CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — April 26, 2016

Cave Creek unanimously approves 230-acre Cave Springs Revitalization District despite citizen concerns

Council meeting marked by heated public comment on anti-Semitic cartoon controversy and Town's Sonora News contract, alongside approval of Cave Springs Revitalization District development despite citizen concerns about political risk.

Swastika Cartoon Controversy Dominates Cave Creek Meeting as Council Approves Cave Springs Revitalization District Amid Citizen Concerns

Cave Creek's April 26, 2016 council meeting erupted into public fury over a three-year-old anti-Semitic cartoon published in the Town's contracted newspaper, with 14 speakers condemning the council's failure to respond—even as the body unanimously approved a major 230-acre private development project with acknowledged political risks. The meeting illustrated deep fractures in the community's view of editorial responsibility, free speech, and the Town's fiduciary judgment.

The Anti-Semitic Cartoon Controversy

The centerpiece of public anger was a May 2013 swastika cartoon published in the Sonora News, the Town's primary vehicle for publishing legal notices. The cartoon was directed at former Vice Mayor Adam Trank, who is Jewish, and appeared in the context of property vandalism targeting his home. Three years later, residents demanded accountability—and the Town Council offered none.

Key Speeches

"You've all seen this despicable cartoon and I've chosen to do and you have chosen to do nothing about in fact you continued to support the Sonora News by writing guest editorials letters to the editor and just this past month you monetarily rewarded the Sonora News there can be no doubt that this cartoon is directed at former vice mayor Adam Trank who is of Jewish descent this use of the swastika and the caption in the cartoon make it anti-semitic as well as a direct threat." — George Ross, citizen

"This cartoon was specific and connecting Adam's religion to the swastika and its history of being used in communities to scare residents and get them to move out this was a clear attempt to tell him that no matter where he moves in Cave Creek he is in the land of the enemy not welcome and the swastika figuratively will haunt and hunt him and his family." — Bill (last name not transcribed), former Cave Creek resident

"There is no stench of anti-Semitism over this town There's a stench of anti-Semitism over his building and I don't believe that there's any such thing as abusing the right of free speech in this country we have a right of free speech and by definition it can't be abused so I disagree with you there and I'll also say one last thing we didn't reward the Sonora News we rewarded the people of Cave Creek by making sure that they get the information that they need to know what's going on in the town and to know what's going on at this Council." — Mayor Robert Morris, responding to George Ross

The dispute escalated into a procedural argument about whether council members could respond from the dais versus the podium. Town Attorney Sims Murray, newly hired that very evening, intervened to clarify that Arizona open-meeting law permits a council member to respond to direct accusations of criticism, but that jurisdictions typically require such responses to occur from the podium—a distinction emphasizing that responses be understood as individual rather than official council positions.

Citizens' Legal and Ethical Arguments

George Ross argued the Town had violated Arizona law by contracting with the Sonora News, claiming it does not meet the statutory definition of a "newspaper" under Arizona Revised Statutes § 39-21. He cited the definition: "the town cannot enter into any agreement with the Sonora News as it does not meet the definition of a newspaper under Arizona law." He also noted that Mayor Robert Morris had been contacted by Bill Strauss, director of the Phoenix Anti-Defamation League, in fall 2013—more than two years before this meeting—and the council had taken no substantive action.

One speaker demanded the council "resend the action authorizing the town to enter into an agreement with Sonora News" and framed the contract as violating citizens' civil rights and the council members' oaths of office.

Another resident, K. Preslin, invoked free speech responsibilities: "Freedom of speech in this country comes with a responsibility. I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't do things that violate other people's rights a swastika and an open threat in a newspaper is a violation of every citizen's right in this town."

Sonora News Editor's Implicit Defense

Notably, Sonora News editor Don Sorek did not attend or address the controversy. One speaker noted that Sorek had refused to respond when asked directly about the cartoon, remarking: "he said he doesn't have to explain anything to anyone." The paper was characterized as a "propaganda publication permitting no opposing views."

At the meeting's conclusion, a speaker identifying as a reporter and news professional stated: "I'm Jewish my mother and my grandparents on both sides of my family are War refugees ... this outrage over seeing a swastika and to try to imply that this was directed at Adam Trank who was very well aware of the fact that I am Jewish is ludicrous and to think that I would have spent the last 14 years of my life working for a company that was anti-semitic just defies all logic." This speaker did not identify themselves or their affiliation; the comment appeared to defend the Sonora News implicitly.

No Council Action

The council took no action on the cartoon, the contract, or calls to rescind the Town's advertising relationship with the Sonora News. Mayor Robert Morris stated plainly: "There is no stench of anti-Semitism over this town." Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer and other council members remained silent on the substance. The controversy remained unresolved at adjournment.

