PROPERTY RIGHTS AREN’T JUST FOR DEVELOPERS

Tuesday night, the City Council approved a Special Election for May 17^th that will cost Havasu taxpayers $138,000.  The City Council had several other options, but chose this expensive alternative. 

During the City Council public hearing , the City Attorney repeatedly and aggressively halted public comment as attempts were made to communicate why this ordinance for annexation should be repealed.   (See the video at http://lakehavasucity.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3.) 

Apparently in the City Attorney’s mind, the comments were not relevant to the agenda item.  We disagree.

Sadly, the ordinance was not repealed, a Special Election was scheduled and now it will be up to the voters of Lake Havasu to overturn this ill-advised annexation ordinance.

We believe the annexation ordinance should be overturned for many reasons.  These are just a few of the comments that were not allowed to be heard at the City Council meeting on Tuesday:

1)   The roads to access this proposed RV development are private roads that are owned and maintained by the Refuge Homeowner’s Association.  The golf course owner is provided an easement to use these roads for “golf-related purposes” only, not for the purposes of an overnight RV campground/Motor coach Resort.   This issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

2)   During the initial development of The Refuge in 2001, negotiations between the original Developer and the County resulted in resolutions and final plat map statements that the central feature of the Refuge subdivision is an 18-hole professional golf course and provided that, in order to ensure that the golf course remain an enduring feature of The Refuge, the lots within “the recorded Final Plat” could not be further divided.   The Aldridge’s plan to replace approximately 50 acres of the championship golf course with a newly-created subdivision is inconsistent with these original agreements that run with the land.  This issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

3)   During the initial development of The Refuge subdivision, the County and the Developer worked alongside The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the development would not increase burdens on the Wildlife Refuge’s water and protected species (see Posting below on “Frivolous Lawsuits”). The Aldridge’s plan appears to completely disregard any of these agreements and commitments to protect the environment. This issue is in the midst of litigation at this time.  Check back for an upcoming posting on this item for more details.

4)   The business plan outlined by the Aldridges has not been scrutinized or evaluated independently to provide any assurance to the City that they will actually deliver on their promises.  In fact, on every page of the Aldridge’s website, they state that they cannot assure that what they say they are going to do will, in fact, be done.  In other words, they cannot be held accountable to any promises they are making, whether it is revenue or jobs.

5)  The dismantling of a regional asset (An Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course) and replacing it with recreational vehicles and a sub-standard golf course.

It is our intention to provide more information on this website over the upcoming months to help you to understand some of the complexities that are involved with this annexation.  We have our work cut out for us.  The Aldridges have hired an expensive public relations firm that specializes in spinning stories and “putting magic dust on words”. This is the PR firm that put the spin on increasing AZ taxes that won the vote but left taxpayers scratching their heads, so they should not be underestimated.   Already, the Aldridges are flooding the community with promises of jobs and revenue and goodness and trying to discredit the opponents of their plan.  The politics of persuasion. 

These projects with lofty promises of goodness are hard to pass up.  But as you have seen in many of the past City projects, they don’t always turn out the way they are promised.  How many of these grandiose projects have NOT delivered and have actually turned out to be a liability for the City?

We have been told that we are “fighting a losing battle” taking on “fat cats” who are “well-connected with City Officials”.  We’ve been told “it’s in the bag so why fight this?”  

Why fight? Contrary to what our City Council may believe based on statements they made at Tuesday's meeting -  Property rights aren’t just for developers.  They are for the PEOPLE too.  And if we don’t stand up for our personal rights then we will all lose. 

Gather the facts, listen to the data, when you read the lofty promises, be sure to also read all of the associated disclaimers and ask yourself:  Does this make sense for the City?  Does this business plan really hold water?  Does it matter that this land had governmental restrictions that disallow what the Aldridges are proposing? 

IS THIS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

Million Dollar Motorcoaches in Lake Havasu?

Jerry and Cindy Aldridge tout their proposed upscale motorcoach resort at The Refuge as a destination resort.  Listed below is a general rule of thumb used to describe a community as a “destination” resort: 

·       Major commercial airport

·       Major hospitals

·       Multiple championship golf courses

·       Numerous restaurants from casual to gourmet

·       Coach repair facilities

·       Entertainment & Activities

·       Major shopping from national department stores to designer boutiques to fine outlet malls

While not all of the key points will necessarily be located within a community, they must at least be accessible within a reasonable driving distance.  While Lake Havasu is a charming community, it currently lacks many of the key points to truly be defined as a destination resort.

