>> we'll go ahead and get
started.
I'd like to call the
NOVEMBER 17, 2025 special
meeting and possible executive
session of the scottsdale city
council to order.
City clerk ben lane, can you
please do our roll call.
Clerk ben lane:
mayor lisa borowsky.
Mayor borowsky: present.
Clerk ben lane: vice mayor adam
kwasman.
Vice mayor kwasman:
here.
Clerk ben lane: councilmembers
jan dubauskas.
Councilmember dubauskas.
Here.
Barry graham.
Clerk ben lane: barry graham.
Councilmember graham:
here.
Clerk ben lane: kathy
littlefield.
Councilmember littlefield:
here.
Clerk ben lane: maryann mcallen.
Councilmember mcallen:
here.
Clerk ben lane: solange
whitehead.
Councilmember whitehead:
here.
>> clerk ben lane: city manager
greg caton.
>> greg caton: present.
>> clerk ben lane: interim city
attorney luis santaella.
>> luis santaella: here.
I'll note that city more greg
cation just walked in.
>> clerk ben lane: city
treasurer sonia andrews.
>> sonia andrews: here.
>> Clerk Ben Lane: and the clerk
is present.
>> Mayor Borowsky: we have a
possible executive session to
can you tell me with the city's
attorneys for legal advice and
consider the city's position
regarding the taxpayers against
awful apartment zoning
exemptions, versus state of
arizona and all other matters
related to senate bill 1543 and
development agreement no. 2020-
2020-138-cos, including
amendments.
And to -- also to address a
proposed memorandum of
understanding between the city
and axon.
And the proposed ordinance no.
4697 related to a
self-certification and
third-partied certification
program.
And for legal advice related to
all these items.
Why can I -- at this time I'll
entertain a motion -- to enter
into executive session.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> Mayor Borowsky: all those in
favor, please indicate your
vote.
We will now recess into
executive session.
And be back when we're finished,
thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: we've wrapped
up our executive session and at
this time we are reconvene
ing the
special council meeting for the
record most of the council is
here.
I saw barry here.
We are all here.
And the charter officers are
also in attendance.
So moving on to item no. 2, for
consideration, a memorandum of
understanding
forthe axon world headquarters
campus.
authorizing contract no. 2025-
2025-197-cos, a memorandum of
understanding between the city
and axon enterprise.
The mou outlines the terms for
development of axon's
international headquarters
campus, including a reduction of
the total number of residential
units previously approved from
1882 apartment -- 1,882
apartments to 750 apartments,
and 750 condominiums for a total
of 1500 residential units.
Why which will include phased
construction of office,
manufacturing, hotel and
residential components.
Affordable housing provisions,
infrastructure commitments,
including roads, trails and
utilities.
Access to a real-time crime
center, and use of a third party
permitting and inspection
process.
We do have some speakers on
this.
So I'm going to go ahead --
first we'll hear from our city
attorney, who will give us a
brief presentation on this.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
f I could please get the elmo.
Thank you.
Honorable mayor and members of
the city council and members of
the public, I'm the interim city
attorney, and I'm going to speak
briefly on the items that are
being considered this evening.
The first item that's being
considered this evening is the
mumim of understanding, an
agreement between axon, inc.,
and the city of scottsdale.
And it outlines a proposal where
axon would do certain things and
the city would do certain things
things.
and it involves the development
vacationon's international
headquarters, located here in
the city of scottsdale.
The mmu include phased
construction of the office,
manufacturing, hotel and
residential components, their
infrastructure commitments such
as a dog park, roads and trails
and utilities that axon is
promising to do.
There's some affordable housing
provisions, access to a
real-time crime center for
the scottsdale police department
department, and it also involves
certain other conditions.
One of the biggest things about
this particular proposed mou if
adopted is the number of units.
Previously approved axon was
authorized 1,882 units.
Under the agreement, they would
be changing the number of units
that they're doing to 750
apartments and 750 condominiums
for a total of 1500 units.
Of those units, 38 units will be
dedicate
dedicated as affordable housing
and the construction would be
phased.
Meaning that 375 of the
apartments and 375 of the condos
would be deferred until after
JANUARY 1, 2030.
They would begin the
headquarters building sooner
than later, before the ancillary
stuff.
In addition to the mou itself,
there are two ordinances that
are related to the mou that
would be agreed upon if the mou
passes.
One is a self-certification and
third party certification
program.
This type of progra is
authorized by state law and a
city can limit who this type of
ordinance applies to.
In this case only world
headquarters campuses.
Right now there's only one world
headquarters campus within the
city of scottsdale, and there's
only a couple of other parcels
within the city that could
possibly fit that definition.
So it's very limited.
Under the self-certifying
ordinance or third party
certification program, it would
allow licensed engineers and
architects to basically certify
the plans, conduct the
inspections, and make sure that
axon is building and developing
the property appropriately and
properly.
The third part of this -- or the -- is the repeal of the
zoning ordinance.
Right now, as we all know, the
current zoning -- has been
referred, so it's kind of been
suspended until there's a
referendum.
This would repeal the current
zoning to what axon had before,
which is basically light
industrial.
The entire mou is predicated on
the idea that sb1543 the
international headquarters,
state statute is lawful.
The final thing that the council
MAY be considering tonight is an
item to authorize me, or my
designees to file appropriate
counter claims, cross-claims or
third-party claims in the matter
of taxpayers against awful
apartment zoning exertions
versus state of arizona, city of
scottsdale.
That's a lawsuit that axon is
not involved in, but obviously
because it involves sb14 --
excuse me, sb1543 it has
repercussions for this mou and
for the development.
With that, I'll take any
questions from the city council.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Advice mayor kwasman.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank
you, MADAM Mayor, and I really
want to -- I want to just say, I
have so much appreciation for
you, MR. City manager --
MR. City manager and MR. City
attorney for all you have done
to help put this all together in
such a short time.
Having been an attorney for a
decade and seeing deals put
together, rarely are they this
comprehensive with this time
frame that it something to be
extremely proud of.
I also want to thank -- I want
to thank axon, who has come to
the table in a way that is --
there's a yiddish word,
mensch-like.
You came in with real terms and
whatever happens at this vote,
this afternoon, is a -- it's --
it is a reflection -- it's not a
reflection on -- it's not a
reflection on the negotiations
that took place.
I think it's really important.
I just want for everybody
listening, whether they're going
to see this tomorrow or today,
I'm going to do my very quick
ben shapiro impression and get
to where we are now.
So all right, folks, let me just
give you a little background.
Last DECEMBER former council got
us to roughly 1900 apartments.
Referendum succeeded getting
signatures, puts it on the
ballot.
The 1543 was passed, okay, which
then allows those businesses
that axon would qualify under to
not be subject to referendum,
lawsuit ensued, okay, but I want
to be very clear, under 1543 and
under the development agreement,
1900 apartments would be
allowed.
Okay.
If we had a referendum today, if
somebody paused and we had a
referendum today and axon won
the development agreement holds
and it's roughly 1900 apartments
apartments.
If it was held today and axon
lost, axon's property becomes
reevaluated -- it gets
reclassified as light
industrial, and therefore 1543
holds and they get to build 1900
apartments.
There is no difference, those --
anybody telling you that the
voice of the people is not being
heard, guess what your outcome
has already been decided by the
state legislature.
If axon wins the referendum,
1900.
If axon loses the referendum,
1900.
That's the law.
So the question is then, is that
then going to -- they say wait,
the law is being challenged,
there's a lawsuit during, okay?
Now, here's where I can speak to
as a litigator and as a former
legislator.
I have seen special legislation
challenges being brought in
front, in front of the -- in
front of the state supreme court
and have seen successes and
failures, but what gets to
happen there is the state
legislature gets a second crack
at I see this and so in any
complaint, you have to list the
issues that they feel is
unconstitutional.
And the legislature now has a
list of things that they could
use to amend the legislation.
Now, I have been around, I have
been around as long as some of
these people in this audience,
but been around long enough to
know that legislatures don't
like to be overruled.
And I promise you, that the
amount of votes it took to get
over the hump to get the first
piece of legislation through,
they are willing to make the
amendments to make sure it's
legal, nobody wants to be the
one who is holding the ball and
be declared unconstitutional by
a state supreme court.
And that's what brought us to
this moment.
So the idea is what can we do to
make sure that we listen to
residents, don't have 1900 units -- 1900 apartments, what
can we do to make sure that we
bring a resident first approach
that is a compromise that is
mature, that is realistic, that
served all parties, and makes
sure that we don't get overrun
by a state supreme court and a
state legislature?
And that was the impetus behind
this compromise and this mou.
Only good intentions that was
then borne out to be good
compromise and a good final mou
that we have here today.
Those at this dais might want to
tell you reasons that they vote
no today, but the fact of the
matter is, is that as recently
as three weeks ago, we had -- we
had a majority approving this.
This language specifically,
which is why we printed it out
this way.
If we didn't have a majority
approving this, I wouldn't have
put pen to paper.
So the proof is in the pudding.
Using a alliteration here.
Just the facts, I respect my
clients and their votes, I
respect everybody who came to
the table, and arizona was just
rated no. 22 for jobs in this
country -- I'm sorry, as a state
in this country, no. 22, and if
we don't do what we need to do
to create a regulatory
environment not to be
corporatist, but to have stable
rules with a regulatory
environment that does not crush
entrepreneurism, then free
enterprise is going to go
elsewhere.
