ÿWPCQ &j)fëiTýüÎDÒ &*ÄçîK`±h&U|µ›^Õp62ž ÙqI,­HÜP¤•™hQ…É ¦|Ç7`Ú] ÌIƒšá,øÛW¤¿ýv¹ VMÎyk¨=é5ÊéA­Œåþ–³áÆ×Œ!ü HÑ«-.½êŽyC¹îEÓæ±¢kã#ór°%fú‰™udØ 5¨“A€A‘ äN-%õ[CRŠj¯:Ié\‰?`qîž=¤¾œK%˜n½Ô%Ú5 šoy dwøj:ÊK%!/•È\Å(±ý<æî2G!}ÙÚЇfC/0C:1êi´‚í ¡Œ²ç÷¦þd«Íj¼‘ß`Wé0»nQ¦Ý€Ú‘ɾ§„ \ØÌIcm7¸~ecf¥%L´N¼cšq³|slРY^èQ,¥y!¨RP¡$²ÉÍ{°ÞÀ–4è2~­xV”£Ê5G§ŸHG4ˆ,þµóS©fyõxy.#q™‚< Èø’Й“¶ÄÑ&³»‹Ûm${”¸-;þ.#ØÈŒDÍ™rÀ®!ž‚ì,+…Ámc€j¾Iî4t5ë¶Uí¿a²Ña`«¯³æßs]ªúì%0à'X²@ ê1& ð ÈÌÄ(s~bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°#Á8 Œù Ú… ^ _ zk Òå · Ó mÕ wì Æð ƶ Æ|ÆB4N 1‡ 72¥E×ÙNè 1uê 72_ z‘ 0c  0wnn 0DåI))))))))ÒrrrrrrbDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 0ëLLLL B77 0¤T D5ø D-- 0KZZ AS¥Æø 0¤¾ 0Db A«¦(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wpt£žL)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt OrlindaÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ;)´¥¡06(CEKQW]cioAutoList11.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3|x3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ?Ý ƒR¥ $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡X0XòôÿäÔThat€section€provides€that€ð ðthe€proceedings€of€the€municipality€which€was€incorporated€inÐ ° Ðthe€same€county€in€which€the€territory€to€be€annexed€is€located€shall€have€precedenceðð€over€anotherÐ œì Ðmunicipality€not€located€in€the€same€county.€€T.C.A.€ðð€6„51„110(c)€(1998).Ô#†ôÿäòXX0#Ô€€Ô‡X0XòôÿäÔThis€case€was€tried€inÐ ˆØ Ð1996,€before€the€Tennessee€State€Legislature€enacted€major€changes€to€the€annexation€statutes.€€We,Ð tÄ Ðtherefore,€review€this€case€under€the€statute€as€it€was€at€the€time€of€the€trial€in€this€case.Ô#†ôÿäòXX0ü#ÔC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-(|G2¥ $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÜ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿäò»»Ô d(|3‡~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÜ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÜ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÜ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼TÜ»»»ÔÑ8€0XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îY}TÜÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼TÜ»îîY} #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€13,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X0X»¼TÜÔÌò òÔ#†¼TÜ»XX0ò#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX.€REL.€JAMES€BOREN,€òòet€al.óó€v.€TOWN€OFÐ úJ ÐORLINDA,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X0X»¼TÜÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òRule€3€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Robertson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€13060€€€James€E.€Walton,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02240„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€from€property€ownersðð€òòquo€warrantoóó€challenge€to€an€ordinance€annexing€theirÐ ŒÜ Ðproperty.€€Property€owners€allege€that€the€annexation€was€not€reasonably€necessary€for€the€theirÐ xÈ Ðhealth,€safety,€and€welfare€and€for€the€annexing€municipality.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€deniedÐ d´ ÐDefendantððs€motion€in€limine€which€sought€to€exclude€testimony€of€the€property€owners,€aÐ P  Ðcomparison€of€the€services€offered€by€the€annexing€municipality€and€a€neighboring€municipalityÐ <Œ Ðinterested€in€annexing€the€disputed€area,€evidence€regarding€the€public€hearing€on€annexation,€andÐ (x Ðevidence€of€the€annexing€municipalityððs€other€annexations.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€Plaintiffs,Ð d Ðfinding€the€annexation€was€not€reasonable,€and€the€trial€court€entered€judgment€thereon.òòóó€€DefendantÐ P Ðappeals.€Ô#†¼TÜ»XX0£#ԀРì< ÐÔ‡X0X»¼TÜÔÌÓçÓÌò òTenn.R.App.R.3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ#†¼TÜ»XX0ø#ÔÔ‡X0X»¼TÜÔ;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€affirmedó óÐ Ö& ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼TÜ»àX0p #ÔÔ‡X0X.¼TÜÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,Ð ®þ ÐJ.