1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: A U GU ST 22, 201 8 4 N o. A -1 -C A -3 5927 5 PR OVIS IONA L GOV ERN MEN T OF 6 S A N T A T E R E S A a n d M A R Y G O N ZA L E Z, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- Pe tit ion er s, 8 v

. 9 DOÑA ANA COUNTY BOARD OF 10 COU NTYCO MM ISSION ERS , 11 D ef

en da nt- Re spon de nt, 12 an d 13 CITYOF SU NLA ND PA RK, 14 Intervenor. 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 16 M ar y R osn er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Robles, Rae l & A nay a, P. C. 18 Ro be rt

M. Whit e 19 Randy

M. A uti o 20 L an ce D

. H ough 21 Albuquerque, N M 22 for Pe tition ers1 Doña A na CountyAttorney ’ s Of fice 2 Thom as R. Figart 3 N el son J. G oodi n 4 La s Cruces, NM 5 fo r Re spon de nt 6 Holt My

natt Martínez P .C. 7 Bradley

A. Springer 8 Casey B. Fitch 9 La s Cruces, NM 10 fo r In te rv en or1 OPIN ION

2 BOHN HOF F, Judge. 3 { 1} Inthi s a

ppe al w e ar e ca lle d up on t o c onsi de r the c ount er int uit ive pr opos iti on 4 tha t, und er

N ewMe xic o law , r es ide nts of te rr ito ry w ho w ishto inc or

por at e the 5 te rr ito ry

a s ane w m

uni ci pa lity

in or de r to av oid

be ing a nne xe d by

a n e xis tin g 6 ne ighbor ing m

uni ci pa lity

m ust f ir st p et iti on the e xis tin g m uni ci pa lity

to an ne x th e 7 te rr ito ry . T he P ro vis ion al G ove rn m en t of Santa T er es a (P G ST ), aN ewMe xic o no n8 pr of it co rp or at ion co nsi sti ng of ow ne rs of land i n th e Santa

T er es a ar ea

in D oñaA na 9 Co unty , N ew Me xic o, se ek s to inc or por at e the a re a as am

uni ci pa lity , se pa ra te f

ro m 10 ne ighbor ing Ci ty

of S unl an d P ar

k ( Sunland P ar

k)

. P G ST c ont en ds tha t, be ca use 11 Sunland P ar

k in201 4 in fo rm al ly

e xpr es se d an in te nt t o anne x Sa nta T er es a, pur suant 12 to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B)(3) ( 1995 ), P G ST c oul d pe tit ionthe D oñaA na 13 Bo ar d of

Co unty Co m m iss ion er s ( D A BO CC ) to i ncor pora te a s ase pa ra te 14 m uni ci pa lity . D A BO CC de nie d the pe tit ion ba se d on its de te rm ina tio n th at S ec tio n 15 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) re qui re d P G ST fi rs t t o su bm it a fo rm al pe tit iona ski ng S unl an d P ar k to 16 annex the subject ter

ritory . P GS T a

ppealed that decision to the district court, w hich 17 agreed w ith DA BOC C. PG ST now appeals to this Court. W e re verse.2

1 MU NIC IPA L A NN EXA TION AN D IN COR POR ATION STA TUT ES 2 An nexation 3 { 2} NMS A 1978, Se ctions 3-7-1 to -18 (1965, as am ended through 2003 ), provides 4 thr ee ge ne ra l m ethods f or a n e xis tin g m

uni ci pa lity to anne x te rr ito ry . F ir st, und er the 5 ar bitra tio n m ethod, a n e xis tin g m uni ci pa lit y c an pa ss a re sol uti on s tatin g it s de sir e to 6 an n e x t h e t e rr i t o ry a n d d e c l a r i n g t h a t “ t h e b e n e f i t s o f m u n i c i p a l g o v e rn m en t a re or 7 can be m ad e av ai la bl e wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m e to th e te rri to ry .” Sect io n 3 -7 -5 . An 8 arbitration board is created, with three m em bers repre senting the m

unicipalit y , thre e 9 m em bers repre senting the territory to be annexed, and one inde p en dent m em ber 10 se le ct ed

by the oth er six

. S ec tio n 3- 7- 6; S ec tio n 3- 7- 9. T he board m ee ts, inv es tig at es , 11 an d de ci de s w he the r the be nefi ts c anbe m ad e av ai la ble a nd w he the r an ne xa tio n 12 shou ld ta ke pla ce . Se ct ion3- 7- 10. S ec ond, und er the c om m iss ionm ethod, e ith er

the 13 existing m

unicipalit y

or a m aj ority

of the landowners in the terr itory to be annexed 14 ca n s ub m it a pe ti ti on to th e Mu ni ci pa l Bo un da ry Co m m is si on (MBC). S ec tio n 3- 7- 11. 1 5 If t h e M B C d e t e rm i n e s t h a tt h e t e rr i t o ry i s c o n t i g u o u s a n d“ m a y

b e p r o v i d e dw ith 16 m uni ci pa l se rv ic es , ” it or de rs the an ne xa tio n. Se ct ion 3- 7- 15( A )( 2)

. T hir d, und er the 17 pe tit ionm ethod, the ow ne rs of a m aj or ity of the land in th e subj ec t t er ri tor y sub m it 1 8 a p e t i t i o n t o t h e m

u n i c i p a l i t y , a n d t h e m

u n i c i p a l i t y e i t h e r c o n s e n t s t o o r r e j e ct s th e 19 pe ti ti on . Sect io n 3 -7 -1 7.3

1 { 3} Se ct ion3- 7- 17. 1 e sta bli she s sp eci al r equir em en ts f or a nne xa tio n pe tit ion s 2 subm itt ed

to ex ist ing m

uni ci pa lit ie s w ithapop ula tio n of le ss tha n 30 0, 000 pe rs ons 3 an d lo ca te d in Cl as s A cou nti es , w hic h ar e counti es ha vin g an a sse sse d va lua tio n of 4 ove r $75, 000, 000 an d apop ulat io n of 100 , 000 or

m or e pe rs ons. N MS A 197 8, 5 § 4-44-1(B) (2018). D oña Ana County is a Class A county

. If the petition is sign ed 6 by the ow ne rs of

am aj or ity

of the nu m be r of a cr es in the a re a pr opos ed f or 7 an ne xa tio n, the pe tit ionm ust be sub m itt ed

to the board of

c ounty c om m iss ion er s of 8 the c ounty

in w hic h th e m

uni ci pa lity

is loc at ed fo r co m

m en t by the board

. S ec tio n 3- 9 7- 17. 1( B)

