Residents express displeasure over proposed solar farm

Courtesy photo

If a solar farm comes to fruition in northwestern Putnam County, it will not be without the vocal objections of some residents of Russell Township and the surrounding area.

On Tuesday, around 20 people were in attendance at the monthly meeting of the Putnam County Council to express their displeasure over the proposed Cold Spring Solar LLC.

The project would bring a 2,300-acre solar farm to Russell Township, taking that same acreage out of production for at least 35 years.

A project of Arevon Energy Inc., the development stage is being handled by power development company Tenaska, which is currently in talks with county officials by way of the Greencastle Putnam County Development Center.

Last month, the County Council approved the area as an economic revitalization area, which makes it eligible to be considered for tax abatement, though no such abatement has been approved.

Presenting a confrontational, tense set of questions for county officials, Chad Colvin did much of the speaking for the group opposing the project.

Colvin first recommended that officials look into the financial background of the companies “so we know they are a real business that has the financial wherewithal.”

Development Center Director Kristin Clary explained that both are highly-regarded, Fortune 500 companies.

“That answers my question that you really don’t need a tax abatement if you have a company that strong,” Chad Colvin said.

Tenaska and Arevon have said that abatement would be required for the project to be a go, according to their business model.

“I worked at the bank for 15 years, and if you told me you needed a tax abatement to make a project work, I’m, like, out,” Colvin said. “If you’re not strong enough to do it on your own, you better find something else to do.”

The developers have said the property being targeted for the development is key because it lies along a main Duke Energy trunk line, therefore minimizing the amount of infrastructure needed to get the power on the grid. Under the proposal, the power company would not buy the land, but lease it, owning only the equipment involved.

Likewise, only the equipment would be eligible for personal property tax abatement — either a traditional “phase-in” abatement or a full abatement for the specified period of time.

Asked what any decisions on granting abatement would be based upon, Council President Dave Fuhrman explained that it would be weighing what officials feel is in the best interest of the county.

“We will look at the impact on the county and the future of the county based on investments,” Fuhrman said.

Later told by Colvin that the county would be “losing money,” Fuhrman defended any such potential decision.

“Putnam County will not be losing tax revenue by this,” Fuhrman said. “That will only increase,” emphasizing that tax money would eventually be flowing into the county from the project.

Colvin and wife Kelly also asked a series of questions about the science and technology behind the project, with Clary and county officials reminding them that the proposal remains in the early stages and that they are not the scientists or engineers behind the project.

Ultimately, for a number of others in attendance, the problem of the proposal comes down to preservation of farmland.

“We have the second-richest soil in the state out in that area,” Stephanie Durham said. “You’re going to take that away from the farmer to be able to produce food?”

The farmers in the crowd insisted that the land would never be the same from a production standpoint, even after the solar panels are taken offline.

“Hopefully it’s obvious to you that I think the majority of us here are not particularly in favor of solar panels in Russsel Township,” Ken Carrington said. “All of us have different reasons. You could say taking good farmland out of production is a reason. You’re going to take away land from farmers that are farming it (on a cash rent basis) now. It’s going to take away from businesses like Co-Alliance. And there are several other reasons.

“I think the message I want to get to you guys is there is a group of people that’s not in favor of it, and hopefully you’ll take that into consideration.”

Carrington went on to question if the panels could be placed on non-productive land, a point later echoed by comments from Dale McGaughey.

“Back when we first started zoning us agriculture in our area, we were restricted on the number of acres we could develop and it was to preserve farmland,” McGaughey said, also noting that those standards had been changed more than once, including recently. “Now, this project would take out more than ever would have been done with something like that.”

The Council and Commissioners are currently in a phase of gathering information and negotiating with Tenaska on the possibility of an abatement based on a number of factors, which include an up-front economic development payment to the county, as well as road use and drainage agreements and a decommissioning agreement, which ensures funds are in place to remove the equipment when it reaches the end of its life, even if the company would be out of business at that point.

And, county officials assured, the opinions of citizens will also be taken into account.

“Thank you for your comments,” Fuhrman said. “We do take it seriously.”

The Council also emphasized that three of its seven members — Jay Alcorn, Keith Berry and Larry Parker — are agriculture professionals, who would take such questions seriously.

Asked about a timeline, Vice President Stephanie Campbell said there is not one.

“We don’t have any timeline at all,” she said. “We are still in the early stages of researching.”

Fuhrman added, though, that he imagined a decision would be made before the end of 2022.

In other business:

• County Engineer Jim Peck requested an adjusted additional appropriation from the Motor Vehicle Highway-Restricted Fund.

Last month, the County Highway Department was approved for a $1.8 million appropriation from the fund for road improvements for the year.

However, sufficient funds were not available, so Peck said the amount has been adjusted to $1.1 million.

The change will mean that roads that were planned to be repaved with hot mix asphalt are likely to instead be surfaced with the grind and double chip and seal process.

The adjusted appropriation was approved.

• The Council approved Assessor Janet Brown’s proposed slate for the Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA).

In 2022, the PTABOA will be composed of the same five people as last year — Brown, who is automatically on the board; Jason Hartman as a local Democrat; Jana Sillery and Bill Mentgen as local Republicans; and Virginia Whipple (R) and Beth Hinkle (D) as out-of-county representatives.

The Commissioners approved the same slate on Monday.