Des Moines County supervisors voted 2–1 on Jan. 13 to advance a new wind, solar and battery siting ordinance after a day of staff explanations and extended public comment. The board approved the ordinance's second reading and voted to waive the third reading, advancing the measure toward final adoption.

Land-use staffer Jared Lassiter told the board the change addressed a "scrivener's error" in Article 12(d) that left a final sentence contradicting the ordinance's intent. Lassiter said the sentence was removed so the county's restoration requirement applies only to "nonparticipating" properties whose owners do not have contracts with a project developer, because participating properties are covered by their private contracts. "This was simply a mistake that that last sentence was not removed at that same time," Lassiter said.

The correction prompted debate about transparency and potential liability. Public commenters said the earlier published draft differed from the version the board discussed at the hearing. "That omission could translate to these developers avoiding potentially thousands if not millions of dollars of liability," Tyler Mazner told the supervisors, urging the board to ensure the public had notice and an opportunity to be heard on substantive changes.

Residents pressed the board on several policy details: setbacks measured from property lines versus lease boundaries; the maximum turbine height (commenters repeatedly cited 650 feet); a two-step permitting process that opponents said could limit public input and make later changes difficult; and whether developers' leases or agreements use different measurement language than the county ordinance. "Property lines matter because the impacts don't stop at a lease boundary," Lisonbee Moore Yarmuth said during public comment.

Supporters of wind energy urged evidence-based decision-making and pointed to economic and energy benefits. "They are literally on our license plates," Kenny Olson said, calling turbines a long-standing part of Iowa's energy mix and urging policy focus on enforceable protections rather than fear-driven opposition.

County staff and a supervisor said the corrected text was discussed in prior work sessions and that the version posted on Friday matched the board's intended language. The board also discussed assessment and tax treatment of utility-scale turbines; a supervisor summarized the assessor's guidance that turbines are assessed locally under state rules and reach a taxable assessment that phases in and caps at roughly 30% of value over several years.

The board heard repeated requests from residents that it monitor permits closely and remain open to amending the ordinance if implementation reveals gaps. "Good rules aren't just passed once," Lisonbee Moore Yarmuth said, asking the board to "stay open to making necessary changes." The board did not take additional amendments at the meeting; the motion to advance the ordinance passed by recorded vote.

The next procedural step is formal adoption consistent with the board's remaining readings and any required publication; staff said the final document will be updated to remove the erroneous sentence prior to adoption.