Opinion ID: 1427904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The City's Argument

Text: The city argues that the plain language of section 321.320 provides that property that is within the boundaries of a fire protection district and is included within a city will be excluded from the district and the use of the present tense indicates legislative intent to apply this statute prospectively to all inclusions. The city further states that the 1969 amendment supports the argument that the legislature intended a broad application of section 321.320 because it removed the requirement that the county be a first-class county. The city makes several arguments that section 72.418 should be read in context of the boundary commission act and should only apply to counties with a boundary commission. First, the city emphasizes the reference in section 72.418 to boundary changes, which is a term used exclusively in the boundary commission act. Second, the city notes that the emergency clause of SB 256, the bill that enacted section 72.418, stated that immediate action is necessary to provide several municipalities who have annexations pending before the boundary commission.... Third, the city argues that several legislative acts do not support the trial court's interpretation that the legislature intended section 72.418 to apply to all annexations by any city. The legislature did not repeal section 321.320 when it enacted section 72.418, and the addition of subsection 4 to section 321.322expressly stating that subsections 2 and 3 of 72.418 applied to certain citieswould be unnecessary if section 72.418 applied so broadly. The city finally claims that the statutes can be harmonized by placing section 72.418 in the context of the boundary commission act and limiting its application to annexed property located in counties with a boundary commission. Section 321.320 would apply to annexed property in counties with no boundary commission. In the alternative, if the sections are in irreconcilable conflict, section 321.320 applies because it is more specific, only applying to those cities meeting the population requirement.