A. A municipality, by resolution or ordinance, may enter into development agreements relating to property in the municipality and to property located outside the incorporated area of the municipality. If the development agreement relates to property located outside the incorporated area of the municipality, the development agreement does not become operative unless annexation proceedings to annex the property to the municipality are completed within the period of time specified by the development agreement or any extension of such time.
B. A development agreement shall be consistent with the municipality's general plan or specific plan, if any, as defined in section 9-461, applicable to the property on the date the development agreement is executed.
C. A development agreement may be amended, or cancelled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the development agreement or by their successors in interest or assigns.
D. No later than ten days after a municipality enters into a development agreement, the municipality shall record a copy of the agreement with the county recorder of the county in which the property subject to the development agreement is located, and the recordation constitutes notice of the development agreement to all persons. The burdens of the development agreement are binding on, and the benefits of the development agreement inure to, the parties to the agreement and to all their successors in interest and assigns.
E. Section 32-2181 does not apply to development agreements under this section.
F. Notwithstanding any other law, a municipality may provide by resolution or ordinance for public safety purposes, and with the written consent of an owner of property that has been granted a development agreement pursuant to this section, an owner of a protected development right pursuant to chapter 11 of this title or the owner of any other residential or commercial development subject to the supervision of a municipality pursuant to this title, for the application and enforcement of speed limits, vehicle weight restrictions or other safety measures on a private road that is located in any development in the municipality and that is open to and used by the public. A municipality may require payment from the property owner of the actual cost of signs for speed limits or other restrictions applicable on the private road, before their installation.
G. Notwithstanding section 19-142, subsection B, a decision by the governing body involving a development agreement may not be enacted as an emergency measure and that decision is not effective for at least thirty days after final approval of the development agreement.
H. In this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Development agreement" means an agreement between a municipality and a community facilities district pursuant to section 48-709, a landowner or any other person having an interest in real property that may specify or otherwise relate to any of the following:
(a) The duration of the development agreement.
(b) The permitted uses of property subject to the development agreement.
(c) The density and intensity of uses and the maximum height and size of proposed buildings within such property.
(d) Provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and provisions to protect environmentally sensitive lands.
(e) Provisions for preservation and restoration of historic structures.
(f) The phasing or time of construction or development on property subject to the development agreement.
(g) Conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for public infrastructure and the financing of public infrastructure and subsequent reimbursements over time.
(h) Conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for annexation of property by the municipality and the phasing or timing of annexation of property by the municipality.
(i) Conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements of deannexation of property from one municipality to another municipality and the phasing or timing of deannexation of property from one municipality to another municipality.
(j) Conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to the governing body's intent to form a special taxing district pursuant to title 48.
(k) Any other matters relating to the development of the property.
2. "Governing body" means the body or board which by law is constituted as the legislative body of the municipality.
3. "Municipality" means an incorporated city or town.
Notes of Decisions
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 34× “FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 1989, Chandler and D.W.C. Commercial Properties (D.W.C.) entered into a development agreement (Agreement) pursuant to A.”
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 809 P.2d 961 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 18× “Achen-Gardner asks this court to consider whether the public street improvement project undertaken by Chandler and Jeri-Co, through a development agreement under the provisions of A.R.S. § 9-500.05, is subject to Arizona’s competitive bidding statutes, A.”
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 20× “Eleven years earlier, in 2005, the prior owner of the land had entered a development reimbursement agreement with the Town of Gilbert under A.R.S. § 9-500.05, which expressly bound all successors and ran with the land.”
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 15× “¶5 The Town approved the Agreement by resolution, citing its authority under A.R.S. § 9-500.05 to “enter into development agreements relating to the development of property in the Town.”
Florence v. Florence Copper (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “” But the court only found the Town and Merrill voluntarily entered into a 35-year binding development agreement, and then ordered the Town to perform its contractual promises, citing both A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and the Contract Clause of Arizona Constitution.”
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
Equity Partners Grp. LLC, et al. v. City of Scottsdale, et al. (D. Ariz. 2026).
· cites it 6× “) 6 The Agreement was recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office as instrument 7 number 20201209037 pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-500.05. (Id.) The signing entities are defined 8 collectively in the Agreement as the “Developer.”
Pure Wafer, Inc. v. City of Prescott, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (D. Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 9-500.05, 9-500.il. 14 For this reason, Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(A) — 5 cases
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 809 P.2d 961 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“Achen-Gardner asks this court to consider whether the public street improvement project undertaken by Chandler and Jeri-Co, through a development agreement under the provisions of A.R.S. § 9-500.05, is subject to Arizona’s competitive bidding statutes, A.”
Florence v. Florence Copper (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“” But the court only found the Town and Merrill voluntarily entered into a 35-year binding development agreement, and then ordered the Town to perform its contractual promises, citing both A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and the Contract Clause of Arizona Constitution.”
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“Eleven years earlier, in 2005, the prior owner of the land had entered a development reimbursement agreement with the Town of Gilbert under A.R.S. § 9-500.05, which expressly bound all successors and ran with the land.”
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(C) — 2 cases
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“¶5 The Town approved the Agreement by resolution, citing its authority under A.R.S. § 9-500.05 to “enter into development agreements relating to the development of property in the Town.”
Florence v. Florence Copper (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“” But the court only found the Town and Merrill voluntarily entered into a 35-year binding development agreement, and then ordered the Town to perform its contractual promises, citing both A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and the Contract Clause of Arizona Constitution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(D) — 2 cases
Florence v. Florence Copper (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“” But the court only found the Town and Merrill voluntarily entered into a 35-year binding development agreement, and then ordered the Town to perform its contractual promises, citing both A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and the Contract Clause of Arizona Constitution.”
Equity Partners Grp. LLC, et al. v. City of Scottsdale, et al. (D. Ariz. 2026).
“) 6 The Agreement was recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office as instrument 7 number 20201209037 pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-500.05. (Id.) The signing entities are defined 8 collectively in the Agreement as the “Developer.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(E) — 1 case
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1992).
“FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 1989, Chandler and D.W.C. Commercial Properties (D.W.C.) entered into a development agreement (Agreement) pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(F)(1)(g) — 1 case
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1992).
“FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 1989, Chandler and D.W.C. Commercial Properties (D.W.C.) entered into a development agreement (Agreement) pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(G) — 2 cases
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
Workers v. Tempe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“Development Agreements ¶32 Both parties spend considerable effort addressing whether A.R.S. § 9-500.05 categorically subjects development agreements to referenda.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(H)(1)(g) — 2 cases
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“¶5 The Town approved the Agreement by resolution, citing its authority under A.R.S. § 9-500.05 to “enter into development agreements relating to the development of property in the Town.”
Ray & Lindsay v. Gilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“Eleven years earlier, in 2005, the prior owner of the land had entered a development reimbursement agreement with the Town of Gilbert under A.R.S. § 9-500.05, which expressly bound all successors and ran with the land.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-500.05(c) — 1 case
Florence v. Florence Copper (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“” But the court only found the Town and Merrill voluntarily entered into a 35-year binding development agreement, and then ordered the Town to perform its contractual promises, citing both A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and the Contract Clause of Arizona Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.