After city enacted ordinance annexing four parcels of real property, neighboring city contested the annexation of one part of one parcel and community association entered an appearance to contest the annexation of that entire parcel.
After annexing city stipulated to exclude the part contested by neighboring city, the Chancery Court entered judgment after a bench trial approving the annexation. Community association appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s internal growth favored annexation;
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s population increase favored annexation;
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s need for developable land favored annexation;
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that increased traffic counts favored annexation;
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s sales tax revenue history favored annexation;
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s plans for implementing and fiscally carrying out the proposed annexation favored annexation; and
- Sufficient evidence supported chancellor’s finding that city’s bonding capacity favored annexation.