The September 2, 2026 formal meeting lasted 3 hours and 3 minutes with four of five supervisors present. Steve Gallardo (D5) was absent.
Every vote was 4-0 — there were no dissenting votes on any item, including controversial rezonings, a $750,000 outside counsel authorization, and a $365,000 settlement.
What actually happened: Six Planning & Zoning rezonings passed unanimously, including the hotly contested Tonopah industrial conversion (Item 7) where citizens raised data center and water concerns.
The Board denied the Glengall Logistic military compatibility permit (Item 11) — the only item not approved.
Every executive-session-originated item passed on roll call without debate.
The one moment of genuine discussion was Item 44 (Newtown affordable housing amendment), where Supervisor Stewart explained he initially planned to vote “no” but changed his mind after hearing staff testimony about families waiting.
Bottom line for citizens: Citizens showed up and spoke — three against Tonopah rezonings, two against Camelback Creek, two on Melendres counsel — but no supervisor questioned any applicant, asked a follow-up, or proposed an alternative.
Every motion was made by Vice Chair Debbie Lesko.
The P&Z consent agenda was rubber-stamped with Galvin recused and one item pulled for speaker testimony.
MEETING DETAILS
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Date | Wednesday, September 2, 2026 |
| Time | 9:30 AM |
| Location | Supervisors’ Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson, Phoenix |
| Duration | 3 hours, 3 minutes, 48 seconds |
| Chair | Kate Brophy McGee (District 3) |
| Vice Chair | Debbie Lesko (District 4) |
| Present | Mark Stewart (D1), Thomas Galvin (D2), Debbie Lesko (D4), Kate Brophy McGee (D3) |
| Absent | Steve Gallardo (D5) |
| County Manager | Jen Pokorski |
| Clerk of the Board | Juanita Garza |
| Legal Counsel | Brooke Worcester |
| Meeting Type | Formal (and Flood Control District, Library District, Improvement Districts) |
| Agenda Items | 84 |
| Total Financial Exposure | ~$95.7M |
VOTE SUMMARY
Every Item: 4-0, Unanimous
| Item | Description | Motion By | Seconded By | Vote | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Happy Valley Commercial (P&Z) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Galvin recused |
| 6 | Broadway Auto Salvage (P&Z) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Galvin recused |
| 7 | Balterra/Tonopah (P&Z) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Galvin recused; public comment |
| 8 | Balterra/Tonopah Phase 2 (P&Z) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Galvin recused |
| 9 | Camelback Creek (P&Z) | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | Public comment |
| 10 | Camelback Creek (P&Z) | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | Public comment |
| 11 | Glengall Logistic (P&Z) | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | DENIED — only item not approved |
| 12 | Liquor license (Patties, Pints & Pizzas) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | — |
| 13 | Bingo license change | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | — |
| 14 | Road File A0761 | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | — |
| 15–71 | Consent agenda (minus pulled items) | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | Items 24, 25, 41, 44, 45 pulled for discussion |
| 24 | Replacement warrants — Victim Comp | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | — |
| 25 | Replacement warrants — FPIP | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | — |
| 41 | Election resolution (Vote Centers) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Presentation by elections staff |
| 44 | Newtown CDC amendment (ARPA) | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | Roll call; Stewart explained vote |
| 45 | FSL Holding amendment | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | Roll call |
| 72 | Greenberg Traurig/Melendres counsel | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Roll call; executive session origin |
| 73 | Sheely special action | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Roll call; executive session origin |
| 74 | Schools Superintendent salary | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Roll call; executive session origin |
| 75 | Green settlement ($365K) | Lesko | Stewart | 4-0 | Roll call; executive session origin |
| 76–82 | District minutes/items | Lesko | Galvin | 4-0 | — |
WHAT CHANGED FROM THE PRE-MEETING REPORT
🔴 Planning & Zoning — All Approved Despite Citizen Opposition
Item 7 — Balterra (Tonopah): APPROVED 4-0
The pre-meeting report flagged this as a potential data center site. Three citizens spoke in opposition:
- Schuyler Simonton (Tonopah resident) demanded closed-loop cooling guarantees, performance bonds, and environmental restoration bonds. Noted the “speculative bubble of AI” and warned that “if the hype cools, the business model does not pay, or if these companies fail or walk away, this community will still be here.”
- Crystal Lloyd (Tonopah resident) opposed Items 9 and 10, citing road safety, school bus stops without sidewalks, and private well dependency.
- Guadalupe Campos (West 411th Ave) raised water concerns — confirmed in writing that development would use groundwater from the same aquifer as private wells, and that Global Water would not ensure other well owners against impacts.
Applicant’s response: Wendy Riddell (Berry Riddell law firm) presented slides claiming the “broader vision is actually for a film studio,” not exclusively data centers. She admitted “we wish we could tell [neighbors] more” about the plan but said entitlements must come first. She noted 19 opposition items from 17 parties, none within 300 feet.
Board reaction: No questions from any supervisor about water guarantees, data center specifics, or the film studio claim. No condition added. Lesko moved, Stewart seconded, 4-0.
