Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Records - Incorporation (29) mj //- /si i , , f i [ IN THE suvEaioa COURT OF THE STATE OF AarzmA ') IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF Pi1.-\. li 4 ii J...1,C7_ S9.L.J1-DEC , STEVE 113CLE , ) 4.1 ,1.L.L-1c }:::::1,1.-ECH .arid JOSEPH SEANS, -,1, ) 5 ) il154159 t! PlaLatiffs , ) No. 6 11 ) ) 7 E . S . "Bud" WAL=R., CONRAD JOYNER) CM:TLALN'T FOR TEM-POR.ARY 3 I SAN LENA, JOSEPH CASTILL and) RESTRAINING ORDER AND RONALD ASTA, in their capacity as) INJUNCTION ENJOINING THE 9 duly elected BOARD OF SUPER=RS) DISINCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF Pink COUNTY, ARIZONA, and ELSA) OF .01;',.0 VALLEY 1° HANNA, Clerk of the Board of ) Supervisors , ) 11 ) Defendants . ) z 12 1 • ) 0 m = a td w 13 COMES NOW. the Plaintiffs for their Complaint against o < z '' ) La 0 14 Defendants and allege as follows : . 45 —1 '33 I-. < 15 i < 0 1 . That Plaintiffs are residents of Oro Valley, Pima Li 0 3 ra I 5 4 III, < 16 il County, . Arizona. 0 i'i 7 11 >7 r )- ? 2 That Plainfs , as rcscl,7_,ilts oF Co E --" " sake iTs, the preservation of their mIlnicipal form of sG73rnmanL: . II: ow P • • 19 3 . That Plaintiffs are disanhearteacd by bureaucratic 2D • attempts to disincorporate the Town of Oro Valley without regard • • 22 Ito the essence of fpir play and due process all to their detri- ment. , ., 23 4. That ou or 1-)out Apri], 8, 1975 , a series of 24 'signatures. appended to an alleged Petition for Disincorporation 25 was presented to. Elsa Hanna; the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 26 of Pini l County, Arizona. . 21 . 5 . That on or about April 8, 1975 ,- the Pima County 23 Board of Supervisors , without regard to necessary procedural 29 Safeguard, ordered the certification .by Elsa Hanna of signatures 30 . . tendered to the aforementioned Petition for Disincorporation. 31 . . 6 . That on or about April 9 , 1975 , the Board of 32 Supervisors , through Supervisor Conrad Joyner, ordered. the Clerk . , 4 i 1of the hoard to 'gave a determination as soon aspossible, 2 o�. o�� fully by this afternoon". 311 7 . That the action ofthe Board of 41 Supervisors did noi If*Ti t take into account the various procedural ' V defective signatures within he body of the Petition filed by t7.�.e6 . of the oi� l L O o VaJ1oonits 11 8. Thatthe Board of Supervisors either ne personally or 8 through their agents• acting on their behalf, had actual knowZedgP �. of numerous inconsistencies,, double signatures P, improperly p erl 10� p �' car culated petitions, sigat .res of ind' t �v�dua�.s who have evidenced 11 the desire • sire to remove their names from said Petition,- names of z 12 o ndvduals not livinor residin g within the To Town of Oro Valley n < 13�, and even that a numberof signatures • . W O � tures on the tendered Petition '- 5' 14 Ca were of persons deceased. 2 0 Thatdespite suchinformation, the �rd o fper-> �, &' ti cc 16 I Q w psow s ordered, and the Clerkof S�.perv• s ors of the Board ti , �. I . ‹ D certified said signatures without regard to their validity. fr r4 23 ` .o. That the Board sa a. evidenceds ie io: to di _ P 19 incorporate the Toy.n of Oro Valley 4y -Monday, April 14, !based solely• on the Clerk' s : Takin• g into account! 21 the numerous .nva . d signatures rq .thin tie body of said Petition, • there wouldbe no question but that .� theet .t .on would falfar 23 short of therequired 2/3 ' s� •- / s of the qualified electorsg re sd�.x�.�,�. 