County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna
309 Neb. 320
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Gretna (city of the second class) adopted ordinances in 2017 (Nos. 2003, 2004) annexing about 2,953 acres contiguous to the city and ordinance No. 2005 extending extraterritorial zoning.
- Sarpy County sued to enjoin and invalidate the ordinances, claiming 22 contested parcels are “agricultural lands which are rural in character” and thus not subject to annexation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 17-407(2).
- The parties agreed contested parcels were currently used for agriculture, accessed by unimproved roads, lacked municipal water/sewer, and had greenbelt tax valuation; Gretna presented plans and studies showing planned I-80 interchange, Highway 370 corridor, and integration into the city’s future growth area.
- Evidence of growth included rapid county/school-district expansion and a new elementary school adjacent to one contested parcel; Gretna’s appraiser testified development/residential value exceeded agricultural 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 the annexations lawful.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contested parcels are “agricultural lands which are rural in character” under § 17-407(2) | Parcels are undeveloped, used agriculturally, no municipal services, greenbelt status → rural and not annexable | Proximity to existing/developing areas, city comprehensive plan, planned interchanges, school growth, commercial uses (e.g., Vala’s), and higher development value → urban/suburban | Parcels are urban/suburban in character; annexation lawful; district court reversed |
| Whether greenbelt (special valuation) status makes land rural and prohibits annexation | Greenbelt designation shows legislative intent to protect agricultural use and indicates rural character | Greenbelt is a tax/valuation scheme and not a limit on annexation authority | Greenbelt status is not dispositive and does not restrict annexation authority |
| Whether potential effects on SIDs or local development (e.g., eliminating SIDs) invalidate annexation | Annexation would eliminate SIDs and impede local development, so ordinance is arbitrary | Effects on local financing or SIDs do not bear on statutory annexation authority | Potential impacts on SIDs or development financing are not relevant to whether annexation was authorized; courts do not redraw boundaries legislatively |
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 supports annexation validity)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952) (invalidating annexation where lands were agricultural and rural in character)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970) (continuous surrounding development can make agriculturally used land urban/suburban)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (1968) (annexation valid where tract ran through rapidly developing area)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965) (presence of public facilities and residential growth indicates urban character)
- Plumfield Nurseries, Inc. v. Dodge County, 184 Neb. 346, 167 N.W.2d 560 (1969) (commercial nursery classified as urban rather than rural for annexation purposes)
- Holden v. City of Tecumseh, 188 Neb. 117, 195 N.W.2d 225 (1972) (higher nonagricultural use value can support finding of urban/suburban character)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009) (discusses limits on annexation authority and judicial review)