They already are.
This is our chance to make sure
that we revive and recover a
regulatory environment that I
consider extremely conservative,
extremely free market and make
sure that we have stable rules
so the entrepreneurs can go as
far as their GOD-given talents
take them and hire incredible
people.
With that, MADAM Mayor.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: woul
d it be possible to have the
public speakers come up before
the rest of us speak.
>> Mayor Borowsky: absolutely.
Exact same thing, this could
turn into a long discussion.
So let's have andrew wholeman
followed by barbara burns and
dan isaac.
>> anybody know how to turn this
on?
Sorry.
I'll leave that part of it.
Here we go, got it.
Good evening.
Mayor, council members, before i
get started, did anybody notice
the smell in the room?
It's -- I don't think it's the
room, I think it's the process
because something really stinks
here.
Because when a deal arrives this
polished, coordinated and
insulated after weeks of
executive sessions, the odor
isn't subtle.
It's the smell you get when
transparency has been sealed in
a back room for too long.
We have been told this mou is
merely an administrative act,
that label isn't legally -- is
an illegal necessity, it's a
legal strategy, calling this
administrative shields it
against another referendum.
That it is not a coincidence,
that's a plan.
And the clearest sign this
agreement wasn't shaped by
scottsdale is it was shaped by
axon.
You can see the fingerprints
everywhere, the structure, the
mou protects axon not the
public.
The foundation shows outside
influence in places the public
is not allowed to be.
When binding development terms,
zoning reversals, infrastructure
commitments and oversight
transfers are negotiated out of
public view, then returns as a
prepackage
ed inevitability,
that's legislative action hiding
under another name.
The self-certification ordinance
doesn't streamline anything, it
outsources the city's own
permittings and inspection
authority to a private
corporation.
Axon will pick its own
inspectors, issue its own
certificate, interpret its own
compliance, and no other
developer has ever been issued
this power.
It's ridiculous.
Placing a litigation item last
on the agenda is not an
accident.
The mou passes, first, the
referendum becomes moot.
That's not democracy, that's
gaming the order of provisions.
You're negotiating residential
entitlements in the middle of an
active regional water crisis,
with the arizona department of
water resources already halting
groundwater dependent
developments thousands of them
and out of 1500 units, we are
only allowing 38 affordable
housing units.
That's the bare minimum required
by law, is that a good citizen
of scottsdale, I don't think so.
Ethical government requires
transparency, independence,
fairness and meaningful public
participation, none of those are
visible tonight.
Please take the garbage out,
give the city a process that
doesn't smell like it was cooked
weeks ago.
And one other thing, I'd like to
say, I'm a resident 40 years in
the city, and it is shameful
that axon takes the seat of
people who actually live in this
city and makes us stand while
you come early on buses paid by
your employer so that we have to
stand.
That is showing you how good of
a citizen your company is.
I would welcome axon here to be
honest, but I am concerned the
way they behave and I don't want
the apartments, if there were
400 apartments, 4 employees,
guaranteed a low rate, you all
deserve a good apartment rate, I
would be 100 percent behind that
that.
This has nothing to do with
employee housing or apartments,
it whats to do with a plate of
multi-family residential
development, restaurants, a
hotel, it has nothing to do with
axon's actual primary business.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Barbara burns.
Westworld, tpc and the
championship golf course, the
princess hotel, hyatt at gainy
ranch, scottsdale stadium
rebuild and many others.
All the projects had significant
citizen opposition we spent
hours listening to people,
residents, but the various
councils held firm in their
beliefs and the -- that the
projects had enormous economic
development opportunities for
the city.
That would reach far into the
future and today we are able to
see that they were right on
target.
And it took a lot of bravery and
courage to approve those
projects.
I consider axon as the signature
project category.
And as important, the city
should not be allowing in state
and out of state union activists
dictating what is built in our
community arizona is a right to
work state and we should uphold
this law.
On reflectioning of the
referendum question was
misleading and confusing.
I even signed the petition, not
recognizing it's deceptive
nature until further researched
and reviewed.
I was approached at the farmer's
market and whoever the petition
person was said -- are we
against all these apartments
that have been built in
scottsdale, and I was, I think
there's been a lot of big box
bad apartments that have been
built here.
I signed the petition, and then
my be husband was with me, like
a good husband, he signed the
petition too.
So there are two signatures on
there that in hindsight we
wouldn't have done.
And I feel that both of us were
duped, and I also feel that I
was lied to, which I'm not happy
about in retrospect.
Axon is an international cutting
edge corporation, we are
fortunate to have in scottsdale
since 1993 its net worth is
$43 billion with revenues
projected to be 27-point --
2.7 billion and axon's desire is
to build a world class
headquarters, which will be
another jewel and an economic
engine for scottsdale's crown.
And they have been great citizen
citizens and expansion only
increased that value.
It would be sad to lose axon to
another entity as we did with
the mayo hospital campus, going
to phoenix.
So in conclusion, I encourage
the mayor and council to approve
the mou and quit wasting
valuable time because time is
money for all of us.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Dan isaac.
Followed by gail goalick and
leslie lureman.
>> dan isaac, address on record.
I'm here asking the council to
vote yes on the mou.
And I echo many vice mayor
kwasman's comments about why the
city should.
But let's be clear, we are here
because bob littlefield, some
short-sighted council members
and their controlled city
manager, denied residents the
right to vote and denied axon
the right to have a speedy
resolution, and because of that
denial, our state government,
once again, overreached, like
they did with short-term rentals
and the adu's, like they did
with adaptive reuse, school
funding, the list goes on and on
on.
But we now have an agreement
that's far less than what axon
originally came to.
Far less than what axon
negotiated last DECEMBER.
And it includes ownership
opportunities, and more open
space and more amenities for the
city, it is a good compromise.
More importantly, where will we
be if this doesn't get approved?
Well, there are only two
futures.
One is the taze lawsuit fails.
If that lawsuit fails, then axon
can pretty much do whatever the
heck tey want.
They're not limited to 1900
apartments.
I believe axon will be a good
corporate citizen as they've
demonstrated over the past and
will comply with the originally
approved plan, but they can what
they want and we will have
wasted valuable time and have
1900, at least, instead of 750
apartments, 750 condominiums.
The other alternative is the
lawsuit is successful.
If that happens, axon
potentially leaves the city.
Taking hundreds of high-paying
professional jobs.
Having a multi billion dollar
negative impact on the state and
multi-million annual impact on
our city.
And they will then sell the
property to a developer who is
going to maximize their return.
And instead of a beautiful
campus, we will have a bunch of
soulless boxes of warehouses and
logistic centers which don't
require a single change to our
zoning.
It might have less traffic, but
it will have semi-trucks, light
industrial trucks, 24 hours a
day.
That is not an improvement.
And I want to reiterate, I do
not understand on what planet,
kathy littlefield, who is
immediate family member is a
party to a lawsuit against our
city, is allowed to vote on
this.
And barry, I don't want to hear
your opinion, you're not an
attorney, there has been nothing
documented saying there isn't a
conflict of interest, since
you're the only council member
who have been proven guilty of
violating ethics and lies on a
regular basis, your opinion on
the conflict is akin to jeffrey
epstein commenting on consent.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
dan.
Gail goalick, followed by leslie
lureman, tim lasota and last
gabby hitchcock.
>> MADAM Mayor, COUNCILMAN And
women.
I'm gail golic, resident of
scottsdale and state
committeemen.
for ld3.
I'm here to speak on this new
mou.
This mou eliminates axon's only
water obligation, the
requirement to transfer
3,000-acre feet of long-term
storage credits to the city.
That 3,000 acres footage was the
only water-related commitment
attached to this project.
You are now being asked to
approve an mou without any
requirements at -- water
requirements at all.
But even more important is what
the city has already admitted to
me in writing, and the city's
official petition response dated
NOVEMBER 4, 2025, scottsdale
confirmed the city has no
documentation showing where the
water for this project will come
from.
The city has no 100-year water
calculations, the city has no
current water portfolio analysis
on file.
The city has no enforceable
water commitments from axon.
Although I wrote this and
understand that axon is no
longer required to do this, so
this -- city -- the city of
scottsdale is required as a
designated water source to
provide this information.
And the city is relying on the
2013 analysis and the supporting
documentation is not in the
city's possession, and if it is,
they are not providing it to me.
This is not speculation, these
are by your own city manager's
written admissions, so today the
council is being asked to remove
axon's only water obligation
while the city is already
acknowledged it has zero
documentation showing the
100-year water supply for this
document.
As that directly conflicts with
ars, which requires a
demonstrated 100-year assured
water supply before the city
enters into the development
agreements, zoning approvals are
or any development action.
Under that statute, scottsdale
cannot lawfully approve this
mou.
You cannot lawfully modify the
development class or restructure
obligations.
Without first providing the
public with identified water
sources, 100-year demand
modelling, any binding water
commitments and confirmation
from the adwr that this project
fits within scottsdale's daws.
None of that exists today.
And the city has already
admitted it does not exist.
