Lincoln County court takes no final action on amended solar panel ordinance; Planning and Zoning recommendation may take effect in 60 days

At its Sept. 9, 2025, regular session, the Lincoln County court debated an amended solar panel ordinance through extended public comment and several unsuccessful motions, but took no final action. The matter drew “an extended number of residents both supporting and opposed” and representatives of two solar-panel companies, County Attorney Day and the court’s presiding judge, Judge Adams, participated in extended discussion, according to the meeting transcript. Magistrates Faulkner, Stanley, Gutenson and King all questioned and discussed the amendment. County Attorney Day told the court there is “a 60-day window from when Planning and Zoning submitted the recommended ordinance amendment to take action on the recommendation,” and said that if the court does not act within that window “the recommended amendment will automatically become part of the ordinance because Planning and Zoning voted in favor of it.” She added that if the court does not want the Planning and Zoning recommendation, “it was best for them to vote it down.” Several motions were made and failed for lack of a second. Magistrate Faulkner moved to rescind the prior first-reading vote on the amended ordinance and revert to the Planning and Zoning–recommended amendment; there was no second and the motion “died due to lack of a second.” Magistrate Joe Stanley then moved to approve a second reading of the amendment that would include language defining prime farmland from 7 CFR 657; that motion also received no second and died. Magistrate Faulkner later moved to give first reading to the amendment proposed by Planning and Zoning; that motion likewise died for lack of a second. The transcript records “No further actions were taken related to this matter.” The court did not adopt any ordinance language at the meeting. County Attorney Day’s explanation means the Planning and Zoning recommendation will become effective by operation of the 60‑day administrative timeline unless the court later votes to reject it within that period. Magistrates and members of the public raised multiple questions and concerns during discussion, and both supporters and opponents of the amendment spoke, according to the transcript. The record does not specify exact numbers for supporters or opponents beyond noting that an extended number of residents spoke. The transcript identifies the relevant federal regulatory citation discussed as 7 CFR 657; the court did not produce a final vote or ordinance text during the meeting. If the court takes no further action within the 60 days described by County Attorney Day, the amendment recommended by Planning and Zoning will be incorporated into the county ordinance as explained during the meeting.