Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Russell County Fiscal Court adopts Ordinance 25-10 on solar farms after public comment and executive session
Summary
The Russell County Fiscal Court approved Ordinance 25-10 regulating solar farms and parks after public comment and executive session; the vote was 4–0 with one abstention. Local residents urged caution over property impacts and attorneys advised the court to seek additional legal review before acting.
Get email alerts on the Solar Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Russell County Fiscal Court on Nov. 10, 2025 approved Ordinance 25-10, a 14‑page measure establishing county rules for solar farms and parks following public comment and an executive session. Attorney Don Byrom read the ordinance aloud for a second reading before the court voted to adopt it.
The vote was: Magistrate Larry Skaggs — Yes; Magistrate Steve Richardson — Yes; Magistrate Zach Wilson — Yes; Magistrate Terry Waddell — Yes; Magistrate Mickey Garner — Abstained (Garner said he missed the first reading and did not feel prepared to vote). The ordinance passed and members of the audience applauded.
Christopher Davenport, representing Round Trip LLC, had urged the court earlier in the meeting to proceed cautiously. "I encourage you to pause and get advice from other counties and be careful dipping toes in ordinance—since Russell County does not have a zoning and planning committee or comprehensive plan," Davenport said, arguing the county should consider legal risks and possible litigation if it acts without additional review.
Local resident Alana Grider told the court the proposed solar development would be adjacent to her home on Bottoms Road and urged elected officials to listen to neighbors, vote, and take community concerns into account. An unnamed resident later asked who would compensate landowners if property values declined.
The court did not publicize any amendments adopted before the final vote. The ordinance was read in full by the county's acting attorney; the court recorded the formal second-reading vote and adopted Ordinance 25-10. The court gave no further schedule for implementation or appeals during the meeting.
The court took the ordinance vote after briefly convening in executive session under Kentucky Revised Statutes to consult about the matter.
