Meramec Valley Sch. Dist. v. City of Eureka
| Decision Date | 24 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 91678.,ED 91678. |
| Citation | 281 S.W.3d 827 |
| Parties | MERAMEC VALLEY R-III SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF EUREKA, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent, and JBA Eureka, LLC, Intervenor/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael H. James, A. Melissia Black Riddle, Chesterfield, MO, for Appellant.
James E. Mello, Jeffery T. McPherson, Deanna M. Wendler Modde, Saint Louis, Gerard T. Carmody, Kelley F. Farrell, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
Meramec Valley R-III School District (School District) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Eureka, Missouri (City) and JBA Eureka, LLC (Developer). We affirm.
In the underlying action, School District challenged the propriety of City's adoption of an ordinance authorizing the use of tax increment financing (TIF) for a redevelopment project.
The Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (TIF Act), Sections 99.800-99.865,1 was enacted in 1982, to allow urban renewal of blighted areas by permitting tax abatements to be used for the redevelopment of these areas. City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, 249 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Mo.banc 2008). The TIF Act authorizes a city or municipality to utilize eminent domain to take property to facilitate redevelopment, Id., and undertake a redevelopment project under certain conditions laid out in Section 99.810. See State ex rel. City of Desloge v. St. Francois County, 245 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Funds for the redevelopment project come essentially from the future increase in the value of the land once the redevelopment project is complete. City of Desloge, 245 S.W.3d at 858.
The TIF Act calls for the city implementing the plan to create a TIF Commission to formulate the plan and oversee its implementation. City of Desloge, 245 S.W.3d at 858, Sections 99.820.2 and 99.820.3. The Commission's actions are subject to the final approval of the governing body of the municipality. City of Desloge, 245 S.W.3d at 858, Section 99.820.3. The Commission's recommendations go into effect upon the municipality's adoption of them by ordinance or resolution. City of Desloge, 245 S.W.3d at 858, see, e.g., Sections 99.820.1(14); 99.820.3; 99.825; 99.835.
Once the redevelopment plan is in place, the municipality begins to accumulate funding in a special allocation fund. City of Desloge, 245 S.W.3d at 858. Each year that the post-plan assessed value of the taxable real property within the redevelopment project area exceeds the pre-plan assessed value, property taxes on the increase in value are abated. Id. Instead of paying taxes, the landowners make payments in lieu of taxes equal to the amount the taxes would have been after improvements. Id., Section 99.805(10).
On September 1, 1992, the Board of Aldermen of City (the Board) duly constituted the Tax Increment Financing Commission of the City of Eureka (the TIF Commission). In 1996, the TIF Commission considered a proposal to redevelop an area of City encompassing 382 acres, which was blighted in many significant respects, as defined in Section 99.805, and had not been, nor was reasonably anticipated to be, subject to development through investment by private enterprise.
The City considered plans for the redevelopment of this area in 1996 and 1997, adopting TIF for the 1997 plan via Ordinance 1306. The City then authorized the execution of a redevelopment agreement. However, the redevelopment plan did not proceed and the redevelopment agreement was terminated.
On May 2, 2005, Peckham Guyton Alberts & Viets, Inc. Urban Consulting (PGAV) prepared a new plan for redevelopment for the TIF Commission's consideration. This plan was titled "Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan— Eureka S. I-44 Redevelopment Area" (Redevelopment Plan), consisting of approximately 938 acres in the City (Redevelopment Area or Area). On May 16, 2005, Developer, in response to the City's solicitation of proposals for developing the Redevelopment Area, submitted a proposal (Redevelopment Proposal).
PGAV prepared the detailed analysis of the factors that characterize the Redevelopment Area as qualified for TIF development. In compiling the information detailing the conditions of the Redevelopment Area for the Redevelopment Plan, a number of sources of information were relied upon, including PGAV's exterior conditions field investigations conducted in January of 2004 and February of 2005. Also, information on assessment, site improvements, building conditions and market conditions was gathered from data and records of the City and the St. Louis County Assessor. The evidence gleaned from the Redevelopment Plan was presented to the trial court prior to the time the motion for summary judgment was taken under consideration and consists of the following uncontroverted facts.
At the time the 2005 Redevelopment Plan was proposed and submitted, the Redevelopment Area demonstrated defective or inadequate street layout as follows.
In 1973, the "St. Louis County Report 2" noted that "... roads are in very poor condition; they are of gravel, full of potholes, and have steep grades." In 2005, these conditions, as noted in 1973, had not been eliminated and therefore still existed. The PGAV report found that "[n]early all of the intersections within the central portion of the [Redevelopment] Area are poorly designed and so overgrown with weeds that appropriate sight triangles do not exist."2
The streets in the Redevelopment Area were found to be either platted, but not constructed, or obsolete and inadequate. Specifically, with the exception of a few,3 the remaining streets in the Redevelopment Area represented an inadequate overall street system incapable of supporting any significant development.
