Vill. of Agency v. City of St. Joseph
| Decision Date | 25 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | WD 79220 |
| Parties | Village of Agency, Missouri, Appellant, v. City of St. Joseph, Missouri, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ronald R. Holliday, St. Joseph, MO, for appellant.
Paul A. Campo, Bryan E. Carter, Lee's Summit, MO, for respondents.
Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge
Village of Agency, Missouri ("Village") appeals the trial court's denial of a petition which sought a declaration authorizing an involuntary annexation. Village alleges that the trial court erred in requiring it to prove by substantial evidence that the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation was fairly debatable. Village also alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to consider its desire to regulate nearby land so that it would not be put to a noxious use in determining whether the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was fairly debatable. We affirm.
Village sought to annex approximately 347 acres of unincorporated land located in Buchanan County, Missouri adjacent to its existing city limits ("Annexed Territory"). City of St. Joseph, Missouri ("City") owns approximately 238 acres of the Annexed Territory.2 City also owns and operates a landfill that is located west of the Annexed Territory.
City has previously attempted to expand the landfill into the Annexed Territory by applying for conditional use permits from Buchanan County. Though Village has successfully opposed these applications, it decided in May 2013 to initiate involuntary annexation proceedings "to control how the [Annexed Territory] would be developed in order to maintain the character of [Village] and the quality of life enjoyed by Village residents." [Appellant's Brief, p. 15] The annexation proceedings were initiated pursuant to section 71.015,3 the Sawyer Act.4
Village held a public hearing to present an annexation plan of intent. The plan of intent was prepared by Earl Huskamp ("Huskamp"), Village's Clerk. The plan of intent provided that the Annexed Territory would remain zoned agricultural. Village's Board of Trustee's authorized the annexation by duly enacted ordinance, and at a subsequent election on November 4, 2014, a majority of the electors in both Village and the Annexed Territory approved the annexation.
Village then filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgment authorizing the annexation. The trial court entered its judgment on November 18, 2015 ("Judgment") finding that Village failed to put forth substantial evidence to establish that the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation was fairly debatable. The Judgment thus concluded that Village could not proceed with annexation of the Annexed Territory.
Village filed this timely appeal.
"The standard of review applicable to a decision to annex land is whether there is substantial evidence showing that the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation is at least fairly debatable." City of Centralia v. Norden , 879 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994). The extent of our inquiry is "whether substantial evidence has been presented by the [annexing municipality] to support the determination of its governing body such that reasonable men could differ as to the necessity of the extension." Id. "If there is substantial evidence both ways on the issue of annexation, then the legislative conclusion is determinative." Id.
Village asserts two points on appeal. Village's first point argues that the trial court erred in requiring Village to establish by substantial evidence that the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was fairly debatable. Village's second point argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that the reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was not fairly debatable because the trial court refused to consider Village's desire to regulate the Annexed Territory to prevent a noxious use.
The Sawyer Act provides for the involuntary annexation of adjacent unincorporated land by constitutionally chartered cities, towns, or villages. Section 71.015.1; City of Peculiar v. Effertz Bros Inc. , 254 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). To successfully annex land pursuant to the Sawyer Act, a municipality must duly authorize the annexation; conduct a public hearing to present a plan of intent for the annexation; conduct an election where a majority of the electors of the municipality and proposed annexed area approve the annexation; and secure a declaratory judgment authorizing the annexation.5 Section 71.015.
We are concerned in this case with the last requirement.
To secure a declaratory judgment authorizing annexation of the Annexed Territory, Village was required to demonstrate that: (1) the Annexed Territory is contiguous to Village and shares a common boundary that is at least 15% of the length of the perimeter of the Annexed Territory; (2) the annexation is reasonable and necessary to the development of Village; and (3) Village is able to provide municipal services to the Annexed Territory within a reasonable time. Section 71.015.1(5); see City of Peculiar v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. , 259 S.W.3d 597, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). A court must find that each of these factors "is at least 'fairly debatable."' Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. , 259 S.W.3d at 600 (quoting Effertz Bros. Inc. , 254 S.W.3d at 56–57 ). The Judgment found that Village failed to establish the second statutory factor.6
To analyze whether the reasonableness and necessity of an involuntary annexation is fairly debatable, "each case must be decided on its own unique circumstances." Id. (citing City of St. Peters v. Ronald A. Winterhoff Living Trust , 117 S.W.3d 698, 700 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ). Nonetheless, Missouri recognizes a non-exclusive list of criteria that may be weighed and considered in determining reasonableness and necessity.
A variety of factors are considered in determining whether the annexation decision was reasonable, which include: (1) a need for residential or industrial sites ...; (2) the city's inability to meet its needs without expansion; (3) consideration only of needs which are reasonably foreseeable and not visionary; (4) past growth relied on to show future necessity; (5) ... the extent to which past growth has caused the city to spill over into the proposed area; (6) the beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal zoning ordinances in the city and in the annexed area; (7) the need for or the beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal building, plumbing and electrical codes; (8) the need for or the beneficial effect of extending police protection to the annexed area; (9) the need for or beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal ordinances or regulations pertaining to health; (10) the need for and the ability of the city to extend essential municipal services into the annexed area; (11) enhancement in value by reason of adaptability of the land proposed to be annexed for prospective city uses; and (12) regularity of boundaries.
City of Centralia , 879 S.W.2d at 727.
Village first complains that the trial court erred in requiring it to prove that the proposed annexation was fairly debatable with substantial evidence. Village argues that in doing so, the trial court erroneously imposed a burden of persuasion, and in the process, substituted its judgment as to the advisability or wisdom of the annexation. We disagree.
"There is not in [Sawyer Act] cases a burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence." Binger v. City of Independence , 588 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Mo. banc 1979).
"Instead, the test is whether the evidence shows that the question of reasonableness and necessity of the annexation was fairly debatable." Id. "If it does, the legislative decision must stand." Id. Thus, the "burden of proof" applicable to the Sawyer Act "necessarily refer[s] to a burden of proceeding with the evidence." Id. If a municipality proceeds with evidence which supports a finding that the reasonableness and necessity of annexation is fairly debatable, then the legislative determination to this effect must stand. Id. at 486. The Judgment correctly referenced an understanding of this legal principle, as it found that "[n]either party has a burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence[,] [and Village] simply has the burden of proceeding with the evidence." [Judgment, p. 2] The trial court did not erroneously impose a burden of persuasion on Village.
The Judgment did find that Village failed to produce "substantial evidence" that the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation was fairly debatable. This finding did not impose a burden of persuasion on Village. The finding reflects only the trial court's determination that Village failed to sustain its burden to proceed with evidence that could support a finding that the reasonableness and necessity of annexation was fairly debatable. See Binger , 588 S.W.2d at 486 (). Village's first point on appeal is denied.7
Village next complains that it was error for the trial court to conclude that Village failed to put forth substantial evidence that the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed annexation was fairly debatable because the trial court erroneously disregarded evidence that Village desired to regulate the Annexed Territory to protect Village from a noxious use.
The Judgment addressed the Centralia factors long recognized as relevant to determining whether the reasonableness and necessity of a proposed annexation is fairly debatable. The Judgment found that no evidence was presented by Village to support any of the factors. Instead, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial