Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County commissioners press Sunflower over recurring turbine lights; seek legal opinion and company meeting
Summary
Commissioners discussed continuing aircraft‑obstruction lights on Sunflower wind project turbines, directed staff to obtain a legal opinion about potential conditional‑use permit (CUP) noncompliance and requested a Sunflower representative attend the March 3 meeting to explain remediation plans.
Marion County commissioners on Feb. 18 discussed ongoing problems with obstruction lights at the Sunflower wind energy project and directed staff to obtain outside legal advice while inviting a Sunflower representative to an upcoming meeting.
Commissioner Dirks pressed staff on why the lights “are still blinking,” saying “so obviously something's not working.” He said the continued illumination undermines the intent of a CUP condition that limited lighting to FAA‑required or proximity‑activated systems.
Sharon, county planning staff, summarized the background: the county’s staff report from June 3, 2019, included a condition that an aircraft detection lighting system, or ADLS, be installed so lights operate only when aircraft are present. Sharon told commissioners that Sunflower has installed an ADLS tower and lights on each of the project’s turbines but is addressing a warranty issue with the manufacturer and that the system currently defaults to full illumination when the ADLS is not performing as intended. “They've basically been fighting this warranty case,” Sharon said, adding that the developer has been coordinating with the manufacturer and construction contractor and expects staged fixes over the next several weeks.
Brad (counsel) told the board a legal referral would be quasi‑judicial and advised caution about immediate enforcement. He said outside legal review could cost “several $1,000 at a minimum” but recommended getting the opinion to avoid exposure if the county later pursues fines or other remedial measures.
After discussion, commissioners agreed on two parallel steps: staff will request a written status and ask Sunflower to send a representative to the March 3 meeting to explain the schedule for repairs; and the county will obtain an opinion from consultants/attorneys who helped draft the project’s CUP and related agreements to determine whether the current state of the lighting system qualifies as a default under the CUP.
County staff noted the CUP and comprehensive development agreement include remedies for default, including notice and a cure period. Commissioners discussed a 60‑day cure provision cited in the agreement as one option if the legal opinion finds grounds for a default claim. Brad and staff recommended securing professional legal advice before issuing formal default notices, to avoid creating liability for the county.
Commissioners also discussed public frustration and the need for firm, documented communication with Sunflower. The board asked staff to prepare a written request for a company representative and to seek a written timeline for repair activities while the county pursues an external legal opinion.
The discussion produced direction rather than a formal vote; commissioners said they would revisit the matter after receipt of Sunflower’s written response and the county’s legal opinion.
