Village of Agency, Missouri v. City of St. Joseph, Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1064
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Village of Agency sought involuntary annexation under Mo. Rev. Stat. §71.015 (the Sawyer Act) of ~347 contiguous acres adjacent to its limits; City of St. Joseph owned ~238 acres of the tract and operates a nearby landfill.
- Village's stated motivation was defensive: to control development/zoning of the tract and prevent City landfill expansion into the area.
- Village completed statutory steps (plan of intent hearing, board ordinance, election approved by electors in both Village and annexed area) and then sought a declaratory judgment authorizing annexation.
- Trial court found Village failed to present substantial evidence that the reasonableness and necessity of annexation was "fairly debatable" and denied the petition; Village appealed.
- The court reviewed whether Village had met the Sawyer Act requirements, focusing on the statutory element that annexation be "reasonable and necessary to the development of the city," evaluated under the "fairly debatable" substantial-evidence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by requiring Village to prove by substantial evidence that reasonableness and necessity was "fairly debatable" | Village: Court improperly imposed a burden of persuasion and substituted its judgment for the legislative determination | Respondents: Sawyer Act requires municipality to proceed with evidence; standard is whether question is "fairly debatable" based on substantial evidence | Held: No error — Village had burden to proceed with evidence; trial court correctly required substantial evidence that issue was fairly debatable |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to consider Village's defensive motive (preventing a noxious use/landfill expansion) as support for reasonableness and necessity | Village: Defensive motive (to regulate neighboring land and prevent noxious use) is a permissible factor because Centralia factors are non‑exclusive | Respondents: Defensive motive alone is insufficient; controlling neighboring zoning cannot alone justify annexation under Missouri precedent | Held: No error — defensive motivation alone cannot sustain finding that annexation is reasonable and necessary; existing precedent bars annexation justified solely to control or prevent neighboring uses |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Centralia v. Norden, 879 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (establishes factors and the "fairly debatable" standard for annexation)
- Binger v. City of Independence, 588 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. 1979) (Sawyer Act requires burden of proceeding with evidence; no preponderance burden)
- City of Peculiar v. Effertz Bros. Inc., 254 S.W.3d 51 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (annexation cannot be justified by defensive competition among cities; defensive motives insufficient alone)
- Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. City of Peculiar, 259 S.W.3d 597 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (statutory factors must be at least fairly debatable)
- City of Lake Winnebago v. Gosewisch, 932 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (desire to control zoning of adjacent land not, by itself, sufficient to justify annexation)
- City of Town & Country v. St. Louis Cty., 657 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. banc 1983) (municipalities serve residents' interests; legislature restricts annexation for municipal self‑interest)