Question:  Why are the mayor and town council members pursuing a transfer of development rights scheme to acquire open space land while at the same time removing or reducing parcels of land already designated open space from the 2005 General Plan?

I posed this question in an email to our Town Manager, Peter Jankowski. Here is the email:
Peter,
Here is the situation:  The 2005 General Plan designates 13 acres on Brenner’s Hill as open space.  The proposed 2016 General Plan does not even list Brenner’s Hill under the Open Space Element section.  I have reviewed every town council agenda item from 2005 to the end of 2009. There is no evidence that the Town Council approved a General Plan amendment removing Brenner’s Hill designation as open space between 2005 and 2009.  Even if Brenner’s Hill had been included in the 2005 General Plan as a result of staff error, a General Plan amendment by Town Council is still legally required.  Further, the minutes of an August 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning meeting reflect that the commissioners considered a subdivision exception regarding what appears to be a now privately-owned Brenner’s Hill.  The P&Z commissioners denied the subdivision exception.  The minutes of this same meeting reflect that a 2005 General Plan amendment was filed and withdrawn by applicant.

What is the date of the Town Council meeting amending the 2005 General Plan removing Brenner’s Hill’s designation as open space?

I also note that the Open Space Element section of the 2005 General Plan lists Saguaro Hill as being 11 acres while the Open Space Element section of the proposed 2016 General Plan lists Saguaro Hill as only being six (6) acres.

What is the date the Town Council amended the 2005 General Plan reducing the number of open space acres on Saguaro Hill from 11 to 6?

Lastly, why is the town pursuing a mitigation banking/density transfer scheme to acquire open space while at the same time removing land under the General Plan that is already designated open space?

Janelle Smith-Haff
6/30/2016
[email protected]
 
To date no reply has been received from the Town Manager or from any other town official. 
 
In a recent posting on Facebook, mayoral candidate Ernie Bunch announced that an Intergovernmental Agreement for the 4,000 acres of open space land would be signed before the election.  The good thing about a potential Intergovernmental Agreement is that it will force transparency upon town officials where none has existed thus far.  Town officials claim that there are 4,000 acres of open space; an Intergovernmental Agreement will force town officials to disclose why 1,232 acres of these 4,000 acres was not designated as open space on page 30, Table 4 of the Open Space Element section in their proposed 2016 General Plan. 
 
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PROCEDURE FOR APPROVALS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS:
No Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the 4,000 acres relieves the State Land Department of its Arizona Constitutional obligation to dispose of State land through either a purchase or lease.  A.R.S. § 11-952(C). The IGA with the State Land Department is legally required to contain a provision clearly naming the party who will own the 4,000 acres upon the expiration of the IGA.  The IGA must also clearly state the procedure the parties (State Land Department and Town) have agreed to for disposing of the 4,000 acres of State Land upon expiration of the IGA.  Presently, the town neither owns nor leases any of the 7,697 total acres of land contained in the four Pre-Annexation and Development Agreements.  Prior to signing any IGA, a land survey will be required to differentiate the 4,000 acres of open space land from the 3,600± acres of land that is designated for development under the four Pre-Annexation and Development Agreements.
 
In 2013, the State Attorney General published its required criteria for IGA approvals.  That document states that, prior to signing, the IGA must be submitted to the attorney of each agency or unit for review. A.R.S. § 11-952(D), afterwhich the Attorney General will determine “whether the agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of this state to such public agency or public procurement unit.”  This Attorney General review is not a hurried process.  The document states that “The Attorney General should receive an adequate amount of time to examine the copies of the intergovernmental agreement and agency action in order to have an opportunity to review and propose necessary changes to the agreement.”
 
It further states that “Once the agreement is submitted to the Attorney General, the Attorney General will review it to ensure that the agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of this state to such public agency or public procurement unit.” A.R.S. § 11-952(D).  If the Attorney General determines that the agreement is “in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted by law, A.R.S. § 11-952(D), this determination will be noted on the agreement. The Attorney General will then return the documents to the party who sent them. If the Attorney General determines that the agreement is not in the proper form or is not within the authority granted by law, all documents will be returned to the party who sent them with a letter noting the deficiencies. After the Attorney General has made a favorable determination, the parties may then execute (sign) the agreement.”
 
Only then will there be transparency at Town Hall.
 
Janelle Smith-Haff
Candidate for Cave Creek Mayor
www.janelleformayor.com
[email protected]
Paid for by Janelle for Mayor Committee

You're invited to post your comments, just remember: be nice ... be polite ... or be deleted.

What happens to our property values and our property rights if: 

 . . the town remains committed under the four Open Space Agreements and the claims about a water shortage are true?

