IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-AN-01696-SCT IN THE MATTER OF THE ENLARGING, EXTENDING AND DEFINING THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF CLARKSDALE, COAHOMA COUNTY , MISSISSIPPI

v. CITY OF CLARKSDALE, MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/14/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. L. BRELAND HILBURN TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: J. CHADW ICK MASK JERRY L. MILLS C. KENT HANEY W I LLIAM MICHAEL CHAFFIN CURTIS D. BOSCHERT TUJUANA S. McGEE W I LBERT LEVON JOHNSON COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JERRY L. MILLS JOHN P. SCANLON ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. CHADW ICK MASK JACOB T. E. STUTZMAN MARGARETTE MEEKS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/17/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., KING AND BEAM, JJ. KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The Chancery Court o f Co a h o m a County granted in part the petition o f the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, to annex land situated in C o a h o m a C ounty , Mississippi, thatsurrounds the city

. Coahom a County appeals, arguing that the chancellor m a nif estly erred by f inding tha t t h e annexation was reasonable. Clarksdale cross-appeals, arguing that the chancellor m anif

estly erred b y f

inding that its annexation of c ertain land situated north of the city was unreasonable. Finding that the chancellor’s d ecision was supported by substantial, credible evidence and was not m anif estly wrong, we af

f irm

. FACTS ¶2. The City of C larksdale is located in the Mississippi Delta. The Town of Ly on borders the city to the northeast. Highway 61 by passes the city

and runs along its southwest corner
up to its northeast corner. On D ecem ber 8, 2014, Clarksdale adopted an a m ended ordinance enlarging, extending, and def ining its corporate boundaries; specif y ing the i m

provem ents to be m ade in the annexed a rea; and d ef ining the n ew boundaries. See Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1- 27 (Rev. 2015). Clarksdale f iled a second am ended petition f or rati f i c a t i o n , approval, and conf irm ation of the am ended ordinance on January 14, 2015, in the chancery court. See Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-29 (Rev. 2015). ¶3. C l a r k s d a l e s ought to annex f ive areas adjacent to its current m uni c i p a l l i mi t s . Proposed Annexation Areas (PAA) 1 and PAA 2 lie north of the c ity a nd are prim arily residential. PAAs 3, 4 , and 5 include the Highway 61 by pass to the south and east of the city and contain land used f

o r com m ercial, residential, and rural p urposes. P AAs 3 , 4, and 5 also include the planned Interstate 69 corridor that is e xpected t o overlap the e xisting Highway 61 b y pass . L y o n and Coahom a C ounty f iled answers opposing Clarksdale’s annexation petition. L y o n initiated its own annexation proceeding f or l and i ncluding part of PAA 3. W .S.

2H e a t o n a n d E lsie W

. Heaton f iled a petition f

or inclusion in the Town of Ly on of real t y owned by them

. ¶4. Af ter the 2015 hearing and inspection tour, the chancellor f ound that, considering the twelve indicia o f reasonableness, Clarksdale’s annexation of PAAs 3, 4, a nd 5 was reasonable, but that its annexation of PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable. The chancellor denied the Ly on annexation a nd a portion of the Heaton inclusion, decisions that a re not at issue in this appeal. The c h a n cellor entered a f inal decree approving, ratif y ing, and conf

irm ing the enlargem e nt and e xtension of Clarksdale’s boundaries i n accordance with his f i ndings. See Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (Rev. 2015). STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5. This Court a dheres to a lim ited standard of review in annexation m a tters. In re City of Southaven , 5 So. 3d 375, 376 ( Miss. 2009). Appellate review “is lim i ted to the question of whether the a nnexation is reasonable, under the to t a l i t y o f the circum stances.” Id. The Court will not reverse the chancery cou r t ’ s f i ndings on r easonableness unless the decision

was m anif

estly wrong and lacked the support of substantial, credible evidence. In re City of Meridian , 992 S o. 2d 1113, 1116 (Miss. 2008). W hen c o nf licting, c redible e v idence is bef ore the chancery c ourt, we will def er t o that court’s f

indings. Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville , 542 So. 2d 918, 921 (Miss. 1989). W e will r everse o n l y i f the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard or if the Court has a f irm and def

i nite conviction that a

m istake was m a de. In re City of Hattiesburg , 840 So. 2d 69, 81 (Miss. 2003).

3DISCUSSION

¶6. This Court has set f orth twelve indic i a t o g u i d e a c h a n c e l l o r ’ s determ ination of whether a proposed a nnexation is reasonable. In r e City of J ackson , 912 S o . 2 d 961, 964 (Miss. 2005). These f

actors include ( 1 ) the m u nicipality ’s need to expand, (2) w hether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city , (3) potential health hazards f rom sewage and w a s t e d i s posal in the annexed areas, ( 4) the m unicipality ’s f

inancial ability to m ake t h e im provem ents and f

u rnish m unicipal services prom ised, (5) need f or zoning and overall planning in the area, (6) need f

or m unicipal services in t h e area sought to b e annexed, (7) w h ether there are natural barriers between the city and the p r o p o s e d annexation area, ( 8) past perf orm ance a nd tim e elem ent involved in the c ity ’s provision of services to its present residents, (9) econom ic or other im pact of the annexation upon those who live i n or own p roper t y in the proposed annexation a rea, ( 10) im

pact of the annexation upon the v oting strength of protected m i nority groups, (11) whether the property owners and other inhabitants of th e a r e a s sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the f oreseeable f

uture unless annexed will, b ecause of their reasonable proxim i ty to the corporate lim its of the m unicipality , enjoy econom ic and social benef its of the m unicipality without pay ing their f air share o f t axes, and (12) a ny other f actors that m a y

suggest reasonableness. In re City of Meridian , 992 So. 2d at 1 116. The twelve indicia m ust be considered together

to determ ine whether, under the totality of the circum stances, an a n nexation was reasonable. Id. The Court also has identif ied a num ber of subf

actors relevant to each indicium that “m ay

or m ay not” be c onsidered in a p a r t i c u l a r case. See In re City of M acon , 854 S o. 2d 1029 (Miss. 2003). ¶7. C o a h o ma C ounty argues that the chancellor erred by apply ing t h e i n d i c i a a n d subf actors as a “ checklist” without evaluating the overall reasonableness of the annexation. The county contends that the c hancellor’s order granting the annexation listed the evidence

4relevant to each indicium a nd subf actor, bu t f

a iled to analy

ze how the evidence related to each indicium or subf

actor and how it—the evidence—related t o w hether the annexation was reasonable under the totality of th e c i r cum stances. Reviewing the chancellor’s order as a whole, we f

ind that the chancellor not only outlined the evidence o n each indicium , but also considered the r e asonableness of the annexation under the totality of the circum stances. The chancellor specif

i ed that, “[ a] l t h o u g h som e argum ents are n ot discussed in this opinion, ref erence is hereby m ade, and those argum ents are incorporated herein by ref erence. Every point m ade by each party was considered b y the court in reaching its d e c i s i o n . ” W e reject Coahom a County ’s assertion that the chancellor sim ply listed the evidence u n d e r e a c h indicium without co n sidering the relevance of that evidence t o the question of reasonableness. W e now review the chan c e l l o r ’ s f indings on the twelve indicia and his conclusions that C larksdale’s annexation of PAAs 3, 4, and 5 was reasonable, but that its annexation of

PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable. 1. NEED TO EX P AND ¶8. This Court has identif ied twelve subf

actors which m ay

or m ay not be considered in determ ining a m

unicipality ’ s need to expand: (1) spillover developm ent into the proposed annexation area; (2) the C ity ’s internal growth; (3) the City ’s population growth; (4 ) t h e City ’s n eed f or developm ent land; (5) the need f or planning in the a nnexatio n a r e a; (6) i n creased traf

f ic counts; (7) the need to m aintain and e xpand the City ’s tax base; (8) lim itations d

ue to geography and surroundin g c i t i e s ; (9) rem a ining vacant land w ithin the m

unici p ality ; (10) environm ental inf luences; (11) the [ C]ity ’s n eed to exercise control over the proposed a nnexation area; and (12) increased new building perm it activity

. City of J acks o n v . B yram Incorporators , 16 So. 3d 662, 683-84 (Miss. 2009) ( quoting In

5re City of Winona v. City of W inona , 879 So. 2d 9 66, 974 ( Miss. 2004). The chancellor

m ade f i ndings on m ost of

these subf

actors. A. Spillover ¶9. M i c h a e l S l a u g h t e r , a p r of essional engineer and certif ied planner, g av e e x p e r t testi mo n y f

o r C larksdale in the area of urban regional p lanning a nd civil e ngineering. Slaughter considered the twelve indicia i n f orm ing his opinions. H e testif ied that “spillover” is developm ent that extends up to the f ringes and bey o nd the boundaries of a m u nicipality

. Evidence established that Clarksdal e h a d extended water and sewer s ervices t o m uch of PAAs 1 and 2. Slaughter posited that these services constituted spillover. He testif ied that, in PAAs 3, 4, and 5, s pillover is present in th e f orm of businesses, particularly Sunbelt Industrial Park (Sunbelt) in PAA 3. He explained that Sunbelt is surrounded by the city on three sides. P er an interlocal agreem ent, Clarksdale provides f i re protection t o Sunbelt, and Sunbelt also receives city w ater and sewer services. But Chris W atson, Coahom a County ’s urban and regional planning expert, testif ied that Clarksdale’s spillover into the PAAs was

m inim al. W hile W a tson recognized that s everal subdivisions located with i n t h e c i ty had expanded outside the m

unicipal boundaries, he o pined that these encroachm e nts were best characterized a s urban sprawl, which is low-density developm ent that haphazardly sprawls
away f rom a m unicipality

. ¶10. The cha n c e l l o r r e c o g n i z e d t h a t P A A s 3 , 4 , a n d 5 have “considerably m ore”

com m ercial developm ent than PAAs 1 and 2. Also, the chancellor noted that PAAs 3, 4, and 5 include the Highway 6 1 by pass a nd the f

uture Interstate 6 9 (I-69) corridor. The chancellor

6recognized the p resence in P AA 3 of Sunbelt , w h i ch e njoy s city utility and f ire protection services a n d the presence of com m ercial developm ent in PAA 5

