Highland County commissioners hear from pro-solar and anti-solar representatives; residents ask for additional meeting
Lead Summary
By
Caitlin Forsha-crforsha@gmail.com
Groups representing both sides of the ongoing debate over solar farms in Highland County met with county commissioners Jeff Duncan, Terry Britton and David Daniels during the commission’s Aug. 25 meeting.
The group Southern Ohio for Solar Farms was on the agenda for Wednesday morning’s meeting, while Clinton County/Highland County Citizens Concerned About Solar Farms conducted a protest outside the Highland County Administration Building and joined the meeting as well.
(For more on the protest, as well as additional background on local solar projects, see the story at: https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/In-The-News/Article/Citizens-protest-proposed-solar-farms-in-Highland-Clinton-counties/2/20/70921.)
There were at least 23 residents in attendance in the downstairs meeting room of the Administration Building, according to the commission’s sign-in sheet. Duncan invited each side to pick a representative to speak for five minutes, although both groups eventually had multiple people speaking to commissioners — and to each other — before being cut off.
Most of the commenters from the anti-solar group were asking commissioners to hold a separate meeting for either or both groups to address the commission. The pro-solar group argued that solar projects “have to go somewhere” and thought that Highland County should receive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) funding to benefit the community.
Trigg Pendleton of Southern Ohio for Solar Farms spoke first, telling commissioners that the group attended the meeting “to show support” for the various proposed projects.
“There is more than just a few of us backing this,” he said. “There’s a lot of unseen people. We meet with people around the community. They’re for it but may not want to put signs in their yard and things like that.”
Pendleton cited the “good funding” for the county, school districts and other entities as one of the reasons they supported the solar farms in general and specifically the Palomino project. The Palomino project is proposed by Innergex for Dodson and Union Townships, just east of Lynchburg, and would encompass 1,400 of a 3,000-acre site currently “under study” as of the company’s June 28 public meeting.
“I know Senate Bill 52 is passed,” Pendleton said. “I know it’s going to make it a little more difficult for new [projects] coming through. I know they’re going to have to do a little more due diligence.
“I don’t have a problem with them going in. I see the future energy, where it’s coming. If it doesn’t stop and go in here at Palomino, it’s going to go somewhere else. We’d like to see you guys reap the benefits, the community reap the benefits.”
Pendleton added that the pro-solar group was “not there to debate” the anti-solar group. “They have their beliefs, we have ours,” he said.
Becky Williams and Trever Elam asked to “split our five minutes” on behalf of the anti-solar side.
“We’re here today because we want more than five minutes,” Williams said. “We request that some evening be set, a meeting be set, where we have more than five minutes. It’s not just for us — both sides. I think it’s only fair that we be allotted a few hours to be able to say what we need to say because we’ve not been represented.”
Williams said the commission needs to “meet with your constituents, find out who they are and what their beliefs are” in order to represent them. “We deserve to be heard,” she said.
Elam agreed, saying that the commission has failed to “hold a public meeting with your constituents” for feedback on any of the proposed solar projects.
“You’ve rolled out the red carpet for the developers and had complete control over the Road Use [Maintenance] Agreements, and you have complete control over the PILOT [Payment in Lieu of Taxes] programs,” Elam said. “Both of those are your bargaining tools to make sure that constituents like Becky, who’s surrounded on all four sides, are taken care of, whether she’s bought out or paid a portion.”
As previously reported, commissioners wrote in a statement regarding solar farms that “A payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) … is a more simplified taxing system that guarantees a stable revenue stream over the lifetime of the project. Understand that this is not a tax break; it changes the way taxes are paid. It has been our position we ask for the maximum amount allowable by law to provide the greatest benefit to the citizens of Highland County.
“The Road Use Maintenance Agreement (RUMA) is put in place to repair any damage to roadways that are caused by increased traffic because of the construction process.” (This is done at the developer’s expense.)
Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, who serves as the commission’s legal counsel, told The Highland County Press that PILOT funds are “distributed to various political subdivisions” — such as the county, school district, fire district and other entities — and “cannot be used for private individuals.”
“The solar company would have to buy out or pay money to the private citizens who are surrounded,” Collins said. “It would be illegal for the political subdivision to give money to private citizens.”
Elam acknowledged that landowners have a right to use their property for solar farms, “but my property rights don’t end where theirs start, and theirs don’t end where mine start.”
“There’s got to be a compromise,” Elam said. “Somewhere along the line, you guys had that control with the road use agreements and with the PILOT. You guys didn’t have to just freely give them the PILOT program and the road use [agreement]. Use it for a bargaining tool so that all of your constituents are taken care of.”
He added that it was “wrong” for the commission to enter the agreements “without having some conversations with your constituents” first.
Elam repeated another four times that Williams is “surrounded by solar panels on four sides” before Williams clarified that this is not true, “but there are people that are, or people that will be.”
Elam also argued that the pro-solar groups only supported the projects after “they became beneficiaries of the money,” including the commission doing so after “the county became a beneficiary of the money.”
After Elam spoke, Duncan thanked both groups for coming. “We appreciate everybody coming today and your input,” he said.
Elam asked if the commission would “establish a meeting” with one or both groups. Another anti-solar representative asked if the commission was “just going to set there [sic] or reply back and give us some answer.”
Daniels said that he thought they “probably could schedule something at some point in the future, but that needs to be something that we have a conversation about and discuss.”
“I think we can take that under advisement,” Daniels said. “I think we certainly have the ability to look and schedule a public hearing if we believe it’s necessary. I think that we’ve obviously heard both sides.
“We have all attended meetings where solar has been discussed — maybe not every one, but we have all attended some. I think we’ve heard — we know that there are people that have varying opinions on different sides of this issue. We have tried to hear them. We have talked to the Power Siting Board, and we have talked to them about a lot of the very things you’ve talked about. We’ve talked to them about setback requirements. We’ve talked to them about a number of things.”
Elam said their group “wasn’t looking for a screaming match,” just “wanted to have a seat at the table.”
A second pro-solar representative, who did not introduce himself, pointed out that “when it all comes to an end, we’ve all got to be neighbors” and needed to be respectful.
“Right now, I feel like the way the future is going, we’ve got to have solar and it’s got to be someplace,” he added.
Williams agreed that they are still a “community,” but that “we’re going to have to heal from this because we are a broken community right now.”
“We are not fighting the landowners,” she said. “We are not fighting the individuals. We are fighting the projects. Highland County has enough projects. You’ve got enough money from the projects. It’s time to stop this before we lose our county. Farmland is too precious.
“Highland County has done their part for solar. We don’t need any more.”
At that point, the comments began to turn into a conversation between the two groups. The second pro-solar speaker said that the village of Lynchburg no longer has the businesses it had 50 or 60 years ago and “there’s nothing there anymore.” A third anti-solar speaker asked if he meant “so what if it’s covered” in solar panels “because there’s nothing there.”
As various people began speaking over one another, Duncan and Daniels both interjected.
“This is not a back-and-forth between these two groups,” Daniels said. “We’ve given you an opportunity to come in and state your opinion according to our rules, on the record, to this group. This back-and-forth between the two groups doesn’t need to happen here.”
One of the representatives, who also did not introduce herself, said “That’s why the answer of ‘we probably can set a meeting’ is not good enough. There’s no ‘probably.’ You can absolutely set a meeting.”
Daniels said he “understood” her point but said that scheduling a meeting involved coordinating “timetables,” setting dates and reserving meeting spaces. “Those things have to happen,” he said. “We have work to do on our end as well to support that kind of an activity. I’m not saying that we wouldn’t do it. I’m saying that we need to look at when we can do it, where we can do it, how we can do it and what the format should be.”
At that point, a pro-solar representative asked the commission if “we are facing an energy, electrical shortage in southwest Ohio,” while most of the anti-solar representatives began exiting the meeting room. Duncan said that it’s “federal energy policy” that is driving the switch to solar.
Another anti-solar representative told commissioners she was “surrounded” by solar farms and that she was “hurt” by the impact on the local landscape. “You’re taking our food,” she added. “The animals need more food. Where are they going to go? These farmers that grow this food serve many people and many animals. I just think it’s a shame to see that destruction of God’s creation.”
Then, a different anti-solar representative — who did not introduce himself — approached commissioners and stood directly in front of them, asking “when” they were going to hold the meeting.
“I’ve sent you guys three emails in the past three months and didn’t get a response back on any of them,” he said. “You sent a blanket letter saying you’re going to have a public meeting at some point, so I want to know when that is. I just heard you say you wasn’t [sic] sure if you was [sic] going to try to have one. That isn’t going to work for any of us. So when’s that meeting going to be?”
Daniels said they didn’t know.
“Do you guys care?” the citizen asked.
“Sure, we care,” Daniels said.
“Then why wouldn’t you respond to an email of people who voted you in here?” the citizen asked.
Daniels repeated three times that the resident “got a response,” while the citizen repeated “no” and that it was “a blanket response” before storming out and saying the commissioners “ain’t [sic] going to be back in office.”
After that resident left, the commission adjourned.
In other discussion:
• Duncan reported on ongoing building repairs, as he said the Hi-TEC roof replacement is continuing and that the Highland County Airport roof replacement started Aug. 24.
“We’ve got some things going on in the county that we’ve made appropriations for and are starting to take effect,” he said.
Commissioners also approved the following resolutions, each by a 3-0 vote:
• An additional appropriation from unanticipated revenue to S-67, Spay-Neuter Program, in the amount of $2,500.
• A reimbursement of funds from CSEA to Public Assistance, H-00 in the amount of $8,435.44 for July 2021 Child Support Shared Cost Distribution.
• A budget modification within T-27 Jail Diversion in the amount of $1,503.41.
• A budget modification within T-28 Prosecutorial Diversion FY 20 in the amount of $5,000.
• A budget modification within T-28 Prosecutorial Diversion FY 20 in the amount of $2,283.
• An appropriation decrease within T-27, Operating Expense, in the amount of $1,997.37.
Not discussed in open session, but included on the agenda, were several recent communications.
• Administrators from the Highland County District Library wrote to commissioners asking for funding assistance for 25 mobile hotspots that they currently offer to patrons.
According to the letter, the current funding ends in September 2021, and the library is asking for assistance in covering the fees for October 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023 at a total cost of $19,372.
• The commission received two emails from one resident regarding solar panels, including an email asking a question and another message speaking against the projects.
• A local couple sent copies of two public comments they submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board in favor of proposed solar projects.
• The Southern Ohio for Solar Farms reached out regarding the number of members likely to attend Wednesday’s meeting.
• Highland County Community Action provided a copy of the Community Housing Impact and Preservation (CHIP) report, including three jobs completed and three jobs in progress.
The group Southern Ohio for Solar Farms was on the agenda for Wednesday morning’s meeting, while Clinton County/Highland County Citizens Concerned About Solar Farms conducted a protest outside the Highland County Administration Building and joined the meeting as well.
(For more on the protest, as well as additional background on local solar projects, see the story at: https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/In-The-News/Article/Citizens-protest-proposed-solar-farms-in-Highland-Clinton-counties/2/20/70921.)
There were at least 23 residents in attendance in the downstairs meeting room of the Administration Building, according to the commission’s sign-in sheet. Duncan invited each side to pick a representative to speak for five minutes, although both groups eventually had multiple people speaking to commissioners — and to each other — before being cut off.
Most of the commenters from the anti-solar group were asking commissioners to hold a separate meeting for either or both groups to address the commission. The pro-solar group argued that solar projects “have to go somewhere” and thought that Highland County should receive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) funding to benefit the community.
Trigg Pendleton of Southern Ohio for Solar Farms spoke first, telling commissioners that the group attended the meeting “to show support” for the various proposed projects.
“There is more than just a few of us backing this,” he said. “There’s a lot of unseen people. We meet with people around the community. They’re for it but may not want to put signs in their yard and things like that.”
Pendleton cited the “good funding” for the county, school districts and other entities as one of the reasons they supported the solar farms in general and specifically the Palomino project. The Palomino project is proposed by Innergex for Dodson and Union Townships, just east of Lynchburg, and would encompass 1,400 of a 3,000-acre site currently “under study” as of the company’s June 28 public meeting.
“I know Senate Bill 52 is passed,” Pendleton said. “I know it’s going to make it a little more difficult for new [projects] coming through. I know they’re going to have to do a little more due diligence.
“I don’t have a problem with them going in. I see the future energy, where it’s coming. If it doesn’t stop and go in here at Palomino, it’s going to go somewhere else. We’d like to see you guys reap the benefits, the community reap the benefits.”
