Frontenac mayor, residents raise concerns as Mulberry seeks annexation tied to Shasta solar project

Several residents, including Steve Morrison, mayor of Frontenac, and speakers representing Shasta discussed a proposed Mulberry annexation tied to a planned solar and energy‑storage installation during the Crawford County Commission meeting.

Steve Morrison, mayor of Frontenac, told the commission he had received ‘‘10 to 15’’ complaints from residents and said he had not been contacted by Mulberry about the project before learning of the city's meeting notice. ‘‘I find it really hard to believe that the city of Mulberry all of a sudden just had this great idea and reached out to Shasta,’’ Morrison said, adding that he has had no constituent outreach in support and that many residents oppose the plan.

A speaker identified in the meeting as Commissioner Randy described technical details discussed with Shasta and consultant Ram Gupta about battery storage chemistry and safety. Randy said lithium‑ion technology ‘‘is not a choice for this application’’ and that sodium‑ion and other tested, non‑flammable chemistries are under consideration. He estimated deployment would be ‘‘probably 2028’’ and said Shasta would provide training and fire suppression equipment, and that training and some equipment placement would likely be coordinated with Crawford County Fire District 2.

Randy also described decommissioning and reclamation planning for the site, saying the bond would cover end‑of‑life costs and that property plans include agricultural reuse — he specifically mentioned that Robert Dutton would run a sheep program for veterans on the land after project life.

Morrison and other residents questioned whether promises made by project proponents had been put in writing. Morrison raised concerns about a local official’s dual role — referencing a city council member from Mulberry who also serves in the state legislature — and called that a potential conflict of interest.

County counsel and commissioners answered procedural questions: counsel said an approved annexation would take priority over competing annexation filings, that neighboring cities or residents could seek appeal, and that appeals would go to district court rather than the commission. Commissioners also noted the county’s public hearing on annexation would focus on the annexation itself, not the project’s purpose or details.

Commissioners scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the courtroom and said IT would ensure streaming and recording for those unable to attend.

The commission did not take an immediate vote on annexation at the meeting; next procedural steps include the Nov. 13 public hearing and, if the county acts on an annexation and it is appealed, the district court process.