Ark. Code Ann. » Title 14 Chapter 40
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (2020)

Annexation into adjoining municipality

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. A landowner or group of landowners seeking additional municipal services may have its land detached from the municipality in which it is located and annexed into another municipality that borders the land.
    2. However, before annexation is allowed, the municipality in which the land is located shall have an opportunity to provide the additional services.
  2. The following procedure shall apply:
    1. The landowner or landowners shall file a statement with the municipality in which the land is located listing the additional municipal service or services being sought and stating that:
      1. The municipality is not providing services necessary to create improvements, provide employment or additional employment, subdivide, or otherwise maximize the use and value of the property;
      2. All the land in the request composes one (1) area that is contiguous to another municipality;
      3. The additional services are available in another municipality that borders the land subject to the request; and
        1. The municipality is requested to make a commitment to take substantial steps, within ninety (90) days after the statement is filed, toward providing the additional services and, within each thirty-day period thereafter, to continue taking steps to demonstrate a consistent commitment to provide the service within a reasonable time, as determined by the kind of services requested.
        2. The commitment shall be made in writing to the landowner within thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of the statement, or the landowner may seek to have the land detached from the municipality and annexed into the other municipality.
        3. The landowner shall take appropriate steps to make the land accessible to the service and comply with reasonable requests of the municipality that are necessary for the service to be provided;
    2. The landowner or landowners may request the annexation of the land into the other municipality and thereby detach the land from the boundaries of the municipality in which the land is currently located if:
      1. The municipality in which the land is located fails to execute a commitment to services within thirty (30) days after the statement is filed; or
      2. The municipality executes the commitment to services but fails to take the action required under subdivision (b)(1)(D) of this section;
      1. The land shall be annexed into the other municipality if, after a request by the landowner or landowners, the governing body of the municipality into which annexation is sought indicates by ordinance, resolution, or motion its commitment to make the services available and its approval of the request for annexation.
        1. The annexation shall be void and the land shall be returned to the original municipality if the annexing municipality fails to take substantial steps within ninety (90) days after the passage of the ordinance, resolution, or motion to make the services available and, within each thirty-day period thereafter, continues taking steps demonstrating a consistent commitment to make the additional service available within a reasonable time, as determined by the kind of services requested.
        2. The landowner shall have taken appropriate steps to make the land accessible to the service and complied with the reasonable requests of the municipality that are necessary for the service to be provided.
        3. However, if the requested services are not available within one hundred eighty (180) days after the property is accepted by the annexing jurisdiction or substantial steps are not taken to make the services available within this time period, then the detachment and annexation shall be void and all property returned to its original jurisdiction; and
    4. The land shall remain in the original municipality until it is annexed into the other municipality.
  3. Land annexed pursuant to this section shall not be eligible for reannexation under this section for a period of two (2) years.
  4. This section shall apply to residential, commercial, industrial, and unimproved land.
  5. For the purposes of this section, “services” means electricity, water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, drainage and storm water management, or any other offering by the municipality that materially affects a landowner's ability to develop, use, or expand the uses of the landowner's property.

History. Acts 1999, No. 779, § 2; 2001, No. 1522, § 1; 2001, No. 1525, §§ 1, 2; 2013, No. 1455, § 1; 2019, No. 838, § 1.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2001, No. 1522, § 1 provided:

“If any changes are made to this section [§ 14-40-2002] during the 2001 Regular Session of the General Assembly, those changes of law shall not be applicable to the land, buildings, or improvements which were a part of any military reservation which has been or in the future is conveyed to an Arkansas public trust by the United States of America or any agency, branch, arm, or department thereof, except that § 14-40-2003 shall be applicable to those lands, buildings, and improvements.”

Amendments. The 2013 amendment inserted “additional” in (a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D)(i), and (b)(3)(B)(i); deleted “available” following “services” in (b)(1)(D)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(i); and in (b)(3)(B)(iii), substituted “available” for “provided, accepted, and in place,” substituted “make” for “provide, accept, and have,” and substituted “available” for “in place.”

The 2019 amendment substituted “shall” for “must” in (b)(1)(D)(ii), (b)(1)(D)(iii), and (b)(3)(B)(ii); substituted “composes” for “must compose” in (b)(1)(B); substituted “ninety (90) days” for “one hundred eighty (180) days” in (b)(1)(D)(i) and (b)(3)(B)(i); substituted “shall” for “must” in (b)(1)(D)(ii), (b)(1)(D)(iii), and (b)(3)(B)(ii); and substituted “one hundred eighty (180) days” for “twelve (12) months” in (b)(3)(B)(iii).

Case Notes

Annexation.

The requirements of the Detachment-Annexation Statutes were met in a company’s action seeking to have a second city annex its property where the circuit court erred in its interpretation that the first city did not provide water and sewer services to its citizens because the city did not own a water or sewer system. City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686, 120 S.W.3d 55 (2003).

Trial court did not err in finding that landowners' annexation into an adjoining city complied with this section and § 14-40-2001, and the court rejected the city's argument that the necessary services were already available to the landowners; sewer service, as defined in subsection (e) of this section, was not available to the landowners when they requested such services by the city, and sewer service was necessary to maximize the use of property as provided in the statute. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 356 Ark. 393, 155 S.W.3d 9 (2004).

In appellant's action to declare an annexation void, a circuit court's finding that appellee and landowners were substantially in compliance with the annexation requirements of this section was proper as appellee provided a sewer line for the landowners to connect to and the landowners took steps towards connecting to the line. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660 (2010).

When annexed lands did not compose one area, under subdivision (b)(1) of this section, the annexations were not invalid because separate lands could be annexed at one time. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870 (2012).