Pendleton added that the pro-solar group was “not there to debate” the anti-solar group. “They have their beliefs, we have ours,” he said.
Becky Williams and Trever Elam asked to “split our five minutes” on behalf of the anti-solar side.
“We’re here today because we want more than five minutes,” Williams said. “We request that some evening be set, a meeting be set, where we have more than five minutes. It’s not just for us — both sides. I think it’s only fair that we be allotted a few hours to be able to say what we need to say because we’ve not been represented.”
Williams said the commission needs to “meet with your constituents, find out who they are and what their beliefs are” in order to represent them. “We deserve to be heard,” she said.
Elam agreed, saying that the commission has failed to “hold a public meeting with your constituents” for feedback on any of the proposed solar projects.
“You’ve rolled out the red carpet for the developers and had complete control over the Road Use [Maintenance] Agreements, and you have complete control over the PILOT [Payment in Lieu of Taxes] programs,” Elam said. “Both of those are your bargaining tools to make sure that constituents like Becky, who’s surrounded on all four sides, are taken care of, whether she’s bought out or paid a portion.”
As previously reported, commissioners wrote in a statement regarding solar farms that “A payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) … is a more simplified taxing system that guarantees a stable revenue stream over the lifetime of the project. Understand that this is not a tax break; it changes the way taxes are paid. It has been our position we ask for the maximum amount allowable by law to provide the greatest benefit to the citizens of Highland County.
“The Road Use Maintenance Agreement (RUMA) is put in place to repair any damage to roadways that are caused by increased traffic because of the construction process.” (This is done at the developer’s expense.)
Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, who serves as the commission’s legal counsel, told The Highland County Press that PILOT funds are “distributed to various political subdivisions” — such as the county, school district, fire district and other entities — and “cannot be used for private individuals.”
“The solar company would have to buy out or pay money to the private citizens who are surrounded,” Collins said. “It would be illegal for the political subdivision to give money to private citizens.”
Elam acknowledged that landowners have a right to use their property for solar farms, “but my property rights don’t end where theirs start, and theirs don’t end where mine start.”
“There’s got to be a compromise,” Elam said. “Somewhere along the line, you guys had that control with the road use agreements and with the PILOT. You guys didn’t have to just freely give them the PILOT program and the road use [agreement]. Use it for a bargaining tool so that all of your constituents are taken care of.”
He added that it was “wrong” for the commission to enter the agreements “without having some conversations with your constituents” first.
Elam repeated another four times that Williams is “surrounded by solar panels on four sides” before Williams clarified that this is not true, “but there are people that are, or people that will be.”
Elam also argued that the pro-solar groups only supported the projects after “they became beneficiaries of the money,” including the commission doing so after “the county became a beneficiary of the money.”
After Elam spoke, Duncan thanked both groups for coming. “We appreciate everybody coming today and your input,” he said.
Elam asked if the commission would “establish a meeting” with one or both groups. Another anti-solar representative asked if the commission was “just going to set there [sic] or reply back and give us some answer.”
Daniels said that he thought they “probably could schedule something at some point in the future, but that needs to be something that we have a conversation about and discuss.”
“I think we can take that under advisement,” Daniels said. “I think we certainly have the ability to look and schedule a public hearing if we believe it’s necessary. I think that we’ve obviously heard both sides.
“We have all attended meetings where solar has been discussed — maybe not every one, but we have all attended some. I think we’ve heard — we know that there are people that have varying opinions on different sides of this issue. We have tried to hear them. We have talked to the Power Siting Board, and we have talked to them about a lot of the very things you’ve talked about. We’ve talked to them about setback requirements. We’ve talked to them about a number of things.”
Elam said their group “wasn’t looking for a screaming match,” just “wanted to have a seat at the table.”
A second pro-solar representative, who did not introduce himself, pointed out that “when it all comes to an end, we’ve all got to be neighbors” and needed to be respectful.
“Right now, I feel like the way the future is going, we’ve got to have solar and it’s got to be someplace,” he added.
Williams agreed that they are still a “community,” but that “we’re going to have to heal from this because we are a broken community right now.”
“We are not fighting the landowners,” she said. “We are not fighting the individuals. We are fighting the projects. Highland County has enough projects. You’ve got enough money from the projects. It’s time to stop this before we lose our county. Farmland is too precious.
