Nottoway supervisors approve Rocky Ford solar performance agreement after prolonged review; one abstention

The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a performance agreement with Northwest Rocky Ford LLC tied to a proposed 100-megawatt Rocky Ford solar facility after a lengthy public and staff discussion about fees, tax treatment and safeguards for neighbors.

Supervisor discussion focused on the developer’s application fee and who would cover county review costs, how the developer would reimburse engineering and consultant expenses, and a cap the agreement places on retained incremental real-estate tax. County counsel and the developer’s representatives explained that the developer paid a large upfront application fee (discussed in the meeting as roughly $150,000–$165,000) and that any county expenses beyond that amount would be billed back to the developer under the agreement. “Developers shall reimburse to the county all actual costs of engineering and consultant reviews,” the draft agreement states (discussion at the meeting). The board also debated a provision that retains the first $2,250,000 of incremental real-estate tax before calculating annual grant payments to the developer and discussed how that figure would apply across years and acreage.

Public comment and several supervisors sought clearer, simpler explanations for residents about the timing and amounts of the payments and how the county would handle returned revenue. Resident Sonny Abbott asked for an explicit funding formula to be presented before the vote: “My hope … is that before the performance agreement is voted on, someone … require that the funding formula be clearly outlined and is presented in a method of determining the cost to the county everyone understands for the next 25 years,” he said during public comment. County counsel and a developer representative explained that the agreement requires the developer to waive certain confidentiality protections so treasurer and revenue staff can verify annual payments, and that the $2.25 million cap was set to limit the developer’s annual grant obligations over a defined period.

When the board called for a roll call, one supervisor abstained, citing a need for additional time to understand legalese and financial terms. “I’m going to abstain because I’m not gonna vote for something I don’t understand,” Supervisor Ingram said on the record. The motion to approve the performance agreement passed with four yeas and one abstention. The board also adopted a resolution memorializing the agreement and directed staff to present simplified, public-facing financial snapshots and the forthcoming site plan and special-exception permit materials before final permitting steps.

The board stressed that additional approvals remain: the special-exception permit and the site plan will return for separate votes, and the board asked staff to secure written acknowledgments from participating landowners that they have reviewed and understand the site agreement and related documents. The board’s approval at this meeting authorizes the county to proceed with the performance agreement as part of the project’s multi-step local review process.