Valencia County commissioners Ron Gentry and Pedro Rael last night debated the commission’s official record of its decision to deny an appeal of a metal recycling plant proposed to be built in the Rio Grande Industrial Park south of Rio Communities.

The two commissioners sought to protect the interests of the appellants and the county should a lawsuit be filed in an attempt to stop construction of American Iron and Metal’s recycling plant.

The debate delved into legal minutiae, with Gentry saying the county’s official document regarding the issue’s findings of facts and conclusions of law wrongly claims the appellants didn’t have standing to bring the appeal.

Gentry asked that clauses nine through 12 be stricken from the document. Those clauses establish where the appellants, Joe Rizzo and Alice Torwirt of Rio Communities, live in relationship to the construction site.

“Nine, 10, 11, and 12 are the preface for denying standing to the appellants,” Gentry said, claiming the county attorneys used the document to mount a defense of the commission’s decision in preparation for a possible lawsuit against the county. He said the attorneys should stick to facts and conclusions.

Gentry grilled David Pato, one of the county’s attorneys, about the wording of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, saying Pato inserted his legal opinion into the document.

“I was reflecting the intent of the commission,” Pato said.

Gentry pointed out the vote to deny the appeal was 2 to 1, saying the document doesn’t reflect his dissenting opinion.

Gentry wanted additional clauses stricken or reworded.

“Something seems wrong to me about what we’re doing to the public,” Gentry said. “All I would like to do is take the finding of facts and get them a little more balanced, a little more equitable, from two sides. It wasn’t a unanimous decision. It was a 2-to-1 vote, so there have to be some other thoughts in there.”

Rael, for his part, asked that the wording of the findings of fact and conclusions of law remain intact, saying the appellants didn’t have standing to bring the appeal and the document accurately reflected the commission’s decision.

“The only person that had standing was Commissioner Gentry,” Rael said. “But he’s not one of the appellants in this particular case.”

Gentry owns property adjacent to the proposed construction site.

“I think Mrs. Torwirt and Mr. Rizzo made the best possible case that they could,” Rael said. “But it was insufficient and I remember clearly stating they did not have standing.”

Despite Gentry’s arguments, Rael won approval of the document as drafted by the county’s attorneys. The vote, like on the appeal, was 2 to 1, with Rael and Commissioner Don Holliday voting in favor of it and Gentry voting against it.

Commissioner Otero-Kirkham recused herself again because of a conflict of interest and Commissioner David Medina abstained because he wasn’t present when commissioners voted on the appeal.

This page was published on August 6, 2009 at 8:58am and is filed under Archive.