Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Mode.

Thank you everyone. Welcome to the Wednesday, 02/25/2026 formal board meeting of Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Appreciate you all coming. Madam clerk, would

you please call the roll? Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Supervisor Gallardo is joining us remotely this morning.

I am here. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice chair Lesko? Here. Supervisor Galvin?

Here.

Supervisor Stewart?

Here.

Madam chair Brophy McGee? Here.

Thank you very much. And before we start the meeting, I wanted to remind the public of our rules of decorum. It is our intent to follow orderly procedures for the conduct conducting a business so we can accomplish what needs to be done in this very busy county this week. The chair has the authority to maintain order and professional standards during open meetings and may enforce those rules up to and including removal. If our attendees would please remain seated, do not engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct.

Signs, placards, banners and other items will not be permitted. And those of you who are filming, you are welcome to do so, but please do not do so with the flashlight function because rather blinding. I wanted to thank you all again for attending today and we will proceed to our invocation and pledge of allegiance. Madam vice chair, please introduce your guest who will lead us in the pledge and the prayer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to introduce a very special guest to give today's invocation and pledge. He's my pastor for my church, Palmcroft Baptist Church. And, would you please come to the podium and lead us in a prayer and pledge?

Yes. Let's pray. Lord Jesus Christ, we come before you today to ask for wisdom, unity, and protection. Your word says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy one is understanding. Lord, I pray, for our elected officials.

Lord, that they would fear you, knowing that their job is to uphold the standards of your morality, Lord, as we live and move in a world that you have made. Lord, your word also tells us that if any lacks wisdom, let him ask God who gives to all generously without reproach, and it will be given to him. And, Lord, I pray that you would give wisdom to our elected officials and help them govern justly while remaining humble. Lord, give them guidance as they fulfill their duties of serving the people of Maricopa County. Help them to fulfill their duties well, Lord, in the manner that you have called them to.

Lord, your word also tells us how good and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity. God, I pray for unity among our elected leaders, for Maricopa County, Lord, for our national leaders, and Lord, also, pray for unity among the citizens of our country. There's so much division and anger in our country, Lord, and I pray that you would change our hearts, and that we would begin to love each other and to seek the interests of others more than ourselves. God, I pray that you would bless the families of each person here. I ask that you would protect them, Lord, and I pray all of these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

all. Thank

you for those wonderful words. Vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to tell you a little bit more about pastor Robbie Lashua. Robbie serves as a lead pastor at Palmcroft Church here in Phoenix. It's 35th Avenue North of Greenway Road. He previously served as an apologist with Stand to Reason and as pastor of apologetics at Desert Spring Community Church in Goodyear. Robbie was also an associate professor at Mission Bible Institute and was a host of the weekly apologetics podcast, Christ, Culture, and Coffee. Robbie earned his bachelor's degree from Arizona Christian University,

a master of divinity from Phoenix Seminary, and a master's degree in Christian apologetics from Biola University. He is deeply passionate about equipping the church with thoughtful, compelling reasons to believe in classical Christianity. Most importantly,

Robbie Robbie has been married to his wonderful wife, Kelly, for eighteen years, and together, they are raising four amazing children to love and serve Jesus. We are grateful to have him with us today. Please join me in welcoming Pastor Robbie Lashua.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Pastor.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Now, we move on to the Pet Showcase. Kim, please introduce us to the star. I'm still wiping off all the slobber. It's awesome.

Alright. This is well, it's not Bobby, but I brought another scruffy dog for you, who's going to take over my speech, it looks like. This is Mint Chip, like the ice cream. I don't pick the names. I just come up here to say them. She is about a year old, came into the shelter.

Oh, my gosh.

Came into the shelter about a week ago. She wandered onto a property of a business and made herself right at home. So now, she is looking for a home of her own. Like I said, she's a year old, so she has a lot of energy, could benefit from a home that will train her, maybe take her on some hikes, maybe trail running is her thing. She has an endless amount of energy, like you can see, and an endless amount of kisses to give, so be ready for that. And a few people have said she looks like Toto from the Wizard of Oz, and she agrees that there is no place like home, so she would love a home of her own. And she is at our West Shelter. She her adoption right in the mouth. Her adoption fee includes her space surgery and her microchip and vaccinations.

Thank you. Yep. Okay. I think everyone has the message. Mint Chip needs a home and needs a home now and will love you to death if you give her one.

Yes. And like I cannot emphasize enough the endless licks.

Thank you so much. Moving on to the regular business of the board planning and zoning hearings consent agenda. Supervisors, do you wish to remove any item from the consent agenda?

Madam chair.

Mister Stewart.

I'd like to make a comment on item number 10 when we're done voting. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. We're just doing five through seven. So, I will make a note.

Thank you.

Yes. When we get to ten. The board will now consider items five through seven. Is there a motion? Madam Vice Chair.

Madam chair, I move approval of planning and zoning consent agenda items five, six, and seven in accordance with the commission recommendations as printed on the agenda.

Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no discussion, proceed to a vote. All in favor will say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will now move to statutory hearings. Item eight, through the clerk of the board, the annexation from city of Mesa to Maricopa County, and item nine, transportation, road files as shown in the agenda. Madam clerk, are there any speaker forms received for items eight and nine a and b?

Madam Chair, none received on these items.

Thank you, madam Clerk. Is there a motion for items eight and nine a and b?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve, items eight and nine a and nine b.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Thank you, mister Galvan. Hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote and all in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Now, we will proceed to the Board of Supervisors consent agenda item 10 through 68. Supervisors, do you wish to remove any item from the consent agenda? And mister Stewart, note that you want to comment following the vote.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Madam chair.

Supervisor

Please comment at number 11 after the vote after mister Stewart.

You've got it.

Thank you.

The board will now consider items 10 through 68. Is there a motion, madam vice chair?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve items 10 through 68. Second.

It's been moved and seconded and hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. Moving back to mister Stewart. What was your item number, sir?

Item number 10. Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank Adam Baugh for his stepping up the plate once again to be reappointed to the Board of Adjustment and Drainage Review Board. Adam is a partner with Morris Baugh, a law firm that specializes in land use and real estate development. But more importantly, he is the podcast host of Dirt to Development, where he spills the beans on the behind the scenes on how we get things done at the county and at the municipalities.

He's very knowledgeable in this space, and I'm grateful to have him serving. So outside the office, Adam serves as a speaker, teacher, storyteller who makes zoning way more interesting than it sounds. It's hard to do. And he lives in Gilbert with his wife and five kids, and when he's not at a city council meeting or here in chambers, you might find him wakesurfing or cycling across the valley. We're grateful for his service and volunteering to the community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Galvin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to congratulate and say thank you to Jeff Schwartz, who has agreed to continue serving on the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority. It's a little known board, but it's a very important role. It's a very important board. As this Board of Supervisors knows all too well, which is basically involved intimately with the issues of economic development.

It's a tremendous time commitment, and I know this entire Board is grateful to everyone that serves on the county IDA. But also, the Board of Supervisors does not have a direct role in the operations of the IDA, so we have to appoint people that we trust and people that we know have the good heart of Maricopa County in mind. So I'm happy to reappoint Jeff Schwartz to the IDA Board. And just another point is that Jeff is intimately involved in many issues throughout District 2, and really wants to see Maricopa County do well. So I'm grateful for him and his friendship. So thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. And thank

you to my colleagues for voting.

Yes. Thank you, mister Galvin. We will now move to the board of supervisors regular agenda item 69 real estate utility easement. Madam clerk, are there any speaker forms received for this item?

Madam chair, I do have one speaker form from mister Joe Hoff, wishes to speak on this item number 69.

Thank you. Mister Hoff, would you please come forward? And welcome, sir.

Thank you and good morning. Agenda item 69 grants a utility easement to Arizona Public Service over county land at Esraea Mountain Campground. An easement is not minor. It transfers a legal property interest and allows construction, operation, and long term access over public land. This requires unanimous consent.

So I ask, what makes this significant enough to require all five votes? At the same time, we continue to see large financial allocations placed under the consent agenda bundled together and passed without discussion. If long term property rights require full transparency and unanimous approval, shouldn't large taxpayer expenditures receive the same level of visibility? Before granting this easement, the public deserves clarity. What is duration?

What compensation is provided? What liability protections exist? How does this affect future public use? And finally, transparency must include participation. Observing by webinar is not first amendment participation.

Speaking access should be available to all. Can the board clarify whether this APS easement is permanent, whether it restricts future public access, and why unanimous consent is required? Thank you.

Thank you, mister Hoff. Madam County manager, may I call forward our real estate, the real estate guy, Alex, to comment on these questions related to the unanimous consent requirement, liability, duration compensation process. I think you were making notes.

Chair.

Please state your name and title for the

Alex Smith, real estate director.

Thank you.

Chair, members of the board. First and foremost, the unanimous consent is required by state statute eleven two fifty one number nine, I believe. The easement is for a campground at Estrella Mountain Park, and it is a permanent easement. It's typical of APS to require easements to power county facilities, And that sums it up.

And thank you, sir. Can you explain the process by which it got here on the agenda? What did we

go The park is doing improvements in APS. It's APS service territory and to get power to the facility, APS requires an easement.

Thank you. Are there questions for mister Smith from board members? Thank you, sir. We have heard public testimony and testimony from staff. Is there a motion regarding item 69? Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 69.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Madam I'm sorry. If I may, requires a unanimous roll call vote.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go to the roll call

vote, please, madam clerk. Thank you. Supervisor Gallardo.

Thank you. Madam chair, if it's okay if I can just real quickly make a quick comment. I am an honest

Please.

If it's okay to make a thank you so much. First of all, in regards to the item, I had a quick conversation with APS. I wanna say, oh, man, maybe mid or late January in regards to this item. I knew it was coming forward. I just didn't know exactly when it would be on our agenda.

They're doing some great stuff out there at Estrella Mountain Park. A big shout out to our park system out there. You're gonna see more and more items coming around this particular Estrella Mountains. I know Goodyear is looking to work with Maricopa County on doing some stuff out there as well. So it it it's something that is needed out there to keep this park very vibrant. This is a nice little cap ground, and I thank APS for their partnership and working with the county to make this happen. And I vote aye.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Lesko? Aye. Supervisor Galvin?

Aye.

Supervisor Stewart?

Aye. And

Chair Brophy McGee? Aye.

So the motion passes unanimously as required by statute. Now we go to the board of supervisors addendum. There are four items. One, risk management settlement in Delk versus Maricopa County, two items under the county attorney competition impracticable procurement for Snell and Wilmer, and settlement in flood control district of Maricopa County versus Larkin et al, and through finance, the Maricopa County recorders office appropriation adjustment. Madam clerk, are there any speaker forms received for items 70 through 73?

Madam Chair, yes. I do have a total of five speaker forms for requests to speak on items seventy, seventy one and seventy three.

Okay. Can we do you have them in order? Can we start with item 70?

Yes. I will call on Tom Arnold speaking on item number 70.

And while mister Arnold makes his way up, who is next and on what item?

Up next will be Roger Pickrell speaking on item number 71.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome, mister Arnold.

Agenda item 70 approves a $400,000 settlement in Delk versus Maricopa County. When the county settles litigation, taxpayers pay. Executive session may be appropriate for legal strategy, but public accountability requires clarity once money leaves the treasury. What exposure led to this settlement? What risk management failures, if any, contributed?

And most importantly, are we learning from these cases to prevent future liability? When constitutional limits are tested or governance becomes adversarial, litigation follows. And litigation always affects taxpayers. The public deserves assurance that governance decisions are not increasing legal exposure unnecessarily. Thank you.

Three questions, I hope, get it answered. There was like two paragraphs on what was Delt versus Maricopa County. What was dealt versus Maricopa County, please? And also, can the board confirm whether corrective measures were implemented and whether this $400,000 settlement is covered by insurance or general funds?

Thank you. Is is that the total of your you have three questions, sir. Correct?

Please. Thank you, mister answer to those three.

May I ask mister Liddy or miss Cummings to come forward and address those questions?

Welcome, sir. Thank you very much.

Please state your name for the record.

Thomas Liddy, chief of the Civil Division, Deputy County Attorney working for Rachel Mitchell, the County Attorney of Maricopa County. Delphi, Maricopa County is a litigation that's been handled in house by our litigation section. Legal advice was provided to the Board in executive session. I have not worked on the litigation and I have no information about the litigation. But we can get the attorneys who are working on it to comment in a future time, if you wish, to share basic information about it.

But, I think there's information available, it can be available, on the county's on the agenda for whatever to describe what this litigation is. But, I I did not work on it. We have attorneys on a litigation section that did.

And, may I ask you, sir, to explain why legal advice on such items is provided? And, aside from the fact that it's legal advice, why it occurs in executive session as opposed to in the public?

So all meetings of the board have to be open and notice unless they're one of two exceptions. One of those exceptions is to get legal advice. So the law permits there to be executive session for attorneys to come and provide legal advice to the members of the board or to receive questions from the board that they can then analyze and provide legal advice at a future time. So, the law permits that, so there'll be a free exchange of communication between attorney and client. And the legislators recognize that the ability to have free and open communication between attorneys and clients benefits our society which of course is run by laws.

And to that effect, sir, if I may ask further, the board cannot make a decision or conduct a vote in executive session.

That is correct, Madam Chair. It's only for discussion to get legal advice or to receive legal advice or to ask for legal advice or provide information. There's no deliberation among the supervisors in executive session and there are no votes. If there's going to be a vote or deliberation, it has to happen in an open meeting.

Thank you, sir. Madam County Manager, do you have anything to add in relation to mister Arnold's questions?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Delk versus Maricopa County is relates to a death that occurred in the jails. And there is, I will defer to county attorneys since we can't discuss what was discussed in executive session, but the county has not, as part of the settlement, admitted any fault.

Thank you. That's about the extent of it, Mr. Hoff, but thank you for your questions.

Mr. Arnold.

Arnold. I'm sorry. My apologies, sir. Next speaker. Next speaker.

Madam chair, Roger Pickrell wishes to speak on item number 71 followed by the next three that wish to speak on number 73 Leslie Shepherd, Roger Mayup, and Elizabeth Townsley.

Mister Pickrell, I promise not to call you mister Arnold.

Just don't call me late for dinner. Alright?

Okay.

Okay. Madam chair, counsel, thank you very much. Agenda item 71 authorizes up to a $100,000 for outside counsel from Snell and Wilmer to represent the county attorney. This is a competitive competition impracticable procurement. Outside counsel is sometimes necessary. We know that. But when outside but when internal offices, elected officials, and and litigation are multiplying, the public notices this. The recorder has outside counsel, understandably. A supervisor has outside counsel, understandably. Private parties have have counsel, understandably.

Now the county attorney retains outside counsel. Legal conflict is expensive. The question is not whether representation is allowed. It is whether governor's decisions are escalating legal conflict rather than resolving it. Board attempting to surpass your constitutional authority is getting costly for We The People.

Every escalation increases taxpayer cost. The public deserves to know what is driving this need. Can the board explain what specific conditions justify designating this a $100,000 contract for outside counsel as competition impracticable and whether internal county representation capacity was elevated before approving outside procurement. I don't think these are abnormal questions, you know. Again, before you open up your wallet, you wanna know what you're putting it on. Anybody got any answers to that $100,000 assessment?

Thank you, mister Pickrell. Mister Liddy.

