Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

We'd like to welcome you to the formal board meeting of Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for 04/08/2026. Thank you everyone who is here. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Good morning. Thank you. Supervisor Gallardo?

Here.

Vice chair Lasko? Here. Supervisor Galvin, who's joining us remotely?

Here. Supervisor Stewart?

Here.

Chair Brophy McGee? Here. Thank you. We have all board members in attendance in person or virtually. Our next item is invocation and pledge of allegiance. Supervisor Stewart, would you please introduce your guest who will lead us in the invocation and pledge.

Thank you, madam chair. It's my esteemed privilege to invite president Warren Peterson, senate president of our great state of Arizona to lead us in the invocation and pledge. And madam chair, I'd like to make some remarks about the president after the pledge.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

President Peterson, welcome.

Good morning. Please join me in prayer. Our dear kind and gracious heavenly father, we're grateful this beautiful day for our many blessings. We're grateful for this board of supervisors and their service to the county. We pray that thou bless them with wisdom, bless them with patience, bless them with unity and the ability to work together with decorum.

Bless them that they when they disagree, that they can agree to disagree. Please bless them that they will put the interests of the citizens first always and, above all, to protect individual rights and liberties. We pray for this county. We pray for our state. We pray that we can find solutions to, the water issues that we're facing at this time. We pray pray for prosperity, and we pray for peace. And we pray for strength for these leaders and all the leaders of the state and the communities, And we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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 best for all.

Thank you. Mister Stewart.

Thank you, madam chair. You know, president Peterson has served the Arizona legislature since 2012, first elected to the house of representatives before joining the state senate. He currently he currently represents Legislative District 14, which includes Gilbert and parts of Queen Creek. President Peterson is now in his fourth year of serving as president of the Arizona senate. Through his legislative career, president Peterson has been leading advocate limited government, fiscal responsibility, reduced regulations, and policies that strengthen Arizona's economy while providing individual liberty.

As senate president, he is focused on defending state laws, ensuring fairness and accountability in government, safeguarding public safety, and preserving Arizona's constitutional freedoms. His leadership roles have included house majority leader, senate commerce committee chair, senate judiciary committee chair, Senate Rules Chair, and Service on the Senate Ethics Committee. He has been widely recognized for his works on tax policy, regulatory reform, small business advocacy, and protecting fundamental rights. As a third generation Gilbert resident, president Peterson is a graduate of Gilbert High School, hearing his bachelor's degree from ASU and his Juris Doctor degree from ASU in law. He's worked in real estate industry for more than two decades, primarily in new home construction, and his family owns a real estate brokerage.

I wanna humbly thank president Warren Peterson for his tireless commitment to the citizens of our state, passing common sense legislation that defends our constitution, freedoms, and for being a servant leader who put places others first. I wish the greatest success to you and to our state. And please join me in giving the president a round of applause for his fourteen years of exceptional leadership at State Capitol. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, supervisor Stewart and president p Peterson. Our mutual friend, Russ Jones, used

to call the silly season, and you're in

the midst of it. Good luck and wishing you the best in terms of outcomes for the state of Arizona. Thank you, sir. Okay. So moving us on to the next agenda item, it is the the pet showcase. And we have a real cutie here.

Oh, stop me.

Well, you too, but I was talking about the dog. Oh, what a sweetie. Alright.

Well, this is Oscar, and yes, he is a cutie. He is, if you can't believe it, he is 10 years old. So he is a senior, although he looks like a permanent puppy. He arrived at the shelter about a week ago with his two friends who are also senior dogs as well, about about the same size as him. And again, you would never guess that he's 10. He is very energetic. He walks with a purpose. We always sing a little song when he's walking because his ears are bouncing around. If anyone knows it, ain't nobody gonna break my stride. That's what we've been singing as as we walk him around the shelter.

And he is full of excitement. He is so excited to meet new people and jump around, and as long as you have a treat, he will give you every bit of attention that you that you have. He already knows sit and shake and down, and I'm sure he has some couple other ones in there as well. And he also appears to be potty trained. So that's the good thing at 10 years old, that puppy nonsense is all out of the way.

He is a well trained senior pup. He does have some lumps and bumps, and like I said, he has endless energy. But he does have some lumps and bumps as most senior dogs do. So whoever adopts him, we highly recommend bringing them to his veterinarian, getting it worked up, and making sure that that his bad breath gets taken care of, and and he's ready to go and live out his golden years. So he's a great little companion, and he is looking to spend somewhere where his golden years can shine. And again, him being a senior, he is only $25, and he's already neutered, so that means he can go home today.

Oh, thank you so much, Kim, and good luck. You are representing the senior generation quite ably, Oscar. You got this. Thank you so much to animal care and control. I would like to exercise my discretion as chair to move item 64, transfer of ownership of retiring equine Apollo to the front of the agenda. This is this item requires a unanimous roll call vote. Madam clerk, do we have any speakers?

Madam chair, none for item 64.

Well, thank you. The board will now consider item 64. Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 64.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Madam clerk. Hearing no discussion, madam clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you. Supervisor Gallardo? Aye. Vice chair Lasko? Aye. Supervisor Galvin?

Aye.

Supervisor Stewart. Aye. Chair Brophy McGee.

Aye. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. We will now go to our regular agenda or our agenda starting with item five. But before we launch into item five, we have some speakers signed up today.

So I'm going to remind people of the rules of decorum. It is the intent of the members of the board of supervisors to follow orderly procedures so that we can conduct our business. The chairman of the board of supervisors has the authority to maintain order and and professional standards during the open meetings and may enforce the following rules. And those disregarding the rules will be subject to removal. Attendees shall remain seated during an open meeting to minimize distractions to the board or other attendees unless they are called forward to address the board or if they are leaving the the meeting room.

No person attending an open meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including but not limited to applause, whistling, stamping of feet, booing, or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal, impertinent, or slanderous utterance that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. Signs, placards, banners, or other similar items will not be permitted in the audience. And I very much appreciate people's attention to these rules that will ensure the orderly conduct and most robust public participation in our meetings.

Madam chair, if I may make a quick announcement, if you don't mind.

I was getting there. Thank you so much. I'm sorry about that. No. My apologies. I always skip that part.

I just wanted to make everyone aware that the applicant for item number eight which is under the planning and zoning hearings regular agenda for the Moorland backyard rentals. There is

a request to withdraw this item, number eight. And thank you, madam clerk. My apologies. That was the request of the applicant. Correct? Yes. So item number eight will not be considered on today's agenda at the request of the applicant. Okay. Thank you.

I'm sorry, madam chair. Does that take a motion

or no?

Madam chair, supervisor Gallardo, I do not believe there is a

need for a motion. I would defer to Brooke. Brooke.

Madam Chair, members of the board, I don't believe so. You can always make a motion to make it official, but you don't it's not required.

It's your discretion.

As an abundance of caution.

Alright. You know what? Madam chair, my apologies. I, let me rephrase that. Because it is a statutory hearing and is listed on the agenda

Thank you.

It probably is best practice.

So mister Gallardo, would you make a motion, please? Would you move?

The table or Move the table. Withdraw. Withdraw. Okay. Okay. Madam chair, I I appreciate it. I make a motion that we withdraw item number eight from today's agenda.

Thank you. Supervisor, is there a second?

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of the motion will say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none opposed, now we go back to consent agenda for planning and zoning hearings. Supervisors, do you wish to remove any item from the consent?

Madam chair, I'd like to remove item number seven from the consent agenda because we have speakers.

Okay. Item number five and number six remain on the consent agenda. We will now consider item

Madam madam chair.

Mister Stewart.

Thank you. I'd like to remove item number 29, the MOU.

Oh, that's down the road.

Is it that after

the it We're just getting through five, six, and seven, sir.

Planning and zoning?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

So I'll come back to you, but don't let me forget. Thank you. The board will now consider items five, HEDGIC South and item six, 330 South 75th Avenue, Clean Harbors Industrial for action. Is there a motion?

Madam chair, I move that we approve item number five and six.

Thank you. Is there a second? You are out of order. Let me explain. This is consent agenda. Unless a board member removes an item from the consent agenda, it is not subject.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? We will proceed to a vote on items number five and six on the planning and zoning consent agenda. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We'll now proceed to item Number 7, Hassayampa Ranch. Vice chair Lesko?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. It's my understanding that the applicant is here, and I would like to hear from the applicant for however many minutes you desire, the applicant to speak. And then, possibly after that, I'd like to hear from the staff.

Thank you very much. If the applicant would come forward, four minutes? Yes. Okay. Four minutes, and please introduce yourself for the record.

Thank you, madam chair. Wendy Riddell with the law firm, Barry Riddell, 6750 East Camelbat. My pleasure to be here today on behalf of Arizona Land Consulting. Jump

to

the next slide, if you would. The land we are talking about out here is out at, 339th Avenue. It's 1,687 acres out in the Tonopah area. Next. It was originally entitled back in 2008 as part of the DNP. That really was defunct. It never happened. Next slide. It was actually ultimately even zoned as part of that with significant number of residential units. It was ultimately a master planned community, golf, schools, commercial, and, unfortunately, the infrastructure was not there to support it.

Next slide, if you would. This board may recall we were back here in December as part of a major comprehensive plan, and this site was approved for industrial at the time, and we are here today in conformance with that approval. Next. So our rezoning request is to modify to I two IUPD. Next, if you would.

Consistent again with that comprehensive plan, really to look at employment type uses to bring it into what you're seeing as this changing area that I'll demonstrate here in just a minute. Next, if you would. As I mentioned, it's consistent with the Tonopah Arlington area plan in addition to the comprehensive plan. Next. So in terms of planned land uses in the area, you will see that there has been a pretty significant shift, that Belmont here has become industrial.

