Section 15.18 Questions of Reasonableness and Other Standards

LibraryLocal Government Deskbook (2017 Ed.)

H. (§15.18) Questions of Reasonableness and Other Standards

In approving an annexation under a declaratory judgment petition, the court does not inquire as to the advisability or propriety of the proposed annexation but only as to its reasonableness. It determines that, at a minimum, the question of reasonableness is fairly debatable. City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, 405 S.W.2d 536 (Mo. App. E.D. 1966).

A desire for orderly planning of land contiguous to municipal boundaries does not in itself justify annexation. City of Odessa v. Carroll, 512 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. App. W.D. 1974).

In City of Perryville v. Brewer, 557 S.W.2d 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977), the court outlined a number of criteria, although not exclusive, for judging the reasonableness of a proposed annexation. (Those no longer pertinent after City of Town & Country v. St. Louis County, 657 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. banc 1983), are omitted.)

The inability of the city to meet its needs without expansion (only those needs that are reasonably foreseeable and not visionary should be considered, and past growth may be relied on to show future necessity)

The extent to which past growth has caused the city to spill over into the proposed area

The beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal ordinances in the city and the annexed area

The need for and beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal building, plumbing, and electrical codes

The beneficial effect of extending police protection to the annexed area

The need for and beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of municipal ordinances or regulations pertaining to health

The need for and the ability of the city to extend essential municipal services into the annexed area

The regularity of boundaries

City of Perryville, 557 S.W.2d at 462.

More concisely, reasonableness is when it appears that the land proposed for annexation is so situated as to be adaptable to urban purposes and necessary or convenient to the reasonable exercise of city government. The fact that land is being used for agricultural purposes does not necessarily preclude its annexation. The fact that the City (in City of Town & Country, 657 S.W.2d 598) contained an area of little more than one-fourth of the total land after the proposed annexation also did not preclude annexation. See also City of St. Peters, Missouri v. Klein, 954 S.W.2d 586 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (deletion of nearly half of the area originally proposed to be annexed and resulting in an unincorporated island affected the reasonableness of the proposed annexation).

The fact that the purpose of a proposed annexation is to extend corporate limits so that the city’s boundaries will abut tracts voluntarily proposing annexation does not preclude...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT