A hearing on Indianola’s proposed annexation will resume Dec. 19 in Sunflower County Chancery Court.
Judge Debra M. Giles is expected to hear testimony on whether the city’s finances are strong enough to support extending municipal services to residents who say they want no part of the city’s expansion plans.
The latest hearing in the long-running case was held Dec. 5 at the Sunflower County Courthouse with Giles presiding. Attorneys Jerry Mills and John Scanlon of Mills, Scanlon, Dye and Pittman, a Ridgeland-based law office, represented the citizens who are opposing the annexation.
The city is being represented by Jackson-based attorneys Chad Mask and Jacob Stutzman.
Much of the day’s testimony focused on the city’s financial condition and its ability to provide police, fire, utility and other municipal services to the areas targeted for annexation. Urban planner Mike Slaughter, of Slaughter & Willingham, took the witness stand as an expert for the city. Slaughter and his colleague, planner Nathan Willingham, serve as the city’s urban planning consultants in the annexation effort.
Under questioning from Mills and Scanlon, Slaughter was pressed about years of audit findings that flagged material weaknesses, internal control problems and late financial reporting by the city. The citizens’ attorneys argued that repeated concerns from auditors about recordkeeping, budgeting and compliance with state law should raise serious doubts about the city’s claim that it is financially prepared to absorb new territory and extend services.
Slaughter acknowledged the audit criticisms but testified that, in his professional opinion, the city remains financially capable of carrying out the proposed annexation. He said his analysis is based on audited fund balances, bank statements, certificates of deposit, capital assets and long-term trends, rather than on the internal bookkeeping issues that auditors labeled as weaknesses. Slaughter told the court the city has maintained substantial cash and investment balances and can fund the added services without hiring new personnel or purchasing major new equipment.
Mask used his turn at questioning to shore up the city’s case, emphasizing that the legal test for annexation focuses on “financial ability,” not on perfect compliance with every audit recommendation. He walked Slaughter through the planning firm’s five-year financial projections for the annexation areas, which, Slaughter said, show that anticipated new revenues would cover the cost of providing services and, from the general fund perspective, allow the annexation to “pay for itself” over time.
The attorneys also touched on broader planning issues, including the city’s long-range comprehensive plan and the joint planning area established with Sunflower County. Slaughter testified that the proposed annexation area sits within a larger planning area already recognized by both the city and county, and that key public facilities, such as the community college campus and commercial properties along U.S. 49 and U.S. 82, are already tied into city utilities.
Throughout the exchanges, Giles allowed extensive questioning on the meaning and weight of the audit findings, at one point asking how the financial reports should be understood. The judge signaled interest in if the findings indicated a negative financial condition or if they could, in some instances, reflect conservative reporting that understates the city’s position.
As the case moves toward its next hearing date, the court will weigh not only the city’s financial ability, but also other factors Mississippi law requires in annexation cases, including the need for expansion, the city’s past performance in providing services and the impact on residents and property owners.
