LV, county delay NW growth agreement

Launce Rake and Diana Sahagun

Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001 | 11:09 a.m.

How they differ

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.

Councilmen Larry Brown and Michael Mack said because of their respect for Maxfield and their collective work over the last year to finalize an agreement, they would agree to work on it one more month rather than drop it altogether.

The council had been scheduled to take action on the interlocal agreement this morning, but the Clark County Commission on Tuesday delayed action by at least one month on the long-sought agreement governing development issues in the northwest area of the Las Vegas Valley. Mack led the vote this morning to delay the city's decision one more month.

But the county's delay prompted angry remarks today from Mayor Oscar Goodman, who said that after months of hard work, it was another slap in the face to the city. Goodman, who had made concessions on several portions of the agreement, was the lone vote against the continuance.

"I feel that the city has been disrespected," Goodman said. "I think it's shameful the way we have been treated."

Maxfield said this morning that the county is within 98 percent agreement and that the gap will be closed by January.

"I believe that we are so close, I would hate to see all of our efforts go up in smoke," Maxfield said.

County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera was the key vote Tuesday to table the proposed interlocal agreement 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.

Herrera, who supported two earlier versions of the pact, cited these issues that he said need 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.

* A requirement calling for another agreement governing fire services for rural county islands within 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.

Brown said this morning -- after reviewing the video of the county's meeting -- that statements about substantial changes are inherently false, and misleading to northwest residents. Brown said the city has been working from the same same agreement for more than four years, with a little tinkering.

"It's like selective memory has been placed every two weeks with members of the commission, and that's disappointing," Brown said. "It's going to be very easy for those who want to destroy the interlocal agreement for all the wrong reasons."

Three county commissioners who have steadfastly opposed the agreement voted with Herrera on Tuesday 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.

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

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. Brown and 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.

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

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."

Mack said Tuesday that 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. But he said he would keep trying for an agreement.

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