All right. Good morning, everyone.
Morning, everyone. Get started. We will have the other two supervisors with us. They have an
equipment. Each different commitment, but they'll be here in just a little bit. We want to
go ahead and get started with a meeting and we're going to start our meeting with a
implication and a pledge of allegiance led by supervisor Seymour.
Our dear and we follow a great home for the opportunity, which we have together today as
citizens and elected officials in Navajo County.
Father, we're grateful for the favorable conditions that we find ourselves in and for the opportunity to voice our opinions and to be able to do the business of the county in the public side.
Father, we're grateful for this great country which we live in for the freedoms and for this past Bethlehem's day to remember those people who have given the ultimate sacrifice as well as anyone who has served in our armed forces.
father were grateful for their diligence, their willingness, and their sacrifices of both themselves and their family.
We pray today that we might be able to have thy spirit and guidance as we
are able to discuss, that we might do so favorably, that we might do so in the spirit of
being able to get along and to be in good neighbors. We're thankful for the moisture that the
as children to us, and we pray that it may continue. We pray that we might continue to have
our voices heard and to be able to accept the changes that have been made in this country
that we will go forward and support. And remember that it is the United States of America,
Father, and May we be kind to those people that we come in contact with. We may have differences
of opinion that we may settle them in the best interest of kindness. Now we ask for guidance
in direction today in the meeting we pray in the name of the High Sun Jesus Christ.
Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
a wishes and a nation under God, in the visible liberty and justice.
Thank you, Supervisor Seymour.
All right.
We have, before us, today, consent agendas of all the screen as well.
Are there any items which to be discussed by the board?
It's not chair and entertain a motion.
Chairman, I'm motion for approval on the items.
I'm the consent agenda.
I'll second it.
Any more discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, vote aye.
You're opposed for me.
And none of the eyes have it.
Motion passes unanimously.
We're on the item number two, Navajo County Jail District, Motion to enter into the Navajo County Jail District Director of the Director's session.
Here's a little move.
Second.
Yeah, motion and second all in favor vote aye.
Any pose vote nay?
And then the eyes have it.
And now move on to item A, the consent agenda.
Any questions on the one item on the consent agenda?
I don't
care, I'll move it to you up for the consent and just have a question.
Motion.
A second.
All in favor?
Bye.
Hey.
Post vote day.
Here, none of the ice haven't.
We'll now need a motion to leave the Navajo County Gel District Board Director
session and enter into the Navajo County Health Services Board Director session.
Can we move?
Second.
All in favor?
Bye.
Okay.
Most of the passes unanimously.
All right.
We have, of course, the consent agenda on that whole county public health services district.
Any questions?
I'll chair an intertain of motion.
Chairman, I motion for approval.
Well, second.
Okay.
All those on favor vote aye.
Motion passes unanimously.
Motion to return to regular session.
Still move.
Second.
All favor.
Aye.
Any opposed vote?
All those of favourable I, sorry.
Okay.
Motion passes unanimously.
We're now back in regular session.
I'm a form administrative services.
Item 4A presentation to Jayling.
I encourage further time in the Navajo County after 90 years of high service.
We'll turn the time out of Eric and Brian.
Good morning.
Chairman members of the board.
This morning we have the opportunity to recognize a couple of
employees for their years of service to Navajo County. And first is, Miss Jalen, come on up Jalen.
Jalen's been the superintendent for Navajo County for over nine years and just a true public
servant. I've had the opportunity to visit with her multiple times over the years and she always
takes the time to ask me how I'm doing and ask me how my family is doing. She's always
thinking of her employees and just a great individual. We want to recognize her with a couple
tokens of our appreciation but first, Brian, if you have a few words to say, and then J. Lynn,
we'll see you on the time over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.
Chairman Vice-Share's supervisors, we appreciate this opportunity.
When I first got to the county, we said I would join in and I started looking, obviously
I came from a budget background and we were looking, he was in the budget process, we started
looking at the numbers, he said, Brian, just to come down because this is school finance and
you're not going to understand it.
And she's absolutely right, school finance is very different than the finance that we typically
use in government, and she's been very patient with me over the years to help me out.
And she's, I think, very effectively straddled that the school finance, merging it with
the county finance, working with the treasurer's office and just managing that whole process.
She's in a great job.
And her willingness to partner and try new ideas has been very, very appreciated.
On the probation side, we've done some just fantastic things with juveniles and with the
And one of the key parts of that is the accommodation school district, so keeping those kids enrolled in school,
keeping them caught up on their academic progress, and then allowing them, so she takes them in the mornings,
and then turns them over to probation and probation works on the life skills, the counseling, and more development of those kids.
And so both pieces like super, super needed.
And so Jalen's consistent partnership
and consistent efforts in caring for those kids
has been tremendous.
And so we thank for a lot.
And Jalen, thank you for just being a great partner.
And we appreciate her.
So thank you.
I have many thanks.
The first group I want to thank is our veterans.
I come from a family of veterans.
And my husband's family, family of veterans.
I need to thank on the county side,
to my chief deputy and my staff. They hold it together folks through thick and thin. We've
gone through many, many journeys and many, many challenges and celebrations. I'd like to thank
Laney Gillespie who's the associate superintendent. She's the consortium side. Many people don't
know that my office also offers speech services, PT services, occupational services across the
counties and that started with Bill Bennett recently passed away and we want to thank
Kim also for what he was able to lay down the groundwork for and to be able to maintain
that. She also helped tremendously with that school side. I want to thank my family.
They've had to put up with me and my little dabblings and education for the past 39 years.
I've been through many, many iterations of
dabbling and school stuff and through NAU.
So I've had the opportunity and privilege and honor of working with
three year olds through adults.
And it's been quite the travels.
So I need to get my quote that pretty much sums up how I feel
has there go my people. I must hurry to catch up with them for I am their leader.
I've always been amazed how fast everyone moves and I always feel like I'm catching
up to everybody with the county anticipating the needs of what has needs to
happen with my staff who need anticipate what needs to happen and they've taught me
a ton and that to me is what sums up my job. It's all about learning. It's always been
learning experience. I encourage you to always learn something new every day and if you've done that,
you've had a good day in my view. Thank you very much. I appreciate you.
Thank you very much. Any comments
from members of the board?
Chairman. Go ahead, supervisor. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to
wish you the very best in your retirement. I know that I've learned a lot from you and your
professional career. I think there have been times where I didn't understand something
and you were quick to help me understand. And I remember the day where there was a
shooting here on our campus and that directly impacted you and those in your office
And you were so steady, you were so, you were such a leader for your, the people within your office.
And I really admire that.
And so thank you for all that you know done for our community.
I know that all of our schools have benefited with both consortium.
If you don't know, I think one of the things in knowing about education is that we live in such a rural community.
that the rural community causes isolation where we don't get the professional services that
may be somebody in her copa or Flagstaff or other communities might get. And those might be
speech services or other services. So when we have a consortium that allows us to be able to look
for individuals who can come to our campus and provide those services to our children, it is so
important. And so I'm really grateful that we have those opportunities through you and that
you've worked really hard to protect those services is a really important to our children
and to our children's families. So thank you for that. I wish you the very best in your retirement.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Supervisor Seymour.
I echo those comments from Supervisor White Singer. Jalen does a great job with, you know,
We don't realize her role with a new business manager goes into a new school district and some of who don't ring know what they're doing as far as finances and some of those things that she has to do and just being able to get payroll out and to be able to manage that in our role area is huge and she's done a fantastic job and very rarely do we ever hear that something didn't happen perfect and so
Thank you for all that you've done, Jalen. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Supervisor Seymour. Any other comments from members of the board?
Okay.
Go ahead and surprise everybody's chair.
Thank you.
We're in the department for nine years.
And like everyone has said, especially, you know, human guidance to the rural area.
and the students which are who are very important for our future at this time and thank you for
nine years of service.
Thank you very much appreciate it. The great work that you've done,
you've earned the opportunity to go and be with your family, enjoy the next phase of life,
but we'll miss you here at Navo County. Then a great job and a good leader, so very much appreciated.
So, glad we got a chance to honor you today and the service you've rendered.
Melissa, Melissa said I had to come.
What did I see if we could do a picture with your equipment?
Sure.
Great.
Just real quick, Chairman.
We do have a token of our appreciation over here.
And then right here we have a penultin blanket.
There's from Margarita for you, Jelaine.
So, we'll go ahead and give that to you too.
Oh,
please wait, what's in there for that?
It's over here.
I'm here.
I'm going to leave you all.
It's over here.
It's here for you.
Thank you.
Thank
you, Don. We now have item B, presentation to Donna Herschum for her retirement for Navajo County after 17 plus years of service.
Thank
you, Chairman. Members of the board. We have the opportunity to recognize Donna Herschum now for her 17 plus years at Navajo County.
Come on up Donna,
and Michael Sample, if you want to come up to, I'd be great.
So again, just like Jayle and I've had the opportunity to work around Donna for a number
of years and always been impressed with my interactions with her.
One of the things that I've noticed is Donna is a great listener.
When you're visiting with Donna, she gives you her full attention, she listens to everything
that you're saying, and then provides a very knowledgeable and confident response, and I've
really impressed with her. And we're going to wish her the best in her retirement.
Mr. Sample, do you got a few words to say to you?
Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
I got to know Donna many years ago. When I started at the Clerk of the Spirit Court's Office,
Donna was a courtroom clerk and I was a docket clerk. Donna became the courtroom clerk supervisor
and I became the docket clerk supervisor. We worked hand in hand together for many years.
Donna then came up to work with Melissa in the clerk of the board's office for a few years and when I got appointed as the county recorder
And my chief deputy at that time retired. I approached Donna and asked Donna was she'd like to be my chief deputy
It was the best moves that I ever did because Donna came and worked for for us and she's an amazing
Hardworking person and she's a great team leader. She works well with our staff and with the
officers officers and all the departments throughout the county. So I'm grateful that I got to
choose Donna and Donna and work with Donna for many years. She's done an amazing job. She's
going to be very well missed and I know she's going to have a great time enjoying her working with
her grandkids and her family and stuff so we wish her the best and thank you so much Donna for
all
This one is safe. Thank you. We moved from California in 2007 and have been a nominal
county since then. And as my perspective, Navajo County is a fabulous employer. And I'm
really grateful for my experience. And I've worked in three different departments and works with several departments.
And in my humble opinion, Navajo County is staffed with great, great people, everywhere, who just come to work each day and work their hardest and do their very best.
And I'm just really grateful and grateful for all the friendships I've made, grateful for our staff.
They've worked tirelessly, and I'm just so thankful for all that they do.
And I'm looking forward to the next chapter, and I've got grandkids that I can hang out with and have a lot of fun with.
So that's going to be great, but I am so appreciate it. Thank you.
Any comments from members of the board?
Suge, you sounded up right.
We've done a lot of people, Michael, as well, that you're a team player.
And I think that's one of the great positive things.
I know you were one of the first people that I had in our engagements with when I first became a supervisor here.
I appreciate you staring me in the way that you did as well, but thank you so much for
your service in your 17 years.
You will be missed.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Supervisor Widesinger.
Thank you.
Thank you, Donna.
I really do appreciate you.
You're just so kindhearted and such a genuine person.
Thank you for deciding to be with us along and I'm sharing your life and wish you the
very best.
Thank you down on for your service to the Navajo County, and I wish you well on your retirement, and go well, and I know you made an effect to,
and positive influence on the Navajo County.
So we appreciate you and to again.
Thank you everyone, thank you Donna, we really appreciate you
and the great work that you've done working with Mike,
but also we got to enjoy your first season working with the board
and you're going to be missed.
But fortunately I get a chance to see you often,
so look forward to be able to continue to see you and your family
and wish you the best in this next season.
So thank you so much for the service that you've rendered.
And the great way that you've done it.
Appreciate it.
Do you have more art that you want to?
Thank you, Chairman.
If we could just get a photo.
Yeah, I know.
Thank you.
Thank you very
much, Eric.
Well, now I'm moving on.
We need a motion to enter the Navajo County
flood control district board of director session.
On the second.
All of them favor vote aye.
Any opposed vote nay?
And none of them that I have it.
We're now in the Navajo County flood control district.
Regular agenda.
Public hearing.
Consideration of adoption of amended flood damage prevention ordinance.
Ordnance number FCD.
01-16.
Mr. Hurkins.
Good morning.
Chairman.
And by chair and members of the board and everybody else in the public here.
Naval County is part of a National Flood Insurance Program.
It's a voluntary program that it's referred to as MFIP.
It allows the citizens to purchase flood insurance that is underwritten by the NFIP.
And because Naval County participates in the NFIP program,
It is required to adopt a flood damage prevention ordinance and that ordinance needs to be
updated periodically to be in alignment and with and comply with current federal, which
is FEMA and state known as the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
They are required to be in alignment with them and meet those requirements.
The Navajo County Flood Control team has made the necessary adjustments to the ordinance
in order to update and modernize it so that it complies with those federal requirements.
These changes are now ready and are submitted to the Board of Supervisors and upon approval.
It will be submitted to ADWR, which we call theirs owner department of resources,
And they will, in turn, be the liais between this day and FEMA.
That's all.
Perfect questions.
Thank you, Mr. Berkins.
The next go to the public hearing portion of it.
Melissa, do we have any members of the public that we did not?
So now in the public hearing portion of it,
it sounds like we don't have any slips to speak to this item.
So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and move to discussion.
Are there any questions from members of the board on the side of
them?
I'll make a comment.
I want to tell you, thank you to you in the team for staying on top of this.
I'm not sure people understand, but private insurance is going to pick up a lot of this.
And so it was a solution that was created so that people that couldn't find insurance for
flood would have an opportunity to do so.
and so staying in compliance with that to allow them to be able to have a least
an option is appreciated, so thanks for being willing to work on that.
If there are no other comments or questions, chair would entertain a motion.
Chair, may I motion for approval?
Or a motion for approval, do we have a second?
Just a second.
Any more comments?
All those in favor, Bo-Rai?
Aye.
Any opposed, Bo-Nai?
Hearing none, the eyes haven't.
Thank you, most of them pass you to the announcing.
We need a motion to return to regular session.
Thank you so much.
Second.
We have a motion, then, to second.
All those in favor to move to regular session, vote aye.
Aye.
Any opposed, vote, nay?
And then the eyes haven't yet.
We are now on item six, A, planning and development services, public hearing, consideration,
and possible adoption of resolution, number 44-2024, approving or denying requests.
by SPA communications, especially use permit.
We'll turn the time.
Chairman Vice Chair, supervisors appreciate your time this morning.
I just wanted to get this document pulled up as quickly as possible.
As you will recall, this item was labeled back in September to this date.
We do have the original PowerPoint presentation in case there needs to be any reminders or
refreshing on the item itself.
But at that date, the supervisors made requests of staff,
as well as the applicant and then offered to the public that they can provide further information.
The information requested specifically from staff was related to whether or not we could justify that this was a completed application.
The two items brought into question there were the photo simulations completed for this project.
And then whether or not there was another suitable site.
It's my understanding that the applicant is bringing forward that information as far as justifying the site today to you,
which was also requested of them.
But we wanted to put together just a quick image to show you where specifically the photo simulations we're taking here and some of the details behind this
Not sure if we can zoom in just a little bit possible
So our ordinance for these wireless communication facilities requires that you take a photo simulation from the five nearest residences located near this property
It also requires that you take a photo simulation from the nearest major thoroughfair depending on the classification of the road
As you can see here, there is a little noting where this photo simulation was taken off
of East Contro Highway related to the property.
You will note that that is also the nearest arterial and major roadway within the area.
Also, just to the south there, you'll see numbered houses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Those are the five nearest residences to this property.
So when the applicants took that photo from a near distance, then those of the house,
at that point in time, staff had deemed that those requirements had been met.
we did not feel that it was necessary to take photosimulations 15 to 20 feet apart.
