Note: The Warren County Commission was scheduled to vote on both proposed solar districts Tuesday, Dec. 22. Because of early holiday deadlines, The Record was not able to include the results of that vote in this report. The vote will be covered in the Dec. 31 issue of The Record.

Landowners participating in two proposed solar energy districts spoke last week at public hearings before the Warren County Commission, making their support heard after a slew of objections from the projects’ opponents.

Groups of participating property owners spoke during Dec. 16 and 17 public hearings before the Warren County Commission. Dozens more submitted letters in support, a reminder that almost 50 families have signed up to participate in the solar farms in northern Warren County.

The commission is deliberating whether to approve over 6,000 combined acres of solar energy districts proposed by companies Invenergy and Ranger Power. A ruling was expected to be made this week, after The Record’s deadline.

At last week’s hearings, participant Cyrilla Sommer said she favors developing renewable energy to replace aging coal plants. But Sommer said she and fellow landowners have been demonized as “greedy farmers” for participating in the project.

“Everything we have ever gotten off our farm has gone back into our farm. Our children do not want to farm. I know there are several other people who have signed up who have the same problem,” Sommer said. “We would like to keep the farm in our family, and the only way to do that is to find some alternative way of doing it.”

Sommer said that if she and her husband passed away and their children sold the farm, it could instead be developed into a subdivision of 50 homes. That could cause significantly more nuisance than solar panels, she said.

Sommer added that she and her husband don’t have much retirement savings. They need a way to support themselves when they’re too old to work.

“We would like to be able to enjoy the rest of our life, and not have to worry about whether my husband’s equipment will break down, or whether he’s gonna break down,” Sommer said.

Several solar participants shared similar stories. They spoke about farming their whole lives on land their family has owned for generations. Voices wavered slightly when they described raising their children on the farm, only to learn those children aren’t interested in farming.

But that land is still their family’s inheritance, participants said. So they need a way to keep it after they’re too old to work it. Leasing to a solar company gives them that chance.

Another farmer and former teacher in the R-III School District, Lois Boeger, said she wants the solar farms in part because a portion of their yearly permit fees have been promised to the school district.

“All three of our children have gone through this school district. I taught in this school district for over 40 years. It’s a wonderful place to be,” Boeger said. “Our school district has been having some (financial) problems, and I see the investment in solar energy as a way to provide some assistance for them.”

Don Burgess said he favors the solar farms because Warren County is an ideal location for them.

“I think it should be the landowner’s right to decide what he wants to do, if he wants to grow crops or he wants to create electricity on his own property,” Burgess said. 

Response to criticism

County and solar company representatives responded to several frequent criticisms of the projects, including that they will damage property values and that surrounding property owners didn’t have enough notice of the proposals.

Mike MaRous, a longtime appraiser contracted by Invenergy, said multiple methods of examining other solar projects around the U.S. had shown no long-term negative impacts on property values. 

Mike Blazer, another Invenergy representative, shot down a demand that the company offer financial property value guarantees for surrounding property owners.

“They’re an invitation to litigation. ... Any number of factors could impact property value. It could be living next to a hog farm. It could be ... a downturn in the economy,” Blazer said. “A property value guarantee ... would essentially entail a battle of dueling appraisers, who would try to parse out individual impacts on a piece of property.”

In response to criticism that surrounding property owners didn’t learn of the solar projects until too late to influence the rules for them, County Attorney Mark Vincent said proper public notice was given for all solar hearings. Certified mail about the projects was sent out to specific property owners in October, when the exact boundaries of the proposed solar districts were known.

Discussion of solar farms before then was over rules that affect the entire county, Vincent said. If the county government had sent notifying letters to every household in the county, Vincent said it could have cost up to $100,000 per hearing.