A. Except as provided in Sections 3-7-17.1 and 3-57-4 NMSA 1978, whenever a petition:
(1) seeks the annexation of territory contiguous to a municipality;
(2) is signed by the owners of a majority of the number of acres in the contiguous territory;
(3) is 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; and
(4) is presented to the governing body, the governing body shall by ordinance express its consent or rejection to the annexation of such contiguous territory.
B. If the ordinance consents to the annexation of the contiguous territory, a copy of the ordinance, with a copy of the plat of the territory so annexed, shall be filed in the office of the county clerk. After the filing, the contiguous territory is part of the municipality. The clerk of the municipality shall also send copies of the ordinance annexing the territory and of the plat of the territory so annexed to the secretary of finance and administration and to the secretary of taxation and revenue.
C. Within thirty days after the filing of the copy of the ordinance in the office of the county clerk, any person owning land within the territory annexed to the municipality may appeal to the district court questioning the validity of the annexation proceedings. If no appeal to the district court is filed within thirty days after the filing of the ordinance in the office of the county clerk or if the court renders judgment in favor of the municipality, the annexation shall be deemed complete.
History: 1953 Comp., § 14-7-17, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1981, ch. 204, § 9; 1998, ch. 42, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For examination of signatures, purging and judicial review of petitions, see 3-1-5 NMSA 1978.
The 1998 amendment, effective May 20, 1998, substituted "of" for "or" in the section heading; in Subsection A, inserted "Except as provided in Sections 3-7-17.1 and 3-57-4 NMSA 1978" at the beginning, and substituted "that shows" for "which shall show" near the beginning of Paragraph A(3); and substituted "or if" for "of it" in Subsection C.
Section does not violate "one man-one vote" principle of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution, even though it does not provide for annexation by a petition of a majority of the landowners in the area without regard to the number of acres each owns. Torres v. Village of Capitan, 1978-NMSC-065, 92 N.M. 64, 582 P.2d 1277.
Plain meaning of "owning land" in Subsection C of this section is to have equitable or legal fee title ownership of real estate within the annexed territory. Santa Fe County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Town of Edgewood, 2004-NMCA-111, 136 N.M. 301, 97 P.3d 633.
Purpose in affixing plat or survey to annexation petition is to notify interested persons of land which is included, as well as to make definite what the corporate limits are and to permit officials to ascertain who are residents within the municipality and to help determine if a sufficient number of signatures of property owners from within the area appear on the petition. Hughes v. City of Carlsbad, 1949-NMSC-018, 53 N.M. 150, 203 P.2d 995.
Consideration of unplatted land. — Unplatted land, which was held for sale as urban property to accommodate reasonably expected development within eight years, could properly be considered in determining whether annexation petition was adequate. Hughes v. City of Carlsbad, 1949-NMSC-018, 53 N.M. 150, 203 P.2d 995.
Appeal from denial of petition. — The petition method of annexation provided by this section is a legislative procedure and although the statute provides no express right of appeal when a petition is denied, only a direct appeal lies to the district court, as opposed to a writ of certiorari proceeding. Dugger v. City of Santa Fe, 1992-NMCA-022, 114 N.M. 47, 834 P.2d 424, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 744, 832 P.2d 1223.
Standard of review. — The scope of judicial review of an annexation completed under the petition process is limited to determining whether the municipality has acted illegally or unconstitutionally. Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad, 1995-NMCA-108, 120 N.M. 716, 905 P.2d 1120, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 636. 904 P.2d 1061.
When landowners challenged annexation on the ground that the property was not contiguous and presented arguments that were essentially political and economic, such arguments were not within the scope of review, and the district court, finding that the property was contiguous as a matter of law, properly refused to analyze the economic or political benefits or burdens bestowed upon the landowners' property. Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad, 1995-NMCA-108, 120 N.M. 716, 905 P.2d 1120, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 636. 904 P.2d 1061.
Standing under Subsection C of this section requires an equitable or fee title interest. Santa Fe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Town of Edgewood, 2004-NMCA-111, 136 N.M. 301, 97 P.3d 633.
Standing to appeal. — Where it was determined that a partnership did not own property in the annexed territory, it had no standing to challenge the annexation. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. City of Sunland Park, 1999-NMCA-143, 128 N.M. 371, 993 P.2d 85, cert. quashed, 133 N.M. 31, 59 P.3d 1263 (2002).
The state's interest in highway property granted by 67-2-5 NMSA 1978 satisfies the requirement for standing of the State Highway and Transportation Department [department of transportation] to appeal an annexation proceeding under Subsection C of this section. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. City of Sunland Park, 1999-NMCA-143, 128 N.M. 371, 993 P.2d 85, cert. quashed, 133 N.M. 31, 59 P.3d 1263 (2002).
Counties that do not own roads in equitable or fee title may participate in the process leading to an ordinance consenting to an annexation petition in order to ensure an orderly transition in services, but does not have standing to appeal from the adoption of the ordinance. Santa Fe Cnty. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Town of Edgewood, 2004-NMCA-111, 136 N.M. 301, 97 P.3d 633.
Annexation of special zoning district. — When all or a portion of a special zoning district is annexed by an incorporated municipality, the special zoning district loses all of its zoning jurisdiction over the annexed territory to the municipality. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-06.
Law reviews. — For note, "Annexation of Unincorporated Territory in New Mexico," see 6 Nat. Resources J. 83 (1966).