At its June 9 meeting, Scottsdale City Council approved one roundabout, 350 condos and a $2.1 billion budget.

The city continues to spend more than Burundi, Fiji, Liberia and a handful of other small countries. Yet, after a complicated, late-meeting amendment cut into an administration proposal, many Scottsdale homeowners will be paying less on their city property tax bills.

While there was extensive discussion over the levy numbers and heated comments over Scottsdale’s water plan, Council quietly approved One Scottsdale’s request for an additional 350 condos.

One Scottsdale’s zoning request to flip 27 acres along North Scottsdale Road off the Loop 101 from commercial to residential was one of the consent agenda items – which are voted on as a group, with no individual presentation, questions or comments.

Though Mayor Lisa Borowsky and the six council members have the power to pull items from the consent agenda for closer inspection, the One Scottsdale request unanimously passed with 21 other items.

More than two decades ago, One Scottsdale was granted approval for only 1,200 residential units on its 120 acres of former desert land. In 2016, the city approved an amendment to the development plan for 900 additional residential units.

The June 9 zoning request approval allows developer DMB a total of 2,350 One Scottsdale condos and apartments – nearly double the original plan.

At its recent Planning Commission pitch for the extra 350 condos, a DMB representative said the new residents would use far less water than if DMB used the 27 acres for commercial purposes. That apparently did not convince those who added critical comments to a Progress Facebook post about City Council’s new One Scottsdale approval.

Holly Lasley-Wagner summarized the comments of many: “But wait! What about the ‘water crisis’ and ‘drought’??”

Water has been a big part of Council’s debate over a budget set to begin July 1.

City Manager Greg Caton’s 431-page document begins with “FY 2026/27 Proposed Budget.”

The last page: “Water Management Water Improvements …Obtain and facilitate water sources and supply.”

The “ask” for that was a rather modest $100 million, less than 5% of the $2.1 billion city budget total.

Page 424 of the budget outlines the $300,000 “91st Street and Trailside View Roundabout.” There was no protest over this, in stark contrast to the ongoing controversy after Council’s “bloc” canceled a planned roundabout in North Scottsdale, adding six months to road construction.

Councilman Barry Graham, who is running for reelection, led the cancel-the-roundabout push last year. This year, he has praised and defended the Caton budget.

In sharp contrast, Councilwoman Solange Whitehead – also running for reelection – spent months criticizing Caton for not including funding for Advanced Purified Recycled Water (APRW) capital costs.

This is the city’s wastewater recycling/purification program, mocked by Graham and other critics as “toilets to taps.”

Caton repeatedly has stated he is waiting for a cost study on the APRW program, which he expects to present to City Council “in six to nine months.”

Whitehead has countered that Scottsdale needs to commit more money to the recycled water program now, as big cuts in the Colorado River supply the city relies on are expected.

At the June 9 meeting, Whitehead tried again, making a motion to move $20 million of the $100 million “water sources and supply” funding specifically for APRW.

But when Graham made an alternate motion to approve the budget as presented, Whitehead quickly retreated, saying she understood she did not have the votes needed.

With that, Whitehead joined in a unanimous vote approving Caton’s second budget.

Two months ago, Caton told Council the new budget “totals $2.119 billion, representing a decrease of $84.7 million, or 3.8%, from the prior year.”

This time last year, a slide presentation advertised Caton’s first budget as a “3.8% decrease from prior year.”

The 2025-26 budget was $2.2 billion, down from the 2024-25 budget of $2.3 billion, which in turn showed a decrease from the $2.5 billion 2023-24 budget.

But, while capital improvement projects were down significantly in Caton’s first budget, the 2025-26 operating budget – everyday costs to run the city – showed an 8% increase.

Tax rates

New construction and higher assessments mean Scottsdale can set slightly lower property tax rates, yet still collect a bigger total.

A portion of the council meeting was a public hearing on Scottsdale’s proposed property tax.

According to a staff report, “the city’s total proposed primary property tax levy of $41.29 million is an increase of $1.02 million over the current fiscal year levy of $40.27 million.

“This increase consists of a $681,884 increase due to the 2% statutory adjustment.”

But before Council voted on the matter, Graham asked Caton what would happen if the city did not pass that 2% increase – the maximum cities can bump property taxes without a vote – to property owners.

Caton answered it would not have a huge impact on the budget, which is largely fueled by sales tax and tourism.

So Graham moved to approve the city property tax without the 2% increase. His amendment passed unanimously.

Answering a question from the Progress, City Treasurer Sonia Andrews unpacked the action:

“The motion was to not assess the 2% allowable levy increase on the primary (levy),” Andrews explained, “which will reduce the primary property tax rate from $0.4801 to $0.4708 and reduce the combined rate from $0.9068 to $0.8975 per $100 of assessed value.”

More details on how the new city levy will impact property owner’s tax bills are expected before a final vote, scheduled for June 23.

