Henry County eyes edits to proposed ordinance

MT. PLEASANT — Henry County Supervisors proposed several substantive changes to the county’s Alternative Energy District Overlay ordinance during its first reading May 8, citing concerns about financial accountability, clarity, and fairness between wind and solar energy projects.

  Buy Photo

The most significant discussion centered on a requirement for developers to maintain a $5 million escrow account to fund decommissioning and land restoration. Supervisor Marc Lindeen questioned whether bonding would provide more protection and flexibility, particularly in cases where projects are sold to new owners.

“I understand the reason for escrow accounts, but bonding seems to be better,” Supervisor Marc Lindeen said.

The version of the proposed ordinance read at the May 8 meeting states, “The Owner shall set up an Escrow Account with the Henry County Auditor within five calendar days of the date the alternative energy overlay district is approved in the amount of $5 million dollars.”

Lindeen questioned if this $5 million is per tower or for a total project. He further stated they should look into this issue further as he would prefer a bond for every tower erected.

“I understand there are some concerns on bonding, that is does not follow who owns it,” Lindeen said.

Assistant Attorney Steve Giebelhausen gave a brief answer, stating, “The requirement should be that if it's sold to a different company, they have to have the same bond in place.”

Supervisor Steve Detrick explained issues he has seen with bonding, specifically in Louisa County with a bond related to a solar array.

“[Regional Utility Service Systems] was managing that farm, and it has sold two or three times,” he shared. “In that transition of being sold, the bond expired, and it took about three weeks to find who the new property owner actually was.”

According to Detrick, by the time the owner was located, the solar farm was in a decommissioning state, but that process could not be started due to not knowing where the bond was to be able to access the money.

The board also questioned who should oversee the financial account. The ordinance currently names the county auditor, but supervisors said the treasurer may be the more appropriate custodian. This could depend on the route the supervisors take regarding escrow versus bond, though, as auditor does not follow bonds.

On the topic of decommissioning, the board questioned whether the ordinance clearly defined how deep infrastructure must be removed or whether the full responsibility should fall to the county.

“We’re asking that it be returned to the original condition, but that’s not our responsibility,” Lindeen said.

He questioned if returning the land to the original condition should be between the landowner and the alternative energy company and if the county even has a responsibility in that.

“I understand you’re saying it should fall back on the landowner,” Detrick responded. “They should have some skin in the game, obviously, since they got paid.”

Lindeen argued that in the instance of other landowners putting up industrial-type buildings, they are not required per county code to put everything back to the way that it was.

In addition to financial provisions and decommissioning, the supervisors identified a need to ensure consistency in how the ordinance treats wind and solar energy systems as the ordinance addresses both.

“This is really geared, for the most part, toward wind rather than solar,” Detrick noted as the supervisors made their way through the ordinance page by page.

“I think we just need to make sure at some point we understand what we're talking about here — clearly defining and either adding solar or waiting to put solar in after this is all covered,” he added.

Supervisors agreed that solar should be explicitly included in definitions, siting requirements, and operational standards.

Several changes were suggested to the ordinance’s setback requirements, including increasing the distance turbines must be placed from public rights of way. The initial proposed ordinance called for a ratio of “1.1 times the height of the turbine” as a setback, however, Detrick stated that “doesn’t seem like a lot in a catastrophic situation.”

Supervisor Chad White suggested changing the 1.1 times to 1.5 times, “to make it a little more streamlined, and for the sake of consistency.”

White also suggested changing the county line setback to 1,640 feet instead of 1,320 feet as it is the halfway point for the non-participating property line setback of 3,280 feet.

Detrick then raised concerns about a lack of language on fire suppression for wind and solar. The supervisors will look to add that to the ordinance before the next reading.

Road use agreements and construction-related repairs were also discussed. The ordinance calls for damage to be repaired within 30 days, but supervisors questioned whether that timeline is realistic.

“Thirty days to essentially rebuild? That could be a problem,” White said, noting weather or material delays could complicate compliance.

As they made their way through each page of the proposed ordinance, supervisors also flagged inconsistencies in formatting, labeling, and section references throughout the draft.

The meeting concluded with a unanimous vote to approve a motion to amend the ordinance based on the changes discussed. The updated draft will be reviewed at the second reading on May 22, with a revised copy to be made available to the public beforehand.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com