It provided nothing contextually that would be helpful to staff or the supervisors.
So at that point, that's the analysis that we went through to do as far as the completeness on this.
I know the applicant will have their items to touch on.
If you'd like me to go back through the PowerPoint from the previous hearing, I'm more than happy to do so.
I just also don't want to waste the time of the board if they'd prefer not to do that.
So with that I'm available for any questions that you might have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for doing that, Cody. Okay, do you have the applicant here?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, supervisor, so my name is
Raj Dastry. I'm working with SPA Communications. I believe you have had a chance to look over. I've had a short
deck that I'm going to go through to kind of discuss some of the additional follow-up from the September meeting,
really getting to some of the specific questions that came up. In demonstrating that this really is the least
I'm going to go through a few things, kind of discuss some of the additional steps we took and then see the rest of my time over to Steve Kennedy, who is an RF engineer that has appeared in front of this body before and he has a rather lengthy presentation regarding data that's been collected for the actual need.
Could be. Oh, sorry. Mr. Chairman may have a moment to share.
Thank you.
So after the last meeting, we were, we were opposed a few questions and those five questions
we got that I wrote down were requests to look into possibly moving the mailboxes to provide
actual traffic data for folks driving through the area. So looking to possibly getting
and appraisal because there had been some questions about reduced property values specifically for
the homes to the north. We're most of the folks supposed to decide are living. Do some further research
on public safety benefits and provide some more detailed information on the RF need. So like I said,
I'll kind of address the first floor and then Steve Kennedy will come up and discuss the last item.
So the mailboxes. A few days after we had our meeting I actually started reaching out
to the folks in Snowflake. I talked to Regene Mueller a few times over the couple
of weeks. They considered it and said that there are a few issues with actually moving
those mailboxes. It's really not viable to move them all. I asked hey can you move just
few of them can you move a group of 20? With all those mailboxes there, the biggest question
or issue she had was that the distance would really be too great if they moved it. So
if they moved two additional miles, it runs into problems of the rural male carrier, which
is under contract, has to then add that to their route. So if they just moved say 10 or 20
of them, that requires them to completely change their route and move all the boxes. And
that wasn't something that seemed feasible. As far as moving all of the boxes, while
that would benefit a group of people that are concerned about this, the rest of the folks
that use those boxes right now would end up having to go somewhere else to get their
mail, and it isn't something that the folks that have lived out there more than the group
that doesn't like the location of our proposed site would be impacted by having to do that.
So the post office indicated moving them is not something that would be reasonable, whether
it would be all of them or just a few of them.
So the next thing I checked on then was traffic data.
There had been the question, I believe it may have been
supervisor Whitesinger that asked specifically about traffic data.
I reached out to county public works.
I thought they might have some data from the roadway there,
specifically Snowflake, Control Highway.
They did not.
I asked them a second time just in case.
I asked them if they have a third party vendor
that might be able to do a traffic study for us.
And I didn't get any good information on that.
I was amazed though.
I contacted A. dot and to my surprise,
and there's they had actually run a traffic study
on that road two miles away in August.
So they had raw data that was very, very, very recent.
It was about 150 vehicles per day
have been going each direction on that road.
Those are Monday and Tuesday.
So, you know, Monday Tuesday and August,
probably pretty average days for the amount of traffic
that's going through that area.
Due to the actual location that they were at,
there's not really any arterials that drop off
between where they were at about two miles
to the southwest towards Snowflake
and the intersection were at.
So, that eight, 50s probably pretty accurate
for the amount of vehicles going each day.
This is actually a little map to show where they were, where they were located at, so let's see, where is the pointer here?
I can remember this thing.
If you, the square, the red square is actually the intersection we're looking at, and their traffic data is from the nearest location to the southwest there,
so over to the left and down, and that's where that two-way data came from, just to give you some idea.
The third thing we looked at was appraisals.
This was probably the most involved thing to look into.
We had some issues.
I mean, it is difficult to do an appraisal if there's no data.
And that was sort of the problem we had.
We contacted three local appraisers.
They all kind of had the same basic concerns.
There wasn't much good data because there's just not a lot of sales in the area.
Additionally, the distance to the proposed homes, it's a little different if it's a quarter
of a mile away.
You know, the folks that are in the photo simulation, they might be able to say, okay, that's
going to impact them.
We'll check before and after data.
When it gets to two miles, there's not really much that they can do because there are so many
other factors that could be involved.
And then the third issue is the unique characteristics of those homes.
As many of the folks have said, their homes are built in special ways that are in line with their needs.
And so there is value to them, there's value to people who have those needs.
But they are unique homes that regardless of where they would be at,
the valuation on them is impacted by many things other than what we're proposing.
One of the local appraisers actually recommended we try a general appraiser, who is someone
that does a bit more commercial work, and we track down the gentleman, and he's
obviously being inspired by this work in this area. He confirmed basically that he would
have the same basic issues. Now, he did offer that he could provide a more broad-based report,
not an actual appraisal, but just a report where he would go around just in different communities
within the state. And he would be able to do before and after. Again, it gets to the issue
though of whether or not there are comparable reports. Because if he goes into my neighborhood in
North Phoenix and says, okay, well, who's within here's here's sales that have occurred before
or after tower being built within the last five years. That was kind of what he suspected that
might be reasonable on a time. Those homes are so different from the homes that are in this area.
there are, there are, they're just not comfortable.
I mean, there was not a good opportunity to do
in a appraisal that could show before and after,
and how a site like this, two miles away
from these specific homes, would really impact
the value of those homes before and after.
So we were unable to get in a appraisal together.
It would seem from what has been presented
by the folks that are opposed
that most of their information is anecdotal
because again, there's not really data together.
They may be able to get some larger data sets from other areas,
but they're not really pertinent to what we've got here.
So we don't think that there's really much to back up
that anecdotal claim.
The next item that we reviewed was some,
I actually reached out to Taylor Snowflake,
Fire and Medical, and Sheriff's Department.
I talked to Taylor Snowflake, they are not a direct Verizon customer.
They use AT&T's first net, and some of their employees are, they would like better communications
in that area.
I did, since they weren't a Verizon customer, I didn't ask about getting a letter of support.
Right after that, I did talk to the Sheriff's Department, obviously at the same meeting,
they had come forth with their presentation about the grant they got for communications towers.
they were going to be building, and they're desire to increase public safety by having improved
coverage.
Again, they are not a direct Verizon customer, they are an 18T customer, but many of their employees
are, and they know a lot of the residents out in that area are, so they were very much
in support of the site and did provide a letter of support for improved coverage out in
this area.
As for these buildings, sites, multi-care site, Verizon is the entertainment, it is definitely
available, though, for future carriers, as well, to help provide coverage, not just for Verizon,
but for others.
So, to that end, the one thing that we do want to demonstrate is there was request for more
detailed information on the RF need.
Now, like I said, Steve's going to come up and present that in a bit, but just to quickly go
over, he'll be discussing some of the drive testing he did and go over the work he does for
to determine the current levels of quality.
Not just for Verizon, but for other carriers in the area.
And he'll be able to discuss some of the data that's compiled.
And if there are no specific questions for me,
I would like to hand it off to Mr. Kennedy.
So I don't know if Mr. Chair, right, Chair?
Supervisors, if you have any questions,
I can certainly answer them before he comes up.
You presented this request to the sheriff.
Did you make him aware of the homes
that has special building components in it.
I did mention to, I believe it was the deputy sheriff, did you mention that also to
the prisoners?
Yes.
They were all aware of that.
Thank you.
Okay.
The board then will turn over to this colleague, Mr. Kennedy.
Morning chair.
Vice chair.
Supervisors.
My name is Stephen Kennedy.
I'm a radio frequency engineering consultant.
I consult various wireless carriers and tower companies.
I have 35 years experience in the wireless industry.
built out many many sites, many many networks. I've got a lot of data. I get
out on this stuff, not a lot of other people do, so I'm trying to go as fast as I
can, not glazing eyes over and stop me along the way if you've got any
questions but I'll stand for questions at the end, but I'll try to get through
this because I do have a lot of data. So this is the RF design analysis or
justification for the coverage site. So two reasons a wireless carrier builds a
One is coverage, one is capacity.
Coverage is a building for the transit or in the mobile phone
to talk to the transit or on the site and communicate.
No drop calls, no lost quality, things of that nature.
Capacity is the other way to it's getting built.
I use an analogy of water pipe.
If you're the only person tapping a water pipe,
you get 100% of that pipe's capacity.
If another person comes in and taps it, they get 50% you get 50%.
If two more people come in, everybody gets 25%.
If four more people come in, everybody gets 12 and a half percent.
So capacity is much like the water.
It's bandwidth, it's throughput.
The more bigger the water pipe for the more radio channel you have,
the greater the throughput.
So that's the second reason more of this carers build sites.
Objective is to provide areas.
It's a real areas long.
It's a control highway.
It used to snowflake capacity and poor coverage is not long.
Mobile's to take advantage of higher bandwidth or higher throughput.
96% of Americans own cell phone 57 provide 57 American homes are cell phone only and 84% of
my one-one calls are made for mobile devices.
Same thing, Reds talk too, it's just the 120-foot-Monopol Tower, Verizon Zanker Tenet.
While here users are experiencing lack of coverage and all go over the drive test data
to give you more thorough analysis, significant amount of growth, mobile reporting and
showing poor bed coverage for all four major carriers.
There's the proposed site.
This is the Verizon sites.
These are all the neighbors, the neighboring Verizon sites,
to the proposed.
The closest one is 6.57 miles away.
Far this one is about 24.39 miles away.
So if you look at distance between the sites.
This is a third party crowdsourced state.
It's a little hard to see.
I apologize.
I didn't zoom in.
I wanted to kind of get a better picture.
But basically, what this is, is, uh,
mobiles that are on the networks,
they actually report back to carrier servers,
telling them what's going on.
Do they have a good service, bad service,
what's the level of service?
And if you look at the right red square on the left,
uh, anything you see, it's orange red or the dark red,
uh, that showing poor service or lack of indoor service
and even lack of services at all in some cases.
This is another third-party crowdsource data, same thing,
look in the red box to the left, anything dark green, orange, or red, that's showing you
bad coverage.
And we can see within the area of the site there's a significant amount of red.
Open signal, another crowdsource data source basically the same thing.
It's showing very few reports from mobile, which is in to get indicative of two things.
One is the lack of mobile's reporting, and two is the lack of a mobile's ability to connect
to the network.
All right, this is RSRP coverage, received signal reference power, this is basically a propagation
modeling tool that uses a whole lot of math and calculates things like path loss, looks
at what kind of terrain is in the area, what kind of trees, clutter, what's going on there,
how many buildings, what type of buildings, all these other things, to a 95% probability
I'm sorry, Greg.
Green means there's indoor service, yellow means there's in vehicle service, and red means there's on street service, and anything without those three is a lack of service.
Kind of like stick your liquor fingered hold up the herd hope for the best you might make it.
With the new proposed site, we've showed an increase in indoor services as well as in vehicle and on street.
This is a best server plot, so this is basically, okay, if I have transmitters active on existing sites,
who provides the service to the area.
We can see that there's multiple transmitters kind of all coming in together.
And the mobile's are having a hard time making decision on which sites to talk to, because of the distance and the capacity.
If we look at the proposed site, when the proposed site comes in, it becomes a very dominant server and serves this area quite well.
This is AT&T sites we can look at other carriers.
They're close to site as 4.02 miles away, just to the south-south west.
Therefore, this is 22.98 miles away.
Looking at their reported mobile data, they're getting a lot of bad coverage reports.
You go to the east and the west, they're getting some good coverage reports,
but a lot of bad coverage in an area around the proposed.
There's AT&T cell map where we can see that site to the east.
It's up on that hill, and we can see tight to the southwest, the center, I think believe it's next to a water tank.
But still within the area of the proposed, we've got a lack of signal.
And then there's not a lot of AT&T users are reporting data in the area and getting attachment to the network of the crowdsource data.
This is cellular one, cellular one's closest is 4.02, it's co-located with AT&T at that same site by the water tank.
And the farthest side is 35.03 miles away.
If we look at Uplaciler 1, same thing we're getting some red,
some orange or red and dark red, so not good service.
We're really falling off pretty bad because that side to the east is 30 miles away,
so it falls off pretty fast once you get past that side that's on the next of the water tank.
And that's, I believe, the end of this deck.
Can you move over to the online maps?
Okay,
so this deck is opposition brought up that the online map show coverage in these areas.
Why do we need a side if it already shows coverage?
I'm not a big fan of the online maps just because I'm an engineer and I kind of like to see things exact, but there's other things in play.
If we look at the bottom in that red circle, you're going to see a thing that says disclaimer.
And at the bottom of that it's going to talk about additional LTE coverage information.
So if we go to the next, that's the disclaimer.
So basically the second line said this map is not a guarantee of coverage.
Contains areas of no service and may not reflect actual customer performance.
Actual coverage may vary.
Then many things can affect availability and quality of your service, including but not limited to network capacity,
your device, terrain, buildings, foliage, weather,
topography and other environmental considerations associated
with radio technology.
Your service may very significantly within buildings.
So we have our online coverage map,
but lawyer had to get involved and give this nice,
wonderful disclaimer saying,
may not be 100% true.
And so just for comparators, I went to, oops, sorry.
I went to AT&T's online map in the same area,
and we have kind of at the bottom in the
red, we have the same disclaimer, and if we look at it, basically AT&T's saying the same
thing, it may not show actual coverage.
T-mobile, same thing, T-mobile actually roams on a partner, they're roaming on cellular one,
so they're not actually providing service in area except through roaming capabilities.
And then they have basically the same kind of disclaimer.
So online maps subject to interpretation,
and there's disclaimers about doesn't always mean
that you're actually going to get service.
Once again, here's the site,
or one map, and maps are a general
representation of coverage.
So everybody's kind of saying the same thing
and a few different legal terms of saying it,
they're all doing the same thing.
I need to get to the last deck, which is the dry test.
I hope I'm not glazing eyes over and I'm keeping it interesting.
Trying to move fast.
Okay, so this is dry test report I did on October 29th.
This is certification of my engineering background 35 years.
The dry test overview.
This was performed to show what coverage is in the field.
So let's see actual coverage values.
not what's been theoretically modeled within a propagation tool, which it's close, but real
world test. I used a roof mount external scanner in a GPS antenna that worked on a industry
standard PCTell G-Flex scanner. This is pretty much every wireless carrier has scanners
like this. This is expensive equipment. I did a second little modular scanner that just did
a quick, quick scan. You have to do that stationary, so I wanted to validate what channels I
seeing, I also had three phones active because I didn't have a sim for cellular one, so I could
only test AT&T Verizon and team mobile. So there was active call testing. So as we're driving
around, the scanner is looking at all of the wireless operators and all the frequency bands
they use. And then the mobile's are actually on those networks, making call are not making calls,
but doing throughput testing to show what the throughput's going on in the area. So the drive
We're performed on October 11th and the scanner for process signal details from like I said from all carriers and the drive throughout was created based upon the proposed coverage of what that new site would do
So I did a blind scan and the G-flux basically that's I want you to go scan these bands find anybody you can and I want to see what's going on within those channels
so I'm able to collect
date and time coordinates
cell IDs, PCIs, all these other wonderful things.
The bands that are active in the area are 780 and 850 megahertz channels,
1900 megahertz channels, 2100, as well as 3800 megahertz back in
towards snowflake.
These are the frequency bands, so I got two channels, two blocks out of AT&T.
I got two out of sight or one, and I got four out of horizon.
So Verizon has more spectral capacity in the area.
So that gives you the the down like frequency low band is a 7800 800 megahertz 600 megahertz mid band is
192 100 and then high band is 3800 over 98 over 90 percent of the spectrum used by these cares is mid band and that'll that'll come clear to you when we we go on through the drive test data
But that's a significant impact right there
So I reposted the Euclidated so you could see what the mobiles in the area are actually reporting for AT&T, Sighter 1, come on.
