Citizen Portal
Sign In

Barry County commissioners adopt resolution backing local control, appeal of MPSC order

Barry County Board of Commissioners, Committee of the Whole Meeting · March 1, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Dec. 10 meeting the Barry County Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted Resolution #24-27 supporting local zoning authority and backing an appeal of a Michigan Public Service Commission order on siting utility-scale energy facilities.

The Barry County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on Dec. 10 to adopt Resolution #24-27, which the board described as a “Resolution to Support local Control and Claim of Appeal Against Michigan Public Service Commission Order,” backing a group of municipalities in a legal challenge to a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) order that the resolution says preempts local zoning over the siting of utility-scale solar, wind and energy storage facilities. The motion was moved by Commissioner Jon Smelker and supported by Commissioner Catherine Getty; roll call recorded ayes from Commissioners Mike Callton, Bruce Campbell, Mark Doster, Catherine Getty, David Hatfield, Jon Smelker and Bob Teunessen, with Commissioner David Jackson absent.

The resolution states the board’s support for municipalities seeking to preserve local zoning authority over large renewable energy and storage projects. Minutes record the board’s action but do not include extended debate or additional findings in support of the resolution; the resolution’s title and the board’s vote are recorded in the official minutes. Public commenters earlier in the meeting had referenced related state legislation; Larry Bass of Carlton Township noted Senate Bills 299 and 300 during public comment, and Sheriff Leaf briefly addressed bills pending in the lame-duck session, but the minutes do not show those comments directly altering the board’s vote on Resolution #24-27.

Procedure and next steps: the board’s minutes show a formal roll call adoption of the resolution and do not record any subsidiary motions or amendments. The resolution, as entered in the minutes, indicates support for a lawsuit by a coalition of municipalities; the minutes do not specify the municipalities’ names, the court where the appeal is filed, nor an expected timetable for further county action. The board did not record debate or dissent on the resolution in the minutes.

The meeting record shows the board adopted the resolution during its Committee of the Whole session and took no separate administrative steps at that time to fund or staff local legal participation. The county clerk’s minutes and the resolution number are part of the public record; any county involvement in the litigation beyond adopting the resolution would require future board action or additional documentation not contained in these minutes.