EARL WATT

    • Leader & Times

Public vote advocate Ryan Martin addressed the Seward County Commission Monday about his concerns with the recent Conditional Use Permit proposal that has been shared publicly for the first time after a year of meetings in executive session.

“I recognize a tremendous amount of time and effort has gone into this, but I'm going to jump right in the deep water,” Martin said. “When I received this document, the very first thing I looked at was the setback. In my opinion, the setback is the single most important regulation in the CUP. It directly affects sound, shadow, flicker, lightning, lighting, and ultimately protection of the neighboring property owners. It’s my main concern. So imagine my reaction when I saw we were still maintaining a 1,900-foot setback. Ridiculous, absurd, and insane are a few words that have come to mind. I find it absolutely tragic that we apparently could not negotiate something greater than 1,900 miserable feet.”

According to Martin the setback was not close to the mile that was requested by the public while the developer favored a smaller setback.

“Does anyone on this board really know how to negotiate?” Martin asked. “And that’s a legitimate question. You've heard concerns from citizens, including the health concerns brought before this commission, and before the Planning & Zoning Commission by Michael Amerin. You've heard about his daughter and the difficulties this family faces, and I would hope each of you has taken time to watch their video and understand their situation.”

Martin also wanted to know how familiar the commissioners were with the area being considered.

“Have any of you actually driven through the proposed development area and sat down across the kitchen table with neighboring property owners who will live with these turbines?” he asked. “I'm not talking about the landowners receiving lease payments. I'm talking about the people who have repeatedly expressed their concerns — their opposition. Perhaps listening to those families firsthand would give you a different perspective.”

Martin shared other issues he had with the agreement.

“We're establishing a 50-decibel limit, but who measures it?” he asked. “Well, of course, Invenergy. Are we really comfortable allowing the company responsible for the development to oversee its compliance? And where is the independent testing and verification?”

He also questioned how enforcing 30 hours of shadow flicker would take place, and what would happen if it is violated.

“We’re allowed up to 30 annual hours a year of shadow flicker on occupied non-participating residents,” Martin said. “Who monitors that? Who documents that? And who makes sure the limit isn’t exceeded? Once again, apparently Invenergy.”

Martin also shared his concerns about the financial compensation.

“The county is looking at approximately $287,000 paid by them up front for incurred illegal expenses with an additional expense potentially covered,” he said. “If they're not considered excessive and unreasonable. Who determines excessive and unreasonable? There’s a little gray area there, don’t you think? Then we have contribution payments of $4,605,480 over 10 years, and that's assuming the maximum — the maximum. That averages out to $460,548 annually. Get the heck out of town, guys. That doesn’t even buy a road grader. We’re talking about the development that could affect this county for decades.

While Martin said the $4.6 million was “best case scenario,” none of it will be collected before 2029, which Martin said would not be worth as much by then.

“What will that money actually buy in 2029 considering the inflation rate?” Martin asked. “It won’t buy near as much as we’d buy today.”

Martin also thought the $500 payments to those not participating but living in the affected area was inadequate.

“And then there’s what I consider one of the most insulting provisions of this entire agreement,” Martin said. “Non-participating homeowners within one mile of a turbine will be offered $500 annually. $500? Come on, $500? I understand how Clark Griswold felt when he received his jelly of the month club membership now. Maybe we should all run down to Dollar General and get them a gift certificate for Subway or Texas Roadhouse. Seriously, we're talking about families who could experience significant disruption into their homes and quality of life.”

In the end, Martin was opposed to the concept of wind turbines on the Seward County landscape.

“I find it remarkable that nearly 25 pages of a 78-page document are devoted to signs, advertising signs, political signs, real estate signs, marquee signs, and just about every other sign you can imagine,” Martin said. “Gentlemen, we don’t have a problem with the sign. We have a problem with the damn windmills. When I first became involved in this issue, I wasn't pushing for a public vote. And honestly, the public opposition I thought was already obvious. But as time went on, I realized apparently we weren't looking through the same glasses. The public vote was never about helping me, had nothing to do with me. It was 100 percent about helping you. It was the opportunity to hear directly from your constituents and give you another tool to make an informed decision.”

With the long-term effects, Martin said there is no reason to rush to approve the agreement.

“Why rush into a decision that could affect this county for generations?” Martin asked. “I understand the commission has invested considerable time in this process, but I believe the focus has shifted away from protecting Seward County residents and toward accommodating what works best for the developer. You were elected to represent the citizens of Seward County, not a multi-billion dollar corporation. As a rural citizen of this county, I strongly urge you to vote no on this conditional use permit and no on any proposed wind development. Sometimes the best deal a county can negotiate is the deal it chooses not to make.”