Butler County exempts Sandhills Energy solar project from moratorium after executive session

The Butler County Board of Supervisors voted April 6 to exempt Butler County Solar, developed by Sandhills Energy, from the county moratorium on solar projects after an executive session on threatened litigation and more than an hour of public comment.

Chairman Scott Steager read Resolution 2026-11, which the board approved with all present members voting aye (Krafka, Vandenberg, Coufal, Griess, Bauer, Steager; Jan Sypal absent). The motion removes Butler County Solar/Sandhills Energy from the moratorium; any separate road‑use or decommissioning agreements were stated to be addressed separately.

During the public comment period proponents described long-term project activity and investments. Jeremy Schriber, representing Farmers National Company, read letters from two landowners selling to the solar company and voiced their support. Mike Ebel, a Columbus landowner and county lessor, said he leases property to Butler County Solar and warned that not exempting the project from the moratorium would be costly “financially to him and others; they have been paying him rent for seven years.”

Brian Boerner of Sandhills Energy provided a packet of written statements and told the board the developer has conducted numerous site studies, executed power purchase and lease agreements, mobilized construction crews and has invested over $25 million in the project; he also said the company holds $145 million in purchase orders. John Brown, senior vice president at Sandhills Energy, said the proposed 900‑acre project would generate property‑tax revenue for the county, schools and the Bellwood Rural Fire Department and yield temporary construction jobs and some permanent positions. Eric Johnson, Sandhills Energy president, said other communities with Sandhills projects reported positive experiences.

David Levy of Baird Holm law firm, representing Sandhills Energy/Butler County Solar, told the board the project has been in development for seven years and argued that "it is unfair to change the rules during the same. They made the investments before the rules were changed." Levy said a road‑use agreement could be appropriate because the project will use county roads and that decommissioning is another matter that warrants attention.

The board had met in executive session at 10:41 a.m. to discuss threatened litigation involving the project and reconvened at 11:54 a.m. No change to the record of executive session deliberations was announced beyond the board's subsequent vote to approve Resolution 2026-11.

The resolution's approval exempts the named developer from the moratorium; the board indicated separate negotiations or agreements (for roads, decommissioning and related matters) would be handled outside the moratorium vote. The meeting adjourned at 12:22 p.m.; the board's next regular meeting is April 20, 2026.