The Tama County Board of Supervisors deadlocked Sept. 15 on a package of agreements with Salt Creek Wind II, rejecting motions to approve a development agreement, road-use agreement and decommissioning plan by a 2-3 vote after hours of negotiation and public comment. The motion to approve the documents was moved by Supervisor David Turner and seconded by Supervisor Mark Doland; the roll call read Curt Hilmer, nay; David Turner, aye; Heather Knebel, nay; Mark Doland, aye; Curt Kupka, nay, and the motion failed.

The vote followed a day of negotiations between board members and Sean Roberts, identified in meeting minutes as the owner of Salt Creek Wind II. The package of documents in the meeting packet would have: (1) stated that the county’s 2010 Commercial Wind Energy Conversion System ordinance (C-WECS Ordinance) and the board’s prior moratorium do not block the project; (2) set development commitments including a $1.3 million county payment tied to construction milestones; (3) required a decommissioning bond at 150% of an Iowa-licensed engineer’s estimate; and (4) established a Road Use Agreement with pre-construction surveys, a $30,000 administrative payment, and financial security equal to 130% of estimated road-restoration costs.

Why it matters: the agreements would have clarified how the county and the project negotiate permits, road impacts and long-term site restoration. The development agreement in the packet says it would treat certain approvals as ministerial if applications meet ordinance requirements, would set turbine setbacks at no less than 1,500 feet from any non‑participating residence, cap annual shadow flicker at 30 hours per residence unless waived, and require pre‑construction noise modeling showing turbine noise not to exceed 50 dBA at the outside wall of non‑participating residences.

Board discussion centered on two fault lines. Supervisor Heather Knebel, 3rd District Supervisor, said the project should go before the Board of Adjustment and that she would vote no, saying she wanted more time for legal and public review. Supervisor Knebel read portions of Iowa law and said the county must follow zoning procedures. Supervisor Mark Doland, 4th District Supervisor and chair, argued the board could approve the agreements to avoid litigation and preserve negotiated concessions, saying failure to act could “end up in court” and could cost taxpayers more. Supervisor David Turner, 2nd District Supervisor, said he was “voting on truths and facts” and described local support he had heard from farmers and some community groups.

Supervisor Curt Hilmer, 1st District Supervisor, criticized the process and described his opposition in stark terms: “this has been all lies and bullying,” he said in the minutes. Supervisor Curt Kupka, 5th District Supervisor, did not publicly commit until the vote and ultimately voted no.

Meeting minutes show the board asked for multiple changes to the decommissioning language during negotiations. Among the commitments described in the draft Decommissioning Plan and Development Agreement supplied with the packet: the owner agreed to re-evaluate decommissioning costs every three years with a licensed Iowa engineer and to post a bond equal to 150% of the engineer’s most recent estimate that accounts for net scrap value (not gross). The Decommissioning Plan also states foundations and gravel rings would be excavated and removed to a depth of 48 inches below grade (unless a participating landowner’s easement provides otherwise), that underground collection lines would be removed to 48 inches, and that decommissioning work and cost estimates would be updated every three years.

The Road Use Agreement in the packet describes pre‑construction mile‑by‑mile road surveys (video and written), county inspections, developer responsibility for improvements and repair, notification requirements, and dispute‑resolution steps. It requires Salt Creek II to pay $30,000 to the county before hauling operations and to provide financial security equal to 130% of estimated restoration costs (engineer estimate) and allows the county to complete repairs and invoice the developer if the developer fails to restore roads.

Public comment took place before the vote; names recorded in the minutes include Lynn Cizek, Patrick Cornwell, Richard Arp, Karen Murty, Sheriff Schmidt, Berleen Wobeter and Jodelle Boldt. The minutes do not quote the public comments verbatim but list those speakers as having addressed the board.

After the failed motion the chairman adjourned the Sept. 15 meeting. The Sept. 22 meeting packet later included a Resolution numbered 9-22-2025D and the full text of the development, road-use and decommissioning documents; the board’s subsequent action on those Sept. 22 items was not recorded in the Sept. 15 minutes included in the packet.

Details and next steps: the packet describes the Project as approximately 100 megawatts with up to 27 turbines. The Development Agreement package calls for monthly coordination meetings beginning 30 days before construction and continuing until the county issues a “Zoning Certificate Close Out Letter.” The documents also include a provision that SCWII will negotiate good‑neighbor agreements and will not pursue any additional Salt Creek Wind III project in Tama County. Whether the board will revisit or adopt the agreements at a later meeting is not recorded in the Sept. 15 minutes.

The minutes state they are a summary and record that audio recordings are available from the auditor’s office for verification.