Howard County hears sharp debate over proposed PILOT for 55‑acre solar array at Manor Lane

Howard County Council held a public hearing Sept. 16 on Council Resolution 167, a proposed payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes (PILOT) agreement for a 55‑acre solar array at 3855 Manor Lane in Ellicott City that would supply power under a 20‑year power‑purchase agreement to the University of Maryland Medical System.

The county’s Office of Community Sustainability urged support for the pilot as a way to expand local solar capacity and advance the county’s Climate Forward targets. “This effort would support the advancement of solar development in line with our Climate Forward Climate Action and Resiliency Plan,” Tim Latimer, administrator for the Office of Community Sustainability, told the council during the hearing.

Supporters said the project would deliver clean energy and a long‑term customer for the array. Luke Smith, representing CI Renewables, said every kilowatt hour from the site will benefit UMMS operations in Howard County and described the PILOT as a financing element that helps secure the project under current federal incentive uncertainty.

Opponents and several public commenters asked the council for more financial transparency and sought broader scrutiny of the site and its history. The Howard County Citizens Association (HCCA) urged the council not to pass the resolution, saying financial projections and the project pro forma had not been publicly posted in time for effective review. Paul Varshinski, testifying on behalf of HCCA, wrote that the fiscal note estimates a county revenue reduction of $293,378.18 over 20 years and asked the council to withhold approval until the county posts the project’s financial documents and clarifies whether the property has previously received other tax incentives or agricultural preservation payments.

Commenters also raised concerns about the project site’s history, saying the property has special developer rights and past agricultural‑preservation payments; at least one speaker urged the council to confirm whether payments due to the county related to earlier agreements have been satisfied before considering further incentives. Opponents also questioned how the project’s public benefits would be measured and what metrics would define the proposed pilot’s success or failure.

Project representatives said the land lease and prior preservation agreements are distinct from the PILOT, and that CI Renewables would not develop until outstanding preservation payments are resolved by the landowners. CI Renewables said the lease payments to the owners are separate from the PILOT and that the company can share lease rate schedules with the council upon request.

No final council vote was recorded at the Sept. 16 hearing. Council members and administration staff discussed the possibility of additional work‑session review and clarifying the standard terms for solar PILOTs so future requests follow a consistent template. The council may consider the resolution at a later legislative session; no final action was taken on Sept. 16.

Ending: The hearing produced a mix of support for local renewable energy development and repeated calls for more detailed, public financial disclosures and clarity about prior land agreements. Several speakers asked for a work session to permit more document review before any legislative approval.