Cave Springs Revitalization District Approval

The council unanimously approved Resolution R 2015-18 to formally create the Cave Springs Revitalization District, clearing the way for a private developer to finance infrastructure improvements (roads, water lines) through a property tax-based improvement district on 230 acres—a project that has been in planning for years and previously encompassed 900 acres at one unit per acre.

Timeline

Applicant presentation: The developer's attorney and representatives confirmed that the Town had granted 230 acre-feet of water rights; a line extension agreement signed "many years ago" (possibly predating the Town's acquisition of its water company) guaranteed the developer's access to water supply beyond the project's needs, with the surplus allocated to the Town.
Staff recommendation: Town Manager and Town Attorney Sims Murray presented the legal framework, confirming that the Town assumes no financial risk or liability under the resolution. The developer assumed all financial and market risk.
Public comment: Five speakers addressed the revitalization district. Three raised concerns; two supported it.
Council discussion: Robert Morris and Kathryn Royer emphasized the private nature of the project and cited examples of failed developments (Stagecoach Village, McDonald's closure on New River Road) where municipalities incurred no financial exposure. Councilmember Thomas McGuire noted the reduction from 900 acres to 230 and framed it as a quasi-HOA with taxing authority. He stated he would support the project "hardly" (transcript unclear, but voted yes). Councilmember Lipsky noted it was a "long time project" and expressed confidence in the developer's risk assumption.
Vote: Unanimous approval (all ayes). Individual votes not specified.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 3 (Jan Rehfuss, Janelle Smith, K. Kimel)

Main concerns:

Political risk: K. Kimel corrected the council's characterization, noting that Town Attorney Rosenfeld had explicitly stated this project carried political risk, not just financial risk. If the project failed, the council would face resident expectations and possibly be forced to intervene financially.
Water infrastructure gaps: Terry Smith, a west-side resident who has fought for water service for six to seven years, expressed concern that new water lines installed by the revitalization district would not address the Town's failure to serve existing annexed property. Jan Rehfuss objected to relying on private development to solve the Town's water obligations.
Property marketability: K. Kimel had analyzed the properties and concluded that absent full infrastructure buildout (extending water lines beyond the project's initial scope), the lots would be unmarketable over the 4–5 year horizon. He noted that staff had promised documentation on property analysis but he had not seen it.
Precedent and rescission risk: Janelle Smith warned that just as the council had rescinded a Specific Area Plan (SAP) resolution at a prior meeting, a future council could rescind the revitalization district resolution, dissolving the district. She raised the speculative question: "Can this Council be certain that its approval of the revitalization district resolution won't invite further litigation after it is rescinded?"
General plan conflicts: K. Kimel asked whether the project complied with the Town's general plan and whether the Town would retain capacity-fee and building-permit-fee authority within the district.
Representation and voting: The same speaker noted that Arizona law required voting among property owners to elect district representatives, but that the draft documents seemed to contemplate appointments instead.

Most compelling arguments: K. Kimel's testimony was the most technically rigorous, documenting the distinction between financial and political risk, providing his own property market analysis, and flagging unresolved questions about infrastructure and compliance. Jan Rehfuss's point—that the Town's obligation to provide water to annexed property should not be outsourced to a private developer—echoed a theme across the 14 west-side speakers.

Organized groups: No formal organized opposition, but speakers from the west side (Terry Smith, Jan Rehfuss, Carrie Smith) coordinated messaging around water access.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 2 (Terry Smith, David Smith)

Main arguments:

Terry Smith emphasized that the revitalization district was the pathway to water service for west-side residents. He stated: "I have been fighting for water for a long time lines have been there for what six seven years and the town has not taken them over or put water in them this appears to be the solution that the town is heading towards."
David Smith (Water Advisory Committee) explained the significance of automated monitoring systems and preventive maintenance, noting that new infrastructure required the technician position being recommended in a parallel agenda item.

Council support:

Councilmember McGuire offered the most substantive defense, framing the project as a "long time" initiative that had been "approved long ago," reducing risk uncertainty. He stated: "this is a private project" and cited case law: "I can cite several examples in Cave Creek and Maricopa County with the downturn that failed when those projects failed went to court went through bankruptcy or whatever the municipality was not at risk." He concluded: "I hardly support this project."
Kathryn Royer defended the process: "we've had... a special... town hall meeting to discuss issues... many of the issues we were hearing then that there was going this was a pathway to a road across uh from the west side to the east side... we continue to do so because they're not based in fact they're based on the desire to make issues on for reasons other than the stated reasons."
Robert Morris emphasized the private nature and the developer's legal guarantee of no municipal exposure.