. I f the pe tit ionis not sig ne d by ow ne rs of a m aj or ity of the num be r of a cr es , 10 un de r c e rta in cir cu m st an ces th e ex tra te rri to ria l l an d u se co m m is si on , see NMS A 11 1978 , Section 3-21-3.2 (2003), also m ust approve the petition . S ection 3-7-17.1(C), 12 (D ). 13 In co rp or at ion 14 {4} N MS A 197 8, S ec tio ns 3 -2 -1 to -9 ( 1976 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2018 ), gov er ns 15 incorporation o f newm unicipalit ies. R esidents of the territor y in qu estion m ay 16 pe tit ionthe board

of county

c om m iss ion er s inw hic h th e te rr ito ry is loc at ed

to 17 inc or por at e. S ec tio n 3- 2- 1( A ). T he pe tit ion m ust be sig ne d by

a t l ea st 2 00 r es ide nts 18 of th e te rri to ry or th e own ers of at le as t 60 pe rcen t of th e la ndwit hi n t he ter rit or y . Id

. 19 The petition m

ust include a “ m

unicipal service s and revenue plan.” Section 3-2-1(B).4

1 Section 3-2-5 provides th at the board will deter m ine if the statutory

requirem ents are 2 m et; if they are m et, the board conducts an election in w hich residents of the territory 3 vote on whether to incorporate. 4 { 5} Sect io n 3 -2 -3 pl aces li m it s o n i nc or po ra t i o n wit hi n “ urba ni zed ter rit or y .” 5 “ U rb an iz ed

te rr ito ry is tha t t er ri tor y w ith in the sa m e county an d wi thi n five m ile s of 6 the boun dary

of any m unicipalit y

hav i n g a populatio n of five thousand or m ore 7 pe rs o n s an d that territory within the sam e county and within three m iles of a 8 m u n i ci pality

having a pop ulation of less than five thous and persons[.] ” Id

. § 3- 2- 9 3( A ). T he part ie s he re in a gr ee tha t the te rr ito ry tha t P G ST see ks to inc or por at e is 10 urba ni zed ter rit or y . 11 { 6} Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) pr ovi de s th at : 12 No ter

ritory within an urbanized territory shall be incorporated as 13 a m

uni ci pa lity unl es s [in ad dit ion to sat isf y ing the oth er

r equir em en ts o f 14 Sections 3-2-1 to -9] the: 15 ( 1) m

unic i pa lityor m

unicipalit ies causing the urbanized 16 te rr ito ry

appr ove , by

r es olu tio n, th e in co rp or at ionof the te rr ito ry

a s a 1 7 mu n i c i p a l i t y; 18 (2 ) re sid en ts of the te rr ito ry pr opos ed to be inc or por at ed ha ve 19 filed with the m unicip al i t y a valid petiti on to ann ex the territory 20 pr opos ed

to be inc or

por at ed a nd the m

uni ci pa lity

fails, w ith in o ne 21 hund red tw enty day s after

the filing of the annexation petition , to annex 22 the te rr ito ry

pr opos ed to be inc or

por at ed ; or 23 (3) re s i dents of the territory proposed to be annexed 24 conclusiv ely

prove that the m

unicipalit y is unable to provid e m unicipal5

1 s e rv i c e s w i t h i n t h e t e rr i t o ry p r o p o s e dt o b e i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h i n t h e s a me 2 period of tim e that the propos ed m unicipalit y

could prov ide m

unicipal 3 se rv ic e. 4 BACKGRO UND 5 1980 s-1990 s Ann exation and Incorp oration Eff orts 6 { 7} A s is r ec ount ed

inCi ty o f Sunland

P ark v . San ta T

er es a C onc erne d Citi

ze ns 7 As s’n, I

nc. , 199 0- N MS C- 050, ¶

2, 110 N

. M. 95, 792 P

. 2d 1 138, in June 198 6, 8 Sunland Park ex pr es se d an in te re st i n anne xin g S an taT er es a by se ndi ng l et te rs to 9 ce rt ai n S an taT eresa land ow ne rs e nc our ag ing the m to se ek a nne xa tio n in to the 10 m u n i ci p al ity . I n August of that y ear, property owners w ho had form ed them selves 11 into th e Santa Te resa Concerned Citizens A ssociation , I nc. ( Association), petitioned 12 DABOCC to in co rp or at e th e area as a se pa rat e m un ic ip al it y . Id

. ¶ 3. L at er

tha t m onth, 13 Su nl an d Park pe ti ti on ed th e MBC to ap pr ov e it s p ro po se d a nn ex at io n. Id . I n October 14 1986 , fo llo w ing he ar ing s, D A BO CC ru le d tha t, pur suant to S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ), the 15 Association had conclus ively proven that it coul d provid e m unici pal services m ore 16 qu ic kl y

th an Su nl an d P ark

. Ci ty of Sun la nd P ark , 199 0- N MS C- 050, ¶ 3. S unl an d 1 7 Pa rkap p ea l ed t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt . Al t h o u g h t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt re je ct ed Su n l an dPa rk ’s 18 ar gum en t tha t S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) re qui re d th e A sso ci at ionto se ek an ne xa tio n of the 19 te rr ito ry

by S unl an d P ar

k, pur suant to Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (2 ), be fo re se ek ing 20 inc or por at ion , it

r ev er se d D A BO CC ’ s de ci sio n onthe gr ou nd that the A sso ci at ion6

1 ha d no t pr ove n c onc lus ive ly tha t i t c oul d pr ovi de m

uni ci pa l servi ce s m or e qui ck ly 2 th an Su nl an d P ark

. Se e id. ¶ 4. 3 { 8} Our Supr em e Co ur t affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t. Id

. ¶¶ 13- 27. T hr ee as pe ct s of 4 the Sunland P ark

opi nio n ar e re le va nt her e. Fi rs t, the Co urt artic ula te d the pur pose 5 be hin d the 1965 am en dm en t t o S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) to r equir e “ co nc lus ive pr oof ” of 6 the pr opo se d m

uni ci pa lity ’ s a

bil ity to pr ovi de se rv ic es soo ne r than th e ex ist ing 7 m uni ci pa lity

c an : 8 T he pol ic y r ea sons f or thi s re qu ir em en t are e as y to dis ce rn . T he 9 [L ] eg isl at

ur e ha s, in ef

fe ct , de cl ar ed the publ ic pol ic y of thi s sta te to be 10 that the growth of m unicipalit ies and of t heir con tiguo us and urbanized 11 ar ea s sh al l t ak e pla ce in a planne d and o rd er ly m an ne r. F urthe r, it is the 12 sta te ’ s po lic y to dis co ur ag e spl int er c om m uni tie s or apr oli fe ra tio n of 13 ne ighbor ing , ind ep en de nt m uni ci pa l bo die s, w hose c om pe ti ng n ee ds 14 w oul d di vid e ta x r ev enue s, m ult ipl y se rv ic es , c re at e co nfusi on and 15 fa ct ion al ism

a m ong our

c iti ze ns, a nd d es tr oy

the harm ony

that sho uld 16 ex ist

be tw ee n pe opl es of div er se ba ck gr ound s and soc ioe co nom ic str at a 17 within our state. 18 Ci ty of Sunland P ark , 1990 -N MS C- 050, ¶ 20. Se co nd, the Co urt de te rm ine d th at the 19 A sso ci at ionin fa ct

ha d no t c onc lus ive ly

pr ove n tha t its pr opos ed ne w m uni ci pa lity 20 co ul d pro vi de se rv ic es so on er tha n Sun l a n d P a r k