Verizon.
Now, this is the drive test route.
So like I said, I created this route based upon what the projected coverage of a proposed coverage area.
And I went outside of that site's proposed coverage as well.
Just to kind of see what was going on closer to the neighbors.
Once again, the Verizon sites and how close they are, 6.57 miles is the closest.
Okay, so this is the Verizon low-band scanner data.
So if we look in the upper right and the legend, green, like we had before, we had green
yellow and red.
We have the same thing here, green yellow and red.
I added a marginal, negative 1.06 to negative 1.20, that's kind of like, look, your finger
stick it near, hope for the best, you may make a call, and then load a no-service where the
is not even going to really attach to the network that well.
It's not going to be able to communicate past data.
That's the magenta color.
So we can see on Verizon 885 megahertz that things fall off pretty fast
come in east out of snowflake.
And the area of the proposed site,
there it is going to cover its marginal service and low to no service.
This is midband spectrum.
So midband does not propagate as far as lowband.
So this scanner data shows what we've got a lot more marginal.
a lot more outdoor service than we do in building or in vehicle.
There we go.
There's AT&T, close to 4.02 and 4.05.
We're going to see a little difference because we have some closer proximity sights.
So there's AT&T's low ban channel and what it covers.
So even in the perposed, as Reds talked about, you know,
other cars can go locate AT&T within the area to the north to the south and right around there.
They're not doing as well for indoor services and in vehicle.
And we look at the next slide, that's AT&T's midband, midband's not going to do as a good job, but it doesn't propagate as far.
So that just kind of shows you the area is still in need even though AT&T's relatively close.
Here's cellular one, cellular one scanner data.
Well, we've got pretty good to east, but are pretty good to the west, excuse me.
To the east we go load a no service even on a low-band frequency a 6502 megahertz channel
It's just not propagate now east and it's not providing service to the north to the south and and definitely to the east
All right there's cell ones 1900 megahertz channel a little bit better service
419 under megahertz channel, but still with an area of the post and what what the rf engineer Verizon's trying to take care of
Definitely need some help
Okay, this is active call testing.
So active call testing is the three mobile
that are sitting there doing down link through foot measurements,
so they're just making speed test measurements
and saying, hey, how fast is the bandwidth I can get to?
Now this slide is showing physical cell ID.
So we can see by a list, there's physical cell ID
is the set of antennas.
So there's three sets of antennas on each existing tower.
What this chart tells me is,
there's a whole lot of signals coming in
and nobody's doing the job.
So, mobile's out there just kind of freaking out.
It's like trying to hold a conversation with 15 different people
at the same time and being able to have a good conversation
with those 15 different people just doesn't happen.
The data doesn't get moved.
There's RSRP, so like we saw with the scanner.
Now, we have the phone, the phone has a scanner in it as well.
It's telling you what's going on.
So, active call testing for Verizon was not good.
It was just not seated.
And I had the mobile's up basically sitting
on the dash of the car so that they show that typically close to where someone's had
is if they have the phone up next to their ear.
Throughput testing, yeah, well, okay.
So throughput testing is downlinked throughput, so at home with Wi-Fi and our internet services
home we're seeing sometimes 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 megabits depending on where you are, you
could have a gig.
Basically, pretty much for the active call testing in the area throughout the area for Verizon was less than one megabit per second.
So that's less than what the FCC says is broadband data.
Not doing a really good job within this area, based on existing sites.
This is AT&T.
You'll notice that there's a smaller list of cell IDs that are actually coming in the area, but that's because there's two or three sites that are closer.
So we're going to get more dominant from those sites, but even with that many cell IDs are that reduced amount of cell IDs, we're not getting good service within the area.
Okay, there's the AT&T calls testing, so that's the mobile connected and what it was seeing.
We can see better coverage to the east because that side to the east on the hill. We can see coverage to the southwest because of the side next to the water tank.
But still in the area, they're proposed active call testing, not doing a great job.
This is the throughput same thing 18T even with those two sites are seen pretty low throughput, not doing a good job.
So the conclusion to scanner recorded the frequency bands for 18T cell one in Verizon once again team-mobiles roaming on cell one.
The existing sites do not provide the level of service need in the area. There's a significant gap in service for at least two miles.
The throughput levels I'll show below one megabits per second and I recommend approval of the site.
Sorry, it was a lot. I know. I stand for questions.
If I were to pull certain areas in other areas of the county or the state, could we get the same conclusion?
I don't think I understand your question.
Well, if I were to say I'm driving to Phoenix and I don't have a good reception down around a certain area,
could I get the same conclusion that you have here?
that we need another site. Well, I can say right now from Phoenix this morning at 4 a.m.
I had a really, really bad service coming south, south of pace and from north of
Phoenix to south of pace. And there was some areas along the side.
How many cards do you think travel that road every day? That's her. I don't know the answer.
Probably more than travel. He's the west. I'm not sure. I would imagine.
Yes, sir. We've also had several issues in Shola, Arizona, where we have dead spots.
Verizon has done very little to address those issues as well.
And so I don't look at this as an isolated case or an isolated area that needs service
as opposed to any other area, because I feel there's other areas throughout the county,
the suffer that maybe have a greater cell phone need and a greater need.
I mean we all have needs, but when we look at the number of people that is affecting,
I can find other
Any areas in the county that are probably a greater need of affecting as well?
So that's my question. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any questions?
Thank you, not right now. All right, let's go then.
We're going to open it up to the public hearing and I have quite a few here.
Quite a few slips, so we'll go in the order that I have.
So, Anna, if you're here,
we have an Anna.
We've been asked to ask if the DeWit families here
for a board of equalization hearing.
Those they try to guess what time they can do that at to get those people here.
So we're trying to see if they're here right now.
Not seeing them.
All right.
Good morning.
My name is Anna Parasgando and I live at 8.511 Rihada Lane, which is just a half a mile from the proposed site.
just south of those five homes that he had on the screen there.
I was at the hearing in September and what upset me the most was that one person who
represents a huge corporation is telling you that we need this tower. He will most likely
be paid well if it's approved and it wouldn't negatively affect him. Yet if this tower is
approved it will affect us who live near it every day and we shouldn't have to prove that
will decrease the value of our homes,
or have our mailbox boxes moved or anything else.
We are telling you that we don't want it,
don't need it, and that should be enough
for you to deny the application.
The cell service in our area is already very good.
I work from home and depend on cell service.
And in the last seven years, we have lived here.
I have never had a problem.
We have always had good service with no issues.
I've even used the Verizon hotspot
if the internet is down and it works just fine.
And I've been a Verizon customer for a long time.
The proposed site is so close to homes.
It's not the right place for a cell tower.
There are so many other areas far away from homes
that would be a better spot for it without opposition.
I know it would use the value of our home
because I don't want to live near a cell tower.
How many potential buyers would feel the same way?
The reason we moved here was to get away from things like this.
We spent the last seven years and a lot of money building our retirement home
Now, we might have to move because Verizon says we need a tower, the views are so beautiful looking
west.
That cell tower will be in that view and I would never be able to enjoy the sun sets again.
Of course, I have health concerns too and then in my research to learn more about why health
concerns can be considered in your decision, I found out that the FCC has not done any
updated research on health effects of wireless radiation since 1996.
That's 28 years ago.
I also found out that the FCC basically has more rights than I do that puts us all at risk, especially in the era of 5G or more as new technologies come out.
We really don't have much representation in this country right now, but I'm hoping that our voices will be heard here today and the Board of Supervisors deny this tower.
Thank you.
All right, carry it down.
I'm carried on in the contrary, but I work for about the last 13 years for this EI community
and spend, well, probably 80% of my customers are the EI community because I understand their
I take care of my own high genes so that I'm able to work with them and I'm pretty sure that I would lose most of my business if this tower is put right there and I've been asked by one of the EI members of the community to present his paper,
because he's not able to come, hello, my name is Steve Havid, I am unable to appear in person
so my helper reads this to you. I live at 5708 Martin Road in a specially built house.
I have lived in for the past 16 years. It will not be possible to sell this house to regular people
for what it will cost to build a new one elsewhere.
I urge you to reject the recent
The reports are deceiving because they do not consider the improved coverage of the area
that will result from the two other towers that are already approved.
It is also a deceptive because it doesn't say that 911 calls get heard or if a tower is busy.
The telecom industry is infamous for their deceptive reports.
Don't fall for it simply throw it out.
then vote no on this bad and unnecessary project. Thank you, Steve, have it.
Thank you very much. All right, Kevin done.
As you know, I've been a realtor in the area of now going on 23 years. I live east of this area,
so I drive by this intersection almost daily. If I have a phone call going on and I'm on the
a lot. I do not lose signal dropping through that area. It may be tough to make an
call from that corner, but I hold signal every time I drive by that intersection.
I've done dozens of BPO's broker-price opinions for banks that want to know my opinion
or judgment or assessment. It's actually a professional assessment of their properties
values before they put them on the market. So my opinion more than just an opinion it is a professional
assessment.
And I can tell you with absolute certainty this MCS property values will be decreasing
significantly with that tower 30 to 40 percent from most of them. And their ability to resell these
will be very difficult because they are a specialty build. They got a lot of high dollar material
but they're very basic homes. They're not the smart homes that most normal people want. They're very basic, very difficult to sell.
This neighborhood's been going for 30 years. They've developed the legend.
There's even books written about it. You probably got the copy of Snowflake, a book written about this community.
It's got a history of being sought out as a safe haven for all these folks that have immunity deficiencies.
If that tower goes in there, all of that's gone.
The history's gone.
The interest of anybody with immunity problems is never going to want to live there.
It's just going to be a disaster for this community.
The State, the County and OCAAC worked and collaborated to purchase a home on 40 acres many
years ago and resowned it, multi-family, so they could build chemically free duplexes
to help these folks.
It's well documented how dangerous cell towers are to our health.
It's criminal that money and power can mask that danger as if it doesn't exist.
And also I got to let her, I just sent it to Melissa last night.
It's a little late.
Vania Chambers is the owner of the country's store and snowflake tire.
They've got great service cell and internet.
They have no interest in a new cell tower at that intersection.
Melissa has that email in case you are interested.
But it's just the wrong thing to do in the wrong neighborhood.
These folks have lived their whole life there.
Their lives will be destroyed with that tower.
And I can guarantee it.
Good morning.
In
2001, the Board approved the zoning change for the white envelope section of
Kancho Highway from rural to commercial.
That was Resolution 72-01.
The resolution included a stipulation that would exclude environmentally questionable uses
that otherwise would be allowed in CRZoning.
I mentioned this on a previous letter of September 22nd to the board.
Well, especially if you permit might be override the exclusions.
The board put in this stipulation to create a zone of environmental safety
despite being zone commercial.
The cell tower would be end admissible under the intent of this resolution,
as areas close proximity to the tower are inherently unsafe.
The board should deny this application to comply with the intent of its own zoning change.
Furthermore, another Navajo County document is on an ordinance, Section 2521 and paragraph
I under application requirements says existing wireless facilities must be shown to be
inadequate for reasonable commercial coverage.
In June of last year, the Board approved the Black Nacer Tower.
According to its application, it was to have been completed by the end of last year,
but according to locals in the Cedar Hills area, the tower is still not operational.
What that application states, the Black Nacer Tower, which is close to five miles from the proposed landlope tower,
is that it would provide much-needed coverage to the rural edge area which extends east of Snowflate to the county line.
And map is included in the up proposal, which shows coverage mostly to Snowflake.
That would easily encompass the white cantaloupe coverage area.
If that tower were active, SVA's drive test might not have shown deficiencies. Building a second tower
when an approved one might be adequate does not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
I think for this, these two reasons you should deny the application. Thank you.
Do you have a Susan Molly?
Yeah, she's got a command.
Susan Molly.
Good morning to the board chair.
My name is Susan Maloy.
That's M-O-L-L-O-Y.
For the record.
I'm living at 865-7 Hansa Trail in Snowflake,
in the neighborhood that's proposed
as a site for the cell tower.
I think it's a grave mistake to be considering installing a cell tower at that site.
I have a lot of reasons for saying that.
I anticipate that putting the cell tower there will have serious consequences.
Not just for those of us who live there and who depend on that neighborhood for a very survival.
But for other people who don't know yet, no one is born with the kinds of disabilities
that I have, or some of my neighbors have, we're not born with this.
It happens to people, I surprise, I hope it doesn't happen to you or your families or the
other people in our neighborhood who will be exposed.
I've written down a lot of very good and sensible ideas.
And right now I'll have to assume that maybe you've read some of the things that we've sent to you during the past few days.
So I'll spare you my sensible ideas.
The main message that I'd like to give you all today
is that their equipment, SBA and Verizon's equipment.
If constructed near to where we live, especially at that junction, will very, very, seriously degrade and
devalue our neighborhood, and would pose an impediment to critically important public services and
services for me as I expect it will for many others.
As a way of
trying to parallel,
I'd like to mention that if I were, if I were in your
chairs and you were out here and you were here injecting to a plan to install a
a pig farm lagoon up when from your house and I were there in your chairs.
I could say, legally, and I'd be entitled to say, but it's legal to put a lagoon up
when from your houses, it's legal in Arizona and most of the country to do that and you
don't have any rights here.
We know you have health issues, everybody does,
but the situation is that it will make you sick
and we are so terribly sorry,
but this is a right to farm area,
so you're out of luck,
and I don't want to hear that from you today, please.
Thank you for your time, thanks for presenting.
All right, our next one is Deborah.
Good morning.
I have spent a lot of time in that community.
I'm, you know, myself, I'm an ex,
I'm a medical engineer.
And, you know,
Navajo County Board,
you know,
if they choose to approve this cell tower,
I don't think it would be in their best interest.
The Telecommunications Act was written by the wireless corporations and lobbied through
the US government because the wireless technology does cause health issues.
This is the same playbook as the cigarette and the pharmaceutical industries.
SBA slash Verizon have failed the prove that there is a coverage gap.
Therefore the necessity of this proposed tower at COCHO Highway and white antlope is not
proven.
Residents within the special needs and environmental community
are medically and legally
disabled.
be a documented records and placement of the proposed tower, will result in medical and legal
issues for Navajo County.
The proposed white analog cultural highway wireless tower is going to be a main communication
hub between the inline towers that are already there.
This communication hub tower will be more detrimental than single towers alone.
Section 5, our Section 2521 of the Navajo County rules and regulations covers wireless communication facilities and the purpose of this section is to establish rules and regulations for the sighting of
wireless communications facilities.
The number one, number one under this heading
is considering the public health, safety, and welfare.
I guess maybe Navajo County forgot about that
when they're looking at sighting for this neighborhood.
And number over the long term fiber cable is the solution that Navajo County may want
to look into its less capital intensive over the long term 100 times faster than wireless,
more reliable, and resilient, more positive of our security and privacy.
Deborah. Deborah. And if the County Board of Supervisors chooses to approve this tower,
I feel this is my personal opinion. I feel that Navajo County should refund the taxes
of everyone in that neighborhood who's medically and legally disabled for the entire time
they've moved there. Debra, you're out of time. Thank you very much for what you
presented today. Verizon, Debra, and SBA should pay all the residents there.
Debra, I'm sorry. I know you can't hear that's fine. You're out of time. Thank you very much.
We really do appreciate you sharing what you have. Thank you.
All right, Melinda Wilson.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Melinda Wilson. I live at 8333 Rock
in our Ranch Trail, Snowflake, Arizona, in the White Antelope community of people who like
me are unusually sensitive to electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies broadcast by cell
powers to the point of disability.
Twenty people from around the country who have been considering moving here have sent letters
to the board that they will not move here if the SBA tower is built.
Here are three short quotes from the letters they sent.
Orion Crawford says, I routinely watch the real estate listings for the Snowflake Environmental
Hill community.
