Opinion ID: 1727552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Residents of Proposed Annexation Area Enjoy Municipal Benefits Without Paying their Fair Share of Taxes

Text: ¶ 43. The Chancellor found that the residents of the proposed annexation area received water service, increased fire protection, use of recreational facilities and programs, and municipal gas from Batesville at little or no cost to them. Batesville strengthens those findings by adding that the residents of the disputed areas also have back-up police protection, and receive better insurance rates because of their proximity to the city. In addition, the residents enjoy the shops, churches, and schools located in Batesville without paying the city taxes required by residents within the current city limits. ¶ 44. The COA counters that those services are not free to them. The county's volunteer units respond to fire calls in the disputed areas; Batesville fire units has responded to only 42 calls since 1990, for which the county pays to Batesville $6,700 annually. Also, Batesville's biggest source of revenue is sales taxes which are payed by residents and non-residents alike. In addition, the water and gas provided to the residents of the proposed annexation area are funded entirely from the fees currently paid by those who use the services, including the non-residents. Lastly, non-residents pay just as much as residents for participation in recreational services. Therefore, this factor weighs against annexation.
¶ 45. The COA includes as part of its argument that the standard of review should be changed. It contends that the Chancellor's decision in annexation cases sometimes amounts to little more than a rubber stamp of a city's decision to annex, and that when a Chancellor fails to consider one or more of the indicia, we should be less deferential to the Chancellor's findings on appeal. ¶ 46. In support of this argument, the COA quotes from Justice Sullivan's dissent describing the framework with which a Chancellor makes his decision regarding annexation in In re Boundaries of City of Vicksburg, 560 So.2d 713, 716-17 (Miss. 1990): What will be the yardstick: No one knows. It is not some mystical legal formula discoverable only by judges, steeped in the mysteries of law. It is nothing more than what the chancellor, on a given day, says it is. Reasonable is now determined by the length of the chancellor's nose, or foot, if you prefer. Then, through the magic of our manifest error rule we must affirm the finding of the chancellor. All that is required is that five noses of ours be the same length as the chancellor's. As the trial court is presumed correct, we find infrequently that five noses are of different lengths ... What must protestors show to avoid being annexed? Who knows? ... All hope the chancellor's lunch agreed with him. See also In re the Enlargement of the Corporate Limits and Boundaries of the City of Gulfport, 627 So.2d 292, 295 (Miss. 1993) (Smith, J., dissenting) (the test has been expanded so far that now it is absolutely meaningless.) ¶ 47. The COA also points to our ruling in the de-annexation case of In re Exclusion of Certain Territory from the City of Jackson, 698 So.2d 490 (Miss.1997), wherein we held that de-annexation would be allowed where a municipality has failed to extend municipal services within a reasonable period of time. The COA concludes that we have a tendency toward more rigorous review of a Chancellor's decision to allow ambitious territorial expansions where the municipality promises to extend municipal services with only vague references to economic feasibility. The COA asks that we take a less deferential posture towards Chancellors than the manifest error standard to provide annexation objectors with some real ability to withstand annexation, as the balance is often against those seeking to fight city hall ... without any weapons. See In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Columbus, 644 So.2d 1168, 1185 (Miss.1994) (Pittman, J., specially concurring). ¶ 48. Although this argument has some merit, we conclude that the existing framework for evaluating the reasonableness of annexation is extensive and capable of providing for a fair determination, assuming the Chancellor thoughtfully considers all of the indicia, and we carefully monitor those findings to assure that they are supported by substantial, credible evidence. Therefore, we decline the opportunity to change the burden of proof or the standards of review.