Budget Review Commission

At the May 5 Council meeting, Budget Review Commission members Daniel Schweiker, Mark Stephens, Carla and Brad Newman – four of the seven commissioners – gave a presentation on the BRC’s recommendations.

Last year, under aggressive chair David Smith, a former councilman and city administrator, the BRC had dozens of recommendations.

Nearly all were ignored by Council.

This year, the BRC presented four recommendations, most focusing on the city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):

  • Include feasibility study for Granite Reef Senior Center in the CIP; 
  • Evaluate restoring APRW project in CIP once cost studies are complete;
  • Report on financial sustainability of the 5-year CIP in-light of methodology change to exclude project completion costs when projects are not fully scoped
  • Evaluate sufficiency of $2M additional PSPRS contributions for Fire and if additional contributions are needed …

In his introduction, Schweiker noted “City revenues are slowing and needs are rising.

“Roads and water are two of the long-term challenges that we review, both are important and we all have trust that the city will keep our roads smooth and our water flowing.”

Regarding the latter, he tipped his cap to debate over water project funding at BRC meetings earlier this year.

“There were a lot of public comments that specifically requested that the Bartlett Dam and the APRW projects be re-instated into the five-year CIP, and during this whole process, the city manager said he was putting $100 million in undefined but into water projects back in the CIP project budget, because we think that’s very important,” Schweiker said.

“Because there’s not one thing that’s going to solve the water problem. There are three or four different prongs … We felt very comfortable when the city manager came back and said there was going to be $100 million in the CIP project.”

According to one of the BRC slides, the commission has “Concerns that substantial water and sewer needs are not reflected in the 5-year CIP.”

One BRC member had mixed reactions to this year’s process.

“The BRC has proven valuable in that public discussion of critical issues — like water funding — happens sooner,” Carla said.

“While we didn’t reach the resolution that I felt was necessary — restoring projects from Scottsdale’s Strategic Water Plan — at least there was more transparency in the process.”

She also called the Pauite Neighborhood Center planning being restored to this year’s budget “a small win.

“It’s a shame that the Granite Reef Senior Center planning wasn’t also included,” Carla added. “I hope that next cycle the BRC can be even more effective.”

‘Key investments’

Hours after the council vote, the city sent out a press release trumpeting a “budget that aligns resources with community priorities

According to the email, “The budget makes significant investments to strengthen emergency response capabilities and support Scottsdale’s police officers and firefighters.

“Key investments include:

  • $18 million for renovation and expansion of the Civic Center Jail and Downtown Police Facility;
  • $10 million toward construction of a new fire station at 90th Street and Via Linda;
  • $9 million for the Ambulance Annex and continued implementation of Scottsdale’s municipal ambulance service;
  • $7.9 million to establish and fund compensation parity for sworn police and fire personnel with top public safety agencies across the Phoenix metropolitan area.”

The proposed 2026-27 Scottsdale budget shows a 5.3% decrease in operating expenditures (dropping from $885 million to $838 million) and total operating budget decline of 5.4% (falling from $1.23 billion to $1.163 billion).

But “contingencies and reserves” also drop by 5.7% (from  $344 million to $325 million).

The city projects slightly fewer employees – with current workers receiving raises: a 3% “merit increase,” a 1% “market adjustment” and “a one-time 1% payment for employees at the top of their pay range who are not eligible for merit increases.”

The current budget’s full-time worker count of 2,797 will drop to 2,789.

Caton talks BRC

Given the number of Budget Review Commission recommendations that have not been implemented, the Progress asked City Manager Greg Caton for his views on the impact of the BRC.

“The Budget Review Commission plays an important advisory role in Scottsdale’s budget process by providing an independent review of the city’s finances, capital program and long-term fiscal outlook,” Caton responded.

“While not every recommendation results in an immediate budget action, the commission’s work helps inform future planning, project evaluation and policy discussions.”

He gave examples “where the commission’s feedback has influenced ongoing staff work. Last year, the commission raised questions about the significant increase in estimated costs associated with the Advanced Water Purification project and recommended additional analysis before moving forward.

“In response, staff initiated a comprehensive evaluation of both potential capital and long-term operating costs. Those feasibility studies are currently underway and will help inform future decisions regarding the project.”

The city manager also said the BRC expressed concern about the number of capital projects that continued to roll forward from year to year without being completed. “As a result,” he said, “staff conducted an extensive review of the Capital Improvement Plan to better prioritize projects, align funding with project readiness and focus resources on the city’s highest priorities. That effort contributed to a more disciplined approach to capital planning in this year’s budget.”

Caton concluded his response, stressing “the commission’s recommendations regarding long-term financial sustainability, pension obligations and future community facility needs remain active topics that staff continues to evaluate and discuss with City Council as part of Scottsdale’s ongoing financial planning efforts.

“I appreciate the time, expertise and dedication provided by the members of the Budget Review Commission. Their recommendations contribute to thoughtful discussions about Scottsdale’s future and support the city’s commitment to transparency, accountability and sound financial management.”