With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the ultimate jurisdictional facts unless the City conclusively established that it did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in determining that it had more than 5,000 inhabitants. From our review of the jurisdictional evidence, we conclude that the property owners raised more than a scintilla of evidence that the City acted with bad faith in determining that it met the inhabitancy requirement for calling a home-rule election. The courts have not defined “bad faith” in this specific context, but in passing on the validity of municipal ordinances have inquired into the “good faith” motives of those enacting them and the extent to which their actions are in furtherance of the policies of this State. See City of San Antonio v. Wallace, 161 Tex. 41, 338 S.W.2d 153, 156-57 (1960) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the property owners

A: recognizing that member of local governmental body does not necessarily act in legislative capacity when participation takes form of vote
B: holding complaint allegations must be examined in light of parties contractual terms
C: holding that action of city legislative body may be judicially examined in light of its surrounding circumstances prior and subsequent actions of such legislative body and public policy in order to determine good faith of questioned action
D: holding acts of voting to be quintessentially legislative and the introduction of a budget to be formally legislative
C.