. . the town remains committed under the four Open Space Agreements and the claims about water rationing are true?

The majority of Cave Creek’s water supply comes from Lake Mead and is delivered via the Central Arizona Project canals as CAP water.  Whether or not you accept as truth the scientific consensus about climate change and the Southwest being in the midst of a 16-year-long drought, the fact is more than 200 water agents, attorneys, and water specialists recently attended a meeting with Arizona water officials to develop a drought contingency plan involving present and future water availability in Arizona should the reduction in the levels at Lake Mead continue to drop. 

Under the four Open Space Agreements, what happens to our property values if the claims about a water shortage are true?

Putting any State-declared water shortage aside, the four Open Space Agreements contain two provisions predicting a water shortage: “The Town does not have a designation of assured water supply under the Arizona Groundwater Code, A.R.S. §45-756 and A.A.C. R12-15-710 and has an allocation of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water which is not sufficient to serve full build out of the Town under the Town’s Master Water Plan in effect as of the Effective Date;”. 

The second provision predicting a water shortage resulting from the required residential and commercial development under these four Agreements states, in part: “The Town’s CAP allocation could be short up to approximately 1,000 acre feet of the water necessary to serve the real estate which is the subject of the Four Agreements . . .”.  The “real estate” referred to is 2,959 new homes, along with hundreds of acres of intense commercial development. 

To help meet the water shortage predicted under the four Open Space Agreements, in 2013, the town requested 1,100 acre feet/year of additional water allotment.  That water allotment request was denied.  The town received a water allotment approval for 386 acre feet.  Approval of the 386 acre feet came with the added directive that the town would receive only one additional water allotment approval to support the town’s expected build out in 2040 of 65 acre feet/year.  There is no evidence that the town has purchased its 386 acre feet water allotment.  The purchase price is $1,288.00 per acre feet, making the cost to the town: $497,168.00.  This $497,168.00 is an expense that must be paid through higher water bills or with monies from the town’s General Fund.

This is 549 acre feet short of the water shortage predicted in the four Open Space Agreements, and is in addition to any State water shortage that may be declared by Arizona water officials.  As evidence above, even if the 386 acre feet and 65 acre feet water allocations are purchased, the town will still suffer the effects of a 549-acre feet water shortage under the four Open Space Agreements unless additional water allotments are approved and purchased.

The town’s current water allocation is 2,606 acre feet/year for 2,579 homes and businesses.  The four Open Space Agreements require an additional 2,959 new homes.  Using the Arizona Department of Water Resources own calculations, the 2,959 additional homes will require a water allotment of 2,959 acre feet/year.  Although it is impossible to estimate how much water is used by commercial developments as these figures are not made public, this 2,959 acre allotment also includes water that will be used by the required commercial development under the Open Space Core Site Agreement.  One resort is required. 

During the recent FY 2017 budget workshops, the mayor and town council discussed selling some of the town’s present CAP water allotment to raise much-needed income for the town.  Given that there is no evidence of the town’s purchase of the 386 acre feet water allotment, any sale of CAP water the mayor and council may be contemplating would be based on a reduction to our existing 2,606 acre feet/year water allotment – an allotment the town has had since entering into the four Open Space Agreements. 

Any sale of our present CAP water allotment by town officials exposes existing residents to a water shortage which will be even worse in the event of a State-declared water shortage and by remaining in the four Open Space Agreements.

Under the four Open Space Agreements, what happens to our property values if the claims about water rationing are true?  

Splashed across the headlines are news stories that the water level in Lake Mead has almost reached the tipping point where water rationing will likely be required. 

Water rationing will affect every city and town differently.  Because of their financial investment and commitment to water management and conservation protocols, the city of Phoenix only obtains about 36% of its water from the CAP, and the city of Scottsdale only obtains about 48% of its water from the CAP, making them better positioned to avoid or minimize the effects of water rationing should the reduction in the levels at Lake Mead continue to drop. 

Unlike Phoenix and Scottsdale, since 2008 Cave Creek town officials have pursued a policy for the acquisition of 4,000 acres of land under the four Open Space Agreements and have made a financial investment toward that end.  The $50+ million dollar expense for our water treatment facility was incurred to accommodate the residential and commercial development required under the four Open Space Agreements.  Since October, 2015, the town has spent an additional $100,000± from the General Fund monies in pursuit of the acquisition of the 4,000 acres.

