City of Creve Coeur v. Brame, 33232

• Citation: 446 S.W.2d 173
• Decision Date: 16 September 1969
• Docket Number: No. 33232,33232
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Parties: CITY OF CREVE COEUR, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dwight A. BRAME and Nellie Brame, Lenora M. Gibson and John J. Ingledew, Defendants, Jessie Lindner, Ralph E. Lindner and W. Roy Lindner, Defendants-Appellants, St. Louis County, Missouri, and Lawrence K. Roos, County Supervisor, Intervenors, Defendants, Jefferson Savings & Loan Association, a Corporation, Intervenor, Defendant-Respondent.

Page 173

446 S.W.2d 173

CITY OF CREVE COEUR, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dwight A. BRAME and Nellie Brame, Lenora M. Gibson and John

J. Ingledew, Defendants,

Jessie Lindner, Ralph E. Lindner and W. Roy Lindner,

Defendants-Appellants,

St. Louis County, Missouri, and Lawrence K. Roos, County

Supervisor, Intervenors, Defendants,

Jefferson Savings & Loan Association, a Corporation,

Intervenor, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 33232.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Sept. 16, 1969.

John J. Cavanaugh, Clayton, Herder & Bannes, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.

Joseph B. Moore, County Counselor, Clayton, for defendants-St. Louis County, and others.

Robert W. Kroening, William H. Wyne, Jr., Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.

John J. McAtee, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.

CLEMENS, Commissioner.

Municipal annexation case under the Sawyers Act as it applies to St. Louis County. (§§ 71.015 and 71.860 to 71.920, V.A.M.S.) Following a resolution by the City of Creve Coeur's Board of Aldermen the voters of the City and of the area to be annexed held separate elections favoring the proposed annexation. The City then filed this action for a declaratory judgment upholding the annexation's reasonableness and necessity. The City prevailed in the trial court and three owners and residents of the area to be annexed, Roy, Jessie and Ralph Lindner, appeal. (In the trial court respondent Jefferson Savings and Loan Association, owner of one tract in the area to be annexed, intervened as a defendant but joined in the City's prayer for annexation. The County of St. Louis and Lawrenece K. Roos, its Supervisor, also intervened as defendants and sought a denial of the annexation, but they do not appeal from the adverse judgment.)

The City has moved to dismiss the Lindners' appeal on the ground of an inadequate statement of facts in Lindners' brief. They promptly filed a supplemental brief so we dney the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Lindners raise three issues: The sufficiency of evidence to show the annexation was reasonable and necessary; the trial court's exclusion of evidence that persons voting in the area to be annexed were unqualified; and that the City must hold two separate elections, one under §§ 71.860 to 71.900 of the Sawyers Act and still another under § 79.020 pertaining to annexation by fourth class cities. These points in turn.

Reasonable Necessity of Annexation. Neither the trial court nor this court has the right to tinker with the legislative and political machinery that approved the proposed annexation. The City's legislative decision that the proposed annexation was necessary and reasonable can be judicially nullified only if that decision is so lacking in evidentiary support that the issue was not fairly debatable and thus showed an abuse of legislative power. City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 4(7); Julian v. Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of City of Liberty, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 864(3).

The area to be annexed contains 122 acres of partly wooded, rolling land undeveloped but for two dwellings. The size of the Lindner and Jefferson tracts is in doubt. Jefferson claims 78 acres. Defendant Roy Lindner testified he has 60 acres, but his brief says 40 acres. We accept the smaller figure since it is more consistent with Jefferson's testimony and the Lindner brief. Under St. Louis County's comprehensive zoning plan the entire area is zoned for one-acre residential tracts. The land is bounded north and east by the City's residentially developed areas. Three public roads lead to the area. The defendants Lindner live on the eastern part; half their land is tillable and half is pasture. Defendant Roy Lindner uses the land in conjunction with other farming operation and a brush burning service. Defendant Jefferson owns the northern and western part of the land. Jefferson's caretaker, defendant John Ingledew, lived there, as did defendants Dwight and Nellie Brame and Lenora Gibson. The area to be annexed is suitable for residential development into acre and half-acre lots, and annexation would allow an orderly development in harmony with the adjacent residential area of the City.

