Board of Supervisors Addendum - Regular Meeting

good after good evening and welcome to the Board of Supervisors meeting room and we are going to begin our meeting. And I will pass it to Clerk Membriquez for roll call. Supervisor Cano.

Present.

Supervisor Christy.

Here.

Supervisor Hines.

Present.

Supervisor Scott.

Here.

Chair Allen. Here. Let the record show Supervisor Christie is participating remotely. All board members are present.

Now I'd like to invite George O'Hagan, Division Manager, Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And while we have you, Mr. Hagen, is there anything going on before you get too far? Anything going on you want to share about at the wastewater?

Yeah, sure. I have been with the Pima County Wastewater Division conveyance for 30 years. I am the division manager for the pumps and odor crew. We actually, the pump crew, has 23 lift stations. The odor department has 23 cdus better known as chemical dosing units we have 18 of of these dosing stations throughout pima county and we have 12 of these bio filters at the time eight of these cdus are in and around pima county We have three of the charcoal systems which filter the odor systems throughout Pima County. At this present moment, we are looking to build one in Avra Valley. Also at the present moment, we are looking to build a chemical dosing station within the city limits of Tucson, again, to fight the odor within Tucson. We also house what we call a SMART system, smart cover system. This system tells the odor department where the odor is rising or where we need more chemical added to the system of the sewers to actually keep the odors down. I am in charge of the electrician's system that take care of the actual CDUs, lift stations, and I take care of this whole section.

that's what we do thank you sure you're very welcome thank you i think the little guy over there is interested in whether you have fire hydrants systems i think he's listening anxiously um next i'd like to invite christy lee who's the president and ceo of tmm family services to read the land acknowledgement statement

Thank you. This is an honor and a privilege, but on behalf of the Pima County residents, we honor the tribal nations who have served as caretakers of this land from time immemorial and respectfully acknowledge the ancestral homelands of the Tohono O'odham Nation and the multi-millennial presence of the Pasqui Yaqui Tribe within Pima County. Consistent with Pima County's commitment to diversity and inclusion, we strive towards building equal partner relationships with Arizona's tribal nations.

Thank you for doing that. And anything you want to share about TMN Family Services?

Yeah, I am privileged to be standing here in front of you today. When I took over as president and CEO four years ago, I stood before you on a Zoom meeting explaining why TMM had not been very good at their grant reporting requirements to Pima County. We had a lot of work to do to get the organization turned around, and I can say that I met your deadline shorter than the 30 days you gave me, and today I am very proud to say that the organization is a complete turnaround. We serve over 100 families annually in the affordable housing arena, primarily housing the vulnerable population, from single moms that are overcoming crisis mode to seniors, veterans, and then just our general population that is ever so needed in the affordable housing needs. The average salary in Pima County, according to the last Eller Economic Luncheon that I attended, was approximately $46,000 a year. If you take 30% of that salary, which is supposed to be your housing allowance, that equates to about $1,000 a month. You tell me where you can rent a house for $1,000 a month. We have launched a workforce development program and are starting to partner with some of our other nonprofit partners so that we can instill the idea of stability in affordable housing through the partnerships of education and programs to eliminate the barriers that prevent a family from staying stable in their homes. So I appreciate your patience while we did this turnaround. We are on our way to doing bigger and better things. And again, thank you for the opportunity today.

Thank you for your work and congratulations on that solid transition. Thank you. Next is pause for pause. And I would like to invite up the senior who's been anxiously awaiting.

I would say impatiently, impatiently waiting. He has been waiting to be here to talk to you all. I don't know if you can hear him breathing, but, you know, he doesn't do anything very quietly, it seems. But he loves big. He sounds big. He is big. He's just a big ball of love. Like, I love Mantis. He's actually my favorite dog. Don't tell the other 450. But he is my favorite dog in the shelter. And he's clearly loving this. But yeah, he's one of about 450 at Pack Today. A couple of quick things. We are doing an adoption event on the 19th of September. And some exciting news for our Eastside location. We're doing a big grand opening. That's going to be on the 26th of September. And it's family friendly. So bring your kids. Have a good time. Come play. Come adopt. And we actually, the folks in the cat department would be upset if I didn't mention that we actually have a lot of kitties right now. Kitties, kittens, all kinds of things at both locations. Yeah, and I don't know if anyone can see, but he is trying really hard to make everyone fall in love with him, and he's trying to get up there with us. With the board. He's a very good dog. He loves people. I really hope someone will come and get him because I'm obsessed. And one quick mention. The finders that found him tried to find his owners, which we appreciate. And they actually paid for... the surgery scar that's on the back of his leg that he had a lump and they paid for it and i just that's above and beyond what we would ever ask obviously but i definitely wanted to know if they were watching that it is appreciated because every dollar helps pack and they literally went above and beyond and he's wonderful he just wasn't a good fit for their home so they had nothing but wonderful things to say about him he also loves kids so please come meet him

thank you walk slowly out in case anybody wants to jump up and and come and get a mantis i believe was his name think about it um our next item is agenda item number five this is current events and public acknowledgments chair allen supervisor connell

Thank you, welcome to everybody, this is your board of supervisors hearing room and we're grateful you're with us, I also wanted to acknowledge former state Senator Maria Garcia it's always a pleasure to see you and always as a former lawmaker want to acknowledge those who have served our state, thank you.

Well, I have a couple events that I wanted to share. We are meeting the Board of Supervisors and the City of Tucson Mayor and Council on Thursday, August 13th. This is a joint meeting. It's something we try to do. We aspire to every quarter. Realistically, it's three times a year. This time, we're going to be focusing on the Prosperity Initiative, which is an initiative that both the city and the county have adopted that aims to dramatically reduce poverty in our communities and build wealth. So we'll be meeting from 12 to 2.30 on Thursday, and it will be broadcast live that you can view it. Also encouraging everyone to come and celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and the 10th anniversary of the Multispecies Conservation Plan this Saturday, August 15th, at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum in the museum's Warden Oasis Theater. And that event was going to be from 4.30 to 6 p.m. And then lastly, there is a community meeting in Three Points tomorrow, Wednesday, August 12th, from 4 to 6 p.m. at Fred's Arena Bar and Steakhouse. The event is hosted by Repsol, an energy development company that's proposing a utility-scale solar farm in the area. I will be there along with other community members. So with that, unless there are any other, Supervisor Scott, events, announcements, okay. Then we'll hand it over to Clerk Monriquez for agenda adjustments.

On the regular agenda, page five, item 22, economic development. This is the Pima County Economic Development Strategic Plan, 2026 through 2029. The county administrator requests this item be continued to the Board of Supervisors meeting of August 25th. And on page six, item 25 under school superintendent, 2026 general election school district cancellations. There's a correction to the term under Pima Community College and district one, Nicole Barasa. The correction is a six-year term. Thank you. All right.

Now we're going to move on to item number seven. This is a recognition of the retirement of William R. Castaneda, Division Director Adult Probation for Superior Court for 40 years of service at Pima County.

OK. Well, thank you. I'm Jan. Nice to meet you.

So generally, we have someone with whom this gentleman has been fortunate to work for the many years to help honor and recognize him. So either we're stuck, I think probably at the metal detector, but we'll get someone in and I get the opportunity then simply to say thank you. It's my understanding some August 40 years ago, you joined us in the adult probation department. Is that correct? Well, I started with the sheriff's department. Tell us about your time.

I started with the Pima County Sheriff's Department in August of 1985. I worked nine years there, started as corrections officer, deputy, and then I came over to the Pima County Adult Probation Department where I did 31 years with the court.

And what are you going to be doing now?

Absolutely nothing.

That's the right answer. God bless you and thank you. And let me, if I may...

Thank you. Thank you.

Congratulations again. Our next item on the agenda is item eight. This is a presentation of a proclamation recognizing and honoring the Tucson Children Museum's 40th anniversary. I'll move the item. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. A discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0 and Supervisor Hines is ready to present.

Okay, well, thank you all for being here. Whereas in 2026 Children's Museum Tucson celebrates its 40th anniversary marking four decades of inspiring play, learning, creativity and discovery for children and families throughout Southern Arizona. And whereas founded in 1986 by a group of visionary community leaders who believe children learn best through hands-on exploration and play, Children's Museum Tucson has grown from a grassroots effort into one of Southern Arizona's most beloved cultural and educational institutions. And whereas it's for 40 years, the museum has provided fun, interactive, hands-on and play-based learning experiences that invite children to imagine, build, test, pretend and discover. And whereas Children's Museum Tucson has created lasting memories for generations of Tucson families through its events, programs and exhibits, and whereas each year Children's Museum Tucson serves more than 200,000 children and families through its museum experiences, outreach initiatives, educational programming, and community partnerships, and whereas as Children's Museum Tucson celebrates this milestone, also investing in the future through the continued growth and expansion of its historic downtown Tucson campus, reaffirming its commitment to serving the evolving needs of the community and inspiring future generations for the next 40 years and beyond. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Pima County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes and honors Children's Museum Tucson's 40th anniversary. celebrating four decades of extraordinary service to the children and families of southern arizona and recognizing the museum's enduring contributions to education childhood development and the cultural vitality of pima county be it further resolved that the board of supervisors extends its sincere appreciation to the museum's founders board members staff volunteers donors educators and community partners whose vision and dedication have made the museum a lasting source of joy, discovery, and opportunity. Passed and adopted this 11th day of August, 2026.

Thank you. It's such an honor. We really appreciate this proclamation. Thank all of you. Thank you for your support. It has really been a wonderful 40th anniversary, and we appreciate all that you do. We appreciate everything that the county actually does for our entire community, and being downtown is a really special time for the Children's Museum. We have a lot of activities going on, and this celebration for our 40th anniversary really means a lot. So thank you for all you're doing, and we appreciate being recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next item is call to the public. So if you're here for call to the public, there are green speaker cards that you fill out. If you are here for one of the hearings, that is a different time to speak. There's a yellow card that you fill out. It looks like this. This is to address speak during one of the hearings, which would include the cell phone tower. Speakers have three minutes if we have under 20 people signed up to speak. It becomes two minutes if there are over 20 speakers. Today we have only five speakers, so each will get three minutes. And then I will read the rules for call to the public. People attending the meeting shall observe rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the board may be removed by the sergeant at arms if directed by the chair. Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, whistling, yells, and similar demonstrations shall not be permitted by the chair who may direct offenders from the hearing room. So with that being said, our first speaker is Trista DiGenova, and she is joining us telephonically. Let's see. Are you there, Trista?

I got a board.

Gotcha.

