Residents accuse solar contractor of trespass, ask Pulaski County to tighten agreements

Winamac resident Sherry Fagner told Pulaski County commissioners during public comment that employees working for the county’s solar project repeatedly entered private property without permission and caused damage.

“This is not acceptable,” Fagner said, adding that she and family members have photos and reported incidents to the sheriff’s department. “We did not ask for the intrusion on our property.”

Fagner described at least two documented incidents near 500 West and 100 North, said company staff declined to acknowledge written notice, and urged commissioners to hold the contractor accountable. County staff confirmed they had forwarded residents’ emails to company contacts and to internal staff for follow-up.

Commissioners and sheriff’s office representatives said enforcement is complicated when the alleged trespass involves a corporate project with multiple employees and vehicles that are often dirty or unmarked. The sheriff’s office said officers responded to complaints, observed tracks and advised residents to collect evidence, including plate numbers or photos of drivers when possible; the prosecutor’s office will determine charging viability if an individual can be identified.

Several residents called for clearer, stronger contracts and ordinances. Gail Lambert of Richgrove Township asked the county to refuse nondisclosure agreements with companies and to read road and drainage agreements “phrase by phrase” to remove gray areas. Chris Brooker urged commissioners to consider reinstating a set of earlier local ordinances he said provided protections for homeowners.

Commissioners said they have asked the developer and its representatives to provide clearer signage and that staff will request additional measures such as cameras at project entrances. Staff also said they received a written reply from at least one company representative that expressed regret (“we hope it doesn’t happen again”) but did not formally acknowledge receipt of the county’s written notice in some cases.

The board discussed whether developers’ offers to fund increased law-enforcement hours could substitute for fines levied under the county’s road-use agreement. County staff and some commissioners said fines serve as a contractual enforcement mechanism and that using developer funds for law enforcement would need careful accounting; citizens at the meeting said they were opposed to shifting liability or requiring homeowners to pursue private legal claims.

Next steps: staff said they will continue communications with the company contacts identified in residents’ emails, ask for improved signage and evidence-gathering, and explore whether contract language or ordinances should be amended. Commissioners suggested the possibility of an executive session to discuss enforcement under the road-use agreement and to review legal options.

The comments did not produce an immediate change to any contract or ordinance; commissioners instructed staff to follow up with the company and the prosecutor’s office.