City of Jackson v. Town of Flowood, 48553

• Decision Date: 04 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 48553,48553
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. The TOWN OF FLOWOOD, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 909

331 So.2d 909

CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. The TOWN OF FLOWOOD, Mississippi.

No. 48553.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 4, 1976.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1976.

Watkins & Eager, George R. Fair, John E. Stone, Jackson, O. B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellant.

McLaurin & Nicols, W. E. McIntyre, Jr., Brandon, for appellee.

Before INZER, SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

WALKER, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, in which the boundaries of the present corporate limits of the Town of Flowood were extended.

The City of Jackson was the sole protestant to the proposed annexation and brings this appeal asking the Court to reverse the decree of the chancery court expanding Flowood's boundaries, or in the alternative to reverse that portion expanding the boundaries to include the 1.69 square mile area on the northern edge of Flowood.

The facts essential to this case are as follows:

On May 7, 1974, the Town of Flowood adopted an ordinance which purported to extend the boundaries of the town so as to increase the area of Flowood from approximately 10.35 square miles to approximately 14.44 square miles. The extension involved the addition of four separate areas to the existing limits of Flowood. These areas are hereinafter referred to as follows: Area 'A', consisting of land located between the present eastern boundaries of Flowood and the Jackson Municipal Airport; Area 'B', located on the southeastern boundary adjacent to the City of Pearl; Area 'C', consisting of 1.33 square miles of land located on the southwestern boundaries of Flowood adjacent to the Pearl River and the City of Jackson (the Pearl River in this area is the common boundary between Jackson-Hinds County and Flowood-Rankin County); and, Area 'D', consisting of 1.69 square miles of land located on the northern boundary of Flowood.

Flowood subsequently filed its petition for approval of said ordinance in the Chancery Court of Rankin County, and made the City of Jackson, the City of Pearl and all other interested parties defendants pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-1-31 (1972). The City of Jackson filed its objection to the ordinance within the time and in the manner required by law.

I.

The appellant first contends that the expansion proceeding was void because the appellee-petitioner failed to afford the appellant the right to an evidentiary hearing or notice on the issue of public convenience and necessity as required by statute.

This Court has held that that portion of Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-1-33 (1972) requiring the chancery court to determine the issue of public convenience and necessity is unconstitutional. This issue is a legislative question to be decided by the municipality's governing board. Rouse v. City of Pascagoula, 230 So.2d 543 (Miss.1970); Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (1960); Harris v. City of Newton,238 Miss. 405, 117 So.2d 199 (1960); Smith v. City of Meridian, 237 Miss. 486, 115 So.2d 323 (1959); Ritchie v. City of Brookhaven, 217 Miss. 860, 65 So.2d 436, suggestion of error overruled, 217 Miss. 876, 65 So.2d 832 (1953).

The appellant argues that since it is not the responsibility of the chancery court to determine whether the expansion is required by public convenience and necessity, the statutory requirements as to giving notice of a proposed expansion shifted to Flowood's Board of Aldermen who were under a duty to afford an opportunity to the appellant and all interested parties the right to object to the expansion and the right to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of public convenience and necessity before the Board.

We find no merit in this contention. The adoption of an ordinance by a municipality expressing its intent to expand its boundaries is purely a legislative matter and requires no public hearing or notice prior to its adoption. The adoption of the ordinance is itself a finding of public necessity and convenience by the governing authorities. Moreover, no appeal lies from the adoption of the ordinance since interested parties are afforded due process of law with respect to notice and hearing when the matter of adoption of the ordinance is submitted to the chancery court for ratification and confirmation as provided by Mississippi Code Annotated sections 21-1-29 through 21-1-33 (1972). At such hearing before the chancery court, the sole issue is the question of the reasonableness of the expansion. Rouse v. City of Pascagoula, supra; Lippian v. Ros, Registrar, 253 Miss. 325, 175 So.2d 138 (1965); Smith v. City of Meridian, supra; Ritchie v. City of Brookhaven, supra.

We therefore hold that a municipality is not required to give public notice to a proposed ordinance expanding its boundaries or to afford a public hearing on that question before the governing board of the municipality prior to the adoption of the ordinance.

II.

The appellant...