If you hear or if you are told that the mayor and town council members will negotiate terms and conditions with Mark Stapp before final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, and that final approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District Resolution will incorporate those terms and conditions, this is not true. And here is why: Under the Revitalization Districts statute, only (i) after Cave Creek town council’s approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District, and (ii) only after Cahava Springs Revitalization District complies with A.R.S. 48-6805 and A.R.S. 48-6807, and (iii) only after the 3-member Board of Cahava Springs Revitalization District appoints Mark Stapp as one of its Directors and authorizes Mark Stapp with contract binding authority for Cahava Springs Revitalization District can any agreements---written or oral---between the town of Cave Creek and Cahava Springs Revitalization District be lawful and enforceable.
Therefore, as Mark Stapp presently has no statutory contract binding authority on behalf of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, any agreed upon terms between Mark Stapp and the town council are unenforceable—even if the terms and conditions are in writing.
This is why the mayor and town council’s final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District is required to be an unconditional “yes” or “no” vote.
There is also a lot of wrong information being disseminated about Formation Hearings. Only written objections to the formation of Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be filed for this hearing, and only persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed Revitalization District are authorized to file written objections. Here is how the Revitalization Districts statute reads:
The Revitalization Districts provisions A.R.S. 48-6803 and A.R.S. 48-6804 provide the statutory procedure for giving notice and conducting the Formation Hearing, and A.R.S. 48-6803(A) states that notice of the Formation Hearing need only be sent to “persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed district who object to the inclusion of their land in the district, to the formation of the district or to the contents of the general plan must file a written objection with the undersigned at the following address before the time set for hearing.” A.R.S. 48-6803(B) mirrors the provision of A.R.S. 48-6803(A) as to those persons to who notice is required. Mark Stapp claims to own all property. The Revitalization Districts statute also states that all testimony and comments to be considered at the Formation Hearing must be submitted in writing, A.R.S. 48-6803(A), A.R.S. 48-6803(B), A.R.S. 48-6804(A) and A.R.S. 48-6804(B). This written requirement is also reflected in Resolution No. 2015-13 which the town council approved on April 20th. At page 3(F) of Resolution No. 2015-13, it states that “Written objections as provided by the Act may be filed with the Clerk at 36722 N. Cave Creek Road, Cave Creek, Arizona before 5:00 pm on the business day preceding the date of Formation Hearing.”
Even if the Mayor were to allow Cave Creek citizens to speak at a Formation Hearing, what is the point of a Formation Hearing if final approval cannot reflect and incorporate the concerns of Cave Creek citizens?
The Formation Hearing is to be held at Town Hall (E). When the concerns and objections of Cave Creek citizens cannot be incorporated into the final approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District, why are Town Hall facilities and employees being used to organize and conduct a Formation Hearing?
Another claim citizens might hear is that the Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be dissolved at any time by the town council since the Cahava Springs Revitalization District was formed under the Resolution process. This is also not true. In the normal course, a Resolution can be revoked by a town council at any time for any reason. But, read as a whole, under the Revitalization Districts statute, the only entity allowed to dissolve Cahava Springs Revitalization District is Mark Stapp via his three corporate entities. Because the Cahava Springs Revitalization District is a municipality unto itself and not subject to Cave Creek governance, our town’s revocation of our Resolution will have no effect on the continued existence of Cahava Springs Revitalization District. Final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District by our mayor and town council gives Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, the right to exist as a town within our town in perpetuity, unless he chooses otherwise.
Town councils in other towns and cities in Arizona realize how toxic this Revitalization Districts statute is. It is time our mayor and town council members realize the same.
Janelle Smith-Haff
www.cavecreektownhallblog.com
[email protected]
Therefore, as Mark Stapp presently has no statutory contract binding authority on behalf of Cahava Springs Revitalization District, any agreed upon terms between Mark Stapp and the town council are unenforceable—even if the terms and conditions are in writing.
This is why the mayor and town council’s final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District is required to be an unconditional “yes” or “no” vote.
There is also a lot of wrong information being disseminated about Formation Hearings. Only written objections to the formation of Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be filed for this hearing, and only persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed Revitalization District are authorized to file written objections. Here is how the Revitalization Districts statute reads:
The Revitalization Districts provisions A.R.S. 48-6803 and A.R.S. 48-6804 provide the statutory procedure for giving notice and conducting the Formation Hearing, and A.R.S. 48-6803(A) states that notice of the Formation Hearing need only be sent to “persons owning or claiming an interest in property in the proposed district who object to the inclusion of their land in the district, to the formation of the district or to the contents of the general plan must file a written objection with the undersigned at the following address before the time set for hearing.” A.R.S. 48-6803(B) mirrors the provision of A.R.S. 48-6803(A) as to those persons to who notice is required. Mark Stapp claims to own all property. The Revitalization Districts statute also states that all testimony and comments to be considered at the Formation Hearing must be submitted in writing, A.R.S. 48-6803(A), A.R.S. 48-6803(B), A.R.S. 48-6804(A) and A.R.S. 48-6804(B). This written requirement is also reflected in Resolution No. 2015-13 which the town council approved on April 20th. At page 3(F) of Resolution No. 2015-13, it states that “Written objections as provided by the Act may be filed with the Clerk at 36722 N. Cave Creek Road, Cave Creek, Arizona before 5:00 pm on the business day preceding the date of Formation Hearing.”
Even if the Mayor were to allow Cave Creek citizens to speak at a Formation Hearing, what is the point of a Formation Hearing if final approval cannot reflect and incorporate the concerns of Cave Creek citizens?
The Formation Hearing is to be held at Town Hall (E). When the concerns and objections of Cave Creek citizens cannot be incorporated into the final approval of the Cahava Springs Revitalization District, why are Town Hall facilities and employees being used to organize and conduct a Formation Hearing?
Another claim citizens might hear is that the Cahava Springs Revitalization District can be dissolved at any time by the town council since the Cahava Springs Revitalization District was formed under the Resolution process. This is also not true. In the normal course, a Resolution can be revoked by a town council at any time for any reason. But, read as a whole, under the Revitalization Districts statute, the only entity allowed to dissolve Cahava Springs Revitalization District is Mark Stapp via his three corporate entities. Because the Cahava Springs Revitalization District is a municipality unto itself and not subject to Cave Creek governance, our town’s revocation of our Resolution will have no effect on the continued existence of Cahava Springs Revitalization District. Final approval of Cahava Springs Revitalization District by our mayor and town council gives Mark Stapp, via his three corporate entities, the right to exist as a town within our town in perpetuity, unless he chooses otherwise.
Town councils in other towns and cities in Arizona realize how toxic this Revitalization Districts statute is. It is time our mayor and town council members realize the same.
Janelle Smith-Haff
www.cavecreektownhallblog.com
[email protected]
RSS Feed