[0:05] >> we'll go ahead and get

[0:06] started.

[0:10] I'd like to call the

[0:11] NOVEMBER 17, 2025 special

[0:13] meeting and possible executive

[0:14] session of the scottsdale city

[0:15] council to order.

[0:17] City clerk ben lane, can you

[0:19] please do our roll call.

[0:20] Clerk ben lane:

[0:20] mayor lisa borowsky.

[0:22] Mayor borowsky: present.

[0:22] Clerk ben lane: vice mayor adam

[0:23] kwasman.

[0:25] Vice mayor kwasman:

[0:25] here.

[0:26] Clerk ben lane: councilmembers

[0:26] jan dubauskas.

[0:27] Councilmember dubauskas.

[0:28] Here.

[0:29] Barry graham.

[0:30] Clerk ben lane: barry graham.

[0:32] Councilmember graham:

[0:32] here.

[0:32] Clerk ben lane: kathy

[0:33] littlefield.

[0:33] Councilmember littlefield:

[0:34] here.

[0:34] Clerk ben lane: maryann mcallen.

[0:35] Councilmember mcallen:

[0:35] here.

[0:35] Clerk ben lane: solange

[0:36] whitehead.

[0:36] Councilmember whitehead:

[0:36] here.

[0:37] >> clerk ben lane: city manager

[0:37] greg caton.

[0:39] >> greg caton: present.

[0:40] >> clerk ben lane: interim city

[0:42] attorney luis santaella.

[0:45] >> luis santaella: here.

[0:47] I'll note that city more greg

[0:49] cation just walked in.

[0:50] >> clerk ben lane: city

[0:50] treasurer sonia andrews.

[0:54] >> sonia andrews: here.

[0:55] >> Clerk Ben Lane: and the clerk

[0:57] is present.

[0:57] >> Mayor Borowsky: we have a

[0:58] possible executive session to

[1:00] can you tell me with the city's

[1:01] attorneys for legal advice and

[1:04] consider the city's position

[1:08] regarding the taxpayers against

[1:11] awful apartment zoning

[1:12] exemptions, versus state of

[1:14] arizona and all other matters

[1:18] related to senate bill 1543 and

[1:21] development agreement no. 2020-

[1:25] 2020-138-cos, including

[1:26] amendments.

[1:28] And to -- also to address a

[1:29] proposed memorandum of

[1:30] understanding between the city

[1:34] and axon.

[1:37] And the proposed ordinance no.

[1:40] 4697 related to a

[1:41] self-certification and

[1:43] third-partied certification

[1:44] program.

[1:45] And for legal advice related to

[1:47] all these items.

[1:48] Why can I -- at this time I'll

[1:51] entertain a motion -- to enter

[1:53] into executive session.

[1:54] >> so moved.

[1:55] >> second.

[1:56] >> Mayor Borowsky: all those in

[1:57] favor, please indicate your

[2:00] vote.

[2:02] We will now recess into

[2:03] executive session.

[2:05] And be back when we're finished,

[2:11] thank you.

[5:38] >> Mayor Borowsky: we've wrapped

[5:39] up our executive session and at

[5:41] this time we are reconvene

[5:42] ing the

[5:46] special council meeting for the

[5:48] record most of the council is

[5:48] here.

[5:50] I saw barry here.

[5:51] We are all here.

[5:53] And the charter officers are

[5:55] also in attendance.

[5:59] So moving on to item no. 2, for

[6:02] consideration, a memorandum of

[6:05] understanding

[6:09] forthe axon world headquarters

[6:11] campus.

[6:14] authorizing contract no. 2025-

[6:17] 2025-197-cos, a memorandum of

[6:19] understanding between the city

[6:21] and axon enterprise.

[6:23] The mou outlines the terms for

[6:25] development of axon's

[6:27] international headquarters

[6:28] campus, including a reduction of

[6:30] the total number of residential

[6:33] units previously approved from

[6:36] 1882 apartment -- 1,882

[6:39] apartments to 750 apartments,

[6:44] and 750 condominiums for a total

[6:47] of 1500 residential units.

[6:49] Why which will include phased

[6:50] construction of office,

[6:52] manufacturing, hotel and

[6:54] residential components.

[6:56] Affordable housing provisions,

[6:57] infrastructure commitments,

[6:58] including roads, trails and

[6:59] utilities.

[7:03] Access to a real-time crime

[7:05] center, and use of a third party

[7:07] permitting and inspection

[7:08] process.

[7:10] We do have some speakers on

[7:10] this.

[7:12] So I'm going to go ahead --

[7:13] first we'll hear from our city

[7:15] attorney, who will give us a

[7:23] brief presentation on this.

[7:24] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[7:29] f I could please get the elmo.

[7:31] Thank you.

[7:32] Honorable mayor and members of

[7:34] the city council and members of

[7:37] the public, I'm the interim city

[7:38] attorney, and I'm going to speak

[7:39] briefly on the items that are

[7:42] being considered this evening.

[7:44] The first item that's being

[7:46] considered this evening is the

[7:48] mumim of understanding, an

[7:51] agreement between axon, inc.,

[7:54] and the city of scottsdale.

[7:59] And it outlines a proposal where

[8:01] axon would do certain things and

[8:03] the city would do certain things

[8:03] things.

[8:06] and it involves the development

[8:07] vacationon's international

[8:08] headquarters, located here in

[8:11] the city of scottsdale.

[8:13] The mmu include phased

[8:14] construction of the office,

[8:16] manufacturing, hotel and

[8:18] residential components, their

[8:19] infrastructure commitments such

[8:21] as a dog park, roads and trails

[8:25] and utilities that axon is

[8:26] promising to do.

[8:29] There's some affordable housing

[8:31] provisions, access to a

[8:32] real-time crime center for

[8:34] the scottsdale police department

[8:37] department, and it also involves

[8:39] certain other conditions.

[8:41] One of the biggest things about

[8:43] this particular proposed mou if

[8:45] adopted is the number of units.

[8:48] Previously approved axon was

[8:51] authorized 1,882 units.

[8:54] Under the agreement, they would

[8:55] be changing the number of units

[8:58] that they're doing to 750

[9:00] apartments and 750 condominiums

[9:04] for a total of 1500 units.

[9:07] Of those units, 38 units will be

[9:07] dedicate

[9:09] dedicated as affordable housing

[9:11] and the construction would be

[9:12] phased.

[9:15] Meaning that 375 of the

[9:17] apartments and 375 of the condos

[9:20] would be deferred until after

[9:23] JANUARY 1, 2030.

[9:26] They would begin the

[9:29] headquarters building sooner

[9:32] than later, before the ancillary

[9:32] stuff.

[9:35] In addition to the mou itself,

[9:36] there are two ordinances that

[9:38] are related to the mou that

[9:40] would be agreed upon if the mou

[9:41] passes.

[9:46] One is a self-certification and

[9:47] third party certification

[9:48] program.

[9:49] This type of progra is

[9:51] authorized by state law and a

[9:53] city can limit who this type of

[9:55] ordinance applies to.

[9:58] In this case only world

[10:00] headquarters campuses.

[10:01] Right now there's only one world

[10:03] headquarters campus within the

[10:04] city of scottsdale, and there's

[10:06] only a couple of other parcels

[10:08] within the city that could

[10:09] possibly fit that definition.

[10:12] So it's very limited.

[10:14] Under the self-certifying

[10:15] ordinance or third party

[10:17] certification program, it would

[10:19] allow licensed engineers and

[10:21] architects to basically certify

[10:23] the plans, conduct the

[10:25] inspections, and make sure that

[10:28] axon is building and developing

[10:30] the property appropriately and

[10:34] properly.

[10:39] The third part of this -- or the -- is the repeal of the

[10:41] zoning ordinance.

[10:44] Right now, as we all know, the

[10:46] current zoning -- has been

[10:48] referred, so it's kind of been

[10:50] suspended until there's a

[10:51] referendum.

[10:52] This would repeal the current

[10:54] zoning to what axon had before,

[10:57] which is basically light

[10:57] industrial.

[11:00] The entire mou is predicated on

[11:04] the idea that sb1543 the

[11:06] international headquarters,

[11:08] state statute is lawful.

[11:10] The final thing that the council

[11:13] MAY be considering tonight is an

[11:17] item to authorize me, or my

[11:18] designees to file appropriate

[11:20] counter claims, cross-claims or

[11:22] third-party claims in the matter

[11:24] of taxpayers against awful

[11:25] apartment zoning exertions

[11:26] versus state of arizona, city of

[11:27] scottsdale.

[11:28] That's a lawsuit that axon is

[11:30] not involved in, but obviously

[11:34] because it involves sb14 --

[11:40] excuse me, sb1543 it has

[11:41] repercussions for this mou and

[11:41] for the development.

[11:42] With that, I'll take any

[11:45] questions from the city council.

[11:51] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[11:55] Advice mayor kwasman.

[11:56] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank

[11:58] you, MADAM Mayor, and I really

[12:02] want to -- I want to just say, I

[12:04] have so much appreciation for

[12:05] you, MR. City manager --

[12:07] MR. City manager and MR. City

[12:10] attorney for all you have done

[12:16] to help put this all together in

[12:18] such a short time.

[12:19] Having been an attorney for a

[12:22] decade and seeing deals put

[12:23] together, rarely are they this

[12:25] comprehensive with this time

[12:32] frame that it something to be

[12:34] extremely proud of.

[12:37] I also want to thank -- I want

[12:40] to thank axon, who has come to

[12:44] the table in a way that is --

[12:49] there's a yiddish word,

[12:49] mensch-like.

[12:53] You came in with real terms and

[12:56] whatever happens at this vote,

[12:59] this afternoon, is a -- it's --

[13:03] it is a reflection -- it's not a

[13:06] reflection on -- it's not a

[13:08] reflection on the negotiations

[13:09] that took place.

[13:10] I think it's really important.

[13:15] I just want for everybody

[13:16] listening, whether they're going

[13:19] to see this tomorrow or today,

[13:21] I'm going to do my very quick

[13:22] ben shapiro impression and get

[13:24] to where we are now.

[13:26] So all right, folks, let me just

[13:28] give you a little background.

[13:30] Last DECEMBER former council got

[13:33] us to roughly 1900 apartments.

[13:36] Referendum succeeded getting

[13:38] signatures, puts it on the

[13:39] ballot.

[13:43] The 1543 was passed, okay, which

[13:48] then allows those businesses

[13:50] that axon would qualify under to

[13:54] not be subject to referendum,

[13:56] lawsuit ensued, okay, but I want

[14:02] to be very clear, under 1543 and

[14:04] under the development agreement,

[14:06] 1900 apartments would be

[14:06] allowed.

[14:06] Okay.

[14:10] If we had a referendum today, if

[14:12] somebody paused and we had a

[14:14] referendum today and axon won

[14:16] the development agreement holds

[14:18] and it's roughly 1900 apartments

[14:19] apartments.

[14:21] If it was held today and axon

[14:24] lost, axon's property becomes

[14:26] reevaluated -- it gets

[14:28] reclassified as light

[14:30] industrial, and therefore 1543

[14:33] holds and they get to build 1900

[14:33] apartments.

[14:36] There is no difference, those --

[14:37] anybody telling you that the

[14:39] voice of the people is not being

[14:40] heard, guess what your outcome

[14:42] has already been decided by the

[14:43] state legislature.

[14:46] If axon wins the referendum,

[14:46] 1900.

[14:49] If axon loses the referendum,

[14:50] 1900.

[14:52] That's the law.

[14:55] So the question is then, is that

[14:57] then going to -- they say wait,

[14:58] the law is being challenged,

[15:01] there's a lawsuit during, okay?

[15:02] Now, here's where I can speak to

[15:06] as a litigator and as a former

[15:09] legislator.

[15:11] I have seen special legislation

[15:13] challenges being brought in

[15:16] front, in front of the -- in

[15:17] front of the state supreme court

[15:19] and have seen successes and

[15:21] failures, but what gets to

[15:23] happen there is the state

[15:25] legislature gets a second crack

[15:27] at I see this and so in any

[15:29] complaint, you have to list the

[15:31] issues that they feel is

[15:32] unconstitutional.

[15:34] And the legislature now has a

[15:36] list of things that they could

[15:40] use to amend the legislation.

[15:41] Now, I have been around, I have

[15:42] been around as long as some of

[15:44] these people in this audience,

[15:46] but been around long enough to

[15:47] know that legislatures don't

[15:49] like to be overruled.

[15:51] And I promise you, that the

[15:53] amount of votes it took to get

[15:55] over the hump to get the first

[15:56] piece of legislation through,

[15:57] they are willing to make the

[15:59] amendments to make sure it's

[16:00] legal, nobody wants to be the

[16:02] one who is holding the ball and

[16:04] be declared unconstitutional by

[16:05] a state supreme court.

[16:06] And that's what brought us to

[16:07] this moment.

[16:14] So the idea is what can we do to

[16:16] make sure that we listen to

[16:23] residents, don't have 1900 units -- 1900 apartments, what

[16:26] can we do to make sure that we

[16:28] bring a resident first approach

[16:30] that is a compromise that is

[16:33] mature, that is realistic, that

[16:36] served all parties, and makes

[16:40] sure that we don't get overrun

[16:44] by a state supreme court and a

[16:46] state legislature?

[16:49] And that was the impetus behind

[16:52] this compromise and this mou.

[16:54] Only good intentions that was

[16:58] then borne out to be good

[17:00] compromise and a good final mou

[17:02] that we have here today.

[17:06] Those at this dais might want to

[17:08] tell you reasons that they vote

[17:10] no today, but the fact of the

[17:14] matter is, is that as recently

[17:19] as three weeks ago, we had -- we

[17:22] had a majority approving this.

[17:23] This language specifically,

[17:25] which is why we printed it out

[17:26] this way.

[17:28] If we didn't have a majority

[17:30] approving this, I wouldn't have

[17:32] put pen to paper.

[17:35] So the proof is in the pudding.

[17:36] Using a alliteration here.

[17:39] Just the facts, I respect my

[17:41] clients and their votes, I

[17:42] respect everybody who came to

[17:45] the table, and arizona was just

[17:48] rated no. 22 for jobs in this

[17:50] country -- I'm sorry, as a state

[17:53] in this country, no. 22, and if

[17:57] we don't do what we need to do

[18:00] to create a regulatory

[18:02] environment not to be

[18:04] corporatist, but to have stable

[18:07] rules with a regulatory

[18:09] environment that does not crush

[18:12] entrepreneurism, then free

[18:13] enterprise is going to go

[18:14] elsewhere.

[18:15] They already are.

[18:18] This is our chance to make sure

[18:22] that we revive and recover a

[18:24] regulatory environment that I

[18:26] consider extremely conservative,

[18:27] extremely free market and make

[18:30] sure that we have stable rules

[18:32] so the entrepreneurs can go as

[18:35] far as their GOD-given talents

[18:36] take them and hire incredible

[18:37] people.

[18:39] With that, MADAM Mayor.

[18:40] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[18:41] COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.

[18:42] >> Councilmember Whitehead: woul

[18:43] d it be possible to have the

[18:45] public speakers come up before

[18:50] the rest of us speak.

[18:52] >> Mayor Borowsky: absolutely.

[18:53] Exact same thing, this could

[18:55] turn into a long discussion.

[18:57] So let's have andrew wholeman

[18:59] followed by barbara burns and

[19:18] dan isaac.

[19:21] >> anybody know how to turn this

[19:40] on?

[19:43] Sorry.

[19:46] I'll leave that part of it.

[19:49] Here we go, got it.

