Court Opinion

ID: 9550330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:34:04.643136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:23.730398
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in upholding the constitutionality of the municipal annexation statute, but it is my opinion that notice is statutorily required prior to annexation.
The annexation statute in effect at the time this controversy arose did not specifically contain a notice provision.1 Nevertheless, governing bodies are called upon to vote upon annexation proposals at regular meetings scheduled for such purposes.2 Consequently, the general statute pertaining to open and public meetings comes into play and requires that the “public body shall give reasonable notice of the agenda, date, time and place of each of its meetings.”3 The statute further provides as follows:
Public notice shall include, but need not be limited to:
(a) Posting written notice at the principal office of the public body, or if no such office exists, at the building where the meeting is to be held.
(b) Providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the *1007public body, or to a local media correspondent.
Plaintiff’s claim is essentially that the statute is unconstitutionally violative of due process because of the absence of any notice provision. Plaintiff does not contend that the notice must be personally served but asserts that no attempt was made by the city to inform those persons affected by the annexation hearing.
Inasmuch as plaintiff admits he had actual notice of the hearing and was in attendance, he has no standing to challenge whether or not the notice provisions were complied with. The complaint therefore fails to state a cause of action and was properly dismissed.

.However, the subsequent enactment (in 1979) of U.C.A., 1953, 10-2 — 409 explicitly provides for notice and reads in pertinent part as follows:
. . . [A]t least 20 days prior to the hearing upon a proposal, the chairman [of the local boundary commission] shall have notice of hearing published in a newspaper of general circulation within the affected territory, except that when there are 25 or fewer residents or property owners within the affected territory, mailed notice may be given to each affected resident or owner. The notice shall briefly summarize the nature of the application and state that a copy of the full application is on file at the office of the commission.

. U.C.A., 1953, 10-2-402 (1977 Supp.).

. U.C.A., 1953, 52-4-1 et seq. (1977 Supp.) in effect at the time this controversy arose. It has since been amended but said amendments are not pertinent to the issue here.