At its June 9 meeting, Scottsdale City Council approved one roundabout, 350 condos and a $2.1 billion budget.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
While there was extensive discussion over the levy numbers and heated comments over Scottsdale\u2019s water plan, Council quietly approved One Scottsdale\u2019s request for an additional 350 condos.<\/p>\n
One Scottsdale\u2019s 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 \u2013 which are voted on as a group, with no individual presentation, questions or comments.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The June 9 zoning request approval allows developer DMB a total of 2,350 One Scottsdale condos and apartments \u2013 nearly double the original plan.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s new One Scottsdale approval.<\/p>\n
Holly Lasley-Wagner summarized the comments of many: \u201cBut wait! What about the \u2018water crisis\u2019 and \u2018drought\u2019??\u201d<\/p>\n
Water has been a big part of Council\u2019s debate over a budget set to begin July 1.<\/p>\n
City Manager Greg Caton\u2019s 431-page document begins with \u201cFY 2026\/27 Proposed Budget.\u201d<\/p>\n
The last page: \u201cWater Management Water Improvements \u2026Obtain and facilitate water sources and supply.\u201d<\/p>\n
The \u201cask\u201d for that was a rather modest $100 million, less than 5% of the $2.1 billion city budget total.<\/p>\n
Page 424 of the budget outlines the $300,000 \u201c91st Street and Trailside View Roundabout.\u201d There was no protest over this, in stark contrast to the ongoing controversy after Council\u2019s \u201cbloc\u201d canceled a planned roundabout in North Scottsdale, adding six months to road construction.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In sharp contrast, Councilwoman Solange Whitehead \u2013 also running for reelection \u2013 spent months criticizing Caton for not including funding for Advanced Purified Recycled Water (APRW) capital costs.<\/p>\n
This is the city\u2019s wastewater recycling\/purification program, mocked by Graham and other critics as \u201ctoilets to taps.\u201d<\/p>\n
Caton repeatedly has stated he is waiting for a cost study on the APRW program, which he expects to present to City Council \u201cin six to nine months.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
At the June 9 meeting, Whitehead tried again, making a motion to move $20 million of the $100 million \u201cwater sources and supply\u201d funding specifically for APRW.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
With that, Whitehead joined in a unanimous vote approving Caton\u2019s second budget.<\/p>\n
Two months ago, Caton told Council the new budget \u201ctotals $2.119 billion, representing a decrease of $84.7 million, or 3.8%, from the prior year.\u201d<\/p>\n
This time last year, a slide presentation advertised Caton\u2019s first budget as a \u201c3.8% decrease from prior year.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But, while capital improvement projects were down significantly in Caton\u2019s first budget, the 2025-26 operating budget \u2013 everyday costs to run the city \u2013 showed an 8% increase.<\/p>\n
Tax rates<\/strong><\/p>\n New construction and higher assessments mean Scottsdale can set slightly lower property tax rates, yet still collect a bigger total.<\/p>\n A portion of the council meeting was a public hearing on Scottsdale\u2019s proposed property tax.<\/p>\n According to a staff report, \u201cthe 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThis increase consists of a $681,884 increase due to the 2% statutory adjustment.\u201d<\/p>\n But before Council voted on the matter, Graham asked Caton what would happen if the city did not pass that 2% increase \u2013 the maximum cities can bump property taxes without a vote \u2013 to property owners.<\/p>\n Caton answered it would not have a huge impact on the budget, which is largely fueled by sales tax and tourism.<\/p>\n So Graham moved to approve the city property tax without the 2% increase. His amendment passed unanimously.<\/p>\n Answering a question from the Progress, City Treasurer Sonia Andrews unpacked the action:<\/p>\n \u201cThe motion was to not assess the 2% allowable levy increase on the primary (levy),\u201d Andrews explained, \u201cwhich 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.\u201d<\/p>\n More details on how the new city levy will impact property owner\u2019s tax bills are expected before a final vote, scheduled for June 23.<\/p>\n Budget Review Commission<\/strong><\/p>\n At the May 5 Council meeting, Budget Review Commission members Daniel Schweiker, Mark Stephens, Carla and Brad Newman \u2013 four of the seven commissioners \u2013 gave a presentation on the BRC\u2019s recommendations.<\/p>\n Last year, under aggressive chair David Smith, a former councilman and city administrator, the BRC had dozens of recommendations.<\/p>\n Nearly all were ignored by Council.<\/p>\n This year, the BRC presented four recommendations, most focusing on the city\u2019s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):<\/p>\n In his introduction, Schweiker noted \u201cCity revenues are slowing and needs are rising.<\/p>\n \u201cRoads 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Regarding the latter, he tipped his cap to debate over water project funding at BRC meetings earlier this year.<\/p>\n \u201cThere 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,\u201d Schweiker said.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause there’s not one thing that’s going to solve the water problem. There are three or four different prongs \u2026 We felt very comfortable when the city manager came back and said there was going to be $100 million in the CIP project.\u201d<\/p>\n According to one of the BRC slides, the commission has \u201cConcerns that substantial water and sewer needs are not reflected in the 5-year CIP.\u201d<\/p>\n One BRC member had mixed reactions to this year\u2019s process.<\/p>\n \u201cThe BRC has proven valuable in that public discussion of critical issues — like water funding — happens sooner,\u201d Carla said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile 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.\u201d<\/p>\n She also called the Pauite Neighborhood Center planning being restored to this year’s budget \u201ca small win.<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s a shame that the Granite Reef Senior Center planning wasn’t also included,\u201d Carla added. \u201cI hope that next cycle the BRC can be even more effective.”<\/p>\n \u2018Key investments\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Hours after the council vote, the city sent out a press release trumpeting a \u201cbudget that aligns resources with community priorities<\/p>\n According to the email, \u201cThe budget makes significant investments to strengthen emergency response capabilities and support Scottsdale’s police officers and firefighters.<\/p>\n \u201cKey investments include:<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n But \u201ccontingencies and reserves\u201d also drop by 5.7% (from\u00a0 $344 million to $325 million).<\/p>\n The city projects slightly fewer employees \u2013 with current workers receiving raises: a 3% \u201cmerit increase,\u201d a 1% \u201cmarket adjustment\u201d and \u201ca one-time 1% payment for employees at the top of their pay range who are not eligible for merit increases.\u201d<\/p>\n The current budget\u2019s full-time worker count of 2,797 will drop to 2,789.<\/p>\n Caton talks BRC<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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,\u201d Caton responded.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile not every recommendation results in an immediate budget action, the commission’s work helps inform future planning, project evaluation and policy discussions.\u201d<\/p>\n He gave examples \u201cwhere 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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. \u201cAs a result,\u201d he said, \u201cstaff 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Caton concluded his response, stressing \u201cthe 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"At its June 9 meeting, Scottsdale City Council approved one roundabout, 350 condos and a $2.1 billion budget.…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":870769,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5131],"tags":[5229,5643,1587,166900,307401,5310,119118,153464,138901,1589,7600,46683,152497,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-870768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-phoenix","tag-america","tag-arizona","tag-az","tag-barry-graham","tag-bartlett-dam","tag-city-council","tag-city-manager","tag-greg-caton","tag-lisa-borowsky","tag-phoenix","tag-scottsdale","tag-scottsdale-city-council","tag-solange-whitehead","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116758909425937087","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=870768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870768\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/870769"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=870768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=870768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=870768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n