NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

5133 N CENTRAL, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-TX 22-0005 

Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court

No. TX2019-001719

The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Mooney Wright Moore & Wilhoit, PLLC, Mesa

By Paul J. Mooney, Jim L. Wright, Paul Moore, Bart S. Wilhoit

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Carden Livesay, Ltd., Mesa

By Roberta S. Livesay, Joshua W. Carden

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Maricopa County

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Jerry A. Fries, Lisa A. Neuville

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Arizona Department of Revenue

FILED 4-18-2023
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 5133 N. Central, LLC, and 5115 N. Central, LLC, representing 

a class of property owners who held Class One assessed properties in 

Maricopa County in the 2018 tax year (collectively “Taxpayers”), 

challenged the valuation method used by the Maricopa County Assessor 

(“Assessor”) to determine their tax liability. The superior court granted 

summary judgment in favor of Maricopa County and the Arizona 

Department of Revenue (“ADOR” or “Department”). For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2019, Taxpayers sued Maricopa County and ADOR, and 

argued the county’s method of calculating the limited property value

(“LPV”) of their properties violated Arizona tax law. Taxpayers sought a 

refund of taxes collected using the county’s assessment method. The 

superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Maricopa County 

and ADOR. Taxpayers timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-120.21(A)(1) 

and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION 

¶3 We review de novo both the superior court’s order granting 

summary judgment and its interpretation of our tax statutes. Qasimyar v. 

Maricopa Cnty., 250 Ariz. 580, 584, ¶ 6 (App. 2021). Our primary goal in 

interpreting a statute is to effectuate the text. See James v. City of Peoria, 253 

Ariz. 301, 303, ¶ 9 (2002). When statutory language is unambiguous, we 

apply it without resorting to secondary methods of interpretation. Id.

I. Methods of establishing LPVs

¶4 Under Arizona’s property taxation system, each county is

responsible for levying and collecting taxes for the properties within its 

limits. Every year, the county assessor must determine the full cash value
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

(“FCV”) of all real property within the county that is subject to taxation.

A.R.S. § 42-13051(B)(2). In 2012, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 117, 

which amended Arizona’s constitution to require that real property taxes 

be assessed based on the property’s LPV rather than its FCV. See Ariz. 

Const. art. 9, § 18 (establishing LPV in subsection (3) though not using the 

term); see also Qasimyar, 250 Ariz. at 584, ¶ 9 (citing other relevant statutes 

and legislative authorities).

¶5 Real property taxes are calculated by multiplying a property’s 

LPV by an assessment ratio, which is dictated by statute based on the 

property’s classification. See Aileen H. Char Life Int. v. Maricopa Cnty., 208 

Ariz. 286, 291, ¶ 8 (2004). The result is the property’s assessed value, which, 

when applied to the relevant tax rate, determines the amount of property 

tax due. See id.

¶6 There are two ways to calculate a parcel’s LPV, depending on 

the property’s status. See Qasimyar, 250 Ariz. at 584, ¶ 10. “Rule A” is the 

“general rule” and applies when there have been no significant changes to 

the property that would affect its value since the previous tax period. See 

id. Under Rule A, a property’s LPV increases by 5% each year provided 

that the LPV never exceeds the property’s current FCV. A.R.S. § 42-

13301(A)–(B). Rule A “prevents rapid rises in [LPV] that might result from 

market increases.” Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 222 

Ariz. 440, 442, ¶ 4 (App. 2009).

¶7 “Rule B” properties are properties which have undergone

modifications, omissions, or changes since the preceding tax year. See 

A.R.S. § 42-13302; Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC, 222 Ariz. at 442, ¶ 4.

Under Rule B, a property’s LPV is determined “by reference to the value of 

comparable properties.” See id. Specifically, the Legislature has directed 

county assessors to establish the LPV of Rule B properties “at a level or 

percentage of [FCV] that is comparable to that of other properties of the 

same or a similar use or classification.” A.R.S. § 42-13302. The LPV 

established under Rule B is used to calculate the parcel’s Rule A LPV in the 

following tax year. See A.R.S. § 42-13301.

¶8 Until the 2018 tax year, nearly every county in Arizona used

the same method, referred to as the “Ratio Aggregate Method,” to calculate 

the Rule B Ratios. In 2018, Maricopa County adopted a different method

for calculating Rule B Ratios, known as the “Ratio Average Method.”
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

A. Ratio Average Method

¶9 Under the Ratio Average Method, the county assessor

calculates the ratio of LPV to FCV (LPV divided by FCV) of each Rule A 

property in a class. The assessor then adds those ratios together and divides

that sum by the number of properties in the class. In other words, under 

the Ratio Average Method, the assessor calculates the Rule B ratio by 

averaging the LPV/FCV ratios of all similar Rule A properties. 

B. Ratio Aggregate Method 

¶10 Under the Ratio Aggregate Method, the assessor establishes 

the Rule B Ratio by dividing the aggregate LPV of all the Rule A Parcels in 

a given class by the aggregate FCV of those same parcels.

C. Example of Ratio Average Method and Ratio Aggregate 

Method

Class X properties FCV LPV RATIO (LPV/FCV)

1 $1,000,000 $800,000 0.80

2 $500,000 $340,000 0.68

3 $250,000 $190,000 0.76

 Sum: $1,750,000 $1,330,000 2.24

¶11 Under the Ratio Average Method, the assessor would add the 

individual ratios of each Class X property (0.80 + 0.68 + 0.76 = 2.24) and 

divide that by the number of properties in the class (3), resulting in a Rule 

B Ratio of 75% (2.24/3 = 0.75). 

¶12 Under the Ratio Aggregate Method, the assessor would 

divide the sum of the LPVs of the Class X properties ($1,330,000) by the sum 

of those properties’ FCVs ($1,750,000), resulting in a Rule B Ratio of 76% 

($1,330,000/$1,750,000 = 0.76).

¶13 Here, the parties agree that under the Ratio Aggregate 

Method, the LPV of Taxpayers’ properties would have been calculated at 

75% of FCV, but because the Assessor used the Ratio Average Method, their 

properties were calculated at 79% of FCV. 
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

II. The Ratio Average Method does not violate Section 42-13302. 

¶14 Section 42-13302(A) provides that the LPV of Rule B 

properties shall be calculated at a “level or percentage of full cash value that 

is comparable to that of other properties of the same or a similar use or 

classification.” (emphasis added). Taxpayers argue the term “that” in the 

statute refers to a single “level or percentage” (or ratio) of FCV that is 

uniform to all properties of the same or similar use or classification. But 

that uniform ratio does not exist: each Rule A property has a different 

individual LPV/FCV ratio.

¶15 Indeed, as demonstrated above, both methods produce a 

single Rule B Ratio, derived from the FCVs and LPVs of each Rule A 

property “of the same or a similar use or classification” that is “comparable” 

to the ratios of other similarly used or classified property. See A.R.S.

§ 42-13302. Both the Ratio Aggregate Method and Ratio Average Method 

use the same data in different ways to determine the Rule B Ratio.

III. Assessors have discretion to choose different Rule B Ratio 

calculation methods.

A. Section 42-13302 does not require all county assessors to use 

the same method to calculate Rule B Ratios. 

¶16 Taxpayers’ argument that the Ratio Average Method is 

impermissible because it yields different results from the Ratio Aggregate 

Method is similarly unpersuasive. Section 42-13302(A) only requires

assessors to establish an LPV for Rule B properties “at a level or percentage 

of [FCV] that is comparable to that of other properties of the same or a 

similar use or classification.” That the Ratio Average Method may yield 

different results from the Ratio Aggregate Method does not render the Ratio 

Average Method illegal under the statute, which neither prescribes nor 

prohibits any method of calculating the LPV of Rule B properties. 

B. Section 42-13002(A)(1) does not require the Department to 

ensure statewide uniformity of Rule B Ratio calculation 

methods. 

¶17 At oral argument, Taxpayers argued that Section 

42-13002(A)(1) requires county assessors throughout the State to use the 

same method of calculating Rule B Ratios. We disagree.

¶18 Section 42-13002(A)(1) provides that the Department shall 

“ensure that all property is uniformly valued for property tax purposes.”
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

”Valuation” is defined, in relevant part, as the “limited property value that 

is determined for real or personal property.” A.R.S. § 42-11001(18). The

“uniformity” that the Department is tasked with ensuring, therefore, refers

to how counties value—that is, determine the LPV of—Rule B properties.

In other words, the uniformity in Section 42-13002(A)(1) is tied to how 

counties apply the Rule B Ratio rather than how they arrive at that ratio.

Here, regardless of the method county assessors use to arrive at the Rule B 

Ratio, they uniformly apply that Ratio to calculate LPVs by multiplying the 

Rule B Ratio by the property’s FCV.

¶19 Further, Section 42-13002(A)(1) is ambiguous in that it does 

not specify the territorial limits within which property must be “uniformly 

valued.” We thus resort to secondary methods of statutory interpretation

to determine whether Section 42-13002(A)(1) refers to “uniformity” within

a taxing authority’s jurisdiction, or within the State. “Statutory provisions 

should be read in context to determine meaning,” and we “consider statutes 

that are in pari materia—of the same subject or general purpose—for 

guidance.” See State v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 253 Ariz. 6, 12, ¶ 24 (2022)

(citation omitted). 

