Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Time: 9:30 AM
Location: Supervisors’ Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Meeting Type: Formal
Chair: Kate Brophy McGee (District 3)
Vice Chair: Debbie Lesko (District 4)
Attendance
| Supervisor | District | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Kate Brophy McGee | 3 | Present (Chair) |
| Debbie Lesko | 4 | Present (Vice Chair) |
| Mark Stewart | 1 | Present |
| Thomas Galvin | 2 | Present |
| Steve Gallardo | 5 | Present |
Also Present: Juanita Garza (Clerk), Mia Vargas (Minutes Coordinator, remote), Jen Pokorski (County Manager), Brooke Worcester (Legal Counsel)
Executive Summary
The October 21, 2026 Formal Meeting was one of the most contentious sessions in recent memory. The board heard from 35 citizens opposed to a proposed Peoria County Island Fire District (plus 50 more who registered opposition without speaking), ultimately denying the impact statement unanimously. Two frequent citizen speakers—Leslie Shepherd and Lauri Baroni—were ejected from the boardroom during discussion of a zoning enforcement litigation item after raising questions about consistency with other development matters. An ARPA-funded heat relief amendment for the City of Chandler failed 2-3 after the Chair put Supervisor Stewart on the spot to move it, then was reconsidered for the November 4 agenda. The meeting also featured extensive public comment on election integrity concerns targeting Recorder Justin Heap.
Vote Summary
| Item | Description | Motion By | Second By | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-14 | P&Z Consent | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 16 | Wranglers Roost (Deny) | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 Deny |
| 17 | Belmont 4 | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 18A | Walgreens License | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 19 | Fire District (Deny) | Lesko | Galvin | 5-0 Deny |
| 20-22 | Statutory Hearings | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 23-70, 72-75, 77-109 | Consent Agenda | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 76 | Chandler Heat Relief | Stewart | Lesko | 2-3 FAILED |
| 76 | Reconsideration | Brophy McGee | Galvin | 5-0 |
| 110 | K9 Spike Transfer | Lesko | Stewart | 5-0 |
| 111-113 | Addendum | Lesko | Gallardo | 5-0 |
Motion Maker Distribution: Lesko 10/11 (90.9%), Stewart 1/11 (9.1%)
Key Items
Item 16: Wranglers Roost Special Use Permit — DENIED 5-0
Applicant: Reed Stewart (representing Wranglers Roost)
What Happened: The applicant requested a special use permit with two specific exemptions: (1) use temporary restrooms instead of permanent ADA-compliant restrooms, and (2) be subject only to the existing noise ordinance rather than additional conditions.
Board Action: Vice Chair Lesko moved denial. The board unanimously rejected the application.
Chair Brophy McGee’s Explanation:
“A large number of opposition to this SUP and the chief concerns are with noise and lighting. The applicant originally and does not currently agree to the conditions including the recommended limitation on noise. The commission recommended conditions appropriate to limit intensity of use… Without these limitations being implemented and faithfully followed, the use is too intense and inappropriate for the site.”
Note: Brophy McGee initially stated “I vote nay” then corrected to “I” (to deny), suggesting she was reading from a prepared statement. Only one speaker (Reed Stewart) registered in favor.
Item 17: Belmont 4 Development — APPROVED 5-0
Applicant: Belmont 4 (represented by Lindsay Shuby, Gamage & Burnham)
What Happened: A rural-to-industrial zoning change pulled from consent after the Planning Commission initially opposed it over water/recharge facility concerns. Toyota (represented by Mike Marowitz, Snell & Wilmer) operates a 12,000-acre proving ground nearby and raised questions about Hassayampa Basin aquifer protection.
Resolution: After applicant confirmed a recharge facility was already in their plans, the Planning Commission changed its recommendation to approval. Toyota expressed full support. Board approved unanimously.
Pattern Note: The applicant’s attorney (Shuby) proactively addressed Toyota’s concerns before the hearing, demonstrating how well-resourced development interests navigate the process.
Item 19: Peoria County Island Fire District — DENIED 5-0 (Roll Call)
The Most Consequential Item of the Meeting
Proponents: Pat Frey (firefighter), Tom Gobster (fire captain), Cliff Leatherwood (developer/contractor)
What They Wanted: Form a special taxing district to provide fire/medical service to Peoria county islands currently served by subscription (Rural Metro, Peoria Fire subscriptions, North County AFMA).
Public Participation:
- In favor: 3 speakers (Rural Metro Fire Chief Gary Bernard, Timothy Saul, Larry Pickard)
- Opposed: 35 speakers + 50 registered position-only
- Questions only: 1 (Tammy O’Neal)
- ~200 emails: Overwhelmingly opposed (Lesko estimated <5 in favor)
Key Opposition Arguments:
- Cost: Proposed rate of $2.60 per $100 of Limited Property Value. For a $300,000 LPV home, that’s $7,800/year. Most residents currently pay $450-624/year for subscriptions.
