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.