Scottsdale unanimously endorses $248M park and preserve tax replacement, reduces rate to 0.15% through 2055
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — February 27, 2024

Scottsdale unanimously endorses $248M park and preserve tax replacement, reduces rate to 0.15% through 2055

Scottsdale City Council work study session on Protect and Preserve Scottsdale task force recommendation to extend 0.2% expiring sales tax at reduced 0.15% rate for 30 years to fund $248M in park improvements, $3.5M annual preserve management, expanded park ranger program, Westworld drainage infrastructure, and fire mitigation across aging park system and preserve assets.

Scottsdale Endorses $248M Park-and-Preserve Tax Swap; 0.2% Rate Cut to 0.15% for 30 Years, November 2024 Ballot Looms

Mayor David Ortega's city council work study on February 27, 2024, heard final recommendations from the Protect and Preserve Scottsdale Task Force—a comprehensive 14-month citizen effort proposing to replace an expiring 0.2% sales tax with a reduced 0.15% rate for 30 years, funding $248 million in deferred park capital improvements, $3.5 million annually for McDow Sonoran Preserve stewardship, police ranger expansion, fire fuel mitigation, and $44.2 million in critical drainage work at Westworld. No vote was taken; the session was designated to solicit council direction and refine ballot language. Council members signaled broad support but raised sharp questions about allocation flexibility, debt mechanisms, and historical budget context—signaling they are not yet ready to refer the measure to voters without additional staff clarification.

Key Speeches

"We came to consensus on every item that we brought forward this evening. Ninety-two percent of our voters overwhelmingly agree that Scottsdale's parks and preserve improve quality of life... our task force number one recommendation is to request voter approval to extend the 0.2 expiring tax rate at a reduced rate of 0.15% for 30 years effective July 1st 2025." — Cynthia Wistrom, Task Force Chair

"We currently have three Park Rangers... [they] report to the supervisor of the mounted unit... allowing us to increase their staffing would only improve our services to our community and our visiting guests... we would be looking to extend and increase the size of the unit... making them self-sufficient with their own supervisor and then that final position there the realtime crime Center." — Assistant Chief Richard Slaven, Scottsdale Police Department

"Our parks are old. They're very old. The parks that we are considering... are between 45 and 56 years old... there we have systems in our parks that are past their useful life cycle and it's time to invest in those parks." — Nick Mulliner, Community Services Assistant Executive Director

"We don't have a dedicated funding source for this now. We're essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul... and prioritizing within our existing budget to find ways to make this work... [we need] consistent dedicated funding for this now we're essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul." — Fire Chief Tom Shannon, Scottsdale Fire Department

"Whether that warrants staff providing those gaps or not, I think that is the direction we thought we would get that clarity from... not necessarily another work study, however, if people want to, well the main question is whether or not the report is still open-ended and the task force would continue to respond to our questions." — City Manager Jim Thompson

Timeline

Opposition

No organized opposition speakers were present. However, council members raised concerns:

Most council members supported the concept but sought clarification before moving to a formal vote.

Support

All five public commenters and a majority of council members (Mayor Ortega, Solange Whitehead, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield, Councilman Barry Graham, Councilman Tom Durham) voiced support or openness. Key themes:

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

No vote taken. Work study session format; council discussion only. Mayor Ortega indicated council is "ready to vote" and asked for expressions of consensus or direction. Implicit support from Mayor Ortega, Solange Whitehead, Barry Graham, Councilman Durham, Kathy Littlefield, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield. Councilwoman Caputi and Councilwoman Janick raised substantive questions but did not oppose outright.

Individual positions not formally recorded; session was for direction and input, not action.

Outcome & Next Steps

Controversies & Context

Allocation Percentages and "Less Than 25%" Language

The most contentious issue was the phrase "less than 25% for Westworld debt service." City Treasurer Andrews explained that the allocation percentages (51, 14, 18, 7, 10) total 100% after debt service is paid from the top of revenue collections. If the city issues $44M in 20-year debt at 5% interest, annual debt service would be ~$3.5M. Assuming $25M in annual tax revenue, the first $3.5M (14% of revenue) goes to debt; the remaining $21.5M is then split 51/14/18/7/10 among the other categories. However, the "less than 25%" cap means if revenue falls to $14M (in a recession), debt service could theoretically consume all 25% of revenue, capping it at $3.5M and forcing allocation reductions elsewhere.

