Court Opinion

ID: 9587250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:19:55.362964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:33.787802
License: Public Domain

Buchanan, J.,
dissenting:
Thomas Joseph McDonald, a consulting civil engineer, who had worked as engineering consultant for counties in at least nine prior annexation proceedings in Virginia, was employed by Roanoke County in that capacity in this proceeding. He testified for the County and was a witness of major importance. His testimony occupies some one hundred fifty pages in the printed record. At the conclusion of his direct examination counsel for the County asked him if as an expert witness he had an opinion as to whether the annexation proposed by the City was necessary or expedient. His response is characterized by the County in its brief as a “masterful recapitulation of the fatal weaknesses in the City’s case”.
He stated his opinion to be that such annexation was not necessary and expedient, and listed eight reasons for that opinion. The first one was that the City’s present need for additional land “is neither as extensive or as urgent as it has been stated in the Annexation Ordinance”. His second reason was that the City’s future needs for land were “neither as extensive nor as imminent as the Ordinance has alleged”. His third reason was that “the area proposed to be annéxed, being as extensive as it is, does not really constitute a compact body of land”. His remaining reasons just as clearly were related to the area which the city proposed to annex. This area was 31.2 square miles.
Later, and after his cross-examination had been completed, Judge Snead, a member of the annexation court, suggested that Mr. McDonald had viewed the case from the County’s standpoint, and Mr. McDonald agreed. Judge Snead then asked him if he would take a pointer and draw a fine “that you think would be justified, on one of these maps? * * you have broken down all of these study *170areas—and would you care to state which one of these, or which of these study areas that you would think that the Court could justify including in the boundaries of this City? ”
The witness responded that he would be “happy to do that” if the court wanted him to, but it would take him several minutes because he would have to keep in mind “the same factors that the Court must keep in mind—namely, the interest and requirements of the City in the area proposed to be annexed, and the rest of the County. * # I don’t think that I could properly do this from the City’s point of view only. * * I think I would have to consider, as well as I could, the interests of both of the parties in this particular case.” Judge Snead said, “All right, sir; will you do that?” The witness replied, “Yes, sir.”
Later Mr. McDonald appeared and stated to the court that he had spent the last two hours or so re-examining all the data from his study of the entire situation and had discussed certain details of this data with his colleagues; that he was unable to make a final decision between two alternative lines which he was prepared to put on the map for the court and to discuss fully. He said the differences in the two lines were negligible in terms of the areas, populations and assessed values, so “I will proceed with the first line”. He said his first line would include Study Areas 1, 2, 4-A, 5, 6-B, 7 and part of 9-B. He stated his reasons for including each of these areas and placed on a magnetic map cards designating the areas referred to. While he said that he was satisfied that the City did not need any additional land for development and could support a substantially higher population density than it had, “yet I can at least understand the opinions and the judgments of the governing body to the effect that they would like to see that population density reduced,” and he concluded his discussion as follows:
“This is the first annexation area that I think is appropriate. It contains a total of 6,226 population; 5,216 acres; it has an average population density of 1.19 persons per acre. The school enrollment is 1,138; and assessed values, other than public services, $12,278,145.00. If an area of that acreage, and that population, were annexed to the present City, the average population density of the enlarged City would then be 4.70 persons per acre. The reduction would be 1.1 per acre. Does the Court have any questions while those pieces are on the board?”
Mr. McDonald then presented his alternative line and explained *171the differences between the two proposals, which were negligible, he said, in the respects stated. He then added:
“One more general thought that I have and that is that following whatever annexation the Court decides upon, there will occur in this Roanoke Valley for a number of years a situation which will never be repeated again as I see it in the near future.” He referred, he said, to the kind of “limited functional unification” that had been going on for sometime in the field of government services.
After Mr. McDonald had so testified, Judge Snead stated that the court thought it appropriate to ask William Martin Johnson (the civil engineer who had been employed by the City and had testified at length in support of the proposed annexation), to perform a similar task. He was asked to assume that he had been employed by the County and felt that he had to draw an annexation line and to minimize the impact of it on the County; then, after conferring with his technical associates, to tell the court how he would draw such a line. Next day Mr. Johnson testified before the court that he concurred in many of the lines selected by Mr. McDonald, and he defined and testified with respect to the area which should be annexed, considering “the interest of the City, the areas that are developing urban, and the balance of the County”. The area designated by him included all of the area designated by Mr. McDonald and some additional land, constituting an area of 7,215 acres, with a population of 9,983, and property values estimated at $20,700,000 exclusive of public service corporations.
I agree that the trial court was not bound as a matter of law by the testimony of these two expert witnesses, but I disagree that as a matter of fact the court had a right to reject and ignore the testimony given by the witness, Mr. McDonald. It is clear to me that that witness, who had made a careful and painstaking study of the areas involved, extended over a period of more than a year, thought that some annexation ought to be declared and expected that it would be. He was the County’s witness; he had testified cogently in its behalf against annexing the large area requested by the City. But the court in effect put him on his honor to advise it, from his knowledge and broad experience, what territory the City ought to have. Out of his integrity and sense of responsibility he spoke frankly and testified it would be proper to annex to the City the area he designated, and he gave to the court in support of his conclusions reasons that in my judgment should have been convincing to the court.
*172As said by the City’s witness, Johnson, annexation is not an exact science. It necessarily involves questions of opinion and good judgment. Where the issue is to be determined from conflicting testimony, we sustain a judgment of the trial court when it is supported by credible evidence. But there is conflicting evidence in all such cases and we have not hesitated to reverse a judgment which we considered to be contrary to the evidence. Rockingham County v. Town of Timberville, 201 Va. 303, 110 S. E. 2d 390, is a recent example; and in Town of Narrows v. Giles County, 184 Va. 628, 35 S. E. 2d 808, cited in the court’s opinion, it was said that if the decision is not supported by the evidence it should not stand.
The decision in the present case that no territory should be annexed is not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence. The County’s witness, McDonald, speaking as an unbiased witness for the court and from a thorough study of the whole situation, gave clear and convincing reasons for the annexation of the areas described by him along the western perimeter of the City, containing in the aggregate 5,216 acres. That same area was included in the larger area which the City’s witness, Johnson, also speaking as an unbiased witness for the court, and from his thorough study, testified should be annexed. The testimony and judgment of these two court witnesses, supported by the evidence offered by the City, covering nearly a thousand pages of the printed record, in my opinion required the conclusion that this area described by witness McDonald should be annexed to the City. I would reverse the judgment and decree the annexation of that area. Code § 15-152.20.
Mr. Justice I’Anson joins in this dissent.