Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Com'n
| Decision Date | 06 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 14983,14983 |
| Citation | 688 P.2d 12,1984 NMSC 70,101 N.M. 694 |
| Parties | John MUTZ and Rio Colorado Corporation, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION and Town of Red River, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
In October 1981 the Town of Red River (Red River) applied, under NMSA 1978, Sections 3-7-11 to 3-7-16 (Repl.Pamp.1981), to annex certain territory. Included in its petition was the following described land belonging to Petitioners:
* * *
* * *
All of Blocks 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, and 260;
Lots 4 through 22, Block 270;
Lots 1 through 7, the 42 feet of Lots 13 and 14 and Lots 15 through 22, Block 280;
* * *
* * *
Lots 10 through 12, Block 410;
All of Lots 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470 and 480;
* * *
* * *
Notice of public hearing was published as required by Section 3-7-14(B), and the hearing was held in December 1981. On February 1, 1982, the Municipal Boundary Commission (Commission) found that Petitioners' land and certain other land specified in Red River's petition were "contiguous" to Red River and "may be provided with * * * municipal services" by Red River. The Commission ordered annexation of the parcels described.
John Mutz and Rio Colorado Corporation (Petitioners) petitioned the district court pursuant to N.M. Const. art. VI, Section 13, and NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-15(E) (Repl.Pamp.1981), for a writ of certiorari to review the Commission's decision to allow annexation of their properties. The district court ordered the issuance of the writ, and subsequently quashed it. Petitioners appeal; we affirm.
On the district court's issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Commission in March 1982, Petitioners and Respondents submitted briefs and the matter was heard on March 31, 1983. Prior to entering its order quashing the writ, the district court wrote to the parties explaining its decision to quash, stating that, as a reviewing court, it "may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder below." It noted "the kind and quality of proposed municipal services * * * are beyond the scope of this Court's review." The letter also stated that the Commission's order was presumed to be correct, that the evidence would be viewed in favor of the order, and that "[d]espite the Commission's ostensible refusal to consider 'reasonableness' as a standard, the Order and its substantial basis in the record compel the Court to find that the Commission's Order is founded on reason."
Petitioners make three claims in this appeal:
(1) That the trial court did not properly review the Commission's decision (2) That the Commission and the district court incorrectly interpreted the statutory annexation requirements, and the Commission's findings regarding the requirements were unsupported by substantial evidence; and
(3) That the Commission was required to consider the reasonableness of the annexation.
Petitioners complain that the district court's order quashing the writ of certiorari, rather than the issuance of a decision, constituted a denial of their right to a review on the merits provided by Section 3-7-15(E). They also challenge, as erroneous, the statement in the court's letter of decision that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission.
There was no procedural error in the review of the Commission's order. District court review of an administrative decision is limited to questions of law. S.I.C. Finance-Loans of Menaul, Inc. v. Upton, 75 N.M. 780, 411 P.2d 755 (1966). Those questions are whether the administrative agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously; whether the Commission's order was supported by substantial evidence; and whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority. Id. The district court does not conduct a trial de novo. Ferguson-Steere Motor Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 63 N.M. 137, 314 P.2d 894 (1957). Although it may correct a misapplication of the law, the reviewing court generally may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. Conwell v. City of Albuquerque, 97 N.M. 136, 637 P.2d 567 (1981).
In the order quashing the writ it is recited that the court heard and considered the arguments of counsel, and considered the briefs and all other matters filed of record. That order is supplemented in the record by the judge's letter to the parties in which the judge found that the Commission's decision was "founded on reason." Having conducted a thorough review and having determined that the Commission's order should "remain undisturbed," the district court did not err in quashing the writ of certiorari instead of issuing a decision. Petitioners' attack is upon form rather than upon substance. They received the review authorized by the statute.
The duties and authority of the Commission are set forth in Section 3-7-15. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A. At the public hearing held for the purpose of determining if the territory proposed to be annexed to the municipality shall be annexed to the municipality, the municipal boundary commission shall determine if the territory proposed to be annexed:
(1) is contiguous to the municipality; and
(2) may be provided with municipal services by the municipality to which the territory is proposed to be annexed.
