City debates whether it can delay annexation vote

Las Cruces city officials are locked in a debate over whether delaying Monday’s vote on annexation of 4,200 acres on the East Mesa is an option, and the state attorney general may end up weighing in on the issue.

Deputy Las Cruces City Attorney Pete Connelly has given councilors his legal opinion that the city council must vote to approve or disapprove the annexation request within 30 days of the receipt of input from the Doña Ana County Board of Commissioners on April 11, which wouldn’t allow much time for additional public input if the council delayed Monday’s vote.

Councilor Ken Miyagishima, on the other hand, says the city has 60 days from that meeting, which would allow time to delay the vote and hold several town-hall meetings.

At issue is a state statute that requires the council to seek commission input before approval of annexations. The statute states that the city council must submit the annexation petition to the commission for review, and that the county has 30 days to comment. That’s what was done on April 10, when the commission voted to ask the council to hold several public meetings to address specific topics related to the development.

The statute also states that, not less than 30 days or more than 60 days after receiving the petition, the council shall approve or disapprove the annexation after considering comments submitted by the commission. Read the full statute by clicking here.

Connelly says the clock began ticking on the 30-60 day requirement for an up-or-down vote when the developers applied for annexation in early March; Miyagishima says it should have started when the county formally responded in a letter on April 11.

The annexation is part of a 6,000-acre development proposed for the East Mesa called The Vistas at Presidio, but the rest of the land is already in the city. Councilors are set to vote Monday both on the annexation request and on a proposed master plan for the development.

Even after the master plan is approved, specifics will have to be approved again by the council as the project proceeds. Commissioners said at their meeting last week that they understood the annexation and master plan would likely be OK’d Monday, but wanted the additional public meetings held before any other approvals.

Commissioners, Miyagishima and others don’t want standard public hearings. They want town-hall style meetings where there is genuine dialogue, and they want residents’ suggestions incorporated into the development.

Miyagishima has suggested that, even if the council has to vote on the annexation on Monday, it could delay the master-plan vote to allow for additional public meetings.

There was a lot of debate of the issue at Tuesday’s joint city/county meeting, and Councilor Steve Trowbridge said he believed a reasonable person could interpret the statute either way. Miyagishima then suggested that the council should err on the side of allowing more public input, and Trowbridge agreed.

Late Tuesday, Miyagishima asked local lawmakers in an e-mail to seek a legal opinion from the attorney general, and asked that it be rushed because it’s needed before the council votes Monday.

Miyagishima said the annexation “looks promising,” but said he would like to hold the public meetings the commission suggested before moving forward with any votes.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. Leonard Lee Rawson, R-Las Cruces, agreed to ask for an attorney general opinion but cautioned that, like Connelly’s, it would be just that – an opinion.