~by Janice Harbaugh for GreeneCountyNewsOnline
The Greene County board of supervisors held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on utility-scale solar energy projects at its regular meeting March 7.
The hour-long hearing included in-person and online comments from the public. Among those speaking were Mary Ellen and Howard Holz, Bill Radebaugh, Margaret Hamilton, Dalieth Johnston, Cheryl Robson, Mary Weaver, and Chris Henning.
Speakers were overwhelmingly in favor of a six-month moratorium on utility-scale solar projects, though several stated support for solar energy projects in general.
For those supporting a moratorium, most spoke about waiting to see legislation currently being proposed at the State level which includes setback distances of 1,250 feet from the nearest residence and the use of agricultural land rated at 65 CSR (corn suitability rating) or less.
County attorney Thomas Laehn spoke about a possible permit process for new utility-scale solar energy projects. He said permits could be based on 1) whether the electricity generated would be used on-site or sold; or 2) whether the amount of electricity generated was above or below a set limit.
Laehn said the moratorium could end if the board of supervisors “approves a permitting process.”
One speaker spoke against the moratorium saying, “It’s in the best interests of soil to rest for a while,” indicating the speaker thought taking the soil out of production allowed it to rest while in a solar farm and a six-month moratorium is not necessary.
Another speaker said, “The best thing for soil is something growing all the time.” He noted solar projects plant the disturbed soil with “wild flowers and nature grasses” when restoring it.
“That will be better for the soil a hundred years from now,” another said.
County engineer Wade Weiss said, “Let’s see where the State goes (with regulation of solar energy projects.)”
“Everybody needs to know what the requirements will be,” board chair John Muir said. “If the State comes through with a bill, that will be a strong influence for us.”
Supervisor Dawn Rudolph said, “A temporary moratorium will let us get our ducks in a row. We won’t have to make corrections later. Each solar project will be treated the same.”
“You can’t tell me there aren’t windmills on high CSR land,” she added.
“It’s not possible for us to stop solar, but we can act to protect property rights,” Muir said.
Board and public discussion touched on “loss of county control, like the hog situation.”
Attorney Laehn said, “Iowa is a home-rule State. County government can do what it wants, if the (Iowa) Code is silent (about an issue.) But, the State Legislature, for instance, can vote to abolish Greene County.”
“We can impose additional requirements (on solar energy projects) above State policy,” Laehn said.
At the Feb. 24 meeting, Laehn had identified three issues to be considered in writing utility-level solar energy ordinances: preservation of available agricultural land, health and welfare of county residents, and the public’s reasonable access to solar energy.
“We need to pull back and respect property owners and people in the area,” Muir said.
Chris Henning, from rural Cooper, stated supervisor Pete Bardole, who has land in the area of the proposed National Grid Renewables solar farm near Grand Junction, “should have known about this ahead of time.”
Bardole responded, “I have land in the area. I have abstained (from discussion and votes on solar energy projects.)”
Muir said Bardole has been “forthcoming.”
Bardole did abstain from votes and discussion of the solar issues during a previous supervisor meeting and abstained from voting on the moratorium at this meeting.
William Risse of National Grid Renewables, the company proposing a solar farm south of Grand Junction, attended the hearing online. Risse, a permitting specialist with NGR, supported a moratorium.
“I hope we can serve as a resource for knowledge in future sessions,” he said.
Risse said NGR had an open house for neighbors of the proposed Grand Junction solar farm.
“The more information we have, the better we understand the parts,” Muir said. “We want to hear all sides. We encourage NGR to have another meeting (for the public.)”
Henning asked where more information could be found. Risse suggested writing him at WRisse@nationalgridrenewables.com with additional questions.
After the close of the public hearing, the board approved the first reading of an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on utility-scale solar energy projects. The board then voted to waive the second and third readings of the ordinance and approved the moratorium ordinance to be effective immediately.
In all votes, Burkett, Contner, Muir, and Rudolph voted aye. Bardole abstained.
The moratorium will be in effect from March 7 until 12 pm on Sept. 26, 2022, or until the county’s zoning ordinance is amended to give procedures for issuing permits for utility-scale solar energy projects. Amendment of the zoning ordinance appears to be dependent on passage of solar-energy legislation proposed in the Iowa Legislature.
In other business, attorney Laehn introduced discussion on policies for the use of the courthouse and grounds. During open forum, he said the county is required by law to publish a code of ordinances every five years.
Later in the meeting, Laehn read aloud the 16-paragraph 2007 Policy for the Use of Courthouse and Grounds. This appears to be the most recent collection of policy. Laehn discussed each paragraph.
Auditor Jane Heun observed, “These policies have never been followed.”
“The farmers market is in violation of Paragraph 4,” he said. “It is not normal to have a parking lot closed off.”
“The courthouse grounds are a public space,” he said. “The board can’t prohibit its use, but you can regulate it. You can grant variances.”
Laehn asked the board’s thoughts on whether there should be separate rules for the courthouse building, the courthouse grounds, and the Mahanay Memorial Carillon Tower building. The board made no statement on their thoughts.
There was also discussion about animals on the courthouse grounds and inside the courthouse. The definition of “service animal” was discussed with the inclusion of miniature horses as emotional support animals.
The board came to no conclusions and gave no recommendations, but during open forum, they seemed to agree a consistent format for county policies is needed along with an updating of policies.
Laehn said, “Stylistic changes in the wording can affect meaning.”
In agreement with Laehn, a timeline of this summer was set for working on the county policies and the board seemed to give Laehn permission to hire helpers for the project.
Laehn said he will bring revisions of policy back to the board. He said approval of final policy is the responsibility of the board.
Laehn also updated the board on employee reimbursement for lodging. He said a State website listing lodging providers that have been certified in human trafficking prevention should be consulted before employees make reservations. Laehn said employees cannot be reimbursed for lodging if they stay in non-certified places.
The supervisors unanimously approved a resolution allowing the placement of four sculptures on the courthouse grounds in celebration of the Mahanay Carillon Tower.
The resolution states the sculptures are subject to inspection at all times and can be removed if it is determined there is a risk to the safety of visitors.
The supervisors also unanimously adopted a resolution to approve a 28E agreement with the ISAC Group Benefits Program and approve the renewal of the ISAC dental and vision insurance programs for employees effective July 1, 2022. Dental rates increased by 3 percent; vision rates remained the same.
Chuck Wenthold, environmental department, reported he is trying to schedule a meeting with Snyder and Associates, Bolton and Menk, and the County to discuss carbon pipeline inspection services.
