recreation land, or by city land and a city impact area. A voluntary annexation is `wherein . all private landowners raise'no objection to annexation." Since "voluntary," the legislature imposed minor procedures for voluntary annexations. Indeed, a city's decision approving such annexations is not subject to judicial review. Thus, §50-222 agplies ao additional limitations on voluntary annexations and does not require that. the property lie within a city's area of impact. Section 50-222 makes a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Unlike the simplified procedure and review for voluntary annexations covered in category A, the statute explicitly provides that category B and category C annexations be treated differently. While the legislature could have explicitly applied additional requirements, including an area of impact requirement, to category A annexations, it did not. Statutory construction requires that such an obvious omission not be considered a mere oversight, but the statute be read to render the omission meaningful.' . Mr. Hastings argues that Category B also addresses voluntary annexations. Again, Mr. Hastings ignores the plain language of the statute, which states that Category B annexations aze those annexations where the city does not have the consent of all the landowners.` Such a distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexatlons is further supported by the 2002 amendment to the annexation statute. The annexation statute was amended because property owners complained to the legislature about a perceived abuse of power by cities in regards to involuntary annexations. Accordingly, the legislature added additional restrictions and procedures for involuntary annexations. The legislature was not concerned with voluntary annexations, which was the basis for their statement in the 1995 rendition of §50-222 which reiterated that'voluntary annexations did not have to lie within the area of impact. Furthermore, the legislature has always been concerned with the property rights of individuals. The passage of 1 CanaUNorcrest/Co/umbrrs Action Committee v. City Of Botse, 136 Idaho 666, 670, 39 P.3d 606, 610 (2001). z State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 462, 988 P.2d 685, 688 (1999); State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 659, 978 P.2d 214, 219 (1999); State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387, 389, 3 P.3d 65, 67 (Ct.App.2000) 3 Fletcherv. G~ord, 20ldaho 18, 26, 115 P. 824, 826 (191 l). ° Category B also addresses aanexatioffi on land subject to moratoriums, which is not at issue in this analysis. Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 3 §50-222 was intended to give additional property rights to individuals in the annexation process. Mr. Hastings' reading of §50.222, which would prevent a landowner from voluntarily annexing property into a city, further limits a property owners rights in annexation, in contravention of the legislature's intent in amending the statute Mr. Hastings recognizes that the declared purpose of the annexation statute is to assure orderly development of cities, which is summarized as ensuring "that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property-" Yet, he then attempts to distort this declared purpose to argue that the statute must be read in such a way that counties have the unilateral power to prevent cities from annexing and planning for property located direct]y on their boundaries when the landowner asks for such a service from the city. He further argues that having counties control growth on city boundaries is the only way to ensure orderly and rational development. Of course, such an argument is not supported by any of the basic principles in land use planning and directly contradicts the legislature's stated purpose in passing §50-222. Tn summary, Mr. Hastings' analysis ignot+es the plain language of the relevant statutes, and instead opines on his interpretations of legislative intent. Mr. Hastings fails to recognize that if a statute is clear in its language, legislative intent is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if legislative intent were relevant, Mr. Hastings has not provided legislative history or legislative arguments related to the passage of either statute. Instead, he argues that the area of impact statute controls annexation, despite its direct reference to §50-222 as providing the provisions for annexation, aad despite the passage of the current version of §50-222 several years after the passage of Title 67. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, Mr. Hastings' declarations regardiag planning principles and his interpretations of legislative intent cannot change the language of the statutes. Neither Title 67 nor 50 requires that voluntary annexations be allowed only within a city's area of impact. Having cities plan for aad provide services to the property contiguous to their boundaries with the permission of the landowner does not thwart basic principles of planning and development, but instead embraces both private property rights and the legislative goal that fringe properties be provided with municipal services.