Scottsdale approves constitutional claim notice against SB543 in 6-1 vote

All right. Thank you for being here. I'd like to now call the September 12th, 2025 special meeting of the Scottsdale City Council to order. City Clerk Ben Lane, may we have a roll call. Thank you, mayor. Mayor Lisa Broski present. Vice Mayor Tandy Bosquez here. Council members Barry Graham here. Adam Quasman here. Kathy Littlefield here. Mayan McAllen present. And Solange Whitehead here. City Manager Greg Kaitton here. Interimm city attorney Louis Santea here.

Acting city treasurer Anna Henthornne here. Acting city auditor LL here. And the clerk is present. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. This evening we have uh numerous members of our Scottsdale Police Officer Department, police department. I'm going to name them off because we really appreciate them and uh thank them for being here. We also have a K-9 who I don't see but I'd like to see. I don't have the K9's name but Officer uh starting with Officer Ray Wilburn, Officer Robert St.

Pierre, Officer Joshua Bayfield, and Officer Darren Heyman, Officer Alejandro Baron, K9 Officer Brent Patterson and his K9, and uh Josh Bayfield and Ray Wilburn. Thank you all for being here this evening. We really appreciate it. In addition, we have firefighters uh Todd Johnson, Jack Shannon, and Mike Orin. If anyone requires any assistance from these uh these security public safety members, please let a member of our staff know.

I will ask Councilman Clausman to please lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I alsy justice for all. Thank you, Councilman Quasman. So, we can't help but start this meeting with a serious moment of silence for the um tragedy that occurred. I don't know if I'll be able to get through it. The city of Scottsdale lost such a an amazing individual. Our city, our state, our country lost an amazing individual this week. And as hard as it is to talk about it, I'd like to get through it.

I'd like to use this moment of silence to pray for Charlie Kirk, his beautiful wife Erica, and their amazing little children, and all of his um Turning Point family, his family, and all of the people that knew him to be a great man, including many of us up here. Please take join me in a moment of silence for Charlie and his family. Thank you.

So I called this special meeting and I think it's worthy of explanation because for various reasons there's been a lot of misunderstanding in the community and in the press and for the purpose of clarity. I would like to share with the public that we had an executive session on September 9th and we and the purpose of that executive session was to obtain oops I didn't do the executive session notice but I'm going to do this first and then move to that.

The purpose of our executive session as agendaized was to receive, discuss, and give possible direction on uh the legal advice from our outside council and our city attorney's office as to s the next steps on SB543. We did that and we provided direction as is customary in executive session.

We are not allowed to vote in executive session but we are allowed to give direction and we did that and there was an understanding at the end of the meeting by um what our direction or preferences were by the end of the meeting. Uh we had um we had scheduled to come out and have a regular agenda item to vote on that discussion and direction.

that in the interest of not um disclosing legal strategy and attorney client privilege, anything having to do with uh a legal strategy, uh we I made the motion to vacate the agenda item. Contrary to what you've read um from many different sources, including unfortunately an email blast that went out to an entire huge list of people from Councilwoman Dascus. We did not in fact vote no to a lawsuit defending your constitutional rights. That never happened.

So, I only use that because Councilwoman Damascus was not the only person that communicated this erroneous information on this very important subject. It was widespread resulting in much confusion and unfortunately mostly impacted by that confusion was the stress level that that it put on our residents. So, I uh you know in fact I had a Jay Greyber is in the audience.

He had the misfortune of you know completely misstating a headline as a result of the mis which he was kind enough to revise to as the result of much misinformation. And I guess that's kind of the chances we take. But I think you know I for one I it's important to let the public know exactly what's going on. You know, politics aside, I hope we can we can, you know, just cure this in the future. We won't make this mistake again. The interim at city attorney is doing an amazing job.

But how we get to today is our interim city attorney said, you know, I want to make sure we protect the open meeting law and uh formalize direction with a public vote. So that's what we're doing here today. We are here to formalize the direction that was provided to our legal staff external and internal. We're not here to do a doover. We're not here to do a reconsideration.

We're not here to discuss legal strategy, but we are here to simply formalize a vote of direction that was discussed in executive session. So I'm going to read the uh now go back to the notice of p possible executive session as always is the case uh not that city council during today's meeting may make a motion to recess into executive session to discuss and consult with the attorneys and representatives of the public body to obtain legal advice and any applicable item on tonight's agenda.

