Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Start off with commission member roll call. Larson here. Grew here. Martin here. Christensen here. Here. Hughes here. Bry here. Okay. Has everybody uh had an opportunity to go through the current agenda? Do I have a motion to approve? I'll make that motion. Have a motion by Lawrence. We got a second. I'll second it. Second by Christian. Motion carries. Okay. New business discussion. Formal action of proposed zoning text amendment to the Mills County, Iowa zoning ordinance, chapter 27.12, solar energy systems considerations of adding a corn suitability rating into current regulations. I'm going to read the uh meeting statement and these will be the the guidelines that we follow. The public hearings will be conducted pursuant to the commission's rules of procedure. We will first hear the report of the department on the detailed information and observations regarding the request before the commission. If not done so in written form prior to the hearing. Next, we will take the testimony of the applicant and his or her witnesses. Upon completion of the applicant's testimony, I will call upon members of the audience wishing to be heard concerning the request. Persons in favor of the request shall be heard first, followed by those opposed to it. At any time during the presentation of testimony, the members of the commission may interrupt to ask questions or to make comments on what has been said.

Upon completion of all testimony, the applicant will be allowed to make a closing statement to the commission. Upon commission upon completion of the applicant's closing statement, I will entertain a motion from the commission to close the public hearing on the request. The commission reserves a right to ask questions of any member of the audience. However, we will not hear any unsolicited statements unless the public hearing is first reopened. Each speaker addressing this commission shall step forward to the podium and state their name and address before proceeding with their testimony or evidence. This commission shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence, but does reserve the right to exclude evidence or testimony that may deem to be irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent, or unduly repetitious. As chairman, I will rule on all questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, which may be overruled by a majority of the commission. Continuences may be granted by the commission in case for good cause shown to any interested party who has entered their appearance. The commission may request a continuence of a hearing for the purpose of giving further notice, taking further evidence, gathering further information, touring the proposed site, or for such other reasons as a commission may find sufficient. In such case, we shall state the specific reasons for the continuence and set a date time in place when the matter will be continued. All official actions of this commission will be made at a public meeting by motion made seconded and a polling of the membership. If conditions are imposed, such condition shall be included in the

motion or amendment thereto. Our final decision will be prepared in writing and will be part of the public record of this commission. All right. Uh we're going to uh do we have a motion to o open public hearing? Like that motion? Got a motion by Lawrenson. We have a second. A second. Second. Uh do you want to take individual roll call? Just go. We can just go with what? Okay. All those uh in favor say I. I. All oppose same sign. Motion carries. Now we will have a presentation of language options by Matt White. So on the staff report that um to you on the back in the staff report I included the full language in chapters 27 section 12 of the utility scale solar for you to have an idea of what the current regulations are currently with uh utility scale solar and that would be the part that we're would be looking at in in inputting the CSR rating uh portion to that. And so when we were originally asked about this, we looked at what other Iowa counties had out there. We didn't try to develop any new language. um so the language is the wording that is in the staff report there comes directly from either Cedar County or Sue County out there and we would have to uh the first thing we'd have to do is add a definition for corn suitable suitability rating and have that down currently right now as an index that rates soil

types for the potential row row crop productivity. And then uh the two different the two counties had it stated in various ways. There was A and then there was B. And so the SEUS which is your utility solar uh shall not be installed on land unless the land has an average CR CSR2 rating of and um I left that open for the consideration of the commission. And again, I put in there that currently Iowa counties, the ones that utilize this out there have a universal ratio of 40 to 75 or lower. Average of the CSR2 will be calculated using current data supplied by the United States Department of Agricultural Natural Resource Conservation Service. The area of interest established for calculating the CSR2 must reflect the precise and contiguous land area being developed with arrays, buildings and utility and access infrastructure and shall not include land set aside for conservation, agriculture or land otherwise undisturbed by the development. And then B, the other choice would be at least 75% of the site has a CRS2 rating of blank or below and has no history of agricultural usage in the previous five and eight of the last 10 years. So, those would be considerations that if the the planning commission can either make a recommendation for one or the other andor if you've reviewed the ordinances ahead of time and are happy where they're at, you really have those three options. You can either choose to move in favor for the board of

supervisors. the recommendation of approval or you can have a choice of recommending that the state of our All right, we will uh everybody's heard that and then we're we're going to go into public comments. comment. Um, I'm going to ask I suppose the people that are for this I we'll call you up first one at a time. I would ask keep it at three minimum three minute maximum one time to the podium. So we'll open it up now. Let's start with anybody that is for the amendment, right? Go ahead. Come on up. Give us your name and your address. Brett Hayes, 65495 310th Street, Malvin. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you tonight. My name is Brett Hayes and I'm a fourth generation farmer south of Mal. I am standing up in support of the CSR2 ordinance. Agriculture is the backbone of this county. It is the number one GDP in our state and it touches almost every other industry in the country. My fear is that if we allow subsidized solar projects, it will drive the price of land up and make it even tougher for future generations to come back to the family farm. As family farmers, our ultimate goal is to be able to pass our operations on to future generations. I have a young man that is