Councilwomen Caputi and Janick both flagged this as imprecise and concerning. Janick, a scientist, noted that percentages should add to 100% and demanded examples of lower-revenue scenarios. Solange Whitehead asked whether a hard cap (e.g., 20%) would be preferable. Mayor Ortega and City Manager Thompson acknowledged confusion and committed to clarifying the mechanics in writing.

Voter Intent vs. Future Council Discretion

Councilman Durham asked whether a future city council could modify the ordinance allocations (e.g., shifting funds from parks to preserve or vice versa) without voter approval. City Attorney Sher Scott confirmed that yes, a future council could pass a new ordinance amending allocations, but Mayor Ortega interjected firmly: "The ordinance must align with the vote of the people." He drew parallels to the bed-tax precedent (extended from 3% to 5% via separate voter approval) and stated he would be "very firm about that" to prevent "wishy-washy" reallocation by subsequent councils. This raised the question of whether a supermajority vote should be required to amend allocations. Deferred to city attorney for legal opinion.

Current vs. Proposed Budgets

Councilwoman Caputi objected that she had no sense of what current operating budgets are for parks, preserve, Westworld, and how much the tax proposal would increase those budgets. City Treasurer Andrews explained that the departments are currently unfunded in these areas: parks maintenance lacks $2.8M/year; police rangers have only Prop 207 (marijuana) funds (~$400K) and no room in the general police budget for three additional rangers; fire is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" for fuel mitigation and technical rescue from within its existing budget. The 0.15% tax would provide these amounts above and beyond current budgets, not replace them. Caputi asked for historical CIP spending data to put the $248M park improvement ask in context; staff agreed to provide. This signaled that while council supports the concept, several members felt uninformed on the baseline and may require more detail before final vote.

Preserve Fund Balance and Early Debt Payoff

A subsidiary but significant issue: the existing 0.15% Preserve Sales Tax (approved 2004, expiring 2034) has accumulated a $131M fund balance, with projected growth to $200M+ by 2034. These funds are legally restricted to land acquisition and improvement only; they cannot be repurposed for parks maintenance, rangers, or fire mitigation under current law. Barry Graham and others asked whether the city could use the fund balance to retire the remaining $185M preserve debt early (call date 2027) and sunset the 0.15% tax ahead of schedule. City Treasurer Andrews outlined an escrow plan: if the city set aside $140–150M from the fund balance, the escrow would grow via investment income and mature in 2027 to pay off remaining principal. This would free up future tax revenue. However, Andrews noted the McDow Sonoran Preserve Commission has requested that some of the fund balance be used for trail-head improvements and a proposed land bridge, and the council has not yet set a priority. Staff will bring forward a plan. This discussion hinted that voters might eventually be asked to use future collections for expanded preserve purposes (e.g., land bridge), but there is no room on the 2024 ballot for a second question, and citizens found the question confusing in surveys.

"Extend" vs. "Replace" Ballot Language

A late-stage wordsmithing debate: should the ballot say the city will "extend" or "replace" the expiring tax? Councilwoman Janick and Barry Graham argued "replace" is more accurate because the rate is being reduced (0.2% to 0.15%), the purpose is being widened (preserve-only to citywide parks, preserve, ranger, fire), and the duration is lengthened (one expiring tax being replaced with a new 30-year tax). City Manager Thompson agreed "replace" was acceptable. Barry Graham added "replaced for 30 years with 0.15%" for even greater clarity. The city clerk noted the difference is stylistic but acknowledged council sentiment and indicated the final ballot language would incorporate council feedback.

