Cave Creek Council votes 6-0 to appeal bicycle trail ban, approves $215,654 wastewater equipment replacement

Cave Creek Appeals Court Ruling on Mountain Bike Trail Access; Adopts Restrictive Water Policy and Orders Critical Wastewater Equipment Replacement

The Cave Creek Town Council voted 6-0 on December 20, 2021 to appeal a superior court judge's decision that would have prohibited bicycles from trails in Canyon Ridge Estates, signaling the town's determination to protect trail connectivity and preserve a recreational asset central to the community's identity. The same meeting saw the council adopt a revised water resource policy that sharply restricts service extensions beyond town boundaries and approve a major equipment replacement at the wastewater treatment plant—but not before Council Member Robert Morris demanded the town implement stronger economic analysis and preventive maintenance protocols to prevent future catastrophic failures.

The three-hour meeting covered ground from mountain biking to infrastructure reliability, revealing underlying tensions about the town's role in managing growth, water scarcity, and aging systems.

Canyon Ridge Estates Trail Access Appeal

Key Speeches

"It is the only connector that goes straight from cave creek to cave creek regional park and out of that becomes so much a big part of it is the c4 race... [IMBA] has given their full weight to supporting this issue. DFMBA and IMBA are prepared to go forward with an amicus brief if this appeal is filed." — Brent Dimmett, Desert Foothills Mountain Bike Association President and attorney

"The trails are a signature feature of our town and we've got to protect it. We've got to protect the ability to manage the town's assets. It's a very low cost appeal with a high probability of success." — Council Member Robert Morris

"This has tremendous implications for all of our trails should we not challenge this the use of trails throughout cave creek would be in jeopardy... it is critical for cave creek to maintain the integrity of our trails." — Council Member Thomas McGuire

Timeline

• Public comment: Two speakers, approximately 15 minutes combined. Brent Dimmett, president of Desert Foothills Mountain Bike Association (DFMBA) and an attorney, testified in favor of the appeal. He outlined the C4 race (a major fundraiser for DFMBA), trail maintenance work performed by the association, and financial and recreational implications for the community. He noted that IMBA—the International Mountain Bike Association—had committed an amicus brief to support the town's appeal, significantly strengthening legal arguments beyond narrow grounds the town alone could raise. A second speaker, identified as Eileen Wright, a Cave Creek resident, raised process concerns, questioning why staff was making a recommendation on a legal matter and requesting cost and success probability data before committing to what she characterized as an expensive appeal.

• Council discussion: Robert Morris, McGuire, Silva, and Defender spoke in support. Robert Morris framed the decision as protecting the town's signature feature and assets at low cost with high probability of success. McGuire emphasized that the decision had "tremendous implications for all of our trails" nationally and reflected unusual judicial reasoning that would be opposed by mountain biking advocates across the country. Defender and Silva both stressed the trails' importance to Cave Creek's character and their confidence that the HOA had acted properly.

• Vote: 6-0 in favor of authorizing the appeal. The motion directed the town's legal counsel to file an appeal to continue legal proceedings.

Opposition

One speaker raised concerns:

• Lack of detailed justification in the agenda packet
• Uncertainty about which attorney would handle the appeal (town attorney, risk pool, or outside counsel)
• Request for economic analysis and probability of success before committing town funds

Support

• Brent Dimmett testified that the case has significant implications for recreation, economic activity (the C4 race generates community revenue and fuels DFMBA's trail maintenance), and trail connectivity.
• He emphasized that DFMBA maintains all trails in Canyon Ridge Estates and performs work across Cave Creek.
• He noted that the Desert Foothills Mountain Bike Association and IMBA are prepared to file amicus briefs, which strengthen appeals by allowing broader legal arguments and "putting meat on the bones" to narrow appellate briefs.
• Council members stressed that the trails are central to Cave Creek's identity and that allowing the decision to stand would jeopardize trail use across the entire town.

Project Details

• Case number: KCV2019-052824
• Parties: Town of Cave Creek and Canyon Ridge Estates Homeowners Association (appellants); property owner claiming pedestrian and equestrian use only (respondent)
• Issue: Whether bicycles are permitted on trails within the Canyon Ridge Estates subdivision under recorded easements and plats, or whether use is limited to pedestrian and equestrian activity as the property owner claims.
• Current status: Superior court judge ruled against the town and HOA. Town authorized to appeal.
• Supporting organizations: Desert Foothills Mountain Bike Association; International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA), committing amicus brief.

