Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue
309 Neb. 338
| Neb. | 2021Background
- In 2019 Bellevue adopted ordinances annexing several areas, including “Area #9,” containing ~320 acres owned by Darling Ingredients (industrial plant, farmland, and an undeveloped strip) and a 55-acre farm owned by Krejci. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Evidence was documentary (affidavits, assessor records, a comprehensive plan, maps, and a real-estate listing). Area #9 included an established industrial plant, farmland with greenbelt status, an industrial-zoned 20-acre parcel, bordered by Fort Crook Rd., Highway 75, and Papillion Creek. Nearby features included residential subdivisions, an elementary school, a baseball complex annexed by the City in 2009, and Offutt AFB (~1 mile).
- The City’s comprehensive plan projected growth, identified Area #9 for future industrial/flex use, and supported preemptive annexation to manage future development and infrastructure. City planners recommended annexation partly for financial and growth reasons; the planning commission opposed annexing some greenbelt lots.
- The district court ruled the annexation ordinance invalid because Area #9 was rural/agricultural (not urban/suburban) and not contiguous/adjacent to the City (it relied on a previously annexed, isolated baseball-complex area as an improper adjacency bridge). The court did not rule on plaintiffs’ separate claim that the annexation was motivated by improper purpose (tax revenue).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held Area #9 could be urban/suburban in character given location, surrounding development, existing industrial use, and contemplated future development; and Area #9 was contiguous/adjacent via the 2009-annexed parcel (the 2009 annexation was unchallenged and time-barred). The case was remanded for the district court to consider the improper-purpose claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Area #9 is "urban or suburban" rather than "agricultural lands which are rural in character" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-130 | Area #9 is largely agricultural, unplatted, without residences or city services and thus rural (relying on Wagner) | Area #9 lies adjacent to subdivisions, industrial uses, major arterials, Offutt AFB, contains an existing industrial plant, and is the subject of the City’s comprehensive plan projecting nonagricultural development | Reversed district court: considering location, present uses, and contemplated development, Area #9 is not arbitrary/irrationally annexed and may be urban/suburban in character |
| Whether Area #9 is "contiguous or adjacent" to the City under § 16-130 | The City relied on an isolated, previously annexed parcel (the baseball-complex area) to bridge adjacency; that parcel is an "island" separated from the rest of the City, so adjacency fails | The baseball-complex parcel was validly annexed earlier and is part of the City; Area #9 borders that parcel and thus is adjacent/contiguous | Reversed district court: adjacency satisfied because the previously annexed parcel is part of the City and may be used to establish adjacency; prior annexation was not challenged and is time-barred |
| Whether the annexation was invalid because it was motivated solely by improper purpose (e.g., to increase tax revenue) | Annexation was driven by revenue/tax motives and thus improper | City contends annexation served legitimate planning, growth, and service objectives | Not decided on appeal. Case remanded to district court to address improper-purpose claim because district court did not rule on it |
| Standard/burden: presumption of validity and how courts review annexation challenges | Plaintiffs must prove invalidity of a facially valid annexation ordinance | City argues plaintiffs failed to meet their burden; appellate review is de novo on both fact and law | Court reiterates challenger bears burden; applies de novo review and assesses whether City acted arbitrarily or irrationally in annexing the land |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015) (annexation validity standard; improper motive and deference to municipal planning)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009) (contiguous/adjacent requirement and municipal unity rationale)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952) (annexation of primarily agricultural land held invalid)
- Cornhusker Pub. Power Dist. v. City of Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972, 699 N.W.2d 352 (2005) (city must exercise annexation power in strict accord with statute)
- Witham v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 366, 250 N.W. 247 (1933) (annexation motivated solely by tax gain is improper)
- Voss v. City of Grand Island, 186 Neb. 232, 182 N.W.2d 427 (1970) (land used for agriculture may nonetheless be urban/suburban in character)
- Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 243 Neb. 607, 501 N.W.2d 302 (1993) (factors for evaluating character include proximity to urban features)