The PGAV report noted that the paved road surfaces in the Redevelopment Area, except for Wengler Road, are badly deteriorated and have no curbs or gutters. The remaining streets in the Redevelopment Area are narrow and unpaved. The PGAV report observed that the streets frequently allow for the passage of only one vehicle, thereby making them obsolete, inadequate and outmoded in design and function. The ditches adjacent to the roads are severely eroded, creating dangerous conditions.
The bridge over the railroad tracks at O'Sullivan Avenue was determined to be inadequate and obsolete. A 2001 study entitled "Eureka South I-44 Access Feasibility Study" by Crawford Bunte and Brammeier Traffic and Transportation Engineers (CBB) described the access problems of the O'Sullivan Avenue Bridge:
The (O'Sullivan Avenue) bridge is less than 20 feet wide with substandard approaches to the adjacent intersections. Further exacerbating conditions are the grades on this bridge, which are steep and in excess of appropriate standards, and deterioration of the bridge deck and structure itself.
The bridge crosses the Union Pacific rail lines (2 sets of tracks), which are depressed, but the road also crosses the Burlington Northern line (1 set of tracks) at grade immediately south of the bridge. In order to meet the elevation of Old Highway 66 to the north, the bridge was constructed with steep grades on either side (particularly the north), resulting in an "arch" that severely limits its functionality.
Recent traffic counts indicate that the bridge currently carries more than 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd) ... a roadway of this width ... should carry loads of no more than 400 vpd. It can therefore be concluded that the O'Sullivan bridge already exceeds its functional capacity.
PGAV found that the insufficient bridge infrastructure directly impacted the accessibility of the Redevelopment Area to the interstate highway system. It noted that "[a]pproach from the direction of the Interstate or from the I-44 business loop must be done with extreme caution and at greatly reduced speeds, which presents a danger not only to residents and visitors of the Area, but also to other drivers on these primary roads, and poses even greater risks for drivers not familiar with the Area." PGAV concluded that "[t]his condition, coupled with the railroad crossing immediately east of the bridge, is a dangerous condition."
In its summary of its findings of defective or inadequate street layout in the Redevelopment Area, PGAV summarized that "the roadway layout and pattern of the Redevelopment Area is inadequate and obsolete for the current uses and planned future uses, when measured against current City, County, State, and National standards for the construction of this infrastructure." It found this conclusion was true of "both the deteriorated street grid in the `Allenton' area, as well as the vacant land, portions of which had no access to the generally inadequate road network that currently exists."
The report specifically declared that the roadway layout and pattern of the Redevelopment Area was "inadequate for the uses permitted under the City's zoning code and the types of uses which would allow the Area to achieve its economic potential," including "impaired accessibility of the Area from the interstate highway system due to the significant costs of reconstructing a bridge to safely traverse the railroad tracks" that separated the Redevelopment Area from the interstate and "adequately accommodate vehicular traffic associated with a master-planned residential community and regional retail/commercial center."
The CBB report indicated that many streets in the Redevelopment Area have slopes well in excess of 10 percent, with several being at least 15 percent. A ten...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clair v. Monsanto Co.
...for the issues raised on appeal. Id. The propriety of summary judgment is purely an issue of law. Meramec Valley R–III School Dist. v. City of Eureka, 281 S.W.3d 827, 835 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Accordingly, the standard of review on appeal regarding summary judgment is no different from that w......
-
Palmore v. City of Pac.
...of the material facts asserted by the movant as not in dispute is, in fact, genuinely disputed.” Meramec Valley R–III Sch. Dist. v. City of Eureka, 281 S.W.3d 827, 835 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). As in the case at bar, if the trial court does not identify its reasons for sustaining a defendant's mo......
-
Giffen v. Ortho Mcneil Pharm., Inc.
...pleaded affirmative defense." (See Master Answer, Case No. 06-cv-40000, Doc. 122 at ¶¶ 322-24); Merramec Valley R-III Sch. Dist. v. City of Eureka, 281 S.W.3d 827, 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). Here, Plaintiff claims she was injured as a proximate result of Defendants' negligence in failing to a......
-
Great Rivers Habitat Alliance v. City of St. Peters
...is blighted, and in approving a Redevelopment Plan, the Board acts in its legislative capacity." Meramec Valley R-III Sch. Dist. v. City of Eureka, 281 S.W.3d 827, 835 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). "Judicial review of a legislative determination is limited to whether it was arbitrary[;] or induced ......