City of Jefferson v. Smith, KCD
| Decision Date | 01 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 543 S.W.2d 547 |
| Parties | CITY OF JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mary J. SMITH et al., Defendants-Appellants. 28090. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Carson, Monaco, Coil & Riley, Michael P. Riley, Jefferson City, for defendants-appellants.
Graham & Graham, Thomas D. Graham, Christopher Graham and James P. Dalton, City Atty., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before PRITCHARD, C.J., and SHANGLER, DIXON, SWOFFORD, WASSERSTROM, SOMERVILLE and TURNAGE, JJ.
This appeal is from a declaratory judgment that the resolution adopted by the respondent City of Jefferson for the annexation of an unincorporated tract within the county was authorized under The Sawyers Act (§ 71.015, RSMo 1969). The appellants are residents of the area subject to annexation.
The requirements for annexation under the Act are that a city which has resolved to extend its limits to include an unincorporated area of land must prove a declaratory judgment on a petition which pleads: (1) the area to be annexed; (2) that the annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city; and (3) the ability of the city to furnish its municipal services to the unincorporated area within a reasonable time. The declaratory judgment was supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law on these statutory elements. The appellants contend the judgment was erroneous because of the failure of the court to find that the annexation was reasonable to them as well as to the city, and for other failures of proof.
The plaintiff city is of the third class located in Cole and Callaway Counties. It is shown to have a population of 34,530 and contains 12,999 acres within its present municipal boundaries. The annexation proposes to add 1332 acres to the western limits of the city and includes a corridor which tends to make the southwestern boundary more regular. At the time the annexation resolution was adopted, some seven hundred people lived in the area, including the occupants of one hundred and fifty apartments (the bulk of them on the Knipp tract in the southern part of the area for annexation), fifty-five single family homes in the northwest and west of the area, and thirty-three mobile homes in the southwest corridor. A cluster of commercial and office buildings are concentrated along North Ten Mile Drive in the northwest corner of the area. The annexation area stands astride of U.S. Highway 50 which bisects the area and intersects with North Ten Mile Drive near the Jefferson City Country Club. The club and a cemetery form the westernmost boundaries of the annexation. A large tract just north of the highway has been acquired by the General Growth Corporation for the development of an enclosed mall and other consumer amenities.
The city presently furnishes only limited services to the proposed adjunct of land. The mobile park corridor already receives municipal sewer service, and a trunk line is in place for use in the commercial hub on North Ten Mile Drive and will become operative by the installation of pumps promptly upon annexation. The rest of the area disposes of waste by lagoons and septic tanks. A county volunteer force fights fires, streets are maintained by the county and county police protect the area against crime. The land use is random and without regulation of zoning or building codes. The result has been a marked increase of traffic hazards along the North Ten Mile Drive commercial area.
The respondent City of Jefferson is shown to be solvent and otherwise fiscally responsible. It is fully endowed with the capacity for every service a modern city has to offer and is able to extend them to the area which it seeks to include. Annexation would open the area to city fire and police protection, sewer disposal service, traffic control, street cleaning, zoning regulation and all the other amenities now furnished the city populace, including a varied park and recreation service.
The burden rests on the municipality to prove the three statutory elements established by § 71.015 for valid annexation of an unincorporated area. Annexation is a legislative function and the scope of judicial review in such matters is to determine whether the reasonableness of the municipal legislation is fairly debatable; if so, it is conclusive on the courts. Bourbon v. Miller, 420 S.W.2d 296, 300(1--4) (Mo.banc 1967); City of Odessa v. Carroll, 512 S.W.2d 862, 866(1, 2) (Mo.App.1974). In this determination, both the city and the residents of the proposed area are entitled to the benefit of the test of reasonableness. City of St. Ann v. Buschard, 356 S.W.2d 567, 575(7, 8) (Mo.App.1962).