. The chancellor f ound that several interchanges along the c u r r e n t H ighway 61 by pass and f

u ture I-69 corridor lie partially inside and partially

outside the city

lim its. ¶11. The c hancellor concluded that “[ i]n the f i nal analy sis, the p r e s e n c e o f s p illover is

m inim al in the P AAs.” C o a hom a County argues that the chancellor erred because no

s pillover at all exisited in a ny o f the PAAs. Conversely , Clarksdale contends that the spillover in PAAs 1 and 2 was plentif ul, not m inim al. The evidence pertaining to spillover in PAAs 1 and 2 showed that Clarksdale had extended water and sewer lines into those areas that had a ssisted in enabling som e re s i d e ntial developm e nt. This Court f i nds that the chancellor relied on substantial, c redible evidence in f inding that som e m inim al sp illover occurred in all f

ive PAAs. B. Internal Growth ¶12. Clarksdale presented copious evidence of an ongoing downtown revitalization, and the chancellor f

o u n d that this was credible evidence of internal growth. C oahom a County
argues that the chancellor’s conclusion that the downtown r evitalization evidenced internal growth wa s e r r o neous because downtown revitalization does not show a need f or developable land and, thus, a need to expand. W e f ind that the c hancellor did not m anif estly

err by f inding that the presence of downtown revitalization evidenced som e i nternal growth. C. Population Growth ¶13. The evidence was u ndispu t e d t h a t C larksdale’s population is in decline. Slaughter

7adm itted that Clarksdale’s population is declining. C larksdale’s com prehensive plan showed that its only population gains in the past f if ty y ears occurred through an annexation in 1992 and that the city was experiencing out-m igration, which testim ony established describes the phenom enon of people leaving an area. Slaughter testif ied that the rest of Coahom a County is experiencing m ore out-m i gration than Clarksdale. But he also testif ied that Clarksdale’s population density w as high at 1 ,292 per square m i le, supporting a need to expand. W atson testif i ed f r om United States Census data that, between 2000 and 2010, Clarksdale had lost 20 percent of i ts population. H e said also that census estim ates f rom April 2010 through July 201 4 s h o w e d a population decline of 951 persons. Further, he testif ied, the population growth that Clarksdale had projected in the 1992 annexation proceeding had not occurred. ¶14. The chancellor f

ound that Clarksdale’s population d ecrease was substantial and did

not weigh this subf

a ctor in f a vor of either party

. C oahom a County argues that the chancellor erred by not weighing Clarksdale’s population decline against annexation. But this C ourt has held that an annexation w a s r e a s o nable d espite the f act that the m

unicipality ’s p opulation was declining because the population d ensity was high. In re City of Biloxi , 109 So. 3d 529, 542 (Miss. 2013) ( citing City of J ackson , 16 So. 3d at 684-85). W e f ind no m anif

est e rror in the chancellor’s f

ailure to weigh this f

actor against annexation. D. Need for developable land ¶15. Slaughter testif

ied that a need f

or developable land had n ot m otivated the annexation. Rather, the purpose of

the annexation was to a nnex PAAs 1 and 2, where the city provides utility services, a nd PAAs 3, 4, a nd 5, where the city also provides som e utility services and

8f

ire protection. According to Slaughter, a need e xists in PAAs 3, 4, and 5 f o r unif o rm police and f i re protection a nd planning and zoning due to the Highway 6 1 by pass and the eventual opening o f I-69

. S l a u g h t er testif ied that the purpose of the annexation included enabling Clarksdale to encom

pass f uture econom ic growth occurring along the f uture I-69 corridor. ¶16. Th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d S l a u g h t e r ’ s testim ony that Clarksdale in f a ct has an abundance o f developable l and. A vacant land analy sis perf orm ed by Slaughter showed that 38.5 percent o f the land in Clarks d a l e , e q u a t ing to 5.44 square m i les, i s vacant land unconstrained by f

loodplains or wetlands. Slaughter testif ied that a l a r g e a mo unt of this

vac a n t , u n c o n s t r a i n e d l a nd is used as com m e r cial f arm land a nd, although classif ied as vacant, will not and cannot be developed without consent of the landowners. W atson agreed that Clarksdale h as an abundance of vacant land and opined that it has no need f or v acant land

to accom plish f uture growth. The chancellor f ound n o dispute that vacant, developable land existed in Clarksdale, b u t s ingled out PAAs 3, 4 , and 5 a s c ont a i n i n g a r e as of potential

econom ic growth related to the f u ture I-69 corridor. ¶17. Coahom a C ounty argues that Clarksdale’s population decline, when considered with the f a ct that the city has no n eed f or developable land, weighs against annexation. It points

to Clarksdale’s G eneral D evelopm ent Plan, updated in 2010, which provides that the 1992 annexation “provided am ple f rontier l and f

or c i ty expansion and t h e d e v e lopm ent of new residential, com m ercial[ ,] and industrial areas.” The plan f urther c oncluded that the city had

am ple land f or i nf i ll developm ent but that regu l a t o r y r e straints prevented c onstruction on

sm all vacant lots w ithin the city , which ham pered redevelop m e n t in som e n eighborhoods.

9W h ile Clarksdale has 3,483 acres of vacant, unconstrained land, the plan p rojected that the

city would use only 3 5 6 o f those acres f or new developm ent between 2000 and 2020. Further, W atson testif

ied that, although portions of the H ighway 61 b y

pass were inside the city , the by

pass had not developed com m ercially

. ¶18. Clarksdale correctly contends that the absence of a need f o r v a c a n t l a n d d oes not def eat an a nnexation.“[ T]he f act that v acant land rem a ins i n a city does not necessarily def eat annexation.” In re City of Clinton , 955 So. 2d 307, 315 (Miss. 2007). In f act, “annexation in various cities s u ch a s ‘Southaven, Madison, and Ridgeland, which had u sable vacant land of 43%, 5 9 %, and 48%, respectively ’ were approved by this Court.” Id. (quoting In re City

o f H attiesburg v. City o

f H attiesburg , 8 40 So. 2 d 6 9, 8 5 (Miss. 2003)). C oahom a C o u n t y argues that C larksdale is the opposite of Southaven, Madison, and Ridgeland, because those

m unicipalities were undergoing population growth a nd rapid absorption of l and, establishing

a nexus between the existing land s upply and the need t o expand. See City of Ridgeland , 651 So. 2d 5 48, 554-56 ( Miss. 1995); City of Madison , 650 So. 2d 490, 496 ( Miss. 1995); In re City of Southaven v. City of Horn Lake , 630 So. 2 d 1 0 , 1 8 ( M i s s. 1993). Because an abundance of vacant l and in a m unicipality does not def

e at annexation, the c hancellor did not

err in f ailing so to f

ind, even in the absence of population growth. The chancellor properly evaluated this s ubf

actor along w ith all of the other evidence and concluded that Clarksdale’s annexation of PAAs 3 , 4, and 5 was reasonable under the totality of the circum stances, but that its annexation of

PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable.

1 0E. Need for Planning

¶19. The c hancellor f

ound that a need f

or planning existed in P AAs 3, 4, and 5 because of the im p endi n g I-69 corridor. However, the chancellor f ound that Clarksdale had not established a need f

or p lanning in PAAs 1 and 2. Coahom a County argues that, because the tim ing of I -69 is speculative, the c hancellor erred b y f inding that p lanning was necessary in PAAs 3, 4, and 5. And Clarksdale argues that the presence of r e s i d e n t i al d evelopm ent in PAAs 1 and 2 established a need f or m unicipal planning in those areas. ¶20. Clarksdale cites the testim ony of Slaughter that, d ue to the e x istence o f t h e c i t y ’s

water and sewer lines in PAAs 1 and 2, considerable r esidential developm ent has occurred there that exists bey ond the r each of Clarksdale’s land-use controls. Slaughter testif ied that PAAs 1 and 2 would benef it f rom the enf orcem ent of C l arksdale’s subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances. Testim ony indicated that PAAs 1 a nd 2 had reached a level of developm ent at which centralized, sanitary sewers would be benef i cial and that C larksdale

was ready and a

ble to provide this service to P AAs 1 and 2. And W atson ad mi t ted that a

m unicipality ’s engineering specif ications shoul d a p p ly to a reas i n which it h as extended utilities. ¶21. No m a nif

e st error a p p e a r s i n t h e c h a n c e l l or’s decision. Clarksdale presented a

c o mpelling case f

or a n eed f

o r planning o n the e x tant Highway 61 by pass and f

uture I-69 corridor in P AAs 3, 4, and 5

. Clarksdale showed that, given t h e city ’s present boundaries, traf f i c weaves in a nd o u t of city lim its along the Highway 61 by p ass and f uture I-69 corridor. Slaughter testi f

i ed that planning and zoning regulations are necessary to ensure that the

1 1property a long t h e b y p a s s develops to its highest a nd best use. Coahom a C o unty characterizes the com ing of I-69 as “ m y thical,” asserting th a t i t s e v e n tual com pletion does not support annexation. W atson t estif ied that the Highway 61 by pass has been built to a n interstate highway s tandard. M alcolm Crank, the city ’s econom ic developm ent coordinator, testif ied that the com

pletion of I-69 could be ten y ears away , a n d h e a d mi tted that i ts actual tim ing

was unknow n . E v idence d e m onstrated that other portions of I -69, which will run f rom Canada to Mexico, have been com pleted in Mississippi. Although e vidence established that

t h e exact tim ing o f the com pletion o f I-69 along the Highway 6 1 b y pass is u nknown, th e evidence raised no doubt about the eventual com pletion of such a highway

. ¶22. As to the need f

or planning in PAAs 1 and 2, W atson t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c o unty ’s planning and zoning are suf f i cient f or t h e c h a r a c t er of those areas and their rate of developm ent. He also testif ied that the city has no need to exercise pl a nning and zoning control o ver the a reas in the PAA to which it has extended water and sewer lines. T his expert testim o ny constituted substantial, credible evidence supporting the c h ancellor’s f inding that no need exists f

o r planning by

Clarksdale in PAAs 1 and 2. F. Traffic Counts ¶23. The c hancellor f

ound that, due to discrepancies in the traf f ic count data subm itted by both sides, the traf

f ic count f actor neither f

av o r e d n o r disf

avored annexation. Slaughter of f ered t estim ony about h is traf f i c count analy s i s to show that m uch o f the traf

f i c that once had traveled through down t o w n C l arksdale now f lows along the Highway 61 by pass. But Slaughter was im

peached on cross-exam ination b y his f ailure to u se the m ost r ecent traf f ic

