County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna
309 Neb. 320
| Neb. | 2021Background
- In November 2017, the City of Gretna adopted ordinances (Nos. 2003, 2004) annexing about 2,953 acres adjacent to the city and ordinance No. 2005 extending extraterritorial zoning; 22 parcels were specifically challenged.
- The 22 contested parcels were largely undeveloped, used for agricultural purposes, accessed by unimproved roads, and lacked municipal water/sewer connections.
- Gretna had a 2017 comprehensive plan and an annexation study identifying an I-80 interchange and the Highway 370 corridor as future growth/entrance areas; the city and other agencies had plans to extend infrastructure and development.
- Sarpy County sued to enjoin and invalidate the ordinances, arguing the annexed parcels were "agricultural lands which are rural in character," prohibited from annexation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2).
- The district court granted Sarpy County summary judgment and invalidated the ordinances; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the question de novo and reversed, holding the annexed area urban/suburban in character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sarpy) | Defendant's Argument (Gretna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the annexed parcels are "agricultural lands which are rural in character" under §17-407(2) | Parcels are undeveloped agricultural land, on unimproved roads, lacking utility connections and subject to greenbelt tax status — therefore rural | Parcels lie adjacent to growth corridors, are planned for development (I-80 interchange, Hwy 370), are in a fast-growing school district, and have residential/development value — therefore urban/suburban | Reversed: parcels are urban/suburban in character given location, planned infrastructure, school growth, commercial uses, and development potential; annexation lawful |
| Whether current agricultural use and greenbelt tax valuation conclusively establish rural character | Greenbelt status and current agricultural use demonstrate rural character and shield parcels from annexation | Greenbelt status pertains to tax valuation, not annexation authority; current use alone does not control the legal characterization | Rejected: greenbelt status is not dispositive; current use is one factor among location, planned development, and market value |
| Role of contemplated/future development in assessing character | Future plans are speculative; lack of present infrastructure and development directionally away from Gretna weigh toward rural | Future development plans, planned interchange and corridors, coordinated public planning, and market evidence support urban/suburban character | Accepted: contemplated development and rational relation to legitimate annexation purposes may render agricultural land urban/suburban in character |
| Whether annexation’s effect on SIDs or loss of SID authority is relevant to legality | Annexation would eliminate SIDs and impair local development resources, so court should block annexation | Impact on SIDs concerns legislative policy and consequences, not the narrow statutory test of rural character | Rejected as relevant to the legal question of whether parcels are rural in character; courts inquire into conditions authorizing annexation but do not rewrite boundaries for policy reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (Neb. 2015) (consideration of contemplated development and rational relation to annexation purposes can support urban characterization)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (Neb. 1952) (annexation invalid where land was unplatted agricultural and rural in character)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (Neb. 1970) (continuous surrounding development can show land is urban/suburban despite agricultural use)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (Neb. 1968) (annexation upheld where tract lay in the midst of rapidly developing area)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 1965) (agricultural use alone does not control if public improvements and community uses demonstrate urban character)
- Omaha Country Club v. City of Omaha, 214 Neb. 3, 332 N.W.2d 206 (Neb. 1983) (burden on challenger to prove facially valid ordinance invalid)
- Plumfield Nurseries, Inc. v. Dodge County, 184 Neb. 346, 167 N.W.2d 560 (Neb. 1969) (commercial nursery on gravel roads was urban in character despite agricultural aspects)
- Holden v. City of Tecumseh, 188 Neb. 117, 195 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 1972) (higher nonagricultural land value and surrounding development can indicate urban/suburban character)