Missouri Revised Statutes § 321.322

*321.322. Cities with population of 2,500 to 65,000 with fire department, annexing property in a fire protection district — rights and duties, procedure — exception. — 1. If any property located within the boundaries of a fire protection district shall be included within a city having a population of at least two thousand five hundred but not more than sixty-five thousand which is not wholly within the fire protection district and which maintains a city fire department, then upon the date of actual inclusion of the property within the city, as determined by the annexation process, the city shall within sixty days assume by contract with the fire protection district all responsibility for payment in a lump sum or in installments an amount mutually agreed upon by the fire protection district and the city for the city to cover all obligations of the fire protection district to the area included within the city, and thereupon the fire protection district shall convey to the city the title, free and clear of all liens or encumbrances of any kind or nature, any such tangible real and personal property of the fire protection district as may be agreed upon, which is located within the part of the fire protection district located within the corporate limits of the city with full power in the city to use and dispose of such tangible real and personal property as the city deems best in the public interest, and the fire protection district shall no longer levy and collect any tax upon the property included within the corporate limits of the city; except that, if the city and the fire protection district cannot mutually agree to such an arrangement, then the city shall assume responsibility for fire protection in the annexed area on or before January first of the third calendar year following the actual inclusion of the property within the city, as determined by the annexation process, and furthermore the fire protection district shall not levy and collect any tax upon that property included within the corporate limits of the city after the date of inclusion of that property: (1) On or before January first of the second calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was included within the city, the city shall pay to the fire protection district a fee equal to the amount of revenue which would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the fire protection district tax on the property in the area annexed which was formerly a part of the fire protection district; (2) On or before January first of the third calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was included within the city, the city shall pay to the fire protection district a fee equal to four-fifths of the amount of revenue which would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the fire protection district tax on the property in the area annexed which was formerly a part of the fire protection district; (3) On or before January first of the fourth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was included within the city, the city shall pay to the fire protection district a fee equal to three-fifths of the amount of revenue which would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the fire protection district tax on the property in the area annexed which was formerly a part of the fire protection district; (4) On or before January first of the fifth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was included within the city, the city shall pay to the fire protection district a fee equal to two-fifths of the amount of revenue which would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the fire protection district tax on the property in the area annexed which was formerly a part of the fire protection district; and (5) On or before January first of the sixth calendar year occurring after the date on which the property was included within the city, the city shall pay to the fire protection district a fee equal to one-fifth of the amount of revenue which would have been generated during the previous calendar year by the fire protection district tax on the property in the area annexed which was formerly a part of the fire protection district. ­­­ 2. Any property excluded from a fire protection district by reason of subsection 1 of this section shall be subject to the provisions of section 321.330. 3. The provisions of this section shall not apply in any county of the first class having a charter form of government and having a population of over nine hundred thousand inhabitants. 4. The provisions of this section shall not apply where the annexing city or town operates a city fire department, is any city of the third classification with more than six thousand but fewer than seven thousand inhabitants and located in any county with a charter form of government and with more than two hundred thousand but fewer than three hundred fifty thousand inhabitants, and is entirely surrounded by a single fire protection district. In such cases, the provision of fire and emergency medical services following annexation shall be governed by subsections 2 and 3 of section 72.418. (L. 1985 H.B. 167, et al. § 2, A.L. 1986 H.B. 861, A.L. 1988 S.B. 725, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1395 & 1448, A.L. 1991 S.B. 34, A.L. 1999 S.B. 160 & 82, A.L. 2005 H.B. 58 merged with S.B. 210, A.L. 2013 H.B. 307 merged with H.B. 336, A.L. 2014 S.B. 672) *Revisor's Note: This section was declared unconstitutional in Calzone v. Koster, et al., see 2016 annotation below. (2016) Combination of six listed criteria in description contained in subsection 4 of section targets a specific political subdivision and thus constitutes a special law in violation of article III, section 40; no substantial justification for its enactment was provided. City of DeSoto v. Nixon, 476 S.W.3d 282 (Mo.). (2016) Provisions of S.B. 672 from 2014 declared unconstitutional as violating the single subject rule of Article III, § 23; under the facts presented, those provisions cannot be severed and the bill is unconstitutional in its entirety. Calzone v. Koster, et al., Case No. 15AC-CC00247 (Cole County Cir. Ct., Feb. 9, 2016).