Osage County hears hours of public comment and Evergy presentation on proposed solar project; no vote to lift 25‑year moratorium

Osage County commissioners heard an Evergy presentation and extensive public comment on a proposed utility‑scale solar project during a regularly scheduled meeting; commissioners did not vote to lift the county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar.

Supporters, including local landowners and a developer, said the project could bring large tax revenue and some long‑term local jobs. Opponents raised concerns about farmland loss, wildlife and water impacts, panel and battery fire risk, and corporate profits. Evergy and the local developer described the proposal as a multi‑phase power plant intended to serve in‑state customers and said environmental and safety reviews would be part of permitting.

Why it matters: The discussion pits economic development arguments — including a developer and several landowners who said the project would provide major tax revenues — against preservation and public‑safety concerns from farmers, hunters and nearby residents. Commissioners signaled they would continue deliberations rather than take immediate action, leaving the moratorium and any regulatory changes for future meetings.

The meeting included more than two hours of public comment. Several residents cited the county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar, saying Evergy had already sought land leases despite the ban. “Evergy is ignoring our county’s 25‑year moratorium on industrial wind and solar and has gone behind our backs leasing land after the ban was put in place,” Diane Denham told the commission. Other opponents warned of panel damage from hail, long‑term contamination claims, and microclimate effects; one speaker said the project would remove thousands of acres of crop and pasture land from production and questioned restoration after decommissioning.

Supporters included local landowners who asked the commission to lift the moratorium so the county could consider the project in open hearings. One landowner who said his family is involved in the proposal told the commission, “Do you want to go down in histories of 3 commissioners that turned down $200,000,000 in tax revenues?” (speaker identified in the transcript as a landowner supporting the project.) Several speakers with energy‑industry experience urged commissioners to evaluate evidence and regulatory protections rather than adopt an absolute prohibition.

Evergy and the project developer gave a joint presentation describing the proposal as a staged, utility‑scale solar power plant. An Evergy representative summarized the utility’s stated priorities as “affordability, reliability and sustainability,” and said the company is planning an “all‑of‑the‑above” approach that includes natural gas and other resources in its long‑term planning. The developer, who identified himself as Joe Arden of 536 Development, described local landowner involvement and said the project was sited to take advantage of nearby transmission capacity.

Technical and land‑use details were contested. Opponents repeatedly cited a figure they said was the initial phase — 3,800 acres of panels — and warned of possible expansion to much larger acreage. Evergy’s presentation included a project depiction the company characterized as roughly 2,000 acres of panels for the parcel under immediate discussion and said there were no current plans for battery storage or wind at that site. The developer described a 500‑megawatt total project delivered in two phases; Evergy staff said phase timing can depend on customer demand and transmission approvals.

Public safety and emergency response questions were raised repeatedly. Speakers and Save Our Agriculture representatives asked how volunteer fire departments would access fenced substations and fields in the event of a panel or battery fire and whether local fire departments would receive training and equipment. Save Our Agriculture also raised erosion and runoff concerns tied to new maintenance roads and heavy construction equipment.

Commissioners did not take a vote on the moratorium or on any ordinance changes at the meeting. Commissioner Heather Creeter told the room she “does not have any intention of changing [her] position on this,” and said she would not support removing the moratorium. Other commissioners said the topic would require more discussion and community engagement before any formal action. At the close of the exchange, the commission did not ask for immediate regulatory action and moved on to other agenda items.

What comes next: Commissioners said the topic will be revisited. Multiple members asked for more information and suggested follow‑up meetings or working sessions to allow detailed, technical questions to be addressed in public.

Ending note: The meeting record shows a sharply divided public. No formal land‑use approvals or ordinance changes were made at this session; any future commission consideration of the moratorium or specific project permitting will take place in subsequent meetings.