91果冻传媒

The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two has upheld a lower court ruling in favor of the Town of Marana in a referendum dispute tied to a planned hotel development.

In a memorandum decision filed June 23, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Pima County Superior Court鈥檚 ruling denying requests from Arizonans for Responsible Development to force Marana to process referendum petitions challenging a town development agreement.

The case centered on a Marana resolution approving a development agreement for approximately 19 acres of town-owned property near Marana Main Street and Civic Center Drive. The agreement is tied to the Rancho Marana West Town Center Specific Plan, which was adopted in 2008 and contemplated a mixed-use town center with commercial, retail, office, institutional, entertainment and residential uses.

Arizonans for Responsible Development submitted referendum petitions seeking to refer the resolution to voters. Marana rejected the petitions, arguing the resolution implemented previously adopted policy and was administrative rather than legislative. Under Arizona law, legislative acts may be subject to referendum, while administrative acts generally are not.

The superior court sided with Marana earlier this year, finding the resolution was administrative and not subject to referendum. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The Arizona 91果冻传媒 of Commerce & Industry participated in the case as amicus curiae through the Arizona 91果冻传媒 Legal Center.

鈥淭his decision is an important affirmation of the principle that referendum powers cannot be used to relitigate every administrative step needed to carry out an already-approved development plan,鈥� said Mike Bailey, general counsel and director of legal reform programs for the Arizona 91果冻传媒. 鈥淎rizona鈥檚 referendum process is an important constitutional right, but there has to be a clear line between creating new policy and implementing policy that has already gone through the public process. That distinction matters for communities, employers and developers who need certainty to move projects forward.鈥�

In its decision, the Court of Appeals said the Marana resolution did not create new policy. Rather, the court found that the development agreement implemented the requirements of the Rancho Marana West Town Center Specific Plan Amendment, which had already been adopted by a 2008 ordinance.

The court wrote that the development agreement 鈥渇urthers an already-declared policy鈥� and later concluded the resolution was 鈥渘ot legislative but administrative and is therefore not referable.鈥�

The court also rejected the challengers鈥� broader statutory argument that all development agreements are automatically subject to referendum under Arizona law. The court said Arizona statute does not expand the traditional limits on local referendum power and noted that if the Legislature intended to make all development agreements subject to referendum, 鈥渋t could have said so clearly.鈥�

Bailey said the ruling is especially important as Arizona communities work to advance projects that support housing, hospitality, commercial development and job creation.

鈥淓conomic development depends on a process that is transparent, predictable and fair,鈥� Bailey said. 鈥淲hen a community has already adopted a plan, and a later action simply carries out that plan, businesses should not face endless uncertainty over whether that implementation step can be delayed or derailed. This ruling helps reinforce that common-sense boundary.鈥�

Image