Menu
Abatement approved for solar farm in Russell Township
A proposed solar farm in Russell Township took a step toward completion Tuesday evening.
In a 5-2 vote Tuesday evening, the Putnam County Council approved tax abatement for Cold Spring Solar Farm, a proposed 1,800-acre (down from 2,200 acres), 200 megawatt solar farm.
Council President Dave Fuhrman made the motion, which was seconded by Councilman Phil Gick.
The affirmative votes were cast by Fuhrman, Gick, Stephanie Campbell, Keith Berry and Danny Wallace, while Jay Alcorn and Larry Parker dissented.
In introducing the proposal, Greencastle-Putnam County Economic Development Director Kristin Clary noted that the nature of the abatement — 75 percent of personal property taxes abated over 10 years — was different from prior local abatements.
“This is unique,” Clary said. “We’ve never done this before.”
The abatements granted by the county are generally either the traditional “tax phase-in,” which goes from no property taxes to a full payment over a period of years or a full abatement in which no taxes are paid over the life of the abatement, generally seven or 10 years.
It was also noted that abatement is not the final step in giving the go-ahead to developer Tenaska or Arevon Energy, the ultimate owner of the farm.
One hurdle still to be cleared include the Putnam County Commissioners reaching three agreements with the developers regarding an economic development payment, road use and decommissioning.
Additionally, the matter will go before the Putnam County Board of Zoning Appeals. While a solar farm is an allowed special exception, the BZA has the right to impose certain restrictions as part of granting any special exceptions.
The earliest the matter would likely be in front of the BZA would be January, and the board has a habit of not hurrying through decisions, sometimes taking several months to reach a decision.
However, Clary explained that construction on the project, should it be entirely approved, is not planned until December 2026 through December 2027.
Alcorn and Parker, both with backgrounds in agriculture, made their reasons known for opposing the measure.
“Everything I’ve seen shows that this would be an economic benefit to this county, but some things are more important than just dollars and cents,” Alcorn said. “I think you guys need to figure out how to do it without tax abatement. Maybe you get more creative and not take this farmland and outbid farmers for it. There’s lots of warehouses with flat roofs. There’s rough ground. Maybe you need to look at your business model and figure out how to change it."
He went on to note that he is not opposed to green energy, but “I just don’t think it’s the right use for our land.”
“I agree with Jay,” Parker added. “I don’t think it’s the right use for this land. I really feel for the people in this area that don’t get the benefit from this.”
Parker also raised the question as to why the abatement was necessary.
“There’s something like $5-6 million paid up front, then the tax abatement?” Parker said, noting that the economic development agreement will include a sizable payment to the county. “If you guys have $5-6 million up front to spend, then why the tax abatement?”
Officials from the energy company have said the abatement is necessary to make the solar farm viable.
A lifelong farmer himself, Berry felt the need to explain his vote in favor.
“I fully understand where you folks are coming from,” Berry said to the gathered crowd, much of which was opposed. “My concern is, we have someone who owns land, how can anyone tell that person what they can and cannot do with that land they bought? I’m a farmer. Do I want to see land go away? I just hate to see some group, Council or whatever, say what you can and cannot do with land you purchased.”
Parker countered that preservation of farmland was why the county adopted planning and zoning 30 years ago.
“When planning and zoning came in it was because a big landfill was going to come into Bainbridge, and the Commissioners wanted to preserve the farmland,” Parker said.
Also noted during the proceedings was that the abatement only applies to the personal property (that is, the equipment) and not the land itself. Clary said that once the land is no longer used for agricultural production and moved to energy generation, its taxable value will increase nearly tenfold.
One voice that was added to the discussion on Tuesday was that of the Russellville Volunteer Fire Department.
RVFD Capt. Bill Spiegel spoke on behalf of the department regarding safety issues, asking why the department had not been contacted throughout the process of the solar farm coming into the community.
“I am pretty sure that everyone is being told how safe this will be and how nothing can go wrong,” Spiegel said. “While, yes, it may be very safe, what happens if or when something does go wrong?”
Citing a large woods fire that happened in Russell Township years ago, Spiegel asked what would happen if such a fire were to approach the solar panels. Would there be a release of hazardous materials — either liquid or airborne?
Spiegel said the department has done its homework regarding expensive equipment that would be needed, including protective clothing, additional breathing aparati and special equipment for fighting chemical fires. All of this in addition to needing additional training.
“While some may think this is a great project for our community, what will it really cost us all and who will bear the cost?” Spiegel said.
It’s unclear what effect such arguments will have as the matter moves forward, but for now the developers have cleared the first hurdle to final approval.