This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Petitioners sought to incorporate an area in Albuquerque's South Valley as a municipality named "Las Plazas del Valle." They submitted a petition signed by 1,863 individuals, of which 883 signatures were certified as valid. The petition included a map and a declaration of residency by the signers. The Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners required a census of the area, which the Petitioners funded. The Board later denied the request for an incorporation election, citing deficiencies in the petition and map (paras 1, 4-5, 13).
Procedural History
- District Court, October 27, 1989: The district court dismissed the Petitioners' complaint, upheld the Board's decision to deny the incorporation election, and rejected the Petitioners' claim for reimbursement of census costs (paras 6, 13, 25).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the Board's refusal to call an election was improper, the petition substantially complied with statutory requirements, and the Board should reimburse them for the census costs. They also contended that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by making findings not explicitly made by the Board (paras 9, 12, 14, 18, 24).
- Respondents-Appellees (Board): Asserted that the petition failed to meet statutory requirements, including the absence of a sworn statement and an accurate map. They argued that the Board's decision was legislative in nature and should be reviewed under a deferential standard (paras 8, 13, 18, 21).
- Intervenors-Appellees: Supported the Board's decision and argued that the district court's focus should be on its own findings rather than the Board's decision (para 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the petition for incorporation comply with statutory requirements, including the inclusion of a sworn statement and an accurate map?
- Was the Board's decision to deny the incorporation election proper?
- Should the Petitioners be reimbursed for the costs of conducting the census?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the petition did not meet statutory requirements, the Board's decision was proper, and the Petitioners were not entitled to reimbursement for the census costs (paras 3, 31-32).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Bivins and Flores JJ. concurring):
Petition Deficiencies: The petition failed to comply with statutory requirements. It did not include a sworn or affirmed statement by signers regarding their residency, nor did it contain a penalty statement for false information. The map was deemed inaccurate and insufficient to determine boundaries or acreage (paras 13, 17-22).
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review: The district court properly reviewed the Board's decision under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the Board's decision would be upheld under either a legislative or administrative standard of review (paras 10-11).
Census Costs: The Petitioners were required by statute to fund the census, and there was no provision for reimbursement. The Court rejected the argument that the last decennial census could substitute for a new census, as the statutes required a current census for incorporation proceedings (paras 25-28).
Additional Petition: The Court declined to address whether the census could be used for a subsequent petition, as no such petition had been presented (para 30).
The Court concluded that the district court's judgment was correct and affirmed its decision (para 31).