After a hearing, in an order filed 4 April 1995 the trial court ordered the annexation report be remanded to the Durham City Council to specify the methods available for financing the capital costs of the annexation. The order also dismissed petitioners' remaining allegations. The City later amended the report to address petitioners' concerns regarding capital financing. Petitioners now appeal from the order dismissing their remaining allegations that the annexation report failed to comply with statutory requirements. Assistant City Attorney Karen A. Sindelar for respondent-appellee.
Petitioners bring forward three arguments on appeal.
We disagree with petitioners' contentions and affirm the order of the trial court. I. Petitioners first argue the trial court erred in holding the City provided sufficient evidence in the annexation report that it would provide the annexed area with a nondiscriminatory level of police and fire protection. On appeal, the trial court's findings of fact are binding on this Court if supported by the evidence, but conclusions of law drawn from those facts are reviewable de novo . We find no error in the trial court's findings of fact or conclusions of law on this issue. 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 . . . .