Jefferson County discusses draft solar ordinance focused on siting, decommissioning and local protections

Jefferson County officials spent a work session reviewing draft language and options for a county solar-energy ordinance, focusing on where utility-scale projects may be sited, how to protect productive farmland, and how to require financial guarantees and neighborhood protections.

Staff presented sample ordinances from Louisa and Des Moines counties and a written comment from a Fairfield resident, Patrick von Solt, and outlined choices the board must make on setbacks, soil-protection criteria and permit requirements. Speaker 5, drawing on experience in neighboring counties, said his county currently has about 800 acres in production and is working on an additional roughly 3,200-acre phased project that crosses a county line; he said projects there were scored using NRCS/Beacon parcel data and a local scoring/markup system to prioritize lands to protect.

Why it matters: Supervisors said they want to preserve agricultural land and avoid long-term waste from obsolete equipment. "I want to make sure that we have those bases covered in some form — not creating any graveyards in Jefferson County for the product," said Speaker 4, summarizing a recurring concern about decommissioning and long-term site cleanup. Staff emphasized tools the county can use, including setback requirements, decommissioning bonds, permit conditions and required neighbor agreements for specific impacts.

Key policy choices discussed included: - Soil and site scoring: County officials debated adopting a crop-suitability threshold (CSR) or a local scoring approach. Speaker 5 described using NRCS/Beacon data and a scoring cutoff the county applies when deciding which parcels to protect. - Distinguishing private systems from utility-scale: Participants discussed allowing small rooftop or on-farm arrays with lighter review while requiring special-use permits for larger systems. The group noted that projects above a utilities-board certification threshold (about 25 megawatts, as cited in discussion) may fall under different regulatory oversight. - Setbacks and buffers: Participants cited examples from other counties; Speaker 5 recounted a 300-foot dwelling setback his county used and suggested using negotiated neighbor agreements where problems persist. - Decommissioning and financial guarantees: Staff described requiring a decommissioning bond with periodic (five-year) reviews and an inflation factor; the board discussed a 180-day inactivity trigger used in a referenced ordinance after which counties may require removal unless a recovery plan is approved. - Batteries and safety: Panelists flagged concerns about battery energy storage systems — specifically small indicator lights and occasional humming — and recommended emergency-access requirements, signage, and keys for emergency services. - Construction impacts and mitigation: The meeting covered road-use agreements, drainage and tile-repair provisions, and coordination with the county engineer as common permit conditions.

A MidAmerican Energy representative, Mackenzie, said utility-scale projects can bring local generation-replacement tax revenue and grid reliability benefits; she also said MidAmerican had no active project proposed in Jefferson County but was available to answer technical questions. "You get more of a tax benefit — it ends up being more with the generation replacement tax," Mackenzie said, describing how some projects have provided recurring funding to local levy and improvement districts in past agreements.

Board process and next steps: Several supervisors asked staff to produce a draft ordinance for review. Elizabeth Lewis (county staff) was asked to prepare a "rough, rough, rough" draft the board could edit; members also asked staff to invite technical experts and to circulate the draft publicly before formal hearings.

What remains unresolved: The board did not set final numeric thresholds for CSR protection, acreage caps for private use versus solar farms, the exact formula for a decommissioning bond (Speaker 5 referenced a contingency figure of about 5–10 percent in another county), or whether to require project commitments to local foundations or revenue-sharing beyond voluntary company promises.

The board agreed to have staff circulate a draft ordinance and return with technical input and public engagement options at a future meeting.