. Id

. ¶¶ 21-25. Third, the Court 21 de cl ine d to a ddr es s, a s un ne ce ssary , the int er play be tw ee n S ec tio ns 3 -2 -3 (B )( 2) a nd 22 (3), i.e ., whether

the Association had to petiti on Sunland Par k to annex Santa Te resa, 23 pursuant to Sec tion 3 -2-3(B) (2), before it could invok e Se ction 3-2-3(B)(3) and seek 24 DABOCC’s perm is si on to in co rp or at e. Ci ty of Sunland P ark , 199 0- N MS C- 050, ¶ 26.7

1 Sunland Park’ s contem plated annexa t i o n of the Santa T eresa territory wa s never 2 co m pl et ed

. 3 R ec en t A nn ex at ion an d In co rp or at ion Ef fo rt s 4 { 9} Be gin nin g inthe la te sum m er of 201 4, Sunland Park ’ s C ity Co unc il unde rt ook 5 a se ri es of

ste ps tha t e xpr es se d th e m uni ci pa lity ’ s r en ewed in ter es t i n pu rs uin g 6 an ne xa tio n of the Santa T er es a te rr ito ry . F oll ow ing le ngthy dis cu ssi on a t i ts Augus t 7 19 and S ep te m

be r 16, 2014 , m ee tin gs a

bout a nne xin g th e Santa

T er es a ar ea , the Ci ty 8 Co unc il pa sse d ar es olu tio n on O ct obe r 7, 2014 , statin g th at : “ [T ] he Ci ty of S unl an d 9 Park w oul d li ke to ex te nd a

hand t o th e re sid en ts of San ta[ T er es a] a nd o pe n a 10 dis cu ssi on r eg ar din g th e poss ibl e an ne xa tio n of the S an ta[ T er es a] , N ewMe xic o, 11 ar ea . . . . [T ] he Ci ty of Sunland Park an d the Santa [T er es a] ar ea can gr owa nd b en ef it 12 fr om such an ne xa tio n a s th e ar ea c anim pr ove the ir

inf ra str uc tur e an d e co nom ic 13 de ve lop m en t” ; on

the ba sis of

the se c onsi de ra tio ns, the Ci ty Co unc il re sol ve d to 14 authorize the m ay or and City Council “ to establish dialogu e with the Santa [T eresa] 15 re sid en ts o f the hom e ow ne rs a sso ci at ions of Santa [ T er es a] a nd i ts r es ide nts 16 co nc ern in g t he po ss ib le m et ho ds of a nn ex at io n.” 17 { 10} In July

201 5, a nd p ur suant t o S ec tio n 3- 2- 5, P G ST f ile d ape tit ionw ith 18 D A BO CC to inc or

por at e ap pr ox im at el y

4, 000 ac re s a s ane w m uni ci pa lity . A t a 19 m eeting on Novem

ber 24, 2015, D ABO CC vo ted 4-0 to deny the petition (D ABO CC8

1 O rd er ). T he Bo ar d in te rp re te d S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) to r equir e the r es ide nts to fi rs t 2 co m ply w ithS ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) an d f ile a n an ne xa tio n pe tit ion w ith Sunland P ar k: 3 T he D A BO CC “ int er

pr et s th e use of

the te rm ‘ re sid en ts o f the te rr ito ry pr opos ed to 4 be a nne xe d’ to re qui re ape tit ionf or a nne xa tio n be m ad e pr ior to de te rm in in g th e 5 issues related to the provid ing of m unicipal services.” A cco rd i n g ly , D ABO CC 6 declined to proceed with the incorporation petit ion, in particular, to address whether 7 the pr opos ed

ne w m uni ci pa lity

c oul d pr ovide se rv ic es soo ne r than c oul d S unl an d 8 Park

. 9 { 11} PG ST appealed the D ABO CC order t o the district court. T he district court 10 initiallyruled in favor of PG ST but then, following a m otion for re consideration filed 11 by S un l a nd P a rk, r e ve r se d i t se l f

. I n i t s S e pt e m

be r 1 9, 2 01 6 or de r , t he c ourt 12 acknowledged that “ it does no t m ake sense to this Court that the entity (Santa T eresa) 13 which seeks to becom e its own incorporated m unicipalit y

m ust first ask Sunland Park 14 to anne x it whi ch the ev ide nc e show s is pre ci se ly w ha t the c iti ze ns o f Santa T er es a 15 do n ot w an t. ” N ev er

the le ss, the c ourt r

ule d th at S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) “ re qui re s, a s a 16 co ndi ti on of inc or

por at ion , f

or S an taT er es a to d el ive r to the Ci ty of S unl an d P ar

k, 17 a va lid

pe tit ion fo r an ne xa tio n. It ha s not done so. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t, 18 “ Whe n th e D onaA naCo unty Bo ar d of

Co unty Co m m iss ion er s, dis m iss ed

S an ta 19 Teres a’s m ot io n t o b eco m e in co rp or at ed , it co rrec tl y in te rp ret edth e la w.”9

1 DISC US SION 2 { 12} On appeal, the parties advocate the sam e construction of S ection 3-2-3(B) that 3 the y did to D A BO CC a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt. P G ST c ont en ds tha t the thre e subp ar ts 4 of S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) a re ind ep en de nt, “ stand- al one ” pa ths to m uni ci pa l i nc or

por at ion , 5 an d inpart ic ular Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) is the pa th tha t i s a va ila ble to a gr oup of 6 resid en ts in unin co rp or at ed te rr ito ry w ho o ppos e an ne xa tio n by a n a dj oin ing or 7 ne arby m uni ci pa lity . P G ST f

