The Clarkdale Town Council rejected a grant of easement of trails in the Mountain Gate subdivision at their regular meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 12.
Assistant Town Manager Ruth Mayday said the reasons why the town suggested the council rejected the recorded easements included a lot of ambiguity in the language of the development agreement and the plat. While the plat is clear, the development agreement is not, leading to conflicting language in the documents.
In 2005, Clarkdale entered into a development agreement with Empire Residential Construction, L.P., to govern the development of Mountain Gate. This agreement was amended in 2006 prior to Empire’s bankruptcy.
When Mountain Gate acquired the project, Clarkdale entered into a second amendment to the development agreement which rewrote the obligations in the original development agreement, including a rewrite of the obligations for the trails and recreation facilities/landscape buffer.
This rewrite required the owner or developer to create five pocket parks, trails and the dedication of the parks and trails to the town upon completion and acceptance by the town. The owner submitted deeds for the trails to the town for approval and to the homeowners association.
In most circumstances, the town accepts deeds of dedication and then they are recorded, but in this case, they were recorded by the homeowners association before the town reviewed and approved them. The Yavapai County Recorder’s office is required to record all documents meeting their format requirements.
Mayday said the plat mentions the trails are dedicated specifically to Mountain Gate residents and their invitees to use, but does not mention anything about the public using them.
Another reason why the town staff suggests rejecting the dedication is that the maintenance and use of the easements is tied to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Reservations and Easements, which can be amended by the majority vote of the HOA members. The HOA could vote to change the regulations governing the trails without the town’s input and without revising the plat.
Mayday said the deeds do not describe the trails as they were identified in the original development agreement. Some trails cannot be constructed due to drainage and topographical issues. There are also no designated trailheads or parking for non-residents.
While the second amendment of the development agreement dedicates the trails to the town, the plat reserves them as common areas owned and maintained by the HOA.
Mayday added the town doesn’t have the staff to maintain the trails.
“After looking at the plat it seems clear to me that the intention was never for these to be open to the community and I can’t imagine why we as a town would maintain something that is not open to everyone,” Councilwoman Marney Babbitt-Pierce said.
“I’m in favor of rejecting this gift on the grounds that our taxpayer money and intentions and care should be given to all constituents of our town, not just a few people within a neighborhood,” Vice Mayor Debbie Hunseder said. “It doesn’t sound like it’s a match for us.”
Councilwoman Laura Jones said, as a Realtor, she is perplexed as to how the county lets one party in the agreement sign and submit something for approval without the other. She asked how this could be prevented from happening again in the future.
Town Manager Susan Guthrie said she hadn’t seen the county record a one-sided document before. Moving forward, she suggested the development agreement explicitly say the town must sign off before it is recorded.
“I think all intentions were good at one point, but with the change in ownership and changes of the development agreement over the years, it didn’t get the attention it should have gotten,” Mayor Robyn Prud’homme-Bauer said. She added this has cost the town upward of $4,500 plus staff time. She reiterated the need for having clarity with everything in writing.
The council unanimously rejected the dedication of easements.