[19:51] Good evening.

[19:54] Mayor, council members, before i

[19:57] get started, did anybody notice

[19:59] the smell in the room?

[20:01] It's -- I don't think it's the

[20:03] room, I think it's the process

[20:05] because something really stinks

[20:05] here.

[20:08] Because when a deal arrives this

[20:09] polished, coordinated and

[20:10] insulated after weeks of

[20:13] executive sessions, the odor

[20:14] isn't subtle.

[20:16] It's the smell you get when

[20:17] transparency has been sealed in

[20:20] a back room for too long.

[20:22] We have been told this mou is

[20:25] merely an administrative act,

[20:28] that label isn't legally -- is

[20:30] an illegal necessity, it's a

[20:32] legal strategy, calling this

[20:33] administrative shields it

[20:34] against another referendum.

[20:37] That it is not a coincidence,

[20:39] that's a plan.

[20:40] And the clearest sign this

[20:41] agreement wasn't shaped by

[20:43] scottsdale is it was shaped by

[20:44] axon.

[20:46] You can see the fingerprints

[20:47] everywhere, the structure, the

[20:49] mou protects axon not the

[20:49] public.

[20:51] The foundation shows outside

[20:53] influence in places the public

[20:56] is not allowed to be.

[20:57] When binding development terms,

[21:00] zoning reversals, infrastructure

[21:01] commitments and oversight

[21:03] transfers are negotiated out of

[21:06] public view, then returns as a

[21:07] prepackage

[21:09] ed inevitability,

[21:11] that's legislative action hiding

[21:13] under another name.

[21:16] The self-certification ordinance

[21:17] doesn't streamline anything, it

[21:19] outsources the city's own

[21:20] permittings and inspection

[21:21] authority to a private

[21:22] corporation.

[21:24] Axon will pick its own

[21:25] inspectors, issue its own

[21:27] certificate, interpret its own

[21:29] compliance, and no other

[21:31] developer has ever been issued

[21:32] this power.

[21:33] It's ridiculous.

[21:34] Placing a litigation item last

[21:37] on the agenda is not an

[21:37] accident.

[21:40] The mou passes, first, the

[21:41] referendum becomes moot.

[21:43] That's not democracy, that's

[21:46] gaming the order of provisions.

[21:48] You're negotiating residential

[21:49] entitlements in the middle of an

[21:51] active regional water crisis,

[21:52] with the arizona department of

[21:56] water resources already halting

[21:56] groundwater dependent

[21:58] developments thousands of them

[22:01] and out of 1500 units, we are

[22:03] only allowing 38 affordable

[22:04] housing units.

[22:06] That's the bare minimum required

[22:08] by law, is that a good citizen

[22:11] of scottsdale, I don't think so.

[22:12] Ethical government requires

[22:14] transparency, independence,

[22:16] fairness and meaningful public

[22:17] participation, none of those are

[22:18] visible tonight.

[22:20] Please take the garbage out,

[22:22] give the city a process that

[22:24] doesn't smell like it was cooked

[22:25] weeks ago.

[22:27] And one other thing, I'd like to

[22:29] say, I'm a resident 40 years in

[22:32] the city, and it is shameful

[22:34] that axon takes the seat of

[22:36] people who actually live in this

[22:39] city and makes us stand while

[22:41] you come early on buses paid by

[22:44] your employer so that we have to

[22:45] stand.

[22:46] That is showing you how good of

[22:48] a citizen your company is.

[22:51] I would welcome axon here to be

[22:53] honest, but I am concerned the

[22:56] way they behave and I don't want

[22:58] the apartments, if there were

[23:01] 400 apartments, 4 employees,

[23:03] guaranteed a low rate, you all

[23:04] deserve a good apartment rate, I

[23:07] would be 100 percent behind that

[23:07] that.

[23:09] This has nothing to do with

[23:10] employee housing or apartments,

[23:13] it whats to do with a plate of

[23:15] multi-family residential

[23:17] development, restaurants, a

[23:19] hotel, it has nothing to do with

[23:22] axon's actual primary business.

[23:22] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[24:25] Barbara burns.

[24:27] Westworld, tpc and the

[24:29] championship golf course, the

[24:32] princess hotel, hyatt at gainy

[24:33] ranch, scottsdale stadium

[24:36] rebuild and many others.

[24:38] All the projects had significant

[24:44] citizen opposition we spent

[24:46] hours listening to people,

[24:48] residents, but the various

[24:50] councils held firm in their

[24:52] beliefs and the -- that the

[24:54] projects had enormous economic

[24:56] development opportunities for

[24:57] the city.

[25:00] That would reach far into the

[25:02] future and today we are able to

[25:03] see that they were right on

[25:05] target.

[25:08] And it took a lot of bravery and

[25:10] courage to approve those

[25:11] projects.

[25:14] I consider axon as the signature

[25:16] project category.

[25:18] And as important, the city

[25:20] should not be allowing in state

[25:23] and out of state union activists

[25:25] dictating what is built in our

[25:29] community arizona is a right to

[25:32] work state and we should uphold

[25:32] this law.

[25:35] On reflectioning of the

[25:36] referendum question was

[25:38] misleading and confusing.

[25:42] I even signed the petition, not

[25:45] recognizing it's deceptive

[25:46] nature until further researched

[25:48] and reviewed.

[25:50] I was approached at the farmer's

[25:53] market and whoever the petition

[25:54] person was said -- are we

[25:55] against all these apartments

[25:57] that have been built in

[25:59] scottsdale, and I was, I think

[26:00] there's been a lot of big box

[26:02] bad apartments that have been

[26:03] built here.

[26:06] I signed the petition, and then

[26:08] my be husband was with me, like

[26:10] a good husband, he signed the

[26:11] petition too.

[26:14] So there are two signatures on

[26:16] there that in hindsight we

[26:17] wouldn't have done.

[26:20] And I feel that both of us were

[26:22] duped, and I also feel that I

[26:25] was lied to, which I'm not happy

[26:28] about in retrospect.

[26:31] Axon is an international cutting

[26:32] edge corporation, we are

[26:35] fortunate to have in scottsdale

[26:43] since 1993 its net worth is

[26:44] $43 billion with revenues

[26:47] projected to be 27-point --

[26:50] 2.7 billion and axon's desire is

[26:52] to build a world class

[26:54] headquarters, which will be

[26:56] another jewel and an economic

[27:01] engine for scottsdale's crown.

[27:03] And they have been great citizen

[27:05] citizens and expansion only

[27:06] increased that value.

[27:09] It would be sad to lose axon to

[27:11] another entity as we did with

[27:13] the mayo hospital campus, going

[27:14] to phoenix.

[27:16] So in conclusion, I encourage

[27:19] the mayor and council to approve

[27:21] the mou and quit wasting

[27:23] valuable time because time is

[27:26] money for all of us.

[27:27] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[27:28] Dan isaac.

[27:33] Followed by gail goalick and

[27:35] leslie lureman.

[27:38] >> dan isaac, address on record.

[27:40] I'm here asking the council to

[27:42] vote yes on the mou.

[27:46] And I echo many vice mayor

[27:48] kwasman's comments about why the

[27:50] city should.

[27:53] But let's be clear, we are here

[27:56] because bob littlefield, some

[27:58] short-sighted council members

[27:59] and their controlled city

[28:06] manager, denied residents the

[28:08] right to vote and denied axon

[28:10] the right to have a speedy

[28:14] resolution, and because of that

[28:17] denial, our state government,

[28:19] once again, overreached, like

[28:21] they did with short-term rentals

[28:24] and the adu's, like they did

[28:26] with adaptive reuse, school

[28:29] funding, the list goes on and on

[28:30] on.

[28:32] But we now have an agreement

[28:34] that's far less than what axon

[28:35] originally came to.

[28:38] Far less than what axon

[28:39] negotiated last DECEMBER.

[28:42] And it includes ownership

[28:44] opportunities, and more open

[28:46] space and more amenities for the

[28:50] city, it is a good compromise.

[28:52] More importantly, where will we

[28:56] be if this doesn't get approved?

[28:59] Well, there are only two

[29:00] futures.

[29:05] One is the taze lawsuit fails.

[29:07] If that lawsuit fails, then axon

[29:09] can pretty much do whatever the

[29:10] heck tey want.

[29:12] They're not limited to 1900

[29:12] apartments.

[29:14] I believe axon will be a good

[29:16] corporate citizen as they've

[29:18] demonstrated over the past and

[29:19] will comply with the originally

[29:23] approved plan, but they can what

[29:24] they want and we will have

[29:26] wasted valuable time and have

[29:29] 1900, at least, instead of 750

[29:32] apartments, 750 condominiums.

[29:34] The other alternative is the

[29:35] lawsuit is successful.

[29:38] If that happens, axon

[29:40] potentially leaves the city.

[29:43] Taking hundreds of high-paying

[29:44] professional jobs.

[29:48] Having a multi billion dollar

[29:50] negative impact on the state and

[29:52] multi-million annual impact on

[29:52] our city.

[29:54] And they will then sell the

[29:55] property to a developer who is

[29:57] going to maximize their return.

[30:00] And instead of a beautiful

[30:04] campus, we will have a bunch of

[30:06] soulless boxes of warehouses and

[30:07] logistic centers which don't

[30:09] require a single change to our

[30:10] zoning.

[30:11] It might have less traffic, but

[30:14] it will have semi-trucks, light

[30:17] industrial trucks, 24 hours a

[30:17] day.

[30:19] That is not an improvement.

[30:21] And I want to reiterate, I do

[30:24] not understand on what planet,

[30:26] kathy littlefield, who is

[30:27] immediate family member is a

[30:29] party to a lawsuit against our

[30:31] city, is allowed to vote on

[30:31] this.

[30:34] And barry, I don't want to hear

[30:35] your opinion, you're not an

[30:37] attorney, there has been nothing

[30:38] documented saying there isn't a

[30:39] conflict of interest, since

[30:40] you're the only council member

[30:43] who have been proven guilty of

[30:45] violating ethics and lies on a

[30:47] regular basis, your opinion on

[30:49] the conflict is akin to jeffrey

[30:50] epstein commenting on consent.

[30:51] Thank you.

[30:53] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[30:55] dan.

[30:58] Gail goalick, followed by leslie

[31:00] lureman, tim lasota and last

[31:02] gabby hitchcock.

[31:05] >> MADAM Mayor, COUNCILMAN And

[31:05] women.

[31:07] I'm gail golic, resident of

[31:10] scottsdale and state

[31:11] committeemen.

[31:12] for ld3.

[31:15] I'm here to speak on this new

[31:17] mou.

[31:20] This mou eliminates axon's only

[31:22] water obligation, the

[31:23] requirement to transfer

[31:25] 3,000-acre feet of long-term

[31:28] storage credits to the city.

[31:32] That 3,000 acres footage was the

[31:33] only water-related commitment

[31:35] attached to this project.

[31:37] You are now being asked to

[31:39] approve an mou without any

[31:40] requirements at -- water

[31:42] requirements at all.

[31:43] But even more important is what

[31:46] the city has already admitted to

[31:49] me in writing, and the city's

[31:51] official petition response dated

[31:54] NOVEMBER 4, 2025, scottsdale

[31:56] confirmed the city has no

[31:58] documentation showing where the

[32:00] water for this project will come

[32:01] from.

[32:04] The city has no 100-year water

[32:08] calculations, the city has no

[32:10] current water portfolio analysis

[32:10] on file.

[32:13] The city has no enforceable

[32:16] water commitments from axon.

[32:18] Although I wrote this and

[32:20] understand that axon is no

[32:22] longer required to do this, so

[32:25] this -- city -- the city of

[32:27] scottsdale is required as a

[32:29] designated water source to

[32:30] provide this information.

[32:33] And the city is relying on the

[32:35] 2013 analysis and the supporting

[32:37] documentation is not in the

[32:39] city's possession, and if it is,

[32:41] they are not providing it to me.

[32:43] This is not speculation, these

[32:45] are by your own city manager's

[32:47] written admissions, so today the

[32:48] council is being asked to remove

[32:50] axon's only water obligation

[32:52] while the city is already

[32:54] acknowledged it has zero

[32:56] documentation showing the

[32:58] 100-year water supply for this

[32:58] document.

[33:00] As that directly conflicts with

[33:03] ars, which requires a

[33:05] demonstrated 100-year assured

[33:08] water supply before the city

[33:09] enters into the development

[33:11] agreements, zoning approvals are

[33:12] or any development action.

[33:16] Under that statute, scottsdale

[33:18] cannot lawfully approve this

[33:18] mou.

[33:21] You cannot lawfully modify the

[33:23] development class or restructure

[33:24] obligations.

[33:26] Without first providing the

[33:28] public with identified water

[33:31] sources, 100-year demand

[33:33] modelling, any binding water

[33:34] commitments and confirmation

[33:37] from the adwr that this project

[33:40] fits within scottsdale's daws.

[33:42] None of that exists today.

[33:44] And the city has already

[33:46] admitted it does not exist.

[33:48] Therefore, a yes vote on agenda

[33:50] item 2 would be taken in

[33:56] violation of ars45-576.

[33:57] Two knowingly advance a project

[33:59] with no demonstrated 100-year

[34:01] water supply and it would be

[34:02] legally will challengeable and

[34:04] subject to review by the arizona

[34:05] department of

[34:06] water resources.

[34:09] I urge you to vote no until the

[34:11] city produces the documentation

[34:14] required by law.

[34:18] I realize that things can, you

[34:19] know, happen actually in the

[34:22] background and you guys can come

[34:24] up with documents, but the

[34:26] reality is that no documents

[34:30] have been provided, and if you

[34:32] can get the documents that

[34:34] proves they have the water, go

[34:35] for it.

[34:37] Follow the law, you have an

[34:38] obligation to uphold the law as

[34:40] council members.

[34:41] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[34:57] Leslie lureman.

[34:59] >> thank you, mayor and city

[35:00] council.

[35:03] My name is leslie lureman, and

[35:06] I'm a board member at

[35:08] scottsdale's stone brook ii.

[35:10] Of course in order to be on the

[35:12] board I need to own a property

[35:14] there, and we do, but I need to

[35:16] make it clear that I'm speaking

[35:19] on behalf of myself as a

[35:20] homeowner and not for the board

[35:22] of directors.

[35:24] We haven't taken, we haven't

[35:25] polled the community and we

[35:29] don't know what every community

[35:31] member thinks, and so it

[35:33] wouldn't be right for me to say

[35:34] I represent all of them.

[35:36] But I can say that I've been

[35:41] here before, concerned about the

[35:42] residential density.

[35:44] I can't believe how much time

[35:46] has been invested in this

[35:49] process, I think I was naive

[35:50] about the whole political

[35:51] process.

[35:52] In addition, there are legal

[35:55] matters that need to be

[35:57] resolved, I'm not even going to

[35:58] speak to that.

[36:01] Nor am I here to request

[36:03] lowering the density.

[36:05] I think that the group that has

[36:07] been meeting with axon has

[36:09] accomplished as much as they

[36:11] possibly can.

[36:13] Remember it's a two-way

[36:13] negotiation.

[36:15] You can't just keep saying no,

[36:17] we only want 500 residential

[36:18] units.

[36:20] There has to be a compromise,

[36:24] and I give axon credit for the

[36:26] concessions it has made.

[36:30] They have in many areas dug

[36:31] deeply.

[36:32] I think everybody has heard the

[36:35] saying that the end of a

[36:36] successful negotiation leaves

[36:38] everyone unhappy.

[36:40] And I think that's the case

[36:41] here.

