Opinion ID: 864647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Procedure for Annexation

Text: ¶9. The procedure for annexation is governed by Title 21, Chapter 1, of the Miss. Code Ann. Both D’Iberville and Biloxi adopted ordinances pursuant to Miss. Code Ann., § 21-1-27. Petitions were then filed with the chancery court, as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-29. Notices by each city were given by posting and publication pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-31. The petition for inclusion was filed pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 21-1-45 & -47 and the required two-thirds of the qualified electors residing in the territory executed the amended petition. 4 ¶10. At trial, each city bore the burden of proving that its proposed annexation was reasonable. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33. This Court has determined reasonableness by utilizing the following twelve indicia: (1) the municipality's need for expansion; (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city; (3) the potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed areas; (4) the municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised; (5) the need for zoning and overall planning in the area; (6) the need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed; (7) whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area; (8) the past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents; (9) the impact (economic or otherwise) of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the area proposed for annexation; (10) the impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups; (11) whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy the (economic and social) benefits of proximity to the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes; and, (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness, vel non. In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69, 82-83 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2003) (City of Hattiesburg) (citations omitted). However, “[t]he ultimate determination must be whether the annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” In re Corp. Boundaries of the Town of Mantachie, 685 So.2d 724, 726 (Miss. 1996) (quoting In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Columbus, 644 So.2d 1168, 1172 (Miss. 1994)). “Totality of the circumstances” is not a thirteenth factor to be addressed by a chancellor in determining whether a municipality’s annexation is reasonable. We have held that “[t]hese [12]factors, however, are only indicia of reasonableness, not separate and distinct tests in and of themselves.” Id. at 81-82 (quoting Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss. 1989)). 5 ¶11. A chancellor has the authority to reduce the amount of territory sought to be annexed. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33. In reviewing the chancellor’s decision to grant, deny, or reduce the proposed annexation, this Court’s standard of review is well established: This Court's standard of review for annexation is very limited. The Court can only reverse the chancery court's findings as to the reasonableness of an annexation if the chancellor's decision is manifestly wrong and is not supported by substantial and credible evidence. In re Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss.1995). We also stated [w]here there is conflicting, credible evidence, we defer to the findings below. Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989). Findings of fact made in the context of conflicting, credible evidence may not be disturbed unless this Court can say that from all the evidence that such findings are manifestly wrong, given the weight of the evidence. Id. at 921. We only reverse where the Chancery Court has employed erroneous legal standards or where we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 81 (¶ 18).