Controversies & Context

The case has consumed approximately three and a half years and involved litigation through the risk pool. The central dispute concerns whether the town and HOA properly may enforce easements and dedications that the town recorded on plats to permit non-motorized trail use. The property owner—who does not reside in the town—has argued the trails are restricted to pedestrian and equestrian use only. The judge's decision appears to have found the HOA and town had limited authority to amend operative documents and enforce the recorded easements. Council members expressed surprise at the decision's reasoning and confidence that an appellate court would reverse it. Brent Dimmett emphasized that the C4 race, which relies on trail connectivity and brings 300 riders and significant local spending, has not been held for two years partly due to uncertainty created by the litigation. The case also touches on broader national issues regarding mountain bike access to public and quasi-public lands, making the amicus support from IMBA and DFMBA strategically important.

---

Water Resource Policy Adoption and Service Restriction

Key Speeches

"The preservation and of the town's water resources is critical to the town's survival moving forward so this needs to be part of town code it's not just a policy." — Sean [Town Manager/Water Director]

"In areas outside of the town boundaries and not including the carefree area which is done by a separate agreement you will no longer provide service automatically and there will be a need to look at existing agreements and statutes to see if service must be provided but if the town is not bound to provide service then it will not." — Michelle Vanquish, Consultant

"This policy is still in the form that you sought... the main part of the policy is that... you will no longer provide service automatically... Basically stopping the extension of new services that are not already required by statute or contract." — Michelle Vanquish

Timeline

• Ordinance second reading (Item 9): The council voted 6-0 to approve the second reading of Ordinance 2021-08, which amends Town Code Title V (Public Works) Chapter 52 (Water) to codify key provisions from the 2017 water policy. Changes include: (1) definitions of "manifold meters" to prevent circumvention of capacity fees; (2) clarification of extension requirements across property frontage to encourage system connectivity; (3) volumetric limits for new service (0.5 acre-feet per year for single-family residential and commercial; 0.33 acre-feet for multi-family); (4) redefinition of "will-serve letters" as non-binding statements of intent (valid for three years, then automatically expiring) rather than contracts; (5) requirements that new subdivisions bring physical, legally available water resources to the table; and (6) discontinuance and removal of meters that have been inactive for extended periods. The ordinance becomes effective 30 days after adoption.

• Policy adoption (Item 10): The council moved to adopt Resolution R2021-25, which formally adopts the revised town water resource policy restricting new service extensions outside town boundaries (except in the Carefree service area, governed by a separate agreement) to areas where service is required by statute or contract. Due to an unintentional omission, the policy document was not included in the public packet made available on the town website, though Town Attorney Sims noted it had been presented at the prior meeting. Council Member McGuire and others expressed skepticism about proceeding without public advance notice; however, Sims clarified that Arizona open meeting law does not require advance publication, only that the open meeting itself be public. The council voted 6-0 to approve the policy.

• Transition period: The resolution establishing the policy included a transition period through February 28, 2022, to accommodate projects already in the development pipeline with Maricopa County. Projects that have submitted applications to Maricopa County building services before that date may still be granted service if staff and council determine it appropriate, after which new external service would require explicit council authorization.

• Public comment: Two developers testified. Pat Mahoney, who owns property at 7th Street and Carefree Highway with approximately 17 acres, described a long development history beginning in 2005, including a 2017 water plan approved by town engineer, a fire line loop installed in 2019, and a self-storage facility completed in 2020 with an operational water meter since June 2020. He expressed concern that the new policy would block QuikTrip Corporation's plans for the property and proposed a quid-pro-quo arrangement: annexation in exchange for sales tax revenue, which could allow the town to purchase additional water credits on a larger scale than individual developers could negotiate. Daniel Chambers, representing QuikTrip Corporation, noted the project is subject to Maricopa County landscaping requirements that exceed the water availability, and thanked council for considering a service agreement while noting the company has worked with staff to reduce water usage.

Opposition

None explicitly stated in public comment, though Council Member McGuire and others expressed caution about the process and timeline.

Support

• Town staff and consultant Michelle Vanquish emphasized that the policy reflects the town council's stated desire to prioritize water conservation and manage external growth.
• Council Member Silva supported the policy, noting it reflects the general plan's commitment to preserving rural character.

Project Details

• Resolution: R2021-25
• Policy name: Revised Town of Cave Creek Water Resource Policy
• Scope: Restricts new water service extensions outside town boundaries except where service is mandated by statute or contract (e.g., existing agreements, annexations).
• Transition period: Through February 28, 2022, for projects already submitted to Maricopa County development services.
• Affected areas: Desert Hills service area and other unincorporated county lands where the town currently serves.
• Carefree exception: Carefree service area remains governed by a separate intergovernmental agreement.

