(dissenting).
This is another example of where government prevails against the people. Our Republic was not founded upon the collective rights of government. It was founded upon individual rights of the people. Four vivid examples in this Court, in the past eight months, of decisions where government power prevailed over rights of individuals are Eischen v. Minnehaha County, 363 N.W.2d 199, 204 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Moulton v. State, 363 N.W.2d 405, 410 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting; Morgan, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Byre v. City of Chamberlain, 362 N.W.2d 69, 80 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting); and City of Aberdeen v. Wellman, 352 N.W.2d 204, 206 (S.D.1984) (Henderson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). I vigorously dissented in all of these cases attempting to elevate individual rights over governmental entities. I vigorously dissent again. With lawbook in hand, I journey down the lonely trail of dissent once more.
The legislature’s inherent power over county and municipal boundaries is nearly absolute. County of Tripp v. State, 264 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.1978); Williams v. Book, 75 S.D. 173, 61 N.W.2d 290 (1953); State v. Goetz, 73 S.D. 633, 47 N.W.2d 566 (1951); Cole v. City of Watertown, 34 S.D. 69, 147 N.W. 91 (1914); 56 Am.Jur.2d Municipal Corporations § 55 (1971).1 At common law, a municipality did not have the power of annexation, C. Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations § 2.32, at 28 (1980), and “[t]he power to extend the boundaries of the municipal corporation by the annexation of adjacent territory ... may be exercised by the municipality [only] in the manner and to the extent described by law.” Goetz, 73 S.D. at 637, 47 N.W.2d *135at 568 (bracketed material supplied) (citations omitted); Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907); 2 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 7.13, at 312-13 (3rd rev. ed. 1979).
A municipality of this state has no power to extend its boundaries other than that granted to it by the Legislature. Such power of annexation as conferred on a municipality is an extraordinary power which must be exercised by a municipality in strict compliance with the statutes conferring such power. (Emphasis supplied.)
Rhodes v. City of Aberdeen, 74 S.D. 179, 184, 50 N.W.2d 215, 218 (1951). True, municipalities have the power of annexation, but they have no power to accrete property by invalid means. It is therefore the function of this Court to determine if the statutory mandates have been met. Village of Niobrara v. Tichy, 158 Neb. 517, 63 N.W.2d 867 (1954); City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159, 660 P.2d 1368 (1983). The message in Rhodes is that a municipality must strictly comply; as detailed below, the City of Rapid City did not.
As the majority opinion recognizes, the annexation statutes of this state, which permit municipalities to draw surrounding areas under their protective paternal wing, require the territory so drawn to be contiguous with the municipality. SDCL 9-4-4.1 and SDCL 9-4-4.2. Contiguous requires not only a common border between the two, but also a community of interests so that a homogeneous and unified entity develops which is a natural and reasonable extension of municipal boundaries. Big Sioux Township v. Streeter, 272 N.W.2d 924 (S.D.1978). “[A]s to territorial extent, the idea of a city is one of unity, not of plurality; of compactness or contiguity, not separation or segregation.” 56 Am.Jur.2d Municipal Corporations § 69, at 125 (1971); Big Sioux Township, 272 N.W.2d at 926; Township of Owosso v. City of Owosso, 385 Mich. 587, 189 N.W.2d 421 (1971). In the present case, however, the annexation of the Deadwood Avenue area will not create a homogeneous and unified entity.2 For, indeed, there will exist within the newly annexed area a huge island — the South Dakota Cement Plant — which comprises nearly one-third of the total annexation area, which will not be subject to municipal zoning regulations or land use restrictions. Authorities: 1977-1978 Biennial Rep.S.D. Att’y Gen. 26; 8 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.15, at 39 (3rd rev. ed. 1983); Floyd v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 70 Misc.2d 187, 333 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1972); Berger v. State, 71 N.J. 206, 364 A.2d 993 (1976); Township of Lower Allen v. Commonwealth, 10 Pa.Commw. 272, 310 A.2d 90 (1973). It will also be exempt from some taxes under S.D. Const, art. XI, § 5, because it is state-owned property.3 In fact, the Plant Engineer for South Dakota Cement testified at trial that she had been advised that Rapid City did not intend to require building permits for projects over $500. That the Deadwood Avenue annexation will lead to a homogeneous and unified area is an absurd conclusion which beggars all reality; for, in reality, there will exist an island or enclave not subject to the same regulations, restrictions, and taxes as the property which surrounds it. For nearly all intents and purposes, the Cement Plant will not be within the jurisdiction of the City. Annexation plans which create islands or enclaves of unannexed areas have been invalidated in Township of Genesee v. Genesee County, 369 Mich. 592, 120 N.W.2d 759 (1963); City of Saginaw v. Bd. of Supervisors, 1 Mich.App. 65, 134 N.W.2d 378 (1965); and Char*136ter Township of Pittsfield v. City of Ann Arbor, 86 Mich.App. 229, 274 N.W.2d 466 (1978). For the reason that the annexation plan in question creates an island not subject to the same constraints as the total annexation area, I likewise would hold the plan to be invalid. A homogeneous and unified entity simply does not result from this annexation.