marrying my oldest daughter who wants to join in our operation, but I'm afraid of how difficult it would be for him to acquire more land. It's already tough enough to outbid outside investors when you are trying to purchase a piece of land. If you were to pay $12,000 an acre for a farm and someone says that they will give you $1,400 an acre lease per year, that is 12% return on your money. If you were to cash rent the same farm, you might get 3% return on your money, but that money stays right here in the county. We should not have to be competing with our own tax dollars to do what we love. A previous county board in the past already made the mistake of selling a landfill to out of out of county investor that now receives garbage from at least three states. I'm not sure how many of you have traveled this county today and see the garbage on the side of the roads, but it is sickening. The landfill has become the first big isore in the county and I beg of you to not allow the second one with solar panels. Before I close, I would like you at all to think about a beautiful sunny summer afternoon. You're driving across the county. The wind is waving the fields of corn and soybeans like an ocean of dark green that produces food, fuel, and fiber for our bodies. Now, think of those same fields covered in black solar panels with gravel and weeds around them. I know which one I'd rather see. I've seen fields of solar panels, and it's not pretty. As it says in the great American song America the Beautiful, Amber ways of grain. Both Richard Crouch and Jack Sers have already told me personally that they support it. I would appreciate your support for the ordinance as well. Thank you.

Yes, I'm Rob Hayes, uh 65629 310th Street, Mauard, Iowa, and uh I'm his father. uh and as a fairsized farmer and taxpayer in the county, I am concerned about the uh use of farm ground for uh the wrong reasons. For sustainable agriculture to thrive, it must both be environmentally sound and economically viable. By focusing on cost effectiveness, farmers can ensure that their practices are sustainable in the long run, benefiting the environment, society, and their own livelihoods. With the right support and market conditions, sustainable agriculture can become the standard for food and energy production worldwide. To sustain agriculture in this county, we must not compete with outside investors who purchase land at above market prices to lease to energy companies for electricity. Power companies would invest heavily without government with government incentive without government incentives to make it cost effective. Crop protection is key to achieving energy independence through rei renewable resources. Solar grids need periodic replacement whereas crop production is renewable and agriculture must keep growing to maintain profitability as cost rise. As a producer, if I do not continue to grow, I feel I will be going backward. But as but I have to be able to grow profitably given the input cost, machinery cost and repair expenses. Without growth, I will be going backwards. It is crucial that tax dollars do not fund energy companies

through incentives, creating unfair competition. Therefore, I am endorsing this ordinance. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak? Well, I'm third in row. I feel I have to go next, you know. Well, there you go. I know Mr. Hughes is a little hard of hearing, so I'm I'm hoping everyone can hear me. And Lonnie, can you hear me? Okay, see you again. My name's Tom Honeyman. I live about as far east in the county as you can get. Uh, a mile west of Emerson, 5974400 Street. Uh, I usually have a scripted item that I could hand to you that you could read, but uh my thoughts are all over the board on this and it's finally settled down to um I am in support of this uh ordinance change, but in reality it's almost like putting a bandage on a bleeding wound. Uh you quoted uh 27 of the I of the Mills County Code. If you go down to 273 agriculture use and types in agricultural zones, it goes horiculture, crop production, animal production, and livestock sales. And it doesn't say anywhere in there about solar industrial parks. Nowhere. As far as I know, that's Mills County Code, which is a fancy name for law. So when Mid America purchates that farm and the owners perfectly, I support the fact that you can sell your farm and do whatever you want to. But the reason, as

you know, we have zoning is so the rest of us can go to sleep at night comfortably knowing that there's not going to be a a battleship erected next to us the next day. Otherwise, my son and I are getting ready to apply for a uh a variance to build a hog confinement three blocks north of the Glenwood State Bank and I'm pretty sure it'll be turned down, which is exactly what should have happened in the board of adjustment. They should have looked at him and said, "You you're welcome to buy that farm, but you're going to farm it." Jim Gregory, a good friend of mine, has been farming and he does an excellent job and he's going to farm it again. U this is all a the windmills, the solar farms, the summit carbon pipeline, all it is is a draft off of federal funds, which is your money. So basically, and it's a dollar per dollar in 45 Q. Every dollar they spend, they're going to get it back. So, it isn't going to cost them a dime, but they're going to make a lot of money exporting that electricity. None of my neighbors that went to the board of adjustment, it didn't make any any different. They were ignored. I was unable to go because of a a family emergency. But I asked every one of them and they and they said they were ignored. They went ahead and unanimously voted to do it. Why? Zoning is in place for a reason. You have the northwest corner of the county is red for industry. Am I not right? And there's a little spot over north of me that's the booster station. The rest of it is solid green. So, thank you, Matt. Um, I am in favor of this change. I would put the CSR at 30 if it was me. I'd put it very low. But I don't see why you can't just say we're not interested in this. I

mean, you're welcome to build one, but not an agriculturally zoned land. Thank you. Anybody else on the pro side? I could please. Hello, my name is Stephanie Miller, 58258 390th Street, Emerson. Um, I just want to let you know, um, when these ordinances were created, you know, everyone thought, great job, wonderful, and it was well done. Um, but please do not take offense that we need amendments. I believe ordinances are growing, ever growing, ever changing, ever evolving. So, I'm very I I believe this is um a very good thing to amend this ordinance now that we see that uh business is willing to take very fertile farm ground, ground that grows food. It's what we do and they're willing to change that and turn it into something that we don't know how it's going to affect affect the land. It hasn't been around at this size long enough. So, as we know better, we do better. And that's that's life. So, I would very much appreciate um you backing the change of else on the pro side 607 East 9th Street, Mal, Iowa. I serve on the Mills County Board of Supervisors and am a proud resident of the eastern half of our community. My family has farmed in Mills County for 70 years, ever since my great-grandparents moved from Moringo to the farm where they spent the majority of their lives. Agriculture is literally in my blood. Although I am a Republican, I believe that the duty of the planning and zoning commission is to look after the best

