In re: the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-AN-00390-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-13-2005
Opinion Author: Smith, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part; and Remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Annexation - Reasonableness - Modification of opinion
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J., Without Separate Written Opinion.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-31-2002
Appealed from: Madison County Chancery Court
Judge: Gail Barnett
Disposition: Trial court granted to Jackson only its request to annex the Richmond Grove area3 and approved Ridgeland’s request to annex all of the property contained in its petition. Jackson then filed a motion to reconsider or stay.
Case Number: 97-857

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: IN THE MATTER OF THE ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI: CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI AND MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI




DOUGLAS J. GUNN, GREGORY K. DAVIS, PATRICK M. RAND



 

Appellee: CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI JERRY L. MILLS  

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 - Modification of opinion

Summary of the Facts: The City of Jackson, in 1989, annexed a slightly larger area than that involved in this case. Following this annexation, area residents filed a petition for deannexation from Jackson, which was denied by the trial court. However, in 1997, the Supreme Court reversed and rendered the trial court’s decision by deannexing approximately 4 square miles of the annexed area from Jackson. In 1997, Jackson filed a new petition in the Madison County Chancery Court seeking to re-annex the property that it had lost. Shortly thereafter, Ridgeland filed a petition to annex almost the entire acreage that was located in Madison County. Madison County filed a motion to intervene. The chancery court ordered the cases consolidated for trial. The court granted to Jackson only its request to annex the Richmond Grove area and approved Ridgeland’s request to annex all of the property contained in its petition. Jackson then filed a motion to reconsider or stay. The court granted Jackson’s motion for reconsideration determining that the findings of fact and conclusions of law would remain unchanged. However, the court did grant Jackson the annexation of 220 Business Park, which is located in Madison County. Madison County and Ridgeland filed a motion to reconsider the removal of 220 Business Park from Ridgeland. The Final Order and Opinion awarded both 220 Business Park and the Richmond Grove area to Jackson and the remaining property to Ridgeland. Madison County appeals and Ridgeland cross-appeals. The City of Jackson also appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Reasonableness While it is true that both Ridgeland and Jackson have between 25% and 27% land available for development, in Jackson that percentage constitutes 40 square miles, or 2.3 times the entire land mass area of Ridgeland. Jackson had decreased in population from 202,000 in 1998 to 188,419 in 2003. Ridgeland had gained 9,000 residents during the same time period. All indicators of growth reveal Ridgeland as the City growing internally. Therefore, Ridgeland has a far greater need to expand its territorial borders than the City of Jackson. The evidence revealed that the proposed annexation area was in the path of growth of both Ridgeland and Jackson. However, unlike Jackson, Ridgeland has only one path of growth. Ridgeland is blocked to the north by the City of Madison, to the east by the Barnett Reservoir, and to the south by the City of Jackson. Ridgeland’s only path of growth is to the west, whereas Jackson has several alternate paths of growth other than the area at issue. Neither city disputed the fact that the soil type in the area was unsuitable for septic tank usage. Furthermore, municipal level sewer service and treatment is needed in the area because of drainage problems. The then-Mayor and then-Assistant Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Jackson testified that Jackson had sufficient financial ability to provide the services and make improvements to the PAA in accordance with the facility and services plan adopted by Jackson. The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen of the City of Ridgeland also adopted a facility and services plan for the PAA to provide services and make improvements. Furthermore, Ridgeland presented credible evidence that it had the financial ability to make the improvements and provide services to the PAA. The parties agreed, that there is a need for zoning in the PAA. Neither party disputes a need for municipal services in the PAA. In fact, Jackson has already spent over $5 million for water and sewer services within the PAA. Jackson has also provided water and sewer service to the 220 Business Park since 1985. While Jackson has supplied water and sewer to part of the PAA, testimony in the record indicates a question of water quality and sufficiency. Both Jackson and Ridgeland have proposed building a new fire station close to the PAA. Ridgeland’s plan proposes adding 6 more police officers over a five-year period. Jackson’s then-Mayor testified that Jackson does not have enough police officers to meet the needs of Jackson residents. No natural barriers exist between the PAA and either of the cities. While both cities have a history of failing to meeting their five-year timetables in providing promised services to their annexed areas, Jackson’s failure is far more aggravated. Citizens in the annexation area will be subject to lower taxes if Ridgeland annexes the area. The cities of Jackson and Ridgeland both concede that annexation of the area will not have an adverse impact on minority voting strength within their respective cities. Ridgeland is already providing benefits to the PAA. Every impacted citizen or property owner who testified in this case expressed a preference for Ridgeland over Jackson. Given this evidence on reasonableness, the evidence weighs in favor of annexation by Ridgeland. Issue 2: Modification of opinion The chancellor did not provide an analysis in her Order and Supplemental Opinion as to why the same factors, which previously supported an award to Ridgeland, suddenly favored Jackson’s request to annex the 220 Business Park. The chancellor’s basis for revising her original opinion does not include any new evidence the chancellor did not already receive and consider during the course of the trial. Worse yet, the opinion splits contiguous tracts of land. Such a split is not allowed to occur. Therefore, the chancellor was manifestly wrong in revising her original opinion.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court