|
ARIZONA APPELLATE
COURT HOLD COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT LEGISLATION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS “SPECIAL LEGISLATION”
The 2006 Arizona
Legislature amended Chapter 44 to authorize the
creation of a County island fire district for
all unincorporated areas within a municipality’s
planning area to facilitate the provision of
fire and emergency services to the
unincorporated islands. Under the legislation, a
county island fire district could be formed only
in county islands that are located in an area
within a 911 service provider district in which
the largest city has a population of more than
395,000 people but less than 500,000 persons and
that is located within the municipal planning
area of a town with a population of 100,000 or
more persons as designated in the land use map
of the municipality’s general plan. The Town of
Gilbert is the only municipality meeting these
criteria within the entire State of Arizona.
Ariz. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 2 Section 19 states
that “[no] local or special laws shall be
enacted … [when] a general law can be made
applicable.” Arizona courts apply a three-prong
test to determine whether a law is an
unconstitutional local or special law: (1) there
must be a rational relationship between the
legislation and a legitimate legislative
objective; (2) the classifications created by
the legislation must apply uniformly to all
cases and to all members within the
circumstances provided for by the legislation;
and (3) the legislation must be elastic, or
open, not only to admit entry of additional
person, places or things with the requisite
characteristics, but also to enable others to
exit the statute’s coverage when they no longer
have those characteristics.
The Town of Gilbert filed suit against Maricopa
County and three individuals to prevent
formation of a county island fire district
within Gilbert’s planning area. Gilbert claimed
that the legislation was special legislation
and, therefore, unconstitutional. The Superior
Court agreed with Gilbert and declared the
legislation unconstitutional as special
legislation for the following reasons: (1) it
was not rationally related to a legitimate
legislative objective; (2) the classification in
the legislation was underinclusive because it
only applied to county island areas located
within the planning area of the Town of Gilbert,
in spite of the existence of other similarly
situated county islands in the State; and (3)
the legislation was not elastic, as there is no
reasonable likelihood that it will ever apply to
other municipalities. The court enjoined the
application of the legislation to Gilbert.
The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the
trial court finding that the legislation is
unconstitutional special legislation. In Town of
Gilbert v. Maricopa County , No. CA-CV 06-0309,
the Court of Appeals found that providing fire
and emergency services to the county island
residents is a legitimate governmental objective
and that the legislation was rationally related
to that purpose. However, since the legislation
failed to include the county island residents of
other cities who are similarly situated, the
court found that there was only a remote
possibility that another entity could enter the
class created by the legislation. The
classification was, therefore, underinclusive
and was also inelastic because there were no
other entities likely to enter the class within
even the remote future.
THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL
OPINION.
|