1 2c ount analy sis and by errors in the underly ing data caused by unreliable traf f ic coun t s conducted by

the Clarksdale Police Departm ent. The chancellor was not m a nif estly wrong in f i nding the traf

f ic count data f

a vored neither party

. G. Need to expand Clarksdale’s tax base ¶24. W h ile Coahom a County s ought t o establish that the annexation w as a m e re “tax grab,” Slaughter testif

i ed that Clarks d a l e is the “econom ic engine” of C oahom a County and that, with annexation, the city would b enef it f r om additional sales t ax revenues a nd ad valorem

taxes that would be used to p r ovide services to the residents. He als o t e s t i f i e d t hat the businesses located in PAA 3 a nd the subdivisions in PAAs 1 and 2 enjoy ed m unicipal services without pay i ng taxes. Yet evidence established that the residents of PAAs 1 and 2 did pay increased rates to Clarksdale f or the water a n d sewer services extended by the city

. The c hancellor f

ound that Clarksdale would b enef it f rom the increased tax base provided by annexation but that this f

actor did not f

avor or disf

avor annexation. H. Geographical limitations ¶25. Other than the Town of Ly on, the chancellor f ound no geographical lim itations. I. Remaining vacant land within the municipality ¶26. The chancellor f

ound that the evidence clearly showed that vacant l and existed inside the city that could b e developed, but the c h a n c e l l o r also f ound that PAAs 3, 4, and 5 contained areas o f potential growth f or Clarksdale “bey ond the n orm al internal growth of the city ,” and that this subf

actor weighed, “in part, f or annexation.”

1 3J. Environmental influences

¶27. T h e c h a n c e l l o r ma d e n o f inding on this subf

actor. Clarksdale cites Slaughter’ s testim o ny that a large f

loodplain dissects the northern p art of the city , extending into PAAs 1 a nd 2. Slaughter testif

ied that the presence of this f loodplain supports annexation to ensure the f loodplain areas are m aintained properly

. But evidence was bef ore the chancellor that the county had taken m easures to m aintain the area in the f l oodplain. K. Need to exercise control over the PPA ¶28. The c hancellor f

ound that, due to the evidence that Cla r k s d a l e s u b s t a n t i a l l y h ad expanded utility services into the PAA and that the PAA would benef i t f rom m unicipal utility control, this subf

actor weighed in f

avor of annexation. L. Building permits ¶29. The chancellor m a de no f indings on this subf

actor. LaFondra J ohnson, Clarksdale’s buildin g inspector, testif

ied that, f rom 2 005 to 2015, the city issued f orty -two com m ercial building p erm its and 1 13 new r esidential building perm its. However, she adm itted that m ore than half of those b uilding perm its had been issued between 2005 and 2006 and that af ter that period a dram atic decline in new construction occurred. J ohnson and Crank testif ied about the c i t y ’ s o n g o i n g r e v i t a l i z a t i o n ef f orts, in which num erous dilapidated hom e s and businesses had been dem olished or renovated. Crank testif ied that, as of February 2015, f if ty -six building renovation projects had been com pleted and thirty -seven were underway

. II. PATH OF GROWTH ¶30. This Court h as set f orth the f ollowing subf

actors that m ay or m ay not be considered

1 4in d eterm ining whether a proposed annexation is reasonably within a m unicipality ’s path of growth: (1) spillover developm ent in annexation area; (2) annexation area im m ediately adjacent to City ; (3) l im ited area available f or expansion; ( 4) interconnection by transportation corridors; (5) increased urban developm ent in annexation area; (6) geography ; and (7) subdivision developm ent. City of Jackson , 16 So. 3 d at 685. A city m ust show only that the proposed annexation area is within a p a t h o f g r o w t h ; it does not need to show that it is within the p rim ary path of growth. Id. ¶31. That all f

ive PAAs were i m m ediately adjacent to Clarksdale, were a ccessible by city

s t r e e t s , and had no geographic barriers was undisputed. In considering this f a ctor, th e chancellor cited his earlier f inding that som e spillover developm ent existed i n PAAs 1 and 2 and that subdivisions in PAAs 1 and 2 received som e s u p p o r t f r om Clarksdale. The chancellor noted W atson’s testim ony that the utilities Clarksdale had extended into PAAs 1 and 2 could not be considered spillover and that the city was not growing in any direction, but had only potential areas of growth. The chancellor f ound that PAAs 3, 4, and 5 c ontained

som e spillover and that annexation of those areas was supported by the f u ture I-69 corridor. ¶32. Clarksdale argues that the s ubdivision developm ent i n PAAs 1 and 2 would not have occurred w i t h o u t the city ’ s c onsiderable expenditures to provide water and sewer services

to those areas, evincing a path o f growth. Certainly , “[ t]his C ourt previously has f ound that the extension of water and sewer services evidences a p ath of growth.” City of Jackson , 16 So. 3d at 686. Nonetheless, a m unicipality ’ s investm ent in inf r as t r u c ture d oes not alway s justif y a n nexation. I

d. Although Clarksdale has extended u tilities to P AAs 1 and 2 , we hold

1 5that, in l ight of the other indicia of reasonableness, the chancellor’s f i n d i ng that the

a n n e x a t i o n of P AAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable was supported by substantial, credible evidence. ¶33. C o a h o ma C o u n t y a r g ues that the chancellor erred by rely ing on the f ut u r e I

- 6 9 corridor in c onsidering C larksdale’s p ath of growth because the tim i ng of the i n t erstate’s

com pletion is u n known. As discussed above, the record contains substantial evidence that the eventual com ing o f I-69 is reality , n ot a m y th. Theref ore, the chancellor d i d n ot err by rely ing o n the com

pletion of I-69 in considering C larksdale’s path o f growth. The evidence

t h a t s p illover developm ent has occurred and that the new interstate highway will br i n g f u rther econom ic developm e nt supports the chancellor’s f inding that PAAs 3, 4, and 5 ar e in C larksdale’s path of growth. A dd i t i o n ally , Clarksdale has extended som e water lines,

sewer lines, and f

ire hy drants into PAAs 3 , 4 , and 5, f urther evincing that it has a path of growth into those areas. III. POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZ ARDS ¶34. The s ubf

a ctors that m ay

or m ay not be c onsidered in determ ining whether potential health hazards exist that would im pact the reasonableness of an annexation are ( 1 ) potential h ealth hazards f rom sewage and waste disposal; (2) a large num ber of septic tanks in the area; (3) soil c onditions which are not c onducive to on-site septic sy stem s; (4) open dum ping of garbage; a nd (5) standing water and sewage. City of Winona , 879 So. 2d at 979. ¶35. The c hancellor’s analy s is f ocused on septic tanks in the PAA. The evidence showed, and the chancellor f

ound, that septic tanks were in use i n those areas of t h e P AA to which

1 6the city had not extended sewer lines already

. Slaughter testif ied that the presence of septic tanks, without m ore, c reated a health hazard due to the potential that a septic tank could f ail and cause ef

f luent to seep to the s urf

ace. He testif

ied that the soils throughout m uch of the PAA are not conducive to septic tanks, although the s oils in PAA 1 are better than the soils south o f Clarksdale. He also testif ied that sewage had r eached the surf ace due to septic tank f ailure in P AA 4. And a h om eowner verif i ed that s om e septic t anks along New Af rica Road in PAA 4 leak when heavy rain occurs. Greg G earhart , a c i v il engineer, gave expert testim o ny f

o r Clarksdale that portions of the city ’s sewer plan f or the P A A w o u l d be

com pleted within f

ive y ears but that the p roject would not b e f i n i s h ed until econom ically f easible, and no date certain had been f ixed f or any sewer sy s t em im

provem ents in the PAA. ¶36. No evidence w as adduced of any septic tank f ailure in P AAs 1 or 2. W atson testif ied that the soil in PAA 1 i s c onducive to supporting the septic tanks located in that area. He opined that, although the g eneral rule is that sept i c tanks are a potential health hazard, the septic tanks in PAA 1 are f unctioning at an acceptable level. He also opined that n o existing

or potential health hazards are present in the P A A that would m ake a nnexation desirable. Coahom a County argues that Clarksdale provided no evidence of the f easibility of installing

sewer lines in the PAA or any tim e f ram e i n w hich they would be installed. The chancellor relied on Coahom a C ounty ’s evidence, f inding that “ the presence o f potential health hazards was not established by

the proof .” ¶37. W e fi n d t

h a t t h e c h a n c e l lor’s decision was supported by substantial, credible e v i d e n c e . Other than the m ere presence of som e septic tanks in PAAs 1 and 2, no proof of s e ptic tank

1 7p r oblem s in those areas w as presented. C oahom a County ’s e vidence s uppor t s t h e

chancellor’ s ultim ate conclusion that annexation of PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable. And Clarksdale’s evidence that s ome s e p t i c tank issues were present in PAA 4 s u pports the chancellor’s conclusion that annexation of PAAs 3, 4, and 5 was reasonable. IV. FINANCIAL ABILITY ¶38. This Court has developed a list of subf a c tors that m ay or m ay not b e considered in evaluating reasonableness related to a m unicipality ’s f

inancial ability to m ake im provem ents and deliver prom ised m

unicipal services: (1) present f

inancial condition of the m unicipality ; (2) sales tax revenue history ; (3) recent equipm ent purchases; (4) the f inancial plan and departm ent reports proposed f

o r im plem enting a

n d fi s c a l l y c a rry ing out the a n nexation; (5) f und balances; (6) the City ’s b onding c a p a c ity ; a nd ( 7) expected am ount of revenue to be received f

r om taxes in the annexed area. City of Macon , 854 So. 2d at 1039. Af ter considering these subf actors, the chancellor f

ound that C larksdale w as f

inancially stable and that the c i t y c o u ld f und the m

unicipal services
necessary f or all f ive PAAs. ¶39. T h i s C o u r t f

inds that these conclusions were supported by substant i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence. Slaughter testif ied that he had reviewed Clarksdale’s f inances and that the city is in very g ood f

inancial condition. He testif ied that the balance of

Clarksdale’s general f

und f or the m ost recent f

iscal y ear was $4,140,517

. H e t e s t i f ied that Clarksdale was in sound f inancial condition, considering that its expenditures budget f or that y e ar was $12,139,119 and that it had m ore tha n $ 4 mi l l i o n rem aining in the general f und. He testif

i ed that the garbage f und was $1.229 m illion in 2013, the h ighest it had been since 2002. The city clerk,