Recently Vice Mayor LaMar wrote that the acquisition of the 4,000 acres is a priority of the town council in order to “keep the advance of Phoenix urban sprawl from engulfing the Town.”  All of the “Phoenix urban sprawl” alleged by Vice Mayor LaMar will occur in Phoenix and outside the borders of Cave Creek.  Meanwhile, absent in his article is any discussion about Cave Creek’s urban sprawl --- an urban sprawl created and agreed to by our town officials as part of the four Open Space Agreements.  Cave Creek’s urban sprawl will more than double the number of homes and present population within the borders of Cave Creek. 

In referring to the “Phoenix urban sprawl,” Vice Mayor LaMar also wrote that “The more developed our adjoining communities become the more attractive and valuable our residential and commercial property will become.” In comparison to Phoenix or Scottsdale, how “attractive and valuable” will Cave Creek properties be to potential purchasers and commercial investors if Cave Creek is subject to stricter water rationing than Phoenix or Scottsdale? 

What is the point of having property rights if our properties are not “attractive and valuable” due to the fact that our properties have no investment value because there is not enough water?

On August 30, 2016, voters in Cave Creek will decide which is more important: making an investment in water management and conservation, or making an investment in 4,000 acres of undevelopable land?

The current Town Council members whose priority is the acquisition of 4,000 acres of undevelopable land includes mayoral candidate Ernie Bunch and council candidates Tom McGuire and Susan Clancy.  Before you vote it is very important to know how the other candidates stand on this issue, as well.

As I declared when announcing my campaign for Mayor: the four Open Space Agreements are toxic to our Cave Creek lifestyle.  We must preserve our Cave Creek lifestyle, our property rights, and our property values for today and tomorrow.  We live in the desert.  Our State is experiencing a 16-year drought.  The priority of our town officials should be water management and conservation, not the acquisition of 4,000 acres of undevelopable land.  If you agree, please vote for me on August 30, 2016.

Thank you.
Janelle Smith-Haff
Candidate for Mayor
www.janelleformayor.com
[email protected] 
Paid for by Janelle for Mayor Committee

,Here’s a financial comparison:  As of 3/31/16, the national debt was $59,500 for every man, woman and child, or $238,000 for a family of four.  Based on a population of 5,500, and our town debt of $49 million, the current level of debt in Cave Creek is $8,900 for every man, woman, and child. 

And it shows no sign of decreasing.

If the town acquires the 4,000± acres of open space land, the town is committed to paying all of the water infrastructure to the property borders of all four Open Space Agreements.

Ka-ching.

Please post your comments but remember: be nice .. be polite.. or be deleted.

Janelle Smith-Haff

correction: 5/3/2016

The FY 2017 budget has been reviewed by the mayor and town council and is awaiting their formal approval as a forthcoming Town Council meeting agenda item. 

As expected, revenue is down, expenses are up, and the proposed budget fails to implement accountability and cost control procedures --- crucial components towards achieving the town’s long-term independence and financial stability. 

To increase revenue town officials discussed raising the sales tax rate and selling town assets.  However, the assets they discussed selling did not include vehicles or office copy machines.  There was an audible silence by those in attendance when town officials discussed selling a portion of the town’s CAP water allotment for additional town revenue. 

Without a doubt, every resident could enumerate reasons why selling a portion of the town’s CAP water allotment is poor financial management.  But, for town officials to consider selling CAP water while at the same time being steadfast in their position that the town remain committed to the water and financial obligations in the Open Space Agreements is dumbfounding.

The four Open Space Agreements declare that the town’s allocation of CAP water will be short by approximately 1,000 acre feet to meet the needs of the 3,000± new residences required under the Agreements.  Under 2014 estimates, the town can only provide water to 308 new residences, not 3,000±.  Using the town’s estimate of $1,500 per acre foot of water, the cost of purchasing 1,000 acre feet will be $1.5 million dollars. 

Now, more than ever, the residents of Cave Creek must pay attention to this issue as town officials do not need voter approval to sell any portion of our CAP water allotment. 
The proposed budget also contains a $55,000 appropriation to hire a consultant to do a water-sewer rate study.  This study is needed to justify the mayor and town council’s intended increase to the base rate residents pay for water and sewer services.  The items to be included in the base rate are fixed costs such as the purchase of water, construction loan payments, billing/collection expenses, water testing, debt service, and capital improvement reserves. 

According to federal government guidelines, the base rate for water and sewer should be between 2 and 2½% of the median household income, lower if just for water.  In 2013 the median household income in Cave Creek was $75,600.  At a 2% calculation, the base rate for water service, depending on the size of the water meter, could be increased from $50/month to $126/month.  Water usage would be an additional cost.

