City, county land accord may be near

Adrienne Packer

Friday, Oct. 12, 2001 | 10:15 a.m.

Clark County and Las Vegas officials may soon strike a compromise in a nasty and personal battle over a new state law that gives the city the authority to annex county land without permission.

State legislators last session approved the bill that arms the city with the power to annex undeveloped land -- at least 75 percent of the land must be adjacent to its boundaries.

But the city's first effort to wield its new authority -- and soften the blow with an interlocal agreement -- triggered a battle that had Clark County commissioners and City Council members lobbing vicious accusations.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said Thursday he believes he can secure the necessary four county commission votes to push through an interlocal agreement previously rejected by county board members.

Goodman wouldn't elaborate on the compromise, but said he met with county commissioners last week to discuss adjustments to the agreement.

Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates confirmed Thursday that she met with Goodman and has pitched proposed changes to the interlocal agreement she hopes will satisfy her fellow board members.

"If we can't find a compromise, we won't have an agreement," Atkinson Gates said.

Amendments she made to the interlocal agreement say the city must annex in an orderly fashion, not simply pursue a massive land grab. It also says the city and county will not consolidate services without an agreement.

The most significant change -- and one that may meet most resistance -- is that the city cannot annex property outside disposable boundary lines for the next 10 years. When city officials pursue the property, all stakeholders must be involved in discussions.

Disposal boundaries were created under the Federal Public Lands Management Act to control growth. Governments can auction off and develop land within the boundaries.

"The city has said they have enough land to develop for the next 20 years without going beyond that disposable boundary," Atkinson Gates said. "If they have enough land, why do we need to even discuss the boundary?"

If an interlocal agreement is approved, it will supersede the new annexation law, and city officials would not be able to annex undeveloped land without property owners' permission.

The most significant obstacle in the initial agreement was a condition that said the county would not oppose future annexations sought by the city, a caveat that would benefit the city.

"You can only draw one conclusion," County Commissioner Erin Kenny said in reference to the annexation provision, which angered her and three colleagues. "This is all about money."

Many county property owners would likely agree to be annexed into the city because they need septic services the county does not currently supply.

Kenny, however, has proposed spending $48 million on building a septic line to the northwest. She believes property owners wouldn't be lured into the city, where they would be subject to higher taxes, if the county provided services.

The land listed in the agreement is south of Moccasin Road, north of Cheyenne Avenue, east of Puli Road and west of Decatur Boulevard.

Neither Commissioner Chip Maxfield nor Councilman Larry Brown -- the two officials who authored the interlocal agreement -- returned phone calls Thursday.

But Brown and his fellow council members have publicly criticized some commissioners' strong opposition to the agreement and skepticism of the city's intentions.

Last week Goodman said board members were exhibiting the "rawest form of paranoia."

On Thursday, Goodman acknowledged that the battle between the city and county became too contentious.

"It should never have gotten to this point," he said.

Brown has previously said the agreement benefits both entities. The city can more effectively and consistently plan the northwest without bumping into county controlled pockets.

And the county's rural preservation neighborhoods would be protected.

City Manager Virginia Valentine said the city is motivated to approve an agreement so the city has an efficient master plan for the northwest while working with the county to protect preservation areas.

The feud over who should control the northwest even has residents at odds.

Some believe the county does a better job of planning, others say the county doesn't follow master plans as closely as the city.

Resident Louise Ruskamp said she would feel more protected from growth if she was annexed into the city. The community activist points to the county commission's unusually high approval rate of non-conforming zone changes -- she counted 44 of 45 requests were approved for zone changes that went against the master plan.

"The problem isn't a lack of planning on the part of the county," Ruskamp said. "The problem is the commission doesn't want to support their master plan."

But resident Sharon Linsenbardt disagrees. She points to a 1996 northwest master plan adopted by the Las Vegas City Council. The city allowed a land planner to take contributions from private developers, who then worked together on the master plan.

Linsenbardt said the master plan clearly catered to the private developers.

Linsenbardt said the county is more responsible when it comes to planning, and she challenges the belief that commissioners approve unacceptable non-conforming zone changes.

"Show me where the county has stuck a business in the middle of a neighborhood. Show me," she said. "They put businesses on major section-line roads. I don't see where the county is doing what they're being accused of doing."