Supervisors pass second reading of wind and solar ordinance amid concerns from residents

The Lee County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a second reading of an ordinance to regulate commercial wind, solar, and battery projects in the county during their meeting on Tuesday morning.

But the vote came with some discussion from concerned citizens.

The latest draft of the ordinance is available on Lee County’s website since and is 49 pages long.

“The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a set of minimum standards for the siting, placement, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of utility-scale Wind, Solar and Battery Energy Systems, in order to protect the public health, safety and community welfare of the residents of Lee County,” according to the website.

The proposed ordinance covers a wide range of regulations pertaining to green energy projects and partnerships with local property owners, including the following:

• General provisions
• Definitions
• Wind energy system sitting and design standards
• Solar energy sitting and design standards
• Battery energy sitting and design standards
• Conditional sitting permit review and approval processional sitting review and approval process
• Meteorlogical evaluation towers sitting permits
• Enforcement during each project’s lifespan
• Road use and mitigation of damages
• Wildlife monitoring and mitigation
• Emergency response protocols
• Rules governing decommissioning and abandonment

But one Lee County resident who spoke up during Tuesday’s meeting was Ted Stein.

Stein told the supervisors he would like to see even further setback distances for windmills and non-participating property owners, and brought up concerns about the potential for fiber glass pollution from wind blades, flicking shadows from sunlight that hits the blades, and additional noise regulations.

“Recent reports from some failure wind mills have found debris fields that have scattered as much as four times the height of the tower,” Stein told the supervisors.

“I think it would be wise to reconsider the setbacks that you have published in your ordinance in light of that.”

Stein said the fiber glass could result in serious problems for landowners if their livestock happen to ingest any of the material, and added that it may be impossible to separate fiberglass from some crops if they come into contact with the debris.

Stein also noted that the proposed ordinance did not make any mention of shadow flickering.

“(Engineers have told us) ‘We build these things, we know where they go, we know how tall they are, we know where the sun is every day and for how long,’” Stein added.

“They should be able to consider shadow flickering and make sure that it’s not going to land on any occupied structures.”

When questioned about his desire to see setback limits four times the height of the tower, District 3 Supervisor Chuck Holmes asked Stein if such limits would make it more difficult for wind energy companies to operate, Stein said that was not an issue of concern for him.

“I don’t know that it is your business to make it easier for them,” Stein said. “If you’re going to risk having a debris field land in a farmer’s pasture or his crop lands, then there has to be some provisions.”

Stein acknowledged the bond requirements for the green energy companies to be able to do business, but also questioned if those bond amounts would be sufficient in worst-case scenarios.

“I know that you’ve got bonds for some kinds of activities and damages, but (maybe) you should increase the value of that bond for the clean up of that debris,” Stein suggested.

“All of it. And that might mean stripping the toxic inches of soil off an 80-acre field. If it was me and I was building wind towers, I think I’d rather some assurances that it’s not going to land on a non-participating property.”

Holmes said he believed the current setback standards in the proposal already addressed any concerns of possible shadow flickering and noise issues.

District 4 Supervisor Garry Seyb said that, if the ordinance becomes too restrictive based off of every negative hypothetical impact, the proposal could get to a point where it was simply a ban on windmills in the county.

Stein suggested that some windmills could be designed to not operate during certain times of the day when shadow flickering could occur.

Seyb mentioned that the State of Iowa is considering drafting statewide legislation that could promote the spread and use of wind and solar energy which would overrule any county ordinances.

Another resident in attendance at the meeting, mentioned the pushback from Henry County residents against allowing solar and wind energy project within the county, as well as Des Moines County residents who want extended setback limits and a moratorium on any new windmill projects.

The supervisors noted the ordinance draft will be discussed further at a future workshop and are expected to vote on the third and final reading of the proposal during their meeting next Tuesday.

“I’m looking for protection before we (get to the point where it is needed),” Stein told the supervisors. “I’m in a better situation than several of my neighbors. I couldn’t afford a lawsuit that amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars…

“I don’t see why I should have to be put in a position where I have to do that.”

Budget approved

The Lee County Board of Supervisors approved their Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget following a brief public hearing during their meeting Tuesday morning.

The new budget, which begins on July 1, 2025 and runs through June 30, 2026.

For FY 2026, the county auditor, recorder, and treasurer will all be receiving raises to bring each one’s salary up to $84,000 a year (as recommended by the now-dissolved county compensation board), while the county attorney, sheriff, and board of supervisors all declined to receive raises.

To be in compliance with Iowa’s 2023 property tax reform law, counties have until 2029 to lower their property tax levy to no more than $3.50 for every $1,000 of a property’s valuation for general services and $3.95 for every $1,000 for rural services.

Counties have a cap of $3.50 per $1,000 for general services and $3.95 for rural services.

Currently, Lee County’s general services and rural services levies are at $9.31 and $2.27.

For FY 2026, the county’s general services levies and rural services levy will be $8.76 and $2.2.

The overall levy will drop from its current rate of $12.95 to $12.37, a .58 cent decrease.

While the county has been working to cut expenses and continue to lower the property tax levies, some areas of expenses will see an increase next fiscal year.

“Public Services and Legal Services” will see a $232,544 increase in expenses for FY 2026 from the current year, for a total of $14,330,837.

“Roads and Transportation” will see a $444,278 increase, for a total of $9,071,548.

“Government Services to Residents” will see a cost increase of $5,977, for a total of $1,504,588.

But capital projects will see a significant decrease in expenses in FY 2026, down $4,124,039 for a total of $3,528,744 expected to be spent.