Enlargement & Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the Town of Terry v. Town of Terry

227 So. 3d 917
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 6, 2017
DocketNO. 2015-AN-01611-SCT
StatusPublished

This text of 227 So. 3d 917 (Enlargement & Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the Town of Terry v. Town of Terry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Enlargement & Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the Town of Terry v. Town of Terry, 227 So. 3d 917 (Mich. 2017).

Opinion

RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. The Town of Terry sought to annex five territories adjacent to the existing Town—Territory 1 to the north, Territory 2 to the west, Territory 3 to the east, Territory 4 to the northeast, and Territory 5 to the south. The Chancery Court of Hinds County determined such an extensive annexation was unreasonable. However, the chancellor partially granted the Town’s annexation request, finding their request for Territories 2 and 3 was reasonable. Some of the objectors appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In May 2012, the Town‘of Terry passed an annexation ordinance seeking to enlarge its corporate boundaries by adding five tracts of land outside the Town in unincorporated Hinds County. As a result, the Town filed a petition with the Hinds County Chancery Court'seeking approval, ratification, and confirmation of the proposed annexation. The Town served the cities of Byram and Florence with process and published notice in The Clarion-Ledger.

¶ 3. Neither city filed objections or answers, to the Town’s petition. Five objectors—Greg Wilson, David McGuffee, Joyce Wallace, Kevin Bryant, and Arthur Harvey 1 —answered and objected to the petition through joint counsel. Following a trial, the chancellor granted the Town’s petition in part. The chancellor found the annexation of Territories 1, 4, and 5 to be unreasonable due to the Town’s inability to bear the financial burden of such a large-scale annexation, coupled with its lack of planning regarding the expansion of municipal services into all five proposed areas. However, following an analysis of the twelve indicia of reasonableness, the chancellor found '& limited annexation of Territories 2 and 3 was reasonable. The Objectors appealed. 2

ISSUE

¶ 4. The sole issue on appeal is whether the chancellor’s partial grant of the Town’s annexation petition was reasonable and *919 supported by substantial, credible evidence.

ANALYSIS

¶ 5. “The role of the judiciary in annexations is limited to one question: whether the annexation is reasonable.” 3 Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss. 1995). This Court will not reverse a chancellor’s finding of reasonableness unless that finding is manifestly wrong and/or not supported by substantial arid' credible evidence. Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo, 94 So.3d 256, 266 (Miss. 2012). To determine reasonableness, this Court has promulgated the following twelve indicia:

(1) the municipality’s need to expand, (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, (3) 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) need for zoning and overall planning in the area, (6) 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) past performance and time element involved in the city’s provision of services to its present residents, (9) economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in .or own property in the proposed annexation area, (10) 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 economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness.

Id. at 266-67. Rather than being separate, independent tests, these indicia must be considered collectively to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, annexation was reasonable. Id. at 266.

¶ 6. According to the 2000 census, the Town had a population of 664. By 2010, the census reported the Town’s population as 1,063. During the trial in 2014, the mayor approximated the population at 1,200. As noted by the chancellor, the Town’s theri-mayor, Roderick Nicholson, testified to spillover' development in both the proposed annexation areas as well as within the Town. Two subdivisions of acreage properties had been developed in Territory 2 and low-density residential properties had developed in Territory 3. Both territories contained access points to Interstate 55, which intersects the Town. In the years preceding this annexation, a Chevrolet dealership had relocated from Crystal Springs to Terry and another merchant had established a “super store” in the Town. A new hardware store was also expected to open in March, the month after trial. Within the Town, two subdivi *920 sions had been developed. The Town had built a new city hall and had refurbished the old city hall into a combined public-works building and two-bay fire station.

¶7. In addition to two sewer projects, the Town had completed a comprehensive water improvement project, which included a new well and a refurbished water tower. This project resulted in a decrease in the number of Town residents using personal wells from approximately twenty-five percent to one percent. The Town currently furnishes Territory 2 with municipal water and Territory 3 with municipal sewer. Municipal sewer services were extended into Territory 3 to ameliorate hazards posed by failing septic tanks in the area. Raw sewage was spilling into backyards and down road ditches. The Board of Health assisted the Town in acquiring funding for the sewer project in Territory 3. The mayor also testified of instances in which homeowners with septic tanks were extending their runoff pipes directly into a creek rather than onto their property where sewage could be filtered naturally before entering the groundwater. This influx of raw sewage directly into the water supply created both environmental and health concerns for the Town and surrounding areas. If annexed, the Town proposes to extend municipal sewer services to Territory 2. Annexation would also provide the proposed annexation areas (PAAs) with twice-weekly garbage collection as opposed to the weekly service residents in those areas currently are receiving. Territories 2 and 3 are immediately adjacent to the current Town limits and are connected by in-use public roads and thoroughfares.

¶ 8. While the mayor testified the Town had vacant land available for development, he was unable to tell the court how much vacant land was available, suggesting that the question would be better directed to William Peacock. Peacock testified for the Town as an expert in rural and urban planning and development, but he too was unable to quantify the vacant land available to the Town. While Peacock testified there was no unmet need for zoning the PAAs, he stressed the convenience that would result from residents being able to attend hearings in Terry rather than in Raymond.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF CITY v. Madison
650 So. 2d 490 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995)
In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo
94 So. 3d 256 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 So. 3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enlargement-extension-of-the-municipal-boundaries-of-the-town-of-terry-v-miss-2017.