The statute that dictates the timeline for a vote on the annexation of 4,200 acres on
Whether those varying interpretations will result in litigation is now the question in the case of the 6,000-acre project, The Vistas at Presidio.
The lawyer for the developer of the project hinted in a letter to the city on Thursday that the group might take the issue to District Court if the council doesn’t vote on annexation of the 4,200 acres that aren’t in the city at Monday’s meeting. Solo Investments interprets the statute much differently than the attorney general, who says the council can’t legally vote on Monday.
The developers are meeting this afternoon to determine a response to the attorney general opinion. Though the annexation is on Monday’s council meeting agenda, councilors won’t likely vote then in light of the AG opinion, which you can read by clicking here.
The statute in question, Section 3-7-17, states that the petition must be formally presented to the city council. If it’s signed by the owners of a majority of the land in the area, the council shall submit the petition to the county commission for “review and comment.” A response from the county is required “within thirty days of receipt.”
“Not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after receiving the petition the city council shall by ordinance approve or disapprove the annexation after considering any comments submitted by the board of county commissioners,” the statute states.
Issues with the process the city has followed begin in that, technically, the council has not been formally presented with the annexation petition, the AG opinion states, but the council was officially notified of the petition at Monday’s meeting. The AG opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Andrea Buzzard and signed by Attorney General Gary King, states that such notification “may be considered a formal ‘presentment’ of the petition to the city council.”
Second, Buzzard writes, the council has not formally submitted the petition to the county commission. However, city staff submitted it for request and comment to the county on March 20.
Because of the differences between the process Buzzard says the statute intends and that followed by the city, “it is difficult to pinpoint a precise ‘triggering event’ for purposes of calculating the 30-day and 60-day deadlines,” the opinion states.
Buzzard settles on Monday, the day the council was formally notified of the annexation petition, saying it is the “most logical” date because it meets the requirement of a formal presentation to the council.
That means, Buzzard concludes, that the city can’t vote on the annexation until May 16 and must do so by June 15.
Developer disagrees with AG opinion
The developers disagree. Their attorney, Joel Newton wrote a letter to the city Thursday stating that the statute “is not a model of clarity,” but he interprets it to mean the city must act within 30 days of the county commission providing input on the annexation petition, which formally occurred on April 11.
He also wrote a second letter that was fairly combative.
The developers “will not acquiesce to a delay or postponement of the April 23, 2007 annexation approval or disapproval,” he wrote. Failure to vote at that meeting,
“… the city will lose out on the many charitable donations to the community offered by this annexation – police and fire training facilities, school property, libraries, early construction of major arterials, parks, unified urban planning, and a host of other improvements which would have been provided free to the city,” he wrote.
State Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, whose office owns 3,200 acres of the land up for annexation and is leasing it to the developer, opposes litigation, spokeswoman Kristin Haase said. She said
The developer “certainly doesn’t speak for us and the commissioner certainly opposes litigation,” Haase said. “If (Philippou) wants to pull out, that’s his prerogative. … The commissioner wants to make sure all the rules are followed.”