Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commissioners on wind and solar ordinance and EDC negotiations during public comment
Summary
Public commenters urged commissioners to heed constitutional concerns and argued a proposed wind ordinance would effectively block projects; speakers also asked whether the county had promised not to engage in negotiations before an ordinance is completed.
Multiple members of the public used the meeting’s public-comment period to demand clarity about county authority and to object to aspects of a proposed wind and solar ordinance.
Eddie Cancel, who identified himself as a resident, urged the commissioners to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and warned of potential legal exposure to officials who vote on projects he described as unconstitutional. He asked the board to make wind and solar projects “free whole” and warned that officials could be personally liable if public funds were used for nonpublic purposes.
Another commenter, Tim Sorgin, cited a U.S. Supreme Court case and asked the board to publicly state within 10 business days whether commissioners agree with the proposition that “the American people are sovereign” as described in the cited decision.
Deb Greider questioned whether the county had violated a prior promise not to enter negotiations until a new ordinance was in place, asking whether the reimbursement agreement just approved allowed EDC or others to prepare agreements. Commissioner staff responded that the EDC would prepare documents to save time but that any execution of agreements would return to the commissioners for approval.
A resident in the public-comment portion characterized portions of the proposed ordinance as a “kill ordinance,” saying certain technical requirements (decibel or dVA thresholds referenced in comments) would prevent commercial wind projects from proceeding. Commissioners and staff responded that the ordinance included setbacks and other standards but disagreed with the characterization that the ordinance would automatically block future projects.
No formal action followed public comment; commissioners and staff addressed some clarifying questions on the record.
