Council presses developer over confidentiality, local benefit of Manor Lane solar pilot

A Howard County Council work session on October 1 examined CR100And67, a draft payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for a solar facility on Manor Lane, with councilmembers pressing the developer and county sustainability staff on how the project would benefit county residents.

Tim Latimer, the county’s administrator for the Office of Community Sustainability, and representatives from CI Renewables described a 330.52-acre parcel with a 55-acre lease, of which roughly 7 acres would be used for a pilot power-purchase arrangement with the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS). Luke Smith of CI Renewables said that the 7-acre portion would serve a Howard County–based UMMS facility via virtual aggregate net metering while the remaining acreage would be developed as a community solar generating facility that may not yet meet the county’s 50% local-offtake subscription requirement.

Council members voiced concern about the county effectively subsidizing a private landowner when the project’s detailed financials are under confidentiality protections. One councilmember said the council cannot see lease and PPA terms and asked how the body could vet whether the county’s payment was necessary. In response, Smith said confidentiality clauses in the lease and the PPA limit what the developer can disclose. Tim Latimer described the amendments as “primarily related to some corrections and clarifications on the land ownership and the land information,” and confirmed that an additional amendment would clarify the 55-acre lease and the 7-acre pilot area.

Councilmembers also pressed staff about the scale of the payment-in-lieu estimate. County staff and the developer noted the draft PILA lists a nominal annual payment in the agreement text; Latimer and staff referenced a previously modeled estimate for the full 55 acres of roughly $294,000 over 20 years (about $15,000 per year) and noted that pro-rating that estimate to the 7-acre pilot would amount to substantially less than $2,000 per year for the pilot acreage. A councilmember framed the concern as whether the county’s role was filling a genuine financing gap or merely improving returns for a property owner without sufficient transparency.

The council asked whether the 50% local subscription requirement disadvantage community-solar projects because subscription lists often are not finalized until after projects are built. Smith acknowledged the timing challenge and said subscription organizers typically cannot guarantee a 50% threshold early in development; for that reason CI Renewables proposed first advancing a 7-acre pilot that provides guaranteed onsite benefit to a county-domiciled institution while the broader community-solar element is developed.

Council members raised questions about site access and nearby historic parcels; CI Renewables clarified the solar area is distinct from Doregan Manor lands and that access to the build site would be from the western entrance to the southern half of the parcel, likely Paul’s Lane.

No formal vote on CR100And67 occurred at the work session. Chair Walsh closed the item after the council and developer agreed to provide additional clarifying amendments and for staff to follow up on financial documentation possibilities and mapping of access routes.

The council’s next steps will be to receive any late-filed amendments, reassess whether additional disclosure can be provided consistent with confidentiality constraints, and consider the item in a later legislative session if or when the amendments are filed.