24 within the To of Oro Valley. y 25 11 That in the sin le working� day afforded the Clerk 25 of the hoard of Supervisors , therewas as no opportunity for a due 27 and proper examination of the signatures at .•e s ����.�h-�.n. ,said Petition 23 1.� . Thatpr�.o�° to the filing�, n� of the Petition. by the 29 opponents of the. Town of Oro Valley, the Attorney for the 30 residents of the Town of Oro Valley • wrote a letter to the Board 31 of Supervisors through the auspices o f � the County Attorney' s 32 Office . That letter noted that there were severe and very -2- x _.i _ :..._' •.'.'. Sri✓►e+w►• .'^�'_'�� i 1 important procedural problems involved in theres p ent situation, 2 which factors were - as were all other important factors s - e- garded by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in an arbitrary ''' , and capricious fashion causing severe:fir+e de t.L iLLie:i..i.t to the • dP t o : the Town of Oro Vai.ley. (.A copy of said Letter is annexed 6 hereto aild incorporated herein by re f,e enc.- thereto and is . 71enumerated as Exhibit 1) . 11 • 13 . That on the morningof April 9, 1975 , Petitioners P 9 filed a Petition with the Board of Su eivisors asking P x�� that a 10 reasonable and fair hearing be heard die to the sensitive� 71t;Ve LGtqre 11 and importance of deliberation. Said Petition was arbitrarily, 12 capriciously, and summarily rejected by the Board of Super visors . n Iczt 13 (A copy of said Petition is annexed hereto and inco rporated Z w 0 111 t) m 14 herein by reference thereto and is enumerated as Exhibit 2) . < 14. That the railroading culminating in the disincar Ft tj. < 16 potation of Oro Valleywould violate all precepts o ) of due process aC 17 land fel c mer.i�a fairness , and �`+� L �.�' ' i� the e beingo F 18 Ythe residents of Oro Valley, Arizona. 19 15 . That Plaintiffs believe that unless a hearing is 20 ordered, and unless the Court en.b oins the certification-.� t. on by the 21 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and d ej o ,ns the Board of • 22 Supervisor's from 'acting upon any such certification ofthe Clerk. m: 23 of the Board of Supervisors, Plaintiffs will. suffer ` .f zrreparable 24 harm since the Town of aro iTalle will no �' longerbe able to 25 Incorporate under .A.R S ., 101.0 . 26 16. That ..:Plaintiffs believe that the only remedy for 27 Plaintiffs at the present time is an injunction, since, if faced. 28 with a fait accom li there will be no further- .p ,remedz.es either 29 in equity or in law for the residents of the Town of Oro Valley ° to maintain the muni.c ip '< town corporation �.nown as Oro Valley, Arizona. 31 17 . That Plaintiffs believe, thexefare , thatit is 32 necessary to have a fair hearing inequity since no legal remedy _3_ I exists to halt the illegal disincorporation of the Town, WHE=ORE . Plaintiffs pray for the following relief from 4 ' Defendants : 5 ,1 1. That the Curt ent2r a Temporary RestrangOrder and Restraining Order pendante lite , restraining Defendants from 7 '.. taking action deleterious to the incorporation status of the Town 8 of Oro Valley. 9 2. That the Court order a hdaring on the merits of the 10 signatures in the Petition filed by the opponents of the Town of • 11 'Oro Valley, and on ttio procedural methods and steps to be taken 12 in the present matter. Cr. ca • W 13 3. That if no hearing is held, -the Court permanently o < > . z wo bi ri 14 enjoin the Clerk of the Board of Supervisor's and the Board of .13 m Supervisors from taking any. action which woUldcause the (13:sin- to 3 N I corporation of the Town of Oro Valley. 