I am interested in buying a home there, shows them specifically to minimize my exposure to chemicals and to electromagnetic fields, such as those produced by cellular towers.
The operation of a cellular tower in this neighborhood is an immediate disqualification in my search.
Kaila Johnson says, I am strongly considering moving to Snowflake due to the specific building
formats, location of this community, and distance from cell towers.
The property in Snowflake will no longer be of any value to me or others like me if intrusions
such as this cell tower are built so close to this community, and I personally, Melinda,
would add, right at the only place where anyone could get in and out of the community and would
have to wait there for passing traffic.
And would have to get a PO box instead of their mailbox but that would be the least of
the concerns.
Barbara Seely says the community in Snowflake is one of the few safer living areas in the
I did states thanks to the special construction materials used in the homes there and the absence of cell phone towers.
I have been considering a move to this area for those very reasons. If a cell tower is erected,
I would not be able to consider living there. And that's the end of those quotes.
I personally, Melinda, have lived here in this special white antelope community for 12 years.
In low-income rental housing financed by the federal department of housing and urban development,
and by the Arizona Department of Housing, four people like me.
This is government-funded rental housing,
especially designed to shield against electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies of the type broadcast by cell towers.
It rents only to chemically and electrically sensitive people, and for years there has been a long waiting list to get into this housing.
Now I have already submitted documentation showing HUD funding and Arizona Department of Housing funding and ongoing involvement in this property.
I have also submitted physician letters that supported my application for this housing.
Melinda, we're out of time.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate it.
All right.
Let's move on to Gary.
I'm an electrically sensitive person.
I came from Chicago where I worked at the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
I had my own business there for 20 years.
I was surrounded by electrical impulses from the Semination of quotes across the country.
I filled orders.
I went to see a doctor and the doctor, they have no idea what to do.
The only answer to this problem is avoidance.
And we need to keep our, that what keeps us safe in our community is distance from anything
electrical.
I have a list of testimonials that presented to,
I'm not going to read, let you know about
in particular that is pretty significant, and we do have a website, and this website is produced
by a lady by the name of Blindahan, down she lives down in Oral Valley, it's a monthly
bulletin that advertises for people looking for less electrically sensitive areas.
these people come in to her with requests, and over the years I've been there 17 years.
I can't tell you as a number of people I've seen from different states, countries,
Oman, Spain, Copenhagen,
from east to west in north to south of nationalities, people
begging for mercy because they're sick,
they have issues, they have birth defects, whatever.
And I've lived there 17 years, and I guess I consider myself lucky.
And so Melinda Han, she says, her bolts and provides housing ads for especially built homes,
and those who cannot live in typical housing.
If a tower to be built at the corner of White Handelope and Contro Highway, I would not be
able to list any of the homes there in my bolt and as they would no longer be safe.
Thank you, Gary.
Good morning
board and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I like Kevin Dunn also sell
real estate in the area but I don't I agree with Kevin 100% that the real estate values
will decrease because if the South Tower is put in place these folks will not be able to live
their health, we're not allowed it. But I want to talk about a story. My husband and I moved
here about 14 years ago, and we bought the heritage in bed and breakfast in Snowflake,
and we were having a particularly quiet time, and I had a phone call from a gal who was
in Canada, and she should have been living in her car because she couldn't live anywhere else.
And she asked if we would turn the self at the Wi-Fi off at the bed and breakfast.
We were very quiet and we said yes.
I thought it was an odd request.
I didn't understand it.
But we said yes, and we allowed Million Charlie to stay with us.
I did have connection at that time with some of the folks here to try and find Millie somewhere
live that she could live safely. They did manage to find somewhere. And Millian Charlie
became friends of ours. They were super, super nice people. And they came back one time,
it was over Thanksgiving, we had a meal with them. And I actually ended up selling their
property, they moved to New Mexico. Millie was cured.
By living in our area. I didn't know this, but she was suicidal. She was going to take her own life because she was so sick.
She had been made sick prior to mold, and because of mold, and she became sensitive to the EMF frequencies.
And so I just want you to consider you mentioned earlier having compassion for other people.
I would just urge you to be compassionate in this decision.
There's a lot of people I think some person in the who's also opposing it has done some research.
There's about 35% of the homes in that area that are built purposefully for people with environmental illness.
those homes will get sold. The value of those homes is going to diminish drastically because
if you have 35 percent of the homes going on the market all at one time the value is going
to go down it justice. I also very briefly there was a little bit of a contradiction in the report
earlier said this is a developing area and then in the same conversation he also said that a
as couldn't find comparable sales. That is a direct contradiction. You know, the area is developing
but it is not dramatic, so thank you for your time.
Thank you, John. Appreciate your comments.
All right, Carla, for the more. Thank you.
Good morning.
I'm opposed to this tower. I live south of the area indicated. I live south of Kancho.
We moved here a year and a half ago and if this tower goes in I will have full view of it out my sliding glass doors and off my deck.
If this tower existed when I was looking for my home I would not have purchased my home.
I don't need to look out and see technology I'd rather look at trees.
The FCC's decision that towers cannot be declined based on health.
A fan rather confusing, so I went and looked at it.
The FCC is basing this off of 1992 and 1996 data.
It has not been updated since.
No one has looked at this since then.
And now we have cell phone proliferation.
We didn't then.
I didn't have a cell phone then.
When the telecommunications act was passed,
all 177 pages of it if anyone has actually read it, the knowledge of what EMF does to humans
was not known.
It was a 2 to 2.75 g at that point.
We're now up to 45 and 6 g and no one's updated any of this information.
I personally have Verizon.
I live south of this indication where the gentleman said,
you had to put your finger up in the air if you wanted service.
Not true.
One of the areas that he says was purple and pink,
I have self service.
I have great self service from my house to my garage.
I really,
and saddened that this is happening in this community.
I moved here for acreage and for peace and quiet.
I didn't move here to have to move again if this goes in.
I don't want my health affected.
I am odd women.
I do not live in the community.
But I will move again if I have to.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I'll go to Scott Killingsworth.
He's online.
Melissa's pulling it up right now.
Can you hear me now?
We can hear you.
Okay, wonderful. Wonderful. Well, first of all, thank you. My name is Scott Killingsworth,
8558, Garden Home Trail in Snowflake, and just to follow up on Realtor Kevin Dunn's presentation,
he submitted data to the county last week that we all should have received, demonstrating the difference
and pricing between the average difference in price between the houses of the sensitive
versus the non-sensitive in our area.
These are comparable sales in our area for the same year from 2017 to 2022.
There were seven sales of sensitive houses with an average price for
workload of $235, and he found 10 comparable sales of non-sensitive houses, an average
$127 per square foot.
So these are significant number, excuse me, of properties, and very significant differences
in the pricing.
And, you know, why is that the case, because our homes or custom and specialty bill, it's the only neighborhood of its time and recovery, and so it's a special housing special features that add price and it's a unique situation in the whole country.
They're just as not another neighborhood like this anywhere, and so that's why you have the difference
If that tower goes in and you've heard some of the voices from the Linda and Dairy of our perspective
Market that people who would buy our houses are saying this tower going to send no, we're not going to move there
Well those are the people who would buy our houses, so if they don't buy our houses, then who does?
Well, people who don't appreciate the special features that we've incorporated here and so we would that difference between two thirty-five
First square foot versus one twenty-seven that could be a very
You know tangible material loss of value of our homes when we sell them and that is real material arm and
Substantiveness of of why this tower should not go in
So, one other thing I want to mention is that Mr. Kennedy and his presentation, it was
somewhat misleading because talking about the coverage in the area, he failed to mention
that Verizon has been approved for a new tower at Blacknessa, which is four miles east
on Chau Highway, and they're also planning to add a transmitter to the existing tower at
So if you feel like SBA Verizon is pretending that these towers do not exist and will not exist in order to justify a need for a tower at White Antelope Road.
Scott, we're at the three minute mark now.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We really appreciate it.
All right.
We're going to move on to Diana Susslope.
She's online.
Any of you here, Nancy? Oh, yeah, there you go. You're pulling it up.
Diana, they're pulling you out here so we can see you.
Good morning, Chairman and Supervisors.
I respectfully urge you to deny the cell tower application before reasons.
There's strong community opposition evidence by written and verbal community representation.
They will reduce our property values by 30 to 40 percent.
There is a lack of coverage need, and aesthetically, the tower will be ugly and unwelping.
The conscious highway and white antelope intersection may be the least expensive option for SBA,
but the board has been provided that it's efficient evidence that if the cat tower is constructed,
they will depreciate our property significantly.
You have 20 letters from the community of NHS people,
our potential customers who state that they would not buy
our properties at the towers in place.
I've noticed the fact that we have no option to move our mailboxes
to have another way to get out of our neighborhood.
Youth in presented expert opinions from realtors,
Kevin Dunn, and Joanne Gooddrian.
For many of us, our homes are our main asset.
We need solutions that benefit all residents,
not just the bottom line of the telecommunications companies.
The application contains, quote,
a lack of adherence to requirements and legislative intent
as noted in the brief submitted by our attorney Andrew Camp Nou.
The applicant bailed to meet the very minimal requirements
that exist for a cell tower application in Navajo County.
SPA has not proven that any gap in coverage cannot be addressed by the already approved existing cell tower location of Black Mesa and the already existing location of snowflake heights.
They can strengthen that tower.
In rural areas of 5G cell tower is effective for radius of up to 10 miles.
So there's no question that reliable 911 services can be provided.
SBA wants you to accept their very impressive engineer statement that the tower has to be in that location.
But please consider the alternatives before making a decision that will negatively affect our community's future.
Also, SBA did not submit electrical drives, so public safety has not been ensured in this most basic way.
Please keep in mind that once and 120 fat hours approved, SBA can add another 20B without requesting
approval for that addition.
In conclusion, you have sufficient evidence and legal grounds to deny this matter.
I urge you to prioritize the well-being of Snowflake residents.
Deny this tower application to protect our property values, preserve our community character,
and ensure that our voices are heard.
Thank you.
Thank you, Diana. All the rest of these are going to be on Zoom. So we have a Michelle.
Good morning. My name is Nina Beaty. Consideration of the White Annelow Fireless Communication Facility
is fundamentally a civil rights issue and a disabled rights issue.
I request that you deny the project on the basis that it would discriminate against members of a protected
class who civil rights are protected by the state of Arizona and federal laws.
The telecommunications act is not void or invalidate those civil rights or the rules enacted
by Congress and the Arizona legislature to protect these individuals.
It states in Section 601, C1, federal state and local laws, no implied effect.
This act and the amendments made by this act shall not be construed to modify, impair,
or supersedes federal state or local law unless expressly so-provided in such act or
amendments.
And in 47 U.S.C. 414, it states that nothing in this act contains shell and anyway
a bridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions
of this act are in addition to such remedies.
The facility would block these disabled people's access to their homes, the only access
road and to essential services and federal facilities, which are their mailboxes.
So, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Amendment Act, the Fair Housing Act, state rules,
disabilities, civil rights, protected class, and the issue of discrimination were not considered
by the board or mentioned by the county staff at the September 24th hearing, even those
The county accepted the disabled status of a number of these individuals who asked for
and were granted disabled accommodations, so they could test five remotely.
It was not mentioned by the applicant at this hearing, but it was mentioned at the private hearing.
My letter and a group letter submitted were not included in today's packet that includes these issues.
Americans with Disability Act states in Section 35, Section 130, Subpart B, general prohibitions
against discrimination, no qualified individual with the disability shell and the basis
of disability be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public
and it's improving the special permit would discriminate against these individuals and the
program services and activities include housing and the public roads and the right of ways
that the county has access over. The fair housing and fair housing amendments act also
protect disabled persons from discrimination and access to home and the use of enjoyment of
homes as this Arizona law 41, 1491, 0.19.
The county and state funded specially constructed,
specialized homes for these disabled people as a disabled accommodation,
approving this wireless facility with block these individuals active
to the use and enjoyment of their specially constructed,
publicly funded homes built for people like them.
This would discriminate against them.
By proving this wireless facilities, the county would also, in effect, be redlining this area, and it's especially built accessible homes, and effectively evicting these known disabled persons from their homes, from food for whom they were built.
If you're housing amendment, act is very specific.
Nina?
We're now at the three minute mark.
What it entails, please deny this project on this basis.
Thank you.
Thank you Nina appreciate it. That was Nina and BD appreciate it. We're now gonna move to
Hello, can you see in here me? Yes, we can. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I urge you to deny the self-tower application at the intersection
of conchal highway in white envelope. This decision will protect our community from significant harm
while presenting no measurable loss for the horizon. Let's first consider a horizon scale,
With 114 million customers and 134 billion in revenue last year, Verizon is one of the largest
telecommunication companies in the world.
The entire population of Snowflake is around 6600 people.
Even if every resident here were a Verizon customer, which we know is not the case, we would
still represent a mere 0.005% of their customer base.
On this rural road, the number of impacted users shrinks further likely to just a few hundred.
A tower at this location simply isn't critical to Verizon's operations or bottom line.
Contrast that with the devastating impact the tower will have in our community.
Research shows that cell towers can experience poverty value declines up to 20% in areas that are more urban
urban and not like snowflakes, unique population like you've heard others testify.
That decrease in property values is not just a number. It's a loss of lifetime of hard work, savings,
and future financial security. It would turn the American dream into a nightmare.
Verizon has alternatives. They can strengthen their existing towers, rely on shared infrastructure,
such as authnet or the already approved cell phone tower sites and improvements that were mentioned by other
by others today. These options would enhance coverage without adding unnecessary infrastructure.
The existing network can serve snowflakes needs without forcing our community to sacrifice its
property values and character for redundant installation. Let's be clear, denying this application
would have no meaningful impact on Verizon's financial help or service delivery. But improving it
would impose lasting down-age on snowflakes residents. The numbers speak for themselves. Verizon
doesn't need this tower that we can afford as consequences. I urge you to prioritize the well
being of snowflakes citizens over the marginal interests of a corporate giant. Please deny this
Thank you.
Appreciate your time.
Thank you very much.
We're going out to Naomi, Larsen.
Hi there.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I live at 8675 Hands to Trail,
which is about three miles north of the proposed location of the cell tower.
I want to repeat several of the things that other people have said about property values and so on and coverage and all that, but there's something else that I'd like to mention that in case you haven't noticed many of us are up there in age, which is senior citizens, I'm 71 years old, and I was fortunate that my family helped me purchase my specially constructed home.
and here in 2017,
and I plan to age here in place as long as I'm able, and many of us do to our sense of activities,
are not able to transition into assisted living facilities or grants or nursing homes.
And so this loss of our homes here would be quite devastating and probably we would probably have to resort to being homeless or living in our vehicles or imposing on family members and that kind of thing.
And so I urge you to deny this cell tower permit for all the other reasons that have been mentioned by other people.
And let's see.
I guess that's about all I want to say, and thank you for considering our needs.
Can I urge you to do the right thing for human beings that are involved?
Thank you.
Thank you, Nick.
Thank you, Naomi.
We're going to go to Bikki now.
Hi there.
Thank you so much for letting me provide some testimony.
I am Bikki Kistino and I represent a couple of statewide disability organizations and
know a couple of the residents living in your community.
I also operate a center for people with disabilities in southern Arizona
that has been seeing a growing number of people with electrical
sensitivities and environmental illnesses
that were seeking affordable accessible housing
and would be willing to relocate if there were somewhere safe for them to move
And even recently, I have a couple have heard about your community.
I'm very concerned about the group of individuals with disabilities living there who live in a affordable,
especially constructed housing to accommodate their disabilities.