There's quite a bit of heavy and light industrial. What we're proposing today is entirely consistent with that change. Next. We are also, in addition to the changes that you see along our western the western side of our property, we do have a significant sand and gravel operation that is on the eastern portion. So this land is kind of sandwiched between the two, which is why we really think light industrial uses makes a whole lot of sense.

Next, if you would. Again, very consistent with what this board has already approved out for the Belmont 1080. Next. And then what I really wanna touch on is this is a case where, frankly, supervisor Lesko and this board challenged us when we came through with the comprehensive plan amendment to do a lot of work with the community. We have been doing that. We've had really good conversations with folks. Next slide, if you would. And I wanna just highlight some of the things we were able to work out. We were able to assure them that the primary access here will be 339th Avenue. If you look at where that purple star is, that's where the majority of folks kind of live out there.

So we're not cutting through, you know, their area and their way of life. Next slide, if you would. We also spent a great deal of time negotiating buffer zones. So we created a 22 acre area where we have limited limited the the permitted permitted uses. Uses. We've got enhanced design standards where we have ensured them that there'll be preservation of desert landscaping, really given them significant restrictions in terms of what actually happens directly behind their home. So next slide, if you would. That first buffer zone, there's no structures. There's no parking. There's no storage.

It's just circulation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation access in native landscaping. Next slide. Buffer zone number two, we've limited permitted uses. There's no outdoor storage. It's less it's on the other side of the building. We've limited the maximum height. Again, we talked to them about specific design standards. Next slide. We also restricted the uses that could go in that buffer zone. Next slide.

And then we also created a separate solar exclusion zone. That was a real concern if they wanted to have or they did not want to have solar behind their homes. So we've created an area where that would be specifically prohibited within 500 feet. Wind generation is prohibited across the entire site. So we're sort of very carefully negotiated with the community.

This is to give you an idea of what those enhanced design standards would look like for those buildings. And then what I will say in my four minutes here, just to summarize, is we were very grateful that the most impacted neighbors adjacent to this site, we were actually able to get letters of support. Those were were hard fought, lots of negotiations, and lots of commitments made, and we're grateful to have them. So we would respectfully request your support as well.

Thank you, mister Dow. Any questions? Madam vice chair. Madam clerk, have we received any request to speak from the public?

Madam chair, yes. We did receive via email three comments in opposition. And out of those three in opposition, two wish to speak, and they've asked to speak virtually. Charisse Campbell and Aaron Orozco both wish to speak. Just for the record, mister David Campbell is in opposition. And I also have in front of me two more requests to speak on item number seven. One of them is in favor from Andrew Tye. Mister Joe Hoff also is requesting to speak on item seven, but he did not indicate if he is in favor or in opposition. Thank you.

Shall we proceed with the virtual testimony on this item, madam clerk?

Yes. First speaker, Charice Campbell.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Yes. And miss Campbell, you have three minutes.

Okay. Thank you. I own four parcels of land in the Hassay Elm branch community. I'm not merely a resident, but I'm also a small business owner whose livelihood will be disrupted by the approval of this rezoning request. More broadly, this is a rural desert community surviving on finite resources, limited water availability, and a stressed electrical grid during summer.

Arizona is already in a thirty two year drought that scientists are saying has shifted into a state of permanence. A peer reviewed report declares that we have entered global water bankruptcy, the stage that comes after the crisis when correct measures weren't taken to curtail the crisis, a state of permanence in which systems can no longer rebound. The proposed project would drive biological and life cycle alterations, habitat loss, and fragmentation for various wild species, many that are supposed to be protected by the endangered species act and migratory bird treaty act, species that personally recorded nesting on the site under discussion. It would create noise, light, electromagnetic, and air pollution that will threaten the peace, health, and overall well-being of nearby residents, which is something the planning and zoning committee pretended to care so much about in the previous meeting regarding other agenda items in which the applicants were not billionaire developers, requests by the common man to use their land for purposes of business or entertainment, all denied on the basis that these endeavors would disrupt the peace of the area and the quality of life of nearby residents. On that basis alone, why has this request not also been denied?

This would be more consequential than just a noise nuisance to the community. And don't point to the economic growth and need of infrastructure as being justification for approval. The guaranteed negative impact supersede any possible positive and will be more permanent. The short term payout you might expect will become an even greater cost and not just in terms of money. Contrary to what the applicant says in terms of compatible land use, the only nearby operating industry is a couple 100 acre gravel mine that doesn't even that you can't even see from the properties, and should we really be pointing to the Belmont City concept, which has seen zero development since it was first touted almost a decade ago, by the way, as justification for further development?

Accessing adequate water supply for this proposed Belmont City would be challenging enough without a massive 1.5 gigawatt data center, which could also which could alone demand 10,000,000 gallons of water per day. Even if air cooling technology is used versus the water cooling, the impact to the electrical grid is a legitimate concern, particularly when you consider this new study that suggests vast data centers are creating their own heat islands, warming the land around them up by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit. It already reaches a 110 to a 120 degrees multiple days throughout the summer in this region. Allowing this development to move forward would be inhumane, and that it would precipitate the transformation of our desert home into an uninhabitable wasteland. General urban development on its own, which you are all calling infrastructure improvements, will already exacerbate the heat island effect.

Something we, residents,

have to miss Campbell.

Madam clerk. Next speaker in opposition, Erin Orozco.

Hello?

He's watching how to

fix that.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Let's give it a try.

Okay. Good morning.

You have four minutes, sir.

Yes. My concerns are the same in alignment with Charice Campbell, and I would like to give my time to Charice to finish her opposition speaking points.

Oh, three minutes. I'm sorry. She has three more minutes, sir?

Yes. Yes.

I I will exercise my discretion and allow.

Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Campbell, you're up to bat again.

Hi. I appreciate that. Thank you. Where did I stop that? The the heat island effect.

So general urban development on its own, what you're calling the infrastructure improvements, will already exacerbate that heat island effect I was talking about, something we rural residents didn't really have to worry much about. But if this new study proves to be accurate, we could see temperatures over a 130 degrees here. That's not sustainable, and that cannot lead to what you all call progress or a successful economy. No. I I personally cannot stop this progress as you call it, but lack of natural resources can and an uninhabitable environment will.

Your progress will lead to death, and I'd say that is a hugely backward, not forward. It's not acceptable because this is preventable. Maricopa County's planning and zoning decision makers and board of supervisors should use their authority to do the right thing for the lives in greatest need, the voiceless and the disenfranchised who will be impacted the most by this. By saying yes to industry or any major development in this area may be wiping an entire species off the face of this earth or pushing them to the brink. You may just be killing even one of us, a Hassayampa Ranch community resident, clinging to the peace and refuge that only this rural lifestyle can provide.

If that doesn't give you pause, you've been tragically desensitized by the power and greed of corporate America, money, politics. Approving this rezoning request would be irresponsible and frankly, immoral. Thank you for the time.

Thank you, miss Campbell via mister Orozco. Madam clerk. Next

speaker wishes to speak in favor, Andrew

my questions were answered that I had from the statements that she made. So I'd like to turn in my time.

Thank you very much, mister Tighe.

Madam clerk? Joe Hoff?

And mister Hoff, I'm going to preempt my colleague's question to you at an earlier board meeting. Are you for or against the development, sir?

Could you answer a question for me? And how important is that with the this that's a very short statement that I've got here. But

Well, let's see if it pertains to this. Usually, it's always for or against or neutral. Okay.

Can I proceed?

Please.

I would like to ask about the environmental and resource impacts associated with this proposed rezoning. This site includes proximity to the Hassayampa River and the permitted uses included or include industrial operations such as data centers, which are known to require substantial water and power resources. Can the board clarify whether a full environmental and water usage analysis has been completed and whether those findings are available to the public? Additionally, how will long term impacts to surrounding land, wildlife, and water systems be monitored and enforced? These are significant considerations given the size and scope of this project.

I reserve my time for my two questions to be answered.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Madam clerk, are there any other speakers?

Madam chair, no other speakers on this item.

Thank you. Then I would ask for miss Riddell to come forward on behalf of the applicant, hopefully having taken note of those questions and other objections.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. You know, we are here at the zoning phase. We know that we have to work with Arizona Department of Water Resources. We've had preliminary conversations with them on the water. As things eventually advance, we would be coming forward and doing any necessary environmental studies at that time. It's it's all part of the process.

Thank you. Any questions from board members, supervisor, vice chair Lasko?

No. I do not. We've we heard this case before, I think, in December, if I'm not mistaken. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from any other board members? Thank you, miss Riddell. Thank you. So the board will now consider item number seven, Hassayampa Ranch. Is there a motion?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. I move for approval of planning and zoning agenda item number seven in accordance with the commission recommendations as printed in the agenda.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Aye. Any

any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Reminding all that item number eight was withdrawn, We will proceed to item number nine, planning and zoning, event space at Gamble Field. Vice chair Lasko?

Thank you, madam chair. I I believe the applicant is here, and so I'd like to hear from the applicant if if possible.

Yes. And ma'am, I would like to I'm limiting you to four minutes, please. Okay. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Yes, ma'am. My name is Jane Pifer, and I am the applicant for the event space at Gamble Field, and I do live in District 4. Madam chair and members board of supervisors. Sorry. I'm very nervous.

It's okay.

So what we are proposing if you could go ahead and go to the next slide, please. This is the actual view every morning when I wake up. This is the sunrise over my actual property. It is not photoshopped. It is my little slice of heaven for the first five minutes of every day. After that, the day can kinda do next slide, please. So we are Gamblefield because of the large number of Gamble quail on the property. Next slide. We do currently host dog events. Next slide.

And you can thumb through the slides pretty quickly. So the dog events are held by AKC, UKC, and ABA, and other, nationally recognized entities and organizations. They rent the field because the field is safe, secure for their dogs, allows security from traffic, and allows for the dogs to do what dogs do, run, play, interact. The the problem we have, even having been past the planning and zoning commission, is that several of the conditions that are attached to this proposal are unduly burdensome and an erroneous application of the law and bordering on unconstitutional. Next slide, please.