[36:46] My reason for being here is to

[36:47] remind everyone of some

[36:49] specifically negotiated

[36:52] concessions on the part of axon.

[36:54] They aren't listed, that doesn't

[36:56] mean you don't intend to include

[36:56] them.

[36:58] I just haven't seen any

[37:00] reassuring sign.

[37:03] So here are the three things I'd

[37:06] like you not to forget.

[37:09] Ensuring that axon workers and

[37:12] visitors don't have access --

[37:15] direct acess into their campus

[37:19] from either mayo/union hills or

[37:20] 82nd street.

[37:23] The last plan I saw had that

[37:26] blocked off with a tall planted

[37:27] berm.

[37:31] The other is moving the tallest

[37:33] buildings away from the

[37:35] residential development, these

[37:37] are all single family homes,

[37:39] about 175 of them.

[37:42] And no one wants people in the

[37:44] tall buildings looking in their

[37:47] backyard or their back windows.

[37:50] And the last is creating a wide,

[37:53] tall planted berm to provide

[37:55] privacy, and that would be along

[37:58] the north side of mayo/union

[37:59] hills.

[38:02] So I want to look you in the eye

[38:06] and say, axon, mayor, city

[38:08] council members, we are asking

[38:10] you to honor those commitments.

[38:11] Thank you.

[38:12] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you

[38:13] very much.

[38:20] Tim lesota.

[38:22] >> good afternoon, mayor,

[38:25] memberses of council, I'm tim

[38:27] lesota on behalf of taxpayers

[38:30] against awful zoning exemptions.

[38:31] I urge a no vote.

[38:33] I want to talk about the

[38:34] referendum.

[38:35] We have kind of heard some words

[38:37] of what I would call the

[38:40] defeated arguments against the

[38:41] referendum.

[38:43] Out of state money, union

[38:44] interests, those are all the

[38:45] arguments that have been made

[38:47] already, they already failed and

[38:49] that's what people say when they

[38:50] lose the argument.

[38:52] Is they -- they say, well, it

[38:54] was this or it was that.

[38:56] It was unfair, someone misled

[38:57] me.

[38:57] Not true.

[38:59] I helped draft the language for

[39:00] it, myself.

[39:02] It was perfectly honest and it

[39:04] got 27,000 signatures.

[39:06] And that is no small feat.

[39:08] I know all of you carry those

[39:09] clipboards around and get

[39:11] signatures from voters.

[39:12] It's not that easy.

[39:14] So that is a huge

[39:15] accomplishment, and it should

[39:16] count for something.

[39:18] It should be honored by the

[39:19] council, the council should

[39:21] fight for the voters and fight

[39:24] for their right to be heard.

[39:27] In terms of this -- it looks

[39:30] like with this mou and the item

[39:32] no. 3, the self-certification

[39:34] program, it looks like the

[39:35] council would be following suit

[39:36] with what the arizona

[39:38] legislature did, and the arizona

[39:40] legislature decided they would

[39:42] create a special law for one

[39:44] cmpany, and that was an

[39:45] extremely disappointing, dark

[39:47] day, I think, for our

[39:48] legislature.

[39:49] I don't think that should happen

[39:50] here in scottsdale.

[39:52] I think that's exactly the wrong

[39:54] thing to do, and I know there's

[39:55] a lot of talk about density, the

[39:57] number is too high, but that's

[39:59] going to be remarked on a lot.

[40:00] But I think more than anything,

[40:02] the thing that just stands out

[40:05] to me is now we have this

[40:07] self-certification program.

[40:10] We have the axon statute and the

[40:11] axon ordinance.

[40:13] City of phoenix, write live has

[40:15] had a self certification program

[40:17] for many years.

[40:18] A lot of people like it, gets

[40:20] some good reviews, but not

[40:21] limited to one company.

[40:23] Anyone can use it.

[40:26] I've never really heard of just

[40:27] saying, we are going to

[40:29] implement this entire new

[40:32] program for one company.

[40:35] So I think at the end of the

[40:36] day, this is more of what we

[40:38] have seen already, and that's

[40:40] when axon does not get its way,

[40:42] it demands to be treated in a

[40:44] special way that nobody else is

[40:44] treated.

[40:47] I would urge a no vote on 2 and

[40:49] 3, and I think scottsdale needs

[40:54] to fight for its ability to have -- to be able to determine

[40:55] its destiny and not have that

[40:58] dictated by -- legally in my

[41:00] mine, but I'll talk on agenda

[41:02] item 5 in a few minutes, illegal

[41:04] illegally by the arizona

[41:04] legislature.

[41:06] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[41:09] gabby hitchcock and then josh

[41:14] izer.

[41:16] >> I'm gabby hitchcock a

[41:18] resident of scottsdale.

[41:20] City council members, you had an

[41:21] extra meeting today just to

[41:24] repeal an ordinance backed by

[41:26] 26,000, but looks like it's much

[41:28] more than that, and the petition

[41:29] signatures and replace it with

[41:31] one that gives axon everything

[41:33] it wants, it shows you are

[41:35] acting against the citizens you

[41:36] represent.

[41:37] scottsdale voters have already

[41:39] removed council members for

[41:41] approving smaller projects than

[41:41] this.

[41:43] I MAY have made a mistake in my

[41:45] votes.

[41:47] Reject this giveaway, protect

[41:50] our city's character and join

[41:53] the lawsuit to defend our right

[41:55] of referendum.

[41:56] Scottsdale belongs to the

[41:59] citizens.

[42:01] Not to axon.

[42:04] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[42:05] Josh izner.

[42:06] >> can we get this to work on

[42:12] this side here?

[42:14] MADAM Mother, council, nice to

[42:16] see you again.

[42:18] MR. Kwasman, vice mayor, thank

[42:19] you very much for your

[42:20] statements already.

[42:23] Mayor, you posted two hours ago

[42:25] that you wanted us to arrive at

[42:27] a deal with taze.

[42:30] This is a text from their

[42:31] representatives this morning.

[42:33] We did not agree to 500 units

[42:34] over the weekend.

[42:37] They came back and they panicked

[42:39] and proposed us this deal.

[42:40] So mayor, if you want us to

[42:42] agree to this deal with them,

[42:44] it's right in front of you, make

[42:46] the motion for 700 units instead

[42:47] of 750.

[42:49] We'll agree to the 60 months on

[42:51] the next 200 and we have a deal.

[42:52] That's what you asked for and we

[42:54] are willing to do that deal.

[42:57] What we're not willing to do is

[42:59] let them parade around in their

[43:00] self-righteous fashion, saying

[43:01] we cancelled an election and all

[43:03] this other stuff when they are

[43:05] proposing a deal that I have

[43:08] here that I can prove to you is

[43:10] from them that will cancel the

[43:11] election.

[43:12] Let's forget that narrative

[43:14] moving forward, it is patently

[43:16] false, they do not care about

[43:17] the election.

[43:19] They are so panicked we are

[43:21] going to beat them in court and

[43:23] go to the state legislature as

[43:24] MR. Kwasman just articulated

[43:27] that they are willing to walk

[43:28] away from all of this over the

[43:32] last two years over a 50-unit

[43:33] reduction.

[43:33] Okay.

[43:35] So that's the deal they've

[43:35] proposed.

[43:37] We are willing to do it, it's

[43:38] exactly what you asked for,

[43:39] mayor, all you have to do is

[43:41] motion to update the numbers and

[43:43] we will agree to it right here.

[43:46] The second thing I'll say is,

[43:47] MISS Littlefield, ad mire you,

[43:48] you've been great to our

[43:50] community where I live for years

[43:52] and years as a member of the

[43:54] drv, you were very good to us in

[43:57] a dispute with our home or's

[43:59] association, but your husband

[44:01] stood up out front of council,

[44:04] after the last vote, and said my

[44:07] case will be stronger if the

[44:09] city joins this election.

[44:11] That's what he said on tv.

[44:13] I don't understand how anyone on

[44:15] this earth could deem it

[44:17] appropriate, knowing it's your

[44:18] husband who is already a party

[44:21] to the suit to say you should be

[44:22] voting to join that same

[44:23] lawsuit.

[44:25] I just don't think that is fair,

[44:28] I don't -- I have tremendous

[44:29] respect for you and the service

[44:31] you have put forward toward this

[44:34] city, but I do not think that is

[44:34] fair.

[44:36] Thank you very much.

[44:37] >> Mayor Borowsky: thanks, josh.

[44:40] And I think steve sutton, one

[45:14] more speaker.

[45:17] >> steve sutton, address on

[45:19] record.

[45:20] As tom was just mentioning, I'm

[45:23] one of those petition

[45:24] collectors, but not about axon.

[45:26] Entirely different but trying to

[45:27] protect scottsdale, but more

[45:30] about that later.

[45:32] Fact supported reality and a

[45:34] motion supported perception can

[45:35] have equal power and influence,

[45:38] the beliefs and actions of

[45:39] individuals.

[45:41] Either can be at any time more

[45:44] powerful in influence than the

[45:45] other.

[45:47] Regardless of the opinions, the

[45:49] members of this council, city

[45:51] policy or what criminal or civil

[45:53] law MAY determine, not to be a

[45:55] conflict of interest, the

[45:56] perception of an increasing

[45:58] number of scottsdale residents

[46:01] is that a conflict of interest

[46:01] exists.

[46:04] I and other residents do

[46:05] believe, council, kathy

[46:06] littlefield has a conflict of

[46:07] interest in discussing and

[46:10] voting on matters, pertaining to

[46:12] axon due to the activities of

[46:14] her spouse, bob littlefield.

[46:16] COUNCILMAN Littlefield has said,

[46:18] quote, I am my own person and

[46:20] defending herself from the

[46:21] accusation of having a conflict

[46:23] of interest.

[46:26] However, being bob littlefield's

[46:27] wife provides legal protections

[46:28] to her and her husband that

[46:29] could conflict with the

[46:32] interests of kathy littlefield

[46:33] scottsdale constituents.

[46:35] At some point in the future,

[46:37] testimony in court MAY not be

[46:40] available due to littlefield's

[46:41] having marital privilege

[46:43] protecting marital

[46:44] communications from being

[46:45] revealedded and preventing

[46:48] testimony against the spouse.

[46:49] that could be detrimental to the

[46:55] city of scottsdale in civil case

[46:56] 202-503-4961, taxpayers against

[46:59] awful apartment zoning

[47:00] exemptions, versus state of

[47:04] arizona, city of scottsdale.

[47:07] , kathy littlefield should

[47:08] recuse herself from the city

[47:09] council discussion or vote on

[47:13] matters pertaining to axon and

[47:17] civil case 2025-034-961.

[47:20] So far, this council's actions

[47:22] regarding axon are a perfect

[47:27] example of the german word for

[47:28] attempting to make something

[47:30] better and making it worse.

[47:33] For over 23 years, a de facto

[47:35] family dynasty seat has existed

[47:36] on the city council.

[47:37] That type of situation is rarely

[47:39] good for governance of the city

[47:41] the size of scottsdale.

[47:42] Scottsdale is a city large

[47:44] enough to have an ample number

[47:46] of qualified individuals that

[47:47] could give good service on the

[47:48] council.

[47:49] I believe this council has got

[47:51] the attention of those qualified

[47:53] individuals.

[47:55] Kathy littlefield has given good

[47:56] service to this city, but this

[47:58] is not about past deeds, this is

[47:59] about the current situation.

[48:02] And I have one last statement

[48:03] for you to contemplate.

[48:09] I know you know what this is.

[48:13] Cartago delenda est.

[48:13] >> Mayor Borowsky: that

[48:16] concludes the speakers.

[48:18] So I'm going to talk about

[48:20] what's been going on here.

[48:21] As you all know, we have been

[48:25] working on this since we took

[48:26] office, since JANUARY, and this

[48:29] has been a very long

[48:32] conversation that's been a huge

[48:35] divisive issue for the city of

[48:36] scottsdale.

[48:39] I feel for -- excuse me, for

[48:42] axon and, you know, being put on

[48:43] hold, and going through this

[48:45] process, I also feel for the

[48:48] residents who are so invested in

[48:51] the outcome, in the opposite

[48:51] direction.

[48:55] So over the weekend, josh izner

[48:58] just talked about some

[48:59] negotiations we were still

[49:02] having over this last weekend.

[49:05] It is true that I want to see

[49:06] this matter resolved, and I want

[49:09] to see this matter resolved

[49:11] where everyone can live with the

[49:14] outcome, and there's going to be

[49:15] finality with the outcome, and

[49:19] so with that in mind, when we

[49:21] originally talked about 750

[49:27] apartments, 750 condos, I got

[49:30] notification from taaaze if we

[49:33] approved this mou, that they

[49:36] intend to do another petition

[49:39] drive and refer it a second

[49:39] time.

[49:41] So that is not finality for me.

[49:44] That is absolutely not finality,

[49:48] and I do not want to see this

[49:50] mess, really, continue.

[49:53] I want to see it wrapped up and

[49:54] I want people to go on with

[49:59] their lives, and I want taaaze

[50:00] to build their headquarters.

[50:02] With that in mind, I met with

[50:06] rick smith of axon, over the

[50:07] weekend and their attorney and

[50:10] we did come up with an

[50:12] agreement, josh, I understood,

[50:14] that we came up with an

[50:15] agreement through the -- I had

[50:18] also tom hatton was talking to

[50:23] both rick smith and to taaaze.

[50:25] I understand there was a dl for

[50:28] 500 units, which -- to explain

[50:30] tha further, taaaze, the

[50:32] opposition group, committed that

[50:35] they would stand down, they

[50:37] would not refer it, and there

[50:40] would be finality.

[50:42] Pretty good result.

[50:45] 500 -- 500 apartments, and then

[50:49] as many condos, up to -- the

[50:52] number of condos were not

[50:53] identified yet.

[50:57] So, you know, unbeknownst to me,

[50:58] taaaze fired off some

[51:01] communications to axon, which

[51:03] essentially blew up what I

[51:05] understood to be the agreement.

[51:08] So I'm extremely disappointed in

[51:10] that result because I thought

[51:12] the number 500 was a good number

[51:13] with the understanding that

[51:16] build a great project, come

[51:17] back, come back in a year or

[51:19] two, whenever you want to do

[51:21] some additional apartments, and

[51:24] sell that case to us.

[51:27] So where I stand right now, is

[51:31] not in favor of this, I'm not in

[51:33] favor of having another

[51:34] referendum, and I don't want to

[51:36] take that risk.

[51:38] So josh, that's a great update,

[51:41] I really want to understand what

[51:44] this is and hear more about it

[51:45] and get confirmation.

[51:48] I don't think it's fair to do

[51:50] that without the other parties

[51:53] that are threatening to refer a

[51:56] decision like this again, and we

[51:58] can trust that they've done it

[52:00] once, I don't know why they

[52:01] wouldn't follow through with

[52:03] that a second time.

[52:05] So I'm going to -- I'm going to

[52:07] move to take a ten-minute

[52:07] recess.

[52:10] So we can go have some

[52:13] discussion about this.

[52:13] >> second.

[52:14] >> Mayor Borowsky: all those in

[52:17] favor, please indulge me with

[52:22] your confirmation.

[52:23] Voice vote.

[52:23] Okay.

[52:24] Thank you.

[52:28] We're going to recess for ten

[1:22:20] >> Mayor Borowsky: sorry for the

[1:22:20] delay.

[1:22:23] We have been busy in very

[1:22:25] serious discussions about how we

[1:22:28] can resolve this item no. 2.

[1:22:30] So I know there was some -- a

[1:22:32] bunch of speakers on here.