Some of those were paid for with public funds, specifically to accommodate their disabilities.
and then others who invested their own money. So it's alarming to learn that this small
safe haven for people with the electrical sensitivities and environmental illness is in
jeopardy. I don't want to repeat things that everybody else has said and I think the
residents there have spoken very eloquently and truthfully about their needs. But I did
I mentioned a couple of people brought up the FCC and when they developed their guidelines
and those have not been updated since 1996 and I just want to call attention to a lawsuit
that was filed by the Environmental Health Trust and the Children's Health Defense in 2020 and
there was a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in their favor, saying that the FCC ignored scientific
evidence and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its 1996 determination of,
or not updating the 1996 regulations and a lot of research often focuses on cancer, but what
found in this court cases that the SEC did not provide evidence of properly examining
non-cancer harms such as impacts to children, testimony provided by persons who have been
injured by wireless radiation impacts to developing brain impacts to the reproductive system
and impacts to wildlife and the environment.
And so I would just encourage you to deny this application
because approving the facility really prioritizes business
and technology on the backs of people with disabilities
and other people in the community and as a kind of redlining
disabled people who really desperately need the accessibility
and safety that their community currently provides.
Thank you.
We appreciate your time.
All right.
We're going to try one more time and see if Michelle's there.
Are you seeing her Melissa?
So it would appear that she's not able to be with us.
Was there any other slips?
Was there other slips I have?
All right.
So if that's all the public comments.
We have here, then we will close the public hearing
and come back to the board for discussion on the matter.
Any members of the board with comments or questions?
They'd like to discuss.
Supervisor Seymour.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank that public for their decorum for the effort they put for
the research and the things that they shared with the council as a whole
and for the process that they have.
Some of the things that I've heard today that helped me in my decision here, it really
comes down to, I really like the point of the civil rights and the civil rights and the
disability at the act.
I think that speaks very highly that telecommunications cannot come in and override that act.
I also look at the economic impact of the potential that it could have on this residence
of this community. I look at the health and safety and the welfare that it would oppose
upon some of the residents who have immunity deficiencies. I think it's important that the
state and the federal government work together as well as the county to provide a safe haven
for this community. And I don't have an understanding before me I haven't researched whether
There's 72.01 and 2521 made an exclusion or made a restriction that we would not allow
these type of cell towers or electronic devices that would affect their well-being and
their safety.
And I think it was wise in the prior council who talked about that.
I also look at the Black Mesa Tower as not then completed yet, as well as the Snowflake Heights Tower being improved.
And I think if those were up and running, I think it would be maybe premature to approve this until we know exactly where that's at.
I think we've made points that there's other areas within our state and county that are in need of cell service as much as what the applicant feels that this area is in need of.
And so based upon those things, I do have a hard time voting in favor of this application that we have.
Thank you, Supervisor Seymour.
So there were some legal issues that were raised talking about ADA and some other things.
Mr. Carline, do you mind responding to some of those?
I can start off with a little bit of response regardless, regardless of which way the board decides to go.
Supervisor Seamor, I don't think this is a civil rights issue, but I do believe there is an American's
but disability act issue, which are two separate things.
Regardless of the direction that this board decides to go to protect and create a record for a
review, I believe there's four areas that you'll need to address in your discussions for the
record. The first one more depends on which way the board decides to go. The more needs to make
it a termination that in the adverse decision is not the product of discrimination. So that will be
more if you were decide to allow the tower to go. But it's in this one of the four areas that I believe
that you need to address.
Second area is to make a determination
that the persons are in this case, the people,
a certain protection under the Americans with disability act,
are in fact a person protected under that statute.
Third, you need to make a determination
as to the reasonableness,
and the necessity of a requested accommodation.
In this case, their requested accommodation is to deny the cell phone tower.
So you will need to make that determination whether that is a reasonable and a necessary
accommodation that should be granted.
Fourth, you need to make a determination as to whether the requested relief
would make a fundamental change in the scheme of our comprehensive plan and our zoning ordinance.
So those are the four areas that you will need to address.
If you're not ready to address them, you can have staff address them and bring back to report on those four areas,
or the board can try to address them themselves.
But those will be the areas that will be looked at on a judicial review under the Americans with Disability Act, which either side could bring depending on which decision this board makes today.
In just my last comment, dropping 200 plus pages of legal stuff on our office with basically 24 hours of workday just isn't good.
We did not have a, I have not gone through all of it.
I did address, you know, did a quick look at the civil rights issues.
I don't believe that has any basis.
The ADA is the only one that has a potential bit.
But once again, I have not gone through all 200 pages in-depth, because I have less than 24 hours of work done. Actually, less than 8 hours of work done.
Thank you, Brad. Any other comments or questions from members of the board?
Chairman.
Go ahead.
I'm an agreement with supervisor Seymour. I think that this is a unique situation where the community
disabilities needs to be considered, that they have moved here exclusively for the environment
and this is a unique environment that is not something that we see throughout the nation or throughout the world.
And so I believe that those things need to be considered when we are making a decision.
I don't know how supervisors see mark bills, but I feel that we should table for those recommendations or for the follow-up on those four points.
I don't know if supervisors see mark bills that we can.
And I refer to supervisors see more as it's just strict and being able to be sensitive to that.
but I feel like that in being able to provide us information specifically on those four requirements,
if we're in a little patient.
Just clarification, it's in the supervisor who I think is district of the league.
I have supervisor waiting.
I have a pleasure.
That's all right.
Any other comments or questions?
Surveillance, we're now.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know, I'm looking at the receptions, the different cell phones, have different areas of reception, and then also that one individual informed us that he drives through there all the time, and he doesn't get cut out.
So, I think that there is reception and there is still another tower that needs to go up and where that will cover.
I don't recall if we were shown where that will be that will cover.
So, I think that wouldn't hold off on this as per our county attorney requests.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chairwoman.
Any other comments or questions, sort of a consideration to table?
I'm in any other comments, I have some comments, I don't make so a couple things.
Thank you for those that took the time to be able to come and speak both those four and those that are against.
It's my experience that some of the things that we'd requested last time, that has been met.
Meaning people are gone, listen to the things that we'd asked to kind of review and look at.
Thank you for taking the time to do that.
It's very much appreciated.
So to simplify for me, we have a landowner that has rights
to their land that is saying, hey, I want to put a cell phone
tower on it, and they have a partnership with the private company
that wants to come in and put it on that land.
We have other proper owners that would impact them
and they have concerns around that.
And they've expressed that here today.
And those two things lie in conflict that often happens
is it comes before the Board of Supervisors, as it comes before us, we're able then to look
at and weigh and consider some of those things, but really what we come back to is looking
at the, what are our ordinances around those things. Because when somebody goes and buys a home
or buys a piece of property, it would make sense for them to understand the ordinances that are
around those properties. So whatever quality of life that you're wanting or are hoping for,
That the ordinances are actually allowing for that and within the radius that you're hoping to have that occur
I will share with you today. One of the things that I'm concerned about with this big picture
I have no problem with where it's going as far as
Tablin it because we do need to look at those items that we're addressed
But I think it probably needs to go something that we may want to consider as a board looking a little bit further because
This group of individuals has gotten money to try and create these homes to have a lifestyle that they want and their intent that's very obvious is that they have some protections of quality of life to live there.
One thing that it sounds like is kind of missing in this equation is, while you've done that, you don't own all the property that's around you, which creates the possibility of other things coming in that could impact that way of life that you've made these investments in.
And that's not what we want for you either, but that's currently at play.
When you don't own that land that's all around you, those other landowners have rights as well.
It might need to be that we have to look at something as well.
And I think that's something that we ought to consider.
There's enough people that have been here for a long period of time that we might need to look at
some type of an ordinance or something that we could consider that would create what was intended.
what we're hearing from these people because in the future even if this ends up being where it's
voted is no one's being it's looked at being tailed right now I still don't see that it gives you the
protections that you're wanting. The reality is that somebody could go and build on that land that
they own and have rights to just like what you have rights to and impact that and now we're
in conflict because they went and looked at the ordinance they saw that they met the qualifications
for the ordinance. So now they can go and they have those rights to be able to go and do that.
So we may my thoughts around all this as well is it needs we might need to look at some
some type of an ordinance or something that we need to do if the intent is to protect these people
with what they're what they're hoping for. Because I don't think currently what's in place
allows for that outcome.
But we are looking, Brad, is there anything that you need to add anything legally that we need
to be considering beyond what's being talked about?
So this sounds like the board is going to table this and direct staff to address those four issues
that are necessary under the ADA with plan to slide.
If there's anything else, they'll be working with Grant and I will make sure it's covered
before he gets back to the board.
I would like to see us look at is there a tour mechanism that allows the outcome, and
that might take a little longer, but we're in the process of the tenure.
I believe that the board can direct staff to look at men through the zoning ordinance,
either under the current examinations that are undergoing or separate to address issues
It's like this with people with these separatist abilities, or even other disabilities.
I'd like to direct staff to do that, and you're able to do that.
Any other comments or questions?
We don't have that with formal abortion at the table.
We can just move it.
So then, unless there's, is there any other comments or questions?
Subvisor Seymour?
I'll make a comment after we do what we're going to do if I may have that privilege.
Yeah.
We'll end up just, there is one part that we should be aware of as a board.
Cody, do you mind coming forward?
If I understood correctly, you might explain in the shot clock or whatever you call that.
The fourth Cody speaks.
Actually, this is one of those cases after talking with Melissa that I'll ask you to specify a date to bring this back.
Because otherwise we'll need to go through publication again.
And I don't think we want to do that and have that extra delay.
Okay.
So we'll need to add that to when we want to come back.
Cody, do you mind explaining?
I think it's important that everybody knows.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
It's based upon when we received this application and the FCC's 150 day shot clock requirement.
The shot clock itself would expire on the 28th of November.
So if a decision is not rendered by that point in time, then the regulations of the Telecommunication Act,
Telecommunications Act deemed the application approved administratively without action from the board.
Thank you.
Thank you, Cody.
Any additional comments?
We do need to have a date.
So you're saying just clarification if we table this,
that don't take an act, then it will automatically be approved.
The according to the regulations that are there with the FCC, it would be considered
approved without action of correctness.
Okay.
clarify in question for me.
It's on their part, we will have considered it approved, but the FCC would consider it approved
to move forward.
Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
They would deem it approved at that point in time, any challenging or contesting to that
would be out of the purview of, like, planning and development,
as far as the validity of that have been
demonstrated the approval.
What happens now, I'm curious to let's say that we voted
to turn it down today.
What happens from that point with the FCC?
I believe at that point you have 30 days.
If I remember correctly here, you have 30 days
to put out a written determination
as to how the reasons for denial were reached.
And then if the telecommunications company had an issue with that, they could file suit if they
deemed that the reasons for denial were not suitable and didn't meet the threshold of the telecommunications act.
But the board would have 30 days to get that determination out as to how they came to that decision.
To real the new.
So we need a date associated with when we want to have it brought back.
we don't have an emitting schedule between that time. We'd have to have a special meeting.
Or we, Chair, could we, or we could deny this and then give staff time to come up with
those four items, try to reach that threshold that we had denied it under, and then they would
have their time frame to issue the dial if they're not able to, then it would still default and go
as approved. Thank you.
Thank you.
Tell me.
Legal.
Please share this, Brad.
Legal.
We need to know.
We phrase how we're doing that by still doing the same thing, that the board will make
a motion to either approve or deny, whichever it may be, and a part of that motion would
for staff to issue a written fightings of fact to support the decision.
Based upon some of the testimony, our statements made by the board members,
and you've
covered some of those areas,
I may intervene and suggest some other things if you go forward
in that direction, but probably also a part of that motion would be that you authorize
the chairman to sign it, that way it is being adopted by the board, even though there's
a full board vote upon it. So you're delegating that authority to the Chairman.
Does that make sense
to everybody?
You know, be happy to chime up if I think we're lacking something as we move forward.
Does that answer your questions of our testimony? It does. Thank you, Chair.
What is the wish of the board?
Chair, I'm going to make a motion that we deny this request
At this time, based upon the testimony that we've heard and the materials that have been supplied to us and direct staff to prepare a written statement concerning our findings of fact that we have found and authorized the chairman to assign the document.
Right,
is that everything that you need?
I would say delegate to the chairman, the ability to review and sign.
And unmen that to delegate the chair to review and sign.
And Cody, do you want that written report issued before that hundred and fifty day deadline?
Yes, Mr. Carlon, that would be preferred.
So before November 28th,
that's the farthest.
Anything else that needs to be from a legal perspective?
I'm hoping you're going to have some more discussion, if not, I'll start adding some things
to it, which every way you wish to proceed.
You can either have meat talk or you guys talk first.
Is there any other comments before Brad, share some of the legal, I don't think so.
Then, I would ask the Board to make a determination whether they found that there will not be
substantial gap in services within the area, this is one of the FCC items, and a second
that the applicants have not proved that this is at least intrusive method in which to resolve
any gaps in services.
Also, if you believe so, you can say that this could the tower could
substantial impact on property values in the area.
But you have directed the staff to address the Americans with disability act issues, and that you
have made a determination that one or more people in the area fall within the protected
class under the ADA, staff will flush that out a little bit more, and that their requests
to not have a tower in the area is a reasonable and necessary accommodation given their
disabilities.
I hope you don't want me to repeat that again.
So inside of this, as part of
the denial, we should include in it, which was demonstrated and shared by several realtors,
the substantial probability value impact. That would be key to it as well as tracking staff
to go and verify whether it meets 88,
because some of those things we didn't have answered.
He did have, but you did have some of the people
who have testified or gave statements
that they have a disability and receiving disability payments,
disability housing based upon the disabilities
are impacted by the towers and that given the nature,
the disabilities, that denying a tower in this area
is a reasonable and necessary accommodation for their disabilities.
And once again, staff working with legal counsel can flush those issues out more in the
written report, which is probably something the FCC would appreciate to understand why
you are denying the cell tower.
And it makes me feel more comfortable in case
people challenge the board's decision.
We'll have a record for the court to look at.
Yeah, I think there's several letters that were included in there.
Doctors reports as well and several people that have stated
that they are on disability as well as having those
deficiencies, immune deficiencies as well.
So I think that's been fairly well documented here as well.
So, just to be clear, you're not denying it because of health concerns with the SEC, as
you shouldn't.
You're doing it on Americans with Disability Act with one or more people following within
a disability protected by the ADA, and that this is a reasonable and necessary accommodation
under the ADA for them.
Thanks a lot on the coverage issue that we do have testimony of people that feel that they do have coverage in that area
but we do have the one commercial person who's given testimony that he does not need any more increase of service
as well as we have testimony that there's still two other towers that are approved that will probably have an effect on the coverage in this area for the good
but will not have an impact on the residents.
And
the problem is you have everything you need and I'm probably we do what we'll flush it all out more in the risk report working with coding and legal staff
And I feel then going forward, we need to do it. You said you are a direct-to-step on the other mad on the landing zone. Thank you
So we have a motion before. Do we have a second?
Second.
So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor.
Go aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed vote, nay? Here are none of the
eyes have it. Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you very much. Thank you
everyone for your time and being with us today. You know, if that was a
lengthy item, but it was important to a lot of people. So I'm appreciate it. All right.
Thank you. Thank you.
You know, so we're going to be exiting. We're going to move on now
to item B. It's also another public hearing. Well, let everybody that's wanting
to leave
leave you know you know we're going to take a quick break for about five minutes
to allow some people to be able to use the restroom why don't we do that here real quick I
know it's been a long meeting so far
you good all right everybody I think we're going to
go ahead and get started we still have a number of items so we're going to go ahead and get started
here. We're going to move some things around and we're going to actually jump to some of the
board of equalization hearings. Go there first.
We have some folks that are here and so we're
going to do that. So we're going to move around. We're going to item number 7 board of equalization.
We need to move a motion to move into the board of equalization. We're going to motion a second
all in favor of OI. Any opposed vote name. Here and then the I's have it. We're now in the
of the organization. We're going to start off going to the one that's a discussion next
regarding petition review of notice of change APN, 103-01-02-02-02. And we need to do the swearing
in, right?
