Although officials from the City of Hattiesburg’s side of the proposed annexation into three areas of Forrest and Lamar County expected to have the entirety of last week to lay out their case for that process, that process was unexpectedly cut short after the first three days, as the judge had other matters to attend to.
Because of that, the trial, which was held in Forrest County chancery court, is tentatively scheduled to resume on June 12, where city officials will be allowed to continue their side.
“When we get through with that, there could very well be some additional days,” said Randy Pope, who serves as attorney for the City of Hattiesburg. “I think everybody hoped that we’d get through it (last week), but that didn’t happen.
“It’s just taking a lot longer than I think everybody anticipated. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the case is not going to be over in mid-June. It looks like it will go a bit longer.
Last week’s trial – which was a continuation from last month, when the given five days also proved to be insufficient time – saw officials such as Hattiesburg Mayor Toby Barker, Shae McNease from Shows, Dearman & Waits, and urban planner Chris Watson take the stand.
“There were some questions about the consent decree the city entered into with the (Environmental Protection Agency), which I think was in 2021,” Pope said. “Then the mayor testified, and I think he mainly focused on the miles of streets that have been paved and that sort of thing.
“I think we’ll pick back up with (Watson), and he’s done a lot of this, so he’ll probably be the longest witness we have. So the direct examination took a pretty good while, and the cross examination will also take a pretty good while. When he’s through, we’ll probably rest our case.”
At that point, opponents to the annexation, including representatives from Lamar County and the area in question in Forrest County, will be given the chance to present their case.
“Of course, when (Hattiesburg gets) finished, we’ll start presenting our defense,” said Perry Phillips, attorney for the Lamar County Board of Supervisors. “We’ll continue with calling our witnesses, calling our side.
“We’ll move forward with our side of the case when they get finished.”
If successful, annexation – which was originally proposed during an April 2016 meeting of Hattiesburg City Council – would see Hattiesburg expand its borders by taking in much of the commercial corridor on U.S. 98, the Windlass Drive area and a portion of U.S. 49 north of the current city limits.
That same month, Hattiesburg’s annexation was opposed by the Lamar County Board of Supervisors, whose attorneys filed a notice of appeal in Lamar County Circuit Court. Ridgeland attorney John Scanlon, who is representing Hattiesburg in that matter, then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in that court.
Robin Roberts, an attorney in Hattiesburg, then filed a motion against the move in both counties.
In addition, a group representing the Bellevue community also opposed Hattiesburg by filing a legal response to annexation. If successful, expansion would interfere with Bellevue officials' plans to incorporate that community, because annexation would include many properties that would be in the proposed city of Bellevue, including Corner Market, Hattiesburg Clinic – Bellevue and Mack's West.
However, Bellevue officials’ case was dismissed after they were unable to gather the required number of signatures to incorporate.
“But it was dismissed without prejudice, which means they could come back,” Pope said. “But right now, there is no effort to incorporate Bellevue.”
In May 2016, Lamar County officials said Hattiesburg’s attempted entrance into Lamar County might be stifled by Senate Bill 2198, which as of July 1 of that year required cities to include at least 50 percent of a census block's residents in any annexation efforts. If that number isn't reached, city officials would be made to cede control over zoning and subdivision regulations to the board of supervisors of the county in which the territory to be annexed is located.
Lamar County contended that Hattiesburg City Council had not included the required 50 percent of the population in its annexation request, as the city was leaving out areas such as Woodstone, north and south Lake Serene, Canebrake and Bridgefield.
However, Scanlon said Hattiesburg would indeed hit that 50 percent mark, as the annexation ordinance was drafted to do so.
In September 2016, retired chancellor Robert L. Lancaster of Columbus consolidated the cases in both counties and allowed 120 days for discovery for both sides, with pre-trial motions to be filed by the 100th day of discovery. The judge then set a hearing for January 27, 2017, at which point the trial dates were set.
Pope said annexation would be beneficial to not only current residents of Hattiesburg, but also to residents in the portions of Forrest and Lamar counties that would be included.
“Now, there’s not a lot of people out in Lamar County in this annexation, but the businesses – primarily in Lamar County – I think would benefit from increased fire and police protection, and lower insurance costs because of the fire rating that Hattiesburg has,” he said. “Then of course, as far as the City of Hattiesburg, that is clearly the path of growth out on Highway 98.
“I don’t think anybody can really argue with that; that’s the direction that Hattiesburg has been growing in for a long time. You have to continue to grow and grow your boundaries, or you stagnate or become potentially surrounded by other cities. We can’t go east, because Petal is there … and a city cannot just stay where it is and continue to grow.”
