Kansas City v. City of Raytown

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FINCH; All concur except STORCKMAN; STORCKMAN
• Citation: Kansas City v. City of Raytown, 421 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. 1967)
• Decision Date: 27 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 52966,52966
• Parties: KANSAS CITY, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF RAYTOWN, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Page 504

421 S.W.2d 504

KANSAS CITY, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF RAYTOWN, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation et al Defendants-Appellants.

No. 52966.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Nov. 27, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1967.

Herbert C. Hoffman, City Counselor, Richard W. Mason, Jr., Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, for respondent.

Walter A. Raymond, Raymond, West & Strader, Kansas City, and Richard T. Cole, Raytown, for defendants-appellants.

FINCH, Judge.

Kansas City brought a declaratory judgment action against the City of Raytown, its Mayor and City Council members (herein collectively referred to as Raytown) with reference to a cooperative sewer agreement previously executed by the two cities. An answer and a reply were filed, and then plaintiff and defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment for plaintiff, from which Raytown has appealed. We have jurisdiction because the amount involved exceeds $15,000.

The agreement in question was executed by Raytown on November 5, 1964, and by Kansas City on December 7, 1964. Each city previously had passed an ordinance authorizing execution of the agreement. The preamble of the agreement recites that the topography is such that certain areas of each city drain naturally into a common water course (Kansas City entirely surrounds Raytown), and that they desired to enter 'into a cooperative agreement relating to the construction, operation and mutual use of portions of their respective sewage systems, and to bear equitably between the parties the costs of constructing and operating their respective sewage systems for the mutual benefit of the citizens of each city.

Summarized, the agreement, containing six sections, provided as follows:

I.

Each city is to maintain and operate its own sewage system within its corporate limits. Certain minimum standards and practices are specified.

II.

In building sewers or treatment plants serving common areas, adequate capacity, based on current engineering studies, to be provided. Upstream city, at its expense and according to specified standards, to have a right to connect to any sewer constructed by downstream city in a water course or drainage area common to both cities.

Raytown given immediate and continuing right to connect to Kansas City's Round Grove sewer, and Kansas City given immediate and continuing right to connect to Raytown's Little Blue River outfall sewer.

Kansas City to construct certain sewers as shown on an attached map, contracts therefor to be awarded as soon as practicable after Raytown passed a bond issue to provide funds for the construction which it would be obligated to perform under the agreement. Kansas City also to plan certain other installations and build same upon payment to it of $100,000 by Raytown. Kansas City's construction schedule was made contingent upon a successful election on the Raytown bond issue not later than December 15, 1964. ¹

Raytown to build certain sewers and facilities, including pumping station and enlarged lagoon, contracts therefor to be awarded as soon as practicable after passage of a bond issue by the city to provide funds therefor.

III.

Each city to have a continuing right to discharge sanitary sewage into sewers of other as long as this agreement remains in force. Grounds for terminating the agreement are specified as nonpayment of charges, as provided in Section IV, or failure to enforce the restrictions called for in Section I. Before termination, proceedings for arbitration pursuant to the contract and Chapter 435, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S, required.

IV.

Schedule of payments by each city to the other established, based on residences, commercial establishments, etc., with provision for renegotiation of schedule each five years.

V.

Certain continuing rights in each city provided irrespective of other provisions in the agreement.

VI.

An administrative officer for each city for purposes of administration of this agreement is provided.

The minimum estimated cost of the construction by Raytown was $2,766,000. A special bond election was held in Raytown on December 1, 1964, at which two propositions were submitted: No. 1, to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $1,853,000 'for the purpose of acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, extending and improving the sanitary sewerage system of said City, including constructing mains, force mains, lift station and interceptor lines,' and No. 2, to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $913,000 'for the purpose of acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, extending and improving the sanitary sewerage system of said City by constructing lateral sewers,' the cost of No. 2 to be repaid to the city by means of special assessments on the property benefitted. Neither proposition received the required two-thirds majority.