And hi there, Pumichan voters. My name is Jessica Chomp, I'm from Geneva, and I grew up here in Tucson and spent about 20 years living and studying and how other countries do things in social welfare, policy, public health, and so on. And together with my 20 years experience as an award-winning teacher and multimedia journalist, I'm better educated and qualified than all of these people on the board put together. With two masters, one from Oxford University and Taipei Medical University, and an undergraduate with honors from UC Berkeley in political science. Before that, I was student body president of San Diego City College for my associate's degree. And I'm asking you all to write me in as an independent writing candidate for District 5, Kimme County Board of Supervisors, Adelita Grijalva's old seat. And I'm asking you to write me in instead of on this panel because guess what? We have done nothing for us. In fact, remember when he won his race for representative? Yeah, he quit because he got accepted to Harvard University, which shows how serious he is about representing us. Plus, you've ignored my now 20 times demanding this board's intervention and independent investigation in my case, where I and my family and my four animals were raided on the three years ago now by upwards of 60 armed officers and pack animal officers, all paid for with your taxpayer dollars. That's an abuse of power. And this board don't care. I basically survived the 60-man Gestapo raid, but my poor animals didn't. And this is truly a miracle. I survived that experience and live to tell you all about these three favorite county agencies in particular that need to be shut down and reformed. No justice, no peace. I will speak at every meeting, and I will not stop fighting for justice for all of us until all my animals are returned, mannishes removed, and ICE concentrates the camps and state offenses that shut down the key mechanics. So, you know, if you want to see who has been dragging through the course of my life, my life, my life, my life, my life, my life, my life, my life, my life, my life. The district has picked up the time to start talking about these criminals with badges, trumping up ridiculous channels, and ignoring the fact that detectives from the Sheriff's Department are going to display the charges on pass. Saturday, they have softly arrested and sent me to jail in one of the worst in the country. Unfortunately, and that's not true. The documentaries I have made, I have made exposing them to all of them. You just had every single thing I have to handle. And my animals have returned. Thank you. That is time.

Our next four speakers are here in person, and they are in this order. And then I'll also invite folks to come up to that front row, which is where the seats are reserved, so that we can kind of move quickly through them. The first speaker will be Tim, I'm probably gonna mispronounce the last name, Lowe? Locks. Goldilocks, all right. Following Mr. Locks, Goldilocks, will be Douglas Levy, followed by J.D. Wallace, and then J.P. Salvatierra.

Hello, my name is Tim Locks. I'm a VA rated disabled veteran that requires frequent restroom breaks due to my disability. I was an observer at the Pascua Yaqui Reservation for early voting. I served there a total of seven days. On my first day, I asked the captain if she knew where the restrooms were. Her response was no. On several occasions, I observed the poll workers using a key and exiting the rear of the building and rapidly figured out that the county recorder wants to throw us back into the 1960s segregation day. Colored restrooms and drinking fountains, white restrooms and drinking fountains. I was told the restrooms at the back of the building were for employees only, yet there was no employees only sign on the door. The first day I tried using the administration building, which was about 350 feet from the vote center. I went there four times, two times it was locked, two times it was occupied. The other two, okay, they forced me to walk to the casino, which is over a thousand feet from the vote center. This routine continued the entire time I was an observer. How stupid and how ridiculous. So I was discriminated against by an activist recorder whose fairness policies only exist for Democrats, apparently. It is very likely she also violated the American Disabilities Act. I should not have to tell anybody about my disability. It's simply no one's business. What's sad is that like all other veterans, I put my life on the line so that this morally bankrupt, and it's my opinion, morally bankrupt county recorder can act like a two-year-old child because she lost a court case which required her to put observers at early vote locations. The word reasonableness doesn't seem to be in the cards here. What also concerns me is the use of county employees to do the bidding of the county recorder. The ridiculous rules set forth right here. are completely opposite of what poll workers were allowed to do. I think an investigation is in order, but of course we know it won't ever happen. Democrats don't investigate or prosecute other Democrats, right? Look at A.G. Mays and K.K. Katie Hobbs with her pay-to-play scheme. The BOS also violated 16581 by not ensuring that all vote locations had access to facilities. This one's on you. Also, you're in violation of 16571, which requires the board of supervisors to approve the election boards. This isn't for elections department only. It also includes a county recorder, and she's never, ever once provided a list of the election workers. That violates the law. Have a nice day.

Thank you, sir.

I got to go to the restroom.

Our next speaker is Douglas Levy.

And thank you. Unfortunately, I think my comments may be a little bit more than three minutes, but you cut me off, you cut me off. Chair Allen and members of the board, my name is Douglas Levy, and I'm a resident of Pima County, a longtime member of this community, and a professional with an office in the heart of downtown Tucson. I have worked in politics, supporting Democratic candidates and causes. throughout Arizona since 1995. I understand how government and political organizations operate and I understand why public trust matters and I'm speaking about agenda item 26. I am speaking today because of the pattern of relationships surrounding the Southern Arizona Education Council and because of how this contract renewal is being perceived by voters and residents in our community. Let's start with the compensation. Roque Perez is paid $91,770 per year, a figure his contract ties to 95% of a Pima County supervisor's salary. That is an unusual arrangement. His compensation is not tied to specific educational credentials, measurable outcomes, or demonstrated program performance. It is tied to the compensation of an elected official. At the same time, Mr. Perez is asking the governments that fund SAEC to rewrite the organization's founding resolution so that his own position is reclassified and removed from the level of public voting member scrutiny it currently carries. That raises an obvious question. Why should the public be asked to change the rules governing the position of the person whose organization is receiving its tax dollars? And then there is the political overlap. Mayor Romero endorsed Mr. Perez's state Senate campaign. So did every member of the Tucson City Council except Paul Cunningham. These are not distant political connections. The city of Tucson helps fund SAEC. The mayor is directly connected to the organization's governance and Mayor Romero personally swore Mr. Perez. into the council seat he later used as a springboard into his state senate campaign. I am not suggesting that an endorsement by itself is improper. Politicians endorse candidates all the time. But when the same political network intersects with an organization receiving public money, the person running that organization and the government bodies being asked to approve its funding and change its governance the public has a legitimate right to ask questions that should raise questions for the saec board and for this board i'm going to skip a bit My focus is about whether taxpayers can look at this arrangement and believe that decisions are being made because they serve the mission and the public interest, not because they benefit a particular individual or political network. I urge this board to pause the renewal and require a full accounting of the compensation arrangement. Almost done. I'll be 30 seconds.

That is time. Thank you. I was going to say yes, please do. And that goes to everybody. If you're not able to complete your comments, you can send them in over email. Our next speaker is JD Wallace.

Hello, Chair Allen and Pima County Supervisors. I'm J.D. Wallace, a Tucson and Pima County resident, speaking on behalf of Tucson Electric Power at 88 East Broadway downtown with an update on how TEP continues to work to remain a trusted energy provider. During the hottest days so far this summer, energy demand has yet to top last year's record of 2,502 megawatts. That was set on August 6th of 2025 when the temperature was 111 degrees. That was also during a weekday. We've seen customers' energy demand this summer reach above 2,430 megawatts. And since last summer, as I've mentioned before, we have far more battery storage and solar to satisfy customer energy needs. Just today, we held a ribbon cutting for our Roadrunner Reserve battery expansion that added 200 megawatts to that facility, doubling its size. And that expansion alone, excuse me, that, excuse me, the expanded facility can power 84,000 homes for four hours. And we also have incentivized customers to help reduce demand during high peak times. Our smart rewards program provides a one-time enrollment incentive and a yearly incentive to customers who allow us to remotely make small temporary adjustments to their smart thermostats on high demand days. We alert them of an upcoming event. The event may be paired with a pre-cooling of their home up to three degrees and then adjusting the thermostat up to four degrees from the original setting during those times of high demand. customers always maintain control of their device if the temperature is too uncomfortable they can opt out of the event smart rewards participation is saving energy by tens of megawatts during these peak period events from june through september and there can be up to twenty events per season We really want to emphasize help for your constituents who are struggling to pay their utility bills. Power AZ assistance administered through the Department of Economic Security remains available for qualifying households, but it is scheduled to end on September 30, 2026 unless funds are depleted sooner. And with summer energy bills placing pressure on many families, there are only a few weeks left to encourage constituents to explore their eligibility and apply. We continue to support education through donations from our corporate resources, not our customer rates, and through employees' volunteerism. Earlier this year, TEP donated $50,000 to Tucson Values Teachers to fund Lumia, an online support platform for teachers. We've also volunteered in the classroom earlier this year with Junior Achievement. We've donated $10,000 each to seven education foundations across the county to support classroom mini grants for teachers and are also ready to support PEEPS, Pima Early Education Program Scholarships. And we appreciate the continuing conversation that you've had regarding this. As always, constituents seeking assistance with their bills are encouraged to contact our customer service. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is JP Salvatierra.

Chair Allen, Supervisors, Administrator Lesher, JP Salvatierra. I'm not retained as a speaker like the previous comments made by TEP. I overviewed the study session today and your prosperity initiative is very meaningful and direct in its implications. I would like to see that public and community enhancement are a synergistic effect that benefits all. Everyone rises together. Thanks for no City Council live meeting scheduling overlap. This is a continuing effort to maintain citizen live input at all gatherings within our community. Prosperity means efficiency in resource development and mutual synergistic planning. Recycling local and new business development outweighs serving decades of TEP Fortis usurious shareholder foreign proxy revenue enrichment at Tucson and Pima County's loss of recirculating capital. I recommend a decisive no vote on future special election props 421 and 422. We need to focus on creative profit enrichment locally that recycles in our community instead of extending credit by increased sales tax hikes. We have many important things going on that require us to make many changes. The props are both untimely and long-term fixed obligations. Both Prop 421 is solely for foreign proxy shareholder abusive usury benefit. We must... support an immediate council adoption proposition to urgently and totally replace TEP Fortis with an interdependent state and mutual public statewide commonwealth utility cooperative network. abolish secret non-disclosure agreement guidelines you paid 6.2 million dollars to the tucson chamber of commerce when that money could be more adequately spent in staffing more contract litigation for the city thank you and then we had one additional speaker card come in and that is for candy levin

Hi, thank you. Randy Levin.

Sorry about that.

