Edgar County officials confirmed a public hearing for Oct. 16 at 5:00 p.m. to consider a revised wind ordinance and related provisions covering solar arrays and battery energy storage systems.

County staff told the board that a recently filed omnibus energy bill at the state level would likely require changes to the county's existing wind and solar rules and could remove or limit local permitting authority over standalone battery-storage facilities. "We believe it's likely to pass or some version of it is likely to pass," said Andy (staff member), who walked the board through the draft changes.

The board heard details that an anticipated statutory revision would tighten hearing timelines and cap some fees. Under one described proposal, a county would need to complete a hearing within 30 days of receiving an application (the county's current process requires starting a hearing within 60 days). Proposed fee caps discussed during the meeting include a $75,000 cap on building-permit fees and a cap on special-use or application fees described in the draft as roughly $5,000 per megawatt with an overall application-fee cap mentioned at about $125,000; staff emphasized the statute would still allow local governments to recoup actual costs that exceed the caps. "They're putting caps on special needs permit fees and caps on building permit fees," Andy said.

Board members and staff also reviewed suggested decommissioning and financial-assurance rules for battery-storage and solar projects. Staff described proposed language giving an operator 24 hours to notify the county if a site is damaged, six months to return a site to operation, and a subsequent six-month removal window if the site is not repaired. The draft would allow the county to draw on posted decommissioning funds (bonds or letters of credit) if owners fail to remove infrastructure. Andy told the board the draft also contemplates requiring a parent company or any entity holding more than a 20% interest to be on the hook for decommissioning if bonding is insufficient.

Board members discussed whether the county should require that property owners carry ultimate responsibility for removal if a project owner disappears; staff noted some counties do this and others do not. "If the property owner of the site shall bear the responsibility for removing any project equipment ... that is one issue that probably you might want to discuss," Andy said. The board asked staff to prepare materials that make clear what the county can and cannot regulate under state law.

County staff said the notice for the Oct. 16 hearing has been sent to the newspaper and will publish this Friday. Staff offered to provide a one- or two-page summary for the public that explains which siting decisions are controlled by state statute and which remain local choices. The board discussed using hearing ground rules (time-limits and a facilitator) and requested that the assessor prepare a short explanation of how property values and taxes are calculated so the public can see how projects might affect property tax assessments.

The hearing will include presenters from the applicant and technical witnesses; staff said preliminary plans call for six presenters covering project management, environmental impacts, engineering setbacks and property-value questions. "It's usually an engineer that talks about the setbacks and how they make sure that they're ... there's something about property values too," Andy said.

The board did not adopt new ordinance language at the meeting but directed staff to finalize public-facing materials and the hearing format.

Ending: The Oct. 16 hearing will be the county's formal venue for public comment and testimony; staff will circulate the two-page legal/process summary and proposed hearing rules in advance.