Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Farm Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents report property damage and safety concerns from solar-farm truck traffic; commissioners discuss county revenue
Summary
Residents near a recently approved solar farm told the Elbert County commissioners the project's truck traffic has damaged yards and trees, and asked whether the county's revenue share and the developer's on-site safety measures are sufficient. Commissioners said the agreement includes an upfront payment and annual payments but asked staff to confirm details.
Residents near a new solar project told the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners during public comment on Jan. 28 that heavy truck traffic has driven into private yards, damaged landscaping and culverts, and posed safety problems for local roads.
Chris Schmidt, who said he lives a little over two miles east of the solar-farm entrance on County Road 154, described repeated incidents of construction trucks turning around on non–county-maintained roads and driving across neighbors' yards. "They came into our yard and turned around and tore up the part of the yard," Schmidt said, identifying the damaged property at 14235 County Road 154. He also said truck drivers often miss signed turns and use private roads to maneuver.
Rick Miller told the board he has observed trucks with unsafe equipment and tired or unqualified drivers and asked the county to direct more sheriff's-department enforcement. "I can't blame the construction outfit because they just order it and it's shipped," Miller said, adding that some rigs appeared to have bald tires and drivers who could not read English. Miller asked the board for a public accounting of what the county will receive annually from the project.
During the exchange a board participant read figures from the packet describing the project's financial terms: $3,000,000 upfront and $250,000 per year for 40 years. Commissioners and staff said they would confirm the assessor's records and the agreement's specifics; one commissioner noted that, to date, the county had not been invoiced for legal fees related to permitting work on the project.
Residents also asked whether the company has provided or will provide firefighting equipment, battery-fire response capability or site fire breaks. The board and staff did not provide a definitive description of the developer's firefighting responsibilities at the meeting and said they would follow up.
The board did not take formal action on the concerns raised by residents during public comment but noted the site manager had discussed additional signage and a plan to station staff to direct trucks. Commissioners encouraged residents to document incidents and provide addresses when possible so staff can investigate and follow up with the developer and law enforcement.
The meeting record shows the county later advanced related road-rights items and approved certain maintenance decisions (see other agenda items). Residents requested that the county publish a report showing the project's net costs and benefits to the county; commissioners asked staff to confirm revenue and cost information and bring it back to the board.
