Nolan v. Village of Marvin

624 S.E.2d 305, 360 N.C. 256, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 3
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 27, 2006
Docket488A05
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 624 S.E.2d 305 (Nolan v. Village of Marvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nolan v. Village of Marvin, 624 S.E.2d 305, 360 N.C. 256, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 3 (N.C. 2006).

Opinions

WAINWRIGHT, Justice.

Plaintiff property owners challenge the involuntary annexation of 320 lots in Union County by the Village of Marvin. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals upheld the Annexation Ordinance, which was adopted by the Village of Marvin Council on 24 July 2003. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court based on the dissent at the Court of Appeals.

This Court must determine (1) whether the Village of Marvin substantially complied with N.C.G.S. sections 160A-33 to 160A-42, which prescribe the statutory procedure for annexation by cities of less [257]*257than 5,000 residents; and (2) if the Village of Marvin has not substantially complied, whether plaintiffs will suffer material injury because of the noncompliance. In so doing, we consider whether the applicable annexation statutes require an annexing municipality to extend a threshold (quantitative) level of public services to the annexed territory.

We determine that N.C.G.S. § 160A-35, which obligates the annexing municipality to extend existing public services to the annexed area, and N.C.G.S. § 160A-33, which is a “declaration of policy” supporting annexation by cities of less than 5,000 residents, must be read in pari materia. We hold that N.C.G.S. sections 160A-33 and 160A-35 require meaningful extension of public services to annexed property. Because the Annexation Ordinance adopted by the Village of Marvin does not provide for meaningful extension of services to the 320 lots subject to annexation, we find that the Village of Marvin has not substantially complied with statutory procedure and that plaintiffs will suffer material injury if annexation proceeds. Accordingly, we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Annexation is the process by which a municipality expands its corporate limits to include outlying geographic areas. N.C.G.S. § 160A-36 (2003). Municipalities receive their power to annex by delegation of legislative authority from the General Assembly. Huntley v. Potter, 255 N.C. 619, 627, 122 S.E.2d 681, 686 (1961) (Annexation of territory to a municipal corporation is a power conferred by the legislature and such power must be exercised “ ‘in strict accord with the statute conferring it.’ ”). Involuntary annexation is initiated by a municipality and is not subject to referendum; however, a municipality may involuntarily annex property only if the property meets strict geographical and developmental criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. § 160A-36 and the municipality follows the detailed procedures set forth in N.C.G.S. § 160A-35 and N.C.G.S. § 160A-37. These procedures include notice to the affected community, public meetings, verification that the property is eligible for annexation, and planning for the extension of existing public services to the area to be annexed. N.C.G.S. §§ 160A-35, -36, -37 (2003). This Court has previously held that municipal sérvices must be extended to newly annexed areas in a nondiscriminatory manner, meaning that annexed residents and property owners must receive substantially the same services that existing village residents and property owners receive. Greene v. Town of Valdese, 306 N.C. 79, 87, 291 S.E.2d 630, 635 (1982); see also N.C.G.S. § 160A-37(h) (2003) (granting a cause of [258]*258action to any resident or property owner who does not receive services “on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services were provided within the rest of the municipality prior to the effective date of annexation”).

On 11 June 2002, the Village of Marvin Town Council passed a Resolution of Consideration pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160A-37(i), identifying 324 lots on 467.71 acres contiguous to the Village of Marvin, which the Village intended to consider for annexation.1 On 25 April 2003, the town council adopted a, Resolution of Intent pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160A-37(a), further describing the area under consideration, setting dates for a public informational meeting and a public hearing, and making publicly available a report containing plans to extend nine categories of municipal services to the annexed area as required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-35(3): police protection, fire protection, streetlights, solid waste removal, street maintenance, administrative services, water and sewer services, animal control, and parks and recreation. The report also contained a statement of financial impact, showing how the proposed annexation would affect the Village of Marvin’s finances.

With respect to public services, the Annexation Report, adopted by the Village of Marvin on 25 April 2003 and amended on 24 July 2003, shows that the Village provides only one of the nine listed categories of municipal services to its residents. That category is administrative services. According to the report, “[t]he Village’s administrative staff consists of the Village Administrator, Village Clerk, and Tax Collector. All work on a part-time basis (12 hours [per person] per week.). . . . The Village also contracts for planning services, engineering services, an auditor, and an attorney.” The eight remaining services are provided to Village of Marvin residents by the State, Union County, volunteer organizations, or not at all. For example, streets are maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, water and sewer services are provided by the Union County Public Works Department or by privately owned wells and septic tanks, and fire protection services are provided by the Wesley Chapel Volunteer Fire Department. At the time this report was amended, the Village of Marvin lacked a contract for police protection.

With respect to Village finances, the Annexation Report states that the Village of Marvin administrative staff will work approxi[259]*259mately thirty-three percent more hours following annexation. Planning services, engineering services, and costs for reproducing maps and ordinances are also expected to increase. Thus, the Village of Marvin estimates that it will incur $14,240 in additional annual administrative costs as a result of the annexation. However, the Annexation Report shows zero additional estimated costs for the remaining eight categories of public services, as these needs will continue to be met by other entities. The Village also estimates that its total annual revenues will increase by $80,395 from collection of ad valorem taxes, utility franchise taxes, local option sales tax, cable TV franchise tax, motor vehicle taxes, and development fees. In the first year, the Village of Marvin estimates additional net revenue of $60,155 from the annexed property owners and residents.

At the public informational meeting held by the Village of Marvin town council on 10 June 2003, “[s]everal questions were raised by the citizens in the audience regarding the additional cost of a Marvin tax with no corresponding addition of town services provided.” Additional questions were asked “requesting an explanation from the council as to the reason for the annexation.” Village representatives refused to answer these inquiries and closed the public informational meeting, notwithstanding the mandate of N.C.G.S. § 160A-37(cl) that at the public informational meeting all residents of the municipality and of the territory to be annexed “shall be given the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers regarding the proposed annexation.” (Emphasis added.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashley v. City of Lexington
704 S.E.2d 529 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Pinewild Project Ltd. Partnership v. Village of Pinehurst
679 S.E.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Norwood v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR MOUNTAIN
667 S.E.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Burnette v. City of Goldsboro
654 S.E.2d 834 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Nolan v. Town of Weddington
642 S.E.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Brown v. City of Winston-Salem
626 S.E.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Nolan v. Village of Marvin
624 S.E.2d 305 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 S.E.2d 305, 360 N.C. 256, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolan-v-village-of-marvin-nc-2006.