Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines County staff tighten road‑use requirements, clarify 30‑day and emergency timelines
Summary
Board reviewed edits to Article 10 of a draft wind/solar ordinance that require a road‑use agreement before oversized equipment moves on county roads, add a communication plan with the county engineer and tie financial security to a surety bond (150%). Residents pushed to clarify emergency turnaround and who pays cleanup costs.
County staff and supervisors reviewed revisions to the draft wind and solar ordinance that tighten rules for using Des Moines County roadways and clarify who must be notified and when.
The presenter said the rewritten Article 10 (page 37) expands the chapter so it applies at all project stages — construction, repowering and decommissioning — and requires a road‑use agreement before oversized equipment may be transported on county roads. "Under no circumstances shall any oversized equipment ... be transported on Des Moines County roadways prior to the adoption of a road use agreement covering those activities," the presenter said.
Why it matters: the change prevents developers from moving large equipment onto local roads without an enforceable plan for traffic control, repairs and coordination with emergency responders. The draft also adds a required communication plan between the county engineer and the developer describing meeting timing, locations and coordination steps to be used while negotiating the agreement.
County staff also proposed a financial‑security requirement to ensure road repairs and decommissioning are funded. The draft specifies a surety bond covering no less than 150% of estimated costs so the county can pay for repairs or removal if the owner or operator does not. The county engineer will inspect covered roadways at the conclusion of construction, repowering or decommissioning and may issue a certificate of completion when agreed repairs are made.
Public commenters pressed staff to clarify timing around planned moves and emergency removals. A resident urged that the ordinance not allow operators to "have 30 days to contact you" in emergency scenarios and said the ordinance should make clear that emergency mitigation can be accelerated. The county engineer said the permitting process for oversize/overweight moves is usually not a bottleneck and staff agreed to amend the wording to shorten the notification/response timeline for emergencies.
What was not decided: the board asked staff to tighten the drafting so that emergency cases are handled quickly (the intent expressed during public comment was "down and out in 30 days" for above‑ground hazards), and to make explicit which items are treated as immediate public safety risks vs. work that may take longer (foundations, below‑ground components). Staff said it would update the draft to reflect those clarifications.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the edits discussed and post the updated draft packet to the county website; the board will continue chapter‑by‑chapter review at future sessions.
