Opinion ID: 2091272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Contiguity Issue.

Text: Hiawatha contends the annexation to Cedar Rapids is not permissible because Cedar Rapids and the area to be annexed do not meet the statutory requirements for contiguity. See Iowa Code § 368.7(1). Specifically, Hiawatha contends that neither of the two possible connections between Cedar Rapids and the annexed area (a parcel of nonconsenting property and a public road) is permissible under the statute. Hiawatha characterizes the board's action as aggressive use of a nonconsenting property to obtain the nexus required by statute. The statute provides: All of the owners of land in a territory adjoining a city may apply in writing to the council of the adjoining city requesting annexation of the territory. Iowa Code § 368.7(1). The terms territory and adjoining are defined by statute: 1.  Adjoining  means having a common boundary for not less than fifty feet. Land areas may be adjoining although separated by a roadway or waterway. .... 14.  Territory  means the land area or areas proposed to be incorporated, annexed, or severed, whether or not contiguous to all other areas proposed to be incorporated, annexed, or severed. Except as provided for by an agreement pursuant to chapter 28E,  territory  having a common boundary with the right-of-way of a secondary road extends to the center line of the road. Iowa Code § 368.1. Hiawatha contends that the fifty-foot connection must be made with voluntary parcels. We specifically rejected that argument in a case decided after the board and the district court decided the present case. Waukee, 590 N.W.2d at 717. In that case, the City of Clive attempted to annex a voluntary parcel that was only contiguous to the territory to be annexed through an involuntary parcel. Id. at 714-15. We held that the language of section 368.7(1), land in a territory adjoining a city, requires only that the entire land area to be annexed share a common boundary with the city to which annexation is sought. Id. at 717. The territory Clive sought to annex, we said, encompasses all of the voluntary and involuntary parcels mentioned. Although not all of the parcels adjoin or share a common boundary with the city of Clive, all of the parcels are contiguous to each other in the sense that there is no parcel that does not share a boundary with a parcel included in the territory to be annexed. In addition, one of the parcels is contiguous to the city of Clive. Id. Under that case and the wording of section 368.7(1), all parcels proposed to be annexed under section 368.7(1), both voluntary and involuntary, must be viewed as a whole. When the annexation area here is considered as a whole, including consenting and nonconsenting owners, the area is contiguous to Cedar Rapids within the meaning of the statute. Hiawatha asks us to overrule Waukee and hold that nonconsenting land cannot bridge the annexing and annexed areas. In making this argument, Hiawatha relies on a sentence in section 368.7(1) that was not discussed in Waukee:  All of the owners of land in a territory adjoining a city may apply ... requesting annexation of the territory. (Emphasis added.) The significance of the word all in this section, according to Hiawatha, is that implicitly anything less than all adjoining landowners cannot form the required nexus. It is true, as Hiawatha notes, we did not address this specific argument in Waukee because it was not raised. Nevertheless, we held the express language of the first sentence of section 368.7(1) suggested the opposite interpretation: the word adjoining immediately follows the word territory, which means both voluntary and involuntary parcels are considered together. Waukee, 590 N.W.2d at 717. We reaffirm that holding in Waukee and reject Hiawatha's argument that nonconsenting parcels cannot bridge the two areas.