South Central Reporter

Macoupin County Board Economic Development Committee met March 8.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

I. CALL TO ORDER

PRESENT: Armour, Starr, Blank, Kilduff, Klausing, Payne (Remote), Rosentreter, Duncan, Garrison

ABSENT:

Guests: Mark Dugger, Scott Jensen, Gabe Goldberg, Jane Montgomery, Ryan Kranholm

II. AGENDA ITEMS

1. Resolution in Support of Macoupin County Agriculture

Mark Dugger from the Farm Bureau discussed their requested resolution, which shows the support the County would have for agricultural as such an economic engine for Macoupin.

Motion by Blank, seconded by Rosentreter to recommend the resolution to the full Board.

RESULT: MOTION TO RECOMMEND [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Blank, Member SECONDER: Molly Rosentreter, Member AYES: Armour, Starr, Blank, Kilduff, Klausing, Payne, Rosentreter

2. Amendments to Macoupin County Wind Energy Conversion Systems Siting Ordinance

Armour said that after last month's meeting, the State's Attorney had been reviewing the wind ordinance to get it ready for the first permit person to apply. Garrison was also looking at the changes that would need to be made with the new state law going into effect, however, those would not be adopted tonight due to the potential for litigation or trailer bills. In the meantime, the Farm Bureau had received the ordinance and forwarded it up to their attorney for review so there were also changes that they suggested. Garrison had just received the Farm Bureau changes earlier this afternoon and had not had a chance to speak with the Farm Bureau's attorney so he couldn't speak to them fully tonight. The changes that needed to be approved this month dealt mainly with clarifying some contradictory language in the ordinance as adopted in 2021, removing language in terms of zoning administration handling certain tasks and requirements as the county does not have zoning, and the one change that was procedural in nature from the new state law which regarded the 45 day requirement to hold a public hearing after application and then 30 days from the public hearing the Board must approve or deny the application. Nothing in the changes that needed to be approved this month would effect setbacks. Based off of the two sets of notes, the committee felt it would be best for both to be options for the full Board to consider as all involved continued discussing the options.

Motion by Kilduff, seconded by Klausing to recommend the clarifying changes to the ordinance as recommended by the State's Attorney as well as the procedural change regarding the timeline of when the public hearing and final decision must happy.

Motion by Rosentreter, seconded by Klausing to recommend the Farm Bureau language to the full Board.

RESULT: MOTION TO RECOMMEND [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ryan Kilduff, Member SECONDER: Holly Klausing, Member AYES: Armour, Starr, Blank, Kilduff, Klausing, Payne, Rosentreter

3. Ordinance Establishing Policy Regarding Public Hearings for Wind Permits

Duncan said that at last month's meeting Apex had presented three separate policies from other counties regarding how to handle the public hearings for the wind permits. Garrison had put together this draft ordinance using those three as well as researching some other counties procedures. This ordinance would only set the rules for how a public hearing is conducted. The timeline of when a hearing is called would be in the wind permit ordinance. The committee wanted time to review the ordinance but it would be on the agenda for adoption at Tuesday night's meeting.

4. Engaging Attorney for Wind Permit Implementation and Review

Armour said the county would need to engage a lawyer in order to handle some of the issues with the wind permit process. Kilduff had spoken with another county he had previously worked with to see who they used. The Highway Department had also given a name of the lawyer who had worked with some of the township's on road use agreements due to the project. The committee felt that they would let the State's Attorney reach out to both and use this judgment on which one to engage.

5. Engaging Engineering Company for Wind Permit Review

Armour introduced a representative from Cummins Engineering who discussed what their firm would do for the county in terms of the wind permit review process. Armour had asked Reinhart for his recommendation on who to use and Reinhart had wholeheartedly recommended Cummins who they had worked with for many years. Cummins was also one of the four on the list of options provided by Apex Energy.

Motion by Starr, seconded by Kilduff to recommend engaging Cummins Engineering for Wind Permit Review.

http://macoupincountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3811&Inline=True