Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scottsdale Auction Cancellation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses State Land nominee over canceled Scottsdale auction tied to Coyotes plan
Summary
Senators questioned State Land Department nominee Robin Sahid about the department's decision to cancel a high‑profile auction tied to the Arizona Coyotes and later relist a larger parcel at a lower per‑acre opening price, asking whether the cancellation reduced trust revenues.
Senators on the Arizona State Senate Committee on Director Nominations pressed Robin Sahid over the department's decision to cancel a 2024 auction of a prime parcel near Loop 101 and Scottsdale Road that had drawn public attention because the Arizona Coyotes had expressed interest.
Chairman Jake Hoffman asked why the department canceled the auction roughly a week before it was scheduled and whether the move reduced proceeds to the state trust. Sahid told the committee the department paused because the potential developer (the Coyotes organization) did not have a required special use permit from the city to build an arena and because of uncertainties tied to infrastructure — notably a wash on the site that department staff said may require channelization to lift surrounding land out of the flood zone. "We had posted the auction and then we got news that they had either sold the team or they had… that was news to us and then we heard that they would need a special use permit," Sahid said.
Senators pushed back on the special-use-permit explanation. Senator Hopkins and others noted municipal practice often requires ownership or a development right before a jurisdiction issues a special use permit and questioned why the department required the Coyotes to obtain such a permit before auction. Committee members highlighted the fiscal consequences: committee discussion cited that the parcel was later relisted as part of a 217-acre offering with a new minimum bid of $110,000,000 (about $507,000 per acre), down from an earlier per-acre figure discussed in committee of roughly $720,000 per acre for a smaller portion of the site. Members calculated that the change on the approximately 95‑acre portion previously in play could represent about a $19 million difference in proceeds if the earlier price had been realized.
Sahid said the department negotiated additional commitments tied to channelizing the wash and that an expected developer contribution toward the wash (discussed as roughly $30,000,000 in the hearing) would benefit the broader trust land holdings in the area; she said those factors altered the department's calculus. "There is another factor here in that wash because… the successful auction winner will have to front somebody to help us with the construction of that wash, which will then increase the value of the rest of the state trust land in that area," Sahid said.
Senators asked Sahid to provide the committee with the appraisal reports and documentation used in negotiation. Hoffman requested the appraisal information so members could better understand the delta between appraisals and the negotiated figure Sahid said the department requested.
No formal action on the auction was taken by the committee; the issue was raised as part of the nominee's confirmation hearing and will remain an item of concern to several committee members.