[1:22:34] I'm going to go down the list,

[1:22:40] COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.

[1:22:40] >> Councilmember Whitehead: well

[1:22:42] , good evening.

[1:22:43] I'm going to keep it somewhat

[1:22:45] brief based on how we end up

[1:22:47] here, but I will just say having

[1:22:49] been involved in this for a long

[1:22:51] time, I do want to thank

[1:22:54] everybody on both sides, and,

[1:22:57] again, it seems like a year ago

[1:22:59] that vice mayor kwasman spoke,

[1:23:00] but just remind everybody here

[1:23:03] and whoever is watching that

[1:23:06] this vote is about whether or

[1:23:08] not the city council accepts an

[1:23:11] mou to significantly reduce

[1:23:14] apartments and used

[1:23:15] condominiums, which is something

[1:23:17] a lot of our residents want,

[1:23:20] that middle housing, and keep

[1:23:23] the many investments that our

[1:23:25] community will get from the deal

[1:23:28] that was negotiated last year.

[1:23:31] Many of us here in last year's

[1:23:33] council and this year's council

[1:23:34] worked really hard with the

[1:23:35] residents of stone brook and

[1:23:37] with the residents generally to

[1:23:38] get some of these investments

[1:23:41] which include a dog park,

[1:23:42] walking path, this is an area

[1:23:44] that doesn't have a lot of

[1:23:46] walkability and connectivity.

[1:23:48] So this deal will include all of

[1:23:49] that.

[1:23:51] Also, really important, some

[1:23:53] tropic abatement and one of our

[1:23:55] public speakers mentioned that.

[1:23:56] So this deal does include a road

[1:23:59] to keep the neighborhood and

[1:24:02] axon's traffic separate.

[1:24:04] I think that what we're -- and

[1:24:07] the alternative, again, this is

[1:24:08] not about zero apartments and

[1:24:09] zero development.

[1:24:11] why that's not on the table

[1:24:11] tonight.

[1:24:14] What's on the table is a local

[1:24:15] controlled negotiated deal that

[1:24:19] is a win for all parties, and

[1:24:21] actually, to counter one of the

[1:24:24] speakers, you can negotiate and

[1:24:25] have everybody happy more or

[1:24:26] less, but not everybody gets

[1:24:28] exactly what they want.

[1:24:29] So that's definitely the intent

[1:24:30] here.

[1:24:32] The alternative is to allow the

[1:24:36] state law to take on a fact --

[1:24:38] it isn't a fact, have axon build

[1:24:41] to that state law, which means

[1:24:43] roughly 19-up apartments.

[1:24:47] So it is my goal, it is my aim

[1:24:50] to see this council do what we

[1:24:52] are elected to do, which is

[1:24:56] solve problems and create a

[1:24:56] win/win.

[1:24:58] I won't go into all the benefits

[1:25:02] right now, but clearly we want

[1:25:05] to keep an employer like axon

[1:25:07] here, we are facing a lot of

[1:25:08] head winds on the economy and

[1:25:11] also want to have the highest

[1:25:12] quality development, having a

[1:25:15] world class city and have a

[1:25:18] global leader in public safety

[1:25:20] is really a good match.

[1:25:22] I will say just briefly that

[1:25:24] axon not only keeps our

[1:25:26] residents safer based on the

[1:25:27] numerous public safety people

[1:25:28] that spoke during the course of

[1:25:31] many meetings, but also keep our

[1:25:34] police officers safer, so we are

[1:25:34] real excited about that.

[1:25:37] So I am supporting -- I'm

[1:25:40] waiting to hear the final

[1:25:42] motion, I don't have a motion,

[1:25:45] but I support local control, I

[1:25:47] support keeping this important

[1:25:49] employer here, I support protect

[1:25:51] protecting the neighbors most

[1:25:53] closely impacted and the

[1:25:55] residents every m and support

[1:25:56] referendum process.

[1:25:58] that's how we got here, the

[1:26:00] referendum helped bring axon

[1:26:01] back to the table and helped

[1:26:03] bring a better deal to fruition.

[1:26:05] So I'm going to leave it at that

[1:26:06] for the moment, but thanks

[1:26:08] everybody for your patience.

[1:26:10] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[1:26:13] COUNCILWOMAN Dubauskas.

[1:26:13] >> Councilmember Dubauskas: than

[1:26:15] k you, MADAM Mayor, thank you to

[1:26:16] axon for coming out tonight and

[1:26:18] thank you for being a major

[1:26:19] employer in our city.

[1:26:20] We appreciate the service that

[1:26:21] you provide to the city of

[1:26:22] scottsdale, we appreciate the

[1:26:24] service that you provide

[1:26:25] worldwide.

[1:26:27] You are a known leader in your

[1:26:28] field and we are proud to have

[1:26:30] you here in the city of

[1:26:30] scottsdale.

[1:26:32] So thank you for coming out and

[1:26:33] appreciate all your employees as

[1:26:35] well coming out to show that you

[1:26:38] support your employer.

[1:26:40] As a member of the economic

[1:26:41] development committee, I'm proud

[1:26:42] to work with a variety of

[1:26:44] employers throughout the city of

[1:26:45] scottsdale and promote business

[1:26:48] in the city of scottsdale.

[1:26:50] So it is -- it is a wonderful

[1:26:51] thing to have an employer like

[1:26:53] axon who is a market leader in

[1:26:54] our city.

[1:26:55] So I just wanted to say thank

[1:26:57] you very much to axon.

[1:26:59] My concern with this project has

[1:27:01] always been the number of units

[1:27:03] in that particular area, as

[1:27:04] well.

[1:27:07] It was zoned no multi-family,

[1:27:08] and so I remain concerned about

[1:27:11] the number of units, but I'm

[1:27:13] very much interested in keeping

[1:27:14] axon, very much interested in

[1:27:16] the hotel and the opportunity

[1:27:18] that offers their business to

[1:27:20] bring conventions to the city of

[1:27:22] scottsdale and so with that, I

[1:27:24] just wanted to say thank you to

[1:27:26] axon tonight.

[1:27:27] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[1:27:29] COUNCILWOMAN Mcallen.

[1:27:30] >> Councilmember McAllen: thank

[1:27:31] you, mayor.

[1:27:33] I too would like to thank all

[1:27:37] the parties involved, axon, my

[1:27:38] fellow council members, as well

[1:27:40] as the citizens who took the

[1:27:43] time to come out and voice

[1:27:46] either their opposition or their

[1:27:48] pro for this, because that is

[1:27:50] what the process is all about.

[1:27:52] You've heard a lot tonight from

[1:27:54] the dais about that process

[1:27:59] being removed from the citizens,

[1:28:01] so we hear some of your

[1:28:03] concerns, obviously, also need

[1:28:05] to make sure that we help the

[1:28:06] legislature understand that

[1:28:09] local control is always the best

[1:28:11] option that we want our

[1:28:14] citizens, our city council to

[1:28:18] actually affect the city we live

[1:28:18] in.

[1:28:20] I appreciate all the work that

[1:28:22] axon has put in to coming back

[1:28:25] to the table with this city.

[1:28:27] I do think -- someone mentioned

[1:28:30] before about the city losing

[1:28:33] mayo hospital.

[1:28:34] To phoenix.

[1:28:36] We have also lost other things

[1:28:37] to phoenix.

[1:28:38] It's like chandler back in the

[1:28:39] day.

[1:28:42] They almost lost intel, it took

[1:28:44] council members to make really

[1:28:47] bold decisions, and with that,

[1:28:49] I'm going to say I am going to

[1:28:50] support the mou and I would love

[1:28:53] for axon to stay in scottsdale,

[1:28:55] I am glad to see the number of

[1:28:58] units go down because the

[1:28:59] citizens voiced that concern,

[1:29:01] but the fact we are working

[1:29:02] earnestly, right here in front

[1:29:04] of all of you to try and make

[1:29:08] this work so our city can have

[1:29:10] what's best for our city an

[1:29:13] employer that will be a good

[1:29:17] communal supporter.

[1:29:18] Someone that's going to support

[1:29:20] events throughout the city in

[1:29:20] the future.

[1:29:22] That will sponsor events and be

[1:29:24] here for the citizens of

[1:29:25] scottsdale as well as their

[1:29:27] neighboring community.

[1:29:29] And more importantly, they

[1:29:31] support our public safety, and

[1:29:33] that is truly what is important.

[1:29:35] So thank you.

[1:29:36] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[1:29:39] COUNCILMAN Graham.

[1:29:39] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[1:29:43] you, mayor.

[1:29:45] I want to make a few remarks

[1:29:47] tonight, and I want to start by

[1:29:49] saying this is not about axon

[1:29:51] the corporation.

[1:29:54] This is not about their global

[1:29:57] headquarters, which we support.

[1:30:00] Axon bought the 74 acres where

[1:30:04] they are today with a deed

[1:30:05] restriction that there would be

[1:30:07] no multi-family housing and the

[1:30:09] price was adjusted accordingly

[1:30:11] for that discounted accordingly

[1:30:13] for that restriction.

[1:30:16] And in 2020, it was zone

[1:30:17] ed

[1:30:20] industrial with a height of

[1:30:21] 52 feet.

[1:30:23] Why and axon wanted to go bigger

[1:30:25] for their global headquarters at

[1:30:27] that point, and they did a lot

[1:30:29] of back and forth and

[1:30:31] negotiations in 2020, and I was

[1:30:33] on the planning commission at

[1:30:34] that time.

[1:30:38] And I voted to increase, rezone

[1:30:40] axon's land in 2020 as a member

[1:30:44] of the planning commission.

[1:30:46] 58 percent, I voted to increase

[1:30:50] it from 52 feet to 82 feet.

[1:30:55] I did that because we wanted to

[1:30:57] keep axon in scottsdale, and

[1:30:59] that meant for them to have the

[1:31:01] headquarters that they desired.

[1:31:03] In that vote in 2020 I also

[1:31:06] voted for a reimbursement for

[1:31:07] infrastructure.

[1:31:10] So it's not about axon as a

[1:31:11] corporation.

[1:31:14] I feel like this process is

[1:31:14] rushed.

[1:31:17] You the public were given

[1:31:18] notification approximately 72

[1:31:21] hours ago on a friday afternoon,

[1:31:22] I know there are reasons for

[1:31:24] that, but it doesn't feel like

[1:31:26] there's an emergent reason and

[1:31:27] that you should have had more

[1:31:30] time to review this.

[1:31:33] I want to stand up for my

[1:31:35] colleague, COUNCILWOMAN

[1:31:37] Littlefield.

[1:31:38] Some aspersions were cast

[1:31:41] against her, and I'm going to

[1:31:44] repeat it that it is totally de

[1:31:46] debunked, according to our legal

[1:31:48] department, that COUNCILWOMAN

[1:31:50] Littlefield has a conflict of

[1:31:50] interest.

[1:31:53] That has been scrutinized and

[1:31:55] vetted.

[1:31:57] I also want to address one of

[1:31:59] the arguments that if we deny

[1:32:01] this tonight that axon will just

[1:32:03] go back to the legislature and

[1:32:04] get something that's less

[1:32:07] special, and then we will get

[1:32:10] 1900 or 2,000 apartments.

[1:32:13] See, here's the thing, the

[1:32:15] possible legislation that

[1:32:17] they're talking about would have

[1:32:19] to be broader.

[1:32:21] And that means it would include

[1:32:24] more cities and more towns.

[1:32:26] And what that would do is drag

[1:32:27] more cities and towns into the

[1:32:31] fight to be concerned about it.

[1:32:33] Something else that should be --

[1:32:35] people should be aware of, since

[1:32:38] senate bill 1543 was signed,

[1:32:39] many legislators have felt the

[1:32:41] sting from their voters.

[1:32:42] Will so we don't have any

[1:32:44] clue -- we have no clue what

[1:32:46] their appetite for an amendment

[1:32:47] or alteration to the legislation

[1:32:49] would be.

[1:32:52] I want to go and ask the city

[1:32:55] attorney now a few questions.

[1:32:57] First of all, a very basic

[1:32:59] question, this is called a

[1:33:01] memorandum of understanding, I'm

[1:33:03] not an attorney, when I look up

[1:33:04] the term memorandum of

[1:33:05] understanding, it defines it as

[1:33:09] a formal nonbinding agreement

[1:33:11] between two parties that outline

[1:33:12] outlines their mutual intentions

[1:33:14] or objectives.

[1:33:15] Can you please explain to the

[1:33:17] public how this memorandum of

[1:33:20] understanding is binding and

[1:33:21] contractual.

[1:33:22] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[1:33:25] here is sometimes a

[1:33:26] misunderstanding that a

[1:33:27] memorandum of understanding is

[1:33:28] not binding.

[1:33:30] They can be nonbinding, but any

[1:33:33] time you have a contract that

[1:33:34] has offer, acceptance and

[1:33:36] consideration, it's binding.

[1:33:38] So in this case, there's an

[1:33:40] offer, there's acceptance and

[1:33:41] consideration, therefore this

[1:33:43] memorandum in particular is

[1:33:46] binding, because axon is giving

[1:33:48] up something, we are giving up

[1:33:49] something, they're getting

[1:33:51] something, we are getting

[1:33:52] something, there's definitely an

[1:33:56] offer and acceptance and

[1:33:57] consideration.

[1:33:57] >> Councilmember Graham: if it

[1:34:01] is binding, is it referable.

[1:34:02] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s

[1:34:04] o you're asking me to provide

[1:34:06] legal advice on -- that's not

[1:34:08] something I can address in the

[1:34:09] public.

[1:34:10] Why ultimately whether something

[1:34:12] is referable is something the

[1:34:15] courts would have to determine,

[1:34:16] but generally administrative

[1:34:18] acts are not considered

[1:34:19] referable.

[1:34:20] >> Councilmember Graham: I asked

[1:34:21] you some of these other

[1:34:22] questions, I'm going to ask

[1:34:24] earlier and you gave me answers,

[1:34:25] but it was privileged, so I want

[1:34:27] to ask it and then you can

[1:34:29] answer it to the best of your

[1:34:31] capacity as far as what's

[1:34:33] legally appropriate.

[1:34:36] In this mou, we are repealing

[1:34:38] another ordinance.

[1:34:41] Can we repeal another ordinance

[1:34:43] for an upzoning for an

[1:34:44] applicant.

[1:34:46] Can we legally do that.

[1:34:47] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[1:34:48] es, absolutely.

[1:34:50] The mou itself is not repealing

[1:34:54] the ordinance, it's asking it to

[1:34:56] be agendized for consideration.

[1:34:57] It is agendized for

[1:34:58] consideration tonight.

[1:35:00] One of the additional items

[1:35:01] tonight is the zoning ordinance

[1:35:03] and that can, indeed, be

[1:35:05] repealed by the council.

[1:35:07] As the council has done in the

[1:35:09] past, I think southbridge is an

[1:35:11] example of that.

[1:35:12] >> Councilmember Graham: what I

[1:35:13] thought with southbridge too,

[1:35:15] that was 2019 where there was a

[1:35:17] referendum on that, 15 stories

[1:35:19] downtown, I understood the

[1:35:21] applicant withdrew it, so I

[1:35:26] guess my concern here is can

[1:35:27] applicants -- can -- if we vote

[1:35:29] on this, do we have to come back

[1:35:31] another meeting to repeal the

[1:35:33] ordinance, or is that done

[1:35:34] tonight.

[1:35:35] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[1:35:35] t's done tonight.