1 8Cathy Clark, testif ied that the city h ad budgeted $11,987,920 f or e xpenditures f

or the current f iscal y ear. ¶40. Slaughter reviewed the city ’s audits f or 2009 through 2014 a nd the f inal budget f

or the f iscal y ear ending Septem

b er 30, 2016. He a l so reviewed the assessed valuations f or the city f rom 1997 through 2014 f o r real property , p ersonal property , public-util i t y property , autom ob i l e s , a n d the total assessed valuations f o r each y ear. He t estif

ied that the assessed valuations are use d t o g enerate ad valorem taxes by apply i ng the city ’ s m illage rate to the

am ount of asses s e d v a l u e . He considered C larksdale’s t ax levies f o r its general f

und and other f unds in reaching h is opinion. Slaughter concluded that Clarksdale had an upward trend in a ssessed v aluation, f

rom $62.5 m illion in 1997 to $87.4 m illion in 2014, which enhanced ad valorem taxes. ¶41. Slaughter also reviewed C larks d a l e ’ s s ales tax r evenue h istory

. He f ound that the sales

tax diversion to the city had been f airly steady , with a decline in 2009 a nd 2010 attributable

to the national econom ic downturn f rom which the city had rebounded. He f o u n d that the sales tax diversion in 2013 had been $2.8 m illion, slightly higher than the 2005 sales tax diversion of $2.77 m illion. In h is opinion, the sales t ax revenue history indicated that the city is in sound f

inancial condition. ¶42. C l a

rksdale subm itted a list o f recent equipm ent purchases. Slaughter reviewed this list and f ound that the city had m ade sign i f i c ant large equipm ent purchases, indicating it was buy ing the equipm ent necessary to provide a high level of services to property owners. For

exam ple, Clarksdale had p urchase d t w o n e w f ire trucks, one f

or $538,537 and one f

or

1 9$397,576. The city also had p urchased three knuckle boom trucks costing approxim ately

$129,000 each and two new street cleaners costing $193,215 each. The p olice chief testif ied that the Board of Com m issioners had g iven the polic e d e p a r t me nt all the m anpower and equipm ent it had requested. ¶43. Slaughter testif

ied that C larksdale has a signif i cant available bonding capacity . Clark, the c ity clerk, testif

ied that, a s of Septem

ber 30, 2014, the bonding capacity was $ 8,880,269 under the 1 5 percent rule. Under the 20 p ercent rule, the bonding capacity was $13,224,157. Clark testif

ied that the city

had issued no bonds during that f iscal y ear but that it had m ade
pay m ents on existing b onds. Slaughter testif ied that Clarksdale’s bonding capacity was suf f i cient should the city

need to borrow m oney to m a ke im p rovem ents. ¶44. The chancellor recognized that Clarksdale h ad subm itted a services and f acilities plan f or providing m

unicipal services t o the PAAs. The plan provided that no additional p ersonnel

o r equipm ent w ould be necessary f or providing m

unicipal services to the PAA s , w i t h t h e exception of the p urchase of a k nuckle boom truck and t h e h i r i n g o f a driver. C larksdale planned to f

ina n c e the knuckle boom truck through a lease purchase f or f ive y ears a t an annual cost of $28,400. The driver would receive a total annual salary and benef its of $36,632. F urther, Clarksdale planned to update the com p rehensive plan t o include the PAA

at a cost of $30,000, with an additional $10,000 to apply zoning a nd update the zoning m ap. The c ity p lanned to s pend $1,807,615 to extend water to the PAAs and $5,584,039 to extend

sewer service to the PAA. Slaughter em phasized that the existing water and sewer lines and the proxim ity of the PAA to the city supported h is opinion that providing services would be

2 0f

inancially f

easible. Clarksdale planned to provide stree t l i g h t i ng t o the PAA as well as garbage service and m osquito control, with no additional equipm ent or personnel needed. ¶45. The evidence showed that Clarksdale p rovides its citizens water, sewer, and electrical utilities through Clarksdale Public Utilities (CPU). CPU provides electrical services only to those property owners i n CPU’s certif icated area. CPU m anages the utilities p rovided in the city and in those portions of the PAA to which the city has extended utilities. C P U’s director, Ray L uhring, testif

ied that the city ’s estim ates f or water and sewer costs were r easonable and that the city

could extend water and sewer services to the PAA and m a intain existing lines with no additional personnel or equipm ent. He also testif ied that CPU is no im

pedim ent to Clarksdale’s p rovision of services to the PAA. He testif ied the city owns the water and sewer lines and p a y s f

or im provem ents while CPU operates and m aintains the lines. And he testif i ed that, if the city

wants to extend utility

lines into an area, CPU will do so. ¶46. Slaughter exam ined the estim ated projected r evenue and expenditures f o r the PAA. Clarksdale projected that it would collect $410,622 per y ear in ad valorem tax revenue f rom the PAA based on the f

iscal y ear 2015 tax levy of 74.80 m ills. Rely ing on a letter f rom the Mississippi Departm ent of Revenue, Slau g h t e r testif ied that the sales tax diversion f rom businesses i n the PAA would generate $65,973 f or the f i scal y ear en d ing June 30, 2016. Slaughter testif

ied that, f rom a g e neral f

und perspective, af

t er annexation , revenue would exceed expenditures by $ 6 17,806 by y e a r f ive. H e testif

i ed that, due to the services that Clarksdale would provide, this was not a tax grab. Slaughter and Clark b oth testif ied that the annexation was not a tax grab and that it should f inance itself

.

2 1¶47. Coahom a County argues that C larksdale’s general f und balance is healthy due to tax increases, n ot a healthy l ocal econom y . It contends that Slaughter’s s ales tax calculations f ailed t o address inf

lation a nd that, in reality , s a les tax diversions are decreasing, not stable. It a rgues that, with annexation, Clarksdale will increase its land ar e a b y a pproxim ately 50 percent, y et the city proposes to add only one em p loy ee a nd one k

nuckle b oom truck. Coahom a County insists that Clark s d a l e n e e ds to hire m ore police of f icers but has not budgeted f

or them

. And Coahom a County contends that C l a r k sdale has not conducted a f easibility study regarding the installation of sewers in t h e P A A

. Further, the c ounty notes that Clarksdale will experience an im m ediate revenue reduction once utility custom ers are annexed because they

no longer will be pay i ng double rates f or services. ¶48. The chancellor f

ound, The e vidence establishes that the Ci t y o f C larksdale i s in f inancially stable condition; that the City of C larksdale c an f und the m unicipal services needed f or the f ive P AAs. Opponents state that the p resent f inancial health of the City of Clarksdale is based on increased taxes and not o n i n c r e a s ed m unicipal growth. Sales tax revenues of the City of Clarksdale rep r e sent a consistent incom e to the city , however, the o pposition c o u n ters that, when an inf lation f actor is applied, there is a decreasin g t r e n d i n City of Clarksdale’s incom e. The City of C larksdale h a s p u rchased equipm ent to im prove m unicipal services. The City of Clarksdale’s plan f or providing m

u nicipal services to the PAAs is placed in the court record a s Exhibit C-105. Although, the opposition q u e s t i o n s the workability of the plan and i ts lack of f easibility studies, nonetheless, a plan has been provided. The evidence sum m arized above provided substantial support f or the chancellor’s decision that C larksdale i s in stable f inancial condition and c ould f und mu n i c i p al services. Im portantly , the chancellor did n ot award Clark s dale the entire area it sought to annex. Unlike the prima r i l y r esidential PAAs 1 and 2, PAAs 3 , 4 , and 5 have considerably m ore

2 2com m ercial developm ent that can be expected to generate sales tax diversion. And PAAs 1

and 2 are the prim a ry locations of city water and sewer services that will continue to generate double utility rates. Clarksdale Chief of Police W illiam W hit Read testif ied that, with its

current num

ber o f sworn police of

f icers, the c i ty could provide a h igher level of law enf orcem ent services t o the PAA than those provided by the county

. L i k e w ise, other city of f icials testif

ied to the f

e asibility of both f

inancing and providing m unicipal s ervices to the PAA. ¶49. The dissent, without addressing the v olum inous evidence of Clarksdale’s f

inances, decides f rom a com

p a rison of the aerial m aps of the 1992 annexation area and the PAAs that Clarksdale’s annexation of PAAs 3, 4, a n d 5 is a tax grab. But, as discussed above, Clarksdale subm itted substantial evidence that it i s in good f i nancial c ondition and does not need to annex additional land to shore up def icient f inances. Sim ilarly , in Poole v. City of Pearl , 908 So. 2d 7 28, 738 (Miss. 2005), this Court f ound that a proposed a n nexation was
not a tax grab because the city could continue to f und i ts operations without the annexation. In In r e City of J

ackson , cited b y the dissent, num erous witnesses testif ied that the city needed to expand its tax base t o enable it to continue providing the sam e level of service to its present residents. I

n re City of Jackson , 691 So. 2d 978, 982 (Miss. 2007). Such is not the case here. And, unlike In re City of Jackson , Clarksdale “dem o nstrate[ d ] other valid

reasons f or annexation o ther [ sic] than m ere tax base i ncreases,” such as the city ’s provision of u tility services and som e f ire protection to PAAs 3, 4, and 5 and the f a ct that a need exists f or unif orm ed police and f

ire protection and planning and zoning in those areas. Id. at 983.