If authorized by a majority vote of the council, the executive session will be held immediately after the the vote and will not be open to the public. So, the only item on this special meeting today is I also should point this out. We had two items on the agenda but by a majority and the second one was to move up the election. I just don't want there to be any confusion.

Um before this meeting, 24 hours in advance, four a majority of the council members were pulled and that the agenda item as as you know because I put it out and I think there were plenty of um publications about this was to move the referendum election up to March 12th to direct uh our city clerk. That item has been removed as is the policy of the city council uh because four members of the council opposed having that agenda item on on the uh agenda tonight.

So we won't be discussing that uh today. Um so leaving item one the only item on the agenda is consider authorization of our interim city attorney and his design to proceed as instructed in the executive session held on September 9th. Before we proceed with any discussion or a motion, we've received I think there were five people starting with Steve Sutton. Then I don't know if we RL Whitmer, uh Andrew Walman, Ethan Nolen, and finally Ivon Cahill. I'll hear from Steve Sutton if he's here.

There you are, Steve. I'm going to need the overhead projector turned on. Maybe this will work. Maybe not. Having some technical details here because this is so small. Is there any way to flip this around the other way to do one on it? I'm not qualified to be the tech person here, so we're gonna have to ask somebody else. Ben's gonna come help you out there. Just change the orientation of this. I need and I can't do it with this way. Will Yeah. Will it be readable? It's got to be turned around.

Okay. All right. All right. Okay. Great. That's working. Steve Sutton, address on record. Good afternoon, honorable Lisa Barowski, mayor of Scottsdale and other council members. Urslim Besserung is probably a word most of you are not familiar with. It is a German word. There is no English equivalent. It's a wonderful German word that refers to a situation. And that situation is to repair or attempt to make something better and yet make it worse.

There's been a lot of that in the last nine months. The Axon situation, I think, is a perfect example of that. And that uh we're now preparing to go to war with a governmental entity that is enormously more powerful than we are.

Now when first sliss or be wrong happens it often results in fubar which anyone not knowing what that means it's an acronym for well the boulderized version would be fouled up beyond all recognition and I think that's where we're at on axon compared where we were in January and now the normal situation in Scottsdale is snafu situation normal all fouled up on a lot of things.

Now there's a lot of political animosity in this town right now and the opponents of many of the people who are sitting on the council they are absolutely enjoying shod and freighta which is the enjoyment of someone else's discomfort. I'm sure the council doesn't really care too much about that, but they should be concerned about the fact that in the last few months, I've spoken to so many of their supporters who actually campaign for them.

And what I'm hearing from them is profound disappointment with you. Now, how do you fix this? Well, it requires another German word zurage. There is no English equivalent. But what it means in English is moral courage. Moral courage means doing the right thing even when it has consequences for you. And the right thing to do is to stop using ideological decision-making paradigms and start using pragmatic decision-making paradigms.

And the best pragmatic decision-making paradigm is not to govern from the far extreme of politics, but from the center, which was a principle as I was growing up that you ran at the extremes, but you govern from the center. And it's time that this council find a way to do that. It's time that we have a situation like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal, two master politicians in the 80s who didn't agree on a lot, could still sit down and work things out in a civil manner.

Thank you for time, Mayor Barski. Thank you, Steve. I rarely comment on speakers, but I completely agree with your points. Thank you. Andrea Walman, mayor, vice mayor, council members. My first time speaking here. I'm a longtime resident, 40 years, a little plus a few months. But this issue that we're going through right now is is important. I've lived in the foothills for a long time and it's changing.

72 hours ago, the council vacated an agenda item that would allowed both public comment period and vote on whether to change this state law. That decision avoided a clear yes or no vote and avoided accountability to the people of Scottsdale. I suspect that tonight's discussion will be not be an attempt uh to to do anything but to substitute a notice of claim for real action. A notice of claim does not protect this city. It does not stop Axon from moving forward.

It does not send a clear message that Scottsdale is willing to fight. Almost 27,000 voters signed a referendum petition on this issue. It's not noise. It's a clear guidance from your constituents. It's your duty to honor their wishes and my wishes. You work for us and if the petition signatures weren't enough, the inboxes that you've been looking at should be sending you the same message both before and after Tuesday's meeting. I don't see what's so funny.

But both before in today's meeting, Scottsdale does not want Axon apartments. Meanwhile, Axon repeatedly filled this chamber with its own employees bust in at company expense to take up seats that have been occupied by Scottsdale citizens. At the very same time, Axon complains that union money helps sign citizens gain signatures.