interests of our community. That's why we have zoning and ordinances in the first place. In my opinion, there is no better way to preserve the heartbeat of our local economy than protect our most productive farm ground. In our ordinances already, things that you folks have approved, we have an ordinance that says a six-foot distance requirement for adult entertainers and crowds at the playhouse. We have an ordinance that says wind turbines must be smaller than 80 feet so that we can protect the visual landscape of our community. We have an ordinance that states how many parking spaces a lot must have depending on the building. There are many more ordinances in our 162page zoning book and the majority of them all have to do with private property. If we can create these ordinances for the common good of our community, I do not see a reason why we would not implement a CSR standard into our solar ordinance to protect local act. Placing industrial-sized solar projects is quite frankly does as much good as putting screen doors on submarines. It just doesn't make sense. I had a meeting with a gentleman who is on the fence about this new ordinance just yesterday. He owns roughly 80 acres behind his home and was asking me about why he should not be allowed to sell his farm for solar. I asked him if you combine the amount of people who receive a wage from that land, seed dealers, custom applicators with chemicals, etc., etc., How many people is it? He then told me that in total six people receive a paycheck from his 80 acres. The facts are 21% of residents in our community, people who vote for me, are employed in agriculture. There are over $623 million worth of sales every year and that number is going up. And there is $77 million worth of wages from agriculture every year to our community. Agriculture is the heartbeat of our community and we

must pass this ordinance to protect it. As a young guy, it's already hard enough to get into agriculture. We got rising costs, rising input costs, rising machinery costs, rising land costs. Simple supply side economics tells us that with less land available for agriculture, the price of land is going to go up. That's not beneficial to people in my generation who need to farm to feed the world. In closing, I want to emphasize that my comments is not about being against renewable energy. It's about being responsible for land use and preserving the foundation of our local economy. Our farmers, a workers, and rural families depend on this land, not only for their livelihood, but their way of life. I urge this commission to consider the facts, the local impact, and the responsibility we all share. Let's not trade short-term gain for long-term loss. Let's protect what makes our community strong. Thank you very much. else on pro [Music] sidebridge road. I'm not a farmer, but I bought a farm in Mills County over 50 years ago. A piece of ground that should never have been farmed. Doublies and erosion. We spent the last 50 years correcting that because we like to look at it. But I'm in favor of this and I think you are too. Over less than a year ago, you considered an amendment to the future land use plan for Mills County. One of those

policies was to maintain agriculture and open space as the dominant land use type in un uninccorporated Mills County. So, I'm in favor of this ordinance. Make it as strict as possible because I think solar panels will be outdated, obsolete in a short period of time. And I've seen other industries come to Mills County and other places and when it's no longer viable, the owner walks away and leaves it. Now, there is something in the ordinance to prevent that, but when a big firm that owns 20 or more windmill sites and solar panels walks away just like Northwestern Bell did from their facilities scattered around the county, which nobody will take respect, it'll be an ugly site. So I hope you will support this ordinance as strong as possible. Else on the pro side like to speak. Okay, we're going to go to uh anybody that would like to speak on the other side. Uh there anybody that would like to get up and make any comments? I'm Lori Green and I live at 17889 Ellis Road and we are like uh 2 miles south of Highway

370 and ours is a heritage farm. It's a 400 acre farm that was uh passed down to my husband and his brothers by their grandfather Stacy Fe Haney. And he was a very determined, very hardworking salt of the earth type of farmer as probably many of you all are here in this room today. But he really had an unflinching work ethic and a healthy dose of optimism, always wanting to provide for his family independently. And so this land has been lovingly farmed across generations by our family and remains one of our family's most cherished legacies. Today however we face unprecedented challenges as farmers and are concerned with the proposed ordinances to limit solar development on our land if it has a specific CRS2 rating. This proposed restriction while we realize is very well-intentioned and we certainly understand that. but it would effectively prevent us from pursuing a solar lease agreement that offers us a vital financial lifeline. Our current farmer is experiencing unsustainable costs and year-over-year losses, and he's not alone. The recent 225 Senate Agricultural Committee hearings reported that producers of crops such as corn, soybeans, and wheat are grappling with per acre losses over consecutive years. And this appears to be continued on in the next unforeseeable future. And this jeopardizes the economic stability of our rural communities across the nation. rising

costs, as Jack said, for fertilizer, seed, fuel, equipment maintenance, labor shortages, unpredictable weather patterns, sustained droughts, floods, market volatility, volatility, tariffs, and reciprocal tariffs have converged into what we can only describe as a crisis for our farm. And it appears these troubling uh events are going to continue. They're not going to go away anytime soon. So uh in addition, potential farmers uh whether they're young, middle-aged, or old are apprehensive about farming our farm because we have looked without crop insurance. paying our property taxes and other bills will become increasingly difficult. The opportunity to lease part of our land for solar energy is not a decision we take lightly. Uh I I just did want to say that um the concern that solar development will price out young farmers is certainly understandable, but we have looked there are no young farmers interested in farming our farms. So, we respectively ask you to consider the realworld impact this ordinance is going to have on long-term family farms such as ours. Please allow us to have a choice in this matter and we thank you for the time that you take to make uh wise decisions. We appreciate you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Michael Kernik. Uh my address is 298 Silver King Court in

Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Uh I'm the senior director of development for Orion Renewable Energy Group. Uh we have the Fulsson Lake Solar Project that we're currently working on. Uh one of my colleagues, Sazi Gley, is generally spending his time in the county. He's actually on vacation this week and passes on his apologies for not being able to be here. Um we have a project that we've been working on for a number of years now. We have about 5600 acres uh that's participating. We're generally bounded by south of the Walter Scott plant. Uh Interstate 29 to the west. There's a few parcels on the east but generally between the interstate and the Missouri River. Um we have about 28 participating agreements in the project to date and we're looking at approximately a 500 megawatt project. um helped we uh against the change to the ordinance. We believe that you've spent the time and the effort coming up with an ordinance historically that has both protections for the county land holders that are neighboring to the project and then neighbors landholders who want to participate in the project. Um, I think some of the decommissioning provisions that are included both in the ordinance and also in our own private agreements with landholders hopefully should cover some of the concerns that we have uh bonds in place that are sort of governed outside of the project. Um, so the decommissioning and removal of project can take place. Um, we selected this site specifically because it is in a floodprone area. The site itself has a lower CSR rating than the county average. Um, it is floodprone. we know where we are. We know that there is a flood risk. Uh some of the land holders who I think are present tonight have voiced their opinion that it is it is difficult to farm with the insurance um the increasing costs and whilst the CSR is one number um the flood risk if the river is high the water is um damaging properties. Um, also this would be if we

have a 500 megawatt project currently proposed. Uh, with current prices, that's a $940 million project that we would want to spend money in the county. Uh, for that, uh, there's approximately $23 million in property taxes paid across the life of a 35 year solar lifespan. Um and above and beyond that, uh the solar project would enter into a voluntary economic development agreement with the county um in the range of about $ 1.5 million per year depending on the final size. So if it's about 500 megawatts, that $ 1.5 million number. Um and for that we would have um payments to neighboring residents within a third of the mile of project who did not want to participate. We believe that we can share the financial benefit through there and then entering into an agreement whether it's the county itself or through economic development agencies uh within the county to have the project to provide funds to the county uh to go to the broader needs and we realize we are part of the community. We have landholders as business partners and we believe that the county should reap the benefits of the project as a whole. Um, as it stands, option B in the proposed language is essentially a moratorium for our project. Everything out there is farmed. If B were to be imposed, that would just stop all the development. Happy to answer any questions that might come up later and take a few time. Anybody else like to speak? Wait, Matt Rock, 210th Street, Glenwood, Iowa. Family and I moved here just a couple years ago. Lovely county. Um, I'm opposed to this ordinance, not by the essence of, you know, wanting to regulate solar farms in the city, but in the county, but just because it seems

overly intense and they would prevent any solar. Uh, it seems like it removes individual choice being so stark there. If a farmer wants to use their land for solar, I don't understand what senses for that. It's an aesthetic concern. I grew up surrounded by corn fields as well, and I got to say I like them, but that's just because I drove around. If I had grown up with one quarter of the land being solar panels, I'd probably think solar panels were pretty, too. I think that's merely an adaptation of our own part. Uh, one thing that's confused me that's been brought up is the danger of solar panels. Whether or not it's u going to render the land unusable or anything like that. It's glass and aluminum. They're fairly easy to remove. They're fairly easy to take and I don't think they have any dangers from uh there are counties nearby that have very reasonable regulations about that though. They require groundwater testing before and after the project is making sure that television. I also seen Page County next to us has wildflower native requirements that I think are very intelligent. I would also pose like many uh Glen Woodians, I drive up and down I 29 at least several times a week and I see Vanderhags there as those mobile solar panel arrangements. I don't know if you ever seen those. Uh they follow the sun in the morning. They go across in the day. And then just beyond that, we have literal hills of slag from the cold wind. They've covered them up with dirt and plastic, but they're building new ones all the time. When it comes to the difference there, I would rather have an entire I29 lined by Vanderheads as opposed to polluting Western and C with more cool. All I have. Thank you.

Uh Nicole Rock, 210th Street, Glenwood, Iowa with my husband. Um so I oppose the current potential ordinance. Um in large part because I believe that the best person to ask for how to use the land is the farmer of each land. They've been many times doing it for generations and they are thinking about the generations ahead and they can look at their own financial risks and all the things that go into these leases and I believe that they should be trusted to make these decisions on their own and that we shouldn't be limiting them based off of fear by some of us who have never farmed. Um, I have driven past solar fields. Many of them are gorgeous, honestly. Um, they're surrounded by, um, grass and flowers, often native. There's a little extra native wildlife. Wildlife in turn, especially pollinators, can then also help the nearby agricultural land. They help to pollinate plants and create better production. And I think that there is um that they can work together very nicely in that sense. I also think it's important to point out that it is understandable people are worried about losing jobs to agriculture which is just a difficulty of the times moving ahead. Um job insecurity is always something to be aware of. Um but this is something that really also helps create jobs. They're very different jobs but I think that they are jobs that will help lead us into the future. Um, I think that as we're having more difficult time, you know, even trying to sell land for coal and oil because it's just not as accessible as it used to be, clean energy is going to be a big