Petitioner's assert two grounds to argue that the requirement of contiguity was not met. First, they contend that "contiguity" requires touching and that certain of Petitioners' annexed territory did not "touch" Red River, but was made contiguous only through the annexation of the intervening territory. Second, citing Township of Owosso v. City of Owosso, 385 Mich. 587, 189 N.W.2d 421 (1971), they maintain that contiguity requires even more than "mere touching"--there must also be a showing that the municipality after annexation will be a "homogeneous and unified entity." Id.; Big Sioux Township v. Streeter, 272 N.W.2d 924 (S.D.1978). They assert that their "rural type cabins" and "pasture land" do not meet the Owosso standard for annexation.
Our standard of review is the same as that imposed upon the district court. Conwell v. City of Albuquerque. Because the interpretation of "contiguous" as it appears in Section 3-7-15 is a question of law, we need not defer to the interpretations given by the Commission or by the district court. See id.
With respect to Petitioners' first argument on the definition of "contiguous," we do not agree that each unit, block, or lot of land to be annexed must have a common boundary with the municipality. Such an interpretation would hinder the operation of the annexation statute and manifestly make it impossible to annex more than a "touching" lot or block at a time. We interpret statutes in order to facilitate their operation and the achievement of their goals. Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200 (1965) overruled on other grounds, Lakeview Invest., Inc. v. Alamogordo Lake Village, Inc., 86 N.M. 151, 520 P.2d 1096 (1974). We perceive one of the principal purposes of the annexation statutes to be the orderly and natural development of urban areas. See Hendricks v. City of Nampa, 93 Idaho 95, 456 P.2d 262 (1969). To apply Petitioners' meaning would permit annexation in a strip-by-strip or lot-by-lot manner only. Adoption of such a definition would surely defeat any orderly or natural development intended by the authorizing legislation.
We turn to Petitioners' second argument, that "contiguous," in the context of annexation, also means that there be a "community of interest" between the municipal body and the annexed land, and there be created a "homogeneous and unified entity." If the finding on contiguity does not include these considerations, Petitioners argue, one of the elements for annexation fails to exist and the annexation becomes unreasonable.
Although we do not necessarily agree with Petitioners that the meaning of "contiguity" should be broadened in all annexation cases to embrace the concepts contended for by them, we think the weakness in their argument, if it be valid at all, is that they presume to look at the existence of "community of interest" and "unified entity" and "homogeneity" only from their point of view. It is as though they were asserting (and therefore proving) incompatibility as a ground for dissolution of a marriage, and arguing that because they are not in agreement with annexation, the lack of community interest, homogeneity and unification of the entity is indisputably proved.
The case law on the question of "unified entity" and "community of interest" as elements of contiguity discloses that the courts using such language were concerned with the municipality's gerrymandering of territory to be annexed so as to exclude opposing landowners who might vote against annexation, e.g., Township of Owosso v. City of Owosso; or with creation of "islands of unannexed territory" surrounded by the municipality, with an interstate highway (which presented a physical barrier) running the length of the annexed area, see Big Sioux Township v. Streeter; or, by including a connecting area of forested, roadless, uninhabited land in the area to be annexed, the municipality would add to its tax rolls, without providing any benefits in return, an outlying industrial property worth twice the value of all property in the municipality. Portland General Electric Co. v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Albuquerque v. State ex rel. Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque
...generally involve policy questions entrusted to the discretion of municipal or public authorities. See, e.g., Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12 (1984) (decisions involving territory to be annexed by a municipality are generally held to be legislative in nature and......
-
Sierra Club v. NEW MEXICO MINING COM'N
...or the district court's statutory interpretation, as this is a matter of law that we review de novo. See Mutz v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 101 N.M. 694, 697-98, 688 P.2d 12, 15-16 (1984). B. The New Mexico Mining Act {18} Our analysis of the issues in this case must comport with the broad disc......
-
Dugger v. City of Santa Fe
...have been completed pursuant to an administrative agency's order can be reviewed by writ of certiorari. See Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12 (1984); NMSA 1978, Sec. 3-7-15 However, annexations completed by a municipality under the petition method are reviewed und......
-
Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad
...and, generally, whether the action of the administrative body was within the scope of its authority." Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 101 N.M. 694, 702, 688 P.2d 12, 20 (1984) (quoting Llano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 75 N.M. 7, 11-12, 399 P.2d 646, 650 (1964)). The petition proces......