urthe r ar gue s th at

the pla in m eanin g of

the phr as e 8 “ pr opos ed to be an ne xe d” in Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) en co m pa sse s in fo rm al e xpr es sio ns 9 of am uni ci pa lity ’ s de sir e or int en tio n to an ne x the te rr ito ry . P G ST c onc lud es tha t the 10 Sunland Park Ci ty Co unc il’ s 2014 re sol uti on s at isf ie d th is p re dic at e re qui re m en t f or 11 ac tin g, pur suant t o S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ), a nd P G ST the re fo re w as e nti tle d to s ubm it 12 its incorpo ration petition to and have it consi dered by DA BOC C. 13 { 13} D A BO CC a nd S unl an d P ar k c ont en d that the phr as e “ pr opos ed to be a nne xe d” 14 in S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) re fe rs to the f orm al a nne xa tio n pe tit ionde sc ri be d inS ec tio n 15 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ). P G ST the re fo re m ust f ile ape tit ion w ith Sunland Park se ek ing S unl an d 16 Park’ s annexation of PG ST ’ s territory , and conclus ively prove in the context o f that 17 pr oc ee din g th at

it c anpr ovi de m

uni ci pa l se rv ic es soo ne r than c anS unl an d P ar k, 1 8 b e f o r e P G S T c a n f

i l e a p e t i t i o n w i t h DA B O C C t o i n c o r p o r a t e a s an e w mun i c i p a l i t y. 19 D A BO CC an d Sunland Park re as on tha t thi s co nstru ct ion of Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (3 )10

1 furthe rs the und er ly ing le gis la tiv e pur pose , a s art ic ula te d inCit

y of Su nl an d Pa rk

, of 2 dis co ur ag ing spl int er ing of c om m uni tie s and i nst ea d pr om oti ng the ir or de rl y 3 de ve lop m en t. 4 { 14} W e not e ini tia lly tha t D A BO CC an d Sunland Park do n ot d isp ute tha t S ec tio n 5 3- 2- 3( B) c re at es thr ee ap pr oa ch es to inc or por at ion

. Rathe r, the ir

a rg um en t f

oc use s on 6 t h e m eaning of “ propos ed to be annexed” in Section 3-2-3(B)(3) , in particular , 7 whether the propos al to which the phrase re fers is the f orm al annexation petiti on that 8 is described in Section 3-2-3(B)( 2). In other words, Sec tions 3-2-3(B)( 2) and (3) ar e 9 not stand-alone approaches and instead are interrelated, a p ositio n the district court 10 ad op te d b el ow. 11 { 15} A s th e iss ue be fo re thi s C ourt i s on e of statut or y c onstru ct ion , the standard of 12 rev ie w is de no vo . Co bb v. Sta te Ca nv ass ing B d. , 2006-NMS C-034, ¶ 33, 140 N. M. 13 77, 140 P

. 3d 4 98. W e co nsi de r, in tu rn , Sect io n 3- 2- 3( B)(3 )’s pl ai n m eani ng; it s 14 co nstru ct ion in ha rm ony w ith Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) as w el l a s othe r, r el at ed statut es ; 15 an d w he ther the part ie s’ r es pe ct ive pr opos ed c onstru ct ion s of

S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) 16 le ad to anabsur d r es ult

. 17 A. Plain M eaning 18 { 16} St at ut es are t o b e co ns t ru edin acco rd an ce wi th th ei r pl ai n m ean in g. O ldh am 19 v. O ldh am , 2011 -N MS C- 007, ¶ 10, 149 N

. M. 215 , 247 P

. 3d 7 36 ( “ [Ac ourt sh oul d]11

1 l oo k f i r st t o t he p l a i n l ang ua ge o f t he s t a tut e , g i vi ng t he w or ds t he i r o r di na ry 2 m eanin g[

. ] ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om it te d) ); Cu m m ing s v . X -R ay 3 Assocs. of N.M

., P. C. , 1996-NMS C-035, ¶ 44, 121 N. M. 821 , 918 P. 2d 13 21 (“ When 4 interpreting statutes, . .

. [the Courts’ ] responsibi lity is to search for and give effec t 5 to the intent of the [L ] egislature. . . . Our u nderstandin g of l egislative intent is b ased 6 pr im ar ily

on the langua ge of the statut e, a nd w e w ill f ir st c onsi de r an d a

ppl y the pla in 7 m ean ing of

suc h langua ge . ” (c ita tio n om itt ed ))

. “ W e m ay de pa rt f ro m the pla in 8 language onl y

under rar e and exceptional circum stances.” Sta te v . P adi lla , 2008- 9 NMS C-006, ¶ 41, 143 N. M. 310,176 P. 3d 29 9 (Chavez, J., dis s en ting) (internal 10 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 11 { 17} The plain m eaning of “ propos e” is not lim ited to a form al proposal. As def ined 12 in W eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nte rnat ion al D ic tio nary 1819 (unabr. 19 8 6 ), “ propos e” 13 m eans “ to o ff

er f or c onsi de ra tio n, dis cu ssi on, a cc ep tanc e, or a dopt ion

. ” T hus, in the 14 context of Section 3-2-3(B)(3) , “propos ed to be annexed” encom passes inf

o rm al 15 pr opos al s to c onsi de r anne xa tio n su ch as 20 14 Sun land P ar k r es olu tio n. I n th e 16 ab se nc e of

som e sta tut or

y c onstru ct ionc onsi de ra tio n th at r equir es us t o do so, w e do 17 not r ea d in to a

statut e langua ge —he re , “ fo rm al ly p ro po se d to be a nne xe d” or 18 “ pe ti ti on edto be an ne xe d” —t ha t t he Legi sl at ur e h as no t i nc lu de d. Id

. ; H igh R idg e 19 H ink le Jo int V en tur e v. Ci tyof A lbu que rque , 1998 -N MS C- 050, ¶ 5, 126 N

. M. 413 ,12

1 970 P. 2d 5 99 ( “ [A ] c ourt w ill not r ea d in to a sta tut e or or din an ce langua ge w hic h is 2 not th ere, particularly

if it m akes sense as w ritten.”)

. 3 B. Re lated St atute s 4 { 18} A s t at u t e a l s o i s t o b e c o n s t ru ed i n h ar m o n y wi t h o t h er , re l at ed s t at u t es . “ [W]e 5 analy ze a statute’ s function within a com prehensive legi s l at ive schem e. . . . [A 6 statute] m

ust be consi dered in ref

erence to . .

. statutes dealing with the sam e general 7 subject m atter. ” In re Gr ac e H. , 2014-NMS C-03 4, ¶ 34, 335 P.3d 746 (internal 8 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). “ Wheneve r p o s s i ble, .