2 3Although the d issent contends that Clarksdale’s p etition w a s def icient b ecause it has not

m ade an e f

f ort to extend i nf

rastructure to areas it annexed in 1992, s ubstantial evidence was bef ore the chancellor that Clarksdale has done just that. Its e x per t , W atson, testif ied that Clarksdale h ad indeed done a good job providing services to the 1992 annexation area. And Clarksdale showed i t already has extended water and sewer services to portions of PAAs 3, 4, and 5

. Thus, unlike In re City of Jackson , Clarksdale did “m ake an ef f ort to extend

. . . inf rastructure to the v acant, developable land within the e xisting boundaries and take steps
to encourage de v e l o p me n t in those areas.” Id. at 983. Further, a s discussed below in the

econom ic im

pact analy sis, the citizens of PAAs 3, 4 , and 5 will r eceive som e thing of value in exchange f

or their tax dollars. ¶50. W e address Coahom a County ’s argum e nt conc e r n i n g C larkdale’s notice to citizens of a t ax increase. Coahom a County contends that Clarksdale f ailed to com

ply with the

m andatory public notice provisions of Mi s s i s s i ppi C ode S ection 27-39-203 (Rev. 2017). Clark testif

ied that the city ’s m illage rate was raised f rom 74.8 m ills in t h e 2 0 1 4 -15 f iscal
y ear to 76.22 m ills i n the 2015-16 f iscal y ear. Clark adm itted that newspaper publication of

an increase in m illage rate is required by statute. S he explained that the t otal m i llage f or 2014-15 and 2015-16 was 143.52. That am o unt included a m illage f o r the c i ty of 74.8 m ills, which w as raised to 76.22 m ills, with the rest attributable t o the s chool d i s t rict. Clark

e x plained that she gave no notice of the m illage increase b ecause the total m i llage rat e o f 143.52 did not change. But she acknowledged that those taxpay ers outside the school district did experience a tax increase of alm ost two m i lls, of which they had not received notice.

2 4¶51. According to Mississippi Code Section 2 7-39-203(9), “Any governing body of a tax

entity shall be p r ohibited f rom expending any f

unds f or the applicable f

i scal y ear until it has strictly com

pli e d w ith the advertisem ent and p ublic hearing requirem ents set f orth in this section.” Miss. Code A n n. § 27-39-203(9) (Rev. 2017). Coahom a County c ontends that Clarksdale did not com

ply with statutory notice provisions, which w ill require it to issue a

tax ref und. Coahom a C ounty cites Tunica C ounty Board of

Supervisors v. HWCC-Tunica, LLC , 237 So. 3d 115, 116 ( Miss. 2017), in which this Court af f irm ed an order f

or a tax ref und because the city had f ailed to com

ply with the statutory notic e and public hearing requirem ents. ¶52. Because the legal consequences of Clarksdale’s com pliance or noncom

pliance with the notice provisions and w hether it o w e s a tax ref u nd were not bef

ore the c hancellor f

or decision in this annexation m atter, they are not bef ore this Court f

o r d e c i s i o n on appeal. Coahom a County did not show that a tim ely lawsuit had been f iled against Clarksdale based

on its alleged noncom

pliance w ith statutory n otice provisions. A conclusion that C larksdale will be ordered to pay

a costly tax ref und would be, at this juncture, speculative. V. NEED FOR Z O NING AND PLANNING ¶53. In evaluating the need f or zoning a nd planning in the PAA, the chancellor evaluated incom patible land uses within the PAA a nd th e n e e d s within the P AA f or building inspections, building and zoning ordinances, z oning and planning to ensure public saf ety and

w e l fa r e , and enf

o rcem e nt of zoning ordinances. “This Court gives chancellors a wide latitude of discretion in analy

zing whether this indicator weighs against annexation. Specif ically ,

2 5‘[ t ]his Court has approved annexations even where the City d oes not plan to provide zoning

and planning and where the County has in f orce its own zoning and planning ordinances.’” Poole v. City of Pearl , 908 So. 2d 728, 739 (Miss. 2005). ¶54. The c hancellor f

ound no persuasive evidence of a need f or zoning contro l i n PAAs 1 and 2 bey on d t h a t a l r eady provided by the county

. Clarksdale argues that the chancellor ignored its evidence that planning and zoning w ere n eeded in these areas. The c ounty lacks

a c o m p r e h e nsive plan. Slaughter testif ied that the county ’s z o ning m ap, which had been

com pleted in 1974, was antiquated, dif f icult to read, and inaccurate, citing the f act that it did

not include the existing Highway 61 by pass. By contrast, Clarksdale’s com prehensive plan

was ado p t ed i n 2010 and d oes address the by pass. Slaughter testif

ied that, p articularly in PAAs 1 an d 2 w h e re the developm ent was m ostly residential, the PAA needed building inspections and code enf orcem ent, build i n g a n d zoning ordinances, a n d m u nicipal-level subdivision regulations. ¶55. Slaughter also testif ied that certain conditions e x i s t e d i n t h e P A A t h a t needed

rem ediation through m

u n icipal-level planning and zoning ordinances. He testif i ed that the county was not enf

orcing its p lanning and zoning regulations and that substandard s treets and drainage sy stem s existed in PAA 1. He raised the concern that C lark s d a l e w as unable to apply its engineering specif ications to developm ents tapping into its water lines. Johnson testif i ed that P A A 1 c o n t a i n ed gravel roads and roads too n arrow t o allow the p assage of

em ergency vehicles. Clarksdale presented evidence of i ts broad regulations that would apply

to the PAA, including a com prehensive p lan, general d evelopm ent p lan, su b d i vision rules

2 6and regulatio n s , and a zoning ordinance. J ohnson testif ied that the city ’s subdivision regulations w ould apply to new subdivisions and that her departm ent could extend building inspection, code enf

orcem ent, and planning and z o ning to the PAA. S he said the city has an aggressive program and a grant in place t o elim inate blight. Johnson adm itted that C larksdale

m ust address its current z oning p rovisions regarding lot size bec a u s e w h e n a hom e on an undersized l ot is dem olished, new construction cannot occur o n the lot under the current zoni n g provisions. She testif ied that the c ity had budgeted $ 30,000 to update the

com prehensive plan and $10,000 to apply z o ning to the PAA. ¶56. W a tson testif

ied that n o n eed exists f

or zoning and planning in the PAA bey ond what the c ounty already provides, specif ically , zoning and subdivision regulations a nd a building

c o d e that are appropriate f or rural developm ent. He testif ied that, due to the l a r g e l y undeveloped character of the PAA, city planning and zoning would m ake little dif f erence. Further, he took issue with the city ’s enf orcem ent of its com

prehensive plan. H e testif

ied that

recent dem o lition of blighted housing had l ef t vacant l ots downtow n a n d o p i n ed that Clarksdale’s zo n i n g r egulations needed updating to ensure that new developm ent would

occur on thes e u ndersized vacant lots. He also testif ied regarding the b lighted conditions exist i n g t h r o u g h o u t t

h e c i t y . C o a h o m a C o u n t y s u b m i t t e d n u m e r o u s p hotographs docum enting these conditions, including abandoned houses, broken windows, peeling p aint, graf f iti, lack of m aintenance, piles of trash, junked cars, p iles of tires, and f aded and dam aged street signs. Johnson testif

ied that som e of

these instances of

blight had been rem e d ied bef ore the trial. ¶57. The chancellor’s f inding t h a t t h e planning and zoning r egulations provided by the

2 7county were suf f icient f or PAAs 1 and 2 was supported by s u bstantial, c r e dible e vidence. The evidence about the largely rural character of PAAs 1 and 2 supported the chancellor’s conclusion that annexation of those areas was u nreasonable. Evidence was adduced of som e lack of enf

orcem ent of regulations on behalf of both city and county

. The chancellor viewed the e n t i r e PAA during the inspection tour and thus observed the conditions existing in Cla r k sdale a nd in a ll f

ive PAAs. The chancellor f ound that Clarksdale s uccessf ully had established that a need exists f or m unicipal zoning reg u l a t i on in PAAs 3, 4, and 5. The
presence of businesses a nd i ndustry in those areas along with the Highway 61 by pass and f uture I-69 supported the chancellor’s conclusion that those areas r easonably w ould benef it f rom m u n i c i p a l l e vel planning and zoning such as that p roposed to b e provided by Clarksdale. 1
VI. NEED FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES ¶58. The subf

actors that m ay or m ay not b e considered in assessing the reasonable need f or

m unicipal services in a proposed annexation area include (1) requests f

or water and sewage services; (2) p lan of the City to provide f irst response f

ire protec t i o n ; ( 3 ) adequacy of existing f ire protection; (4) plan of the City to provide police protection; (5) pl a n o f C i t y to provide increased solid waste collection; (6) u se of septic tanks in the proposed annexation area; and (7) population density

.

1 C o ah o m a C o u n ty arg u es th at th e ch an cello r’s f in d in g th at p l an n i n g a n d zo n in g are n eed ed in P A A s 3 , 4 , an d 5 co n f licted w ith h i s f

i n d i n g co n cern in g th e T o w n o f L y o n ’s an n ex atio n o f p art o f P A A 3 th a t b ecau se b o th L y o n an d C lark sd a le h av e co m p reh en siv e zo n in g p lan s, th is f

acto r f av o red n eith e r m

u n icip ality

. B u t th ese f

in d i n g s are easily reco n ciled

. T h e ch a n cello r f o u n d th at p l an n in g an d zo n in g w as n e ed ed in P A A s 3 , 4 , an d 5 , an d th at u ltim ately an n ex atio n o f th e p o rtio n o f P A A 3 b y C lark sd a l e , n o t L y o n , w as reaso n ab le u n d e r th e to tality o f th e circu m stan c es.

2 8City of Winona , 879 So. 2d at 984 (quoting City of Macon , 854 So. 2d at 1041-42)).

