Duplin commissioners ask staff to study solar farm taxes and land-use options, back letter opposing state preemption

Duplin County commissioners on May 5 discussed the county’s existing solar facilities, recent tax revaluations and pending state legislation, and directed staff to return with a study and a planner briefing at the board’s next meeting.

County Manager Miller told the board the county currently has 35 solar facilities. He said the county’s assessment work shows an equipment cost figure of $267,598,257 and that an 80% exemption on equipment totals $214,078,605. Miller said the post-depreciation taxable value of equipment is $33,276,604 and cited related annual tax yields the county sees from those assessments. “There’s an 80% exemption on the equipment themselves, which totals $214,078,605,” Miller said. “After depreciation … the tax value is $33,276,604, which yields $244,583.04 of tax dollars for the county.”

The discussion centered on two issues: whether solar installations are producing sufficient local tax revenue and whether pending state legislation would limit the county’s ability to regulate land use. Commissioner Branch, who requested the item be placed on the agenda, said he wanted the board to understand “what really was happening” after concerns were raised that the county might be losing tax value to solar projects. “The reason that I asked for this to be on the agenda … it was brought to my attention that we were possibly losing tax value on some of our property due to solar farms,” Branch said.

Commissioners discussed depreciation schedules — Miller said asset depreciation is on roughly an 18-year schedule and that assessed values do not fall below a 25% floor — and noted the county’s two relevant regulatory texts: a land-use ordinance adopted in April 2015 and a unified development ordinance (UDO) the county adopted in 2021. Planning Director Mister Wilson (as referenced in the meeting) offered to have staff compare Duplin’s ordinance language and setbacks with other counties’ approaches.

Several commissioners expressed concern about House Bill 729, which the board discussed as a measure that could curtail local land-use authority. Commissioner Edwards said the county should “definitely put that letter together” and speak with one voice to state officials. The board instructed staff to prepare a study of other jurisdictions’ solar-related ordinances, have the planning director present findings at the June meeting, and to draft a letter for the board’s review opposing the state bill. Miller summarized the next steps: staff will return with additional data and the planner will participate in the next meeting’s agenda.

The board did not take a formal vote to change policy at the May 5 meeting; the action recorded was direction to staff to research options and report back. Commissioners repeatedly requested that the staff report include advantages and disadvantages of solar development, comparative ordinance language from peer counties, and explicit tax-impact figures.

Miller also noted that county landowners continue to pay property taxes on the land beneath solar installations and that staff can provide comparisons between farmed land valuations and land under solar panels if the board wants that analysis.

The board agreed to place the staff presentation and planner briefing on the June agenda and to draft the requested letter to state lawmakers opposing preemption of county land-use authority.