What the pre-meeting report predicted: “Will any supervisor pull P&Z items for discussion?” — Vice Chair Lesko pulled Item 7 for a speaker. But no supervisor actually questioned the applicant or asked for additional protections.
Item 11 — Glengall Logistic: DENIED 4-0
The only item the Board did not approve. The Planning Commission had unanimously recommended denial (7-0) of this Military Compatibility Permit for a truck freight/logistics operation in west Glendale. Applicant Jack Gilmore presented, noted 11 direct contacts and 4 letters of support. No board member spoke in favor. Lesko moved to deny, Galvin seconded. Roll call: 4-0.
🔴 Item 44 — Newtown CDC Amendment: The One Real Discussion
Pre-meeting prediction: Not flagged as controversial.
What happened: This ARPA-funded affordable housing amendment became the meeting’s only substantive debate. Supervisor Stewart initially came to the meeting planning to vote “no,” stating he felt the money should be “sent back to the Treasury” and that the program “has gone on way too long.”
After staff explained that voting it down would mean 18 fewer families receiving down payment assistance (from 128 to 110 households) while still being contractually obligated to spend the money, Stewart changed his position:
“I was a no on this because I felt like our money should be sent back to the Treasury… But learning more today about the program, I’ve learned a lot about it. And I think it’s something that changes my mind because I feel like there’s a human element to this.”
Supervisor Galvin echoed Stewart’s fiscal concerns: “I too hate to see wasting of taxpayer money. So if there’s a plan presented to us by staff of how to better allocate in one instance here $700,000, I’m going to be happy to do it.”
Key fact revealed: Staff confirmed the County is under contract — if the amendment is rejected, the money is still obligated but fewer families are served. The amendment makes the spending more efficient.
Vote: Roll call, 4-0 aye.
🔴 Executive Session Items — All Passed Without Discussion
| Item | Description | Amount | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 72 | Melendres counsel (Greenberg Traurig) | $750K | Exec Session Aug 31 |
| 73 | Sheely special action | — | Exec Session Aug 31 |
| 74 | Schools Superintendent salary | $166,800 | Exec Session Aug 31 |
| 75 | Green settlement | $365K | Exec Session Apr 6 |
All four items passed on roll call, 4-0, with no discussion or questions. Two public speakers signed up for the addendum but the Chair did not call them before the vote.
PATTERN ANALYSIS — WHAT THE MEETING REVEALED
1. Motion Dominance: Lesko Makes Every Motion
Every single motion in the meeting was made by Vice Chair Debbie Lesko. Every second was either Mark Stewart or Thomas Galvin. This is not power-sharing — it’s consolidated procedural control.
2. The “Recuse and Approve” Pattern
Supervisor Galvin recused himself from all P&Z consent items (Items 5–8), then voted on Items 9–11. He did not state a reason for recusal. The items he recused from (all in District 4, Lesko’s district) passed 3-0 with Lesko, Stewart, and Brophy McGee. Then he rejoined for the next batch.
3. No Dissent, No Debate, No Follow-Up Questions
On 84 agenda items across 3+ hours, there was not a single “no” vote. The only item denied was the one the Planning Commission itself recommended denying. Even the contentious Tonopah rezonings — with citizen testimony about water, data centers, and road safety — passed unanimously without a single supervisor question to the applicant.
4. Citizen Testimony → No Action
Five citizens spoke in opposition to P&Z items. The Board heard them. Then voted 4-0 to approve every one. This is not deliberation — it’s theater. The minimum legal requirement for public comment was met, but no supervisor referenced citizen concerns in their votes.
5. Executive Session → Roll Call → Done
Four items originated in executive session. All passed on roll call with zero discussion. Citizens who spoke on Item 72 (Melendres) during public comment were not acknowledged before the vote. The $750K authorization for outside counsel in the racial profiling case passed as quietly as a library donation report.
6. The Stewart Pivot: Theater or Genuine?
Supervisor Stewart’s explanation of his vote change on Item 44 was unusually detailed and emotional. But note the framing: he positioned himself as a “fiscal hawk” who cares about families, while voting to spend ARPA money the County is already contractually obligated to spend. His “change of heart” required no actual policy shift — just voting for what was already going to happen. Whether this was genuine evolution or political positioning is for citizens to judge.