Therefore, a yes vote on agenda
item 2 would be taken in
violation of ars45-576.
Two knowingly advance a project
with no demonstrated 100-year
water supply and it would be
legally will challengeable and
subject to review by the arizona
department of
water resources.
I urge you to vote no until the
city produces the documentation
required by law.
I realize that things can, you
know, happen actually in the
background and you guys can come
up with documents, but the
reality is that no documents
have been provided, and if you
can get the documents that
proves they have the water, go
for it.
Follow the law, you have an
obligation to uphold the law as
council members.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Leslie lureman.
>> thank you, mayor and city
council.
My name is leslie lureman, and
I'm a board member at
scottsdale's stone brook ii.
Of course in order to be on the
board I need to own a property
there, and we do, but I need to
make it clear that I'm speaking
on behalf of myself as a
homeowner and not for the board
of directors.
We haven't taken, we haven't
polled the community and we
don't know what every community
member thinks, and so it
wouldn't be right for me to say
I represent all of them.
But I can say that I've been
here before, concerned about the
residential density.
I can't believe how much time
has been invested in this
process, I think I was naive
about the whole political
process.
In addition, there are legal
matters that need to be
resolved, I'm not even going to
speak to that.
Nor am I here to request
lowering the density.
I think that the group that has
been meeting with axon has
accomplished as much as they
possibly can.
Remember it's a two-way
negotiation.
You can't just keep saying no,
we only want 500 residential
units.
There has to be a compromise,
and I give axon credit for the
concessions it has made.
They have in many areas dug
deeply.
I think everybody has heard the
saying that the end of a
successful negotiation leaves
everyone unhappy.
And I think that's the case
here.
My reason for being here is to
remind everyone of some
specifically negotiated
concessions on the part of axon.
They aren't listed, that doesn't
mean you don't intend to include
them.
I just haven't seen any
reassuring sign.
So here are the three things I'd
like you not to forget.
Ensuring that axon workers and
visitors don't have access --
direct acess into their campus
from either mayo/union hills or
82nd street.
The last plan I saw had that
blocked off with a tall planted
berm.
The other is moving the tallest
buildings away from the
residential development, these
are all single family homes,
about 175 of them.
And no one wants people in the
tall buildings looking in their
backyard or their back windows.
And the last is creating a wide,
tall planted berm to provide
privacy, and that would be along
the north side of mayo/union
hills.
So I want to look you in the eye
and say, axon, mayor, city
council members, we are asking
you to honor those commitments.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you
very much.
Tim lesota.
>> good afternoon, mayor,
memberses of council, I'm tim
lesota on behalf of taxpayers
against awful zoning exemptions.
I urge a no vote.
I want to talk about the
referendum.
We have kind of heard some words
of what I would call the
defeated arguments against the
referendum.
Out of state money, union
interests, those are all the
arguments that have been made
already, they already failed and
that's what people say when they
lose the argument.
Is they -- they say, well, it
was this or it was that.
It was unfair, someone misled
me.
Not true.
I helped draft the language for
it, myself.
It was perfectly honest and it
got 27,000 signatures.
And that is no small feat.
I know all of you carry those
clipboards around and get
signatures from voters.
It's not that easy.
So that is a huge
accomplishment, and it should
count for something.
It should be honored by the
council, the council should
fight for the voters and fight
for their right to be heard.
In terms of this -- it looks
like with this mou and the item
no. 3, the self-certification
program, it looks like the
council would be following suit
with what the arizona
legislature did, and the arizona
legislature decided they would
create a special law for one
cmpany, and that was an
extremely disappointing, dark
day, I think, for our
legislature.
I don't think that should happen
here in scottsdale.
I think that's exactly the wrong
thing to do, and I know there's
a lot of talk about density, the
number is too high, but that's
going to be remarked on a lot.
But I think more than anything,
the thing that just stands out
to me is now we have this
self-certification program.
We have the axon statute and the
axon ordinance.
City of phoenix, write live has
had a self certification program
for many years.
A lot of people like it, gets
some good reviews, but not
limited to one company.
Anyone can use it.
I've never really heard of just
saying, we are going to
implement this entire new
program for one company.
So I think at the end of the
day, this is more of what we
have seen already, and that's
when axon does not get its way,
it demands to be treated in a
special way that nobody else is
treated.
I would urge a no vote on 2 and
3, and I think scottsdale needs
to fight for its ability to have -- to be able to determine
its destiny and not have that
dictated by -- legally in my
mine, but I'll talk on agenda
item 5 in a few minutes, illegal
illegally by the arizona
legislature.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
gabby hitchcock and then josh
izer.
>> I'm gabby hitchcock a
resident of scottsdale.
City council members, you had an
extra meeting today just to
repeal an ordinance backed by
26,000, but looks like it's much
more than that, and the petition
signatures and replace it with
one that gives axon everything
it wants, it shows you are
acting against the citizens you
represent.
scottsdale voters have already
removed council members for
approving smaller projects than
this.
I MAY have made a mistake in my
votes.
Reject this giveaway, protect
our city's character and join
the lawsuit to defend our right
of referendum.
Scottsdale belongs to the
citizens.
Not to axon.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Josh izner.
>> can we get this to work on
this side here?
MADAM Mother, council, nice to
see you again.
MR. Kwasman, vice mayor, thank
you very much for your
statements already.
Mayor, you posted two hours ago
that you wanted us to arrive at
a deal with taze.
This is a text from their
representatives this morning.
We did not agree to 500 units
over the weekend.
They came back and they panicked
and proposed us this deal.
So mayor, if you want us to
agree to this deal with them,
it's right in front of you, make
the motion for 700 units instead
of 750.
We'll agree to the 60 months on
the next 200 and we have a deal.
That's what you asked for and we
are willing to do that deal.
What we're not willing to do is
let them parade around in their
self-righteous fashion, saying
we cancelled an election and all
this other stuff when they are
proposing a deal that I have
here that I can prove to you is
from them that will cancel the
election.
Let's forget that narrative
moving forward, it is patently
false, they do not care about
the election.
They are so panicked we are
going to beat them in court and
go to the state legislature as
MR. Kwasman just articulated
that they are willing to walk
away from all of this over the
last two years over a 50-unit
reduction.
Okay.
So that's the deal they've
proposed.
We are willing to do it, it's
exactly what you asked for,
mayor, all you have to do is
motion to update the numbers and
we will agree to it right here.
The second thing I'll say is,
MISS Littlefield, ad mire you,
you've been great to our
community where I live for years
and years as a member of the
drv, you were very good to us in
a dispute with our home or's
association, but your husband
stood up out front of council,
after the last vote, and said my
case will be stronger if the
city joins this election.
That's what he said on tv.
I don't understand how anyone on
this earth could deem it
appropriate, knowing it's your
husband who is already a party
to the suit to say you should be
voting to join that same
lawsuit.
I just don't think that is fair,
I don't -- I have tremendous
respect for you and the service
you have put forward toward this
city, but I do not think that is
fair.
Thank you very much.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thanks, josh.
And I think steve sutton, one
more speaker.
>> steve sutton, address on
record.
As tom was just mentioning, I'm
one of those petition
collectors, but not about axon.
Entirely different but trying to
protect scottsdale, but more
about that later.
Fact supported reality and a
motion supported perception can
have equal power and influence,
the beliefs and actions of
individuals.
Either can be at any time more
powerful in influence than the
other.
Regardless of the opinions, the
members of this council, city
policy or what criminal or civil
law MAY determine, not to be a
conflict of interest, the
perception of an increasing
number of scottsdale residents
is that a conflict of interest
exists.
I and other residents do
believe, council, kathy
littlefield has a conflict of
interest in discussing and
voting on matters, pertaining to
axon due to the activities of
her spouse, bob littlefield.
COUNCILMAN Littlefield has said,
quote, I am my own person and
defending herself from the
accusation of having a conflict
of interest.
However, being bob littlefield's
wife provides legal protections
to her and her husband that
could conflict with the
interests of kathy littlefield
scottsdale constituents.
At some point in the future,
testimony in court MAY not be
available due to littlefield's
having marital privilege
protecting marital
communications from being
revealedded and preventing
testimony against the spouse.
that could be detrimental to the
city of scottsdale in civil case
202-503-4961, taxpayers against
awful apartment zoning
exemptions, versus state of
arizona, city of scottsdale.
, kathy littlefield should
recuse herself from the city
council discussion or vote on
matters pertaining to axon and
civil case 2025-034-961.
So far, this council's actions
regarding axon are a perfect
example of the german word for
attempting to make something
better and making it worse.
For over 23 years, a de facto
family dynasty seat has existed
on the city council.
That type of situation is rarely
good for governance of the city
the size of scottsdale.
Scottsdale is a city large
enough to have an ample number
of qualified individuals that
could give good service on the
council.
I believe this council has got
the attention of those qualified
individuals.
Kathy littlefield has given good
service to this city, but this
is not about past deeds, this is
about the current situation.
And I have one last statement
for you to contemplate.
I know you know what this is.
Cartago delenda est.
>> Mayor Borowsky: that
concludes the speakers.
So I'm going to talk about
what's been going on here.
As you all know, we have been
working on this since we took
office, since JANUARY, and this
has been a very long
conversation that's been a huge
divisive issue for the city of
scottsdale.