“Highland County has done their part for solar. We don’t need any more.”
At that point, the comments began to turn into a conversation between the two groups. The second pro-solar speaker said that the village of Lynchburg no longer has the businesses it had 50 or 60 years ago and “there’s nothing there anymore.” A third anti-solar speaker asked if he meant “so what if it’s covered” in solar panels “because there’s nothing there.”
As various people began speaking over one another, Duncan and Daniels both interjected.
“This is not a back-and-forth between these two groups,” Daniels said. “We’ve given you an opportunity to come in and state your opinion according to our rules, on the record, to this group. This back-and-forth between the two groups doesn’t need to happen here.”
One of the representatives, who also did not introduce herself, said “That’s why the answer of ‘we probably can set a meeting’ is not good enough. There’s no ‘probably.’ You can absolutely set a meeting.”
Daniels said he “understood” her point but said that scheduling a meeting involved coordinating “timetables,” setting dates and reserving meeting spaces. “Those things have to happen,” he said. “We have work to do on our end as well to support that kind of an activity. I’m not saying that we wouldn’t do it. I’m saying that we need to look at when we can do it, where we can do it, how we can do it and what the format should be.”
At that point, a pro-solar representative asked the commission if “we are facing an energy, electrical shortage in southwest Ohio,” while most of the anti-solar representatives began exiting the meeting room. Duncan said that it’s “federal energy policy” that is driving the switch to solar.
Another anti-solar representative told commissioners she was “surrounded” by solar farms and that she was “hurt” by the impact on the local landscape. “You’re taking our food,” she added. “The animals need more food. Where are they going to go? These farmers that grow this food serve many people and many animals. I just think it’s a shame to see that destruction of God’s creation.”
Then, a different anti-solar representative — who did not introduce himself — approached commissioners and stood directly in front of them, asking “when” they were going to hold the meeting.
“I’ve sent you guys three emails in the past three months and didn’t get a response back on any of them,” he said. “You sent a blanket letter saying you’re going to have a public meeting at some point, so I want to know when that is. I just heard you say you wasn’t [sic] sure if you was [sic] going to try to have one. That isn’t going to work for any of us. So when’s that meeting going to be?”
Daniels said they didn’t know.
“Do you guys care?” the citizen asked.
“Sure, we care,” Daniels said.
“Then why wouldn’t you respond to an email of people who voted you in here?” the citizen asked.
Daniels repeated three times that the resident “got a response,” while the citizen repeated “no” and that it was “a blanket response” before storming out and saying the commissioners “ain’t [sic] going to be back in office.”
After that resident left, the commission adjourned.
In other discussion:
• Duncan reported on ongoing building repairs, as he said the Hi-TEC roof replacement is continuing and that the Highland County Airport roof replacement started Aug. 24.
“We’ve got some things going on in the county that we’ve made appropriations for and are starting to take effect,” he said.
Commissioners also approved the following resolutions, each by a 3-0 vote:
• An additional appropriation from unanticipated revenue to S-67, Spay-Neuter Program, in the amount of $2,500.
• A reimbursement of funds from CSEA to Public Assistance, H-00 in the amount of $8,435.44 for July 2021 Child Support Shared Cost Distribution.
• A budget modification within T-27 Jail Diversion in the amount of $1,503.41.
• A budget modification within T-28 Prosecutorial Diversion FY 20 in the amount of $5,000.
• A budget modification within T-28 Prosecutorial Diversion FY 20 in the amount of $2,283.
• An appropriation decrease within T-27, Operating Expense, in the amount of $1,997.37.
Not discussed in open session, but included on the agenda, were several recent communications.
• Administrators from the Highland County District Library wrote to commissioners asking for funding assistance for 25 mobile hotspots that they currently offer to patrons.
According to the letter, the current funding ends in September 2021, and the library is asking for assistance in covering the fees for October 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023 at a total cost of $19,372.
• The commission received two emails from one resident regarding solar panels, including an email asking a question and another message speaking against the projects.
• A local couple sent copies of two public comments they submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board in favor of proposed solar projects.
• The Southern Ohio for Solar Farms reached out regarding the number of members likely to attend Wednesday’s meeting.
• Highland County Community Action provided a copy of the Community Housing Impact and Preservation (CHIP) report, including three jobs completed and three jobs in progress.