Scottsdale council directs staff to investigate petition seeking earlier Axon referendum date

Scottsdale city council members voted to direct the city manager to investigate a citizen petition and prepare a written response to council with a copy to the petitioner, a motion supporters said was intended to address residents' requests for an earlier referendum date on the Axon development.

The action follows public comments from petition organizers urging the council to move the ballot date from November 2026 to a sooner election or the next legally available date. Michael Fernandez, who identified himself during public comment as representing petition signatories, said more than 5,000 signatures had been submitted and argued a timely election was being delayed.

Mayor Lisa Boroski introduced a motion to agendize the petition for further discussion; Councilman Barry Graham offered an alternate motion to direct the city manager to investigate and prepare a written response. After further procedural motions and a reconsideration by Councilwoman Solange Whitehead, the council approved the investigation-and-response motion.

Council members did not record a roll-call breakdown in the meeting transcript excerpt; staff later recorded that the motion passed 6 to 1. The motion directs staff to investigate the petition and prepare a written response for council and petitioner, rather than immediately setting a referendum date.

Petition proponents told the council they had sought a public hearing after signatures were verified earlier in 2025 and requested a date sooner than November 2026. Speakers said a delayed election had practical consequences, including that legislative or special approvals obtained in the interim could affect local zoning outcomes.

City attorney Louie Santayo advised the council on the rules governing public comment and the limited options the council has after receiving a petition: it can agendize the item for discussion, direct staff to investigate and respond in writing, or take no action. Santayo said agendizing simply opens a future discussion and does not bind the council to the date proposed by petitioners.

The council's directive requires staff to research the petition, review legal timing constraints for elections, and return with a written response and timeline options. The council did not set a final referendum date at the meeting.

A hearing on the petition and any date-setting would come at a later agendized council meeting after staff completes the investigation and returns its findings.