Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wapello supervisors continue renewable-energy ordinance talks as public raises recusal concerns
Summary
Supervisors debated whether to separate solar and battery-storage from a broader renewable-energy ordinance, heard industry representatives and public comment, and faced a public call for Supervisor Carrie to explain a recusal over a potential financial interest.
The Wapello County Board of Supervisors spent significant time discussing a draft renewable-energy ordinance that currently includes wind, solar and battery storage. Board members explored options to remove solar and battery provisions from the omnibus ordinance so solar developers could proceed separately, and they discussed technical, siting and revenue implications.
Speaker 1 opened the discussion, saying the board has disagreements with Supervisor Darren on ‘‘big issues of the solar’’ such as quantity, size and setback distances; until those are resolved the board cannot finalize the ordinance. Speaker 8 described a focus on community-scale solar (sites down to about 30 acres) as a more realistic model for the county and cited benefits such as substation installation by developers, job creation and potential local economic offsets.
Dennis with Apex Clean Energy (speaker 4) told the board he was checking whether the county intended to move forward with a single, all-technology ordinance; Speaker 1 said the draft currently covers solar, battery and wind but that discussions would continue. In response to a question about local revenue, Speaker 1 said, "Actually, the solar doesn't give anything to the county. Just the individual that has them and the electric company," and Travis (chief deputy assessor, Speaker 5) added that large commercial projects are centrally assessed by the state and any county reimbursement amount is unclear; he said he would research it further.
During public comment, a member of the public (Speaker 7) pressed Speaker 1 to share attorney findings and urged Supervisor Carrie (Speaker 2) to reconsider her recusal, alleging a potential conflict of financial interest. Carrie responded in the meeting that she does have "potential financial gain" and stated she "will not be voting on their contract." The board did not take formal disciplinary or legal action on that point during the recorded session; the matter remained a public concern.
Board members agreed to obtain additional information (attorney input, fiscal assessments and examples from other counties) and suggested a follow-up work session or meeting to advance the ordinance.
Next steps: staff were asked to gather more information about tax assessment treatment, developer proposals and attorney guidance and to schedule further discussions.