. . w e m ust read 9 dif fe re nt l eg isl at ive e na ctm en ts a s harm oni ou s inste ad of a s c ontra dic tin g on e 10 an oth er . . . . St at

ute s whi ch re la te to the sa m e cl as s of thin gs are c onsi de re d to be in 11 pari m ateria[ .] ” State v. T afoya , 2010 -N MS C- 019, ¶ 10, 148 N

. M. 391 , 237 P

. 3d 6 93 12 (o m iss ion , int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). F or se ve ra l r ea sons , 13 D A BO CC ’ s and S unl an d P ar k’ s c o n s tr u c t i o no f S e c t i o n3

- 2

- 3 ( B ) (3 ) is n ot c om pa tib le 14 w ithr el at ed

statut es . 15 1. R ec on ci lin g S ec ti on 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) Wi th S ec ti on 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) 16 { 19} W e fi rs t mu s t reco nc il e Sec ti on 3-2 -3 (B)( 3) wit h S ect io n 3 -2 -3 (B)( 2) . As 17 discuss ed above, Se ction 3-2-3(B)(2) a utho rizes inco rporation of “ urbanized 18 te rr ito ry ” w he re the pr opon en ts o f inc or por at ionha ve f

ile d an anne xa tio n pe tit ion 19 w iththe e xis tin g m

uni ci pa lity

a nd the m

uni ci pa lity

f ai ls t o anne x th e te rri tor y in13

1 questio n within 120 day s. Section 3-2-3(B)( 3) au thorizes such incorpo ration where 2 the propon ents prove that the exist ing m unicipalit y

is unable to prov ide m

unicipal 3 s e rv i c e s w i t h i n “th e t e rr i t o ry p r o p o s e dt o b e a n n e x e d ” w i t h i n t h e s a me p e r i o do f t i me 4 that the propo sed m

unicipalit y

would provide the services. If the Le gislature intend ed 5 “ pr opos ed

to be an ne xe d” in S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) to r ef er to the a nne xa tio n pe tit ion 6 d e s c r i b e di n S e c t i o n 3

- 2

- 3 ( B ) ( 2 ) , w e w o u l d e x p e c ti ta tmi n i mu m t o u s e t h e s a me 7 te rm : “pe tit ion ed ” as oppo se d to “pr opos ed ”; the L eg isl at ur e w oul d have no r ea son 8 to use a dif

fe re nt te rm unl es s it int en de d a dif fe re nt m eanin g. A lte rn at ive ly, the 9 L eg isl at

ur e w oul d have str

uc tur ed S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) to m ak e cl ear tha t the a nne xa tio n 10 pe tit iontha t i s th e subj ec t of Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) is a lso the pr ed ic at e or pr ec ondi tio n 11 to pro ce ed ing pur suant to Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ). D A BO CC an d S unl an d P ar k pr opos e 12 suc h ac onstru ct ionof Sec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ): one tha t e ff ec tiv el y c om bin es S ec tio ns 13 3- 2- 3( B) (2 ) an d ( 3) int o on e subs ec tio n wi th tw o su bpart s, both of

w hic h r equir e the 14 fi lin g of

a n anne xa ti on pe ti ti on w iththe m uni ci pa lity . H ow ev er , the statut e is n ot 15 wr itten in th at m anner. As structured and worded by the Le gislature, the m ost log ical 16 co nstru ct ionof

S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) is tha t advoc at ed by PG ST : it pr ovi de s th re e stand17 al one a lte rn at ive appr oa ch es to inc or por at ion

. 18 { 20} Insup port of its ar gum en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr , S unl an d P ar k a lso 19 in vo ke s t he “ la st an te ced en t” rul e. See In re G old sw orthy ’s E

sta te , 194 1- N MS C- 036,14

1 ¶ 21, 45 N

. M. 406 , 115 P

. 2d 6 27 ( “ [R ] el at ive a nd qua lif y ing w or ds, phr as es , a nd 2 cl au se s [ here, “ pr op os ed to be a nne xe d” ] a re to be appl ie d to the w or ds o r phr as e 3 im m ediately prece ding , and are not to be construed extendi ng to o r including others 4 m or e re m ote

. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks an d c ita tio n om itt ed ))

. W e dis ag re e tha t the 5 la st ante ce de nt ru le ap pli es he re . Fi rs t, the re fe re nc e to a fo rm al a nne xa tio n pe tit ion 6 doe s no t i m

m ed ia te ly pr ec ed e the phr as e tha t i t su ppos ed ly qua lif

ie s, “ pr opos ed to b e 7 annexed.” See 2A N orm anJ. S ing er & Sh am bie S inger, St at utes an d Statu tor y 8 Co nstruc tio n § 47 :33 , a t 49 8- 99 ( re v’ d 7th e d. 201 4) ( “ [A ] pr ovi so u sua lly appl ie s to 9 t he p r ov i si ono r

c l ause immed iat el

ypr ec ed ing it

. ” (E m

pha sis a dde d. )) I nst ea d, the 10 refe rence to a form al ann exation petition is found in a sep arate , disj unctive sub part 11 of the statute. Se co nd, the pr ec ed ing phr as e is e nti re ly dif fe re nt: a ga in, D A BO CC a nd 12 Sunland P ar

k pr ovi de no ba sis fo r inf

er ri ng tha t the L eg isl at

ur e int en de d “pr opos ed ” 13 to r ef er ba ck to “ pe tit ion , ” par

tic ularl y w he re the L eg isl at ur e j ust as ea sil y co uld

ha ve 14 use d th e phr as e “ pe tit ion ed to be a nne xe d” if

tha t w as it s in te nt. 15 2. Re conciling Sec tion 3-2-3(B) (3) With Othe r, Re lated St atute s 16 { 21} W e ne xt c onsi de r w he the r the pa rt ie s’ c om pe tin g c onstru ct ion s of

S ec tio n 3- 2- 17 3(B)( 3) a re co n sistent with Sections 3-2-5, 3-7-17, and 3-7-17.1. As stated above, 18 Se ct ion3- 2- 5 pr ovi de s f or the board of co unty

c om m iss ion er s of

the c ounty

w ith in 19 w hich the sub

j ec t t er ri tor y is loc at ed

to de te rm ine if

the c ondi tio ns o f Se ct ion3- 2-14 Se ct ion3- 7- 17. 1( B) doe s pr ovi de fo r the m uni ci pa lity

to subm it the 1 15 an ne xa tio n pe tit ionto the board of c ounty c om m iss ion er s

for c om m en t , but

onl y if the 16 petition is sign ed by

the owners of a m aj ority of the num

ber o f acres in the territory 17 pr op os edforan ne xa ti on . Se e id. Furthe r, ev en as sum ing tha t thi s pr ovi sio n c oul d be 18 co nstru ed

to pe rm it the m

uni ci pa lity

in tha t si tua tio n to se ek the board ’ s inp ut on the 19 Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) que sti on, the m uni ci pa lity w oul d be fr ee —i nc onsi ste nt w iththe 20 ap pa re nt inte nt o f Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (3 )— to d isr eg ar d th e board ’ s de te rm ina tio n and 21 ei the r an ne x or

de cl ine to an ne x a s th e m uni ci pa lity

w ish ed

. 15 1 3—i nc lud ing w he the r, und er Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ), the te rr ito ry ’ s r es ide nts c anpr ove 2 “ co nc lus ive ly ” tha t the ne w m uni ci pa lity can prov ide se rv ic es m or e qui ck ly than th e 3 ex ist ing m

unici pa lity

—are m et

a s part of the board ’ s r ev ie w of

a n inc orpo rat ion 4 pe tit iona nd d et er

m ina tio n to hol d an e le ct ion

. T his is co nsi ste nt w ithP G ST ’ s st an d5 al o n e con s t ru ct i o n o f S ec t i o n 3 -2 -3 (B )( 3 ). Ho we v er , DA BO CC ’s an dSu n l an dPa rk ’s 6 co nstru ct ionof

