Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/City of Ash Grove v. Davis

City of Ash Grove v. Davis

418 S.W.2d 194, 1967 Mo. App. LEXIS 646
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 28, 1967
Docket8659
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 418 S.W.2d 194 (City of Ash Grove v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Ash Grove v. Davis, 418 S.W.2d 194, 1967 Mo. App. LEXIS 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

STONE, Presiding Judge.

From a declaratory judgment entered in this action under the Sawyers Act [V.A. M.S. § 71.015; Laws 1953, p. 309] authorizing plaintiff, the City of Ash Grove, Missouri, to annex contiguous lands, the instant appeal has been perfected by defendant Alta Davis, who owns a tract of about 43 acres, most of which is in the area sought to be annexed (hereinafter referred to as “the proposed area”).

Our appellate function is to review the case de novo and to reach our own conclusions with respect to the law and the facts, weighing and evaluating all competent evidence with due deference to the findings of the trial court where the credibility of witnesses is involved. V.A.M.R. Rules 87.11 and 73.01(d); V.A.M.S. §§ 527.070 and 510.310; City of Houston v. Duff, Mo.App., 338 S.W.2d 373, 375(1); City of Fulton v. Dawson, Mo.App., 325 S.W.2d 505, 516(1). As we review and consider the facts, we remain mindful of certain well-established principles, to wit, (1) that the Sawyers Act authorizes the proposed annexation only if (a) it “is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of [the'] city” and (b) the city is able “to furnish normal municipal services” to the annexed area within a reasonable time [V.A.M.S. § 71.015; City of Aurora v. Empire District Electric Co., Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 45, 48], (2) that reasonableness and necessity to proper municipal development are separate but closely related concepts [City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827, 836-837(15); City of Woodson Terrace v. Herklotz, Mo.App., 349 S.W.2d 446, 448(1)], (3) that “both parties,” i. e., both the city and property owners in the area sought to be annexed, are entitled to the test of reasonableness [City of Olivette, supra, 338 S.W.2d at 837(16); City of St. Ann v. Buschard, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 567, 575], (4) that the burden of pleading and proving the statutory prerequisites to annexation rests upon the city [City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 369 S.W.2d 85, 93(3); City of Creve Coeur v. Patterson, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 739, 744 (3)], and (5) that the city carries its burden of proof when the evidence raises *197 “fairly debatable” issues as to those statutory prerequisites [City of St. Peters v. Kuester, Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 70, 75(5); City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, Mo. App., 405 S.W.2d 536, 539-540(2)], which “merely means that if there is substantial evidence both ways, then the legislative conclusion [of the board of aldermen] is determinative.” City of Olivette, supra, 369 S.W.2d at 96(5). See State ex inf. Mallett ex rel. Womack v. City of Joplin, 332 Mo. 1193, 1205, 62 S.W.2d 393, 398; State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 397, 228 S.W.2d 762, 774(15). (All emphasis herein is ours.)

Ash Grove is a city of the fourth class situate in Boone Township, Greene County, Missouri, about eighteen miles northwest of Springfield. It is a clean, wholesome residential community, whose inhabitants are understandably proud of the historical fact (included in the transcript before us) that it was “established” by Nathan Boone, the youngest son of Daniel Boone. But, although the city has continued to grow in stature by reason of the character of its citizens and the attainments of its native sons, it passed its numerical peak more than thirty years ago when the Ash Grove Lime and Portland Cement Company, the only major employer in the community, terminated its operations there. So, like hundreds of towns in rural areas, Ash Grove has experienced a slow but steady erosion in population, as evidenced by United States decennial census figures read into the record by counsel and within our judicial ken anyway, to wit, 1107 in 1930, 1101 in 1940, 970 in 1950, and 886 in 1960. Varble v. Whitecotton, 354 Mo. 570, 575, 190 S.W.2d 244, 246(4); Kirst v. Clarkson Construction Co., Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 487, 497-498(15). The accelerated rate of decline in later years was not stemmed by two annexations, one about 1945 and another about 1949 or 1950, and there is no evidence from which it reasonably might be inferred that any reversal in trend has occurred since 1960 or is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. Many of the residents are retired, some work locally, and a substantial number are employed in Springfield. The city’s counsel referred to Ash Grove as “a bedroom town . for people who work in Springfield.”

Ash Grove has one regular police officer (identified by the city clerk as the “chief of police” and by the officer himself as “city marshal”) who “is on call 24 hours a day” and some weeks is relieved by “a special police . . . maybe two nights.” The city marshal is also a deputy sheriff, with a portion of his compensation paid by Greene County. He patrols and furnishes the same police protection in the city and in the proposed area; and when on night patrol, he usually can be reached only by radio through the sheriff’s office. The city marshal serves in still another capacity as fire chief. The city owns a 1949 or 1950 model fire truck with a 300 gallon pumper tank and also provides “storage space for the Greene County truck.” A squad of eight volunteer firemen man the equipment and answer calls both inside and outside the city. Within the corporate limits, the city truck is used and water is available through fire hydrants in the municipal water system. Without the city, the county truck is used and, of course, no water is available from the municipal system.

Residents of the annexed area, “all of them,” already have water service from the municipal system; but, since mains outside the city have been laid by the customers, they are “small water lines . not sufficient for fire hydrants.” To supply sufficient water “in case of a fire,” larger mains would have to be laid. When asked “how many water mains” to the perimeter of the proposed area the city could lay in the event of annexation, the water and sewer superintendent said “one probably without any additional money.”

The municipal sewer system was constructed in 1956 with capacity to handle *198 double the present load. Most of the business buildings and a few of the residences in the proposed area “are already on the sewer,” having been connected at the expense of the property owners. Of the bonds issued for construction of the sewer system, general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal sum of $53,000 and revenue bonds in the aggregate principal sum of $64,000 remained outstanding at the time of trial. The last general obligation bonds mature in 1976 and the last revenue bonds in 1981.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Hinsa
976 S.W.2d 69 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1998)
City of Pacific v. Metro Development Corp.
922 S.W.2d 59 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
St. Andrews Public Service District Commission v. Commissioners of Public Works
344 S.E.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1986)
City of Butler v. Kuecker
559 S.W.2d 575 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
Belle State Bank v. Industrial Commission, Division of Employment Security
547 S.W.2d 841 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
City of Jefferson v. Smith
543 S.W.2d 547 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)
City of Des Peres v. Stapleton
524 S.W.2d 203 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1975)
City of Mexico v. Salmons
514 S.W.2d 102 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
City of Odessa v. Carroll
512 S.W.2d 862 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
Odum v. Cejas
510 S.W.2d 218 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
City of Butler v. Bock
492 S.W.2d 160 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)
City of St. Ann v. Spanos
490 S.W.2d 653 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)
City of Lawson v. Cates
485 S.W.2d 146 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1972)
Superior Loan Corporation of Buffalo v. Robie
476 S.W.2d 144 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1972)
Citizens State Bank of Nevada v. Wales
469 S.W.2d 750 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
City of Cameron v. Stafford
466 S.W.2d 115 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
Henderson v. City of Laramie
457 P.2d 498 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1969)
In Re West Laramie
457 P.2d 498 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1969)
St. Louis County v. Village of Champ
438 S.W.2d 205 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1969)
Stewart v. City of Marshfield
431 S.W.2d 819 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 S.W.2d 194, 1967 Mo. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-ash-grove-v-davis-moctapp-1967.