óó€and€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.,€óójoined.Ð š ê ÐÌDouglas€Berry,€NashvilleÐ r"Â! ÐÌJohn€P.€Williams,€NashvilleÐ J$š# ÐÓÔ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼TÜ»XX0 #ÔÔ‡X0X»¼TÜÔÐ "&r!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼TÜ»XX0 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X0X»¼TÜÔà  àDefendant,€Town€of€Orlinda,€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€vacating€an€annexationÐ ú'J#' Ðordinance€pursuant€to€a€jury€verdict€finding€that€the€ordinance€is€not€reasonable€in€consideration€ofÐ æ(6$( Ðthe€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€the€citizens€and€property€owners€of€the€territory€sought€to€beÐ Ò)"%) Ðannexed€and€the€citizens€and€property€owners€of€the€municipality.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ ¾*&* Ðtrial€court.Ð ª+ú&+ Ðà  àOn€September€12,€1996,€the€Orlinda€Board€of€Commissioners€adopted€an€ordinance€to€annexÐ –,æ', Ða€narrow€strip€of€land€located€between€Interstate€65€and€Highway€31€in€Robertson€County.€€SeveralÐ ‚-Ò(-ý Ðmonths€earlier,€the€nearby€City€of€Portland€had€begun€considering€an€ordinance€to€annex€the€sameÐ ° Ðarea,€but€was€forced€to€hold€its€annexation€proceedings€in€abeyance€until€Orlindaððs€proceedings€wereÐ œì Ðconcluded,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€6„51„110(c).׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РˆØ ÐÌà  àTestimony€at€trial€focused€primarily€on€Orlindaððs€ability€to€provide€municipal€services€to€theÐ `° Ðannexed€area.€€Before€annexation,€the€governing€body€of€a€municipality€must€adopt€a€ð ðplan€ofÐ L œ Ðservices,ðð€identifying€what€services€the€municipality€intends€to€provide€to€the€annexed€area€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprojected€timing€of€extension€of€those€services.€€T.C.A.€ðð€6„51„102(b)€(1)€(1998).€€At€trial,€the€TownÐ $ t Ðof€Orlinda€presented€evidence€that€its€Plan€of€Services€(the€ð ðPlanðð)€provides€for€maintenance€ofÐ  ` Ðpublic€roads€and€installation€of€traffic€control€devices.€€The€property€owners€presented€evidence€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€Plan€does€not€offer€any€sewer€service,€refuse€collection,€or€any€additional€fire€or€police€protectionÐ è 8  Ðto€the€annexed€area.€€The€Plan€also€does€not€provide€for€any€changes€in€water€or€natural€gas€service,Ð Ô$  Ðwhich€the€City€of€Portland€would€continue€to€provide.€€Additionally,€the€property€owners€presentedÐ À  Ðevidence€that€Robertson€County€had€been€providing€police€and€fire€protection€to€the€annexed€area,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€would€continue€to€do€so€regardless€of€the€annexation.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court,€in€denying€the€Townððs€motion€in€limine,€allowed€the€property€owners€toÐ pÀ Ðpresent€evidence€of€their€opposition€to€the€annexation.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€allowed€proofÐ \¬ Ðcomparing€Orlindaððs€level€of€services€with€Portlandððs,€and€Portlandððs€ability€to€provide€the€annexedÐ H˜ Ðarea€with€services.€€The€trial€court€also€allowed€evidence€of€the€property€ownersðð€attendance€at€theÐ 4„ Ðpublic€hearing€regarding€the€proposed€annexation,€as€well€as€evidence€concerning€Orlindaððs€priorÐ  p Ðannexations.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€Court€furnished€the€jurors€a€verdict€form€for€aÐ ä4 Ðdetermination€of€whether€the€annexation€ordinance€was€ð ðreasonable€in€consideration€of€the€health,Ð Ð  Ðsafety€and€welfare€of€the€citizens€and€property€owners€of€the€territory€site€to€be€annexed€and€theÐ ¼  Ðcitizens€and€property€owners€of€the€municipality.ðð€€The€jury€found€the€annexation€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðð ðreasonable.ððÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àAppellant€presents€two€issues€on€appeal.€€The€first€issue,€as€stated€in€the€brief,€is:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhether€there€was€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€thatÐ D!” Ðan€annexation€ordinance€of€the€Town€of€Orlinda€was€not€reasonable.