Where does one find an upscale motorcoach resort? 

There are many RV destination resorts around the country and the majorities are seasonal in nature.  Popular winter destination areas are Palm Springs/Coachella Valley and Florida.

                      

Would an upscale motorcoach resort succeed in Lake Havasu?  

Most likely not.   The attraction of a “destination” resort is lacking and The Aldridges are suggesting that the sale price of the RV lots will range from $170,000 to $240,000.  Zillow.com indicates that the average home price in Lake Havasu is $137,800.

Would the Aldridge's investment of $25,000,000 for a motorcoach resort make sense? 

First, depending on the day of the month this investment figure seems to vary between $18,000,000 and $25,000,000.  Regardless of the figure, it can’t be supported by revenues generated seasonally, in this case the winter season.     

Have the Aldridges demonstrated their financial ability to develop the motorcoach resort?

The short answer is no.  Jerry and Cindy Aldridge have yet to demonstrate to the Lake Havasu City Council that they have the financial resources to support a $25,000,000 development.   Very few governmental agencies would ignore such a basic question when granting development privileges to private parties.

Would the Aldridges restrict the RV Park to only upscale motorcoaches?

Most motorcoach resorts are governed by CC&R’s much like any residential community.   Without CC&R’s, the RV Park proposed by City Center would be open to all classes of RV’s, travel trailers, 5^th wheel trailers and even camping tents (which is popular with bikers).

What’s the economic benefit of a motorcoach resort to Lake Havasu City?

The Aldridges claim that the Motorcoach visitors will produce approximately $11 million per year in business for Lake Havasu City.  Using their calculation of $11 million per year works out to an Economic Benefit to Lake Havasu City of $39,855 per RV Lot Renter, or $19,927 per person. The Lake Havasu Chamber of Commerce website estimates that 1 million visitors annually produce an Economic Benefit to Lake Havasu of $100 million, or $100 per person.  The Chamber of Commerce estimates each visitor's economic benefit to the City is $100 while the Aldridges anticipate nearly $20,000 per visitor to their Motorcoach Resort.  These numbers are ridiculous and unachievable and highlight the fact that the City Council has not adequately researched the Applicant's financial projections. 

Can We Really Afford to Give Up 11 Million Gallons of Water Each Year? (Part 1)

Our City Council unanimously approved an ordinance authorizing the transfer of 35 acre feet of potable water every year (that equates to 11,404,785 gallons) to the American Water Corp. in support of the Refuge Annexation Plan. [See Footnote 1.]

The story from the Aldridges is that their #1 reason to annex this land is because of water.  In fact, they have actually stated that to them “it’s all about the water.” Well, what they are not telling you is that the only reason water is an issue at all is because of their plan to convert this land from an Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course to an RV Park. 

Water is NOT an issue if the The Refuge remains as the golf course community that was originally designed and developed. The original water allocations continue to be sufficient for the golf course (as a golf course) and the surrounding community of homes.

You may read that these 11 million gallons of water will not cost the taxpayers anything.  What about the cost of giving up those 11 million gallons of water, 11 million gallons EVERY YEAR that could have otherwise been used by the residents of Lake Havasu?

Right now, while water scarcity and conservation are primary concerns on the part of this entire region, it’s pretty hard to imagine that this redistribution of such a precious resource to an RV park is in the best interest of LHC residents. 

Based upon a City Council Staff presentation, Lake Mead levels have declined over 130 feet in the last 11 years and 2010 was one of the larger years for that lake decline. The current lake level is at 1082 elevation and the Bureau of Reclamation’s first trigger point to declare a shortage is elevation 1075.  Never before has a shortage been declared but there is a 30% chance by 2014 that this will be the situation. [See Footnote 2.] Lake Havasu City is and will be one of the first affected since the city is a priority 4 customer and priorities 1 through 3 will be serviced first.

