Taxpayers v. Price, 418 P.3d 1103

PMG sought a permit to build a motorsports facility on a 280‑acre parcel annexed by the City of Maricopa; the parcel retained its prior CI‑2 Industrial zoning from the Old Code after adoption of a New Code.
PMG submitted a permit application in Feb 2017 labeled under the New Code as a Conditional Use Permit, with a handwritten note "Industrial Use Permit" referencing the Old Code; the Zoning & Planning Commission and City Council approved the permit.
Maricopa Citizens filed a referendum petition challenging the permit; the City Clerk ruled the permit decision was administrative (not referable) and disqualified 30 signatures, including 12 for missing city/zip information.
Maricopa Citizens sued for declaratory, injunctive, and special action relief arguing the permit decision was legislative and thus subject to referendum; PMG counterclaimed that petition sheets failed to meet statutory form requirements.
The trial court held for Maricopa Citizens, finding the permit was legislative, the Clerk exceeded review authority by disqualifying signatures, and the petition form was not fatally defective; appellants (PMG, Clerk, City) appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s grant of a use permit is subject to referendum (legislative vs. administrative)	Maricopa Citizens: Granting the permit was akin to rezoning/policy creation and therefore legislative and referable	PMG/City: Granting a conditional/industrial use permit implements existing zoning policy and is administrative, not referable	Court held: The permit was an administrative act and not subject to referendum
Whether the permit was permanent or temporary in character for Wennerstrom test	Maricopa Citizens: No periodic review or expiration = permanent	PMG/City: City could have imposed time limits or renewal conditions, so not inherently permanent	Court held: Permit was not necessarily permanent; City could impose time limits, supporting administrative characterization
Whether the permit had general or limited application	Maricopa Citizens: Large acreage makes it more general	PMG/City: Permit applied to a specific parcel; conditional permits are site‑specific	Court held: Permit was of limited/specific application, supporting administrative characterization
Whether the permit constituted policy creation vs. implementation	Maricopa Citizens: City made policy by changing which process applies, so decision created policy	PMG/City: City followed existing zoning designations from the Old Code and merely executed existing policy	Court held: Approval implemented preexisting policy (Old Code), so it was administrative

Redelsperger v. City of Avondale, 207 Ariz. 430 (App. 2004) (approval of a conditional use permit is generally administrative and not subject to referendum)
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485 (1991) (test for legislative vs. administrative: permanence, generality, and policy creation vs. implementation)
W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426 (1991) (referendum requires strict compliance with constitutional and statutory rules)
Sandblom v. Corbin, 125 Ariz. 178 (1980) (issuance of special use permits is generally an administrative act)
State v. Oakley, 180 Ariz. 34 (App. 1994) (adoption of electoral district boundaries is legislative when board has broad discretion)
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley, 129 Ariz. 409 (App. 1981) (rezoning or special use permits used as a de facto rezoning can be legislative)
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County, 168 Ariz. 61 (1991) (conditional approval of rezoning may be subject to referendum)