Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fiscal court gives first reading to solar-installation ordinance; bonding and decommissioning requirements discussed
Summary
The court conducted a first reading of a draft ordinance that defines licensing, installation and decommissioning rules for rooftop, small and intermediate solar installations and sets bonding and decommissioning standards for larger operations; members debated whether to effectively bar large-scale solar through strict requirements.
Spencer County fiscal court gave a first reading to a draft solar-installation ordinance that defines installation categories (rooftop, small, intermediate and large scale), sets licensing and renewal requirements and requires decommissioning plans and financial assurances for large operations.
The draft ordinance, presented at first reading, includes provisions for a surety bond or other financial assurance to cover decommissioning costs and requires a decommissioning plan and vegetative screening and fencing for larger arrays. The ordinance exempts rooftop systems for individual homes and small farm installations from some requirements and establishes a licensing and annual renewal procedure for larger projects.
County officials voiced two main concerns: ensuring the county is not left with abandoned solar equipment if a developer fails or goes bankrupt, and whether the county should effectively discourage large-scale solar farms through stringent bonding or siting standards. Mike (county official) asked whether the ordinance has “teeth” for enforcement; staff and counsel confirmed the draft includes bonding and fine provisions and that bonding amounts and escalation (indexing) could be written into the ordinance.
Will raised the possibility of banning large-scale solar outright; other officials noted that some counties that adopted strict requirements have withstood court challenges while others have been litigated. The county’s presenter said the draft was modeled on ordinances used in other Kentucky counties (Christian and Hopkins counties were mentioned) and that stricter standards can make proposed projects economically unattractive. The court scheduled a second reading and public hearing process consistent with standard ordinance adoption procedures.
No vote on adoption was taken; the item was read for the first time and will return for second reading and public comment. The court asked staff to circulate a copy of the draft ordinance in PDF/hard-copy form and to accept written comments before the second reading.