Thank you, madam chair. So the the residents and the voters of Maricopa County selected their attorney for the county, Rachel Mitchell. And she, in addition to representing the state in the criminal courts for prosecutions, she provides legal advice to county officers, which includes every member of this board and the board as it stands in itself, and other elected officials. So, if there's a legal dispute between the county attorney, an elected county official, and another elected official, her office is conflicted out. So I am not permitted to represent Rachel Mitchell in a dispute she has with another elected official.

So therefore, you have to go to outside counsel to avoid the conflict of interest which are prohibited by the rules of professional responsibility.

Thank you very much, Mr. Liddy. We will finish up with speakers on item 73. Madam Clerk. And, thank you Mr. Pickrell. Thank

you. Up next, Leslie Shepherd followed by Roger Mayup then Elizabeth Townsley all speaking on item number 73.

Welcome Ms. Shepherd.

Okay. Agenda item number 7373. This 550,000 allocation, it looks like it relates to that Agilis machine, because that was the price that I saw in the budget meeting that got a lot of attention and I heard it in the last meeting that you guys had. Matter of fact, Debbie Lesko brought it up and Thomas Galvin had her read out loud a something that had nothing to do with the meeting. It had to do with some court proceeding that had nothing to do with the budget meeting.

So what I'm trying to figure out is was this Agilis system appeared in the which did appear in the previous year's board, because Jen Porcowski went on record about that after a couple times Kate Brophy McGee, you like emphatically insisted that it wasn't on there, which obviously that was incorrect. So, I respectfully, what is the what has changed between last year's denial and today's reallocation of this money, and was the operational need not present at the time of the prior request? So or did the circumstances change following the 12/10/2024 restructuring when the previous board voted this new restriction you put on our recorder? I do think it's important that you guys identify you do know that you guys are under article 12. Right?

That under county, that this is your these are your boundaries that that you're only allowed to go to. So I just wanted to make sure. And this is how you can get out a

not allow signs. Put the signs down

Actually, ma'am, Steve Gallardo held up a tweet for six minutes ranting and raving and you said nothing about it.

Signs. Okay. I will ask that you be removed.

Oh. Thank you. You mean From the podium?

From the audience. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I read the rules. I'm giving you You may be excused. May be excused.

Your restrictions

Madam Clerk. Up next, Roger Mayup followed by Elizabeth Townsley on item 73. You

are excused. Mr. Mayup, please come forward. Please come forward. Thank you for your patience. Please proceed, mister Meyer.

My name is Roger Mabe. Chair and supervisors agenda minus item number 73 reallocates $550,000 in recorder budget authority. While the net county impact is zero, timing matters. The adjustment occurs amidst procedural disputes, litigation, and public controversy involving the recorder's office. Board, when constitutional authority and statutory compliances are being debated publicly, financial adjustments should be handled with heightened transparency.

Budget authority is not merely accounting. It reflects operational stability and institutional boundaries. The public deserves assurance that the budget actions are not being influenced by political or legal friction. And when disputes escalate into litigation, taxpayers ultimately bear the costs. Again, the webinar, first amendment rights must become fair and become equal access to these meetings. Agenda item 73 is an attorney expense and this board continues to violate constitutional rights while this costs more. This will be on your watch. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, mister May. Madam clerk?

Last speaker on item number 73, Elizabeth Townsley.

Welcome Mrs. Townsley. Thank you.

Chair members, the Agilis system has exposed significant governance tension regarding election infrastructure and operational authority. Now we see a 550,000 reallocation to the recorder's office. So before anything else, I ask, is this appropriation tied to the Agilis machine? At the special meeting, the recorder was sworn in and questioned regarding matters to Agilis. A motion referencing a r s 11 dash two five three was entertained but died for lack of second.

If statutory compliance was met and if Agilis is central to the dispute, then budget clarity is essential. Article 12 governs county officers. Article eight governs removal authority. Those boundaries exist to prevent confusion of powers. If this 550,000 relates to Agellis, please state clear clearly whether it funds equipment, restores operational control, or addresses litigation exposure. When infrastructure, authority, and funding converge, transparency is not optional. Please clarify for the public record. Thank

you. Thank you very much. I want to take this a little differently, and I want to break these down into separate motions, please. And when we get to item 73, I will ask madam county manager to address some of the questions that were raised, please. It's also my understanding there may be comments on on number 73 by board members. So, if we could start with a motion on item number 70, madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 70.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Motion

passes unanimously. We will now move on to item 71. I'm gonna do two. Seventy one and seventy two. Madam Vice Chair, is there a motion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we approve item number seventy one and seventy two, and I have a statement or comment on item number 71.

Oh, thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Been moved and seconded. With your permission, madam vice chair, we'll proceed to a vote and then you may comment. Would that work? Sure. Okay. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Hearing none opposed, item seventy one seventy two pass unanimously. Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I just want to comment on item 71 since mister Picarill asked about it. And I agree with you, Mr. Picarill. We are spending a lot of money on lawsuits. This lawsuit deals with, as Mr. Liddy said, an elected Maricopa County elected official who has sued the Board of Supervisors, and it deals with that. And, I wish that there wasn't a lawsuit. So, I wish people wouldn't sue each other. I wish we could just work it out.

But, that's not what happened. And so, when somebody sues us, and and Rachel Mitchell is involved in the lawsuit, then, unfortunately, taxpayers are the ones that are footing the bill.

Thank you for your comments. We will move to item 73, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office Appropriation Adjustment. Madam Vice Chair, is there a motion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move that we approve item number 73. And at the appropriate time, I'd like to make comments.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Madam chair, I'd like to second with a comment as well.

Thank you. I think we all want to explain our votes. But first, let me ask madam county manager for a a recap of the items raised in public testimony related to the Agilis machine and the funding source.

Thank you, madam chair. This item is not to fund the Agilis machine. This item is to fund a new signature verification stations that the recorder has requested. He there is a memo that is attached in the backup documents for this item that can be found online. And it specifies that he is seeking to use $550,000 from the funds that the legislature provided in their budget last year for the recorder's office, which are held in contingency. Approximately 400,000 is for facility infrastructure improvements and about 150,000 for computers, monitors, and other related tech.

Thank you. With that information on the table, members, do you wish to conduct a roll call vote or shall we conduct a vote and then hear comments? Let's do that. Unless there's further discussion. Okay. We will proceed to a vote on item number 73. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Any

opposed? No. Motion passes four to one. Now we will proceed to board comments. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This was a request, as our county manager said, from Recorder Heap. It's a budget request from Recorder Heap. And, in fact, on January 28, Recorder, he came in front of the board, as other elected officials have done, and had budget requests. And this was one of them.

And he had one time legislative monies request. A 100 this is from his slide deck 150 signature verification workstations, dollars 150,000 tenant improvements for signature verification stations, 400,000. So, that adds up to $550,000 Now, when somebody puts a budget request in for fiscal year 'twenty seven, which this is, that's the next fiscal year. So the next fiscal year does not start till 07/01/2026. And so we don't vote on that as a board normally until the fiscal year budget time, which is usually June 2026.

And that's why I was a little confused when Justin Heap, the very next day, texted me, and then I subsequently called him. So on January 29, Mr. Heap texted me, and he said, Debbie, can you please call me when you have a moment? It's not about the presentation last night, but it is rather urgent. And then I called him, subsequently said, and I'm paraphrasing, I really need this money in two days.

Two days. And so, I was a little bit confused because I was like, well, fiscal year twenty seven budget, we don't approve that till June. But he really asked for my help, and so I helped him. And I called our county manager, Jen Pikorsky, and asked her to call Mr. Heap.

And my understanding, and maybe Jen Pikorsky can elaborate, is she reached out to Mr. Heap and helped him do this budget request, which is a mid year budget request. You know, it's different than putting it on the fiscal year '27. So, my point of saying all this is, you know, I get a little bit frustrated with with the person that I voted for in the Republican primary when he says that we're not working with him. I helped him, you know.