So we do have a huge amount of support for our proposal. Next slide. Keep going. So what we're asking for is forty days a year, or that is what we have compromised to is forty days a year between October and April using Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and major holidays only. We are primarily a daytime operation.

There are a few times when we will operate in the evening, and most of the conditions that are proposed are not a problem at all, and we agree with those. The problems that we have are the dedication of the road as there is no essential nexus between that land dedication requirement and our proposal, and it is not proportionate to our use. The problem additionally arises that when you have a required dedication that changes the size of the property and then you add in the prop two zero seven waiver that says no changes have been made to the value of the property, they cannot both stand at the same time. So one or the other has to go. There is no essential nexus.

This road has been functioning as a road illegally, but functioning as a road since at least 2002. The county built the road through 21 private properties without first acquiring any right of way or land rights. It was an eight foot telephone easement that the county came through and turned into a 30 foot wide road. The records request that we have submitted, supposedly, the records only go back to 2018. I do not believe that is true because they also did not provide any destruction of records, certification for the records that supposedly no longer exist, and those records should have been covered in my records request.

Additionally, I have not received any of the emails that I've requested amongst the various departments as to how they came about these determinations. The assertion that has been made by the Department of Transportation is that the number of occupants or number of people that can participate in our events must be kept low as well, in part because the road currently has 92 average daily trips according to an email I received on March 11 after planning and zoning. That is not true by by Department of Transportation's most recent, traffic count, and I have those for you if you'd like to see them. We are already at the 100 mark. My limited traffic does not change the level of service on that road and would not require any additional improvements.

There are no changes that are needed. These burdens are erroneous and need to be removed.

Thank you. So I heard your two objections. Are there those are the summary of your two objections. Vice chair Lasko, questions?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. I'll I'll be brief. Thank you for coming forward. I just wanna confirm that you're opposed at this time to your application because of certain things. Correct? You're you're in opposition.

No. I'm in opposition of the illegal condition, and the board has the authority and the discretion to remove that condition and approve the permit. But as it stands on the agenda, you're opposed to it. Correct? As the conditions are are written before you, yes. We are opposed to that condition. But that that's not I I feel like you are attaching the wrong language, language, vice chair Lesko. We are not opposed to our own application. That would be bizarre. We are opposed to the illegal conditions, and you have the discretion to remove those. It's part of your job duties.

Thank you. Mhmm. Madam chair, I'd like to have the staff come forward. I think that would be mister Ellsworth and mister Gutierrez Thank you. To explain what has transpired.

Thank you, gentlemen. And starting with mister Ellsworth, could you please introduce yourselves? Make sure your mics are on and close for the record.

Yes. Madam chair, my name is Tom Ellsworth. I am the director for planning and development.

Good morning, madam chair. I'm Jesse Gutierrez, director of transportation.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, supervisors, Darren Girard. I'm planning manager. Please.

Madam Chair, members of the board, this request for a special use permit is on a 19 it's eight acres of a 19 acre property. The property is zoned rural 43. So what that gives them the right to do right. Currently, land use would be rural rural uses as well as residential uses, which the property is currently being used for. In the past couple of years, there have been three requests for temporary use permits to allow temporary events on the site, which has been occurring.

Each of those temporary use events has incrementally increased in its intensity. With the last, temporary use permit, it went to the board of adjustment. The board of adjustment indicated that with this level of intensity, it was it was becoming more of a permanent use. So the applicant has requested the special use permit for permanent entitlement. The original request was for, up to 400 attendees at sixty days a year.

At that level of intensity, this became a permanent type of event venue. It also would be considered a commercial type venue under our codes. With that come requirements for certain infrastructure improvements. The request that came forward did not provide the adequate, level of detail to show that those infrastructure improvements would be would be provided. Some of those would include water service, wastewater service, grading and drainage for the parking area, and ADA access.

As we proceeded through the evaluation and analysis of the request, it became apparent that what what the applicant is proposing would be to have a permanent entitlement to what could be considered more of an intermittent use. As you've seen on on the slide that she showed, it's a very beautiful pristine location. Understanding and our discussions with the applicant, the intent would be that after each of these events, it returns to that pristine location. So with that in mind, as we as departments got together to look at those codes and what those requirements would be, what are the thresholds where things would be considered more of a temporary or interim type use? As we looked at those codes, the conditions of approval that were advanced through the commission are those ones that we came up with.

They were the ones that would allow for the use of toilets, the ability to utilize the site. As you can see in the for those smaller types of events, that's where we came up with the lesser intense use of the 49 attendees. Primarily as it relates to the questions that were brought up by the applicant today with regards to the prop two zero seven waiver or that section of the Arizona statute regarding waiver of liability, that is a something that is asked of every applicant. It's an acknowledgement that states that they are asking for this decision and they're waiving this legislative act, waiving that ability to come back and seek redress through that statute. It's a common procedure, something that goes through without that, to proceed forward puts the county at that liability.

The other request Mr. Gutier here is to speak to that is on the conditions of approval related to, the infrastructure related to the transportation.

And and madam Chair, before we move on to mister Gutierrez, I just wanna understand. The first the first, request was to have up to 400 attendees, but there were certain in order to do that, there had to be infrastructure improvements. Correct? That is correct. And then it is that your understanding the applicant didn't want to do those infrastructure improvements for 400. So you guys talked together, I assume, and then moved it down to 49 attendees, so that there would be less infrastructure needs. Is that on your understanding?

Madam chair, member Lesko, that's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

May I please ask a follow-up? Water services, ADA access, waste wastewater services, there was one more.

Transportation.

Thank you. Just a moment. Vice chair, Lasko.

Thank you. And I would like mister Gutierrez with McDowell to explain the road the road situation.

Madam chairman and vice chair, I'll give you a little background on March. So as you're you see the slide there. 3 31st, there's existing roadway. It's hard to to tell on that pic on that particular area. There's more to follow, but you could see the red arrow is the the subject property. And along that alignment, north and south, you can see a roadway. This is all the way back to 1976. Let's move on to the next slide. The next slide, you could clearly see there's a well defined road. Well before this is 1986 now, 3 31st from Lower Buckeye.

You could see the Lower Buckeye riding on the area all the way to Van Buren on the north on the top of the slide. There's a well defined road. Yes. There are other roadways scattered throughout, but you could see 3 31st is a well defined roadway existing all the way back. I'll start from 1976. This is 86, and it serves multiple properties, multiple neighbors. As the area develops, there was more the roadway was more defined. So moving to the next slide, circa 1996, you can see the existing roadway. There's a roadway there that serves the property. The the arrow red arrow points to the property in question, and it's a well defined road.

Again, yes, there are other adjacent roadways through properties and through deserts, but this roadway is well defined many years before what the claimant the claim from the applicant was that we created the road in 2004. The road has been there for over fifty years. So the next slide, again, is a a is little more defined. That's the current condition of the roadway. We've met with the applicant, obviously, and had numerous discussions to try to work through the SUP, and I'll I'll talk more about that in a second.

But this is the the most current slide. So in those next slide. That's alright. 19. I think we're on the wrong one. You're on the wrong one.

Going backwards. Yeah.

Okay. Keep going. Page 19. Almost there. Getting close.

Couple more. Right there. So the existing roadway serves obviously a multitude of properties to points north and south of the applicant's property. It was taken into the county system by the board in 1994. We discussed the need for the dedication, which is a standard practice for for the increased zoning entitlements to the county zoning zoning ordinance in in the fact that this is a section line alignment and requires the Half Street dedication.

Very clear, very straightforward. The requirement for traffic impact study was waived. The requirement for reservation of a 55 foot right of way was waived and reduced to 40 feet. The half street improvements that would typically be required from a business putting in the infrastructure have been waived. Staff work to provide all the requested information.

I I know that one of the questions or one of the points made by the applicant that they didn't receive the information. We provided over 600 documents. Four different directors have worked on this personally, worked with them directly to provide the answers, to provide the support and any guidance that we could to try to make this work. I know that one of the claims is that we didn't provide the documentation required, but that that fact that we provided over 600 documents. The director of data governance herself came to McDoc, looked through over 5,000 files herself to provide the information to the applicant.

When it comes to let let's move to the next slide.

Just a point of clarification, all those items that were waived, were they in relationship thank you. For this project in relationship to this project?

Directly related to this project.

Thank you.

So when we look at this slide, it talks to the other points. All those areas in blue along that alignment are state land. We have a tremendous relationship with state land, and those right of way dedications that we would need for the roadway are granted through state land. So the the claim that we're going through properties without permission is to this slide, I'll speak to it, either gonna be granted to us by state land or we can invoke ARS thirty seven nine thirty one, which all but guarantees us that everything in blue there adjacent to the state land property that will have a right of way for the roadway. So those are not in question.

It's very it's kind of difficult to see, but then you'll see some yellow lines along 3 31st. Those are previous dedications from either subdivisions or private properties. So what you what we're left with is two red arrows pointing to two properties. Those are the only two dedications needed. So the point that we don't have permission to be there and don't have the right of way throughout the entire stretch is erroneous.

So we do have permission to be on the right of way. When we talk about those other areas that we do not have specific dedicated right of way, because we've established that the road has been there for at least fifty years, we have what's called prescriptive rights, prescriptive easements. The right and I'd say we I I'm speaking of the general public. All the neighbors, all the residents along the alignment are using that roadway for access to their properties and have been conspicuously using that for over ten years. Those are some of the tests to the prescriptive rights case law.