I feel for -- excuse me, for
axon and, you know, being put on
hold, and going through this
process, I also feel for the
residents who are so invested in
the outcome, in the opposite
direction.
So over the weekend, josh izner
just talked about some
negotiations we were still
having over this last weekend.
It is true that I want to see
this matter resolved, and I want
to see this matter resolved
where everyone can live with the
outcome, and there's going to be
finality with the outcome, and
so with that in mind, when we
originally talked about 750
apartments, 750 condos, I got
notification from taaaze if we
approved this mou, that they
intend to do another petition
drive and refer it a second
time.
So that is not finality for me.
That is absolutely not finality,
and I do not want to see this
mess, really, continue.
I want to see it wrapped up and
I want people to go on with
their lives, and I want taaaze
to build their headquarters.
With that in mind, I met with
rick smith of axon, over the
weekend and their attorney and
we did come up with an
agreement, josh, I understood,
that we came up with an
agreement through the -- I had
also tom hatton was talking to
both rick smith and to taaaze.
I understand there was a dl for
500 units, which -- to explain
tha further, taaaze, the
opposition group, committed that
they would stand down, they
would not refer it, and there
would be finality.
Pretty good result.
500 -- 500 apartments, and then
as many condos, up to -- the
number of condos were not
identified yet.
So, you know, unbeknownst to me,
taaaze fired off some
communications to axon, which
essentially blew up what I
understood to be the agreement.
So I'm extremely disappointed in
that result because I thought
the number 500 was a good number
with the understanding that
build a great project, come
back, come back in a year or
two, whenever you want to do
some additional apartments, and
sell that case to us.
So where I stand right now, is
not in favor of this, I'm not in
favor of having another
referendum, and I don't want to
take that risk.
So josh, that's a great update,
I really want to understand what
this is and hear more about it
and get confirmation.
I don't think it's fair to do
that without the other parties
that are threatening to refer a
decision like this again, and we
can trust that they've done it
once, I don't know why they
wouldn't follow through with
that a second time.
So I'm going to -- I'm going to
move to take a ten-minute
recess.
So we can go have some
discussion about this.
>> second.
>> Mayor Borowsky: all those in
favor, please indulge me with
your confirmation.
Voice vote.
Okay.
Thank you.
We're going to recess for ten
>> Mayor Borowsky: sorry for the
delay.
We have been busy in very
serious discussions about how we
can resolve this item no. 2.
So I know there was some -- a
bunch of speakers on here.
I'm going to go down the list,
COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: well
, good evening.
I'm going to keep it somewhat
brief based on how we end up
here, but I will just say having
been involved in this for a long
time, I do want to thank
everybody on both sides, and,
again, it seems like a year ago
that vice mayor kwasman spoke,
but just remind everybody here
and whoever is watching that
this vote is about whether or
not the city council accepts an
mou to significantly reduce
apartments and used
condominiums, which is something
a lot of our residents want,
that middle housing, and keep
the many investments that our
community will get from the deal
that was negotiated last year.
Many of us here in last year's
council and this year's council
worked really hard with the
residents of stone brook and
with the residents generally to
get some of these investments
which include a dog park,
walking path, this is an area
that doesn't have a lot of
walkability and connectivity.
So this deal will include all of
that.
Also, really important, some
tropic abatement and one of our
public speakers mentioned that.
So this deal does include a road
to keep the neighborhood and
axon's traffic separate.
I think that what we're -- and
the alternative, again, this is
not about zero apartments and
zero development.
why that's not on the table
tonight.
What's on the table is a local
controlled negotiated deal that
is a win for all parties, and
actually, to counter one of the
speakers, you can negotiate and
have everybody happy more or
less, but not everybody gets
exactly what they want.
So that's definitely the intent
here.
The alternative is to allow the
state law to take on a fact --
it isn't a fact, have axon build
to that state law, which means
roughly 19-up apartments.
So it is my goal, it is my aim
to see this council do what we
are elected to do, which is
solve problems and create a
win/win.
I won't go into all the benefits
right now, but clearly we want
to keep an employer like axon
here, we are facing a lot of
head winds on the economy and
also want to have the highest
quality development, having a
world class city and have a
global leader in public safety
is really a good match.
I will say just briefly that
axon not only keeps our
residents safer based on the
numerous public safety people
that spoke during the course of
many meetings, but also keep our
police officers safer, so we are
real excited about that.
So I am supporting -- I'm
waiting to hear the final
motion, I don't have a motion,
but I support local control, I
support keeping this important
employer here, I support protect
protecting the neighbors most
closely impacted and the
residents every m and support
referendum process.
that's how we got here, the
referendum helped bring axon
back to the table and helped
bring a better deal to fruition.
So I'm going to leave it at that
for the moment, but thanks
everybody for your patience.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILWOMAN Dubauskas.
>> Councilmember Dubauskas: than
k you, MADAM Mayor, thank you to
axon for coming out tonight and
thank you for being a major
employer in our city.
We appreciate the service that
you provide to the city of
scottsdale, we appreciate the
service that you provide
worldwide.
You are a known leader in your
field and we are proud to have
you here in the city of
scottsdale.
So thank you for coming out and
appreciate all your employees as
well coming out to show that you
support your employer.
As a member of the economic
development committee, I'm proud
to work with a variety of
employers throughout the city of
scottsdale and promote business
in the city of scottsdale.
So it is -- it is a wonderful
thing to have an employer like
axon who is a market leader in
our city.
So I just wanted to say thank
you very much to axon.
My concern with this project has
always been the number of units
in that particular area, as
well.
It was zoned no multi-family,
and so I remain concerned about
the number of units, but I'm
very much interested in keeping
axon, very much interested in
the hotel and the opportunity
that offers their business to
bring conventions to the city of
scottsdale and so with that, I
just wanted to say thank you to
axon tonight.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILWOMAN Mcallen.
>> Councilmember McAllen: thank
you, mayor.
I too would like to thank all
the parties involved, axon, my
fellow council members, as well
as the citizens who took the
time to come out and voice
either their opposition or their
pro for this, because that is
what the process is all about.
You've heard a lot tonight from
the dais about that process
being removed from the citizens,
so we hear some of your
concerns, obviously, also need
to make sure that we help the
legislature understand that
local control is always the best
option that we want our
citizens, our city council to
actually affect the city we live
in.
I appreciate all the work that
axon has put in to coming back
to the table with this city.
I do think -- someone mentioned
before about the city losing
mayo hospital.
To phoenix.
We have also lost other things
to phoenix.
It's like chandler back in the
day.
They almost lost intel, it took
council members to make really
bold decisions, and with that,
I'm going to say I am going to
support the mou and I would love
for axon to stay in scottsdale,
I am glad to see the number of
units go down because the
citizens voiced that concern,
but the fact we are working
earnestly, right here in front
of all of you to try and make
this work so our city can have
what's best for our city an
employer that will be a good
communal supporter.
Someone that's going to support
events throughout the city in
the future.
That will sponsor events and be
here for the citizens of
scottsdale as well as their
neighboring community.
And more importantly, they
support our public safety, and
that is truly what is important.
So thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILMAN Graham.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you, mayor.
I want to make a few remarks
tonight, and I want to start by
saying this is not about axon
the corporation.
This is not about their global
headquarters, which we support.
Axon bought the 74 acres where
they are today with a deed
restriction that there would be
no multi-family housing and the
price was adjusted accordingly
for that discounted accordingly
for that restriction.
And in 2020, it was zone
ed
industrial with a height of
52 feet.
Why and axon wanted to go bigger
for their global headquarters at
that point, and they did a lot
of back and forth and
negotiations in 2020, and I was
on the planning commission at
that time.
And I voted to increase, rezone
axon's land in 2020 as a member
of the planning commission.
58 percent, I voted to increase
it from 52 feet to 82 feet.
I did that because we wanted to
keep axon in scottsdale, and
that meant for them to have the
headquarters that they desired.
In that vote in 2020 I also
voted for a reimbursement for
infrastructure.
So it's not about axon as a
corporation.
I feel like this process is
rushed.
You the public were given
notification approximately 72
hours ago on a friday afternoon,
I know there are reasons for
that, but it doesn't feel like
there's an emergent reason and
that you should have had more
time to review this.
I want to stand up for my
colleague, COUNCILWOMAN
Littlefield.
Some aspersions were cast
against her, and I'm going to
repeat it that it is totally de
debunked, according to our legal
department, that COUNCILWOMAN
Littlefield has a conflict of
interest.
That has been scrutinized and
vetted.
I also want to address one of
the arguments that if we deny
this tonight that axon will just
go back to the legislature and
get something that's less
special, and then we will get
1900 or 2,000 apartments.
See, here's the thing, the
possible legislation that
they're talking about would have
to be broader.
And that means it would include
more cities and more towns.
And what that would do is drag
more cities and towns into the
fight to be concerned about it.
Something else that should be --
people should be aware of, since
senate bill 1543 was signed,
many legislators have felt the
sting from their voters.
Will so we don't have any
clue -- we have no clue what
their appetite for an amendment
or alteration to the legislation
would be.
I want to go and ask the city
attorney now a few questions.