While future water shortages are probable, the LHC residents have been conserving water for years.  The sewer project has resulted in conservation by the way the sewer fees are calculated.  This calculation method has forced homes and businesses that are connected to conserve water in an effort to minimize their sewer bill.  And with that successful conservation effort are increased water rates due to the reduction in the amount of water delivered to customers and the operational costs remaining the same.

With the pending shortages and our already high water rates why would the City resort to delivering 11 million gallons/year of our water allocation to an RV Park and jeopardize our future use and future city build out plan? The City may say it is
“only 35 acre feet of water”, but that translates into eleven million four hundred four thousand seven hundred eighty-five (11,404,785) gallons of water each and every year.

 If this water transfer is such a good idea and increased revenue is the driving force that is causing the City to make this decision, then why wouldn’t the City just sell these water rights directly to The Refuge without the legal entanglements of annexation?  Annexation does not have to occur in order to transfer these water rights. 

And consider this important factor:  Water delivered within the City limits commands one rate.  Water delivered outside City limits fetches a higher rate and translates into even GREATER revenues for the City (this will be explored further in Part 2).

Finally, what guarantee do the residents of Lake Havasu have that this transfer of water rights would not be increased if 11 Million gallons is not enough?  Can we really afford to turn over our very precious resource of water to support another RV Park for the City?

Footnotes:

[1] Regular City Council Meeting, 10/26/10

[2] City Council Work Session, 12/14/10

Frivolous Lawsuits? Part 1 of a 5-Part Series

Part 1:  Refuge Promises To U.S. Department of The Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service

The United States Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service was opposed initially to the development of the Refuge Subdivision back in 2001.  They were concerned because the development would increase the population of residents adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge and would place increased burdens on the Wildlife Refuge's water and wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife advised the County of its opinion and requested that the Original Developer’s application for the Subdivision be denied.  In light of Fish and Wildlife's position, the County required the Original Developer to obtain the approval of Fish and Wildlife before the County would approve the development of the Subdivision.

In order to address the concerns raised by Fish and Wildlife and in order to obtain the County's approval of the development of The Refuge, the Original Developer agreed to:

a)   Lower the density at The Refuge from 600 units to 360 units;

b)   Eliminate all multi-family and time-share components of the development;

c)    Move the Golf Course clubhouse to increase the natural areas of the  Subdivision;

d)   Increase the acreage of the Golf Course to provide more open area and green space.

The Original Developer also promised and represented to Fish and Wildlife that the Golf Course would serve as an appropriate transition between the Subdivision and the Wildlife Refuge because the Golf Course provides natural open space, would protect the water and wildlife resources of the Wildlife Refuge, and the Golf Course would otherwise improve riparian conditions for the area.

The Original Developer made such promises to Fish and Wildlife to induce it to approve the Subdivision.

Fish and Wildlife approved the plans for the development of the Subdivision based on the Original Developers' representations and promises.  The Golf Course, in its platted state, was a key element in obtaining approval from Fish and Wildlife for the Subdivision.

Only after Fish and Wildlife issued its approval did Mohave County approve development of The Refuge Subdivision.

As the successor-in-interest to the Original Developer, The Aldridges are subject to the representations and agreements of the Original Developer with Fish and Wildlife.  These agreements run “with the land”.  To replace 50 acres of this land that was agreed to remain as a “buffer” between the homes and the Wildlife Refuge with 300 RV pads and all of the associated by-products and significantly increase the density of the area would be a direct violation of these representations and agreements.  

Besides the legal ramifications, if these agreements and restrictions are disregarded by the Aldridges and the City of Lake Havasu, how likely is it that these governmental entities will cooperate with developments such as this in the future?

Over the next several months, we will be providing additional information in this 5-part series.  Part 2 will address Final County Resolutions, the Final Plat Map, restrictions on further subdividing this land and zoning (which, by the way, is the basis of the lawsuit that was just filed against the City of Lake Havasu by Refuge property owners).

It is important for the residents of Lake Havasu to realize that by annexing this land, the City is stepping right into the middle of this legal and moral nightmare. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the City to wait until these and other issues of contention (outlined in separate postings) are resolved before moving ahead with this ill-advised partial annexation?  

For key documents related to this article, check our "Documents & Links" tab.