IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 398PA18 Filed 3 April 2020 TOWN OF PINEBLUFF

v. MOORE COUNTY ; CATHERINE GRAHAM , in her capacity as a County Commissioner ; NICK PICERNO , in his official capacity as a County Commissioner ; OTIS RITTER , in his capacity as a County Commissioner ; RANDY SAUNDERS , in his capacity as a County Commissioner ; and JERRY DAEKE , in his capacity as a County Commissioner On discretionary review pursua nt to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 3 1 of a unanimous, published decision of the Court of Appeals, 821 S.E.2d 446 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and writ of mandamus entered

on 5 December 201 6 by Judge James M. Webb in Superior Court, Moore County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 4 February 2020

. David M. Rooks, for plaintiff

- appellee

. Misty Randall Leland, County Attorney, and Elizabeth Curran O’Brien, Assistant County Attorney, for defendant

- appellants

. HUDSON, Justice

. Here, we must determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court ’s entry of summary judgment for plaintiff Town of Pinebluff (Pinebluff)

. The Court of Appeals reached its conclusion after determining that there was an irreconcilable conflict between N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360 (e) and N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360(f) as amended by S ession L aw 1999

- 35 , and that S ession L aw 199 9

- 35 operated toT OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 2

- invalidate the applicability of subsection (e) with regards to Pinebluff. Because we conclude that the Court of A ppeals erred in its decision , we reverse.

I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are uncontested ; the parties have agreed that there are no issues as to any material fact. In 1999, the General Assembly enacted Session Law 1999

- 35 , a loca l act that amended North Carolina’s extraterritorial jurisdiction ( ETJ ) statute , N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360 , as it pertains to Pinebluff

. See A n Act Relating t o t he Exercise o f Extraterritorial Jurisdiction b y t he Town o f Pinebluff , S.L. 1999

- 35, 1999 N.C. Sess. Laws 3 5. On 19 July 2007, Pinebluff annexed approximately fifteen acres of land that officially extended the town’s corporate boundaries. Several years later, in October 2014, Pinebluff requested that the Moore County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution to authorize the expan sion of Pinebluff’s ETJ two miles beyond the annexed boundary, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360, as modified by Session Law
1999

- 35. Pinebluff interpreted Session Law 1999

- 35 to require Moore County to approve the extension of ETJ. Moore County disagreed on the effect that Session Law
1999

- 35 had on N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360 and, after several public hearings of the Moore County Planning Board and the Moore County Board of Commissioners , the Board of Commis sioners voted unanimously to deny Pinebluff’s request to extend the area of its ETJ

.T OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 3

- Pinebluff filed a complaint against Moore County seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution authorizing the ETJ expansion

. Moor e County moved to dismiss Pinebluff’s claims and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Pinebluff then moved for summary judgment

. The trial
court issued an order denying Moore County’s motions and allowing Pinebluff’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed Moore County to adopt a resolution authorizing Pinebluff to exercise its ETJ within the area requested in its October 2014 resolution

. Moore County appealed the trial court’s order to the Court of Appeals. The court unanimously affirmed the trial court ’s order, concluding that Session Law 1999

- 35 required Moore County to approve Pinebluff’s ETJ expansion request . Moore County filed a petition for discretionary review, which we allowed on 14 Augu st 2019

. II. Analysis

“ We review a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment de

novo . ” Craig ex rel. Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009) (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted) . This case also pres ents a question of statutory interpretation, which we likewise review de novo. Applewood Props

. , LLC v. New S. Pro p s . , LLC , 366 N.C. 518, 522, 742 S.E.2d 776, 779 (2013) ( quoting Dickson v. Rucho , 366 N.C. 332, 339, 737 S.E.2d 362, 368 (2013) ). Session Law 1999

- 35 amended subsections (a) and (f) of N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360 as they pertain to the Town of Pinebluff. The amendment to subsection (a) allowsT OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 4

- Pinebluff to extend its ETJ up to two miles beyond its corporate limits. S.L. 1999

- 35, § 1. We agree with the Court of Appeals that subsection (a) does not require approval from the county for an extension up to two miles

. The amendment to subsection (f) allows Pinebluff to extend its ETJ two miles beyond an annexed area. S.L. 1999

- 35, § 2. When Pinebluff extends its ETJ under this subsection, the c ounty must allow the extension so long as Pinebluff has presented proper evidence that the annexation has been accomplished. Id. (“[U]pon presenting proper evidence to the County Board of Commissioners that the annexation has been accomplished, the County Board of Commissioners shall adopt a resolution authorizing [Pinebluff] to exercise these powers within the extended area

. . . described.”)

