Scottsdale Council votes 4-3 to repeal sustainability plan
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — January 14, 2025

Scottsdale Council votes 4-3 to repeal sustainability plan

New Scottsdale City Council holds controversial first meeting, voting 4-3 to repeal three-year-old Sustainability Plan amid significant public opposition and allegations of campaign finance violations, while confirming interim city manager and addressing local development concerns.

New Scottsdale Council Repeals Sustainability Plan 4-3 on First Day, Triggering Firestorm Over Public Input and Developer Influence

The newly sworn Scottsdale City Council wasted no time signaling a sharp policy departure from its predecessor, voting 4-3 on January 14 to repeal the Scottsdale Community Sustainability Plan—passed unanimously by the prior council just 42 days earlier—and directing staff to create a replacement task force. The decision capped a four-hour meeting marked by 32 passionate public speakers, parliamentary tension, accusations of campaign finance violations, and a clear split between the council majority and a constituency that believed it had been promised greater civic engagement.

The vote underscores the political earthquake that reshaped Scottsdale's leadership. Lisa Borowsky and Vice Mayor Barry Graham now lead a majority intent on redefining the city's environmental and fiscal priorities, but their opening act has provoked accusations of hypocrisy from residents who had been repeatedly told—during the campaign and at the swearing-in ceremony—that the new council would listen to residents and govern transparently.

Key Speeches

"I too agree that having the length of time and the number of citizens that served on this committee [we] should not be throwing the baby out with the bath water as that saying goes…I don't like the sustainability plan I'm a lawyer I've done litigation for 25 plus years anything that's 140 pages does not take action…I think a great way to approach this…[is] to have those appointed members…identify where we can come up with action items out of these 140 Pages. I'd like to see a two or three page document." — Lisa Borowsky

"What's under discussion tonight is actually expanding the sustainability plan which up until now has been limited to environmental issues…residents who studied the plan tell me they're disturbed by its contents when they learn that the prior city council majority voted to empower city government to begin enjoining reduction in your household trash output by 90% within 15 years restricting your electrical usage…residents have told us loudly and clearly and repeatedly that city government should stay in its own lane." — Vice Mayor Barry Graham

"Repealing this plan now without fully understanding its implications would set the wrong tone and undermine the trust that residents have placed in you to lead with thoughtfulness and accountability. The sustainability plan is a result of three years of extensive work research public input collaboration between staff residents and the previous Council. Many residents have attended the meetings provided feedback shared their Vision to repeal the plan now would disregard those voices and values." — Brandon Putman, South Scottsdale resident

"I'm here because what I do in that delivery care is utilize information data and fact to help guide my best practices…when we avoid appropriate response to the data and what we know to be true around us what we don't have is time…I suppose all I'm asking for you to understand is that when we avoid appropriate response to the data and what we know to be true around us what we don't have no different than what I don't have is time." — Dr. Lori Ryan, anesthesiologist and Scottsdale resident

Timeline

Applicant/Item Presentation: No formal applicant. Mayor Barowski opened debate, stating her objection to the 140-page plan's lack of actionable items and proposing instead that staff and the new Community Safety Subcommittee work to distill the plan into a two- to three-page action document.

Staff Recommendation: No formal staff presentation. Acting City Manager Greg Kon (who had just assumed the interim role minutes before the meeting) was present but did not formally recommend for or against repeal.

Public Comment: 32 registered speakers, nearly all in opposition to repeal. Public comment lasted approximately 2.5 hours. Key themes included:

  1. Disrespect for 3+ years of work and 300,000+ resident interactions across six city council study sessions and multiple community workshops.
  2. Lack of mandates, fees, or penalties in the plan; it is advisory only and the previous council voted unanimously to approve it in December.
  3. Environmental and public health necessity: climate change, extreme heat (70 days above 110°F this year vs. 7 in the 1950s), air quality, water scarcity, and wildfire risk.
  4. Economic and reputational concerns: loss of tourism (TPC Scottsdale hosts Waste Management Open, a zero-waste event; San Francisco Giants spring training; Scottsdale Arabian Horse Show) and inability to attract young families and businesses if the city abandons sustainability planning.
  5. Inefficiency of starting over: "Throwing away three years of work" to create a new task force risks wasting time and money on redundant effort.
  6. Perceptions of politics over substance: Many speakers noted the vote came within hours of the swearing-in, contradicting campaign promises to listen to residents and govern transparently.