Project Details

Case number / Resolution: R 2015-18
Applicant / developer: Unnamed private developer (represented by attorney at meeting)
Attorney: Not named in transcript
Location / address: West side of Cave Creek (specific address not given; west of Carefree Highway)
Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not stated in transcript
Density / units / square footage: 230 acres, 1 unit per acre (230 units maximum); reduced from original 900 acres at 1 unit per acre
Changes from previous version: Significant reduction in acreage (670-acre reduction); same density unit requirement
Water rights: 230 acre-feet allocated to developer; surplus returned to Town; line extension agreement predates Town's water company acquisition
Financial structure: Property tax-based improvement district; developer finances all infrastructure; Town assumes no liability or risk

Vote Breakdown

Final: Unanimous (all ayes)
Yes: All council members (Mayor Robert Morris, Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer, Councilmember Tom Augherton, Councilmember Cynthia Driskell, Councilmember Joe Freedman, Councilmember Thomas McGuire, Councilmember Dusty Rhoades)
No: None
Abstentions / absences: None recorded

The council also unanimously approved several routine items:

New Town Attorney Contract: Town Manager introduced Sims Murray (Sims Murray law firm) as the Town's new attorney, hired after a process reviewing 10 qualified applicants. Murray stated the contract had been revised per council requests and stood by the language. Robert Morris noted the "long arduous process" and congratulated the selection. Murray was immediately placed in the position and provided legal guidance during the meeting itself (specifically on open-meeting law regarding council member responses). Vote: unanimous approval.
Resolution R 2015-13 (Correction and Modification): The council amended a prior resolution to correct a blank hearing date, inserting June 1, 2015, and making the amendment retroactive to April 20, 2015. The amendment addressed a defect noted by opposing counsel. Town Attorney confirmed the notice was clear regardless. Vote: unanimous approval.
Rezoning Item Continuation: The council continued a rezoning matter to July 20, 2015, noting that not all applicants were present. Vote: unanimous approval.
Council Agenda Posting Days Reduction: The council approved reducing the required posting days from a longer standard to align with state requirements. Town Manager stated this would help staff meet deadline demands. Vote: unanimous approval.
Water Advisory Committee Appointments: The council approved appointments of water advisory committee members through December 31, 2015, unifying the expiration dates with other Town committees. Vote: unanimous approval.

Water Infrastructure, Staffing, and Budget Tensions

The Water Advisory Committee presented three recommendations to address deferred maintenance and system reliability:

Hire a full-time civil engineer (Assistant Utilities Manager)
Hire a full-time instrumentation and electrical controls technician
Focus these new staff on energy savings, preventive maintenance, water resource planning, and system integration opportunities

Town Manager's Position: The Town Manager expressed disagreement, stating he had one full-time engineer (David Prince) and was hiring a second engineer (part-time, becoming full-time July 1) to reduce the public works burden and free Prince to focus on water and utilities. He proposed converting a vacant equipment operator (backhoe operator) position in public works to an instrumentation technician rather than hiring two entirely new positions. He stated: "I have more demands than just utilities I have General government already other things."

Advisory Committee Advocate (Dr. Allen, David Prince): Prince and the committee emphasized that modern water systems (installed within the last 8–10 years) are "less labor intensive and more Electronics intensive" but their electronic monitoring had deteriorated due to budget constraints and deferred maintenance. The technician would enable preventive maintenance (e.g., $1,000 repairs versus $30,000 pump replacement) and automated monitoring across all town water and wastewater systems.

Councilmember Lipsky's Challenge: Lipsky questioned whether the advisory committee's recommendations were being addressed and noted the distinction between the old (labor-intensive) and new (electronics-intensive) system design philosophy. He stated: "I don't think that they're being addressed I don't think because of the configuration of control that your town engineer Public Works director and utilities manager are embodied in one person I don't believe those Duties are being addressed."

No Action Taken: The Town Manager stated the matter would be addressed in the detailed budget discussion. The council took no formal action, deferring to the budget process.

Other Public Comment Items

Cave Creek Rearing Horse Monuments

Mark Carroll's wife spoke in defense of the two stainless-steel horse sculptures (created from a $20,000 council-approved budget) currently located at the Carefree Highway entrance to town. She expressed concern about a proposal to relocate them to a "remote area" of the Rodeo Grounds, citing visibility and security concerns. She noted the site was currently neglected—"full of garbage weeds and campaign posters"—and advocated for landscaping and solar lighting at the current location or relocation closer to town on Cave Creek Road. The council took no formal action.