¶59. The chancellor f

ound t hat the increase in m unicipal services to the PAA would not require signif

icant increase in service personnel. The chancellor f ound und i s p u t e d that Clarksdale had received requests f or water and sewage services in the PAAs. The evidence indicated that Sandy Acres subdivision in PAA 1 and Cy press Ridge subdivision in PAA 2 had requested water and sewer services. Clarksdale had received a request f or water service f rom Shady N ook Convenience Store in PAA 3. C larksdale provides water and sewer services to Sunbelt. Slaughter t estif ied that the PAA would benef it f rom the f ull extension of wate r a n d sewer services. The chancellor f ound that the city planned to provide sewer service to those with septic sy s t em s but that the extant septic sy stem s in the PAA were not

a m ajor consideration. ¶60. Also, the chancello r a c c e p t e d C l a rksdale’s evidence of its p lan to extend f ire and police protection services to the PAA. R e g a rding f i re protection, Ty W indham with the Mississippi State Rating Bureau testif ied that the b ureau conducts survey s of f ire protection in the s tate. Municipalities and f ire protection d istricts are given a rating of one, the best, to ten, the worst. The rating p r ocess evaluates the water s upply , the f ire departm ent, the

c o m m u n i c a t i ons center, and f

ire code and building code enf orcem ent. W indham testif ied tha t Clarksdale currently is rated C lass 5. It has a twenty -f our-hour, f

ull-tim e p rof

essional f ire departm ent. W indham testif ied that Clarksdale can extend Class 5 f ire p rotection to the PAA. He testif ied that Coahom a County does not have a f ull-tim e prof

essional f ire departm ent and that it provides Class 10 f ire protection services, equivalent to no f ire protection at all.

2 9¶61. Clarksdale’s f i r e c h i e f , Obert Douglas III, testif ied that the city ’s response tim e is three m inutes. He testif

ied that Clarksdale has 800 f i re h y drants, that 95 percent of the PAA already has f

ire hy drants installed, and that th e city will install hy drants where needed. He

t e stif ied that i t w ould b e im

portant f or the entire Highway 61 by pass to have Class 5 f

ire
pr o t e c t i o n . H e t e s t i fi e d a

bout the Clarksdale Fire Departm ent’s s peedy a n d ef f ective response
to a f i r e a t a p eanut warehouse in Sunbelt in PAA 3, w hich the f ire d epartm ent already services pursuant to a n interlocal agreem ent. The county f ire chief , W ay ne Sneed, testif

ied that the county ’s response tim e is ten m i nutes, and he agreed with C hief D ouglas that a f ire doubles in intensity

and coverage every

m inute. ¶62. Slaughter reiterated that the Highway 6 1 b y pass w ould b enef

it f rom q uicker response tim es and f

rom the negation of j urisdictional conf usion about whether the location of a f ire

was in the city or the county

. Slaughter also t estif ied that the residential and agricultural areas in PAAs 1 and 2 would benef i t f rom increased f

i re protection. B u t W atson t estif ied that, given i ts low density , the PAA h a s no need f or additional f

ire p rotection bey ond the volunteer f ire departm ent o perated by the c ounty

. According to W atson, “cotton f ields don’t need a f

ire departm ent.” ¶63. Regarding law enf orcem e nt, the PAA is u nder the jurisdiction of the C o a h o m a County Sherif f ’s Departm ent, which is responsible f or the entire county , encom p assing 582 square

m iles. The county has twenty -two f ull-tim e s worn of

f icers, with an average r esponse t im e of between seven and ten m inutes. Clarksdale Chief of Police W illiam W hit Read testif

ied that the C larksdale Police D epartm ent h ad f orty -eight sworn o f

f i cers a n d that f

our new

3 0of

f icers had been budgeted. The departm ent planned to buy two new sport

- u t i l i t y vehicles in the current f

iscal y ear, along with n ew service weapons and radar units. The departm ent’s
response t i me is two and one-half to three m i nutes. Both Chief Read and the sherif f of Coahom a County , Fernando Bee, agreed that increased p olice visibility has a deterrent ef f ect

on crim e. Clarksdale subm itted a plan f or establishing police beats in the PAAs, but it did not include adding m ore sworn of f icers. ¶64. Evid e n c e w a s u n d i sputed that, unlike the city , the county could not provide radar services to com

b at speeding on the Highway 6 1 by pass and f uture I-69 corridor. Chief Read testif i ed that jurisdictional conf usion will persist if

the Highway 61 b y

pass and f

uture I-69 corridor are not annexed. He f urther testif

ied that e l im ination o f the jurisdictional conf usion will r esult in f

aster r esponse tim es in PAAs 3, 4, and 5 because determ ining whether the city

or the c ounty has j urisdiction b ef ore responding to an accident o r em ergency will no longer be n ecessary . Chief Read also testif ied that the PAA n eeds a higher level of law enf orcem ent. Slaughter testif

i ed that, f rom an urban-planning p erspective, the PAA needs increased f ire and police protection. ¶65. C o a hom a County argues that Clarksdale did not e stab l i s h a n e e d f o r i n c r e a s e d

m unicipal services in PAAs 3, 4, and 5. The county ’s expert, W atson, t estif ied that the PAAs were too sparsely developed to need increased m unicipal services. He testif ied that, due to the s parse developm ent, Clarksdale did not need to add m o re s worn of f i cers af ter annexation, but that it could best use its o f f icers to f ight crim e downtown. He noted testim ony detailing

num erous com

plaints of crim e i n Clarksdale. Clarksdale argues that its evidence of a need

3 1f

or m unicipal services in PAAs 1 and 2 supported its annexation of those areas. ¶66. W e f

i nd that the evidence on this indicium supported the c h ancellor’s conclusions that Clarksdale’s a nnexation of PAAs 3, 4, and 5 was reasonable and that its annexation of PAAs 1 and 2 w as unreasonable. W hile the evidence showed that all the PAAs contained rural

areas , P A A s 3, 4, and 5 also contained the H ighway 61 by pass and f

u ture I-69 corridor. Clarksdale presented strong evidence of a need to elim inate jurisdictional conf usion in the provision of em ergency services on the by pass. The conclusion that the by pass and f uture I69 corridor w ould benef

it f rom m unicipal l evel services is a r easonable one. Further, PAAs 3, 4, and 5 have within their boundaries businesses and industry , which support the existence of a need f

or increased f

ire and police p rotection. W hile PAAs 1 and 2 contain low density residential areas that c ould benef i t f rom increased f

i re and police protection, the need is not

as s trong as in PAAs 3, 4, and 5, and the chancellor w as within his discretion in f inding that annexation of those areas was u n reasonable when considering the totality of the circum stances. VII. NATURAL BARRIERS ¶67. Regardin g t he natural barriers f actor, this Court has said that “ it is n ot a constraint
upon developm e nt that establi shes unreasonableness under the natural barrier concept but rather a c o ndition that m akes provision of m un i cipal s ervices im

possible or prohibitively expensive.” In re City of Colum bus , 644 So. 2d 1168, 1175 (Miss. 1994). Consistent with the testim ony of Slaughter and W a tson, the chancellor f o und that no natural barriers existed which would im

pact annexation.

3 2VIII. PAST PERFORMANCE

¶68. The e v i d e n c e o n t his indicium f ocused on Clarksdale’s perf orm ance in providing

m unicipal services since the 1 992 annexation. C larksdale presented testim ony that it had f ulf illed its obligations f

r om the 1 992 annexation. Arch Corley , the city engineer, testif ied that Clarksdale had m ade im provem ents to streets, bridge s , and drainage throughout the 1992 annexation area. Buddy Bennett, with CPU, testif ied that Clarksdale had extended water and

sewer s ervices to virtually a ll of the residents of the 1992 annexation area. S laughter testif ied that the city had e x tended C lass 5 f i re protection s e rvices and police beats to the 1992 annexation area. ¶69. Coahom a County presented evidence of C larksdale’s perf orm ance f ailures. Although Clarksdale had com m itted to the hiring of consultants and to the perf orm ance o f a drainage study , it had not hired such consultants, and the study consisted of Corley ’s m erely driving around the city spotting p roblem s. Further, C o ahom a County p resented am ple evidence of blighted conditions i n the city

. And Clarksdale was seventeen y ears l ate in u pdating its zoning ordinanc e s a fter the 1992 annexation. Nonetheless, W atson testif ied that Clarksdale’s overall perf

orm ance h ad been good and that, considering its perf orm ance history alone, the annexation should be approved. ¶70. Also, several objectors t o the annexation, p rim ari l y r e s i d e n t s o f PAAs 1 and 2, testif i ed a b out crim e problem s in the city

. T hese o bjectors testif ied that they h ad been victim s of crim es such a s a

utom obile and hom e burglaries and arm ed r obber i e s ; s e veral of these individuals had been victim s of such crim e s on m

ultiple occasions. Objectors testif ied that

3 3the Clarksdale Police Departm ent of ten was slow t o respond or sim ply d id not respond at all. One objector had m oved out of Clarksdale into the PAA s pecif ically to escape crim e. A Clarksdale resident testif ied that his neighborhood had hired a security service due to the police departm ent’s inef

f ective n e ss. The objectors v ehem ently o pposed being under the jurisdiction of the Clarksdale Police Departm ent and e xpressed s a t i s f a ction with county services. ¶71. The chancellor did not weigh this indicium f or or against annexation, but f ound that each side “ha[ d] valid points of contention.”
IX . ECONOMIC OR OTHER IMPACT ON RESIDENTS ¶72. This indicium requires evaluation of the f airness of an annexation to all parties. In re City of Hattiesburg , 840 So. 2d 6 9, 82 ( M i ss. 2003). “ [ M]unicipalities m ust dem onstrate through plans and otherwise, that residents of annexed areas w ill receive som ething of value in return f

or their tax dollars in order to carry the burden of showing reasonableness.” Id. [ T]he Court is required to balance the equities by com paring the City ’s need to expand and a ny benef

its accruing to residents f

rom the annexation with any adverse i m

p a ct, econom ic or otherwise, which will probably be experienced by those who l ive in and own property i n the annexation area. The m ere f act that residents and landowners will have to start pay ing city prop e r ty taxes is not suf f icient to show unreasonableness. City of Winon a , 8 7 9 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 8 (citations o m itted). The Court has said that “ [ o]nly by reviewing the annexation f r o m the perspective of both the city and t h e l a n downer can the chancellor adequately determ ine the issue o f reasonableness

. I n s h o r t , the com m o n thread that m ust run through any r easonableness criteria is f airness.” City of Colum bus , 644 So. 2d

at 1 173 (quoting W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist. v . C ity of Greenville , 465 S o. 2d 1057, 1059

3 4(Miss. 1985)).

