Scottsdale votes 4-3 to revise $1.2 billion parks tax ballot language after court ruling
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — August 20, 2024

Scottsdale votes 4-3 to revise $1.2 billion parks tax ballot language after court ruling

Scottsdale City Council votes 4-3 to revise and resubmit ballot language for 0.15% sales tax after Court of Appeals ruled original language misleading, amid heated debate over process transparency, legal compliance, and public trust.

Council Approves Court-Ordered Ballot Language Revision for Parks Tax, 4-3, Amid Heated Debate Over Process and Legal Compliance

Scottsdale City Council voted 4-3 on August 20 to amend Resolution 13092 and submit revised ballot language for Proposition 490—a 0.15% transaction privilege tax for parks and preserves lasting 30 years—to Maricopa County for inclusion on the November 2024 general election ballot. The vote came after the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the city's original ballot description was misleading, specifically objecting to the words "reduce" and "replace." The measure would generate approximately $1.2 billion over three decades and fund improvements, maintenance, and protection of citywide park and recreational facilities and preserve lands.

The decision capped a contentious 2 p.m. special meeting that exposed deep fissures within the council over process transparency, legal authority, and whether the city had betrayed its commitment to open deliberation on a measure that had consumed 20 months and thousands of hours of staff and community input.

Key Speeches

"The court of appeals found that the word replace was accurate but disagreed with the use of the word reduce in the ballot language and found that word misleading because the ballot measure is proposing a new tax." — City Attorney Sher Scott

"Scottsdale residence if you could put up the PowerPoint presentation…we're discussing today at the 11th Hour a rush job to redraft the ballot language description of a $1.2 billion 30-year tax program. I think this Council has a lot to be concerned about. I think they have to be concerned about residents who are saying that they've been denied enough time to review and digest these changes." — Vice Mayor Barry Graham

"Mr. hackby and Mr. quasman have both falsely stated that this is a tax increase. Our current tax is 8.05 and if the proposition is passed the tax will reduce to 8 zero. So I'm not a math major but I'm pretty sure that the movement from 8.05 to 8% is a tax reduction." — Councilman Tom Durham

"I am amazed at all that happened here. There are many problems with this and many citizens are outraged. I can say that because they've been calling me and yes I have been listening to the citizens. They are paying very close attention to this people and that Council majority is rather nefarious activity regarding this." — Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield

"I don't understand why we would stop the transparency at this 11th Hour. I'm just not. I don't know that I'm necessarily on board with stopping at this point. I 100% support having our residents have a voice again that's why we referred it to the ballot. But I don't understand what the rush is necessarily." — Councilwoman Tammy Caputi

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 3 (James Hackby, Adam Kwasman, Mark Sonenclar)

Main concerns:

  1. Violation of Arizona election law: Both Hackby and Sonenclar cited ARS 19-1-123 and ARS 19-1-141c, which require a 90-day advance notice period for the public to submit ballot arguments. Sonenclar read verbatim: "arguments supporting or opposing municipal or County initiative and referendum measures shall be filed with the city or town clerk of the county or the County officer in charge of Elections not less than 90 days before the election at which they are to be voted upon." He asserted the city would be violating state law by proceeding.

  2. Ballot arguments rendered obsolete and misleading: Sonenclar and Cosman argued that existing ballot arguments submitted under the original language would no longer apply to the new language, leaving voters confused and prior commenters looking "like liars and out of touch with reality."

  3. Lack of transparency and rushed process: Cosman and Hackby condemned the 24-hour notice of a 2 p.m. special meeting on a measure affecting $1.2 billion over 30 years. Cosman stated the decision was "done behind closed doors" and "without the availability of public comment." Bob Pedman noted that few people knew about the meeting—he learned of it only because a council member told him—and questioned why City Hall was not packed.

  4. Procedural reversal of earlier transparency commitments: Cosman emphasized the contradiction: the measure had been lauded for its "open and transparent process" with "a long Runway of public comment." Now the city was "slamming a tax hike down our throats" behind closed doors within 24 hours.

  5. Deceptive original language justified by poor process: Hackby argued the original language was designed to deceive residents by using "Preserve and protect" language to obscure that this was a new tax, not a replacement. Now, by rushing the language change, the council compounded the deception.

  6. Inadequate vetting of new language: Barry Graham stated that council members "got the redraft very recently" and that the changes had not been "adequately vetted."

  7. Erosion of public trust: Multiple speakers invoked the precedent-setting danger of ramming a measure through under court order without adequate public opportunity for input. Pedman warned that the vote would "further erode trust in this Council and the process as a whole."

Most compelling arguments:

Sonenclar's citation of the specific statutory language and the 90-day deadline was the sharpest legal argument; his point that prior ballot arguments would no longer correspond to the new language posed a practical problem for the city's compliance with publication requirements. Cosman's framing of the process contradiction—championing transparency for 20 months, then abandoning it at the finish line—resonated with the council's own stated values and appeared to sway Councilwoman Caputi visibly.

Organized groups: The Goldwater Institute was named as the plaintiff/appellants driving the legal challenge; they were present (implicitly) but did not testify.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 2 (Carla, Mary Manos)

Main arguments:

  1. Citizens have the right to vote: Carla and Manos both emphasized that the city's primary obligation is to allow residents to decide. Manos noted the Superior Court upheld the original language and questioned why voters should be denied a voice.

  2. Minor substantive changes only: Carla asserted that the proposed language changes were not "really substantial" and that existing ballot arguments "would still apply with the new language with a few minor exceptions." She argued residents and newspapers would provide sufficient context.

  3. Parks have been neglected for 20+ years: Both speakers pointed to documented neglect of southern Scottsdale parks and the need for dedicated funding. Manos cited three years of planning and community input and asked why the Goldwater Institute should prevent citizens from voting on a matter they care deeply about.