foundation and that creating these jobs will help in that area. And [Music] um, we got something else. I'm sorry. That was it. Thank you so much. Welcome apps. Uh Jeff Green. Uh 17715 Alice Road. Uh and uncle here. Uh we are we have a century farm. Our family moved here in the 1850s. Um, our great-grandfather bought third land. No one else wanted it. He was a hard worker. Um, the land adjacent to our family farm. I bought that and it was an emotional decision because we're committed to agriculture. Wasn't a good business decision, but I'm glad I bought the land. Uh, and uh uh we're active in in no tail practices, regenerative farming because I think the farms are our future. And I agree uh that it's important to help preserve the agricultural industry. And it's interesting if you look, you know, Iowa was the sixth largest state for apples. Mills County was the largest apple producer at the turn of the last century. They had a big apple festival here. Not anymore. Times change. The world adapts and so we need to be able have have the flexibility. Um, I do want to pre preserve agriculture. One of the things that really attracted me to the solar farm is the idea that 40 years from now, get the land back. It's going to be taken care of uh grasses, more or more carbon in the soil. We're going to have pollinators there. And so again, it kind

of puts the farm into a a stasis box. What I hand out here is I think you looked beyond CSR2. The CSR2 was originally intended as a way to compare different parts of land, but you need to look at what is going on locally. The map there is the USDA risk management association has labeled the ground as high risk. And what that means is your insurance prices go up and and your your coverage goes down. And so our annual production history was about a little over 200 bushels an acre. When you get moved to a higher risk and it changes every year, keeps going higher. Aa BBCC, our our AP is reset to 139 bushels. So you have more insurance coverage, less less protection. So again, the USDA is saying, "Hey, we don't want you farming here." Uh the area here uh it in specifically is is ideal for a a u solar farm. We don't even have any neighbors to the west. Uh and we have very flat land, don't have many people living there because it's not a good place to live. Um other thing with the CSR2 is it doesn't take into account the actual drainage. looks at the drainage of the soil type, but if the water can't leave the field, which it can't do in our ground and the river's high, and it can be high for weeks, you've lost your crop. And so, it's not uncommon to lose uh crops year after year. And again, that's why the USDA is is uh saying, "Hey, we don't want you farming here." Um, I'd encourage the board not to adopt the uh the uh CSR2 limits. If you do, I would go with a very high, if your purpose is to preserve agriculture, save the best ground. But we need to look at what's good for the whole county. As they mentioned, there's a lot of investment

here. Uh we need electricity to move forward. Uh and I again, I appreciate your service as a as a as a a board member trying to look out for the interest of the county. I encourage you to look out for the interest of all the county today and in the future. Thank you. Go ahead. You go. I'm not going to actually speak in favor or oppose. You didn't give me that option as a criteria, but Tracy B56154 Grand Randy Lanewood. You guys know me. I've been I've been been a avid part of the planning process. Um, I'm only here today to ask a question. If we're going to regulate the land that we develop for solar, are we going to regulate the land we develop for anything else? That to me was the biggest question that hit my mind when the idea first came up. We I was part of the process of updating the land use development plan and one of the things we decided on was a pretty good amount of residential development. Are we going to apply the same rules to that? Are we going to only apply it to solar? I'm not saying you shouldn't. You guys are entrusted with that responsibility to kind of make a decision that's in the best interests of the county and its residents. But it was a question that I had. So, I thought I'd get up today, mention it. Something maybe to consider as you look at what are the options. So, thank you. I'll keep it short. Hello, Dan Robbins, 18519 Alice Road.

Um, I am a generational farmer kid. Not uh there's one thing I learned a long time ago. It it's hard work being a farmer and it was always the the land owners that had all the money and all the fun and all the toys. I grew up very poor. Uh my family lost all their farm from Nebraska. So I made a point that I'm going to not let that happen. I've acquired all the in-laws farm. Um it's mine. shouldn't have anybody tell me what I can and can't do with my contrary to belief in here. Um I don't think especially with the project we have going on that is a lot of uh outside uh influence or investors purchasing ground. Most of the people that I know all here uh around our project own the ground and uh so it it means generational wealth for my family. My kids who I'm putting through college right now and 40 years down the road, they have the option to keep that farm continue to have supplemental income. That's going to be very important for them as things get harder and harder in this country for to make ends meet. So if here's contradiction here, you know, I'm in sales, so let's negotiate a little bit. Is it okay if we can't have generational wealth and you want to use the CSR to uh keep solar projects out? Can we ask the farmers to pay more rent based on CSR and substantially? Because right now the farmers are the ones making all the money and land owners are. I don't make enough money but to make the mortgage payment and my property taxes. So, um there's got to be