¶73. The chancellor m ade no specif ic f i nding on whether this f

actor f avored annexation. Coahom a County argues that Clarksdale has v ast am ounts of vacant land, that it has no need

to expand, and that annexation unf airly allows Clarksda l e t o i mp o s e its taxes on PAA residents and property owners. The chan c e l lor n oted Clarksdale’s argum e nt that increased

tax e s is not a suf

f icient reason t o deny annexation. A nd the chancellor recognized the

m uni c i p a l s ervices Clarksdale showed would be provided to the PAA residents af ter annexation, resulting in lower insu r a n c e r a t es, reduced county taxes, reduced water rates, f ull-tim e f ire a nd police protection and water and sewer connections, all to the benef it of the PAA’s property owners. But the chancellor also recognized that the objectors, especially the

ones f rom PAAs 1 and 2, h ad expressed satisf action with county police and f ire protection. ¶74. Although the chancellor m ade no specif ic f inding o n whether this indicium f avored annexation, the c hancellor’s opinion, read as a whole, indicates that he did consider f airness in d eterm ining that annexation of PAAs 3, 4, and 5 w a s r e a s o n a ble but that a nnexation of PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable. Clarksdale showed that it would provide water a nd sewer services, C lass 5 f

ire protection, and police protection throughout the PAA. Ty W indham testi f i e d t h a t , with C lass 5 f

ire protection, the f

ire i nsurance rates o f PAA residents would decrease. Slaughter verif ied that f ire insurance rates would decrease f o r every o ne except agricultural landowners. The rates f or city w ater paid by PAA property owners, now twice the r ates inside the city , would decrease af t er annexation. A nd Clarksdale presented evidence of a need to expand due to som e spillover, high p opulation density , and the Highway 61

3 5by

pass and f uture I-69 corridor. The f act that num erous objectors in PAAs 1 and 2 opposed

a n n e x a tion a nd expressed satisf a ction with county services supports the c h a n c e l l o r ’ s d e c i s i o n that Clarksdale’s annexation of those areas was unreasonable. Additionally , n o p r operty

owner or inhabitant of

PAAs 1 or 2 expressed a desire f or annexation. Also supporting the chancellor’s decision is the f act that som e residents of PAAs 1 and 2 keep anim als including ho r s e s , l lam as, pigs, and c hickens on their property , and am b iguity existed about whether these anim als could be m a intained in the city af t er annexation.
X . VOTING STRENGTH OF PROTECTED MINORITY GROUPS ¶75. The chancellor f

ound that Clarksdale’s p r o p o s e d a n n exation w ould n ot have any negative im

pact o n m inority voting strength. Slaughter t estif ied that C larksdale’s m inority population i s 79 percent; a f ter annexation, it w ould be 78 percent. He f urther testif

ied that Clarksdale’s m inority population of voting age is 75 p ercent and th a t a f t e r a nnexation, it would b e 74 percent. Bo t h S l a u g h t er and W atson testif ied that the annexation would have

no negative im

pact o n m inority voting strength. Coahom a County avers that post-annexation

m inority voting strength is not a contested issue.
X I. BENEFIT TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN P AA W ITHOUT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAX ES ¶76. The chancellor recognized as undisputed that PA A r e s i d e n t s w o r k e d , s h o p ped,

a t tended school and church, and f requented recreational f acilities inside Clarksdal e . Clarksdale’s m ay or, Bill Luckett, testif ied that the r esidents of PAAs 1 a nd 2 derived all their social and econom ic m eans and benef its f r om the c ity and that m ost people in those PAAs work a nd shop in the city , using c ity streets and services. Slaughter t estif ied that PAA

3 6residents benef i t f rom p roxim ity to the city without pay ing their f a ir s h a r e of taxes, a situation that would be rem edied by annexation. W a t son did not dispute that PAA residents enjoy econom ic a nd social b enef its without pay ing taxes because they work, shop, and attend church in the c ity , but he opined that their p ay m ent of sales taxes and rental charges f or recreational f

acilities com

pensated the city f

or the e c onom ic and social benef i ts they derived f rom proxim ity t o the city

. The chancellor f ound that this f

actor weighed slightly in f avor of Clarksdale. W e f

ind that the chancellor’s decision was supported by substantial, c r e d ible evidence and, considered along w ith the other indicia, s u pported the f

inding that annexation of P AAs 3, 4, and 5 was r easonable and that annexation of PAAs 1 a nd 2 was unreasonable.
X II. OTHER FACTORS THAT SUGGEST REASONABLENESS ¶77. The c ha n c e l l o r d i d not m a ke a n express f inding that “ o ther f

actors” weighed f

or or against a nnexation. Under this indicium , the chancellor c ited the jurisdictional problem s in PAAs 3, 4, and 5 generated b y the f act that the path of the Highway 61 by p ass a nd f uture I69 corridor weaves in and out of the city

. The c hancellor considered Slaughter’s testim ony that Clarksdale was unable to plan f or the com ing of the I-69 corridor because p art of i t lay outside the city

. But the chancellor also noted the testim o ny of County Adm inistrator David Vassal that the construction o f I-69 along the by pass w a s , at best, “m y

thical” and that it was unknown when the actual com pletion date would be determ ined. ¶78. Coahom a County argues that the com ing of I-69 along the b y p a s s i s “ my

t h i c a l ” because the date of com

pletion is unknown. It posits that, because the chancellor m entioned Vassal’s testim o ny , the chancellor actually f ound that the c om

pletion o f I

- 6 9 along the

3 7by

pass was “m y

thical,” and th u s t h e chancellor e rred by rely ing on f uture I-69 to f

ind that

a n n exation of P AAs 3, 4, and 5 was reasonable. W h ile the chancellor cited Vassal’s testim o ny , the chancellor also recognized the jurisdictional and planning d if f iculties caused by the Highway 61 by

pass ’ s and f

uture I-69 corridor’s weaving i n a nd out of the city

. The chancellor also f

ound that the f

uture I-69 corridor created a need f or city planning in PAAs 3, 4, a n d 5

. I t i s c l ear f

rom r eading the chancellor’s opinion as a whole that he v iewed the
presence of the Highway 6 1 b y pass a nd f

uture I-69 corridor as an im portant consideration in f i nding that PAAs 3, 4, and 5 reasonably should be annexed. ¶79. C o a h o ma C o unty a lso a rgues that the chancellor erre d b y n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e

com peting interests of the Town of Ly on in enjoy ing any developm ent potential created by the Highway 61 by

pass and f uture I-69 corridor. It cites the rule that, “[ u]nder the present day circum stances where there is com petition am ong m

ultiple m unicipalities f

or the s am e land, it is essential that a chancellor evaluate the com p e t i n g i n t e r ests of the other city or cities when considering the twelve indicia in the totality of t h e c i r c u ms tances.” In re City of D’Iberville , 867 S o. 2d 241, 251 (Miss. 2004). But the chancellor thoroughly considered the annexation petition s o f b o t h Clarksdale and Ly on and the argum ents advanced by each, including Ly o n’s argum e n t a b o u t being cut of f f rom developm ent along the b y pass. The chancellor also evaluated the m u nicipal services proposed to be of f e red b y both C larksdale and Ly o n in PAA 3. W e f ind n o def

iciency in the chancellor’s evaluation of the com peting petitions f

or part of PAA 3. ¶80. Clarksdale raises an “ other f act o r ” n o t d i s c ussed by the chancellor. Citing certain

3 8restrictive covenants, Clarks dale attacks the chancellor’s decision not to allow annexation

of PAAs 1 and 2

. Both Sandy Acres subdivision i n PAA 1 and C y p ress Ridge subdivision in PAA 2 have restrictive covenants in which the developer and successors in interest agreed

to consent to annexation by Clarksdale in e xchange f or provision of c ity water. T he evidence showed that the covenants were generated by Clarksdale’s policy , adopted in 1981, of not
ext e n d i n g w ater to any unincorporated area without the developer’s agreem e nt to f uture annexation by Clarksdale. Clarksdale argues that, b ecause these are covenants that run with the land, they

m ust be enf orced. ¶81. The restrictive covenants f or Sandy Acres provide that Declarant agrees, f

o r him self

and f o r his heirs, adm inistrators, executors and assigns, including all f

u ture owners of the property or s uccessors in interest in the property , or a ny part thereof , that, in the event of a n annexation petition or proceedings instituted by the City o f C l a rksdale, Mississippi, at a ny f uture tim e, neither the Declarant, the f uture purchasers nor any successors i n interest will object to or in any way oppose the a nnexation of Sandy A cres Subdivision or any of the individual lots therein and will, if called upon by

the City to do so, execute a W aiver of Process and Entry o f Appear a nce, agreeing to the annexation of the Sandy Acres S ubdivision and the individual lots therein by the City of Clarksdale. This covenant shall r un with the land, shall be binding upon all f u ture owners of

any interest therein, and s hall not be subject to any (I) m odif ication by the m ajority of the owners of the propert y p u r s u ant to Paragraph 11 nor (ii) m odif ication, delet i on or abandonm e nt a s provided in Paragraph 12 hereof

. The restr i c t i v e c o venants f or Cy press Ridge subdivision are sim ilar but allow a change or cancellation of the agreem ent with prior written consent of Clarksdale city

of f icials. ¶82. This Court has held that [ a] covenant w ill “run w ith the land” if three condi t ions are m et: “ (1) the covenanting parties m

ust intend to create such covenant; (2) privity of estate m ust exist b e tween the person claim i ng [ a] right to enf orce the covenant and

