In Re City of Meridian

992 So. 2d 1113, 2008 WL 3499217
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 14, 2008
Docket2006-AN-01431-SCT
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 992 So. 2d 1113 (In Re City of Meridian) 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
In Re City of Meridian, 992 So. 2d 1113, 2008 WL 3499217 (Mich. 2008).

Opinion

992 So.2d 1113 (2008)

In the Matter of The ENLARGING, EXTENDING AND DEFINING The CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF The CITY OF MERIDIAN, Lauderdale County, Mississippi: The Town of Marion, Mississippi, Lauderdale County, Mississippi, Citizens Against Annexation and Eagle Pointe Homeowner's Association, Inc.
v.
City of Meridian, Mississippi.

No. 2006-AN-01431-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 14, 2008.
Rehearing Denied November 6, 2008.

*1115 James L. Carroll, J. Chadwick Mask, Eileen N. Shaffer, Jackson, Jacob Thomas Evans Stutzman, attorneys for appellants.

Jerry L. Mills, Ridgeland, attorney for appellee.

Before WALLER, P.J., GRAVES and RANDOLPH, JJ.

GRAVES, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This is an appeal from the Lauderdale County Chancery Court's approval of Meridian's annexation of unincorporated territory located within Lauderdale County.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. On August 27, 2002, the City of Meridian filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County seeking to annex approximately 9.3 square miles of unincorporated territory located within Lauderdale County. On November 27, 2002, the Town of Marion filed a formal *1116 objection to the petition. On December 13, 2002, Lauderdale County, the Citizens Against Annexation, and the Eagle Pointe Homeowners' Association filed an answer opposing Meridian's annexation petition. After a bench trial, the trial court granted Meridian all of the territory it sought to annex with the exception of the northernmost portion of Parcel Three, which is immediately to the east of the eastern boundary of Marion. Thereafter, the Town of Marion and Lauderdale County perfected this appeal.

DISCUSSION

¶ 3. This Court set out the limited standard of review for annexation matters in In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69 (Miss.2003). "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." Id. at 81 (citing In re Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss.1995)). Moreover, in City of Hattiesburg, this Court said:

We also stated "where there is conflicting, credible evidence, we defer to the findings below." Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss. 1989). "Findings of fact made in the context of conflicting, credible evidence may not be disturbed unless this Court can say that from all the evidence that such findings are manifestly wrong, given the weight of the evidence." Id. at 921. "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.

In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 81.

¶ 4. This Court has recognized twelve indicia in determining whether a proposed annexation is reasonable:

(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.

Mun. Boundaries v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss.1995). Further, this Court said:

These twelve factors are not separate, independent tests which are conclusive as to reasonableness.... Rather, these factors are "mere indicia of reasonableness." "The ultimate determination must be whether the annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances." ... The chancellor *1117 was required to determine reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances, employing the applicable indicia of reasonableness merely as an aid to this determination. Restated it is for the chancellor to determine whether the annexation is fair and reasonable and whether Madison carried its burden of showing reasonableness by demonstrating that residents of annexed areas will receive something of value in exchange for their tax dollars.

Madison, 650 So.2d at 494-95.

1. Need to expand.

¶ 5. The Town of Marion and Lauderdale County (hereinafter "Marion") both asserted that Meridian has not demonstrated a need to expand. Specifically, Marion asserted that Meridian's population has been shrinking for decades; that there is no spillover growth attributable to Meridian; Meridian has ample vacant land within its city limits; Meridian does not need to expand its tax base via annexation at this time; the slight traffic increases in Parcel One do not demonstrate a need to expand; and any increases in building permit activity are not attributable to Meridian's growth.

¶ 6. Meridian asserted that spillover into the proposed annexation area has occurred and that, particularly to the North, it is nearly impossible to determine the boundary between the City and the proposed annexation area. Meridian conceded that its population has declined but asserted that there is a lack of developable land. Additionally, Meridian adduced evidence: that it has adopted and implemented both planning ordinances and standard building codes; that traffic counts have increased; and that Meridian is the economic hub of the area and has demonstrated a need to maintain and expand its tax base.

¶ 7. When determining a city's need for expansion, this Court has considered many factors, including:

(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 Extension of Boundaries of City of Winona, 879 So.2d 966, 974 (Miss.2004).

¶ 8. The trial court found that there had been significant spillover development into Parcel One and "that this spillover is caused, in part, by the lack of developable land within the City of Meridian." However, the court further found:

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
992 So. 2d 1113, 2008 WL 3499217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-city-of-meridian-miss-2008.