[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6454154,"mediaKeyId","5862203-10e9c06c6c46e950014e4879649a493c","parentId",5862203,"title","Votes at a glance: Osage County Commission approves payments, bridge programming and tax‑roll corrections","audioSeconds",541,"startMs",8110000,"endMs",8651000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5862203-10e9c06c6c46e950014e4879649a493c&start=8110&end=8651","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5862203-10e9c06c6c46e950014e4879649a493c/thumbnail_8110000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6454154/Osage-County/Kansas/Votes-at-a-glance-Osage-County-Commission-approves-payments-bridge-programming-and-taxroll-corrections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454154-71b360afcf7ceb32a3ec6a2ca700f910/orig.mp4?Expires=1770778431&Signature=l68bjhOf~yOqSAsagFLHJ5g8QAdsQ5heyTO5tvIhaSs~ulvmYSdL6TLMl~RsXiXxqh7JQf3cS4UWWcSWtZXqZBlXUPUdN385~RTz0JWr8efMA4Q4sxbresRE-RQvEjWqawV4lXjjqPqoZzVe4XboUc6sxOX3q8~hOookoe6ov2cUZ9NEVPULyVipXdjJ1N--gKHxI7FCVp7X4HT8FIj0022D-btFPLmbUiN9w6pbini1lTg5~1mxxoLwBewKoi3raHInXCTTIUbFqaFpc2CkjzYbdJB~UcXflPKI-BM5hHp9u1zNk90IcEsEkasRJGkM9QnZNmlmRhCe9YBaR5yueA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Osage County, KS","date","2025-09-30T23:00:50Z","article","The Osage County Commission approved a series of routine and project payments and requests after a lengthy public discussion on a proposed Evergy solar project. The Evergy presentation and public comment segment produced no action to lift the county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar; commissioners moved on to regular business and approved multiple budgetary and contract items.

Votes at a glance

- Conklin Plumbing: approved payment of $13,623.25 for work performed at the county jail. Motion passed; recorded as approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition. (Motion/second: not specified in transcript; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

- Kimball Mapping / GIS parcel map maintenance agreement: approved signing the 2025 GIS parcel map maintenance agreement and payment of $20,500 for map maintenance services. (Motion/second: not specified; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

- Bridge programming request (Bridge #61): approved a project programming request in the amount of $1,100,000 for a bridge located 1.5 miles south and 1.5 miles west of Burlingame (listed as Bridge Number 61). (Motion/second: not specified; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

- Temporary permit/location and zoning: approved a temporary permit/location and zoning for Aaron Ashford at 28784 US‑75, Linden, Kansas. (Motion/second: not specified; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

- Tax roll corrections: approved tax roll corrections for tax years 2021 through 2024 as presented. (Motion/second: not specified; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

- Bills and other payments: approved paying county bills in the amount of $151,920.97 and several smaller items noted on the agenda (including a $300 invoice for the KCTA County Treasurers Association Conference and a $720 easement acquisition handshake item). (Motion/second: not specified; tally: yes 5, no 0.)

Items noted in discussion

- The PBC (Public Building Commission) approved forwarding the Conklin Plumbing bill for payment and adjourned; the regular commission later approved paying Conklin Plumbing for the jail work.

- The Kimball Mapping contract was described in the meeting as a routine annual GIS parcel maintenance agreement; commissioners voted to sign and pay the invoice at the meeting.

- The bridge programming request was moved and approved; commissioners noted the bridge’s location and that funding programming would proceed.

Legal/administrative notes

- Several votes were taken by voice and recorded as “Aye” with no named roll‑call for each commissioner in the audio transcript. The commission had five members present on roll call earlier in the meeting.

Ending: The Evergy presentation and the sharply divided public comment period did not change the commission’s routine agenda outcomes; the board approved payments, a mapping contract and bridge programming before adjourning.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Osage County Commission Meeting 9-30-25","oneSentenceSummary","At the same meeting commissioners approved payment and contract items including a Conklin Plumbing invoice, a GIS mapping maintenance agreement, a bridge programming request and tax‑roll corrections. The Evergy solar discussion generated no formal vote.","taxTitle","Osage County, Kansas","taxId",73452,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6454159,"Osage County hears hours of public comment and Evergy presentation on proposed solar project; no vote to lift 25‑year moratorium",2880,4293000,7173000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5862203-10e9c06c6c46e950014e4879649a493c&start=4293&end=7173","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5862203-10e9c06c6c46e950014e4879649a493c/thumbnail_4293000.jpg","/articles/6454159/Osage-County/Kansas/Osage-County-hears-hours-of-public-comment-and-Evergy-presentation-on-proposed-solar-project-no-vote-to-lift-25year-moratorium","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454159-56a44697b6f771f75637106ab75ebab1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770778431&Signature=WrLXlaFFp2bk0sHa7R-hDVwl98TMshW56MMiu~46XZlGp51d~~scnLX3hLiMMIgsROVlqupS0g-5Px5IXNWbhL-z4lxHzio3~g1oMxDXXl6LXQLgDEpD~KGwZ7PXa5uwApfySXdbzKe4s9tK7UwXEcOdXyErhbcCSYRuf6KLCodZ5kbskyef3jZP2hKvkirKtb0qpEVQ7buQ5TsKnjgCKZz7PvxdSPYjViztPPcNPLKtoh-fXBdxP3nAjiJEVrMWRos8Z0imuNsuYXqx-373bK123jTMffTU0ulBOkKQaH06MDmSNisS4kuhgugUwU9lGr16dqB~6V0iRHPRUnL1mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Osage County commissioners heard an Evergy presentation and extensive public comment on a proposed utility‑scale solar project during a regularly scheduled meeting; commissioners did not vote to lift the county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar.

