archive-edu.com » EDU » T » TENNESSEE.EDU

Total: 795

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Handbook for Cities and Towns in Tennessee III
    counties when the former annexes property in the latter But annexation has many financial impacts on both the annexing cities and the annexed territory including the cost of providing services to the annexed territory 3 To reconcile the old and the new annexation laws the latter generally wrought by Public Acts 1998 Chapter 1101 and Public Acts 2014 Chapter 707 Original Author Hemsley Sid Co Author Product Create Date 11

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/6930270b5b373ac285257d9b005c0ff5?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Notice
    1998 allowed plaintiffs to challenge an annexation under the Declaratory Judgments Act years beyond the thirty day limit contained in Tennessee Code Annotated 6 51 102 However in Highwoods Property Inc v City of Memphis 297 S W 3d 695 2009 the Tennessee Supreme Court perhaps understanding the confusion created by Earhart drew what appears to be fairly sharp lines around Earhart holding that challenges to annexations under the Declaratory Judgments Act were limited to very narrow circumstances and generally must be brought as quo warranto actions within the thirty day limit prescribed by Tennessee Code Annotated 6 51 101 including annexation ordinances in which procedural defects are alleged Under the principles of our constitution the General Assembly could have delegated to the municipalities the authority to annex with no right of judicial review absent constitutional restraint Bastnagel 457 S W 2d at 534 The right to challenge an annexation is thus a statutory right that in its very origin is limited Brent v Town of Greeneville 203 Tenn 60 309 S W 2d 121 123 1957 We have stated that w ithin the four corners of the quo warranto statute lies the entire jurisdiction and authority of the Courts to review the actions of municipalities in enacting annexation ordinances City of Oak Ridge v Roane County 563 S W 2d 895 897 Tenn 1978 Thus the courts have no power to vacate an annexation ordinance for purely procedural defects because no such authority has been granted by statute City of Watauga v City of Johnson City 589 S W 2d 901 906 Tenn 1979 Rather the general rule is that defects in an annexation ordinance must be presented in the context of a challenge to its reasonableness or necessity by way of a timely quo warranto challenge City of Oak Ridge 563 S W 2d at 898 see also City of Knoxville v State ex rel Graves 207 Tenn 558 341 S W 2d 718 721 1960 holding that allegation that ordinance was passed without a public hearing should be considered in connection with the question of the reasonableness of the ordinance At 707 08 Highwoods pointed to two conditions on Declaratory Judgment Act suits in annexation cases that it had imposed on such suits in Earhart First we permitted only challenges to ultra vires acts that is tests of t he validity of an annexation ordinance alleged to exceed the authority delegated by the legislature Earhart 970 S E 2d at 954 Second we stated that it is only where the quo warranto proceedings is not available that alternative equitable remedies are not barred Id At 952 citing 65 Am Jur 2d Quo Warranto 7 1972 W here the remedy by quo warranto is available it is usually held that there is no concurrent remedy in equity unless by virtue of statutory provision Emphasis added by court At 10 Highwoods emphasized that Earhar t involved a case where the absence of people in the annexed area meant that

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/5cd559471efa92e38525789a004e015d?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation of Contiguous Properties
    annexation must be adjoining the existing city without intervening space between the land proposed for annexation and the existing city Original Author Broughton Jeff Co Author Hemsley Sid Product Create Date 09 29 2014 Last Reviewed on 10 15 2014

