Title: Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council and City of Kuna Application for annexation

State: idaho

Issuer: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Document:

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 34513 
 
BLACK LABRADOR INVESTING, LLC,                   
                                                 
          Petitioner-Respondent,                  
                                                 
v.                                               
                                                 
KUNA CITY COUNCIL and the CITY OF  
KUNA, IDAHO, a political subdivision of the  
State of Idaho,     
                                                 
          Respondents-Appellants.                                         
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
 
 
Boise, June 2008 Term 
 
2009 Opinion No.  42  
 
Filed:  April 2, 2009 
 
Stephen Kenyon, Clerk 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of  
Idaho, Ada County.  Honorable D. Duff McKee, District Judge. 
 
The decision of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded with  
directions to dismiss the petition for judicial review. 
 
 
Grove Legal Services, Nampa, for appellants.  Randall Grove argued. 
 
Real Estate Law Group, Eagle, for respondent.  Eric Clark argued. 
 
                     _______________________________________________ 
 
HORTON, Justice 
This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review from a city council‟s denial of an 
application for annexation.  The Kuna City Council (the Council) denied an application for 
annexation by Respondent Black Labrador Investing, LLC (Black Labrador).  Appellant City of 
Kuna (the City) appeals the district court‟s decision reversing and remanding the case to the 
Council for further proceedings.  We hold that no statute authorizes judicial review in the instant 
case.  Accordingly, we vacate the district court‟s order and remand to the district court for 
dismissal of the petition for judicial review.   
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Black Labrador owns a 1.79-acre lot adjacent to the City in Ada County.  Black Labrador 
initially planned to subdivide the property into two separate .89-acre lots and build a single-
family home on each lot.  Black Labrador sought permission from the City to annex and 
subdivide the property.  Although the property had access to City water service, sewer lines were 
2 
located about a mile away.  At the time of Black Labrador‟s application, the parties anticipated 
that City sewer service would be available to the property in about two years. 
In lieu of connecting the two homes to the City‟s sewer service, Black Labrador planned 
to use an existing septic system and install an additional nitrate reducing septic system.  Black 
Labrador also sought to enter into a development agreement with the City whereby Black 
Labrador would fit each home with “dry lines” to connect to the City sewer system once that 
service was available.  The homeowners would then abandon the septic systems after connecting 
to City sewer.  
The City Planning and Zoning Commission found that the annexation and lot split 
complied with the City Code, the City Comprehensive Plan, and I.C. § 50-222.  On October 24, 
2006, after a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the 
Council approve the annexation.  On November 22, 2006, Black Labrador amended the 
development proposal to subdivide and develop the property into three lots of approximately .65 
acre each.  Black Labrador planned to install an additional nitrate reducing septic system to 
accommodate the third home.  Black Labrador did not submit the amended development plan to 
the Planning and Zoning Commission for comment and recommendation.  
The Council scheduled Black Labrador‟s annexation application for consideration on 
November 21, 2006.  The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, asked that the Council 
table the matter until the December 5, 2006 meeting.  During the November 21, 2006 meeting, 
Diane Sanders, the Planning and Zoning Director, and the Council discussed two proposed 
annexations that were similar to Black Labrador‟s application.  Sanders indicated that the owners 
of properties near Meadow View and Ash streets, where City water service was available but 
City sewer service was not, had asked to install septic tanks on half-acre lots that would 
subsequently be annexed into the City.  The property owners would install “dry lines” in the 
subdivisions for use when sewer service became available.  Sanders asked the Council for its 
position regarding septic tanks on property the City would subsequently annex.  The Council 
indicated that it did not want new developments installing septic tanks for use within City limits. 
On December 1, 2006, the Central District Health Department (Health Department) sent 
the Council an opinion letter.  The Health Department indicated that it was possible to put a 
septic system on a half-acre lot without a water well.  Additionally, the Health Department 
indicated that a subdivision near Black Labrador‟s property conducted a nutrient pathogen study 
3 
a number of years ago under criteria that was more lenient than the standards in effect at the time 
of the instant controversy.  That study resulted in a requirement for a minimum lot size of one 
acre due to the level of nitrates in the septic effluent.  The Health District does not require a 
nutrient pathogen study unless a subdivision will discharge more than 600 gallons of effluent per 
day.  Black Labrador‟s subdivision would not meet this threshold.  
At the December 5, 2006 Council meeting, the Council indicated that it was concerned 
with the level of nitrates and phosphates Black Labrador‟s septic tanks would discharge.  Steve 
Rule, a distributor of the AdvanTex septic systems Black Labrador hoped to install, addressed 
the Council at the meeting.  Rule indicated that the AdvanTex septic systems could reduce nitrate 
discharge to acceptable levels.  However, Rule indicated the system could not reduce the level of 
phosphates discharged from the septic systems.   
The Council also indicated that the City was attempting to build a $30 million wastewater 
treatment facility in order to reduce its wastewater nitrate and phosphate footprints.  The Council 
was wary of approving Black Labrador‟s application while also asking its citizens connected to 
the sewer system to pay for a treatment plant that would reduce waste levels below that of the 
AdvanTex septic systems.  The Council was also wary of the fact that Black Labrador would use 
an existing septic tank on the property that would not reduce nitrates or phosphates.  Based on 
this discussion, the Council voted unanimously to deny Black Labrador‟s proposed annexation.  
The Council subsequently released its findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the 
application.  The Council found that annexation without connection to the City sewer system was 
not in the public interest pursuant to Kuna City Code (KCC) 6-4-2-H.  On December 7, 2006, 
Black Labrador filed a petition for judicial review asking the district court to set aside the 
decision of the Council and issue an order approving the annexation and lot split.  On July 10, 
2007, the district court issued its written decision reversing the Council‟s denial and remanding 
the case to the Council for further consideration.  The district court ordered the Council to 
provide Black Labrador with a new hearing on its application, reconsider the application, and 
issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the record.  The City timely 
appealed to this Court. 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
In an appeal from a district court‟s decision where the district court was acting in its 
appellate capacity under the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this Court reviews the 
4 
agency record independently of the district court‟s decision.  Castenada v. Brighton Corp., 130 
Idaho 923, 926, 950 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1998).  This Court will defer to the agency‟s findings of 
fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous.  Id.  When supported by evidence in the record, 
the agency‟s factual determinations are binding on the reviewing court even when there is 
conflicting evidence before the agency.  Id. 
III. ANALYSIS 
 