S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) ne ce ssi ta te s th at the que sti on b e ad dr es se d inthe 7 co nte xt o f a Se ct ion 3- 7- 17 or Se ct ion3- 7- 17. 1 anne xa tio n petition proceeding filed 8 w iththe m

uni ci pa lity . N ei the r Se ct ion3- 7- 17 n or S ec tio n 3- 7- 17. 1 pr ovi de s f or the 9 m unicipalit y

to address the Section 3-2-3(B)( 3) questio n, and we perceive no oth er 10 sta tut or

y ba sis f or inf er ri ng any le gis la tiv e int en t tha t, w he re r es ide nts a re se ek ing to 11 inc or por at e a ne w m

un ic ipa lity

a s an a lte rn at ive to an ne xa tio n by a n e xis tin g 12 m unicipalit y , the e xistin g m unicipalit y itself shou ld be the arbiter of whether it can 1 3 p r o v i d e mun i c i p a l s e rv i c e s mo r e qu i c k l y th a n t h e p r o p o s e dn e w mun i c i p a l i t y. 116

1 3. Pr ior jurisdic tion and r elated t im ing issues 2 { 22} D A BO CC a tte m pts to m ee t this la st o bj ec tio n to its co nstru ct ionof S ec tio n 3- 3 2- 3( B) (3 ) by sugg es tin g that the m uni ci pa lity w ill se ek

the c ounty ’ s input

dur ing the 4 co ur se o f

t h e a n n e x a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g . D A B O C C d e s c r i b e s t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i ng 5 pr oc es s (i n a sce na rio in whi ch PGST pr e v a i l s ) t hu s: “ The Inc or po rat or s [P GST] 6 petition Sunland P ark for annexation, Sunland Park begins th e process and when that 7 pr oc ess i s un de rw ay , the I nc or por at or s r eque st [ D A ] BO CC to hol d a[ Se ct ion3- 2- 8 3( B) ] he ar ing , w hic h is he ld, a nd the I nc or po rat ors pr ev ai l onthe pr ovi sio n of 9 m uni ci pa l se rv ic es issue

. . . . [ A ] f av or ab le [ Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) ] he ar ing out co m e fo r 10 th e In co rp or at or s wo ul d tru m p and di sp la ce t he Su nl an d P arkan ne xa ti on pro ces s.” 11 N ot o nly

is suc h apr oc ed

ur e not auth or iz ed

by e ith er S ec tio n 3- 2- 5 or

S ec tio n 3- 7- 17 12 (o r Se ct ion 3- 7- 17. 1) , as PG ST ar gue s, it is inc om pa tib le w iththe pr ior

j ur isd ic tio n 13 doctrine. 14 { 23} T he c om

m on l awpr ior

j ur isd ic tio n do ctr ine pr ovi de s th at “ the c ourt f

ir st 15 obtaini ng jurisdiction retains i t as ag ainst a cou rt of concurre nt jurisdiction in which 16 a sim ilar ac tion is subsequ ently instit uted between the sam e parties see king sim ilar 17 rem ed ie s in vo lv in g th e sa m e su bjec t m at te r.” I n re D oe , 198 2- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 13, 98 18 N

. M. 442 , 649 P

. 2d 5 10, ov er r u l ed on oth er groun ds by Stat e v. Roper , 19 1996 -N MC A -0 73, ¶ 12 n. 3, 122 N

. M. 126, 921 P. 2d 3 22. N ewMe xic o c ourts h av e17

1 ex te nde d the doc tr ine to m uni ci pa l anne xa tio n di sput es . A m re p Sw. , In c. v . T

ow n of 2 B ernal illo , 199 1- N MC A -1 10, ¶ 8, 113 N

. M. 19, 821 P

. 2d 3 57 ( ap ply ing doc tr ine a nd 3 de te rm ini ng tha t, be ca use it w as f ile d f ir st i n ti m e, an ne xa ti on p et iti on p ro ce ed ing 4 fi le d w ithMB C h ad

pr ior j ur isd ic tio n ov er

a nne xa tio n pe tit ionpr oc ee din gs f ile d w ith 5 m uni ci pa lit ie s)

. Co urts i n othe r j ur isd ic tio ns h av e ex te nde d th e doc tr i n e t o c o n f l i c t i ng 6 m uni ci pa l anne xa tio n and i nc or por at iondis pu te s. See generally 2 M cQ uil lin , T he 7 Law of Mun icipa l C

orpo rat ion s § 7.39.3 (July 2018 Update) (“ The gener al rules 8 governin g the acquisitio n of j urisdictio n are usuallyapplied where there are 9 co m pe tin g in co rp or at iona nd ann ex ationpr oc ee din gs. A pr oc ee din g f or the 10 annexation o f terr itory to a m unicipal corporation is ineffec tual when instituted after 11 the instit

uti on o f a pr oc ee din g f

or the or ganiz at ionof

the te rr ito ry

int o avil la ge or 12 ci ty , a nd w hil e tha t pr oc eedi ng is pen din g and u nde te rm ine d. Co nve rs el y , if 13 an ne xa tio n pr oc ee din gs w er e ins tit ute d be fo re m

uni ci pa l or ga niz at ionpr oc ee din gs, 14 the la tte r ar e ine ff

ec tua l. ” (f

ootnot es om it te d) ). T he r ule is lon gst an din g. Se e, e . g. , 15 Sta te e

x re l. W inn v . Ci tyof San A nto nio , 259 S

. W

. 2d 2 48, 250 ( T ex . Ci v. App. 16 1953 ). 17 { 24} DA BOC C’ s sugg ested procedure cannot be squared with the afore m entioned 18 sta tut es a nd t he dicta te s of pr ior j ur isd ic tio n. D A BO CC ha s auth or ity to hol d a 19 Section 3-2-3(B)( 3) hearing only pursuant to Sec tion 3 -2 -5 , i. e. , only after a18