The proposed budget also contains a $40,000 appropriation to hire a consultant with bond financing experience to examine the feasibility of debt restructuring/refinancing.  However, during the budget workshop discussion on this topic it was disclosed that the State was not interested in restructuring/refinancing our WIFA (bond) loans. 
What else would involve bond financing?  Answer: The purchase of the 4,000± acres of open space land.  Knowing that passage of a property tax for the purchase of 4,000± acres is akin to living in an alternative reality, town officials appear to be pursuing the purchase using bond financing that doesn’t require voter approval of a property tax. 

Our $50 million in bond financing that resulted in our water infrastructure debt does not require debt repayment using a property tax, but it is still the town’s largest debt.  Debt is debt regardless of how the debt repayment is structured, and the town’s debt to income ratio will increase commensurate with the purchase price of the 4,000± acres.

The town’s check register reveals an April 6, 2016 payment to the town’s bond attorney for legal services in the amount of $19,454.22.  Based on available figures to date, town officials have spent approximately $95,000 in fees and costs in preparation for the town’s purchase of the 4,000± acres. ($35,000 to consultant Steve Betts thus far, $40,000 in consultant fees, and $19,454.22 to the town’s bond attorney.)

Why didn’t the $19,454.22 paid to the town’s bond attorney require payment approval at a Town Council meeting?  Shortly after the recall election, on October 5, 2015, the mayor and town council amended Ordinance 2015-06.  The amended ordinance removed provision D(2).  Prior to the mayor and council’s amendment, provision D(2) required that all expenditures over $10,000 be placed on a Town Council meeting agenda for public comment and Council approval.  There is no longer such a requirement under our ordinances.

In 2009, the town officials who committed the town to the four Open Space Agreements included: former Town Manager Usama Abujbarah; Mayor Vince Francia; Councilmembers Ernie Bunch; Dick Esser; and Tom McGuire.  Steve LaMar joined in the choir, but was on the Planning Commission at the time.  Ian Cordwell as Planning Director.

In 2016, the town officials who will likely be asking residents for bonding authority to purchase the 4,000± acres are:  Mayor Vince Francia; Councilmembers Ernie Bunch; Dick Esser; Tom McGuire; Steve LaMar, now Vice-Mayor, and newest Council member Susan Clancy.  Ian Cordwell as Planning Director. 

Until the town’s debt is significantly reduced and/or paid off, Creekers will be subject to the mentality of those who wish to “develop” the town out of debt. 

Creekers must decide which is more important to our lifestyle:  keeping our CAP water allotment or increasing the town’s debt by purchasing 4,000± acres of undevelopable land.

Post your comments but please remember: be nice .. be polite .. or be deleted.

Janelle Smith-Haff

The four (4) Open Space Agreements are: Willow Springs, Rogers Wash, Apache Wash, and Core Site.  These four Agreements will more than double the number of homes within the borders of Cave Creek. 

How do these four Agreements affect your property’s value? 

How do these four Agreements affect your property rights?

According to an Arizona study, there is a higher property value when a residential parcel is adjacent to other large residential parcels.  Cave Creek’s Desert Rural (“DR”) zoning was developed to protect property values by requiring that residential parcels assigned a DR zoning classification contains the town-ordinance required minimum square footage for the DR classification assigned to each DR parcel.  The smallest DR sized parcel is 43,000 sq. ft.  The town’s DR zoning also protects property values by ensuring that residential development is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment and protective of scenic vistas, natural habitats, and natural features such as hillsides and washes. 

Each of the 3,000± residential parcels required under the four Open Space Agreements reflect a DR zoning classification.  However, none of these residential parcels protect property values because none of these parcels contain the town-ordinance required minimum square footage for the DR zoning classification assigned to the parcels.  They are smaller.  Why is this?

Whose Property Value Will Increase With a Property Tax? 
Residents will soon be asked to purchase 4,000± acres of land annexed under the four Agreements referred to as “open space.”  It is likely that this purchase will require a property tax.  These 4,000± acres consist of terrain and topography that is undesirable except as an amenity to other development. 

With the purchase of these 4,000± acres by Cave Creek residents, the State Land Department and town officials have ensured that the residentially-zoned parcels under the Agreements are a financially-viable investment for developers.  Buying only the land that is developable, after the homes are built, the developers will market the homes as being surrounded by open space, an amenity that increases the developer’s property value and produces the highest rate of return on the developer’s financial investment.  Yet, the amenity that the developer is financially benefitting from is an amenity that was purchased by Creekers with a property tax.

The most important property right that Creekers possess is the right not to encumber their property with a property tax. 