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€factual€determinations€made€by€a€jury€have€been€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€anÐ $X" Ðappellate€court€may€only€set€aside€these€factual€findings€in€the€absence€of€any€material€evidence€inÐ ô$D # Ðthe€record€to€support€the€verdict.€€ò òòòSee€Jackson€v.€Pattonó óóó,€952€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð à%0!$ ЇÓ€ (6(03Óà  àThe€jury€found€that€the€Town€of€Orlindaððs€annexation€ordinance€was€not€ð ðreasonableðð.€Ð ° ÐUnder€T.C.A.€ðð€6„51„103(b),€the€municipality€seeking€the€annexation€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÐ œì Ðannexation€ordinance€is€ð ðreasonable€for€the€overall€well„being€of€the€communities€involved.ðð€€OurÐ ˆØ Ðreview€of€the€record€in€this€case€persuades€us€that€there€is€ample€material€evidence€to€support€theÐ tÄ Ðjuryððs€verdict,€and€that€Defendant€Town€of€Orlinda€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€issueÐ `° Ðof€ð ðreasonablenessðð€under€the€statute.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òVollmer€v.€City€of€Memphisóóó ó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€that,Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àT.C.A.€ðð€6„51„103,€providing€for€a€contest€of€an€annexationÐ ü L  Ðordinance,€specifically€states€that€any€suit€to€contest€the€validity€ofÐ è 8  Ðsuch€an€ordinance€shall€be€ð ðon€the€ground€that€it€reasonably€may€notÐ Ô$  Ðbe€deemed€necessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€residents€and€propertyÐ À  Ðowners€of€the€affected€territory€and€the€municipality€as€a€whole€andÐ ¬ü  Ðso€constitutes€an€exercise€of€power€not€conferred€by€law.ððИè ` x` x ÐÌ792€S.W.2d€446,€449€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€the€absence€of€any€specific€direction€in€the€statute,€theÐ pÀ ÐSupreme€Court€has€enumerated€several€factors€which€juries€may€consider€in€determining€whetherÐ \¬ Ðan€annexation€ordinance€is€reasonable.€€These€factors€include€the€annexed€areaððs€need€for€municipalÐ H˜ Ðservices,€the€ability€of€the€annexing€municipality€to€provide€such€services,€and€the€annexingÐ 4„ Ðmunicipalityððs€motives€in€annexing€the€area€at€issue.€€òòò òSee€City€of€Kingsport€v.€State€ex€rel.€CrownÐ  p ÐEnterprises,€Inc.òòóóó óóó,€562€S.W.2d€808,€812€(Tenn.€1978).€€However,€the€Court€has€made€it€clear€thatÐ  \ Ðthese€factors€are€not€exclusive,€and€the€weight€they€are€to€be€given€in€reaching€a€particular€verdictÐ øH Ðmay€vary.€€òòò òSee€State€ex€rel.€Collier€v.€City€of€Pigeon€Forgeóóó ó,€599€S.W.2d€545,€547„58€(Tenn.€1980).Ð ä4 ÐÌòòò òóóó óà  àFirst,€we€review€the€evidence€to€determine€if€the€annexed€area€had€a€need€for€municipalÐ ¼  Ðservices.€€Defendant€presented€evidence€that€it€intended€to€provide€the€annexed€area€with€streetÐ ¨ø Ðmaintenance€and€street€lights.€€However,€Defendant€proposed€no€other€new€services€for€the€area€inÐ ”ä Ðits€plan€of€services.€€Plaintiffs€argued€that€there€was€less€than€one€mile€of€public€roads€in€the€annexedÐ €Ð Ðarea€requiring€maintenance,€and€that€those€roads€were€in€good€condition.€€Plaintiffs€also€presentedÐ l¼ Ðevidence€that€residents€of€the€annexed€area€were€already€benefitting€from€street€lights€the€City€ofÐ X ¨ ÐPortland€installed,€and€that€many€property€owners€had€installed€their€own€security€lights€on€theirÐ D!” Ðproperty.€€While€the€record€indicates€that€the€annexed€area€is€dependent€upon€the€City€of€PortlandÐ 0"€  Ðand€Robertson€County€to€provide€it€with€many€of€the€services€it€needs,€nothing€in€the€Plan€ofÐ #l! ÐServices€indicates€that€the€Town€of€Orlinda€would€supplement€or€take€over€supplying€these€servicesÐ $X" Ðafter€annexation.€€For€these€reasons,€we€find€that€the€annexed€area€was€not€in€need€of€municipalÐ ô$D # Ðservices€beyond€those€already€provided.