Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison

• Decision Date: 09 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 92-CA-00298-SCT,92-CA-00298-SCT
• Citation: 650 So.2d 490
• Parties: In the Matter of the ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF the MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF MADISON, Mississippi: The City of Jackson, Mississippi v. CITY OF MADISON.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 490

650 So.2d 490

In the Matter of the ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF the MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF MADISON Mississippi: The City of Jackson, Mississippi v. CITY OF MADISON.

No. 92-CA-00298-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, In Banc.

Feb. 9, 1995.

Douglas J. Gunn, Watkins & Eager, James L. Carroll, Mitchell McNutt Threadgill Smith & Sams, Jackson, for appellant.

John Hedglin, Stephen W. Rimmer, Rimmer Rawlings MacInnis & Hedglin, Jackson, for appellee.

En Banc.

PRATHER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The City of Madison (Madison) sought to enlarge its existing corporate boundaries from 10.62 square miles to a total area of 20.20 square miles. Madison enacted an ordinance of annexation on December 5, 1989, and filed its petition of annexation on January 12, 1990. The City of Jackson (Jackson) did not file an objection until February 20, 1991. ¹ Following recusals of both Madison County chancellors, this Court appointed Chancellor David Clark special chancellor.

Upon conclusion of Madison's case-in-chief, Jackson moved to exclude all evidence offered and to enter a judgment denying the proposed annexation. The chancellor granted Jackson's motion in part, eliminating from further consideration 4,454 acres of the area Madison sought to annex. ² Following Jackson's evidence, the court found that annexation of all of the remaining area was reasonable and should be approved. ³ This area includes a large tract of land directly west of Madison and due north of Jackson (Tract 1) and three smaller parcels north and northeast of Madison (Tracts 2, 3, and 4). The City of Jackson subsequently perfected an appeal to this Court, seeking review of the following issues:

A. Whether Madison failed to meet its burden of proof on six of the most crucial indicia of reasonableness, thereby mandating reversal as a matter of law;

B. Whether the determination that the annexation is reasonable is grounded on erroneous legal conclusions that six of the indicia of reasonableness were met, when neither the evidence nor the court's findings of fact support those conclusions; and

C. Whether the court failed to correctly apply the "clearly mandated by law" standard to Madison's annexation, especially as regards Tract 1, which is directly in Jackson's northern path of growth.

II. THE LAW

A. Whether Madison failed to meet its burden of proof on six

of the most crucial indicia of reasonableness,

thereby mandating reversal as a matter of law.

While "[a]nnexation is a legislative affair," confirmation of annexations is in the province of the chancery court. Matter of the Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 863 (Miss.1989); Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972). The role of the judiciary in annexations is limited to one question: whether the annexation is reasonable. City of Jackson, 551 So.2d at 863. Courts are "guided" in this determination of reasonableness by twelve factors previously set forth by this Court. This Court recently reaffirmed these twelve "indicia of reasonableness," but held "that municipalities must demonstrate through plans and otherwise, that residents of annexed areas will receive something of value in return for their tax dollars in order to carry the burden of showing reasonableness." In the Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Columbus, 644 So.2d 1168, 1172 (Miss.1994).

The twelve indicia of reasonableness are: (1) the municipality's need to expand, (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, (3) 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) need for zoning and overall planning in the area, (6) 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, (8) past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents, (9) economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the proposed annexation area, (10) impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups, (11) whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness. See Matter of Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 864 (Miss.1989).

These twelve factors are not separate, independent tests which are conclusive as to reasonableness. Western Line Consol. School Dist. v. City of Greenville, 465 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Miss.1985). Rather, these factors are "mere indicia of reasonableness." "[T]he ultimate determination must be whether the annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances." City of Columbus, 644 So.2d at 1172 (citing Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814, 819 (Miss.1991); Matter of Boundaries of City of Vicksburg, 560 So.2d 713, 716 (Miss.1990); In re Enlargement of Corporate Boundaries of the City of Booneville, Prentiss County, Mississippi, 551 So.2d 890, 892 (Miss.1989); In the Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, 551 So.2d 861, 864 (Miss.1989); Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921-22 (Miss.1989)). An annexation is reasonable only if it is fair. Western Line, 465 So.2d at 1060. In making this determination, the annexation must be viewed "from the perspective of both the city and the landowner[s]" of the proposed annexation area. Id. at 1059-60.

With the foregoing in mind, it is clear that Jackson's contention--that a failure of proof on six of the twelve factors mandates reversal as a matter of law--is erroneous. The chancellor was required to determine reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances, employing the applicable indicia of reasonableness merely as an aid to this determination. Restated, it is for the chancellor to determine whether the annexation is fair and reasonable and whether Madison carried its burden of showing reasonableness by demonstrating that residents of annexed areas will receive something of value in exchange for their tax dollars. City of Columbus, 644 So.2d at 1172.

The chancellor in the case sub judice was clearly aware of his duty and the role of the judiciary in annexation cases. At the close of Madison's case-in-chief, when Jackson moved to exclude all evidence presented and for a judgment in Jackson's favor, the chancellor stated on the record that the petitioning city has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the proposed annexation. He then discussed each of the indicia of reasonableness, noting that they are not separate or distinct tests in and of themselves, and proceeded to analyze the evidence which had been presented on each factor.

As the chancellor employed the correct legal standards, this Court's standard of review is limited. Reversal of the chancellor's findings regarding reasonableness of the annexation is warranted only if the chancellor is manifestly wrong and his findings are not supported by substantial credible evidence. Matter of Confirmation of Alteration of Boundaries of City of Horn Lake, Miss. and the City of Southaven, Miss., 630 So.2d 10, 16 (Miss.1993) (citing Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814, 819 (Miss.1991)). Even where the credible evidence is conflicting, this Court will not reverse unless the chancellor's findings are manifestly wrong. Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d at 819.

Jackson contends that the chancellor's findings of fact are correct, but his legal conclusion, that the annexation is reasonable, is incorrect. An examination of the twelve factors aids this Court's review.

1. Need to Expand

a. The Parties' Contentions

Jackson contends that Madison failed to present evidence establishing its need to expand as to all of the annexation area; therefore, the chancellor's approval of the annexation as reasonable should be reversed and rendered as a matter of law. Madison responds that in addition to its imminent need for vacant land suitable for development, it has a need to expand in order to make decisions and funding commitments for the infrastructure which will be necessary to support the rapid growth of the city and to manage the city's growth in a logical manner to prevent the future need for expensive remedial measures. Jackson denies that the need for growth management alone bears heavily on the need to expand, but may be one of several reasons supporting the need for expansion. However, Jackson contends growth management would more appropriately be considered in conjunction with zoning and planning. Jackson also claims that this annexation was prompted not by Madison's need to expand, but by a desire to stop further northern movement by Jackson after the City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland case was handed down by this Court. Jackson also claims that a 1988 Joint Resolution between Madison and Ridgeland provides that neither city will oppose the other's annexations, but together they will "carve up" the area north of Jackson between themselves.

b. The Chancellor's Findings

At the close of Madison's case-in-chief, the chancellor had the following to say about this factor:

When the evidence is considered, the court is of the opinion that it cannot conclude, based upon the evidence presented by the City of Madison, that the city has a need to expand at this time to the extent indicated by its proposed annexation, except as will be noted later. In the opinion of the court, there lies within the present boundaries of the ...