City of Laurel v. Sharon Waterworks Ass'n, 2003-AN-01368-SCT.

• Decision Date: 11 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2003-AN-01368-SCT.,2003-AN-01368-SCT.
• Citation: 918 So.2d 1269
• Parties: In the Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Laurel, Mississippi: CITY OF LAUREL, Mississippi v. SHARON WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION, Shady Grove Water Works Association, Shady Grove Utility District, and Jones County Board of Supervisors.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

918 So.2d 1269

In the Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Laurel, Mississippi: CITY OF LAUREL, Mississippi v. SHARON WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION, Shady Grove Water Works Association, Shady Grove Utility District, and Jones County Board of Supervisors.

No. 2003-AN-01368-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 11, 2005.

Rehearing Denied February 2, 2006.

Jerry L. Mills, Ridgeland, Norman Gene Hortman, Laurel, attorneys for appellant.

Robert L. Rogers, Jr., Joseph Edgar Fillingane, Tim Hancock, Jackson, James Robert Sullivan, Jr., J. Robert Sullivan, Sr., attorneys for appellees.

Before COBB, P.J., EASLEY and CARLSON, JJ.

EASLEY, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. This case involves an appeal from the Second Judicial District of the Chancery Court of Jones County in which the City of Laurel petitioned to annex three parcels of land located in Jones County. The City's petition proposed three areas to be added to the City known as the Northern Parcel, the Southern Parcel and the Western Parcel. The chancellor further described the parcels as the (1) Pendorff area (Southern Parcel), (2) the Western Parcel (or Sports Complex area), (3) the Shady Grove Parcel (Northern Parcel) and (4) the Sharon Parcel (Northern Parcel). The chancery court granted the annexation as to the land known as the Pendorff area only.

¶ 2. On June 18, 1997, the City of Laurel ("the City") filed a complaint in the nature of a petition to ratify and confirm the extension of its boundaries in the Chancery Court of Jones County, Mississippi. Honorable R.B. Reeves, Jr., senior status judge appointed to hear the case, issued a decision by letter dated January 28, 2000, to the parties that the HB 1730 Regular Session 1996, was constitutional, did not violate § 88 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, and that the City had 20 days to amend its complaint to comply of the provisions of Section 12 of HB 1730.¹ No interlocutory appeal was sought. Judge Reeves did not issue an order as to the constitutionality of House Bill 1730. The City later amended it complaint to comply with HB 1730. HB 1730 stated:

None of the territory lying within the district shall be subject to an Annexation by any city, town or village unless all of the territory of the district is annexed, in which event the city, town or village shall assume the operation and maintenance of the facilities of the district with respect to the payment of any outstanding bonds of the district and all other contractual obligations of the district.

(emphasis added). Therefore, HB 1730 required that either all or none of the land in a district be annexed. Consequently, the City added a remaining portion of the Shady Grove Utility District located in the Northern Parcel which increased the size of the original proposed annexation area (PAA). Thereafter on February 9, 2001, the City filed a second amended complaint. The case was heard before the Judge Reeves, between June 19, 2001 and January 4, 2002.

¶ 3. The chancellor filed his opinion on March 20, 2002. In his opinion, the chancellor determined that the annexation of the Pendorff area, in the Southern Parcel, was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. However, the annexation of the other areas were not reasonable. On May 30, 2003, the chancellor signed a final judgment approving the enlargement and extension of the boundaries of the City of Laurel as to the Pendorff area only. Following the final judgement and these proceedings, the City now appeals to this Court.

¶ 4. We vacate the chancellor's judgment and remand this case for the chancellor to clarify his findings regarding the annexation. The chancellor's order does not specifically distinguish between all the parcels of the PAA and provide enough basis for his ruling concerning whether a specific area should be annexed. In other words, the chancellor's ruling was vague and ambiguous. It did not set out a clear basis explaining why a particular parcel should or should not be annexed. A few of the indicia of reasonableness do have sufficient information, but as a whole, there is not enough information concerning the twelve indicia of reasonableness to make an informed determination. Therefore, this Court does not have enough information to determine whether the chancellor's reasoning and ruling as to the parcels provides substantial evidence that the annexation should be either granted or denied.