Think about Axon spends millions of dollars on PR busing pressure campaigns to force feed this project to our city and to our state government, but then objects to ordinary residents getting a fraction of that support to make their voices heard. This is hypocrisy. Worse, if the city delays while Axon builds, Scottsdale could expose itself to even greater liability. That path weakens our position and risk being used later as an excuse not to act. I think that's what's happening here.

The only meaningful step is to vote tonight to instruct the city attorney to fight a lawful to file a lawful suit against the state of Arizona and a seek an injunction to halt development until the courts decide whether the citizens really have a voice in this matter. No more postponements, no more avoidance. Put the motion on the table tonight. Yes or no. Let the people of Scottsdale know exactly where you stand.

Any money spent protecting our referendum rights and our right to self-governance is well spent. We didn't start this fight and our referendum rights have worked for us in the past and several times and a lame duck council should not dis decide what the future of Scottsdale is. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Andrew Ethan Nolen. Madame Mayor, members of city council, thank you so much for your time. So, it's deja vu all over again, right? We're here from Tuesday and now on Friday.

Just doesn't really feel like the way to run a city, you know, and I'm trying to decide if this is an accident or incompetence or, you know, an intentional deceit. But whatever it is, it's just not a good look. So, what I would really encourage the council to do tonight is to be straight with us. You know, if it's really about SB543 and local control, then why are the other cities that are impacted by this law not joining you?

Tell us, you know, why is uh the League of Cities and Towns not leading the charge? Tell us. Why is uh Goldwater Institute not leading this? It feels like you guys made no friends on the playground this year. So, why don't you tell us a little bit about what your outside council told you in executive session earlier this week. Tell us, you know, how long this is going to take, how much money it's going to cost, and what are your odds. You know, I've been a lawyer for 35 years.

I've given this kind of advice. So, if you're not going to tell us, and I suspect you might not, uh, let me offer folks here my view. It's going to take one to two years because you're fighting not Axon, you're fighting the state of Arizona and they have a really vested interest in defending their right to legislate and enforce their laws. So, you're going to the Arizona Supreme Court. Your $800 an hour lawyer is probably going to wind up charging you 8 to10 million to get there.

and he might have told you what the odds are of actually winning. I've given and gotten this advice lots of times. 6040 is the best I've ever gotten. So, the city, you know, can decide if that's a good bet or not.

Now, if it's just about Axon and you're all hoping, you know, for an injunction to prevent things going forward that this is going to give you leverage, um, I'll tell you what I've always told my clients, which is you don't file a lawsuit unless you're prepared to take it all the way because the other side's going to call your bluff. And I have a feeling that Axon is just sitting here waiting for you guys to find out how dig a hole, how big a hole you're going to dig.

And at the end of the day, if you keep pushing this, what you're probably going to do is push Axon out of Scottsdale. It's two miles to the west in Phoenix, and they'll be very happy to have this corporate headquarters and all the housing that comes with it. You know, what you need to do is tell us how you're going to make up for this lost tax revenue, how you going to make up for the jobs that are lost. You know, how you going to rebuild the city's reputation?

Because in fact, right now, that reputation is pretty bad. business knows they are not wanted here and you're gonna have to figure out how to turn that around. So look, everything you spend, everything you damage, the residents have to pay for. Now, if you don't want to be straight with us, I get it. It's hard. Just remember, we're entering an election year. So all that stuff you don't want to say, well, other people are going to be saying it for you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ethan.

Last, we have Avon Cahill. And I do note that one of the speakers was not present in case we had any in respon [Laughter] Cahill and my address is on record. I just wanted to talk to you about why I'm against uh Senate Bill 1543. This bill is nothing more than a corporate handout designed to benefit one company acts on. Senate bill 1543 would require Scottsdale to reszone light industrial land for hotel and multif family development all without public hearing pub and community input.

This is a clear case of state legislation being tailored to serve a single corporation expansion plans at the expense of transparency and the democratic process. And there's actually state law that that addresses this. The pro the people of Scottsdale quickly worked to stop the proposed headquarters with nearly 27,000 residents signed the petition calling on for referendum to place on the original plan on the ballot.

And I'm very upset to learn today that four council members would not let that go forward to an early election. the the um Senate Bill 1543 in my opinion is unconstitutional under article 4 part 2 section 19 of the Arizona constitution which which prohibits special laws granting privileges to individual corporations. In conclusion, this bill undermines the value of transparency, accountability, and the fundamental right of every Arizonan to have a voice in the local governance.

