T-R PHOTO BY RUBY F. MCALLISTER Salt Creek Wind’s turbine generator site No. 1, including part of the tower, pictured on Sunday, July 27. The site is located southeast of the intersection of F Avenue and 190th Street in Spring Creek Township in Tama County.

TOLEDO — Last Monday morning’s Tama County Board of Supervisors meeting saw a pivotal turn in the epic wind turbine saga. After years of fighting, litigation, and back-and-forth, the supervisors agreed to enter into a settlement agreement with Salt Creek Wind LLC that will allow their project to move forward without further litigation. Although the white flag was agreed to be waved, it was done reluctantly, and not without thought and contemplation.

During public comment, several members of the public spoke both in favor of settlement and of holding off. Former Zoning Commission member Craig Sash said the settlement should be passed, and that this issue “needs to be put to bed.” Zoning Administrator Laura Wilson asked for the settlement to be tabled as she was concerned about its wording and how it would affect the county and her duties.

When the supervisors spoke of their opinions on the settlement, Heather Knebel spoke first, stating that she agreed that the settlement should be tabled so that the wording could be tweaked.

“The prior board of supervisors are the reason we are in this situation. I do think we had a good case. I think the Supreme Court would be a different answer, obviously the prior board left us out of money in our general basic fund, we literally need money to be able to go forward as a county. So that’s definitely disappointing,” she said. “I think the prior board of adjustment (and) board of supervisors definitely did not help us. They did not look at the ordinances; they did not do their due diligence. That’s why we’re in this situation.”

Supervisor Curt Hilmer also let his opinions be known.

“I just want to let my district know that, with this being worded right, I’ll be voting yes. Not because I agree with anything from the top to the bottom, way back to Al Gore, this was a scam,” There is no such thing as clean energy, especially in industrial. Um, I just have to, I cringe every time I hear ‘good faith’ because these companies are big enough where they don’t care about anything else but the money,” he said. “It’s hard to have good faith with somebody that knows they’re gonna get a 50/50 chance at losing at (the) Supreme Court to them pile four or five lawsuits on you, knowing you don’t have the money to pay. I mean how corrupt is that? And how corrupt is the world because (of) this clean energy all the way from the Biden administration down to here?”

Supervisor Chairman Mark Doland spoke about some of the issues brought up by the public. “The questions that Laura had put out there, none of those have been; all of them had been addressed. There’s nothing she’s raised that hasn’t already been thought of and been sent through our attorneys,” he said.

Doland went on to clarify that this settlement only applies to phase one. Both Supervisor Curt Kupka and Hilmer made a point during their comment time to convey their thanks to Doland and Supervisor David Turner for negotiating the settlement.

The settlement agreement lists concessions from both parties, with the biggest point being $1.2 million that Salt Creek Wind LLC will pay Tama County in two $600,000 installments — one within five days of SCW delivering the certificate of completion to the county for the first turbine and the second upon the beginning of commercial operations or on Dec. 31, 2026, whichever is earlier. It also stipulates that “any future commercial wind energy conversion project in Tama County, which includes any commercial wind project other than Phase 1 of the Project, will be subject to all ordinances then in place at the time of any such future application for conditional use permits or zoning certificates.”

The settlement went to a vote, and all five supervisors voted yes. They also approved directing counsel to execute the withdrawal of the revocation petition and the joint dismissal.