Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause on wind-energy ordinance, allege inadequate notice
Summary
Multiple residents and members of the Civic Integrity Alliance told the Board they were not notified and asked that the county pause implementation of Resolution 17-2025 (Article 12), arguing the ordinance should have been processed as a major amendment and that adjacent landowners were not given adequate notice.
Numerous residents addressed the Navajo County Board of Supervisors during the public comment period to protest the adoption and implementation of Resolution 17-2025 and Article 12, which they say governs wind-energy projects.
Nani Jacobson of the Civil Integrity Alliance told the board the county "pushed us aside" and listed multiple requests dating back to last year to put the question on meeting agendas. "What is what's the meaning of your silence? Why do you hold us in contempt? We don't matter to you," she said.
Evangeline Adkins, also with the Civil Integrity Alliance, pressed the board to treat the zoning change as a major amendment to the comprehensive plan and faulted the county for what she described as inadequate public notice, saying the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the ordinance on July 20, 2025 and the Board adopted it July 24 with little public awareness. "Failure to notify affected landowners," she said, arguing the process did not meet the comprehensive plan's standard for "early and meaningful public involvement."
Lisa Vincenti said the grievance had not been acknowledged and repeated requests for open public discussion had been met with silence. She urged the board to pause implementation of Article 12 until a major-plan amendment process could be conducted and said the group had contacted the Arizona Ombudsman office.
Chair responded that the board may not engage in extended debate during calls to the public but encouraged the speakers to consult staff for details about public-notice procedures and said staff believes notice was provided in line with legal requirements. "I would encourage you to go and talk with staff...because you have a better understanding of what we're legally required to do," the chair said.
Public commenters asked the board to reconsider and reopen discussion; the board did not vote on any procedural change at the meeting. The session closed after the chair urged further engagement with staff and adjourned.
