Sun Courier Note: This story will publish in the Friday, May 2 print edition of the newspaper.

TOLEDO – And then there were four.

Last week, Tama County added two more lawsuits to its docket, bringing the total number of petitions filed against the County in recent months to at least four.

In addition to a Feb. 5, 2025 petition for declaratory judgment filed against the Board of Supervisors by NextEra Energy Resources’ Salt Creek Wind, LLC (SCW) and a Nov. 2024 lawsuit filed by Tama County resident Beverly Kay Espenscheid against the Board of Adjustment and then-Zoning Administrator Robert (Bob) Vokoun (SCW is also named as a defendant), the County is now named in a second lawsuit brought by SCW along with a lawsuit filed April 18 by former Human Resources Administrator/Insurance Manager Tammy Wise, who was terminated this past January.

Wise’s lawsuit – which demands a jury trial and names Supervisors Curt Hilmer, Mark Doland, David Turner, Curt Kupka, and Heather Knebel along with Paul Gruefe as defendants – will be explored in a future edition of the Sun Courier.

As of press time, the Feb. 5 lawsuit – in which SCW seeks a decision clarifying that the Jan. 2025 moratorium on development and construction of wind energy conversion systems (WECS) does not apply to their central Tama County project – was still in its early stages. On April 21, SCW’s legal counsel submitted a filing in support of its resistance to the County’s motion to dismiss the Feb. 5 lawsuit. According to the filing, SCW applied for a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging – used to measure and trace environmental changes, including wind measurements) tower zoning certificate with Vokoun (who resigned this past Monday) on March 17. As part of the lawsuit, SCW contends Vokoun had not acted on the application within the required seven-day window. Roughly one month after submitting the completed application, SCW was made aware (through NextEra Energy Resources project director Kimberly Dickey via Vokoun) that Supervisor Heather Knebel had sent an email on April 17 to Vokoun in regard to the LiDAR “permit.”

“I know you are already working with legal counsel you said on what to do with this permit. Since it was submitted after the moratorium was in place, we are asking you to not sign the permit at this time so more information can be gathered,” Knebel wrote in the email which SCW included as an attachment.

“Thus, despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary,” SCW’s latest filing stated, “Defendants are actively engaged in efforts to use the Moratorium to stop ongoing construction of the Project. This matter is ripe for declaratory judgment.”

Salt Creek Wind lawsuit 2.0

On April 16, SCW filed another petition against Tama County plus the Board of Adjustment and Vokoun (in his official capacity) for writ of mandamus (force a legal obligation or duty) and injunctive relief (prevent further harm).

As part of the petition, SCW addresses the March 17 LiDAR tower zoning certificate application, claiming Tama County’s ordinances require the issuance or denial of such certificates within seven (7) days.

“To date, the Zoning Administrator has not issued a Zoning Certificate to SCW for the LiDAR tower or a denial of the Zoning Certificate, let alone a written explanation of such denial,” SCW states.

SCW contends they attempted to contact Vokoun about the application “through phone, email, and in person” including on April 11 through an email sent to both Vokoun and Tama County Attorney Brent Heeren. SCW further reached out to Heeren on April 14 and April 15.

“As of the date of this filing, Heeren had not responded to SCW’s counsel’s queries – either via letter, email, or telephone.”

The petition also addresses an April 7 resolution unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors instructing the Board of Adjustment to reconsider a 3-2 decision made during a Nov. 2024 public hearing to reaffirm Vokoun’s issuance in September 2024 of 60 zoning certificates to SCW.

Following that hearing, on Dec. 6, 2024, SCW requested an extension of its zoning certificates; two extensions were subsequently granted by Vokoun on Dec. 13, the petition states, including “an extension of time until Dec. 31, 2025 to make a substantial beginning on the issued Zoning Certificates” and “an extension of time until Dec. 31, 2026 for SCW to establish the use applied for in the Zoning Certificates.”

Shortly thereafter, Espenscheid filed a new appeal, this time of Vokoun’s extensions. SCW contends at that time, the Board of Adjustment was required to schedule a hearing on the appeal; on Feb. 11, Vokoun contacted SCW’s counsel to inform them a hearing had been set for Feb. 27. On Feb. 26, the Board of Adjustment announced the hearing was canceled with no reason given.

In the interim, SCW attempted to contact the Board of Adjustment to no avail. On March 11, SCW’s counsel sent a letter to the county attorney asking that the Board reschedule the hearing. Heeren responded, per SCW’s petition, that such a meeting could not be set due to a “stay” resulting from Espenscheid’s lawsuit.

“Contrary to Mr. Heeren’s email, no stay has been ordered in development or construction of the Project,” SCW states. “SCW has permitting to go forward with the Project which is a multi-million dollar project with a set timeline. Each day of delay and uncertainty compounds risk and cost to SCW and threatens to jeopardize the entirety of SCW’s investment.”

As part of this second lawsuit, SCW is seeking judgment on three counts including: 1) requiring the Zoning Administrator issue a decision on the March 17 LiDAR tower application within seven (7) days; 2) requiring the Board of Adjustment set and hold a hearing on the extension appeal filed by Espenschied within 15 days; and 3) injunctive relief (expedited relief) on Counts I and II.

SCW is also asking for its attorney fees and costs to be paid by the defendants.

In regard to Count III, SCW writes in its application for injunctive relief (filed on April 18), “Salt Creek Wind was granted an extension of the deadline to establish use of the Project until December 31, 206. If that extension were reversed by the Board of Adjustment and an earlier deadline created, every day of delay in making that decision lessens Salt Creek Wind’s ability to meet an earlier deadline, even through maximum acceleration at far greater costs. … There should be no harm to the Defendants caused by requiring them to perform their existing legal duties.”

This past Monday, District Court Judge Elizabeth Dupuich denied, for the time being, SCW’s application for temporary injunction/request for an evidentiary hearing due to the defendants not yet being served with the petition.

Once the defendants have been served and given the opportunity to respond to SCW’s allegations, she wrote, “the Court may reconsider whether entry of an injunction and/or an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.”

Tama-Grundy Publishing reached out to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday for comment regarding Salt Creek Wind’s April 16 lawsuit and received the following statement: “From our perspective, we too would like to see the hearing move forward. In the meantime, by law, a stay of the projects remains in place and the law must be followed.”

This is a developing story.