Prescott Valley Citizens are eyeing a land development lawsuit in Yavapai County Superior Court – Bill Williams

The case could turn on a mistake by an inexperienced legal team from Prescott Valley City Hall, or, on a paperwork snafu

A lawsuit concerning the potential referendum vote to rezone acreage for a new Amazon warehouse will be decided based on whether there was a one-page paperwork mistake by a local citizens group. But the absence of a legal argument presented in court could alter the outcome.

William M. Hathaway, a citizen lawyer who has won in court on behalf of Prescott Valley residents before, was quite concerned when former Planning and Zoning Commissioner Bruce Evans filed suit against Citizens for Sensible Development’s effort to put the Fain/Amazon land rezoning on the next ballot… so, with his expertise, Hathaway filed an Amicus Brief in an attempt to clear up a rather muddied complaint.

When Hathaway saw that the Town was not going to get involved in defending the proposition that the actions of the Deputy Town Clerk and two members of the citizens group satisfied the relevant statute, he filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to advise the court of the practical realities facing ordinary citizens when mounting a referendum to challenge a Town ordinance.

The Ordinance was the one town council granted, allowing the Fain Signature Group to change the classification of land near the defunct horse racetrack on Prescott Valley’s east side so it could become an Amazon warehouse and delivery center. The council’s vote got all seven members named in the lawsuit, plus the town clerk and assistant clerk (represented by Prescott Valley’s town legal team), and paperwork filed by Citizens for Sensible Development’s officers, also represented by counsel.

The hearing was on October 24 before Presiding Judge John Napper

The hearing examined how Maddy Childers and Dori Martino (“Citizens”) obtained a copy of the challenged ordinance, because Evans is using a misty point that could disqualify the application if the judge rules that way.

• Plaintiff’s counsel claimed it was impossible for Marissa Greenwood (deputy town clerk) to have provided the correct documentation partly due to photocopy resolution issues, which could mean the proper paperwork was missing.
• The reliability of testimony from Ms. Childers and Ms. Martino was questioned based on this claim.
• Ms. Greenwood may have handed the original document to Ms. Childers and Ms. Martino, explaining the embossed seal’s presence, but the accuracy of that occurrence is where the case will turn.

Legislative Intent and case questions

• Arizona Revised Statute 19-101 contains provisions to protect the referendum process integrity by stating  a specific set of instructions.
• Did evidence show no confusion among Town officials, petition signers, or others regarding the ordinance or its challenge?
• The strict compliance standard is meant to safeguard a specific set of instructions, not create procedural obstacles.
• Were the steps taken in the Clerk’s office sufficient to meet the strict compliance  requirements?

The Citizens’ Application Process

• Is there a valid argument under another law, A.R.S. § 19-111A allowing rejection of the application if the serial number was not properly obtained for the referendum petition?
• Some say the application process was interpreted to suggest Ms. Greenwood could not address any deficiencies.
• Could this interpretation contradict Ms. Greenwood’s duty to uphold her office’s responsibilities?
• Ms. Greenwood was not asked if she believed the application was deficient when accepted.

A local legal scholar contends that had the Town made the statutory interpretation argument — as opposed to Hathaway — it would have carried more weight and would have vindicated both the actions of the Town and the constitutional rights of Childers and Martino under the referendum provisions of the Arizona Constitution.  By hugging the sidelines, the Town did not become neutral outside of the fray, it effectively supported Mr. Evans.

“If the court agrees with Mr. Evans, this is not a victory.  It is an unfortunate outcome.  To elevate an outcome that effectively strips ordinary citizens of a constitutionally-guaranteed right of direct democracy to the status of a victory is a cynical expression of the prevailing attitude of the Town government towards the future development of Prescott Valley.  That elevation also signals the undeniable need for a course correction in this Town’s government,” Hathaway told me.

Judge Napper could make his decision any day. Evans and Hathaway are both running for Prescott Valley town council. Let’s observe whether the case helps either one.