In a recent ruling, the state’s second highest court upheld an annexation by the Union County town of Weddington, holding that the provision of increased police protection by itself is enough to allow for annexation.
The Weddington case amplified a landmark decision issued in early 2006, when the N.C. Supreme Court held that municipalities must provide actual services of benefit to landowners they wish to annex. The high court, however, didn’t define what qualified as the minimum services necessary to allow for annexation.
The issue of what services municipalities must provide to involuntarily annex property began in 2003, when the Union County town of Marvin passed an annexation resolution. Among the property owners affected were William J. Nolan III and his wife, Louise C. Hemphill-Nolan, who sued to stop the annexation.
The Nolans contended the annexation violated state public policy. The town argued it would, in fact, provide services to annexed areas — the administrative services of its three part-time (12-hour a week) village employees — and do so equally for existing residents and those it proposed to annex.
The case eventually made its way to the N.C. Supreme Court, which ruled against Marvin.
“We agree that services must be provided on a (qualitative) nondiscriminatory basis; however, we also conclude that N.C.G.S. § 160A-35(3) is grounded in a legislative expectation that the annexing municipality possesses meaningful (quantitative) services to extend to the annexed property,” Justice George Wainwright wrote for the court.
The justice explained that when the General Assembly approved involuntary annexation, it established as state policy:
“That municipalities are created to provide the governmental services essential for sound urban development and for the protection of health, safety and welfare in areas being intensively used for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and government purposes or in areas undergoing such development.”
N.C.G.S. § 160A-35(3) lists nine types of services that an annexation report must address: police protection, fire protection, streetlights, solid-waste removal, street maintenance, administrative services, water and sewer services, animal control, and parks and recreation.
“The primary purpose of involuntary annexation, as regulated by these statutes, is to promote ‘sound urban development’ through the organized extension of municipal services to fringe geographical areas,” Wainwright wrote.
“These services must provide a meaningful benefit to newly annexed property owners and residents, who are now municipal taxpayers, and must also be extended in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Our decision does not require an annexing municipality to provide all categories of public services listed in N.C.G.S. § 160A-35(3). We conclude only that the level of municipal services proposed in the Annexation Report prepared by the Village of Marvin is insufficient. Those part-time administrative services, such as zoning and tax collection, simply fill needs created by the annexation itself, without conferring significant benefits on the annexed property owners and residents.”
If the Marvin case established that municipalities must provide “meaningful services” to involuntary annex, it did not establish a threshold as to what constitutes “meaningful services.”
That issue was at issue in another case from Union County, also involving the Nolans. This time the town of Weddington proposed to annex four parcels of land owned by the Nolans, who again challenged the action in the courts.
Weddington offers slightly more services than Marvin, but not much more. The town, with a population of 8,423 as of July 1, 2005, contracts with the Union County Sheriff’s Department for increased patrols within the town’s borders.
The N.C. Court of Appeals held that action was enough for the annexation to proceed under current state law.
“By contrast, in the instant case, the Weddington annexation provided police protection, a service that promotes the health, safety, and welfare of residents within the annexed area,” Judge Wanda Bryant wrote for the appeals court.
“Here, the sheriff tailors the police protection provided by three additional deputies to meet Weddington’s expressed needs and preferences. Such protection provides a meaningful benefit to the annexed residents.”
N.C. Court of Appeals rulings are binding interpretations of state law unless overruled by the N.C. Supreme Court. Because the decision by the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, the high court is not required to take the case if the Nolans further appeal.
The case is Nolan v. Town of Weddington, (06-704).
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.