In re Enlargement and Extension of Boundaries of City of Macon, 2001-AN-01508-SCT.

• Decision Date: 25 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2001-AN-01508-SCT.,2001-AN-01508-SCT.
• Citation: 854 So.2d 1029
• Parties: In the Matter of the ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF MACON, Mississippi. Frances Gousset, Katherine Moore, Jerry Harris, Orietta Stewart by and through Richard Dooley, Richard Dooley, individually, James D. Britt, Gregory Cole, Darlene Cole, Jim Britt, Emily Britt, Gene Penick, Jr., Penick Forest Products, William M. Dantzler and wife, Marjorie Dantzler, Clay Hollis, Willie Cole, Mary E. Brown, Gayle Ford, Minnie Williams and Arthur Varner, Jr. v. City of Macon Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

854 So.2d 1029

In the Matter of the ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF the BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF MACON, Mississippi.

Frances Gousset, Katherine Moore, Jerry Harris, Orietta Stewart by and through Richard Dooley, Richard Dooley, individually, James D. Britt, Gregory Cole, Darlene Cole, Jim Britt, Emily Britt, Gene Penick, Jr., Penick Forest Products, William M. Dantzler and wife, Marjorie Dantzler, Clay Hollis, Willie Cole, Mary E. Brown, Gayle Ford, Minnie Williams and Arthur Varner, Jr. v. City of Macon Mississippi.

No. 2001-AN-01508-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

September 25, 2003.

Gary Goodwin, Columbus, attorney for appellants.

Jerry L. Mills, Ridgeland, Charles G. Perkins, Macon, attorneys for appellee.

EN BANC.

McRAE, Presiding Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. On July 19, 2001, the Chancellor of the Noxubee County Chancery Court entered her opinion and judgment granting the City of Macon's request for extension and enlargement of the city boundaries. The Objectors to the annexation claim the Chancellor's ruling was not supported by substantial, credible evidence and was manifestly wrong. Finding that the Chancellor's ruling was supported by substantial, credible evidence as evaluated by the annexation indicia for reasonableness, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. The City of Macon, which was incorporated in 1836, consists of 1.5 square miles. This is the City's first annexation.

¶ 3. In 1997, the City with the aid of an urban and regional planner conducted studies related to annexation. After the completion of these studies and public hearings on the issue of annexation, the City properly adopted an ordinance of annexation under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2001). Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-29, the City timely and properly filed a complaint for annexation seeking the extension and enlargement of the City to cover an additional 2.7 square miles. Proper notice of the complaint filing under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-31 was given by means of publication and posting. The City later reduced the area sought to be annexed to 2 square miles. This 2 square mile area is occupied by 31 businesses and 231 residences with 690 people.

¶ 4. The matter was tried in the Chancery Court of Noxubee County over a period of four days. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33, the City had the burden of proving that the proposed annexation was reasonable. The City's witnesses consisted of Robert Brown ("Brown"), the City of Macon Police Chief; Charlie Fraley, the City of Macon Fire Chief; William Whitehead ("Whitehead"), the City of Macon Building Inspector; John Peters, the City of Macon Zoning Officer; Allen Hunter ("Hunter"), the City of Macon Mayor; Larry Carr, a Superintendent of Public Protection for the Mississippi State Insurance Rating Bureau; Eugene Herring ("Herring"), an Environmental Health Program Specialist for the Mississippi Department of Health; and Michael Slaughter ("Slaughter"), expert planner for Bridge and Slaughter, an urban and regional planning firm.

¶ 5. During the trial, the Objectors proposed an alternate annexation area. The Objectors offered no expert testimony to support the alternate annexation area. The only difference between the alternate annexation area proposed by the Objectors and the annexation area proposed by the City was that the area in which the Objectors owned businesses and residences was "cut out" of the City's proposed area. The Objectors' witnesses consisted of 11 residents of the area proposed to be annexed. These witnesses included James Britt, William Dantzler, Richard Dooley ("Dooley"), Jerry Britt, Dan Ford, Frances Gousset, Willie Cole, Hazel Misso, Minnie Williams, Burt Sasser, and Shannon Hall. The main objection of all witness/residents was any increase in taxes due to the annexation of their property by the City of Macon.