First of all, a very basic
question, this is called a
memorandum of understanding, I'm
not an attorney, when I look up
the term memorandum of
understanding, it defines it as
a formal nonbinding agreement
between two parties that outline
outlines their mutual intentions
or objectives.
Can you please explain to the
public how this memorandum of
understanding is binding and
contractual.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
here is sometimes a
misunderstanding that a
memorandum of understanding is
not binding.
They can be nonbinding, but any
time you have a contract that
has offer, acceptance and
consideration, it's binding.
So in this case, there's an
offer, there's acceptance and
consideration, therefore this
memorandum in particular is
binding, because axon is giving
up something, we are giving up
something, they're getting
something, we are getting
something, there's definitely an
offer and acceptance and
consideration.
>> Councilmember Graham: if it
is binding, is it referable.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s
o you're asking me to provide
legal advice on -- that's not
something I can address in the
public.
Why ultimately whether something
is referable is something the
courts would have to determine,
but generally administrative
acts are not considered
referable.
>> Councilmember Graham: I asked
you some of these other
questions, I'm going to ask
earlier and you gave me answers,
but it was privileged, so I want
to ask it and then you can
answer it to the best of your
capacity as far as what's
legally appropriate.
In this mou, we are repealing
another ordinance.
Can we repeal another ordinance
for an upzoning for an
applicant.
Can we legally do that.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, absolutely.
The mou itself is not repealing
the ordinance, it's asking it to
be agendized for consideration.
It is agendized for
consideration tonight.
One of the additional items
tonight is the zoning ordinance
and that can, indeed, be
repealed by the council.
As the council has done in the
past, I think southbridge is an
example of that.
>> Councilmember Graham: what I
thought with southbridge too,
that was 2019 where there was a
referendum on that, 15 stories
downtown, I understood the
applicant withdrew it, so I
guess my concern here is can
applicants -- can -- if we vote
on this, do we have to come back
another meeting to repeal the
ordinance, or is that done
tonight.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
t's done tonight.
>> Councilmember Graham: if we
repeal that ordinance, does that
take away the referendum signed
that has 26,000 signatures.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, it would.
>> Councilmember Graham: if we
remove the ordinance tonight,
and the courts rule that 1543 --
courts rule against 1543, do we
have any legal exposure because
we have taken legal rights from
them?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: n
o, because they're unrelated.
The referendum is strictly based
on the zoning ordinance.
Without 1543, the city council
could have at any time repealed
the zoning ordinance and negated
the right to referendum.
1543 is just an additional kind
of legal complication, just like
with southbridge, I don't
believe there's any state
legislation pending on the
horizon in that situation.
>> Councilmember Graham: section
13, water pumping and sewer list
stations, it says the applicant
MAY elect to build these
critical facilities to city
standard and dedicate them to
the city.
It says the language is it MAY
elect.
If axon chooses to lower
standards, the city and its rate
payers could be left for
substandard infrastructure.
Can they choose -- can they
build to -- can they build to a
standard below the city
standard?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s
o mayor, members of the council,
the intent of that section is we
will only take that
infrastructure into our
ownership and into our operation
if it meets our standards.
Will they still have to meet the
codes on the books for any
private commercial development.
So the idea that they would be
below standards, I don't think
that is accurate.
They just wouldn't necessarily
be to our city municipal
standard operations, they have
to meet the code standards.
>> Councilmember Graham: if they
don't meet them, what do we do
ask, do we have an enforcement
mechanism to upgrade them.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: o
nly if they want to turn them
over to us.
If they meet the minimum code
standards like any other
property owner, then they're on
their own and they're subject to
whatever problems those
facilities might cause for them.
They're minimal standards they
have to meet.
>> Councilmember Graham: so
speaking of water and stewer,
that general topic, NOVEMBER
NOVEMBER 2024, during the lame
duck session, there were five
members that voted for 1895
units -- apartments something
like that, and in that
development agreement, axon was
to bring 3,000 ache
ier -- acre
feet of water.
Does this mou remove that
requirement?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, mayor and members of the
council, it does.
>> Councilmember Graham: and
what do you think the market
value of that -- bringing that
kind of water to our city might
be?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
would have to defer to the city
manager because I don't know.
>> Councilmember Graham: madam
mayor, council member graham,
regarding the --
>> regarding the acre feet as
you referenced, 3,000 was in the
originally approved
approximately a year ago.
Just for context, I'll provide
the city council that requiring
additional acre feet is fairly
unusual.
The thought process at the time
was how we arrived at the 3,000.
I believe that's important for
the discussion purposes, and my
understanding that we did
calculations and anticipated
over a five-year period, based
upon the development, as
proposed at that time, it would
bring a demand of approximately
600-acre-feet on an annual
basis, and therefore for five
years, which was what could be a
inquired, that's how the
3,000-acre-feet came about.
>> Councilmember Graham: MR. Cat
on, respectfully, if you have a
market value, if you don't,
that's okay.
>> so that's important to put in
context, the acre-feet, and then
what I would add to that we
don't buy our water that way.
This is also a storage credits,
and we have approximately
277,000-acre-feet in storage
credits.
To put the 3,000-acre feet, it's
much like a savings account for
water services.
So the acre feet were submitted
into our account, if you will,
added to our account for last
year, again, we don't buy them.
I.
>> Councilmember Graham: so it's
basically five years of what we
predict the buildout facility to
use.
>> City Mgr. Caton: at 1900
units.
Should bebe discussion of a
different unit mix, then that
acre footage certainly changes.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you, MR. City manager.
Back to the city attorney, the
self-certification clause in
this, is the first time we have
done that for any applicant in
the city before.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, that's the correct.
>> Councilmember Graham: and
what would be the benefit to --
because I don't know whose idea
this was, but what would be the
benefit to the applicant for
receiving that.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
here are various potential
benefits, and I would point out
in the ordinance that the
licensed engineers and architect
architects have to be mutually
agreed upon by the parties.
It's not a unilateral decision
on who to use.
So the benefits are -- and in
the cost of these people would
be borne by axon, it would not
cost the city money.
The benefit is that -- that axon
has people that they can rely
upon to accomplish the
inspections and not be concerned
with potential delays with city
processes or city staff or
concerns that the city might
delay the project for some
reason.
Those are the potential benefits
from an axon standpoint.
From a city standpoint, it's
limited in that there's very few
properties that could be
international headquarters in
scottsdale.
There's more than one, so it's
not a special law, our ordinance
because there are at least three
other properties that could be
developed international
headquarters processes.
From the city standpoint, it
relieves our personnel from
having to work or inspect these
projects.
I understand that we have fairly
heavy caseloads.
There is some obvious concern
with city staff placing that
control in an outside agency.
But it's basically something
that was important to axon, and
it's limited in scope to such
few properties, I don't think it
materially impacts our
inspection and permitting
processes, but I could certainly
defer to city manager caton.
>> Councilmember Graham: just
for the record what I heard you
say, some of our internal staff
are uncomfortable with it, but
it was important to axon and so
we did it.
And so it sounds like they're
getting something, I just
wondered what we're getting.
Just -- I'm just expressing my
discomfort with that.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: u
nderstood.
>> Councilmember Graham: I don't
know what the unit count is.
The last I saw was 1500, but
that MAY have changed since, you
know, in the past 30 minutes.
Can axon legally, for any
condominiums for ownership units
they put in there, can they use
those legally as short-term
rentals?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, they could.
>> Councilmember Graham: could
they legally open -- could they
legally acquire those units,
condominium units in an llc and
lease them like any other
investment lesser?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: p
resumably, yes, as long as they
don't put -- it all depends on
what kind of ccr's they put on
those properties.
>> Councilmember Graham: I want
to talk about a couple of more
things and wrap up my comments.
Section 19 is are -- section 19
is a city council liaison where
we appoint the city council
economic development chair as
liaison between axon and city of
scottsdale.
And that -- when I saw that,
that just seemed very kind of
jumped out at me.
Have we haver done anything like
that in the city to your
knowledge.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
o my knowledge, no.
>> Councilmember Graham: it
appears to endow one council
member with a significant amount
of power, and it almost seems
like it turns him from -- into
an agent.
If he's the liaison, who
appraises his or her performance
and is he or she giving orders
to staff.
It gives me discomfort to think
about if he MAY be directing
people and, you know, I see our
job up here as governance, not
management.
We shouldn't be executing these.
And so if I could just sort of
side step this a little bit and
mae a motion to delete that
provision from this mou, if my
colleagues would indulge me and
we could kind of delete that and
that could be removed from the
agreement.
So I'll move -- but then I'm not
done with my comments.
i would make that motion.
>> I'll second that.
>> Councilmember Graham: so we
have a motion and a second.
Ben, is that clear to you what
we're saying?
Okay.
>> I'd like to speak to that
motion.
If that's okay.
COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield.
>> let's go down the list real
quick, she's been waiting.
>> I want to be respectful to
COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield's place
in line.
>> Councilmember Graham: I have
more comments to make, but I
wanted to make -- maybe I can
make this motion at the end of
my comments.
I'll make a few more comments
and put the motion on the floor
for us to debate.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
are you still --
>> Councilmember Graham: still
going.
I'm almost done.
>> Mayor Borowsky: still going.
>> Councilmember Graham: almost
done with my sermon.
