Peoria County officials received a detailed briefing on a draft road‑use agreement with developer 4 Creeks for a proposed wind energy project. Andy Kite, speaking on behalf of the county attorney’s office, said the agreement is between “4 Creeks and Peoria County” and would require a traffic impact analysis and an agreed scope of repairs before any construction activity begins.

Kite outlined the agreement’s principal protections for the county: an initial traffic‑impact analysis to document current road conditions and to estimate repair costs for the county’s roads (Kite said the draft assumes about 11 miles may be affected); a financial‑assurance requirement set at 150% of the projected repair cost to ensure funds are available if the developer fails to complete repairs; and a split of that assurance between cash escrow and a letter of credit with an evergreen replenishment clause.

The draft calls for a cash escrow baseline the county would hold (Kite described a $1,500,000 cash portion with a $750,000 replenishment trigger as an example) and a contingent letter‑of‑credit balance to reach the 150% total. Kite used a hypothetical $10,000,000 repair estimate to illustrate that a 150% assurance would require roughly $15,000,000 in combined instruments.

Other proposed fees and safeguards include a per‑turbine construction‑traffic fee of $10,000 for each turbine that uses county roads (Kite noted that 60 turbines would equal $600,000 under that formula) and an annual per‑mile road payment (staff quoted $3,000 per mile with a 2.5% annual escalation, producing $33,000 in the first year on an 11‑mile example). Warranty periods are built into the draft — three years for subsurface work and one year for surface repairs — and the county would retain 10% of the financial assurance during the warranty period as a holdback.

Kite said the county engineer retains the authority to accept or reject road work and that Hutchison engineering consultants and county staff would likely be on site frequently during construction to inspect work; the developer would reimburse the county for third‑party engineering and permitting costs. The agreement contains a range of fines ($1,000–$5,000 per violation, with no aggregate cap described in the draft) for breaches such as use of non‑approved roads, sign non‑compliance, or unauthorized closures, and remedies including stop‑work orders and the county’s right to call funds from the escrow or letter of credit to complete necessary repairs.

Kite also said the draft includes an indemnification commitment from 4 Creeks to defend the county against claims related to construction and an explicit dispute‑resolution path that would submit contested technical items to a neutral engineer. He told the board a final draft and a memorandum summarizing the terms would be circulated ahead of the committee’s next meeting for further review.

The briefing generated technical questions from board members about warranty surety and on‑site inspection authority; Kite said a portion of the assurance would be retained during the warranty window and that Hutchison and county engineers would be expected to inspect work and verify acceptance. No formal board action was taken on the agreement at this meeting; Kite said staff anticipates bringing a final version to the committee at a subsequent meeting.