City of Mexico v. Hodges, No. 34110

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 482 S.W.2d 545
• Decision Date: 20 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 34110
• Parties: CITY OF MEXICO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas M. and Jo Ann HODGES et al., Defendants-Appellants. . Louis District

Page 545

482 S.W.2d 545 CITY OF MEXICO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Thomas M. and Jo Ann HODGES et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 34110. Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. June 20, 1972.

Page 546

Warren D. Welliver, Columbia, M. E. Stokes, St. Louis, Edwards, Seigfreid & Runge, Mexico, for defendants-appellants.

McQuie & Deiter, Montgomery City, for plaintiff-respondent.

DOERNER, Commissioner.

The City of Mexico brought this action under what is commonly termed the Sawyer Act, § 71.015, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., to obtain a declaratory judgment authorizing it to annex adjacent land. The trial court entered the judgment sought by the City, and after unavailing post-trial motions this appeal followed.

In its petition the City alleged, as required by § 71.015, that the annexation was reasonable and necessary to the proper development of said City, and that the City had the ability to furnish normal municipal services of said City to said unincorporated area within a reasonable time after said annexation was to become effective. The trial court so found, and the sole point

Page 547

urged on appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient to support the court's findings.

In one of the earlier cases construing § 71.015, City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827, 836, it was said that the provision therein, '* * * 'That such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of said city.' * * *':

'* * * embodies two separate but closely related concepts; that is, (a) that the annexation is reasonable, and (b) that the annexation is necessary to the proper development of the city. The plain language of the provision makes evident the legislative intent. To say that the annexation must be 'reasonable * * * to the proper development of said city' is confusing and tends to preclude a judicial inquiry into the reasonableness of the annexation from the standpoint of the area to be annexed. Both parties are entitled to the test of reasonableness. City of Fulton v. Dawson, Mo.App., 325 S.W.2d 505, 516(3, 4). To hold otherwise might render the Act vulnerable to an attack as to its constitutionality. See 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 604c, p. 726.'

Our appellate courts have repeatedly held that the burden of establishing the statutory elements by evidence rests squarely on the city which seeks to annex the unincorporated land, City of Bourbon v. Miller, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 296; City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 369 S.W.2d 85; City of Tracy v. McCrea, Mo.App., 374 S.W.2d 553.

When is a proposed annexation 'reasonable' as to both? No criteria as to the tests to be applied are stated in § 71.015. In the absence of statutory standards or guidelines the courts perforce have enumerated their own. Six factors for consideration are mentioned in Johnson v. Parkville, Mo., Mo.App., 269 S.W.2d 775. Seven more are suggested in City of Tracy v. McCrea, Mo.App., 374 S.W.2d 553, but the thirteen mentioned in those cases were not meant to be all inclusive, and others have been, and should be, considered. It has been said, for example, that a city may, to a reasonable extent, look to its future needs in planning and making an annexation, City of St. Joseph. v. Hankinson, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 4, but as pointed out in that case, and in State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762, the rate of growth of the municipality as shown in the past is a highly important element to be considered in planning for the future. For as was succinctly put in City of Bourbon v. Miller, Mo., en banc, 420 S.W.2d 296, 303, '* * * what is reasonable for the future should be judged chiefly from the known and existing facts,' and '* * * dreams or hopes * * *' inspired by a false sense of civic pride '* * * are not a sound and sufficient substitute for evidence in a legal action,' City of Houston v. Duff, Mo.App., 338 S.W.2d 373, 382. In short, as the adjudicated cases indicate, there can be no exact, precise and inflexible standard by which the issues of reasonableness and necessity can be measured, and '* * * each case must depend on its individual facts and circumstances.' City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827, 837.

With these guidelines in mind we turn to a review of the evidence. The City of Mexico, a city of the third class, is the county seat of Audrain County. Its present city limits constitute virtually a square in shape, and encompasses an area of 4525 acres. As ultimately presented to the trial court by the City's amended petition, the city seeks to extend its boundaries on all four of its sides so as to annex a total of 4719 acres, but the proposed extensions are by no means uniform. In fact, the extent of the proposed area on each side is so irregular as to defy and description which could be comprehended, and relying on the Chinese proverb that one picture is better than a thousand words, we

Page 548

include the following plat, on which the solid lines represent the present city limits and the dotted lines depict the areas proposed to be annexed:

The subject of annexation is one which has been under consideration by the City for some time, although the extent of the area to be annexed, and the timing of the proposed successive annexations has varied. In 1964, at the request of the City, the firm of Harland Bartholomew & Associates submitted a report estimating that the then population of the city was 13,200, and projected a 1990 population of 22,000 to 25,000 persons. Based upon such projected increases in population that firm

Page 549

recommended a two stage annexation program. The first stage recommended was to annex approximately 2,000 acres to the east of the present city limits; and the second envisioned an addition of approximately one-half mile on the south and west sides of the present boundaries. Thereafter the city council appointed a citizens annexation study committee which made its final report in 1967. In substance, the committee recommended the annexation of...