Peoria Standard

Peoria County Board met January 11.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Attendance was taken with the Roll Call-Pro voting system, and the following members of the Board were present: Adamson, Baietto, Dillon, Harding, Mayer, Morris, O'Neill, Parker, Pastucha, Rand, Robinson, Rosenbohm, Salzer, Watkins and Williams, with Elsasser, Fennell, and Rieker absent.

I. Approval Of Minutes

• Approval of December 14, 2017 County Board Budget Meeting Minutes

• Approval of December 14, 2017 County Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Baietto moved for approval of the minutes, O’Neill seconded. The following items were noted regarding Item 3, Ground Lease Agreement with Trajectory Energy, LLC, in the December 14th regular meeting minutes:

Salzer noted that he stated that Trajectory was giving Fondulac Township $1,000, not $800 as reported for the Regular Meeting Minutes. Chairman Rand noted changing “escalator” to “escalator clause” and provided scrivener's errors prior to the meeting. Adamson asked for inclusion that the preferred materials used in the project be American manufactured. He noted that American solar producers are becoming more competitive.

The minutes as corrected were approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 15 ayes.

II. Proclamations And Presentations

• A proclamation recognizing the Dunlap High School Girl's Cross Country Team for winning the state championship in the 2017 2A IHSA Girl's Cross Country State Finals

The proclamation was not given.

• Chief Judge Update

Chief Judge Gilfillan addressed the Board with regards to an update on Judicial functions over the past year. He stated that his day-to-day duties have been surprisingly high, and he is pleased to report that his relationship with the County has been everything he had hoped it would be. He described that the Judiciary and County have an intriguing relationship where they are separate branches and levels of government. He noted that the Judiciary operates with some sovereignty in a building the County owns, both with obligations and responsibilities coming from the State. He expressed that sometimes the ties that bind create tension, but he believes that it is going well because the courts and the County collaborate to reach mutually agreeable solutions to difficult decisions. He acknowledged the Court Administration staff for their high competence and assistance. He detailed that a memo will be delivered tomorrow outlining contact information, updates on the electronic filing and e- court system, the new public defender, court services and probation, an update on the Bail Reform Act, the jury commission, the CASA relationship, and the Juvenile Detention Center. He said the memo is not an exhaustive list, but he will continue to collaborate with the County Board to provide justice to the 10th Circuit and Peoria County.

III. Citizens' Remarks

There were no citizens' remarks.

IV. Consent Agenda

C1. The Treasurer report consisting of the Bank and CD's Portfolio for the month of November 2017 and Revenue & Expenditure Reports for the month of October 2017.

C2. The Auditor's report of expenditures from Accounts Payable system is accessible at www.peoriacounty.org/auditor/transparency.

C3. A resolution (items 1 – 2 conveyances) from the Ways and Means Committee recommending that the County Board Chairman be authorized and directed to execute deed of said property to the highest bidder, and be authorized to cancel the appropriate Certificates of Purchase. This resolution shall be effective ninety days from January 11, 2018 and any transaction between the parties involved not occurring within this period shall be null and void. (Poll Vote per Rules of Order, Article V, Section 18C)

C4. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of the most responsive bid of 309 Marketing, Peoria, IL, in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00, for the remainder of 2018, with an option to renew for five (5) years.

C5. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Local Agency Agreement for Federal participation with the State of Illinois for the reconstruction of Old Galena Road from Cedar Hills Drive to Boy Scout Road.

C6. Chairman Appointments.

Mayer moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Robinson seconded. Parker noted that her address on Item C6 should be 2101. Adamson asked to pull Item C4. The Consent Agenda, except for Item C4, was approved by a roll call vote of 14 ayes and 1 nay, with Harding voting nay.

C4. A resolution recommending approval of the bid of 309 Marketing not to exceed $100,000.00, for 2018, with an option to renew for five (5) years.

Williams moved to approve Item C4 and Mayer seconded. Adamson requested that a summary and background be given.