And we'll list the, um, this is a couple of things swearing in.
Let me see if they sit there. Okay.
This one.
Can you just sign my birth to the truth of the whole truth and have you about the truth of the healthy guy that it comes in?
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Melissa.
So, petitioner states reason for petition.
And a quick, I think if you let her speak, I think we've got to thank you.
Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.
Okay.
Are you?
Good.
the following information is presented for your consideration. We have a vacant 30.89
acre parcel outside the city limit boundary of Winslow. The value determination was market
using market of similar properties in the same area. The petitioner's basis is that the
property is used agriculture. The assessor data shows that the previous
evaluation was an agricultural reduction due to its use for grazing.
The parcel was removed when ADD was recorded changing the ownership and pursuits
to the Arizona Revised statute down there if it changes the new owner must file a new application.
So, we didn't receive the application, removed it from its valuation, put it on market value.
Didn't receive the application yet, but we spoke with the petitioner just a bit ago.
And what we'd like to say is, without receiving the documentation at this point, we requested an eye,
with the stipulation that if the owners file the application by June 1st that it would receive
the reduction in value for it's use.
Any comments or questions?
It's just we cannot override what you do, sirs.
And you do when you do it, say, with the stipulation that they've been filed the application
and then they will file the application that it will file it and then it will be fine.
Okay.
Everybody understand what's being requested, it sounds like they've come to an agreement, but
we need to be able to formalize on
any discussion, can you turn it into motion?
Debinds the reading that, what your proposed motion is in the board, that we request
to deny the petition for review with the stipulation that the owners may file the application
by June 1st of 2025.
Perfect.
Partitioner, I know you're wanting to stay in your seat, you're okay with that.
It sounds like.
So there's an agreement around that and that's the motion that both sides are like that.
Go ahead.
Okay.
We have a motion.
Do we have a second?
We have a motion a second.
Any more discussion?
In an all in favor of what I.
Any opposed or nay?
Very none of the eyes have it.
Thank you.
glad that you could come to Resolution on that together.
All right.
The second one that we'll go to is
212-43-064,
perfect.
Glad to have you.
Thank you.
Sir, Mr. Vice, thank you.
Great, you're right, can I?
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth
that the truth is that I'll be glad to hear that.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. West.
Go ahead.
We'd love to hear from you.
I have some paperwork here, and you is the supervisor and the lakeside,
who is it?
I've got a new assessment on my property, up in Lakeside, and it almost doubles from last year.
And that's one question that I've got is how can it be that high from when the year to the other?
The assessor makes that a decision.
If you had a chance to talk with the assessor about it,
I sent some paperwork in, and Mrs. Deris sent a form back,
not much. It says the state allows us to raise property taxes.
That was it.
So the intent right now, Mr. West, is that you'll share what your concerns are and why you feel like it's not valid, then we'll have a camera, we'll come up and explain why she feels that it is valid, and then you'll have a chance to come back up and speak after she has a chance to share.
Okay, so you feel like it's just that it's unreasonable as I correct that it jumps
to height. Okay. Anything else?
First question of the assessment.
What up? Is the tax is going to double?
Are close to double?
Okay, that'll be good. She can address that when she comes up.
And then you'll have a chance to come up again.
Any other questions or comments you want to make?
Well, yeah, on why the value went up and the problems that I have with that piece of property.
And one of them is that it backs up to a large RV park, which is uphill.
Last June we had four inches of rain in June and all that water came down from the RV park
and then washed out a berm that I put there because they used to have a ditch on the other
side and then so the water came down and then the ditch was gone.
So I washed after burned there and then I'll also the top and washed down the sides of the property and also went to my driveway.
So I washed out a bunch of the centers and so forth.
So that's one situation there.
And the property is on the house was built on clay.
And so it's settling and the neighbor on the north they're having the same problem.
So I think the assessment, if I could talk to whoever, I don't know who might have done
that and talk to them and talk about the negatives.
And then this last year before we had a big wind.
because Sanders singles off the house and knocked down a kind of a carport thing that I had my
farward in, then had to be rebuilt.
And so there's a couple of different things about the quality of the property.
I think I could talk to whoever wants to
take a assessment and say, hey, wait a minute.
We can't double, you know, from last year, you know, at least I don't think so, to next property taxes come in,
is going to be whatever it was doubled.
And so, those are things that I wanted to talk about.
Plus, the site maps that to be from planning and zoning show that I own a 50 by 165 foot of McNeil Road,
and later in the lakeside.
So I thought, well, if the county wants to buy that for me,
they're welcome too.
Because I want to get away from the responsibility
that I have only that Indianapolis 500 strip of McDealer.
So anyway, those are things I need to address.
And you ever want to answer those?
Thank you, Mr. West.
Well, if you're finished we'll turn the time over and you'll have a chance to come back.
If you want to take a seat.
Thank you so much.
On this property, the full cash did not change from the original notice to the notice of change. The only change between the original notice, which they would give you, tends to appeal, and the secondary notice, is the limited value.
The reason for the change in the limited value doubling is they were qualified for what they call a senior valuation protection, and what that does is that freezes the limited value, which is only values for tax purposes.
So, it freezes that limited value.
They applied for the senior valuation freeze in 2019.
It's part of the constitution.
It requires that they reapply every three years.
They reapply in 2022, which froze it for 2023, for 2022, 2023 and 24.
They did not reapply to have it continue for 25.
So, when that phrase was, that protection was, that phrase was taken off that value.
It got six years of increases, rather than one year.
We sit in your packet.
You can see there's a letter that was sent February 7th of 2024,
as required by to send them a thing saying that they had to refile.
So we sent them a letter asking them to refile.
We didn't receive a spot.
So in August 2nd of 2024, we sent another letter,
And on the top of it in red, it says urgent final notice, and we did not receive a response there, so we sent another letter in September of 24, nowhere to find that it had been removed.
I mean, this is the Arizona Constitution. This is the statutes. I have no authority to go back and say, you know, you don't have to file this paper.
It's there. The paperwork has to be filed for that freeze to continue. So it's not a one year increase.
It's taking a property that froze back in 2019 and then freezing it in 2024.
That's where the difference is.
The other thing he talked about, the full cash value has not changed one dollar since the original notice that he was given a chance to appeal.
So what we're looking at the only change was that limited value.
And that was due to the loss of the value, the senior valuation protection freeze.
Thank you for sharing that.
Bring clarity.
Turn the time back over to the petitioner.
The request for documents was sort of extensive.
I couldn't find some of it.
So that's why I didn't send it in.
And I wish I would have somehow found those documents.
Would have saved me whatever the increase was.
And then that piece of property of mine that goes into the steel street, 50 feet by 165.
And I measured that and I wonder if the county couldn't just pay me for that and take over that piece of like the old world.
So I could have a decision on that.
Probably will be able to respond to that today as far as purchasing the land or whatnot, but that's not the purpose of this this hearing, but to talk about
What's owed
On that and the reasoning line it sounds like you understand the paperwork, but you had some complications with it. Is that what it's far as filling that out
Okay, I mean able to get that back in and what you what you shared with us is
that you've sent multiple letters trying to kind of warn that you have to have that in order to trigger the freeze and keep that in there.
And you've not been able to re-applied
and re-applied for going forward.
You'll freeze up the new value.
I have to wait until next year to reply.
You can re-apply now, but it won't take it back until next until 2026.
Okay, on the increase.
You'll freeze up the increased amount, yes.
But that paperwork is something I'm not going to tell you, we have to have that paperwork.
Okay, well.
I think that's all I need to discuss.
Any questions about me?
Thank you, Mr. West.
Appreciate your time.
Thank you, folks.
So now, Mr. West will end up talking as a board about this item.
If you're wanting to stay in here with the board, it has to say, as we talk about it.
Okay, can I get a response?
You didn't, they're going to do it right now, they're going to do it right now.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. West.
All right.
So now we move.
The decision is given their final battle.
We're now to the discussion part for the board.
So any items the board has?
Questions on would like to discuss?
Does it relate to this matter?
Supervisor Weiss here.
Go ahead.
every three years every three years and if they don't reapply then those dollars they have to pay whatever
Well, we don't we don't go back no we don't go back and say you know these back three years
It was frozen for six years and it's taking frozen now for 25 we've been frozen
So in 25 when the textbook comes out September that new value will be reflected
He can then he can reapply now and then we'll freeze it at that value and then he'll state frozen for as long as he doesn't pay for
Okay, okay, just I want to understand that a better.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Let's see what is the right thing or finish your questions?
Yes, that's it.
Thank you sir.
Okay, and then vice chair.
Go ahead.
You can ask questions.
Yeah, so my question is sent.
It's not frozen from September.
And he only he will be applying in February.
Does that mean the time between
from September 24th that is this little not be frozen that is
some senior they will not be frozen less e-replace it will continue to go up
along with similar properties and with everyone else is around unless the senior
fees is applied for again thank you any other questions
okay if there's no more
discussion.
Chair and entertain a motion.
Chairman, I motion that we follow
the recommendation of the assessor's office.
I'll second it.
I'll motion in a second.
Any more discussion?
We're now in the Album Favor vote aye.
Any opposed vote?
Aye.
Any opposed vote?
Thank you, Mr. West.
Appreciate you being here.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
All right, let's move on to...
It'll be APN 20642-084.
So
do we have the, so they've not shown up.
Okay.
So if they're not here, then, and games are already been sworn in,
do you want to state the reason?
What's?
Okay, good to see you, thanks.
And President, to your notice of the schedule hearing date, the following information is
presented for your consideration.
The property is located within the Pine Crest RV Resort and Consists of a 385 square foot
park model owned by Capco built in 2013.
The residential yard improvements consists of the land value, electrical, water, and sewage
hookups.
The 120 square foot storage shed and a 527 foot covered wood porch built in 2024.
The notice of value of the 70 to the full cash value of 114,737 and a limited property
value of 799,932.
The residential yard improvement, full cash is 82,542 and the limited property value is 47.
736. The 2013 cabco value is full cash is 32,196 and the limited property value is 32,196.
The land value is a part of the residential yard improvements and the full cash has not changed and it is at 16,250.
The basis for appeal, the property owner has submitted the cost breakdown for the covered wood deck of 44,522.
The owner's opinion of the full cash value is 65,000 for the residential yard improvement portion of the full cash value.
The assessor data for the residential yard improvement portion of the full cash value.
The full cash value for the $20,24 tax rule was $33,997.
And the full cash value for the $20,25 tax rule is $82,542 with the difference of $48,544.
The limited property value for the $24 tax rule was at $27,364 and the limited property
value for the $20-25 tax rule was at $47,736 with the difference of $2372, which is less
than half of the owner's cost at $44,522. It is the assessor's recommendation that the
full cash should remain at the current value as the limited property value is calculated in accordance
with the Arizona Revised Statute at 421-3301.
Sorry. Any questions or comments?
Just a double check. We don't have the petitioner
here. It's still correct. Okay. Just verify. Okay. Then we'll move to the discussion portion
of this. Any discussion from the board? Comments questions?
Yeah, I'll make a motion that we deny the application and we recommend that we
We approve the assessors recommendation that the full cash value should be being as the current value.
Okay, we have a motion.
Do we have a second?
All of any more discussion?
All of them favor vote aye.
Any opposed vote, nay?
In none of the ice have it, motion passes unanimously,
and now to the last item.
consideration of stipulations between Navo County Cessor and Petitioner
competitions for you. Notice of changes where you need an obsessor and
petitioners.
Okay. Which one are you starting with? This is the last one item D. Okay,
so let me just go through all of them at one time. Is that what you want to do Melissa?
Yeah. Okay.
So on parcel 202. 67.002. The assessor's office and I've
land. The petitioner have reached a stipulation. The full cash value will be set at 398-065
and the limited will be set at 232-11.
That's on the lake. The e-mails got jumbled, I think.
They were sort of
all exerced stipulations where the people had sent us e-mails. The e-mails
when you sent them, they sort of got jumbled. I mean, they were in boxes and they sort of
got jumbled. So, they have actually agreed to the numbers that I am reading to you today.
Okay, so the numbers you're reading are what you've formed in agreement with the individuals so this full cash will be 398
065
The limited property value we 23211 and I supplied Melissa with copies of the letters.
Thank you very much.
Uh-huh.
Do you want me to just read the next one or you're going to miss your visually, okay?
Please.
on parcel 2, 12, 43, 032, the Navajo County Accessors Office and Anderson
Virtual Junior and Anne Reed, the Petitioner, have received stipulation.
Both parties, because of full cash value, we said at 145, 137, and the limited
property value be said at 69, 107, for the 2020, 5, 5,
5,
8, 8, 8, 8, the Navajo County
and Augusta Ranch 50 LLC, the petitioner, a resuscitipulation.
Both parties request the full cash value be set up 516,092
and a limited property value be set at 298,468 for the 25 tax roll.
Thank you.
3,11,15,15,15.
The Navajo County assessors office and Mark Van Arck and Michelle Sirot, participants have reached stipulation.
Both parties request the Polkash Valley be set at 526,280 with a limited be set at 304,361 for the 25 tax roll.
Thank you. That's all of them?
Okay.
I don't know how that one.
Oh, there, no, it's 2.0.
Navajo County says, on 2.144, 3.76, the Navajo County
says there's office, and it's Diracal family trust.
The petitioners have reached the agreement, both parties
because the full cash value be said at 6.21, 025,
and the limited property value be at 359, 155,
for the 25 tax roll.
Thank you, is that all women?
So is there any discussion among the board
about any one of those items,
not hearing any thank you for working with these individuals
to come to a resolution.
Very much appreciated.
It's time to share with the entertainer motion on all petitions.
So we have motion for approval.
Do we have a second?
Second.
Give a second.
Any more discussion?
Hearing none.
All those in favor, vote aye.
Any opposed, vote nay.
And none of the eyes have it.
Motion passes unanimously.
So we need a motion to return to regular session.
Yes, sir.
We have a motion in a second.
All those in favor of ROTI?
Aye.
Any opposed vote, nay?
And then the eyes have it.
We'll back to regular session.
So we'll go back now.
Thanks for being patient and waiting with us.
We're going to go back to item 60 public hearing.
Consideration of popsicle, adoption of resolution number 45-2024.
a provener to nine a final plot to allow for 20 for a 20 law single-family residential subdivision and lakes that area
Cody
This chairman vice chair supervisor is appreciate your time on this item
Give me this one moment. We'll
Get the power point up and then I'll screw it through that for you
Yes, all right
So just as far as it's summary here for the the project in the proposal you've got the ADN there
parcel itself is just a little over 24 acres in size. It is currently
zone commercial residential and with the proposed project that would feature as
noted those 20 single family residential lots. Some private roads internal to
the subdivision private gate of access which would come off of state route
260 itself and then there is a proposed open space area for right-haring and
wildlife and that is just under 16 acres in size. There's also some public
utility and drainage easements indicated on the planet itself.
To give you a general vicinity, this is kind of the large zoom out, this really borders
right up with the pine toplake side area, the lakeside area here, one of our county islands,
and this is an area of the property itself.
This is a zoomed out version of the final plat, I believe I have a more zoomed in one, so
you can see some further detail after this, but this shows the layout, the access off of
state root 260, and then those 20 residential lots.
This is a little bit more zoomed in giving you some of those details as to those lots themselves.
You can see the floodplain and floodway in the rear here.
That track to be, as noted before, is that right area in wildlife open space area that they're looking to put in with this subdivision.
So we have been working with this with the applicant.
This application has been accepted for about a year now.
They've been working through on the financial letter of assurance of credit.
That's required by state law that provided everything we need up into this point for those financial assurances
So with that together with the accepted application, as well as reviewing our zoning ordinance, our comprehensive plan, and our subdivision ordinance
Staff has recommended approval of this final plat subject to that condition there, which is just a 24 month period in which the applicant would need to move forward with the requirements
and complete the in-beginning complete work on this project itself.
