|
 In April, Relight returned to the county to hold community
meetings on their proposed revisions to the project and gather
feedback on the potential project.
Relight has filed a new zoning application, which requires a new
public hearing process. ZBA Chairman Doug Thompson began by saying
that this is a brand new application hearing, not a continuation of
the previous one. In June, the Logan County Regional Planning
Commission unanimously voted to recommend approving the new wind
farm application.
Wayne Woo and William Kelsey were present at the hearing on behalf
of Relight. Relight is based in Italy, and they are the developers
behind the Meridien Wind Farm. Woo is one of the owners of Relight,
and Kelsey is a consultant Relight has hired for the project.
For a little under three hours, the Zoning Board listened to
testimony from the Relight representatives, from citizens concerned
about the project, and from supporters of the wind farm. The first
presenter was Wayne Woo, who summarized the potential revisions
since the previous application.
 According to the proposed revisions, the wind farm would still
consist of 81 wind turbines. The towers would generate a little
under two megawatts, which is reduced from the three-megawatt towers
in the previous application. The towers would measure under 492
feet, although a specific number was not given; a number as low as
427 feet was mentioned in the presentation. Woo said there is not a
specific model that has been decided on, but there is a list of
potential models in the application, and Relight will choose one of
those models for all 81 turbines.
Setbacks from houses would average at 2,100 feet (ordinance requires
at least a 1,000 foot setback from homes); and the turbines would
generate ten percent less sound at night than the legal limits. In
total, the project would encompass nearly 23,000 acres. This number
is increased from before, because Relight included a one-third mile
footprint instead of a quarter-mile, due to concerns raised by
people living just outside the one-quarter mile radius.
The project would represent a $300 million investment in the county,
including $44 million in property taxes over twenty-five years.
Non-participating land owners in the one-third mile footprint would
receive $750 per parcel per year (up from $5 per acre), and
non-participating tenants in the area would receive $250 per turbine
within 3,000 feet of their residence.
Additionally, Relight would be willing to make additional payments
in various donations during the life of the project. “We’ll still be
paying $50,000 per year to School District 23, because that’s what
we promised verbally,” said Woo. Woo also said that a community
benefit fund would be set up for Mount Pulaski with a one-time
payment of $250,000 and $50,000 every year once the project is
operational. Woo also said that it would only be fair for Broadwell
and Elkhart (combined) to receive a similar donation as roughly half
of the project surrounds those communities as well. Adding together
those donations with a few others comes to a total of $14.5 million
over a twenty-five year period.
“We will not be specifying how those additional funds will be used.
The recipients of these funds will have no obligation to us,” said
Woo.
On the subject of decommissioning funds, Woo said Relight is willing
to put bonds in place or create an escrow account that will adjust
for inflation over time, so that turbines can be removed, should it
be necessary, at no cost to taxpayers. Should the turbines need to
be removed, it would cost around $14 million and take about a year.
Additionally, Woo said Relight would have the plan reviewed every
five years to ensure satisfaction.
 Another issue discussed heavily in previous hearings was the effect
on property values and whether or not Relight could financially help
people who have to move away from the footprint. Woo said that
Relight would be willing to provide a financial insurance policy at
an amount of up to $1 million per year for such events. Woo also
said that from what research he could do, there is “just not enough
data to justify a decrease in property values.”
On the subject of noise reduction, Woo reiterated that the turbines
would utilize noise reduction software to lower the amount of sound
that is emitted at night. Woo compared the noise level of these
machines to that of common household appliances. Additionally,
Relight will turn off the turbines at night from August through
mid-October.
Woo said that one of the questions they could not answer previously
was on the amount of actual land that would hold the turbines.
“We’ve done the calculation, and 81 turbines will take up roughly 83
acres in total,” said Woo. Roughly 60 of those acres would account
for roadways that would have to be built by Relight to get to the
turbine spots. Woo also said that Relight will repair public roads
that are damaged or altered in the construction process, as well as
any damaged drainage tiles.
Thompson asked if Woo could clarify further on the property value
policy and how property owners could claim the wind farm lowered
their value. Woo equated it to any other insurance policy in which a
claim is filed. “We’re not going to be prescriptive about how people
can do it,” said Woo. “I suppose one could look into comparables in
the market and look at other factors such as the state of the
property, age, etc…”
Thompson asked if there was a data-sharing agreement with the
National Weather Service. Woo said there is one written, and they
are waiting on final signatures. Thompson asked if Relight has
other projects in the United States. Woo said there are plans for
projects in other states, but this one is the farthest along in
planning and permits. Woo said they want to use this project as
model for building in other areas.
 Thompson also asked about clarification on shadow flicker, which is
a concern raised at previous hearings. Shadow flicker occurs when
light hits a turbine blade in just the right way to create a
flickering effect. Woo said that after conducting worst-case
scenario studies, shadow flicker should only occur at sunrise or
sunset in bright, windy conditions, and only affect east or west
facing windows, for less than thirty total hours out of the year.
