Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Midamerican Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over MidAmerican 50 MW solar project focuses on setbacks, outreach and ordinance fixes
Summary
Residents and a MidAmerican representative traded technical and policy claims about a proposed 50 MW, ~400-acre solar facility. Supporters cited jobs and tax revenue; opponents raised concerns about setbacks, floodplain/runoff and transparency. MidAmerican offered a draft agreement to address issues while the county considers ordinance revisions.
A lengthy public exchange at the Page County meeting centered on MidAmerican Energy’s proposed 50‑megawatt solar project and the county’s recently adopted solar ordinance.
Darren Adi, who identified himself during public comment, urged the board to judge the project on parcel‑specific facts rather than the views of a vocal few and described the project as the product of roughly six years of study. Adi said the project would use "about 400 acres" and estimated "more than $50,000 in extra annual revenue" to the county, "which works out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 to $2,000,000 or more over the life of the project." He also cited studies he said show well‑designed solar sites can reduce runoff and improve soil health.
Kelsey Ballard, a MidAmerican Energy representative, told the board the company first contacted county staff in 2020, has since done mailings and neighbor outreach, and reported three residences within 1,000 feet of the site (two participating, one being contacted). Ballard said the company offered a draft agreement intended to provide a faster, project‑specific path forward while the county considers ordinance amendments; she also noted technical flexibility on setbacks, noise and panel height.
Supervisors pressed on several technical and process points: whether the county’s 0.5‑mile setback language applies to nonparticipating residences or to all adjoining land; whether a waiver process in the ordinance is workable; and whether an agreement that applies only to this project would set an undesirable precedent. Board members said ordinance clean‑up and public hearings would be needed for broader changes, while MidAmerican argued a negotiated agreement could reduce time and expense associated with the Iowa Utilities Commission process.
No final agreement was reached at the meeting; supervisors asked staff and counsel to continue review and invited public input on any proposed ordinance changes or the company’s draft agreement.