some give and take. It can't be all or nothing. Okay, thank you. Sam Ranchaw, 3342 Mar County. I don't live here, but I do represent about 27 to 32 of the county's uh population. Um I'm a business manager for labors 1140 right out of Omaha, Nebraska. We cover the entire state of Nebraska and nine counties in Iowa with Mills being one of them. Um we got a solar wind farm going on right there in Shannido, Iowa. We got 36 laborers right now making $31.86 an hour. For every hour they work, the contractor pays $8.75 into a health and welfare. Once they reach 500 hours, it's free health insurance for their entire family. Anything over 100 hours a month is put in the bank. So with this one project that we're doing in Shannondoa, these guys will have insurance for their entire family for at least up to a year. They're working 60 hours a week, bringing home 15 to 200 15 to $2,000 a week to feed their family. Am I against this? Yes. Am I against it for our members? Yes. Um, if I want to do something on my land, why can't I do it? Who's to say what I can to keep with my land? Um, I've heard a lot of people I've been to like 52 counties here in Nebraska. Out of N or Iowa, out of the 99 counties we have here, there's what, two that have a moratorium like this. The other 97 are doing something right. You know, I just ask you don't put this in this burden. on the land owners. Let them do the Thank

you. Anybody else would like to speak? My name is Rick Frost. I live on 17402 Alice Road, Northwest Mills County. I'm a fourth generation farmer in Northwest Mills. thought long and hard about whether to lease my land for solar panels. It provides me an option for retirement while keeping ownership of the land in my family. The area is in a flood plane and has suffered several flooding events in the last 39 years that I've been farming in this area. Now we are dealing with lower proven yields, higher uh insurance premiums and higher drainage taxes. If solar is going to be a part of the future, I feel that solar should be placed on high-risk land instead of the more productive areas viable. All I got in second. I'm Evan Seek. I live at the junction of 195th and Alice Road. I am also a fourth generation farmer. Um, when my dad and my uncle started signing up acres with Orion, I at first was initially very upset as a young guy. I think I can say that in this room. Uh, I wanted a farm. I thought that that's all I wanted to do with my life. Um then I had two kids

and sorry um when I look ahead and you look around on the corn and the soybeans. Yes, you want to preserve what's naturally beautiful and pure in this county. But if we do not have diverse and varied industry, this county is going to die. You talk about the young people that you want to have involved in agriculture. Where are they, Jack? So, I'm with a lot of the people that say as land owners, if we have a chance at profitability and we have a chance at making a living for ourselves and future generations, we have to open up and allow different industries into this county. Thank you. Okay, I guess then that puts us to do we have a motion to close public hearings? Motion. Thank you. Second. All those in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Carries. Now we're going to go into board discussion and formal action. I honestly uh myself I'm going to sit

here and I've I I think thank you for everybody that's both sides but that's pretty impressive. um heard everything you said. Uh I can honestly say right now I'm sitting [Music] here I haven't had I haven't heard enough to I haven't heard enough to make a decision. on that. I think we need to to possibly we need we need to have some discussion amongst ourselves and maybe a little more education on what's going on. Yeah, I think that's somewhat of an issue. You know, normally in these zoning meetings, you come in here and potentially the board of supervisors could direct us to discuss potentially maybe about talking about putting a CSR rating into into our ordinance. I am firmly against it. I don't think it should even come close to coming in our ordinance. I don't think the CSR rating has anything to do with our zoning book. I think if you know I deal with the CSR rating on a daily basis. It changes by the year. People don't realize that. 2012 it had a major change. It had changes in eight of the last 12 years. That CSR rating changes. And I would tell you that raise your hand in here if you knew that it it's a moving target. So, if we put a CSR rating in our book, there might be a piece of property that now it's not. Now it's not, now it is. I think it's a I don't I don't think it's Florida zoning book. Now, you talk about counties that have it. Sou County, Sou County has an average CSR of 85. I mean,

it's it's it's a different animal than Mills County. Mills County has all different topography all the way through it. You've got a lot of what I see a lot of bottom farmers and then you've got some middle farmers over here. So that that they have differences of opinions. But the key in my opinion the key to this whole discussion is choice. This is a 18month process that we put this solar ordinance in. Where were you guys then? We sat up here for 18 months working on this and now all of a sudden we've got some people talking to us saying, "Hey, why don't we change it?" Well, why didn't where were you at when we were doing the 18month solar ordinance? It was public hearings. I mean, it it went on forever. So, we had when when we finally put this ordinance in, we did everything we could to try to make it to where it fit. Now, if if you know we have a supervisor or two that says maybe we should change this, I guess we can sure look at it, but for for for this to get jammed down our throat, here it is. Vote today. We we haven't even worked on Yeah, that's not even Yeah, it's not it's not right. It It isn't how it should have been done in my opinion. You know, I I'm I'm friends with everybody any But I will say this, this isn't how it should have been approached to us. So, we it should be work sessions and and try to figure it out. And I know you can't make everybody happy in here, but I do think I am, you know, choice was brought up in in a couple times today and it and you should be able to kind of, you know, we've already we've already dictated with our solar where it can be on this