The declaratory judgment of the circuit court sustained the annexation on specific findings that the statutory elements of proof had been met, among them, that the annexation was reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city. The appellant contends that this conclusion truncates another essential finding--that the annexation is reasonable to the unincorporated area also--and thus does not validly declare an annexation under the statute.
In this regard, the provision of statute is only that the 'annexation (be) reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city'. The statute in terms requires no more. The case law, however, has developed aids to reach the ultimate issues intended by that section. Thus, this component of the statute is said to embody two closely related concepts and must be read discontinuously: first, 'that the annexation is reasonable' and second, 'that the annexation is necessary to the proper development of the city.' City of Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827, 837(15, 16) (Mo.1967); City of Houston v. Duff, 338 S.W.2d 373, 381(6) (Mo.App.1960). This discloses the intention that the test of reasonableness must be met as to both the city and the proposed area. It is evident, therefore, that a judgment which declares annexation reasonable and necessary to the proper development of a city implies the included finding that the test of reasonableness was met as to both parties.
The proper inquiry is whether the evidence supports these ultimate requirements of the statute, as found by the court, and it is to this question of sufficiency that we deem appellants direct their contentions.
As the initial evidence of the unreasonableness of the municipal annexation, appellants contend that the only benefits the city will provide, which are not already enjoyed by the unincorporated area, will be sewer disposal service at an estimated cost to each resident of $1000 in taxes and curbs which will cost $500. This, they conclude, is an unreasonable basis for annexation. This contention, however, is tendentious and misleading. The evidence established that annexation would bring many benefits to them in addition to sewer service: traffic control, fire protection calculated to reduce their insurance rates, more intense police protection, zoning among other things. The appellants gave no evidence, so the inferences from the testimony of municipal witnesses went unchallenged. Gene Knipp, owner and developer of a large tract in the area, as well as a resident, stressed the importance of sewer installations to the growth of his housing development there. Joe De Long, a leader in the local chamber of commerce, explained how insufficient services had retarded commercial growth in the area, and that he had never been able to locate a business outside the police and fire protection zone of Jefferson City. Annexation and extension of city services, he concluded, would facilitate growth. A representative of the Insurance Services Office testified that city fire protection in the proposed area would improve such service and lower insurance rates. The benefits of such fire protection were confirmed by Corliss Jones, former president of the Jefferson City Country Club. The benefits of annexation, as told by Mr. Jones, would derive also from the city zoning and planning controls which would relieve the threat of incompatible business development near the country club.
The courts have articulated many tests to determine the reasonableness of an annexation, but not all of them need be met to justify a particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of O'Fallon v. Bethman
...the courts; if not, the city has abused its legislative discretion and the declaratory judgment will not issue. City of Jefferson v. Smith, 543 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Mo.App.1976); City of Cape Girardeau v. Armstrong, 417 S.W.2d 661, 675 (Mo.App.1967); Johnson v. Parkville, 269 S.W.2d 775, 777 (M......
-
City of Perryville v. Brewer, 38425
...32 (Mo. banc 1976). Such a review is not, however, a trial de novo in which we assess the evidence. Rule 73.01; City of Jefferson v. Smith, 543 S.W.2d 547, 550(6) (Mo.App.1976). Because of the great quantity of evidence, we have outlined the facts favorable to the city generally under the f......
-
City of Parkville v. Northern Farms, WD
...whether the city is able to furnish to the area services which the municipality presently provides its populace." City of Jefferson v. Smith, 543 S.W.2d 547, 552 (Mo.App.1976). Furthermore, if a city does not provide certain services, it has no duty to list them in its Plan of Intent. Lake ......
-
Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of City of Liberty v. Beard
...to be adaptable to urban purposes and necessary or convenient to a reasonable exercise of the city government." City of Jefferson v. Smith, 543 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Mo.App.1976); City of Cape Girardeau v. Armstrong, 417 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.App.1967). The case law demonstrates that "reasonableness" a......