I would also like to address the irresponsible behavior of two council members, Barry Graham and Jan Debasquez, who sent out misinformation after the last council meeting, whipping people into a frenzy. I cannot tell you how many calls and emails and text messages I got regarding this. I think it's irresponsible. It's not necessary. And in this day of political violence, I just hope that you will stop being so irresponsible. Just report the truth. That's all your representatives want is truth.

They can make up their own minds. Thank you. Thank you, Avon. There's no additional uh speakers for this evening and we only have one agenda item.

Uh, in the interest of not disclosing anything from executive session, I don't know if you want to comment on that, Luis, but um before we get started, honorable mayor, members of the city council, um under state law, contrary to one speaker said, we are not allowed, in fact, it would be a crime for us to reveal that was discussed in executive session. Um, if the council has any further questions regarding um, executive session roles, I'd be um, happy to answer them. Thank you. I see.

So, uh, pardon me. Okay. So, I've already explained in in detail what this meeting is for and what this agenda item is about. So with that, I move to authorize our interim city attorney andor design to proceed with legal action against the state of Arizona challenging the constitutionality of SB543 as instructed as as instructed or discussed or direction provided in the executive session held on September 9th. 2025. Do I have a second? Mayor, I would like to call an executive session.

I think you need a second for that. Second vote on this, right? This is a first for me. Okay. All those in favor, indicate your vote. Councilman Clausman. Madame Mayor, I'm not speaking I'm not asking to speak to my vote because I know that's against the rules, but can I ask the reasoning for the second for sorry for the for the request? I think I don't think the request is innately unnecessary. Is it innately unnecessary? But I just want to know what your reasoning is. Yeah.

So, I'm concerned that the motion does not match my understanding of the executive session. So, I just want some clarification before I vote and I'd like to speak to Excuse me. Um, I'd like to speak to that. I I think um can you please let's get advice from our city attorney. Does that accurately cover without giving away legal strategy the direction that you received in executive session? Uh, mayor and members of the city council, I would prefer to answer that question in executive session.

Then I have a second question before we finish the vote. Can Councilwoman uh Whitehead caucus with you individually unless anybody else has the same question? I don't believe so. Mayor, Councilman Graham, just a point of order. Um can So, uh Council Member Whitehead asked for an executive session. I think she's asking for clarity on the motion on the floor and is it possible just to provide clarity on the floor to avoid retreat and do an executive session?

No, because I No, I think we need an executive session. Okay, let's vote on that. It's already We've already We're halfway there. So, Vice Mayor Dascus, please cast your vote. So, the motion to move into executive session fails. So, with that, I'd like to put my motion back on the table. And I'll repeat it. Um, and that was to authorize our interim city attorney and our design to proceed with legal action against the state of Arizona challenging point of order.

Having voted, Madame Mayor, having voted in the affirmative of the of on the correct on the winning side of the final vote, I would like to call that question back up for a sec for another for another vote. Okay. So, we're voting on executive session again. Okay. Uh, Councilman Clausman has made a motion to reconsider the vote denying moving to executive session. So, I will you, Councilwoman Whitehead, would you like to restate your motion? Okay.

Yes, I would mo I motion to move into executive session. Second. All those in favor? That motion passes and we are now adjourned, recessed, excuse me, into executive session. Thank you. All right. Uh, city attorney, I'm going to need a little We are back in this uh general session here, special meeting. Um, I'm going to need a little input. We left off with a motion to reconsider the executive session. We had not taken a vote on my motion. Is that what you recall? Yes, I believe that's the case.

Would you concur? Yes. So, I'm going to withdraw my motion and give the floor to Councilwoman Whitehead. Thank you, Mayor. I motion to direct and authorize the city the interim city attorney to file a notice of claim. And I want to speak to that especially to the gentleman who spoke earlier. Our job up here is to deliver results in the most efficient, cost-effective and and manner that we deliver. We protect your prosperity, your public safety, and your public and your dollars.

So litigation is a failure of negotiation. We're not done negotiating in my mind. There's a lot we can still do. Um we want to keep every single option open. This is our city. We want to make sure to keep pressure on all all parties involved. And that's what we're doing tonight. Uh city attorney has indicated his honorable mayor, members of the council.

Um, Councilwoman Whitehead, if I could suggest that in terms of your motion that you direct the interim city attorney and his design um to file a notice of claim consistent with the direction provided on September 9th, 2025 during um executive session. Okay. I will amend my emotion uh as you d as directed. Would you like me to repeat that?

