[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