FACTS

¶ 5. The City filed a petition for the annexation of three areas of the Second Judicial District of Jones County into the City of Laurel, which is also located in Jones County, Mississippi. The chancellor approved the annexation of the Pendorff area only.

¶ 6. The chancellor followed his opinion with a final judgment ruling that the approval of the enlargement and extension of the boundaries of the City of Laurel to be reasonable as the to Pendorff area only on May 30, 2003. The City filed its appeal objecting to the denial of the annexation of the other proposed areas. The appellees in this case are the Shady Grove Water Works Association, the Shady Grove Utility District and Jones County School District the Sharon area objectors and other individual objectors. In its appeal, the City raises the following issues for review by this Court:

I. Whether the provision of House Bill 1730 violates § 88 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

II. Whether the chancellor was manifestly wrong in limiting the annexation of the City of Laurel to the Pendorff area.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the provision of House Bill 1730 violates § 88 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

¶ 7. When the City initially began the annexation process, it sought annexation of a much smaller area of approximately 10.9 square miles. Included in the original PAA was a portion of the Shady Grove Utility District located in the Northern Parcel. Objectors asserted that HB 1730 required the annexation of all or none of the Shady Grove Utility District. The City challenged the constitutionality of HB 1730 claiming that it violated § 88 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. The chancellor found that the provision was constitutional. Thereafter, the City had the choice of either petitioning to annex all or none of the Shady Grove Utility District based upon the chancellor's ruling. The City later amended the annexation area to include all of the Shady Grove Utility District. The inclusion of all of this district into the PAA expanded the original PAA from 10.9 miles to approximately 17 square miles. Ultimately, the chancellor did not include the Shady Grove Utility District located in the Northern Parcel as part of the annexation area. Only the Pendorff area was allowed to be annexed. The chancellor did not issue an order as to his ruling regarding the constitutional issue. The chancellor's letter dated January 28, 2000, is not an order. Furthermore, the chancellor's final judgment did not incorporate the constitutional issue. Therefore, this Court does not have an order from the trial court to consider on appeal. On remand, the chancellor is instructed to issue a detailed order as to his findings and ruling as to the constitutionality of HB 1730.

II. Whether the chancellor was manifestly wrong in limiting the annexation of the City of Laurel to the Pendorff area.

¶ 8. This Court has very recently set out the standard of review in annexation matters in In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69 (Miss.2003). Our Court has limited power in annexation matters, reversing a chancellor's findings as to reasonableness of the annexation only when a "chancellor's decision is manifestly wrong and is not supported by substantial and credible evidence." Id. at 81 (citing In re Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss.1995)). See also Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989). In Bassett, we held that:

Where there is conflicting, credible evidence, we defer to the findings below. Findings of fact made in the context of conflicting, credible evidence may not be disturbed unless this Court can say that from all the evidence that such findings are manifestly wrong, given the weight of the evidence. We may only reverse where the Chancery Court has employed erroneous legal standards or where we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.

Bassett, 542 So.2d at 921. "The judicial function is limited to the question of whether the annexation is reasonable." In re Enlargement and Extension of Municipal Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d 270, 276 (Miss.1999). The party seeking the annexation has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the annexation. Id. In the case of In re Extension of the Boundaries of City of Ridgeland v. City of Ridgeland, 651 So.2d 548, 550 (Miss.1995) this Court reiterated our long standing twelve indicia of reasonableness in annexation cases:

In a series of cases beginning with Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 396-97, 118 So.2d 319, 330 (1960) down through most recently McElhaney v. City of Horn Lake, 501 So.2d 401, 403-04, (Miss.1987) and City of Greenville v. Farmers, Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 941 (Miss.1987), we have recognized at least eight indicia of reasonableness. These include (1) the municipality's need for expansion, (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, (3) the potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed areas, (4) the municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised, (5) the need for zoning and overall planning in the area, (6) the need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed, (7) whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area, and (8) the past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present...