§ 3.7.2.6.3.5 Agency Interpretations of Statutes and Regulations.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.3.5 Agency Interpretations of Statutes and Regulations. The appellate court generally accords considerable weight to an executive department’s interpretation of a statute, see Sw. Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Ariz. Water Conserv. Dist., 221 Ariz. 309, 317, ¶ 31, 212 P.3d 1, 9 (App. 2009) (“great weight” given to agency’s interpretation of statutes it is entrusted to administer); Sharpe v. AHCCCS, 220 Ariz. 488, ¶ 18, 207 P.3d 741, 747 (App. 2009) (same; also applies to regulations agency implements); ^{Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., 208 Ariz. 147, 154-55, ¶¶ 30-31, 91 P.3d 990, 997-98 (2004), unless it concludes the legislature intended a different interpretation. See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Great W. Publ’g, 197 Ariz. 72, 74, ¶ 7, 3 P.3d 992, 994 (App. 1999). However, although administrative interpretation of a statute is given some weight, the appellate court is nonetheless free to draw its own legal conclusions and decide whether the administrative agency erred in its determination of law. See Maricopa Cty. v. AHCCCS Admin., 179 Ariz. 508, 509, 880 P.2d 728, 729 (App. 1994). Where the legislature has addressed the precise question at issue in a clear and unequivocal manner, the court also need not defer to the administrative interpretation. See Stearns v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 212 Ariz. 333, 336, ¶ 17, 131 P.3d 1063, 1066 (App. 2006).}

^{Whether an agency rule conforms to statutory provisions is a question of law reviewed de novo. An agency or administrative body may not enact rules or regulations that conflict with a statute. See In re Pima Cty. Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047, 228 Ariz. 94, 96, ¶ 7, 263 P.3d 643, 645 (App. 2011). The appellate court may substitute its judgment for the agency’s assessment of the legal effect of the underlying facts. See Whiteco Outdoor Adver. v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314, 317, ¶ 7, 972 P.2d 647, 650 (App. 1998). Whether an administrative agency has acted within its statutory jurisdiction is a question of statutory interpretation, subject to de novo review. See Beazer Homes Ariz., Inc. v. Goldwater, 196 Ariz. 98, 100, ¶ 11, 993 P.2d 1062, 1064 (App. 1999).}

^{§ 3.7.2.6.3.6 Charters and Ordinances. The trial court’s interpretation of a city charter is reviewed de novo. See City of Tucson v. State, 191 Ariz. 436, 437, 957 P.2d 341, 342 (App. 1997). A city’s interpretation of its own charter is entitled to some weight. Id.}

^{The appellate court reviews de novo whether an ordinance is constitutional. See Wonders v. Pima Cty., 207 Ariz. 576, 580, ¶ 16, 89 P.3d 810, 814 (App. 2004); City of Tucson v. Grezaffi, 200 Ariz. 130, 134, ¶ 5, 23 P.3d 675, 679 (App. 2001). In doing so, it presumes the ordinance is constitutional. If possible, it must construe the ordinance in a manner that renders it constitutional. See State v. Mutschler, 204 Ariz. 520, 522, ¶ 4, 65 P.3d 469, 471 (App. 2003).}

^{Adoption of an ordinance is a legislative act that carries a presumption of validity. The court of appeals’ analysis focuses on whether any legal authority exists for the city to take the action it did. See Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Apache Junction, 198 Ariz. 493, 496-97, ¶ 7-8, 11 P.3d 1032, 1035-36 (App. 2000). An ordinance will not be found unconstitutional unless it affirmatively appears that the restriction is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, and has not any substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. See Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, 229 Ariz. 75, 79, ¶ 12, 270 P.3d 902, 906 (App. 2012).}

^{The appellate court also reviews superior court interpretations of city or county ordinances de novo. See Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino Cty., 235 Ariz. 597, 601, ¶ 13, 334 P.3d 1256, 1260 (App. 2014); Sedona Grd, LLC v. City of Scottsdale, 229 Ariz. 37, 40, ¶ 8, 270 P.3d 864, 867 (App. 2012); Speros v. Yu, 207 Ariz. 153, 156, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d 1094, 1097 (App. 2004).}

^{Whether a zoning ordinance is legislative is reviewed de novo. See Fritz v. City of Kingman, 191 Ariz. 432, 433, ¶ 6, 957 P.2d 337, 338 (1998). Whether state law preempts a city ordinance also is a question of law reviewed de novo. See City of Tucson v. Rineer, 193 Ariz. 160, 162, ¶ 2, 971 P.2d 207, 209 (App. 1998).}

^{§ 3.7.2.6.4 Other Issues of Law.}

^{§ 3.7.2.6.4.1 Pure Legal Issues. Appellate courts review pure questions of law de novo. See League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 213 Ariz. 557, 559, ¶ 7, 146 P.3d 58, 60 (2006); Nielson v. Patterson, 204 Ariz. 530, 531, ¶ 5, 65 P.3d 911, 912 (2003); Wilmot v. Wilmot, 203 Ariz. 565, 568-69, ¶ 10, 58 P.3d 507, 510-11 (2002); Estate of Ethridge v. Recovery Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 235 Ariz. 30, 32, ¶ 6, 326 P.3d 297, 299 (App. 2014).}

^{Pure questions of law involving statutory and constitutional provisions are reviewed de novo. See Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 231 Ariz. 342, 347, ¶ 8, 295 P.3d 440, 445 (App. 2013); Merrill v. Merrill, 230 Ariz. 369, 372, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 880, 883 (App. 2012) (interpretations of statutes and dissolution decrees). Mixed questions of law}...