Split Floyd County board maintains rules that could kill future wind energy projects

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

A divided Floyd County Board of Supervisors doubled down at a meeting Tuesday evening on amendments that energy company officials say will not allow commercial wind energy projects to be built in the county.

Two of the three county supervisors – Jim Jorgensen and Dennis Keifer – retained two amendments to a proposed commercial wind energy zoning ordinance that had passed at the first reading of the ordinance four weeks ago, and that the energy company project managers called “poison.”

And they approved at least two more amendments that the company representatives said would also make it impossible to build commercial wind energy projects in the county.

The four rules would:

• Limit new turbines to no more than 450 feet tall.

• Allow no more than 70 turbines total in the county, including the existing 50 turbines in the Charles City Wind Farm – meaning no more than 20 new turbines could be added.

• Change the definition of “occupied buildings” and increase the setbacks from those and other structures, boundaries, land use types and other classifications to the point that could mean there is little if any land left in the county that would qualify for turbine placement.

• Limit the turbine noise level audible from occupied buildings to no more than 40 decibels.

Isaac Lamppa, project director for Invenergy, said he was representing 83 landowners who had already signed voluntary agreements to be part of the project he was trying to develop. He said there was “no way” a project could go forward with those limitations.

Thomas Treharne, project manager for NextEra Energy Resources, another company trying to develop a project, said it looked like the restrictions were done “simply to prevent wind projects.”

Many of the people in the standing-room-only Emergency Operations Center at the courthouse supported actions that would kill all future wind projects, while others lamented the loss of promised economic benefits for landowners and for the county that they argued the projects would bring.

Some people said they weren’t against wind power, but they supported stricter regulations that would keep wind energy turbines farther from people who don’t want them, create greater safety zones and protect wildlife and natural resources.

Mark Kuhn, the Board of Supervisors chair who at the first reading of the ordinance on Aug. 6 had been on the losing side of several 2-1 votes in favor of changes to the proposed ordinance, found himself in that position again Tuesday evening.

Kuhn said several times during the meeting that the other two board members were not following what they had agreed to in a resolution passed when they started the process of updating the county’s old wind energy ordinance.

That resolution, which was passed unanimously by the supervisors in November 2023, stated that the purpose was to “to develop an ordinance that met the needs of the wind turbine industry so they could grow and be placed in this county, and at the same time meet the needs of nearby neighbors and have concerns about our precious natural resources, our water, our air, our land.”

That resolution stated, “The Board believes the development of Floyd County’s renewable wind and solar energy resources has the potential to benefit the County and County residents by providing lease or easement payments to landowners, increasing needed property tax revenue to the County, increasing the use of the County’s clean, renewable energy resources, and by enhancing local economic development through job creation.”

County Auditor Gloria Carr suggested near the end of the four-hour meeting that maybe the supervisors should set an agenda item at a board meeting to discuss whether Jorgensen and Keifer still support any wind projects.

“Look how many meetings we’ve had, late meetings. Are we kicking the can down a road that’s not going to go anywhere and have you both just changed your mind on this? We’re wasting a lot of people’s time …,” Carr said. “Would it be that simple to just say, we didn’t mean this?”

Jorgensen said, “I’m not opposed to that being an agenda item.”

“I’m saddened by that,” Carr said. “I think you’re missing a big opportunity to not consider something that’s doable.”

Supervisor Keifer said, “I think we all hoped we could find common ground, but it wasn’t possible. We tried, but we couldn’t find common ground.”

Kuhn had started the meeting by offering an amendment that would have repealed the amendments that had been passed at the first reading of the proposed ordinance on Aug. 6.

“I want to have consideration and discussion of what Planning and Zoning proposed,” he said. “The county spent a lot of money working that out, a lot of meetings, and this board never really considered what they proposed.”

Kuhn’s amendment failed when neither other supervisor would second it.

“We’re not even going to discuss it?” he asked.

Kuhn then began leading the board through each of the amendments that had come up at the first reading, including those that had passed and several that had been referred to the county attorney because of legal questions.

A fair amount of time was spent discussing the process the Planning and Zoning Commission had proposed to decide on permit applications for energy projects, which called for first going through Planning and Zoning for a recommendation, then ending with the county Board of Adjustment to decide whether to issue a conditional use permit.

Both Keifer and Jorgensen said they wanted the final say on wind energy projects to rest with the Board of Supervisors rather than an appointed board such as the Board of Adjustment.

“I think it would be better to fall back on elected officials for the process,” Jorgensen said.

John Robbins, a senior planner with the North Iowa Area Council of Governments (NIACOG), who the county had hired to help develop the ordinance, said he would prepare a version of the ordinance using a zoning overlay process that would leave the decision to the Board of Supervisors, for the board to consider at the third reading of the ordinance.

For each amendment the board allowed a total of five minutes from the audience to talk in favor of the amendment and five minutes to talk opposed to the amendment.

One of the amendments that had been proposed by Jorgensen and passed 2-1 at the first reading changed the definition of an occupied building.

In the original Planning and Zoning proposal the definition had been, “A dwelling, school, hospital, church, public library, retail store or other building use for public gathering.”

Jorgensen’s amendment added the words “RV/travel-trailer park (campgrounds), livestock facilities and ag buildings (including machine sheds, grain bins).”

At the second reading Tuesday evening Kuhn offered an amendment to delete the changes that Jorgensen’s amendment had made to the original definition.

He referred to another amendment that Jorgensen had proposed at the previous meeting to change setback requirements, including creating a 2,500-foot setback around occupied buildings.

“People gather at grain bins?” Kuhn asked. “Think of how many grain bins would be given a setback of half a mile. Machine sheds? Why? This amendment just adds setbacks for no reason.”