I have concerns about this mou,
I think the compliance language
is weakened by some carveouts in
the document.
Very strong, very great concerns
with removing a referendum sign
signed with containing 26,000
signatures.
Concerned about the removal of
the water, and I'm also
concerned about if we do this,
are we telling other commercial
interests if this council
doesn't give into their desires,
that we -- they can just head
over to the legislature and get
legislative relief and go around
us.
I do agree with leslie lureman
from the stone brook hoa,
negotiations should be two ways,
but through this process, too
many residents have told us that
this has felt one way.
Instead of guiding growth, they
tell me, it feels like the
process has overridden it.
So I appreciate -- those are my
comments at the time being,
there's a motion and second on
the floor.
Thank you to my colleagues -- I
know we'll debate the motion, I
appreciate my colleagues for
voting on it.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield.
>> Councilmember Littlefield: th
is really isn't regarding the
motion so much as some of the
comments that were made earlier.
I would like to let you all know
that my ability to represent the
citizens of scottsdale regarding
this issue has been reviewed
previously.
And I draw upon our city
attorney for his conclusion,
which he gave to me earlier.
City attorney?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h
onorable mayor and members of
the council.
COUNCILWOMAN Littlefield asked
me to publicize the fact we have
evaluated whether she has a
conflict of interest in this
matter and determined she does
not have a conflict of interest
in this matter.
>> Councilmember Littlefield: th
ank you, I do not.
I am a separate person from my
husband.
He does his thing, I do mine.
And it is in my own right that I
have listened up here to the
comments and the considerations
and the wise and the wheres and
thousands and whos and made my
own decision.
The only other people who have
interested me are the citizens
of scottsdale.
I listen to them.
And they are very forthcoming
with their opinions and their
reasons and their whys and where
fores.
I have well over 1,000 e-mails
still waiting for me to answer
after the last three days, I
have spent entirely answering
their e-mails, regarding this
issue, axon.
They are very concerned.
They do not want this expansion
of axon, and that is everyone
who e-mailed me and there are
thousands.
Except one person.
Who wanted it.
That is who I listen to.
The citizens of scottsdale.
I do try to represent them, and
I've spent almost four full days
reading their e-mails and I
haven't come to the end of them
yet.
They're still there waiting for
me.
So far, and with the exception
of one, all citizens have said
no to this.
Every single citizen.
No.
As their representative, it is
my job and my duty to listen to
them.
With such overwhelming negative
input, I will not support this.
It is -- let me get where I am
here.
It is against what I swore I
would do as their representative
I represent the citizens.
That's who I am.
and I will continue to do so.
I am not against coming back to
axon and saying let's
renegotiate, let's look at this,
how can we bring this more in
line with what our citizens want
so we can all live in peace,
because we are not going to with
this, let me tell you, guys,
they will not be happy.
I am open to that kind of a
negotiation, but I cannot
actively and directly vote
against thousands of scottsdale
citizens who have e-mailed me
and asked me to say no.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Vice mayor kwasman.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank
you, MADAM Mayor and members of
the council.
I do not find council member
graham's motion a hostile
motion.
I'm in support of the motion and
happy to remove it from the
memorandum of understanding or
designate the city manager as
the liaison.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: I
think I'll make my remarks after
we vote on COUNCILMAN Graham's
motion.
>> Mayor Borowsky: okay.
The motion on the table is to
remove the council liaison from
the mou.
All those in favor?
How about we take a voice vote.
All those in favor.
There we go.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
I don't see any --
.
>> I lost my spot.
>> Mayor Borowsky: that's okay.
Go ahead, go right ahead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: I
just want to wrap up on a couple
of things that were mentioned,
there was a lot of talk about
the number of units, and the
density.
So I did just want to give
people a little bit of
perspective there.
I came in this evening having
been part of a negotiation that
was 750 condos and 750
apartments, and that's a really
important distinction.
Again, all of those community
investments, and I can tell you
that I personally have spent
thousands of hours with
residents, and as one can
imagine, 240,000 residents don't
all agree on anything.
I have not received a thousand
e-mails, but I have spent over
the last couple of years,
thousands of hours with
residents.
There is support and there's
opposition.
Let's talk about the density,
the numbers that I have -- that
I support, which are
significantly lower than what
the state will allow.
The density is 21 -- about 21.5
units per acre, and as
comparison, there are projects
in the air park, in that same
region that are 60 units to the
acre.
So the density here has changed
changedes so dramatically, and
people are so upeat set about
the -- upset about the original
number, it got lost in the
negotiations.
I also want to stress that,
again, the community has been
very involved.
we all are up here representing
residents.
Residents don't all agree on
everything, and I think the
former employee spoke
beautifully about change, we
choose scottsdale, we love
scottsdale, change upsets
everybody, and the incredible
opposition to the waterfront,
reminds me of tonight's
decision.
The waterfront saved our mall,
it is one of the most vibrant
and economically beneficial
spots in our city.
It was a height, 150-foot
towers, for open space trade and
that council, at that time, mary
man ross was mayor, went ahead
and did not that.
What we have here today is dirt
on a freeway that is not
productive, not helpful to the
neighbors, not helpful to
anyone, and it will be developed
just look a couple miles east
and see what warehouses look
like.
So what we are proposing here is
not -- no apartments, that's not
on the table, but what we are
proving is something that's very
low density for the area.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Vice mayor kwasman.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank
you, MADAM Mayor.
I move to adopt resolution no.
1356, adopting contract no.
2025-195-cos.
Between the city and axon
enterprise, inc. With the
following modify kicks, why
section 6 amended to -- as
amended, as previously amended
by the last amendment.
And then the following
modifications.
section 6 is amended to reduce
the total number of units from
1500 units to 1200 units, and of
the 1200 units, 600 will be
apartmented why, 600
condominiums.
First phase will be 500
apartments, 100 condominiums,
second phase c apartments, and
500 condominiums as designated
in the mou.
The city council authorizes the
city manager and the interim
city attorney to make conforming
changes consistent with this
modification.
And before I finish my motion,
with that sitting on the table,
do I need to amend my motion,
MR. City attorney, to discuss
the -- to discuss the 48-hour
aspect of it or is that coming
in a later --
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h
onorable mayor and vice mayor,
members of the city council, you
can -- when we get to that item,
it should be amended
appropriately just to say
regarding the signature stuff.
If that makes sense.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: nothing
else right now.
Okay.
.
>> if I MAY, I would suggest
there was, I understand, a
discussion about a proportional
reduction in the commercial as
it relates to the reduction on
the -- reduction on the
residential piece.
So it was to be commensurate
with that reduction.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: then I'm
going to restate my motion if I
can, MADAM Mayor.
I move to adopt resolution no.
1357 adopting contract no --
2025-195-cos as previously
amended.
Between city -- between the city
of scottsdale and axon
enterprise, inc. With the
following modifications, section
6 amended to reduce the total
number of units from 1,500 units
to 1,200 units.
Of the 1,200 units, 600 of those
units will be apartments and 600
units will be condominiums.
The first phase will be 500
apartments and 100 condominiums.
The second phase will be 100
apartments and 500 condominiums.
Furthermore, there will be an
appropriate proportionate
reduction of commercial -- of
commercial space as -- in order
to align with the reduction in
residential buildings.
The city council authorizes the
city manager and interim city
attorney to make the conforming
changes, consistent with this
modification.
>> I'll second that.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
I don't see any other speakers,
but I'm going to be supporting
vice mayor kwasman's motion.
I think the parties have worked
really hard to come to a number
that is dramatically lower than
what we inherited when we
took -- when I took office.
So going from nearly 1900
apartments down to 600, I think,
is a positive result and
especially with all the other
moving parts, which you've heard
so much about over the past
eight, nine months, you know,
even with the election, no
matter the outcome, under the
state law, they can do the 1900
units or more.
So I spoke earlier about wanting
finality for me this is -- this
creates finality on this issue.
it gets the conversation moving
in a direction of let's break
ground and start construction.
And let's go build a great
project.
So I am pleased about that, I
appreciate the rester, all of
the efforts that went into it.
We have all -- we've all worked
fairly tirelessly on this, and,
you know, that involves talking
to all of the residents as well.
And I just wanted to touch on
the self certification element
of this, I'm actually very
excited about this.
I like the fact that we are
going to do a test case here.
Especially when we have -- we
can have a role in this election -- in the selection of
the individual.
We are in good shape there.
I know other jurisdictions have
this, and they outsource the --
you know, those obligations to
third party, and I think it's
going to be great to see how
that works.
And I think that's all that I
have.
But I will be supporting the
motion.
So without any further comments,
let's go ahead and take a vote.
>> point of order.
Is this item no. 2, 3 and 4 or
just 2.
>> Mayor Borowsky: just 2.
Why we have to go through 3 and
4.
All right.
Okay.
That motion passes, and moving
right along.
All right.
And so item no. 3, the
self-certification and third
party certification.
This is a request -- was that in
your motion?
okay.
This is a request to consider
ordinance no. 4697 authorizing
the establishment of a self
certification and third-party
certification program for
qualified international
headquarters campuses.
The proposed ordinance enables
licensed professionals,
architects and engineers, to
certify plans and inspections.
Applies only to projects
qualifying under arizona revised
statutes section 9-461.19.
