Request By:
Hon. Daniel H. Ruckriegel, Sr.
Mayor
City of Jeffersontown
10416 Watterson Trail
Jeffersontown, Kentucky 40299
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; Walter C. Herdman, Asst. Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of October 10 in which you raise a number of questions relating to annexation. Your initial question is as follows:
"1. Can a Fourth Class City annex all, or any part, of another Fourth Class City if their boundaries are contiguous? "
Our response to the above question would be in the affirmative and we refer you to KRS 81A.430 which provides in effect that whenever a city desires to annex all or part of a city of the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth class the legislative body of the city proposing the annexation is required to enact an ordinance stating its intention to do so which accurately defines the boundaries of the city or portion thereof to be annexed. The question of annexation must be submitted to the qualified voters of the city or portion thereof to be annexed at the next regular election.
Your second question is as follows:
"2. (a) Can a Fourth Class City annex part of another Fourth Class City, if their boundaries are contiguous, but there are no registered voters in the area to be annexed, but there are property owners?
(b) If yes, what is the procedure to follow?"
Our response to your second question would also be in the affirmative even though there may be no registered voters in the area to be annexed though there may exist property owners who theoretically could protest in a sufficient percentage to require an election on the question. However, if such is the case we have taken the position that it would be a useless and frugal thing to place the question on the ballot where no one was legally qualified to vote for or against the annexation, and we are enclosing a copy of OAG 82-545 dealing with this question. As far as we know, however, the court has not ruled on this matter.
Your third question is as follows:
"Can a Fourth Class City annex part of another Fourth Class City if their boundaries are contiguous, but there are no registered voters in the area to be annexed, but a majority of the property owners petition the City to annex them?"
The answer to your third question would also be in the affirmative. However, here there would be no problem as far as placing the question on the ballot since the majority of the property owners would be in favor of the annexation. We might add, however, that the city is not obligated in any way to annex the territory simply on the basis of a petition requesting annexation.
Your fourth question is as follows:
"4. (a) Can one property owner, whose property is located in a Fourth Class City, and his property is contiguous to another Fourth Class City, petition that City to annex his property. There are no registered voters in the area to be annexed.
(b) If the answer is yes, what procedure should be followed?"
The answer to your fourth question would also be in the affirmative for reasons previously stated. In this and the other factual situation mentioned, the city would simply enact a second ordinance as provided in KRS 81A.420(3) declaring that the territory is thereafter a part of the annexing city. Here again the statute fails to consider the possible ramifications arising in annexing either unincorporated territory or a city where there exists no registered voters that could participate in the required election, and as we previously said the courts have not dealt with this question.