County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna
309 Neb. 320
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Gretna (city of the second class) adopted ordinances in 2017 annexing ~2,953 acres (ordinances Nos. 2003 & 2004) and extended extraterritorial zoning (ordinance No. 2005).
- Sarpy County sued to invalidate the ordinances, claiming 22 contested parcels were “agricultural lands which are rural in character” and thus not subject to annexation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2).
- Parties agreed the contested parcels were presently undeveloped, used for agriculture, accessed by unimproved roads, lacked municipal water/sewer, and held greenbelt tax status; Gretna submitted plans showing planned highways/interchange, school growth, and an appraiser’s opinion of higher development value.
- The district court granted Sarpy County summary judgment, finding the parcels rural in character and invalidating the ordinances.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parcels were urban/suburban in character given location, planned infrastructure and development, and commercial uses (e.g., Vala’s), so the annexations were valid.
Issues
| Issue | Sarpy County (Plaintiff) | City of Gretna (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contested parcels are “agricultural lands which are rural in character” under § 17-407(2) | Parcels are undeveloped, used agriculturally, lack services, and have greenbelt status → rural | Proximity to growth, planned I-80 interchange/highway corridor, school growth, appraiser’s development value → urban/suburban | Reversed: parcels are urban/suburban in character; annexation lawful |
| Whether greenbelt (special valuation) status proves rural character | Greenbelt protects agricultural use and indicates rural character | Greenbelt is a tax classification, not a limitation on annexation authority | Greenbelt status is not dispositive of rural character and does not restrict annexation |
| Whether annexation’s elimination of Sanitary Improvement Districts (SIDs) and related effects render annexation improper | Annexation would eliminate SIDs and stifle development; thus annexation is improper | Effects on SIDs and financing are irrelevant to whether annexation authority was lawfully exercised | Court: SID impacts irrelevant to statutory question of rural vs. urban character |
| Whether a court must invalidate an entire annexation ordinance if any part includes rural agricultural land (severability/boundary drawing) | If any annexed tract is rural, the whole ordinance must be invalidated | Annexation and boundary drawing are legislative acts; courts determine authorizing conditions but do not redraw boundaries | Majority upheld ordinance as lawful; dissent argued any rural tract invalidates entire ordinance but was not the majority view |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas County v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015) (consideration of contemplated future development can support finding land urban/suburban)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952) (annexation invalid where land was unplatted agricultural rural in character)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970) (continuous and surrounding development indicates urban/suburban character)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (1968) (annexation valid where tract lay through rapidly developing residential/industrial area)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965) (public improvements and community uses can show urban character despite agricultural use)
- Plumfield Nurseries, Inc. v. Dodge County, 184 Neb. 346, 167 N.W.2d 560 (1969) (businesslike nursery operations may be urban in character)
- Holden v. City of Tecumseh, 188 Neb. 117, 195 N.W.2d 225 (1972) (higher residential/commercial use value and surrounding development support urban characterization)