If residents approve a property tax for the purchase of 4,000± acres of “open space,” residents will be irrevocably committing to more than the purchase of “open space.”  Approval of the purchase of this 4,000± acres will also contractually commit residents to changes to our town that have never been expressed or addressed by any of our town officials.

Under the four Agreements, which were created in 2008-2009 with the State Land Department, town officials committed residents to payment of a $52+ million dollar Waste Water Treatment Plant and payments for the following:

• Payment for all water infrastructure to the property borders of each of the four (4) Open Space Agreements.  As defined in the Agreements, “Water infrastructure includes storage tanks, treatment plants, water lines and related structural facilities.”
• Payment for all water infrastructure up to a five (5) mile radius outside the current borders of Cave Creek.
• Allocation of town water to support the required residential, multi-family, multi-use, and commercial development under the four (4) Open Space Agreements.
• Allocation of town water to support the expanded residential, multi-family, multi-use, and commercial development up to a five (5) mile radius outside the current borders of Cave Creek.
  

The water infrastructure the town has agreed that residents will provide and pay for under the Agreements will cost residents millions of dollars and is a cost the town cannot recoup from developers. 

How is this water infrastructure financial commitment to be paid by residents if not with a property tax?

The following provision is taken directly from the Open Space Agreements and confirms that the Town must provide the water infrastructure to the property border for each of the four properties under the Open Space Agreements.  That provision states, in part:

ARTICLE II
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
ARTICLE 2.1  Water Provisions.  The Town shall provide water service to the Property through the Water Facilities, subject to the following:
The term “Water Facilities” shall mean the storage tanks, treatment plants, water lines and related structural facilities located in the Town and owned or controlled by the Town, as improved from time to time:
            The developers of the Property shall be required to extend water lines from the Property to the then existing most proximate water line terminus from the Water Facilities at the developers’ sole expense;

Other commitments negotiated by town officials under the four (4) Agreements include:

• Agreement that the State Land Department shall remain as owner of annexed land contiguous to the 4,000± acres of open space. 
• Agreement to allow the State Land Department to sell and rezone the 4,000± acres of open space land if said acreage is not purchased by the town.
• Agreement to assist the State Land Department with the formation of one or more Community Facilities Districts or other special taxing districts (i.e., the town within our town known as Cahava Springs Revitalization District) to expedite development.
• Agreement not to comply with the lot size requirements under the town’s ordinances for DR zoning.
• Agreement that the residentially-zoned annexed land under the four (4) Open Space Agreements not allow zoning for horses and other ranch use activities.
• Agreement not to require wildlife transportation corridors.
• Agreement to allow developers to build walled-in subdivisions.
• Agreement to allow multi-use, multi-family, and commercial zoning in residential neighborhoods.
  

With residents required to make a multi-million dollar infrastructure investment under these Agreements with no financial input by the State Land Department nor developers, are residents receiving an equal benefit from the purchase of the 4,000± acres?  Before that question can be answered, this question must be asked: “Are there even 4,000± acres?” 

Upon examination of the proposed 2016 General Plan it was found that 1,232 acres of these 4000± acres were not identified in the “Open Space Element” section of the proposed General Plan.  Where are these missing acres? Why were they not identified on Table 4 of the “Open Space Element” section of the General Plan?  For more information about these 1,232 missing acres of open space, see the article previously posted on this site titled “The Cave Creek Shuffle.”

If a property tax is approved to purchase 4,000± acres, the remaining annexed land contained in the Agreements (another 4,000± acres) will be developed as dictated in the Agreements.  Even though this annexed land is officially within the town’s boundaries, no future mayors or town council members will have zoning decision authority over the annexed land. 

If a property tax is rejected, the annexed land will be developed, it just won’t be developed at the expense of Creekers or within the town’s boundaries.  By rejecting the purchase of this 4,000±acres, withdrawing from the four (4) Agreements, and deannexing the land, Cave Creek residents retain local governing authority; the governing level where property values and property rights are better protected and enforced.

Should residents pay a property tax for a nebulous 4,000± acres of land that is financially undesirable even to developers?  Should residents purchase the land when, in all likelihood, the land will remain “open space” whether it’s purchased by Creekers or remains as State Land?

Due to the upcoming mayor and council elections, it is important to know the names of the town officials who negotiated the four (4) Open Space Agreements with the State Land Department.

In 2009, the town officials included: former Town Manager Usama Abujbarah; Mayor Vince Francia; Councilmembers Ernie Bunch; Dick Esser; and Tom McGuire.  Steve LaMar joined in the choir, but was on the Planning Commission at the time.  Ian Cordwell as Planning Director.

