Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county to revisit wind-farm ordinances and raise election mail concerns
Summary
During call to the public residents urged Navajo County supervisors to bring wind-farm ordinances back for discussion and to review promises about lighting and siting; others described problems with mail-ballot handling and asked for an election debrief or poll-worker survey.
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several residents used the meeting's call-to-the-public period to ask the board to revisit local ordinances governing large-scale wind projects and to press county officials for election debriefing after the July primary.
Lisa Vicente and other members of a loose coalition said they want wind-farm regulations reconsidered because of health, aesthetic, wildlife and tourism concerns. "I will end up being completely surrounded by 650-foot windmills," Lisa Vicente said, and she asked supervisors to schedule discussion of wind-farm ordinances as soon as September or October. Another speaker, Nancy, said she and a coalition of neighbors are not opposed to renewable energy in principle but want stronger local protections and newer technology explored.
Separately, Belinda and other attendees described problems they said occurred handling mail-in ballots during the primary and urged the county to form a poll-worker debrief or collect written feedback. Belinda cited an Office of Inspector General election-readiness report about record keeping at postal facilities and said some voters were turned away at polling sites; County Manager Brian Layton said staff has begun interviews with poll workers to understand what occurred and will report to the board.
The board did not debate or take immediate action on these public comments; staff and the chair encouraged speakers to meet with county staff to identify next steps. Under Arizona law the board limited responses during the public-comment period but accepted requests to review topics in future meetings.
