Cave Creek Council votes 5-2 to retain Planning Commissioner Elkema amid bias concerns
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — October 5, 2021

Cave Creek Council votes 5-2 to retain Planning Commissioner Elkema amid bias concerns

Town council heard pedestrian safety study recommending $2.3M in improvements amid public opposition, addressed planning commission member bias concerns with no removal action, and discussed fire department funding while committing to alternative financing public meeting.

Council Retains Planning Commissioner Despite Bias Letter, Commits to Fire Department Financing Public Meeting

Town of Cave Creek's October 4 meeting saw the council take no action to remove Planning Commissioner Paul Elkema over written communications to council members regarding a pending development matter, while also fielding a $2.3 million pedestrian safety study proposal that drew fierce public opposition and heard residents demand a promised public discussion on alternative fire department funding.

The meeting lasted approximately three hours and touched on four distinct areas of council business. The Elkema matter and pedestrian study consumed the bulk of the discussion; fire department financing remained unresolved but earned a commitment for a public work session; and a road maintenance project update was brief.

Pedestrian Traffic Safety Study Phase 2 Presentation

Kimley Horn consultants Shannon Ness and Sarah Montgomery presented Phase 2 of a multi-year pedestrian safety study, building on earlier recommendations. The Phase 2 analysis identified 14 specific projects—ranging from rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at existing crosswalks to three new speed table installations, median reconfiguration, and pathway improvements—with a combined design and construction cost of approximately $2.3 million. The study was funded entirely by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG); the town budgeted $100,000 for 2021 implementation.

Ness walked the council through phase-one findings: one fatality and four serious injuries involving pedestrians or bicyclists over five years; observed average speeds of 38 mph in a 30 mph zone; and difficulty for pedestrians and equestrians to cross safely. Phase 2 added warrant studies at Surrey Drive (for a potential pedestrian hybrid beacon) and at Hohokam Place (town council location), neither of which met the numerical warrant for signalization but warranted continued monitoring given pending residential development.

The consultants then presented each of the 14 projects individually, with benefit-cost analysis. The highest-priority projects identified were three speed table locations (at Roadhouse, Hilltop, and Hidden Valley) paired with RRFBs, based on crash reduction factors and cost-benefit ratios. Other proposals included new crosswalks at American Legion and Viola; MUTCD sign upgrades; speed feedback signs; bike lane marking options; and in the long term, a handrail and pathway system in the bar district to channel pedestrian crossing behavior.

Key Speeches

"Our goal is smooth and 30, somewhat jarring at 35, and not comfortable at 40." — Shannon Ness, Kimley Horn consultant, on speed table design parameters.

"You're not going to change human nature, but I think as governmental officials, elected officials, our responsibility is for the health and the safety of our community and that's why we're doing this and that's why we've invested in this." — Council member (name unclear from transcript), in response to public skepticism.

Project Details

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 4 speakers (Scott Dane, David Phelps, Mike Jackson, and Reg Monokino); additional written comments by Scott Dane during public comment section.

Main concerns:

  1. Aesthetics and town character: Multiple speakers argued the proposed improvements—especially RRFBs, speed tables, and painted bike lanes—would make the town look like a "carnival midway" or "obstacle course" and destroy the natural, award-winning medians that define Cave Creek's identity.

  2. Ineffectiveness against underlying causes: Speakers emphasized that alcohol-related crashes and distracted driving (cell phone use) were the real causes, not speed; that "you can't fix stupid" and that flashing lights and bumps would not prevent reckless behavior.

  3. Safety risk to motorcycles: Particular concern that speed tables present hazards to motorcyclists, who bring tourism and sales tax revenue to the town; one speaker called them "hell on motorcycles."

  4. Enforcement alternative: Scott Dane proposed that one additional sheriff's deputy, funded at approximately $2.3 million for 20 years of salary, would be more effective and generate revenue through tickets than $2.3 million in infrastructure.

  5. Maintenance and debris concerns: Mike Jackson ("punji sticks" comment) noted the existing poles in town core are frequently hit and damaged, requiring constant repair, and that adding more obstacles would worsen this pattern.

  6. Fire department funding priority: Scott Dane and others argued that $2.3 million should go toward the proposed fire/emergency services department instead of traffic safety, especially since the fire department cost is an ongoing annual obligation ($2.3–2.8 million per year).

  7. Private business access: David Phelps objected to using town funds to improve access to private businesses (e.g., the proposed new driveway for Roadhouse) and stated "let them pay for it."

  8. Median destruction: Repeated concern that the study would require bifurcating and removing medians, repeating the damage from the earlier bike lane project.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized opposition: No formal organization named, but speakers represented themselves as long-term residents concerned about town character and financial priorities.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 speaker (David Phelps, who supported Elkema's continuance on the planning commission but did not explicitly endorse the study itself).