Nor can I agree that this is a natural and reasonable annexation based on growth and the flow of benefits. Big Sioux Township, 272 N.W.2d 924. As stated in my concurrence in part, dissent in part in Smith v. City of Rapid City, 307 N.W.2d 598, 605 (S.D.1981), Rapid City’s orderly growth is to the east, away from Deadwood Avenue; for, to the west, there are the mountainous Black Hills. These are owned, by and large, by the United States government and are managed by the United States Forest Service. To the immediate west of Rapid City lie rough terrain, canyons, and rugged country. Therefore, there are governmental and topographical barriers to growth in that direction. In fact, there exists rough terrain in the very land sought to be annexed where there are no plans for streets. Some 700 acres exist, upon which there exists no plan for streets. Neither does the flow of benefits mandate this to be a natural and reasonable annexation. The flow of benefits is one way in this case — in the direction of the City. Underlying the City’s motivation is a motivation to secure additional tax money. Not only will Rapid City enjoy the income which some of its citizens earn from working in the Deadwood Avenue area and enjoy the money spent by Deadwood Avenue residents in Rapid City .businesses, but it will now enjoy increased tax revenues. In return, as pointed out below, Rapid City will be providing substandard services which the residents and property owners do not need. The so-called plan of the City of Rapid City for annexation of this area is a charade and is prompted by a quest for tax money. This Court has condemned such abuse of annexation powers, and in Big Sioux Township, 272 N.W.2d at 926 n. 3, Retired Justice Francis Dunn wrote: “The converse is also true, i.e., the limits of a municipal corporation should not be extended for the sole purpose of increasing the municipal tax base absent the outflow of services and facilities to outlying territory.” This action does not constitute a natural and reasonable annexation, but instead is an impermissible ruse to increase municipal revenues. Johnson v. Town of Castlewood, 40 S.D. 493, 168 N.W. 124 (1918). Past decisions of the South Dakota Supreme Court are in favor of the individual rights of appellants and against the so-called government rights of appellee. These latter issues are not res judicata per Smith v. City of Rapid City, 307 N.W.2d 598, because the situation or motive may have changed over the years, Zajicek v. City of Wessington, 53 S.D. 315, 220 N.W. 913 (1928); the present case is based on a new and different annexation proposal and is not the same cause of action; the 1979 annexation proceeding was determined to be invalid by the trial court and affirmed by this Court; further, not all parties in the present case were parties in Smith, nor were they privy thereto. Black Hills Jewelry Mfg. v. Felco Jewel Ind., 336 N.W.2d 153 (S.D.1983).
Before a municipal corporation of this state can involuntarily annex contiguous territory, it must “conduct a study to determine the need for the contiguous territory and to identify the resources necessary to extend the municipal boundaries.” SDCL 9-4-4.1.
Based on the study, provided for in § 9-4-4.1, the governing body may adopt a resolution of intent to extend its boundaries. The resolution shall contain the following:
(1) The description and boundaries of the territory to be annexed;
(2) That ample and suitable resources exist to accommodate the orderly growth or development of the contiguous territory;
(3) That municipal utilities and a major street network are considered in terms of the proposed boundary extension and that there is a definite timetable *137upon which municipal service will be extended into the contiguous territory; (4) The approximate cost of the extended service to the residents of the contiguous territory and the municipality[.]