Westworld Drainage Urgency and "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish"

Assistant City Manager Bill Murphy presented photos of recurring flooding at Westworld (August 2022 storms) along 94th Street, Bahia Road, and Westworld Drive, as well as standing water around arenas and RV hookups. He argued that without drainage improvements, Westworld would continue to lose event days and incur operational losses. The $44.2M capital project (to be funded via debt, repaid from tax revenue) was framed as urgent to avoid deterioration and liability. No council member objected to Westworld funding, but several (Caputi, Janick, Solange Whitehead) wanted assurance that Westworld debt service would not crowd out other category allocations. The less-than-25% cap was designed to address this, but the imprecision fueled debate.

Construction Cost Inflation and "Pay as You Go" vs. Bonding

Kristen Parish, an ASU School of Construction faculty member and Parks & Rec Commission chair, presented data showing construction costs have risen ~50% since 2019; concrete +37%, wire +29%, steel +51%. She argued that delaying projects via bonding would add another 38% cost escalation (Phoenix market saw 1% per month for 38 consecutive months = 38% in 3 years). She advocated for "pay as you go" funding with the tax to avoid bonding premiums. City Treasurer Andrews agreed, noting that bonding $248M for parks at current interest rates (5.5–6%) would inflate the cost to $400M+, whereas collecting $10M/year for 24+ years costs less to taxpayers. This was a key argument for why parks (51% allocation) would be funded via tax revenue, not debt, whereas Westworld (with urgent drainage needs) would use debt ($44M over 20 years).

Visitor-Funded Tax and Equity

Multiple speakers and staff noted that 12% of Scottsdale sales tax comes from overnight visitors and out-of-state shoppers (study from 2023). In reality, the figure is higher when day-trippers from Paradise Valley, Gilbert, Chandler, and other neighboring cities are included. This was presented as an equity argument: residents are not bearing the full tax burden; visitors to Westworld, the stadium, spring training, shops, and resorts help pay. Solange Whitehead and public commenters emphasized that this visitor funding justifies parks and preserve investment—they attract and retain the events and tourism that drive the local economy.

Historical Underfunding and Deferred Maintenance

Vice Solange Whitehead and Kathy Littlefield both referenced the 2010s recession, during which parks and fire/police budgets were cut significantly. Parks staffing fell from 308 FTE (2007–08) to 268 FTE (2023), even though the city added several major parks (Scottsdale Sports Complex, Villa Mount Golf Course, McDow Mountain Ranch Aquatic Center, Thompson Peak Park, Doc Cavaliere Park, Bell 94 Sports Complex, DC Ranch neighborhood park) without staffing increases. This meant maintenance was deferred and quality of life declined. Kathy Littlefield and Ortega both emphasized that the shift from "acquisition" to "maintenance" mindset is critical: the city has invested $1.6B+ in preserves and parks; now it must maintain them or lose the return on that investment.

"Ordinance Must Align with Voter Intent" — Mayor Ortega's Guardrail

Mayor Ortega made a forceful statement near the end of the session: "The ordinance must align with the vote of the people. It's not wishy-washy about whether or not the next Council decides to change it. It would take another vote, just as the previous bed tax was 3% and then it was changed to 5% [in other words, to meet the needs]." This was both a reassurance to citizens that the 51/14/18/7/10 allocation percentages would not be secretly rebalanced and a warning to future councils that they cannot simply amend the ordinance without voter awareness. However, the city attorney clarified that legally a future council can pass a new ordinance; the mayor's statement was more about political accountability and the expectation that such changes would be transparently debated and, if major, referred back to voters.

Duration

Controversies & Context (Summary)

The meeting revealed broad council and public support for the concept but exposed four fault lines: (1) allocation precision and debt-cap mechanics (confusing "less than 25%" language); (2) baseline budget transparency (council wants to see current vs. proposed spending); (3) future council discretion vs. voter intent (can allocations be amended?); and (4) the treatment of the existing $131M+ preserve fund balance (early debt payoff vs. trail-head improvements). Staff was directed to provide written responses to these questions before any formal vote referral. The council did not reach formal consensus to proceed to a vote; instead, Mayor Ortega and City Manager Thompson signaled readiness to move forward pending staff clarification, but Barry Graham and others sought another work study to digest the responses. The outcome hinges on whether staff can provide clear, intuitive explanations of the allocation mechanics and historical context that allay council concerns about revenue risk and future discretion.