Mr. Sorrel reported that the contract is similar to the one that was entered into in the Fall of 2017 and that was only good through the end of the year. He said it was bid out for the calendar year 2018, it is limited to $100,000 and will be used on an as-needed basis. He detailed that about 70% would go towards Heddington Oaks, with the balance going toward Grow Peoria County and the Veteran’s Assistance Commission.

Adamson stated that there has been some disagreement and debate on the best course at the nursing home. He inquired about metrics on the return of the $70,000 spent on marketing for the nursing home. Mr. Sorrel discussed that he could put together a report for the Health Committee or the full Board.

Item C4 was approved by a roll call vote of 13 ayes and 2 nays, with Adamson and Harding voting nay.

V. Zoning Ordinance And Resolutions

1. Case #053-17-S, Peoria County. A Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of the Unified Development

Ordinance which proposes changes to Article 5: Use Regulations; Article 6: Bulk Regulations, Density and Dimensional Standards; Article 7: General Development Standards; Article 11: Definitions; and Appendix A – Fee Schedule of the Peoria County Code. The proposed text amendments establish recommendations and definitions for the creation of regulations for Ground Mounted Solar Energy Equipment. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval. (Pending Committee Approval)

Dillon moved to approve the ordinance and Rosenbohm seconded.

Dillon remarked that the Planning and Zoning staff worked hard to come up with the ordinance. He reported that there had not been an ordinance before, but due to the greater use of solar [power] in the state, there is a need for it. He noted that the ordinance would require fencing, bonding and insurance for a decommissioning plan, and in the ordinance that follows, an adjustment to the fee schedule.

Adamson asked if the ordinance is something that the Board needs to do and if it is standard across the state or nation. Dillon reported that the Planning and Zoning department looked at eleven similar sized counties in Illinois and came up with the ordinances and pricing structure.

Kerilyn Gallagher, Planner II, described that the State passed the Future Energy Jobs Act that requires utilities to increase their renewable electricity portfolio. She stated that part of the legislation provides incentives for residences up to large-scale solar developers and the ordinance is a response to it. Adamson expressed that the companies do not have to produce renewable energy, but there are requirements for them to buy renewable energy credits of up to a certain ratio to meet code. He inquired about what the pricing structures mean.

Dillon emphasized that the previous ordinance covered for small residential use, but nothing was covered for large acreage. He noted that under the current ordinance, the price structure would be over $30,000 because it is based on square footage, but the new ordinance would be based on the kilowatt-hours produced. He identified that it is a standard fee schedule with the residential price being slightly higher and it promotes large-scale development. He described that the new ordinance would be more user-friendly because it would be based on the kilowatt-hour.

Chairman Rand brought up that the current discussion on the floor is related to the change in the Unified Development Ordinance and fee schedule is related to the next item.

Adamson inquired if it is what the Board needs to do and if it is standard. He asked if this is only the amendment to the policy and if the fee schedule will be voted on separately.

Chairman Rand confirmed and identified that the Board faced the same situation when the wind farms came about and the Board adopted rules. He stated that the ordinance is about updating for new technology and application.

Adamson inquired about the price of residential [permits] being higher than the average, but smaller for the larger application. He said that the Board is not trying to elbow out someone who is trying to put a few panels in their backyard and put the energy back into the grid.

Dillon explained that someone who puts panels on their house would not be putting energy back on the grid, and the ordinance is slightly higher for them. He detailed that there is an inspection department in the County where a licensed electrical inspector would make sure it was installed properly.

Adamson asked why the ordinance is higher on the smaller residential [permits] and lower on the high side. He clarified that the ordinance would not be affecting the smaller players on the first vote.

Dillon conveyed that the ordinance would create rules for large scale, ground-mounted projects.

