Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reservoir 5 Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on environmental, safety and stewardship risks of proposed Reservoir 5 solar lease
Summary
Multiple residents told the council they oppose or want more study of leasing surface area of Reservoir 5 for photovoltaic solar, raising concerns about wildlife, water impacts, decommissioning and fire risks; ordinance to solicit bids for the reservoir was read but died for lack of a motion to adopt.
Several residents urged Fostoria City Council to pause or further study a proposed lease of Reservoir 5 for photovoltaic solar development, citing potential impacts to wildlife, drinking-water resources, public recreation and long-term decommissioning.
The council read an ordinance authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety to solicit bids and enter a lease for the surface area of a water body identified by Hancock County parcel numbers 510000910170 and 510000910180 (commonly called Reservoir 5). The ordinance language that was read included an emergency clause. Councilmembers voted to waive the three-reading rule, but after the reading no councilmember made a motion to adopt and the ordinance died for lack of motion.
During the public portion, speakers asked the council to consider alternatives and additional safeguards. Marie Corbin, who said her family farms adjacent land, urged the council to consider less intrusive locations and asked who would pay for potential damage to nearby private ponds. "I support renewable energy, but I believe there may be a more logical location for this solar project," Corbin said.
Renee Vogelsong, who identified concerns about landfill leachate and discarded lithium batteries in trash, warned of chemical contamination and of fragile solar panels that may break after years of exposure to hail. "When these batteries leak out... they're catching on fire, exploding," Vogelsong said, and she urged the council to study the risks before leasing reservoir surface area for panels.
Rochelle Harmon asked whether the local fire department is prepared to fight solar-array fires and whether companies proposing projects provide plans for emergency response and decommissioning. "Has third pillar given you a plan on decommissioning?" she asked (speaker identified projects in nearby Washington Township as lacking decommissioning plans). Other callers, including Rebecca Kimball and residents who noted the reservoir's recreational value, said the site supports fishing and youth activities and should not be repurposed without broader public input.
Council members and staff read aloud the proposed ordinance language; the document specifically referenced the two Hancock County parcel numbers for Reservoir 5. The council president explained the planned process for solicitation and described the requirement that an emergency-clause ordinance and a three-reading waiver require full council support; councilmembers voted to suspend three readings but did not adopt the ordinance after the full text was read.
Council staff and the law director (speaking from the dais) confirmed there is no standing service contract with a private vendor for an unrelated utility-metering issue raised in public comment; that question was discussed separately and not directly tied to the Reservoir 5 proposal.
No lease or contract was approved. Council members indicated public concerns would be considered in future discussions; the council did not set a date for further action on Reservoir 5 during the meeting.
