Town of LeClaire v. Ahrens, 54784

• Decision Date: 16 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 54784,54784
• Citation: 195 N.W.2d 719
• Parties: TOWN OF LeCLAIRE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Floyd W. AHRENS et al., Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 719

195 N.W.2d 719

TOWN OF LeCLAIRE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Floyd W. AHRENS et al., Appellant.

No. 54784.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 16, 1972.

Doerr, Dower & Rehling, Davenport, for appellant.

Lane & Waterman, Davenport, for appellee.

BECKER, Justice.

This is an equity action for the annexation of certain territory by the Town of LeClaire pursuant to section 362.26, Code, 1962. Defendants appeal from the decree of annexation.

LeClaire is an old historic town located on the Mississippi River just north of the recently constructed bridge and superhighway now designated as I--80. The town itself is serviced by U.S. Highway 67 which constitutes its main street. It now covers some 840 acres and is about one-half occupied. The territory sought to be annexed covers approximately 1600 acres, includes the intersection of highways I--80 and 67, and extends primarily to the west and slightly south of the present municipal limits.

The town, about six miles north of Davenport, is described as being within the influence area of the larger city. It has shown steady substantial growth in each of the past four census reports including the 1970 report of which we take judicial notice. Miehls v. City of Independence, 249 Iowa 1022, 1029, 88 N.W.2d 50 (1958).

On September 30, 1964, the LeClaire Town Council ordered the clerk to have notice published of a meeting to consider a proposed resolution of annexation. Three days later on October 3, 1964, residents of the area to be annexed filed a petition for incorporation as the Town of Sycamore. The Town of LeClaire intervened in the incorporation proceedings. The trial court thereupon ordered the incorporation proceedings be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the annexation proceedings.

The parties stipulated that all the requirements of section 362.26(1)--(5)(d) and section 362.27 had been met. The sole question is whether the Town of LeClaire made an affirmative showing it was capable of extending into the territory substantial municipal services and benefits not heretofore enjoyed, as required by section 362.26(6):

'If the court finds that there is an affirmative showing that the municipal corporation is capable of extending into such territory substantial municipal services and benefits not theretofore enjoyed by such territory, so that the proposed annexation will not result merely in increasing the revenue from taxation of such municipal corporation; * * *, the court shall decree the annexation. * * *.'

I. With the issue thus narrowly limited and the abundance of recent Iowa case law on the subject we find it unnecessary to unduly extend this opinion. Recent cases provide the rationale for the following condensed propositions. Our review is de novo. Annexation is a legislative matter. The court's function is to determine whether conditions prescribed by the legislature are met. The burden of proof on this point is on the annexing city. We have no discretion to determine whether the annexation is wise or unwise, only whether the statutory conditions have been met. The question is not how capable plaintiff must be nor how substantial the services must be, but only whether there is an affirmative showing of capability to extend municipal services and benefits. The issue turns on the capability of the city, not on the desires of the property owners. City of Clinton v. Owners of Property, Etc., 191 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 1971); City of Bettendorf v. Abeln, 261 Iowa 404, 154 N.W.2d 836 (1967).

II. Our review of the record dictates agreement with the trial court's conclusion. Plaintiff has shown it owns a town hall, operates a mayor's court, has a system of municipal ordinances to regulate the urbanized problems of its citizens, zoning ordinances, building codes, a subdivision ordinance, electric and gas franchise ordinances (which contain commitments to extend services at town rates), a good park system for a town of its size, surfaced streets, street lighting provisions and contracts, a town marshal, a 25-man volunteer fire department which owns and operates extensive equipment in conjunction with a larger fire district, and sewer and water facilities.

Under the cited authorities plaintiff need not show ability to extend each and all of these benefits to the annexed area forthwith. City of Clinton v. Owners of Property, etc., supra. Plaintiff shows a January 1964 tax base of $1,273,000 in real any personal property plus a Moneys and Credits base of $138,300. Its millage levy was 22.487 well under the 30 mill limitation. As noted by the trial court, 'Additional annual revenue is therefore available for immediately augmenting services and benefits maintained by plaintiff.' As the trial court also noted, the taxable...