In re the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Clinton
| Docket Number: | 2006-AN-00409-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-03-2007 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Reasonableness Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., DIAZ, P.J., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): WALLER, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-17-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Stuart Robinson Disposition: Approved appellee's annexation of certain parts of land in Hinds County. Case Number: G-2003-15 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-AN-01436-SCT In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Clinton, Mississippi: David Weeks, Myra Jane Hale, Lucas L. Hale, R. Mitchell Hale, and Suzyn B. Hale, d/b/a Hale Fireworks, LLC v. City of Clinton, Mississippi | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MYRA JANE HALE, LUCAS L.
HALE, R. MITCHELL HALE AND SUZYN B.
HALE d/b/a HALE FIREWORKS, L.L.C., AND
DAVID WEEKS |
T. JACKSON LYONS
JOHN R. REEVES |
||
| Appellee: | CITY OF CLINTON, MISSISSIPPI | JERRY L. MILLS KENNETH R. DREHER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Annexation - Reasonableness |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Clinton filed a petition to approve, ratify, and confirm the enlargement and extension of its municipal boundaries. The petition proposed three areas to be added to the City. The extension included property owned by David E. Weeks and the Hale family. Weeks filed an answer of objectors. The Hales also filed an answer of objectors. The chancellor approved the enlargement and extension of the boundaries of the City of Clinton. Weeks and the Hales filed separate appeals. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the annexation, instructing the chancellor to provide detailed reasoning concerning the twelve indicia of reasonableness and enter a new judgment in accordance with the findings. The chancellor entered his findings and conclusions of law, as well as the final judgment approving the annexation to the City. Weeks and the Hales appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Mayor testified about the City’s need to expand and to a number of the factors supporting this indicium of reasonableness. The Mayor stated that the City had growth, especially on the north side of town. The Mayor also said that the City tripled in population growth from 1970 to the 2000 U.S. Census. An expert in urban and city planning testified that the increase in density indicates that the City was ripe for annexation. He stated that the City had a number of reasons for a need to expand, which included the need for vacant land. He said that the less vacant land there is in a city’s limits, the more vacant land is required in the annexation area. Therefore, a city needs a “cushion” of vacant land. However, a city needs to annex enough land so that it does not have to undertake frequent annexations. His testimony indicated that the City had an enormous amount of internal growth, prompting the annexation. Thus, the overall testimony concerning the need to expand satisfies this indicium of reasonableness. When considering the indicia of reasonableness for the path of growth, a city need only show that the areas desired to be annexed are in "a" path of growth. The chancellor found that the PAA was in the path of growth. He found that there was spillover growth on the fringes of the City which included the PAA. The chancellor also found that all of the proposed annexation area was immediately adjacent to the City of Clinton, and it was accessible by in-use public streets. The testimony and evidence at the hearing supports the chancellor’s finding of reasonableness for this indicium, and it was supported by substantial credible evidence. The chancellor found that the PAA has potential health hazard problems. Substantial credible evidence at the hearing supports the chancellor’s finding of reasonableness for this indicium. The chancellor found that Clinton will remain in financially healthy shape and, based on projections over the next five years, expenses of the PAA will not exceed revenues. The chancellor’s findings for this indicium were supported by substantial credible evidence and were reasonable. The Mayor testified that Hinds County’s ordinances were broad, and the City’s ordinances were more specific than the County’s. The urban planner stated that the PAA had more urban development; therefore, the City’s ordinances were better for the PAA. Thus, the chancellor’s findings for this indicium were supported by substantial credible evidence and were reasonable. The Mayor testified that many of the residents, particularly in the northern portion of the PAA, requested municipal services. The residents of the PAA would receive services such as police, fire, and garbage services. The chancellor’s findings for this indicium were supported by substantial credible evidence and were reasonable. The Hales admit that the chancellor was correct in finding no natural barriers, other than possibly Interstate 20, that would impede the improvements. The Mayor stated that in the past two annexations, in 1984-85 and 1995, the City met its responsibilities and obligations for services to residents where it was economically feasible to do so. The City’s plan to provide the services was divided into two phases. The Mayor stated that the City’s plan outlines the responsibilities of the City to the PAA residents, and the City intended to follow that plan. The chancellor’s findings for this indicium were supported by substantial credible evidence and were reasonable. The Mayor testified that many of the residents of the PAA participate in the City’s parks and recreational programs and civic and charitable organizations. In addition, the residents of the PAA already enjoyed the benefits of safe shopping and work areas, and their children had good recreational and school facilities. The Mayor and planner both testified to the benefits that the PAA residents would receive for their tax dollars. In addition, the planner conducted a study that showed that many residents of the PAA could save tax dollars with the annexation. The chancellor’s findings for this indicium were supported by substantial credible evidence and were reasonable. The Hales concede that the record supports the chancellor’s findings that minority voting strength will increase with the annexation. Weeks argues that the objectors had no representation of legal counsel at the hearing. This hearing was noticed, and Weeks and the other objectors had the opportunity to have counsel with them at this hearing. The chancellor did not err in finding under the totality of the circumstances that the annexation is reasonable. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