Annexation of lands from a city to a municipality, at the request of the lands' owners, was not invalid due to being done by resolution, rather than ordinance because (1) this section clearly contemplated annexation by resolution, and (2) a reference in § 14-40-2004(c) to “ordinance” did not govern, as this section was the more specific statute. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870 (2012).

Annexation of lands from a city to a municipality, at the request of the lands' owners, was not invalid when the city's streets separated annexed lands from the municipality, for lack of contiguity to the municipality, under subdivision (b)(1)(B) of this section, because a street did not break contiguity, since landowners held all rights to the land not inconsistent with public use of the street. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870 (2012).

Commitment to Provide Services.

The trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that a municipality did not make a commitment to provide requested sewer services where the municipality hired an engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study and committed to provide sewer service “as soon as feasibly possible.” City of Lowell v. City of Rogers, 345 Ark. 33, 43 S.W.3d 742 (2001).

Because the city failed to demonstrate a commitment to providing services within a reasonable time, the trial court did not err in finding that the city did not meet its burden of showing compliance with this section and § 14-40-2001. City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 356 Ark. 393, 155 S.W.3d 9 (2004).

Circuit court properly granted declaratory judgment to the landowner bank where the municipality failed to inform the bank that specific plans and an engineer were needed before sewer and water services could be provided to the unimproved portion of the property; the municipality failed to take substantial steps, as required by this section, toward providing the services. City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 2017 Ark. App. 333, 522 S.W.3d 834 (2017).

Jurisdiction.

Circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a landowner bank's petition for an order declaring that a municipality had failed to comply with this section, where the pleadings stated the statutory basis for jurisdiction and § 14-40-2004 allowed for such a petition. City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 2017 Ark. App. 333, 522 S.W.3d 834 (2017).

Standing.

A city in which property was originally located had standing to argue that another city which annexed the property did not meet the requirements of the annexation statute, as whether the property remained a part of the first city depended upon whether the second city met its obligations under the annexation statute. City of Lowell v. City of Rogers, 345 Ark. 33, 43 S.W.3d 742 (2001).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870. · cites it 28× “Ark.Code Ann. § 14-40-2002. We hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Malvern substantially complied with Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-2002.”
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 155 S.W.3d 9 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 13× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (e) (Supp. 2003) (emphasis added).”
City of Lowell v. City of Rogers, 43 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 12× “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (b)(1)(D)(i) (Supp.”
City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 2017 Ark. App. 326, 525 S.W.3d 18. · cites it 4× “On August 22, 2014, the Bank submitted a detachment request to the mayor of Tontitown pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 , stating that certain municipal services were not being provided to its property by Ton-titown and that the services were available’ though |2Springdale.”
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660. · cites it 14× “I, Appellant City of Rockport appeals the order of the Hot Spring County Circuit Court finding substantial compliance with certain annexation requirements set forth in ArkCode Ann. § 14-40-2002 (Supp. 2009). On appeal, Rockport argues that the circuit court erred in concluding…”
City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 120 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 12× “On April 6, 2001, JSC replied stating that Maumelle’s March 6 letter failed to commit to providing water and sewer services to the property as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 . As a result, JSC was detaching its property from Maumelle and would seek annexation by North…”
City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 2017 Ark. App. 333, 522 S.W.3d 834. · cites it 16× “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (a)(2). Pursuant to this statute, the Bank sent a letter to the mayor of Tonti-town in August 2014 requesting that Tonti-town commit to providing the additional services of adequate fire protection, adequate police protection, adequate ambulance…”
City of Bethel Heights v. Gregory A. Kendrick Rev. Liv. Tr., 2017 Ark. App. 78, 515 S.W.3d 135. · cites it 4× “2013) provides the procedure by which a landowner seeking additional municipal services may have its land detached from the municipality in which it is located and annexed into another municipality that borders the land.”
City of Tontitown v. City of Springdale, 2020 Ark. App. 528. · cites it 17× “In August 2014, the Bank submitted a detachment request to the mayor of Tontitown, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 , stating that certain municipal services were not being provided to its property by Tontitown and that the services were available through Springdale.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b): 1 case
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870. “Ark.Code Ann. § 14-40-2002. We hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Malvern substantially complied with Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-2002.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(1): 1 case
City of Lowell v. City of Rogers, 43 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. 2001). “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (b)(1)(D)(i) (Supp.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(1)(A): 1 case
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660. “I, Appellant City of Rockport appeals the order of the Hot Spring County Circuit Court finding substantial compliance with certain annexation requirements set forth in ArkCode Ann. § 14-40-2002 (Supp. 2009). On appeal, Rockport argues that the circuit court erred in concluding…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(1)(B): 1 case
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870. “Ark.Code Ann. § 14-40-2002. We hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Malvern substantially complied with Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-2002.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(2)(B): 1 case
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 155 S.W.3d 9 (Ark. 2004). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (e) (Supp. 2003) (emphasis added).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(3)(A): 1 case
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870. “Ark.Code Ann. § 14-40-2002. We hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Malvern substantially complied with Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-2002.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(3)(B)(iii): 2 cases
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445, 424 S.W.3d 870. “Ark.Code Ann. § 14-40-2002. We hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Malvern substantially complied with Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-2002.”
City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2010 Ark. 449, 374 S.W.3d 660. “I, Appellant City of Rockport appeals the order of the Hot Spring County Circuit Court finding substantial compliance with certain annexation requirements set forth in ArkCode Ann. § 14-40-2002 (Supp. 2009). On appeal, Rockport argues that the circuit court erred in concluding…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002(b)(l)(D): 1 case
City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 2017 Ark. App. 333, 522 S.W.3d 834. “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002 (a)(2). Pursuant to this statute, the Bank sent a letter to the mayor of Tonti-town in August 2014 requesting that Tonti-town commit to providing the additional services of adequate fire protection, adequate police protection, adequate ambulance…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.