  4. Existing ballot arguments should remain: Manos argued that if the city kept the ballot arguments (even without a full new 90-day comment period), the pamphlet would serve its purpose. If they were to be removed, all should be removed, not selectively.

  5. 70% resident support: Carla referenced polling showing 70% of residents favored the measure.

  6. Court approval of language change itself: Carla noted that the Goldwater Institute had asked the court to prevent the city from changing the language, and the court rejected that request, signaling approval for the revision process.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Prior votes on same motion:

Outcome & Next Steps

The revised ballot language for Proposition 490 has been approved and will be submitted to Maricopa County for inclusion on the November 2024 general election ballot. The county requires the language by later in the week due to ballot printing deadlines.

City Attorney's commitment: Sher Scott announced that the city would work to allow those who submitted prior ballot arguments to revise their entries in light of the language change. She also committed to making necessary adjustments to the informational packet distributed to voters.

Timing: No new 90-day ballot argument submission period will be implemented; the city will attempt to give existing submitters an opportunity to revise rather than starting a fresh comment window.

Conditions: The amendment references Resolution 13092 in substantially the form approved by council today, with narrow administrative discretion for staff to adjust one or two words if necessary without calling another public hearing.

What comes next:

Controversies & Context

The Court of Appeals ruling and the "misleading" language finding:

The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's approval of the original ballot language, finding that the use of the word "reduce" (and possibly "replace") was misleading because the measure proposed a new tax, not a reduction of an existing one. The Superior Court had upheld the language as transparent and accurate. The appellate court did not reject the measure outright but required the city to revise the language before proceeding.

The city received the court's order only 24 hours before this meeting and was given a narrow window—measured in days, not weeks—to revise and resubmit due to ballot printing deadlines.

The legal challenge by the Goldwater Institute:

A conservative litigation organization, the Goldwater Institute, brought suit arguing that the ballot language was confusing and deceptive. In oral argument before the Court of Appeals, they apparently objected to the original wording and asked the court to prevent the city from changing the language. The court denied that request, signaling that revision was permissible.

Mayor Ortega thanked the Goldwater Institute during his closing remarks for seeking a "third-party review," suggesting he viewed the appellate court's decision as a refinement rather than a rebuke.

The 90-day ballot argument statute (ARS 19-1-141c) controversy:

Two attorneys in public comment (Adam Kwasman and Mark Sonenclar) argued that changing the ballot language after the 90-day deadline for public ballot arguments had passed was illegal or, at minimum, deprived voters of the opportunity to submit new arguments addressing the revised language. City Attorney Scott did not directly address the legality of this claim but committed to allowing prior submitters to revise their comments.

Kathy Littlefield raised the same concern during council deliberation, noting that citizens had paid $100 to submit comments based on the original language and that changing it now without a new 90-day period constituted a violation of public trust and potentially of state law.

Process transparency and notice:

Multiple speakers condemned the 24-hour notice for a 2 p.m. meeting on an issue affecting $1.2 billion. Adam Kwasman asserted the decision was "done behind closed doors" and "without the availability of public comment except for an immediate meeting at 2 p.m when most residents are not available." Bob Pedman noted he learned of the meeting only from a council member, not from official city notice, and questioned the opacity.

Mayor Ortega clarified near the end of the meeting: "There has not been an executive session or secret session prior to our discussion. This is fully open and to let everyone know that's the case."

However, the substance of Cosman's and Pedman's complaint—that the compressed timeline prevented adequate public awareness and engagement—was not directly rebutted and appeared to resonate with Councilwoman Caputi, who stated she was "increasingly more uncomfortable about the process."

Personal attacks and council divisiveness:

The debate became heated and personal. Barry Graham attacked Councilman Durham's remarks as "fact-free" and accused him of smearing Barry Graham cited budget overruns and staff pay increases Durham had supported. Durham countered by attacking Barry Graham and Kathy Littlefield for opposing a measure polls show 70% of residents support, and he questioned why they were "afraid" to let voters decide. He also criticized the council's 20-24 year history of park neglect and blamed Kathy Littlefield family (she and her husband Kathy Littlefield) for past inaction.

Mayor Ortega intervened midway, noting that "two years ago we had really good deliberations up here. We did not have council members that accused us as a city as a council of committing fraud" and called for an end to "personal attacks against each other."

Kathy Littlefield characterized the council majority's conduct as "rather nefarious activity" and implied potential fraud, stating that changing ballot language without a new 90-day period and without distributing a revised publicity pamphlet could be "immoral and unethical" and possibly illegal.

Procedural tensions:

The meeting featured multiple procedural maneuvers:

Council divisions:

The 4-3 split exposed a fault line:

Caputi's statement was particularly notable: she said she supported the mission (dedicated parks funding) but had "increasingly more uncomfortab[le]" with the process and suggested the measure could be resubmitted in a future election with more time for deliberation and community agreement.

Historical and political context:

Lingering legal risks:

City Attorney Scott did not elaborate on whether the city remained at risk of a challenge based on the 90-day ballot argument statute. Her commitment to allow prior submitters to revise arguments was presented as an accommodating gesture, but whether it satisfies the statutory requirement remains unclear and could be litigated.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Item 1 (Executive session consideration): Mayor Ortega stated he saw "no reason for a motion" for an executive session and did not call for one. This item was summarily closed.

Procedural Rules Applied

Arizona state law prohibits "electioneering" or speaking for or against a ballot measure or candidate during council meetings. Mayor Ortega reminded the public of this rule at the opening and reiterated it before public comment. No speakers were ruled out of order for violating this rule, suggesting the bar for "advocacy" was set high or that the speeches were framed as procedural/legal commentary rather than direct electioneering.