Court decision clears final legal hurdle for Marana hotel project

The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to review a legal challenge involving a planned hotel development in Marana, leaving in place an appellate ruling that the project’s development agreement is not subject to referendum.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry participated through the Arizona Chamber Legal Center, filing an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to let the lower court ruling stand.

“This is a significant result for Marana and for communities across Arizona that rely on a predictable development process,” said Vanessa Pomeroy, chief counsel of the Arizona Chamber Legal Center. “The courts have now consistently recognized that the referendum power cannot be used to reopen every administrative action taken to implement a land-use plan that has already been publicly considered and adopted. Businesses need to know that when they follow the rules and a project receives the required approvals, those decisions will carry some measure of finality.”

The case began after Marana rejected referendum petitions challenging a development agreement for a planned hotel project. A Pima County Superior Court judge sided with the town, and the Arizona Court of Appeals later upheld that ruling, finding the agreement carried out an existing development plan and was therefore not subject to referendum.

The agreement covers approximately 19 acres of town-owned property near Marana Main Street and Civic Center Drive and is tied to the Rancho Marana West Town Center Specific Plan, adopted in 2008. The plan calls for a mixed-use town center that could include commercial, retail, office, entertainment, residential and hospitality uses.

Arizonans for Responsible Development sought to place the Town Council’s approval of the agreement before voters. Marana declined to process the petitions, arguing that the resolution implemented an existing development plan rather than creating new policy.

That distinction is central under Arizona law. Legislative actions can generally be challenged through referendum, while administrative actions ordinarily cannot.

In its June ruling, the Court of Appeals said the development agreement “furthers an already-declared policy” and concluded that the resolution was “not legislative but administrative and is therefore not referable.”

The court also rejected the challengers’ broader argument that all municipal development agreements are automatically subject to referendum, finding that state law does not eliminate the traditional distinction between legislative and administrative actions.

Pomeroy said the outcome matters beyond the Marana project because businesses, developers and local governments rely on clear rules and dependable timelines when making investment decisions.

“The referendum is an important constitutional safeguard, but it’s not a tool for creating perpetual uncertainty around approved development,” Pomeroy said. “There has to be a clear line between creating new policy and implementing policy that has already been adopted. That distinction matters for communities, employers and developers trying to move projects forward.”

The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the appellate ruling intact, ending the challengers’ effort to place the development agreement before voters.