Opinion ID: 6826017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adverse Effect of Annexation upon County’s Ability to Provide Services

Text: The trial court found that the “granting of any substantial portion of the petitions of either [Hopewell or Petersburg] would have a substantial adverse effect upon the County’s future ability to provide services to the people in the remaining portion of the County.” Hopewell and Petersburg contend that this finding is without any evidentiary basis and is plainly wrong. In support of their position, Hopewell and Petersburg cite the Commission’s report. However, what the Commission had to say about the effect of the Petersburg annexation proposal is not at all convincing: “[T]he recommended award should have little or no effect on the County’s facilities and public services.” The Commission’s comment on Hopewell’s proposal is even less convincing: [T]he [recommended] award does not remove from the County any of its industrial sites. . . . The award does, however, propose the annexation of Lee Plaza [Shopping Center] and its adjacent property, which constitutes the County’s largest concentration of commercial activity. Annexation of this commercial area is, however, justified by the relative fiscal needs of the two jurisdictions. But aside from the Commission’s report, the trial court could properly conclude from the evidence that the annexation proposals, if granted, would have substantial adverse effect upon Prince George. According to the cities’ exhibits, the proposals together would have divested the county of 22.77 square miles, or 8% of its territory, removed 3,410 persons, or 13.1% of its population, and extracted 11.95 % of its assessed values. While proposals of this nature might not have substantial effect upon a larger, wealthier, and more populous county, the effect is bound to be quite different upon a county that is not only small in size but also ranks 133rd out of 136 localities in local revenue capacity, suffers from above average fiscal stress in comparison with other localities, has lost 33.7% of its local ability to finance education, and falls well below the state average in wealth indicators of true value of real estate per capita, adjusted gross income per capita, and taxable sales per capita.