As of today, staff has received no comments in favoring or against this proposal.
Staff is available for any questions you might have.
The applicant and their engineer are also available as well.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much, appreciate it.
All right,
we now will open up to public hearing.
Let's do we have any items?
Okay, we didn't have any items on the public hearing.
Members of the public wishing to speak.
So then we'll close the public hearing portion of that.
We'll move to discussion by the board.
Oh, sorry.
We need to go to the applicant if the applicant's wishing to speak as well.
I'm just curious to answer the questions you've posted.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry.
My name is John Otis.
I live at 2519 in my future.
I've been in Shilor, Arizona, and I am the developer of Big Bear States, and I'm glad
to be here today.
It's been a long road.
We had a lot of challenges to get the same design properly so that we didn't encroach upon
areas that we felt were sensitive.
We were trying to find a way to monetize this property after 14 years of ownership and do
it responsibly.
and not stomped the terror and irritated our neighbors.
I was a tenure resident, makes side across the street,
no most of the people, and have a strong affection
for the trees, the elk, and the wildlife, in general.
So we went way out of our way to make sure
that we did not intrude upon without recensitive areas.
We have tried to create what we think
as a real sense of community within that subdivision.
And I hope that you folks will support us today.
There will be CCNRs in this community.
There will be a homeowners association.
That will be instrumental because we're going to have to maintain our streets.
We have a budget from our contractor over a 60-month period to maintain our streets.
For the first year, approximately $12,800 worth of that budget.
total budget of 33,000 over 16 months will pick up ourselves as developers, because we anticipate
not being sold out by that time.
And we don't want to, I guess, tax the new residents too much right out the gate with
a $12,000 in our dollar investment in the streets.
So it won't be gated.
Arizona water was an 18 month hold up, getting through approvals.
They insisted that we extend 1,500 feet of 12-inch Dr. Lyron main to a pasture.
And that was 18 months of reviews and 276,800 dollars of our unexpected capital expenditure.
So it was rugged.
It really was.
They took away our right to have a gated access.
We thought that would have been out attribute for our residents.
we were trying to mitigate the influx of people coming into the property, parking in the subdivisions,
colonisax, and hiking in the open space area. We don't want to be difficult with the public
it. It's not meant to be a closed environment. It's meant to be set aside for the wildlife
and for the environment. The residents that live there can build nothing on the open space
area. They're free to walk. There's no bike trails. It'll be allowed and no lighting.
It's got to stay completely undeveloped. And we're looking forward to getting out there
and selling some houses with your approval.
Thank you. Appreciate your efforts on this, and for speaking today. Thank you.
Any questions for me? Any questions? Thank you.
We do have one. It's a pleasure seeing more.
Mr. Doris, I appreciate your explanation there I've worked with you in the past and I appreciate the projects that you put together and your CC&Rs are the restrictions on the size of the homes on these lots.
1500 square feet livable under rough and we're going to go ahead and build every single home in there.
There are only 20 home sites.
We want to have some continuity.
I don't want issues with anybody in the economy for any reason.
In the past, I've had more than one building in a subdivision.
One guy or a guy gets into trouble.
They ditch out and they drop the value of everything else in the subdivision.
And they're really great a lot of havoc for the homeowners that might be there and the
So we're just going to build it out for cash.
We have two up.
We want to start two more in a couple of weeks.
And as the market will purchase them, we'll build them.
Yeah.
You're fencing that you have because that's a very
Injuku park coming into Lakeside, Pintop area.
So aesthetically, what type of adventure you're going to have along the 260.
Well, brown, split a face block to
square foot configuration, tent foot tall along the road.
They'll be at each corner of each lot in the middle in the field.
We'll have four inch boxed metal with two inch gateway across the top of the bottom.
You'll have two by six pressed board that will be stained in that runway.
We looked at doing all block because of the expansive soils.
We've got to go down three feet to the rock to be sure that we don't have a failure in the concrete.
It was just, it was a $500,000 ticket, and we had to find a way to do it for half of that.
We would have spent that money, had we not had to put it in the water, but we were running out of money,
and we had to find a way to mitigate that.
But that fifths will run 10 feet for 1,500 feet.
You'll have a nice access point there that will be a landscape with a synoronym with trees.
Just the same as we did at the Point Vista.
And then your HOA will take care of the maintenance on that fence.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
Thank you very much.
If there are no more questions or comments, Trevor, to entertain a motion.
Chair, I'll make a motion that we approve resolution number 45-2024 approving this final
plot and also that the CCNRs will be recorded with this project.
So we're in motion for approval to be out of second.
Second.
We're in motion in a second and any more discussions.
Hearing none of those of favor vote aye.
Aye.
Any opposed vote, nay?
We're not in the eyes of it.
Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you, Mr. Otis.
Thank you everybody involved with that. All right. We're going to move on to item C public hearing consideration a possible adoption of resolution 40 set 46 dash 24 Tyler your take our code. Are you taking this one you're going to take this one. Yes, this is go ahead.
Yes, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice chair of supervisors apologize for the change up Tyler just kind of fell ill. So we'll take over here and try to cover all of this for you.
to the best of my ability so we do have a this property is located just over five and
a half miles to the northwest of Snowflake Arizona you can see all of the APNs here on the
slide I won't read those all off for the sake of everyone here but it is 15 parcels that
total approximately 9213 acres zoning on those properties are primarily are you 20 and
there is mixed ownership with the Aztec land and cattle company Flake Ranch LLC Langley
Ranges LLC and the Arizona State land apartment.
As far as the components, this would include solar modules,
marking systems, which are typical, a 34 and a half kilo volt
collection line and on-site substation,
gentile line that would connect to the SRP Sugar Loaf
substation, battery energy storage system,
which would have the potential for storing
1,000 megawatts of electricity for four hours, up to four hours,
and no one am building an associated parking
late on the arts, and then set foot fencing with three-strand barbed wire around the O&M building
substation and the battery energy storage system. As noted, this is the proximity to the
town of Snowflake, approximately five and a half miles to the northwest. Anywhere that you see
outlined in red is the potential boundaries of this project.
Within here, this shows the general
solar array that's proposed at this point in time. As you can know, looking through here, there
spaces made for any of femoral washes or otherwise, which could not be encroached upon.
So this is giving you the general layout of what those would look like conceptually at this point.
So throughout this process and previous processes, we've had some questions on the public process
as it relates to the solar projects and how that could interact with some outside agencies.
We felt it might be beneficial for the board, as well as the public just to give information and show where this project sits at today's date and then what steps would need to proceed to get to a construction level stage.
So we start all of our projects here.
With conceptual meetings from there, we move to a pre-application meeting at the conceptual meeting. They'd meet with planning and zoning staff. We let them know base level requirements and they start putting documentation together at a pre-application meeting.
They have as close to a complete package as possible, with that we'd bring in all relevant county departments, as well as outside agencies like the game and fish department, the state fire marshals office for these reviews and to discuss the application at hand.
Typically, from there, there will then be the community outreach portion, which is required
with our ordinance for anything that goes into a public hearing, following that, we would
get to a false middle with that package and any corrections requested at that pre-application
meeting.
Next on this list is the Planning and Zoning Commission, and today where we said is that
step right below, which is the Board of Supervisors.
Now, on the right, you'll see outside agencies, one of these is the utility company.
there's a request for procurement from these utility companies for projects that doesn't necessarily
happen in parallel or right after the Board of Supervisors. It can run at the same time,
it can run after the Board of Supervisors but it does a separate process that kind of kicks off
that portion and that side of things for these developers. From there, if the project was approved
by the Board of Supervisors, it would go to the Corporation Commission for a certificate of environmental
compatibility. That does require some open houses as well as some hearings as well that are
for that agency itself. Following that, there's the utility company in our connection agreement and
power purchase agreement, so that's saying you've met all of these steps, you've gone through
all of these agencies, now at this point in time, what's making agreement on how we're going to
move forward with this project and purchase. If all of those steps have then been hit, the applicant
would come back and show the completeness as to conditions that have been applied to their project
and they would go towards the building permit stage and review and then to the construction of
project. Of note for these projects, it is important to know they do all have bonding required
on them so that there is the removal at the adequate time that will not take any public
money from them. So staff does require bonding of each and all of those items.
In this specific project, we went through and reviewed the comprehensive plan, our zoning ordinance,
and we found that this is substantially in compliance with all of the requested items.
there have been inclusions for cultural studies as well as environmental resources, this meets the
letter of everything that we have regarding a solar energy generation facility.
Also,
with that we've received no comments in favor of nor against this project.
I'm sorry, we have received one letter in favor of this project, no comments against this project,
correct myself there. Of note for the board, we do know that a statement was released by the
a few months ago. This is the final project that was formally within the pipeline and received prior
to that statement being released. So this is the final of the solar projects that's coming through
prior to that statement.
With all this in mind, Navo County Planning Development Services staff,
recommend approval of the special use permit for this generation facility.
Subject to the 14 conditions listed in our staff report.
As those are quite lengthy, quite a few pages. We haven't written them all out on a slide here,
but if you have questions specific to any of those conditions,
I would be very happy to answer them.
We do have the applicant here available for any questions, comments, and otherwise, and I appreciate
your time.
Thank you.
Is the applicant wishing to speak at this time?
You're going to see you.
We're going to come forward.
Mr. Chairman, supervisors, good afternoon.
It's going to take good morning.
I'm Thomas Galvin, on behalf of Stella Renouble, 7144 Eastets and Drive in Phoenix.
I really want to appreciate and thank staff for all of the work they have been doing.
Working with us for a very long time, but as you can see, they give a very thorough presentation.
So I'm just going to be brief here, but I want to highlight a few important items for all of you in the board.
First of all, not only do we think staff, but we want to thank them for working with us for a long time, as I mentioned earlier.
And as you saw, Cody provided for you a very thorough and lengthy submittal process.
You see there's a lot of hoops that are going to have to be satisfied in order to get this to the very end.
And as you heard, we comply with the comprehensive plan, and we comply with the zoning
codes.
And in fact, we're grateful for unanimous approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission
and since then there have been no changes.
Nothing substantially different than what the Planning Commission saw when they provided unanimous
approval.
And as you heard from Cody, this is not the end of the process, as I said earlier as well.
We still have a lot to work with.
We have to work with the utility and staff on site planning, and we are very grateful for
landowner who is here today to provide their support and I just asked that I have time for
rebuttal in case anyone else speaks in opposition or there's questions. Thank you. Thank you.
Appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. We're going to go ahead and go to the public hearing
portion of the media and open it up for the public hearing. We do have a number of requests to speak.
We'll start with Sicilia.
Yeah. This is for the solar. This is so. Okay. So we're drawing that one.
Okay,
Reven.
Thank you.
Thank you for letting me speak.
I'm district four.
Reven balance.
I live in Shalom, a 22 year veteran, including the Gulf War.
Of the Masters in Math and Science Education, I'm an environmentalist.
And I live in my third solar grid tide, all the electric home on Shalom Bluff.
Before I go into that, I appreciate in my laser experience working with the election office again.
Four times there, witnessed excellent integrity and will actually call out the staff for stopping
some political talk that was dismissive of our Navajo Nation, and I was glad to see the officials there take that up.
Good thing to keep all the politics out of that office.
I'm here to support the alternative energy that Navajo County continues to approve using
science using facts and this solar battery project is excellent.
We have a history of clean energy and Navajo County in the words of the board member.
This is a private utility company buying power from a private landowner and a private company
is going to build it.
Unfortunately, my legislature has turned down tens of thousands of dollars of our federal
tax money that went somewhere else, but the inflation reduction act brings millions
of dollars in this form to this county for clean energy.
There's a lot of opposition to this.
A lot of it comes in the form of NIMBY, not in my backyard.
It's not their backyard.
this Aztec land and cattle companies backyard and I disturbed by people who claim Nimbi
when they're not there and claim to know what indigenous people want in this county.
I've also been starting, you have the statement in front of you from the group that's here,
calling out people by name, calling late to freely discriminate against poll workers.
I consider that slander, but at the bottom it basically says they're called here to occupy
by the land by God's principles and plural.
I don't know which God's those are.
By the authority of God Almighty and not the government
of the Navajo County Board of Surveysers,
I'm concerned about that statement.
We've had groups here before calling out the tyranny
of your board, the corruption of your board,
and it's a serving that we have citizens
imposing their religious and political views
on matters that require science and fact.
My hope is that this verb will inform, excuse me, affirm that your words in your actions,
and you may hope personal, political, and religious beliefs, that you govern and make decisions
that are based not on your partisan beliefs or your religious beliefs, but on science and logic,
and for the good of all Navajo County citizens.
Thank you.
All right.
Belinda.
Good afternoon.
First of all, on this solar farm, where were we supposed to send comments?
You never got any noise for that.
So solar wind technology limited to rooftops and backyard groups is a good thing.
You know, in small groups, but giant solar wind farms, these mega structures have devastating
life-altering consequences to the surrounding community and the environment forever.
We the people of Navajo County say no to giant solar winder,
solar wind farms in our county.
There's a long list of proven dire consequences of these giant solar farms, but I've only got three minutes to read it, so I don't have time to read it.
All of you have been lying to by environmental houses and corporate greed, giant solar farms and giant wind farms are outdated technologies for energy and leave environmental scars that we will never be repaired in our children's lifetime.
And we will destroy our open spaces forever.
So, don't make a decision that's obsolete like you were persuaded to do by installing broadband to the community's rural areas years ago for millions of dollars which is only now being installed and was obsolete in 2022 standards.
Be fully aware of the consequences of your decisions on this giant solar farm.
Are you going to be the heroes that preserve our beautiful white mountains for generations
to come, or are you going to be the cowardly and greedy who destroy it?
If you approve this giant solar wind farm, be acutely aware that your children will despise
you for allowing it, your children's children will despise you for allowing it.
The people of Navajo County will most certainly despise you for allowing it and despise you for not only
destroying our beautiful white mountains but also serving international corporate greed
other than the job that you're obligated to do by oath and that's to serve the people of Navajo County.
We strongly request the board to deny the solar farm special use permit.
And lastly, Jason Wading.
Use it on the Board of Real AZ, which actively works to bring these international corporations
to Navajo County to do business to destroy county's open lands and beautiful business,
and yet use serve on the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny the use permits of these
entities overwriting our already existing building codes.
That is a conflict of interest, and the people want some answers and demand 100% transparency.
So, supervisor, whiting, how much money have you personally received from real AZ and any
entity doing business with real AZ in any fashion?
Thank you.
I will move on then to get inflate.
Honorable Board of Supervisors.
My name is Galen Flake.
I live at 465 East Billy Button Line and Snowflake.
I'm a fourth generation rancher from the flight family.
Our ranch has been in the family for over 100 years.
My son represents the fifth generation.
And we hope to carry on this legacy for many more generations.
We are deeply concerned about the proposal to install a large solar farm,
which would claim five sections of our ranch.
This land has been integral to our operation for generations, and its loss would have serious and lasting consequences.
These five sections contain vital water sources that we have worked for years to develop and maintain.
Losing access to these resources would severely disrupt our operation and threaten the long-term
sustainability of our family ranch.
In addition to these sections, proposed for the solar project, we own private sections
adjacent to this land.
Our private land and the proposed development area are interconnected, and the solar project
would impact the health of both.
These sections like the rest of our ranch are crucial for local wildlife.
Large, large, large, large of elk sometimes over a hundred strong,
rely on this area for habitat.
If the solar farm proceeds, these elk will be forced to relocate to neighboring
in private land. Intense fine conflict between wildlife and agricultural operations as the
private land will become the only remaining wildlife corridor.
We also concerned about, we're
also concerned about the private impact for the land's health for the project, about the projects
impacts the lands health. The development would strip away native vegetation that holds our
top soil in place, increasing erosion and that impact on our ranch and neighboring properties.