SDCL 9-4-4.2(l-4) (Supp.1984). For the reasons hereafter expressed, I believe the City of Rapid City has failed to comply with these strict statutory requirements.
SDCL 9-4-4.2(l) requires the annexation resolution to contain “[t]he description and boundaries of the territory to be annexed^]” (Emphasis supplied mine.) The annexation resolution in question, however, did not include a legal description and boundaries of the annexed territory. Instead, affected residents were supposed to be apprised by a kaleidoscope of references to metes and bounds, Interstate 90, a geographical survey, and some platted lots of record. This clearly does not comply with the mandate of SDCL 9-4-4.2(l), and the trial court’s ruling in this regard is clearly erroneous. Amazingly, neither the Resolution of Annexation nor the Resolution Study contained a property map by which the individual property owners could determine and estimate their costs. If the law is as stated in SDCL 9-4-4.2(l), then it is legally irrational that a city can legally annex with a metes and bounds description. Metes and bounds descriptions are not legal descriptions. State law fails to recognize metes and bounds descriptions. SDCL 43-21-1 and SDCL 7-9-7. For an annexation resolution to meet the statutory mandate, it must describe the area affected by lot, block, and legal subdivision.4 Any other description which may fairly and reasonably describe the area, as the majority opinion holds, does not meet the statutory prescription. Strict compliance of annexation statutes is vital. Rhodes v. City of Aberdeen, 50 N.W.2d 215.
SDCL 9-4-4.2(4) requires the annexation resolution to contain “[t]he approximate cost of the extended service to the residents .... ” In Smith v. City of Rapid City, 307 N.W.2d at 601, this Court stated that “a city must make every reasonable effort to give a full and accurate cost approximation.” In the case at hand, however, these statutory and case law dictates have not been met. Rapid City failed to provide the approximate cost per resident or property owner. “[T]he statute clearly requires that the city estimate the costs of major utilities and services to be supplied to residents of the annexed area.” Smith, 307 N.W.2d at 602 (emphasis supplied). Here, City attempted to circumvent the statutory requirements by providing a gross cost of the services to the area and then by providing a cost per acre. Such an estimate does not inform a resident of what it is going to cost him. This information was reasonably available ,to the City.5 At trial, the engineer retained by the City testified that an estimate of the sewer system costs to individual property owners could have been furnished with minimal engineering effort, but such a calculation was excluded from his contract with Rapid City. This hid from the people the costs to be imposed on them. It is an obvious attempt to subserve those laws which the legislature passed, the intent of the elected representatives of the people being that property owners were to be apprised of the approximate costs to their property.
Not only did Rapid City’s annexation resolution fail to inform of the area affected and the cost per resident, but it also failed to constitute a bona fide plan furnishing substantially equivalent services.
One recognized basis on which the annexation may be challenged is that the city’s plan for the extension of municipal *138services was not a bona fide plan “prepared and submitted in accordance with the statute in good faith and with honest intentions on the part of the city to implement the plan as submitted,” but was rather a “hoax” designed “only to accomplish the annexation of territory.” Clarke v. City of Wichita, 218 Kan. 334, 346, 543 P.2d 973, 985 (1975).
United States v. City of Leavenworth, Kansas, 443 F.Supp. 274, 284 (D.C.Kan.1977). In Smith, 307 N.W.2d at 602, this Court quoted Clarke v. City of Wichita, 218 Kan. 334, 346, 543 P.2d 973, 985 (1975), in this regard also:
[T]he legislature ... intended that a city proposing annexation of territory to the city must first prepare and submit a bona fide plan covering each major governmental and proprietary service to be furnished the territory to be annexed substantially equivalent in standard and scope to such governmental and proprietary services furnished by the annexing city to persons and property already located [within the city]. (Brackets in original.)
Thus, Rapid City was required to prepare and submit a bona fide plan and furnish services substantially equivalent in standard and scope to those offered Rapid City residents. A review of the record reveals that City has provided neither.