And the fact that they are using this on a daily basis, as well as the applicant is using other people's property for access to their property is really speaks to prescriptive easement rights. The fact that we can be there and all we are doing from the Department of Transportation is maintaining that existing roadway for the residents, providing a safe passage for that. And to final finalize my comments, the dedication allows us to finally get that those last portions of right of way so that we can continue and improve the the roadway for the business that's coming in and for the residents to continue to make the next level of improvement. Right now, it's a dirt road. Once we once we reach a level of traffic beyond under a 100, which is what we're at right now, average daily traffic was remeasured.

I spoke to the to the applicant. I let her know that the numbers we're using were several years old, and the number was about 75. The applicant told me those are probably wrong. So I asked for an expedited done in about two weeks, which normally takes two months. We got it done in two weeks, got the numbers back, and the numbers came back in the nineties.

So it didn't help the case that any more traffic along that route is gonna trigger the need for MGDOT to start making more improvements for dust mitigation, for controlling the the access in terms of making it a safer passageway. So all those points really are the nexus of the requirement, and it is directly tied to this development. So the fact that we are essentially asking for this dedication is strictly tied to the development and is clearly justified through our standard practices and policies and zoning ordinance and the fact that we are only trying to provide a safe passage for the residents on a roadway that's existed for over fifty years.

Vice chair.

Thank you. I I have a couple questions, and I think you already answered it, but I wanna make sure it's clear. This is isn't any unusual condition on on this particular applicant. Correct? This is before you would ask this of any applicant. Is that correct?

Madam chair, madam vice chair, absolutely. The the roadway dedication is part of our zoning ordinance. I think I even saw it in the slides from the previous agenda item that was listed on their the requirement. So and that they're abiding by it. So absolutely, this is standard practice. It would not this is not specific to this this particular development.

Thank you. And madam chair, I have a question again for mister Ellsworth. Mister Ellsworth, can you under explain to me again this went through the planning and zoning commission. Correct? And these conditions were put on during the planning and zoning commission. And can you explain the process? I mean, did the applicant, like, talk and agree to these conditions? I I'm trying to understand why why it's changed.

Madam chair, madam vice chair, that's correct. During the planning zoning commission, we had a similar discussion the one that's occurring today at this hearing. During that, there was motions made by the commission to to approve the site with these lesser intense conditions of approval. At that point, the chair asked the applicant applicant if they were agreeable to those conditions, at which point they had indicated they were. They did try to have a discussion on on points of those conditions, but these are the conditions that came forward.

That's all the questions I have for the

staff. Thank you. How do you wish to proceed on this in terms of it seems like first of all, madam, you have been raising your hand. I'm gonna give you four more minutes, please, for rebuttal.

Madam chair and board of supervisors, I have the documents. Would you like to see them? I have the traffic counts mister Gutierrez speaks of. He is mistaken. We are not in the nineties. The average daily traffic count by McDot's count, not my count, is already at a 100. Why is he misleading this board? I also have the building codes that mister Ellsworth refers to, and we also did not agree to account of 49 people. We objected strenuously to that also at planning and zoning. I have the records. Would you like to see them? I made copies for everyone. Or do you not care about the truth? Respectfully. I'm trying very hard to be respectful.

I I know, and I am too. But what I'm trying to say is it's it's not appropriate to have us look at the records here up the dais and make a decision.

The records were not provided to me prior to planning and zoning.

I I understand that was a concern.

It's a huge concern and speaks to fairness.

But I'm going to let district four vice chair Lesko proceed. Did you have any other items you wish to rebut or comments that you wish to?

I would like to address mister Ellsworth's statement that we agreed. We agreed in order to and was it made clear on the record at planning and zoning that we were only agreeing in order to move the process forward. We have been precluded from flyer filing for additional temporary use permits. And because we are no longer able to file for additional temporary use permits, we have no recourse to we cannot both use our property in the way that we would like, even temporarily, and still continue negotiations with planning and development and McDott and all of the various other county departments. So we have no choice but to move forward.

Otherwise, this this this body could very well reinstate our ability to apply for temporary use permits, send this back for further negotiation, and have everybody attempt to come to a better solution. But we can't do that if our only other available recourse, the temporary use permits, has already been precluded at the request of planning, which is in the record from the Board of Adjustment.

Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. I move that we remand item number nine back to the planning and zoning commission, which will give applicant and the staff time to continue their discussions. I mean, this is a very unusual situation. It's never happened to me before where the applicant went through planning and zoning, agreed to conditions, and then came back in front of the board and does not agree to the conditions.

And so it's it's never happened to me. And I've talked to the planning and zoning. I I don't know that it's happened to them, where the applicant came back and said, nope. I don't agree. So I'm gonna remand it back to planning and zoning so you guys can further talk. And and that's my motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Before I proceed to a vote, I do have discussion from my board member perspective. I think everything that could be waived has been waived, and it appears that your business is successful is getting more and more successful, and it's created the intensity of use on the property that now requires a special use permit. And, also, I think the road history has been outlined. I understand where you're coming from, but I I I cannot support the motion respectfully because I think this project should be denied and maybe try again down the road. I'm going to, out of respect for supervisor Lesko, allow her to drive the bus.

That being said, I will ask for a roll call vote.

Does it matter that we have Excuse me. We have speakers scheduled. This is a public hearing.

Madam clerk, were there speakers?

I'm sorry, madam madam chair. I do have in front of me four speaker forms.

Okay. Well, that changes it. There's a motion on the table, but we will for forgo the vote.

Who has signed up to speak? Madam chair, Brad Mayfield in favor, Kimberly Lowry in favor, Mark Graham

in favor. Excuse me. County county rules apply. Would the maker of the motion and the second please withdraw? And we'll start over.

Madam chair, I'll withdraw the motion for the time being.

Thank you.

Madam chair, I'll withdraw.

Thank you. I'll get there, Brooke. It's different than school board. Who are the speakers? Please, Matt, call them forward. Madam chair, in favor,

Brad Mayfield, Kimberly Lowry, Mark Graham. Lloyd Marc Garza did not indicate if she is in favor or in opposition.

Please come forward, mister Mayfield.

Gonna mark her first real quick. I'm trying to get out of here. Sorry.

And my apologies. I did not realize we had speakers.

Madam chair, is the speaker comes

been out there?

Pardon me.

Brooke. Madam chair, you were probably getting here. But as the speaker comes forward, how many minutes per speaker on this item?

We're gonna do three minutes.

Are you ready to go? Okay. I'm Brad Mayfield. I've lived out there for fifty years. K. I would like to clarify some of his statements on the existing roadway. Okay? It might have been a two track, two houses, but it was not a roadway in 1976 or '86. In 2002, a homeowner at the corner of Lower Buckeye And Wickenburg Road blocked the road because it was his private property. The signs are in place today that the county installed for closing that part of the road.

That's when they built the road and the new alignment open to the public. Beforehand, it was a two track that take the mirrors off your car if you didn't watch it. It was not a public used road for clarity. Also for clarity, I have a piece of parcel that I'm letting the public use. It's deeded five acres.

I pay taxes on four and a half. I never got a letter, information saying they were taking property from me for any reason legally or not. The county has a lot of problems out there that they're refusing to address. They need to get their crap together as homeowners and treat us properly with respect. If there was no easement, it was a power line utility, which is not allowed for public traffic as I understand it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. Allowing neighbors to use it out of kindness turns into they take it without any due process. I do not believe that's fair. And that has happened to wherever your map is, a lot of us out there. I have two other parcels. You've done it to me on both ends of the same parcel. So I'm losing an acre on parcels because you've taken it or plan to take it. Something's gotta be worked out. Yes, we're rural. The times have caught up to us. Population has caught up to us. Needs have caught up to us. It's time the county caught up to us to brought us into the modern age legally. Thank you.

Thank you, madam clerk.

Next up, Kimberly Lowery followed by Mark Graham.

I'm Kimberly Lowery and half of that half of the road, I've never given up any of my property. If I fence that in, everyone's blocked. No one could go up or down. I have not been approached, asked about giving up any other property. I've not nothing.

I've paid taxes on this for the last ten years as a homeowner, as my personal property, and I had to give written permission to Jane for her to be able to go across there because it's my personal property. Half of that road, it's not a road. It looks like a road. It it they maintain it, but I'm told one day it's a road, the next day I'm told it's not. And I haven't given up anything, and no one has talked to me or asked me anything.

And I'm the very first part of that road coming off of Lower Buckeye going north. So I am I I would like to have this get resolved. I have no issues with Gamble Field. I'm all for everything that they do. But this road is becoming a problem and it needs to be fixed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam clerk? Mark Graham, also in favor, followed by Louie Mar Garza.

Hi. My name is Mark Graham. I am the property owner, and therefore, obviously, I'm in support. What I would like the board to do is to approve this application with the removal of the road dedication requirement and an alteration of the number of people requirement. I am extremely upset with the way mister Gutierrez has been misrepresenting and playing fast and hard with the truth.

The road already has a road count of over a 100, which requires EPA stabilization, which they did last year. So for them to have previously done the road stabilization at a cost of 300,000 taxpayer dollars yeah. We pulled those records. Oh, and as a side note, yeah. He did give us a data dump of some 600 documents, 500 of which were for other roads we didn't request information on.

So don't act like the big volume of information they gave us was relevant. He still refuses to provide the documents we requested, claiming they no longer have them, even though the law requires to be maintained in perpetuity. There are some serious shenanigans going on with that. Also, the 20 the the 49 person thing is tied back to whether the road is stabilized. More than 49 people, EPA is gonna require that the road be stabilized.

They already did stabilize it last year. 2020 had over a 100 car count, which required the stabilization, which they did in January 2025. Again, 300,000 taxpayer dollars. The road cuts through our count, 21 privately owned properties, and they have not the board of supervisors said in '94, go build the road, but get the access to it, get the acquire it. They built it without acquiring it.