Chair Allen and members of the board, my name is Randi Levin and I am a resident of Pima County and I am also a board member at the Catalina Foothills School District Foundation. Through my work with the foundation, I see firsthand how hard our community works to provide supplemental support for teachers and students. We raise private funds because public education and our educators need more support, not less. Teachers are doing more with fewer resources, and families and community members are constantly being asked to step up to help fill the gaps. That's why I'm deeply concerned about how the county is being asked to spend taxpayer dollars on the renewal of the contract for the SAEC, which is item number 26. Look at the numbers side by side. This organization's own decade of tax filings shows that its two prior executive directors were paid between $36,000 and $70,000 a year, including years when the organization's revenue was significantly higher than it is now. The current CEO makes $91,000, more than double the historical rate paid to its previous leaders in a year when revenue has fallen and the organization has not even done what it was expected to do from last year. And despite what the CEO gave himself a raise and is asking for our dollars to be sent his way again with no accountability. I know none of the teachers I work so hard to support would even have the luxury of doing this. As someone who works to raise supplemental dollars for our public schools, I find that especially difficult to reconcile. We ask our community to contribute because every dollar matters. We ask teachers to stretch limited resources. We ask families and taxpayers to trust that public money is being used responsibly. The same standard should apply here. I also want the board to consider SAEC's own reporting. Its quarterly report described a peer coach program The new memo says that partnership has ended, but provides no explanation to the county about why. When an organization's reporting raises questions, when a promise program does not occur, and when compensation has increased dramatically compared with historical precedent, the appropriate response should be closer scrutiny, not automatic renewal. I am not here to argue that students and educators do not deserve investment. Quite the opposite. I believe they deserve more. But when we are working so hard through our schools and our community to find additional resources for teachers and students, I cannot understand why the county would approve a six-figure contract without first demanding clear accountability for what was delivered. Before this renewal is approved, I urge the board to freeze it and require SAEC to provide a complete accounting line by line, what students in Pima County actually received for the $122,000, what programs were delivered, what was not delivered, and why the current CEO is being paid substantially more than previous times. Thank you. Thank you.

So with that, I am closing call to the public. Would any of the board members like to do any of the following? Request staff to follow up on any matter from call to the public, request that an item be placed on a future agenda, or respond to a criticism? Hearing none, we will move on. Let's see. We are going to move up. I believe that we have a number of people that are here today for agenda item number 15, which is the hearing for the appeal of the hearing administrator's decision regarding P26C00002. So we will bump up to that agenda item now. To sort of set the... To set the context, I would like to invite Deputy Director of Development Services, Tom Draskowski.

Tom Draskowski Chair Allen, board members, before you was an appeal from a property owner in the affected area of the cell tower that was approved by the hearing administrator through the type one conditional use permit process. So in the lead up to today's hearing, The hearing administrator held a notice hearing, solicited feedback from the applicant and affected property owners. The hearing was held. The hearing administrator took the case into consideration, ultimately recommended approval or approved the request for a 150-foot tower in the CB1 zone. Since then, within the 30-day appeal period, we received a written appeal from an affected property owner within the notice and the cases before you today. I can answer any specific questions we have now or after any public testimony or however I can be of assistance.

Do any of my colleagues have initial questions before I open up the public hearing for comments? Yes. Supervisor Scott.

Yeah, I um I would I would appreciate and it doesn't have to happen now. Uh but when you look at the appeal, there are some specific specific claims made by the folks filing the appeal that I would like staff to address. And I don't need to read them out loud. Mr. Druskowski, you can see them, but they speak to what the appellants see as requirements of our code that they don't feel that the hearing officer addressed. So it would be helpful, Chair Allen, at a time that you deem appropriate to have staff address those claims by the appellants.

Okay. How about we open up the hearing, hear from those who have signed up to speak, and then, which I think that those questions are going to resurface again, but those questions as well as other questions that you might be able to answer could be addressed afterwards. So with that, I believe we do have a number of people. I'm going to open up the public hearing. We have a number of people who are signed up to speak. I have nine speaker cards so far. I'm going to call out the first three, and I'll call out your names in clusters of three so that the second and third can be ready to speak quickly shortly thereafter. Our first speaker is Charles Murdoch, followed by Lori Witts. And Carol Gorsuch are our first three speakers. And a preemptory apologies for any mispronunciations of names. And I do hope you will correct me when you get up to speak. Please, go ahead. And you have three minutes, each of you.

Thank you, Chair Ellen, Supervisors of the Board. You did get my name correct, thank you. I'm Charles Murdock, I'm speaking on behalf of the residents in Diamond Bell Ranch that filed the appeal. 17 years ago, my wife and I were looking to make Southern Arizona our home. We weren't just looking for a house, we were looking for the right community. After an extensive search, Diamond Bell Ranch was our choice. As with so many important decisions, we compared alternatives and picked one that stood above the rest. Since making our decision, we've appreciated the county's efforts, including those of Supervisor Allen, to help preserve the rural character that drew us to Diamond Bell Ranch. Diamond Bell Ranch didn't just happen. It reflects thoughtful planning from the very beginning. The Pima County Code reflects those same thoughtful principles governing communications towers. We all share the same goal, preserving what makes Diamond Bell Ranch a unique rural community while accommodating appropriate growth. This appeal isn't about whether additional wireless service is needed, nor do we oppose communication towers as a matter of principle. We're asking a simple question. Does the administrative record demonstrate the decision-making process required by the Pima County Code? The record demonstrates a need for additional wireless coverage, but the code requires more than demonstrating a need. It requires the applicant to identify and discuss prospective tower sites and co-location opportunities, to evaluate the pros and cons of each, and perhaps most importantly, to explain why the alternatives considered were not feasible. As we reviewed the record, we kept coming back to one question. Why this site in the middle of a CR1 subdivision? Does the administrative record answer that question? We found a statement that alternative sites and co-location opportunities were evaluated. What we couldn't determine from the administrative record was which sites were evaluated, how they were compared, or why each was determined not to be feasible as the code requires. County staff raised similar questions in its review. They recommended that the hearing administrator consider alternative tower configurations because 150 feet exceeds what is typically approved in rural residential neighborhoods. We could not determine from the record how those questions were resolved before the permit was approved. Our request is straightforward. Before affirming this permit, determine whether the administrative record demonstrates the ordinance required process and was completed and documented before this location was approved. If it does answer those questions, it should be easy to identify where it answers them. If it does not, we respectfully ask that you grant this appeal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lori Witts.

Good evening, Board of Supervisors, friends and neighbors of the Diamond Bell Ranch. Thank you for coming. A 150 foot plus cell phone tower in the middle of a scenic rural neighborhood. It just doesn't make sense at all. My name is Lori Witts. My husband Roy and I moved here almost 12 years ago from Minnesota looking for horse property in the desert with beautiful mountain views. After years of searching, we finally found our home. At one time, it was a working ranch. Then it was a community center for the Diamond Bell Ranch. After that, a fourth-generation cattle rancher and his wife purchased it. I'll never forget when the ranchers said, Roy and Lori, just look out this kitchen window. It's the million-dollar view. You can see the Babakivri Mountains with Kitt Peak Observatory right on top. And right then and there, we knew this was the place. Our ranch is on one of the highest elevations in our neighborhood. And although we are located more than 300 feet of the proposed cell tower, it most definitely will be within our view. Our sunsets will be forever changed. In November of 2021, a movie set staged at our house starring Vicki Kripes filming the movie called The Wall. They were here for over a week shooting scenes right down Diamond Bell Ranch Road in the desert setting with unobstructed views. That's why they chose that place. The location director stated, your ranch in this area, this road truly has the most beautiful 360 degree views. And on another note, we carry visible phone service, which apparently pings off of Verizon with unlimited data, which I use in a hotspot with no internet. I've taken online classes and have never had any issues. We ask you to please vote yes to our appeal and no to the cell phone tower. We do not want it here. We purchased our property for the beautiful views and pay taxes for it to remain that way. Please understand how very important this is to us and our friends and neighbors. The Diamond Bell Ranch is truly a diamond in the rough, and we want to keep it that way. Please, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Carol Gorsuch. And then after Ms. Gorsuch, it will be Sean Lakeman, followed by Joseph V. It's a little blurry after that. And then it'll be Georgette Strominger.

Thank you, please. Madam Chair Allen and members of the board, I am Carol Ann Gorsuch, and I live at 16565 West Cinnabar Avenue in Diamond Bell Ranch Estates. My husband Gary and I have been residents in Diamond Bell for 45 years now. In 1981, we bought a home at 16062 West Aubrey Avenue. We were in a prime working years at that time, making the long commute to Metro Tucson for our jobs. By 2005, we were retirees. We sold that home and opted to build a new home within Diamond Bell Ranch, located at our current address. Every initial home buyer in Diamond Bell probably assesses the lifestyle trade-offs that will be required to live in this magnificent Southwestern community. We certainly did. Among those are long commutes to jobs, increasing our gas costs, distant access to grocery stores, health services and amenities such as theaters, movies, and restaurants. For parents, it may be getting their children in to after-school activities. While the heat and dryness of our community are part of its charm, our region is vulnerable to drought and extreme heat. During the monsoon season, our washes run so deep and so fast sometimes that we cannot always get out for our jobs or our appointments. So why do some of us decide to purchase a home in Diamond Mill Ranch Estates anyway? Our desire to live here fosters a strong connection to the land and a sense of self-reliance. We value our privacy and independence as well as the open spaces we breathe freely. The pristine natural beauty of our region is breathtaking. Our clear skies to view Kitt Peak are simply stargaze from our back patios. Our majestic sunrises and sunsets are amazing. and the many opportunities to explore the cultural activities such as hiking walking biking hunting and riding to get us into the desert and into the mountains are unparalleled for many of us and many others the main entrance to our subdivision is larkdale street not Stagecoach Road. Although we both have 5G cell phones, we believe that placing a modern, high-tech tower at this first entrance to our community off of US Highway 286 diminishes that sense of place and community, which is shaped by the wind, the sun, and represents the roots of our souls so firmly planted here. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Shawn Lakeman.

Good evening, Board of Supervisors. My name is Shawn Lakeman. I'm a resident of Diamond Bell Ranch subdivision. I request a permit be denied for the following reasons. The Diamond Bell Ranch subdivision was established in the 70s. There are currently only around 240 site-built homes and no businesses. In response to the public comments, the permitting authority stated that putting a 150-foot cell tower within the business hub of Dimebell Ranch is appropriate, a truth that will become apparent as businesses establish within the hub. It also stated that some realistic think that the rural environment they enjoy will remain unchanged over time as community technologies evolve and their rural area grows. I was surprised the permitting authority is suggesting that 150-foot monstrosity near the entrance to the subdivision will inspire growth in population and businesses. There is no business hub in 50 years of history says otherwise to such growth expectations. I'm sorry, but as a homeowner, I would not buy a home where the rural desert sight lines and scenic views entering the subdivision are altered by 150-foot monstrosity. Would you? The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development often views cell towers as a nuisance in relation to securing loans. There has actually been several professional studies done to indicate that proximity to a cell tower causes home values to drop by 2% to 20%, largely driven by the visual harm a cell tower causes. These studies... the 2019 Savannah Study, the University of South Alabama and Kentucky Studies, and the National Association of Realtors Study. I understand the Permian Authority is required to regulate based on several factors, one which is visual impact. How the tower impacts the scenic character of the area. The subdivision is a rural, low-density desert subdivision, and its structure of that height will permanently alter the landscape as it will be visible from miles away. It also violates the area's clean line and underground utilities, causing visual harm and intrusion on the rural character of the area. I wasn't at the public hearing and I'm not sure if the applicant package included alternate locations or even if they were considered or if they addressed using current infrastructure or a smaller tower. I have a Verizon cell phone as my provider and I've driven out into the desert on my ATV and I've never had I've always had sale coverage, so I'm not sure if a gap argument is even sufficient. The only logic explanation for an applicant choosing the current location is purely for financial savings on paving and utilities rather than absolute engineering necessity, violating the principle of least intrusive placement. On a closing note, we are not located in the developed area where lots are scarce and finding a location for a tower is limited. Quite the contrary, there are hundreds...

