A longtime farmer testified Tuesday against the city of Indianola’s proposed annexation, telling the court the city has been lurching “from one disaster to another.”
The city’s annexation hearing returned to Sunflower County Chancery Court on Tuesday, as witnesses for the opposition described a city struggling to maintain its streets while pursuing a boundary expansion they say is unnecessary and unaffordable.
Judge Debra Giles presided over the hearing. Attorneys Jerry Mills and John Scanlon of Mills, Scanlon, Dye and Pittman represented the objectors, while Chad Mask and Jacob Stutzman represented the city.
With the city’s former mayor, Steve Rosenthal, unavailable for continued cross‑examination, attorneys agreed to take witnesses out of order. Objectors called James Failing, a longtime farmer whose family owns hundreds of acres on Indianola’s eastern edge, as their first witness of the day.
Failing, who lives at the east side of Indianola, testified that he moved back to the area in 1986 after college and has farmed there ever since. He told the court that development in the proposed annexation area has been sparse over the last four decades, with only a handful of homes and one commercial irrigation business constructed since the mid‑1980s.
He said most of the land east of town remains open farmland dotted with widely separated houses and that, in his view, there is no real need for expanded city water or sewer service in the territory. Failing said he remains on county water and a septic tank and testified that the soils along the bayou are well suited for onsite sewage systems when properly installed and maintained.
Failing questioned the city’s financial judgment in extending sewer and water lines miles into the countryside to serve so few residents. He said he believed the proposed utility extensions “just don’t add up,” warning that there are “not enough people out there to spend that much money” or to repay the investment through new tax revenue.
He also criticized the city’s existing infrastructure, pointing to what he described as long‑running water leaks and deteriorated streets inside the current city limits. Failing told the court that, in his opinion, the city is already struggling to keep up with basic maintenance and should not expand its boundaries until those issues are addressed for current residents.
“They never do anything right,” Failing said from the stand, adding that, in his experience, “the city rolls from one disaster to another disaster.”
He testified that promises made during a previous annexation—which brought his own home into Indianola—have not been fully carried out and that he still relies on county water and a septic system, with city garbage collection being the primary additional service he receives.
Failing also referenced his separate lawsuit challenging Indianola’s 2026 budget and tax levy, which he said resulted in a court finding that the city failed to follow state law, even though existing taxes were ultimately left in place. That, he said, added to his doubts about the city’s financial management and its ability to responsibly absorb new territory.
Under cross‑examination, Mask pressed Failing on the fact that the city had already scaled back the annexation footprint on the east side, removing hundreds of acres of Failing family farmland from the proposal after discussions with landowners. Mask suggested that sewer extensions along U.S. 82 and other corridors could spur economic growth, but Failing maintained that much of the remaining acreage is productive farmland that does not belong inside the city.
Failing acknowledged that he and his sister support a potential large‑scale solar project being explored on some of their property and that the family has leased acreage to Duke Energy or its affiliates. He told the court he fears city taxes and regulations could complicate or discourage that kind of industrial‑scale investment in the county.
Dr. W. Wade Dowell also testified in opposition, telling the court he does not see how the city could reasonably extend services any farther east. He said his daughter’s property was included in the last annexation and still does not receive city utilities, adding that he could not understand “how they’re going to come two houses down farther when they couldn’t even reach her house.”
Stan Spealman of Sonrise Enterprises testified in opposition to the annexation, explaining that there is no need for city services in the areas sought and that he is satisfied with the services that both his residence and his business receive from the county.
Spealman testified about his dissatisfaction with city streets, among other things, and his belief that Indianola would not provide valuable and needed services in exchange for the increase in municipal taxes. Because of the city‑county contract, the responding fire department would not change for his home or business if annexed. Spealman testified that he was not aware of a single individual or business which supported the annexation.
The trial, which first began last year, is expected to continue with additional witnesses and cross‑examination when court reconvenes at a later date. The next session is scheduled for July 10.
