Scottsdale Council Authorizes Broad Litigation Against SB 1543 Zoning Exemptions; 27,000-Resident Petition Demands Voter Rights Restoration
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — November 3, 2025

Scottsdale Council Authorizes Broad Litigation Against SB 1543 Zoning Exemptions; 27,000-Resident Petition Demands Voter Rights Restoration

Scottsdale special council meeting authorized broad litigation strategy against apartment zoning exemptions and SB 1543 state preemption law, with 27,000-citizen petition opposing Axon development project and demands to restore voter referendum rights.

Scottsdale Council Authorizes Broad Litigation Against SB 1543 Zoning Exemptions; 27,000-Resident Petition Demands Voter Rights Restoration

On November 3, 2025, Scottsdale's city council held an emergency special meeting to authorize its interim city attorney to mount an aggressive legal challenge to state legislation and apartment-zoning exemptions that residents and council members argue have stripped the city of democratic control. The council voted unanimously 8-0 to empower the attorney to file counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims in litigation related to Development Agreement 2020-138-COS and Senate Bill 1543—colloquially known as the "Axon bill" for its alleged benefit to the Axon apartment developer. The motion, made by Vice Mayor Adam Clauseman, passed without dissent but with noted reservations from Councilman Barry Graham about the scope of the authority granted.

The meeting opened with a single public commenter, Michael Schaefer, who spoke on behalf of 27,000 Scottsdale citizens and taxpayers who signed a petition opposing the TASTE apartment project. His testimony framed the meeting as a pivotal moment in Scottsdale's fight against state preemption and corporate influence over local zoning—a fight that has consumed the city's development politics for months and hinges on whether the council will litigate or seek to restore voter referendum rights.

Key Speeches

"Tonight one of the topics I want to speak about is taste. I'm not quite sure where the situation is tonight but I was hoping and do hope that there is a vote on that tonight. 27,000 of us citizens taxpayers signed the city the letter to the city. And our feeling is that there was a bad zoning change that made that occur in the beginning." — Michael Schaefer, resident commenter

"We do not want many apartments for a lot of reasons. Water usage, traffic, voting, overpopulation, overchanging, changing the complexion of the Scottsdale that we all love. We don't want to San Jose here." — Michael Schaefer, resident commenter

"This so-called Axon bill passed and stripped Scottsdale voters of the rights to challenge major city decisions through referendum. A right guaranteed to citizens across Arizona. It's not just wrong, it's unconstitutional, we believe." — Michael Schaefer, resident commenter

"Typically, the client defines strategy in general, and then the attorneys define tactics. So we would define if we follow cross claim, what the best legal avenues to pursue would be." — Louie Centella, City Attorney

"There are no limitations from this motion, other than if the courts extends the deadline, I won't be able to file. I would have to wait for a new motion on the 17th." — Louie Centella, City Attorney

Timeline

Opposition

Not applicable at this meeting. No organized opposition to the litigation authorization was voiced. However, Michael Schaefer's public comment implicitly highlighted concerns about delay and deferral:

  1. Repeated postponement of the TASTE project vote ("kicking the project down the calendar").
  2. Concern that delay will lead to outcomes residents do not want.
  3. Criticism of Axon's paid employee representatives appearing at meetings to advocate for the development.
  4. Fear of "big business and developers for running over the city council city zoning state legislators."

Support

Number of speakers in support: Zero explicit speakers in favor of the litigation motion; however, implicit support was present from council members Jan DuBauckas, Barry Graham, and Kathy Littlefield, who have been identified in prior reporting as standing with residents' opposition.

Main themes in commenter's remarks (framing the litigation as necessary):

  1. SB 1543 (the "Axon bill") unconstitutionally stripped Scottsdale voters of referendum rights.
  2. A right to challenge major city decisions via referendum is guaranteed elsewhere in Arizona but was denied to Scottsdale.
  3. Powerful corporations and state lawmakers should not be permitted to dictate what Scottsdale citizens can vote on.
  4. The zoning change enabling the TASTE project was "bad" and should be reversed or litigated.
  5. Water usage, traffic, and overpopulation concerns justify rejection of large apartment projects.
  6. The council must defend residents' rights and not "surrender to corporate pressure."
  7. Council members Barry Graham, DuBauckas, and Kathy Littlefield have "consistently stood with the people's intent."

Compelling arguments:

Schaefer's testimony equated litigation with the restoration of democratic process: unless the council fights, "we set a dangerous precedent where powerful corporations, state lawmakers, can dictate what Scottsdale citizens can and cannot vote on." He characterized the vote on litigation as a test of whether elected officials will "do what the people, the majority of the people would like to see, see done."