1 inc or por at ionpe tit ionis fi le d. H ow ev er , onc e fi le d, the Se ct ion3- 7- 17. 1 anne xa tio n 2 pr oc ee din g w oul d in va lid at e an y in co rp orat ionpe tit ion

. T ha t i s, P G ST ’ s r igh t t o 3 pr oc ee d wi th inc or

por at ion fo llo w ing a favor ab le r uli ng o n th e Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) 4 questio n would be “ trum ped” by Sunland Park’ s annexation proceeding, not the other 5 way around. Q uite sim

ply , if residents of t erritory who p ropose to incorporate a new 6 m uni ci pa li ty m

ust f ir st f ile “ a va lid

pe tit ionto an ne x th e te rr ito ry ” to an e xis tin g 7 m unicipalit y, then the residents would lo se any control over their fate and instead 8 w oul d su

bj ec t the m se lve s to the m uni cipa li ty’ s un fe tte re d a bil ity to ac ce pt the 9 pe tit iona nd anne x th e te rr ito ry int o th e m

uni ci pa lity . Abse nt s om e ex pr es sio n of 10 le gi sl at iv e in te nt , n ot pr es en t h ere, t o o ve rri de th e p rio r juri sd ic ti on do ct rin e, se e, e . g. , 11 Ci tyof G re en wo od v

. P et iti one rs f or t he P ropo se d Ci tyof Ce nte nni al , 3 P

. 3d 4 27, 12 434- 36 ( Co lo. 200 0) ( enbanc), we ar e not inc lin ed to en dor se ac onstru ct ionof 13 Se ct ion3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) tha t r equir es r es ide nts of te rr ito ry w ho wi sh to i nc or por at e as a 14 m eans of av oiding

a nne xa tio n to ta ke ste ps tha t ex pose the m se lve s to the unavoi dable 15 poss ibi lity

if not pr oba bil ity of suc h ar es ult

. 16 { 25} A s P G ST poi nts out , ar el at ed ti m ing pr obl em a ri se s f ro m D A BO CC ’ s and 17 Sunland Park’ s construction of Sec tion 3 -2-3(B)(3 ). If PG ST we re to file an 18 an ne xa tio n pe tit ionw ithS unl an d P ar k, S ec tio n 3- 7- 17. 1( B) r equir es S unl an d P ar k to 19 ap pr ove or

dis ap pr ove the pe tit ionw ith in s ixty day s. I n co nt ra st, dur ing the19

1 inc or por at ionpr oc es s de sc ri be d inS ec tio n 3- 2- 1 and S ec tio n 3- 2- 5: D A BO CC w oul d 2 co nduc t an in iti al r ev ie w of the appl ic at ionw ith in thirty da y s fo r co m pli an ce w iththe 3 re qui re m en ts o f Se ct ion3- 2- 1; a ssu m ing suc h co m pli an ce is fo und, ac en sus w oul d 4 be c ondu cted ; the loc al gov er nm en t di vis ionof

the N ewMe xic o D ep ar tm en t of 5 Finance and A dm inistration would review t h e m unicipal services plan (with PG ST 6 to r es pond

w ith in thr ee m onths i f the r ev ie w ide nti fi ed a ny de fi ci en ci es ); f

oll ow ing 7 co m ple tio n of

tho se ta sks , D A BO CC w oul d “ de te rm ine if the co nd it ion s f

or 8 inc or por at ionof the te rr ito ry

a s am uni ci pa lity

ha ve be enm et

a s r equir ed

in Se ct ion s 9 3- 2- 1 th ro ugh 3- 2- 3. ” Se ct ion3- 2- 5( D ). O nly a t tha t po int

w oul d D A BO CC m ak e the 10 de te rm ina tio n c al le d f or in Se ct ion 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ). A s a pr ac tic al m at te r it lik el y w oul d 11 be im poss ibl e fo r PG ST to co m ple te the inc or

por at ionpr oc es s—o r ev enge t to the 12 poin t of obtainin g DA BOC C’ s decision whether Sunland Park or the propos ed new 13 Santa T er es a m

uni ci pa lity

c ande liv er

se rv ic es m or e qui ck ly

—w ith in S ec tio n 3- 7- 14 17.1(B)’ s sixty -day period for Sunl and Park to act on the annexation p etition. Either 15 Sunland P ar

k w oul d f ai l t o c om ply w ith the six ty -d ay de ad lin e (and arg uably S ec tio n 16 3 -2 -3(B) (2)’ s 120-day deadline as we ll), or

it would sim

ply approve PG ST’s 17 an ne xa tio n pe tit iona nd the re by m oot the inc or

po ration pe tit ion

. D A BO CC a nd 18 Sunland P ar

k’ s con st ruct ionof

S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) ef

fe ct ive ly w oul d nu lli fy

a ny 19 m eanin gf

ul o ppor tun ity fo r re sid en ts of uni nc or por at ed te rr ito ry to util iz e Se ct ion3-20

1 2- 3( B) (3 ) to avoi d un wan te d anne xa tio n, w hic h op portun ity se em s to be the ba sic 2 pu rp os e o f th e st at ut e. 3 { 26} To sum

m arize , DA BOC C and Sunland Park advocate w ithou t any statutory 4 basis sup erim

posin g on top of annexation proceeding s a procedure that is authorized 5 onl y f or inc or por at ionpr oc ee din gs. T his hy br id sch em e ra ise s se em ing ly 6 insurm ount able prior j urisdictio n and practical tim ing prob lem s. P articularly given 7 the abse nc e of

a ny langua ge in an y

of the af fe ct ed statut es , it

is dif fi cu lt to a cc ep t the 8 pr op os it io n t ha t t he Legi sl atur e in te nd edsu ch a sc he m e. 9 C . A bs ur d C on st ru ct ion 10 { 27} Co urts wil l no t cons tr ue astatut e in a

m an ne r tha t l ea ds t o an a bsur d r es ult

. 11 Tr ujillo v . R om er o , 1 9 7 1

- N M S C

- 0 2 0 , ¶ 1 8 , 8 2 N

. M

. 3 0 1 , 4 8 1 P

. 2 d 8 9

. T h i s rule is 1 2 m ost of

te n i n v o k e dw h e n ap p l y i n g t h e p l a i n o r l i t e r a l m e a n i n g o f

t h e w o r d s o f

t he 13 sta tut e le ad s to a n a

bsur d r es ult , see Pro gr es si ve Nw. In s. Co . v. W eed W ar ri or Se rvs., 14 2010 -N MS C- 050, ¶