That constitutes an illegal taking under both federal law and state law, and we have repeatedly offered to negotiate the deeding of the road, and mister Gutierrez has zero interest in buying or otherwise acquiring what he thinks he can just take. Oh, and the county attorney at that board of adjustment meeting, the one who retired, acknowledged that this is all private property. Now, we're not opposed to being errored there, even though I'm paying taxes on it, but the idea that we do a permanent dedication in exchange for a temporary permit, because even though it's a special use permit, it's got a time limit on it. At the end of our permit, do we get our road back? Because if we don't get our road back, then the property has been diminished in value.

So all we wanna do is let dogs play in the field. What we propose is that the road issue be separated and dealt with as a separate issue, which is going to have to be anyway at some point in the future. But we will accept the terms as they are in order to get the permit approved because we have hundreds of people who want their dogs to play in this field. We can't disappoint them. Thank you, sir.

Miss Garza.

Louie Maritza Betty Garza. I reviewed the hyperlinks on this particular item. There were four seventy one pages attached. One thing that nobody has mentioned is that you'll notice in item D of number nine, it says that we held on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only, October through April and holidays. Hundreds of dogs having fun.

And it so happens that in Arizona that the quail hunting season is October through March, I believe. So in that regard, the only reason I'm kind of looking at it is it goes from 49 people to 400 people and the gentleman did note on here and I will repeat what he stated on one of these 471 pages. This is a rural natural unimproved outdoor space where people and dogs can participate in the vast openness without concrete traffic or other city characteristics. But there are guns involved because quail hunting involves guns, and then you have dogs all over the place chasing them. This is what I'm understanding from what's going on in here.

It is gambles, a quail, and she did mention that there's quails all over the place. So I'm wondering if there is a safety factor regarding a lot of guns in one area where you jump from 400 people down to 49. And I also read it that said that they wanted a thirty year SUP and you've brought it down to a ten year SUP. Is that a concern regarding the coil hunting, the noise? I don't know what else might be. It's just I'm throwing it out for thought, but it is in those four seventy one's and I'll give the rest of my time for you to answer those questions. And thank you very much for the extra minute. It gives us a lot more to work with. And you did take my number eight, but that's okay. Thank you.

Well

Madam

Vice chair Wasko.

Thank you, madam chair. I I didn't know if mister Gutierrez wanted some time to talk about the allegations against him.

Madam chair, madam vice chair, the the ADT average daily traffic counts given taken by staff and given to me by staff indicated in the nineties. Raw number data that was provided as part of the transparency and request indicate different numbers. There's a formulary that you use in traffic engineering to accommodate and come up with the average daily traffic ADT that we use. But that's almost irregardless to the dedication requirement in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires that we get a half street dedication on these section lines.

Those are two separate things. On top of that dedication, we are looking at the the added traffic, the added volumes that push us whether it's a 102 to a 120, a 150, whatever the vehicle count is, that we take the next step to improve the roadway, to make it safe, to reduce the the the dust and the problems that we have. So those items are interconnected, but the way they're being described is not exactly accurate. So it's a very straightforward methodology that we use. We follow the ordinance.

We follow our processes, the policies, and and the zoning ordinance in this very direct requirement for the Half Street dedication. Nothing to do with the actual weather we spent, and we were actually told by the applicants that we did a great job of maintaining this roadway for since the board took it in in 1994, we've done everything we could as a DOT to make it a safe roadway. So we have done. We have expended those monies and we shared that information. We provided that information in full transparency.

We have provided everything we have because the initial request was very general and very large. So I think the information shared depicted the fact that we do request this from other applicants and not just you, and that's why it was shared. It was relevant to the request. So a lot of those things are exactly accurate. And I'm not saying they're intentionally inaccurate by the applicant.

I'm just saying they're just inaccurate. So hopefully, answers the average daily traffic, the requirement for the Half Street dedication, which is what we require of everybody. And the fact that we have, because the Board of Supervisors took this roadway into the roadway system, we therefore maintain it since 1994 as part of the road file, doing our due diligence and doing the best we can. So along with that, any any further questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Nope. Supervisor Stewart.

Thank you, madam chair. So I'd like supervisor Lesko's idea of tabling this to another meeting so that we can get these things worked out with the applicant. It sounds obviously, we we wanna support small business. Sounds like a great opportunity for dogs to play and for people to take advantage of it. The neighbors seem to be okay with it.

We just gotta figure out this road issue, and I kinda see these as possibly two separate deals that have come together like this. So I love the idea of, like, tabling this to another meeting. But my question, madam chair, is, Tom, if we do that and then the stipulations change or we make adjustments, can that be done by staff, or does this need to go back to planning and zoning for a review again and then come back to us at another time? And it sounds like we've got some time to do that since the season starts in October. April's halfway over. What are your thoughts? Thank you, madam chair.

So, madam chair, supervisor Stewart, the process, if it were if you were to vote to remand a PNZ, we would take it back with the direction from this board to work out conditions of approval that are acceptable to the applicant that that can be worked out with a recommendation back to this board from the planning and zoning commission. So if we went back, we would be discussing with the applicant those conditions of approvals, the numbers on those conditions, and then be back here once we have a recommendation from the PNC board or commission. Sorry.

Okay. Mister Gallardo or mister Calvin, do you have comments?

I I don't have any.

Madam chair?

Oh, my apologies, mister Galvin, supervisor Gallardo, and then you.

Yeah. No. Madam chair, I mean, I have no really anything to add at this point, only that, you know, the more I think about it, the more I wanna vote no, to be honest on everything, start from scratch. But I do I do like the direction that supervisor Lesko is going. This is her district. I always defer to that supervisor, and and I believe she has a motion that I'll be supportive of that might help us move the train forward. So I will reserve my comments for that motion.

Thank you. Supervisor Galvin.

Yeah. I think I'm gonna reserve comments with the motions, but I just wanna say, madam chair, at the onset that I was appalled at the slur against our staff, the terms including playing fast and loose with the facts. I know that mister Cutierrez is a man of integrity and a man of honesty who has worked very hard on a wide variety of projects on behalf of the county, and I know mister Ellsworth and his team at the planning department are also honest and trustworthy people, and I know that they have been working on an honest and trustworthy basis on this project and this case as well. And I think they've done a really good job of advocating and standing up on behalf of the Maricopa County taxpayers. So I just wanna say any attacks on staff, especially in their integrity, to me is appalling and uncalled for, and I'll reserve other comments and my thoughts on this case later when we vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Madam chair, just real quick. Supervisor Gaye.

I I do wanna echo the comments by supervisor Galvin. Don't attack the staff, guys. Don't. Hands off. Alright? If you have issues, come talk to us. We'll work them out. We're willing to do that, but don't attack staff. Alright? Staff's off limits.

Excuse me.

Thank you, madam chair. This is an interesting case, as I've said before, because it's the first time that it's happened to me where the applicant agreed to something and now doesn't agree to something, the conditions. And and it's been kind of confusing, quite frankly, because I think the the owner is your name mister Graham? Yeah. Think yeah. I think he said first that you were like, well, you want this approved without the the road stuff and without the limit of the 49 people. You wanna go back to up to 400 people.

Excuse me.

And and but then at the end, if I'm not mistaken, you said, I want you to prove it. So I'm really quite confused, quite frankly. And so, you know, you heard what's going on here. I think, there's some ideas from some of the board members just to deny that thing outright. Right?

And then you'd have to wait, what, a year a year to reapply. I think my motion is actually, doing you a favor, which is to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, because, it sounds like it's gonna go either that way or just outright denial. I don't know, but that's what I heard here. And so I'm going to make a motion again because I do support small businesses and private rights, but I also do know that in my over a year working with the staff, they're honorable people that do a great job. I've worked with, both of them, extensively.

And so you may believe something is happening, but it's hard for me to believe that because I've worked with them for over a year on a lot of different issues. And and, you know, so that's not helping your case. I know you're upset, but, you know, going after the staff and saying they're lying about things, it's it's just hard for me to believe. So with that, I'm going to do my motion again. I move that item number nine be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

As before, I will ask for a roll call vote. And along with their vote, if each supervisor would make comments explaining their vote, would appreciate it. Madam Clerk.

Supervisor Gallardo.

Thank you, madam chair. I will go ahead and support the motion that's on the table. These types of projects, particularly those that are relatively in the rural areas, tend to be a little bit more difficult than those that are in the urban areas. It takes a little bit more time to look at it and work out some of the possible challenges with each project, but I have all faith that folks will come together and try to come up with a proposal that the board will will support. However, there's a strong possibility you'll have the same stipulations on the project you have now.

It may not even change. It can come right back to us looking the exact same. That's a strong possibility, and in that case, you're gonna have to decide if you wanna move forward or withdraw about, this type of application. That's just the the the the world we live in right now and in this particular area, dealing with some of the challenges. So, madam chair, I am happy to support the motion that is put on the table by supervisor Lesko. I think she's in the right direction in trying to really help the applicant in making sure that this project that they want is is in fruition, and it is meets all the different county and state standards. So, madam chair, I support the motion.

Supervisor Gallardo votes aye.

Vice chair Lesko.

Thank you, madam chair. I vote aye. I don't know that I have any more comments. I do have some concern that, you know, you have to decide if you wanted 400 people to attend this or 49 people to because if you want 400, there's some infrastructure you need to agree to do. And that's just the way it is, with anybody, with any applicant. And, so I I I'm remanding it. I'm making this motion to try to help the applicant. And with that, I vote aye.

Supervisor Galvin?

Thank you, madam chair. Can you hear me?

Yes.

I also support the motion and applaud vice chair Lesko and her leadership on this. I I do think that there must be a strong and healthy respect for the process. I do not like hearing the applicant say that they agree to all the conditions just to move it forward, but don't actually agree. That's not how it works. To me, if you give you a word, that's what it means.

That's what you're supporting. And so our planning and zoning commission works really, really hard. Each of them are appointed by members of this board. I have two members of that planning commission that I support and respect a 100%, and I know how hard they take the process. And I would hate to think that they worked hard in a case like this only to hear someone say, well, we only agreed to the conditions just to move it forward.

