Residents urge Morrow County commissioners to pause Woodberry Farm solar project, demand larger public hearing

Dozens of residents pressed Morrow County commissioners on Nov. 25 to delay or halt consideration of a proposed utility‑scale solar installation they called the Woodberry Farm project, raising questions about public notice, environmental impacts and who would pay to restore sites at the end of a 30‑year lifespan.

The most vocal concerns came during the public‑comment period, where property owners described learning about parts of the proposal only days earlier and asked the board to schedule a larger evening forum so more residents could attend. Mike Lopez, whose land adjoins the proposed site, said he doubted assurances that the project would not reduce nearby property values and asked whether commissioners had visited the area to evaluate visual or other local impacts. "It said it will not affect land value, and I'm telling you, I do not drink that Kool Aid," Lopez said.

The comments tied multiple, specific complaints to other counties’ experiences. Speakers cited alleged drainage and drain‑tile damage at prior installs, possible soil contamination and wildlife‑habitat loss from fenced installations. Several commenters warned that decommissioning bonds and escrowed funds could be insufficient in practice. One resident summarized academic and trade reporting she said she had reviewed, noting Harvard Business Review coverage that described uncertainty in the true cost of decommissioning; another cited a $175,000‑per‑acre figure (described in testimony as a restoration estimate) as an example of potential long‑term liabilities.

Multiple speakers also raised company‑specific concerns. Witnesses referenced earlier filings and accounting findings involving divisions of multinational energy companies; one commenter said Sun Power or a similarly named division filed for Chapter 11 earlier in the year and that a national auditor had declined to continue as a client. Residents said those histories increased their concern about whether promises on jobs, tax payments and cleanup would hold.

Legal process questions were a recurring theme. Several speakers asked when the county’s 90‑day review period begins under Senate Bill 52 and whether an earlier, township‑level meeting — described by some residents as a recent “science fair” or “show‑and‑tell” — should count toward that clock. Commissioners said SB 52 gives county commissioners authority in the review process but clarified that an earlier action approving a "qualified energy program pilot agreement" allowed the developer to pursue tax incentives and did not itself approve construction. The board said it would check with legal counsel to determine precisely when the 90‑day period starts.

Speakers asked for clearer public notification than a single small county‑paper notice and urged the board to reach out directly to townships and residents; one resident asked whether the county had a plan for how revenue from the fields would be used and whether the benefit would offset likely declines in property tax revenue if values fell.

Commissioners did not vote on the project during the session. They said they would post agendas on the county website and work with township officials on outreach; they also acknowledged limited staff availability in the near term because of an upcoming budget cycle and said they would consult the clerk and legal counsel about scheduling a separate forum and how the statutory review timeline applies.

The meeting closed without action on the solar project; residents were told when the project does appear on a future agenda they would be notified via the county website and usual agenda‑posting channels.