map. We've done that. So now we're want to add more to it to say and now your CSR rating has to be a certain number for it to work. We've had two companies in Mills County just a hair under $20 million invested in this in this county in the last 18 months because of because of our solar winds. Name somebody else that's invest come to our county and invested 20 million in our county in the last 18 months. I mean, it's like, whoa, look, this this ordinance must kind of worked. Looks like people are looking at it. And and everybody should be proud of the ordinance that was put together, I think. I mean, there was a lot of time put on. So, I'm good for now, but that's my take from anybody else. I think we talk about choice. We have a wind ordinance in that's telling people what they can and cannot do with their land. I don't see how this is any different. my opinion. I'm a fifth generation farmer. My family's been here for 135 years and we need to protect our productive farmland. If we talk about $20 million in investment coming in, you look at the economic impact of agriculture in Mills County, 623 million in total a sales, 77 million wages, and we employ 21% of our residents through agriculture. It is our back. It is the backbone of our economy. It is the heartbeat of our local communities. It should not be threatened. It is threatened enough the way it is. You look at commodity prices right now. Some of our best ground may may not pencil this year. So, we need more outside competition from solar and absentee land owners who are just trying to turn a dollar. There's comments made about farmers aren't making or farmers are making all the money. Land owners are not. I do not see that.

Um, you talk about, you know, there's they talked about a a need for electricity, a need for energy. There's no future without food. Agriculture needs to be protected. I'm not against renewable energy. We have a 90x150 steel frame shop that is a perfect candidate to put solar panels on the roof, have independent energy on a small scale at individuals properties, but solar panels on roofs, on buildings, but large-scale industrial projects where we will not see the energy will be sold on the grid to outside entities. That's giving us no benefit in exchange for our economic powerhouse in agriculture. It's not a fair tradeoff. And yet, you know, I've got a farm here, my family farms. 35 and a half% of that farm is a CSR of 25 to 41. You know, that's poor productivity by CSR standards. By the soil map here, 2021 average yield 268 bushels per acre. 2022 bushels per acre. 2023 223 bushels per acre. 2024 253 bushels per acre. With proper management, you can make lower CSR ground produce. With proper drainage, you can make it produce. And yes, I understand the argument. The bottom ground that sits wet, the water table's high. It may not be an option, but you can look at putting into CRP. We have land. We don't farm because it's not profitable. We put into CRP. You get a payment from the government, and it's it's competitive with cash rent. It's the same as you'll get if you rent the farm out to somebody. So the argument that there's no young farmers to farm my farm. You put in a CRP, you get that same amount of money or more than farmers are willing to pay. I, for one, I'm a young farmer. I'm looking for land. This lower CSR ground is what

gives younger farmers an opportunity. It needs to be protected. It's the backbone of our economy here locally. Solar has no place in Mills County on a large scale if it is going to disrupt our local economy and agriculture. Not against solar, but it should be smaller projects independent. You get that energy to your own home, you're benefiting from it. It's not a large scale project taking, you know, 80 CSR ground out of production. Some of the best dirt in the world, you know, 5 miles south of me along 34 400 acres gone out of production for what? We're not going to see the energy. It's going to go on the grid. It's not going to benefit us. When we talk about the tax revenue, you got to look at tax revenue that goes throughout the the county from farmers, from agriculture. Like I said, employs 20% of the residents, 77 million in wages, $623 million in total a sales. That cannot be overlooked when we're looking at this ordinance. That's my opinion on it. Yeah. And I think there's a little bit of correlation between CRP and solar. If you think about it, you're setting it set aside. I mean, are you against CRP? I'm not. No. Okay. Well, when you look at solar, how CRP is grass, you're sequestering carbon. Same as you're sequestering carbon with our modern a practices. We do no tail. We do cover crops. Let's talk about the environment. Farmers are the original environmentalists. We are doing everything we can to make the best use of our ground and make it more productive to be viable for future generations. We're not harming the soil. So to bring solar in, you look at the compaction on the ground, the stripping of top soil. Yes, you put it back, but look at a rock for you. You strip the soil away and they replace it. You know, the decommissioning plant, that farm is never the same. It tanks the productivity of that piece of ground. So to say there's no effect on

the farmland, I don't believe in that. you like look compaction removing top soil. I mean to say that there's no effect on the ground is the same as just planting native grasses and it's all going to be fine. It's not accurate. Sure, you put grass underneath it, but after what damage has been done? Anybody else have any comment? Yeah, I I'm with you. I would just like more information, right? I hear that $621 million or whatever. But I I would honestly like to know how much of that actually stays here. How much of that flies out the window to seed sales out of Mills County, fertilizer sales out of Mills County, fuel costs that come from somewhere out of Mills County. Like everyone's throwing that number around like that money all stays right here. I don't believe that that impact is is true. I think that money spent out of Bills County, but I don't think it stays here. I would like personally to have more information also and also about the counties all the other counties in Iowa that aren't doing this. Why and why not? So, you know, like I agree with county is a different breed up there. So, you got to be within the grid. Pardon? got to be a certain distance from the grid to tie into the grid to take that energy and move it so we can all benefit from lower electric costs. We It does impact everybody in here. Green, uh, renewable energy, all that stuff is going to help everybody in the whole county. Sorry, not to create argument, but I hear from a landowner's perspective and one I I didn't get invited to any of these public meetings before this.