. However, subsections (a) and (f) , as amended , must be read in the context of the rest of the statute, since we assume “that the Legislature acted with full knowledge of prior and existing law.” Ridge Cmty. Inv ’ rs, Inc. v. Berry , 293 N.C. 688, 695, 239 S.E.2d 566, 570 (1977) (citing State v. Benton , 2 76 N.C. 641, 174 S.E.2d 793 (1970)). Despite the fact that subsections (a) and (f) do not themselves impose restrictions on Pinebluff’s authority to extend its ETJ within two miles of its corporate limits and annexed areas, we consider whether other subsec tions of N.C.G.S. § 160A

360 impose limitations on Pinebluff’s ability to extend its ETJ into those areas

. Subsection (e) states that “[n]o city may . . . extend its [ETJ] powers . . . into any area for which the county at that time has adopted and is enfo rcing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and within which it is enforcing the StateT OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 5

- Building Code.” N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360(e). The text also provides two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the county is not exercising each of the three powers enum erated in subsection (e) in the area , or (2) when the city and county have agreed on the area within which each will exercise its power. Id. Therefore, a bsent one of the exceptions, subsection (e) prohibits any city

— including Pinebluff

— from extending its E TJ into an area in which the county is exercising each of its three powers. The Court of Appeals determined that , as to Pinebluff, subsection (e) was invalidated by subsection (f) as amended by Session Law 1999

- 35, which required the County Board of Commissioners to approve Pinebluff’s ETJ expansion. 821 S.E.2d at 454. But we disfavor any interpretation that repeals by implication another portion of the statute

. See McLean v. Durham Cty. Bd. of Elections , 222 N.C. 6, 8, 21 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1942 ) (“[T]he presumption is always against implied repeal

. . . . [r]epeal by implication results only when the statutes are inconsistent, necessarily repugnant, utterly irreconcilable, or wholly and irreconcilably repugnant. ” (inte rnal citations omitted)).
We read the statute in its entirety , harmonize its subsections , and “give effect to each” subsection. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc. v. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen , 254 N.C. 60, 68, 118 S.E.2d 37, 43 (1961) (quoting Town of Blowing R ock v. Gregorie , 243 N.C. 364, 371, 90 S.E.2d 898, 904 (1956)) (“[I] t is a general rule that the courts must harmonize such statutes, if possible, and give effect to each . . . .”). We conclude that there is no irreconcilable conflict between subsections (e) and (f) . Indeed, Session LawT OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 6

- 1999

- 35 ha s no effect on subsection (e) and Pinebluff may extend its ETJ under subsections (a) and (f) only if the extension also complies with the provisions of subs ection (e). Thus, if Moore County is not exercising all three powers enumerated in subsection (e), Pinebluff may extend its ETJ up to two miles beyond its corporate limits under subsection (a) or beyond its annexed areas under (f) without seeking approval from the c ounty. Likewise, if Moore County and Pinebluff reach an agreement on the area within which each will exercise its powers, Pinebluff may extend its ETJ up to two miles beyond its existing corporate limits under subsection (a) or beyond its annexed areas under (f) without seeking approval from the c ounty. But where no agreement is in place and Moore County has adopted and is enforcing a zoning ordinance and a subdivision regulation , and is also enforcing the State Building Code, Pinebluff may not ex tend its ETJ into that area without approval of the c ounty , regardless of whether the area falls within two miles of its corporate limits

or an annexed area. Here, Moore County was exercising all three powers under subsection (e) within Pinebluff’s propos ed ETJ expansion area: it had adopted and was enforcing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and was enforcing the State Building Code. Therefore, Pinebluff was not allowed to extend its ETJ into that area unless it reached an agreement with or received approval from Moore County. The c ounty held public hearings and voted to deny Pinebluff’s request, refusing to adopt a resolutionT OWN OF P INEBLUFF V
. M OORE C OUNTY Opinion of the Court

- 7

- that would allow Pinebluff to expand its ETJ. Thus, Moore County and Pinebluff did not reach an agreement, and the c o unty did not approve the requested resolution

. Therefore, Pinebluff was prohibited from expanding its ETJ into that area. III. Conclusion Because we conclude there is no irreconcilable conflict between the subsections of N.C.G.S. § 160A

- 360 as modified by Sessi on Law 1999

- 35 , and that subsection (e) prohibits Pinebluff from extending its ETJ into the proposed areas without an agreement between Pinebluff and Moore County , we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further remand to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.