And includes provisions for city
oversight, audit rights and
enforcement.
And will be sunsetted on JANUARY 1, 2035, unless extended
extended.
So I know we have a couple of
speakers on this, let's turn to
those, gail golic, fired by tim
lesoto and gabby hitchcock.
>> good evening, MADAM Mayor and
council members, my name is gail
golic, and I am a state
committeemen with ld3 and
scottsdale resident.
This is basically we are going
to be speaking the same -- the
same thing that I mentioned
before, but I want to reiterate
this.
I'm speaking on agenda item 3,
which creates a self
certification third party
permitting programs for large
headquarter developments.
This item must be considered a
light of a simple but extremely
fact, axon no longer has any
water obligation.
That means scottsdale must
independently demonstrate the
required 100-year assured water
supply before it advances
permitting for this project.
And state law is absolutely
clear on whether this -- excuse
me, when this proof must clear.
I want to quote the statut.
A plat of a subdivision shall
not be approved by a city or
town unless the director has
determined that the subdivision
has an assured water supply.
And even more to the point, ars
ars545-576h, a center town shall
not approve a plat or permit the
construction of a subdivision
unless an assured water supply
has been demonstrated.
A self-certification permitting
program is, by definition, a
program that permits
construction, therefore, under
45-576, it cannot be improved
unless the city has already
demonstrated the 100-year water
supply.
But scottsdale cannot
demonstrate it and has admitted
so.
In the city's NOVEMBER 4
petition response, scottsdale
confirmed it has no
documentation identifying the
water sources for this project,
it has no 100-year demand
calculations, it has no
up-to-date water portfolio
analysis, it has no enforceable
water commitments from axon,
never mind, don't need it and
scottsdale is relying on the
2013daws whose planning horizon
only goes through 2025.
That's only six weeks from now.
The city further admitted that
the supporting documents for the -- that is no longer in its
possession and adwr has not
approved scottsdale's new -- the
water supply plan.
This means scottsdale's 100-year
water model does not extend
beyond 2025.
The city is outside its planning
orize oon and cannot show 100
year water supply required by
law.
Therefore approving item 3 today
which advances construction
without a demonstrated 100-year
water supply would violate that.
It would move a development
forward with no water
obligations from the city, no
proof of 100-year map and expire
2013 planning horizon.
This exposes the city to legal
challenge and adwr review.
Jim urge you to vote no on item
3 until the documentation is
publicly produced.
Thank you for your time.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you.
Tim lesota.
>> I already spoke on this item.
Why effectively.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thanks, gabby
hitchcock.
I don't see gabby hitchcock.
Anybody?
No.
All right.
Moving right along.
That concludes the speakers.
And so anyone want to bring a
motion.
>> mayor, I am going to motion
motion -- yeah.
Request adopt ordinance no. 4697
authorizing the establishment of
the self-certification and
third-party certification
program for qualified
international headquarter
campuses.
The proposed ordinance enables
licensed professionals,
architects and engineers to
certify plans and inspections.
Will applies only to projects
qualifying under arizona revised
statutes section 9-461.19,
includes provisions for city
oversight, audit rights and
enforcement.
It is proposed to sunset on
january 1, 2035, unless extended
extended.
>> second.
>> Mayor Borowsky: all those in
favor?
Excuse me.
Go right ahead.
>> mayor and members of the
council, there is no delayed
repeal date in the ordinance
that was presented, I believe.
>> Mayor Borowsky: do we need to
do anything about that?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
he signed copy I submitted did
not have a delayed repeal date.
So that's the issue where the --
I believe the ordinance does not
have a delayed repeal date.
>> to clarify do I need to take
out the proposed sunset date
toronto yes.
>> I'll strike the last
sentence, is proposed to sunset.
>> Mayor Borowsky: COUNCILMAN
Graham.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you.
It does is proposed to sunset
JANUARY 1, 2035, so I just --
that's what I'm reading.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
here's an error on the agenda
language, but the actual
ordinance doesn't have a delayed
repeal date.
>> Councilmember Graham: okay.
So the -- okay.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: s
o she council can adopt it
either way, it could add it into
the ordinance that was attached.
Or keep it out.
My understanding it's going to
take axon much longer than ten
years or whatever to finish
their campus.
>> then I choose to strike it
from my motion.
>> I'll second the motion
with -- that section struck out.
>> just so the council knows,
you can always come back and
change ordinances.
This was just an automatically
take it off the boobs.
>> mayor, I'd like to speak to
my motion.
>> Mayor Borowsky: go right
ahead.
>> for those of you in the
audience, this is a very common
practice to have third party
certification, almost all the
cities do it, especially on
massive projects.
We'll be entering into a new
phase here in scottsdale doing
this, but it is a very common
practice, and it's one that
helps expedite.
The reason why we do it, in
other cities, through my
research, is that we don't
always have enough staff to
expedite what's happening,
enough planners, enough
reviewers, enough engineers, so
then when you have a third party
doing it, it's just like over
time for public safety.
It helps expedite a process.
But professionally and you use
the right people that you need
to accomplish the right goals.
So this is a common practice.
I don't want anybody to think we
are doing something crazy.
>> Mayor Borowsky: all right.
All those in favor?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Next we have item no. 4, repeal
of ordinance no. 4658 relating
to axon rezoning, this is a
request to adopt ordinance no.
4698 which amends ordinance no.
455, the zoning ordinance of the
city of scottsdale and
authorizing the repeal of zoning
ordinance no. 4658, which would
restore the prior zoning
designation for 44.7-acre-site
located at 8300 east axon way.
And there's one speaker, gail,
did you want to speak again on
this?
No, okay.
All right.
So I'll entertain a motion.
Go right ahead, COUNCILWOMAN
Whitehead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: okay
, thank you, mayor.
I move to adopt ordinance no.
4658, amending, 455, the zoning
ordinance of city of scottsdale
and authorizing the repeal of
zoning ordinance no. 4658 which
would restore the prior zoning
decision nature for the
44.7-acre-site located at 8300
east axon way.
.
>> I would like to -- are we
going to used the date?
I would like.
>> I would like to add that we
are requiring -- this is
repealed at the end of the
business day on 11-19 when we
receive the mou -- a signed mou,
I'd like to add that to the
motion.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m
embers of the council, normally
once -- absent an emergency, an
ordinance is not repealed until
30 days.
So I don't believe we can used
that provision.
>> thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: okay.
There's a motion.
COUNCILMAN Graham.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you, mayor.
So I'm going to ask probably
almost identical set of
questions that I asked about
this earlier, because for me,
this is just -- trying to wrap
my brain around this one.
We are repealing an -- we are
repealing a rezoning that was
authorized during the lame duck
in 2024 to reauthorize
industrial to mixed use.
And this undoes that, is that
correct.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m
ayor and members of the council,
yes, that is correct, it repeals
the -- the zoning that's
basically on hold because of the
referendum, and it makes it go
back to the original zoning.
>> Councilmember Graham: I'm
trying to get to my point.
This vote removes the --
> Councilmember Graham: this
vote removes the referendum, is
that correct.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, that's correct.
>> Councilmember Graham: I
talked about this before, but we
can't just -- in my mind, it's
just strange that we would go
and an applicant comes and asks
for a rezoning and gets it and
then we pass an ordinance to
undo it.
That, to me now in a normal
circumstance -- normal
circumstance, you can't do that
because that's, you know, a
downzoning, taking away property
value from them, and then they
can file a 207 challenge, which
is the -- which is the -- I
don't know if it's a
constitutional amendment, but
it's a state legislation that
says that cities and governments
can't downzone and reduce the
value of people's property.
So that's the reason why we
normally couldn't do it.
is that correct.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
think that's a good way of
looking at it.
The twist here is you have sb
sb1543 that basically upzones it
again.
>> Councilmember Graham: right.
So we go back and we say, okay,
we're going to delete that
rezoning from NOVEMBER 2024, and
then it would revert to
industrial.
In that case, sb1543 says if you
own industrial and meet all
these conditions, then you can
build, you know, apartments, it
goes to the other zoning.
Because of that, we don't think
that there's going to be a 207
challenge because the property
owner is going to be happy with
what they get when this is
undone, is that correct.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, we don't believe there would
be any diminishment of value.
>> Councilmember Graham: what
would happen in the case --
because I understand -- I don't
know anything about it, other
than the fact a legal challenge
is happening, what if the legal
challenge happens and the courts
rule against senate bill 1543?
Could -- and they say no you
can't do that law.
Could then the property owner
come to us with a 207 challenge?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
can't speculate on that.
We'd have to do the research,
and I'd have to provide that
legal advice in closed session
or via legal memo.
But it's a good point that you
raise.
>> Councilmember Graham: I
just -- I know it's -- I know
there's some kind of -- got to
run through the scenario, but it
seems to me that if I'm axon,
and the courts rule against
1543, the city just took away my
rezoning, and then I'm -- then
I'm not in a good place and then
I MAY have cause to challenge
what we did here tonight.
So that's why this, especially
this, in addition to taking away
the referendum, I have serious
concerns about this particular
item, and so I might make a
motion, if we can just defer
this one for the time being and
maybe come back next week and
get some legal advice because I
don't want to expose us -- you
city attorney, your goal is to
minimize liability.