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/e6343d00f8962e7f85257d7200469bd5?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
    of land to a municipality Citation omitted These decisions articulate the principle implicit in the Tennessee statute At 954 Earlier the concept of an annexation creating a archipelagic monstrosity appeared in City of Kingsport v State ex rel Crown Enterprises Inc 562 S W 2d 808 Tenn 1978 There Crown Enterprises challenged Kingsport s annexation of 806 acres which included within that acreage Crown Enterprise s 85 acre industrial park The trial court found the annexation unreasonable for several reasons one of which was the 85 acre site did not need city services The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the trial court s view declaring that The whole process of annexation would be frustrated if the city could only annex those properties then in need of city services The result of this would tend to create islands of unincorporated areas within a city and the archipelagic monstrosity thus created would thwart the rendition of essential city services and would not be in the public interest Appellees do not contest the annexation of the remaining property Should we uphold their contention the result would be the creation of an 85 acre island or enclave completely surrounded by the City of Kingsport This area thus omitted would be within but not a part of a city Absent the most compelling considerations such a situation would be intolerable and an annexation that produced such a result would not meet the test of reasonableness At 814 Emphasis is mine Annexations that leave what are called donut holes or islands are usually contiguous to the city in the sense that the annexed territory actually touches the municipal boundaries they are usually surrounded by those boundaries The same is true of balloon corridor string and shoestring annexations one end of the balloon corridor string or shoestring usually touches the annexing municipality But they are generally not contiguous for the purposes of Tennessee annexation law or the law of numerous other states for that matter See Anno What Land is Contiguous or Adjacent to Municipality so as to be Subject to Annexation 49 A L R 3d 589 1972 Analysis of Question 2 Ostensibly however Earhart applies only to annexations that do not take in people private property or commercial activity The Tennessee Court of Appeals gave it such an interpretation in the unreported case of Snell v City of Murfreesboro 1004 WL 124032 2004 There the territory annexed by the city included several acres and 1 600 feet of road right of way that connected those acres to the city The plaintiffs who owned property abutting the road but not in the annexed territory challenged the annexation under the Declaratory Judgement Act arguing that the road right of way contained no people private property or commercial activity and that the annexed property was not contiguous to the city The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the annexation by ordinance under Tennessee Code Annotated 6 51 103 a 1 because they did not live in the territory annexed as required by that statute The court also rejected the plaintiff s Earhart claim declaring that the annexation did include people and private property in the territory at the end of the road right of way and reasoned that Earh ar t clearly applies only in those situations where a municipality passes an ordinance that purports to annex an area that does not include people property or commercial activity and is therefore void Because the annexed territory in this case does include people and private property the quo warranto remedy is available to challenge the annexation ordinance in question it is just not available to Appellants The alternative remedy of declaratory judgement is therefore not available to Appellants under the rationale set out in Earhart under both T C A 6 51 103 and Earhart Appellants lack legal standing to challenge the annexation ordinance At 5 This question arises under Earhart and Snell Who would have standing to challenge the annexation ordinance passed by City A City B and City C Under Tennessee Code Annotated 6 51 103 a 1 A Any aggrieved owner of property that borders on or lies within the area to be annexed has 30 days to challenge the annexation But State ex rel Cordova Residents for the Environment v City of Memphis 862 S W 2d 525 Tenn App 1992 held that the borders on part of the statute unconstitutional For that reason in a quo warranto annexation suit only the owners of the property that lies within the annexed area have standing to challenge the annexation Judging by what I have been told and read about the annexation in question the quarry owners are not going to challenge the annexation they are promoting it But the courts have equity jurisdiction in annexation cases that are not brought under the quo warranto statute found in Tennessee Code Annotated 6 51 103 It is said in Bristol v Earhart above that But where the quo warranto proceeding is not available alternative equitable remedies are not barred W here the remedy by quo warranto is available it is usually held that there is no concurrent remedy in equity unless by virtue of statutory provision But if quo warranto is not an adequate remedy it will not be a bar to alternative remedies 65 Am Jur 2d Quo Warranto 7 1972 The availability of other remedies is specifically acknowledged in section 6 51 113 1992 which provides Except as specifically provided in this part the powers conferred by this part shall be in addition and supplemental to and limitations imposed by this part shall not effect the powers conferred by any other general special or local law The Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act is just such another general law conferring the power to challenge the validity and construction of statutes and municipal ordinances At 953 Town of Oakland v Town of Somerville 2003 WL 22309498 Tenn Ct App 2003 above citing Earhart said the same thing

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/9a8e91f8c24f8d708525770c004b2140?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Process and Resolution
    to annex the area Absent this approval the city does not pursue the annexation 2 If the motion to initiate the process passes the matter of annexation is then referred by the city administrator to the planning director for study and a recommendation from the planning commission The planning commission has 90 days to study and review the matter of annexation and is required by law to make a recommendation to the city board The city board may at its discretion and by resolution grant a longer period for review by the planning commission The planning staff will prepare the annexation study and plan of services in coordination with other city staff TCA 6 51 107 The city may not annex territory to which it adjoins without referring the matter of annexation to the planning commission The city is required to re initiate the planning process if it amends the map depicting the territory proposed for annexation The annexation plan of services may be amended after it has been adopted only as the result of unusual circumstances and in all cases subject to a public notice and hearing as required by law 3 Upon completion of the annexation study and plan of services the city administrator shall prepare or have prepared an ordinance annexing the territory proposed for annexation or a resolution for annexation by referendum if the board chooses to pursue the annexation by referendum in accordance with TCA 6 51 104 105 The primary advantage of a referendum provided that 50 one vote in favor is that they are not subject to court review The plan of services should be prepared in resolution form 4 If after reviewing and considering the annexation study and plan of services the city board wishes to continue the annexation by ordinance the board shall enact a resolution authorizing notice of a public hearing on the plan of services to be published in the Elk Valley Times at least 15 days prior to the date of the hearing as well as a notice of the annexation ordinance seven 7 days in advance of a hearing on the ordinance The notice shall include a map clearly identifying the location of the territory proposed for annexation with street names and other topographical features The hearing for the plan of services and annexation ordinance may be held on the same day Prior to the 15 day notice the City Administrator shall notify the County Tax Assessor County School Superintendent and the State Department of Revenue 5 The city is required to adopt the plan of services prior to final passage of the ordinance annexing the territory s 6 Upon final passage of the annexation ordinance a 30 day appeal period begins During this time residents of the area being annexed may challenge the legality of the annexation in court The city is also required during this 30 day period to a Notify the County Mayor of the annexation and such notice shall include a copy of

