In re City of Madison v. City of Madison
| Docket Number: | 2006-AN-01574-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-AN-01574-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: ON DIRECT APPEAL: AFFIRMED; ON CROSS-APPEAL: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Reasonable need for expansion - Not reasonable for annexation Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Graves, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J., without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, J. without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2006 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Jason H. Floyd, Jr. Disposition: The City of Madison petitioned the Chancery Court of Madison County to enlarge and extend its existing boundaries to incorporate an area situated to the north and northwest of the existing city limits. The special chancellor approved all of the proposed annexation area except for approximately 2.5 square miles to the north of the current city limits. Case Number: 2002-253 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ENLARGEMENT AND
EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF MADISON, MISSISSIPPI: RONALD
RUSSELL, KELLY KERSH, CHARLES WARWICK,
TOM JOHNSON, RICHARD DAVIS, HARLAN
SISTRUNK AND FRANK BELL |
T. JACKSON LYONS |
|
|
| Appellee: | CITY OF MADISON, MISSISSIPPI AND CITY OF MADISON v. RONALD RUSSELL, BILL ROBERTSON, KELLY KERSH, CHARLES WARWICK, TOM JOHNSON, STAN PATTERSON, RICHARD DAVIS, GEORGE ARDELEAN, LISA MARKHAM, HARLAN SISTRUNK, FRANK BELL AND LARRY SPENCER | JAMES L. CARROLL, MYLES A. PARKER, MELISSA ANNELLE ROSE, JACOB THOMAS EVANS STUTZMAN, C. JOHN HEDGLIN | ||
| Amicus #1: |
|
|||
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 - Reasonable need for expansion - Not reasonable for annexation |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Madison petitioned the Madison County Chancery Court to enlarge and extend its existing boundaries to incorporate an area situated to the north and northwest of the existing city limits. The special chancellor approved all of the proposed annexation area except for approximately 2.5 square miles to the north of the current city limits. The objectors to the annexation appeal, and the City of Madison cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reasonable need for expansion When determining whether a city seeking an extension of its boundaries has a reasonable need for expansion, factors to be considered include, but do not have to include: spillover development into the proposed area of annexation; the city’s internal growth; the city’s population growth; the city’s need for development of land; the need for planning in the proposed annexation area; increased traffic counts in the proposed area; the need to maintain as well as expand the city’s tax base; limitations due to the geography and any surrounding cities; land remaining vacant within the municipality; environmental influences; the city’s need to exercise control over the area proposed to be annexed; and increase in new building permit activity. The Objectors mainly argue that the City of Madison has enough vacant land within the city limits to expand development without annexing the proposed area of annexation. The fact that there may be some other vacant lands already available in the city does not prohibit annexation nor does it require that an indicia be found to be against the community proposing annexation. As of the date of trial, there were seventy commercial, residential, and recreational development plans within the City of Madison and just outside the city limits in the PAA. Of the seventy development plans, forty-three were within the city and twenty-seven were within the PAA. Developers are forced to build in the PAA because of a lack of vacant, developable land within the city limits. Even the Objectors’ planning expert acknowledged at trial that a large portion of the PAA consisted of spillover development as a result of increased demand for commercial land in the area. The city’s population has increased significantly over the past several years. As such, commercial building permits and residential building permits have increased. Thus, the special chancellor’s findings for this indicium were reasonable. When looking at the path of growth, a city need only show that the areas desired to be annexed are in ‘a’ path of growth and this does not mean that the area is the most urgent or even the city’s primary path of growth. In today’s case, the evidence shows that the PAA is immediately adjacent to the city and is accessible by public streets, highways and roads. In addition, the PAA is experiencing significant spillover of urban development in the contiguous areas around the periphery of the city. Thus, the special chancellor’s findings that this indicium of reasonableness has been met in favor of annexation are supported by the substantial, credible evidence. With regard to potential health hazards, a review of the record reveals that many parts of the PAA do not have the benefit of sanitary sewage. In fact, evidence was presented to show that failing on-site wastewater treatment facilities are located throughout the PAA, and many residents are using septic tanks, despite the fact that they are impractical and ineffective due to unsuitable soils in the area. Additionally, trash pickup in the PAA occurs only once a week, which contributes to uncollected waste in the area, which in turn contributes to the spread of disease. The special chancellor’s findings that this indicium favored annexation are supported by the evidence presented at trial. With regard to the city’s financial ability to make the improvements and provide the services as promised, the evidence shows that the City of Madison is in good financial condition and that the city has the ability to keep its commitments. In fact, the Objectors conceded in their brief that the City of Madison has the financial ability to provide municipal services to the PAA. Thus, the special chancellor’s finding that annexation is reasonable from a financial standpoint is supported by the substantial, credible evidence presented during the trial. The City of Madison’s Zoning and Planning Commission already has been involved in the planning and development of some of the commercial and residential areas in the PAA. Therefore, the special chancellor’s determination that the city’s zoning and planning ordinances are superior to those of the county is reasonable. The Objectors argue that the residents of the PAA stand to receive little or nothing from this annexation, and the city is unable to create a viable plan for a central sewer system, which can be considered as the principal benefit of an annexation. The record shows that Madison County has a volunteer fire department, and that the City of Madison acts as a mutual-aid responder to the PAA. On the other hand, the city has a professional, full-time fire department, and several volunteer firefighters. Thus, according to the evidence, the city provides first-response fire and rescue protection to the PAA, although it is not contractually bound to do so. Evidence presented at trial revealed that, although the Madison County Sheriff’s Department provides adequate police protection in the PAA, municipal-level law enforcement provided by the City of Madison would greatly benefit the annexed area as further development occurs. The areas of the PAA in which the city does not already provide municipal-level sewer services are growing rapidly, and these areas would benefit from central sewage. While the Objectors strongly dispute their need for municipal-level services, the city has shown by substantial, credible evidence that it can provide the PAA with an abundance of municipal-level services. With regard to natural barriers, the annexation areas are contiguous to the city with unimpeded access into and out of the areas from the city. The special chancellor’s findings that this indicium of reasonableness supports annexation are supported by the substantial credible evidence. The record supports the special chancellor’s findings that the city has a good track record of providing timely services to newly annexed areas. The residents and property owners in the PAA will receive valuable services in return for paying city taxes. Not one minority objector appeared at trial to contest the annexation based upon a dilution in minority voting strength. Residents and property owners in the PAA benefit by having access to city roads, shops, restaurants, churches, and recreational facilities and enjoy lower fire insurance rates. Given these factors, the special chancellor did not err in his determination that the annexation of a major portion of the PPA was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Issue 2: Not reasonable for annexation The city argues that the special chancellor erred in finding that portions of the PAA were not reasonable for annexation. The city claims that spillover development and access roads are only two sub-factors to consider under the “path-of-growth” indicium of reasonableness, and the special chancellor ignored the other eleven indicia of reasonableness and focused on this one. From the record, the special chancellor was justified in finding that, without access roads or spillover development, the majority of the other indicium of reasonableness are irrelevant. Without access roads, there is no development, residential or commercial, on the three excluded parcels of land. If no one lives or works on the three parcels, then there is no need for municipal-level services such as fire protection, police protection, central sewer, and the like. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
