Simply put — the compromise was the best the city could get out of a no-win situation. On three separate occasions, I requested the City Council schedule the Axon referendum election when your vote would have counted.
Every time, my colleagues voted against having the voters weigh in. The delay in holding the election was unnecessary but it was helpful for candidates set to run in the 2026 election. While the city sat on its hands, Axon did an end run around us at the state legislature.
Following adoption of the new Axon law, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Axon bill were filed which gave Axon a “roadmap” to fix the defects in the original bill — and they were already working on that before the legislature re-convened this year. In the end, even if the council majority had their way with suing the state, costing millions of dollars, the Axon statute would have been “cured” this session which would have had the practical effect of “gutting” the legal claims.
Our voters would have been left with the misunderstanding that their vote would count on the referendum in November 2026 — but that would not have been true. It would have been a very expensive “straw poll,” having zero impact on the outcome or Axon’s ability to move forward with 1,900 apartment units or more.
There’s been a lot of misleading talk about the 1,200-unit compromise approved by me and my council colleagues, stating it doesn’t matter that the “deal” requires 600 condos. This is false.
The deal struck with Axon limits apartments to a maximum of 600 units and a maximum of 600 condos. Axon can’t build 1,200 apartments as you are being encouraged to believe. Condominiums are subject to specific statutory legal requirements, found in A.R.S. §33-1201, et seq, which are enforceable against Axon if they try to build more than 600 apartments — this will not be tolerated on my watch.
Regarding the misinformation that’s been spread about water to the Axon project. First, state statute requires municipalities to provide water for all development within municipal boundaries. While the prior council’s 1,900 apartment unit approval included a provision that Axon supply “water credits” (not actual wet water) for the development’s water needs — requiring them to do so violates state law. Meaning, Axon could sue the city if such an “exaction” was mandated —something our city attorney strongly advised against.
It is important to note, my vote in support of the Axon compromise hinged on getting the developer and TAAAZE to a point of agreement through respective compromise, and that happened. In fact, before the council vote, TAAAZE confirmed agreement for a deal that included 500 apartments immediately and 200 apartments after a certain number of years. They also agreed to “unlimited” condos.
In the end, the council approved compromise included a max of 600 apartments and a max of 600 condos; far less than TAAAZE had confirmed they would agree to.
Getting the Axon dispute resolved was necessary for many reasons, including:
- The city risked spending millions of dollars in legal costs challenging the new law. As a commercial litigation attorney for decades, I can assure you, there are no guarantees in litigation except the extraordinary amount of money that will be spent, the years cases take to resolve, and the significant risk of unfavorable outcomes. I was elected to protect the interests of Scottsdale and its citizens. Becoming embroiled in a protracted, expensive lawsuit, which carried great risk would not have been a prudent or conservative application of my responsibility to the voters of Scottsdale.
- A November 2026 referendum election would not have had zero practical impact on Axon’s ability to build 1,900 apartment units or more because they would still have the protection of the Axon bill — now a state statute. The election results would have been meaningless, the equivalent of a “straw poll.” But the candidates running this election cycle could have exploited this issue to advance their campaigns, misleading voters to believe their vote would count when, in fact, it would not.[1]
- As part of the negotiated deal, not only did we accomplish a major decrease in apartment units, but we also achieved positive outcomes for the reputation of our city, which, because of the tone and temperament of the council majority, has become increasingly viewed as “anti-business.” Axon is inarguably a hometown success story, founded by a Chapparal High School graduate, right here in Scottsdale. It is a multibillion-dollar corporation that generates millions in tax revenue for the city and the state each year. Importantly, Axon has huge support from the city’s public safety officers who are on record praising Axon as a strong corporate partner. Our police department has a tremendous working relationship with Axon and, when their headquarters are built — required in the first phase of the project before any residential units are built — our PD will enjoy access to Axon’s state-of-the-art technology, equipment and training. This highly beneficial relationship promotes PD resources and further strengthens the safety of our community.
- Lastly, there’s been a lot of “noise” surrounding granting Axon the right to employ a third-party planning administrator. Since taking office, the No. 1 complaint we’ve received concerns the difficulties and frustration encountered in the city’s planning process. The reasons are many: delay, lack of continuity in staffing, and added expenses which result from unpredictable processes. The Axon project will be a massive undertaking from a planning perspective. In cases like Axon, it is not unusual to employ third-party administrators to support and relieve planning staff. The day-to-day work must continue despite the tremendous added burden that projects like Axon impose upon the department. The third-party administrator provision requires the approval of the city and Axon prior to confirmation of the individual or firm that will be employed, which ensures reliability and confidence in the process and outcome. The third-party administrator format will provide a major benefit to the city because it protects city resources and staff from being overwhelmed.
In the end, we didn’t get exactly what we wanted. Speaking for myself, zero apartments was the best outcome. As I’ve stated many times, Scottsdale does not need more apartment projects, and I don’t expect we will approve any in the foreseeable future.
However, this council was “stuck” with the 1,900 apartment units previously approved for Axon. We also got “stuck” with a bad law, which deprives city oversight of similar future projects — a very bad result which occurred because the council didn’t set the referendum election earlier when we had three opportunities to do so. Based on all the facts, and the serious risks involved, the best deal was accomplished for our city and our citizens.
Editor’s Note: Lisa Borowsky is serving her first term as Mayor of Scottsdale.
Be the first to comment