Exposure to the city, this could
put axon in hot water, this
could put us in hot water.
So I don't want -- maybe the
benefit of a little more time,
if I could move to defer this --
defer this item for the time
being.
If I could get a second.
>> second.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: there was a
motion on the table, but there
was no second.
>> that's correct.
>> Mayor Borowsky: let's deal
with.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: can I
speak to council member graham's
motion.
MR. City attorney, sorry to
bother you -- I assume you're
walking to the podium.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: n
o.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: I just
want to remind everybody that
taaaze was willing to withdraw
all claims, including in support
and in support voting against
the referendum for a number
higher than what we just agreed
to just now.
So further -- furthermore, I
would like to ask the city
attorney, MR. City attorney, I
seem to remember in southbridge
there was precedent for withdraw
withdrawing a referendum prior
to referendum being held, is
that correct.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, that's exactly what occurred
occurred.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: there is
precedence for this, I want to
be clear, there's precedence for
this and that the actual backers
and founders of the organization
to promote the referendum was
okay with a number higher than
what we agreed to today.
So I just want to be very clear
that everybody knows the real
truth and to know that -- also
MR. City manager, I want to ask
two questions, if we -- if the
referendum were held tomorrow,
let's say, and axon were to win
the referendum, would they --
would we still be withdrawing
the -- understand what we passed
today, and the memorandum of
understanding, would we still be
withdrawing their development
agreement, which would be the
same outcome as if the
referendum failed?
It would be the same outcome, am
I correct?
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: m
ad.
>> City Mgr. Caton: if we held
met election, and the election
repealed, is that the question?
If it were to repeal, then we
still have 1543 that is in
standing.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: which
would put us back into the 1900
apartment units that were
previous.
And so I am going to second,
thank you council member, I'll
second, but I also want to say,
if it were to pass, we would
still then be in the -- have the
ability to negotiate the very
ordinance that we just
negotiated just now.
Is that correct?
I'm sorry, if the referendum
failed, we would be able to
still negotiate the very same
mou that we just negotiated?
>> yeah, fair amount of
hypotheticals here, but MADAM
Mayor and vice mayor, if the
referendum were to be held, and
it failed, then one could argue
that you would go back to the
original ordinance which stands
at the 1900, I would point out
that stands in isolation from
1543 still being in existence.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: one with
the development agreement and
one without.
At the end of the day, we are
still at 1900 apartments, which
was the impetus for the
referendum.
With that, I -- we have the
alternate motion on the table.
I don't think I can second the
previous motion until the
alternate motion is voted on.
So I'll yield the floor.
>> Mayor Borowsky: city attorney
attorney.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
hank you, I've consulted with
council for axon regarding the
prop 207 issue.
They pointed out in the original
application, there is a prop 207
waiver.
They're also committed to
completing a new one related to
this project.
Or this mou.
So just wanted to bring that to
everyone's attention.
>> Mayor Borowsky: okay, thank
you, COUNCILWOMAN Whitehead.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: I
want to remind everybody, we are
elected to solve problems, and I
personally have been very
involved in referendum, our
citizen initiatives.
So 2018 I was one of the leaders
of the protect our preserve
citizens initiative, which did
pass overwhelmingly.
And when southbridge 2 was
approved, a very high density
development, I had voted no and
supported the citizens
referendum to repeal that.
And rather than waste more time
and more of your tax dollars, we
resolved, we solved the problem
right here on the dais, by
repealing that ordinance.
What we are doing today, as vice
mayor kwasman said, certainly
has precedence, and it certainly
is the more efficient route.
I just want to address the
comment that the people who
signed the referendum opposing
the 1800 plus apartments aren't
being heard.
So first of all, they are being
heard, because we have just
substantially reduced the number
and we split the units into
condominiums and apartments.
So in fact, that referendum
helped produce a better project
that I think every one of us up
here, whether or not we support
supported it tonight, we are
certainly happy to be here where
we are.
So I cannot stress enough that
the residents of this city were
heard.
and that's how we got to
tonight's agreement.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: thank you,
COUNCILMAN Graham.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you, mayor.
This is a little bit -- this has
become a little bit byizan teen,
byzantine.
There is no precedence, because
we are talking about the
southbridge 2 referendum, and
with the southbridge 2
referendum, there was never,
ever, a factor about a court
ruling it -- against it.
That was always about the
referendum, but there's never a
question about legality.
You know, axon will do what's
best for their shareholders, and
we should do what's best for our
residents.
That's what we should do.
I don't fault anybody for
pursuing those interests.
I don't agree, though,
100 percent with council member
whitehead that voters got to
vote, got to be heard because
when you sign a referendum, you
expect a vote on the referendum.
And that's not the case.
So city attorney, you made a
comment that in the past case,
they -- the applicant signed a
207 waiver and then you said in
this case they're committed to
signing a 207 waiver.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es, mayor, members of the city
council.
They -- it's part of the
original application, they
apparently filed a 207 waiver,
and they've committed verbally
to sign a new one based on the
concerns that you raised.
>> Councilmember Graham: so in
that case, I -- since we have a
motion on the floor, we have an
alternate motion on the floor to
defer and deferral motion takes
precedence in our rules of
procedure, I would just say
let's just defer this until we
can get that signature in
writing and then we can -- and
then we can bring it back.
So -- I'm ready to vote, if
that's okay.
>> Mayor Borowsky: vice mayor
kwasman.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: I call
the question.
>> Mayor Borowsky: we are voting
on the alternate motion to
continue this to another date.
>> Councilmember Graham: I meant
continue, thank you.
>> Mayor Borowsky: so all those
in favor.
Or opposed.
All right.
Now we'll go to --
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: MADAM
Mayor, I second your motion.
>> Mayor Borowsky: it was --
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: council
member whitehead, I second your
motion.
>> Mayor Borowsky: I don't -- do
you want to speak to that.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: I
would like to amend my motion to
include the signing of the 207
waiver.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: h
onorable mayor, members of the
council, your -- you're making
the repeal the zoning ordinance
contingent that they sign a
207 -- prop 207 --
>> Councilmember Whitehead: just
like to have that.
If that works for you.
I'll let you discuss.
I can pull that.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: would it
be cleaner if we put it in the
mou, if we amend the mou and put
it in the mou?
And can we reopen item no -- I
voted in the affirmative.
Can I call -- can I call it back
to --
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: t
here's a final item related to
the litigation, right, and the
litigation is -- to make sure
that axon actually signs the mou
with -- by the 19th.
How about you put a condition on
that they sign the mou by the
19th, otherwise we file the
cross claim and they also sign
the prop 207 waiver.
>> Councilmember Whitehead: I
accept that for my motion.
I just want to be clear -- for
my motion.
I drop -- I drop -- my original
motion stands and I just wanted
to be clear we had a verbal
agreement, in government we like
to go ahead and dot our I's and
cross our t's.
I'm fine with it in the next
motion.
Why thanks everybody who
gathered for that one.
>> Mayor Borowsky: okay, let's
go ahead and vote on that.
All those in favor.
Indicate your vote or opposed.
Okay.
Last item on the special meeting
agenda, item no. 5.
And that is litigation
authorization.
A request to authorize the
interim city attorney to file
any appropriate counter claim,
cross claim and third-party
claim in the taaaze versus state
of arizona and city of
scottsdale litigation.
I have two people indicating --
actually I think there's no one
left to speak on this one.
Gabby hitchcock.
Okay.
So vice mayor kwasman.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank
you, MADAM Mayor.
I move to authorize the interim
city attorney and/or his
designees to file any
appropriate counter claim, cross
claim and third-party claim in
taxpayers against awful
apartment zoning exemptions
versus the state of arizona,
city of scottsdale, cv2025-
cv2025-034961.
With a proposal to sunset --
right, is that -- how would I.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: I
would suggest that -- I only
file it unless we do not receive
the signed mou from axon along
with the prop 207 waiver by the
close of business on the 19th.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: thank
you.
NOVEMBER 19, sorry.
Apologize.
All right.
Would you like me to repeat the
whole thing.
>> Acting City Atty. Santaella: y
es.
>> Vice Mayor Kwasman: MADAM
Mayor, I authorize the interim
city attorney and designees to
file any appropriate counter
claim, clause people third party
claims in taaaze versus state
arizona, city of scottsdale, cv
cv2025-034961, unless the
memorandum of understanding is
signed by axon enterprises, by
close of business day NOVEMBER
NOVEMBER 19, 2025, and axon
delivers a signed 207 waiver by
the close of business day
NOVEMBER 19, 2025.
>> second.
>> Mayor Borowsky: all right.
i see COUNCILMAN Graham wants to
speak.
>> Councilmember Graham: thank
you, mayor.
I'll make an alternate motion
for the same motion, but the
deletion of the two conditions.
>> I'll second that.
>> Mayor Borowsky: let's take a
vote on the alternate motion.
Okay.
And COUNCILMAN -- I'm sorry,
vice mayor kwasman.
Let's go ahead and take a vote
on that motion.
Please indicate your vote.
All right.
That concludes our business for
this afternoon.
Sorry for the delay, everybody,
that was here for other matters.
But at this time I'd like to
move to adjourn the special
council meeting and we will move