Ms. Gallagher stated that smaller accessory use rules would not change. Adamson inquired about the smallest project that would be affected. Ms. Gallagher identified it as a project as small as one kilowatt-hour that is ground-based and not roof mounted. She reported that ten kilowatt-hours are normal for residential projects. Adamson asked if the ordinance is standard, an average of those eleven different counties, and that there is nothing strange or different for the smaller or bigger organization. Ms. Gallagher declared that the intention in preparation was to be in line [with the others].

Baietto asked if there is a limit to how many panels can be put on a roof. Ms. Gallagher described that it would be a question of whether it’s a residential or commercial building; for residential it would only be limited by the structural capabilities of the house’s roof.

The ordinance passed by a roll call vote of 14 ayes and 1 nay with Harding voting nay.

2. An Ordinance from your Land Use Committee amending Appendix A (Building Permit Fee

Schedules), Chapter 12 Building & Property Maintenance Code, of the Peoria County Code. The amendment creates a building permit fee specific to solar energy equipment. (Pending Committee Approval)

Dillon moved to approve the ordinance and Parker seconded.

Chairman Rand asked that the details on the fees be provided. Ms. Gallagher discussed that the proposed amendment to the fee schedule is for solar energy specific projects. She informed that the same eleven counties used for the zoning ordinance were reviewed, and it was found that the structure of using square footage may not be fair for larger projects. She identified that other counties had adopted a kilowatt-hour output charge, which would make it fairer for larger scale projects and clearer to the user. She stated that the fee is intended to cover the expenses of the department for its work, which may differ from other counties due to the different extent of work done by Peoria County. She remarked that the base fee for a residential permit over 100 square feet would be $250 and as the projects grow larger in kilowatt output, the fee increases. She mentioned that commercial projects take up a larger area and would need a different inspection aside from the building. She presented the current fee structure and compared it to the proposed structure where a residential charge would be about the same for a nine kilowatt-hour project with about 450 or 500 square feet. She described that a commercial project could be drastically reduced under the new structure, but would still cover the cost. She described that a ground mounted ten kilowatt-hour project would be subject to the same fee under the new schedule. She highlighted that a community solar project based on the current fees could cost over $30,000, but would be reduced under the new schedule to $5,000; matching surrounding counties for the same size project.

Adamson asked if the department was getting closer to the average because there is up to an 80% reduction in fees for larger projects. Ms. Gallagher provided that the current fee schedule is not fair to the larger use projects. She noted that a non-residential use at the cost of construction overly favors a smaller project.

Harding asked if there is an effect on Trajectory due to a change in the fee schedule. Mr. Sorrel explained that the company had not applied yet because they will have to go through a Special Use process, the permit process would be after that approval and only then would they be affected by the change. Harding asked if the permits for solar would be all-inclusive. Ms. Gallagher stated that there would be an additional electrical permitting fee of $55. Harding asserted that under the new structure, the County is giving them a $25,000 break on the permit, on land reserved for Route 336, and with no RFP. He said that they are making out like bandits and the small user is being charged more.

Dillon brought up that before solar, the fee structure was based off the value of the building because there was more extensive work to be done, but a solar project is more cut-and-dry and the inspectors would not be out as much. He contended that the fee structure would be a correction to the fees because there is less inspection and administrative work to be done than if a building was being built. He remarked that the County is a bit higher on individual houses, but the County is different than other counties because there is an inspection done for the owner.

Baietto asked where the fees go. Mr. Sorrel stated that the permit fees subject to the ordinance are collected by the County. Baietto inquired about what role Ameren would have in the project. Mr. Sorrel explained that they are not part of the fee schedule, and they would only come in if a property owner would generate enough electricity to sell energy back to them. Baietto asked about where the County stands in relationship to what Ameren would pay to a property owner. Mr. Sorrel said that the County would not have any jurisdiction over a private agreement. Baietto asked if solar panels were put on his house, would he pay the County and Ameren. Mr. Sorrel detailed that there is a reduction in electricity bill or it would give credit for energy generated.

Pastucha brought up that the schedule would make the County more competitive because it matches other counties.

