Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 9
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-514 (2026)

Authority to engage in utility business

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in section 9-571, before construction, purchase, acquisition or lease by a municipal corporation, as authorized in sections 9-511, 9-511.01, 9-511.02, 9-512 and 9-513, of any plant or property or portion of plant or property devoted to the business of or services rendered by a public utility shall be undertaken, the construction, purchase, acquisition or lease shall be authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors who are taxpayers of the municipal corporation voting at a general or special municipal election duly called and held for the purpose of voting on the question.

B. This section does not apply to the construction, purchase, acquisition or lease of water or sewage system utilities by a city or town incorporated pursuant to section 9-101.02.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1962–2012 · leading case: Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 47× “We reverse, however, the superior court’s ruling that the Town’s 1988 special ballot measure satisfied A.R.S. § 9-514. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 The Town incorporated in March 1977.”
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co., 20 P.3d 590 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 31× “1 ¶ 3 Arguing that the City had not first held an election pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-514, AWC contested the City’s right to condemn the plant and property.”
Moore v. City of Page, 713 P.2d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 12× “§ 9-525 applies to bonds issued under Article 2 of Title 9 is problematic; the only section which speaks of bond elections in Article 2 is A.R.S. § 9-514, which mandates that a city cannot avail itself of Article 2 powers unless authorized by an affirmative vote of the majority…”
Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 370 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 4× “…§ 9-518, an unconstitutional taking without just compensation results; (5) The City of Tucson has not complied with § 9-514 which requires an election when each particular utility company is condemned; (6) The City of Tucson has not complied with Ch. 4, § 1, subdivision 25…”
Sende Vista Water Co., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 617 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “Appellee contends that the City of Phoenix may not acquire appellee’s property interest in the certificate of convenience and necessity unless the acquisition is approved by a majority of the electors of the city as provided in A.R.S. § 9-514. A.R.S. § 9-514 provides: Before…”
Clay v. Town of Gilbert, 773 P.2d 233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 9-514 provides that before the Town could acquire the electricity distribution system, the acquisition shall be authorized by the affirmative Vote of a majority of the qualified electors who are taxpayers of the municipal corporation voting at a general or special…”
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Co., 490 P.2d 551 (Ariz. 1971). · cites it 3× “The agreement with the Company was in violation of A.R.S. §§ 9-514 through 9-516 and was, therefore, void.”
Dail v. City of Phoenix, 624 P.2d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Second, he attacked the City’s contract with Presley on the ground that, prior to entering into the contract, the City had not submitted the proposal to a vote of the taxpaying electors of the City of Phoenix, thereby allegedly violating A.R.S. § 9-514. Third, appellant argued…”
Graham Cnty. Elec. Cooperaiive, Inc. v. Town of Safford, 388 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 4× “DAMAGES By A.R.S. § 9-514, a municipality must call an election of the qualified electors who are taxpayers to determine whether a utility or a part thereof shall be acquired.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-514(A) — 1 case
Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “We reverse, however, the superior court’s ruling that the Town’s 1988 special ballot measure satisfied A.R.S. § 9-514. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 The Town incorporated in March 1977.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-514(a) — 1 case
Town of Marana v. Pima Cnty., 281 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “We reverse, however, the superior court’s ruling that the Town’s 1988 special ballot measure satisfied A.R.S. § 9-514. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 2 The Town incorporated in March 1977.”
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.