St. Peters v. Winterhoff Living Trust

• Decision Date: 21 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. ED 79579.,ED 79579.
• Citation: 77 S.W.3d 17
• Parties: CITY OF ST. PETERS, Missouri, Appellant, v. RONALD A. WINTERHOFF LIVING TRUST, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

77 S.W.3d 17

CITY OF ST. PETERS, Missouri, Appellant, v. RONALD A. WINTERHOFF LIVING TRUST, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 79579.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 21, 2002.

David T. Hamilton, Hazelwood & Weber LLC, St. Charles, MO, for Appellant.

James A. Borchers, Stuhler & Borchers, P.C., St. Charles, MO, for Respondent.

PAUL J. SIMON, Judge.

The City of St. Peters (City) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Charles denying City's action seeking a declaratory judgment in favor of its proposed annexation of unincorporated territory (territory) located near Highway 94 in St. Charles County, Missouri. On appeal, City contends that the trial court erred because: (1) it applied an improper standard of review when it found that the burden of proof was on City to plead and prove that its proposed annexation was reasonable and that it was necessary to proper development of City, and failed to apply the applicable "fairly debatable standard;" and (2) City complied with all requirements of Section 71.015 RSMo (2000) (all further references herein shall be to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted) applicable to the annexation and submitted substantial evidence supporting multiple factors to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation. Finally, City argues that "the trial court erred in refusing to grant declaratory judgment in favor of City because City presented substantial evidence showing that the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was at least fairly debatable" and "[defendants] failed to establish that [City's] exercise of legislative powers was arbitrary and clearly unreasonable." We reverse and remand.

City is a municipal corporation of the fourth class located in the County of St. Charles, a first class constitutional charter county. Defendants are owners (and class representatives of owners) of real property in the territory. The territory is comprised of undeveloped tracts and property zoned industrial or commercial.

Following its decision to annex the territory, City held hearings, drafted a plan of intent, passed an ordinance, and filed a declaratory judgment action requesting that the trial court enter judgment declaring that City met all the requirements of the law to annex the territory, thus permitting City to proceed with an annexation election pursuant to section 71.015.

City filed a "Motion for Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment," and, on December 14, 2000, defendants filed their answer to City's First Amended Petition, denying that the proposed annexation was reasonable and necessary to the proper development of City.

On February 13, 2001, City filed a Response to Defendants' Post Trial Brief (Defendants' Post Trial Brief does not appear in the record), in which City argued, in pertinent part, that the appropriate standard of review for a city's decision to annex land was whether there was substantial evidence showing that the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was, at least, fairly debatable.

Following trial on City's declaratory judgment action, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, in which it found: (1) City's Petition complied in all respects with the standards of section 71.015.1(5); (2) under section 71.015 the "burden is upon the annexing city to plead and prove that its proposed annexation is `reasonable' and that it is `necessary to the proper development of the city;'" (3) the term "reasonable," as used in section 71.015, "doesn't mean reasonable just from the city's point of view but reasonable in its impact on the annexation area," and "both parties are entitled to the test of reasonableness [footnote omitted];" (4) City could not justify the proposed annexation "on any need for additional industrial sites;" (5) City was able to meet its needs without the territory; (6) City had grown because it was "in the path of growth[,] not because of `foreseeable' needs to expand" and City was not forced to annex the territory so that its growth could "`spill over,' since the annexation area [was] largely developed;" (7) the territory would not benefit from "any application or enforcement of [City's] zoning or building codes since St. Charles County has virtually identical codes which are already uniformly applied and enforced;" (8) the territory had "no need for police protection from [City] [footnote omitted];" (9) the territory had "no need" for "any additional `health' related regulation;" (10) St. Charles County and independent agencies were furnishing the territory with "all normal municipal services" and the territory had "no need for services from [City] and City [would] therefore not provide any new essential municipal services to the annexation area [footnote omitted];" (11) there was "no enhancement in value by reason of adaptability of the annexation area for prospective city purposes [footnote omitted];" and (12) the proposed annexation "could not be justified `on rounding out' [City's] boundaries, not only because it [would] have no significant geographical `rounding' effect, but because [City's] boundaries show disregard for any such rounding." The trial court concluded: "[City] has failed to meet its burden of proving that the proposed annexation is reasonable (for both [City] and the annexation area). [City] may not, therefore, proceed to annex the lands described in its Amended Petition." The footnote to the trial court's finding that both parties were "entitled to the test of reasonableness" refers to Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827 (Mo.1960), (Graeler I), as authority. City appeals.

We find City's first point dispositive in which it contends that the trial court erred in that it failed to apply the applicable "fairly debatable" standard of review, as evidenced by its finding that the "burden [of proof] is upon the annexing city to plead and prove that its proposed annexation is `reasonable' and that it is `necessary to the proper development of the city.'"

Section 71.015, known as the Sawyer's Act, governs specified annexations and provides, in pertinent part:

1. Should any city, town, or village, not located in any county of the first classification which has adopted a constitutional charter for its own local government, seek to annex an area to which objection is made, the following shall be satisfied:

* * *

(2) The governing body of any city, town, or village shall propose an ordinance setting forth the following:

* * *

(b) That such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city, town, or village ...

* * *

(5) Following the hearing, and either before or after the election held in subdivision (6) of this subsection, should the governing body of the city, town, or village vote favorably by ordinance to annex the area, the governing body of the city, town or village shall file an action in the circuit court of the county in which such unincorporated area is situated, under the provisions of chapter 527, RSMo, praying for a declaratory judgment authorizing such annexation. The petition in such action shall state facts showing:

* * *

(b) That such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of the city, town, or village ...

* * *

3.

* * *

(2) In the case of a proposed annexation of unincorporated territory in which no qualified electors reside, if at least a majority of the qualified electors voting on the proposition are in favor of the annexation, the city, town or village may proceed to...