That's time. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joseph Phoebus. Okay.

Thank you very much members of the board and Secretary Allen for hearing our concerns this evening. My name is Joseph Phoebus and my partner Jaime Trujillo here tonight to voice our opposition to the approved permit for the 150-foot Rocky Mountain cell tower in Diamond Bell Ranch. We recently purchased a lot there and will soon build our permanent home. We were drawn to Diamond Bell by its mountain views, pristine Sonoran desert landscapes, and abundant wildlife. The community buried its lines and adopted CR1 zoning specifically so homes would blend in the desert rather than dominate it. We spent much of our working lives saving for a home in this setting and we're devastated that a tower this scale will be placed in the middle of it, affecting not just us but neighbors who choose this community for the same reasons. Diamond Bell Ranch has just over 600 residents and roughly 300 homes, and growth has been very slow in the past 25 years. We've never experienced coverage problems there. Several carriers already serve the area. Starlink is available now, and Trico has announced fiber coming to the community in the next year. Given all that, we question why a tower this large is needed now and whether the population and lack of alternatives actually justify it. We asked the board to inquire as to whether any study was done when the market demand behind this tower weighed against its cost and impact. We also asked the board to press the applicant in Verizon on whether other factors are driving this request, supporting buildup of border security operations in the south or positioning for future data center build out in the area. The Hearing Administrator's Report includes no discussion of alternative siting, height, or design options, and no demand data. We're not technical experts, and we believe less impactful alternatives likely exist. If they don't, our community deserves a clear explanation of why this proposal was determined to be the best, least intrusive option available. We respectfully ask the board to put the brakes on this proposal until more study is done. when the actual demand driving it, and alternatives could serve both the carrier residents and taxpayers of Diamond Bell Ranch. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Georgette Strominger. And then following will be Lindsay Chastain, Mark Mett. And then our final speaker is Dan Meinke.

Please. My name is Georgette Strominger. My husband, Ed, and I live at Diamond Bell Ranch. We've lived out there since 1979. Our house was built in early 1980. We originally chose to live out there because my parents lived there, and we felt it was a good place to raise our children, which at the time we had two, and the school system was good, and we were just happy with the housing and that. We enjoyed the views of the mountains, particularly Kitt Peak. Additionally, as I mentioned, we had relatives live by. They're now deceased, but at least they were there. Although our children were not yet enrolled in school, the district had positive features In 1980, Diamond Bell Ranch area wasn't very developed as it is now, which still isn't overly developed as some of the areas in town. There's no traffic lights, and even though it is... 30 miles from town it doesn't seem that far when you're driving it every day back and forth both my husband and i are now retired and adding changes to our house to make it more comfortable both indoors and out our house happens to be one of the two of the three lots that is right behind where the tower is going to go um somebody made us a picture and imposed the tower and it's really atrocious just to look out your back window and see this 150 foot thing there. Um, the, um, Yeah, I mentioned, okay. Anyways, people that I've spoken to out there all kind of agree with, there's all these different places you could put a tower. Why is it right in that area? And yes, I know it's developed for commercial property, but people are building houses, right? Like four blocks down from it. And do they want, do they know when they started building their house that this tower was going to be there? And there's a lot of areas out there that are tall enough, high enough to suit what this tower would do. So I'm just asking that the board takes this into consideration and votes to maybe have them look for additional properties to build it on. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next speaker is Lindsay Chastain.

Hi there. My name is Lindsay Chastain and I live approximately 300 feet from the approved Verizon cell tower site. It's actually my home that's probably the closest to the site. I'm here today in support of the appeal and respectfully asked that this approval of this project be reconsidered. I don't normally speak at public meetings. In fact, public speaking genuinely terrifies me the only reason why i'm standing here today is because this matters so much to me my family and my community um because this isn't just a parcel on a map to us this is our home i understand that reliable cell service is important i'm not against technology but i believe there has to be a better solution than placing 150 foot industrial structure only 300 feet from a rural family's home When my husband and I chose this property, we chose it intentionally. We chose the open desert, the sunset, the quiet, the wildlife, and the feeling that when we stepped outside, we were surrounded by Arizona instead of development. When we moved into the desert, we understood that we were the newcomers. This land was home to wildlife long before it became ours. We made a promise to be good stewards, to respect the wildlife, to preserve the desert around us, and to share the space rather than reshape it. Our home has become a safe haven for animals we've adopted, but it's also become a safe haven for our family. This is where my son learns. The traditional world has not always made space for him to learn in a way that he needs to. Here, surrounded by the quiet of the desert, we've created a place where he feels safe, where he can explore, ask questions, and connect with the world around him. And our classroom doesn't end at our front door. It extends into the desert. We learned from the birds that nest here, the quail in our yard, the jackrabbits, the hawks, and the changing seasons. Every evening, I watch the sunset over Kitt Peak, the sky stretches around us, and the silence is something you can actually hear. Peace isn't an amenity for our family, it's how we live, it's how we learn, and how we heal. If this project moves forward, something about that changes permanently. This appeal isn't about whether Cell Tower should exist. It's about whether 150-foot industrial structure belongs approximately 300 feet from a family's home in a rural community like ours. I know that it's seen as a property, as a location on a coverage map. It's probably just seen as an application, but to us it is our home. It's where we've built our lives. It's where our son has grown. It's where we rescue our animals. And we've tried to honor the desert instead of asking it to change for us. I'm not asking you to protect my view or my property value. I'm just asking you to protect the life we've built here. Today, I respectfully ask you to grant this appeal and reverse the approval of this tower at its current location. Thank you for hearing me.

Next speaker is Mark Meck.

Greetings. I'm Mark Meck, I live on 14150 West Goldwater Road, Diamondville Ranch. I specifically built in Diamondville Ranch on CR1 land because it would be free from above ground utilities and it would not allow manufactured homes or trailers. Now I find myself living with 60 trailer camps in my immediate neighborhood, multiple utility projects changing the entire nature of the community and it's like we're under assault. There's a reasonable expectation of CR1 for the immediate area. A plan to build one of the tallest towers in the region right on the edge of our development doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation. It's not your typical large tower of 30 to 60 feet, but 150 foot monstrosity that will require a bright flashing lighting day and night for safety of general aviation. There are also miles of planned above-ground power transmission lines and a 5,800-acre solar farm that are threatening us and have apparently been negotiated without any notification to the residents of the area. Do you see a pattern? We had to complain after the plans were made, and I realize we're probably barking at the moon. Listening to us is a formality. Excuse the cynicism. It's not my first rodeo. The CR1 code states, Pima County building code regarding underground utilities. The code that mandates underground utilities in CR1 single resident zone of Pima County is section 18.78.030 development standards. Specifically, the substation states utilities shall be underground utility plans shall be coordinated and consistent with the development and landscape plans this requirement applies to the development within the county including area zone cr1 most other cr1 has fake cactus cell towers fake trees they're usually within the 35 foot building limit based on pima county code specifically that code mentioned earlier scenic route waivers for properties located on designated scenic routes a waiver may be granted to allow utility poles in the right of way under section 11-1A03-C. Zoning inspector may permit this if the proposed pole is within 20 feet of existing utility poles, streetlights, or similar structures, and is no higher than a nearby structure. Historically, self-owned routes have followed highways, and small towers on Saseby Highway would serve the immediate area and allow future linear procession down the highway should development require it. A quick query stated that cell phone tires are strategically located along highways for the most part. I'm not opposed to progress. It doesn't have to come at the expense of the wonderful views that make this area desirable. These encroachments will lower property values, probably trigger ongoing class action suits, and ruin the quality of life which brought us here in the first place. So consider these plans and look at the alternatives. There are a lot of alternatives. Thank you.

And our last speaker is Dan Meinke.

Good job. Thank you. Not many people get it correct. Good evening, board. Everything that we're saying out here at Diamond Bell, I agree with. This monstrosity should not be built in a CR1 neighborhood. I see you got to change the CB1, but still, we don't need that tower out here. Now, the last time we had a problem out at Diamond Bell Ranch, was the issue with the squatters. And one of the board of supervisors came out. I don't know which one of you came out, but they also brought the head of zoning came out. And we discussed that in the fire department out there, the new fire stations. What I can't figure out is why we couldn't have this meeting. You've invaded our property or you're going to allow this tower. It's an invasion on our property. Why couldn't you come out to our community center out there, one of the board of supervisors and some of the people that are building this monstrosity and come out, you know, out of courtesy, say we'll come out to the community center and explain. We'll talk it out there instead of dragging 50 people out. 30 miles to come out here. We're only two or three of you. We got parking out there, too, and it's free. So I really figured this was really inconsiderate that you didn't come out. You invade our property. You ignore the courtesy of coming out and explaining to us out there. And like I said, look how many people came. It's going to be night. We're going to be driving in the dark. I don't know why couldn't you come out and do it out there? and the community center. I used to work facilities management. I used to work in facilities management construction department. And I oversaw the construction of this board of supervisors. I'm the one that saw this thing get constructed and made sure it was built correctly. I also built the community center out there. So I just can't figure out why you dragged us all downtown here. And we got a beautiful community center out there where you could have held this meeting. And I noticed that the supervisors do move because they did come out when we were fighting the squatter issue. So I'm really kind of disappointed in all of this. You take care.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Any anyone else who wishes to speak it's not yet signed up. Okay. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Then I think I will direct it back to deputy director development services deputy director Tom just asking. PB, Lupita D Montoya, If there are points that you want to address questions that you want to answer.

Chair Allen, board members. To focus on Supervisor Scott's question, the basis of the appeal, multi-pronged approach, I would say. One of the main comments are the lack of consideration of other sites. That was brought up throughout the process. This is a challenging area out there with limited non-state trust land in the vicinity. So putting a tower in this area can become problematic. In regards to some of the other complaints, adverse visual impacts on the scenic vistas, views of Kitt Peak, Alter Valley, and even Mount Lemmon came up. The undergrounding of utilities was another challenging comment that was made. In addition, the reduction of property values. And then one of the other things that was repeatedly mentioned in the written record was the impact on the access to the subdivision. Diamond Bell Ranch generally has two paved accesses from what I can observe. One of them is on this street right here. Those are the comments going through the complete written record. Those were the items that were the basis of the appeal that I could determine from the comprehensive list of public comments that were submitted.

Chair Allen.

Thank you. Supervisor Scott.

I wanted to direct your attention, Mr. Druskowski, to page 12 of the appeal, where it says, appellants respectfully request the board determine whether the administrative record determines compliance with the applicable requirements of Pima County Code Section 18.07 .030, including the alternative site analysis required by Section 18.07.030 H3 F before affirming approval of the proposed facility. Did your prior comments address that?