That's not how it works, madam chair. And so I'm gonna keep that in mind if this case ever comes back before this board of supervisors. And secondly, I just urge and ask staff to continue maintaining positions that feel strongly, for the good of the county on behalf of the county, which I know they will, but I do not expect anyone, to lay down just to make a deal for the sake of making a deal. So I strongly encourage the applicant to work with everyone in good faith, and I will vote to support the motion. I thank you.

Supervisor Stewart.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Yeah. Is it local politics fun or local things like this fun? It's such there's so many moving parts. Right? And we're trying to help a community member run a small business. We're also trying to be safe by making sure that there's sewage or that there is running water, that there's good safe traffic flow and trying to make marry all those together as we're migrating from a very, very rural area to something that has a little bit more activity. And so the county is there to support not only the community, but the community at large to make those things happen. So when these things come down the pike, it was a weird one.

Right? It's I eight years in city council, I've never had, something like this. And certainly in the two years almost that we've been here, I haven't dealt with something like this. You know, my suggestion is to support the or I will be supporting the motion to table this, but staff is here to to help you get through the traps. Right? And if you have an issue and you don't think that things are lining up, you know, address it with with your supervisor for your district, and we'll get to the bottom of that. But staff's gonna work hard to make this work, not only for you, but for the public. That's their role as a customer service department, and and they're good at that. So with that, I'll be voting aye. Thank you, madam chair.

Chair Brophy McGee. So respectfully to my colleague, none of this is fun. But it is local government in action. To the applicants, the problem was clearly stated in mister Ellsworth's opening comments. You you the success of your venue means you no longer fit a temporary use permit.

Too many people like it. Too many people like it. So then you have to become a special use permit, which creates more requirements. And if you think about the road aspect, you've got more people coming, people driving on those roads. And I think the staff has done a wonderful job in presenting.

Obviously, there's been I think what we have is a case of hearing what you want to hear, but I've spent a long time in local government, and I have spent that entire time holding staff accountable. This staff is accountable every day for what gets done here for the benefit of Maricopa County taxpayers, residences, and business residents and businesses. The final straw for me, you further weakened your case by attacking that same staff. I don't think you either gotta get small again, or if you get big, you need to meet those requirements. And I'm not seeing a solution here.

With all due respect to vice chair Lesko, I am I will vote no on this. Thank you. The motion carried on a four one vote to remand back to planning and zoning. Thank you. We will now proceed to statutory hearings for clerk of the board, item 10 a, liquor license applications for Roadrunner restaurant and saloon, and 11, a bingo license application for Saint Rose Philippine Duchene Catholic Parish.

Also, transportation, 12 a, road file number AO46DashR. And 13 through 15, patent ease patent abandonment easements as shown on the agenda. Madam Clerk, do have any speaker forms?

Madam chair, none on these items.

Thank you. The board will now consider items 10 through 15. Is there a motion?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve items 10 through 15.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Aye. Any

opposed? The motion passes four zero with one absent. We will now proceed.

Madam chair, I did I did vote there.

Yes. Mister left the room. I'm not sure what

I I apologize.

I'm sorry. We are coming up on items 16 through sixteen three 63, which is the consent agenda. It's my understanding mister Stewart wanted to pull one. He he better give me the number now or we're just gonna vote it through.

29.

So mister Stewart or other supervisors, do you wish to remove any item from the consent agenda?

Madam chair. Yes. Item number 29, please.

Okay. Any others? So we will vote or motion on items 16 through twenty eight and thirty through 63. Did I get that right, madam clerk?

Madam chair, yes, you

did. Hate numbers. Is there a motion to that effect?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve items 16 through twenty eight and thirty through 63.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Hearing no further discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will now go to item number 29 for separate consideration. Mister Stewart.

Madam chair, thank you very much. I'd love a presentation from staff on this on this particular item. It's I just want a deeper understanding of the agreement that we're entering into here.

Thank you. Is there anybody here from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?

Over here.

Oh, mister Prinsville.

Sat on the other side.

Welcome. And see, pull the microphone close, make sure it's on, and tell everybody who you are.

Jim Prendeville, CFO, sheriff's office.

Please proceed.

So this agreement is with, the DEA through, Homeland Security. For the last fifteen years or so, we've had an agreement with an organization called OSADEF, which is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That organization or that unit has been disbanded by the DOJ this year. So this work of drug enforcement and cartel investigation has now fallen under Homeland Security Task Force. And they worked through the DEA on this.

We basically resurrected the same mission just through a different part of the government. So our team because cartel activity continues to encroach deeper and deeper into our county, it makes sense for our deputies to work with the DEA. And with their federal funding, we're able to buy equipment, investigative tools, pay for analysts, things like that. The original agreement sent to us from the DEA was just an MOU. We worked with the county attorney and split that into not only an MOU that dictates how our deputies work with the DEA.

We also then did a cost reimbursement agreement which outlines the kinds of equipment and services that we can use their money for. And that's what we have here today is both of these agreements now need to be approved so that we can continue our work. This this round of the contracts is done a federal fiscal year. So technically, it started back in last October. But it took a long time for the DEA and the Homeland Security sort out which projects they wanted to continue and not continue.

Thank you, madam chair. Well, I appreciate the the background on that. This is a this this is a good agreement. I appreciate some of the the background as it relates to how it's gonna be paid for, how it'll be reimbursed. That's something when I that I'm always interested in to understand how that works in our partnership with the different agencies, whether that be state, federal, or what have you, or municipal for that matter. So I I appreciate the background on that. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Madam clerk, are there any speakers on this item?

No speakers, madam chair. Thank you. I

think that's good. Any more questions? Okay. We will proceed to a vote on number 29, madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 29. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no further discussion we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Board, we've taken previous action on the next item 64. We will move to item 65. The IGA between Maricopa County and Stadium District. Madam clerk, has anyone signed up to speak?

Madam chair, yes. We do have two requests to speak from Jamie Martin and Lori Barone. K. Miss Martin?

Hello. This is agenda item 65. I have a follow-up concern regarding the assessments being collected for bond repayment. So I have three questions. The first one, can the board clarify whether property owners were given an opportunity to review or challenge the assessment amounts before they were finalized?

Two, where were the postings placed? And is there a publicly accessible document that shows how each parcel's share of the repayment was calculated? From a public standpoint, it's important to understand not just that assessments exist, but how they were determined Madam chair, point of and whether the processes ensured fairness and adequate notice if property owners were not qualified or could not challenge the results. That's a process failure. Madam chair, correction plan

could be me, miss Martin. Believe Point the of order has been raised.

Yeah. Madam chair, I believe the speaker is intending to speak on item 66, and this is currently time for speaking on 65.

65. It's the I g I IGA between Maricopa County and Stadium District.

I just have the public awareness and fairness attributes.

I tell you what, I think in looking at the next item

Okay.

Can you hold off on your comments? Mhmm. Has anybody else and and we'll call

you forward on 66. Madam chair, Lori Barone also marked item to speak on item 65.

I think she's gonna

Are we looking at our agenda numbers and confirming? Because I'm not seeing anyone else coming forward.

I think it's 66, I

believe. Okay. We're getting there.

65. Thank you, Brooke.

I need to start calling you by your last name, but thank you very much. There is no further discussion on this item. We will proceed with a motion. Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 65.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no further discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will now recess as the board of supervisors and convene as the improvement district board of directors. Madam clerk,

speakers. Yes, madam chair. I have three speaker forms in front of me. Again, Jamie Martin, I have changed that to item number 66. Laurie Barone, item number 66, and Tom Arnold, item number 67.

Miss Martin.

Sorry about that. Okay. Hello. I'm Jamie Martin. Agenda item 66. I have a follow-up concern regarding the assessments being collected for bond repayment. Can the board please clarify whether property owners were given an opportunity to review or challenge the assessment amounts before they were finalized? Number two, where were the postings placed? And then third, is there a publicly accessible document that shows how each parcel share of the repayment was calculated? From a public standpoint, it's important to understand not just the assessments exist, but how they were determined and whether the process ensured fairness and adequate notice.

If property owners were not properly notified or could not challenge the results, that looks like a process failure, and a corrective action plan would resolve it.

Thank you, madam county manager. Well, let's let's hear from miss Barone as well and accumulate any any questions and get those answered.

So specifically, I'd like to request clarification regarding the collection of those assessments tied to the bond repayment of this paving improvement district. First, specifically, can the board clearly state for the record what the total repayment obligation is, including interest for the affected property owners? Second, additionally, how are those property owners formally notified of their financial obligation and were they provided with clear breakdowns of the long term cost prior to the assessments being finalized? It's important because these types of obligations can significantly impact residents and transparency regarding the total cost and notification is critical for public trust. So, I'd also ask to, like, what criteria you yeah.

What criteria you used, and were there any safeguards in place to prevent overextension of financial obligations tied to property assessments, and specifically what analysis was conducted to ensure that issuing the debt is the most appropriate and cost effective option compared to alternatives. Understanding the decision making process behind using these bonds is important for public accountability and long term fiscal responsibility. Two two questions were asked. I'd like to reserve my time. I'd also like to make it clear that 90% of the worthy agenda items to speak on today are off.

Thank you. Since 67 is the same project, mister Arnold, please come forward with your questions, comments.

Morning. Good morning. Agenda item 67. I would like clarification regarding the cost sharing structure for this intergovernmental agreement, please. The county appears to be contributing the majority of the funding for this project.

Question one is, can the board explain how the cost distribution was determined and what proportional benefit county taxpayers are expected to receive? And two, please. Additionally, how is it ensured that county funds are being allocated in a way that reflects, excuse me, equitable benefit across the border, excuse me, broader county population. Understanding how these partnerships are structured helps endure transparency and fairness in the use of public funds. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes public participation. Mister Gutierrez?

