Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Rio Arriba v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Santa Fe

460 P.3d 36

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA and George Martinez, Petitioners-Appellees,

v.BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF SANTA FE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-36186

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: DECEMBER 12, 2019

Adan E. Trujillo, Española, NM, for Appellees

R. Bruce Frederick, Santa Fe County Attorney, Rachel A. Brown, Deputy County Attorney, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

DUFFY, Judge.

{1} This appeal arises from the district court’s peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Santa Fe (Board) to publish notice of Petitioners’ annexation petition pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 4-33-3 (1947, amended 2019). The Board appeals, arguing that the annexation petition was facially defective and thus it had no duty to publish notice. At the heart of this appeal is what is required to effect a valid annexation petition, an issue of first impression in New Mexico. Because we conclude that the annexation petition was legally defective, we reverse the district court with instructions to quash the writ of mandamus.

BACKGROUND

{2} The City of Española lies within the boundaries of both Santa Fe County and Rio Arriba County. Residents living on the Santa Fe County side of Española must travel to the City of Santa Fe (the county seat of Santa Fe County) to access county services, such as the county clerk or county assessor, whereas residents living on the Rio Arriba County side of Española are able to access these same county services at Rio Arriba County satellite offices located in Española, as well as at the county seat in Tierra Amarilla. Petitioner George Martinez and others who live within the Santa Fe County side of Española wish to access the county services available at the Rio Arriba County satellite offices in Española, given their proximity. To accomplish this, Martinez and others began the process to annex the Santa Fe County portion of Española to Rio Arriba County, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Sections 4-33-1 to -3 (1947, amended 2019).

{3} Martinez prepared a "Petition for Annexation" in light of the requirements set forth in Section 4-33-2, which provides:

A petition executed by at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the qualified electors residing within the portion of the county proposed to be annexed shall be filed with the county commissioners of the county in which such portion is located. Such petition shall set forth the facts showing the existence of the conditions described in Section [4-33-1] ... hereof and shall accurately set out the boundaries of the portion of the county proposed to be annexed.

The statute required the annexation petition to set forth facts showing that the following two conditions existed:

[ (1) ] Whenever, because of the location and conditions of roads, or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient for the residents of any portion of a county to travel to the county seat of some other contiguous county, and [ (2) ] because of such location and condition of roads or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient and economical for such other county to render governmental services to such portion of such other county, the portion of the county so affected may be annexed to such other county in the following manner.

Section 4-33-1 ; see Youree v. Ellis , 1954-NMSC-002, ¶ 12, 58 N.M. 30, 265 P.2d 354 (stating that these conditions are "the decisive grounds upon which alone the court is authorized to order an election on annexation"). The first condition—hereinafter referred to as the "county seat condition"—forms the basis of the parties’ dispute in this appeal.

{4} Two maps were attached to the petition. The first map described "[t]he Santa Fe County territory proposed to be annexed into Rio Arriba County." The second depicted the distances and travel times from Española to the Santa Fe County offices in the City of Santa Fe and to the Rio Arriba County satellite offices in Española, and showed that the Rio Arriba County satellite offices were closer for the petitioning residents.

{5} Martinez delivered the petition to the Santa Fe County Manager and requested that the Board publish notice of the petition, as required by law. See § 4-33-3 (1947, amended 2019) ("Immediately upon the filing of such petition ..., it shall be the duty of the county commissioners with whom such petition is filed to cause a notice to be published in some newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in each county affected."). The Board declined to take any action on the petition after concluding that it was "legally defective on its face" in that "it [did] not set forth facts showing that ... because of the location and conditions of roads or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities[,] ... it would be more convenient for citizens in the area proposed to be annexed to travel to the county seat of Rio Arriba County (Tierra Amarilla) as opposed to the county seat of Santa Fe County (the City of Santa Fe)." The Board advised in a letter to Martinez that it "was not making a judicial determination about whether the conditions that would justify annexation do, in fact, exist" but rather, "was acting within its recognized authority to determine whether a citizen petition requesting it to act is legally valid on its face."

{6} Martinez and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rio Arriba (together, Petitioners) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the district court in Santa Fe, asking the court to compel the Board to publish notice pursuant to Section 4-33-3. Petitioners stated that although the residents of the area proposed to be annexed "live minutes away from the Rio Arriba [satellite offices] also located in the City of Española, as residents of Santa Fe County they must travel to the Santa Fe County Annex in the City of Santa Fe to receive most county services." Arguing that "[s]tatutes should be construed in the most beneficial way of which their language is susceptible to prevent absurdity, hardships, or injustice, to favor public convenience, and to oppose all prejudice to public interests[,]" Cox v. City of Albuquerque , 1949-NMSC-041, ¶ 14, 53 N.M. 334, 207 P.2d 1017, Petitioners contended that the annexation petition complied with the county seat condition in Section 4-33-1 because it set forth facts demonstrating that the distance and average travel times to the Rio Arriba County satellite offices in Española were much shorter than the distance and average travel times to the Santa Fe County offices.

{7} After receiving a response from the Board, the district court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, finding and concluding in relevant part:

Although the residents of the area proposed to be annexed "live minutes away from the Rio Arriba [Satellite Offices] also located in the City of Española, as residents of Santa Fe County they must travel to the Santa Fe County Annex in the City of Santa Fe to receive most county services."

Martinez had filed the signature pages of the annexation petition and requested that Santa Fe County "publish notice that the petition had been received as required by law [and] included a proposed form of notice."

The Board approved a motion that the Board "disapprove and take no further action on the petition since it is legally defective on its face because it does not set forth facts showing the existence of the statutory conditions justifying annexation" and so advised Martinez in a letter.

"A plain language reading of ... [Section] 4-33-1 would do a disservice to the purpose of the statute as well as to the people of Santa Fe County, because after all, all we are talking about is giving the people the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want this portion of the county to be allowed to join Rio Arriba County instead of Santa Fe County."

Under the "more nuanced type of statutory construction" that interprets statutes "based on perceived legislative objective and purpose rather than on literal language[,]" Section 4-33-1 is divided into two parts: the first part deals with the convenience of the residents to interact with their county by traveling to the county seat of the new county and the second part looks at the ability of the new county to render government services to the petitioner and the people in the petitioner’s area.

The petition "showed that the people in the area proposed to be annexed would be able to interact with their potential new county ... government on a more convenient basis based on the fact that there are county services available in Española" and "[d]espite the fact that the petition could have had more information in it about Tierra Amarilla, the petition was sufficient to comply with the aforementioned intent of the [L]egislature to ensure that facts are set forth that it is more convenient to interact with the potential new county and the potential new county government."

The Board appeals.

DISCUSSION

{8} The Board argues that it had no duty to publish notice of a defective annexation petition and cannot be compelled by mandamus to do so. See Kiddy v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Eddy Cty. , 1953-NMSC-023, ¶ 10, 57 N.M. 145, 255 P.2d 678 ("The county commissioners are called upon to act upon legal petitions only. If a petition is not legal, no imperative duty exists on their part to call an election. They cannot by mandamus be compelled to perform an illegal task."); State of N.M. ex rel. San Miguel BCC v. Williams , 2007-NMCA-036, ¶ 9, 141 N.M. 356, 155 P.3d 761 ("Mandamus is appropriate to compel the performance of an affirmative act by another where the duty to perform the act is clearly [prescribed] by law and where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Whether the annexation petition is defective...