Meeting of October 2, 2024
10-2-24 Ohio County Fiscal Court Special-Called Meeting · Watch on YouTube ↗
Summary
Ohio County Fiscal Court – Special-Called Meeting, Oct. 2, 2024
The court took up golf cart purchasing/leasing, gave second reading to an ordinance amending its large-scale solar/variance rules, and spent the bulk of the meeting negotiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a solar developer (Scout Energy/‘Bluegrass Crossing’ style project referenced) over setbacks and vegetative screening for a large solar array.
On routine business, the court voted 4-1 to buy the county's 18 old golf carts from Cunningham's for $42,600, and separately voted unanimously to lease 18 new golf carts from Cunningham's over a five-year term, with an amendment letting the treasurer make lump-sum payments to reduce interest costs.
The court then gave second reading and passed (4-1, Magistrate Bennett opposed) Ordinance 2024-7, which clarifies that approval of one variance under the county's new solar ordinance does not set precedent for future variances, and adds a $1-500 per-day penalty for violations.
The largest portion of the meeting concerned a proposed MOU with a solar developer laying out setback distances (ranging from about 170 to 440+ feet from homes) and vegetative screening commitments for a planned solar project. Magistrates pressed the company on protecting non-participating landowners, especially in one residential area near 'Forest Martin Loop,' and negotiated additional screening along the eastern boundary and near a state highway. Company representatives explained the state Siting Board review process, economic impact (roughly $300 million project, ~$500K+/year in new tax revenue), and decommissioning procedures.
After extended discussion about the tight timeline (driven by the company's Oct. 4 deadline for a payment), the court approved the MOU 4-1 (Bennett opposed), with an added amendment creating a viewing committee of magistrates to visit specific sites and negotiate additional screening details before the state application process begins.
Several magistrates expressed discomfort with the compressed timeline and lack of countywide planning and zoning, but ultimately supported moving forward given the economic incentives and the assurance that additional public input opportunities exist at the state Siting Board level.
Agenda (4)
- 1:02
Golf cart purchase from Cunningham's
The court considered purchasing the county's 18 existing golf carts back from Cunningham's for $42,600.
- 2:20
Lease of 18 new golf carts
The court discussed advertising for bids and accepting Cunningham's proposal to lease 18 new golf carts over five years, with a provision allowing lump-sum payments to reduce interest.
- 3:43
Ordinance 2024-7, second reading (solar/variance ordinance amendments)
The court reviewed and gave second reading to amendments clarifying that variance approvals are case-by-case and adding a per-day penalty provision for violations.
- 7:17
Solar company variance / memorandum of understanding (MOU)
The court reviewed detailed setback and screening maps and negotiated an MOU with a solar developer regarding variances to the county's solar ordinance, including protections against eminent domain and taking of farmland, ultimately adding a viewing committee to review screening on-site.
Motions & votes (4)
- 1:24
passedMotion to accept Cunningham's bid to purchase the county's 18 old golf carts for $42,600.
Moved by Jason · 4 to 1
- 2:28
passedMotion to accept Cunningham's bid to lease 18 new golf carts for a five-year period, with an amendment allowing the treasurer to make additional lump-sum payments to reduce interest.
Moved by Jason · unanimous (aye)
- 7:06
passedMotion to approve second reading of Ordinance 2024-7, amending the solar/variance ordinance to clarify case-by-case variance review and add a per-day misdemeanor penalty.
4-1, Magistrate Bennett opposed
- 1:16:12
passedMotion to approve the memorandum of understanding with the solar company regarding setback and screening variances, with an amendment adding a magistrate viewing committee to review and adjust screening on-site before the state application.
