Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sloopy Solar Project topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge commissioners to intervene in Sloopy Solar Project; commissioners cite cost concerns

Board of Clark County Commissioners · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple Harmony and Bethel Township residents asked Clark County commissioners to intervene in the Sloopy Solar Project before the Ohio Power Siting Board, citing property-value and quality-of-life concerns and alleging developer influence; commissioners noted intervention could be costly and is a contested decision.

Several residents from Harmony and Bethel townships used the public-comment period at the Feb. 18 Clark County commissioners meeting to urge the board to take further action against the proposed Sloopy Solar Project.

Bill Agle, Harmony Township, asked the commissioners to 'take a stand and bond with the Harmony Farmland Preservation group' and intervene in the project, asserting the only thing 'green' about the project is that the power comes from the sun. Douglas Rice told commissioners he appreciated their earlier letter of opposition but said residents should seek formal intervention in the Ohio Power Siting Board process; he warned that Invenergy, the developer, is 'flashing money around to people to get their support.'

Resident Charlotte Trapp said the project is adjacent to her property and will 'totally disrupt' her lifestyle and lower her property value; Sam George of Bethel Township also urged county resources be used to intervene. Kimberly Flax told the board residents expect their elected officials to represent them and asked the commissioners to act.

Commission President Sasha L. Rittenhouse and Commissioner Charles A. Patterson acknowledged concerns; Patterson noted the board has already passed a formal resolution opposing the project. Rittenhouse said it is 'frustrating' that the board's recorded opposition has not been sufficient and expressed concern about the potential expense to taxpayers of formally intervening in the siting process.

Commissioners did not vote on intervention at the meeting; they accepted the public comments and noted the financial and legal considerations involved in deciding whether to intervene in a state siting process.