Des Moines County supervisors approve FY2026 budget amendment, advance paving and personnel items while public debate continues over wind/solar/battery siting (

Des Moines County Board of Supervisors members voted Jan. 27 to approve a FY2026 budget amendment that makes targeted appropriations for the correctional center, the sheriffs office and county information-technology needs, cleared several contracts and appointments, and heard extended public comment on the proposed wind/solar/battery siting ordinance (Ordinance No. 64).

The board opened a public hearing on the budget amendment and approved it after staff outlined requests from three departments. The correctional center requested $21,345 to cover a retiree payout (accumulated vacation and sick leave), $200,000 for housing inmates from other counties and $15,000 for medical treatment and prescriptions. The sheriff requested $58,560 to purchase and upfit a patrol vehicle and $7,000 tied to a Governors Traffic Safety Bureau grant. The IT department requested $15,640 to cover an increase in BM Wares licensing. Staff said $65,560 in additional revenue offsets part of the package; the gross increase before revenue adjustments was described as $317,545. The board approved the amendment following the public hearing.

The supervisors also approved a 1.2-mile paving contract for Pleasant Grove Road (Highway 61 to Iowa City Road) after the county engineer said the low bid—$1,000,004.97—was competitive among six bidders. The contract contains a June 1 start date, a 70-working-day completion window and a $1,000-per-day liquidated-damages clause.

Other routine approvals included a janitorial services contract for $67,800 covering county facilities, the appointment of Larry Lenhart to the county zoning commission to fill a vacancy through January 2031, and personnel actions including a promotion for the IT department (Stuart Mason, assistant IT director, effective Feb. 1, new salary $76,492).

Public health and housing: federal lead-hazard grant

Before extended public comment on the siting ordinance, Jack Storm of the regional planning commission briefed the board on a federal lead hazard grant. "We received a $1,200,000 grant from the federal government to address lead hazards in people's homes," Storm said, describing a program to remediate hazards in 29 homes in Southeast Iowa. He said the program covers inspections, contractor training, blood testing for children, repairs or removal of hazardous paint, and temporary relocation while work is done. Storm said the program is available to both homeowners and renters in four counties (Des Moines, Lee, Louisa and Henry) and requires that a child under age 5 live in or regularly visit the dwelling to qualify.

Board discussion and public input on Ordinance No. 64

A large portion of the meeting centered on detailed staff and public discussion of language in Ordinance No. 64 that defines an "occupied dwelling" and ties that definition to setback and notice requirements for proposed wind, solar and battery energy systems. County planning staff and supervisors walked through the proposed language and how it would operate during the two-step review process (preliminary review leading to a vote on "consent to proceed," then a final siting-permit review).

Staff said the preliminary review must include turbine/array locations and setback measurements (plus an additional 200 feet) so the board has a basis for public notice and for deciding whether an existing or under-construction dwelling should be recognized as "occupied" for setback purposes. The draft requires a property owner claiming that a proposed facility does not meet setback requirements to provide sufficient evidence that a building will be ready for occupancy within one year.

Several residents and commenters urged clearer standards and warned the two-step process could deprive some property owners of meaningful notice. One resident who identified himself as a practicing real-estate attorney asked, "When is development considered proposed?" and said the line matters for who receives notice and when they can be heard. Another commenter presented a turbine-shadow simulation and urged larger setbacks, saying modern turbines can cast very long shadows and cause shadow flicker, sound and other concerns.

Board and staff exchanges emphasized the drafts built-in opportunities for comment at both preliminary and final review stages. County staff said that while commenters may provide evidence at the preliminary public hearing to establish that a building is "ready for occupancy," the final siting permit may still be denied if the final design makes material changes or fails to meet the ordinance's minimum requirements and any additional conditions the board imposed earlier. Staff acknowledged the ordinance leaves some discretion to the board about what constitutes sufficient proof that a dwelling is or will be occupied.

Public petitions and calls for a moratorium

Multiple public commenters asked the board to consider placing a petition and proposed resolutions on future agendas and asked for a moratorium extension while the board clarifies language on liability, decommissioning, contractor obligations and scope changes. One petitioner asked the supervisors to consider resolution language and to postpone signing permits until the board reaches final decisions. Speakers expressed concern that an initial consent-to-proceed could effectively lock in a footprint that later boards might be unwilling or unable to adjust, raising questions about long-term liability and local control.

What happens next

The board approved the budget amendment and several routine contracts and appointments during the Jan. 27 meeting. The siting ordinance remains under active discussion; staff and supervisors said the draft includes both preliminary- and final-stage public-notice opportunities but acknowledged questions remain about the precise burden of proof for owners and how scope changes will be handled. Multiple members of the public asked the board to place specific petition language and moratorium requests on a future agenda for further consideration. No final action adopting the ordinance was recorded at this meeting.

Speakers quoted or named in this report are those who identified themselves or were named on the record during the meeting.