Residents protest effort to re-annex land

Denise Cardinal

Tuesday, Sept. 9, 1997 | 9:37 a.m.

A handful of angry residents protested the Las Vegas City Council's efforts to re-annex 453 acres of land.

The protest came Monday at a public hearing that was part of a second-chance attempt by the city, which already annexed 360 acres of the northwest property in the vicinity of Fort Apache and Gowan roads in 1994. Since then, Deborah Bratcher, a resident of the annexed area, has sued the city, alleging that her property was illegally annexed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the annexation was improperly performed and "void from its inception." The court has yet to decide if Bratcher should receives any tax refund.

After the first ruling, the city attorney's office started re-annexation proceedings, and added another 97 acres to the original 360 because the ruling affected that parcel's status.

Bratcher, her lawyer and two other residents spoke in opposition of both of the city's annexation attempts.

"We've lived in our house since August of 1993," said Helena Ratberger. "The property has always been in our name. Eleven months after moving in, we found out we were annexed. Who asked me if I wanted to be? This is dishonest. And this kind of dishonesty won't be tolerated anymore. People are fed up with this."

Robert Kossack, Bratcher's lawyer, questioned the city's staff on how the annexation proceedings could go forward without the signatures of more than 50 percent of the area's property owners signing a petition. He contended that the petition used was based on the void 1993 annexation, and couldn't be used for the second one.

Rather than give Kossack an answer, Bill Henry, a city attorney, advised the staff to refrain from answering any questions. He said that the public hearing was not a time for the city to respond, but only to listen to the concerns of residents.

"I am very disappointed in the city," said Kossack after the meeting. "I think they didn't answer because they didn't have the answers."

Kossack also claims the city attorney's office inaccurately told the council at the meeting that the case was awaiting trial.

"It's all been decided except for the attorney's fees and the back taxes," he said. "The Supreme Court has ruled."

The city councilman for the area in question, Larry Brown, also was concerned about the city attorney's handling of the situation.

"I asked the city to make sure that all the people in the affected area could comment and that everyone is notified," he said. "I think we're moving in that direction, but we might have to go beyond the legal notification process. The residents have a valid point that if a meeting is held in the middle of the day and people work, they can't go. If that's the case, then we should have a separate meeting."

Brown isn't the only council member frustrated with the city attorney's handling of the Bratcher case. In June, the mayor became upset with City Attorney Brad Jerbic for failing to mention the Supreme Court's ruling before the council approved this year's election results. Even though the annexation was declared void, the votes of those residents counted. The ruling could have affected the ward's race, which was decided by only 63 ballots.

No action on the annexation was taken by the council.