In order to obtain judicial review of the City‟s decision regarding annexation, there must 
be a statute granting the right of judicial review.  Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 145 
Idaho 958, 960-61, 188 P.3d 900, 902-03 (2008) (citing Gibson v. Ada County Sheriff’s Dep’t., 
139 Idaho 5, 8, 72 P.3d 845, 848 (2003)).  Black Labrador argues that the APA, KCC, and the 
Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) authorize judicial review of the City‟s denial of its 
annexation application.  We disagree. 
A. There is no statutory right of judicial review of the City’s denial of Black 
Labrador’s application for annexation under the APA. 
 
The APA generally does not authorize judicial review of decisions made by counties or 
cities.  Highlands, 145 Idaho at 960, 188 P.3d at 902; Petersen v. Franklin County, 130 Idaho 
176, 182, 938 P.2d 1214, 1220 (1997).  The judicial review standards found within the APA only 
apply to agency actions.  Gibson, 139 Idaho at 7, 72 P.3d at 847.  “„Counties and city 
governments are considered local governing bodies rather than agencies for purposes of the 
[APA].‟”  Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome County, 145 Idaho 630, 632, 181 P.3d 1238, 1240 
(2008) (quoting Gibson, 139 Idaho at 7, 72 P.3d at 847); see also Idaho Historic Preservation 
Council, Inc. v. City Council of City of Boise, 134 Idaho 651, 653, 8 P.3d 646, 648 (2000) 
(stating “[t]he language of the [APA] indicates that it is intended to govern the judicial review of 
decisions made by state administrative agencies, and not local governing bodies.” (emphasis in 
original)). 
Historically, this Court has characterized annexation decisions as legislative decisions by 
cities and therefore not subject to judicial review.  See Crane Creek Country Club v. City of 
Boise, 121 Idaho 485, 487, 826 P.2d 446, 448 (1990) (holding that annexation is a legislative act 
of city government accomplished by the enactment of an ordinance and therefore not subject to 
writ of prohibition); Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 68, 665 P.2d 1075, 1078 (1983). 
Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 84(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ctions of state 
agencies or officers or actions of a local government, its officers or its units are not subject to 
5 
judicial review unless expressly authorized by statute.”  Thus, we must determine whether there 
is express statutory authorization for a party to obtain judicial review of a city‟s decision to deny 
a request for annexation.    
1.  Idaho Code § 50-222 does not authorize judicial review of the denial of Black 
Labrador‟s application for annexation.  
 