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/543632bc51cf7d96852574ce00658f26?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Questions Pertaining to Notice Provisions Related to School Systems and Recording Minutes
    next two meetings the mayor simply announced that a vote would be taken on Ordinance 151 the annexation ordinance The Court held that process constituted substantial compliance with the city s charter requirement that the ordinance be read on three readings It reasoned that From our examination of the record we have no doubt that each time the councilmen cast their vote for the passage of the annexation ordinance they were aware of the matter embodied within the ordinance and of the effect of the ordinance on passage At 924 Also see Metro Government of Nashville v Mitchell 539 S W 2d 20 1976 Biltmore Hotel Court v City of Berry Hill 390 S W 2d 223 1965 That rule that the procedural requirements contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 13 7 204 were mandatory was modified somewhat by Wilgus v City of Murfreesboro 532 S W 2d 50 1975 There the Court rejected a challenge to an amendment to a zoning ordinance made on the ground that it had been amended between second and third readings without being resubmitted to the planning commission The test said the Court is whether the revision is so substantial as to create a strong probability that the commission s recommendation would have been affected by the revision If the change is both inconsequential and produces no detrimental effects to those who would oppose it then the revised proposal is not required to be resubmitted At 54 Indeed one of the challenges the plaintiff s raised in Wilgus was that the ordinance had been published only once in violation of the city s charter The city s charter required ordinances to be published three times but the zoning ordinance itself required only one publication The court rejected that challenge declaring that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance on that ground because he had notice of the proposed ordinance and had several times attended city council meetings at which the ordinance had been an issue for the purpose of opposing it But in rejecting the challenge the Court declared that It is an elementary principle that ordinances of a city are subordinate to charter provisions Citation omitted The city may not by ordinance nullify a mandatory provision of its charter At 52 It was held in Morton v Johnson City 333 S W 2d 924 1960 that the purpose of the public notice requirements contained in the state s annexation law is political There the Court said of the required notice of the meeting The words public hearing have a variety of varied meaning depending upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case These words have been variously defined and the definition in each particular case depends of course upon the subject of the hearing the nature of the Board or the persons holding the hearing These words and their meanings vary accordingly The words here in the Statute of a public hearing were not used with respect to a proceedings in

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/b32c9ea6dca0619e8525723f004aa0d8?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Study for the Town of Bell Buckle
    one building a residential dwelling that is occupied Topography The topography of the area is flat to moderately rolling Streets Roads The area proposed for annexation does not include any streets A plat of record in the Register s Office in Bedford County shows streets however the streets were not developed by the developer or the county and the streets are grown over It appears that the streets have long since been effectively abandoned by the county Property dedicated for street easements that is not developed as streets reverts to adjacent property owners Police Protection The Town of Bell Buckle does not provide police protection The area will continue to be served by the Sheriff s Department of Bedford County Fire Protection The Town of Bell Buckle does not provide fire protection for the area proposed for annexation The area is currently served by the Bell Buckle Volunteer Fire Department a community volunteer fire department Water Service The Town of Bell Buckle currently provides water along Cemetery Road that adjoins approximately 600 feet of the property proposed for annexation The town has a written agreement for a developer to extend water lines in the area within a reasonable time frame upon annexation Current water charges for in city residents are a minimum bill of 9 87 for the first 2 000 gallons of water and 3 50 per 1 000 gallons thereafter Residences and businesses outside the city currently pay rates of 16 94 for a minimum bill and 3 50 per 1 000 Residents and businesses in the proposed annexation area will receive in city water rates immediately upon annexation Sanitary Sewer Service The area is currently not served by sanitary sewer The Town of Bell Buckle plans to extend sanitary sewer service to the area upon annexation within

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/e02ec36347737e6785256ca700587a94?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Study Two for the Town of Bell Buckle
    was asked to prepare documents necessary to annex 173 35 acres of land into the Town of Bell Buckle Original Author Darden Don Co Author Product Create Date 07 08 2003 Last Reviewed on 03 21 2010 Subject Annexation studies

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/8eace0c02f25756285256d6300541a4a?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •