County Council OKs first step to solar farm

Monday, July 25, 2022

RUSSELLVILLE — Montgomery County’s loss might eventually become Putnam County’s gain.

However, county officials are not trying to get ahead of themselves in what promises to be a long process.

For now, though, it’s safe to say that the Putnam County Council seems favorable to the idea of utilizing tax abatement to bring a 200-megawatt solar farm to 2,300 acres of Russell Township in northern Putnam County.

During its July meeting, the Council approved a resolution declaring an economic revitalization area encompassing 22 different parcels of land in Russell Township for the proposed Cold Spring Solar LLC, a project of Arevon Energy Inc.

This was a step not taken by the Montgomery County Council back in June, when it voted against declaring an economic revitalization area in southern Montgomery County. The original vision for the project was two-thirds in Montgomery County and just one third in Putnam.

However, Montgomery council members were not open to the idea of farmland going to other uses.

Putnam officials are taking a different approach.

“My opinion is that we can either dictate the path we take or we can be dictated to,” Council President Dave Fuhrman said. “Power has to come from somewhere.”

The declaration of an economic revitalization area is only the first step toward granting tax abatement to industries.

For most projects, the granting of abatement can follow one month after the approval of an economic revitalization area, but that will not be the case for this project.

This is due to the complexities of agreements between counties and power companies, particularly when wind or solar is involved.

Greencastle/Putnam County Economic Development Director Kristin Clary noted that the next step will be negotiations between county officials and those from Arevon and Tenaska, the power development company representing Arevon in this process.

These discussions will involve the length and nature of the proposed abatement — to wit, whether it is the traditional “tax phase-in” that Bill Dory used to tout when he was economic development director or a 100-percent abatement, whereby Arevon would pay no taxes for a set amount of time.

Clary noted that the company’s business model requires abatement to make it work financially, thus why discussions in Montgomery County stopped immediately.

None of this is to say there won’t be money flowing to the county in the event of the farm coming to fruition.

The other side of the finances is the matter of an up-front economic development payment with the county, as well as a road use and drainage agreement, basically the developer paying the county to repair roads damaged by the extra traffic during construction.

Finally, a decommissioning agreement must be struck so that a plan and funding are in place for what happens to the equipment once it is no longer in use.

In such agreements, there are even safeguards in place should the owner be out of business at that point.

Clary noted that developers have already secured lease agreements for more than 1,600 of the 2,296.33 acres. The leases will be for 35 years.

The big, unanswered question remains when that 35 years would start if abatement is granted.

Besides the length of negotiations, one other variable is how quickly the new source is granted access to the energy grid by MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator). The good news is the site lies along a Duke trunk line, meaning it won’t be physically difficult to get access.

Another, like so many problems in today’s economy, hinges on supply chain issues. Arevon actually has four other solar projects in Southern Indiana, but none are online due to delays in procuring the solar panels.

The declaration was ultimately approved 5-0, with Danny Wallace, Jay Alcorn, Furhman, Larry Parker and Stephanie Campbell all voting in favor. Keith Berry and Phil Gick were not present.

In discussing abatements, the Council took its annual vote on the ongoing compliance of two companies with existing abatements — Scorpion Coatings and Spear Corp.

Discussion of Scorpion centered on its employment numbers, which were estimated to go from 13 to 25 if abatement was granted. At this point, Clary noted, Scorpion employs 16.

“They have the work to hire three or four people tomorrow,” Clary said. “They just can’t find those people. Their workload has ticked up.”

She also noted that Rockstar Window Tinting, another Putnam County industry, is actually a spinoff of Scorpion, and took four or five employees when it was founded.

Presented with those arguments, Fuhrman made the motion to approve Scorpion’s compliance statement, going against his normal practice of not making motions as council president as well as past votes against Scorpion due to the lack of new employees.

“I’ve been their negative for three or four years. I will make the motion,” Fuhrman said.

The move was approved 5-0.

The approval for Spear came with less discussion, as business has been booming for the pool manufacturer since its two warehouse expansions in 2014 and 2016.

The statements were approved 5-0.

Comments
View 10 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Some interesting questions surrounding this proposal.

    1)EDD Kristin Clary stated the company's business model requires tax abatement. Why should the county trade 2300 acres of good-productive farmland for 13-25 jobs for a company that does not have profitable business model without tax subsidies.

    2) Who guarantees the decommissioning agreement should the company be out of business? The county, the state of Indiana, the Federal gov't? Surely, we would not want to depend on the viability of a decommissioning agreement by an out of business company.

    3) Are solar farms a permitted use in an Agricultural area of the County planning and zoning code? If not, a use variance or re-zoning of prime agricultural farmland will be required. Surely, the wise folks making decisions regarding land use for the county will not think taking 2300 acres out of agricultural production is a good idea.

    -- Posted by rawinger on Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 8:01 AM
  • small price to pay for "green". Of course it is good to take land out of food production.

    1. Growers are evil environmental destroyers. Remember before Covid, how clear the satellite pics were for rural land vs the cities? During the beginning of Covid, how, all of a sudden, cities also had cleaner air?

    2. They are serviced by evil minded multi national corporations

    3. We aren't a hungry society. Our bellies are full.

    4. Green technology and behaviors can only be implemented where SCLLSS voters aren't inconvenienced.

    5. If it wasn't for these two groups of environmental destroyers, 1/2 of Indiana would still be under ice. Now, that is climate change!!!!!!

    -- Posted by beg on Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 10:19 AM
  • I would rather see this Solar Farm work on it's own merit- no tax abatement or subsidy from tax payers. Why won't this happen? If Solar cannot pay on its own then maybe we don't need it.

    -- Posted by Alfred E. on Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 10:51 AM
  • *

    I have an idea for that land... put in a nuclear power plant. More energy & more jobs than the solar farm, and on less acreage.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 10:04 PM
  • I imagine German citizens are appreciating the fact their government gave up nuclear energy! Clean and effective!

    -- Posted by beg on Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 11:29 PM
  • If "going Green " is the reason for solar power please explain what to do with millions of tons of failed toxic solar panels ????

    -- Posted by Alfred E. on Wed, Jul 27, 2022, at 8:30 AM
  • Now now goingon80. You are bringing practical sense and legit questions. SSLLSC policy disregards this. Kind of like- should we create infrastructure to handle all the EV cars?

    Side note- not an attack on EV cars. Severe lack of infrastructure in place but I assume that isn't relevant.

    I guess they will be disposed at dumps with car batteries?

    -- Posted by beg on Wed, Jul 27, 2022, at 11:06 AM
  • The biggest question is “how does this gift from the taxpayers of Putnam county to a corporation benefit the taxpayers?” In most cases of abatement it doesn’t benefit the taxpayers at all, just the politicians and their cronies.

    -- Posted by techphcy on Wed, Jul 27, 2022, at 11:28 PM
  • hmmm. there is some truth in that. i also think community does benefit also.

    -- Posted by beg on Thu, Jul 28, 2022, at 12:57 AM
  • RAWinger. Solid points. Also should be noted that the 2300 acres actually include some acres that are in Montgomery County, which by the way denied this same company a tax abatement. I also have on good knowledge that several of the acres they told the council about have told the company they were not interested, but they were still included in the total. The majority of the of the land that is signed up is owned by people that do not live in the county.

    -- Posted by Hlmc on Thu, Jul 28, 2022, at 8:13 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: