Annexation area residents file appeal based on signature counts

An appeal filed in Arizona’s Second District Appellate Court regarding the return of 14 acres of land could potentially leave the city of Maricopa scrambling to make adjustments to tax rolls.

Ricardo Villa, William Domka and David Reed, three annexation-area residents who had a 2008challenge to the annexed area ruled as invalid by the Pinal County Superior Court judge (see related story), filed the appeal Jan. 15.

“My clients represented themselves the first time, and the judge ruled on the case without a hearing and looking at the proper precedence,” said the trio’s lawyer, Rand Haddock “I think it is pretty clear these guys have a case.”

The city, according to court records, obtained 156 signatures of residents in the annexation area, just slightly more than 51 percent of those who live in the area.

However, according to Haddock and city attorney Denis Fitzgibbons, if just one of those signatures were ruled invalid, the annexed area would revert back to the county.

When annexing land, a city wants to make sure there is clear support; in this instance gaining that support went down to the wire, Fitzgibbons said.

The primary arguing point for the validity of the signatures Haddock raises springs from a precedence set by two cases: Northwest Fire District v. City of Tucson (1995) and Ferree v. City of Yuma (1979). In these cases it was ruled that signatures of partial owners only counted as a partial signature.

Haddock argues that at least 11 of the signatures the city used for the annexation were counted incorrectly for this reason, and that two of the signatures belonged to people who were not even the property owners.

“You can’t just go out and annex property without going through the proper procedures,” Haddock said.

However, in the two cases Haddock is attempting to use as precedence, the other owners came forward and said they didn’t support the decision. In this circumstance the only people coming forward are those filing the appeal, and they have been against the annexation from the beginning.

“It is a complete different scenario; I feel we have a very strong case,” Fitzgibbons said.

Fitzgibbons added that Haddock is attempting to argue new theories in a case at the appellate level, something the city maintains should not be allowed.

“These guys understood what was going on was wrong, but the city’s attorney may try to argue that they are now raising different issues,” Haddock said. “Don’t give me a procedural argument; these guys knew in principal what they were arguing.”

Fitzgibbons said he doesn’t believe the appellate judge will send the case back for a new trial, but rather will just rule if the annexation was valid or not.

The briefs on both sides of the case have been entered, and both attorneys predict a ruling on the case by August.

If the annexed land is returned to the county, the city would have to remove the value of the annexed land from its tax rolls, increasing the property tax paid by residents.

The city has also committed to moving a fire station near the annexed property and paving a couple of roads in the area.

“Regardless of whether the annexation is ruled invalid, it will not affect these two projects,” City Manager Kevin Evans said. “We’re supposed to serve (the annexation area) as if it was ours and will continue to unless told otherwise.”

File photo