It has been reported to me that during the recent recall campaign the four challengers promised residents on the west-side that, if they were elected, an east-west bridge crossing over the creek would be built before the expiration of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement.
It turns out our four newest members on the council were right. If a Revitalization District is approved, Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, could build a bridge over the creek before the expiration of the Annexation Agreement without the town being the actual violator of the Annexation Agreement. However, this scenario makes the more pertinent question being not whether the town council violated the Annexation Agreement but whether members on the town council conspired with Mark Stapp and/or any of his three corporate entities to cause the Annexation Agreement to be violated. That would be a violation of the Annexation Agreement.
Under the RD statute, infrastructure can be installed outside an RDs border if there is some benefit to the RD. A bridge is infrastructure and the sole person who will decide the benefit of a bridge is Mark Stapp. An RD can also acquire property outside its borders if there is a benefit and additional points of ingress and egress for the RD known as Stapp Town could be the claimed benefit. Outside Stapp Town’s border is a 30-acre parcel that extends west across the creek beginning at Morning Star and Old Stage Roads. It is a perfect site for a bridge and it’s already owned by Morningstar Road Properties, Inc., of which Mark Stapp is President. It is also one of the three corporate entities that comprise the owners of Stapp Town.
Stapp Town can acquire the 30-acre parcel as part of Stapp Town. And, even though a bridge over the creek is a violation of the Annexation Agreement, Mark Stapp is not a party to the Annexation Agreement. Our town council cannot require Mark Stapp’s compliance with the Annexation Agreement because Cave Creek has no governing authority over Stapp Town once it gives final approval of the Resolution. The western boundary of the Annexation Agreement is where the eastern boundary of the 30-acre parcel begins. As long as the bridge stops at its eastern boundary within Stapp Town, the town will not have violated the Annexation Agreement. Yet, there will be a bridge.
Before I close, I want to state a few other things. The RD requires that the infrastructure provide enhanced municipal services inside the border of Stapp Town. These enhanced municipal services must be installed in Stapp Town if any infrastructure is to be installed outside the borders of Stapp Town. Per Mark Stapp, no infrastructure will be installed inside the border of Stapp Town. Clearly, this town council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD statute by not installing any infrastructure inside Stapp Town. I would like our town attorney to state the legal theory that cloaks this town with immunity or contingent liability protection when this council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD and approves the formation of his Revitalization District anyway.
From the town council’s perspective the benefit to approval is that Cave Creek will be receiving free infrastructure and a bridge across the creek will bring additional development revenue to the town. However, it’s not free when you give away any part of our town and expose Cave Creek to a future of litigation by residents or by others.
While other residents and I have asked for an informal meeting all I will settle for is a full and immediate revocation of the Resolution by this council tonight.
Janelle Smith-Haff
Monday, April 20, 2015
It turns out our four newest members on the council were right. If a Revitalization District is approved, Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, could build a bridge over the creek before the expiration of the Annexation Agreement without the town being the actual violator of the Annexation Agreement. However, this scenario makes the more pertinent question being not whether the town council violated the Annexation Agreement but whether members on the town council conspired with Mark Stapp and/or any of his three corporate entities to cause the Annexation Agreement to be violated. That would be a violation of the Annexation Agreement.
Under the RD statute, infrastructure can be installed outside an RDs border if there is some benefit to the RD. A bridge is infrastructure and the sole person who will decide the benefit of a bridge is Mark Stapp. An RD can also acquire property outside its borders if there is a benefit and additional points of ingress and egress for the RD known as Stapp Town could be the claimed benefit. Outside Stapp Town’s border is a 30-acre parcel that extends west across the creek beginning at Morning Star and Old Stage Roads. It is a perfect site for a bridge and it’s already owned by Morningstar Road Properties, Inc., of which Mark Stapp is President. It is also one of the three corporate entities that comprise the owners of Stapp Town.
Stapp Town can acquire the 30-acre parcel as part of Stapp Town. And, even though a bridge over the creek is a violation of the Annexation Agreement, Mark Stapp is not a party to the Annexation Agreement. Our town council cannot require Mark Stapp’s compliance with the Annexation Agreement because Cave Creek has no governing authority over Stapp Town once it gives final approval of the Resolution. The western boundary of the Annexation Agreement is where the eastern boundary of the 30-acre parcel begins. As long as the bridge stops at its eastern boundary within Stapp Town, the town will not have violated the Annexation Agreement. Yet, there will be a bridge.
Before I close, I want to state a few other things. The RD requires that the infrastructure provide enhanced municipal services inside the border of Stapp Town. These enhanced municipal services must be installed in Stapp Town if any infrastructure is to be installed outside the borders of Stapp Town. Per Mark Stapp, no infrastructure will be installed inside the border of Stapp Town. Clearly, this town council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD statute by not installing any infrastructure inside Stapp Town. I would like our town attorney to state the legal theory that cloaks this town with immunity or contingent liability protection when this council has foreknowledge of Mark Stapp’s intention to violate the RD and approves the formation of his Revitalization District anyway.
From the town council’s perspective the benefit to approval is that Cave Creek will be receiving free infrastructure and a bridge across the creek will bring additional development revenue to the town. However, it’s not free when you give away any part of our town and expose Cave Creek to a future of litigation by residents or by others.
While other residents and I have asked for an informal meeting all I will settle for is a full and immediate revocation of the Resolution by this council tonight.
Janelle Smith-Haff
Monday, April 20, 2015
RSS Feed