0 (1) 7 • ita < __U) 17 4. That the Court afford such other relief as is , L.) - 0 . • w reasonable and proper under the circutu.,7)tanc.,es.. . 19 Resptfully submitted,. . 20 . . ZIPF A..?„1CF,E. Y, LEIBEP,• FENDERSON 21 • 220 I art Speedway Boulevard Tucson Arizona 85705. 22 23 He r p Plain.Liz.T.. .4 • At 24 g5 STATE OF ARIZONA ) 26 ) ' SS: COUNTY OF PIMA ) 27 Subscribed and sworn to before me this /.// day of 23 April, 1975, . 29 < ( 30 , Notffy- 31 'my Commission Expires 32 //,--,j--/ -74, -4- • EXHIBIT 1 LAW OFFICES ZIPF, RICHEY, LEISER & HENDERSON 220 EAST SPEEDWAY BOULEVARD TELEPHONE . . HE'NF?•Y ZIPff TUCSON. ARIZONA .9.5705 • (602) 882-0020 WILLIAM K. RICHEY JOHN LEE LEVSER WALTER L. HENDERSON April 7 , 1975 • Mr. Dennis DeConcini . • Pima County Attorney Pima County Administration Building Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear 1/1±-. DeConcini am writing you as attorney for a number of: residents. of the Town of Oro Valley, who are interested in seeing the town main- tain its incorporated status . . . • We have reason to believe that the residents who favor disin7. corporation are prepared to file •ptitions seeking to disincor- porate within the next faw days So that we all will not have to suffer the incriminations and ha1lucihation8 that recently attended the resignation of thepast w mayot, e suggest and would . appreciate your settig the guide lines and procedures for those who file petition and tbose who. contest their validity, number,. etc. It appears to us that the Code is somewhat lacking in providing specifics for disincorp:orating, • For instance we have the following questions • 1. The Code speaks of the requirements of 2137.s of the registered voters resi.diiig in the .tOwn. Does this mean, therefore, that this is 2/3-l-- of the voters who presently (today) reside in the town? • 2 . Apparently, provision is made for filing the petitions with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors . How long does the Clerk • hold them? Who is advised of the filing? What opportunity do opponents of disincorporation have to examine them? How are ques- tions as to the validity or form of the signture-sand petitions raised? • • l•1.r.. DeConcini Page 2 A ri i 7, 1975. 3. How does one b y h o signed signecl a p2tition f o r disincol-poration now indicate his desire to c.L.Ea!1 jc his position l..ion .L ot. +,nco Mpo C f-, i on 4. How does one determine whether or not all signers of petitions for dis?Icor potation are still. residents of Oro Valley? 5. Is there a particular form required for petitions, veri i cation, etc_ ? In the interest of harmony and fair play, we suggest that you meet with representatives of both factions so that these questions can be resolved and a proper and orderly procedure be adopted. Sincerely, Henry Zipf HZ/ h • c c _ n'�c�r i z - Town o f Oro I r a 1 ,- © - Board of Supervisors, ..Pima County ►t to rney Cep,+bra?, State of :Arizona li 1 tr EXHIBIT 2 V 9- --l'r-- , 1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PIMA COUNTY,ITY STA .E OF ARIZONA Jo- • tl 41111:1 the fiat ter of the No ,-.• ) 5 1)' Ii j •6 ,1 li_................_,... _......._.................... ......... . . , . TOT,,:.;T_ OF O LEY ) P I N I9 CONE NO PETITIONERS by their attorney HENRY ZIPS', and allege ; • 1 11i 1 z •12 PETITIONERS, STEVE ENGLE, JACK SP aA., �� JOSEPHSEAMAN, w A Z 13 and JAMES KRIEGH, are bona fide residents of the 'TOS OF ORO z u � 4 5 3.4 ..VARY, P i a C outs Arizona, w : .,.,..; e:-75,,.x.