[1:35:36] >> Councilmember Graham: if we

[1:35:37] repeal that ordinance, does that

[1:35:40] take away the referendum signed

[1:35:42] that has 26,000 signatures.

[1:35:43] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[1:35:43] es, it would.

[1:35:44] >> Councilmember Graham: if we

[1:35:47] remove the ordinance tonight,

[1:35:54] and the courts rule that 1543 --

[1:35:56] courts rule against 1543, do we

[1:35:58] have any legal exposure because

[1:36:02] we have taken legal rights from

[1:36:04] them?

[1:36:05] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: n

[1:36:06] o, because they're unrelated.

[1:36:08] The referendum is strictly based

[1:36:11] on the zoning ordinance.

[1:36:14] Without 1543, the city council

[1:36:16] could have at any time repealed

[1:36:18] the zoning ordinance and negated

[1:36:20] the right to referendum.

[1:36:23] 1543 is just an additional kind

[1:36:26] of legal complication, just like

[1:36:27] with southbridge, I don't

[1:36:30] believe there's any state

[1:36:30] legislation pending on the

[1:36:35] horizon in that situation.

[1:36:36] >> Councilmember Graham: section

[1:36:39] 13, water pumping and sewer list

[1:36:41] stations, it says the applicant

[1:36:43] MAY elect to build these

[1:36:44] critical facilities to city

[1:36:45] standard and dedicate them to

[1:36:46] the city.

[1:36:49] It says the language is it MAY

[1:36:49] elect.

[1:36:52] If axon chooses to lower

[1:36:54] standards, the city and its rate

[1:36:56] payers could be left for

[1:36:57] substandard infrastructure.

[1:37:00] Can they choose -- can they

[1:37:01] build to -- can they build to a

[1:37:04] standard below the city

[1:37:05] standard?

[1:37:05] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s

[1:37:07] o mayor, members of the council,

[1:37:11] the intent of that section is we

[1:37:12] will only take that

[1:37:12] infrastructure into our

[1:37:14] ownership and into our operation

[1:37:15] if it meets our standards.

[1:37:18] Will they still have to meet the

[1:37:22] codes on the books for any

[1:37:24] private commercial development.

[1:37:25] So the idea that they would be

[1:37:27] below standards, I don't think

[1:37:29] that is accurate.

[1:37:30] They just wouldn't necessarily

[1:37:36] be to our city municipal

[1:37:37] standard operations, they have

[1:37:39] to meet the code standards.

[1:37:40] >> Councilmember Graham: if they

[1:37:41] don't meet them, what do we do

[1:37:45] ask, do we have an enforcement

[1:37:47] mechanism to upgrade them.

[1:37:48] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: o

[1:37:49] nly if they want to turn them

[1:37:50] over to us.

[1:37:52] If they meet the minimum code

[1:37:53] standards like any other

[1:37:54] property owner, then they're on

[1:37:57] their own and they're subject to

[1:37:59] whatever problems those

[1:38:01] facilities might cause for them.

[1:38:02] They're minimal standards they

[1:38:03] have to meet.

[1:38:04] >> Councilmember Graham: so

[1:38:07] speaking of water and stewer,

[1:38:10] that general topic, NOVEMBER

[1:38:11] NOVEMBER 2024, during the lame

[1:38:13] duck session, there were five

[1:38:16] members that voted for 1895

[1:38:17] units -- apartments something

[1:38:19] like that, and in that

[1:38:22] development agreement, axon was

[1:38:24] to bring 3,000 ache

[1:38:26] ier -- acre

[1:38:27] feet of water.

[1:38:29] Does this mou remove that

[1:38:30] requirement?

[1:38:31] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[1:38:33] es, mayor and members of the

[1:38:34] council, it does.

[1:38:35] >> Councilmember Graham: and

[1:38:35] what do you think the market

[1:38:38] value of that -- bringing that

[1:38:42] kind of water to our city might

[1:38:43] be?

[1:38:43] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[1:38:44] would have to defer to the city

[1:38:47] manager because I don't know.

[1:38:49] >> Councilmember Graham: madam

[1:38:51] mayor, council member graham,

[1:38:51] regarding the --

[1:38:53] >> regarding the acre feet as

[1:38:56] you referenced, 3,000 was in the

[1:38:56] originally approved

[1:38:58] approximately a year ago.

[1:39:00] Just for context, I'll provide

[1:39:03] the city council that requiring

[1:39:06] additional acre feet is fairly

[1:39:06] unusual.

[1:39:07] The thought process at the time

[1:39:09] was how we arrived at the 3,000.

[1:39:11] I believe that's important for

[1:39:13] the discussion purposes, and my

[1:39:14] understanding that we did

[1:39:16] calculations and anticipated

[1:39:19] over a five-year period, based

[1:39:20] upon the development, as

[1:39:22] proposed at that time, it would

[1:39:26] bring a demand of approximately

[1:39:27] 600-acre-feet on an annual

[1:39:29] basis, and therefore for five

[1:39:31] years, which was what could be a

[1:39:33] inquired, that's how the

[1:39:35] 3,000-acre-feet came about.

[1:39:36] >> Councilmember Graham: MR. Cat

[1:39:37] on, respectfully, if you have a

[1:39:39] market value, if you don't,

[1:39:42] that's okay.

[1:39:44] >> so that's important to put in

[1:39:46] context, the acre-feet, and then

[1:39:49] what I would add to that we

[1:39:52] don't buy our water that way.

[1:39:55] This is also a storage credits,

[1:39:59] and we have approximately

[1:40:00] 277,000-acre-feet in storage

[1:40:01] credits.

[1:40:03] To put the 3,000-acre feet, it's

[1:40:05] much like a savings account for

[1:40:12] water services.

[1:40:14] So the acre feet were submitted

[1:40:16] into our account, if you will,

[1:40:18] added to our account for last

[1:40:21] year, again, we don't buy them.

[1:40:22] I.

[1:40:22] >> Councilmember Graham: so it's

[1:40:24] basically five years of what we

[1:40:28] predict the buildout facility to

[1:40:30] use.

[1:40:32] >> City Mgr. Caton: at 1900

[1:40:32] units.

[1:40:34] Should bebe discussion of a

[1:40:35] different unit mix, then that

[1:40:39] acre footage certainly changes.

[1:40:40] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[1:40:41] you, MR. City manager.

[1:40:44] Back to the city attorney, the

[1:40:45] self-certification clause in

[1:40:48] this, is the first time we have

[1:40:50] done that for any applicant in

[1:40:52] the city before.

[1:40:53] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[1:40:55] es, that's the correct.

[1:40:55] >> Councilmember Graham: and

[1:40:58] what would be the benefit to --

[1:40:59] because I don't know whose idea

[1:41:01] this was, but what would be the

[1:41:03] benefit to the applicant for

[1:41:07] receiving that.

[1:41:07] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[1:41:08] here are various potential

[1:41:09] benefits, and I would point out

[1:41:12] in the ordinance that the

[1:41:14] licensed engineers and architect

[1:41:15] architects have to be mutually

[1:41:17] agreed upon by the parties.

[1:41:19] It's not a unilateral decision

[1:41:21] on who to use.

[1:41:24] So the benefits are -- and in

[1:41:26] the cost of these people would

[1:41:28] be borne by axon, it would not

[1:41:30] cost the city money.

[1:41:37] The benefit is that -- that axon

[1:41:40] has people that they can rely

[1:41:43] upon to accomplish the

[1:41:46] inspections and not be concerned

[1:41:51] with potential delays with city

[1:41:53] processes or city staff or

[1:41:55] concerns that the city might

[1:41:57] delay the project for some

[1:41:57] reason.

[1:41:59] Those are the potential benefits

[1:42:02] from an axon standpoint.

[1:42:05] From a city standpoint, it's

[1:42:07] limited in that there's very few

[1:42:11] properties that could be

[1:42:12] international headquarters in

[1:42:12] scottsdale.

[1:42:14] There's more than one, so it's

[1:42:16] not a special law, our ordinance

[1:42:18] because there are at least three

[1:42:20] other properties that could be

[1:42:22] developed international

[1:42:23] headquarters processes.

[1:42:27] From the city standpoint, it

[1:42:30] relieves our personnel from

[1:42:33] having to work or inspect these

[1:42:34] projects.

[1:42:36] I understand that we have fairly

[1:42:39] heavy caseloads.

[1:42:41] There is some obvious concern

[1:42:43] with city staff placing that

[1:42:46] control in an outside agency.

[1:42:49] But it's basically something

[1:42:55] that was important to axon, and

[1:43:00] it's limited in scope to such

[1:43:02] few properties, I don't think it

[1:43:03] materially impacts our

[1:43:05] inspection and permitting

[1:43:06] processes, but I could certainly

[1:43:09] defer to city manager caton.

[1:43:10] >> Councilmember Graham: just

[1:43:11] for the record what I heard you

[1:43:12] say, some of our internal staff

[1:43:15] are uncomfortable with it, but

[1:43:17] it was important to axon and so

[1:43:18] we did it.

[1:43:20] And so it sounds like they're

[1:43:21] getting something, I just

[1:43:23] wondered what we're getting.

[1:43:25] Just -- I'm just expressing my

[1:43:27] discomfort with that.

[1:43:28] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: u

[1:43:32] nderstood.

[1:43:33] >> Councilmember Graham: I don't

[1:43:36] know what the unit count is.

[1:43:38] The last I saw was 1500, but

[1:43:41] that MAY have changed since, you

[1:43:45] know, in the past 30 minutes.

[1:43:48] Can axon legally, for any

[1:43:51] condominiums for ownership units

[1:43:53] they put in there, can they use

[1:43:55] those legally as short-term

[1:43:56] rentals?

[1:43:57] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[1:43:59] es, they could.

[1:44:00] >> Councilmember Graham: could

[1:44:01] they legally open -- could they

[1:44:04] legally acquire those units,

[1:44:08] condominium units in an llc and

[1:44:11] lease them like any other

[1:44:14] investment lesser?

[1:44:15] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: p

[1:44:17] resumably, yes, as long as they

[1:44:19] don't put -- it all depends on

[1:44:21] what kind of ccr's they put on

[1:44:23] those properties.

[1:44:24] >> Councilmember Graham: I want

[1:44:25] to talk about a couple of more

[1:44:28] things and wrap up my comments.

[1:44:33] Section 19 is are -- section 19

[1:44:36] is a city council liaison where

[1:44:38] we appoint the city council

[1:44:39] economic development chair as

[1:44:43] liaison between axon and city of

[1:44:44] scottsdale.

[1:44:48] And that -- when I saw that,

[1:44:51] that just seemed very kind of

[1:44:52] jumped out at me.

[1:44:54] Have we haver done anything like

[1:44:55] that in the city to your

[1:44:56] knowledge.

[1:44:56] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[1:44:58] o my knowledge, no.

[1:44:59] >> Councilmember Graham: it

[1:45:00] appears to endow one council

[1:45:03] member with a significant amount

[1:45:05] of power, and it almost seems

[1:45:08] like it turns him from -- into

[1:45:08] an agent.

[1:45:12] If he's the liaison, who

[1:45:15] appraises his or her performance

[1:45:17] and is he or she giving orders

[1:45:17] to staff.

[1:45:20] It gives me discomfort to think

[1:45:22] about if he MAY be directing

[1:45:24] people and, you know, I see our

[1:45:26] job up here as governance, not

[1:45:26] management.

[1:45:28] We shouldn't be executing these.

[1:45:31] And so if I could just sort of

[1:45:32] side step this a little bit and

[1:45:34] mae a motion to delete that

[1:45:36] provision from this mou, if my

[1:45:38] colleagues would indulge me and

[1:45:40] we could kind of delete that and

[1:45:44] that could be removed from the

[1:45:44] agreement.

[1:45:46] So I'll move -- but then I'm not

[1:45:48] done with my comments.

[1:45:49] i would make that motion.

[1:45:51] >> I'll second that.

[1:45:51] >> Councilmember Graham: so we

[1:45:54] have a motion and a second.

[1:45:56] Ben, is that clear to you what

[1:45:58] we're saying?

[1:46:04] Okay.

[1:46:07] >> I'd like to speak to that

[1:46:09] motion.

[1:46:13] If that's okay.

[1:46:14] COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield.

[1:46:15] >> let's go down the list real

[1:46:19] quick, she's been waiting.

[1:46:23] >> I want to be respectful to

[1:46:25] COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield's place

[1:46:26] in line.

[1:46:26] >> Councilmember Graham: I have

[1:46:27] more comments to make, but I

[1:46:29] wanted to make -- maybe I can

[1:46:30] make this motion at the end of

[1:46:31] my comments.

[1:46:32] I'll make a few more comments

[1:46:34] and put the motion on the floor

[1:46:38] for us to debate.

[1:46:42] Thank you.

[1:46:43] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[1:46:44] are you still --

[1:46:45] >> Councilmember Graham: still

[1:46:46] going.

[1:46:48] I'm almost done.

[1:46:49] >> Mayor Borowsky: still going.

[1:46:50] >> Councilmember Graham: almost

[1:46:51] done with my sermon.

[1:46:55] I have concerns about this mou,

[1:46:57] I think the compliance language

[1:47:00] is weakened by some carveouts in

[1:47:03] the document.

[1:47:04] Very strong, very great concerns

[1:47:08] with removing a referendum sign

[1:47:10] signed with containing 26,000

[1:47:11] signatures.

[1:47:14] Concerned about the removal of

[1:47:15] the water, and I'm also

[1:47:17] concerned about if we do this,

[1:47:20] are we telling other commercial

[1:47:22] interests if this council

[1:47:30] doesn't give into their desires,

[1:47:31] that we -- they can just head

[1:47:33] over to the legislature and get

[1:47:36] legislative relief and go around

[1:47:36] us.

[1:47:38] I do agree with leslie lureman

[1:47:41] from the stone brook hoa,

[1:47:44] negotiations should be two ways,

[1:47:46] but through this process, too

[1:47:49] many residents have told us that

[1:47:52] this has felt one way.

[1:47:54] Instead of guiding growth, they

[1:47:57] tell me, it feels like the

[1:47:59] process has overridden it.

[1:48:00] So I appreciate -- those are my

[1:48:02] comments at the time being,

[1:48:03] there's a motion and second on

[1:48:03] the floor.

[1:48:05] Thank you to my colleagues -- I

[1:48:07] know we'll debate the motion, I

[1:48:08] appreciate my colleagues for

[1:48:10] voting on it.

[1:48:15] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[1:48:16] COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield.

[1:48:17] >> Councilmember Littlefield: th

[1:48:18] is really isn't regarding the

[1:48:20] motion so much as some of the

[1:48:24] comments that were made earlier.

[1:48:29] I would like to let you all know

[1:48:31] that my ability to represent the

[1:48:32] citizens of scottsdale regarding

[1:48:36] this issue has been reviewed

[1:48:37] previously.

[1:48:39] And I draw upon our city

[1:48:41] attorney for his conclusion,

[1:48:45] which he gave to me earlier.

[1:48:47] City attorney?

[1:48:49] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h

[1:48:49] onorable mayor and members of

[1:48:51] the council.

[1:48:54] COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield asked

[1:48:56] me to publicize the fact we have

[1:48:59] evaluated whether she has a

[1:49:00] conflict of interest in this

[1:49:01] matter and determined she does

[1:49:02] not have a conflict of interest

[1:49:06] in this matter.

[1:49:06] >> Councilmember Littlefield: th

[1:49:07] ank you, I do not.

[1:49:10] I am a separate person from my

[1:49:11] husband.

[1:49:15] He does his thing, I do mine.