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, given the uniqueness of this area and the limited other sites, the applicant focused, I believe, on the business zone. I believe they're here, and you may address comments directly to them. I believe they're here. In regards to... They're submitted material. They did provide the coverage maps. They did provide the gaps in coverage that exists. 1 of the challenges that staff goes through the hearing administrator planning and zoning commission, and ultimately the board of supervisors in the decisions is. Are higher height towers that are less, less of them, is that better or are shorter towers the better solution to fill gaps in coverage? Towers in the 50-foot range that one of the speakers talked about today are more easily camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree, a pine tree. Forty-foot towers can be created as cactus. We have examples in the model where water towers are used. There's one of those at old Tucson studios. And so based on the height of the tower, there are camouflage options that help integrate these towers better into the community. 150 foot tower is tall. When you look at the coverage maps, you can see that it covers a large area. But whether or not shorter towers are more appropriate is one of the challenges that staff works through every time we have one of these towers come to our office.

Chair Allen, if I could follow up, but just it almost seems to me like you're saying Mr. Jaskowski that the code as it's written, and is has been interpreted correctly by the appellants, but is difficult to fully apply in this situation.

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, each cell tower case is unique and sets a different set of parameters. In this case, some of the most pressing issues from my analysis and I think our team's analysis in looking over the appeal is the views of the vistas. Kitt Peak is in the immediate area. There was even comments about Mount Lemmon, which is probably 70 miles from there. So some of the material submitted, which talks about views and vistas, is unique to this area. That's contained in the written record. In other areas, it could be higher density homes and adverse impacts on immediate neighbors. So each cell tower presents its own set of challenges and hurdles that we try to work through as we, you know, meander through our code process and ultimately state and federal laws.

And then... Earlier on in the appeal on page seven, the appellants note staff identifying unresolved questions regarding those alternative heights and configurations. Were those concerns that you had with the hearing officer's decision and the hearing officer's interpretation of the code?

chair allen uh supervisor scott um i marked that section also in regards to the reference that's referencing our staff report which would have occurred prior to the public hearing in front of the hearing administrator where things like this could have been discussed and lit you know not litigated but discussed um and then ultimately the hearing administrator determined subject to what his opinion was whether or not it was answered to the best of his ability

and and i would um yeah i'll leave it at that thank you chair ellen so we had two additional speakers sign up uh so that is shelly neil nice sorry lcs um and then steve kennedy so um who's neil nice sorry

My name is Shelly Nice, and I reside in Reno, Nevada, and I am the president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Towers. I've been in the telecommunications industry for 32 years, siting telecommunications facilities.

Can I ask you to pull the mic a little bit more towards you? Yes, no problem.

Thank you. I want to thank you for your time this evening, by the way, supervisors. There are very few cases in over 1,000 where I've conducted a zoning hearing where someone didn't want it in their backyard. So this is very commonplace, and I respect the views and feelings of the public. At the same time, you would have very few cell towers today. It's considered a vital part of infrastructure throughout the United States of America. Steve Kennedy is my RF engineer. He will speak more towards that. But with that being said, we just simply wouldn't have this infrastructure if we didn't have something called the 1996 Telecommunications Act. And the reason we have that act is to basically protect our ability to put up locate cell towers. A couple things I'd like to address. The tower will not be lit. It has passed FAA. There is no lighting here that is required. So I want to clarify that. In addition, when we go to site a cell tower, it's very difficult on us. We first have to look at your code. determine what meets your code to the letter of the law, because very rarely are we granted an appeal. And within that, that is first determined by an RF engineer within the wireless carrier, this case being Verizon Wireless. When we go to look at that, we're building a half million dollar facility. In addition, they will install upwards of another half million dollars on this facility. We don't randomly build these. We don't go out and spend a million dollars because we don't need a telecommunication site. We didn't just randomly decide we needed to go here. There was a lot of technical ability that went into this. In addition to that, we don't locate towers where we don't need them, and I'll let the engineer again speak towards that. Once we sent out notices to the residents looking for a facility that met your code, we quickly realized that there are hundreds and hundreds of lots here that have CC&Rs under them. So none of them would allow for us to locate a telecommunications facility on them. We also looked for existing structures. Anytime there's an existing structure within the area, we're going to locate on it. It only makes sense rather than spend the money. So we did a very comprehensive analysis. It took us quite some time to find a property, properties, and there were four carved out in the subdivision in the CB1 zone. And of those four properties, three of them were very difficult to contact. One we finally got a hold of, Manny Patia, who I might also note has his property rights in that CB1 zone. We contacted. That's time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next is Steve Kennedy.

um madam chair supervisors my name is stephen kennedy i'm a radio frequency engineering consultant i have 36 years experience designing wireless radio networks the reason for this site is coverage and capacity so it needs to be able to provide the ability for phones to make a call Some of the statements made where we have service, yes, you do have service, but the service is lacking as you move in the area. That's why the tower needs to be at the height it is to be able to see. You kind of look at it, why did God not put our eyes at our feet, put it on the top of our head? Because we have to be able to see what's going on around us. The closest Verizon site is 5.29 miles to the north, up around three points. I have data that's part of the package that shows what's going on with coverage in the area. The site is a definite need. There is a need for increased coverage. These phones, you don't just talk on these phones anymore. They do a whole lot more, and that requires capacity, bandwidth, and coverage to be able to do that. So as much as we're using these phones, it requires infrastructure to be able to provide those services. I also did analysis that showed in the package what is going on with the other wireless carriers, what AT&T is providing, as well as what T-Mobile is providing, and all three are lacking services in this area. Within the package as well were propagation maps showing coverage of what the current coverage is and what the future proposed coverage would be if the site was turned on. This is a needed site. I know the RF engineer. I've worked with him for 13 years. He's been working in this area of Arizona for 25. He knows this area very, very well. It's a needed site. It needs to be a taller site, regrettably, but it needs to be that height. When you're in downtown, my son's a student at U of A, and there are small cells surrounding that college campus because... They're small coverage areas. This has to be a larger coverage area. This site meets your code. This site is needed. This site will be to provide service for wireless users that use Verizon wireless networks. And I stand for questions if there are any.

Thank you. Supervisor Hines.

Thank you very much. Actually, if you, sir, could stay for a minute. So could you go over that one more time? So the 150 foot tower is required, but like could not be accomplished by like a 40 or 50 foot or like two, maybe 40 or 50 foot towers.

So, yeah, when you look at the coverage area of a site, the more rural we get, the taller the sites are because they have to cover a larger area. As you get in towards Tucson, let's say around the college, you've got a bunch of 25-footers all over the place because there's so much density there. Because there's not as dense and we need to provide service in a rural area and a highway, we have to do it with a taller tower. So a 40-foot site is not going to provide the level of service. So it's the same reason where I gave the analogy, God put our eyes not on the top of our feet, but near the top of our head. We have to be able to see. The antennas work on the same theory, the same principle. The antennas have to be able to see the frequencies. They have to be high enough above to be able to provide that service. And since the sites are so far apart from each other, there's one page in the package that shows you where all the neighbors are. The closest one being 5.3 miles away, that's a significant distance. So it takes a taller tower to be able to provide that additional service.

And if I may, Chair Allen, and if Ms. Neese, could you come back for a second? Thank you. I was just curious to hear my question. My first question was actually, were other sites in the area meaningfully explored by you? And you were about to start talking about that when your time cut off. So I would like you to continue what you were saying.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. So none of the existing lots in the subdivision are viable. to locate on because there are CC&Rs underneath them. So initially we were unaware of that. We sent letters out to the surrounding community. We received a number of interested parties who wanted the service on their property, wanted the cell site. Once we did our homework and we worked with the planning department, who was excellent by the way, we quickly realized that none of those are viable options. So there are no existing structures out here. There are no existing structures on which to co-locate. If there were, we would co-locate on them. And so with that being said, we had to find something that met your code. So it's very important to us that we meet the letter of the law when we stand before you, that we made every effort to meet your code. First is co-location, which is usually in every code. You must co-locate. And then secondarily is where can we go? And so we ended up here by a process of elimination because there were only four lots that were CB1 zoned. Somewhere way back when somebody had thought that you might have businesses in the subdivision one day or have a need to have those businesses, or have other uses and so these lots were carved out for that purpose and so that's why we ended up this was in the search area and we ended up specifically here because we had no other viable options to go to nor existing facilities okay thank you and i do have one question actually from mr duskowski as well that's okay chair um does the telecommunications act like i mean would

would not would granting this appeal create basically a legal cause of action for the county?

Chair Allen, Supervisor Hines. The Telecommunications Act provides parameters for allowing sites and what counties can or can't do. One of the things that didn't come up tonight was health effects, which is something that counties cannot consider. The counties do get to determine or have input on how gaps in coverages are filled. And when sites are not approved, ensuring that there is substantial documentation in the written record as to why the denial occurred is critical. Litigation can occur on any site, on anything. Cell towers, we have litigated them in the past. But generally, ensuring that we review the written record, understand the issues, and apply our code criteria, those are things that are important in approving or denying sites. And just using the written record, which we have hundreds of pages, both from the applicant and also from the affected neighbors.

Great. Thank you. That's all for me.

There is one more speaker, JP Salvatierra, who I will call up.

Chair Allen, Supervisors, Administrator Lesher, Over 70 years that I've lived in Tucson, I know that we're different than Phoenix. They do things there that we would never consider here. The sanctity of the open space, our desert areas, are continually being intruded upon First of all, by the Air National Guard. You have property out there in the Tucson Mountain area and beyond, and they fly patterns, the aircraft fly patterns. They have drones going out there with the Sheriff's Department. A lot of things going on, and it seems intrusive. Then we said, oh, we have astronomy activity at Kitt Peak, and we need low light. Well, those issues have been breached and broken. And now the inner city of Tucson can no longer sustain really good astronomic visual sighting. Then, remember when we used to have buses that weren't placarded with advertising and legal services? Up and down the road, up and down the road. Is this 150-foot tower going to kick the door down like TEP Fortis and their big, massive poles all around the Huckleberry Loop, destroying the scenic value of our area? I wanted it to look like Santa Fe. Beautiful. You know, attractive. And this community decided in advance to underground everything. So why are we creating this... I think it might be a challenge to Prop 207. You're creating a detrimental value to the properties in that immediate area and for the whole community. How could you do this? You want answers and you need to give these people the respect of their long-term visit and location sites and establish Tucson for what it is, a beautiful, unique community that isn't obstructed with nine million people and tons and tons of community projects that are zipping up like matchboxes. It's different. We are different. We have higher appreciation for the quiet space and the native indigenous community that maintained this for so many thousand years.

Thank you. That's time. Thank you.