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àNext,€we€review€the€record€for€evidence€regarding€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€provide€theÐ ¸'#& Ðannexed€area€with€services.€€Based€on€the€evidence€Plaintiffs€introduced€at€trial,€it€appears€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐTown€of€Orlinda€has€little€to€offer€the€residents€of€the€annexed€area.€€The€record€indicates€that,Ð )à$( Ðalthough€Orlinda€had€leased€land€on€which€it€intended€to€build€a€new€fire€station,€the€Town€employsÐ |*Ì%) Ðno€full„time€firefighters€and€instead€relies€on€volunteers.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€Orlinda€doesÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€have€its€own€police€department,€but€relies€upon€the€Robertson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€toÐ ° Ðpatrol€the€town.€€Coupled€with€evidence€that€Robertson€County€and€the€City€of€Portland€provide€theÐ œì Ðmajority€of€the€annexed€areasðð€municipal€services,€these€facts€represent€substantial€evidence€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðannexation€ordinance€is€unreasonable.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€review€the€record€for€facts€relating€to€the€motivation€of€the€municipality€inÐ L œ Ðannexing€the€area€in€dispute.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€inò òòò€Collier€ó óóónoted€that€courts€mustÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðscrutinize€the€stated€and€ostensible€purpose€of€the€annexation.ððòòò òóóó ó€€599€S.W.2d€at€547.€€In€this€regard,Ð $ t Ðwe€note€the€Defendantððs€Plan€of€Service€did€not€include€many€of€the€services€the€Town€of€OrlindaÐ  ` Ðpresented€in€evidence€for€provision€to€the€annexed€area.€€For€example,€although€Defendant€presentedÐ ü L  Ðevidence€that€Orlinda€had€researched€the€possibility€of€providing€sewer€service€to€the€annexed€area,Ð è 8  Ðthe€Town€did€not€propose€to€provide€such€a€service€in€its€Plan€of€Service.€€Defendantððs€proposal€forÐ Ô$  Ða€new€fire€station€was€also€not€included€in€the€Plan.€€Defendantððs€plan€to€extend€weekend€patrols€byÐ À  Ðoff„duty€Robertson€County€deputies€into€the€annexed€area€is€also€not€included€in€the€Plan.€€The€factÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€these€additional€proposals€to€serve€the€annexed€area€were€only€proposed€after€the€propertyÐ ˜è  Ðowners€objected€to€the€annexation€is€troubling.€€Additional€evidence€which€speaks€to€the€issue€ofÐ „Ô  Ðmotivation€is€that€Orlindaððs€last€annexation€had€been€in€1988,€and€in€the€eleven€years€following€thatÐ pÀ Ðannexation,€the€Town€had€yet€to€provide€the€annexed€area€with€sewer€service.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€the€Plaintiffs€presented€substantial€evidence€that€Defendant€Town€of€OrlindaððsÐ 4„ Ðannexation€ordinance€was€not€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.€€Orlinda€did€not€carry€its€burdenÐ  p Ðof€proof€that€the€annexed€area€either€needed€the€proposed€services,€or€that€Orlinda€was€equipped€toÐ  \ Ðprovide€the€area€with€any€necessary€services.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€residents€of€the€annexedÐ øH Ðarea€would€in€any€measurable€way€benefit€from€the€annexation,€and€it€appears€that€any€such€benefitÐ ä4 Ðwould€inure€solely€to€the€Defendant€town.à À àÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€presented€for€review,€as€stated€in€the€brief,€is:€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€not€relevant€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€issue€of€the€reasonableness€of€the€annexation,€including:Ðl¼` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àa.€€Property€ownersðð€opposition€to€the€annexation€for€reasonsÐ D!” Ðunrelated€to€the€need€for€municipal€services€or€Orlindaððs€intentionÐ 0"€  Ðand€ability€to€supply€them;Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àb.€€A€comparison€of€the€level€of€services€offered€by€Orlinda€withÐ ô$D # Ðthose€of€the€neighboring€city€of€Portland,€which€was€not€a€party€to€theÐ à%0!