In 2016, the town officials who will likely be asking residents to approve the purchase of the 4,000± acres with a property tax are:  Mayor Vince Francia; Councilmembers Ernie Bunch; Dick Esser; Tom McGuire; and Steve LaMar, now Vice-Mayor.  Ian Cordwell as Planning Director.  Newest members include Councilmembers Mark Lipsky and Susan Clancy.

Which of our 2016 town officials will support a property tax, or support an increase the town’s level of debt for the acquisition of this 4,000± acres?

Watch this space.  Be informed. Stay informed. Get involved. Demand the truth.

Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted. (All social media links are not currently active.  To leave a comment or read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)

Janelle Smith-Haff
3/26/2016

Since the moment the four (4) Open Space Agreements were signed almost ten years ago, town officials have claimed that there are 4,000± acres under those Agreements that Creekers can purchase as open space.  A plan for this purchase is expected to be announced by the Mayor and Vice Mayor very shortly.  However, upon examination, it was found that 1,232 acres of these 4,000± acres have not been identified as open space in the “Open Space Element” section of the proposed General Plan. 

Why is it important that these missing 1,232 acres be identified as open space and included on Table 4 in the “Open Space Element” section of the proposed General Plan?  For this reason: the “Open Space Element” section states: “As of the ratification date of the General Plan, the open space is depicted in Table 4 and on the Open Space Map – Appendix C-4.” 

Missing and not depicted on Table 4 are eight (8) acres of open space under the Willow Springs Agreement, 100 acres under the Rogers Wash Agreement, and 1,124 acres under the Core Site Agreement.  The omission of 108 acres under the first two Agreements is hard to accept as being a typo as the specific number of open space acres is listed in the two Agreements.  More troubling to accept is the entire omission of the fourth Agreement, the Core Site Agreement, from Table 4, as this Agreement consists of 1,124 acres of the 4,000± acres of open space zoned land. 

Without identification on Table 4 of the Core Site Agreement’s 1,124 acres of open space, where is the basis to the claim by town officials of there being 4,000± acres of open space under the four Agreements?  The Planning Commission, the Mayor, and all members of town council have reviewed and approved the proposed General Plan with the missing 108 and 1,124 acres of open space-zoned land. 

Why were 1,232 acres of open space zoned land not identified on Table 4 in the proposed General Plan?

Will Cave Creek voters approve a General Plan with 1,232 acres of open space missing?

What is the effect of the Open Space Agreements on your property values?  What is the effect of the Open Space Agreements on your property rights?  This information is contained in an article titled “Cave Creek’s Open Space Apocalypse” which will be posted on this site next week.

All things considered, the bigger issue facing Creekers is not the missing 1,232 acres in the proposed General Plan, it’s whether or not the four (4) Open Space Agreements are “Cave Creek’s Open Space Apocalypse.” 

Janelle Smith-Haff
3/19/2016

Post your comments, thoughts and opinions.  Please remember: be nice, be honest, or be deleted.  Not all social media platforms are active on this site.

It’s the town’s “DR” zoning classifications that brings the desert and rural “DR” lifestyle to the doorstep of every Creeker.  Proponents of the Open Space Agreements claim that these Agreements protect the town’s desert and rural “DR” zoning while adding 4,000± acres of additional open space to the town. 

This is a claim that the math does not support.  Numbers don’t lie. 

Desert and Rural “DR” Zoning:

There are four DR zoning classifications under the town’s ordinances: DR-190 requires a minimum of 190,000 sq. ft. (4.36 acres) per parcel; DR-89 requires a minimum of 89,000 sq. ft. (2.04 acres) per parcel; DR-70 requires a minimum of 70,000 sq. ft. (1.6 acres) per parcel; and DR-43 requires a minimum of 43,000 sq. ft. (0.99 acre) per parcel.  DR zoning protects residential property rights by ensuring that the minimum square footage is contained in the DR zoning classification assigned to each parcel.

The town ordinance contains a defined purpose for our desert and rural “DR” zoning: “Purpose: The purpose of the Desert Rural (DR) zone is to prevent urban and desert land use conflicts by protecting scenic vistas, protecting natural habitats and natural features such as hillsides and washes, and to ensure that residential development is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment.”  [source: Town Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.1(A), pg. 1.]  