He put it in the fiscal year twenty seven budget, which is wouldn't be approved till June, but then he called me the very next day and said, I need the money in two days. And so, you know, I thought, okay, I'm going to try to bury the hatchet because Mr. Heap goes around to district meetings and bashes me all the time. But, I thought, let's get this done. We need to work together in order to get our elections done smoothly.

So, is an example, and I hope some of you that are out there are listening. This is another example of approval of something that Recorder Heap asked for, and we agreed with it. I plan well, I already voted yes. And so, I just want you to know that I have tried, and the board has tried, in good faith, to work with recorder Heap. And so I hope that he will do so as well. And I yield back.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Mr. Stewart.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And on this issue, conversations with Recorder Heap. But as we're working through this case, through the SSA negotiation, the good news is that we're still doing business. And I want to commend staff. I want to commend both the election staff and the recorder staff for continuing to keep their eye on the prize, which is a best run election in 2026 and beyond. But this is an example for the public to see that while we might be in disagreement on some of the parameters of the shared service agreement At this point, we're still getting business done. So you can count on a great election this fall. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Galvin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, last week this room was full when people were under the impression that there was going to be a vote to remove the recorder. A lot of people probably got these text messages thinking that that was the case, but as you can see here, my colleagues are voting to actually provide $550,000 in funding to the recorder's office. So it's quite the opposite. But I am voting no for several reasons.

One, the $4,000,000 from governor Hobbs, I don't believe is good policy. I don't believe that state taxpayer money should just be handed out willy nilly. And I think if you're gonna be handing out $4,000,000 to one county, that every county should be treated equally. Two, it is no secret that I have had issues and concerns about the new voter registration I'm sorry, signature verification process that the recorder's office is implementing. I keep asking questions about it.

I keep raising questions about it. I am still highly concerned that the ratio of rejected ballots from last election are too high and I never received a sufficient explanation on why. Also, have had several questions asked of the recorder's office regarding their budget and their budget presentation. To this date, they haven't answered any of my questions. I have sent them a letter, a detailed letter with detailed questions asking them to respond, gave them weeks to respond, still haven't heard from them.

So, I just don't believe I have enough info at this point to vote for something like this. Perhaps if I had more information, would be more comfortable voting yes, but I'm just not comfortable voting yes. If I'm going to be voting on $550,000 of your money, your hard earned money, your tax dollars, I have to be uncomfortable doing so. A $550,000 request from Justin Heap without any justification is very hard for me to go with. And also as one of my colleagues pointed out, this has been a sloppy process at the recorder's office.

It's been a ham fisted shambolic effort, but it's a hallmark of how the way they have done things over the past year. I really hope that they do a better job and course correct. I think my colleague did a really good job of explaining that. For all these reasons, I'm voting no. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, mister Galvin. Mister Gallardo, do you have any comments?

Thank you. Yes. Thank you, madam chair. You know, I woke I up this morning with the thought that I I my plan was to vote no on this particular item. As stated before, how this money came to the county is just not good public policies.

And as we all remembered, you know, it was a rocky it was a rocky start with recorder's office. He, you know, he had a lot of demands. He didn't get his way, so he runs to the legislature, And he I don't know what he told the legislature. I I don't even wanna try to guess, but I can probably imagine it's it's it wasn't very true statements that were said at the legislature about us. Nonetheless, the legislature decided, well, we're gonna give him $4,000,000, and we're gonna send it right over to him.

But we do have a responsibility, madam chair, to make sure that the money is spent correctly. It's my understanding this money is to be used for furniture. Do I think it's a wise expenditure? I don't know. I think there's other ways of going about it. I don't think the legislature should have given him the $4,000,000. I think just like any other elected official in any other county, you work together with the board of supervisors. You you sit down. You negotiate. You kinda explain what you need it for.

You don't have a tension tantrum and then run to the legislature and try to get your your friends there at the legislature to give you a special fund just to be able to buy whatever the hell you wanna buy. And that's exactly what we have here. Good thing, though, we are looking at every little expenditure that he's wanting to make with his 4,000,000. But, madam chair, to be frankly honest, you know, the legislature right now, they're gonna have a huge short fund. They are one of the biggest fights they're going to have at the legislature is what are they going to cut?

What programs and services do they need to cut? Well, guess what? They can come right in here, sweep this $4,000,000, take it back, and use it for stuff that is good for the entire state of Arizona, not for just one elected official that continues to have attention tantrum. So, madam chair, yes, I voted yes. My intention was to vote no, but we're gonna keep an eye on him.

I wanna give give him some benefit of the doubt that he is going to spend this money wisely. We're gonna make sure whatever he requests is going to be spent for the betterment of the office, and, hopefully, we can try to solve some of the concerns that he has. But nonetheless, Madam Chair, I did vote yes, but we'll be watching him. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gallardo. I landed in a lot of the same places as my colleagues regarding this issue up to and including placing it on the agenda. The signature verification process and any changes to it are the recorder's sole jurisdiction. The recorder, when we elected, gets to decide what that process is.

I was unhappy that it was first employed on a live voter database, a real election. The jurisdictional elections countywide conducted in November 2024, all mail in ballots. There were and I've heard numbers from 53,000 to 57,000 voters who participated in that election who had never voted by mail. So, I'm looking at different types of different types of voters, you know, four zero four election day voters, they show up, show their ID and they vote, but their signature has changed. Or I'm I was talking to my friend Helen Purcell about the young voters who haven't quite figured out what their signature looks like.

And, anyway, so you are gonna have signature discrepancies. And so, I began asking because out of all the ballots that were cast, was almost 6,000 ballots that were discounted because their signatures differed. They were not counted. They were disallowed. I don't want to use the word disenfranchised, but that may well have been what happened.

And so, I began asking as a board member back in November, let's do a deeper dive into those signatures. We I don't wanna test this new process on an actual election, but since that occurred and that happened, let's let's look at those signatures and let's look at those voters and say, do we need to bring them in? Do we need to reach out to them? Do we need to write to them? I'm gonna take one old codger that I know very very well who would tell you that he goes to election day, goes to vote on election day.

He has not voted by mail since we first registered to vote here forty one years ago, because it's his pride and pleasure to vote election day. And a lot of things have happened in forty one years. He's he's got terrible arthritis, so his signature has changed. I will also tell you that be ballot ready is not a thrill for him. He uses a flip phone because he doesn't believe he he believes in he doesn't like phones being smarter than the person that's carrying them.

And numbers truly, when they ring through from the county, come across as spam. So, I'm saying, okay, let's take that as one voter. Did you reach out to them? Did you leave a message? How can we make sure that they are franchised to vote in the important, incredibly important midterm elections coming I still don't have those answers.

I am hoping that mister Heap's information which he presented to us this last Wednesday came in a form, of course, that requires very careful access because there's personal voter identification information that is very I'm hoping the answer is there, but I truly don't know. So I go back to the letter that vice chair Lesko and I wrote to him yesterday. People think the midterms are forever away. They're not. The work that needs to be done to gear up and get ready for primaries and general elections is a staggering amount of work, whether it's poll sites, making sure you have the poll sites available, making sure you have hired, I think it's 4,000 temporary election workers and volunteers.

That has to start now. So with the resolution we executed this past week, we have put forward a plan for how we're gonna do this. And one of the elements of that is that the voter that the recorder will conduct early in person voting. All that being said, there's a a lead on this new signature verification process and equipment. And, I am forced into a position of voting yes on an item I don't have sufficient information to vote yes on, and praying that we can continue our very short efforts to work together to conduct real election.

