Can Clark County and city officials play nice over annexation rules?

This week both the County Commission and City Council will consider approving an interlocal agreement that would revive expired municipal annexation rules in northwest Las Vegas, where about 4,000 acres of county land exist in unincorporated “islands” located within the city’s outer boundaries.

“We want to preserve the rural nature of some of the areas in the northwest; at the same time we want to allow the city to grow because that’s what cities do,” said city councilman Steve Ross, who represents northwest Las Vegas. “This interlocal will put to rest a whole lot of issues.”

It’s the culmination of four months of compromise between the two governing bodies which often have found themselves at odds since the city council chose not to renew a similar long-standing agreement in January 2015.

In September, the City Council waived millions in dollars in fire protection fees it claimed the county owed, the County Commission agreed to charge the city less to conduct its elections, and the two governments swapped some rights of way.

As written, the latest annexation agreement would restrict the city from incorporating the county land inside northwest Las Vegas unless the current property owners wanted it to happen and received both the city and county’s permission.

The agreement also would limit the density of construction allowed in those areas, appreciated by many for their rural charm. Only homes could be built, and, in most areas, at a density of no more than two houses per acre.

“Those neighborhoods don’t want curbs, gutters and sidewalks. They want it to stay rural and have that character,” Ross said.

A similar agreement was approved in 2002 and updated in 2008 before expiring in 2015.

Earlier this month, county Commissioner Larry Brown told his fellow commissioners that it was vital to get a similar deal back on the books. Both governments recognize northwest Las Vegas as one of the county’s most dynamic areas of growth.

“There was tremendous consistency and security given to all those parties, and that’s what we want to get back to,” said Brown, who also has served on the city council. “Simply to define very unique areas in the northwest and unincorporated areas that need to be protected and preserved for a host of reasons. ”

Brown could not be reached for comment for this story.

County commissioners are scheduled to vote Tuesday on the agreement. City council members will do the same Wednesday.

The proposed agreement would have an initial term of seven or 10 years with two automatic extensions each five years long.

A TURBULENT RELATIONSHIP

Ross said he believes the deal can smooth over a relationship between the two governments that, in recent years, has been turbulent.

“Once we get these issues ironed out there’s not going to be anything to arm wrestle about anymore,” he said.

Annexation in northwest Las Vegas has been a source of discord between the city and county since the last interlocal agreement expired.

The city feels that its residents are subsidizing county residents who use the municipal sewer system, and the county feels the city primarily wants to annex land in the unincorporated islands to pad the city’s property tax roll.

In 2015 the state Legislature adopted a bill barring cities from forcing unincorporated property owners to be annexed as a condition of using public utilities. The city responded with a local law that denied sewer service to future applicants who lived outside city limits, including the county residents in northwest Las Vegas.

This July, county commissioners passed their own local law. The so-called “anti-annexation ordinance” requires a public hearing and the possibility of recourse if former county residents alleged the city improperly incorporated their property.

Both the county and city will have to compromise to pass the proposed agreement next week.

As part of the agreement, the city would be required to provide sewer services to county residents in northwest Las Vegas. County commissioners would be required to repeal their anti-annexation ordinance.

Similarly, commissioners also would have to cancel one of their state Legislature bill draft requests, prefiled for the 2017 legislative session as Assembly Bill 48, within 10 days of executing the agreement.

“On the surface of that bill it allows any county to de-annex any parcel within a municipality statewide,” councilman Ross said. “That’s just bad policy.”

THE HARDEST SELL

The hardest sell for county commissioners likely will be that the city wants to begin charging county residents more to use the city’s sewer system.

The new agreement would mandate that the city provide sewer service to homes inside the unincorporated islands while simultaneously streamlining the city’s process of providing maintenance to those sewer lines via a no-fee blanket permit.

But under a separate ordinance to be considered by the city council Wednesday, new sewer customers living in the county immediately would pay about $120 more a year than city residents. Existing customers would have the increases phased in over five years.

New customers in the county also would have to pay about $4,330 to hook up to the city’s sewer system, double what city residents pay.

Earlier this month, county Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani called the idea “reprehensible” and a “discriminatory practice.”

Brown said he considered it “unfair” to charge people different rates if they were living “right across the street from each other.”

Ross said the city believes the increase is fair, but council members might be willing to compromise.

“I think everything on the table is negotiable,” he said. “Is this a make-or-break type issue for us? I don’t think so.”

Contact Michael Scott Davidson at sdavidson@reviewjournal.com or 702-477- 3861. Follow @davidsonlvrj on Twitter.