- . -- . -. z ,..--ia:. < t1'' 'Q,• 11.1i-t—s----4.- p.,_)1_ 4.:. - 01-s'4,..a- u.S:i ..l' .":. _ o -not.� 1 - 1-!1.~ -f--1, ! r i.--ri 01 ,?; 6, "& iSi , �; 'y .fir�e J j.. ,,•� � _. -' ""f-7 '�-'��• .I'7'. •'?' "'�'%" t�- R 'r-�•�' .rte r '.r : --^. ••�.� .,, t: ..� - f +....L. .7 V:s. ;._ y , )Ii E. al_Z.:,, '�:.:::".. »..).3.. .+ -1_,;_..1 1.. '.�C 4:-3......'711: r z . 0 w i !�7� �j ':�7 �""�""1.:��..t.:,+;-...'-'.,.,i"t"+�."•' � That _a.. �,,,, b ~ r_�r '�t f"' " �,• t'• .r_,'� TOWN -� r i irk. ,` 9.J► a,,,,�ksV'.t^ .1..3..,_- ..'d O .i.. .,~R d... j • m s .._.�,.�.1 . :. a r�....,..�'_a_.Y �~?. 1... 0_L the e .�..O r`.k'.s O F 'ORO 0 ���iiilii 1." V 13 \JALJ and makes this Petition. as Attorney and as an '.n- ted-tom d 1.. 11, Pis Cperson i . . 20 ' 21 11. 22 PETITIONERS are, ad ised and therefore allege the-� certain Petitions were filed with .the Cler< of the BOARD -OF SUPERVISORS on 24 nut 8, 1975:, containing the partes ofur orte d residentse � � of th�. 25 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY seekingto dis Inco r p orate the TOwn . _ 25 III. .,s. 23 PETITIONERS have serious doubts as to the sufficiency an d 29 ralidit of the Petitions, and allege therethat are 'natters of 3 law which the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS should take Zito consideration 3 . rior tothe. Petitions for dis ,y actingupon:�on in.co rip o r at i oma.. 32 .I _ . .-,:. '.i.. --,..1.. .,., -:',. .....7 _.Y.iR+6"J.1C' -.::.:4...,.:.: ::;;":"....: ,,-.:•.=:,.;:-,:;:,..",::::`.:.. .; ... .. a,r:_ ... "'"r -... 3,.i'yu.*.kOrrZP3'...'+►.- _, • , ,1 i 1 I , ' 1 • . 1 . IV, , 2 That in a letter delivered to Dennis DeConcini Pima , 3 county Attorney, on April 7, 1975 , and prior to the filing of the atl. Petitions seeking disincorporatj_an , PETITIONERS suggested that 5 a procedure be adopted by proponents and opponents of disintor- 6poration which would insure a fair and proper consideration .of the 7 ' matter. Also, in said letter PETITIONERS raised certain pertinent 8 legal matters which PETITIONERS believe should be determined before 9 this Board acts upon the Petitions . A copy of the letter to the 1° Pima County Attorney is attached hereto and by reference made a 11 part hereof. z 12 o it 0 hi m 13 WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS request the Board of .Supervisorp . n ..,.E z 14 I 1. Prior to taking further action upon the said . < 0 co e; -1 P • -,--, _ _,.._. ,c, ,e _... ..1.., , -, . ,„„ - , - ---t „-, --- -,,---.1-- , -49',,.-----I '- , - --1--,- >,..- ' --, ---' '- tri., it'eL±L_Lars, lat. u±s-3,nco-po—aL.L.Q0.:, L. I.,L Lil,-.. f.34,11.i,_ in con jun.,....La_Lin -w,LL.h •j ix t.-! . "''" ithe County Atto_ciley adopt. a procedure to -permit oppo-nents and 0 to z 'Iproponents of incorporation of the TO OF ORO VALLEY :to fully E g 113examine said Petiti,ons for disincbrporatIon_ 11: 1 0. . 19 . 2 Thereafter in orderlyprocedure and 'after deter- 20 - ination of matters of law affecting such procedure by the county 91 • -- Attorney, that proponents and opponents of disincorpdration. be . .. 22 ermitted to present their. positions with respect to the validity 23 and sufficiency of signatiares on said. Petitions, , 24 - RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED the 9th day of April, 1975 . • • 25 4,4 ..._ 26 ' ZIPF, RTCHEY, LEiBER & HENDERSON 220 East Speedway Boulevard 27 Tucson, Arizona 85705 28 ,, . By: 29 Henry Zipf 30 31 32 . -,-2- i