After receiving information from interim City Attorney William J. Simms III regarding Thatcher Town Manager Terry Hinton’s statement that the golf course had to be annexed according to the law, Mayor Ron Green was selected to voice Safford’s opposition at Thatcher’s public meeting Friday.
“I can tell you that the Safford property does not need to be included in the annexation if, indeed, the objective of Thatcher is to annex the Anderson parcel,” Simms told the council at its May 27 meeting.
|
|
During Thatcher’s meeting, Hinton reiterated his statement that because other property owners wanted to be annexed as well as the Anderson property, the golf course must be annexed because it would otherwise form an illegal Graham County island with the town surrounding it. The golf course is located in Graham County but is owned and operated by the city of Safford.
Mayor Green read from a letter explaining the Safford City Council’s unanimous opposition to the annexation at the Thatcher meeting.
He also stated Thatcher had failed to notify a property owner of the town’s meeting on the proposed annexation as required by law, and the city would file a petition to invalidate it if Thatcher did not remove the golf course and adjacent land to the west from its plans.
According to the Arizona Revised Statute section 9-471, notice of the territory proposed to be annexed must be sent to each property owner within the annexation area. Subsection C of the statute states any city or town may, upon verified petition, “move to question the validity of the annexation for failure to comply with this section.”
Hinton said the landowner must have purchased the property after the annexation notifications were sent out.
“The sale took place after the process started, so I think we’re all right,” Hinton said.
Chief Executive Officer for Springbok Development LLC, Jeffrey J. Holt, said his company bought the property in January and that Hinton’s statement wasn’t accurate.
In a previous presentation to the Safford City Council, Holt outlined the development his company is looking to build in addition to the current golf course.
Plans call for a 36-hole Jack Nicklaus-designed course, a five-star hotel, timeshare, single-family residences, town homes, condos, assisted living, multi-family, senior center and other public facilities required to maintain the development. The course is also slated to have a state-of-the-art facility to attract event-oriented activities and a new pro shop.
Holt attended the meeting to voice his opposition of the annexation because it includes a 32-acre parcel of a much larger piece of land west of the golf course that his company is seeking to use to expand the course and develop.
Holt said his company is opposed to the annexation because half of his proposed development would then be under the jurisdiction of Thatcher and half under Graham County. He told the Courier that a possible intergovernmental agreement with Safford, Thatcher and Graham County is being sought.
“We’re not anti-Thatcher,” Holt said. “We are encouraged that we can work out an agreement that will allow us to bring a development that will be beneficial to the entire area. But to include the golf course and the 32-acre section of our property will cause us double the work.”
Holt encouraged the Thatcher Town Council to hold off on proceeding with the annexation until the groups could sit down and talk.
Mayor Green also pleaded for Thatcher to postpone its decision.
“The citizens of Safford currently subsidize the golf course to the tune of about $300,000 a year to keep the golf course going for everyone in the Valley,” he said. “It benefits Thatcher; it benefits the county; it benefits all the businesses in the area, and the taxpayers of Safford have been supporting that with their tax dollars. All we’re asking is that Thatcher leave us alone and allow us to partner with this particular group so we can develop something out there that will be beneficial to everyone in that area, including the Anderson property and the other annexations that may want to go in later.”
The Thatcher Town Council then unanimously voted to proceed with the golf course annexation.
Thatcher Town Engineer Heath Brown told the Courier that the town had done everything by the book and that the notification mistake must have occurred due to the county’s lack of updating its information.
He added this is the third attempt at an annexation in the area, and to go back and change the boundaries would add around three months to the process.
Comments
26 comment(s)Concerned Citizen of Safford wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:30 PM:
Think Big wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:33 AM:
Safford Native wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:39 PM:
Pro pool wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:38 AM:
Thatcher taxpayer wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:43 AM:
What does Thatcher do for its community? It sure had the money to buy Vals but say no to a pool they could be proud of. What has happened to the Thatcher pride. Councilmen wake up and listen to what is being said. "
Thatcher Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:20 AM:
Dusty Roads wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:30 PM:
Just beause Safford spends like a drunken sailor on everything they can think of, should Pima or Thatcher?
Listen to you folks! Safford failed to annex the golf course for years and years, that's not Thatcher's fault.
And IF you paid any attention, Safford will continue to own, collect the fees, and manage as they wish the golf course.
Thatcher has lots of money because they don't waste it. "
observation wrote on Jun 9, 2008 4:10 PM:
Get involved wrote on Jun 9, 2008 11:33 AM:
Thatcher taxpayer wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:35 AM:
Long time Thatcher taxpayer wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:30 AM:
Thatcher lost its pool due to age and not repairable but why do they still use it for EAC classes??
Town of Thatcher can find TAXPAYER money to buy out a business and electric line to the tune of millions but they cannot find the time to build a pool. Shame on you as our children have to go Pima or Safford to swim.Lets do something about it. "
I agree wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:19 PM:
Read it wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:13 PM:
Wondering wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:12 AM:
Big Bad Safford Man wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:13 PM:
Thatcher Boy wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:46 PM:
Hmm wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:18 PM:
Gunn wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:25 PM:
hmmmm wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:35 AM:
Reader wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:35 AM:
Casual Observation wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:51 PM:
Dusty Rhodes wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:50 PM:
Go look up what he paid for the flood wash of property he's holding. A mighty steep ante in any game.
Safford has yet to learn that you pay to play. If Safford continues to want 100% control of the (library, golf course, and airport) then Safford will continue to pay 100% of the costs.
Concept: Sharing costs means sharing ownership. "
Steve Owens wrote on Jun 5, 2008 1:00 PM:
He tried repeatedly to get the City of Thatcher to support the maintenance and upkeep of the course, to no avail. They declared repeatedly: "We don't want anything to do with the Golf Course and never will!" Now that this economic magnet has attracted surrounding construction and its corresponding property taxes, they want in! Go figure! Greedy hypocrites! "
Patrick wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:53 PM:
Pima wrote on Jun 5, 2008 9:53 AM:
I do remeber Mr. Hinton stating to the Safford City Council that they could keep the course and keep paying even when it was in Thatcher City limits. The funny thing is i think he was serious. "
Readers Comment wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:47 PM:
In the flood plain?? Huh? That's where the Holt property is. Who's gonna buy there and where are the golfers coming from to make this project work?
Maybe the realtor who sold Holt the property forgot to include a disclosure of the pending annexation??
This sounds a lot like the "dream" municipal complex of Exeter Development that was to go south of Safford's wastewater plant. "