Project Details

Case number / Development Agreement: 2020-138-COS

Applicant / Developer: Axon (developer of TASTE apartment project)

Attorney(s): Louie Centella, interim city attorney for the City of Scottsdale

Location / Address: Not specified in transcript

Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not specified in transcript

Density / units / square footage: Not specified in transcript

Related state legislation: Senate Bill 1543 (colloquially the "Axon bill"), which allegedly exempted certain apartment zoning decisions in Scottsdale from voter referendum review

Related state legislation (secondary): House Bill 2721 (middle-housing state legislation), discussed in the executive session agenda but not litigated in this motion

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

The council authorized Louie Centella, the interim city attorney, to file any appropriate counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims in the ongoing litigation involving Development Agreement 2020-138-COS, SB 1543, and the TASTE apartment project. The authorization is broad and places no limits on the types of claims or legal theories the attorney may pursue, except that if the court extends the litigation deadline, the attorney cannot file new claims until the council reconvenes to authorize such filings. If the court does not extend the deadline, the attorney has no further restrictions.

Barry Graham explicitly noted that the council would reconvene before any extended deadline expired to reconsider and renew the authorization if necessary. Mayor Barowski stated that the approach is "careful and prudent" and required because the legal issues are "very complicated."

The TASTE apartment project vote itself was not held at this meeting. The project remains deferred, and the litigation authorization is the immediate outcome. The next step is for the city attorney to craft and file counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims in accordance with the court's deadlines and any extensions granted.

Controversies & Context

SB 1543 and the "Axon Bill"

The central controversy centers on Senate Bill 1543, which Scottsdale residents and some council members argue was passed at the behest of the Axon developer and unconstitutionally stripped Scottsdale voters of the right to challenge major city decisions through referendum—a right available to citizens elsewhere in Arizona. Michael Schaefer stated: "This so-called Axon bill passed and stripped Scottsdale voters of the rights to challenge major city decisions through referendum. A right guaranteed to citizens across Arizona. It's not just wrong, it's unconstitutional, we believe."

27,000-Signature Petition Against TASTE

The TASTE apartment project has generated significant community opposition, with 27,000 Scottsdale citizens and taxpayers signing a petition against it. Concerns cited include water usage, traffic congestion, overpopulation, and fears that unchecked apartment development will transform Scottsdale's character into a high-density city like San Jose, California.

Repeated Deferral

Schaefer criticized the council for repeatedly postponing the TASTE vote, describing it as "kicking the project down the calendar." He expressed concern that such delays signal either capitulation to developer pressure or a lack of commitment to residents' wishes. Mayor Barowski responded that deferral reflects not dilatory intent but the complexity of the legal issues involved.

Council Alignment with Residents

Prior reporting identifies Councilmembers Jan DuBauckas, Barry Graham, and Kathy Littlefield as sympathetic to residents' opposition and their demands to restore referendum rights. Schaefer explicitly praised these three for having "consistently stood with the people's intent." Barry Graham pointed questions during the meeting about the scope of the city attorney's authority suggest a desire to ensure the litigation is carefully tailored and not a blank check.

Axon's Paid Representatives

Schaefer noted that Axon sends paid employees to council meetings to advocate for the project. While he did not oppose their participation, he highlighted the asymmetry between paid corporate representatives and volunteer citizen opposition.

Legal Strategy Disclosure Concerns

The city attorney, Louie Centella, declined to provide specific detail about the litigation strategy, citing attorney-client privilege and the need to avoid disclosure of legal tactics to opposing parties. This led to some opacity in the council's understanding of what claims would actually be pursued, though Centella assured the council that the attorney would define the specific claims and theories to be asserted.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Church Building Use Approval: Michael Schaefer opened his remarks by thanking the council for approving a church use for a building that had previously been considered for storage, characterizing this as a positive outcome for residents. No vote or further discussion of this item appears in the transcript; it was mentioned only in passing as context for Schaefer's gratitude.

The special meeting also included a motion to enter executive session to discuss and receive legal advice on two items: (A) the TASTE/Axon litigation and SB 1543, and (B) middle-housing state legislation (House Bill 2721) and potential amendments to the Scottsdale zoning ordinance. The transcript indicates the council voted to enter executive session but does not record the contents of that closed session.

View source transcript ▼

Source: City Council | Special Meeting and Possible Executive Session - November 3, 2025 — November 3, 2025. Auto-generated YouTube transcript; may contain transcription errors.

You . Good afternoon. I'd like to call the November 3rd special meeting and possible executive session to order. City clerk may I have a roll call please. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Lisa Barowski. Present. Vice Mayor Adam Clauseman. Present. Council members Jan DeBoscus. Here. Barry Graham. Here. Kathy Littlefield. Here. Marian McAllen. Present. And Salange Whitehead. Here. City manager Greg Katen. Here. In terms of the attorney Louie Centella. Present. City charge for Sony Andrews. Here.

And the clerk is present. Thank you Mayor. Thank you very much. And for the item on today's special meeting agenda, a possible executive session, which includes items A and B. A.

The item is to discuss and consult with city's attorneys for legal advice and considerate position regarding the TAs taxpayer against awful apartment zoning exemptions at all versus state of Arizona, city of Scottsdale, and other matters related to Senate Bill 1543 and development agreement 2020-138-COS, including amendments and B to discussing consult with the city's attorneys for legal advice and considerate position with possible instruction regarding middle housing state legislation, House Bill 2721, and the Scottsdale zoning ordinance.

