Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland, Matter of, 52241

• Decision Date: 24 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 52241,52241
• Citation: 388 So.2d 152
• Parties: In the Matter of the EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF RIDGELAND, Ms., CITY OF JACKSON, Ms. and Town of Madison, Ms. v. CITY OF RIDGELAND.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 152

388 So.2d 152

In the Matter of the EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY

OF RIDGELAND, Ms., CITY OF JACKSON, Ms. and Town of Madison, Ms. v. CITY OF RIDGELAND.

No. 52241.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 24, 1980.

William F. Goodman, Jr., Richard F. Scruggs, Watkins & Eager, Howard C. Ross, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

C. R. Montgomery, S. F. Stater, III, Montgomery, Smith-Vaniz & Stater, Canton, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

This is an annexation suit tried by the Chancery Court of Madison County. The City of Ridgeland, Mississippi, a municipal corporation, petitioned the court for approval, ratification, and confirmation of its ordinance enlarging and extending its municipal boundaries to include four areas, designated Tracts I, II, III and IV. Because the required statutory notices were not posted in Tracts I and II, the court removed these tracts from further consideration for annexation.

After a full hearing, the chancellor overruled all objections of the sole objector, City of Jackson, Mississippi, and after disallowing the annexation of Tract IV, decreed the annexation of Tract III with these exceptions:

(1) All lands lying north of the center line of Rice Road;

(2) All lands owned by Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, which lands were described by metes and bounds in the rebuttal testimony of Tom Barth; and

(3) All lands lying east of the aforesaid lands owned by the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District and south of the center line of Rice Road.

The chancellor found that such enlargement and extension was:

"(R)easonable and required by public convenience and necessity and that reasonable public and municipal services will be rendered to the area allowed to be annexed within a reasonable time; that the enlargement herein allowed is in the best interest of the City of Ridgeland and the residents and property owners of that territory allowed to be annexed hereby and to be included within the municipal boundaries of the City of Ridgeland, Mississippi, . . ."

The criteria to be applied in annexation cases was recently restated by this Court in Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 623 (Miss.1978), in this way:

"(1) The municipality's need for expansion; (2) Whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within the path of growth of the city; (3) The potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed area; (4) The municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal service promised. Lowe v. City of Jackson, 336 So.2d 490 (Miss.1976); Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683 (1965); Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (1960).

"Other factors that have been considered by the Court are: (5) The need for zoning and overall planning in the area; (6) The need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed. Smith v. City of Meridian, 237 Miss. 486, 115 So.2d 323 (1959); (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. City of Biloxi v. Cawley, 332 So.2d 749 (Miss.1976)." 365 So.2d at 624-25.

The burden of proving reasonableness as measured by these criteria was upon the petitioner, the City of Ridgeland. Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (1960).

In his opinion, the chancellor summarized and tabulated the City of Jackson's objections:

(1) These tracts are not within Ridgeland's path of growth but are in Jackson's path of growth.

(2) The portion of tract III which adjoins Ridgeland's eastern boundary has shown no substantial growth or development in the past and the growth and development in tract III has been on the east side thereof.

(3) Ridgeland has sufficient undeveloped land within its present corporate limits to accommodate its future growth.

(4) Ridgeland has not provided reasonable services to certain areas annexed by it in 1975.

(5) Jackson would be adversely affected by permitting Ridgeland this annexation.

Chancellor E. G. Cortright answered Jackson's objections in this way:

"There has been a material change in the facts since the 1975 annexation case: (1) There has been substantial residential development within the City of Ridgeland and much of that development has been in the southern and eastern portion of the City. This development is continuing and appears to be moving toward Ridgeland's southmost eastern boundary and the area in tract III sought to be annexed. (2) The area between Ridgeland's eastern boundary and the Old Canton Road, which the court previously found to be basically pasture and woodlands, is beginning to develop. All of the experts seemed to agree that substantial further development is imminent. (3) The area east of the Old Canton Road has sustained substantial residential growth since January of 1975 and is continuing to experience such development. The picture which the court had before it in 1975 is not the one which now appears. The total development of both south Ridgeland and all of tract III, except the eastmost edge thereof, is now assured.

". . . Section 32 is clearly positioned for near term development. This area joins present Ridgeland and it seems prudent that it be under Ridgeland's control if orderly development therein is to be promoted. It is important that growth along the east side of Ridgeland's present boundary be coordinated with that portion of Section 32 which now is unincorporated. The present absence of roads into the interior of Section 32 is understandable and is of no substantial significance. Future roads into the area will inevitably coincide with the future development. Logically, the area would be better served if the location of such interior roads were in the future coordinated with the location and types of developments to be positioned in the area. There are good main roads around this area sufficient to accommodate interior developments. The present development of a substantial water system by Ridgeland around the periphery of this tract puts the City in an advantageous position to assist in developing the area as its needs arise. To view that portion of Section 32 that is now outside of Ridgeland as undeveloped is not to recognize a true picture-as the fringes of the area are developing at a rapid rate. A salutary purpose of annexation is to bring in an area before it is totally developed in order to assure its controlled growth and development. As was stated in Dodd vs. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (1960):

(W)here it can be reasonably anticipated that a certain area will become a part of a city in a reasonable time, it is better to take it in and develop the same properly and wisely, with particular reference to a uniform system for securing water, the development of streets, and the collection and disposal of sewage and waste, rather than to let the area develop in a harum-scarum manner as each builder or developer may determine.

"Although recognizing that tract III is a rapidly growing area and is also within its own path of growth, the City of Jackson has not sought to annex the area. On the contrary,...