Judge confirms ruling in city annexation case

By BARBARA ARNTSEN
News-Argus Staff Writer

Goldsboro will have to vote again on whether or not to annex a northern
part of the county, according to a Superior Court judge.
The city must also amend its original annexation report, and hold
another public hearing on the matter.
It was exactly two months ago that Superior Court Judge Kenneth Crow
first released that decision, directing James Eldridge to draft the
judgment.
Eldridge, a Wilmington lawyer, represents the homeowners fighting the
proposed annexation.
The City Council voted last April to annex the land on the east and
west sides of Salem Church Road, and the north and south sides of Buck
Swamp Road.
Residents in the area to be annexed organized in opposition, forming a
group called Good Neighbors United, and filed a lawsuit protesting the
annexation.
After Judge Crow’s decision in January, Eldridge drafted a judgment
based on the judge’s directions and submitted it to former city
attorney Harrell Everett for review.
Everett retired last June but continues to represent the city in the
annexation lawsuit.
Everett did not agree on the wording of the judgment, and the draft
judgment has been going back and forth between the two lawyers for more
than a month.
On Thursday, Crow met with the two lawyers to hammer out the agreement
on what the final judgment would say.
After a three-hour meeting, Eldridge says the parties’ attorneys
“emerged with a clearer understanding of what the court will order.”
While the judgment still needs to be drafted and circulated for
approval, which will take several more weeks, it is now understood that
the court will remand or send the annexation back to City Council to
amend the annexation report and provide that the city will compensate
the two water districts that service the proposed annexation area,
Eldridge says.
Currently, residents within the proposed annexation area would pay more
for their water than what city residents pay. In order to make those
rates equal, Goldsboro will have to pay the water districts the
difference.
Annexation law requires that city services to an annexed area be the
same as the city services to its existing area and be provided on a
non-discriminatory basis. The equal services requirement applies even
if the city contracts with another entity to provide that service.
The court will also order the council to amend the financial statement
in the annexation report to include the cost of compensating the two
water districts and describe how the city will pay for that cost;
information which was not made available to the public during the
original annexation proceedings.
Eldridge says that the court’s decision, when entered, will also find
that the original annexation report did not include all of the
information required by state law.
“Specifically, that report did not include a statement showing how the
proposed annexation will affect the city’s finances and services, what
additional resources — and the detailed costs of those resources — are
needed for extending municipal services into the proposed area and how
the annexation will impact the city’s revenues,” Eldridge says.
Because of these inconsistencies, the court will order the council to
schedule another public hearing. After the public hearing, the council
will need to vote again on whether or not to annex the area.
A press release from the city states the same thing, but the city’s
release says nothing about amending the financial statement in the
annexation report.
The city’s release also says that the council was not aware of the
water rate differences when it voted to annex the area.
Bill Burnette, a representative from Good Neighbors United, disagrees.
He says he provided that information, in writing, to the council two
weeks before the board voted on the measure.
  At the public hearing, petitioners, persons residing in or owning
property within the proposed annexation area and city residents will be
given an opportunity to be heard.
While pleased with what the court will be ordering, Eldridge left open
the possibility of appealing the final judgment and of filing another
lawsuit if another annexation ordinance is adopted.
If the City Council does not adopt a revised annexation service report
and an amended annexation ordinance within 90 days following the entry
of Crow’s decision, the annexation is automatically declared null and
void.
Commenting on the conference, Eldridge said, “Judge Crow has worked
hard on this case and Petitioners are pleased with his decision to
require a second vote by City Council.”
Noting that his clients intend to take their lobbying efforts into the
city this time, he added, “In the legal industry, it’s not over until
it’s over, and that could be a long time.”
At this time, it’s not known when the judgment will be finalized and
entered by the judge.