And it was on this basis that I reluctantly voted aye, so we may continue the business of the county. Thank you board members for your comments. We will now recess as the board of supervisors and convene as the flood control district board of sup board of directors for items 74, an amended IGA with a dot and amended and 75 amended IGA, with a whole bunch of different entities. 76, a purchase agreement and conveyance of documents for sale of real property. 77 is an easement right of way and relocation documents, assistance documents.

And 78 is settlement in the flood control district of Maricopa County versus Larkin et al. This is quite a quintessentially the boring business of good government. Madam clerk, are there any speaker forms received for items 74 through 78?

Madam chair, yes. I do have two speaker forms on item number 75 from Joe Hoff and Louie Mar Garza.

Thank you. Mr. Hoff. Welcome.

Thank you. Chair and members of the board, agenda item 75 amends the intergovernmental agreement governing joint adoption of board policies and removes the stadium district from that framework. This is appropriately placed on the regular agenda because it affects governance, structure, and policy alignment among county districts. However, I want to place a structural contrast into the record. Earlier agenda items, including $136,000,000 bond authorization, were placed under the consent agenda and not pulled for individual discussion despite requests.

When high impact fiscal items are grouped under consent, public visibility is reduced. Today, the majority of agenda items have been consolidated under consent, leaving only a limited portion available for public comment. Governance amendments are treated individually as they should be, but multimillion dollar fiscal authorizations deserve equal transparency and opportunity for public input. In the fourth largest county in The United States where webinar participation and public comment is not available, agenda structure directly affects the public's ability to weigh in. I am placing that structural distinction into the record.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister Hoff. Miss Garza.

I'm speaking regarding number 75, which ties into number 79. I am reading where Maricopa County Stadium District, which is you, is being booted out of the special little club of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which is you, the flood control district of Maricopa County, which is you, and the Maricopa County Library District, which is you. You apparently all had a hissy fit with yourselves. So, I'd like to know what happened. This agreement from 2018. The stench is overwhelming. What happened in 2000 this year from 2018 that you're all bulling up on the Stadium District? Could it be that money has been embezzled? Could it be the blowout of finances? Could it be auditing issues?

And, now that you hate the Stadium District and you're booting them out, I'd like to know. Who is now in charge of the Stadium District if you're booting them out of this agreement because it seems like a huge conflict of interest for number 75 And 79. Somebody spoke about a temper tantrum and it seems like that's what you have all done. And, I've got a huge temper tantrum with these two particular ones because I'm wondering if you are withdrawing or are you still negotiating as to whether or not the issues that you're having with the stadium district is going to affect you financially, which in in reflection actually affects all the taxpayers here. Now, beyond that, I would hope that your bully behavior would respect our finances as much as you respected the 500,000 that you didn't feel like giving to mister Heap.

And, your hypocrisy has left quite the odor in this chambers. Y'all should be ashamed of yourself.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, are there any other speakers?

Madam Chair, no other speakers.

Mr. Shira, may I ask you to come forward and briefly explain the status of the Stadium District and how that happens?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Board members. Last legislative session, House Bill twenty seven zero four amended the appointment method for the Board of Directors. Previously, the Stadium District Board of Directors was made above the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. That bill changed it so that the governor, the four chambers of the legislature, the mayor of the city of Phoenix, and the chair of this board were able to appoint the governing board of the Stadium District. That made that district separate for Maricopa County. It was always a separate legal entity. So today what we were doing we're amending our county policies to remove Stadium District references because it's no longer a part of our county governance.

Thank you. Hoping our speakers took note of it. It was the Arizona legislature that and their path forward. Madam vice chair, may I have a motion on item 74 through 78?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve items number 74 through 78.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Aye. Hearing none opposed, the motion carries unanimously. We will now adjourn as the flood control district board of directors and convene as the library district board of directors to consider item number 79. Madam clerk, are there any speakers?

Madam chair, yes. I do have two speaker forms to speak on item 79. Tom Arnold and Roger May.

Mister Arnold.

This amendment removes the Stadium District from a joint adoption agreement, but leaves the Library District bound to Board of Supervisors policies. Why was the Library District placed under Joint Board of Supervisors policy adoption beginning in 2018? If if the question was already answered, if it was legislation Sorry. I'm a little slow on the uptake. But, if if that's the answer to that question, again, would would you clarify it before my time's up, please?

Independent taxing districts are meant to function with defined statutory authority. When governance policies are centralized, accountability follows that structure. The public has repeatedly brought concerns regarding inappropriate books in minors sections, some of which were later relabeled and moved rather than formally addressed. If library governance flows through jointly adopted board of supervisors policies, then oversight responsibilities does not stop at the district level. Before approving this amendment, please clarify, and again, I got three questions.

What policies currently govern the library district under this agreement? Question two, what oversight mechanisms exist under those policies? And number three, how will this amendment alter or preserve that structure? Again, if if if the quest first question was already answered, I apologize for being slow on the uptake. Again, that first one was why was the library district placed under Joint Board of Supervisors policies adoption beginning in 2018? Was that legislation done?

Thank you, mister Arnold. Madam County Manager?

Thank you, madam chair. This this agenda item, as mister Shira mentioned, only removes the Stadium District from the oversight of the board based on the changes that were made at the legislature. The library district and the flood control district remain unchanged.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Respectfully, mister Arnold, we're addressing the action that is being taken in this as opposed to the more broad based questions you ask. But, thank you.

Mister Mabe?

My name is Roger Mabe. Agenda item 79 may appear administrative, but it addresses joint adoption of Board of Supervisors policies across multiple districts. When the library district adopts BOS policies, governance becomes centralized. This matters because when concerns arise such as inappropriate books being relabeled and quietly moved out of the minors department, the public needs to know where responsibility lies. If the library district operates under BOS policies that have been in place since 2018, then the board's policy framework governs how those issues are handled.

This amendment removes one district but leaves other districts bound. Before approving this amendment, consider what specific BOS policies are governing the library district. How does this affect policy enforcement? Will the public have the opportunity to review those policies before changes are implemented? Governance structure is not minor. It defines oversight, accountability, and transparency. Thank you.

Thank you, mister May. The board will now consider item 79. Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 79.

Is there a second, please?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Hearing none opposed, motion carries unanimously. We will now adjourn as the library Board of Directors and reconvene as the Board of Supervisors and proceed to public comment. Madam Clerk, how many folks will we be hearing from under public comment?

Madam Chair, we have 11 public comments.

Okay. Please proceed.

Madam Chair, have a question.

Mr. Gowan.

Through the chair, madam clerk, how many emails did we receive? Any email comments or submissions?

Thank you.

Madam chair, supervisor Galvin, for this particular meeting there were three email comments and all three were just submitting their comments in favor to item number seven on today's agenda, the Sun Basin agenda item.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor Galvin. Who is our first speaker?

First speaker is Diane Barker followed by Jane Pfeiffer.

Miss Parker.

Good morning supervisor, chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee, board of supervisors. And I'm in District 5. My name is Diane Barker. I'm interested in safety and mobility of transportation in Maricopa County last evening. You and I live downtown, and I witnessed a long string of backed up traffic from a distance though.

It looked like it was around about nineteenth Avenue, probably around the Cloverleaf Grand Avenue. Backed up traffic and some, you know, sirens, rescue lights. I haven't found out what the incident was, but I wanna thank Darcy Cobre over who is with Maricopa County. She had me speak with Jess who then led me to speaking with McDott recently, and I'm going to be able to get your plan for 2040, the new one for 2050. Why am I concerned?

Because we sometimes look at Mcdodd as being out there in the unincorporated areas, but even supervisor Galvin should know that Mcdodd participated with Mesa in building a needed new bridge out there extension of Gilbert. And so when I see these pockets of money, it needs to be identified and people from different the county. I went to a meeting where 200,000,000 of federal money's going in at Grand Avenue, which would have been north of this incident I'm telling you about, an Indian school. And the thing is now the city of Phoenix wants to build light rail up there. If we don't watch out where we're going, we can end up, there.