The Open Space Agreements have nothing to do with the purchase of Spur Cross Conservation Area.  There are four Open Space Agreements: Apache Springs Wash, Rogers Wash, Willow Springs Wash, and the Core Site Agreement.  Under the four Agreements there are no DR-190-zoned parcels and no DR-89 zoned parcels.  When the required calculation for streets and right-of-ways are calculated there are no parcels assigned a DR-70 zoning classification that contains the minimum 70,000 sq. ft. required for a DR-70 zoning classification.  The size of each parcel is further reduced when washes, retention basins, terrain and topography are calculated.  When the required calculation for streets and right-of-ways are calculated there are no parcels assigned a DR-43 zoning classification that contains the minimum 43,000 sq. ft. required for a DR-43 zoning classification.  The size of each parcel is further reduced when washes, retention basins, terrain and topography are calculated.  And, because every residential parcel required under the Agreements will be less than two acres in size there will be no horse properties and no ranch use activities allowed under town Ordinance Chapter 2.

How do the Open Space Agreements protect our desert and rural lifestyle when the required residential parcels have been assigned a DR zoning classification that does not contain the town-ordinance required minimum square footage for the DR classification assigned to each parcel?  How do the Open Space Agreements preserve and protect our western lifestyle when every parcel will be less than two acres, making every parcel too small for horse property and the ranch use activities under Chapter 2 of our town’s ordinances?

Agreement details about the purchase of the Open Space:

The amount of open space acreage and the amount of acreage which is to be retained by the State Land Department and sold to developers has been specified in each Agreement.  The town has the option of purchasing the acreage identified as open space which, under our town ordinances, is defined as major peaks and ridges, mountains, major rock outcrops, view corridors, and major wash areas which are subject to periodic flooding.  The State Land Department retains the land designated for residential development under each Agreement for sale at auction to developers.  When/if Creekers purchase the open space land it will enable the State Land Department to sell to developers the land determined to be viable for residential development.  In turn, it will enable developers only to purchase developable land.  Yet, the open space land --- the amenity purchased by Creekers --- will be marketed by developers as an amenity to entice new home buyers.

Decision Time.

On October 19, 2015 the mayor and town council members voted unanimously to hire and pay Steve Betts $5,000 per month to facilitate a purchase or lease of some or all of the open space land before the mayor and council election in 2016.  If this occurs, it is the Creekers who live here today who will be financially committed under the Agreements, not the new residents who will live here under the four Open Space Agreements.

At some point in the future the State Land will be sold and the houses will be built.  The decision Creekers still have time to make is deciding whether we want these houses built within our borders or whether we want these houses built outside our borders.  Doing nothing and allowing the Agreements to expire at the end of their 20-year term ensures that the houses will be built within our borders.  Withdrawing from the Agreements and de-annexing the property won’t stop the building of the houses but it will stop the building of the houses within our borders.  When these houses with their red-tile roofs and Disneyland-desert front yards are built outside our borders Creekers will still be able to claim that we are a town where our desert and rural lifestyle and our open space co-exists in a way that is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment.

Do the math:

Apache Springs Wash Agreement:   Under this Agreement the total acreage listed is 720 acres.  There are no open space conservation-zoned acres but the town can purchase 340 open space recreation-zoned acres, with the State Land Department retaining ownership, for sale to developers, of the remaining 380 acres under the Agreement.  On these 380 acres that are to be retained by the State Land Department for sale to developers there are 380 single family homes required to be built.  These 380 residential parcels have been assigned the town’s DR-43 zoning classification.  However, when streets, right-of-ways, washes, retention basins, terrain and other topography are calculated, these 380 DR-43 zoned parcels will be reduced in size and no longer adhere to the minimum 43,000 sq. ft. lot size required for a DR-43 zoning classification.  In fact, the lot sizes will be too small to qualify for any DR zoning classification.

In accordance with our town’s zoning ordinances, these 380, DR-43 residentially zoned parcels should have been classified with the town’s Single Residence “SR” zoning classification, not DR-43.

Rogers Wash Agreement: Under this Agreement the total acreage listed is 3,960 acres. There are no open space recreation-zoned acres but the town can purchase 1,900 open space conservation-zoned acres, with the State Land Department retaining ownership, for sale to developers, the remaining 2,060 acres under the Agreement.  On these 2,060 acres that are to be retained by the State Land Department for sale to developers there are 2,060 single family homes required to be built.  These 2,060 residential parcels have been assigned the town’s DR-43 zoning classification.  However, when streets, right-of-ways, washes, retention basins, terrain and topography are calculated, these 2,060 DR-43 zoned parcels will be reduced in size and no longer adhere to the minimum 43,000 sq. ft. lot size required for a DR-43 zoning classification.  In fact, the lot sizes will be too small to qualify for any DR zoning classification.

In accordance with our town’s zoning ordinances, these 2,060 DR-43 residentially zoned parcels should have been classified with the town’s Single Residence “SR” zoning classification, not DR-43.