[1:49:18] And it is in my own right that I

[1:49:19] have listened up here to the

[1:49:21] comments and the considerations

[1:49:23] and the wise and the wheres and

[1:49:26] thousands and whos and made my

[1:49:27] own decision.

[1:49:30] The only other people who have

[1:49:32] interested me are the citizens

[1:49:34] of scottsdale.

[1:49:36] I listen to them.

[1:49:38] And they are very forthcoming

[1:49:40] with their opinions and their

[1:49:43] reasons and their whys and where

[1:49:44] fores.

[1:49:47] I have well over 1,000 e-mails

[1:49:49] still waiting for me to answer

[1:49:52] after the last three days, I

[1:49:55] have spent entirely answering

[1:49:56] their e-mails, regarding this

[1:49:57] issue, axon.

[1:50:00] They are very concerned.

[1:50:02] They do not want this expansion

[1:50:05] of axon, and that is everyone

[1:50:07] who e-mailed me and there are

[1:50:08] thousands.

[1:50:10] Except one person.

[1:50:12] Who wanted it.

[1:50:14] That is who I listen to.

[1:50:17] The citizens of scottsdale.

[1:50:20] I do try to represent them, and

[1:50:23] I've spent almost four full days

[1:50:25] reading their e-mails and I

[1:50:27] haven't come to the end of them

[1:50:28] yet.

[1:50:29] They're still there waiting for

[1:50:29] me.

[1:50:31] So far, and with the exception

[1:50:35] of one, all citizens have said

[1:50:37] no to this.

[1:50:39] Every single citizen.

[1:50:41] No.

[1:50:41] As their representative, it is

[1:50:45] my job and my duty to listen to

[1:50:46] them.

[1:50:48] With such overwhelming negative

[1:50:52] input, I will not support this.

[1:50:58] It is -- let me get where I am

[1:50:58] here.

[1:51:00] It is against what I swore I

[1:51:04] would do as their representative

[1:51:06] I represent the citizens.

[1:51:09] That's who I am.

[1:51:12] and I will continue to do so.

[1:51:14] I am not against coming back to

[1:51:16] axon and saying let's

[1:51:18] renegotiate, let's look at this,

[1:51:20] how can we bring this more in

[1:51:21] line with what our citizens want

[1:51:24] so we can all live in peace,

[1:51:26] because we are not going to with

[1:51:28] this, let me tell you, guys,

[1:51:30] they will not be happy.

[1:51:34] I am open to that kind of a

[1:51:35] negotiation, but I cannot

[1:51:37] actively and directly vote

[1:51:39] against thousands of scottsdale

[1:51:41] citizens who have e-mailed me

[1:51:43] and asked me to say no.

[1:51:45] Thank you.

[1:51:46] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[1:51:49] Vice mayor kwasman.

[1:51:50] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank

[1:51:51] you, MADAM Mayor and members of

[1:51:53] the council.

[1:51:56] I do not find council member

[1:52:01] graham's motion a hostile

[1:52:02] motion.

[1:52:03] I'm in support of the motion and

[1:52:07] happy to remove it from the

[1:52:09] memorandum of understanding or

[1:52:11] designate the city manager as

[1:52:15] the liaison.

[1:52:17] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[1:52:18] COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.

[1:52:18] >> Councilmember Whitehead: I

[1:52:21] think I'll make my remarks after

[1:52:24] we vote on COUNCILMAN Graham's

[1:52:25] motion.

[1:52:25] >> Mayor Borowsky: okay.

[1:52:28] The motion on the table is to

[1:52:30] remove the council liaison from

[1:52:31] the mou.

[1:52:50] All those in favor?

[1:52:52] How about we take a voice vote.

[1:52:53] All those in favor.

[1:52:55] There we go.

[1:52:58] Okay.

[1:52:59] Thank you.

[1:53:01] All right.

[1:53:03] I don't see any --

[1:53:03] .

[1:53:06] >> I lost my spot.

[1:53:06] >> Mayor Borowsky: that's okay.

[1:53:10] Go ahead, go right ahead.

[1:53:10] >> Councilmember Whitehead: I

[1:53:12] just want to wrap up on a couple

[1:53:14] of things that were mentioned,

[1:53:15] there was a lot of talk about

[1:53:18] the number of units, and the

[1:53:18] density.

[1:53:20] So I did just want to give

[1:53:21] people a little bit of

[1:53:22] perspective there.

[1:53:24] I came in this evening having

[1:53:26] been part of a negotiation that

[1:53:29] was 750 condos and 750

[1:53:31] apartments, and that's a really

[1:53:32] important distinction.

[1:53:34] Again, all of those community

[1:53:35] investments, and I can tell you

[1:53:37] that I personally have spent

[1:53:39] thousands of hours with

[1:53:43] residents, and as one can

[1:53:44] imagine, 240,000 residents don't

[1:53:45] all agree on anything.

[1:53:48] I have not received a thousand

[1:53:50] e-mails, but I have spent over

[1:53:51] the last couple of years,

[1:53:53] thousands of hours with

[1:53:53] residents.

[1:53:56] There is support and there's

[1:53:56] opposition.

[1:53:59] Let's talk about the density,

[1:54:01] the numbers that I have -- that

[1:54:02] I support, which are

[1:54:03] significantly lower than what

[1:54:05] the state will allow.

[1:54:09] The density is 21 -- about 21.5

[1:54:11] units per acre, and as

[1:54:14] comparison, there are projects

[1:54:17] in the air park, in that same

[1:54:20] region that are 60 units to the

[1:54:20] acre.

[1:54:26] So the density here has changed

[1:54:27] changedes so dramatically, and

[1:54:30] people are so upeat set about

[1:54:32] the -- upset about the original

[1:54:33] number, it got lost in the

[1:54:34] negotiations.

[1:54:37] I also want to stress that,

[1:54:39] again, the community has been

[1:54:41] very involved.

[1:54:44] we all are up here representing

[1:54:45] residents.

[1:54:47] Residents don't all agree on

[1:54:50] everything, and I think the

[1:54:51] former employee spoke

[1:54:53] beautifully about change, we

[1:54:55] choose scottsdale, we love

[1:54:57] scottsdale, change upsets

[1:55:00] everybody, and the incredible

[1:55:02] opposition to the waterfront,

[1:55:04] reminds me of tonight's

[1:55:05] decision.

[1:55:08] The waterfront saved our mall,

[1:55:15] it is one of the most vibrant

[1:55:18] and economically beneficial

[1:55:20] spots in our city.

[1:55:24] It was a height, 150-foot

[1:55:27] towers, for open space trade and

[1:55:30] that council, at that time, mary

[1:55:32] man ross was mayor, went ahead

[1:55:33] and did not that.

[1:55:36] What we have here today is dirt

[1:55:38] on a freeway that is not

[1:55:40] productive, not helpful to the

[1:55:41] neighbors, not helpful to

[1:55:43] anyone, and it will be developed

[1:55:45] just look a couple miles east

[1:55:47] and see what warehouses look

[1:55:47] like.

[1:55:51] So what we are proposing here is

[1:55:52] not -- no apartments, that's not

[1:55:55] on the table, but what we are

[1:55:56] proving is something that's very

[1:55:58] low density for the area.

[1:56:00] Thank you.

[1:56:01] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[1:56:03] Vice mayor kwasman.

[1:56:03] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank

[1:56:04] you, MADAM Mayor.

[1:56:08] I move to adopt resolution no.

[1:56:11] 1356, adopting contract no.

[1:56:16] 2025-195-cos.

[1:56:18] Between the city and axon

[1:56:20] enterprise, inc. With the

[1:56:21] following modify kicks, why

[1:56:24] section 6 amended to -- as

[1:56:26] amended, as previously amended

[1:56:29] by the last amendment.

[1:56:31] And then the following

[1:56:33] modifications.

[1:56:35] section 6 is amended to reduce

[1:56:37] the total number of units from

[1:56:40] 1500 units to 1200 units, and of

[1:56:43] the 1200 units, 600 will be

[1:56:45] apartmented why, 600

[1:56:45] condominiums.

[1:56:47] First phase will be 500

[1:56:49] apartments, 100 condominiums,

[1:56:52] second phase c apartments, and

[1:56:54] 500 condominiums as designated

[1:56:55] in the mou.

[1:56:56] The city council authorizes the

[1:56:58] city manager and the interim

[1:57:01] city attorney to make conforming

[1:57:02] changes consistent with this

[1:57:05] modification.

[1:57:09] And before I finish my motion,

[1:57:10] with that sitting on the table,

[1:57:13] do I need to amend my motion,

[1:57:15] MR. City attorney, to discuss

[1:57:19] the -- to discuss the 48-hour

[1:57:20] aspect of it or is that coming

[1:57:25] in a later --

[1:57:26] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h

[1:57:28] onorable mayor and vice mayor,

[1:57:31] members of the city council, you

[1:57:34] can -- when we get to that item,

[1:57:36] it should be amended

[1:57:37] appropriately just to say

[1:57:40] regarding the signature stuff.

[1:57:42] If that makes sense.

[1:57:42] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: nothing

[1:57:44] else right now.

[1:57:45] Okay.

[1:57:46] .

[1:57:48] >> if I MAY, I would suggest

[1:57:50] there was, I understand, a

[1:57:54] discussion about a proportional

[1:57:55] reduction in the commercial as

[1:57:58] it relates to the reduction on

[1:57:59] the -- reduction on the

[1:58:01] residential piece.

[1:58:04] So it was to be commensurate

[1:58:08] with that reduction.

[1:58:09] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: then I'm

[1:58:10] going to restate my motion if I

[1:58:11] can, MADAM Mayor.

[1:58:15] I move to adopt resolution no.

[1:58:20] 1357 adopting contract no --

[1:58:25] 2025-195-cos as previously

[1:58:25] amended.

[1:58:26] Between city -- between the city

[1:58:28] of scottsdale and axon

[1:58:30] enterprise, inc. With the

[1:58:31] following modifications, section

[1:58:32] 6 amended to reduce the total

[1:58:35] number of units from 1,500 units

[1:58:36] to 1,200 units.

[1:58:40] Of the 1,200 units, 600 of those

[1:58:42] units will be apartments and 600

[1:58:44] units will be condominiums.

[1:58:46] The first phase will be 500

[1:58:48] apartments and 100 condominiums.

[1:58:49] The second phase will be 100

[1:58:54] apartments and 500 condominiums.

[1:58:57] Furthermore, there will be an

[1:58:58] appropriate proportionate

[1:59:02] reduction of commercial -- of

[1:59:04] commercial space as -- in order

[1:59:08] to align with the reduction in

[1:59:09] residential buildings.

[1:59:11] The city council authorizes the

[1:59:12] city manager and interim city

[1:59:15] attorney to make the conforming

[1:59:17] changes, consistent with this

[1:59:18] modification.

[1:59:21] >> I'll second that.

[1:59:22] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[1:59:24] I don't see any other speakers,

[1:59:27] but I'm going to be supporting

[1:59:29] vice mayor kwasman's motion.

[1:59:31] I think the parties have worked

[1:59:34] really hard to come to a number

[1:59:37] that is dramatically lower than

[1:59:40] what we inherited when we

[1:59:41] took -- when I took office.

[1:59:44] So going from nearly 1900

[1:59:46] apartments down to 600, I think,

[1:59:50] is a positive result and

[1:59:51] especially with all the other

[1:59:54] moving parts, which you've heard

[1:59:56] so much about over the past

[1:59:59] eight, nine months, you know,

[2:00:00] even with the election, no

[2:00:04] matter the outcome, under the

[2:00:07] state law, they can do the 1900

[2:00:09] units or more.

[2:00:12] So I spoke earlier about wanting

[2:00:15] finality for me this is -- this

[2:00:18] creates finality on this issue.

[2:00:20] it gets the conversation moving

[2:00:23] in a direction of let's break

[2:00:24] ground and start construction.

[2:00:27] And let's go build a great

[2:00:27] project.

[2:00:31] So I am pleased about that, I

[2:00:32] appreciate the rester, all of

[2:00:34] the efforts that went into it.

[2:00:37] We have all -- we've all worked

[2:00:39] fairly tirelessly on this, and,

[2:00:40] you know, that involves talking

[2:00:42] to all of the residents as well.

[2:00:45] And I just wanted to touch on

[2:00:46] the self certification element

[2:00:48] of this, I'm actually very

[2:00:49] excited about this.

[2:00:50] I like the fact that we are

[2:00:53] going to do a test case here.

[2:00:57] Especially when we have -- we

[2:01:00] can have a role in this election -- in the selection of

[2:01:00] the individual.

[2:01:03] We are in good shape there.

[2:01:05] I know other jurisdictions have

[2:01:09] this, and they outsource the --

[2:01:12] you know, those obligations to

[2:01:14] third party, and I think it's

[2:01:16] going to be great to see how

[2:01:17] that works.

[2:01:19] And I think that's all that I

[2:01:20] have.

[2:01:21] But I will be supporting the

[2:01:22] motion.

[2:01:24] So without any further comments,

[2:01:36] let's go ahead and take a vote.

[2:01:41] >> point of order.

[2:01:44] Is this item no. 2, 3 and 4 or

[2:01:45] just 2.

[2:01:45] >> Mayor Borowsky: just 2.

[2:01:47] Why we have to go through 3 and

[2:01:47] 4.

[2:01:48] All right.

[2:01:52] Okay.

[2:01:54] That motion passes, and moving

[2:01:59] right along.

[2:02:00] All right.

[2:02:03] And so item no. 3, the

[2:02:04] self-certification and third

[2:02:05] party certification.

[2:02:08] This is a request -- was that in

[2:02:10] your motion?

[2:02:10] okay.

[2:02:12] This is a request to consider

[2:02:15] ordinance no. 4697 authorizing

[2:02:17] the establishment of a self

[2:02:19] certification and third-party

[2:02:21] certification program for

[2:02:22] qualified international

[2:02:24] headquarters campuses.

[2:02:26] The proposed ordinance enables

[2:02:28] licensed professionals,

[2:02:29] architects and engineers, to

[2:02:32] certify plans and inspections.

[2:02:35] Applies only to projects

[2:02:37] qualifying under arizona revised

[2:02:43] statutes section 9-461.19.

[2:02:45] And includes provisions for city

[2:02:48] oversight, audit rights and

[2:02:50] enforcement.

[2:02:55] And will be sunsetted on JANUARY 1, 2035, unless extended

[2:02:57] extended.

[2:02:59] So I know we have a couple of

[2:03:02] speakers on this, let's turn to

[2:03:05] those, gail golic, fired by tim

[2:03:20] lesoto and gabby hitchcock.

[2:03:23] >> good evening, MADAM Mayor and

[2:03:25] council members, my name is gail

[2:03:27] golic, and I am a state

[2:03:30] committeemen with ld3 and

[2:03:31] scottsdale resident.

[2:03:33] This is basically we are going

[2:03:35] to be speaking the same -- the

[2:03:37] same thing that I mentioned

[2:03:41] before, but I want to reiterate

[2:03:42] this.

[2:03:45] I'm speaking on agenda item 3,

[2:03:47] which creates a self

[2:03:48] certification third party

[2:03:51] permitting programs for large

[2:03:51] headquarter developments.

[2:03:54] This item must be considered a

[2:03:57] light of a simple but extremely

[2:03:59] fact, axon no longer has any

[2:04:01] water obligation.

[2:04:04] That means scottsdale must

[2:04:06] independently demonstrate the

[2:04:09] required 100-year assured water

[2:04:12] supply before it advances

[2:04:14] permitting for this project.