We're watching. The public is watching.

Thank you very much. Madam Clerk?

Up next, Jane Pfeiffer followed by Joe Hoff and then Michelle Alter.

Good morning. My name is Jane Pfeifer, and I spoke before this board on January 28 seeking help. What happened instead was one meeting with McDott where we were ambushed by planning and development. What has transpired since then can only be called retribution, delay, and lying. Clarification and record requests are being ignored or unduly delayed. For example, I requested records regarding my road. I have received four files containing eight pages. That's it. Eight pages. And then told that that is a responsive records fulfillment.

Thirty days I've waited for eight pages. I have asked various departments and employees and county staff and have not been able to get a straight answer to a different question, so I'm gonna ask it here. What is the official complaint process established by this board of supervisors for filing a complaint against the department and department employees.

Respectfully, this is public participation. I would ask madam clerk and her staff to let you, to give you the information on the website for complaints.

It's not on the website.

I will get you that information, but we are not able to speak to an issue that's not on the agenda. I believe that Supervisor Lesko will be addressing some events or items in her district that will, in part, answer your questions. Thank you. Do you have anything else?

How do I get agenda items placed where people can actually get answers?

Thank you. I will, supervisor, vice chair, if I may ask that you have your staff be in contact with her.

Oh, they have been. They are less than helpful.

Thank you. My the issue here is for all our transparency advocates, which I am that we, is that during public comment, items can be raised that are not on the agenda. Therefore, we cannot discuss, we cannot take action, we cannot engage in a debate back and forth because that then would be a violation of open meeting laws. I take a very strict construct of that based on some very painful school board and school facilities board experiences. But I we will work to put individuals in touch with the people they need to talk to.

We, as a board, cannot comment individually. So, proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next up, Joe Hoff, followed by Michelle Altair and Tom Arnold.

I suspect highly that you know my name but I've been told for recording purposes that I must say my name is Joe Hoff.

Thank you.

I have submitted speaker slips properly and not been called. On February 11 and on April 9, I stood ready to speak while proceedings continued without acknowledgment. Speaker slips are official public records tied directly to first amendment participation in this chamber. When some slips are honored and others are not, public confidence erodes. This county is large.

Webinar participation for public comment should be available to all, not selectively granted. Watching is not speech. And while procedural inconsistencies continue here, many of us are still asking for the same focus regarding materials in children's sections that are being relabeled instead of removed. Consistency matters in elections. Consistency matters in access.

Consistency matters in oversight. Article seven, section 11, one day, one vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk?

Michelle Altair, Tom Arnold, Elizabeth Townsley. Michelle. Next speaker, Tom Arnold.

No paper to read from. I did attend last Wednesday's special meeting regarding mister Heave, and I wish I would have recorded it just because there was a lot, and forty five minutes later, I remember how much of that. But I did send out a email to miss Lesko, and I was pleasantly surprised to get a response back so quickly. Thank you. It was addressed constituents, so I don't know if it was generic versus your answer specifically to me, but I appreciate that effort.

There's so much information I don't understand regarding your side of the what's going on with mister Heap. And mister Heap's side, he was back there after, and I asked him, do you have a website where I could get your side of the story? And I never did get an answer to that either, So, I'm still confused. But, I'd I'd one thing I do remember, I think there was stated in the agenda or whatever it was called, resolution that part of his budget was taken away, and part of his IT department was taken away. And, miss Leskol, I'm gonna formulate another letter to you asking, did I misunderstand that?

And if if if that was the case, why? And and was those budgets on the other departments in the county taken away also? Real quick, chairman or chairperson, you talked about wanting transparency in or fairness in the elections. I know this is goes to the federal government, but I hope that you all will if you believe in the SAVE Act, that you could reach out to the people at the top and say, let's get this passed, please. So that the elections

Thank you, mister Arnold. Madam Clerk.

Next up, Elizabeth Townsley followed by Roger May and Diana Jones Pickrell.

Hello. Hello.

My name is Elizabeth Townsley. I just want to get a couple of things.

A little closer. We can't hear you.

How's that? Yeah. One is I wanna get it on the record that several legislative districts have written letters to you, the board of supervisors, requesting that you work with Justin Heap and that we did elect him to get our election systems cleaned up and to restore faith and confidence in the system. Second, you guys have said several times that you're frustrated over the signature verification process, but I do recall that Justin Heap invited you down to the Recorder's Office to observe it directly. And so I encourage you go and do this.

And third, you've Debbie Lesko, in particular, has addressed complained several times about the lawsuits. Unfortunately, we are in a point in the world where lawsuits are having to be utilized to clarify the law and resolve issues, and they do represent the taxpayers' interests in the fact that they're resolving these issues. So I just wanted to get those on record. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk?

Roger Mabe, Diana Jones Pickrell, Roger Pickrell.

My name is Roger May, chairman and board members. I drive an hour and a half one way to be here. I come because this is where the public is allowed to speak in person. Some, however, are allowed remote participation, but others are not. Some receive additional time, but others are cut off.

Consistency matters. In a county this large, webinar access for public comment should not be prejudicial. Why are you so prejudice about it? It's as clear as the nose on your face how blatantly prejudicial you are. Do you just ignore that? These are criticisms. You can respond if you want. These are not praises. Watching online is not First Amendment participation. Speaking is.

While the board moves quickly to question one elected office, many of us continue asking for the same urgency regarding the books being relabeled instead of removed from the children's sections. What is it going to take for you all to correct this perversion? What does it take? It's, again, clearly perversion. Please correct this perversion.

Our constitution already gives us a framework. Article seven section eleven, one day, one vote, that the solutions are not complicated. Correct the perversion. It's starting to look like you're part of the perversion because it's going on so long. It's wrong. Maybe pray tonight. It's like, God, how do we get this done?

Thank you, madam clerk. Diana Jones Pickerel, Roger Pickerel, LoiMar Garza.

Good morning. I'm Diana Jones Pickerel. I'm in LD 22 over on the West Side of town. Madam chairman, board. During last Wednesday's discussion regarding the SSA, supervisor Galvin stated that he does not like to go backwards, only forwards.

While the sentiment may sound resolute, it instead reflects an unwillingness to reassess decisions when circumstances clearly warrant reconsideration. Sound leadership is defined not by rigid insistence on forward motion, but by the discernment to recognize when a strategic step back is necessary to protect the public interest. Your refusal to revisit the previous SSA has undermined cooperation with recorder heat and resulted in substantial avoidable expenditures on court filings, cost now borne by us, the taxpayers. Supervisor Mark Stewart has been the sole voice of discernment in this matter, and I applaud his courage. According to Proverbs, wisdom is not found passively.

It requires diligent searching. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam clerk. Roger Pickrell, Lorimer Garza, and last speaker Lisa Everett.

It I'm lunchtime getting hungry. As of reference to a letter that was sent to you, madam chair, from Leslie Shepherd, part of which I'm it caught my attention. I just wanted to take a a couple moments to talk about it. It's about the on February 11, multiple county departments, the county attorney's office and the recorder's office, presented annual budget reports. No oath was administered.

Reports were received in the ordinary course of business. February 18 comes up. The recorder was required to take an oath prior to presenting his report despite the agenda item being described as simply to receive a report. During that meeting, the chair acknowledged on the record that the report has been sworn to. Supervisor Mark Stewart made a motion acknowledging that the recorder had satisfied the applicable statutory requirement.

The chair entertained the motion and asked for a second. The second was offered. Later in the meeting, the chair ruled the motion out of order, stating the item was limited to a receipt of a report. If the agenda item was limited to receiving a report, I respectfully wonder clarification to that. You can't answer at this, but these are back in the day, there was a variety show called Arsenio Hall, and he had a segment where he would just occasionally go, well, I'm sitting here before you today with an old country boy analogy.