4-1, Magistrate Bennett opposed
Transcript (67 segments)
- 0:01
[Music] 2024 uh I'm going to ask U an Melton to say the prayer and FL father want to thank you for allowing us together today and we want to keep in our prayers at Devastation in Tennessee andth Carolina and help those people and and help other people to be willing to help them also we pray that you guide the decisions that are made here today and in the best interest of our King in your name we pray I PL to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all uh Jason would you like to go ahead on the present the golf [Applause] cart I don't have it with me but I would like to there's two parts of it first I
- 1:15
like to make a motion to what was the name of the company was it cyam okay I would like to make a motion that we accept Cunningham's viid a purchase for was it 18 yes I'm sorry I didn't bring that 18 golf carts okay it's it $42,000 except except C's bid to purchase the old golf carts from 42,600 okay $ 42,600 so what you want put when we sale I when we purchase this is just a sale okay yeah second any further discussion there on fav the at like sign No 3 to one and pass 4 to one 4 to 4 to one pass okay then the next so in in the next one is we advertise for uh bids to lease uh for a 5year period of 18 new golf
- 2:27
carts um I want to accept their Cunningham's bid at lease per for five five years only amendment I would to make to it is if the treasurer an Melton comes up with any additional money to make some payments on it at one time allow her to do that so we not have to pay interest over the 5year period so any big payments we can make to offset the cost of the interest allow Miss uh the treasure M Melton to do that do have a SE those pay you made from revenue from the uh some of be Revenue maybe LG LG is it LGA money you said maybe LGA pay it off but if we make the payment to the company that would just save us that we can not that we can't but it might save us $18,000 in interest over the period of the the lease the regular ones will be from uh you all in favor that say I I like sign I motion carries um next we have to consider the ordinance 2024 day 7 second reading
- 3:40
we've already read the first reading on the ordinance I'll make a motion Jason I will say that there was an additional Amendment consistent with your's discussion I actually need a second yeah for discussion I'll make the the first somebody want to make one for discussion who's second for discussion second second okay motion I'm sorry Jess that's okay uh but the approval uh I mean this uh ordinance we have certain language in it uh the only thing that that was added uh I can just read this for you guys if you want the approval of a variance in any individual case shall not be construed as a precedent for approval of similar variances in the future um uh meaning that if someone files something just because we approved it in one action does not we have to approve it in another each will be considered on a Case by case and we say that in the next sentence we say each variance request will be considered independently based upon specific facts and circumstances presented the Fiscal Court May review each request on a case- toase basis as each varant within the application and prior approvals will not obligate the Fiscal Court to approve similar requests in the future future uh
- 4:53
the Fiscal Court May at its discretion consider each variance within an application separately rather as a single unified variance okay so it's allowing you some um discretion with respect to on a Case by case basis on what you just because we accepted this white woman doesn't necessarily mean have to accept it sounded like some of the concern in in in the prior pury and I do add one other thing which was in the uh the misdemeanor section we added um uh one $ to $500 per violation per day and so we added the words per day there is that in our ordinance uh it will be well the omu includes similar Valu but right now we're just consider that's [Applause] [Applause]
- 6:25
I know you talked about that six foot did you change that in cuz the old one I have is eight but yeah the new one should have the six foot uh as opposed to the eight if not that can that can be one that we we bring up here but it would be a six yeah that was actually in first reading both made the motion I've still got the old get the one change but I just want to make sure cuz I need the right to change up Miranda Johnston yes d yes mckenny yes bu yes benett [Applause] no four is a majority of the court so that pass motion pass okay now we're ready for uh this other one on the variant is different and uh Justin is going to present that before a motion M well simply because uh negotiation a sense uh it's the Court's discretion of what the court wishes certainly to do um I think the Judge is asking me to to do
- 7:39
this simply for purposes of explanation um so uh there has been a u a company that has requested um and made uh in a sense this ordinance amendment is fairly new as as it is just start off the press certainly but they have requested I variance with respect to their application their application um some of you have been in discussions and and I think we had a open meeting here La before the last regular Fiscal Court meeting uh for purposes of discussion with with the company about their proposal uh subsequent to that uh the court uh had considered that they might allow a variance and they have now presented very uh very very very is variances uh we they have sent a old I mean a memorandum of understanding for this court to consider which would uh uh within the contract it would have a certain term uh they have certain exhibits attached to it which would be the
- 8:53
location uh the the properties that it deals with uh and then there's a an exhibit SE that's supposed to be attached to this if the court were approve it uh a c Exhibit C which would be a detailed mapping of the setback so this court could be uh aware more of of specifics as to each of those setbacks um my discussions with the attorney for the Solar Company uh we've indicated the expectations that you guess have let me know uh that that you would want to see not saying that you would necessarily vote for it but what you would expect to see in the application and that's what these uh these maps are supposed to show us uh uh they're about to get here in just a minute I think they're going to be raining them so that they could be larger we could AG to view view them uh but to just to go over the U uh the memorandum of understanding it would it would have some indications of modification of setback it would have some modification of screening consistent with their mapping uh but it would have some protections that I know that was important to this court which was setbacks especially with regard to