Keifer seconded Kuhn’s amendment to repeal Jorgensen’s occupied building definition so that the board could discuss it, but Kuhn’s amendment failed 1-2, leaving the definition as modified.

Several people in the audience spoke against Kuhn’s amendment, in favor of leaving Jorgensen’s changes in the definition, saying that the issue is not only places where people gather, but also where they work.

Cala McGregor said the original occupied building definition referred mostly to structures in cities, and people who live in the country also need protection from the turbines.

“A lot of machine sheds are used as gathering facilities,” she said.

Candi Brandau Larson, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission who had voted to recommend the ordinance to the supervisors but who had opposed several of its specifics, said, “Farmers are at these facilities everyday. Some people live at campgrounds.”

Lamppa, the Invenergy project director, said the original setback proposed for most agricultural facilities was 1.1 times the height of the turbine, meaning even in a catastrophic event where the turbine tipped over it wouldn’t strike anything.

An amendment that had been offered by Keifer at the first reading, to not allow wind turbines on agricultural land that was rated with a corn suitability rating (CSR2) of 79.5 or higher, had been referred to Prichard, who said Tuesday evening that the requirement might be unconstitutional.

Robbins said there may be another way to accomplish Keifer’s goal, by using an “agricultural mitigation plan” requirement such as Linn County has recently required, and Keifer agreed to consider that at the next reading.

About 1½ hours into the meeting Kuhn moved an amendment to strike Jorgensen’s previously approved limits of a maximum turbine height of 450 feet and a maximum number of 70 turbines.

“This is the poison pill,” Kuhn said.

Kuhn’s amendment died for lack of a second, at which point several of the people in the crowded room who had voiced support for wind energy projects left.

“Where did you come up with 70 wind turbines? It seems like an arbitrary number,” Kuhn asked Jorgensen.

“There is a lot of pushback, but Floyd County is already energy positive. Meaning our current wind turbines and our ethanol plant and so forth, we’re energy positive. I’m not sure that we need to have more than 70, total,” Jorgensen said.

At the previous meeting both Jorgensen and Keifer had proposed greater setback requirements than were in the original proposal, but neither of those had passed.

On Tuesday, Jorgensen again moved his amendment, which passed 2-1.

Many of his proposed setbacks included either a multiplier of the height of the turbine or a fixed distance, whichever was greater, although with the maximum turbine height earlier set at 450 feet, the distance in feet usually became the defacto requirement.

Those setback requirements are:

• Non-participating property line – 1,800 feet.

• Occupied building (which now includes the various ag buildings) – 2,500 feet.

• Road rights of way – 200% of turbine height.

• Railroad right of way – 115% of turbine height.

• Utilities lines or pipelines – 115% of turbine height.

• Public park, conservation area, wildlife management area – 2,500 feet.

• Known active bald eagle nests – 5 miles.

• Known bald eagle nests of unknown activity – 3 miles.

• Commercial feed operation – 2,500 feet.

• Incorporated city limits – 2 miles.

• Cemeteries – 1,800 feet.

• Existing sinkholes – 1,000 feet.

Several times Kuhn asked Jorgensen what the setbacks would mean, and whether he had looked into the areas they would impact.

“If a map showed there was not one square mile of area available for a wind turbine would you change your mind?” Kuhn asked.

Jorgensen said he was willing to have a discussion about anything.

Another amendment that had passed 2-1 at the first reading set the maximum sound level audible at any occupied dwelling at 40 decibels, changing it from 50 decibels that had been in the Planning and Zoning proposal.

When asked where the 40 decibel figure had come from, Jorgensen said a handout that had come from Robbins identified levels where some people started to complain about the sound.

Other people gave examples of 40 decibel sounds, comparing it to a refrigerator, routine traffic noise, conversation and other examples.

But Scott Larson said most of the examples given were only temporary things, while the turbine noise would be 24 hours a day.

Invenergy’s Lamppa said, “40 decibels is a project killer.”

Kuhn’s amendment to change the level back to the original 50 decibels failed 1-2.

Many other topics came up during the meeting, including building on Karst topography, decommissioning requirements, fire suppression systems, drainage impacts and others.

About three hours into the meeting there were no more amendments, and Jorgensen moved to approve the second reading of the ordinance, which Keifer seconded.

Kuhn offered an opportunity for more public comment, limiting it to one minute per person.

Roger Trettin said he was happy with the outcome, and he was tired of “this green new energy shoved down our throats by Washington, DC.”

Another audience member said, “This is killing my right as a landowner,” but someone else commented that there are a lot of restrictions on what people can do with their land, “in the city and in the county.”

Lamppa said the existing Charles City Wind Farm was built with “about two sentences of regulation.”

“Planning and Zoning worked for months on regulations. That would have been fine. This is pushing us out of the county,” he said.

Cala McGregor said, “I think you did a good job of protecting our citizens tonight.”

The second reading as amended passed 2-1 with Kuhn opposed.

After that vote, Kuhn said it was very important that they find out the impact of all the decisions, and where – if anywhere – there was space in the county to place a commercial wind turbine.

“If it turns out to be zero I hope my fellow supervisors would be opposed to that,” he said.

He directed Zoning Administrator Jessy Willadsen to create overlays for a county map showing the impact of all the different setbacks.

Willadsen said he would have to look at aerial maps to find every grain bin and other structure listed in the ordinance and draw a boundary around them. He suggested that could take months.

“We can’t wait months,” Kuhn said, and others including Robbins and County Engineer Jacob Page suggested ways to potentially speed up that process.

The third reading of the ordinance was set for 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 9, in the district courtroom on the third floor of the courthouse.

County Attorney Prichard said the supervisors could decide to hold additional readings if they feel they need to, but regardless of how much the ordinance has changed from the beginning it’s up to the majority when they want to approve final passage.