Lewis v. City of Bryant, 86-211

• Decision Date: 30 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-211,86-211
• Citation: 726 S.W.2d 672,291 Ark. 566
• Parties: Glenn LEWIS, et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF BRYANT, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 672

726 S.W.2d 672

291 Ark. 566

Glenn LEWIS, et al., Appellants, v.The CITY OF BRYANT, et al., Appellees.

No. 86-211.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 30, 1987.

Givens & Buzbee by J.R. Buzbee, Little Rock, for appellants.

Richard A. Garrett, Bryant, for appellees.

DUDLEY, Justice.

In May 1985, an ordinance proposing to annex 800 acres to the City of Bryant was submitted to the voters in Bryant and in the area proposed to be annexed.The proposed annexation was defeated.Four months later, on September 10, 1985, another ordinance was submitted to the voters, this one increasing the area of the proposed annexation to 914 acres.Prior to this election, the Mayor of Bryant, Dean Boswell, one of the appellees, publicly stated that the residents of the annexed area would have immediate fire and police protection.The ordinance itself provided that police protection, fire protection, and water service would be extended to the area within three (3) years.The ordinance was approved by the voters both in Bryant and in the area proposed for annexation.On October 9, 1985, appellants, who are nineteen persons residing in the area proposed for annexation, filed a petition to set aside the election and void the annexation.The trial court denied the petition.We affirm.

The trial court found that the City of Bryant is capable of providing municipal benefits to the area.Appellants contend that this finding of fact is clearly erroneous.They argue that municipal services can neither be provided "immediately," as promised by the mayor, nor within three (3) years, as set out in the ordinance.

As we have stated on numerous occasions, the rules governing our review of annexation cases are well settled.A high degree of reliance must be placed upon the findings of the trial judge because, by the very nature of this type of litigation, there is wide latitude for divergence of opinion.Thus, our task is not to decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies, but solely and simply to ascertain whether the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.Holmes v. City of Little Rock, 285 Ark. 296, 686 S.W.2d 425(1985).

The Bryant Police Chief, James Hipps, testified that his police force was capable of providing police services to the annexed area and that the area would be regularly patrolled.His testimony was supported by that of Mayor Boswell who stated that the City could provide police protection to the annexed area.Benton Chief of Police Curtis McCormick acknowledged that the ratio of men and equipment to the population in Bryant is about the same as in most other cities and towns in the state, and that under normal circumstances the response time for the police department from downtown Bryant to the annexed area would be adequate.Further, one of appellant's witnesses, Sheriff James Steed of Saline County, testified that the area to be annexed was his primary responsibility until the annexation was finalized, and then it would become the responsibility of the Bryant police force.He testified that a Bryant policeman might get to the annexed area faster than someone from the Sheriff's office.

The Bryant...