Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 8 - August 25, 1997 Z.B. was never recorded with Exhibit B. Bratcher said she bought her property relying on its being outside the city limits and in a lower property tax area. In 1993, the developers recorded a second petition for annexation, including all the property in Exhibit A and B and another 257 acres. The developers said the only reason they filed the 1993 petition was to add property; Bratcher claimed the developers were trying to claim ownership of her lot. The developer had signed the 1991 petition and all owners of the additional acreage signed the 1993 petition, so the city believed 100 percent of the ownership had signed annexation petitions. The city therefore followed a "short form" annexation procedure, which didn't give Bratcher notice of the petition or an opportunity to be heard. The city then adopted an annexation ordinance, referring only to the 1993 petition. In 1995, the city planning department sent Bratcher a copy of the 1993 petition and notified her of a property tax increase. Bratcher said this was the first time she learned of the annexation and that her taxes increased by $285.62 monthly as a result of it. She sued the city, seeking to rescind the annexation, and claiming the city had mistakenly followed the short-form procedure and denied her the extensive due process and statutory rights in the long form procedure. The city asked the court to dismiss Bratcher's claims. The court dismissed the case, ruling Bratcher was bound by the terms of the sewer connection agree- ment in her chain of title that established the city's right to annex her property and had no constitutional right to challenge the annexation. Bratcher appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the lower court. The lower court improperly dismissed Bratcher's claim against the city to rescind the annexation. The city didn't have the authority to annex Bratcher's property, so the annexation ordinance was void. The city annexed Bratcher's property relying solely on the 1993 petition signed only by the former owners of her land, the developers. The 1991 petition wasn't a valid basis for annexation because it didn't accurately describe the land's boundaries, nor was the land contiguous to the city at that time. Moreover, the city itself referred to only the 1993 petition in its correspondence about the annexation ordinance and to Bratcher. Because Bratcher did not sign the 1993 petition, all the record owners did not agree to annexation, and the city should not have used the "short form" annexation procedure. While Bratcher was bound by the terms of the sewer agreement, this agreement gave the city only discretionary authority to annex Bratcher's property. It didn't establish the city's right to annex her property by using the summary procedure. Although the city could have annexed Bratcher's property without her approval, she was denied the statutory right to try and persuade the city council not to pass the ordinance and to negotiate a service plan. see also: Coullty of Clark v. City of North Las Vegas, 504 P.2d 1326 (1973). lVillstoll v. Warden, 464 P.2d 30 (1970). ~s-