Council continues contentious Ninth Street vacation debate after mayor and manager call road still public

The Roswell City Council on May 8 heard extended testimony and documentary evidence in a public hearing on a petition (VAC-25-007) to vacate a 60-foot portion of East Ninth Street and adjacent alleys to enable infill development for an auto dealership. The hearing produced competing traffic counts, an appraisal paid for by the petitioner and a written determination from the mayor and city manager that the right of way “still has a municipal purpose and public use.”

“The mayor, the city manager, determined and concur together that the land petition for vacation in case VAC-25-007 still has a municipal purpose and public use,” read the city’s legal representative while presenting the administration’s written finding. The city’s statement also cited traffic counts and emphasized the public’s right to use city streets.

Applicant materials and evidence

The petitioner provided a traffic study counting an average of about 250 vehicles per weekday on the Ninth Street segment in question and said about 88% of that traffic was attributable to their own operations. Engineer Scott Higgs, representing the applicant, summarized the work done since the council’s prior meeting: an on-site appraisal was arranged, traffic counts were collected over a week and an appraisal report was provided. “That average is 250 cars or vehicles per day,” Higgs said, and he described the petitioner’s plan to convert part of the right of way to service lanes and to keep a 20-foot access easement for through traffic.

City legal and engineering analysis

City staff read a written determination under ordinance 24-003 that concluded the right of way retained municipal purpose, noting both city traffic data and that streets are dedicated to broad public use rather than to a single private owner. The city engineer and legal counsel flagged comparisons with other local streets and DOT counts to argue the Ninth Street segment was not so lightly categorized as unused. The city’s written statement also said petition materials omitted comparable street data that is publicly available from NMDOT.

Appraisal and valuation questions

The petitioner presented an appraisal that valued the affected right of way at about $14,000; the applicant said it had paid approximately $11,000 toward that appraisal. Council members and others questioned how that figure compared to a larger parcel-based valuation that was also cited in materials — and several councilors asked whether the appraisal and discounts in the report were properly documented. Councilor comments show concern about appraisal methodology and about whether the city had adequate opportunity to review appraisal assumptions; the applicant replied they had commissioned an independent appraiser who conducted an on-site inspection.

Process, outcome and next steps

Council discussion centered on two legal steps: (1) the mayor and city manager must determine whether the property is essential for municipal use; and (2) if the city determines it is not essential, the council must decide whether the vacation is in the public interest and at what price. City legal staff explained the mayor/manager determination was made and presented to the council; the council still retains authority to act but would be required to document findings if it reversed that administrative determination.

A motion to “call the question” and move to a decision failed for lack of the required support. Councilor Halverson moved to maintain the street (effectively to deny the vacation); the motion received no second and therefore was not adopted. Because no final council action was taken, the petition remains unresolved and could return to council with additional information.

Why this matters: The petition raised issues on how the city balances preserving public rights of way and enabling private development. Councilors expressed concern about precedent if streets with modest counts were routinely vacated, while the petitioner cited project economics and offered easements and access changes intended to preserve emergency and service access.

Ending

Councilors asked for additional documentation on traffic, appraisal methodology and potential alternatives (for example, partial easement adjustments or converting the public street to a city-directed one-way configuration). Staff and the petitioner said they would coordinate on providing more evidence or options for the council’s consideration at a future session.