A light agenda turned into a heavy discussion for the Marshall County Plan Commission as the budget line item for legal fees was the topic.
The very contentious battle between proponents and adversaries of solar power and battery storage systems has flared up in various meetings of county government agencies over the past two years. The highly charged nature with enormous legal ramifications and the corresponding possibility of very costly lawsuits for the county whatever board is hearing the particular cases involved has made the need for legal counsel important to guide the various boards through the complexities of dealing with the emotionally charged issues.
Many of the battles have been fought in the Plan Commission as both sides clashed to try and craft some sort of zoning ordinance that would govern the industry in Marshall County. In the past, similar battles were fought over an ordinance to govern wind turbines and their possible placement in the county.
The Plan Department — Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals — report directly to the Marshall County Commissioners by state statute. The Plan Commission can only suggest a course of action, the Commissioners then can either accept or reject that course of action or ask them to come up with a new one.
The County Council is the fiscal body of the county overseeing and approving all budgets and any expenditures including those over the budgeted line item amounts in a particular year’s budget.
Over the course of the contentious process, the Plan Commission had used up its anticipated budget on the legal fees line item.
Plan Director Ty Adley reported to the board on a meeting he recently had with County Council members Deb Johnson, Jim Masterson, and Nicole Cox where they informed him that the Plan Commission budget for legal fees was reduced to zero and actually had fallen into a negative balance due to a recent hearing on battery storage facilities where the board’s legal counsel was requested to attend to help them stay clear of legal ramifications.
Since the line item had been depleted, the County Council had passed a motion that additional funds would only be allowed in the legal line item if personally approved by County Council President Jesse Bohannon.
Plan Commission President Dave Hostetler told his board that he had requested that the board attorney be present for the meeting in question, but was told by the County Council that it would not be funded. Hostetler asked the Commissioners for guidance and was told by the Commissioners that an attorney should be present at the meeting to avoid lawsuits.
Adley was seeking guidance from the Plan Commission on how they wished for him to proceed for future meetings.
Hostetler pointed out that his concern in requesting the attorney to be present was over “costing the county a lot of money” if the Commission made a decision that brought a lawsuit without advice from an attorney and asked the question, “Who is our boss?”
The discussions turned to options with the members expressing the concern that the technical aspects of what the board deals with many times require an attorney present to guide them through to avoid the hazard of a lawsuit.
Board members began the process of making a motion to allow the Plan Commission President to decide if they want an attorney present at meetings but were steered by Adley to rescind it since it wasn’t advertised as part of the meeting and he felt the board should be cautious and take up any action at the next meeting of the board to allow time to advertise the discussion and allow patrons to be present for it if they so desire.
The Plan Commission meeting scheduled for August will not be held since there were no items for action brought forward to be part of an agenda. The next meeting of the Marshall County Plan Commission will be September 26 at 7 p.m.
