The Surprise City Council will hear a presentation Monday, Nov. 2, on a push to incorporate the unincorporated community of Wittmann as its own town. The filing behind the item cites a state law that its backers say could let Wittmann move toward incorporation if Surprise does not annex the area within 120 days.
The meeting packet does not show when, or whether, that 120-day period began. The pages where the city clerk would record the date and time the filing was received are blank in the copy published with the agenda.
The item is a work session, which is a discussion meeting. The agenda form lists the motion as "None, discussion only." It lists no staff recommendation and gives the financial impact as "N/A."
What the filing asks
Keep Us Rural LLC, which describes itself in the filing as a volunteer group, addressed a "Formal Filing Package" dated Sept. 30 to City Clerk Kristi Passarelli and to the mayor and members of the City Council. Jeffrey August signed it for the petitioners.
The filing asks the city to "take appropriate action concerning annexation of the territory proposed for incorporation." It lists specific requests:
- formally receive the filing and date-stamp it
- give the petitioners a written receipt showing the date and time it was presented
- refer the matter to the mayor and council and place it on a council agenda "for discussion and action"
- consider whether to approve annexation of the area
- give the petitioners a written copy of whatever action the city takes
It also asks the city to preserve all records related to the filing.
The petitioners write that they "intend to establish a clear and verifiable municipal record of the date on which this request and accompanying annexation materials are presented to the City."
The state law the group cites
Slides prepared for Monday's session say Wittmann lies within Surprise's "urbanized area." Under the state statute both documents cite, A.R.S. 9-101.01, the slides say Wittmann cannot incorporate unless one of two things happens:
- the city approves by resolution, or
- an annexation petition goes 120 days without an approved annexation ordinance.
The filing describes the second route this way. Before gathering incorporation signatures, petitioners may submit an affidavit to the county Board of Supervisors stating three things:
- A "proper and legal petition" was presented to the city.
- The petition requested annexation of the area proposed for incorporation.
- The petition was not approved by a valid annexation ordinance within 120 days after it was presented.
The filing says that once such an affidavit is submitted, the board "shall take action on the incorporation."
If no annexation ordinance is adopted within 120 days, the petitioners say they intend to file that affidavit with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and proceed with incorporation.
The packet does not say whether the city considers the group's filing a "proper and legal" annexation petition under the statute.
The date question
The filing states that the date it is presented to the city "is material." The petitioners say they will count the 120 days from that date. A final instruction in the package asks the clerk to treat "the date of actual receipt" of the petition as the controlling date.
The filing includes a "Record of Presentation" section marked "to be completed by the City Clerk," plus a separate receipt form. Both are blank in the packet. The blank fields include the date and time presented, who received it, the clerk's date stamp and a city file number. The filing's own "120-Day Calculation" section, with a line for when the period expires, is also blank.
The filing's exhibit index lists an "Exhibit D — Proof of Presentation to City of Surprise."
The city's slides for Monday say August "delivered" the package to the city on Sept. 30. The packet does not say whether the city treats Sept. 30 as the date of presentation under the statute.
If the period were counted from Sept. 30, 120 days would run to Jan. 28, 2027, by The Standard's calculation. Neither the filing nor the city's slides in the packet give an expiration date.
Earlier minutes show the issue came up before the Sept. 30 date on the package. Minutes of the Sept. 15 council meeting record that August asked for Wittmann incorporation to be placed on a future council agenda and "mentioned materials submitted to the City regarding the proposed incorporation." The same passage appears in the Oct. 6 meeting packet. The minutes do not say what those materials were.
Lori Hendershot and Sharon Acritelli also spoke in support of Wittmann incorporation at the Sept. 15 meeting, according to the minutes.
How the item reached the agenda
At the Oct. 6 council meeting, Councilmember Judd requested an informational work session on Wittmann, according to the agenda background. Councilmember Haney seconded the request.
Judd asked that the session cover the annexation process in Arizona and the purpose of the city's General Plan overlay for the Wittmann area. The General Plan is the city's long-range land-use plan.
The listed contact for the item is Lloyd Abrams, assistant city manager, in the City Manager's Office. The agenda wording reads: "Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed incorporation of Wittmann and Wittmann's request for annexation."
The slides say the presentation will explain how annexation works under state law and city policy. They describe the city's current position as not proactively pursuing annexation. They also say annexations begin with requests from property owners or developers.