County delays pact with city on northwest

Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001 | 10 a.m.

County version: The city would not use state law to annex property. The two governments would together identify future federal lands for city growth.

City version: The city would limit annexation to 1,300 acres of "county islands" inside the city limits. About 7,000 acres north of Moccasin Road would be identified as "intent to grow" areas for the city.

County version: Neither party would promote legislation calling for a merger of any service.

City version: Neither party would promote that legislation before 2007.

County version: Not possible.

City version: Minor changes allowed if both parties approve.

Commission Chairman Dario Herrera was the key vote to table the proposed interlocal agreement between the county and city of Las Vegas until Jan. 2. His actions surprised staffers and disappointed northwest residents who are seeking the pact in order to quell commercial encroachment on their rural and residential neighborhoods.

Herrera said following the vote that the agreement, which at its core would discourage commercial uses in residential areas and also set guidelines for annexation of county land into the city, had grown to encompass too many issues.

"I thought there were too many new issues that hadn't been thoroughly considered," he said.

Herrera, who supported two earlier versions of the pact, cited three issues that, he said, needed more study:

* A clause barring consolidation of county and city government services for five years;

* A provision allowing changes in a future "seamless" land use plan that the pact called for, both concessions asked for by the county, and;

* A requirement calling for another agreement governing fire services for rural county islands within the city, a point asked for by the city.

County attorney Rob Warhola recommended that commissioners delay action on the agreement. He said the city's latest version, at least the third considered by the county, was very different from the version passed by a one-person majority last month.

"There are some substantial changes," he said.

Three commissioners who have steadfastly opposed the agreement voted with Herrera to table the interlocal agreement. The motion to table came from Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey.

Kincaid said the commission should stick with the earlier version of the agreement passed by the county -- although she also voted against that version.

"I am just very unhappy with their changing our interlocal agreement," Kincaid said. "This whole interlocal ... has really gotten out of hand. I feel that we should not bring any other drafts back."

Kincaid now says she supports the version the county passed, but that version was flatly rejected by the Las Vegas City Council because it did not allow the city to annex county islands without express approval from the county commissioners.

In fact, both county and city have made numerous changes to the proposed agreement over the last three months that the pact has been under discussion.

The annexation clause has been a major point of contention. Under a law passed last year by the Legislature, the city can annex vacant land that is at least 75 percent surrounded by city land. Councilmen Larry Brown and Michael Mack, who represent the city side of the 33,000-acre area, said they needed the annexation ability to stop commercial development of the county islands.

City staff have cited about a dozen instances where the county has allowed commercial "up-zoning" on islands within the city. Brown has said the city, in comparison, has allowed such commercial applications in residential areas only once.

Herrera said those numbers unfairly characterize the county, which has tried to protect rural and residential districts in the northwest.

"The county has shown its commitment to preserving the rural lifestyle of the residents of the northwest," he said. "There's no intention, at least on my behalf, of changing that."

Herrera said he's not sure that an agreement is even necessary to stop commercial encroachment in the area.

"It's a good question," he said, although he noted that Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who represents the county in the northwest, strongly supported and worked for the agreement.

Maxfield, city officials and residents of the northwest said they were disappointed by the tabling of the issue.

"It's a disappointment," said George Hitter, president of the Northwest Citizens Association and a resident who has battled commercial zoning in his neighborhood. "We thought he (Herrera) understood our views and our opinions out here."

Maxfield, clearly disappointed with the decision to table the agreement, said he believes the pact can still win approval from the county commission. More time to review the newest draft will help, he said.

"This process is very complex, and there's a lot of information trading hands," he said. "The critical issues are the ability to annex and the ability to grow and how to go about that."

Councilman Mack said Herrera may need more time to review the proposal -- and the impact that commercial approvals are having on the area.

"Is he truly aware of what's happening up here? That's my question," Mack said.

Mack said the city could go ahead with annexation under state law, solving questions of development and city growth unilaterally. Under that scenario, concessions granted to the county would be moot.

"The city does not need this interlocal," he said. "We have the power under (state law), but we really have been trying, in good faith, to work with the county on an interlocal that will protect the residents from zoning uncertainty.

"I'm going to push, to help staff work together to resolve these final couple of issues," Mack said.

archive