Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State House Vs Local topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scottsdale council pauses plan to sue state over SB 1543, vacates resolution
Summary
The Scottsdale City Council on Sept. 9 voted to vacate consideration of Resolution No. 13506, which would have authorized the city attorney to seek a declaratory judgment challenging Arizona Senate Bill 1543; councilmembers and residents debated strategy, referendum rights and the measure's local impacts.
Mayor Lisa Borowski convened the special meeting to consider a staff request to adopt Resolution No. 13506, which would have authorized the interim city attorney to file a declaratory-judgment complaint against the State of Arizona challenging Senate Bill 1543. After a confidential executive session and public debate, the council voted to vacate the agenda item and defer action.
Why it matters: The resolution would have enabled Scottsdale to become a plaintiff in a legal challenge to a state law the city staff said would take effect soon. Opponents of vacating argued that delaying the decision undermines public participation and weakens leverage in negotiations; supporters said there were too many unanswered questions and that the council should not commit to litigation without fuller information.
Councilman Barry Graham urged the council to hear public testimony and move forward, warning of consequences for local land use. "Fundamentally, a vote to vacate is a vote for 2,000 apartments, 1,900 apartments in North Scottsdale," Graham said, urging a public forum and staff answers on strategy and implications for citizens who had filed a referendum.
Mayor Borowski and others said the executive-session briefing left questions unanswered and that the council would not make a directional commitment without more technical and legal detail. "There were too many unanswered questions on the next steps," the mayor said, explaining why she sought to withdraw the item for now.
What happened procedurally: The mayor moved to vacate the agenda item; a councilmember seconded, debate was limited by points of order, and the mayor called the question. The motion to vacate passed; the council did not adopt Resolution No. 13506 at the special meeting.
Next steps: The mayor said the matter is not finished and expects it to return for further consideration after the council receives additional legal analysis and public input. No date was set for further action on Resolution No. 13506.
Context: Council members and numerous residents referenced a citizen referendum process. Councilman Graham and others said more than 27,000 residents had signed a petition related to the underlying land-use issue tied to SB 1543 and that delaying council consideration could be interpreted as tacit approval of the development the petition targets. The council did not make any findings on the merits of the statute or of litigation at this meeting.