Otherwise, I would have showed up and voiced my opinion and argued some of these points, but again, I hear the agenda of farmers protecting their income and their way of life and not looking out for the land. I'm a farmer, too. We're gonna have to stop. Okay, we're we're past. All right, appreciate it. Um, what I'm kind of hearing from everybody is is uh I think they're like me. They would like to maybe soak some of this in a little bit and have some discussion, maybe some education on some things. Sure. And uh I don't think there'll be any formal motion tonight as I might do something maybe potentially. Yeah, just to talk this through a little bit. So Matt and I'm going to ask you a couple questions. Okay. If if basically what I I would like to work on here is I guess simple enough is I'd like to make a motion to make sure the CSR2 isn't in our solar orders. That's my motion. We have a motion uh by Hughes. Do we have a second? Second I can't make a decision without even knowing what CSR to numbers are. I don't have a table. I don't have definition some information on that. So stability rating index was created in the 1970s at Iowa State University. Oh, I'm sorry.

I can second it. Not add not add you can have more discussion over what your motion was. Yeah. So, basically, again, I'll re reiterate this is I just don't think the CSR2 rating is for our zoning. I just don't think it's I think it's a moving target. I think it's a it's a number that is going to be debatable forever. Uh now if the board of supervisors would like to direct us on looking at different areas of the county where this is potentially allowed and not allowed. I guess I think there's a little bit of a divide here where you see you see uh different different uh some people that farm the bottom and some people farm the hills. I think you see that. I just think you have a really heck of a time trying to figure out CSR number. I I was I was in a I sold a piece of property in Hampton, Iowa, and I called up the I called up the uh their zoning department, talked to them about selling a piece of property that was split on a 40 acre piece. And and uh the zoning official said, well, what's the CSR rating? I was like, why does that have to do with it? Well, if if it's in this county and if it's over a 70 CSR, you can't split it. you can only have 40 acre parcels. So once it starts getting inducted into our book, I can see it migrating through our book and I just I think it's I think it's bad business. I don't think I don't think it has any spot in our zone. If you want to if you if you want to have

another meeting in the future about locations and places and spots, I think that's something that will be discussed. I just think the CSR rating should not be put our boards period. I would have a lot of knowledge about CSR. Matter of fact, we'll bring up another thing. Just here recently, there was a rock corey approved north on Highway 59 north of Emerson. That farms a 77 CSR. Guess what? and you do a rock corey on a CSR on a certain number. I mean that it's like you start it just it's just going to fester through this whole thing. It's not the right way to go in my opinion. Of course, I kind of get I get that I guess and and I see both sides. I just I'm not to a spot where I I want to make a decision either way tonight. I think we and I and I get where you're coming from now. Yeah. But we have a motion and a second on the floor. So we'll put the rest of this together. Will we take a vote? Call for everybody comment on it. Take a vote. Well, I guess so. We'll come in. We've got a motion to not put CSR rating into the ordinance. Have a second. All those in favor not doing so.

Yeah. Okay. We'll roll call. Okay. So, just a second. Nick, say that. Say that one more time. Have a motion. You have a motion by Hughes to not add the CSR rating to just be clear to the commission, right, is that it's a recommendation to the recommendation to the board of supervisors. Yes. CSR not be into Right. Correct. We have a recommendation. It wouldn't it wouldn't be a final decision. It's just a recommendation we pass on to the board of supervisors. Planning Commission only makes recommendations either for or against. The final decision on the activities that come out of it always comes back to the board of supervisors. So even if it's you can have a you can have a recommendation for or an ordinance change and that that then goes on to the board of supervisors where the board of supervisors says no we don't want it and then if they squawk it at that point in time or you could you could send up the planning commission would send forth a recommendation of hey we don't want to do this and get the board of supervisors and it's something that they choose to do with a various topic. So they and they could very well reach back down and say well CSR is interamentable then maybe it is zoning districts that you have. And I'd also make a comment too that that some of the people that have made investments in the county. Um you know I I really think this gets open to some fairly decentsized litigation. So, we're trying to limit what they do with with the piece of ground that they purchased, which which was the ordinance that we passed and now we're telling them now you can't. So, opens this up. Alan, what are you saying about litigations open that would be available now?

I think it's possible. Yeah. be the case. There are there's potentials where projects are far enough along under certain or under ordinances and then if jurisdictions go and change those ordinances where it could be potentially viewed as you're as a trying to kill a project that those at those companies in petitions to say, hey this far along that we should be allowed to continue and originally they'll come to the county request and then You know, if we say nope, you got to go to ordinances, then they'll go and petition the courts for it and the county attorneys or hire attorney will litigate that for us to determine what ordinance would that project fall under. Most of the times, you know, dependent if they're far enough along, they do get to go back to operate underance. Lison. Yay. Grew. Nay. Martin. Yay. Christensen. Yay. Jameson. Yay. Hugh. Yay. Bry. Yay. This is just our recommendation going so next steps just so everybody in the public is aware we will move this up to the board of supervisors and uh that will be in approximately 30 days that gets to the board of supervisors level and the board of supervisors will hold a meeting on it on their Tuesday meetings at Their agendas are published online and

on the website community Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. Once and from previous meeting for us. Oh agenda. Okay. Uh, do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting? I'll make a motion. A motion by second by second. Yeah. Second by person. All those in favor say I. I. Sign. Okay. Now we're on to other business meetings. the next meeting. Now we ask that would be May 13 and we do have a case for May 13. It's a reasoning and just one case right now of a property. I didn't hear you. Sorry. May 13 reszoning request just north of 275 property already hasn't Okay, we're up to the meeting to be on.

Do we have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion. I'll second. We are. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. house. I