Um um I motion to I move um I move to um direct or to authorize the interim city attorney to file a motion of claim notice of claim is okay folks no more I'm going to start over I did say it right um can you remind me the date was it February or was it um September 9th honorable mayor members the council September 9th and if you could um specifically authorize the interim city attorney and his design designate. Okay.

So, we're authorizing the city interim city attorney and his design to file the notice of claim as directed in the executive session of September 9th. Does that satisfy our interim city attorney? Yes, it does. Thank you. Thank you. I second that motion. I'd like to speak to this before we vote. Um I will be supporting this motion.

However, with the caveat that there are um critical uh there is critical information that I personally am waiting to see from our external legal council before we take the next step which is which would be ideally soon regarding filing a complaint.

So, uh, with that, um, but I'm in favor of filing the legal action, which is what my motion was, and that's the precursor to filing a litigation or a lawsuit, and that is a notice of constitutional challenge, as uh, Councilwoman uh, Whitehead has referred to it as notice of claim, but uh, I will be supporting this and I see Councilman Graham has indicated his request to speak. Thank you, mayor. Um, thank you everyone for being here.

I will just uh make a alternate motion to the motion that's on the floor. Um, and my alternate motion will be to direct to authorize the interim city attorney and his respective staff and design um to file a notice of claim and to file a complaint for declaratory judgment against the state of Arizona to challenge the legality and constitutionality of Senate Bill 1543. Thank you. Second, Councilman Clausman. Thank you, Madame Mayor.

So, I think everybody kind of knows that this was this looks like everybody kind of staked out their position prior to today. And it's really no different from what happened on Tuesday.

And I I just want to I want to be very clear with with with anybody who's paying attention here in this room and everybody listening online and that right now I could I could confirm that we are smack dab in the middle of high stakes negotiation with a massive employer in order to guarantee a serious reduction of apartments for Scottsdale residents.

And when you're in the middle of a high stakes negotiation, that does not mean you it that does not mean you preclude any chance of legis of litigation. And therefore, when you're moving forward, you act appropriately. You keep doing what you need to do for your statutory requirements. Notices of claim is something that qu that I do in my personal firm. This is something that is very very normal um as a means to a litigatory end.

And I want to make sure that everybody knows that by voting to authorize the instructions from 99 through the notice of claim you absolutely reserve the right. In fact, that is what reserves the right uh uh to subsequently litigate the constitutionality of SB1543 in case these negotiations are unsuccessful. But what we're trying to do here is trying to guarantee a great outcome for everybody. And I want to be just very clear again.

The vote does not This vote does not preclude the right to sue at a later date at all. This is not kicking the can indeterminately down the road. This is the correct steps in the process whilst negotiation whether it's a formal mediation or informal negotiation continues. So with that I will not be supporting that motion at this time. Councilwoman Whitehead. Yeah. I want to speak to the fact that often the legislature um preempts our rights as a local government.

In this case, the lack of the public vote. Indeed, there was a referendum and indeed you earned the right to vote. But again and again, I supported your right to vote. last March, November, next March, and every time your vote was denied by the very people that claim they're representing your rights. If this had gone to a vote in March, there would be no legislation. So, I really want to stress that and I agree with everything uh Councilman Quasman said.

We are keeping every option on the table to protect the residents that we represent. That's what we're doing tonight by my motion. if we approve it. Thank you. Uh I'm going to also speak to the two comments that have been made. Uh we all have different reasons for where we stand. That's why you elected us. We're individuals and we have different perspectives.

Uh from my perspective, the reason to file the notice of constitutional challenge now before the deadline of October 15th is to preserve our right to file suit. And again, there there were critical questions regarding strategy um my critical questions regarding strategy. I'm going to expand on my questions um that I need answered and those include should we be the plaintiff? Should we wait and be the defendant? Should we wait and be a codefendant?

I understood from Bob Little Coun former council councilwoman Bob Littlefield's interview that TAZ is seriously considering or is sorry is going to be filing litigation if we don't. Wow, that would be great, wouldn't it? The taxpayers would not be footing the bill of this litigation even though we're all rowing the boat in the same direction wanting a better result from this.

So, I am not going to be supporting the motion, the alternative motion on the table because that would be imprudent based on the legal advice that I have thus far. These are very big considerations and I take it very seriously and I take the potentially 600,000 at a minimum uh dollars that we would be spending. Um, as Councilman Clausman is pointing upward, uh, it's likely to be over a million dollars.