Notable pro-sustainability speakers included Dr. Sonny Kirtley (Coalition of Greater Scottsdale); Natalie Chrisman Lazar (former chair, Scottsdale Environmental Advisory Commission, civil engineer); Betty Janik (former councilwoman); Ryan Johnson (30-year resident, Stonegate); Tim Whitney (ASU sustainability graduate, co-founder of Circular Earth); Dr. Alisa McMahon (physician, SEAC member); Dr. Robert Seager (50-year resident, offering counterargument on cost-benefit); and Tammy Bossy (former commissioner, now business owner).

Council Discussion: Vice Mayor Barry Graham led the repeal effort, asserting that residents had complained about perceived mandates on trash reduction (90% in 15 years), electrical usage, water restrictions on single-family homes while exempting businesses, outsourcing of local control to county government, speculative environmental spending, and home/business monitoring. He argued that residents do not want government micromanagement and that Scottsdale's high cost of living already incentivizes sustainability.

Mayor Barowski, however, stated she did not want to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and proposed a compromise: preserve the plan's intent but distill it into actionable items via staff and the subcommittee, rather than repeal and restart.

Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield questioned whether the council had taken time to truly study the plan and stressed that repealing it would send the wrong message to businesses and younger families relocating to Scottsdale.

Councilwoman Maryann McAllen emphasized the need for transparency and called the vote process itself un-transparent, having been added to the agenda with short notice.

Councilwoman Solange Whitehead noted that all seven council members had voted for the cell-phone-restriction rule (Item 14C) six months prior and expressed surprise at its rapid repeal.

Barry Graham moved to call the question (close debate), which passed on a majority vote, preventing further council discussion. A point of order briefly arose over parliamentary procedure.

Vote: Resolution 13335 passed 4-3.

Opposition

32 public speakers, nearly all in opposition. No organized group formally testified, but the following constituencies were represented:

  1. Environmental Advisory Commission members and former commissioners.
  2. ASU sustainability professionals and graduates.
  3. Physicians and healthcare professionals concerned with public health impacts of heat, air quality, and drought.
  4. Long-term residents and business owners.
  5. Youth (notably Leila Yango, Desert Mountain High School junior).
  6. Former city staff (Mike Malo, former transportation planner and environmental coordinator).

Main Concerns (numbered):

  1. Disrespect for civic process: The plan resulted from 3+ years of work, six city council study sessions, multiple community workshops, input from 300,000+ residents, and was passed unanimously by the prior council in December. Repealing it 42 days later dismisses this investment.

  2. No mandates or penalties: Multiple speakers clarified that the plan contains no enforceable mandates, fines, or fee increases. It is advisory, intended to guide city departments and incentivize voluntary sustainability measures.

  3. Environmental and climate urgency: Arizona recorded its warmest year in 2024; Scottsdale has experienced 70 days above 110°F (vs. 7 in the 1950s). Extreme heat causes measurable increases in mortality, especially when combined with air pollution. Water depletion and wildfire risk are existential threats.

  4. Economic and reputational harm: Repealing the plan signals to businesses, tourists, and young families that Scottsdale does not take sustainability seriously, risking loss of convention business (TPC Scottsdale's zero-waste Management Open, San Francisco Giants spring training), real estate value, and workforce recruitment.

  5. Inefficiency and waste of taxpayer dollars: Discarding a completed, researched plan to start a new task force duplicates effort and delays implementation. As several speakers noted, once the "new task force" plan is approved, it will have taken an additional 2–3 years.

  6. Broken campaign promises: Speakers cited Mayor Barowski's and Barry Graham statements—at the campaign and swearing-in—about listening to residents and governing with transparency. The quick repeal, added to the agenda with minimal notice, contradicts those pledges.

