Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances solar project after discussion over sand removal, insurance and decommissioning protections
Summary
The board moved item 19 (solar facility) onto the floor and approved it by voice vote after staff and members discussed landowner payments expected by April 1, sand removal plans, additional borings, insurance coverage and the need for decommissioning and a road‑use agreement.
The Tazewell County Board moved item 19 — a proposed solar facility agreement — onto the floor (motion by John Hopkins; second by Mr. Simpson) and approved it by voice vote after extended discussion about site work, insurance and protections for taxpayers.
County staff said the landowner payment is expected to be received by the landowner by the operations period scheduled to commence by April 1. Staff reported they have a certificate of insurance that includes commercial and pollution coverage. On site preparation, staff said the developer (named in the transcript as Amron) insisted that sand removed from the site would not be spread across the property and that the developer will remove that sand from the site; the plan is to remove top sand and then replace topsoil. Staff said additional borings would be conducted in the area where sand is removed.
Board members questioned where the removed sand will be taken and who would bear that cost. A road‑use agreement was discussed and staff said they had an agreement addressing the movement; the transcript records an acknowledgment in the agreement of an 8‑ton movement of material.
Member Mr. Proctor urged support for safeguards tied to these projects. "But the decommissioning is where we protect our budget, we protect liability... And so if for some reason a county does approve one of these projects, please vote for the decommissioning and the road use agreement that goes along with it," he said, summarizing the reason he presses for decommissioning and road‑use protections.
Board discussion also addressed whether an irrigation well would need to be capped; staff reported it would not. The landowner was identified in discussion as a family member (Carol) of two local residents mentioned (Ted and Doug); staff said Amron confirmed removal of the sand and that the landowner was informed but did not know all details. Board members said local disposal would be preferable because of added cost if the material must be hauled elsewhere.
The motion to move the item passed by voice vote; the transcript records no roll‑call tally. The item advanced with the decommissioning and road‑use protections discussed and insurance documentation on file.
Why it matters: The item governs a private solar project using county approvals and agreements that affect landowners, roads and potential county liability. The discussion highlights common local concerns about who bears removal costs for excavation material and whether decommissioning and road‑use protections are adequate.
The board advanced the item and will rely on the contract language and agreements to codify the protections discussed.
