Objection Letter- Tax Parcel No. 504-63-548.pdf

Received in the Buckeye City Clerk's office March 07, 2026 at 10:12 a.m. by LCA
VIAPllOCESS SERVICE 
CityClm. 
530 East Monroe Avem1e 
Buclreye, AZ 8:5326 
Re: Objection to Proposed Special Assessmeut Ag~t Tu: Pa.reel No. 504-63-548 
Dear Sir/Madam: 
We have been retained by Speedsmart 112, Inc. (1tSpeedsmart17) in relation to 
the public hearing cmrently scheduledto be heldbythe:BudceyeCify Council onApm 
11 2026 . We are in receipt of yow:' letter dated Maoch 51 20161 which declares th.at, at 
the scheduling pablic hearing, the City Council will be determining whether to make 
certain improvements to public mads between Lower Buckeye Road and Dm,mgo 
Stree~ mmrely Miller Road. 
Your letter further notes tmrt should such a ddamination be made1 a special 
assessment would be levied by the. City nf Buckeye ~ 
Speedsmart in an 
approximate MIIDtm.t of$9l2,000.00. 
I have attached to this objection evidence of prior paymems made by 
Speed.smart for at Ie.ast some of the improvements for which the City now seeks 
reimbm:sement Speedsmart paid $1231826 towards the installation of the traffic S:igna:ll 
located a:t Mill.er and Durango roads as welll as $174,975 towards the installation of 
above ground power lines as -was requested by the City. While the City has not 
provided my clients with an itemization of the costs that the as~ent is seeking to 
collect against, these costs appear to be· in.duded in the current assessment identified 
in the March 61 2026 letter. Furthermore, it has come to our attention that the City ms 
decided to bury the previously paid for above ground power lines. The belated 
decision bmy the lines does not .confer any benefit to• the propert:y: and should not be 
included in. the assessment. 
Additionally I prior to the mad improvements, northbound traffic on Mill.er 
Road had direct, unimpeded access. to Speedsmrut, while southbound traffic: on Miller 
1

Road had direct, unimpedied access to Speedsmart's ,competitors (QT and.Loves truck 
stops). Subsequent to the addition ofthe median on ·1'diller Road~ northbound Miller 
Road traffic can 110 longer directly access the Speedsm.art property which esse.ntially 
eliminates Speed.smart .fm.m options that truck drivers heading northbound now have 
to, choose from. Interestingly however, the City provided both. of Speedsmart1 s 
competitors direct access to the southbound Miller Road traffic via a left mm through 
the medran. It is unclear why the City provided my client's competitors this benefit 
without offering Speedsmart the same benefit. These facts support our conclusion that 
the addition .of the median does not confer any benefit to my client and :in fact has in 
essence negatively impacted the value of the property. 
In Arizona, state statute establishes the right. and governs the use of special 
assessments to make public improvements. ttA nspecw asse.ssment11 is 'tan assessment 
against real property based on the proposition that, due to a public improvement of 
some nature, such real property has received a benefit. n NOTtliwest Fit-e District v;. U.S. 
Home, 215 Ariz~ 492, 495 (Ariz. 2007) {citingJJany v: Sch. Dw:. No. 210, 105 Aciz.139, 
140, 460 P.2d 634, 635 {1969); Weller v. City uf Plwemx~ 39 Ariz. 148, 151, 4 P.2d 665i 
661 (1931) (defining assessments as "special and local impositions on property, made 
for a public pmpose, but .fixed in amount with reference to the special benefit which 
--~tc . . ·.· 
d . • . c... 
. .-,1...-
. . .........,.,.A:+.-
n}.,) 
::iUUil property .env:es n:om ua:: e,,,.~I.H;e~.. .• 
~ 
«The 1:ationale of special assessment is that the assessed property has :received a 
special benefit over and above that _received by the geneml pno1ic.n Nott:'!:rwest:Fire 
Di.strict) 215 Ariz. at 495 (emphasis added} (fut.th.er citations omitted). 
"[Pjroperty may be assessed its proportion of specified costs only if it receives 
a special benefit from the improvement that is different than the benefit received by 
other properties11 and:therefme 11any evaluation of a special assessment must begin by 
reviewing the, impmvemerus funded by the assessment and their estimated costs." Id. 
(emphasis added) (citing Cf:A.RS. § 48-577 (2000) (stating that a. municipal special 
assessment requires prefuninary plans for improvements and cost estimates and also 
1'equires that no lot he assessed more than uits proportion of the ,esfunate»')). uwithout 
a specific phm and cost estimate, there can be no way of knowing the property owner's 
share of the impmvement costs or whether a particular property will be benefited at 
all, let .alone whether it '1il'll1 receive a benefit different than all other properties in the 
district. 11 Northwest Fire D~tria, 215 Ariz .. at 495. 
The proposed cost assessment against Speeds:mart is unsupported by any 
((specific plan'1 or·complete 8 cost estimaten as required by the Arizona Supreme Court. 
There is no expmanation as to how general 1<stmet :improvementsn to Miller Road 
would confer upon Speedsmart a ubenefit ( ... ]i that is different than the benefit received 
by other propertiesu along that same road, or by City of Buckeye residents in general 
2

