Max Hathaway, a resident and member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the recreation center, told the council the court will hold “an evidentiary hearing on October 24” in a lawsuit brought by Bruce Evans that seeks to kill the referendum tied to the LYNX project. Hathaway urged the council to direct the town attorney to prepare a checklist of clerical steps used in petition processing and to consider a town opinion letter so the issue “will never have to happen again.”

Why it matters: The motion and possible litigation could affect whether a citizen referendum proceeds and, if upheld, the schedule for any related land-use or development action. The dispute also has prompted extended public comment this meeting from multiple neighborhoods and local groups concerned about mine permits, blasting, and dust near homes.

At the meeting, Bruce Evans, who identified himself as the filer of the lawsuit, called the petition process “a total abusive process” and said the project at issue is “an 86,000 square foot warehouse on 19 acres of land,” arguing the referendum law is being used improperly. Several residents then spoke about mining proposals in the area, including claims about violations of air-quality or equipment requirements and disagreement about which parties own or would operate mines.

Patricia Betzold of Chino Hill and a Stoneridge resident reported neighborhood concern that a proposed rezoning and mine operations near Stone Ridge would bring blasting and silica dust, and said residents were “fighting to stop mining within town limits.” Sandy Graham, chair of the Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance, denied claims that her organization instigated petitions or secret meetings and said PVCA would publicly correct factual errors when they appear in council remarks.

Joe Colosimo, a Stone Ridge resident, said the Fane family own land near Fane Park but do not own the mine operation; he said “McCormick owns the mine and APNS are the miners.” Colosimo said that if the council votes to move a mine location to Government Tank, “If that doesn't go through, then Stone Ridge gets the mine.”

Discussion vs. action: Speakers urged the council to consult the town attorney about the lawsuit and consider filing or supporting an amicus brief; no council motion to intervene on behalf of the town was made during the meeting. Max Hathaway said he filed a motion seeking the right to file an amicus brief and asked councilmembers to “talk to Ivan” (the town attorney) about the town’s possible involvement.

Context and next steps: The meeting record shows community members plan to pursue both legal and political avenues: the court’s evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24, and public discussion about mine siting and potential rezonings is ongoing. The council did not take formal action on the referendum litigation during the Aug. 28 meeting.