The county is ready to put up $50,000 for a lawyer to oppose Columbus’ annexation attempt.
The board of supervisors Monday voted to engage legal counsel in an initial contract of up to that amount, all in an effort to keep the city from taking in two areas south and east of the current city limits. That followed a roughly 50-minute executive session where supervisors discussed the pending litigation, including hearing from Ward 6 Columbus Councilwoman Jacqueline DiCicco, a vocal opponent of the annexation plan.
Board President Trip Hairston said the county is trying to be “a part of the conversation” when the matter goes to chancery court for final approval. He said the board also wants to represent those in the county who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to oppose the city’s plan.
“The folks that live in the proposed areas that would be annexed largely are going to have some difficulty raising money to fight the annexation, or to even go through the court proceedings and have good legal representation,” Hairston said. “So, today we met with an attorney, and we decided that we would move forward in the legal proceedings to oppose the annexation.”
Hairston did not name the attorney or the legal firm the attorney represented.
County board attorney Tim Hudson said supervisors have legal precedent to oppose annexation due to the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling in a case between Harrison County and the City of Gulfport, among other reasons.
The first of the two proposed areas that would be annexed borders Ward 2 and Ward 3 and is bounded by Highway 82 in the north, Armstrong Road in the east, Lehmberg Road to the west and Deerfield Drive to the south.
The second area, adjacent to Ward 1 and Ward 2, is bounded by South Lehmberg Road to the east, the area adjacent to Scott Drive to the south, Hargrove Road to the west and Vernon Branch Creek to the north.
The proposed annexation, which the council approved on a 4-2 vote in March, would add roughly 2,000 citizens to the city limits.
In December, a study prepared by the consulting firm Bridge and Watson projected annual revenue from these two areas to total $86,872, and $182,497, respectively, mostly from property taxes. Expenditures for each are projected at $224,539 and $266,745, respectively — mostly from adding police and fire protection and improving roads.
According to a Golden Triangle Development LINK study, annexing those two areas would decrease the city’s median household income, disposable income, labor force participation and housing values while raising the poverty rate.
DiCicco said she believes annexation would “negatively affect all city taxpayers.”
“The shortfall in revenue to cost of services would increase everyone’s taxes to cover the shortfall,” DiCicco told The Dispatch in a text message.
“It’s important to get that message to the public. Residents in those areas don’t want to be in the city and current taxpayers should join together against tax increases resulting from unsound financial decisions by the City Council.”
DiCicco said the council members supporting annexation have provided “no rationale” for the move, especially since the city has not provided services to an area east of the city that was annexed 10 years ago. Hairston also cited this lack of services as one of his reasons for opposing annexation.
City business, county business
While these two areas border the city limits, they also fall under supervisor Districts 3 and 4, Hairston said. District 3 Supervisor Andy Williamson moved to engage legal counsel on Monday morning, with District 4 Supervisor Jeff Smith offering the second.
Williamson told The Dispatch “none” of the people he has talked to in his district have supported the annexation. But he said he is also looking after the interests of the entire county, including county residents living in the city, whose taxes may go up to “pay for this annexation.”
“Even though they live in the city limits, they voted for supervisor, too,” Williamson said. “And we represent them as well. We’re looking out for their best interest and for the best interest of (those being annexed).”
The potential annexation of two new areas to the city was originally proposed by Vice Mayor Joseph Mickens and Ward 5 Councilman Stephen Jones. On Monday afternoon, Mickens told The Dispatch he couldn’t see why the supervisors would be involved in the decision.
“We never got in county business,” Mickens said. “We never got in the supervisors’ business. I think if the supervisors want to get in the City of Columbus’ business, maybe they need to run for (city) office. Then they can dictate to what’s going on in the city. I don’t think they have the right to tell the council what to do.”
Jones agreed with Mickens, saying he is disappointed in the county’s move, but not surprised. He said he has only directly heard from “probably five or six people” against annexation, and a small minority cannot be allowed to make decisions for everybody.
This weekend, Jones announced publicly he is planning to run for mayor in 2025. Though 91% of the citizens living in the proposed annexation areas are Black, as are all four members of the council who are pushing the effort, Jones told The Dispatch his support for the plan isn’t about raising his voter base.
“We don’t need to annex anybody in to win an election,” he said. “It has nothing to do with it.”
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 46 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 46 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