So, this is a very serious issue and there's no reason not to wait for the legal advice of our very competent council. So, uh, with that, Councilman Graham. So, I made my alternate motion and I think I'm just going to respectfully reply to some of my colleagues up here because some comments were made and uh I'm going to gently reply to those and I hope then after that we can take a vote.

Um, I made this alternate motion from my point of view to stand up for the residents, for the re residents that signed a referendum, not only in Scottsdale, but to the citizens across the state that are concerned about the precedents set by this legislation. Um, I do believe this legislation is unconstitutional. Uh there was talk about um you know the state overrides the city. That does happen. That that happens all the time and we don't like it.

But the constitution overrides the legislature and that is the argument that we are making is that what they did they can't do by their own rules. Um there's a lot of talk up here about negotiations and those are very important. negotiations are a lot of times they are it's not what you see and there's back and forth and it's it's nebulous.

Um but I maintain and the reason I voted on Tuesday to take legal action against the state of Arizona because I maintain that taking legal action gives us leverage. My colleagues, a majority, some of my colleagues don't agree with that. We have a respectful difference of opinion. Um, Councilwoman White had made the comment that if this had if this referendum had gone to the ballot, there would be no legislation. That is total speculation. She does not know that.

To say that as a statement of fact is irresponsible. The mayor commented that TA may sue the state. I don't know what TA's strategy is. I don't talk to TA. None of us talk to TA uh to have any idea what their strategy is. We don't know what their standing is. We don't even know if they have standing. Um we we don't even know what complaints they're going to make. This is a this is a moment when the city needs to lead, not wait for what TAZ might do. And I don't know what TA will do.

I can't and even if I did, I can't control what they'll do as the city. And there was also the comment about, you know, if we if we pursued litigation, it would cost money. Um the mayor mentioned $600,000 and then $600,000 and corrected herself that maybe up to, you know, a million dollars.

Um, I the the cost to litigate in my opinion is nothing compared to the loss of referendum rights, losing your right to referendum in your constitutional rights and to the precedence this sets for corporations to impose their will on municipalities. So that is those are some of the reasons for my uh alternate motion and some of my respectful responses to my colleagues um when they expressed their disappribution for my alternate motion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor Debos.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Now is not a time for excuses. And like Councilman Graham, I have a respectful disagreement with my colleagues. Um, it's not a time for political spin. It's not a time to say not now. We have known about this for months. Voters expect us to be prepared. They voted for us so that we would do our job and be prepared. Many times what you don't see is that before meetings, we ask questions, we read documents, we get prepared. You expect us to come up here and make a vote.

On Tuesday, we could have made a vote to continue if there were questions, which would have suggested that we were going to potentially move forward with litigation. A motion to vacate is pretty much a no vote. That takes the movement away, the the litigation away. And the message that it sends to you is that we're not going to litigate. That's not what the voters expect from us. The voters expect us to stand up for Scottsdale. The voters expect us to say this is unconstitutional.

My right to vote, my right to a referendum cannot be touched. And they expect us to do what's necessary to defend them and to protect the city of Scottsdale. So again, I will repeat, I sit here ready today to fight for the residents of Scottsdale and to file litigation. I hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you, Councilwoman Whitehead. So, I will also respectfully disagree. Each and every one of us is elected to solve problems, not create them for political motivations.

The state of Arizona's economy is based on three pillars. It's based on having the best quality of life, businessfriendly, and low taxes. Chandler would not throw out Intel because of apartments. And believe me, I don't want 1,800 apartments. There will not be 1,800 apartments. This is just um these are attempts to scare voters into thinking that spending millions of dollars on a lawsuit we might lose is to their benefit. So, our job again is to solve problems. We have an incredible employer.

We have had five, ten former police chiefs or people in law enforcement tell us that having Axon in Scottdale in Arizona has made us safer. Chief Walter said he will not allow Axon to leave on his watch or he he dreads the thought of having Axon leave on his watch. When you file a lawsuit, you admit that you have failed to win at the negotiating table. We will keep every single option open. And that's why I support the notice of claim. But we have a great employer.

We have 70 acres that are designated industrial. We could become the valley's biggest truck depot. or we could become the home of global uh corporate headquarters. That's the option. I agree with everybody who wrote those letters. If I had gotten the emails you received and didn't know the information I know, I'd be freaking mad, too. But the bottom line is I've been calling all those people who wrote emails.

