Sumter County advances Project Honey solar proposal amid resident concerns over buffering and information
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Sumter County Council approved a resolution and advanced second reading of a fee-in-lieu (FILOT) ordinance tied to "Project Honey," a proposed solar farm, after residents asked for clearer buffering plans and more public information; Councilman Washington abstained from second reading.
Sumter County Council on Dec. 14 advanced a proposed incentives package for a planned solar farm known to the county as “Project Honey,” approving an inducement resolution and granting second reading on the related FILOT ordinance while residents pressed officials for more information about buffering, noise and site plans.
County Attorney Johnathan Bryan told the council the incentives under discussion include “the incentive of a FILOT for a term of 30 years, and having a fixed assessment ratio of 6%,” placement of the project in a multi-county industrial park, and an annual special source revenue credit calculated at $2,000 per megawatt of alternating-current generation output. The inducement resolution (R-21-11) was approved and the ordinance (No. 21-965) passed second reading; Councilman Carlton B. Washington abstained on the ordinance vote.
Residents from the Runneymede subdivision said they want more specifics about how the project will affect their neighborhood. The county record shows Third Judicial Circuit Solicitor Ernest Finney III, speaking for Runneymede residents, asked that officials provide details on “the type of buffering, site and noise” and said neighbors “would appreciate as much information as possible.” Lewis Watkins told the council “there is no more than ten percent of information given to the public about what is actually happening with an industrial project,” urging greater transparency.
Council members pressed for assurances about long-term site decommissioning and community engagement. Councilman Charles T. Edens asked what would happen if the company ceased operations years later; County Attorney Bryan pointed to the county’s Zoning and Development Standards as the regulatory framework for decommissioning and site restoration. Councilman Artie Baker said he was willing to move forward with second reading but asked that the company meet with residents about buffering arrangements.
Chairman James T. McCain said the county would provide the requested information before third reading, and Councilwoman Vivian Fleming McGhaney and Councilman Washington requested to participate in a site visit. The chair directed that a meeting be held between company representatives, Runneymede subdivision representatives, and council members prior to third reading.
The council’s action advances the project to its next procedural step; no final tax agreements or site plans were adopted at the Dec. 14 meeting. The county attorney and planning staff indicated that transportation impacts and buffering requirements would be evaluated and required at the site-plan stage, and further public notices and hearings are expected before any final approvals.
What happens next: the county will provide requested site and buffering information to Runneymede residents, schedule the site visit requested by council members, and carry the ordinance to third reading where council will consider final approval of the FILOT arrangement and any associated agreements.