- Process: Residents received only 17 days notice (mailed October 1, received October 4). Proponents held no town halls or community meetings before submitting the impact statement.
- Statutory Concerns: Joel Kirkpatrick submitted a 13-page formal objection citing multiple ARS violations:
- ARS 48-851(F)(1): Only one fire district per municipal planning area — North County Fire/Medical already exists in Peoria’s MPA
- ARS 48-851(A)(2)©: Requires disclosure of typical resident’s actual estimated property tax — impact statement only showed illustrative rate
- ARS 48-851(A)(2): Filing within 60 days of assessor’s maps — documented dates show 70 days
- ARS 48-803(A) & 48-852(A): Requires five-member governing board — proposal only identifies three organizers
- Attorney General Opinion I25-001 confirms five-member requirement
- Conflict of Interest: Two of three proposed board members are firefighters; Cliff Leatherwood is a developer with prior zoning cases before the board.
- Lack of Alternatives: Multiple speakers noted Peoria already has a cost recovery model netting ~$500K annually from county island responses. City fire chief testified in favor of district formation.
Lesko’s Motion to Deny: After the most extensive public comment session in memory, Lesko moved denial citing:
- Proponents failed to meet with residents first
- Overwhelming opposition (~200 emails, 35 speakers)
- Tax rate higher than city residents pay for full services
- North County Fire/Medical already in Peoria MPA
- Only 26 calls in 2 years ($22K revenue vs. $1.5M proposed levy)
- Residents want to keep subscription choice
All five supervisors voted to deny.
Item 76: Chandler Heat Relief ARPA Amendment — FAILED 2-3
What Happened: Brophy McGee pulled this consent agenda item and asked Stewart to move it, noting it was in his district and he had previously expressed concerns about ARPA funds.
Stewart’s Response: Called the maneuver “performative,” noted Chandler wasn’t present to explain, and said it would have been better to approach him before the meeting. He moved approval anyway.
Vote: Stewart and Lesko yes; Galvin, Gallardo, and Brophy McGee no. Motion failed.
Reconsideration: Brophy McGee (on the prevailing side) immediately moved reconsideration for the November 4 meeting. Passed 5-0.
Pattern Note: The Chair used procedural power to put a colleague on the spot publicly, then leveraged reconsideration rules to preserve the option. This is political theater, not governance.
Items 111-113: Addendum — Including Opioid Settlement and Zoning Enforcement
Item 111: Albertsons Opioid Settlement
Public Speakers:
- Lauri Baroni: Questioned settlement terms, financial benefits, continuing obligations, why 69% of agenda is on consent
- Roger May: Questioned why Item 111 (opioid litigation) gets separate consideration while Item 39 ($5M+ erroneous conviction claims) was buried on consent
- Leslie Shepherd: Questioned authority to negotiate, financial obligations, safeguards for proceeds; noted “70% of the agenda was tucked away”
County Attorney Response: Kevin Costello explained it’s part of multi-party national opioid litigation; court determines compliance with settlement terms.
Item 112: Zoning Enforcement Litigation (5122 W. McNeil St, Laveen) — CITIZEN EJECTIONS
What Happened: The board authorized litigation against a Laveen property for zoning violations. Three citizens spoke:
Tom Arnold raised questions about Desert Whisper development agreements (consent items 70 and 101). Galvin immediately raised point of order: “This her his questioning has nothing to do with item number 112.”
Leslie Shepherd began speaking about zoning enforcement processes. Galvin again raised point of order. Shepherd responded: “Yeah, I’m not Miss Stewart, but thank you. I know that you don’t like him either.”
Chair Brophy McGee: “You are excused from this audience. Thank you. Please remove.”
Shepherd: “What am I getting ejected for?”
Chair: “Please remove from the boardroom. Next speaker.”
Lauri Baroni then spoke, also raising questions about Desert Whisper consent items. Galvin raised a third point of order. Chair ordered: “Please remove Miss Baroni from the boardroom.”
Baroni: “That’s discrimination again violating my constitutional rights.”
Chair: “You are excused.”
Analysis: Two frequent citizen accountability speakers were ejected for raising cross-item consistency questions. The Chair and Galvin used “point of order” procedures to shut down lines of questioning they didn’t want to hear. The transcript shows Shepherd’s comment about “I know you don’t like him either” was likely referring to Tom Arnold or another speaker, but the Chair treated it as grounds for removal.
