County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna
309 Neb. 320
| Neb. | 2021Background
- City of Gretna adopted ordinances in 2017 annexing about 2,953 acres adjacent to its limits and extending extraterritorial zoning; 22 parcels were contested.
- The contested parcels were undeveloped, used for agriculture, accessed by unimproved roads, lacked municipal water/sewer, and had greenbelt tax valuation; some parcels (including Vala’s Pumpkin Patch) had ongoing commercial/recreational operations.
- Gretna produced a 2017 annexation plan and comprehensive plan updates showing planned I-80 interchange, Highway 370 corridor, and other infrastructure improvements; the area lies within a rapidly growing school district with planned new schools.
- Sarpy County sued to enjoin the annexations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2), arguing the parcels were "agricultural lands which are rural in character.”
- The district court granted Sarpy County summary judgment and invalidated the ordinances; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the annexed area was urban/suburban in character and the ordinances valid.
- The Supreme Court rejected greenbelt status as dispositive and held potential impacts on SIDs irrelevant to the statutory question; a justice dissented, arguing some tracts remained rural and the ordinance must be invalidated in full.
Issues
| Issue | Sarpy County's Argument | Gretna's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the annexed parcels are "agricultural lands which are rural in character" under § 17-407(2) | Parcels are undeveloped, used for agriculture, lack services, and have greenbelt status → rural | Parcels are adjacent to growth, planned for infrastructure and development, in a booming school district, and have higher future development value → urban/suburban | Supreme Court: parcels are urban/suburban in character; annexations valid (reversed district court) |
| Whether greenbelt tax assessment means land is rural in character | Greenbelt status protects agricultural use and indicates rural character | Greenbelt is a tax classification, not a restriction on annexation; market factors affect valuation | Court: greenbelt status is not dispositive of rural character and does not bar annexation |
| Whether annexation’s elimination of Sanitary & Improvement Districts (SIDs) or impacts on SID-driven development is relevant to annexation authority | Annexation would eliminate SIDs and stifle local development, so ordinances are improper | Effects on SIDs are not relevant to the statutory question whether land is rural | Court: impact on SIDs is irrelevant to whether annexation authority was lawfully exercised |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1 (2015) (consideration of contemplated development and whether annexation bears a rational relation to legitimate municipal purposes)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163 (1952) (annexation invalid where substantial acreage was unplatted agricultural land rural in character)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232 (1970) (continuous surrounding development can render isolated agricultural spots urban in character)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511 (1968) (annexation upheld where tract lay through a rapidly developing residential/industrial area)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715 (1965) (public facilities and residential growth evidence urban/suburban character despite agricultural uses)
- Plumfield Nurseries, Inc. v. Dodge County, 184 Neb. 346 (1969) (commercial nursery operations may be urban in character despite agricultural aspects)
- Holden v. City of Tecumseh, 188 Neb. 117 (1972) (higher nonagricultural use value and surrounding development can indicate urban/suburban character)