Case Title: In Re Annexation Ordinance No. 300-X

Citation: 284 S.E.2d 470

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
284 S.E.2d 470 (1981) In re ANNEXATION ORDINANCE NO. 300-X. Petition of Charles J. WHITTLE and wife, Ann Wright Whittle. No. 18. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 1, 1981. *472 Jeffrey L. Bishop and Hugh G. Casey, Jr., Casey & Bishop, Charlotte, for petitioners-appellants. Henry W. Underhill, Jr., and H. Michael Boyd, Asst. City Attys., Charlotte, for respondent-appellee. BRANCH, Chief Justice. Petitioners first argue that the City's annexation plan fails to meet the requirements of G.S. 160A-47(3) in that it lacks sufficient detail and specificity. G.S. 160A-47(3) requires a municipality's annexation report to contain: The burden is on petitioner to establish by competent and substantial evidence the City's noncompliance with G.S. 160A-47(3). In re Annexation Ordinance, 284 N.C. 442, 452, 202 S.E.2d 143, 149 (1974). See also In re Annexation Ordinance, 296 N.C. 1, 10-11, 249 S.E.2d 698, 703-704 (1978); In re Annexation Ordinance, 255 N.C. 633, 642, 122 S.E.2d 690, 697 (1961). The City's written report contains plans for providing the major municipal services enumerated in G.S. 160A-47(3), the first of which we quote in full: The remaining provisions for major municipal services may be summarized as follows: We have examined these plans and find them remarkably similar to others approved by this Court. We approved, for example, the following plan for extension of police protection contained in an annexation report filed by the City of Jacksonville: In re Annexation Ordinance, 255 N.C. 633, 635, 122 S.E.2d 690, 692-93 (1961). We held this plan for extension of services to be in "full and substantial compliance with the Act." Id. at 647, 122 S.E.2d at 701. We see no fundamental difference between these two plans. The Charlotte plan does lack the average response time and the name of the patrol route that would be involved in extending the services. On the other hand, the plan assures 24 hour service and immediate response to calls. We believe that this plan is sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of G.S. 160A-47(3), particularly in light of the additional detail provided on the scope of services available through the Charlotte Police Department. Petitioners strongly contend that any plan is deficient unless it specifies the number of additional personnel and the amount of additional equipment which will be required to extend services to the annexed area. We disagree. The central purpose behind our annexation procedure is to assure that, in return for the added financial burden of municipal taxation, the residents receive the benefits of all the major services available to municipal residents. See 2 E. McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporation, § 7.46 (3d ed., 1979 rev.). See also Moody v. Town of Carrboro, 301 N.C. 318, 271 S.E.2d 265 (1980). The minimum requirements of the statute are that the City provide information which is necessary to allow the public and the courts to determine whether the municipality has committed itself to provide a nondiscriminatory level of service and to allow a reviewing court to determine after the fact whether the municipality has timely provided such services. If such services are not provided, the residents of the annexed area would be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus requiring the municipality to live up to its commitments. G.S. 160A-49(h); Safrit v. Costlow, 270 N.C. 680, 155 S.E.2d 252 (1967). The satisfaction of this purpose does not require the degree of specificity petitioners demand. The additional personnel and equipment needed to extend services need not be estimated in order to determine whether the City has provided the services it promised. See In re Annexation Ordinance, 300 N.C. 337, 266 S.E.2d 661 (1980) (plan approved in which garbage collection portion of report failed to specify how many additional personnel would be hired to serve annexed area and fire protection portion of report stated only that the city would "acquire the necessary fire-fighting apparatus" to protect the annexed area). We believe that the report need contain only the following: (1) information on the level of services then available in the City, (2) a commitment by the City to provide this same level of services in the annexed area within the statutory period, and (3) the method by which the City will finance the extension of these services. See Moody v. Town of Carrboro, 301 N.C. 318, 271 S.E.2d 265 (1980). With this minimal information, both the City Council and the public can make an informed decision of the costs and benefits of the proposed annexation, a reviewing court can determine whether the City has committed itself to a nondiscriminating level of services, and the residents and the courts have a benchmark against which to measure the level of services which the residents receive within the statutory period. An attack on the specificity of a municipality's plan with respect to providing major municipal services to an annexation area was considered by this Court in the recent case of Moody v. Town of Carrboro, supra. Rejecting petitioners' contention that the plan was not sufficiently specific as to police and garbage collections, this Court speaking through Huskins, J., stated: 301 N.C. at 328, 271 S.E.2d at 271-72. So it is here. The municipality has shown prima facie complete and substantial compliance with the provisions of G.S. 160A-47(3), and petitioners have failed to carry their burden of showing by competent evidence failure on the part of the municipality to comply with statutory requirements. Our conclusion is strongly buttressed by the marked similarity between the reports of plans to extend services approved in In re Annexation Ordinance, 255 N.C. 633, 122 S.E.2d 690 (1961), and the plans under attack in instant case. With regard to financing the improvements, we see no problem with the general statement by the City that services with the exception of water and sewer services would be paid for out of general revenues. G.S. 160A-47(3)(d) requires only that the method of financing be disclosed, not that the precise source of each dollar be pinpointed. By its statement, the City has disclosed that the method used to finance these services will be by budgeting funds for the services out of the City's general revenues. Had the City intended to finance services by issuance of municipal bonds, by grant, or by assessment, disclosure of this too would have been required under the statute. The City plans to finance the extension of water and sewer service by an issuance of bonds and to finance the continued operation of the service by revenues derived from sale of the service to users. Again, this statement adequately discloses the intended method of financing the services and must be approved. This assignment of error is overruled. Petitioners' second assignment of error relates to the City's plan to extend fire protection to the annexed area. The plan above summarized provides for the building of a new fire station in the annexed area and service from an existing station nearby until the new station is completed. Petitioners argue that the temporary service from the existing station would not provide fire protection on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as provided elsewhere in the City. In this connection, we note that the City has no obligation to provide any fire protection until the effective date of annexation, which was stayed at petitioners' request pending this appeal. The effective date of the annexation will not occur until the final judgment of this Court is certified to the Clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County. Moody v. Town of Carrboro, 301 N.C. at 330, 271 S.E.2d at 272-73. Meanwhile, it was admitted at oral argument that during the pendency of this appeal the new fire station proposed in the City's plan has already been completed and is fully operational. The question of whether the proposed interim service would have been adequate is rendered moot by the completion of the new fire station. We, therefore, need not further consider petitioners' second assignment of error. The judgment of the Superior Court affirming the annexation order is AFFIRMED.