Rapid City’s consulting sewer engineer testified at trial that his work did not even constitute a preliminary survey and was merely a reconnaissance level effort. Another engineer also testified that 68% of the planned sewer system would not be deep enough to serve the property and that additional unknown costs would be involved. Such an ■ unworkable windshield sewer scheme does not constitute a bona fide and good faith plan but instead is a hoax implemented solely to complete the annexation. For a trial court to rule otherwise is not only clearly erroneous, it amounts to factual fantasy.
Further inquiry reveals that Rapid City’s annexation plan also did not propose to provide the newly annexed area with services substantially equivalent in standard and scope to those offered the City’s residents. The substantially equivalent services requirement is necessary to protect involuntary annexation residents and “to prohibit annexation by municipalities which are unable to render reasonable services.” Smith, 307 N.W.2d at 601. The annexation area under consideration totals 2,487 acres for which the annexation study and resolution recommends seventeen inferior mercury vapor lamps. All future lighting projects for Rapid City’s main streets, however, will use new high-pressure sodium lighting. This is a more expensive and better lighting system than the mercury lamps. Recent major lighting projects in commercial areas have also used the better lighting system. The trial court found the street lighting proposed for Deadwood Avenue to be substantially equivalent in standard and scope to that provided in Rapid City. Such a finding is clearly erroneous. Rapid City has not used the inferior lighting system in recent major commercial projects and does not plan to use it in future main street projects. A traffic engineer for Rapid City also testified at trial that, in her opinion, the new high-pressure sodium lights should be installed in the Deadwood Avenue area. Yet, the City here seeks to bring Deadwood Avenue onto its tax rolls and in return provide it with substandard and inferior street lights. These services are not the substantial equivalent dictated by Smith.
SDCL 9-4-4.2(3) provides:
Based on the study, provided for in § 9-4-4.1, the governing body may adopt a resolution of intent to extend its boundaries. The resolution shall contain the following:
* * * * ⅜ ⅜
(3) That municipal utilities and a major street network are considered in terms of the proposed boundary extension and that there is a definite timetable upon which municipal service will be extended into the contiguous territory[.]
*139This statute obviously contemplates that there must be a major street network considered. However, the plan of Rapid City contains no roads traversing the annexed area from east to west. Streets are vital to growth, progress, and service to citizens. The City apparently has no interest in a viable transportation street network in the proposed annexed area. There cannot be a homogeneous and unified entity without streets or a plan for streets. If the natural growth is to the west, which the City would lead this Court in two different cases to believe, why no road or street from east to west or west to east?
No legal wand by court of law can mend the flaws of the annexation procedure before us. This decision shall become one of the dark pages in the history of the development of annexation law in this state. I would burn the cloak of officialdom which covers the proposed annexed area; and in so doing, light the way for good intentions and proper annexation procedures in the future. If Rapid City, or any city in South Dakota, desires to grow and annex, it must be fair to its neighbors and act within the law.
. S.D. Const, art. IX, § 1, approved November 7, 1972, permits legislative changes in county boundaries and the abolishment of townships only upon a majority vote of those entities affected.
. Four areas, distinct and unrelated to the other, are included in the annexed area: (1) small rural type residences having their own sewer and water systems; (2) 160 acres of land held for future mineral extraction by the State Cement Plant, all undeveloped; (3) light industrial and commercial establishments situated along Deadwood Avenue; and (4) a heavy industrial and quarrying area of land owned by the State Cement Plant, Dakota Block, and Dakota Steel.
. S.D. Const, art. XI, § 5, provides in part: “The property of the United States and of the state, county and municipal corporations, both real and personal, shall be exempt from taxation. ..."
. There are five pages of metes and bounds descriptions which comprise a reader’s nightmare. Our state legislature long ago recognized a need to rid citizens of this onerous task of describing real property.
. Plans for a sewer district or sewer districts, main lines, trunk lines, service sewers, and the sewer utilities to be furnished or attempted to be furnished by the City did not surface. Without such a plan, the City is unable to approximate costs: “Obviously, a city is unable to approximate costs of extending service to undeveloped areas unless plans for development are available.” Smith, 307 N.W.2d at 601.