[2:04:16] And state law is absolutely

[2:04:18] clear on whether this -- excuse

[2:04:20] me, when this proof must clear.

[2:04:24] I want to quote the statut.

[2:04:25] A plat of a subdivision shall

[2:04:29] not be approved by a city or

[2:04:31] town unless the director has

[2:04:34] determined that the subdivision

[2:04:38] has an assured water supply.

[2:04:41] And even more to the point, ars

[2:04:45] ars545-576h, a center town shall

[2:04:47] not approve a plat or permit the

[2:04:48] construction of a subdivision

[2:04:51] unless an assured water supply

[2:04:54] has been demonstrated.

[2:04:55] A self-certification permitting

[2:04:58] program is, by definition, a

[2:05:00] program that permits

[2:05:02] construction, therefore, under

[2:05:05] 45-576, it cannot be improved

[2:05:06] unless the city has already

[2:05:11] demonstrated the 100-year water

[2:05:11] supply.

[2:05:12] But scottsdale cannot

[2:05:15] demonstrate it and has admitted

[2:05:15] so.

[2:05:17] In the city's NOVEMBER 4

[2:05:18] petition response, scottsdale

[2:05:20] confirmed it has no

[2:05:21] documentation identifying the

[2:05:23] water sources for this project,

[2:05:26] it has no 100-year demand

[2:05:27] calculations, it has no

[2:05:30] up-to-date water portfolio

[2:05:33] analysis, it has no enforceable

[2:05:34] water commitments from axon,

[2:05:36] never mind, don't need it and

[2:05:41] scottsdale is relying on the

[2:05:43] 2013daws whose planning horizon

[2:05:45] only goes through 2025.

[2:05:47] That's only six weeks from now.

[2:05:48] The city further admitted that

[2:05:53] the supporting documents for the -- that is no longer in its

[2:05:54] possession and adwr has not

[2:05:57] approved scottsdale's new -- the

[2:05:58] water supply plan.

[2:06:01] This means scottsdale's 100-year

[2:06:03] water model does not extend

[2:06:04] beyond 2025.

[2:06:07] The city is outside its planning

[2:06:09] orize oon and cannot show 100

[2:06:11] year water supply required by

[2:06:12] law.

[2:06:13] Therefore approving item 3 today

[2:06:14] which advances construction

[2:06:17] without a demonstrated 100-year

[2:06:20] water supply would violate that.

[2:06:21] It would move a development

[2:06:23] forward with no water

[2:06:25] obligations from the city, no

[2:06:28] proof of 100-year map and expire

[2:06:30] 2013 planning horizon.

[2:06:32] This exposes the city to legal

[2:06:34] challenge and adwr review.

[2:06:38] Jim urge you to vote no on item

[2:06:39] 3 until the documentation is

[2:06:40] publicly produced.

[2:06:42] Thank you for your time.

[2:06:44] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.

[2:06:45] Tim lesota.

[2:06:46] >> I already spoke on this item.

[2:06:48] Why effectively.

[2:06:50] >> Mayor Borowsky: thanks, gabby

[2:07:03] hitchcock.

[2:07:06] I don't see gabby hitchcock.

[2:07:06] Anybody?

[2:07:07] No.

[2:07:08] All right.

[2:07:09] Moving right along.

[2:07:14] That concludes the speakers.

[2:07:21] And so anyone want to bring a

[2:07:24] motion.

[2:07:29] >> mayor, I am going to motion

[2:07:31] motion -- yeah.

[2:07:34] Request adopt ordinance no. 4697

[2:07:36] authorizing the establishment of

[2:07:38] the self-certification and

[2:07:39] third-party certification

[2:07:40] program for qualified

[2:07:42] international headquarter

[2:07:42] campuses.

[2:07:45] The proposed ordinance enables

[2:07:45] licensed professionals,

[2:07:47] architects and engineers to

[2:07:48] certify plans and inspections.

[2:07:51] Will applies only to projects

[2:07:53] qualifying under arizona revised

[2:07:57] statutes section 9-461.19,

[2:07:59] includes provisions for city

[2:08:01] oversight, audit rights and

[2:08:02] enforcement.

[2:08:03] It is proposed to sunset on

[2:08:06] january 1, 2035, unless extended

[2:08:09] extended.

[2:08:10] >> second.

[2:08:13] >> Mayor Borowsky: all those in

[2:08:13] favor?

[2:08:15] Excuse me.

[2:08:16] Go right ahead.

[2:08:18] >> mayor and members of the

[2:08:19] council, there is no delayed

[2:08:21] repeal date in the ordinance

[2:08:34] that was presented, I believe.

[2:08:35] >> Mayor Borowsky: do we need to

[2:08:38] do anything about that?

[2:08:39] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[2:08:40] he signed copy I submitted did

[2:08:44] not have a delayed repeal date.

[2:08:47] So that's the issue where the --

[2:08:49] I believe the ordinance does not

[2:08:52] have a delayed repeal date.

[2:08:55] >> to clarify do I need to take

[2:08:59] out the proposed sunset date

[2:08:59] toronto yes.

[2:09:01] >> I'll strike the last

[2:09:06] sentence, is proposed to sunset.

[2:09:07] >> Mayor Borowsky: COUNCILMAN

[2:09:07] Graham.

[2:09:08] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[2:09:08] you.

[2:09:12] It does is proposed to sunset

[2:09:14] JANUARY 1, 2035, so I just --

[2:09:17] that's what I'm reading.

[2:09:18] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[2:09:21] here's an error on the agenda

[2:09:22] language, but the actual

[2:09:23] ordinance doesn't have a delayed

[2:09:25] repeal date.

[2:09:26] >> Councilmember Graham: okay.

[2:09:27] So the -- okay.

[2:09:28] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s

[2:09:30] o she council can adopt it

[2:09:33] either way, it could add it into

[2:09:36] the ordinance that was attached.

[2:09:39] Or keep it out.

[2:09:41] My understanding it's going to

[2:09:43] take axon much longer than ten

[2:09:45] years or whatever to finish

[2:09:51] their campus.

[2:09:53] >> then I choose to strike it

[2:09:56] from my motion.

[2:09:58] >> I'll second the motion

[2:10:02] with -- that section struck out.

[2:10:04] >> just so the council knows,

[2:10:05] you can always come back and

[2:10:07] change ordinances.

[2:10:09] This was just an automatically

[2:10:11] take it off the boobs.

[2:10:13] >> mayor, I'd like to speak to

[2:10:14] my motion.

[2:10:15] >> Mayor Borowsky: go right

[2:10:15] ahead.

[2:10:16] >> for those of you in the

[2:10:18] audience, this is a very common

[2:10:22] practice to have third party

[2:10:23] certification, almost all the

[2:10:24] cities do it, especially on

[2:10:26] massive projects.

[2:10:27] We'll be entering into a new

[2:10:29] phase here in scottsdale doing

[2:10:30] this, but it is a very common

[2:10:32] practice, and it's one that

[2:10:33] helps expedite.

[2:10:36] The reason why we do it, in

[2:10:38] other cities, through my

[2:10:40] research, is that we don't

[2:10:41] always have enough staff to

[2:10:42] expedite what's happening,

[2:10:45] enough planners, enough

[2:10:46] reviewers, enough engineers, so

[2:10:48] then when you have a third party

[2:10:49] doing it, it's just like over

[2:10:51] time for public safety.

[2:10:54] It helps expedite a process.

[2:10:56] But professionally and you use

[2:10:57] the right people that you need

[2:10:59] to accomplish the right goals.

[2:11:01] So this is a common practice.

[2:11:02] I don't want anybody to think we

[2:11:05] are doing something crazy.

[2:11:06] >> Mayor Borowsky: all right.

[2:11:17] All those in favor?

[2:11:17] Okay.

[2:11:20] Thank you very much.

[2:11:21] All right.

[2:11:25] Next we have item no. 4, repeal

[2:11:28] of ordinance no. 4658 relating

[2:11:30] to axon rezoning, this is a

[2:11:33] request to adopt ordinance no.

[2:11:36] 4698 which amends ordinance no.

[2:11:37] 455, the zoning ordinance of the

[2:11:39] city of scottsdale and

[2:11:41] authorizing the repeal of zoning

[2:11:44] ordinance no. 4658, which would

[2:11:46] restore the prior zoning

[2:11:50] designation for 44.7-acre-site

[2:11:55] located at 8300 east axon way.

[2:11:57] And there's one speaker, gail,

[2:11:59] did you want to speak again on

[2:11:59] this?

[2:12:00] No, okay.

[2:12:01] All right.

[2:12:05] So I'll entertain a motion.

[2:12:07] Go right ahead, COUNCILWOMAN

[2:12:08] Whitehead.

[2:12:09] >> Councilmember Whitehead: okay

[2:12:09] , thank you, mayor.

[2:12:14] I move to adopt ordinance no.

[2:12:17] 4658, amending, 455, the zoning

[2:12:19] ordinance of city of scottsdale

[2:12:22] and authorizing the repeal of

[2:12:24] zoning ordinance no. 4658 which

[2:12:26] would restore the prior zoning

[2:12:29] decision nature for the

[2:12:32] 44.7-acre-site located at 8300

[2:12:35] east axon way.

[2:12:35] .

[2:12:37] >> I would like to -- are we

[2:12:39] going to used the date?

[2:12:41] I would like.

[2:12:45] >> I would like to add that we

[2:12:51] are requiring -- this is

[2:12:52] repealed at the end of the

[2:12:58] business day on 11-19 when we

[2:13:00] receive the mou -- a signed mou,

[2:13:02] I'd like to add that to the

[2:13:03] motion.

[2:13:05] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m

[2:13:07] embers of the council, normally

[2:13:10] once -- absent an emergency, an

[2:13:13] ordinance is not repealed until

[2:13:14] 30 days.

[2:13:15] So I don't believe we can used

[2:13:16] that provision.

[2:13:20] >> thank you.

[2:13:20] >> Mayor Borowsky: okay.

[2:13:21] There's a motion.

[2:13:23] COUNCILMAN Graham.

[2:13:24] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[2:13:25] you, mayor.

[2:13:27] So I'm going to ask probably

[2:13:29] almost identical set of

[2:13:30] questions that I asked about

[2:13:33] this earlier, because for me,

[2:13:36] this is just -- trying to wrap

[2:13:39] my brain around this one.

[2:13:41] We are repealing an -- we are

[2:13:46] repealing a rezoning that was

[2:13:47] authorized during the lame duck

[2:13:51] in 2024 to reauthorize

[2:13:54] industrial to mixed use.

[2:13:56] And this undoes that, is that

[2:13:58] correct.

[2:13:59] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m

[2:13:59] ayor and members of the council,

[2:14:04] yes, that is correct, it repeals

[2:14:05] the -- the zoning that's

[2:14:07] basically on hold because of the

[2:14:09] referendum, and it makes it go

[2:14:12] back to the original zoning.

[2:14:12] >> Councilmember Graham: I'm

[2:14:18] trying to get to my point.

[2:14:20] This vote removes the --

[2:14:21] > Councilmember Graham: this

[2:14:25] vote removes the referendum, is

[2:14:26] that correct.

[2:14:27] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[2:14:28] es, that's correct.

[2:14:28] >> Councilmember Graham: I

[2:14:31] talked about this before, but we

[2:14:33] can't just -- in my mind, it's

[2:14:36] just strange that we would go

[2:14:37] and an applicant comes and asks

[2:14:39] for a rezoning and gets it and

[2:14:42] then we pass an ordinance to

[2:14:43] undo it.

[2:14:46] That, to me now in a normal

[2:14:47] circumstance -- normal

[2:14:48] circumstance, you can't do that

[2:14:52] because that's, you know, a

[2:14:53] downzoning, taking away property

[2:14:55] value from them, and then they

[2:14:57] can file a 207 challenge, which

[2:15:00] is the -- which is the -- I

[2:15:01] don't know if it's a

[2:15:03] constitutional amendment, but

[2:15:07] it's a state legislation that

[2:15:09] says that cities and governments

[2:15:11] can't downzone and reduce the

[2:15:12] value of people's property.

[2:15:14] So that's the reason why we

[2:15:15] normally couldn't do it.

[2:15:16] is that correct.

[2:15:17] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[2:15:18] think that's a good way of

[2:15:19] looking at it.

[2:15:22] The twist here is you have sb

[2:15:27] sb1543 that basically upzones it

[2:15:28] again.

[2:15:29] >> Councilmember Graham: right.

[2:15:31] So we go back and we say, okay,

[2:15:32] we're going to delete that

[2:15:36] rezoning from NOVEMBER 2024, and

[2:15:39] then it would revert to

[2:15:40] industrial.

[2:15:44] In that case, sb1543 says if you

[2:15:45] own industrial and meet all

[2:15:49] these conditions, then you can

[2:15:52] build, you know, apartments, it

[2:15:53] goes to the other zoning.

[2:15:56] Because of that, we don't think

[2:15:58] that there's going to be a 207

[2:16:00] challenge because the property

[2:16:01] owner is going to be happy with

[2:16:03] what they get when this is

[2:16:05] undone, is that correct.

[2:16:06] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[2:16:06] es, we don't believe there would

[2:16:09] be any diminishment of value.

[2:16:09] >> Councilmember Graham: what

[2:16:11] would happen in the case --

[2:16:12] because I understand -- I don't

[2:16:14] know anything about it, other

[2:16:15] than the fact a legal challenge

[2:16:17] is happening, what if the legal

[2:16:20] challenge happens and the courts

[2:16:25] rule against senate bill 1543?

[2:16:27] Could -- and they say no you

[2:16:28] can't do that law.

[2:16:29] Could then the property owner

[2:16:33] come to us with a 207 challenge?

[2:16:34] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[2:16:35] can't speculate on that.

[2:16:36] We'd have to do the research,

[2:16:39] and I'd have to provide that

[2:16:40] legal advice in closed session

[2:16:42] or via legal memo.

[2:16:44] But it's a good point that you

[2:16:44] raise.

[2:16:45] >> Councilmember Graham: I

[2:16:47] just -- I know it's -- I know

[2:16:50] there's some kind of -- got to

[2:16:52] run through the scenario, but it

[2:16:57] seems to me that if I'm axon,

[2:17:00] and the courts rule against

[2:17:04] 1543, the city just took away my

[2:17:06] rezoning, and then I'm -- then

[2:17:09] I'm not in a good place and then

[2:17:10] I MAY have cause to challenge

[2:17:12] what we did here tonight.

[2:17:14] So that's why this, especially

[2:17:16] this, in addition to taking away

[2:17:20] the referendum, I have serious

[2:17:22] concerns about this particular

[2:17:24] item, and so I might make a

[2:17:27] motion, if we can just defer

[2:17:30] this one for the time being and

[2:17:32] maybe come back next week and

[2:17:36] get some legal advice because I

[2:17:38] don't want to expose us -- you

[2:17:41] city attorney, your goal is to

[2:17:43] minimize liability.

[2:17:45] Exposure to the city, this could

[2:17:47] put axon in hot water, this

[2:17:49] could put us in hot water.

[2:17:51] So I don't want -- maybe the

[2:17:53] benefit of a little more time,

[2:17:56] if I could move to defer this --

[2:17:58] defer this item for the time

[2:17:59] being.

[2:18:03] If I could get a second.

[2:18:09] >> second.

[2:18:10] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[2:18:11] you.

[2:18:11] >> Mayor Borowsky: there was a

[2:18:13] motion on the table, but there

[2:18:15] was no second.

[2:18:16] >> that's correct.

