|
County Board Votes on Tourism
Funding, Viper Mine Grant, and Black Jack Solar
[June 20, 2025]
On Tuesday, June 17th, the
Logan County Board met for their monthly meeting. This meeting was
held in the second floor courtroom of the Logan County Courthouse
starting at 6:00 p.m. All board members were in attendance. This
includes Chairman JR Glenn, Vice Chairman Dale Nelson, Lance Conahan,
Michael DeRoss, Jim Wessbecher, Kevin Knauer, Kathy Schmidt, Gil
Turner, Keenan Leesman, Hannah Fitzpatrick, Joseph Kuhlman, and Bob
Sanders.
There were many items discussed at this meeting, including the
Community Benefit Fund (CBF), new solar projects in Logan County,
and salary for a county engineer. To read a more full breakdown of
this meeting, please read LDN’s other
article on it.
The third item on the agenda from Finance was a motion to approve
$30,000 to the Logan County Tourism Bureau (LCTB). This issue has
been developing for some time, and was discussed in depth at the
Workshop meeting on Thursday June 12th. To read more about the
arguments made for and against funding, please read the article
covering that portion of the meeting
here.
Discussion on the issue began with Conahan voicing his desire to
have this agreement of funding be for two years rather than one.
Conahan then made a motion to amend the original motion. There was a
bit of concern about this, but when the vote was taken, this
amendment was passed unanimously.
DeRoss then voiced his desire for a
memorandum of understanding with the city of Lincoln. Seeing as how
their funding to the LCTB is going to be contingent upon the county
board providing funding, DeRoss wanted to make sure that the city
did not decide to pull their funding last minute. Conahan then
mentioned that the city’s agreement is with the LCTB, not the
county, so that the county should be making an agreement with LCTB
as well.
Sanders brought up that the city stated they see funding the LCTB as
a partnership. Nelson then stated that he disagrees with the entire
idea of an agreement being needed. He said that the city and county
are supposed to be working together, and both have the ability to
rescind their funding. Leesman clarified for DeRoss, stating that he
believed DeRoss was bringing it up just so that the board would have
some assurance. A vote was then taken on this proposed amendment. It
was passed with a vote of 10-2. The two no votes came from Nelson
and Turner.
Another amendment was proposed, this time by Conahan. He stated that
he wanted to make sure that The Mill would be preserved in LCTB’s
501(c)(3). This would be for the two year period that the board is
proposing to fund the LCTB. He stated that this way, the LCTB would
always have a home at The Mill. Leesman asked if the LCTB would be
able to afford The Mill, something that has come into question at
other meetings where this issue was discussed. Conahan stated that
they would be able to with the money in their savings account. A
vote was then taken on this amendment, which was passed unanimously.
The board then took a vote on the entire motion as amended. This
motion was passed unanimously as well.
The final item on the agenda for Finance was the issue of how to
apply for the Energy Transition Community Grant Program, also known
as the Viper Mine grant. This grant and its details were written
about in one of LDN’s articles covering the Workshop meeting from
June. To read more about this grant and what it is, please click
here.
Nelson started the discussion on this issue by asking if the county
is only going to apply for themselves for the first year of this
grant, and provide letters of support to any other group in the
county looking to apply. Glenn asked if Nelson was proposing an
amendment, to which he stated he was.
DeRoss then asked if they should not be applying for the county as a
whole. Nelson explained that, since the due date for the application
is coming up soon, and since the county does not fully understand
what requirements and responsibilities they would have with
distributing money, that they should not. Turner then asked for
clarification, asking if the county would still apply for
themselves, but not be responsible for anyone else. Other members of
the board informed Turner that that was correct.
A vote was then taken on this amendment, and it was passed 11-1. The
only no vote came from DeRoss.
Leesman spoke next, addressing the importance of communicating to
the public how they can go about requesting letters of support from
the county board. He suggested putting something on the county’s
website.
A vote was then taken on the whole motion as amended. It passed with
a unanimous vote.
[to top of second column] |
There was a bit of
discussion after the fact, with DeRoss wanting to know what the
county wants to apply for, since he is going to be the one
taking the lead on the application. Some suggestions were made,
with DeRoss himself bringing up the courthouse elevator and the
exterior stone around the courthouse. Wessbecher brought up the
need for a generator at the airport. Glenn suggested having
everyone contribute to making a master list of items and costs
that DeRoss can reference as he completes the application.
Later in the meeting, once the board
had moved on to the Zoning and Economic Development committee, the
board discussed and voted on a solar project. This item proved to be
the most contentious issue of the night. For a breakdown of previous
discussions on this project, giving context as to why this issue was
so contentious, please read LDN’s article covering this issue
here.
DeRoss started off by stating that the project had gotten approval
from ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals). Nelson then asked about
modifications made since the Workshop meeting. Walton explained that
three major changes had been made. First, the site access and
interconnection point had been moved about 500-700 feet to the west.
They also removed two rows of panels on the east side of the
project, which creates a 150 foot setback from 1500th Avenue.
Second, they added vegetative screening along the entire northern
and eastern sides. Third, they moved the fence line for the project
back 150 feet from 700th Street. In addition, Walton stated that
they offered the Taylors financial compensation for either six
years, or until the vegetative screening was fully matured, which
Walton clarified means when the screening reaches the height of the
project.
Conahan then voiced his concern with the financial compensation. He
asked what would happen if the vegetative screening was not fully
grown after six years. Walton responded by stating that he would be
open to wording changes on the agreement. Conahan then asked Taylor
if she was okay with the financial compensation, to which she
explained that the screening helps, but she still does not want the
project there. Sanders then asked if Apex would be open to putting
screening all around the facility, and Walton said they would be
open to that.
Turner then voiced some disagreement with the arguments being made
by Taylor. Turner stated that, as a landowner, it is not his
responsibility to provide people with a view they like. Sanders then
stated that Walton is not the landowner. Turner said that,
regardless, it is still the landowner’s property and that he does
not see why they have to provide a nice view for someone that lives
next to them. Sanders then brought up the Elkhart/Mt. Pulaski
blacktop is a fairly high traffic road and there are historical
landmarks in the area. Turner then stated that Sanders did not
answer his question about the landowner’s responsibility. About this
time, Glenn spoke up, breaking up the back and forth between the
two. He stated that, up to this point, the project has gone through
all of the proper channels for approval.
Taylor was also addressed to speak,
choosing to address Turner directly. She clarified that she was not
saying the landowner could not put the solar project there, only
that she does not want it there.
The board then took a vote on the motion, with the vote ending 6-6.
The no votes were Fitzpatrick, Kuhlman, Nelson, Sanders, Schmidt,
and Conahan.
The board then had to figure out what they were going to do, with
Nelson looking up what their options were in this case. DeRoss
voiced his concern with people voting no, stating that they are
bound by state law if the project meets all of the conditions, which
they have. He then stated that the board was “treading in lawsuit
area.” Glenn then called for another vote with this information in
mind. Once more, the board voted 6-6, with the same six as before
voting no.
Glenn then stated that he would make a motion to send this back to
ZBA for the consideration of additional vegetative screening.
Leesman asked what the board would learn from sending this to ZBA.
An amendment was made to approve the project with vegetative
screening on all sides, rather than just the northern and eastern
sides. When a vote was taken a third time, the amended motion passed
8-4, with Schmidt, Conahan, Fitzpatrick, and Kuhlman voting no.
[Matt Boutcher] |
