N.M. Stat. § 3-7-13 (2026)
Contents of petition; submission to department of finance
and administration. A. The petition shall:
(1) describe the territory proposed to be annexed;
(2) be signed by:
(a) the mayor and clerk of the municipality; or
(b) a majority of the landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed; and
(3) be accompanied by a map of the territory proposed to be annexed which shall show:
(a) the external boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed;
(b) any federal, state or county highways which may exist in the territory proposed to be annexed; and
(c) the relationship of the territory proposed to be annexed to the existing boundary of the municipality.
B. The petition shall be filed with the department of finance and administration.
History: 1953 Comp., § 14-7-13, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1977, ch. 247, § 138; 1983, ch. 296, § 9.
ANNOTATIONS
Commission may determine the sufficiency of petitions. — In addition to considering the issues of contiguity and the provision of municipal services, the boundary commission has the power to determine the statutory sufficiency of a petition and may make that determination at any time in the proceedings. Town of Edgewood v. N.M. Mun. Boundary Comm’n, 2013-NMCA-047, 299 P.3d 451, cert. quashed, 2013- NMCERT-009.
Where petitioner’s petition failed to establish ownership of roads contained in and bordering the territory petitioner sought to annex and failed to account for the ownership and consequences of ownership of roads owned by government entities in and bordering the territory, the boundary commission properly denied the annexation because the commission had the power to evaluate the petition’s compliance with statutory requirements for ownership and documentation of roads. Town of Edgewood v. N.M. Mun. Boundary Comm’n, 2013-NMCA-047, 299 P.3d 451, cert. quashed, 2013- NMCERT-009.
Minor errors in description of territory immaterial. — That some of the area to be annexed was described in the petition as "lots" instead of "blocks" is immaterial since the descriptions, in context, were substantially and sufficiently correct to put all interested parties on notice of the area sought to be annexed. Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1984-NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12.