[2:18:17] >> Mayor Borowsky: let's deal

[2:18:18] with.

[2:18:19] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: can I

[2:18:23] speak to council member graham's

[2:18:24] motion.

[2:18:26] MR. City attorney, sorry to

[2:18:27] bother you -- I assume you're

[2:18:29] walking to the podium.

[2:18:30] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: n

[2:18:33] o.

[2:18:33] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: I just

[2:18:40] want to remind everybody that

[2:18:46] taaaze was willing to withdraw

[2:18:48] all claims, including in support

[2:18:50] and in support voting against

[2:18:52] the referendum for a number

[2:18:54] higher than what we just agreed

[2:18:56] to just now.

[2:18:58] So further -- furthermore, I

[2:19:01] would like to ask the city

[2:19:02] attorney, MR. City attorney, I

[2:19:04] seem to remember in southbridge

[2:19:07] there was precedent for withdraw

[2:19:10] withdrawing a referendum prior

[2:19:12] to referendum being held, is

[2:19:13] that correct.

[2:19:14] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[2:19:16] es, that's exactly what occurred

[2:19:17] occurred.

[2:19:17] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: there is

[2:19:18] precedence for this, I want to

[2:19:20] be clear, there's precedence for

[2:19:25] this and that the actual backers

[2:19:27] and founders of the organization

[2:19:29] to promote the referendum was

[2:19:30] okay with a number higher than

[2:19:33] what we agreed to today.

[2:19:35] So I just want to be very clear

[2:19:36] that everybody knows the real

[2:19:39] truth and to know that -- also

[2:19:40] MR. City manager, I want to ask

[2:19:43] two questions, if we -- if the

[2:19:45] referendum were held tomorrow,

[2:19:50] let's say, and axon were to win

[2:19:54] the referendum, would they --

[2:19:57] would we still be withdrawing

[2:19:58] the -- understand what we passed

[2:20:00] today, and the memorandum of

[2:20:03] understanding, would we still be

[2:20:04] withdrawing their development

[2:20:06] agreement, which would be the

[2:20:08] same outcome as if the

[2:20:09] referendum failed?

[2:20:12] It would be the same outcome, am

[2:20:15] I correct?

[2:20:16] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m

[2:20:20] ad.

[2:20:21] >> City Mgr. Caton: if we held

[2:20:25] met election, and the election

[2:20:27] repealed, is that the question?

[2:20:30] If it were to repeal, then we

[2:20:32] still have 1543 that is in

[2:20:33] standing.

[2:20:34] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: which

[2:20:36] would put us back into the 1900

[2:20:39] apartment units that were

[2:20:40] previous.

[2:20:42] And so I am going to second,

[2:20:43] thank you council member, I'll

[2:20:45] second, but I also want to say,

[2:20:48] if it were to pass, we would

[2:20:51] still then be in the -- have the

[2:20:53] ability to negotiate the very

[2:20:55] ordinance that we just

[2:20:56] negotiated just now.

[2:20:58] Is that correct?

[2:21:01] I'm sorry, if the referendum

[2:21:02] failed, we would be able to

[2:21:04] still negotiate the very same

[2:21:07] mou that we just negotiated?

[2:21:08] >> yeah, fair amount of

[2:21:11] hypotheticals here, but MADAM

[2:21:13] Mayor and vice mayor, if the

[2:21:15] referendum were to be held, and

[2:21:18] it failed, then one could argue

[2:21:20] that you would go back to the

[2:21:22] original ordinance which stands

[2:21:25] at the 1900, I would point out

[2:21:29] that stands in isolation from

[2:21:32] 1543 still being in existence.

[2:21:33] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: one with

[2:21:34] the development agreement and

[2:21:34] one without.

[2:21:36] At the end of the day, we are

[2:21:38] still at 1900 apartments, which

[2:21:41] was the impetus for the

[2:21:41] referendum.

[2:21:45] With that, I -- we have the

[2:21:46] alternate motion on the table.

[2:21:48] I don't think I can second the

[2:21:49] previous motion until the

[2:21:51] alternate motion is voted on.

[2:21:56] So I'll yield the floor.

[2:21:57] >> Mayor Borowsky: city attorney

[2:21:58] attorney.

[2:21:59] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[2:22:00] hank you, I've consulted with

[2:22:03] council for axon regarding the

[2:22:03] prop 207 issue.

[2:22:05] They pointed out in the original

[2:22:07] application, there is a prop 207

[2:22:07] waiver.

[2:22:09] They're also committed to

[2:22:12] completing a new one related to

[2:22:14] this project.

[2:22:16] Or this mou.

[2:22:18] So just wanted to bring that to

[2:22:19] everyone's attention.

[2:22:21] >> Mayor Borowsky: okay, thank

[2:22:23] you, COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.

[2:22:23] >> Councilmember Whitehead: I

[2:22:24] want to remind everybody, we are

[2:22:26] elected to solve problems, and I

[2:22:29] personally have been very

[2:22:31] involved in referendum, our

[2:22:33] citizen initiatives.

[2:22:36] So 2018 I was one of the leaders

[2:22:38] of the protect our preserve

[2:22:41] citizens initiative, which did

[2:22:42] pass overwhelmingly.

[2:22:45] And when southbridge 2 was

[2:22:46] approved, a very high density

[2:22:48] development, I had voted no and

[2:22:50] supported the citizens

[2:22:54] referendum to repeal that.

[2:22:56] And rather than waste more time

[2:22:59] and more of your tax dollars, we

[2:23:01] resolved, we solved the problem

[2:23:04] right here on the dais, by

[2:23:05] repealing that ordinance.

[2:23:08] What we are doing today, as vice

[2:23:10] mayor kwasman said, certainly

[2:23:13] has precedence, and it certainly

[2:23:14] is the more efficient route.

[2:23:16] I just want to address the

[2:23:19] comment that the people who

[2:23:21] signed the referendum opposing

[2:23:24] the 1800 plus apartments aren't

[2:23:25] being heard.

[2:23:29] So first of all, they are being

[2:23:30] heard, because we have just

[2:23:33] substantially reduced the number

[2:23:37] and we split the units into

[2:23:39] condominiums and apartments.

[2:23:42] So in fact, that referendum

[2:23:44] helped produce a better project

[2:23:46] that I think every one of us up

[2:23:48] here, whether or not we support

[2:23:51] supported it tonight, we are

[2:23:52] certainly happy to be here where

[2:23:53] we are.

[2:23:56] So I cannot stress enough that

[2:23:59] the residents of this city were

[2:23:59] heard.

[2:24:01] and that's how we got to

[2:24:02] tonight's agreement.

[2:24:03] Thank you.

[2:24:04] >> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,

[2:24:05] COUNCILMAN Graham.

[2:24:06] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[2:24:07] you, mayor.

[2:24:11] This is a little bit -- this has

[2:24:16] become a little bit byizan teen,

[2:24:16] byzantine.

[2:24:20] There is no precedence, because

[2:24:22] we are talking about the

[2:24:24] southbridge 2 referendum, and

[2:24:26] with the southbridge 2

[2:24:29] referendum, there was never,

[2:24:31] ever, a factor about a court

[2:24:34] ruling it -- against it.

[2:24:36] That was always about the

[2:24:38] referendum, but there's never a

[2:24:44] question about legality.

[2:24:46] You know, axon will do what's

[2:24:48] best for their shareholders, and

[2:24:50] we should do what's best for our

[2:24:51] residents.

[2:24:52] That's what we should do.

[2:24:54] I don't fault anybody for

[2:24:56] pursuing those interests.

[2:24:58] I don't agree, though,

[2:25:00] 100 percent with council member

[2:25:02] whitehead that voters got to

[2:25:03] vote, got to be heard because

[2:25:06] when you sign a referendum, you

[2:25:09] expect a vote on the referendum.

[2:25:15] And that's not the case.

[2:25:17] So city attorney, you made a

[2:25:21] comment that in the past case,

[2:25:24] they -- the applicant signed a

[2:25:26] 207 waiver and then you said in

[2:25:28] this case they're committed to

[2:25:32] signing a 207 waiver.

[2:25:32] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[2:25:34] es, mayor, members of the city

[2:25:35] council.

[2:25:37] They -- it's part of the

[2:25:39] original application, they

[2:25:40] apparently filed a 207 waiver,

[2:25:43] and they've committed verbally

[2:25:46] to sign a new one based on the

[2:25:49] concerns that you raised.

[2:25:49] >> Councilmember Graham: so in

[2:25:52] that case, I -- since we have a

[2:25:53] motion on the floor, we have an

[2:25:54] alternate motion on the floor to

[2:25:57] defer and deferral motion takes

[2:25:58] precedence in our rules of

[2:26:00] procedure, I would just say

[2:26:02] let's just defer this until we

[2:26:04] can get that signature in

[2:26:08] writing and then we can -- and

[2:26:11] then we can bring it back.

[2:26:13] So -- I'm ready to vote, if

[2:26:17] that's okay.

[2:26:18] >> Mayor Borowsky: vice mayor

[2:26:19] kwasman.

[2:26:20] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: I call

[2:26:21] the question.

[2:26:22] >> Mayor Borowsky: we are voting

[2:26:24] on the alternate motion to

[2:26:28] continue this to another date.

[2:26:29] >> Councilmember Graham: I meant

[2:26:30] continue, thank you.

[2:26:31] >> Mayor Borowsky: so all those

[2:26:38] in favor.

[2:26:41] Or opposed.

[2:26:43] All right.

[2:26:46] Now we'll go to --

[2:26:46] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: MADAM

[2:26:52] Mayor, I second your motion.

[2:26:53] >> Mayor Borowsky: it was --

[2:26:54] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: council

[2:26:56] member whitehead, I second your

[2:26:57] motion.

[2:26:58] >> Mayor Borowsky: I don't -- do

[2:26:59] you want to speak to that.

[2:27:00] >> Councilmember Whitehead: I

[2:27:02] would like to amend my motion to

[2:27:08] include the signing of the 207

[2:27:14] waiver.

[2:27:15] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h

[2:27:17] onorable mayor, members of the

[2:27:19] council, your -- you're making

[2:27:21] the repeal the zoning ordinance

[2:27:25] contingent that they sign a

[2:27:27] 207 -- prop 207 --

[2:27:28] >> Councilmember Whitehead: just

[2:27:29] like to have that.

[2:27:36] If that works for you.

[2:27:37] I'll let you discuss.

[2:28:18] I can pull that.

[2:28:19] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: would it

[2:28:21] be cleaner if we put it in the

[2:28:24] mou, if we amend the mou and put

[2:28:26] it in the mou?

[2:28:30] And can we reopen item no -- I

[2:28:32] voted in the affirmative.

[2:28:37] Can I call -- can I call it back

[2:28:46] to --

[2:28:47] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t

[2:28:49] here's a final item related to

[2:28:52] the litigation, right, and the

[2:28:54] litigation is -- to make sure

[2:28:57] that axon actually signs the mou

[2:29:00] with -- by the 19th.

[2:29:03] How about you put a condition on

[2:29:07] that they sign the mou by the

[2:29:09] 19th, otherwise we file the

[2:29:11] cross claim and they also sign

[2:29:12] the prop 207 waiver.

[2:29:13] >> Councilmember Whitehead: I

[2:29:15] accept that for my motion.

[2:29:18] I just want to be clear -- for

[2:29:19] my motion.

[2:29:22] I drop -- I drop -- my original

[2:29:23] motion stands and I just wanted

[2:29:27] to be clear we had a verbal

[2:29:28] agreement, in government we like

[2:29:31] to go ahead and dot our I's and

[2:29:32] cross our t's.

[2:29:33] I'm fine with it in the next

[2:29:34] motion.

[2:29:35] Why thanks everybody who

[2:29:36] gathered for that one.

[2:29:37] >> Mayor Borowsky: okay, let's

[2:29:38] go ahead and vote on that.

[2:29:41] All those in favor.

[2:29:52] Indicate your vote or opposed.

[2:29:53] Okay.

[2:29:55] Last item on the special meeting

[2:29:57] agenda, item no. 5.

[2:29:59] And that is litigation

[2:30:00] authorization.

[2:30:01] A request to authorize the

[2:30:04] interim city attorney to file

[2:30:06] any appropriate counter claim,

[2:30:09] cross claim and third-party

[2:30:12] claim in the taaaze versus state

[2:30:14] of arizona and city of

[2:30:22] scottsdale litigation.

[2:30:25] I have two people indicating --

[2:30:26] actually I think there's no one

[2:30:29] left to speak on this one.

[2:30:33] Gabby hitchcock.

[2:30:34] Okay.

[2:30:36] So vice mayor kwasman.

[2:30:37] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank

[2:30:38] you, MADAM Mayor.

[2:30:42] I move to authorize the interim

[2:30:43] city attorney and/or his

[2:30:45] designees to file any

[2:30:46] appropriate counter claim, cross

[2:30:50] claim and third-party claim in

[2:30:51] taxpayers against awful

[2:30:54] apartment zoning exemptions

[2:30:55] versus the state of arizona,

[2:31:03] city of scottsdale, cv2025-

[2:31:06] cv2025-034961.

[2:31:10] With a proposal to sunset --

[2:31:13] right, is that -- how would I.

[2:31:14] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I

[2:31:16] would suggest that -- I only

[2:31:19] file it unless we do not receive

[2:31:22] the signed mou from axon along

[2:31:24] with the prop 207 waiver by the

[2:31:28] close of business on the 19th.

[2:31:30] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank

[2:31:33] you.

[2:31:35] NOVEMBER 19, sorry.

[2:31:37] Apologize.

[2:31:38] All right.

[2:31:41] Would you like me to repeat the

[2:31:43] whole thing.

[2:31:44] >> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y

[2:31:44] es.

[2:31:45] >> Vice Mayor Kwasman: MADAM

[2:31:46] Mayor, I authorize the interim

[2:31:48] city attorney and designees to

[2:31:49] file any appropriate counter

[2:31:51] claim, clause people third party

[2:31:54] claims in taaaze versus state

[2:31:57] arizona, city of scottsdale, cv

[2:32:04] cv2025-034961, unless the

[2:32:05] memorandum of understanding is

[2:32:09] signed by axon enterprises, by

[2:32:11] close of business day NOVEMBER

[2:32:15] NOVEMBER 19, 2025, and axon

[2:32:19] delivers a signed 207 waiver by

[2:32:22] the close of business day

[2:32:25] NOVEMBER 19, 2025.

[2:32:25] >> second.

[2:32:26] >> Mayor Borowsky: all right.

[2:32:29] i see COUNCILMAN Graham wants to

[2:32:30] speak.

[2:32:31] >> Councilmember Graham: thank

[2:32:32] you, mayor.

[2:32:33] I'll make an alternate motion

[2:32:34] for the same motion, but the

[2:32:42] deletion of the two conditions.

[2:32:47] >> I'll second that.

[2:32:48] >> Mayor Borowsky: let's take a

[2:33:01] vote on the alternate motion.

[2:33:02] Okay.

[2:33:04] And COUNCILMAN -- I'm sorry,

[2:33:05] vice mayor kwasman.

[2:33:08] Let's go ahead and take a vote

[2:33:12] on that motion.

[2:33:19] Please indicate your vote.

[2:33:20] All right.

[2:33:22] That concludes our business for

[2:33:23] this afternoon.

[2:33:24] Sorry for the delay, everybody,

[2:33:28] that was here for other matters.

[2:33:29] But at this time I'd like to

[2:33:32] move to adjourn the special

[2:33:36] council meeting and we will move

City Council Special Meeting

Agenda

Transcript