  7. Public health crisis: Physicians and health professionals emphasized that environmental sustainability directly reduces death from extreme heat, respiratory disease, and asthma. Ignoring it is a breach of fiduciary duty.

Most Compelling Arguments:

Support

Minimal formal support for repeal. Only two speakers explicitly opposed the plan:

Campaign Finance and Developer Influence Allegations

During public comment, resident Dan Isaac raised unsubstantiated but specific allegations against two newly elected council members:

"Miss deasus perhaps you don't recall where at an LD meeting of the candidates you said that you would not take money from developers and went even further to say that council members should not be allowed to take money from anyone expecting to have business before Council yet you had a debt retirement party hosted by zoning attorneys and sponsored by some of the biggest business people in Scottsdale and it was held in the pedman art gallery which directly receives money from the city to promote its business…Mr quasman you recently followed suit with your debt retirement party…Shameless is what comes to mind."

Isaac further charged that Councilman Quasman's campaign debt consisted of loans to his own campaign, meaning money he raised went directly into his bank account before being repaid. He criticized the Council for adding agenda items with minimal notice, thereby depriving residents of the ability to comment, and called this "Shameless" and contradictory to campaign pledges of transparency.

Council Response: Mayor Barowski interjected that Isaac's comments to the podium were "inappropriate" and the mayor did not engage substantively with the allegations. No council member addressed Isaac's claims, either to confirm or refute them. The allegations were aired but not debated or investigated on the record.

The incident highlights a key tension: newly elected council members campaigned on promises to listen to residents and govern transparently, yet their opening act—a high-stakes repeal vote on an agenda item added with short notice—has been perceived by critics as shutting out public input and prioritizing partisan policy reversal over deliberation.

Project Details

Sustainability Plan Repeal:

Vote Breakdown

Sustainability Plan Repeal (Resolution 13335):

(Note: Mayor Barowski's "yes" vote is noteworthy given her stated opposition to wholesale repeal; her vote appears to have been conditional on the council's future commitment to develop a distilled action plan, though this was not formalized in the motion.)

Outcome & Next Steps

Sustainability Plan: Repealed. Council directed to establish a sustainability task force to evaluate and develop a replacement plan. Timeline not specified; council deferred detailed planning to staff.

Dog Park Petition: Council unanimously (7-0) directed City Manager to agendize Steven Sutton's petition for dog park signage (605 signatures, 477 from Scottsdale residents) for future council discussion. Sutton requested a two-month deadline for city decision. Item to be added to a future agenda.

Marshall Living Project DRB Review: Council unanimously (7-0) voted to agendize the development review board's approval of a 12-unit residential project on 9,000 sq ft (1/5 acre) in Oldtown for council review as a DRB board. Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield raised concerns about non-compliant ADA driveway, parking impacts on nearby businesses, zoning law change (residential use unprecedented in the area), and non-compliance with parking maneuver clearances. Next agendized review: February 18, 2025 or later (30-day minimum).

Dynamite Boulevard Roundabout Scope Change: Council unanimously (7-0) voted to agendize a review of possible scope modifications to the planned roundabout at Scottsdale Road and Dynamite Boulevard. Mayor Barowski noted that a $30 million federal grant for the intersection project is not conditional on the roundabout and that staff should explore alternatives. Item to be brought back to council at a future date.

Controversies & Context

Political Reversal and Civic Trust: The sustainability plan repeal represents a dramatic pivot from the previous council's priorities and from the campaign messaging of the newly elected majority. Mayor Barowski, Barry Graham, Councilman Quasman, and Councilwoman McAllen all campaigned on platforms emphasizing resident input, fiscal responsibility, and transparency. Yet their first major vote repealed a plan that embodied all three values in the eyes of its supporters—extensive public engagement, cost-saving measures (recycling, tree-planting, water efficiency), and a transparent, multi-year public process.