¶ 6. On July 19, 2001, the Chancellor issued her opinion in favor of the City's annexation proposal. On July 31, 2001, the Chancellor issued her final order in favor of the City thereby approving of the enlargement and extension of the boundaries of the City of Macon, Mississippi. The Objectors filed, and the Chancellor denied a Motion to Reopen Proof. The Objectors filed a timely notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. "Where the finding of reasonableness is challenged on appeal, this Court conducts no plenary review. It may reverse where—and only where—the chancery court's finding of ultimate fact that the annexation was (un)reasonable is manifestly wrong or without the support of substantial, credible evidence." In re Enlargement and Extension of Municipal Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d 270, 277 (Miss.1999) (citing McElhaney v. City of Horn Lake, 501 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss.1987); Extension of Boundaries of City of Moss Point v. Sherman, 492 So.2d 289, 290 (Miss.1986); Enlargement of Boundaries of Yazoo City v. City of Yazoo City, 452 So.2d 837, 838 (Miss.1984); In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Clinton, 450 So.2d 85, 89 (Miss.1984)).

¶ 8. "Where there is conflicting credible evidence, we defer to the findings below." In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Batesville, Panola County, 760 So.2d 697, 699 (Miss.2000) (quoting Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989)).

DISCUSSION

I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR'S FINDING OF ULTIMATE FACT WAS MANIFESTLY WRONG OR WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF SUBSTANTIAL, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS EVALUATED BY THE ANNEXATION INDICIA.

¶ 9. The Chancellor, after hearing all evidence presented, must under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (Rev.2001), determine if the proposed annexation is reasonable. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33, the trial judge has the discretion to allow for partial approval of the proposed annexation thereby excluding any portion of the land sought to be annexed.

¶ 10. This Court has recognized and developed a list of indicia of reasonableness to be used when evaluating a petition for annexation. These indicia include: (1) The City's need for expansion; (2) Whether the proposed annexation area (PPA) is within the path of growth of the City; (3) Potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed area; (4) The City's financial ability to make the improvements and provide promised municipal services; (5) Need for zoning and planning in the area; (6) Need for municipal services in the proposed annexed area; (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 economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the area proposed to be annexed; (10) The impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups; (11) The economic or other benefits received by those in the proposed annexation area without playing their fair share of taxes; and (12) Any other reasonableness factors. These factors are only indicia of reasonableness, not separate and distinct tests in and of themselves. The Chancellor must consider all of these factors and determine whether under the totality of the circumstances the annexation is reasonable. This Court's standard of review 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. See Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of City of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814, 819 (Miss.1991)

; In re Boundaries of City of Vicksburg, 560 So.2d 713, 716 (Miss.1990); In re Enlargement of Corporate Boundaries of the City of Booneville, 551 So.2d 890, 892 (Miss.1989)

City of Horn Lake,

501 So.2d at 403-04; In re Extension of the Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So.2d 861, 864 (Miss.1989); City of Greenville v. Farmers, Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 941 (Miss.1987); Bassett, 542 So.2d at 921; Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist. v. City of Greenville, 465 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Miss. 1985); Yazoo City, 452 So.2d at 842-43; Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. City of Greenville, 242 So.2d 686, 689 (Miss.1971); Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319, 330 (1960); Forbes v. City of Meridian, 86 Miss. 243, 38 So. 676, 678 (1905).

¶ 11. Using this list of indicia, the Chancellor considered all the evidence presented during the four-day trial and concluded that the City of Macon's petition for extension and enlargement should be granted. There was substantial, credible evidence to support the Chancellor's findings.

A. NEED FOR EXPANSION

¶ 12. This Court has enumerated many factors to consider when determining whether a City seeking an extension and enlargement has a reasonable need for expansion. These factors may or may not 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 activity. In re Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d at 279; Matter of Enlargement and Extension of the Mun. Boundaries of the City of Jackson, 691 So.2d 978, 980 (Miss.1997); Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland v. City of Ridgeland, 651 So.2d 548, 552 (Miss.1995); Matter of Extension of Boundaries of City of Columbus, 644 So.2d 1168, 1173 (Miss.1994). However, the Chancellor used these factors in determining whether the City had a need for expansion. Her decision was based on credible, substantial evidence and...