Controversies & Context

The policy shift reflects mounting pressure from Arizona's water scarcity crisis. The town has been extending water service to areas outside its boundaries for years, but growth and drought conditions have forced a reckoning. Town staff indicated that developers and property owners often discover the town's water constraints only after submitting applications to Maricopa County, creating conflicts between county development approval and town water availability. The transition period acknowledges that developers like Pat Mahoney and QuikTrip Corporation have made investments and submissions in good faith under prior policy; however, it also signals that future external service will be exceptional rather than routine. Pat Mahoney's request for a negotiated quid-pro-quo involving annexation and sales tax revenue suggests that developers see the water restriction as an opportunity to discuss larger governance changes. Council Member McGuire's skepticism about discretion reflects concern that vague transition criteria could lead to favoritism; Sean responded by noting the 60-day window corresponds to Maricopa County's typical review timeline for building permits.

---

Wastewater Treatment Plant Inlet Screen Replacement

Key Speeches

"This is a catastrophic equipment failure. Why was it not caught? What kind of management techniques do we have to make sure that equipment that is not performing well is caught before there are catastrophic failures?" — Council Member Robert Morris

"[The town] needs to have a comprehensive uh program of constant review of the individual parts because if any one of those goes bad it becomes a problem for the rest of the system." — Vice Mayor [Name not fully clear in transcript]

"We really need to loot the system... the overall system benefits greatly exceeds the one water meter they're asking for." — Sean, regarding line extension benefits

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Staff presented the history of a rotary drum inlet screen installed with the original wastewater treatment plant in 2010. The device removes large floating debris, rags, and wipes before water enters downstream basins. In late 2014 (four years after installation), the drum failed; the town spent approximately $45,000 on repairs, shipping the equipment to the East Coast and removing it from service for roughly 11 months. In 2019, staff noticed wear and ordered spare parts, but the supervisor responsible then left. In April 2021, when mgc contractors disassembled the unit for evaluation, it became clear the damage was far more extensive: bearing support failures had allowed the drum to shift downward, damaging the main bearing and its surface. Staff estimates for repair approached $75,000, prompting engagement of Wilson Engineers to evaluate alternatives.

• Staff recommendation: Wilson Engineers recommended replacing the rotary drum screen with a rising rake screen—a more reliable design with lower 20-year lifecycle costs despite higher initial capital cost. The new equipment would include better bearing support systems (multiple supports vs. single supports on the original) and reduced maintenance burden. MGC Contractors was engaged to perform the replacement under a job order contract for $215,654.

• Funding: The town identified capital funding by pausing a separate $150,000 project (Chip Rosa Lift Station repairs) and seeking operational savings and capital reallocation.

• Public comment: None on this item.

• Council discussion: Robert Morris opened with sharp questioning about preventive maintenance failures. He outlined a personal framework: reactive maintenance ("fix it when it breaks," where the town has been); preventive maintenance (fixing before failure); and predictive maintenance (using instruments to trigger maintenance only when needed, not on fixed schedules). He criticized the staff writeup for lacking economic analysis comparing the $75,000 repair option to the $215,654 replacement option and requested the town provide certified economic calculations, not subjective judgments, for future capital decisions. Vice Mayor Smith and Council Member Defender both supported the replacement but emphasized the need for comprehensive preventive maintenance programs to avoid future cascading failures. Robert Morris also noted a pattern: the grit unit (another upstream component) had also failed, with an auger mechanism breaking and damaging a downstream pump—suggesting systemic maintenance issues rather than isolated equipment problems.

• Staff response: Sean acknowledged that the equipment failure should have been caught earlier. He noted that the town created a maintenance group approximately one year ago to separate maintenance functions from system operator duties (previously combined), brought in vendor services for annual pump inspections, and began migrating asset information into an online maintenance management system (iWork). He stated that preventive maintenance is a work in progress and that the shock of discovering the extent of bearing damage prompted the decision to engage an outside engineer rather than proceed with repair. He affirmed the need for better economic analysis in future capital decisions.

• Vote: 6-0 in favor of the job order contract with MGC Contractors.

Opposition

None. However, Robert Morris raised substantive concerns about maintenance culture, not about the specific project.

Support

• Vice Mayor Smith and Council Member Defender both supported the equipment replacement and acknowledged its criticality to wastewater treatment.
• Robert Morris voted in favor while emphasizing the need for systemic improvements.

Project Details

• Case/Contract: Job Order Contract with MGC Contractors
• Cost: $215,654
• Equipment: Rotary drum inlet screen (existing, failed) → rising rake screen (replacement)
• Failure history:
  • Installed 2010
  • Failed late 2014 (four years of service); repaired at cost ~$45,000; removed from service ~11 months
  • Failed 2021; bearing damage discovered during disassembly
• Current condition: Manually screening debris using larger-port opening, allowing inappropriate material (wipes, plastics, rags) to pass downstream into sludge basins and disk filters.
• Impacts downstream: Debris entering basins and filters; grit unit auger failure (a separate failure) attributed to debris backup; sludge basin contamination requiring future vendor cleaning and factoring.

