Extension of Boundaries of City of Columbus, Matter of, 91-CA-00783

• Decision Date: 23 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 91-CA-00783,91-CA-00783
• Citation: 644 So.2d 1168
• Parties: In the Matter of the EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF COLUMBUS, Mississippi. Kenneth R. ROBINSON, Walter J. Cunningham, Ralph Edward Hall, J.B. Wilkins, Arnette Neil Beard, and Ed Markham v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1168

644 So.2d 1168

In the Matter of the EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF COLUMBUS, Mississippi Kenneth R. ROBINSON, Walter J. Cunningham, Ralph Edward Hall, J.B. Wilkins, Arnette Neil Beard, and Ed Markham v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, Mississippi.

No. 91-CA-00783.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 23, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1994.

James H. Herring, Herring Long & Ward, Canton, for appellant.

Dewitt T. Hicks, J. Gordon Flowers, Gholson Hicks Nichols & Ward, Columbus, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On April 18, 1990, the City of Columbus (City) filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Lowndes County seeking to annex approximately 33 square miles of land adjoining the municipality to the north, south and west. Objections were filed and the case proceeded to trial before Special Chancellor Robert P. Sugg. On June 20, 1991, Judge Sugg entered his judgment granting the petition as to a portion of the proposed annexation area equal to roughly ten square miles.

On appeal, the remaining objectors assign the following as error on the part of the lower court:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING A LIMITED ANNEXATION BECAUSE THE CITY FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT ANNEXATION WAS REASONABLE FOR THE LIMITED AREA.

The City duly perfected its cross-appeal, assigning the following as error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING A PORTION OF THE REQUESTED ANNEX UNREASONABLE.

Applying the manifest error standard as we are bound to do, we find that lower court committed no reversible error and the judgment is affirmed on both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Prior to this annexation attempt, the City of Columbus included approximately 11.4 square miles within its boundaries. The proposed annexation area (PAA) consisted of an additional 33 square miles. As stated above, the lower court approved annexation of approximately ten square miles, increasing the area within the city limits to roughly 21.4 square miles.

The City's current expansion efforts began when the Utility Commission ordered a study to evaluate the feasibility of annexation. The Utility Commission is an autonomous agency whose members are appointed by the City Council. The study was conducted by Mike Bridge and eventually presented to the City Council. Although Bridge's feasibility study indicated that the City could successfully annex a large portion of Lowndes County, the Council decided not to pursue annexation on such a large scale. Accordingly, Bridge was directed to revise his figures to reflect a smaller area selected by the Council. The second study concluded that expansion into the revised area was also feasible. After receiving Bridge's report on October 25, 1989, the Council moved to direct the City On February 6, 1990, the Council voted to accept the proposed ordinance and place it on file in accordance with state law. A public meeting was subsequently sponsored by the City to address the concerns of interested parties. Finally, on February 27, 1990, the Council voted on the annexation ordinance. The Council members split on the vote with three in favor and three opposed. The mayor cast the deciding vote in favor of the ordinance.

Engineer to draft a description of the proposed annexation and to instruct the City Attorney to draft an appropriate ordinance.

On April 18, 1990, the City filed its "Petition for Approval of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Columbus, Mississippi" in the Chancery Court of Lowndes County. An answer and objection was filed by several hundred residents of the proposed annexation area under the style Barry L. Milling, et al.

Special Chancellor Robert P. Sugg conducted a three week trial before concluding, in a written opinion that:

The Court is concerned because no estimate of the cost of all the capital improvements promised has been forthcoming. The only estimate of the cost came from the objector's expert and it only dealt will [sic] the cost of sewer lines which he estimated at $7,759,000. His estimate did not include the cost of acquiring water and sewer district physical assets and value as a going business, nor the cost of acquiring electric utility assets in the PAA.

Columbus is in excellent financial condition, but there is a limit to its ability to borrow for capital purposes. The Court is of the opinion the City should have provided it with reliable estimates of the total cost to the City of the annexation in order to meet the burden of showing reasonableness. Otherwise, the Court has no way of knowing if the City can finance the proposed capital improvements within the entire PAA.

This failure of proof on the part of the City ultimately led the lower court to approve only a portion of the area requested in the petition. Partial approval is specifically authorized by Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 21-1-33 (1972).

The remaining objectors filed an appeal asserting that the Chancellor erred in granting even a portion of the proposed annexation. The City filed a cross-appeal arguing that the entire proposed annexation should have been approved.

DISCUSSION

I. THE APPEAL

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING A LIMITED ANNEXATION BECAUSE THE CITY FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT ANNEXATION WAS REASONABLE FOR THE LIMITED AREA.

The Law.

As this Court's precedents make clear, "Annexation is a legislative affair." See Matter of the Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 863 (Miss.1989). Confirmation of annexation attempts, however, is within the purview of the Chancery Court. See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 21-1-33 (1972). This has not always been the case. See Western Line Consol. School Dist. v. City of Greenville, 465 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Miss.1985).

As the law now stands, "The judicial function is limited to the question whether the annexation is reasonable." Jackson, 551 So.2d at 863. Reasonableness is determined by analyzing twelve factors announced by this Court in prior cases to see what they "indicate." Id. This approach has been criticized as arbitrary for failing to provide adequate guidelines for reaching the ultimate determination. See In the Matter of the Enlargement of the Corporate Limits and Boundaries of the City of Gulfport, 627 So.2d 292 (Miss.1993), (Smith, J., dissenting, "I am convinced that the test has been expanded so far that now it is absolutely meaningless."); Matter of Boundaries of City of Vicksburg, 560 So.2d 713 (Miss.1990) (Sullivan, J. dissenting, " 'Reasonable' is now determined by the length of the chancellor's nose, or foot, if you prefer."); Matter of the Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 878 (Miss.1989) (Blass, J. dissenting, "[T]he proliferation of 'indicia of reasonableness,' ... can only lead one to the conclusion that 'indicia of reasonableness' are either now devoid of substance or so malleable as to be meaningless."). Although we retain our "indicia" for the purposes of today's decision, we emphasize that fairness to all parties has always been the proper focus of our reasonableness inquiry. Thus, we hold 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.

The Court has enumerated and explained the current list of indicia as follows:

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 residents.

Other judicially recognized indicia of reasonableness include (9) the impact (economic or otherwise) of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the area proposed for annexation, Western Line, 465 So.2d at 1059; (10) the impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups, Enlargement of Boundaries of Yazoo City v. Yazoo City, 452 So.2d 837 at 842-43 (Miss.1984); (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 the (economic and social) benefits of proximity to the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. City of Greenville, 242 So.2d 686, 689 (Miss.1971); Forbes v. Mayor & Board of Aldermen of City of Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 So. 676 (1905); and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness vel non. Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989).

Matter of the Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 864 (Miss.1989); see also, Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921-22 (Miss.1989).

As we have frequently reiterated, these factors are not to be treated as separate, independent tests but rather as mere indicia of reasonableness, and that the ultimate determination must be whether the annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Matter of...