Chair Allen. Supervisor Scott. Two questions for Mr. Jaskowski or one of them. Supervisor Hines you helped to prompt me to ask this question because several years ago we turned down an application for a similarly sized tower. It was also in District 3. It was before Supervisor Allen was on the board. It was when Supervisor Bronson was was on the board. And I recall that there was a discussion in this room about what the county needed to do to make sure that we were held harmless against any kind of litigation under the Telecommunications Act. And to my knowledge, we've never faced any litigation based on that decision. Can you summarize, I apologize, bringing up something that happened maybe three or four years ago, summarize what steps we took to assure that there was no risk of litigation?

And I'll add that we also turned down a cell tower in District 3 a couple months into me taking office in Pitcher Rocks.

Oh, thank you. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that.

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, yes, you are both correct. There have been two recent denials within the last five years, I would say, where the board did not approve communication infrastructure when it came to the board. In both of those cases, the board clearly articulated reasons why they were denying it that was fact-based, part of the written record, and contained information from our code, materials that were submitted, and things like that are in our purpose statement that identify what the purpose of the communication tower section is, you know, what it's meant to protect us. things like that in both of those cases the board provided specific direction in their motion as to why you know what they what the basis for the denial was um things like um You know, the current wireless coverage is adequate, substantial aesthetic adverse impacts to area homes. You know, in one of them, there was a broker from a real estate firm who actually analyzed home values or provided expert testimony. And then clearly one of them had to do with views that would block in one of them. It was Panther Ridge. I think that was the Massengill one from maybe a year and a half ago, just as Supervisor Allen was coming on. And so there was a lot of public testimony in the written record and then ultimately in the public hearing that centered around that. So those were a few of the items that the board considered and documented in their decision in those two denials over the last five years.

Thank you, Mr. Jaskowski. And Chair Allen, if I could continue. I'm looking at page two of three in the public hearing memorandum from the hearing administrator. And under background information, it says, The reports in the application materials did not state if a lower height tower or several shorter towers compared to the proposed would be viable options for filling the gap in cellular coverage. the way I'm reading the the appeal, that would have been required under our code. But it's even if it's not necessarily required under the code, although the way I'm reading the appeal, the appellant, the appellant certainly think it was, you'd think that the reports would address that.

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, as I mentioned, each case is unique and has a different set of parameters. I think one of the critical issues on this tower is the 150 foot height given the scenic views, views of Kitt Peak, views of Alter Valley that exist. So a site here, which has more of a rural character with views as far as the eye could see, a hundred and fifty foot tower could more adversely impact than shorter towers. Something in a business zone like. I'm making something up here, but at Foothills Mall, something of 60 feet or 70 feet might be appropriate, given the urban infill of that site, the ability to camouflage it as a pine tree or some other type of structure. i brought up the um example in a motto where a water tower was used so all of these are inputs in determining what's the best course of action to pick the option that is least obtrusive 50 70 feet 90 feet 80 feet is that more appropriate given this location and it could be camouflaged You know, those are things that I'm not sure the applicant presented in the material, but could still be analyzed, you know, to determine whether or not that's more appropriate and whether or not shorter towers are the better option.

Chair Allen, in the interest of fairness, could I pose that same question to Mr. Kennedy?

So just to make sure I understand your question, you're asking about the impact of shorter towers and what does that do?

Thank you for asking that. There's a report from the hearing administrator where he says the reports in the application materials did not state if a lower height tower or several shorter towers compared to the proposed would be viable options for filling the gap in cellular coverage. Just wondering why the reports that he's referring to in the application materials didn't address those other options.

So when I did the analysis of this site, third party from Verizon's RF engineer, I reviewed his height requirements and what coverage area he was trying to provide service to. That's why we have the increased height. to do a height analysis and run, okay, what is it gonna do at 40 feet? What's it gonna do at 60 feet? That's alternative looks, but of height and propagation. So that's possible to do, but I can tell you just from 36 years of experience, a 40 foot tower is not gonna provide the coverage level of 150 foot tower. Now, the other part you're talking about is small cells. Those are those 25 foot towers, the little light poles that are like surrounding the university or here in downtown. I saw a few just walking over here. um those those are built for capacity so there's already macro coverage created those become just fill-ins because they'll they'll run maybe a block and that's about all they provide service for so it would be you know just like telephone poles down it but the part about it is that's a rural highway so you're going very fast The student walking at U of A is not going very fast. They're not going to walk out of that coverage zone very quickly. Somebody doing 60 miles an hour down the road is going to drive past that site before the site ever even acknowledges them and says, oh, somebody's trying to connect. They're already gone. They're out of its coverage area.

and just to follow up while you're here the design of the proposed tower uh would allow for uh other carriers uh to also um uh attach yeah attach the tower the tower is capable of holding multiple tenants so att and t-mobile could attach as well thank you mr kennedy thank you chair allen

So I am going to move that we close the public hearing. It appears we have no more speakers and no additional questions. And I am going to move and then make a motion and then sort of explain the why behind my motion. So I will make the motion to support the appeal and deny the permit for P26CU00002. And I wanted to explain a little bit why. So one is that, so we hold, for those of you whom I have not met, I am your district three supervisor. I have met many of you. We hold monthly office hours at the hub. First Wednesday every month, we're there from three to six. And this is an issue that has been, people have been coming to our office hours to express concerns. And to the gentleman that commented on why we have to do this here, I am sorry to have to drag, you all have to come here, but it is the only place in which we can actually vote on. It needs to be in this setting. So I... I want to thank you all from the community for organizing and coming together to talk about this, to work on an appeal. My background is an organizer, so it warms my heart every time I see communities come together to stand together in a unified voice around something. So I appreciate that and thank you for it. There are a couple of key quotes that I want to pull out from both the department recommendations and then one from the appeal that I think are really telling in this particular situation. So from the department recommendation, the quote is this, While staff has no objection to the request to fill a gap in coverage, the hearing administrator should consider if a shorter slash multiple shorter towers are a viable alternative to the proposal, as the 150 foot requested height exceeds what is typically approved for towers located in rural residential neighborhoods. The other quote from the appeal is similar. The applicant is required to identify prospective alternative sites and co-location opportunities, provide a pros and a cons analysis, and offer maps and detailed explanations for why each alternative was rejected. The point is that there needs to be more transparency for the public to be able and community who is going to be impacted by the project to be able to understand the pros, the cons, the various sites, and to also be privy to what might be 25, 30, 35 years of experience that you may just know that other heights may be insufficient, but that needs to be put in writing for the community to be able to assess. That is what the intent of the code is, and that is what I think makes a robust process so the community can see what was all considered and how it is that the final proposal is what was landed on and why. So it is, I think part of the, Well, I think it is sort of that lack of evidence and that analysis is, I mean, one of the things that causes me a lot of concern and brings up lots of valid questions around the process from the neighbors. Just as an aside, too, I think one of the comments from the hearing administrator and one of our speakers earlier today noted that there is an assumption in the hearing administrator's decision of inevitable development. in this particular area. Diamond Bell is a development that was established over 50 years ago. And this assumption that there will be commercial growth there, commercial development, that we have not seen in 50 years. there is no business hub in the diamond bell area it is a neighborhood in which all the utilities are undergrounded there are no other utility poles and lines um it is a it is an area and it is one of the only areas only neighborhoods in that area that is zoned as cr1 single family residence The other lands around there are not. It is the only one that is zoned in that particular zoning for single-family residents. So, you know, I think there are... There are things that we should have seen, and I think that there are significant concerns. There was the need to show that this is the least obtrusive option because, as I noted, this is an area where the utilities are undergrounded and it is adjacent to CR1 properties. There is a need for... to see if smaller towers may have been able to fill the same gap coverage. And this could potentially address some of the concerns, very valid concerns, real concerns about obstruction of views to places like Kitt Peak, to the Babakivari Mountains, unique view sheds. Also, smaller towers could be considered in camouflaging, whether that be like a water tower, as in the case of Amado, or the, you know, the pine, well, maybe not a pine tree, but, or maybe not a palm tree, a sawado, perhaps. um options like that get utilized to be able to diminish the viewshed impact and make sure that the tower is consistent with with the the the sort of neighborhood context and so i think that sort of analysis was clearly missing um but was highlighted very clearly uh from the appellants appellants the folks who appealed um so It's because of some of those reasons. I support the appeal and urge that we deny the permit. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Any further discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. I said Hines, but I looked at Cano. Seconded by Supervisor Cano. Further discussion?

Sure, Ellen.

Supervisor Hines. Yes.

I would just like to note that we've been talking about this for more than an hour and that 50% of the people that used to be on nutritional assistance in this county have lost it. And so I just think that's not funny at all, I just think that this is like from a priority standpoint I just I don't know I have trouble with this.

That we've spent an hour. yeah i just think that this it's pretty awful actually but if it was in your district you might feel differently no okay um any other comments chair allen

Supervisor Scott, I very much appreciate the comments that you made when you made your motion. I think they summarize very well some of the concerns that that I had. And I'll be pleased to support your motion.

All right, all those in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Motion passes 4-1. You are welcome to stay on for the rest of the meeting. So yes, you're welcome to stay or you can head on home.

Right behind you. In the glasses, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ryan, do you think this is a waste of time? Thank you.

Read a little button here.

Have a good night. Thank you.

We are doing a quick scan to see what other items people are here for so that we can move them up in the agenda so that you don't have to wait too long for us to get to them.

Thank you.

What a full service administrator.

All right, so the consensus is that we've got folks here for items 21, 26, and a couple items that are on the consent agenda. So let's go to item 21 first. This is item 21. This is unfinished business, compromising taxes, interest, and penalties. This is a hearing? No, okay. I will move the item. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0. Item 21. Moving to consent. I will move to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Supervisor Christie.

Madam Chair, I would voice your approval on that, but I would like to pull item number 13.

Item 13. Okay. Karen Grove- All right, so we will, I will move to approve consent calendar minus item number 13 second by surprise. Karen Grove- Any discussion. Karen Grove- All those in favor. Karen Grove- I opposed consent calendar minus item 13 passes five zero.

Mayor Mrakas, Man chair. Karen Grove- Supervisor kind of I move item number 13 on the consent.

Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 4-1. Okay. Now we will go to item number 26. This is the contract for the Southern Arizona Education Council for $122,000. do we i know we have uh mr perez here do we have uh we'll open it up are there questions for mr perez i just think we should continue the item to the next meeting or we can hear people too but i don't think we have enough information to move forward um i would Second, the continuation, and I think for two particular reasons. One is that there is a annual report that I would love to see. We have a version, I believe, and perhaps you can correct this, that is sitting with economic development, is that correct? And if I may know when, if there's a point, when that might be ready to be shared.

