Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press supervisors on wind ordinance; board schedules work session, attorney warns moratorium could raise liability
Summary
Members of the public urged Des Moines County supervisors to place a moratorium on new wind-energy permits while the county revises its ordinance. The board said it will hold a work session; the county attorney cautioned that a moratorium could trigger contractual liability because leases and options already exist.
Rose Fisher, a Pleasant Grove-area farmer, told the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors she opposes a planned wind-energy development and asked the board to place a moratorium while the county reopens and revises its wind ordinance.
"We're here today to express our opposition to the planned wind energy development," Fisher said during public input, and she asked whether the county could put a moratorium in place while the board examines setbacks and bonding requirements in the ordinance.
Supervisors said the county has already put the ordinance through previous work sessions and public hearings and that staff have asked the county attorney for legal review. The board confirmed it will hold a public work session next week to gather more input and discuss proposed amendments. County procedural requirements for ordinance amendments were explained: proposed changes would be published and go through three public hearings with legally required notice periods before a final vote.
County legal counsel cautioned that a moratorium could create legal exposure. "We would potentially have contractual liability because there have been contracts entered," an attorney in the county attorney's office said, explaining that landowners have signed options or leases under the ordinance now in effect and could claim the rules were changed retroactively.
Board members also recounted that wind-company representatives had met informally with county staff and described a possible project scope and timeline. Supervisors said company representatives described a preliminary plan for a roughly 68-megawatt facility and told the county they might seek permit approval to proceed no earlier than mid-2026, with construction and operations potentially occurring in 2028–29; the board cautioned that those dates came from the company and were preliminary.
The board said it will not take any ordinance vote at the meeting because moratorium questions and ordinance amendments must be addressed through published agenda items and public hearings. Supervisors encouraged residents to attend the scheduled work session to provide input; several supervisors noted they had received many emails both for and against the development.