Can I have a motion to move into executive session? So moved. Thank you. All those in favor, please register your vote. I'll just take a pause and come back, you know. Thank you very much. I wanted to say that first I'm thankful that there was a building considered a 90 second place that might have been considered for storage and will be a church. So the people are happy to hear that. So we thank you for the support you may have lent to on that situation.

Tonight one of the topics I want to speak about is taste. I'm not quite sure where the situation is tonight but I was hoping and do hope that there is a vote on that tonight. 27,000 of us citizens taxpayers signed the city. The letter to the city. And our feeling is that there was a bad zoning change that made that occur in the beginning. We then have a new administration that has come in and are optimistic that some things that have occurred in the past will change as we go forward.

We do not want many apartments for a lot of reasons. Water usage, traffic, voting, overpopulation, overchanging, changing the complexion of the Scottsdale that we all love. We don't want to San Jose here. We don't want we've seen the kicking of the project down the calendar down the calendar. We're concerned that that's going to lead in a direction that people wouldn't want.

To not stop big business and developers for running over the city council city zoning state legislators, which lots of promises and money. And Axon paid employees who would come here in these meetings and represent their view and there's a lot of them. And we appreciate their company and those workers. But tonight I believe maybe a very important decision to defend the rights of the Scottsdale citizens. I believe it's not about politics, it's about principle.

And about whether our elected city officials will do what the people, the majority of the people would like to see, see done. We don't want you to surrender to corporate pressure to the legislature or act like the old administration. This so-called Axon bill passed and stripped Scottsdale voters of the rights to challenge major city decisions through referendum. A right guaranteed to citizens across Arizona. It's not just wrong, it's unconstitutional, we believe.

If we allow the law to stand on challenge, we set a dangerous precedent where powerful corporations, state lawmakers, can dictate what Scottsdale citizens can and cannot vote on. For months, the residents have spoken loud and clear. We want our rights restored. Council members, little Phil Graham and DeBoscus have consistently stood with the people's intent. But each time this seems to come up, it gets kicked down the pike. So, Mayor, thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Shaper, appreciate it.

Councilman Graham. Thank you, Mayor. If I could just ask a clarifying question because the agenda tonight, what we're voting on if I understand it correctly, is authorize the interim city attorney to file any appropriate counterclaims, cross claims, and third party claims, and then there was a small modification made. Is that all claims? Is that include like special legislation and like contracts? Is that include all claims, city attorney?

Honorable Mayor and members of the city council, yes, it would be any appropriate or pertinent claims against any party to the litigation, including whether to bring in a third party to the litigation. So, it's not limited to the type of claim. A cross claim is against a co-offended, a counterclaim is against the plaintiff, and then the third party claim would be bringing someone else into the litigation.

Okay, and just I guess for maybe the, you know, not everybody washing this is, you know, legal educated. And so, do we have any, when we, when we cross claim, is that an all or nothing type of motion, or can we pick and choose the nature and tailor that to the way we want? Yes, we can, sir. Well, that wasn't quite a yes or no question. Is it, is it, is it, my question is, is it all or nothing? Or can we pick and choose the nature of what that cross claim looks like?

I can repeat that if you'd like. No, Honorable Mayor and to the council, I'm thinking about how to answer that question without giving out any legal strategy or advice. Typically, the client defines strategy in general, and then the, the, the, the attorneys define tactics. So we would define if we follow cross claim, what the best legal avenues to pursue would be. Okay, so, and then we, that would be your decision. Is that, is that correct? The City Attorney's decision? That, that's correct.

And then, so with this motion, are we putting any limitations on you as far as how many, or what type of, or the nature of cross claims that you can make? There are no limitations from this, this motion, other than if the courts extends the deadline, I won't be able to file. I would have to wait for a new motion on the 17th. Okay. If they, the court does not extend the deadline, there would be no limitations whatsoever. It's actually pretty broad authorization. Okay, very good.

I'm going to explain my vote and I'm going to support Councilman Clauseman's motion. I'm going to just express a slight reservation with my vote because the vote on the floor is basically saying that if there's not an extension, a judicial extension, can I say that? There's not a judicial extension on when, when we can join it as a cross claimant that, then it, with you, the Scottsville City Attorney can no longer make the cross claim, or you can only make it if there is not an extension.

So I wish that that wasn't, that limitation wasn't there, but we will come back and reconvene before the expiration of that extended period, assuming that extension happens. It sounds like everybody agrees with that. Okay. So a little bit of reservation with my support for this, but I am going to vote for it. Thank you. Thank you very much. And before we take about, I just want to speak to, I'll be supporting this motion. And Michael Schaefer spoke about kicking the can down the road.

That's never, speaking on my own behalf, that's certainly never been the case or the intention. This is a very complicated legal issue, and which requires a careful and prudent approach for the benefit of our residents and our taxpayers. So with that, I'd like to call for the vote, and all those in favor, please indicate by aye. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. That concludes our business for the special meeting.

So at this point, I will move to adjourn the special meeting, and we'll go ahead and reopen or open, I should say a second. So move second. All those in favor? All right. Now we're moving on to, I would like to call to order the 5 p.m. Sorry, regular meeting.

Watch on YouTube →