Willow Springs Wash Agreement:  Under this Agreement, the total acreage listed is 768 acres.  There are no open space recreation-zoned acres but the town can purchase 648 open space conservation-zoned acres, with the State Land Department retaining ownership of the remaining 120 acres under the Agreement for sale to developers.  On the 120 acres the State Land Department will retain and sell to developers there are 75, DR-70-zoned single-family homes required to be built, each on 1.6 acre-sized parcels.  However, when streets, right-of-ways, washes, retention basins, terrain and topography are calculated, these 75, DR-70 zoned parcels will be reduced in size and no longer adhere to the minimum 70,000 sq. ft. lot size required for a DR-70 zoning classification

In accordance with our town’s zoning ordinances, the zoning classification for these 75, DR-70 zoned parcels should be DR-43, not DR-70. 

Core Site Agreement:

Surrounded by hundreds of acres which are already zoned General Commercial and Commercial Buffer, the Core Site Agreement consists of 1,878 acres.  But, unlike the other three Agreements, the Core Site Agreement does not specifically state the zoning classifications and acreage amounts applied.  Exhibit “C” attached to the Agreement lists the zoning acreage totals for all four Agreements and supports the claim by proponents of there being 4,000± acres of open space.  Attached as Exhibit “C-1” to the Agreement is a document that includes the zoning classifications assigned to the acreage in the Core Site Agreement. 

Zoning Classifications under Core Site Agreement:

Based on Exhibit C-1, the Core Site Agreement’s zoning classifications are: Open Space Conservation, Open Space Recreation, DR-70, DR-43 and Commercial Core (CC). 

Open Space Conservation:

Exhibit “C” lists the combined Open Space Conservation zoned acreage for all four Agreements at 2,852 acres. As detailed above, the Open Space Conservation-zoned acreage under the Apache Wash, Rogers Wash and Willow Springs Agreements is 2,548 acres.   Therefore, the number of acres zoned Open Space Conservation in the Core Site Agreement should be:  304 Open Space Conservation acres. [2,852 minus 2,548 = 304.]

Open Space Recreation:

Exhibit “C” lists the combined Open Space Recreation zoned acreage for all four Agreements at 1,160 acres.  As detailed above, the Open Space Recreation-zoned acreage under the Apache Wash, Rogers Wash and Willow Springs Agreements is 340 acres.  Therefore, the number of acres zoned Open Space Recreation in the Core Site Agreement should be: 820 Open Space Recreation acres. [1,160 minus 340 = 820.]

DR-70:

The Willow Springs Agreement is the only Agreement besides the Core Site Agreement containing a DR-70 zoning classification.  The Willow Springs Agreement lists 120 acres zoned as DR-70.  Exhibit “C” lists the combined acreage classified with DR-70 zoning at 360 acres.  Therefore, the number of acres zoned DR-70 in the Core Site Agreement should be: 240 DR-70 zoned acres.  [360 minus 120 = 240.]

DR-43:

Exhibit “C” lists the combined acreage under all four Agreements classified with DR-43 zoning at 2,644 acres. As detailed above, the DR-43 zoned acreage under the Apache Wash, Rogers Wash and Willow Springs Agreements is 2,440 acres.  Therefore, the number of acres zoned DR-43 in the Core Site Agreement should be: 204 DR-43 zoned acres.  [2,644 minus 2,440 = 204.]

Commercial Core:

As detailed above, the Agreements contain 1,568 acres of open space conservation, open space recreation, DR-70 and DR-43 acres.  Therefore, because “Commercial Core” is the remaining zoning classification, the number of acres that can be classified as Commercial Core zoning consist of the remaining acres, or 310 acres. [1,878 minus 1,568 = 310.]

Core Site Agreement: Open Space Conservation:  304 acres; Open Space Recreation:  820 acres; DR-70 zoning:  240 acres; DR-43 zoning: 204 acres; Commercial Core zoning:  310 acres, for the Core Site Agreement acreage total of 1,878 acres.

In summary, under the four Open Space Agreements, Creekers will pay on a property tax to buy land containing terrain and topography that financially prohibits residential development.  The State Land Department will auction the remaining, developable land to developers.  The financial investment by developers is thus minimized because they only to have to pay for land that has been pre-determined as financially viable for residential development.  After the homes are built the developers will market the homes as being surrounded by open space -- the amenity purchased by Creekers, yet developers will have had no part in the purchase of the open space land. 

Part 2 of this series will contain a discussion regarding the town’s financial requirements under these Agreements.

Janelle Smith-Haff

11/15/15

[email protected]

Do you have any comments?  Let's s hear them.  Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules:  Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.

(All social media links are not currently active.  To leave a comment or to read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)