Ohio County fiscal court hears sustained public concern over solar MOU, no formal action taken

The Ohio County Fiscal Court discussed public concerns about a memorandum of understanding with a solar developer and agreed to seek clarification from the company and legal counsel, but took no formal action to rescind the MOU.

The discussion reached across multiple agenda items and public comments after residents said they had not been informed about the project and questioned the court’s urgency in approving related documents. County Attorney Justin Cown answered procedural questions and advised the court that legal options to undo an agreement would require evidence of fraud or a legal defect; the court’s stated position was that it would not pursue revocation without such evidence.

Why it matters: The MOU and related approvals shape whether and where a utility-scale solar facility could be developed on private land in Ohio County, affecting landowners near proposed sites and prompting concerns about notice and the court’s decision-making process.

Court members and residents debated whether the public and affected landowners had been properly notified. Several residents said they learned only recently that the MOU existed and that an associated payment or letter of credit was presented to the county under time pressure. One resident said, “Nobody has come and talk to us about our property,” describing a sense of surprise and lack of outreach by the developer. County officials said the project had been discussed with other jurisdictions and that earlier proposals had been explored for different sites but that the current company and proposal were more recent.

County Attorney Justin Cown advised caution about public legal strategy: discussing potential litigation or asking staff to take specific legal steps in open session could inadvertently affect legal options. He recommended that if the court wished to explore legal remedies, it should confer with outside counsel and that portions of that consultation likely belong in closed session to preserve attorney-client privilege and to avoid unintended admissions.

Court members listed follow-up steps: request clearer documentation from the company about any financial assurances submitted to the county (described in the meeting as resembling a letter of credit), ask the developer whether they will reduce the project footprint near residential areas, and provide the name and contact information for an attorney suggested by concerned citizens. Officials said they would follow up with the developer and make available the documents they had received.

No vote was taken to rescind or alter the MOU. Several magistrates said they would not seek reversal unless they discovered misrepresentation or fraud in the company’s dealings with the county. The court also discussed appointing or contacting outside counsel to evaluate legal options; County Attorney Cown said he could contact an attorney if the court directed him to do so.

The discussion included references to prior outreach in other counties and to litigation the developer had faced elsewhere; county officials said they had done some internet checks on the company and that the firm had prior projects in other states. Residents said they found reports of litigation in several states but requested clearer, locally applicable information. Officials said staff would provide the materials they had received and follow up with the developer for clarification.

The court closed the topic by reiterating that no formal reversal would occur without evidence of wrongdoing and that staff would return with clarifying documents and, if requested, pursue further legal review.