Opinion ID: 1682185
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city.

Text: ¶ 17. When considering the indicium of reasonableness for the path of growth, a city need only show that the areas desired to be annexed are in a particular path of growth; the area does not have to be located in the most urgent area of growth or even in the city's primary path of growth. In re Extension of the Boundaries of Winona v. City of Winona, 879 So.2d 966, 977 (Miss.2004). We have also crafted a number of factors which are non-exclusive to aid in our consideration of this indicium. These factors include (1) if there is spillover development in the annexation area; (2) if the annexation area is immediately adjacent to City; (3) if there is a limited area available for expansion; (4) whether there is interconnection by transportation corridors; (5) whether there is increased urban development in annexation area; (6) geography; and (7) subdivision development. Id. at 977. ¶ 18. The trial court found that spillover existed in the PAA and that the PAA is directly adjacent to and contiguous with the City. The area is connected by Highway 84 and First and Second Streets, along with other county roads and a rail line. Development exists in the PAA that is urban in nature and virtually indistinguishable from that of Brookhaven. The trial court determined that [t]he conclusion was inescapable that the PAA is in the path of growth. ¶ 19. The PAA is home to a vast number of projects, some of which are actually City-funded and owned. These include the Brookhaven Industrial Park, Brookhaven Country Club, Brookhaven Wastewater Treatment Facility, Brookhaven City Sports Complex, a livestock facility, a private school, the Brookhaven Fire Station, a Baptist church, a headquarters for the Highway Patrol, an Mississippi Department of Transportation office, a juvenile rehabilitation facility, and a National Guard Armory. ¶ 20. Indeed, the CAA concedes that [t]he proof could not be clearer that the Union Street extension to the interstate interchange, one part of the PAA, is a typical path of growth. The main thrust of its argument is that portions of the PAA are not in the path of growth. It argues that [t]he City's primary path of growth is to the north and east, and that [a]side from the development at the edges of the City, [which is] admittedly spillover growth, the predominantly rural parts of the PAA are not within the City's path of growth. ¶ 21. This statement ignores our test: The area does not have to be located in the most urgent area of growth or even in the city's primary path of growth, but simply in a path of growth. The City has spilled over into the PAA and is continuing to expand into the county. There are multiple paths of growth, some more urgent than others, but it is reasonable to find that all of the adjacent areas of the City, which the PAA comprises, are in a path of growth. This indicium favors the City.