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Jesse Gutierrez, county engineer.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. Lana Luicke, superintendent of streets.

Thank you.

I'll give a very brief overview on this project that might answer a lot of questions initially, and then I'll ask Lana to fill in the blanks with details of the funding and the numbers. This is a public improvement district a paving improvement district. And, essentially, the neighborhood, the property owners themselves came together, requested that the county design, bid, build, and operate this roadway on their behalf. They are funding it in its entirety. The transparency comes through numerous steps, which this particular item and the next one are steps six and seven of the entire process.

We've gone through steps one through five before the board. Everything from the postings to the acceptance of the design, the assessment map, what each homeowner is gonna pay, the cost estimates from the contractor. Essentially, through every step, each homeowner has been notified directly and in person about their contribution, their expected contribution, and in the final contribution. They've been kept up to speed on the progress of the project through the last four years. It's been a long process, five years now.

And, essentially, there are no gaps in the communication or the transparency. Every single homeowner is fully aware and voted on the project and anything related to it specifically. Giving that background, I know there's several several specific questions. I'll ask Alana, our superintendent of streets, to talk to those specific points.

Yes. Madam chair, members of

the board,

the first Jesse has touched base on the public notifications, but as per statute, we follow the notifications required each step of the forming the district and all the resolutions that have been previously approved. One The of the questions was the assessment amount. Would start off, we collected $259,140.22 in cash payments from property owners, which resulted in $189,327 and a penny that are going to go to bond. The total bond plus interest that this will result in is $186,565.31 that's bond plus interest over the next ten years. There are 14 properties that will have assessment amounts that will be collected.

The county is not paying, as Jesse has stated, the county is not paying for any of this. This is all funded by the property owners and the road is accepted into the county and we will be maintaining it going forward.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from board members?

Madam chair.

Please.

Thank you. This is district on one item. We've this is probably the third or fourth time we've explained that the community, the neighbors have come together and said we want the county's help to build a road. They can use our buying, you know, power. They can use our our services. They can use our bonding authority, all those things to make it easier for them to do the work in their neighborhood. And so this is a good thing. I just hope that if any of the neighbors are watching, you know, don't be concerned about the questions asked today. The the community is just trying to get some more understanding of how that when you see the word bond, it usually makes people nervous. But this is a bond that the neighbors will be paying. Correct? Okay. Great. Thank you very much, madam chair.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from board members? Thank you, mister Gutierrez.

Thank you.

Reminds me of a a story about you may be you may be seated. About Americans getting together to solve a problem at the lowest level possible. And that is is how the county works. That's how we work. We're not gonna go to our senator. We're not gonna go to our congressman. We're gonna go to our neighbors and say, we need this. Let's get together and figure it out. And thank you for facilitating that, miss Gutierrez. The board will now consider item 66 through 67. Is there a motion, madam vice chair?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number sixty six and sixty seven.

Is there a second?

Second.

Hearing no further discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We will adjourn as the improvement district board of directors and convene as a flood control district board of directors to consider items 68, 69, and 70, IGA with the town of carefree, personnel agenda, and easement right away, and relocation assistance documents. Madam clerk, do you have any speaker forms?

Madam chair, none on these items.

Thank you. The board will now consider items 68 through 70. Is there a motion, madam vice chair?

Madam chair, I move that we approve items number 68 through 70.

K. There's a motion on the table. Is there a second?

Second.

Hearing no discussion, we will proceed to a vote. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing no opposition, the motion passes unanimously. We will adjourn as the flood control district board of directors and convene as the library district board of directors. Madam clerk,

are there any speaker forms? Madam chair, we received one speaker form from Leslie Shepherd, wishes to speak on this item number 71. Thank you. Miss Shepherd.

Going once. Miss Shepherd, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Miss Shepherd.

Yes. Okay. Agenda item number 71. I understand this item is presented as a personal agenda. However not as a personal agenda, but however, it directly relates to the operation, the oversight of the county library system.

So I am addressing this as a matter of oversight responsibility. I wanna raise concerns that issues involving materials, accessibility to minor minors within the library system are being addressed with the same are not being addressed with the same level of attention, review, and transparency that the public would expect. From a public perspective, when personnel and oversight structures are approved, there is an expectation that the systems are actively ensuring appropriate standards, especially where children are involved. So I am providing this as a direct criticism. Can the board clarify what oversight mechanisms are currently in the place to ensure that materials accessible to minors are being reviewed or, excuse me, to minors are being reviewed appropriately, and whether any recent reviews or audits of those materials have been conducted and made publicly available.

This is a direct criticism, and under your own rules, you may respond. I know that happens, you know, during public comment that we have to say that, but I want you to know I'm actually addressing it that way. Given that and then this is more for you, miss McGee. Given that interruptions and unrecognized speaking from the dais occur, there is no reason these questions cannot be answered because you have a tendency of interrupting people even if they've

only said one or two words. Is that your testimony? No. That was my question. That's your testimony.

No. That was my question. There was a question in there. Thank you. Whether the recent reviews of audits of those

three You may be seated. The board will now consider item 71. Madam vice chair, is there a motion?

Thank you, madam chair. I move that we approve item number 71.

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.

Oh. Dope. We will say aye.

Aye. Any

opposed?

Madam chair.

After you vote, I will take your comments, sir.

I vote aye.

Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Supervisor Galvin.

Sorry, madam chair. I was trying to get in to see if I could explain my vote. But I do, just wanna remind everyone that if there's any information that they seek, they could always follow public records request for full and voluminous data that they would need. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. We will adjourn as the library district board of directors and reconvene as the board of supervisors for public comment and supervisors, county manager summary of current events. Madam clerk, public comment. Oh, first of all, do we have anybody who has submitted comments by email?

Madam chair, yes. We do did receive a few email comments regarding water concerns, concerns about Litchfield Park, elections, and correct corrective action plan. And all those Thank comments have been been shared. We have a total of 22 speaker forms for public comment. Okay. Please start. First up, Jamie Martin, followed by Amanda Moniz and Lisa Everett.

Hi. I'm Jimmy Martin, dear board. We need to discuss complaints and how they are or are not being handled. I'm talking specifically about the meeting that you guys just had on Monday, April 6. At that meeting, there was clear acknowledgment of how public records requests, elections, recorder's office, procurement operate together. That part's understood. No problem. What's still missing is that what actually happens when something goes wrong. Right now, complaints are raised in this public comment forum. We can submit them.

They're reviewed, but there's no clear consistent process that ensures complaints are corrected and followed through to resolution. That's the gap I've been trying to raise with you. Steve, you said at the last meeting, no one has come to you to discuss a solution. I've been trying since 05/05/2023. I'd love to talk to you about it.

Yesterday, I emailed you all a full ninety day corrective action plan along with the supporting background. The framework's there. It simply needs to be considered and acted upon. You have a process flow. You have a formal corrective action. And if you had pulled the run back contract like I did and you had seen there was no disaster recovery policy during a pandemic election signed 06/04/2020, you too would be outraged as I was. Please get corrective action plans on an upcoming agenda so we can stop these systemic issues from repeating. Thank you.

Thank you, madam Cook. Amanda Moniz, Lisa Everett, Yolanda Laderos.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and supervisors. My name is Amanda Moniz. I'm an elected member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. But today, I speak to you as a member and a resident of the Rio Verde Foothills. I'm here and to represent the community in opposition of KCPA 26001 and Z 260002 Mordeaux Ranch, and to formally submit a community petition of 1,214 signatures from residents of the Rio Verde Foothills and surrounding communities, including many of those directly adjacent or bordering the proposed zoning area.

The clerk has copies for each of you of these petitions including the for the county manager and the county planner. Our concerns are as follows. Water. Our community has already experienced a widely publicized water crisis. That issue is not completely resolved. Increasing density in an area without a reliable renewable water supply will increase dependence on groundwater in a basin that lacks meaningful recharge. Second, this proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the existing community. Current rule 43 zoning supports responsible growth in an area with low density desert equestrian living. The request shifts to a high density zoning, including small lots and multifamily housing, and it it is not a transition. It's a complete change of land use placed into the middle of a rural desert community.

Third, this is not just a local issue. It is a has regional impacts. The road, emergency services, and infrastructure in this area are shared across multiple surrounding communities. Increased density here will directly impact traffic, response times, and public safety well beyond the boundaries of this project. The community is strongly opposed to these rezoning requests. We ask that these concerns and the voices of a thousand residents be taken seriously as this moves forward, and we respectfully ask that you take the time to meet with representatives of the community before making any final decisions. Lastly, we would like to thank the staff and the planning and development department for the professionalism, patience, and ongoing communication. We understand that this at the very beginning of the process and we intend to stay engaged throughout. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lisa Everett Yolanda Laderos, and I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Shanti Grafias Rabi.

Miss Hebert, welcome.

Thank you. I am here this morning to speak about an upcoming agenda item regarding project Becara. It is a data center that is scheduled for the West Valley in District 4. I am strongly in support of this, and I wanted to just share a little bit with you of why I am. First, many people don't realize how much we need data centers. Our military depends on them. Your medical records depend on them. We Google something every day, our GPS, etcetera. We need responsible building of data centers, and that's exactly what project Makara is doing. They are providing their own energy source.

They're selling back power to APS on the wholesale market. So it's gonna provide power to the citizens of the West Valley, which we need with all of the growth that we're experiencing. This project will also use reclaimed water, which is critical because as everyone in this room will tell you, water is a concern. So using the reclaimed water kind of dis disperses their reasons for being against this project. Project.

People will come in with the sky is falling scenarios, telling you there's chemicals, there's noise, there's all of these things, but the reality is this, data centers are here to stay. They're very popular right now to it's popular to be against them, but the people who are against them are not digging into the facts. And the fact is a data center in the West Valley is going to be needed mainly for the power, but also we have to keep up. Our military depends on data centers, and right now, we're in a war. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Madam Clerk?

