Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue
309 Neb. 338
Neb.2021Background
- In 2019 Bellevue (the City) adopted an ordinance annexing “Area #9,” comprising ~320 acres owned by Darling Ingredients (industrial plant, farmland, small eastern strip) and a 55-acre farm owned by Krejci.
- Area #9 included industrial use (Darling plant), large tracts designated greenbelt and used for agriculture, no residences in parts, and some parcels zoned industrial; it lacked City water/sewer on the farmland.
- Area #9 is bordered by Highway 75 (west), Papillion Creek (east), Normandy Hills subdivision (south), and lies <1 mile from residential subdivisions, an elementary school, several industrial/commercial sites, and Offutt AFB; a parcel including a baseball complex was annexed by the City in 2009 and lies between Area #9 and the rest of the City.
- The City’s comprehensive plan projected significant population and development growth, identified Area #9 for future industrial/flex uses, and City planners recommended annexation; the planning commission recommended excluding some greenbelt lots.
- Landowners (Darling and Krejci) sued to enjoin enforcement, arguing Area #9 was rural/agricultural (not subject to annexation), not contiguous/adjacent to the City, and that annexation was improperly motivated (tax revenue). The district court found for landowners on character and adjacency grounds and enjoined the annexation.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court as to character and adjacency, and remanded for the district court to decide the landowners’ improper-purpose (tax-motive) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Area #9 is "urban or suburban" or "agricultural . . . rural" under § 16-130 | Area #9 is largely agricultural, unplatted, undeveloped, and therefore rural in character | Area #9 is near major roadway, subdivisions, Offutt AFB, existing industry, and is contemplated for industrial development — thus urban/suburban in character | Reversed district court: Area #9 is not irrationally included; City did not exceed § 16-130 by annexing Area #9 (not rural-only) |
| Whether annexed tracts are "contiguous or adjacent" to the City under § 16-130 | The City relied on an isolated 2009 annexation (baseball complex) that does not touch the main body of the City; therefore Area #9 is not contiguous to the City | At least one tract touches the already-annexed baseball-complex area and the other tracts touch that tract; prior annexation is part of City boundary and establishes adjacency | Reversed district court: Area #9 is contiguous/adjacent because it adjoins area already annexed (2009 annexation cannot now be challenged) |
| Whether the annexation was improperly motivated (solely for tax revenue) | Annexation aimed to increase tax base and revenue, an improper sole motive | City acted for legitimate planning, growth, and development reasons | Not decided on appeal; Supreme Court remanded to district court to adjudicate the improper-purpose claim |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015) (annexation standards; improper-tax-revenue motive invalid)
- Cornhusker Pub. Power Dist. v. City of Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972, 699 N.W.2d 352 (2005) (annexation power must follow statute strictly)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009) (definition and purpose of adjacency/contiguity requirement)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952) (agricultural acreage found rural; historical benchmark)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970) (land use is not sole determinant; location and future use matter)
- Witham v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 366, 250 N.W. 247 (1933) (annexation motivated solely by revenue is improper)