Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Post Farms annexation re-filed after county contiguity dispute; residents oppose process
Summary
Attorney Drew Weber asked the council to reauthorize voluntary annexation of 103.73 acres (Post Farms) under Mo. Rev. Stat. §71.012 after the county disputed contiguity; neighbors raised access and notice concerns during the public hearing.
The council held a public hearing on a re-filed voluntary annexation petition for roughly 103.73 acres at or near 1065 E. Highway N (Post Farms / DCM Land LLC / Post Family Limited Partnership). Drew Weber, attorney for the applicant, told the council that St. Charles County refused to remit property taxes unless the annexation was re-filed under a different voluntary-annexation statute, citing an interpretation that a 15% contiguity requirement (found in the involuntary-annexation statute) applies.
Weber said the city previously adopted an annexation ordinance on May 9, 2024, under Mo. Rev. Stat. §71.014 (a voluntary-annexation statute), but the county assessor interpreted §71.015’s 15% contiguity requirement as applying and denied the county’s concurrence, so the applicant is seeking a second approval under Mo. Rev. Stat. §71.012 (which also allows voluntary annexation but requires a public hearing). Weber asked the council to approve annexation under §71.012 and to consider conducting two readings that night because the property owner had already obtained earlier city approvals.
Public commenters urged caution. Rose Zuck said she had opposed the annexation previously and questioned why the developer should be allowed to refile without a full public process, and she raised concerns about access and the proposed route through existing subdivisions. Dino Denoff said the matter requires more investigation because it is controversial among residents and neighboring municipalities.
Why it matters: The annexation would bring 103.73 acres into O'Fallon and could affect local land use, traffic and tax allocation; it also surfaced a dispute between the city and St. Charles County over statutory interpretation that has tax‑remittance implications.
What’s next: The council introduced the ordinance for first reading (Bill 77-17) and discussed recusal and timing; further consideration will follow the city's formal reading/notice requirements.