A second special bond election was held on February 27, 1965. The same propositions and the same amounts were submitted, but neither proposition received the required two-thirds majority.

On June 15, 1965, the Board of Aldermen of Raytown adopted a resolution which recited that the cooperative agreement was contingent upon successful passage of a sewer bond proposal, that two special bond elections had failed, and that any and all cooperative agreements between Raytown and Kansas City 'are hereby expressly and specifically declared to be totally inoperative, rescinded, repealed, null, void, and for naught held.' A copy of the resolution was served on Kansas City.

At a regular meeting of the Raytown Board of Aldermen on August 3, 1965, the Mayor reported a demand for a solution of the sewer problem. There was discussion about proceeding with another bond election on the basis that Raytown would go it alone and build its own sewers. The minutes show the following motion:

'Alderman White restated his motion to set date of October 5, 1965 for election on $2,800,000 sewerage bond issue on the basis that the City will proceed on basis of going alone and with the intent of putting in all sewers necessary to sewer the City of Raytown. Alderman Lanspa seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: YEA: Aldermen Sheil, Grissom, White, Lanspa, McAnany, Clinger, Gautreaux, Shelton. NAY: Alderman Smith. Mayor Frank declared the motion carried by a vote of 8 Yeas to 1 Nay.'

The record before us includes a clipping from a Raytown newspaper, the Raytown News, dated August 6, 1965, reporting the August 3 meeting of the Board of Aldermen and the discussion about Raytown voting sewer bonds to build the sewers without joining or cooperating with Kansas City. The headline of the article was 'Sewer without K.C. is aim--vote Oct. 5.'

On August 12, 1965, the Board of Aldermen met again. An ordinance was introduced which provided that a special election should be held on October 5, 1965, for the purpose of submitting two propositions. The ordinance was given three readings and passed. Proposition No. 1 was 'to issue the general obligation bonds of the City of Raytown, Missouri, to the amount of $1,921,000 for the purpose of acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, extending and improving the sanitary sewerage system of said City, including constructing collection mains and interceptor lines, relief sewers, outfall lines, force mains, lift stations, and lagoon expansion,' and Proposition No. 2 was 'to issue the general obligation bonds of the City of Raytown, Missouri, to the amount of $920,000 for the purpose of acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, extending and improving the sanitary sewerage system of said City by constructing lateral sewers.' Both propositions authorized an annual tax to retire the bonds, and Proposition No. 2 provided for the cost of such improvements to be repaid to the city by means of special assessments on the property benefitted. At the election held on October 5, 1965, both propositions received a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.

On December 3, 1965, Raytown presented for approval to the Missouri Water Pollution Board various plans and specifications relating to the construction and operation of a sanitary sewer system within the Raytown corporate limits which would be separate from the Kansas City system and exclude use by Kansas City. Kansas City then filed this action on January 14, 1966, and the Water Pollution Board has withheld action on Raytown's request pending final determination of this action.

The trial court on April 7, 1967, entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Summarized, that judgment provides as follows:

1. Both cities, through authorized representatives, executed the cooperative agreement, which is a valid and lawful contract, pursuant to authority of Article VI, Section 16 of the Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S. and § 70.220, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., as amended.

2. The validity and enforceability of the cooperative agreement was not dependent upon or contingent upon approval by the voters of Raytown, but was effective from and after its execution by Kansas City on December 7, 1964.

3. The agreement was not affected by the resolution passed by the Board of Aldermen of Raytown on June 15, 1965, and was not affected by the unsuccessful bond elections held by Raytown, the agreement having neither been approved nor disapproved by the voters in the elections.

4. The purposes for which the voters of Raytown authorized general obligation bonds on October 5, 1965, do not preclude or prohibit the use of funds derived therefrom for the purpose of financing the facilities contemplated in the cooperative agreement.

5. Kansas City is entitled to exercise the rights intended and contemplated, both immediately and in the future, under the cooperative agreement, and is entitled to demand performance by Raytown.

6. Raytown is entitled to exercise the rights intended and...