Mount Vernon officials weigh legal options after Fraser Solar approval that includes city land

Mount Vernon council members and staff reviewed the economic impact of the Fraser Solar project and discussed whether to pursue outside counsel after the Ohio Power Siting Board approved the project earlier this year despite objections from the city.

City Treasurer Soller told the Land Use and Development Committee that the parcel in question — roughly 100 acres within the city that had been annexed for future residential and industrial growth — was incorporated into the Fraser Solar application submitted to state authorities. He said the application’s statement that the project "does not [have] any significant adverse effect on regional development" overlooked the city’s plans and that the approval conflicted with the legal framing of Senate Bill 52 and recent county resolutions.

"This land that's within the city...is unique to the state of Ohio," Treasurer Soller said, arguing the city is in an unusual position because most industrial solar sits on unincorporated land. He urged council to consider whether to pursue outside counsel and possibly appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court to have the city parcel removed from the state-approved project.

Why it matters: Committee members and staff framed the dispute as a matter of municipal planning and long-term revenue. Treasurer Soller presented a high-level revenue comparison that estimated the value of future residential development on the 100 acres and contrasted that with the pilot, payment-in-lieu-of-tax amounts the city would receive under the solar developer’s long-term agreement.

Soller showed an illustrative comparison based on a 500-home development with average household incomes near local estimates. Using conservative assumptions for user fees and a flat pilot payment from the solar project of about $2,500 per year, he said the city could lose “over a million dollars” annually in local revenues tied to household water/wastewater and withholding compared with the projected pilot payment.

Committee members asked staff to get cost estimates for outside counsel and for legal analysis on whether the city has standing to appeal the Ohio Power Siting Board decision. Staff said the city’s presence in the siting process was inconsistent: Miller and Clinton townships received representation at the siting hearings but Mount Vernon was not given the same treatment. The committee did not vote on a course of action at the meeting but signaled it would return with cost estimates and legal advice.

The committee also discussed procedural history: the state-level application was filed in October 2023, the siting board conducted hearings and ultimately approved the project in mid-2025, and a rehearing in August 2025 upheld that approval. Council previously passed a local resolution (2024-31) opposing development on the parcel within Mount Vernon limits.

Treasurer Soller said the city’s remaining formal options are limited given the siting board’s approval and that, if the council chooses to proceed, the next steps would include hiring outside counsel and pursuing an appellate route. He cautioned council members that the Ohio Supreme Court accepts a small fraction of appeals and that the city’s chance of review is uncertain.

Committee members asked staff to compile additional documents, cost estimates and to confirm standing before recommending formal legal action or litigation funding to full council.

The committee expected further updates once staff has received outside counsel cost estimates and clarified the city’s procedural standing under state siting law.

Ending: The Land Use and Development Committee closed the item as an informational briefing; no formal motion to pursue litigation was made at the committee meeting. Staff said they would return with cost estimates and legal analysis for council consideration.