Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Renewables topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery trustees decline two-year lease option for proposed community solar site
Summary
The board voted down a staff-backed two‑year lease-option for a community solar developer seeking due‑diligence access to a 9‑acre village parcel; trustees cited wetlands, road connections, long-term lease terms and insufficient detail as reasons for rejecting the option 4–2.
The Village of Montgomery Board of Trustees voted down a proposed two-year lease option for a community solar project after questions from trustees about wetlands, road access and long-term lease terms.
Staff presenting on behalf of Senergy Power described a plan to option about 9 acres of village-owned property with roughly 4.5 buildable acres for a community solar array and asked for a two-year due-diligence period. The company proposed paying $2,000 per year during the option period and a ground-lease rate of $27.50 per acre once panels were installed; staff said the $27.50-per-acre figure is in range with comparables.
Trustees raised concerns about whether the proposed layout would inhibit future road extensions, how much of the site is wetland, whether battery energy storage would be viable on such a small parcel given recent state legislation, and whether committing to option terms without detailed plans was appropriate. One trustee asked whether the village would be obligated to approve a ground lease after the option period; staff said the ground lease would return to the board for separate approval and additional municipal approvals (zoning, permits) would still be required.
After debate, the board took a roll-call vote. Trustees Marcek and Berzasca voted yes; Trustees Geier, Sperling, Bauman and Youngerman voted no. President Brawley announced the motion failed.
Why it matters: The item put village-owned land on the table for a community solar project, a potential local renewable-energy installation and revenue source. Trustees said they supported the idea in principle but were unwilling to grant the requested option under the terms presented without more detail.
What’s next: Staff and the developer may return with more complete plans or a different proposal; any future ground lease would require additional approvals, including zoning and a ground-lease agreement returned to the board.
