Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Project Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs impacts of 4,000 cubic yards of dirt tied to solar project, developer to fund mitigation, staff say
Summary
Board members and staff discussed developer plans to remove about 4,000 cubic yards of material (roughly 400 tri‑axle loads) near a solar array and adjacent floodway, raising concerns about truck traffic, campus paving damage and where to place the material; staff said mitigation costs rest with the developer but local logistics and cleanup remain unresolved.
At a Southern Columbia Area SD finance meeting, board members and facilities staff raised alarms about a developer plan that would move roughly 4,000 cubic yards of soil—an amount described as approximately 400 tri‑axle truck loads—from the floodway near the district's solar array.
The exchange began when a board member noted the scale: “They're talking about removing 4,000 cubic yards,” and staff warned that repeated heavy truck traffic could “destroy our paving” where the district’s pavement may not be thick enough to withstand that load. Facilities staff and board members asked whether the developer had anticipated mitigation needs during the project’s design and were told the contractor flagged the issue later and that mitigation is required.
Administration said the developer/contractor is responsible for mitigation costs. A staff member summarized the position: “It's their responsibility. They knew this going into this project that this was potentially going to happen.” But board members said the amount of material was larger than expected, and they pressed staff for options if the contractor hauls large volumes across campus.
Board members also raised logistics and environmental concerns. Staff said the contractor proposed dumping material in a wooded area behind the concession stands and a practice field adjacent to the solar arrays; board members said such placement could create prolonged mud, remove fields from use and require tree clearing. Facilities staff discussed topsoil-stripping practices (save topsoil for reuse when possible) and how moving spoil in one large lump differs hydrologically from many distributed posts or piles.
The district did not decide on a final plan at the meeting. Key outstanding items the board asked staff to pursue were proximity and routing of truck traffic, whether material could be kept and reused on site, options to avoid placing spoil on athletic fields, and confirmation of the developer’s financial responsibility for any pavement or property damage. Administration said it would continue negotiations and report back to the board.
Next steps: staff will seek clarification from the developer/engineer about the calculation of cubic yards and mitigation options, analyze potential truck routes and pavement impacts, and bring options (including cost and cleanup responsibility) to the board for approval or further direction.