Harding asked if the County has ever done something like this before. Mr. Sorrel identified that it is the first for solar [power], but it has done something like it for wind. Harding expressed that it seems that it is a little unfair to the homeowners by being over the going rate. Ms. Gallagher stated that it would be the same rate under both schedules. Harding inquired about how the County is a little over.

Dillon conveyed that the County usually gets comparable rates each year from counties and municipalities and that it has found that the County is higher than some, but it is still somewhere in the middle. Ms. Gallagher confirmed that the County is in lock-step on larger projects while being higher than some and the same as others on the small projects.

Chairman Rand inquired if the electrical inspection is part of the fee. Ms. Gallagher reported that there is a $55 fee for the electrical inspection.

Adamson stated that the project by the jail would be approximately a 12,000-kilowatt hours project which would get 18,000 credits due to a 1.5 multiplier and at $40 a credit it would get about $750,000. He contended that the County should not be cheapest and it should be fair, but if it is going to be a tremendous amount of money for the property owner, while the County is only getting so much, the County may not be coming out well on the deal. He detailed that the County doesn’t want to be in competition and lose with Tazewell County, but if there is that amount of money to be made in renewable energy, even if they have to pay more, they will do it because the return is right there.

Baietto asked why it would be beneficial for a property owner to use solar energy. Mr. Sorrel informed that there could be a potential benefit due to a reduction in a utility bill or a gain made in the sale, which could help make that decision. Baietto stated that the public would like to know what the costs.

Pastucha identified that the County could not make money on the fees. Mr. Sorrel confirmed that the County could only charge the cost of service.

Adamson informed that a solar panel on a house can lower the cost of energy, which is a plus, but if a house is producing enough energy to sell credits, it is like owning a share of stock and Ameren must buy; making the property owner money. He contended that the smaller user is not being helped as much as the larger projects in the ordinance, and he wants to make sure there is a balance. He noted that Ameren could raise prices by 2% as part of the legislation, meaning that a property owner would be paying if they are not involved in the production.

Chairman Rand asked for the typical investment cost in a home system. Ms. Gallagher said that it is $20,000. Chairman Rand expressed that the fee is 1.25% of the capital expense that must go into the project, which seems pretty cheap. He noted that there is not near the effort required in inspecting panels in a field when compared to a large building.

The ordinance passed by a roll call vote of 14 ayes and 1 nay, with Harding voting nay.

3. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of quotations for County Highway Maintenance materials to be purchased during 2018 on an as needed basis. (Pending Committee Approval)

Salzer moved to approve the resolution and Robinson seconded. Mr. Sorrel described that the bids are received annually to allow the Highway Department to purchase a variety of materials throughout the year. He said that the resolution is required by IDOT before the County can spend any of its MFT allotment for the goods, and there is no set amount because the material is only purchased as it is needed. The resolution passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 15 ayes.

VI. Miscellaneous And Announcements

Morris stated that he would miss Mr. Dubrowski, and the County’s loss will be [the University of Illinois College of Medicine Peoria’s] gain. He stressed that he has been honest, forthright, and an asset to the County and wished him luck.

Baietto detailed that Mr. Dubrowski is one of the most honest CFOs and he credits him for the financial situation. He said there is no one else that can replace him and he wished him the best.

Dillon highlighted the partnership of Caterpillar and OSF for the announcement of the use of the long empty Chase building as OSF’s corporate office and bringing in around 700 jobs. He recognized it as a huge win for the community, and the only way it could get done is through historical tax credits made possible by the legislature. He thanked the Sisters, Caterpillar, and the City leadership.

Chairman Rand recognized Mr. Dubrowski and said that the Board would miss him. He mentioned that he is glad that he is staying in Peoria, the County has benefited from his think, and the treasury and finances reflect his earnest effort to keep the County a strong balance sheet oriented organization.

VII. Adjournment

There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman announced the meeting was adjourned.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01112018-476