Citizen Ejections: A Pattern Analysis
| Speaker | Item | Reason Given | Actual Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leslie Shepherd | 112 | Point of order (relevance) | Mentioned other agenda items; said “I know you don’t like him either” |
| Lauri Baroni | 112 | Point of order (relevance) | Mentioned consent agenda items 70 and 101 in relation to enforcement standards |
Precedent: This is not the first time Shepherd and Baroni have been ejected. They are persistent accountability speakers who routinely question consent agenda opacity and cross-item consistency. The board has learned that “point of order” is an effective tool to silence them without addressing their substantive questions.
The Real Issue: Citizens asking why some litigation gets individual consideration (Item 111) while other litigation ($5M+ erroneous conviction claims, Item 39) gets buried in 87-item consent blocks. Citizens asking why zoning enforcement standards appear inconsistent across properties. These are legitimate governance questions. The board’s response is removal, not answers.
Public Comment Session
15 speaker forms submitted. After fire district speakers left, 8 remained:
| Speaker | Topic |
|---|---|
| Lisa Everett | Train intersection blocking safety (BNSF/Whitman) |
| Gail Lrander | Election integrity, Justin Heap/EZAZ infiltration concerns |
| Roger May | Election certification documentation, unanswered public records |
| Tom Arnold | Election security, USB drive incident, certification questions |
| Juan Mendes (Lucha) | Heap reporting election workers to FBI; demanded board action |
| Juan Toledo | Code compliance enforcement delays (90-120 days with no interim action) |
| Javier Delgado Chavez | Heap ties to election denial network; demanded investigation |
| Monica Trujillo Figueroa | Heap accountability, EZAZ hiring investigation |
| Blue Crawley | Transportation, bus stops, Litchfield Road, trip reduction |
Election Tension: Four of nine public comment speakers raised concerns about Recorder Justin Heap: his false non-citizen voting claims, reporting election workers to FBI, EZAZ infiltration of the Recorder’s Office, and 24 US citizens still classified as “not eligible to vote” despite County Attorney Rachel Mitchell’s office confirming their citizenship.
Supervisor Responses:
- Lesko: Explicitly called on Heap to reinstate the 24 citizens. Noted she voted for the SAVE Act in Congress but “when we identify that they are indeed US citizens, they should be allowed to vote.”
- Gallardo: Condemned Heap’s “lack of leadership,” said he will “do everything he can to point the finger at everyone instead of pointing it to himself.” Called election workers “incredible people.”
- Stewart: Attempted to request a public hearing on election security during supervisor summary. Chair ruled him “out of order.” Stewart noted: “You don’t answer my emails.” Chair replied: “Whoa, that’s not true.”
Pattern Observations
1. Motion Dominance: Lesko Controls the Floor
- Lesko made 10 of 11 recorded motions (90.9%)
- Even on Stewart’s district items (Chandler heat relief), the Chair pulled it and made Stewart move it
- This isn’t leadership rotation — it’s procedural control
2. The Ejection Tool
- Shepherd and Baroni ejected for raising cross-item consistency questions
- “Point of order” used as a speech-killing device
- Neither speaker was disruptive, profane, or violent — they were persistent
3. Consent Agenda Opacity
- 87 items on consent ( Items 23-70, 72-75, 77-109)
- Citizens noted 69-70% of numbered agenda hidden from individual scrutiny
- Roger May’s question remains unanswered: “What determines which litigation matters receive individual consideration and which are placed on consent?”
4. Board-Recorder Fracture
- Four public speakers condemned Heap’s actions
- Two supervisors (Lesko, Gallardo) explicitly criticized Heap
- 24 US citizens still barred from voting despite County Attorney confirmation
- The board’s “partner” in election administration is now its adversary
5. The Reconsideration Gambit
- Brophy McGee voted NO on Chandler heat relief (killing it 2-3)
- Then immediately moved reconsideration as “prevailing side” under Robert’s Rules
- Preserves option to revive item while making Stewart look bad
- This is parliamentary gamesmanship, not governance
Financial Summary
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fire District (denied) | $0 | Would have been ~$1.5M annual levy |
| Albertsons Opioid Settlement | Undisclosed | Part of multi-party national settlement |
| Erroneous Conviction Claims | $5M+ | Item 39 on consent — 4 pending claims |
| Chandler Heat Relief | ARPA-funded | Failed; reconsideration Nov 4 |
Citizen Questions That Should Be Answered
- Why were Shepherd and Baroni ejected? What rule did they violate? Where is the documented standard for ejection?
- What determines consent vs. individual consideration? May asked this directly. No answer was given.
- What is the Albertsons settlement worth? How much will Maricopa County receive? How will it be spent?
- Why is Item 39 ($5M+ erroneous conviction claims) on consent while Item 111 gets individual scrutiny?
- What is the status of the 24 US citizens Heap still bars from voting?
- Will the board hold a public hearing on election security as Stewart requested?
- What happened to the Desert Whisper development obligations (consent items 70, 101) that Arnold and Baroni raised?
