dissenting. In Arkansas, cities are creatures of the General Assembly and exercise only those rights and privileges conferred upon them by law. Likewise their responsibilities are generally defined by statute. The legislature has granted cities the right to annex contiguous territory under certain circumstances. The majority opinion correctly identifies the appropriate statutory authority as Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-307 et seq. This statute specifies the five conditions for annexation. Any one of the five grounds qualifies the area for possible annexation. However, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-307.1 states:
[Contiguous lands shall not be annexed when they either: (1) have a fair market value at the time of the adoption of the ordinance of lands used only for agriculture [agricultural] or horticulture [horticultural] purposes and the highest and best use of said lands is for agricultural or horticulture [horticultural] purposes; or (2) ... .
The other statute pertinent to this dissent is Ark. Stat. Ann. §19-307.2 (1) which requires the municipality to enact an ordinance containing an accurate description of the lands proposed to be annexed. It is my opinion that much of the nine thousand acres to be annexed were agricultural and that there was no accurate description of the annexed area contained in the ordinance of annexation.
One of the exceptions to contiguous lands which may be annexed is lands which have a fair market value of lands used only for agricultural or horticultural purposes, and their highest and best use is for such purposes. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-307.1. Annexation of excluded lands is void. Saunders v. City of Little Rock, 262 Ark. 256, 556 S.W.2d 874 (1977). I realize this Court trampled on Saunders to some extent in Holmes v. City of Little Rock, 285 Ark. 296, 686 S.W.2d 425 (1985). However, the law has not changed. We clearly stated the law in Chappell v. City of Russellville, 288 Ark. 261, 704 S.W.2d 166 (1986), when we stated, “If a part of the proposed area does not meet one of the requirements, then the entire area is voided in toto.” In Holmes we stated, “There was an abundance of testimony in this case that all the land being annexed was best suited for residential and commercial purposes rather than for agricultural purposes. Before 1975, lands used for agricultural purposes could not be annexed.” Also, in Gay v. City of Springdale, 287 Ark. 55, 696 S.W.2d 723 (1985), we held, as in Holmes, that farmlands may be annexed if their highest and best use is for a purpose other than agricultural.
The area annexed in the present case contains one dwelling unit per 5 acres of land. Mr. Ben Pierce testified he had a sod farm containing more than 100 acres. This farm land was located in the floodway where there was no potential other than for agricultural purposes. Mr. Dean Parker testified that there was a 160 acre farm adjacent to his residence. In addition, Robert W. Phillips testified that he and his family had owned 750 acres of land since 1814 and it had always been used as farm land. This farm was also located in the flood plains. His testimony was that the highest and best use of the land was for agricultural purposes and that it had no fair market value for any other use. This testimony was not disputed except by generalization and inference of employees of the City. The law has not changed since Chappell, Holmes, Gay and Saunders. In none of these cases have we held that farmlands, which are used as such, and such use is the highest and best use, are subject to involuntary annexation. Nor does the law permit it. There is no basis in the record to support the finding by the trial court that the highest and best use of these farm lands was for some other purpose. The vote in the areas of annexation in the present case was 9 to 1 against the proposal. The ratio of population in the annexed area and the existing City is about 65 to 1. In my opinion the majority is granting unlimited power to municipalities to annex any and all lands so long as they are contiguous to the municipality or contiguous to contiguous land even if the highest and best use is for agricultural purposes. I submit such was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the annexation statutes.
The description of the annexed lands was contested in the trial court. I believe the description of the lands proposed for annexation is not accurate. Basically the description commenced at a point on the existing city boundary and encircled all the areas proposed for annexation, including the already incorporated area of the City, and purportedly returned to the point of beginning. None of the tracts proposed for annexation were described to the extent one could identify the individual tract. In Parrish v. City of Russellville, 253 Ark. 1000, 490 S.W.2d 126 (1973), this court held that a description was inaccurate when it commenced at a point on the existing city boundary and terminated at another point on the city boundary. The description in Parrish was exactly as it is in the present case as it relates to each of the ten areas proposed for annexation. No single area is encircled by the proposed boundary. As to each tract the description is incomplete and inaccurate. We had a similar situation in City of NLR v. Garner, 256 Ark. 1025, 511 S.W.2d 656 (1974), wherein we held the description to be inaccurate. In Garner the description started at a point on the existing city boundary and ended at the Arkansas River. Clearly, as in Parrish, a geographical area was identified but we nevertheless held such description to be inaccurate. The annexing ordinance did not at any time describe the geographic boundary of any area to be annexed. I have searched the record and find no evidence that a map of the area proposed for annexation was filed until after the election. It would not have been possible for the average citizen to have determined the areas included in the proposal by looking at the ordinance. The metes and bounds description was defective in my opinion. A “land grab” of this magnitude should not be allowed without full compliance with the law. A city cannot annex another city and certainly common sense and the law tells me it cannot annex itself. The finding that the description properly and sufficiently described the lands to be annexed did not rise to the legal requirement that the area be “accurately” described.
I would reverse and dismiss.