Ste. Genevieve School District R-II v. Board of Aldermen of the City of Ste. Genevieve

Missouri’s Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (the redevelopment act) authorized municipalities to create tax-increment-financing commissions to administer special tax districts to promote redevelopment of certain areas. Tax-increment-financing plans provide property-tax abatements for properties in redevelopment areas. Then, as the properties within the tax district increase in value, greater tax revenues are generated to recoup the taxes that were abated. In 1992, the City of Ste. Genevieve created a tax-increment-financing commission (the commission) pursuant to the redevelopment act to recommend a redevelopment plan and tax-increment-financing district. The Board of Alderman of the City of Ste. Genevieve (the board) (defendant) incorporated the plan and corresponding tax district into the city’s ordinances. In 1997, the commission enlarged the area for redevelopment, which necessitated an amendment to the plan for the use of tax-increment-financing revenues. The board adopted the commission’s amendments by ordinance. Then, the board solicited proposals for redevelopment, and the board received a proposal from Golden Management, Inc. (Golden) (defendant) for redevelopment of a shopping center. Golden’s proposal included that tax-increment-financing revenues be used for property acquisition, utility work, and road and parking-lot improvements, which would increase the project’s costs by over $1 million. The board adopted Golden’s proposal without reconvening the commission. Had the city reconvened the commission, Ste. Genevieve School District R-11 (school district) (plaintiff) would have been able to appoint members to the commission. Instead, the board adopted the amendments to the redevelopment plan solely through ordinance. The school district filed a petition for declaratory judgment, arguing that the board could not amend the redevelopment plan without the commission and that the increase in tax abatements for the properties involved would result in less tax revenue for the school district. The trial court found that the school district lacked standing and that the school district’s petition failed to state a claim. The school district appealed.