The legislature has specifically authorized judicial review under the APA of a city 
council‟s annexation decision under certain circumstances.  I.C. § 50-222(6).  Idaho Code § 50-
222 divides annexations into three categories: category A, B, and C.1  Category A annexations 
are defined as follows: 
Category A: Annexations wherein all private landowners raise no 
objection to annexation, or annexations of any residential enclaved lands of less 
[than] one hundred (100) privately-owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, 
which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which are bounded on 
all sides by lands within a city and by lands for which owner approval must be 
given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section, or which are bounded on all 
sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city‟s area of city impact. 
 
I.C. § 50-222(3)(a) (emphasis added).2  Category B annexations involve lands that contain less 
than one hundred separate private ownerships where not all landowners consent to annexation, or 
lands that contain more than one hundred separate private ownerships where landowners owning 
more than fifty percent of the area of the lands consent to annexation, or lands that are subject to 
a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local 
health or environmental agencies.  I.C. § 50-222(3)(b).  Category C annexations involve lands 
that contain more than one hundred separate private ownerships where landowners owning more 
than fifty percent of the area of the lands have not consented to annexation.  I.C. § 50-222(3)(c). 
Idaho Code § 50-222(6) authorizes judicial review under the APA of a city council‟s 
decision to annex lands in category B and C annexations only.  Idaho Code § 50-222(6) provides 
in relevant part: 
The decision of a city council to annex and zone lands as a category B or 
category C annexation shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the 
                                                 
1  
The legislature made minor changes to these categories during the 2008 legislative session.  2008 S.L. ch. 
118, § 1, p. 327.  The changes reflect technical changes to provide for better organization of the statute and to 
eliminate implied consent annexations after July 1, 2008.  Statement of Purpose, 2008 S.L. ch. 118, § 1.   
 
2  
The version of I.C. § 50-222(3)(a) in effect at the time of the filing of this case contained a typographical 
error, and the word “that” was included in the place of the word “than.”   
6 
procedures provided in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the 
standards set forth in section 67-5279, Idaho Code. 
 
I.C. § 50-222(6) (emphasis added).  Idaho Code § 50-222(6) also contains a broad grant of 
judicial review that applies to all annexations authorized by a city council: “All cases in which 
there may arise a question of the validity of any annexation under this section shall be advanced 
as a matter of immediate public interest and concern, and shall be heard by the district court at 
the earliest practicable time.”  I.C. § 50-222(6).   
If the City had annexed Black Labrador‟s property, the action would have been a 
category A annexation as Black Labrador, the only private landowner involved, did not raise an 
objection to annexation.  However, I.C. § 50-222(6) does not authorize judicial review of a 
category A annexation under the APA.  The structure of I.C. § 50-222(6) clearly reflects that the 
right of judicial review is dependent upon an affirmative decision to annex property; the 
legislature did not provide for judicial review when a city has decided not to annex property.   
Based upon its interpretation of the legislative intent behind I.C. § 50-222, Black 
Labrador argues that I.C. § 50-222 permits judicial review in cases involving a landowner that 
has initiated an annexation application as opposed to a city.  We do not find it necessary to 
address Black Labrador‟s interpretation of the legislative intent behind I.C. § 50-222.  Our 
inquiry begins and ends with the plain language of the statute.  When this Court interprets a 
statute, it begins with the literal words of the statute, giving those words their plain, usual, and 
ordinary meaning.  McLean v. Maverik Country Stores, Inc., 142 Idaho 810, 813, 135 P.3d 756, 
759 (2006).  Additionally, this court must construe the statute as a whole.  Id.  The plain 
language of I.C. § 50-222 does not distinguish between annexations initiated by a city or a 
landowner.  Therefore, it is improper for this Court to read this distinction into the statute.    
Black Labrador also argues that the last sentence of I.C. § 50-222(6) authorizes judicial 
review of an annexation decision when there is a dispute concerning the annexation.  That 
sentence provides: “All cases in which there may arise a question of the validity of any 
annexation under this section shall be advanced as a matter of immediate public interest and 
concern, and shall be heard by the district court at the earliest practicable time.”  I.C. § 50-
222(6).    However, judicial review under that sentence requires an affirmative decision by a city 
to annex property.  The instant case does not involve an affirmative decision by the City to annex 
property.  Therefore, we conclude that I.C. § 50-222(6) does not expressly authorize judicial 
review in the instant case.   
7 
2.  The Kuna City Code does not create a right of judicial review of Black Labrador‟s 
application for annexation.   
 