Cave Creek Rodeo Operations and Grounds Improvements

Tracy Cali, Rodeo President, presented the annual recap:

Positive: Saturday night's inaugural performance sold out; the parade-to-previous-weekend format and kickoff celebration were successful for safety and traffic flow; new bleacher seating in the VIP sections was well-received; the Buffalo Chip (venue partner) and town volunteers were generous in support.
Revenue challenge: Despite strong ticket sales, revenue remained "basically flat" because the committee spent approximately $30,000 on equipment rentals ($13,000 of which was for bleachers in Section Five). The committee contributed an additional $3,500 in ground improvements (paint, pipe repairs, landscaping, sign packages, etc.).
Requests to the Town:
- Shuttle service from town to Rodeo Grounds for 2016 (previously offered)
- Continued grounds improvements and dedication of the new bleachers
- Arena lighting (described as "very dark" and difficult for judging and contestant safety)
- Rescheduling of postponed golf tournament (typically $1,000 in revenue)
Context: Cali noted that in 2011, the rodeo was rained out on April 9 and the association went bankrupt, so risk management is a priority. The organization aims to bring a national award home to Cave Creek. No formal council action; the presentation was informational.

Bike Parking and Team Roping Events

A local property owner (at 6705 East Cave Creek Road, approximately 35 feet from Highway 101) offered his 9.5-acre property for free bike parking to address traffic and safety concerns during bike events (Bike Week). He noted the main road had been reduced from four crosswalks to one to improve traffic flow and referenced the upcoming Roping events drawing large numbers of team ropers and trailers. He offered to flatten the arena if necessary to accommodate bikes, and called for equitable treatment of all special events. No formal action; informational.

Controversies & Context

The Unresolved Anti-Semitic Cartoon

The 2013 swastika cartoon represents the third or fourth documented instance of the Sonora News publishing inflammatory content (George Ross mentioned a prior 2007 unconstitutional ordinance opposed by the paper that led to a costly lawsuit and rescission). That the Town—despite being contacted by the Anti-Defamation League in fall 2013—continued to contract with the Sonora News for legal notices and continued council members to write guest editorials raised questions about institutional accountability and the line between free speech protection and editorial responsibility.

The procedural argument about whether council members could respond from the dais versus the podium reflected broader tension about the council's ability to respond to accusations without crossing into debate. Town Attorney Sims Murray's immediate clarification—that Arizona open-meeting law permits responses to direct criticism but that best practice requires they originate from the podium—suggested an effort to establish norms and minimize confrontation.

Political Risk vs. Financial Risk

The distinction between "political risk" and "financial risk" in the Cave Springs Revitalization District echoed a recurring theme: the Town's attorney and staff had explicitly acknowledged that if the project failed, future councils would face citizen demands for remedies, even if the Town bore no financial obligation. This framing suggested that the absence of a direct financial liability did not eliminate reputational or governance risk. K. Kimel's testimony—the most technically detailed—highlighted the importance of assessing property marketability and water infrastructure completeness before approving the district, concerns that the council did not substantively address.

Water as a Contested Resource

Water emerged as a central tension: the west side of Cave Creek, annexed years ago, remains without town water service, with lines installed but not operationalized. The revitalization district, financed by property owners within its boundaries, promises to extend water infrastructure—but only to the project boundaries. Residents like Terry Smith and Jan Rehfuss framed this as the Town outsourcing its obligation to provide water to annexed property. The Town Manager and developer representatives emphasized that the project was private and that the Town had secured water rights. The gap—between the Town's general obligation to annexed property and the project's limited scope—remained unresolved.

Staffing and Budget Pressures

The water advisory committee's staffing requests were deferred to the budget process, reflecting broader tensions between departmental needs (utilities requesting an engineer and technician) and the Town Manager's fiscal and administrative priorities (converting a backhoe operator position rather than hiring two new staff). The presence of two engineers by July, with a third part-time hire, suggested some acknowledgment of the problem—but the Town Manager's resistance to the advisory committee's specific recommendations indicated disagreement about where the priority lay.

Duration

This meeting: Total duration approximately 3+ hours (specific start and end times not stated, but public comment ended at 7:45 p.m. with multiple agenda items remaining, including budget discussion).
Public comment total: 14 speakers under "call to the public," most addressing the Sonora News cartoon and revitalization district.

Notable Quotes and Procedural Exchanges

Mayor Robert Morris, responding to accusations of anti-Semitism:

"There is no stench of anti-Semitism over this town There's a stench of anti-Semitism over his building."

Councilmember Lipsky, on free speech and responsibility:

"Freedom of speech in this country comes with a responsibility. I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't do things that violate other people's rights a swastika and an open threat in a newspaper is a violation of every citizen's right in this town and I will defend it right up to The Bitter End."

Town Attorney Sims Murray, clarifying open-meeting law:

"Some people in the audience are right that the open meeting law does allow one of the three things you can do as a council in response to calls to the public and that is to respond to criticism... the majority of jurisdictions require the counselor to speak from from the podium and not from from the Dais."

Councilmember McGuire, on private development risk:

"This is a private project and I can cite several examples in Cave Creek and Maricopa County with the downturn that failed when those projects failed went to court went through bankruptcy or whatever the municipality was not at risk."