Supporters, including local landowners and a developer, said the project could bring large tax revenue and some long‑term local jobs. Opponents raised concerns about farmland loss, wildlife and water impacts, panel and battery fire risk, and corporate profits. Evergy and the local developer described the proposal as a multi‑phase power plant intended to serve in‑state customers and said environmental and safety reviews would be part of permitting.

Why it matters: The discussion pits economic development arguments — including a developer and several landowners who said the project would provide major tax revenues — against preservation and public‑safety concerns from farmers, hunters and nearby residents. Commissioners signaled they would continue deliberations rather than take immediate action, leaving the moratorium and any regulatory changes for future meetings.

The meeting included more than two hours of public comment. Several residents cited the county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar, saying Evergy had already sought land leases despite the ban. “Evergy is ignoring our county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar and has gone behind our backs leasing land after the ban was put in place,” Diane Denham told the commission. Other opponents warned of panel damage from hail, long‑term contamination claims, and microclimate effects; one speaker said the project would remove thousands of acres of crop and pasture land from production and questioned restoration after decommissioning.

Supporters included local landowners who asked the commission to lift the moratorium so the county could consider the project in open hearings. One landowner who said his family is involved in the proposal told the commission, “Do you want to go down in histories of 3 commissioners that turned down $200,000,000 in tax revenues?” (speaker identified in the transcript as a landowner supporting the project.) Several speakers with energy‑industry experience urged commissioners to evaluate evidence and regulatory protections rather than adopt an absolute prohibition.

Evergy and the project developer gave a joint presentation describing the proposal as a staged, utility‑scale solar power plant. An Evergy representative summarized the utility’s stated priorities as “affordability, reliability and sustainability,” and said the company is planning an “all‑of‑the‑above” approach that includes natural gas and other resources in its long‑term planning. The developer, who identified himself as Joe Arden of 536 Development, described local landowner involvement and said the project was sited to take advantage of nearby transmission capacity.

Technical and land‑use details were contested. Opponents repeatedly cited a figure they said was the initial phase — 3,800 acres of panels — and warned of possible expansion to much larger acreage. Evergy’s presentation included a project depiction the company characterized as roughly 2,000 acres of panels for the parcel under immediate discussion and said there were no current plans for battery storage or wind at that site. The developer described a 500‑megawatt total project delivered in two phases; Evergy staff said phase timing can depend on customer demand and transmission approvals.

Public safety and emergency response questions were raised repeatedly. Speakers and Save Our Agriculture representatives asked how volunteer fire departments would access fenced substations and fields in the event of a panel or battery fire and whether local fire departments would receive training and equipment. Save Our Agriculture also raised erosion and runoff concerns tied to new maintenance roads and heavy construction equipment.

Commissioners did not take a vote on the moratorium or on any ordinance changes at the meeting. Commissioner Heather Creeter told the room she “does not have any intention of changing [her] position on this,” and said she would not support removing the moratorium. Other commissioners said the topic would require more discussion and community engagement before any formal action. At the close of the exchange, the commission did not ask for immediate regulatory action and moved on to other agenda items.

What comes next: Commissioners said the topic will be revisited. Multiple members asked for more information and suggested follow‑up meetings or working sessions to allow detailed, technical questions to be addressed in public.

Ending note: The meeting record shows a sharply divided public. No formal land‑use approvals or ordinance changes were made at this session; any future commission consideration of the moratorium or specific project permitting will take place in subsequent meetings.","Osage County commissioners hosted Evergy and local developers for a presentation on a proposed utility‑scale solar project and heard hours of public comment both for and against lifting a 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar. Commissioners did not take formal action to remove the moratorium.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Osage County Commission approves payments, bridge programming and tax‑roll corrections

Osage County hears hours of public comment and Evergy presentation on proposed solar project; no vote to lift 25‑year moratorium