Judy Graff asked about remedying shadow flicker should there be a
complaint. Woo said Relight would be willing to speak to those
affected by shadow flicker and work out a way to fix it on an
individual basis.
[to top of second column] |
Cheryl Baker, a resident of Emden, spoke in favor of the project. Baker said she
lives within a mile of seven wind turbines in Emden. Baker said she likes wind
towers because they use a green power source. Baker said the semis driving down
the highway are louder than the turbines, shadow flicker has never bothered her,
and she likes the way the towers look.
“The wind tower roads they put in are a big help to the farmers, too,” said
Baker. Baker also said the lease money they receive is nice as well.
Joli Boerma, another resident of Emden, also spoke in favor of the wind farm.
Boerma said her family also enjoys the aesthetics of the wind farm. Boerma said
her relatives use the access roads left behind to get to remote parts of their
fields.
Mount Pulaski Mayor Jim Fuhrer also spoke in favor of the project. Fuhrer said
he sees this as a good opportunity to bring jobs and help for the schools and
the community.
Joan Buckles said she has found two types of research when searching for
information on wind farms. The first type of research she found was
peer-reviewed scientific articles that could draw no correlation between wind
turbines and complaints surrounding them, aside from annoyance. The second type
was “popular literatures” that make a wind farms sound like “the apocalypse.”
“When that didn’t work, we tried to discredit Relight or people working for
them,” said Buckles. Buckles said she sees this as an opportunity to satisfy
“wants,” such as the want for new roads and the desire to keep the school in
operation.
On the topic of School District 23, Leslie Hilt, the Road Commissioner in Mount
Pulaski, asked if the Mount Pulaski School District donation would be made even
though the school board voted to decline entering into a written contract. Woo
confirmed that the donations would still be made by Relight “with no strings
attached.”
“The money’s going to be there anyway. They’re going to go ahead and give the
school the money,” said Hilt.
Hilt said he tried to stay neutral in this process so far to the best of his
ability. Hilt said as Road Commissioner, he noticed that the roads in Mount
Pulaski could get $60,000 per year from Relight. For comparison, the road
district gets $120,000 in tax revenues per year.
Hilt said he sees this as the only way to get a better school in Mount Pulaski.
“They’re buying us off, that’s the only way to say it, nice or not nice…they’ve
bought the road district off, they’ve bought me off,” said Hilt. “I have to say
I’m for it at this point.”
Tom Martin spoke next, saying that the people in Mt Pulaski that spoke out
against the wind farm were worried about the speed of the project. Additionally,
Martin said that Relight’s initial representatives “were not very good at their
job and what they did.” Martin said a lot of people did not know anything about
the wind farm before talks began.
Martin introduced a guest consultant named Gary Hickey. Hickey is an engineer
from Forsyth with thirty-five years of engineering experience. Hickey mentioned
several times that he believes there needs to be a sunset clause inserted in any
agreement with Relight, just in case operations do not start within five years.
Hickey said he is worried about the economics of wind energy, and that Relight
may face difficult competition from other energy sources in the future.
Hickey also said he has concerns over the company behind the wind farm. Hickey
said that he has not been able to find much a paper trail concerning Relight’s
financial history. “There’s not a lot of transparency to Relight’s finances,”
said Hickey. Also, Hickey pointed out that Relight did not use a third party for
their noise study as part of this new application.
Woo responded to these points. Woo said the idea for a sunset clause is not a
bad idea. However, as a private company, Woo said Relight is not obligated to
disclose specific details about their company finances outside what has been
shared so far, but he is willing to talk with his partners about sharing
information. Woo also said the noise study used for their application was done
by Relight using similar data from the first application (and applied to a wider
area), and the original noise study was done by a third party.
Hickey also said he is worried about the lack of a solid decision on which
turbine to use on the project. Because of these concerns, Hickey said he feels
the application is incomplete.
Corey Leonard agreed that the application is incomplete. Leonard said that
Relight should have included new studies on migratory birds in the area with
their second application. Woo reiterated that a new study is not necessary
because the data is the same and IDNR does not require it.
Chris Cowen spoke as well. Cowen reminded everyone that the Farm Bureau did not
approve of Relight and the wind farm during the first application process. Cowen
said he is still worried about the wind farm could interfere with various
farming processes, such as application of pesticides and GPS signals used as
part of various farming equipment.
At the end of the night, Thompson called an end to the hearing until the 8th of
June, at which point the hearings will continue. A vote has not yet been taken
on the application by the ZBA.
ZBA members present at the meeting were Doug Thompson, chairman; Judy Graff,
Brett Farmer and Rick Sheley. Zoning Officer Will D'Andrea was also present.
[Derek Hurley]
 |