Black Labrador argues that KCC 5-1A-7 authorizes judicial review in accordance with 
I.R.C.P. 84(a)(1).  Kuna City Code 5-1A-7, subsection E provides in relevant part: “The council 
shall provide the applicant written findings of fact and conclusions of law in accord with Idaho 
Code sections 67-6519 and 67-6535 stating the reasons for the decision.”  Idaho Code § 67-6519, 
in turn, provides in relevant part: “An applicant denied a permit or aggrieved by a decision may 
within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinance seek 
judicial review under the procedures provided by [the APA].” 
Black Labrador‟s implicit assertion that a city ordinance can authorize judicial review is 
incorrect.  This Court decided whether a county ordinance may authorize judicial review 
pursuant to the APA in Gibson v. Ada County Sheriff’s Department.  In Gibson, we determined 
the answer to this question depended on whether the county was empowered to enact a law 
providing for judicial review under the Idaho State Constitution.  139 Idaho at 8, 72 P.3d at 848.   
We determined that a county‟s power to enact such a law was outside the scope of local 
police regulations delegated to counties under Article XII, § 2 of the Idaho State Constitution.  
Consequently, the county ordinance providing judicial review under the APA conflicted with the 
general laws of this State.  Id.  Article XII, § 2 of the Idaho State Constitution provides: “Any 
county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local 
police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general 
laws.”  Because Article XII, § 2 applies to both cities and counties, our reasoning in Gibson 
applies to the instant case.  Consequently, to the extent that the Kuna City Code may be 
interpreted as purporting to authorize judicial review under the APA, it conflicts with the general 
laws of this State, as did the county ordinance in Gibson.  Accordingly, we conclude that KCC 5-
1A-7 is not a basis for judicial review of the City‟s annexation decision. 
3.  LLUPA does not authorize judicial review of the City‟s denial of Black Labrador‟s 
application for annexation. 
 
Black Labrador argues that the City‟s decision denying annexation did not satisfy the 
requirements of the Local Land Use Planning Act, I.C. § 67-6501 et seq.  Specifically, Black 
Labrador asserts that the City‟s decision was inconsistent with the requirements of I.C. § 67-
6535, which provides in relevant part:  
8 
(a) The approval or denial of any application provided for in this chapter 
shall be based upon standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the 
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or 
regulation of the city or county. 
 
(b)  The approval or denial of any application provided for in this chapter 
shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the 
criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied 
upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable 
provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and statutory 
provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual information contained in 
the record. 
 
Black Labrador argues that its application for annexation complied with the City‟s 
comprehensive plan, and all zoning ordinances, and therefore it was an abuse of discretion for 
the Council to deny the application.  Additionally, Black Labrador argues that the City did not 
provide a reasoned statement explaining the rationale for the decision based on the applicable 
provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinances and statutory provisions, pertinent 
constitutional principles, and facts contained in the record. 
Before we can address the merits of Black Labrador‟s claim, we must first consider 
whether LLUPA authorizes judicial review in this case.  LLUPA authorizes judicial review in 
cases where a person has applied for and been denied a permit that is required or authorized 
under LLUPA.  Highlands, 145 Idaho at 961, 188 P.3d at 903; I.C. § 67-6519.  LLUPA 
specifically mentions special use permits, I.C. § 67-6512; subdivision permits, I.C. § 67-6513; 
planned unit development permits, I.C. § 67-6515; variance permits, I.C. § 67-6516; and 
building permits, I.C. § 67-6517.  Giltner Dairy, 145 Idaho at 633, 181 P.3d at 1241.  LLUPA 
also authorizes judicial review in cases where a person‟s interest in real property may be 
adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit authorizing development.  I.C. § 67-
6521.  LLUPA does not mention any permit that relates to the annexation of land by a city.  
Black Labrador does not argue that the City denied it any permit required or authorized under 
LLUPA.  Accordingly, we conclude that LLUPA does not authorize judicial review in the instant 
case.   
B. Black Labrador is not entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred on appeal.   
Black Labrador seeks an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-117.  
Since Black Labrador has not prevailed in this appeal, it is not entitled to attorney fees under I.C. 
9 
§ 12-117.  Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley County, 145 Idaho 121, 138, 176 P.3d 
126, 143 (2007).    
IV. CONCLUSION 
We hold that no statute authorizes judicial review in the instant case.  We vacate the 
district court‟s order and remand the matter to the district court with directions to dismiss the 
petition for judicial review.   
 
Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and W. JONES CONCUR.