6, 149 N

. M. 157 , 245 P

. 3d 1 209 (“ W e do no t de pa rt f ro m the 15 pla in l an gua ge of

astatut e unle ss w e m

ust re sol ve an am

big uity , co rr ec t a

m ist ak e or 16 absurdity , or deal with a c onflict between diff erent statutory

provisio ns.” ( internal 17 quot at ionm ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )) , but it is eq ua lly if not m or e ap pli ca

ble a s a 18 gr ound

f or ins ist ing on a

ppl ic at ionof

the w or ds’ pla in m eanin g to av oid a n ab s u r d i t y.21

1 { 28} A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e ff ec tiv el y a cknow le dge d, it is a

bsur d to c onstru e Se ct ion 2 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) to r eq

uir e re sid en ts o f a te rr ito ry w ho o ppos e an ne xa tio n by a n e xis tin g, 3 ad j oin ing m

uni ci pa lity

to fi le ape tit ion as ki ng tha t m uni ci pa lity

to an ne x th ei r 4 te rr ito ry . Co nve rs el y , it is re as ona

ble to co nstru e “ pr opos ed to be a nne xe d” to 5 en co m pa ss a n in fo rm al e xpr es sio n by the m uni ci pa lity

of it s in te nt t o anne x th e 6 te rr ito ry . I nde ed , suc h ac onstru ct ionis co nsi ste nt w ith the ap pa re nt inte nt of Se ct ion 7 3-2-3(B)( 3) to p er m i t residents of adj oinin g territory who oppose su ch an 8 an no u n c e m e n t o f c o n t e m p l a t e d a n n e x a t i o n t o r e s p o n d w i t h a p e t i t i o n f or 9 inc or por at iona s an a lte rn at ive to the an tic ipa te d an ne xa tio n, j ust as oc curr ed in D oña 10 A naCo unty

in 2014

. 11 D. Legislative Intent 12 { 29} R e l yi n g o n t h e l a n g u a g e f r o m City of Sunla nd Park quot ed above, D ABO CC 13 and Sunland Park argue that requ i ri ng residents liv ing within five m iles of a 14 m uni ci pa lity

in anur ba nized c ounty

“ to p et iti on the ur

ba niz ed m uni ci pa lity

f or 15 annexation in to that m unicipalit y , thus affor ding the m unicipalit y

the optio n to annex 16 orno t, b efo re res or t t o a [Sec ti on 3- 2- 3( B)] h eari ng , f os te rs th e St at e’s pu bl ic po li cy .” 17 { 30} If a

statute is not am

bigu ous, then it is un necessary to discern the policy

that 18 unde rl ie s th e sta tut e an d in ste ad w e co nstru e it by ap ply ing the pla in m eanin g of the 19 st at ut e’s wor ds

. See W ee d W arr ior Se rv s. , 2010 -N MSC- 050, ¶ 11. H ere, the district22

1 co urt f ound tha t S ec tio n 3-2- 3( B) (3 ) w as not am big uous , none of

the part ie s c ont en d 2 to the c ontrary

on a ppe al , a nd w e co nc ur . T he re fo re , it is not ne ce ssary

to en ga ge in 3 a p ub li c p ol ic y

an al y si s. Cf

. O rti z v . O ve rla nd E

xp ress , 201 0- N MS C- 021, ¶ 18, 148 4 N.M. 40 5, 2 37 P.3d 70 7 (“ Whe n a st at ut e’s la ng ua ge is am bi gu ou s o r un cl ear, we 5 loo k to le gis la tiv e int en t t o in fo rm our i nt erp retat ionof

the statut e. ”) ; He len G. v. 6 Mark J.H. , 2008-NMS C-002, ¶¶ 37-3 8 , 1 43 N. M. 246, 175 P. 3d 91 4 (noting that 7 am bigu ous prov ision s require the court to ascer tain statute’ s legislativ e purpose). 8 E. Sum m ary 9 { 31} A n e xis tin g m

uni ci pa lity

ha s th e rig ht to pur sue a nne xa tio n, pur suant t o 10 Sections 3-7-1 to -18, ind ependent of an y action taken by the residents of t he territory 11 in questi on; if the m

unicipalit y

initiates such action, it will have prior j urisdictio n. In 12 additio n, Se ction 3-2-3(B)(1), (2) effe ctively grant an existing m unicipalit y

lim ited 13 fi rs t r igh ts o f re fu sa l i n c onne ct ionw ithe ff orts t o in co rp or at e ne ighbor ing 14 “ ur ba niz ed ” te rr ito ry . S ec tio n 3- 2- 3( B) (3 ) is m ost r ea sona bly c onstru ed

to gr an t a 15 na rr owpa th t o in co rp or at ionto re sid en ts o f the te rr ito ry w ho oppo se an ne xa tio n by 16 the m uni ci pa lity . Whi le th e L eg isl at ur e ha s im

pose d th e hur dle of

r equir ing the 17 re sid en ts to pro ve “ co nc lus ive ly ” tha t the pr opos ed ne w m uni ci pa lity

w ill be able to 18 de liv er

m uni ci pa l se rv ic es m or e qui ck ly than c oul d th e ex ist ing m uni ci pa lity , w e do 19 not be lie ve it int en de d to m ak e the pr oc es s un re as ona ble

. W e hol d th at

S ec tio n 3- 2-23

1 3( B) (3 ) doe s no t r equir e re sid en ts o f a te rr ito ry to fi rs t fo rm al ly pe tit ion the e xis tin g 2 m uni ci pa lity to ann ex the te rr ito ry be fo re the y

c anf ile ape tit ionto inc or

por at e as a 3 m u n i c i p a l i t y ; s u c h r e s i d e n t s m a y f i l e a n i n c o r

p o r a t i o n p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n tt o S ec tio n 4 3- 2- 1 an d S e c t i o n 3

- 2

- 5 i f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y i n f

o rm a l l y p r o p o s e s t o c o n s i d e r or 5 oth er w ise ex pr es se s an int er es t i n anne xin g th e te rr ito ry , sho rt of a ct ua lly ini tia tin g 6 form al ann exation proceedings. We conclude that the aforem entioned actions taken 7 by S unl an d P ar

k in201 4 a m ount ed

to suc h an in fo rm al pr opos al

. 8 CON CLU SION 9 { 32} W e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s S ep te m be r 19, 201 6 a m en de d f

ina l a ppe lla te 10 or de r fr om

a n a dm ini str at ive he ar ing

. W e rem an d th is a ct ionto the dis tr ic t c ourt t o 11 re ve rs e D A BO CC ’ s de ci sio n and instru ct D A BO CC to addre ss PG ST ’ s cla im tha t i t 1 2 ca n p ro v i d e mun i ci p al s er v i ce s m o re qu i ck l y t h an Su n l an dPa rk , an dwh et h erPG ST ’s 13 pe tit ionoth er

w ise sa tis fi es the r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion s 3- 2- 1 to - 9. 14 { 33} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 HE N R Y M . BO HN HO F F , Ju dg e24

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 3 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 5 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e