Yolanda Loderos, Shanti Grafis Rabi, and Sam Wandler. Thank you. Please come to the microphone and introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning chair and members of the board. My name is Yolanda Landeroz and I live in Buckeye, Arizona. I'm a mom, a grandmother, and I care deeply about the future of this country and the generations that come after us. As an American, I believe our right to vote is sacred. It is our birthright and it must be protected.

Arizona's elections are secure, trusted, and already working for voters like me. That's why what's happening right now is so concerning. Instead of protecting a system that works, we are seeing actions that create confusion, delay decisions, and make it hard for people to vote. Here in Maricopa County, recorder Justin Heap installing voting maps and blocking communities from getting the polling locations they need. That doesn't protect voters.

It puts them at risk of being left out. When access is delayed and confusion spreads, it's everyday people like me who pay the price. I am asking you to stand with voters and protect what is already working. Ensure polling locations reflect the needs of our communities so everyone can vote no matter their zip code. We should be making it easy for people to participate, not harder. This country belongs to all of us, and we all deserve to have a voice. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam clerk? Shanti Garfias Rabbi, Samuel or Sam one Wandler, and Margie Gomez. Thank you. Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning, chair and members of the board. My name is Shanti Garfias Rabbi. I live in Mesa. I'm a registered voter. I work a nine to five, and I'm an everyday survivor of our economy.

I am here because I have a deep love for our state's beauty, our community, and its future. And to that end, I am here to defend the importance of our elections. I'm here because when President Trump had signed the executive order to undermine mail in voting, I was in utter disbelief. I, like many of my loved ones, have voted by mail because my job, like many others, do not allow the day off so that we can go to our polling locations to place our vote. When I have gone in the past, the lines were so long it would just take hours of my time.

So voting by mail gave me essential time to do the research on the candidates and ballot measures so that I could make an informed decision well before election day and doing all of this in the comfort of my own home. There are those who would like to disrupt our election process, but looking at survey released by the Center for the Future of Arizona on 01/15/2026, it shows our core value for accuracy with 96 saying every vote counted and each are essential. With 69% saying votes should be easier and convenient for citizens to vote early by mail and election day. Arizona doesn't need people like Justin Heap or MAGA influences who would limit the number of polling locations making it disproportionately harder for communities like my own and other marginalized groups to make and to make our voices heard because let's be real, they do not wanna hear what we have to say. Our elections are secure, accurate, and trusted by Arizonans.

We deserve a system that reflects the needs of our communities where voting is accessible, fair, and works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam clerk. Sam Vandler, Vandler, Margie Gomez, Vivian Seraphin.

Thank you. And please introduce yourself in the microphone for the record.

Madam chair and members of the board, thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Sam Wandler, and I live in Gilbert. I'm a husband, a father, a veteran, and someone who cares deeply about the future of our state and my children's future. I'm I'm here because I believe our elections matter and our vote must be protected. I've been voting by mail for over twenty five years starting when I joined the Navy in 1998.

It has been a reliable and trusted way for me to participate in our democracy. It gives me the time to research candidates and make informed decisions without feeling rushed. That's why it's so concerning to see a system that has worked for decades now being questioned and disrupted. Arizona's elections are secure, trusted, and already working for voters like me, but recorder Justin Heap is undermining that trust. He's creating confusion, delaying the decisions, and making people question the system that works.

We need the polling locations map finalized. Delays like this don't protect voters. They discourage participation, and it makes it harder for people to do their civic duty. I've already proven my eligibility to vote. Voters should not have to jump through new hoops just to have their voices heard. The only time I've ever questioned the security of our elections was when politicians and their supporters tried to overturn legitimate votes or gerrymander maps. That's the real threat, not a system that has worked for decades. I'm asking the board to stand up for voters, ensure access, and protect the integrity of our elections because elections only matter when all of us can participate. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, madam clerk. Margie Gomez. Excuse me. Margie Gomez, Vivian Seraphin, Pamela Cunningham. Thank you. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Hello. My name is Margie Gomez. I vote by mail every time. And without it, my vote would be jeopardized. Good morning, chair and members of the board.

We have trusted the board of supervisors to keep elections safe and secure and accessible and protecting a peep people's ability to vote up to now. We are critical of the board's inaction to defend our voting our proven voting process. Please finally stand up against Justin Heap and the radical MAGA agenda. It would hurt the credibility of the board to turn over its responsibility to someone who is suing the board to have complete control while refusing to negotiate. We we do not want the board to change processes be based on false conspiracy theories to try to justify voter suppression.

We wanna make it easier to vote by having more voting locations. Radical mega Republicans on the other hand want to have complete control to disenfranchise and so chaos and confusion. We are fighting for increase not less transparency. Formalized voting agreement now to maintain the current voting responsibilities and not change because of lawsuits. Do not give into any demands.

My experience voting over the years has improved over time. I always vote by mail to secure to make sure my ballot is counted in case something comes up, including having to respond to a work emergency. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam clerk, Vivian Seraphin, Pamela Cunningham, Juan Mendez.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning, chair and members of the board. My name is Vivian Seraphine, and I am a proud first generation Mexican woman who cares deeply about her community. I am here today in an attempt to galvanize the board into doing what's right for the communities that shaped who I am and make this state great. As county recorder Justin Heath disrupts our election system that has been proven secure for years, I'm I'm extremely concerned about those that will disenfranchise. He is casting doubt and creating chaos in hopes of discouraging those who see through his dishonesty from voting.

That is un American. I worry about the single parents who cannot afford to take time off work to drive to a polling location nowhere near their vicinity. I worry about those already struggling just to survive in this economy and don't have the resources to access the polls. I worry about our elderly neighbors or people with disabilities who rely on mail in ballots and need plenty of time to create a voting plan. I worry about our fellow black, brown, indigenous, and margin marginalized neighbors who will be left to navigate the mess created by Justin Heap and enabled by you.

The people need transparency. The people need consistency. We, the people, need a free and fair election. Finalize the polling locations map and stop Trump's MAGA agenda from soiling our state's democracy. Empower us to use our voices rather than discouraging them. The Arizona we deserve is one with the board of supervisors who stands up when the sanctity of the elections tied to them is threatened. Do not let the actions of one man smear your name. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam clerk.

Pamela Cunningham, Juan Mendez, Diane Barker.

Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

Pamela Cunningham, Madam chair, board members, as I stated, my name is Pamela Cunningham, and I'm from Scottsdale. Arizona has a long history of safe and secure elections as proven with both the 2020 and twenty twenty four elections along with prior and subsequent elections. Justin Heap's attempts to sow doubt and discord regarding Arizona's elections through his actions should not be tolerated or allowed. Heap and Maga's chaos cons sorry, conspiracy theories and threats to the voting rights of the people of Maricopa County and our democracy should be disregarded by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors should not cave to Justin outrageous demands.

Rather, the Board of Supervisors and their attorneys should use the current litigation to ensure that a fair shared services agreement is entered into and that Justin Heath as county recorder does not interfere in Arizona's elections and instead does his job in a fair, competent, and just manner in compliance and in with both state and federal election laws and statutes. Additionally, the board of supervisors needs to finalize the polling locations map so that voters have time to implement a voting plan, whether they're voting in person on election day, early voting, or dropping off a ballot. Delaying this process dis disproportionately affects our brown, black, indigenous, and other marginalized communities within Maricopa County. Furthermore, more accessible voting sites need to be established to allow those with disabilities to exercise their constitutional right to vote. People have even tried to get ICE at the polls.

ICE should never be present at polling locations and their presence is unnecessary and would have a chilling effect upon voters and serve to intimidate eligible voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote. I request that the board of supervisors stand up for our elections and mine other voters voting rights that are enshrined in the constitution constitution and and not not allow allow Justin Justin Heath Heap and MAGA to improperly interfere in Arizona's elections. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam clerk?

Madam chair, I pulled Diane Barker. I understand she left. I will call on the next three, Juan Mendes, Tristan Miller, Verl Farnsworth. Senator.

Good morning, chair, members of the board. Juan Mendez from Tempe. I stand before you again still hoping for collaboration, collaboration, but but the the community community and and I I are are past past the point of frustration with all the inaction. We need to know who is to blame for Maricopa County not having finalized and public publicized share our upcoming primary polling locations. As supervisor Gallardo pointed out in Monday's informal meeting, we cannot afford to hide behind objective criteria while actively creating voting deserts in our West Valley and South Phoenix communities.

While you debate the fine print of an IT budget and heap cries about the technicalities of this shared service agreement, the clock is ticking. Do not allow this administrative power struggle to turn into a voter access crisis. You're supposed to be better than this. Other counties like Yavapai and Mohave Mohave have already given their citizens a voting road map, yet Maricopa remains paralyzed. How long until a failure to act becomes an active obstruction on our work to get the vote out?

The July primaries around the corner with early ballots scheduled to be mailed out in June. I should be helping our people make a plan to vote. Instead, we're stuck waiting for everyone to agree on a spreadsheet, creating an unprofessional time crunch that makes it almost logistically impossible for us to activate, educate, and organize our community. But before we get too far, we're gonna need a detailed explanation on the math and the criteria that recorder Heap and you all as the supervisors are using to select the vote centers. We need Heap to explain the justification for his current proposal.

If I heard correctly on Monday, Heap is planning for seven Far East Valley early vote centers to be open for twenty eight days before the election versus one Westside center voting location center in Levine to be open for only twelve days. Make that make sense? Is he planning based on some historical voting patterns that we all don't know about? Or is he planning for the voters he wants to show up for his MAGA Republican candidates? I'm sorry. And please do not let technical disputes dis disenfranchise us. Protect our voters, finalize the early voting sites now, and give us the transparency we deserve. We're ready to work with you.