In re City of Jackson

• Decision Date: 13 October 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2003-AN-00390-SCT.,2003-AN-00390-SCT.
• Citation: 912 So.2d 961
• Parties: In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi. City of Jackson, Mississippi and Madison County, Mississippi v. City of Ridgeland, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

912 So.2d 961

In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi City of Jackson, Mississippi and Madison County, Mississippi v. City of Ridgeland, Mississippi.

No. 2003-AN-00390-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

October 13, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Douglas J. Gunn, Jackson, Gregory K. Davis, Patrick M. Rand, Canton, attorneys for appellants.

Jerry L. Mills, Ridgeland, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

SMITH, Chief Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This is a tale of two cities. On one hand is the City of Ridgeland ("Ridgeland"), with a strong, vibrant history of residential and commercial development. On the other hand is the City of Jackson ("Jackson"), with a recent history of decline and poor past performance.¹ In fact, Jackson is the only municipality in the state to have property (including property at issue here) deannexed by this Court.²

¶ 2. The property involved in this case has been the subject of two cases previously decided by this Court. In City of Jackson I, 551 So.2d at 861, Jackson, in 1989, annexed a slightly larger area than that involved in this case. Following this annexation, area residents filed a petition for deannexation from Jackson, which was denied by the trial court. However, in 1997, this Court reversed and rendered the trial court's decision by deannexing approximately 4 square miles of the annexed area from Jackson. City of Jackson II, 698 So.2d at 490.

¶ 3. Subsequent to this Court's ruling, in November of 1997, Jackson filed a new petition in the Chancery Court of Madison County seeking to re-annex the property that it had lost. Shortly thereafter, Ridgeland filed a petition to annex almost the entire acreage that was located in Madison County. Madison County filed a motion to intervene on February 18, 1998. On June 12, 1998, the Chancery Court of Madison County ordered the cases consolidated for trial.

¶ 4. In its February 22, 2002 opinion, the trial court granted to Jackson only its request to annex the Richmond Grove area³ and approved Ridgeland's request to annex all of the property contained in its petition. Jackson then filed a motion to reconsider or stay. On September 27, 2002, the trial court granted Jackson's motion for reconsideration determining that the findings of fact and conclusions of law would remain unchanged. However, the court did grant Jackson the annexation of 220 Business Park, which is located in Madison County. Madison County and Ridgeland thereafter filed a motion to reconsider the removal of 220 Business Park from Ridgeland. The Final Order and Opinion in this case, entered January 2, 2003, awarded both 220 Business Park and the Richmond Grove area to Jackson and the remaining property to Ridgeland. This appeal followed with Madison County, on direct appeal, and Ridgeland, on cross-appeal, arguing that the chancellor erred when she awarded the 220 Business Park to Jackson. The City of Jackson also appeals arguing that the entire proposed annexation area ("PAA") should have been granted to Jackson.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

I. Whether the Chancellor Erred in Granting the City of Ridgeland the Majority of the Area it Sought to Annex.

II. Whether the Chancellor Erred in Modifying Her Original Opinion to Allow the City of Jackson to Annex 220 Business Park.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. "This Court's standard of review for annexation is very limited. The Court can only reverse the chancery court's findings as to the reasonableness of an annexation if the chancellor's decision is manifestly wrong and is not supported by substantial and credible evidence." In re Contraction, Exclusion and Deannexation of City of Grenada, 876 So.2d 995, 999 (Miss. 2004). We will also defer to the findings below when there is conflicting, credible evidence. See id. "We 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." Id. at 999-1000 (quoting Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss. 1989)).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the Chancellor Erred in Granting the City of Ridgeland the Majority of the Area it Sought to Annex.

¶ 6. This Court has established a list of twelve non-exclusive factors — "indicia of reasonableness" — to guide chancellors in determining the reasonableness of a city's annexation request. In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69, 81 (Miss. 2003). The twelve indicia of reasonableness are:

(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;

(8) the past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents;

(9) the impact (economic or otherwise) of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the area proposed for annexation;

(10) the 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 the (economic and social) benefits of proximity to the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes; and

(12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness, vel non.

Id. at 82-83. "This Court has held that the twelve factors `are only indicia of reasonableness, not separate and distinct tests in and of themselves.'" In re Extension of the Boundaries of The City of Winona, 879 So.2d 966, 972-73 (Miss. 2004) (quoting In re Enlargement and Extension of Municipal Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d 270, 276 (Miss. 1999)). This Court stated in Hattiesburg 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." Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 82. More importantly, "`[t]he chancellor must consider all [twelve] of these factors and determine whether under the totality of the circumstances the annexation is reasonable.'" Id.

¶ 7. For reasons set forth below, we find that the chancellor's original opinion is correct and that the chancellor's findings in her Order and Supplemental Opinion are manifestly wrong. Therefore, Ridgeland must prevail on the proposed annexation area at issue.

The Twelve Indicia of Reasonableness

1. Need to expand

¶ 8. When determining whether a City has a reasonable need for expansion, the factors to be considered may include:

(1) spillover development into the proposed annexation area; (2) the City's internal growth; (3) the City's population growth; (4) the City's need for development land; (5) the need for planning in the annexation area; (6) increased traffic counts; (7) the need to maintain and expand the City's tax base; (8) limitations due to geography and surrounding cities; (9) remaining vacant land within the municipality; (10) environmental influences; (11) the city's need to exercise control over the proposed annexation area; and (12) increased new building permit.

Winona, 879 So.2d at 974.

¶ 9. While it is true that both cities have between 25% and 27% land available for development, in Jackson that percentage constitutes 40 square miles, or 2.3 times the entire land mass area of Ridgeland. Any comparison without more facts is misleading, especially in view of the chancellor's original findings on this subject. Originally, the chancellor stated:

Jackson presented no evidence as to the amount of vacant land available in its borders. Ridgeland however, produced proof that in 1990, 36.5% of Jackson was vacant, or over 40 square miles of vacant land; Jackson had decreased in population from 202,000 in 1998 to 188,419 in 2003. Ridgeland had gained 9,000 residents during the same time period. Ridgeland was 61.8% built-out; the rate at which Ridgeland is developing indicates a need for expansion. A major indicator of a city in decline is the low number of new residential subdivision lots platted. Only 34 residential purchases were made in northwest Jackson during the year 1998 and only 691 new residential lots were platted in the entire City of Jackson from January 1, 1990, until August 31, 2000. In the City of Ridgeland, the population is up, residential building permits are up, commercial building permits are up, and new streets are being constructed to accommodate internal growth. Ridgeland housing units increased by 3,789 while Jackson housing units decreased by 3,696. All indicators of growth reveal Ridgeland as the City growing internally.

¶ 10. We hold the chancellor's finding is correct, in that Ridgeland has a far greater need to expand its territorial borders than the City of Jackson. Therefore, we find this factor favors annexation by Ridgeland.

2. Path of growth

¶ 11. A city need only show that the areas to be annexed are in its path of growth. The path of growth does not have to be the primary or most urgent path. See City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 86-87. A number of factors may be considered in determining whether the path of growth is reasonable including, but not limited to "(1) spillover development in annexation area; (2) the annexation area immediately adjacent to City; (3) limited area available for...