Sometimes we just gotta go back to basics and let's rethink what we're saying and doing. God bless you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk?

Louie Marc Garza, Lisa Everett.

Love that little Mason symbol you got there, Galvin. Alright. To the boys of Valhalla, we've got a year's worth and more of exhibits for you. And, because you got the three my name is Lemar Garza. You got the three from item seven that wanted to speak. You didn't let me speak, and you took away my number seven. And that has to do with, again, the data centers. Number first, you give us a shit water now that we fry you fry our brains because of these data centers. Number 21, 23, 24, the Rotary Club Valhalla. Number 27, we have street lab surveillance, which you didn't let us speak about.

Number, amendment to an intergovernmental interconsortium, number 43, which you didn't let us speak about. Number 44, school photos, children missing. You didn't let us speak about that. Number 56, what are you? A bunch of voyeurs? Number 57, no. Number 60, a $136,000,000 you've taken away from us for bonds. That's taxpayer money. 9,500,000.0 bonds on number 61. And SB1110, there's going to be a massive prisoner dump back to 1994, just like California.

And Wendy Rogers approved it, and I would like for each one of you to deny it. And in honor of president Trump of last night, I want to ask each one of you, raise your hand if you believe the duty of a president and a government is to protect its citizens and not illegals. I'll put up both of mine. Any of you? There you go, Lesko. Any of you? Do you believe? Go ahead on. How many of you? Obviously, not the sheriff. None of you. And those who did not raise your hand, you were as equally tyrants and traitors as the rest of those people last night. This is going to catch up to you. Govern yourselves accordingly.

Madam clerk. Last speaker, Lisa Everett.

Would you please remove miss Garza from the room? Miss Garza. This will be paid forward. This will be paid forward miss Garza just so you understand. Miss Everett.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. I wanted to just bring a voice of reason, it's needed. I am greatly appreciative of the meeting last week. It brought some clarity and then the letter that was sent, I believe it was yesterday, might have been the day before. It's already been like four weeks and one for me, but I am appreciative of that because it is offering transparency and I I hope people understand sometimes there is no boogeyman.

It it seems that the meeting last week and the letter are showing that you guys do want communication. You may not agree on things and and that's just the way it works, but the reality is everyone needs to be open to the communication just like the vote earlier today. People explained their vote, a lot of people made assumptions about that agenda item that were 100% wrong. Again, sometimes there's not a boogeyman. I just wanna say I support the board and I am hopeful that Justin will come to the table.

I fear that because there's not been a response that the goal is a lawsuit and to be heard in the courts and that should not be the goal. We're all county employees, every one of you were elected, not just mister Heath, every one of you were elected and we are appreciative of the attempts at discussions. And, thank you for all you're doing and have a

great day.

Thank you, miss Everett. That concludes public comment at this board meeting. We will now proceed to item 81, supervisor summary of current events. Madam County manager, do you have a comment?

Nothing today. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. So I'm gonna do this a little bit backwards. Mr. Gallardo, do you have some comments to share?

No. Just real briefly, madam chair. Thank you so much. Yeah. District 5, springtime is upon us. And and as we always not only in District 5, but probably in the other four districts as well. A lot of stuff happening outdoors, which is great. It's great to be outside. Beautiful weather we have here in Maricopa County and throughout the state. We were at the Levine barbecue this past weekend.

It was just a great turnout as always. You probably have a good probably seven, eight thousand folks from really all over the valley come out to this barbecue. It's just a tradition that's been going on for for a long time. I think it's, like, the seventy fifth anniversary or something like that. But it's always a great time. You see old friends that you haven't seen in so long, so it's always great to catch up at that. We also did a neighborhood cleanup. I had around 50 people earlier prior to the barbecue. Around 50 young people come together to clean up a couple of streets out there in in the County Islands, by the way. County islands right there in Southwest Phoenix area.

That was always good. We're able to get together at a local facility to have a have a little barbecue as well afterwards. And then, of course, this coming weekend, we have, which is one of my favorite events. It's the low rider car show at the Arizona Cardinals Stadium at State Farm Stadium. It's a huge event.

You have some of the most beautiful cars come in from all over the, the country. I mean, they're from all stages. It's unbelievable. But it's a great family event, a lot of good food, and, I look forward to being out there again this weekend. But it is that that time of year, madam chair, where we're all gonna be outside, with our constituency representing the county and just, just meeting good people and and running into some old friends. So thank you, madam chair, for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, mister Gallardo, for good news from your district. Mister Stewart.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And you know we've been busy as well just like supervisor Guerrero in District 1. Attended Sun Lakes community meeting, met with a number of folks there. We attended the I attended the Gilbert Chamber event with panelist attorney Mitchell sharing some of the good work that we're doing here in the county and that was well attended. Chandler had its state of the city last week and that was quite a outgoing swan song for the mayor.

I reminded him he still has a year left to continue the great work that they're doing in Chandler along with their council and staff. And then last night, I attended the Queen Creek State of the Town. And wow, what a community that is. It's it's pretty remarkable how fast they're growing and the infrastructure needs that they have, but they're able to put that all together and they're winning awards left and right. It's just an incredible gem out there on the Far Southeast.

And the other day, I think it was gosh, like like was mentioned, the weeks are blending together, but I attended the 4th Avenue Jail Tour. It's my first time walking through the jail, madam chair. And, what an operation. From the technology to the staff that works there, it was quite an eye opening experience for me from the maximum security level all the way down to the general population level. And we were they they shared with us a what they call the loaf, which is a 202,500 calorie sort of loaf of bread.

I would tell you that if you're going to have it, you need to put icing on it because it has a interesting taste. But all the nutrients are in there, but it was quite an eye opening experience to take part in that. And you know, I had coffee and a mic with the Queen Creek Chamber of Commerce as well, which was very very informative, I think, the community, but also for me to listen to the chamber and the challenges that they're faced with. But I didn't want to leave today's remarks open ended end on that and just the things we're doing. I wanted to thank my colleagues, Supervisor Galvin first and then Debbie Lesko for attending Congressman Biggs field hearing on the Melendrez orders where Congressman Biggs essentially called this federal monitoring a grift.

It's gone on way too long, and I think he's made a declaring call to end this costly and no longer necessary federal oversight. I met with Jerry, Sheriff Sheridan before the Gerald tour, we talked about how we are for five years now been compliant on the original decree from the courts. And I'm grateful for that, I'm grateful for the professional constitutional policing that the sheriff's department is practicing. But I I did want to thank Debbie for her testimony. And I also wanted to thank John Richards, from the Goldwater Institute and Felix Garcia, who's a member of the Sheriff's Community Advisory Board.

He's somebody that was volunteered and appointed to basically advocate on behalf of the community. And he's been a leading voice in the Hispanic community and he feels like the sheriff's department is moving in the right direction. So I stand shoulder to shoulder. And again, I want to thank former chairman Galvin for bringing this to light, bringing this forward and elevating the conversation because every dollar, and Debbie, you said this perfectly during the testimony, every dollar that's spent going towards the monitor is money that we cannot spend on training, on more staff, on better pay, on improving the community overall. It just leaves the community and that's not good. So thank you again, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Galvin.

Nothing today. Thank you, madam chair.

Okay. Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. First, I want to address one of my constituents, miss Pfeiffer was Excuse me. Sorry if I mispronounced her name. Has My understanding is she has spoken to my deputy chief of staff several times. And, also, I believe Ombudsman Michelle Montoya is either here or going to reach out to you.

And we're also talking with the planning and zoning staff. And so, we are trying to help you, whether you believe it or not. And so, first wanted to tell you that. The other thing I wanted to tell you about before I get into talking about our letter yesterday to Justin Heap is that I had a great tour of the Hassayampa River Preserve,

which

is outside of Wickenburg. And, I had drove by there many times because it's right off Highway 60. And I never stopped. And boy, what a gem in the middle of the desert. Just unbelievable.