General theme: No strong public support was articulated for the pedestrian safety study during public comment. Council members who supported moving forward did so on the basis of governmental responsibility for public safety rather than public demand.

Council member arguments:

Outcome & Next Steps

No vote was taken on the pedestrian safety study itself; it was presented for council consideration and input. Council indicated openness to moving forward, particularly if federal or MAG grant funding could be secured. The consensus appeared to be to prioritize the three speed table locations (Roadhouse, Hilltop, Hidden Valley) and the American Legion crosswalk as near-term projects within the existing $100,000 annual budget allocation. The consultant team offered to repackage projects into grant-eligible groupings and to research existing installations (e.g., in Chandler) that the council could visit to assess disruptiveness.

Planning Commission Member Conduct — Bias Concerns & Council Vote

The second major item of the meeting centered on whether to remove Planning Commissioner Paul Elkema over written communications he sent to council members before a commission meeting on a pending development matter (Hidden Canyon).

Timeline:

Key Speeches

"The bottom line is I'm not able to answer your question… I do say when we were advised of the facts, he understood and he recused at the commission level. That was appropriate, and I believe as town attorney that is sufficient." — Town Attorney Sims, declining to characterize Elkema's conduct as improper.

"I'm standing here tonight embarrassed, and I want to acknowledge that I jumped an important step in the line of communication… I take this seriously… I understand the effect of that mistake and it won't happen again." — Paul Elkema, Planning Commissioner, in statement to council.

"I believe that the people that we entrust to serve in these capacities is more important than anything… Paul recused himself from the plan commission meeting where the decision was made, and I will then recuse myself from the discussions on Hidden Canyon. Paul, that's a lot because you know this job is very important to me too and the responsibilities of it are very important to me, but you are more important to the town in your capacity as a plan commissioner." — Councilman McGraw, announcing his own recusal from Hidden Canyon decisions.

"I feel that Paul Elkema did a couple of things that were absolutely and totally inappropriate, the most inappropriate being writing to council members. However, as Mr. Sims has not said there was illegality… I'll let it go with that." — Council member (unidentified in transcript), on the motion to take no action.

Vote Breakdown

Controversy & Context

The underlying issue was whether a planning commission member should lobby council members in writing before the commission had voted, and whether that conduct warranted removal. Town Attorney Sims framed the problem carefully: by writing to council members ahead of the commission vote, Elkema risked creating the appearance that council members might have committed to a position, which would undermine the applicant's due process right to present to an open-minded decision-maker. However, Sims noted that because Elkema recused himself at the commission level, the damage was mitigated.

A fault line emerged on the council between those who viewed the recusal as sufficient correction and those who believed removal was warranted to deter future boundary-crossing. Vice Mayor or Council Member expressing concern noted that removal of two planning commissioners had occurred during her tenure (since 2005) and that the town faces insurance liability when commissioners overstep property rights protections. She argued that a "slap on the wrist" sends the wrong message to residents. Councilman McGraw, by contrast, cited Elkema's "contrition" and the recusal as distinguishing factors and offered his own recusal from Hidden Canyon as a gesture of confidence in Elkema's reformed behavior.

The 5–2 vote preserved Elkema's seat on the commission.

Fire Department and Emergency Services Funding

Multiple residents (Scott Dane, Bruce Arlen, and others) raised the issue during public comment, requesting that the town schedule a promised public meeting to discuss alternative financing methods for the proposed fire/emergency services department, which would cost $2.3–2.8 million annually.

Status: Town Manager Hal stated the town would schedule a public work session in October (the meeting occurred October 4, 2021) with a consultant and bond counsel to discuss alternative financing methods, revenue sources, and grant opportunities. He invited residents to sign up to be notified and encouraged them to invite neighbors and friends. No specific date was announced at the meeting.

Resident concerns: Bruce Arlen expressed frustration that the discussion has been "promised" for weeks and the clock is ticking toward year-end; Scott Dane criticized the town for ignoring citizen input on alternative payment methods and warned against "taxing some residents into poverty."

Other Notable Items

East Cave Creek Road Micro Surface Project: Town Manager reported that the East Cave Creek Road phase of the micro surface project is underway from Spur Cross Road to town limits, scheduled for evening work October 11–13 (8 p.m.–5 a.m.), with temporary striping by October 15 and final striping by end of October. The existing "punji sticks" (traffic-calming poles) will be removed as part of the slurry seal application.

Fire and Alarm Permitting Transfer: Effective October 1, the town assumes permitting and inspection for residential and commercial fire alarm and sprinkler systems, taking over from county administration.

Facebook/Communications Platform Request: David Phelps requested that the town create an official town-sponsored discussion platform (rather than relying on private Facebook pages) so that all residents can view and participate in town leadership communications, especially during discussions of major projects like the traffic study or fire department.

Duration

The council approved the September 20, 2021 meeting minutes with minor corrections (changing "give" to "given" and "with" to "consider" on page 865, line 168).