A. A petition seeking the annexation of territory contiguous to a municipality located in a class A county with a population of less than three hundred thousand persons shall be presented to the city council and be accompanied by a map that shows the external boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed and the relationship of the territory proposed to be annexed to the existing boundary of the municipality.
B. If the petition is signed by the owners of a majority of the number of acres in the contiguous territory:
(1) the city council shall submit the petition to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the municipality is located for its review and comment. Any comments shall be submitted by the board of county commissioners to the city council within thirty days of receipt; and
(2) not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after receiving the petition, the city council shall by ordinance approve or disapprove the annexation after considering any comments submitted by the board of county commissioners.
C. Except as provided in Subsection D of this section, if the petition is not signed by the owners of a majority of the number of acres in the contiguous territory, the extraterritorial land use commission shall consider the matter and make a recommendation to the extraterritorial land use authority. The extraterritorial land use authority shall approve or disapprove the petition. If approved by the extraterritorial land use authority, the city council may by ordinance approve the annexation.
D. When the nonconsenting property owners' properties are entirely surrounded by consenting property owners, the city council may approve the annexation without approval or disapproval of the extraterritorial land use authority.
E. In considering an annexation pursuant to this section, the city council shall consider the impact of the annexation on existing county contracts and provisions of services, including fire protection, solid waste collection or water and sewer service, and may make agreements with the county to continue such services if it is in the interest of the county, the residents of the proposed annexed area or the municipality.
F. A municipality with a population over two hundred thousand persons and located in a class A county shall not force a resident or business located in the unincorporated area of the county to agree to annexation as a condition of extending sewer and water service to that person or business, if that sewer or water service extension is paid for all or in part by federal, state or county money. The municipality may make agreement to annexation a condition of extending sewer and water service if the extension of the service is paid for entirely with municipal money.
History: 1978 Comp., § 3-7-17.1, enacted by Laws 1998, ch. 42, § 2; 2003, ch. 438, § 2.
ANNOTATIONSThe 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, in Subsection A, deleted "with a population over two hundred thousand persons and" following "municipality" and inserted "with a population of less than three hundred thousand persons" following "class A county".
Meaning of the phrase "after receiving the petition". — The phrase "after receiving the petition" in Paragraph 2 of Subsection B of Section 3-7-17.1 NMSA 1978 refers to the date a city council first receives a petition for annexation. Waggoner v. Town of Mesilla, 2011-NMCA-041, 149 N.M. 596, 252 P.3d 820.
The doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply. — The doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to the time limits within which a city council must approve or disapprove a petition for annexation. Waggoner v. Town of Mesilla, 2011-NMCA-041, 149 N.M. 596, 252 P.3d 820.
Municipality failed to comply with the time limits for approving or disapproving a petition for annexation. — Where the petitioners for annexation submitted their petition to the municipal board of trustees on October 9, 2007; the municipality mailed the petition to the county commission on October 10, 2007; the municipality received comments from the county commission on November 1, 2007; and the municipality passed an annexation ordinance on December 26, 2007, the annexation was invalid because the annexation ordinance was not approved within sixty days after the municipality first received the petition on October 9, 2007. Waggoner v. Town of Mesilla, 2011-NMCA-041, 149 N.M. 596, 252 P.3d 820.