Mulberry mayor asks Crawford County to approve annexation as residents warn of solar development risks

Mulberry Mayor Pat Wallen asked the Crawford County Commission to support a city-initiated annexation that he said would allow Mulberry to access Department of Commerce programs and other outside funding to repair aging water infrastructure and to support community survival. "I'm here for Mulberry's survival," Wallen said, describing long family ties to the town and a decline in population he said the annexation could help reverse.

Residents who live near the proposed annexation area told the commission they fear the move is tied to larger energy or industrial projects. Russell Smith of Deer Creek Acres asked who would ultimately benefit, and raised specific technical questions about battery storage, inverters and noise: "Where's the battery storage gonna be? Where's the inverters gonna be? How much noise is gonna be generated…?" Several commenters cited studies and local realtor conversations they said show nearby large solar systems can depress adjacent property values by 3–5% in the first five years.

Other speakers raised public-safety and environmental concerns. Yolanda Brackett and others warned about unfulfilled promises in other counties—saying fire departments had been promised money or training that did not materialize—and about the special hazards that lithium-ion battery fires present for volunteer departments. Anne Sanders and multiple speakers questioned who the real investors are and whether companies staking land here (named in the public record as Shasta by several speakers) have built projects elsewhere.

Lisa Rhodes, who spoke on behalf of local supporters, pushed back on claims that local officials were financially tied to developers: "Shasta has not paid Mulberry $500,000. They have not put $2,000,000 in Pat's bank account," she said, while noting legal limits on what could be discussed at the public comment phase. County staff and the county counselor repeatedly told speakers that, under counsel, comments in the annexation hearing could not address specific development plans; that substantive development permitting would be governed by Mulberry if the annexation is approved; and that a separate public hearing on the annexation will allow pro and con testimony.

County staff confirmed they received a formal annexation certification from Mulberry by registered mail and said receipt starts a 30‑day statutory review period under the statute referenced in the meeting as "12 5 20 c." County staff said they will request documentation that property owners consented to the annexation and will solicit comments from adjacent cities; depending on when the 30‑day clock is counted, staff identified mid‑November as the likely window for a final county action.

What happens next: The county will publish notices and accept written comments, staff said. The commission must make the statutory findings required by state law before any final approval. A public hearing on the annexation will be scheduled during the statutory window; the county advised residents to bring questions about zoning, setbacks, environmental reviews and decommissioning to Mulberry once the land is inside city limits, because zoning and site-specific rules would then be controlled by the city if annexation is approved.