3 9the person upon whom [ the] burden of covenant is to b e im posed; a nd (3) the covenant m

ust ‘touch and concern’ the land in question.” Misita v. Conn , 138 So. 3 d 138, 142 (Miss. 2014). If a covenant sets f orth the r estriction in clear and unam

biguous language, it will be enf orced. Id. But restrictive c o venants that are void as against public policy will not be enf orced. See Hudson v. Morrison Heights Baptist Church , 782 So. 2d 726 (Miss. 2001). ¶83. Clarksdale argues that the covenants run with the land, a re b inding, a re unam biguous, and m ust be enf orced. Clarksdale argues that the chancellor’s f ailure to m ake f

indings on the

covenants rendered his d ecision erroneous and requires reversal of t h e f i nding that annexation of PAAs 1 and 2 was unreasonable. But Clarksdale’s argum e nt contravenes public policy as expressed by the l aw of this state governing annexations. In the covenants, Clarksdale a nd the subdivision developers and their successors in interest agreed that Sandy Acres and Cy

p ress Ridge would not oppose a nnexation. But a chancery court considering an annexation petition m

u st e valuate the twelve indicia to determ i n e w h e t her annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circum stances, a n u n dertaking that necessitates consideration of the im

p act of annexation on PAA r esidents. In re City o f Meridian , 992 So. 2d at 1116. If th i s C o u rt were to perm it restrictive c ovenants t o m uzzle PAA residents, a chancellor would be unable to consider the totality of the c ircu ms t a n c e s . Further, in this

case, n either subdivision is adjacent to Clark s d a le, and a holding that the covenants m andated annexation of Sandy Acres and Cy press Ridge would lead to an a b s u r d r e s u lt in which disconnected c hunks of PAAs 1 and 2 b ecom e part of the city , while surroundi n g areas

rem ain in the county

. W e hold that restrictive covenants l ike the ones a t issue i n this case can

4 0be considered as part of the o verall evidence relevant to a ssessing whether an a nnexation is

reasonable under the totality of the circum stances, but that they do not control. W e f ind that the c hancellor, who expressly stated that he considered all of the evidence presented at trial, properly considered the twelve indicia to determ i ne whether the annexation was r easonable and that he did not err by f a i l i n g to grant Clarksdale any relief based upon the restrictive

covenants. CONCLUSION ¶84. The chancellor’s decision that Clarksdale’s annexat i o n o f P A A s 3 , 4 , a n d 5 was reasonable a nd that its annexation of PAAs 1 and 2 was u nreasonable under the totality of the circum stances was supported by substantial, c r edible evidence and w as not m anif es t l y

erroneous. The chancellor rendered his decision a f ter caref u lly considering a l l e v i d ence presented in light of the twelve indicia and p ersonally viewing the PAA d uring the i nspection

tour. The chancellor a

ppreciated the dif

f erences in character of PAAs 1 and 2 versus PAAs 3 , 4, a n d 5 , with PAAs 1 and 2 being prim arily rural and residential and PAAs 3, 4, and 5 containing businesses and residences. The chancellor also took into account the Highway 61 by pass and f uture I-69 corridor. The dissent, without analy zing the twelve indicia under the totality of the circum stances, d iscusses only the evidenc e d i sf avoring annexation of PAAs 3, 4 , and 5 and concludes that annexation was unreasonable. Af ter evaluating the evidence in light of our standard of review, w e f ind that the c hancellor’s decision was a r easonable one based on the evidence. Theref ore, we af f irm

. 2

2 Coahom a C ounty has attached a 2012 Harrison County Chance r y C o urt j udgm ent to its Com

bined Reply Brief a nd cites inf orm ation f

rom a 2018 Mississippi Attorney 4 1¶85. AFFIRMED.

WALLER, C.J., KING, COL E MAN, BEAM AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ., CONCUR. MAX WELL, J., CONCURS IN P ART A ND D ISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY RANDOLPH, P.J., AND ISHEE, J. MAX WELL, JUSTICE, CONC U R R ING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART: ¶86. If Clarksdale’s annexation of Proposed Annexation Areas 1 and 2 was unreasonable, then its annexation of

Areas 3, 4, and 5 is even m ore unreasonable. ¶87. The twelve indicia of reasonableness “are not separate, independent tests which are conclusive as to reasonableness.” In re City of Jackson , 691 So. 2d 978, 980 (Miss. 1997). Rather, th e y s e r ve as a guide f or the court w hen m aking an “ultim ate determ ination”—“whether the annexation is reasonable under the total i t y of the circum stances.” Id. (quoting W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist. v. City of Greenville , 465 So. 2d

General’s opinion on Clarksdale’s attem pt to transf

er f unds f rom CPU’s reserve a ccount to the general f

und. Clarksdale has f

iled a m otion to strike the 2012 chancery court judgm ent and ref e rence t o the inf

orm ation in the Attorney General’s opinion because this inf orm ation was not bef

ore the chancery court, which r endered its decision bef ore the A ttorney G eneral’s opinion was issued. The m otion was passed f or consideration with the m e rits of this appeal. Because this Court does not consider inf orm a tion outside the record, Hardy v. Brock , 826 So. 2 d 71, 76 (Miss. 2 0 02), w e strike the r ef erence to f

acts in a 2018 Attorney G eneral’s opinion f rom Coahom a County ’s Com bined R eply Brief

. But we do not st r i ke the 2012 chancery court o pinion because, l ike the opinions of this C ourt, the opi n i o n i s a m atter of public record with precedential v alue. In support of its m otion to strike the opinion, Coahom a C o u n t y cites this Court’s decision in Shum ake v . Shum a ke , 147 So. 3d 352, 354 (Miss

. 2014 ) , i n w h i c h w e struck a court order that w as attached to an appellate brief and not included in the record. But in Shum ake , the appellant attem pted to use the attached order to establish f

acts of record in the case. Here Coahom a County subm its the e x tra-record order as precedent, not t o establish the f acts o f this case. Theref

ore, this situation i s distinguishable f rom Shum a ke , and we deny Clarksdale’s request to strike the order.

4 21057, 1 059 (Miss. 1985)). Both the chancellor’s f inal judgm ent and the m a

jority opinion of this Court dutif

ully go down the check list of each indicium o f reasonableness. But neither

connects the dots and articulates why , under the totality of the circum stances, annexation of Areas 3, 4, and 5 was a reasonable m ove f o r a c i t y w i t h a declining population a nd am ple undeveloped land. 3 ¶88. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. And here, one n eed only look at “the big picture”—that is, the m aps showing the land Clarksdale already annexed i n 1992 and the land it n ow seeks to annex—to assess the reasonableness of the city ’s claim ed need to plan f or and capitalize on the f

u ture I-69 corridor. ¶89. As shown by the 1991 m ap below, a quarter century ago Clarksdale annexed parts of Coahom a County to ensure the c ity extended to the f uture I-69. The 1 992 annexation took in what i s now the interchanges of the H ighway 61 by pass with Highway 6, Highway 49, and f uture I-69, as well as the northern half of the i nterchange w ith New Af r ica R oad. But in the decades since, none of that land has been signif icantly developed. So to claim d evelopm ent along the f

uture I-69 corridor as the need to expand is dubious at best.

3 “Wh ile it i s tru e th at th is C o u rt h as allo w e d a n n e x a t i o n s ev en th o u g h th ere is n o t sig n i f ican t p o p u latio n g r o w th an d /o r a rel a t i v e l y hi gh p e r c e nt a ge o f unde ve l o p ed lan d w ith in th e ex istin g city lim its,” th is C o u r t h as b een clear th a t th e “p resen ce o f th e se f acto rs sh o u ld , at th e v e ry least, b e an im

p e d im en t to an n ex atio n .” In re C ity o f J a ck so n , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d at 9 8 1

. 4 3¶90. Skepticism grows f urther when one looks a t the second m ap of Proposed Annexation Areas 3, 4, and 5 and the com m e rcial businesses and residential properties located therein. First, these a reas a re not adjacent to developed areas of Clarksdale. Instead, the city “leap f rogs” 4 large swaths of u n developed, ag ricultural land, reaching out to grab the nearest businesses and residences. S econd, f rom this m ap, it is clear that it is not just the land near

4 In In re C

ity o f J a ck so n , “leap f

ro g d ev elo p m en t” w as also at issu e— th at is, “th e in te r d i s p e r s e m e n t o f larg e v acan t tracts o f lan d b etw een d ev elo p ed p o rtio n s o f lan d .” A s th e o b j ecto rs’ ex p ert in th at case ex p lain ed , h av in g larg e areas o f v acan t lan d b etw een d ev elo p ed p o r

tio n s o f th e city “ ten d s to b e a d rain o n th e eco n o m y an d f iscal stru ctu re o f th e city ,” b ecau se th e c ity h as to ex p en d “sig n if ican t r e so u rces to e x ten d in f r astru ctu re in to v acan t areas an d th ro u g h v acan t areas” to p ro v id e serv ices to th e d e v elo p ed area. Id . at 9 8 1

- 8 2 . In o th er w o rd s, to p ro v i d e in f rastru ctu re an d serv ices to A reas 3 , 4 , an d 5 , C lark sd ale w o u l d h av e to b u ild an d trav e l acro ss larg e v acan t areas. 4 4the f

uture I-69 corridor Clarksdale seeks. Instead, it is specif ically and alm ost exclusively land that already has houses and com m e rcial property —in o ther words, people and entities that can be taxed. S o, I f ind it h a r d n o t t o read this m ap as any thing other than a “tax grab”—som ething this Court has alway s viewed critically

. See In re City of Jackson , 691 So. 2d at 982.

4 5¶91. In In re City of Jackson , the capital city sim ilarly tried to jum p over undeveloped city areas to annex already developed portions o f H inds County

— an ef f ort this Court f

ound to be u nreasonable under the totality of the circum stances. Id. at 980-91. Instead, “[ b]ef ore the City of Jackson [ could] annex[ ] m ore land and residents f or which i t h as had to extend inf rastructure and provide services,” this C ourt held that Jackson “ s hould m ake an ef f ort to extend that inf

r astructure to the vacant, developable land within the existing boundaries and take steps to encourage developm ent in those areas.” Id. at 983. Consistent with In re City

o f J a c kson , C larksdale should have t o do the sam e thing. Bef ore it annexes m ore l and , residents, and taxable businesses f or which it will h ave to provide additional inf r astructure and services, Clarksdale should at the very m inim u m m a ke an ef

f o rt to develop the areas that it already annexed in 1992 along the f uture I-69 corridor. ¶92. Until then, to claim the need to annex t o c a p i t a l i z e o n a n d unif orm ly govern the developm ent along the f

uture I-69 corridor is unreasona b l e . Theref ore, I dissent in part. W h ile I w ould a f

f irm t h e portion of the chancellor’s judgm ent f inding the annexation of Areas 1 a n d 2 to b e unreasonable, I would reverse the portion of the judgm ent regarding Areas 3, 4, and 5 and instead render a judgm ent f inding the annexation of these areas to be unreasonable as well. RANDOLPH, P.J., AND ISHEE, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.

4 6