And believe me, when they understand what the options are, that land is going to be developed. And frankly, apartments will be better than a trucking depot. But let's talk about that state law. It is a state law. So you want to talk about speculation, Mr. Graham? Let's talk about saying it's unconstitutional. That will be decided in the courts. And guess who's going to pick up the tab? you and me and every other taxpayer in this city. We don't have to go that route.

This law, as terrible as it is, I don't like the president, has no impact on the city other than this parcel of land. And our options are some sort of industrial use or we come up with a deal with Axon that in fact benefits everybody. I can tell you that the neighbors closest to this parcel support this. They have not signed that petition. So what we're doing is not and I will tell you that I'm representing the citizens.

It turns out there's 240,000 people here and not everybody agrees with me and you better believe not everybody agrees with Mr. Graham or Miss Dascus. We're up here to deliver the best results possible and that's why I made my motion and we are on track as Councilman Quasman said to delivering that on you.

Well, we are in negotiations and we're going to allow those negotiations that will save you money and that is exactly what I'm trying to do and that is exactly what I've done for my first six years. Thank you. Thank you. First, I want to point out that we should all be speaking on behalf of ourselves because there's been two comments that do not include me uh at this time and I I just want to make sure that's clear.

So, speaking on behalf of only me, uh, and I loved Councilman Graham's statement, um, or comment predecessor to his statements, I'd like to gently respond to my, um, fellow council members. First, uh, Councilman Graham, you said something along the lines of it's important or incumbent upon us as elected officials to stand up for the citizens right to vote. And when 27,000 people go out of their way to sign a petition to challenge this project, I couldn't agree with you more.

There was a uh citizens petition in July that came forward with a request for this council to set an early election. The election, excuse me, earlier than two almost two and a half years after signatures were gathered. And that election would have take be taking place this November. And the citizens would have had their right to vote on it this November. And guess what? Here's the kicker. It would have been at no additional cost to us because there's a county election.

So, it wouldn't have cost any more money. But guess who said no? the two uh Vice Mayor Damascus, Councilwoman Graham opposed setting an early setting this the citizens petition and considering in fact I guess I should call on Greg Kaitton because the direction was to have city manager Greg Kaitton come back with uh I'd like you to hold your answer on that if you don't mind.

come back with uh recommendations, analysis, a summary of what that would look like and what that me would mean to our city. And I'm going to speculate because I know the answer that information which for the record we have not received yet. So there was no response to the citizens petition as far as I recall or know that information should have included that having the election the referendum election on on this project could have happened in November at no additional cost to the citizens.

So forgive me um city manager Kaitton if you can take a note and just hold that thought because I would like to hear your answer. And uh I would like to agree with something that um Councilman Graham said, however, and contrary to what Councilwoman Whitehead just went on about, this vote is not about Axon and when whether we keep them in our community.

I've been crystal clear in my uh desire and my commitment to do whatever we can to keep them in our community while respecting our residents and their um right to vote on the referendum and also finally and most importantly to protect our community in a fashion that we were elected to do and that is a de sign major if not eliminate um multifamily highrises is apartments in our community. That were that was our marching orders. So, all of those things aside, I do agree with Councilman Graham.

Moving forward with legal action for me, which starts with the notice of constitutional challenge, is about preserving municipal zoning rights and oversight and obligations and the right to referendum in that situation. Those two things are critical to me. Has nothing to do with Axon.

So in terms of um speculating about whether or not TA who led the charge on the referendum and while we all some of us me uh would have agreed to that would have agreed with them on that and do um because of the the size and the you know the circumstances that surrounded that vote.

Um, it's not speculation that that's what they're going to do because former council woman councilman Bob Littlefield was outside our front doors on channel 12 stating he's the chairman of TAZE so I'm hoping we can take his word for this stating that they will file litigation. So that's not just speculation. Those were in the words. Those were the words of the chairman. And I know and respect Bob Littlefield and I take him seriously when he makes a statement like that.

Vice Mayor Dasquez, what you just talked about with respect to excuses, I know you know these are not excuses. I know you're aware or at least should be aware. As I've just stated in op in this open forum, I have serious questions that I have not received answers to. I don't believe any of us have received answers to because that information would have been disseminated to all. So, we have very sophisticated lawyers on our side.

I suspect they can get that information to us real quick as quickly as possible. So, uh there's no smoke screen or excuses or spin um as that's been referred to going on here. Um, you know, I think as a lawyer practicing commercial litigation for in excess of 25 years, I am entitled and obligated to ask these serious questions and get the right answers. So, I don't need to speculate on the answers, but those are critical to me.

