Douglas County approves one‑year extension and funding agreement for Kansas Sky Energy Center solar project amid legal delay and public concern

The Douglas County Board of Commissioners on March 11 approved a one‑year extension to conditional use permit CUP‑23‑0312 for the Kansas Sky Energy Center and separately approved a funding agreement to recover third‑party inspection costs, both by 4‑1 votes.

Planning manager Becky Pepper told commissioners the official CUP approval date was May 22, 2024, and under county zoning code "the conditional use permit ... will expire on May 22nd, 2026." She said the applicant submitted a timely extension request and staff recommended setting a new expiration date of May 22, 2027.

The extension and the funding agreement were both tied to procedural and technical hurdles raised during the meeting: legal counsel explained a court order tied to ongoing litigation restricts property access and prevents applicants from completing some required conditions, while applicants said additional geotechnical testing and engineering packages remain in progress.

Why it matters: the CUP governs a commercial, utility‑scale solar project proposed on rural property near Lawrence. Approval of an extension preserves the applicant's permit while litigation continues; the funding agreement authorizes the county to recoup third‑party inspection costs required by CUP conditions (bond review, vegetation release, plan compliance and similar reviews). Commissioners and several public commenters raised concerns about project ownership, transparency, and possible impacts on ratepayers.

What staff and applicants said Becky Pepper, Douglas County planning manager: "the conditional use permit ... will expire on May 22nd, 2026." She recommended approval of a one‑year extension after confirming the applicant filed the December 23, 2025 extension request and citing section 12‑307‑2.10 of the county zoning regulations.

Legal counsel clarified that the judge's order does not categorically bar submitting a building permit but does prevent the applicant from entering the property to make substantial or permanent changes needed to complete some conditions. Counsel cited the code language as permitting a one‑year extension only if the request is timely.

Applicant representatives said technical work remains. Matt Goff, counsel for the applicant, told commissioners he did not have technical specifics but said staff's characterizations were "fair and accurate." Damon Ray, EverG project manager, said geotechnical field work and lab follow‑up are "in progress" and that those results are needed to finish engineering packages; he said, "the anticipation is that by the time the litigation in November occurs that we would be prepared to submit for the building permit at that time." Brianna Bako, director of development for Savon, said Savon currently holds the application and that Free State Solar LLC is the named project entity; she said EverG has a purchase‑sale agreement to acquire and operate the project pending regulatory approval.

Public comment and commissioner concerns Public commenters raised environmental, farmland and corporate transparency concerns. John Narammore (public comment) linked the project to broader corporate conduct and ownership questions, saying the company names on project paperwork merited closer scrutiny. Natalyia Lawer, a nearby farm owner, said the site sits in a flood‑sensitive area and asked whether the commission could grant or deny further extensions; she urged denial to provide farmers a final land‑use answer.

Several commissioners pressed applicants about who is named on official documents and whether the LLC structure and pending transfer to EverG would leave the county with an accountable signatory. Commissioners also raised policy concerns that state regulatory decisions (cited in the discussion as HB2527 / CWIP) and Kansas Corporation Commission rate approvals could shift infrastructure costs to utility ratepayers; staff noted those topics involve state regulators rather than county authority.

Funding agreement details County staff said the funding agreement establishes a mechanism for the county to recover third‑party inspection costs required by CUP conditions and that the agreement before the board is with Free State Solar LLC. Staff provided a rough building permit fee estimate included in the funding agreement—approximately $270,000—subject to change based on the permit valuation.

Votes and next steps The board moved and seconded approval of the CUP extension (motion recorded in meeting minutes). The motion to extend the CUP and set the new expiration date to May 22, 2027 passed 4‑1. A separate motion to approve the funding agreement for CUP‑23‑0000312 was also moved and seconded and passed 4‑1.

Commissioners and staff said the litigation remains on the calendar (November court date referenced); applicants said they expect to be able to submit the building permit after outstanding testing and engineering packages are complete. The county will hold applicants to the conditions in the resolution and the funding agreement as the project moves toward any future building permit submission.

Authorities cited in discussion included county zoning section 12‑307‑2.10 (conditional use permit extension rules).