FINANCIAL EXPOSURE — WHAT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED
| Category | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| County Attorney outside counsel (Melendres) | $750,000 | APPROVED |
| Settlement (Green v. Maricopa County) | $365,000 | APPROVED |
| Schools Superintendent salary | $166,800 | APPROVED |
| Newtown CDC amendment (ARPA reallocation) | $702,582 | APPROVED |
| FSL Holding amendment (ARPA) | $0 (administrative) | APPROVED |
| Victim Compensation replacement warrants | $4,815 | APPROVED |
| FPIP replacement warrants | $2,843 | APPROVED |
| Vehicle replacements/upgrades (RICO) | $210,000 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Weapons trade credit | $142,832 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Fleet additions (3 used vehicles) | $15,000/yr | APPROVED (consent) |
| Sheriff donations (cash + non-cash) | $5,809 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Library Anthem capital adjustment | $4,325,000 | APPROVED |
| Flood Control relocation benefits | +$25,000 | APPROVED |
| Wittmann drainage study extension | +$300,000 | APPROVED |
| Air Quality MAG amendment | $962,347 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Air Quality EPA agreement | $1,148,368 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Birth Defects/Cancer Registry | $108,913 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Healthy Start Initiative | $1,100,000 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Community Health Needs Assessments | $233,700 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Academic Health Dept (ASU) | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Vaccine Provider Agreement | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Vulture Mountain modifications | $127,654 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Peoria trail relocation | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Dysart Unified IGA | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Wickenburg Housing HOME | $1,408,022 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Scottsdale Unified meal service | $876,449 | APPROVED (consent) |
| MCCCD workforce training | $0 (administrative) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Tax-deeded land sales | $276.48 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Professional liability coverage | $0 (administrative) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Groundwater monitoring access | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Road abandonments (3) | $0 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Traffic control regulation | $0 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Loop 101 ICM IGA (Glendale) | $0 (non-financial) | APPROVED (consent) |
| Mesa Vista water district hearing | — | SET |
| Hopi Vista water district hearing | — | SET |
| Road files 6044, 6045 | — | SET FOR HEARING |
| Real property excess declaration | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Liquor/bingo licenses (2) | — | APPROVED |
| Election cancellations (7 districts) | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Special event licenses (3) | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Duplicate/stale warrants | ~$4,800 | APPROVED (consent) |
| Minutes approval | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Donation reports | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Delinquent tax waiver | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Treasurer’s summary | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| Market ranges update | — | APPROVED (consent) |
| USPS API license | — | APPROVED (consent) |
RED FLAGS — POST-MEETING ASSESSMENT
🔴 Lesko Motion Monopoly: Every motion in an 84-item, 3-hour meeting was made by the same supervisor. This is not distributed leadership.
🔴 Citizen Testimony Is Theater: Five citizens raised substantive concerns about water, roads, data centers, and accountability. Every item they spoke on passed 4-0. No supervisor asked a follow-up question.
🔴 Glengall Denial Is the Exception That Proves the Rule: The only item denied was the one the Planning Commission already recommended denying. The Board never overrides applicant-friendly recommendations.
🔴 Executive Session → Zero Scrutiny: $750K in outside counsel for a racial profiling case, a tax appeal strategy, and a $365K settlement — all approved on roll call with no discussion.
🔴 Data Center Obfuscation: The applicant for the 593-acre Tonopah rezoning (Item 7) claimed the “broader vision is actually for a film studio” while simultaneously acknowledging data centers “may be included.” No supervisor pressed for clarity. The IUPD overlay allows 85-foot buildings and warehouse/data center uses.
🔴 ARPA Accountability Theater: Supervisor Stewart’s impassioned speech about fiscal responsibility on Item 44 was followed by a vote to spend money the County was already obligated to spend. The “change of heart” narrative obscures that no actual fiscal decision was made.
🔴 Missing Supervisor: Steve Gallardo (D5) was absent. His district had two major P&Z items (Item 6 — Broadway Auto Salvage, Item 10 — Camelback Creek). No explanation for absence was given.
TRANSCRIPT HIGHLIGHTS
On Item 7 (Balterra) — Schuyler Simonton:
“These campuses are being built to run large language models… The speculative bubble of AI is not guaranteed of lasting local value… If the hype cools, the business model does not pay, or if these companies fail or walk away, this community will still be here.”
On Item 7 (Balterra) — Wendy Riddell, applicant:
“This is not all data centers. Yes, there may be some data centers that get included here, but the broader vision is actually for a film studio.”
On Item 44 (Newtown) — Supervisor Stewart:
“I was a no on this because I felt like our money should be sent back to the Treasury… But learning more today about the program, I’ve learned a lot about it. And I think it’s something that changes my mind because I feel like there’s a human element to this.”
On Item 44 (Newtown) — Supervisor Galvin:
“I too hate to see wasting of taxpayer money. So if there’s a plan presented to us by staff of how to better allocate in one instance here $700,000, I’m going to be happy to do it.”
WHAT CITIZENS SHOULD KNOW
- Your testimony was heard but not heeded. Five citizens spoke. Zero votes changed.
- The Board is not a deliberative body on P&Z. The Planning Commission recommends, the Board concurs. Questioning applicants is not part of the process.
- “Data center” is the unmentionable word. Applicants use “film studio,” “mixed use,” and “economic opportunity.” The IUPD overlay allows data centers. No one connects these dots.
- ARPA money is being spent, not returned. Despite rhetoric about sending money back to Treasury, every ARPA-funded item passed. The contracts are already in place.
- Executive session items get public roll calls but no public discussion. The $750K Melendres authorization and $365K settlement were rubber-stamped.
- Supervisor Gallardo’s absence is unexplained. In a body of five, one absence is 20% of voting power. No announcement was made about why D5 was unrepresented.
*Report prepared from official meeting records, transcript, and summary. All quotes verbatim from transcript.
