File photo / Journal 

CLINTON — For a while on Thursday night, residents opposing a DeWitt county wind energy development had a glimmer of hope.  Nineteen people were scheduled to speak to the county board about the plan, most did speak, and most were against the plan.

As the vote progressed Thursday to decide on four proposed amendments to the county’s wind energy ordinance, it appeared supporters of the plan just might succeed in their fight against the Alta Farms wind farm project.  But, on the final vote, the county board failed to pass the one ordinance change that would have proved the biggest obstacle to the wind farm plan.

First to address the board was Waynesville Township clerk Jamie Prestegaard, who read a letter from the township board supporting the proposed wind energy code amendments.  Representatives of Tunbridge Township and Wapella also read letters of support for the amendments from their respective boards.

Then, it was Tom Swierczewski’s turn to address the board.  Swierczewski represents Tradewind Energy, the company planning the wind development in the Waynesville and Wapella areas.

Swierczewski reminded board members that they approved the county’s current wind energy ordinance “just a year ago” in April 2017.  He expressed in earlier meetings his feeling that the ordinance already was sufficient.

The changes made to the wind energy ordinance at that time followed research by county officials into the Macon County wind energy project and DeWitt County’s already-existing ordinance, which the Clinton Journal reported on.

On Thursday, Swierczewski told the board that the group calling itself DeWitt County Residents Against Wind Turbines wanted to convince people that wind farms were “terrible, when, in fact, the truth is the exact opposite.”  He described the group as “vocal minority.”

Swierczewski said he felt “the silent majority” of residents supported wind energy, good paying jobs and a solid, diverse tax base.”

While most of the approximately 150 people attending the Thursday meeting appeared to oppose of the wind farm project, there also were supporters of wind energy at the meeting.

Swierczewski said many landowners and wind energy supporters feared speaking publicly because of threats of lost business and friendships.  Anti-wind energy residents also have claimed receiving threats.

Utimately, Swierczewski said that, while Tradewind Energy could work with the increased tower set back requirement, if the board also approved the 499-foot tower height amendment, it would possibly make the project unfeasible.

A proponent of the code amendments, Andrea Rhoades, spoke to the board, saying she was offended at the notion that people opposing the wind farm project were not in favor of good jobs and schools.  Her husband teaches in the Clinton School District.  The school district stands to receive several million dollars in tax revenue from the wind project over 20 years.

While residents scheduled to speak to the board had the opportunity to share information and their opinions about the wind project, ultimately most of what they had to say the board could not consider in their deliberations.

State’s Attorney Dan Markwell advised the board and residents, as he has in other meetings, that the board was permitted to consider only testimony given during the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing in making its decision.

Rusty Davenport was the only scheduled speaker to support the wind farm, expressing his support for the tax revenue and jobs the project would bring.

Each of the amendments dealing with wind farms near corporate limits, a wind farm decommissioning plan and wind tower set back requirements passed easily and with little comment from board members. 

As voting proceeded on the amendment limiting tower height to 499 feet, most board members paused before casting their votes, while other voted immediately.  In the end the measure failed by a 6-5 vote.

Board member Cole Ritter recused himself from the voting process on the wind ordinance issue.