This degradation will create long-term environmental challenges for everyone in the area.
We feel this project, we feel these projects are being planned in a way that divides
our community, effecting just a few landowners at a time, making it harder for us to
organize collectively.
Meanwhile, our large core operations outside of the community, we're going to have to
Thank you very much for taking the time.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Most of us are any other ones.
So those are all the public hearing notices that we had.
We'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of the meeting.
I move to the discussion by the board.
Ask questions comments at this time.
So any questions from members of the board?
I have a few.
But so, Cody, up to this point, now obviously, you've heard some today, but you had not heard any.
There's been, let's say, okay, great. You pulled the back up. So there's been a number of meetings that have occurred,
including some public meetings that have occurred. It went before the planning and zoning board
and opportunities for people to be able to speak there. Where would all the touch points be here?
Let's simplify it. Where would all the touch points be? Where public would have a chance to engage?
So, the public engagement as far as the touch once you have the community outreach that generally goes to the neighboring properties within the vicinity of the project itself.
You have the commission at which people are able to speak. They're also able to comment ahead of time.
We have an email address as well as a dedicated phone line so that there's no interpretation of those comments and they can be received directly verbatim.
You also have the Board of Supervisors, which is then further advertised and allows for those same comments at that point in time.
I believe even as you go to the outside agencies once you hit the certificate of environmental
compatibility, there will also be a public input portion to that process itself.
But at least with the county, there's three different opportunities through which to comment.
This being one of them correct, correct, that's correct.
Okay, and even beyond this, so let's say, just because that allows it to continue to
the conversation now, let's say that it, if it was to be approved today, they still,
ago is before the Corporation Commission correct, and there's a public process there.
That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and that's if they've been accepted for a request for
procurement from those utility companies, so typically if they have not moved beyond that
stage, they stall out at that point in time.
So they would even have to, at this point, they would have to have an agreement with the utility
company that's willing to even purchase the power from them.
Correct.
To an extent, they would have to have a project that was selected through that request
procurement and then typically they'll go to the certificate of environmental compatibility
and following that they would iron out the finer details as far as the cost and what was
paid regarding this. So, to an extent yes.
There's one to make sure because I know that was a concern of people wanting to make sure that
the public had opportunities to engage and that those have been honored where the public has
been given an opportunity to engage on this. Another than today there's not been any descending.
I believe we had one comment against directly on the chambers of the planning and zoning commission.
It was generalized towards solar development.
I don't know that I think it was aimed at this, but a general one towards solar development.
But no formal comments received when we go out for comments now.
There's questions around it, and it seems to be some confusion for some.
I may be in misunderstanding what's being presented by the public when they ask questions.
But it seems like the public thinks that the county makes decisions on what utilities purchase
and what they don't purchase and where they purchase their stuff from.
That's not something that the county does.
The county does not select what type of energy they're producing, what type of energy they
want to buy.
That's done by the private utilities and it's their prerogative to make the decision within
the law that they want to make.
So that's not the county that's making those decisions.
They're also as a comment made about really easy.
Because that wasn't something really easy.
Question was asked.
It's tied into this somewhat I will respond to that.
Number one, really easy.
I've never been paid a dime for anything that I do on really easy.
It's a something that I've done.
I've served on because our communities,
it's an economic development hub that is in this area that works
to help support the businesses that are considering coming in.
they don't necessarily go out and try to focus on this industry or that industry but they look at
whatever industries are coming into the area answer they act as a resource to help answer
questions facilitate conversation and direct them to be able to be in conversation with people
that they would talk to. I'm not paid to serve on that that's something that I do to try and serve
my community and be actively engaged in economic development. So that's not something I'm paid to
that's something I do to serve the citizens I represent.
That being said, they wanted to talk a little bit about what other things was on there.
So going back to what this is talking about, we have a private landowner that's here with us today that wants to use his land, the way that the Constitution allows him to use the land.
Everyone here's familiar with the Constitution, I would hope.
They're able to use that land the way that they want to within the Constitution,
personal property rights. They have those rights.
That's in this conversation, right? So they have the right to do that.
You have a private business that's wanting to come in and partner with them.
So those agreements are all between them. The county is not a part of those conversations.
Then you also have corporation commission that's involved to make a determination.
and they get it to decide if utility wants to purchase that power and then sell that power.
Those are all private entities all having a conversation.
Our role as I understand it is does this meet our ordinance or does it not?
Am I misunderstanding something here?
On our role, Cody.
I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman, no.
We complete our analysis of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance making our recommendation,
which you then make a motion regarding.
OK, so it has to do with the ordinance and whether it meets the ordinance or it doesn't.
Perfect.
That being said, so we've talked about whether it meets the ordinance or whether it doesn't.
Your recommendation is that it meets the ordinance.
I appreciate some of the concerns I've heard.
What other comments or questions the members of the board have about this project?
I'm just going to weigh in on one thing as well.
I think that I didn't get a catcher first name that is shared with us.
This area has been known for its natural resources, for its wind, for its solar, for a long
long time. Prior to anybody on this board, this is something that the county made a decision
that they would entertain and allow to have happen in our county. And we have had several projects
that we have supported going forward. So I think we'll set up pretty strong precedents as to what
We want in this area what we're trying to do to also generate jobs and economic impact.
And I think it's something that we weigh in very rarely do we have opposition to a solar
power generation station at all.
And so I think it's something that we have to look at that we're doing.
And I know also that staff is working on, that when these projects use exceed their, come to the end of their useful life,
that then there's also the ways for the property to be reclaimed back to the inner, to original state as close as possible.
So there are a lot of measures that are being taken as we move forward with this.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
President, you bring that up too.
there it
goes. Bringing that up that there's a 20-year agreement in which they have to
remove that entirely and including buying a bond in case they were to not fulfill that
responsibility. We could trigger the bond to make sure that that's taking care of
protecting our kids and their kids and those those things. So the other thing that I
I want to bring up that I don't want to I want to make sure that it's known that it was
heard. One thing that's really in conflict for me but I'm not sure
really how to resolve that is we had a rancher that just talked about how it would impact
their way of life and many of the ranchers in this area don't own the land that they
ranch a lot of times they lease those bits of land and so we can see that there's a conflict
that's here I'm not sure entirely how to resolve that in that you have a land owner that has
private property rights they can either lease that land to a rancher and let them use it
or they can take that land and use it for something else.
Words in conflict for me is I'm not sure that it's government's role to step in and dictate to them how to use their land and what to use it for.
But it doesn't mean that it doesn't cause me some concern around how it impacts that rancher that's been there for quite a few generations.
And I know that when we're lease in land or rent in land or when you're looking at doing something like that,
you don't own it, so you don't have the control that you would hope to have.
But boy, it's sure I don't know that we have a solution or a way to be able to resolve that.
But I do have concerns around how it will.
As I understand it with solar, the difference is when we have, sorry, my microphone keeps going off.
So with solar, the difference is they will have to move off of that land.
They will have like a trail that their cattle can go through or whatever, but they will have to come off that land
Whereas with wind, they can still be on that land.
Is that your understanding as well, Cody?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, that is generally correct as far as the solar versus wind is that solar takes up quite a bit of ground area.
to prevent grazing though a large number of these projects do provide grazing corridors
as well as migration corridors for wildlife and those native animals present.
But wind provides a much more limited footprint of the concrete that's there and it allows
for multi-using grazing on a larger scale.
Thank you for sharing that.
Any other comments or questions?
There's a lot that's going on with this conversation, so I want to make sure that there
members of the board that have comments or questions that those are heard.
Okay. I'm not hearing any. And I tried to walk through what I heard were some of the
different concerns as far as what Navajo County's role is, how often the public or when
the public has an opportunity to speak on these issues and even addressing if, in fact, it was
to get approved what happens on the way forward. I would like to. I know part of this is one of
the last projects before we made that statement that's coming through here that that should be
something at least that we're considering as we look at the, we reconsider the ordinances at
how this impacts the ranchers that are working on those lands. So at this point, if
there's no other discussion, chair would entertain a motion.
If you're making motion, that we approve this project as presented.
We have a motion for approval
And a second, any more discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, but I.
Any opposed vote, nay?
Hearing none, B.I.s. having.
All right.
We're going to move to item eight.
County Business Update.
I'm Mr. Carlin, do you have anything to do with this?
Thank you Mr. Layton, anything?
It's a pleasure seeing more anything.
The only thing that I have the drill of it today is it's Melissa's birthday, and I think we need honor her and her birthday today
You know, so we at least need to see happy birthday. Do what I do
You're gonna do that now. I know afterwards we're planning on doing some cake and
You know, she's 49 and holding so I think that's good
Let's see that sounds like the public wants to join us, too. Let's see happy birthday
I think.
Have a bird.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Thank you, supervisor.
Another comment.
Thank you.
All right.
Supervisor Peshkai.
I'm not a displeasure.
Thank you.
Supervisor White Singer.
Thank you.
Vice Chair, but now I need anything.
And I'll let hold my comments as well.
So that way.
Oh, we're at the end of the call to the public.
We have three item.
three requests to speak on call to the public. We'll start with Cecilia and then we'll go to
Donna after that. Good morning. Try to be quick. I have heard some really good reports about the
elections and how Ray Lane had reached out and made sure that the GOP was there, the Democrats were
there when all the tabulating was going on. The observing was, it looks, it sounds like it was very
They're all one of the things that I'm still going to ask for is to put an item on the agenda again just to review the electronic voting machines that we're still tabulating on and some of the new information that has come across just for future elections because I still don't have many people in the public still don't have a piece about what the voting machines are doing.
Even if you're there watching them, all you're doing is watching them, you're not inside, there's no chain of command inside those machines.
Anyway.
I want to say thank you for being so on top of it this year. The other thing that I wanted to bring up is on the wind farms. There is a study that I just wanted to get on record real quick.
In 2021, September of 2021, oh gosh, let me pull this up.
August 19th of 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Teen Final
judgments against four former executives of Blue Earth, a former alternative and
renewable energy services company for their alleged roles in defrauding investors
by materially misrepresenting the company's relationship with a key customer.
The scope of its business operations and financial condition.
Blue or three newables is related to Blue or Earth.
Blue or three newables, a private independent power producer that acquires develops,
builds, owns, and operates hydro solar and storage facility across North America.
Blue or Earth is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta.
A company that offers services as Blue Ben's support, such as Blue Ben's support.
Anyway, it's in Canada, Canadian Company.
By the way, did you know that 99% of Americans in Europeans look up to polluted skies
unable to see the Milky Way?
It's really one of the most thorough studies that we have today on light pollution across
the globe.
Sheryl Ann Bishop Communications Director for the International Dark Sky Association, which
fights light pollution.
She says light pollution is still on the fringes of what most people consider to be a pollution
and one of the biggest challenges her organization faces is increasing awareness of this
problem in developing countries.
They just want more light, bigger brighter light, she says, because that's what they understand
is development.
I'm just, when we're looking at blue earth renewables, I just want to be able to echo what
I think, what I'm hearing from the public, and that is they don't trust blue earth.
the wind turbines are ugly. They emit energy pulses that are injuring those people around them.
They leave dead wildlife underneath them. I don't know if you guys have ever been under them. There are some here.
And I'm done.
Thank you. Thank you.
Appreciate you reading that.
All right. We're going to go to Donna next. Donna?
Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. This morning.
I am here to say that the election seemed to have run pretty smoothly, but there are still some shortcomings that I wanted to address.
Specifically, ARS-16-531 says that each polling site in Arizona is supposed to be equally sacked with two of the major parties from the last general election, which is Democrat and Republican.
And yet I worked in the White River poll.
There were 17 Democrats and two Republicans.
Don't understand why that doesn't seem to be honored or respected.
We have four Republicans that I know of that were, they went through the trading classes
and they never even called.
So to say that there weren't enough people, I don't even know, I've since March, April
asked and wondered how you guys seek and search for polling staff yet I don't see anything
in the newspaper you know there's something that did change on the Navajo County website that
said poll workers instead of election board members which to me that did clarify a little bit
for people who are going on the county website to try to find availability to help but why is there
Not any advertising done locally in the newspaper,
we see lots of advertisements from the Navajo County
looking for workers for different positions within the county,
but yet there's nothing for poll workers.
And then we come to the General Election,
and I was setting up the poll in White River on Monday.
And I had two friends that hadn't been called for publicans.
They had gone through the class.
They took the time to go through the four hour class,
and they weren't called yet.
Kristen Haddix was panicking. She needed people. I mean, why the day before the election are we having situations like that?
I've been talking on record to you and addressing you as kind as I can
asking you simple question. Why are you not addressing the situation with the need for poll workers?
It doesn't seem that it's being honored and it's a fair question to ask I think. I don't know
I believe Brian Layton oversees the elections office position, but it doesn't seem to be making anybody do anything.
And I think it's just disrespectful to be disregarding the ARS that we have on the books.
So I do wish that there will be also a follow-up for the elections again as sort of a as was sent out when I asked last time for the primary election because I think that is a good way to be able to
green information from workers, but I did have two friends that were scheduled to go to
Pinyon polling center. Up in the reservation, they tried to call numerous times the actual
inspector of the Pinyon polling site. Never had a full call from him back, five times they called.
They then tried to call and confirm with the Navajo County elections office three times.
Were they scheduled, what time, wherever, so they made hotel reservations to go up there for
tonight and they basically started driving up there and we're told that they had had
too many problems in opinion when they had worked there during the primary election.
So they weren't going to be hired this time.
While they had never been given the courtesy of a phone call eight times they had tried.
So to me there's some things that need to be changed.
Thank you.
I thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Good afternoon members of the board.
My name is Jerry Hubbard and I live in Overgaard.
I'm a certified poll worker in Navajo County and attended poll worker training for the general
election on October 24th at the county complex building in Hebrew over guard. We were instructed
by Kristen Haddix, the election training coordinator for the county. When we came to the place in
the training manual concerning the completion of the official ballot report, I raised my hand and
ask the question, what would happen if at the end of the election day when the ballots were
counted and sent with the sheriff's deputy to the to holdbrook, the elections inspector
did not complete and sent in the official ballot report. She replied, quote, that would be
very, very bad and would be a big problem for me, unquote. Then I asked, wouldn't that indicate
a failure in the chain of custody and calling to question whether those ballots should be counted.
She disagreed with me but seemed at a loss to be able to answer the question any further.
I then said that for the primary election in July 30, there were three polling places that
did not return an official ballot report and there were others that were missing some or all of the
signatures of the poll workers at that location.
And so apparently, a situation that is described as very, very bad and a big problem
was not bad enough, or big enough, to be addressed by the elections department, or considered
by you, the Board of Supervisors, since you presumably went ahead and certified that election.
As demonstrated in the general election a week ago, the state of Arizona, and including
Navajo County have shown by their inability to finish counting ballots in a timely matter
that we have once again become the laughing stock of the rest of the nation.
It is my hope that with the election of new county officials, including in the Recorder's office,
elected by a clear majority of citizen voters in Navajo County, that the problems I have just
described will be corrected. We all would like to look forward to elections that are truly
free, fair, transparent, and completed on time.
Thank you.
All right.
That's all the public that we have.
Okay.
Excellent.
With that.
Chair, can I respond?
Yes.
Please.
As far as the timing of voting being counted, there's several states that we're still counting.
It's just that our races were so close that nothing was declared.
And so I don't think we're any slower than any other place when you look at all of the races that we're still
contested in Arizona. And I'm going to again
ask staff to look into some of the era irregularities in our voting
and to have an assessment follow up with the committees and to possibly
make adjustments where we can going forward so we can continue to improve.
And I just want to thank all the citizens who came out and voted
And for those who worked in the polls and as well as the people who commented today who shared their time in their talents who appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, any other comments?
Okay.
With that we stand adjourned.
Come back.
Let's have one clock for a work session.
Perfect.
Thank you.