Darling Ingredients v. City of Bellevue
960 N.W.2d 284
Neb.2021Background
- Bellevue adopted an ordinance in 2019 annexing several unincorporated areas, including “Area #9,” owned mainly by Darling Ingredients (industrial plant + 220 acres farmland) and Frank Krejci (55 acres farmland). District court received affidavits and documentary exhibits (no live witnesses).
- Area #9 includes an operating industrial plant, industrially zoned parcels, and large tracts in greenbelt agricultural use; it borders Highway 75, Papillion Creek, Normandy Hills subdivision, is within ~1 mile of multiple residential subdivisions and Offutt AFB, and abuts a parcel the City annexed in 2009 (site of a baseball complex).
- Landowners (Darling and Krejci) sued to invalidate the annexation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16-130, arguing the land is rural/agricultural not urban/suburban and not contiguous/adjacent to Bellevue; they also alleged the annexation was motivated by improper purpose (tax revenue).
- The district court found Area #9 rural/agricultural and not contiguous/adjacent (because it relied on a previously annexed but isolated “island” area), declared the ordinance void, and permanently enjoined enforcement; it did not rule on the improper-purpose claim.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the district court erred on character and contiguity, concluding Area #9 can be characterized as urban/suburban given location, existing nonagricultural uses, contemplated development, and proximity to services/uses; the Court remanded for the district court to address the improper-purpose claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Area #9 is "urban or suburban" (vs agricultural rural) under § 16-130 | Area #9 is largely unplatted agricultural land with no residences or city services and thus rural (citing Wagner) | Area #9 lies near subdivisions, industrial uses, major arterial (Hwy 75), Offutt AFB, has an industrial plant and future development plans; assessor and city planners deem it suburban/urban | Reversed: Area #9 is not rural in character; city’s annexation was not arbitrary/irrational given location, current uses, and contemplated development |
| Whether Area #9 is contiguous or adjacent to Bellevue under § 16-130 | The City’s only adjacency rests on an isolated previously annexed parcel (baseball complex), so Area #9 is not contiguous to the main city body | The previously annexed parcel is part of the City and may be used to establish adjacency; Area #9 borders that parcel and tracts are adjacent to each other | Reversed: Area #9 is contiguous/adjacent (use of the previously annexed parcel is permissible; prior annexation is unchallenged/time-barred) |
| Whether the annexation was enacted for an improper purpose (solely to increase tax revenue) | Annexation was motivated by tax revenue and municipal overreach | City relied on planning rationale and comprehensive plan; denies sole tax motive | Not decided on appeal; Supreme Court remanded for district court to consider this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1, 858 N.W.2d 553 (2015) (annexation review standard; improper tax-motive rule; deference to municipal planning when not arbitrary/irrational)
- Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952) (classical holding that unplatted agricultural acreage was rural and not subject to annexation under statute)
- Cornhusker Pub. Power Dist. v. City of Schuyler, 269 Neb. 972, 699 N.W.2d 352 (2005) (municipal annexation power must be exercised in strict accordance with statute)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Papillion, 277 Neb. 829, 765 N.W.2d 456 (2009) (definition and test for contiguity/adjacency; one tract adjacent to city can link others adjacent to each other)
- Witham v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 366, 250 N.W. 247 (1933) (annexation improper if solely motivated by increased tax revenue)
- 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 depending on location and other factors)
- Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 243 Neb. 607, 501 N.W.2d 302 (1993) (factors for character determination include location, proximity to development, roads, and community features)
- Sullivan v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 511, 162 N.W.2d 227 (1968) (both location and use determine rural vs urban character)
- Bierschenk v. City of Omaha, 178 Neb. 715, 135 N.W.2d 12 (1965) (surrounding development is relevant to character analysis)
- Omaha Country Club v. City of Omaha, 214 Neb. 3, 332 N.W.2d 206 (1983) (agricultural use not dispositive of rural character)
- Johnson v. City of Hastings, 241 Neb. 291, 488 N.W.2d 20 (1992) (discusses impermissible "strip" or corridor annexation)