Opinion ID: 1918966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Benefits of proximity to the municipality

Text: ¶ 35. This indicium focuses on the issue of whether property owners and other inhabitants of the PAA would be able to enjoy the benefits of the city because of the reasonable proximity to its corporate limits without paying their share of taxes. City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 93. ¶ 36. The City of Jackson offered generalized evidence to suggest that property owners in the PAA enjoy the benefits of Jackson without having to pay taxes for those benefits. Although one might argue that the proximity of the PAA to Jackson provides area residents with medical facilities, museums, parks, etc., this argument is without merit. No specific proof was forthcoming and the failure to develop the record to support this issue lies with Jackson. This Court will not go outside the record to assist Jackson where its proof is lacking. See Estate of Myers v. Myers, 498 So.2d 376, 378 (Miss.1986) ( citing Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Kilgore, 221 So.2d 363, 367 (Miss.1969) (holding that this Court will not go outside the record to find facts)). ¶ 37. On the other hand, the City of Ridgeland does not allege that the residents in the annexed area are not paying their fair share of taxes, but rather argues on appeal that the residents benefit from the fire protection Ridgeland provides. Ridgeland also argues that many of the children in the area attend Ridgeland schools. ¶ 38. Based on the benefits that Ridgeland is already providing to the PAA, we hold that the chancellor's finding is manifestly wrong as to this element. We find this factor favors annexation by the City of Ridgeland.