Ponderosa Fire District v. Coconino County
235 Ariz. 597
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Empire Residential developed Flagstaff Meadows Units 1–3; Unit 3 final plat was approved in 2007, and Empire posted performance bonds totaling ~$4.4M to secure unfinished subdivision improvements.
- Empire abandoned Unit 3 during construction; Bellemont later purchased Unit 3 at trustee sale (2011) intending to complete and sell lots and requested the County call the outstanding bonds to finish improvements.
- Coconino County declined to call the bonds after negotiations, finding the infrastructure essentially unconstructed, no current residents lacked infrastructure, calling the bonds would primarily benefit the single owner (Bellemont), and calling them posed litigation/general-fund risk.
- Bellemont and several other parties (HOAs, fire district, utility) sued for declaratory relief and mandamus to compel the County to call the bonds; trial court ordered the County to adopt a resolution calling the bonds and the County appealed.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether A.R.S. § 11-821(C) and Coconino County Ordinance § 4.14(A)(2) require the County to call bonds (ministerial duty) or permit County discretion; the court reversed the mandamus order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County must call performance bonds when developer defaults | Bellemont: statute and ordinance make calling mandatory once bond posted and final plat approved; otherwise bonds are meaningless and County could abandon subdivisions | County: statute and ordinance permit discretion when to call bonds; may decline to call bonds based on public interest and litigation risk | Court: County has discretion under A.R.S. § 11-821(C) and Ordinance § 4.14(A)(2) to decide when and whether to call bonds |
| Whether mandamus relief was available | Bellemont: mandamus proper because duty to call is ministerial | County: duty is discretionary, so mandamus inappropriate | Court: mandamus inappropriate because duty is discretionary; trial court erred in issuing writ |
| Standing to seek declaratory and mandamus relief | Bellemont: parties affected by County’s refusal have standing under A.R.S. § 12-1832 and are “beneficially interested” for mandamus | County: only obligee (County) may call bond; others lack direct enforcement rights | Court: declaratory relief standing exists; court assumed standing for mandamus issue but denied relief on merits (discretionary duty) |
| Procedural adequacy of show-cause hearing | Bellemont: summary-like procedure appropriate for pure legal question | County: hearing denied full discovery and evidence (procedural defect) | Court: no reversible procedural error because dispute presented a pure legal issue and County had adequate opportunity to brief and argue |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. First Federal Savings, 128 Ariz. 176 (1981) (performance bonds protect public from bearing developers’ costs)
- West v. Sundance Development Co., 169 Ariz. 579 (App. 1991) (ownership of streets does not transfer to county until streets are fully completed)
- El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State, 123 Ariz. 219 (1979) (mandamus lies only to compel ministerial duties)
- Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65 (1998) (statutory basis for mandamus and scope of relief)
- Associated Dairy Products Co. v. Page, 68 Ariz. 393 (1949) (counties possess only powers delegated by state)
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (2003) (statutory construction: give effect to all words, plain meaning)
- Harris v. Montgomery, 234 Ariz. 343 (2014) (statutory interpretation principles and avoiding absurd results)