Pima County approves binding memorandum with Beal for Project Blue over two dissenting votes

The Pima County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 16 approved a binding memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Beal Infrastructure to proceed with the land sale and initial development terms for Project Blue, a hyperscale data‑center project, by a 3–2 vote.

Chair Scott, Supervisor Christie and Supervisor Hines voted to approve the MOA; Supervisors Cano and Allen voted no. The MOA formalizes developer commitments the board negotiated after the city of Tucson declined to annex the property, and it requires an independent annual third‑party verification that Beal will match 100% of the project’s energy consumption with renewable energy for the covered phase.

Supporters at the meeting — including union and trades representatives — urged the board to approve the agreement on economic grounds, saying the first phase will generate thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent positions and contribute tax revenues. The county’s administration and legal staff told the board the agreement also includes safeguards related to the county preliminary integrated water management plan and requires further energy supply agreements to be reviewed by the Arizona Corporation Commission for each phase.

Opponents — neighborhood leaders, environmental advocates and many residents — said the MOA does not meaningfully protect water resources or ensure that renewable energy commitments will prevent local air or water impacts. Speakers raised concerns about how much water the facility would need for cooling, whether renewable energy credits would result in local grid benefits, the durability of community benefit payments, and the absence of a confirmed end user for the site. Several critics described the written commitments as “clawback‑able” and argued the county had been pushed into a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it posture after the city’s decision not to annex the property.

The MOA includes monetary elements: the land sale price and a schedule of payments and projected county tax revenue impacts, and administrators told the board Beal expects capital investment in the project in the billions over multiple phases. County staff said proceeds from the sale (about $21 million reported during discussion) and estimated tax revenues ($58.8 million over 10 years, per administration remarks) will be subject to separate public planning for uses.

Board members said they considered economic development and fiscal benefit alongside long‑term environmental and public‑health responsibilities. Supervisor Cano framed her “no” vote around water, health and long‑term stewardship of county lands; Supervisor Allen likewise cited unresolved climate, public‑health and utility‑rate impacts. Supporters of the MOA said the county’s negotiating team secured enforceable verification and reporting steps that were not in earlier drafts.

Next steps: county administration must oversee enforcement steps in the MOA, present plans for how sale proceeds will be used, and the developer must follow the MOA’s reporting and independent verification requirements as the project moves into the permitting and energy‑supply approval processes.

Votes at a glance: the MOA passed 3–2 with Chair Scott, Supervisor Christie and Supervisor Hines in favor; Supervisors Cano and Allen opposed. The board recorded the vote during the Dec. 16 meeting.