{"id":1616,"date":"2007-04-20T15:31:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-20T21:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/04\/annexation-vote-dispute-could-end-up-in-court\/"},"modified":"2007-04-20T15:31:00","modified_gmt":"2007-04-20T21:31:00","slug":"annexation-vote-dispute-could-end-up-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/04\/annexation-vote-dispute-could-end-up-in-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Annexation vote dispute could end up in court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The statute that dictates the timeline for a vote on the annexation of 4,200 acres on Las Cruces<\/st1:city>\u2019 East Mesa<\/st1:place> is \u201cambiguous in certain respects,\u201d the attorney general says. That might help explain why it\u2019s being interpreted in different ways. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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\u2019t vote on annexation of the 4,200 acres that aren\u2019t in the city at Monday\u2019s meeting. Solo Investments interprets the statute much differently than the attorney general, who says the council can\u2019t legally vote on Monday.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developers are meeting this afternoon to determine a response to the attorney general opinion. Though the annexation is on Monday\u2019s council meeting agenda, councilors won\u2019t likely vote then in light of the AG opinion, which you can read by clicking here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The statute in question, Section 3-7-17<\/a>, states that the petition must be formally presented to the city council. If it\u2019s signed by the owners of a majority of the land in the area, the council shall submit the petition to the county commission for \u201creview and comment.\u201d A response from the county is required \u201cwithin thirty days of receipt.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cNot 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,\u201d the statute states.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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\u2019s meeting. The AG opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Andrea Buzzard and signed by Attorney General Gary King<\/a>, states that such notification \u201cmay be considered a formal \u2018presentment\u2019 of the petition to the city council.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Because of the differences between the process Buzzard says the statute intends and that followed by the city, \u201cit is difficult to pinpoint a precise \u2018triggering event\u2019 for purposes of calculating the 30-day and 60-day deadlines,\u201d the opinion states.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Buzzard settles on Monday, the day the council was formally notified of the annexation petition, saying it is the \u201cmost logical\u201d date because it meets the requirement of a formal presentation to the council.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That means, Buzzard concludes, that the city can\u2019t vote on the annexation until May 16 and must do so by June 15.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Developer disagrees with AG opinion<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developers disagree. Their attorney, Joel Newton wrote a letter to the city Thursday stating that the statute \u201cis not a model of clarity,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

He also wrote a second letter that was fairly combative.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developers \u201cwill not acquiesce to a delay or postponement of the April 23, 2007 annexation approval or disapproval,\u201d he wrote. Failure to vote at that meeting, Newton<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> wrote, would result in a \u201cpiecemeal\u201d annexation instead of the 6,000-acre master plan.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 the city will lose out on the many charitable donations to the community offered by this annexation \u2013 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,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Newton<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> also hinted in the letter that the developer will take the issue to court if the council doesn\u2019t vote Monday. In light of the attorney general opinion, that may put the council in a difficult position. You can read both of Newton<\/st1:city><\/st1:place>\u2019s letters by clicking here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Lyons<\/st1:place><\/st1:City> opposes litigation<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

State Land Commissioner Pat Lyons<\/a>, 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 Lyons<\/st1:city> was surprised and upset that the developer of the project, Philip Philippou, sent, through Newton<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>, such a combative letter to the city.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developer \u201ccertainly doesn\u2019t speak for us and the commissioner certainly opposes litigation,\u201d Haase said. \u201cIf (Philippou) wants to pull out, that\u2019s his prerogative. \u2026 The commissioner wants to make sure all the rules are followed.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The statute that dictates the timeline for a vote on the annexation of 4,200 acres on Las Cruces\u2019 East Mesa is \u201cambiguous in certain respects,\u201d the attorney general says. That might help explain why it\u2019s being interpreted in different ways. Whether those varying interpretations will result in litigation is now the question in the case […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}