Snowflake Mayor Tom Poscharsky noted last week that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has determined that there was no merit to five claims made against the town alleging illegal action by the town council in granting a special use permit to Copperstate Farms, LLC, allowing the operation of a medical marijuana grow facility in the town.
His announcement came as part of an update on the complaints filed by District 20 State Representative Paul Boyer, who represents portions Peoria, Glendale and Phoenix, on behalf of Ken Krieger, a resident of Peoria.
“I talked to Mr. (Timothy J.) Casey, outside counsel for Snowflake, to get an update on all of them (the complaints). Right now they have four actions. Number one is Lowry Flake’s action that started in July right after the first approval of the SUP (special use permit) that was held in abeyance for a portion of time until we had redone the action on Aug 12. After that we had to submit an answer.”
Poscharsky explained that this was required of the Town of Snowflake and Copperstate Farms. The answer had to be submitted by Sept. 26, and was a motion for dismissal.
Since then Kory Langhofer, the attorney representing Krieger, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
“On all five of his claims to the AG (attorney general) they said there was no merit. Mr. Casey expects something to happen in about 30 days with respect to that,” said the mayor. “Nothing new was raised in the last motion by the plaintiffs other than to reiterate the five counts back in July. He (Mr. Casey) anticipates this will come to some sort of end in 30 days.
“The second action was from Langhoffer on behalf of Krieger in respect to a motion for public records against the town clerk and the town. There have been a couple of hearings, and the town submitted the last of materials to the other side this week and we believe we’ve complied with all the public records requests. Mr. Casey anticipates that within a month or so that will get sorted out. It’s now up to Plaintiff Krieger if he’s satisfied with what he received.”
The third and fourth actions were a motion by a representative to the AG’s office under a new law, SB 1487, which happened around Aug. 10 or 11 and basically reiterated the same five counts from the Lowry Flake lawsuit. Snowflake received a response 30 days later that informed town officials that they had not violated the law under the five counts, but may have violated the state law in the business license agreement.
“We, at our last meeting, agreed to remove those sections and to let town staff negotiate an amendment with the two parties. That has been done. I believe they were all signed by last Friday (Oct. 21), and submitted to the AG Monday or today (Nov. 2),” said Poscharsky.
“Mr. Casey now is just looking for a response from the AG’s office saying the matter was closed.
“The other was filed about the same time with the AG, the open meeting law division of the AG, and that investigation is ongoing. There hasn’t been a lot of activity that I’m aware of and he (Casey) feels there will be some response from the AG within the next 30 days or so.
“With respect to all this, they say everything to date should be wrapping up within the next 30 days. Mr. Casey doesn’t want to make any predictions or say anything that could be taken wrong by any of the parties.
“Sorry there’s so much confusion over all of it, we were looking for an answer but it wasn’t an answer, it was just the dismissal.
“There is nothing new that we haven’t heard, but that’s a report on the status of the action,” said Poscharsky.
On Nov. 1, a letter to Boyer from Brunn W. Roysden III, Assistant Attorney General, stated, “… the Attorney General’s office performed an investigation into official action by the Town of Snowflake Council pursuant to your request under A.R.S. §41-194.0l. The office issued a report of its findings and conclusions on Sept. 9, 2016, which determined the town council may have violated Arizona law when it approved ‘facilities agreements’ with Copperstate Farms, LLC and Mountain Time Management, LLC that provided for quarterly cash payments to the town under individually negotiated ‘license fee’ schedules.
“As noted in the Sept. 9 report, the town fully cooperated with the office’s investigation. And since the issuance of that report, the town has continued to provide additional information and updates. Recently, the office received confirmation that both facilities agreements were amended to eliminate the individual license fee schedules and instead provide for payment of a future, uniformly imposed fee. Because those amendments eliminated the provisions the office concluded may violate Arizona law, the question of their legality is moot, and it is no longer appropriate to seek review at the Arizona Supreme Court. This letter is to inform you that the office has therefore closed its file for your request, and no further action will be taken at this time.”
