EARL WATT
• Leader & Times
Should there be a vote on whether or not Seward County should allow commercial wind farming? That was discussed at last Monday’s Seward County Commission meeting, and Commissioner Todd Stanton explained why he believed it was a necessary step before approving a conditional use permit that would allow the practice in Seward County.
“We have constituents of my district and other districts who have made numerous requests, I don’t think it’s a secret that the county had a public advisory vote,” Stanton said. “This is very different than a binding vote the clerk might hold through a regular election. It’s an entirely different process. It’s not binding. Seward County has done this in the past. Attached in your packet is charter resolution 97-3 which dealt with a very similar issue that was the hog farm advisory vote taken 30 years ago. I’ve included that just so you see how the commission at that point in time structured this. A currently ongoing resolution of a similar nature is in Pottawatomie County. They’ve got a small unincorporated area seeking to become a city in the county, and they have designed an advisory vote, which is non-binding, but will let them know what the public’s input is on this before the county commission takes formal action. I’m suggesting this is something the county commission and Seward County needs to explore relative to commercial wind farming.”
Stanton said the community is divided over the issue, similar to 1997 when corporate hog farming was being considered. After a public advisory vote, the issue was settled and the community moved on. So far, seeking an advisory vote has not been considered by the commission on wind.
“It’s never been brought before the public in this manner,” Stanton said. “And I think, given what I see as a very serious division within the community on this issue, it would be a positive step for the commission to give the citizens of the county the opportunity to voice themselves in this manner on this topic.”
While Stanton added the item to the agenda, he said he was not seeking an answer that night.
“It’s not to make the decision tonight, but to discuss this and see if there is a path through which we might explore this and implement this,” Stanton said. “And I think we have quite a few people supporting this issue who have made themselves present tonight.”
Commissioner John Mettlen said he understood why there was concern over the current proposal since it has been negotiated in executive sessions throughout the year.“I’m not saying a public vote, good or bad,” Mettlen said. “We’ve had a ton of executive sessions, you all are aware, where we’ve been talking about this wind farm — negotiating this conditional use permit. I think you’ll all be surprised. I think we’re reasonably close to getting this out. And we’re not going to come out and vote on this thing. There will be ample time for the public to see this conditional use permit and give feedback, see if anything’s missed. I think there’s a lot of information in there that hasn’t been released. Give us a chance to look at it. There will be ample time for public discussion, in my opinion.”
Commissioner Jairo Vazquez questioned how a public vote would take place since advisory votes cannot use the voting machines or be conducting with the official registered voter lists.
“If I remember right, one of the things that was mentioned in doing a vote was us not being able to use the system to get people to cast it,” Vazquez said. “I’m just not sure how to resolve that. Do you have any suggestions on what that would look like?”
Stanton explained how other counties have administered similar votes.“You can look at the Pottawatomie County resolution, which gives you the broad strokes,” Stanton said. “They appoint someone because (County Clerk) Stacia (Long) can’t do this in this capacity. They appoint someone who, for lack of a better term, is the election officer. And the terms of who votes, what you have to do to vote, would be set by the commission. We can set those criteria. You could say, for example, any resident of Seward County with a Seward County driver’s license and proof of residency over the age of 18 would be allowed to cast a ballot. Now you do have to use something different for the poll books. But other counties have obviously found a way around this.”
Stanton also mentioned an advisory vote in Seward County took place prior to the implementation of the electronic devices we have today.
“I don’t know what they did in 1997,” he said. “They didn’t have electronic anything back then. So who votes, how they vote, that’s all set by the commission. You have complete control over that. You set the time parameters, you set the day that the vote is going to occur. How the question is going to read on a ballot. It would be, I assume, a paper ballot with a single question and a yes or a no response.”
Vazquez questioned what was the reason for the vote.
“So what would the vote be over?” Vazquez asked.“I’m just suggesting that the simplest question would be ‘Are you or are you not in favor of commercial scale wind farming in Seward County?’” Stanton said. “Now you can define that. Some counties actually in their zoning make a distinction between commercial scale wind farming, and a few guys in the county that have put up their own little wind generator. That’s not what this is talking about at all. I think that is the clearest way to understand what the public wants. Yes or no on that question. It’s a question they haven’t been asked.”
But Vazquez believed the role of the commission was to simply determine if the proposed project met the standards established by the county.
“The thing I’m having a hard time understanding is what (the commission) may be eventually going to vote on isn’t if we want commercial wind farms or not,” Vazquez said. “It’s more if they’ve fulfilled the conditions of the permit that we’re giving them.”
But Stanton said before issuing permits for wind farms, the public has not been asked if any project should be approved.
“The vote is unrelated to the conditional use permit,” Stanton said. “This is just the broader question, like they did with commercial hog farming. If you’ve read the resolution there, that wasn’t tied to a specific undertaking. That was just broad scope — commercial hog farming, yes or no. It wasn’t tied to a specific proposal. Now there was certainly a specific application that was being discussed, but the vote itself wasn’t tied to that.”
Commissioner Steve Helm wanted the work that has been done to put together the CUP should be finished before asking the public to say yes or no.
“We have to work ourself through the conditional use permit and the other agreements,” Helm said. “We agreed to release them. And then once we get to that point, if that’s what the public wants, it’s not a problem. But we have to get the conditional use permit that we spent way too long negotiating. And the planning and zoning, same thing.”
Stanton wanted to make sure he and Helm were tracking on a common timeline that could involve a public vote before approving the CUP.
“Are you saying at the point we release the conditional use permit — and we haven’t set the structure of how we’re going to do that or the time parameters — that at that point in time we’ll revisit the public vote?”
“We have to get through the conditional use permit and the other agreements that go along with that,” Helm said.
Helm mentioned how long it has taken to get the this point, and Stanton agreed there has been a massive amount of time and effort put into creating the CUP.
“At the end of the day, we all of a sudden come up with a vote or you come up with a vote,” Helm said. “We’ve been dealing with this for way too long.”
Stanton again wanted to make sure that any public vote would occur before approving the CUP.
“If we’re going to go that route, that the vote would need to occur before the commission voted on the CUP,” Stanton said. “If we’re going take public input in that way, that’s how that needs to happen. I want to make sure we’re on the same page there.”
Helm then asked when the advisory vote would take place.
“The advisory vote would come after we did the CUP?” Helm asked. It was not clear if Helm was referring to after they completed the final proposal of the CUP or an actual vote of the commission on the CUP.
“After we release it?” Stanton asked.
Mettlen then clarified that a public vote would be needed before the commission took final action.
“No, we wouldn’t vote on the CUP and then have a public advisory vote,” Mettlen said.
“Right,” Stanton agreed.
“Okay,” Helm said. “But we have to get the CUP agreements out.”
Mettlen said releasing the agreement to the public was imminent. But without looking at the agreement, the public really doesn’t know what is being proposed.“Look it over,” Mettlen said. “You don’t know what’s in there because we can’t tell you what’s in there. But I’d be surprised. It has been many hours of negotiation. When it comes out, look at it. It’s something you haven’t seen before. I’m sorry it’s been a lot of executive sessions, but there’s been a lot involved. You’ll have ample time to study it and look at it.”
The commission is expected to have a meeting to discuss the final details of the agreement and then release it to be reviewed by the public. At that point, a decision may be reached on whether or not to seek a non-binding public advisory vote.