$ Ðsuit€and€whose€right€to€annex€the€same€area€was€by€statuteÐ Ì&"% Ðsubordinate€to€Orlindaððs;€Ð¸'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àc.€€Evidence€concerning€the€manner€in€which€the€public€hearing€onÐ )à$( Ðthe€ordinance€was€conducted,€when€no€issue€had€been€formally€raisedÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€hearing€was€unfair€or€not€in€compliance€with€the€statute;Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà ` àd.€€Evidence€concerning€prior€and€subsequent€annexations€by€Orlinda.аРР ÐÌÓÓà  àRules€401€and€402,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€provide€respectively€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€401.€€Definition€of€ð ðrelevant€evidence.ðð€€ó ó„€ð ðRelevantÐ `° Ðevidenceðð€means€evidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existenceÐ P   Ðof€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÐ < Œ Ðmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.Ð( x` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òRule€402.€€Relevant€evidence€generally€admissible;€irrelevantÐ  P  Ðevidence€inadmissible.€€ó ó„€All€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€exceptÐ ì <  Ðas€provided€by€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States,€the€ConstitutionÐ Ü,  Ðof€Tennessee,€these€rules,€or€other€rules€or€laws€of€general€applicationÐ È  Ðin€the€courts€of€Tennessee.€€Evidence€which€is€not€relevant€is€notÐ ´  Ðadmissible.€€Ð ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àWhether€evidence€is€admissible€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€which€willÐ xÈ Ðbe€reversed€only€for€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€ò òòòSee€Wright€v.€Quillan,ó óóó€909€S.W.2d€804,€809€(Tenn.Ð d´ ÐCt.€App.€1995);€ò òòòStrickland€v.€City€of€Lawrenceburgó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).Ð P  ÐÌà  àDefendant€asserts€that€the€subjective€preference€of€property€owners€is€irrelevant€to€the€issueÐ (x Ðof€reasonableness.€€We€disagree.€€An€additional€factor€courts€have€considered€in€determining€theÐ d Ðreasonableness€of€an€annexation€statute€is€the€extent€to€which€the€residents€of€the€area€are€satisfiedÐ P Ðwith€their€pre„annexation€services€and€their€opposition€to€the€annexation.€€òòò òSee€Cox€v.€City€ofÐ ì< ÐJacksonó óóó,€1997€WL€777078,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)(citations€omitted).Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€objects€to€testimony€regarding€the€public€hearing€the€Town€of€Orlinda€heldÐ ° Ðon€the€proposed€annexation€ordinance€and€testimony€regarding€Orlindaððs€prior€annexations.€Ð œì ÐTestimony€regarding€the€public€hearing€was€relevant€to€show€the€property€ownersðð€timely€objectionÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€annexation,€and€testimony€regarding€prior€annexations€is€relevant€to€both€the€DefendantððsÐ tÄ Ðability€to€provide€services€as€well€as€its€motivation€in€annexing€the€disputed€area.€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àFinally,€Defendant€objects€to€evidence€which€considered€Orlindaððs€ability€to€provide€the€Ð 8"ˆ  Ðannexed€area€with€services€as€opposed€to€that€of€its€neighbor,€the€City€of€Portland.€€This€evidenceÐ $#t! Ðcould€be€considered€relevant€to€prove€that€needed€services€are€or€could€be€readily€available,€but€thatÐ $`" Ðthese€needed€services€are€not€readily€available€from€Orlinda€and,€thus,€the€present€annexation€isÐ ü$L # Ðunreasonable.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court€in€admitting€the€evidence.€€In€anyÐ è%8!$ Ðevent,€in€view€of€the€record€as€a€whole,€if€there€were€any€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€in€thisÐ Ô&$"% Ðregard,€it€is€harmless.Ð À'#& ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÐ ˜)è$( Ðsuch€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€appellant,Ð „*Ô%) ÐTown€of€Orlinda€and€its€surety.Ð p+À&* Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.