Sorry, chair Allen vice chair board. Yes. So we have received that annual report. We are currently reviewing it. And just like normal, we will craft a memo that summarizes that report and present it to you. We actually started that review this morning and we can have it ready by the end of this week.

then the so that was one i think there were some outstanding questions that were circulated by supervisor scott we chair allen thank you we did get responses to those questions uh via email okay and then my other reason is that i noticed some inconsistencies uh between the contract that was included in the materials along with the other materials from the report that we've seen. And so just hoping that if we continue the item, that we can get some clarity and some consistency. Questions around the number of staff, for example, was inconsistent amongst the materials.

Chair Allen. Supervisor Scott. I would be fine with continuing the item given the reasons that you cited. I'd appreciate knowing if the item is going to be continued. If there are other recommended funding levels beyond what is noted in the August five memorandum from the county administrator that staff might offer the board as options. I have a significant concern with the fact that the county is being recommended to contribute $122,000 and that the city is contributing less than one sixth of that amount. They contributed more last year because two council members kicked in money from their own budgets. But I am a former member of the MEC board and this is a concern of long standing, long standing. And I think I would like to hear from staff if there are other funding levels besides the one mentioned in the August 5th memo that could be considered by the board on the 25th.

And then I would also, in the considerations, look at what the... Sarah Silver, impacts might be to funding to noting our funding for program costs and focusing our funding on program costs and what that impact might be. that's it. Sarah Silver, Okay i'm. Sarah Silver, Supervisor Christie.

Just to be clear, we're voting. There's a motion on the floor to continue.

Correct.

Thank you.

And I think I seconded that motion. Yes. Further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Continuance passes 5-0. Next, we are going to go to item 10. I think that covers one. Item 10 is the Ajo Domestic Water Improvement District. I will move the item. Second. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. For discussion, I want to thank the former volunteer board members because our current board chair is a county administrator who probably did not anticipate being the board chair of the Ajo Domestic Water Improvement District would be added to her resume. But the former board members of Frank Hinman, Chuck and Brenda Stout, Bud Turner, and the others who volunteered their time to make the Ajo Water District a successful district in their area. And I also want to thank the staff in Pima County Attorney's Office who spent a lot of time figuring out how to make this a viable transition in which we could become the best the water district within the county and then sell it. Well, first shift it to being operated by Arizona Water and now sell it to Arizona Water. I think it was sort of a perhaps a new a new experience. So very thankful that we got where we are. I do have two questions. And one is whether we know if there are outstanding costs that the $250,000 of the sale price that will be taken from that $250,000. Go ahead.

I don't think so.

Madam Chair, unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that question. So you're interested in whether there is debt. So essentially, any liabilities of the Domestic Water Improvement District will be satisfied first by the sales proceeds. And then the remaining assets or funds from that sale would be distributed into a non-profit.

And that was my second question was just if we know kind of the who and how of managing that process for distributing the funds to local nonprofits.

So Madam Chair, I think if you'll permit, we'll get back to you with that information.

All right. Okay. Further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. All right, now we're gonna move on to sitting as the library district board for item 11. I'll move the item. Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0. Now we are going to go back to sitting as the Board of Supervisors for the hearings for liquor licenses. Item number 12, liquor license for Taco Giro. Anyone present who wishes to speak on this item? I move to close the hearing and approve the liquor license permit.

Second.

Second by Supervisor Hines. Any discussion? all those in favor aye opposed item passes five zero uh is there anyone item 13 is there anyone present who wishes to speak on the liquor license for rocky point drive through Hearing none, I will move to close the hearing and approve the liquor license permit.

Second.

Second by Supervisor Hines. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0. And then finally, hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to speak on the agent change acquisition and control restructure of the golf club at Torres Blancas? Not. I will move to close the hearing and approve this item.

Second.

Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0. Chair Allen? Yes, Supervisor Scott.

I was just scrolling through the agenda and addendum and wondered if my colleagues would like to approve the following items 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, And then on the addendum, items four through nine.

Second.

Second. Can we pull from that though? I'm sorry, I was going back. Item 20.

Yes, ma'am. I'll amend the motion to remove item 20. So it would be 18, 23, 24, 25, and on the addendum 4 through 9. If that's still OK with, I can't remember who got their second and first, Conno or Christy. All right. He's saying thumbs up.

all right we'll say it was seconded by supervisor christy yeah uh discussion all those in favor aye aye opposed items pass five zero um let's take up item 20 since it's the dangler uh this is the revisions to board of supervisors policy prohibiting weapons in pima county facilities and vehicles um I will move the item.

Second.

Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Discussion. I have a... One is... I moved the item, but... So it's missing. The list, I believe, is still missing in the list of county buildings, the Ajo Court. Green Valley Court is included, but... friendly amendment to my own motion. Is that good with you, my seconder? Is to include the Ajo Court. And then I also just have a question to a county administrator. If the administration could look at how this policy then might be, once we put it in place, how it might be able to be, if and how it could be expanded to include our community centers. Okay. Any other discussion? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Item passes 5-0. Okay. That would put us at item 17. This is the county administrator hiring process. Not a lot. We got a good detailed update at our last meeting from direct from Director Boland. So basically, she had laid out a number of things that were in the process of being scheduled. And I think we have, in fact, item number 18 was the implementation of that and putting on our calendar some of the scheduling items. So other than that, there were no updates other than just getting scheduled some of the things that the HR director had put on the table last time. We had already approved 18, so we are at item 19. This is the Pima County Legislative Program for 2027. Supervisor Christy.

Yeah, just a quick question of housekeeping.

bundle in into into that last one the number 25 yes so that's already been addressed yep yes thank you um i will move so we're on item 19 uh i know supervisor heinz you had some additions

yes i i do do we need to move it and then talk about what we want to add or just talk um i will move the item second second by supervisor heinz discussion okay great so um let me see here all right where's my memo there we go nope that's not it Well okay so a couple things I think I this board has made it pretty clear, but I think a couple really important things that we have to do like I just mentioned earlier. We need to talk about like reversing HR one reinstating full snap benefits medicaid and access coverage for the state of Arizona. I know there's some mention of that in here I think that should be like number one number two number three and four and five like for our it should be reinforced more I mean prominently stated um that that's something I think we can we can maybe clean up a bit better also uh i'm sorry what what was what what was the what additions like given the impact of the loss of medicaid which we aren't even fully feeling what we've heard from dr cohen on the nearly 50 drop in snap enrollees here in pima county i think we need to be asking uh you know michael rossi and anima on her team to be working to the to whatever they can do to to like like reverse these terrible things that happen in hr1 that are impacting Pima County residents so greatly. Also, and I know that I believe Sam, I think PCAO, Sam Brown, Dan, Jay, you're right there, okay. So stopping, opposing, making sure that the OMB's proposed rule on uniform guidance which could jeopardize all sorts of funding for things like all across the country and all sorts of counties i i don't see that on here i think that would be really good to include um just because and i know that i know that we've made some formal like we've opposed it right but i don't that should be like an ongoing make sure this doesn't ever happen kind of thing in our legislative agenda for the federal level at least um and um yeah

know i guess you can come back to me i have to get sorted out here so if anyone else wants to talk about stuff my only um request is that i think given uh given there's a lot in our legislative agenda um and it sounds like it's growing that if uh it would behoove us to prioritize it I think setting some criteria just because our you know we only we have limited lobbyists and lobbyists who have limited time and so giving them some guidance as to which are the most important things that if you know deciding between two hearings or two meetings which one do you go to my inclination would be prioritizing the things that protect the county first and foremost And I think we have some of those criteria already that we've utilized year upon year of ensuring that the county, we don't lose funds, that increased costs are not shifted to us, that it's sort of protecting our statutory authorities, those four or five criteria that are there. And And then we can sort of work back prioritizing from there. But I do feel like that would be a helpful process to help guide our lobbyists. So instead of giving them a list of 70 things to move forward and perhaps overlaying that with a which things have a likelihood of success too.

Great. Chair Allen.

Supervisor Cano.

It's really important that we narrow down our requests for our administrator and for our contract lobbyists. We also have a new intergovernmental affairs manager that I believe will be announced soon that recruitment is underway. Having been on both the legislative side and the lobbying side, I really urge all of my colleagues to perhaps spend the next meeting or two condensing what's missing in the proposal from administration. we have established a precedent of adding to our legislative agenda mid-year or in the middle of legislative session, and that really could complicate things. So if we're not ready today, I would just ask that we maybe continue this for two more meetings. So the first meeting in September, give us a little bit more time, breathing room, and each of our offices can work with the administrator to make sure that our alignment is there. I want to say personally, when I read the legislative agenda, I think if you look at it at face value, you see priorities one through five. I don't read that as priority number one This is where it gets confusing. I don't read it as number one is the number one issue, protect the Pima County taxpayer. I'm looking at it comprehensively, and if making it a little bit more objective and just prioritizing it as Section A or something might kind of loosen some of the semantics of it. I was prepared to vote for this today, but if we're not there, then we're not there.

Sure, Alan. Supervisor Scott, I appreciate my colleagues comments. I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues who have served in the legislature. But I know we're also facing a deadline from the county supervisors association in terms of items. that we want to bring forth for the legislative policy summit at the beginning of October. So if there are items that county staff is feeling that they want to bring forth at the summit for consideration as part of the CSA legislative program, I think we need to address those tonight. And Ms. Lesher, I'm not sure which item parts of the county legislative program we're intending to send forth for consideration in Flagstaff in early October.

Chair Allen and Supervisor Scott, thank you. Yes, Friday the 14th is the day that we need to submit to CSA those items. What we could do is sort of split this and look at a couple of issues that we, based on previous experience with this board, would want to go ahead and submit on behalf of Pima County too that I think are critical are some of the state cost shifts and just making sure that we are supportive of that in general concept and then We have generally moved forward with a variety of items, making sure that we are maintaining the public health, making sure that we have the strength and the so that we have the ability to maintain our public health authority and that we are not challenged in any way with any any attacks on the authority of our public health department. So I think if we look at those two general areas and have some approval by the board that we could submit those on behalf of Pima County for consideration at CSA, then easy to come back and finalize what the work will be of Pima County in our legislative work over the year.

So chair Allen, I had a curiosity. Is there a possibility for us to approve the legislative as recommended and come back in September first meeting with the additional input? What's the will of the board? Is that amenable?

City Council Chambers, Just just to make sure i'm clear supervisor you're you're recommending that we have we approve the legislative program that was submitted by the county administrator tonight, but that at the first meeting in September, we can consider any additions to it.

City Council Chambers, Based on tonight's conversation and and I do see yes. City Council Chambers, Supervisor Scott, I do see their mention of. Medicaid and enrollment declining throughout both on the federal advocacy side and on the state side. So I feel that we are there. Perhaps what is really needed to happen at this point is once we bring on our IGA person, we really have to ensure that they're speaking the same language as the board with our contract lobbyists. Just food for thought. Thank you. If that's a motion, I'll second it. Okay, and just for clarity, it's approval of the legislative agenda as presented, item number 19, resolution number 2026-42, with the understanding that we will come back in the first meeting in September, all offices should... see what additional priorities should be included and we'll do our best to not have mid-year additions to the legislative agenda. But I guess that's more illustrative than concrete. So yeah, that's my motion. Thank you.