Controversies & Context

Council Member Morris's criticism of maintenance culture reflects a broader town pattern. The wastewater treatment plant has experienced multiple cascading failures: the inlet screen in 2014 and 2021, the grit unit auger, and the Rancho Mañana lift station (mentioned in the town manager's year-in-review as having undergone significant upgrades including pump replacement following the 2020 summer monsoon). The town manager's comprehensive year-in-review noted that staff had completed "several significant updates" to the Rancho Mañana lift station (which carries 90% of wastewater) and dealt with 19 water main breaks and 32 service line replacements in the distribution system through November 2021—all reactive responses to failures. Morris's insistence on preventive maintenance and predictive analytics reflects frustration with this pattern and a desire to move toward a more proactive posture. His request for certified economic analysis signals skepticism that staff had fully evaluated alternatives or that the town was making data-driven decisions rather than reactive ones. The fact that the 2014 repair and current replacement together represent ~$260,000 in spending on the same component over seven years also suggests the original equipment design or the town's operational practices may be fundamentally mismatched.

---

Planning Commission Appointments

Council appointed two of five candidates to fill vacancies on the Planning Commission through a novel "ballot-in-hat" process designed to prevent first-nominator advantage and ensure fair consideration of all candidates.

Candidates were:

• Cynthia Driskell: 35 years in Cave Creek, former president of Arizona State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, experience in quasi-judicial regulation and open meeting law.
• Steve Lamarr: Senior process engineer (semiconductor industry), active since 2002 in desert conservation efforts.
• Clayton Miller: Licensed landscape architect, recently completed own residence in town.
• Reg Monacan: Four-year incumbent seeking reappointment; emphasized data-driven decisions and ordinance compliance.
• John Patton: Four-year incumbent seeking reappointment; emphasized balance between resident desires, town needs, and property owner rights.

Results:

• Steve Lamarr: Unanimous appointment
• Reg Monacan: Failed 4-2
• Cynthia Driskell: Approved 5-1
• John Patton: Not voted on (two seats filled)
• Clayton Miller: Not voted on

Process note: Town Attorney Sims explained that the council had adopted the ballot-in-hat procedure to avoid the open meeting law problem that arises when the first council member to nominate a candidate effectively gives that candidate an advantage (vote called immediately on first nomination). Under the new procedure, nominations close after all council members have nominated; names are drawn from a hat; and votes are cast on candidates in the order drawn. This ensures each candidate receives equal consideration. Mayor Bunch noted that this process was adopted in response to past concerns about fairness.

---

Other Notable Items

Opioid Settlement (Resolution R21-26): Council voted 6-0 to authorize execution of settlement and release agreements with Johnson & Johnson, Janssen, and distributors McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen. The settlement is expected to yield approximately $91 million for nine regional cities, with Cave Creek's portion not specified in the discussion. The resolution clears legal obstacles to releasing claims in exchange for settlement funds. Council Member McGuire asked about the town's specific allocation; the figure "$91 million for nine cities" was cited, but Cave Creek's share was not calculated on the record.

Five-Year Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Resolution R2021-27): Council voted 6-0 to adopt the 2021 five-year multi-hazard mitigation plan, required by FEMA to receive pre-emergency mitigation funding and certain flood control funds. The prior plan dated 2015. Two other jurisdictions dropped out of the program last year for reasons unstated. All other jurisdictions must reapprove every five years. FEMA pre-approved the current plan; adoption makes it effective.

Planning Commission and Advisory Committee Codes of Conduct: Council voted 6-0 to approve codes of conduct for the Planning Commission and advisory committees (currently only the Water Advisory Committee is active). The codes mirror the town council's code of conduct and were adopted in response to prior behavioral concerns. Council Member McGuire made an editorial comment that the town staff is already overburdened and questioned the need for additional committees.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Acceptance (Fiscal Year 2020-2021): Council voted 6-0 to accept the CAFR. Auditor Brian Hemmerle (Henry & Horn, CPAs) presented a clean, unmodified audit opinion with no findings, recommendations, material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies. He highlighted a significant transaction: the transfer of approximately $10 million from the general fund to utility funds (wastewater and water) to write off previous advances and cover cash requirements. Robert Morris praised the town's financial position and trajectory, noting it appears "extraordinarily good" and asking how the town ranks statewide. Hemmerle declined to opine on comparative rankings but noted that Cave Creek's positive financial position aligns with other Arizona municipalities, which also benefited from strong sales tax collections during the pandemic.

---

Duration

• Trail appeal item: Approximately 30 minutes (including public comment and council discussion)
• Water policy items (9 and 10): Approximately 90 minutes combined (ordinance reading, policy discussion, public comment on both items and item 11)
• Wastewater equipment item: Approximately 45 minutes (including staff presentation and extended council discussion)
• Planning commission appointments: Approximately 35 minutes
• Total meeting: Approximately 3 hours 45 minutes (adjourned ~8:40 p.m.; began with executive session before regular meeting start)