So, I'm gonna give up the floor and I would like to hear from uh from uh city manager Greg Kaitton on the answer to my question about the citizens petition. I can answer madame mayor and members of the council, my apologies for interjecting, but I think a discussion and requiring Mr. Kaden to answer the question at the time is beyond the scope of this meeting. Okay, we can follow up on that because I don't understand that decision. But nonetheless, moving right along.

Uh, Councilwoman Littlefield, please. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Um, first of all, I'd like to say I thank God every day I am not a lawyer. It's wonderful and I'm not going to become one. Um, never say never. Never. Um, the petitions of the citizens asking for a vote were proofed and submitted properly and legally and submitted to the city clerk. And I think there's no question but that a sufficient number of signatures were given to hold an election.

This is what the citizens have asked us for. They have the right and frankly the obligation if we do something they don't like to let us know. And they can do that in many ways. They can come here and tell us or they can ask for a vote and ask for an election where they can go individually and let us know exactly how they feel about it. Any kind of issue. This is one of those issues. Uh I am going to side in the vote tonight with Councilman Graham.

I believe that gives the citizens the rights that they deserve and the freedom to activate those rights. Um they have the right to defend the filing of the petitions that they did and have a vote on what happens here. I don't believe we should take that vote away from them. And that's what I see trying to be done. Our job is to defend the citizens and their legal rights when they do the what the work that was required by all those petitions.

And there was a lot of work and a lot of time and a lot of people and a lot of effort. They filed for a petition to hold an election. We should hold the election. To me, it's black and white. And that's where I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote along with Councilman Graham and Vice Mayor Debbacas to to do those kinds of things. Thank you. Thank you. I I said I was going to follow up, but I didn't think I'd follow up this quickly. Can you explain your legal advice there?

Why I can't from the dis ask our city manager about an issue that has been subject to to discussion on this dis today mayor and members of the council as the council knows we're subject to the open meeting law and under the open meeting law we're required to um discuss that what has been agendaized. Well there is some leeway there has not been an agenda item talking about citizen petitions and elections.

The sole item on this agenda is to decide whether to vote to provide me direction and authorization um rel related to what was discussed on September 9th. Um so in my legal opinion such a direction is outside the scope of um the agenda. So we've been discussing that at length up here. So I don't understand it's about the acts on it's it's about the legislation. It's about the referendum. That's the entire meat and and potatoes of this discussion, isn't it?

So, if he's not prepared to answer it, that's one thing. And I'm fine, happy to move along, but I I struggle to understand your legal opinion here, mayor and members of the city council. Um, I gave you some leeway without interjecting previously, and now the back and forth with the city manager regarding this particular item is inappropriate in my legal opinion. And why it's not agendaized.

Um and yes, some discussion back and forth in terms of the political ramifications on um when when there's going to be a uh particular vote and stuff like that was okay. But when it gets to the point where where we're talking about something totally different, which was a petition, I believe it was said in July, and now um wanting specific answers on that, that's not what's agendaized.

And um in my opinion the leeway some of the lee leeway the political dynamics were appropriate but when we get into this micro specific level on something that's not on the agenda I don't think it's within the purview of the meeting and I I understand you you may disagree with my opinion but I'm offering the best opinion I can I can give. Okay. I guess my point was that we hadn't received any any direction on that. So I'll just leave it at that and not call on the city manager for that.

Um, thank you for your legal advice, uh, Luis. I really appreciate it and value it. So, uh, Coun, thank you, Mayor. Councilwoman McCallen. Thank you, Mayor. I call for the question. So, just just to be Do you need to speak? No. Oh, sorry. Called the question. Sorry. Just to be clear, we are voting on the alternate motion, which is to embark on filing a complaint. All those in favor, uh, point of order. The question was called. We're not voting on the question call.

We're voting on the alternate motion right now. Okay. Then the motion caller is good with that. Okay. Thank you. My motion. So, I'm going to vote yes. This is your motion. Better. All right. Having failed, we go back to the original motion, which if I can recall properly was Councilwoman Whitehead's motion, and I dare you to restate that. I'm happy to if that is desired to keep us here longer. Do you want to restate it for us? It. Yeah. I I think it's important just to refresh. That's fine.

Okay. I move to direct the interim city attorney and his design um to um file a notice of or to take actions to file a notice of claim uh pursuant of the direction you received in our September 9th meeting executive session meeting. I second that motion. All those in favor Thank you. That concludes our business for this afternoon and uh I will move to adjourn. Thank you.