There's a river that goes through there. It's very lush green, lots of birds, ring cats, which I didn't know what they were until I went there, but ring cats are hanging out in the trees. Is quite a gem. Next time you're on Highway 60, just a little bit, it's like kind of between Surprise and Wickenburg, I would suggest that you stop. It's a great Maricopa County Park.

And so, kudos to all the staff that work there. I got to meet the staff. And, they do a great job. Also, I want to thank Congressman Biggs, Andy Biggs, for having the congressional field hearing and inviting me to provide testimony. I see some people here. I know the were there in the audience that participated. But, it is very important that I believe we need to end this federal monitorship of the Sheriff's Department. This has gone on way too long. We're on the fourth sheriff now since this thing started. The county's budget folks believe that this has cost like $353,000,000.

And, you know, I think it's time to stop. There's no racial profiling going on, which was the original allegation. I also want to give kudos to the city of Buckeye. They had a fantastic air show that went on. I had never been to a nighttime air show before.

And this was a nighttime show. They have a daytime show and nighttime. And, wow. Husband and I, both of us went, and we were like laughing giddy because there was planes flying through ground fireworks that were shooting off fireworks through their wings of the planes. And then there was a drone display, and then this huge fire boomers that fire all over the field. It was the most fantastic thing I have ever seen. And I was laughing out loud. So, I'm for sure going next year. But, I guess I shouldn't advertise it so much because it wasn't then I'll be too crowded. Getting out of there was a challenge.

There was like lots of cars, and so we sat in traffic for a long time. But, it was it was worth it. It was a great show. I also went to several things. Yesterday, I went to Coffee with a Cop with the sheriff's department over in my district in Sun City.

And, it's always a good event and talk to people there at the Starbucks on A Hundred 7th Avenue in Grand. And I want to thank the sheriff's department for reaching out to the community. Lastly, I want to talk about the letter that Chairman Brophy McGee and myself, a joint letter, sent to Recorder Heap yesterday. As you know, last Wednesday, we passed unanimously the board passed unanimously a resolution to what I believe give Recorder Heap what he asked for. And since he hadn't responded, know, his attorney hadn't responded in writing to our offers to give him what he wanted, we passed a resolution, unanimously kind of laying it out.

And, one of those things was that Recorder Heap has asked for operations over early in person voting. As you know, state law requires early voting. And so, we gave it to them. We gave it to Recorder Heap. And soon after that meeting, our elections director, Scott Jarrett, sent an email to the Recorder Heap's leadership staff and said, since you have this now, would you like to coordinate?

Since the elections department has always done this in the past and has experience doing this, would you like help and like to coordinate? And so, we're kind of waiting to hear on that. And so, Madam Chair and I sent a letter to Recorder Heap, not only an email, but a physical letter, because in testimony last Wednesday, he said he hadn't seen the letter from January 22 from the chair. So he thought, well, we're gonna cover all the bases. We're gonna email him, but we're also gonna physically deliver him this letter.

And so we're waiting to hear back from him if he wants if he wants our help, if he wants the elections department help, because it's a lot of work. And the reason that we need to get this all set aside right now, get on top of this, is because you have to go way in advance and book these polling sites. You know, this isn't something you can wait around on. You have to book this in advance. So, we have about 260, voting centers that the elections department has to book for election day voting.

And of those, we had sent over the whole list of these that we used in 2024 and our booking and said, which one of these, Mr. Heap, do you want to use for the early voting? And do you want to work with us? And so we're waiting to hear back. And I hope that Recorder Heap does work with us, because quite frankly, the elections department has a lot of experience in doing this.

You really have to transition from early election day voting to day of election voting. You want to use the same equipment. You want to use the same trained poll workers, because if he just does it on his own, that's going to cost a fortune. If we have to buy duplicative machines and train separate poll workers, it's just not realistic. So, I hope he works together with us.

And, I also want to reiterate, moving on, that we have been trying to work with Recorder Heap. Today is another example of us doing that. So, last week, we voted on a resolution unanimously because he hadn't responded to our counteroffer, in any substantive way, and basically gave him what he's been asking for. Today, we approved a budget item for more signature verification workstations and remodeling the area code so he can put in those workstations, amounted to over a half $1,000,000 that we approved today. And so, again, I call on recorder heaps to please come to the table and work with us.

We need to do this for the benefit of the voters. We have an election coming up. We gotta get this done. And so, again, I call on recorder Heap to work with us so we can work together for a great election in 2026, and I yield back.

Thank you, madam vice chair. Very quickly, I wanted to thank all in attendance. Thank you for coming and participating in our process. And, I want to thank staff for the exceptional work you did preparing the agenda for our consideration. Very quickly, please subscribe to my newsletter and find out all the exciting things our office has been up to.

But, I have to call out the animal care and control folks and Joan Waller and her park people. I went back up to Spurcross Ranch which is an absolutely beautiful area in the northern part of District 3. I darn near froze to death a month ago there where we're dedicating twenty five years of the conservation alliance that created Spurcross. But, I went there with the bark ranger. And, the bark ranger was late to his first day of work because he wouldn't let me drive.

And, we met a wonderful park ranger there who was he was such a ham. We have to I think we gave him his start into the world of acting. He was amazing. But, he also knew a heck of a lot about invasive species, about the wonderful archaeological finds in Spurcross. And, he and the bark ranger, Douglas, bonded beautifully.

I say this as a way of preparing my fellow board members with all the beautiful parks in your area, there is a bark ranger headed your way. So, make sure you get out and socialize. I wanted now to go on to very serious subject. Hopefully, won't take long. Because I believe that if you tell, at least it works with me, if you tell people something enough times, it makes sense or it sinks in.

So, it always worked for me as a mom. But, I also am coming from the background at the legislature ten years. There are a lot of people there I didn't like and I can guarantee you they didn't like me, but we worked together. There are a lot of people there I didn't agree with and they didn't agree with me, but we found a way to work together and that's where we must go. So, I wanted to read the statement that Vice Chair Lesko and I sent out yesterday.

Yesterday, we sent a letter to Recorder Heap about in person early voting that his office oversees. Big decisions need to be made in short order to ensure that sufficient voting location, staff and equipment are available for the July primary election. Failure to act now could have a detrimental impact on our voters. In that letter, we indicated our strong preference that Mr. Heat provide the same level of service.

That means number of early voting sites that Maricopa County voters have come to expect in past years and when the board oversaw early in person voting. That means a large number of sites spread out evenly and fairly across our county during the twenty seven days of early voting as outlined in statute. We asked Mr. Heap whether he would like to collaborate with the board's elections department which is staff resourced and really experienced in this area. This letter follows Mr.

Heap's claim in court that he is willing to cooperate on logistical issues and a staff level message on Monday detailing the key decisions that must be made. We've given recorder Heap until Friday to respond so that we can meet statutory deadlines. And should the recorder choose not to respond, the board will assume he is able to manage in person early voting without our help. And I remember costing that agenda item out last year and it was north of $15,000,000 that we don't need to spend. I very much appreciate the inquiries regarding the statement that we have received.

Vice Chair Lesko and I stand ready to comment. And my reasons for bringing this forward are the same as my reasons for voting for an agenda item I too did not have sufficient information on. The critical 2026 elections are right up on us. And they are critical. And our duty is to execute regardless.

So, the logistics are daunting. When I saw the size of the equipment, people, personnel sites that have to get up and going and working together by the primary date, it is absolutely daunting. And we have to get this right. So, I too call on Recorder Heap to join with us in delivering as my colleague Mark Stewart calls, best in class elections here in Maricopa County. That's the end of this board meeting. That concludes our regular business. Again, many thanks. The meeting is adjourned.