Trustees from three Williams County townships and county officials met to discuss large-scale solar development, focusing on what local governments can legally restrict, how tax revenue is shared, and whether decommissioning bonds will cover long-term reclamation.

The most immediate question was legal authority. Thad, the county attorney, told trustees that projects below 50 megawatts are governed by local zoning while projects of 50 megawatts and above fall under the state Power Siting Board’s jurisdiction unless county commissioners adopt an exclusion area. He also said township zoning can be used to prohibit small projects under 50 megawatts.

Why it matters: trustees and several landowners said large solar fields can remove productive farmland for decades, creating long-term land‑use and tax-revenue consequences for schools and other taxing districts. Several speakers pressed officials for clearer rules, more research on decommissioning bonds and recycling, and the possibility of putting the question to voters.

Discussion highlights
- Township resolutions: Ed Roofer of Springfield Township said three townships — Springfield, Center and Velasquez — “have passed resolutions to, broken the large solar fields, 50 megawatts and larger.” Those resolutions seek to limit or exclude utility‑scale projects at or above the 50‑megawatt threshold set by state law.
- Zoning vs. Power Siting Board: Thad explained that the Ohio Revised Code and the state’s implementation of SB 52 give local governments control over projects below the 50‑megawatt threshold and create a separate state review path for larger projects. He advised trustees that creating a blanket prohibition would require updating township zoning to make solar a prohibited use, and that commissioners can work with townships to designate exclusion areas for projects 50 MW and above.
- Decommissioning and bonding: Multiple speakers raised concern about whether bonds will cover decommissioning costs decades from now. Thad described the bond as “essentially an insurance policy” that allows a county to call the surety if a developer fails to meet decommissioning obligations, but he said specifics — including whether panels must go to specialized disposal facilities and how today’s bond levels will match future reclamation costs — require more research.
- Property rights and takings risk: Thad warned that if landowners have already taken concrete steps on a leased property, retroactive zoning could create legal claims, including regulatory takings, if an ordinance effectively strips a lessee’s reasonable use. Trustees were urged to consider grandfathering, variances or conditional‑use processes to limit legal exposure.
- Revenue and taxing districts: Attendees discussed the revenue formula described at the meeting: about $9,000 per megawatt in payments, with roughly $2,000 per megawatt to the county and the remaining $7,000 per megawatt divided among other taxing districts in proportion to millage. Trustees noted the potential short‑ and long‑term impacts on school funding and other services.
- Ballot options and local input: Trustees asked whether the question could be placed before voters. Thad said cities commonly use ballot questions and agreed to research whether townships and the county could use binding or advisory ballot measures and what that process would require.

Direction, next steps and decisions
No formal county policy or ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked the county attorney to research several items and to return with written guidance: whether ballot questions are permissible for this matter in the county or townships, specifics on decommissioning and bond sufficiency, the legal effects of retroactive zoning on leased properties, and model language for zoning amendments, conditional use and variances. Trustees and staff agreed to share local zoning codes and examples; the attorney said he would follow up by email and that the county might hold further executive‑session briefings on pending solar negotiations.

Community and technical context
Trustees and residents said they have driven nearby projects and spoken with farmers and federal agencies such as the Farm Service Agency; a township speaker noted that land classified as nonagricultural may not be returned to farming without re‑determination. Companies and manufacturers mentioned included First Solar and an engineering firm represented at a separate meeting (RPG); meeting participants said manufacturers and developers vary in panel composition and recycling programs.

Ending
Commissioners did not vote on any new ordinance or exclusion at this meeting. Trustees indicated they intend to pursue zoning amendments, conditional‑use provisions or exclusion area requests and to return when the county attorney provides the requested research and model language.