Opinion ID: 2524049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: under the 2001 version of the disconnection statutes, it was error for the district court to deny the harveys' petition without considering whether disconnection would increase the burdens borne by cedar hills

Text: ¶ 32 Having determined that the district court applied the wrong statutory standard in resolving the Harveys' petition, we must next examine whether Cedar Hills was nevertheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We conclude that the district court's judgment must be reversed, and the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the Harveys' petition for disconnection. On remand, the district court must apply the disconnection statute that was in effect in 2001. As our discussion has made clear, those statutes do not prohibit disconnection merely because it will result in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory. ¶ 33 The 2001 statute requires the court to make two key determinations. First, under Utah Code section 10-2-505(3), the petitioners must prove the viability of the disconnection and that justice and equity require that the territory be disconnected. [51] Second, under sections 10-2-505(4) and 10-2-503, the court must determine, as discussed at length throughout this opinion, that the proposed disconnection will not leave the municipality with a residual area within its boundaries for which the cost, requirements, or other burdens of municipal services would materially increase over previous years or for which it would become economically or practically unreasonable to administer as a municipality. [52] In making this second determination, the statute instructs the court to consider all relevant factors. [53] ¶ 34 This requires the court to examine the effect of disconnection on all of the factors listed in section 10-2-503(2). [54] These include the effect on the community as a whole [and] adjoining property owners, as well as the effects on existing and proposed public streets, sewer and water services, law enforcement, and zoning. [55] In addition to these specific factors, the court must consider the impact of disconnection on any other municipal services. [56] Finally, the statute requires the court to consider the effect on Cedar Hills of the creation of islands or unreasonably large or varied-shaped peninsular land masses. [57] ¶ 35 All of these factors will inform the district court's determination regarding whether the municipality will incur a material increase in costs because of the disconnection. No single factor is necessarily dispositive. To be sure, if the city is required to rework its infrastructure for delivering water or sewer services, the cost may be so burdensome that disconnection should be denied. And the creation of an island of unincorporated territory may contribute to these costs. The creation of an island is also likely to be relevant when examining the costs of building new roads or modifying law enforcement services. ¶ 36 But it is also entirely possible that a proposed disconnection will have a minimal impact on the provision of municipal services, even though an island will be created. Where a parcel of land touches the border of a municipality, roads, water lines, and sewer lines may not cross the parcel at all. The other links that generally connect a particular parcel of land and the municipality to which it belongs might also be similarly attenuated. Further, the creation of easements or licenses might be employed to mitigate changes that would otherwise be materially burdensome for the municipality. Because each parcel of land is unique, so too will be the relationship between any given parcel of land and the municipality to which it belongs. Thus, there is always the possibility that the presence or absence of one particular piece of land might be immaterial to the city's cost of providing municipal services. ¶ 37 Assessing the impact of disconnecting a particular piece of land is necessarily a fact-intensive process. In view of the complexity surrounding these determinations, the disconnection statute directs the court to consider all relevant factors. [58] But because it believed that the creation of an island was prohibited, the district court never examined these factors. Rather, the impact of disconnection is a factual issue that remains disputed, and this issue is material under the 2001 statute. As such, summary judgment in favor of Cedar Hills was inappropriate. Because we are not in a position to undertake this inquiry or to make the necessary factual determinations, we must reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for additional proceedings.