Mulberry annexation for 1,642-acre solar project draws heated public comment in Crawford County

Crawford County commissioners heard more than two hours of public comment Tuesday on a Mulberry annexation petition that would add roughly 1,642 acres to the city’s limits for a proposed Shasta Power solar project.

County Counselor Jim Emerson told the commission the packet the county received from Mulberry lacked a required city-clerk certification, so the statutory 30-day review period under KSA 12-5-20(c) has not begun. "The 30 days does not start until we receive a certified copy," Emerson said during his opening remarks. The commission said it will ask Mulberry for a properly certified resolution before scheduling further action or a public hearing.

The annexation proposal and an accompanying development plan raised sharp questions from residents about who requested the annexation and what the county would gain. "I believe this move raised serious ethical and integrity issues," resident Travis Wood told commissioners in a prepared statement, arguing landowners were pressured and that local residents would see little benefit. Wood said he was told the county might see about "$100,000" over the life of the project and that many benefits described publicly were long-term or uncertain.

Representatives of Shasta Power, represented at the meeting by Lisa Rhodes, said contracts are private between the company and landowners but disputed allegations of coercion. Rhodes said Shasta plans roughly 1,642 acres of panels and "$200,000,000 worth of storage batteries," and that the company is coordinating with Pitt State University on workforce and research partnerships. She described setbacks, an 8-foot privacy fence with slats and plant buffers as mitigation measures.

Residents raised a range of concerns that are likely to be material to the commissioners’ statutory review: environmental risk and water rights, long-term liability for batteries, potential increases in homeowners' insurance costs, and loss of agricultural land and future housing development. Judy Prince, who cited the county’s comprehensive-plan survey, said respondents overwhelmingly supported zoning to prevent wind and solar development and asked the commission to review contract language on water and mineral rights.

Several speakers urged more documentation and transparency. Commissioners and counsel agreed to post clearer maps on the county website and promised a county-produced map rather than relying on developer materials (map discussion SEG 1406–1416, SEG 1556–1565). A resident asked how far the annexation extended; commissioners and staff discussed a working figure of about 6.5 miles from Mulberry as a reference for the area under consideration.

Commission staff and counsel described the next procedural steps: the county will request a certified resolution from Mulberry; once received the commissioners have 30 days to make findings required by statute; counsel encouraged residents to submit written evidence for the record in case the matter reaches court. Emerson said the county will likely not take final action until it has time to review documents, consult outside counsel if necessary and allow affected cities to comment.

What happened next: commissioners discussed scheduling, and staff listed future meetings to handle follow-up materials and related county business. The annexation will return for further consideration after Mulberry provides the certified resolution and the county posts additional maps and documentation for public review.