,, 
whoutilize M:illyrRqa;g:fortrayeL :rtiJac;t1 a~:npt~ia,b9v~ 1 ~ollle ofthe$~1mproyernents 
harm Speexts111ax.t; The:J>i:oposeq: ia$$~$$'1'Il(~'\l1(~erefq.re'vidlcrtes Arizona statute. 
Shot.tid the :clry pa:ssthe: ·proposed am~ndme:t1t'with0.utptovidi11g the required 
~ispecific plan'' and • •1fcost ,estimat€?' s:howhig (i) 'how the :proposed public ·road 
improvernents will uri}qqely benefj.t Spee4.$:rriart iµ a n,r;:uµie:r cii.fferent than all other 
properties locaJed n~x:t to • the :rqadf ~tl {2} hPW Jhe a111q4vf tq b~ a~se$s¢ci was 
calculated in relation to otltetptopetties: loJated next·to the toad\ .Speed.smatrwill be 
forced to file suit in state court~ sttekmg'ai11njunctiott itrrdet·€stabli.shed. Asizona case. 
law. 
Sp·eedsmarl also, notes that it 11ad ·a :20:0S J?te~Annexation artd Development 
Agreenient and.a 2010 amendmetttthereto:. 'tJi-iderthe establishedl?AOA, Speedsmart 
agreed to certain,, Hm1ted improvements' te.1ocaiAnfrastrucrnre (with .estimated costs 
well below th~ n~~1ly $1 milfio:q assessrn~]}t cun,J:?µ,tiy 1:>e_irig co:r1k1;nplated) and hc;1S 
already .paid fot the ielocation. of high.;,yplb:ige'·powet imes am;t fot the installation of 
traffic·lights; en Miller Road .. S,peedsina,tt te1ie4 upon: the Cicyts.repr.esentation$ in·the 
PAlJAwhen investing:su:bstantial capitatiti,;fue City,af.'.Buckeye oV,er the past decade. 
This reliance, and tlie terms of the ·PADA.1 wlli.-be. mclude(f and addressed in aiw 
laws1.1itftled by'Speedspia;r:tshp1ilq..fhe Qity qfI3ue;,~eye,..:itte.JJlpf toe1q:r~q}an ad(iitiqnal 
$912,DOO.QO for genei:a1 road. iwprqyeme:11;t, While my•:clie:r:rfa are ope:n; to contribute 
to some reasonable costs for the improvements., ·itt:annotil.Je for items previously paid. 
for otimprbvernents thatdid hetptovide art ac:tufil 11ethenefit to the property. 
Cordially1 
3 
CONSI.JMER JUS'fTGRLAW FIRM 
.David Chami,. Esq., AZ #027585 
'Consumer: Justice Law Firin 
8:095 W $~th Way 
Scottsdale Az:;.8.5258 
'P:(480)···626-2359 
E:. dchami@consuinerjustice.com