¶20 We read Section 42-13002(A)(1) in pari materia with Article 9, 

Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “all taxes shall 

be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of 

the authority levying the tax.” Accordingly, even if Section 42-13002(A)(1) 

required methodological uniformity in calculating Rule B Ratios, that 

uniformity is only required within the territorial limits of the county 

assessors’ authority, which here is Maricopa County. See A.R.S. § 42-

13051(A). All parties agree that the Maricopa County Assessor calculated 

and applied the Rule B Ratio uniformly for all Rule B properties in the 

county. 

IV. The Legislature did not impermissibly delegate authority to county 

assessors.

¶21 Taxpayers next argue that permitting county assessors to 

calculate Rule B Ratios using the Ratio Average Method is an impermissible 

delegation of legislative power. In support of their argument, Taxpayers 

cite Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County, 92 Ariz. 395 (1963), which 

states that the Legislature may not delegate to an official “the power to fix 

a rate of taxation according to a standard [and] also the power to prescribe 

the standard” because “a statute [giving] unlimited regulatory power to a 

. . . board or agency with no prescribed restraints offends the Constitution 

as a delegation of legislative power.” Id. at 404.
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

7

¶22 As an initial matter, and as the Department points out, if it is 

an unlawful delegation of power for the Assessor to calculate LPVs using 

the Ratio Average Method, it is equally unlawful for it to calculate LPVs 

using the Ratio Aggregate Method because the Legislature has not 

prescribed either method. But here, as in Southern Pacific, the Legislature’s 

delegation of power to county assessors is constitutionally permissible 

because “in no event can it be construed to give [county assessors] 

unlimited power to change the uniform method of assessment prescribed 

by the legislature.” 92 Ariz. at 404.

¶23 Indeed, the Legislature did not give county assessors 

unfettered discretion to assess taxes on Rule B properties. Rather, the 

Legislature directed assessors to determine the LPV of Rule B properties at 

a rate “comparable to that of other properties of the same or a similar use 

or classification.” A.R.S. § 42-13302(A). While Taxpayers would prefer that 

the authority delegated to the county assessor be further constrained, we 

will not construe the county assessor’s role more narrowly than the statute 

directs. 

V. The Department’s use of the Ratio Aggregate Method in its 

Assessment Procedure Manual does not require every county 

assessor to use that method. 

¶24 Taxpayers argue that the Department “teaches assessors to 

establish Rule B Ratios using the Aggregate Method” because the 

Department’s Procedure Manual provides examples of the Ratio Aggregate 

Method and not the Ratio Average Method. But the legality of a Rule B 

Ratio calculation is determined by whether it complies with Section

42-13302, not the Department’s manual. And as we explained above, the 

Ratio Average Method is legal because it comports with the statute. To the 

extent the examples the Department includes in its manual constitute its

interpretation of what the statute requires, that interpretation is not binding 

authority. See Maricopa Cnty. v. Viola, 251 Ariz. 276, 279, ¶ 11 (App. 2021) 

(noting ADOR guidelines are “just that, guidelines, not formal regulations 

. . . .”). The final word on statutory interpretation belongs to the judiciary,

not to administrative agencies. See U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix, 

160 Ariz. 210, 211 (App. 1989). 

¶25 Nevertheless, we agree with the superior court’s 

determination that “even if the Manual was entitled to deference, the [Ratio 

Average Method] is consistent with the instructions included in the 

manual.” In the Manual, the Department states that the Rule B Ratio is

“determine[d] by using the ratio for properties in the same legal 
5133 N CENTRAL, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

8

classification or within the same property use code grouping” and is “based 

upon the relationship between the full cash and limited values of existing 

properties that are subject to Rule A limited value calculation.” The Manual 

does not provide that the Ratio Aggregate Method is the only permissible 

method, and the Ratio Average Method is consistent with the Manual’s 

guidance (and the language of Section 42-13302) that Rule B Ratios are 

determined “using the ratio[s] for properties in the same legal 

classification.”

VI. The 2018 Rule B Ratios did not result in illegal LPVs in subsequent 

years.

¶26 Taxpayers further contend that the “illegal LPVs set by the 

assessor have resulted in illegal LPVs in subsequent years.” But as we have 

explained above, the LPVs set by the Assessor in 2018 complied with 

Arizona tax law, and the Assessor did not err in calculating the Rule B 

Ratios. Accordingly, because there was no initial error in the 2018 

calculation for Rule B Ratios, there is also no resulting error for subsequent 

tax periods. 

CONCLUSION

¶27 We affirm.