Barry Graham assertion that residents are "disturbed" by the plan's contents and want government to "stay in its own lane" was contradicted by the uniformity and passion of public testimony: 30+ speakers supporting the plan versus 2 opposing it. This disparity raises questions about whether the majority is responding to a genuine groundswell of constituent concern or to a vocal minority mobilized during the campaign via email and social media.

Campaign Finance and Developer Influence: Dan Isaac's on-the-record allegations about debt-retirement parties sponsored by zoning attorneys and major business interests, and held at a city-funded venue (Pedman Art Gallery), were not rebutted by the council and merit further scrutiny. Campaign finance disclosures will clarify whether these assertions are accurate, but their public airing—and the council's silence—has reinforced perception among critics that the new majority is beholden to developer interests.

Agenda Process and Transparency: Multiple speakers and council members noted that items 14a–14d (and item 17) were added to the agenda with minimal notice, in violation of past practice. This procedural shift, occurring on the council's first day, contradicts the majority's stated commitment to transparency and resident input. Dan Isaac explicitly accused the new council of "exponentially expanding tonight's agenda with little notice and contrary to past practice or even a modicum of decorum thereby depriving the vast majority of residents from being able to comment or attend."

Sustainability Director's Departure: Mike Malo posed a question that went unaddressed: "Why did Lisa McNeely the sustainability director resign immediately after presenting the plan?" McNeely's resignation, coming so shortly after the plan's approval, may signal internal knowledge of political intent to repeal. The council has not disclosed her rationale.

State Preemption and Fiscal Pressures: Barry Graham did not invoke state preemption or fiscal emergency as justification for repeal; rather, he framed the issue as one of ideological boundary-setting ("government should stay in its own lane"). However, the prior council's approval of the plan was unanimous and fiscally conservative (no new fees, no mandates); the repeal therefore cannot be justified on fiscal grounds without detailed analysis of the plan's actual implementation costs—which have not been presented to council.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Interim City Manager Confirmation (Item 14d): Acting City Manager Bill Murphy resigned after 30 years of service, effective January 14. His predecessor, former City Manager Jim Thompson, had appointed Murphy as interim city manager in 2024. Murphy, in turn, appointed Assistant City Manager Greg Kon as interim city manager via written notice (per Resolution 9774, which delegates this authority). Council voted unanimously (7-0) to confirm Kon's appointment at a salary of $335,000 per annum—5% above the highest charter officer. Kon previously served as city manager of Grand Junction and Oro Valley and was hired by the prior city manager in early 2024. Council to initiate a search for a permanent city manager at the next meeting.

Council Procedure Rules Amendment (Resolution 13336, Item 14c): Council voted unanimously (7-0) to repeal Section 5.11 of the Rules of Council Procedure, which had prohibited council members from sending or receiving electronic messages while on the dais. The rule, enacted by the prior council (7-0), was intended to prevent non-transparent offline communication during open meetings and to demonstrate respect for public speakers. Mayor Barowski argued that council members are "adults" and should be responsible for device use; Kathy Littlefield, Solange Whitehead, and McAllen countered that the rule enhanced public trust and that city staff already provide emergency communication devices. One public speaker (Lee Cofle) opposed repeal, noting that prior council members had been observed using phones during meetings and that the rule had not caused problems. The repeal passed despite these objections, signaling the new majority's intent to relax governance constraints.

Budget Review Commission Establishment (Ordinance 4660, Item 14): Council voted unanimously (7-0) to establish a Budget Review Commission comprising seven citizen members with financial, accounting, business, or government management experience. Each council member appoints one member; the mayor appoints the chair. Members serve three-year terms. The commission will review operating and capital budgets, revenue forecasts, and budget policies, with all final authority retained by the council. City Treasurer Sony Andrews presented; no significant debate.

Community Safety Subcommittee Creation: Council voted unanimously (7-0) to create a Council Subcommittee on Community Safety with three appointed council members. The subcommittee will focus on strengthening public safety and community safety in the city. Mayor Barowski identified this as one of her campaign initiatives. Barry Graham praised the creation as aligned with his campaign platform.