City of Odessa v. Carroll, KCD
| Decision Date | 05 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | CITY OF ODESSA, Missouri, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gene CARROLL et al., Defendants, Action Products, Inc., et al., Intervening Defendants, Appellants. 26564. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Reed O. Gentry, Rogers, Field, Gentry, Benjamin & Robertson, Kansas City, for defendants-appellants.
N. R. Bradley, Lexington, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before DIXON, C.J., and SHANGLER and WASSERSTROM, JJ.
The plaintiff City of Odessa brought suit for declaratory judgment in four counts under § 71.015 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., for judicial determination that the proposed annexations of four areas, each authorized by separate ordinance, were reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city, and for judicial approval to hold an election for the annexation of those areas. The trial court heard evidence and entered judgment for plaintiff on each count. Residents and property owners in the area described in Count III of the petition were granted the right to intervene as defendants, and they now appeal from the judgment for plaintiff city entered on Count III.
The judgments of the trial court that the proposed annexations of the areas described in Counts I, II and IV of the petition were reasonable and necessary have become final adjudications and cannot be affected by our determination on this appeal of the validity--or lack of it--of the proposed annexation under Count III authorized by a separate ordinance City of Cameron v. Stafford, 466 S.W.2d 115, 119(1) (Mo.App.1971).
Odessa is a city of the fourth class within Lafayette County on Interstate 70 some 36 miles east of Kansas City. The present limits encompass 1,406 acres and should the electorate approve annexation of the areas described in Counts I, II and IV (found by the court to have been reasonable and necessary to the development of the city) another 692 acres will have been added to the municipal girth. The area in dispute on this appeal comprises yet another 697 acres.
The evidence for the plaintiff city showed an increase in population from 1,881 in 1940 to 2,839 in 1970 and, on the basis of the growth of the last decade, an increase of an additional 1600 inhabitants was projected by the year 1990. A city planner and consultant, Ralph Ochsner, testified for plaintiff on the basis of a twenty year planning period. His study included a land-use survey of the city, a street and building and condition inventory, analysis of the utility systems, and other such features. To accommodate the projected increase in population and to protect the orderly development of Odessa as a neighborhood unit, he recommended that a girdle of land around the city, one-half mile to a mile in depth, be annexed. The witness could not say how much acreage the city then comprised or the area then available in Odessa for residential use. He conceded as a reasonable estimate, however, that about 600 acres (or more than one-third of the total municipal land ares) were vacant and available for such use. He deemed it a normal condition that undeveloped land should appear in older areas, of a city, but a condition which discourages new residential construction. The witness acknowledged that, based upon the recommended density of ten persons to the acre for future population growth (a density which has characterized past single-family development in the city), the 600 residential acres would accommodate 6,000 people. If, on the other hand, 125 acres of multi-family housing were constructed as recommended by the witness, at the normal density of 26 persons to the acre, 3,250 people could be accommodated with more than 400 acres still available for single-family use. In none of the four areas proposed for annexation has residential spillover taken place. In fact, in all, only about 20 people are resident in those areas. Nor is there any shortage of space for central business purposes. Except for one welding shop, not a single industrial plant has come to Odessa since the completion of Interstate 70 in 1964, and the interchange at the highway is such that unless remedied, will continue to deter the growth of the city.
The witness expressed judgment that the city would provide adequate municipal services to the areas proposed for annexation. The existing major streets in Odessa, however, are inadequate as a transportation sysem and in the quality of construction, with a very high percentage of the streets in need of repair. Another witness for the city, the recent mayor, acknowledged that the revenues available for the maintenance of the streets were woefully inadequate, and but for the gift of $15,000 by the Bank of Odessa, the condition of disrepair would be even more pronounced.
The city operates a water plant from reservoirs which recently expanded will supply a population of 12,000, owns an electric system, a septic plant for the disposal of sewage, is served by a natural gas franchise, operates a police department consisting of a marshal, four policemen and two cars, and has the services of an efficient volunteer fire department of sixteen members and access to two trucks. The areas proposed for annexation will have the benefit of such services in some measure.
The area sought for annexation under Count III (the only proposal in dispute on this appeal) receives electrical power from an expanded municipal grid system. City water is furnished through a 12 inch line extended from the city limits to the area by Action Products at a cost to the company of $30,000. In the event of annexation, water would not be available for subscription as a matter of right, but at the determination of the administration nor, in the event of annexation, does the city have either funds or plans to extend water distribution lines. The area is under the police protection of the Sheriff of Lafayette County and under the fire protection of the rural fire district area. Annexation would result in no additional services other than to make sewers available and to provide for planning and zoning. The amenity of a sewer, however, would be open to those residents who paid for the cost of connection. At the present time only about 460 acres of the area in dispute under Count III is served by a sewer line and treatment facility. The total facility was designed for a capacity of 1,100 people, so that the number of those presently served (a fact not known to the witness, a surveyor-engineer) necessarily limits and determines remaining capacity. Collecting mains would be required to transmit sewage to the line, but the city would not be obligated for such installation from general revenues from industrial development. Streets would be installed at the expense of residents and the city would thereafter determine whether to maintain them, depending upon municipal capacity to fund the cost.
The former mayor testified also that within the last few years there has been an influx of people into Odessa. Most of them, 500 to 800 persons, have been accommodated within the nine or ten mobile home courts in the city, and only 60 or 70 of them in single family housing. During that time, also, several new shops have been established in the city; a farm supply store, grocery, a gift and floral shop, liquor store and two mobile home sales outlets. Efforts to attract new industry to Odessa, however, have met with no success.
The fiscal condition of the city is reflected by an assessed valuation of $3,709,530, a bonded indebtedness on various utility sinking funds and general obligation bonds outstanding on the water system, and total funds on hand in all accounts as of December 31, 1971 of $233,365.38. The electorate has recently defeated two separate sales tax proposals, and the municipal streets still suffer from lack of adequate funds.
The area sought for annexation under Count III lies due west of the present city limits and is bound on the north by Interstate 70. It is given over largely to agriculture. Along an extension of the city's Main Street and close to its western limits, however, a number of industries flourish within the area sought for annexation. Action Products Company has manufactured housewares from that location for the last 16 years and employs 120 persons. This plant rests on a 30 acre tract. Mr. Bellington, president of the company, and his wife occupy a home on 28 acres of land which adjoins the plant. It was he who contracted for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Town and Country v. St. Louis County
...325 S.W.2d 505, 518 (Mo.App.1959). Nor is annexation solely for zoning protection a reasonable justification. City of Odessa v. Carroll, 512 S.W.2d 862, 868 (Mo.App.1974). An examination of the proposed annexations leads to one conclusion: Whether each parcel is considered separately or tog......
-
City of Perryville v. Brewer, 38425
...of Jefferson v. Smith, supra at 549(2); City of Des Peres v. Stapleton, 524 S.W.2d 203, 207(7) (Mo.App.1975); City of Odessa v. Carroll, 512 S.W.2d 862, 866(1) (Mo.App.1974). From the evidence, we conclude the annexation proposed by the city is both reasonable to the city and to the area to......
-
Young v. Mayor, Council and Citizens of City of Liberty, 59110
... ... Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827, 833(2, 3) (Mo.1960); City of 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). Annexation by a municipality remains a legislative prerogative. The Sawyers Act affects merely ... ...
-
Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of City of Liberty v. Beard
...They argue that the presence of industrial development alone is insufficient to justify annexation citing City of Odessa v. Carroll, 512 S.W.2d 862 (Mo.App.1974). City of Odessa stands for no such broad principle. A reading of that case demonstrates that industrial growth outside of the cit......