On this issue of reasonable necessity plaintiff had testimony by city officials and residents and owners of the area to be annexed. Defendants' evidence came mainly from the protesting defendant Roy Lindner and St. Louis County officials, who testified about existing county services in the area to be annexed.

The City's vigorous growth is typical of the population explosion in surburban St. Louis County. Since its incorporation in 1950 the City's population has grown from 2,000 to 9,000, mostly in the past ten years. By three previous annexations since 1962 the City has added over a thousand acres; each added area has been substantially developed. The City's six-sequare-mile area is hemmed in on the north, east and south by developed and incorporated areas; the only room for expansion lies to the west, in the direction of defendants' lands. The City has a commercial area, numerous public buildings, two municipal parks, a golf course, a college, and the grounds of Monsanto Chemical Company and St. John's Hospital. Its land is used principally for 2,000 single-family residences on lots averaging over half an acre in size. Significantly, in 1964 120 new homes were built in the City, 179 were added in 1965, and 146 more in 1966. Approximately 20 per cent of the City's area is open but only half of that is suitable for new residences. The City still has some vacant lots but it can reasonably be forecast that construction of new homes will soon use these, leaving no land for residential development.

From all this we find that the City now has a reasonable need for some of the land in question for residential development and will need more in the future. In short, there is a reasonable necessity for the proposed extension of the City's boundaries. As in City of Fulton v. Dawson, Mo.App., 325 S.W.2d 505(6), we see here a growing city with a need for outside land for homesites, where the city's history of continuous growth gives it the right to anticipate its future needs for space.

The City's government is fully developed. It operates under a mayor and four aldermen; it has a marshal in charge of police, a municipal judge, a collector and a clerk. The City employs an attorney, an engineer, and building, plumbing and electrical inspectors. The aldermen are aided by boards for planning and zoning, zoning adjustment, architecture, police commissioners and a health commissioner. The City's comprehensive zoning and building codes are enforced by a committee supervising building permits and construction.

Other municipal functions are performed by full-time and part-time employees. Fourteen full-time policemen are professionally trained and each is a deputy sheriff of St. Louis County. Two full-time and six part-time men maintain public and private streets and the regular disposal of trash and garbage.

The City is financially sound. Since 1950 its assessed valuation has risen from two and a half million to twenty-six million dollars. Its tax rate is 35cents per $100 assessed valuation. At the end of 1965 the City had a $222,000 cash balance and no bonded debt.

The City has a new city hall housing police headquarters, the jail, and administrative offices. It owns three fully equiped police cars, and numerous trucks and equipment for street and park maintenance. The City furnishes snow clearing and cindering service in winter and mosquito fogging service in the summer. Fire protection, water and sewer facilities are furnished by other municipal units. All services now afforded by the City can be extended without undue delay into the area to be annexed.

St. Louis County affords municipal services to the area to be annexed. Zoning and building requirements are set by St. Louis County ordinances The County Police Department patrols the area but coverage is light. St. Louis County zoning enforcement, health service and building inspection are available to the area to be annexed, but there is neither public garbage nor trash removal service. Comparing the municipal services, we find that annexation can give the area to be annexed the benefits of municipal government and better services in police protection, road maintenance, sanitation, health and welfare.

Contrary to the Lindners' contention, the City has shown that the proposed annexation met the statutory requirement of necessity. But in reaching our ultimate decision of reasonableness we must consider the comparative benefits and detriments to both the City and the area to be annexed. City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827(16); City of Aurora v. Empire Dist. Elec. Co., Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 45(4). Considering the City's need for expansion and its ability to render municipal services, and...