I'd be happy to second that.

Seconded by Supervisor Scott.

So I just needed to find my notes, the three items I want to add, and I have a fourth. I don't need to wait until September, but I'm happy to, I guess, do that. I'm not happy to do that, actually. I spent some time on these.

Were your items, the three you submitted, a two-pager?

Yeah, it's attached. I just couldn't find my notes.

And there's a fourth that is not listed that you wanted to add?

Yeah, it's a little more about constables, actually.

um yes uh it is it's it's enough there are enough notes here to talk about it madam chair supervisor christie how is this motion addressing supervisors hind that wish to make additions to it right now what what is it we're including supervisor heinz's request to add to the list or are we approving the list as submitted by the County Administrator.

Supervisor Connell?

Here, Alan, my motion is to only include the recommendations made by the County Administrator. I am happy to include the items in the material attached to by my colleague from district two. However, if there is an additional language related to the constable, I believe our county attorney would probably wanna make sure that that language is previewed in advance before we vote on it. So I don't know that we, I believe we can do the three that have been recommended by my colleague from district two, but not the fourth. So I still think we need to come back in September or the next meeting, you know, we could make it a continuation of additional items at our next meeting or in the first meeting in September.

Just to be clear, Supervisor, you're amending the motion to include the three items that Supervisor Hines put forth, but not the fourth one.

That's correct.

As the seconder, I would support that motion.

And just a point of, is this a point of order? Just to clarify, we're talking about discussion. Yeah, post-certification. This is, my attachment includes the post-certification for sheriffs and constables that are elected, official misconduct, color of law, and then the accountability for elected officers in the county. Those are the three that we're referring to, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, then I'm fine with that.

Okay, further discussion?

Chair Allen.

Supervisor Cunlill.

I would just add that the legislative agenda is a guiding document. I don't believe that any one particular item supersedes any of the others, and so in the conversations with our staff, with our contract lobbyists, it's important for us to ensure that we're using everybody's time efficiently, and that there really is no ranking in the legislative agenda as presented in terms of which item is most important or should get the support of our contract lobbyists. I think from its totality, we are endorsing a very comprehensive document focused on core issues, and I've seen over many years this legislative agenda have very different but similar routes to get to the same destination for advocacy at the federal and the state level. Thanks.

Chair Allen. Supervisor Scott just wanted to ask the county administrator. I know you have a weekly conversation with Mr Rossi, our lobbyist. When the legislature is in session and to Supervisor Connors. A point I'm gathering that 1 of the. criteria that he looks at in terms of what he's spending most of his time on is if he were able to find sponsors for our legislation, especially finding sponsors within the majority caucus.

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, that's a piece of it. Absolutely.

Okay. And beyond that, sponsorship, Supervisor Cano or Supervisor Hines, given your experience in the legislature, what else would you find the lobbyists would probably be doing in terms of his own prioritization of our agenda?

Chair Allen, Supervisor Scott, in looking at my colleagues' recommendations from District 2, I would really prefer that the recommendation is what makes it into the legislative agenda. There's two parts to each one of the three items, recommendation and kind of more background info. I think the way that the legislative agenda is written right now, what's most important is the recommendation. And that's kind of what I would be looking at as the substantive recommendation. addition to the legislative agenda as presented. Gotcha.

Would you like me to read them or are they okay as the attachment? The clerk looks happy.

Okay.

All right. So I just want to note, so I had, I had recommended the administrator to go through and work on prioritization. But what I'm hearing from Supervisor Cano is don't do that, which I've just, just, just stating the obvious. And I and I, you know, and I respect your experience on this. And, you know, if you, if you feel like that's not something that we should be asking the administrator that a that a suite of suite of items in the legislative agenda is fine to split forward. I will, I will pull my words back. But if it seems like it would be helpful, then yeah, anyway. What do you think, Supervisor Cunham?

Oh, yeah, no. Legislative sessions, there's too many unknowns right now who will control which chamber, which governor will be on the ninth floor. I think it's premature to have that determination. But now that we have an IGA person soon to be announced, I feel like after the November election, we can assess which ones will take priority. And to my colleague from District 2's point, by then, H.R. 1, if not repealed by the subsequent Congress, we'll see more than the current 1 in 10 Medicaid recipients in our community impacted. So to be continued. I don't think this is a one-and-done kind of thing in August.

All right. All right, any further discussion? Can we take it to a vote? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Legislative agenda, oh, resolution number 2026-42 passes for one. Okay. We have now completed the items on the regular agenda, which puts us into the addendum. We have items one, two, three, and four I believe remaining. Item one, I will move the item and share a little bit more when we open it up for discussion. Seconded by Supervisor Cano, this is the request for revision to the Board of Supervisors policies. So for discussion, as my colleagues will remember, back in September we passed two policies. One is a NDA reform, reform of the use of NDAs in economic development projects, if I have the wording correctly. And then the other was the creation of an enhanced due diligence process in economic development projects. We passed that to ensure that we are looking at the kind of totality of impacts. So I think one of the things that that we saw was that we got an analysis of economic benefits, but we were not receiving them, but the particular case, it was around Project Blue, looking at a comparable process that assesses impacts to public health, to air, land, water, the other sort of areas of concern, and that are also both benefits and impacts of large projects in our community. So these policies were developed at that particular time. Since then, there was, and this is kind of a context for item number two as well, but I'll state it up here. The state passed, the governor passed a moratorium, three-year moratorium, on data centers' use of state sales tax exemption. on the purchase of data center equipment in the state. Something that caught my eye in the coverage of that moratorium on the sales tax was that in the two or three weeks leading up to July 1, when that moratorium went into effect, there were nearly as many applications for the sales tax exemption as there were in the entire 13 years of that sales tax exemption being in place. That caught my eye and in Triggered, I think looking back at our policies, both the NDA and the due diligence policy, in so doing, what I saw was that those two policies, while I think the vast majority of the components of it are still very much valid to their core and the substance of what they do, but there were a couple of, there's some tweaks that I think need to be integrated into it. On the NDA policy, it is the... I think the policy is great and it's strong, but I think we did not give any direction for it to be applied, sought to be applied, requested to be applied for existing sort of active and inactive NDAs. It's something that my understanding is that the city of Tucson did, but we did not do. And that's kind of the main thing around the NDAs, is just getting that to be applicable to some of the current policies. It's clearly optional for people who have signed NDAs, but the ask should be there. The second, on the enhanced due diligence process, which is policy D31.4, there's just a couple of revisions. And again, it's reflective, they're revisions that are responses to the moment in which it was created. It's very heavy on on talking about economic development prospects and being triggered by economic development processes, right, when people click something on the drop down, you know, on a drop down would trigger the due diligence policy. The changes that I think would be helpful to make this a more relevant policy would be to change some of the language so that it is more inclusive of projects that come in our door, which is not always through that kind of drop-down search prospecting process through economic development, but also projects can come in through the door through development services and through other means that it's not necessarily through a business recruitment process So that would be, and there's some language in there that I've highlighted that just says, and it says over and over again, prospects, prospects, prospects. The second would be an addition in the criteria for the types of projects that would trigger it to include just large water and energy users. which is just a broad sort of phase, and we can define that, the city has actually already defined those terms, that that would be one of the criteria for when due diligence would happen. These are robust projects. I don't want to see us using our due diligence policy when somebody wants to I don't know, put a new shed on some property through a variance or through some smaller project. But I think we can be more specific about the types of projects that warrant the sort of robust analysis that our due diligence policy outlines. And then my final ask is a detail, I think, within the policy that says that a final recommendation would be made by the economic development department about whether the kind of impacts and benefits, what the recommendation should be. My ask would be that that recommendation should come from the administrator. only because it is being based on feedback and analysis and memos and research that is provided by the health department, by flood control, by wastewater, a variety of departments and it feels like it is more appropriate for that decision to be made by the administrator rather than economic development because it is one that brings in so many other departments in the county. So those are a few, so just those pieces on due diligence. But the 95, 98% of both of those policies, I think, are still solid. But some of it's just around the criteria and when they get triggered, I think, is where there's some fine-tuning that should be done.

Chair Allen. Supervisor Scott. Did you have a timeline in mind in terms of when you wanted county administrator to come back to the board with these suggested revisions?

I would look to the county administrator for what seems like a reasonable timeline.

Madam Chair, I'll see.

September?

I think so. If we can set September 8th, and if we're able to bring it as soon as August 25th, we will. How about no later than September 8th?

Study session on September 8th. Thank you.

And a couple of other questions.

Madam Chair, does this apply to number two as well as one?

No, we're just talking about number one.

Thank you.

Chair Allen, with regard to number one, especially with the changes to the D31.3, will there also be consultation by county staff with our economic development partners? We had that consultation with them when we were considering the initial policy because one of the concerns that was expressed by more than one member of the board is that we wanted to make sure that anything that we put forth didn't put the county at a disadvantage in competition with other jurisdictions. Okay. And then the only other question I would have would be for both the County Administrator and Mr. Jerkowitz, we had some issues a few months ago when there was a ordinance dealing with unpaved roads come before the board, and it seemed like there were some concerns that were not anticipated, either by administration or perhaps the county attorney, and I just, and I said this to the chair prior to this meeting, I just want us to avoid something similar to that in terms of these revisions. Thank you, Chair Allen. And if you're moving this, I'll second it.

I think it was seconded by Supervisor Cano. all those in favor aye aye opposed item passes for one for item number two i would like to request this is the item two of the addendum establishing 120 day moratorium on data centers in an unincorporated pima county um i wanted to request that we pop out to uh executive session um to be able to talk with our lawyers second Seconded by Supervisor Hines. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes 5-0 and we will go into executive session. Okay, we are back from executive session. We have a meager two items left. Item number two is establishing a 120-day moratorium on data centers in unincorporated Pima County. This is directing the county administrator to work with the county attorney's office and county departments to develop a resolution declaring a moratorium on data centers in unincorporated Pima County until the county has completed its zoning code text amendment process. I will move the item.

Second.

Seconded by Supervisor Hines.

Chair Allen.

Any discussion? Supervisor Scott.

Can I request a roll call vote?

Sure, yes. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Oh, I'm sorry.

Roll call vote is not. Supervisor Connell.

Aye.

Supervisor Christie.

Aye.

Supervisor Hines.

Yes.

Supervisor Scott.

Based on the advice of legal counsel, I vote no.

Chair Allen. Aye. Item passes 3-2. Our second-to-last item is the Constable Disciplinary Action. This item is a discussion regarding disciplinary action of Constable Justice Precinct 2, Frank Lopez. I think this is...

Chair Allen?

Yes, Supervisor Scott.

I move that we proceed as discussed in Executive Session. Second.

Seconded by Supervisor Hines. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes 5-0. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.