|
Logan County Board
Sugar Creek Solar Project
[September 12, 2025]
On Wednesday, September 10th,
the Zoning and Economic Development Committee of the larger Logan
County Board met for their monthly meeting. This meeting was held in
the Blue Room at the Logan County Safety Complex located at 911
Pekin Street in Lincoln. All five members of the committee were
present, and this included Chairman Michael DeRoss, Vice Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Joseph Kuhlman, Hannah Fitzpatrick, and Bob Sanders.
The meeting started at 6:30 p.m. immediately following the
Transportation Committee meeting. Also in attendance was board
member Kevin Knauer and Zoning and Economic Development Officer Al
Green.
The first action the committee took was approving previous meeting
minutes, those being from July and August. DeRoss had the committee
approve them individually to ensure there were no corrections that
needed to be made to either.
Next, DeRoss invited some guests to speak. These guests were Nelson
Moleiro and Jill Collins with REV Renewables, and DeRoss had asked
them to come before the committee to speak on the new Sugar Creek
Solar farm that is working its way through the proper channels.
Moleiro started by handing out packets with some information in them
regarding the project.
Moleiro called attention to several details of the project, such as
the fact that it is going to take up about 664 acres of space and is
going to be located in Sheridan and Corwin Townships. This new Sugar
Creek facility is also set to produce 105 megawatts of power. As for
construction, Moleiro stated that it is set to begin in the fourth
quarter of 2026, with the project expected to be completed by the
first quarter in 2028. The project has a thirty-year lifespan, with
an option to extend that amount. A map of the project was then
shown, with the facility being in two separate pieces, near and
around the wind turbines that are already in those locations. The
new solar panels are going to be placed five hundred feet away from
the turbines so that they are still able to be worked on if needed.
The economic impact was the next major area Moleiro drew attention
to. For the construction of the new facility, they estimate that 83
jobs will be created for Logan County, with 398 total jobs being
created for the state. Once the project is finished, it is estimated
that about seven new Logan County jobs will be created to maintain
the facility, and just under twenty new jobs for the state.
Tax estimates were also given, with estimates of how much tax money
each taxing body will collect over the thirty-year lifespan of the
project. REV estimates that Logan County will collect $1,437,178
over that time, while all taxing bodies will collect a grand total
of $15,294,002. They also stated that the county will collect over
$100,000 in permit fees for the construction of the solar farm.
Moleiro’s next point addressed concerns that the construction of
this project will devalue nearby land. REV cited a market impact
analysis, stating that this analysis did not find any evidence that
properties placed nearby to solar panels had their property values
diminished. “An analysis of recent residential sales proximate to
existing solar farms did not support any finding that proximity to a
photovoltaic panel had a negative impact on property value,” the
packet reads. According to REV, this analysis states the same
regarding agricultural land. They continued, stating that reports
from Illinois and other states show that being near solar panels
actually adds value to properties.
Two examples were then given to
support the data presented. One example compared two properties in
Logan County, one in Lincoln and one in Middletown. Both properties
were within 1,000 square feet of one another and sold for almost the
same value within one year of each other, with the Lincoln property
selling for $140,000 and the Middletown property $138,500. The major
difference that Moleiro called attention to is the fact that the
Lincoln property was close to solar panels while the Middletown
property was not.
The other example presented was a look at land with solar panels on
it that was sold three times between July of 2010 and October of
2022, with a solar project being completed on the land in 2016. In
2010, the land sold for $299,000, in 2017 for $336,667, and in 2022
for $415,000. This land is located in Minnesota, however, not Logan
County.
[to top of second column] |
Moleiro then
opened the floor for questions. DeRoss asked how the committee
can know if the two properties compared in the first example are
like “comparing apples to apples.” Moleiro stated that, while
this presentation is a shortened version of a longer
presentation, the longer presentation has additional details
that prove the properties have a lot more in common that make
them comparable. Fitzpatrick also mentioned concerns she had
with the example, stating that things like school districts can
have an impact on property values and sell prices. Other members
brought up things like inflation during that time as other
details that may not have been considered.
Sanders then asked when counties are going to stand up and fight
against energy projects like these. He shared that he feels like
these projects are being “shoved down our throats.” Green stated
that the counties have fought back but lost. It is up to the
landowners who they sell their land to or how they let others
use it. State law being what it is, there is not much counties
can do to slow down or stop energy projects without running the
risk of being sued.
Knauer then asked why it seems Logan
County is getting so many requests for energy projects when compared
to other counties. It was again mentioned that it is up to the
landowners. Tazewell County was used as an example of a county that
was able to turn down a lot of energy projects. Green shared that
this was not due to their county board denying them, but the
landowners in the county doing so. Many of the landowners turned
green energy companies away, leaving them without much land that
they are allowed to build on.
Discussion on the project continued after Moleiro and Collins left.
Green voiced concern with their examples of the properties used to
show that there is no decline in property value based on proximity
to solar panels. Green called their study “crap,” stating that he is
a licensed real estate broker. He stated that this is the same study
and figures that were used six years ago, just with some new
properties. The question was also posed of why the property from the
second example was sold three times in less than fifteen years.
Green then mentioned a meeting that occurred in Tazewell County that
he attended. He stated that the developers of energy projects at
that meeting, many of whom, according to Green, live in larger
cities like Chicago, stated that they would not mind living next to
solar or wind towers. Green responded with “right now you’re living
in a high-rise and when you look out your window you see the side of
a building. So, this would be an improvement.”
The discussion eventually led to the legality of delaying these
projects. DeRoss stated that, should the county delay these projects
until they run out of funds, he would be curious who would be sued
and for how much. Schmidt stated that they could delay it once.
Green agreed on the basis that there are many questions related to
REV’s documentation that they do not have answers to.
Once the discussion over these projects was finished, DeRoss moved
the committee on to the next topic, that being the list of new
business items on the agenda. This included items such as zoning
ordinance fines, fees for permits on solar and wind projects, and
potential publication of materials relating to information on wind
and solar projects. To read about all of these items, please see
LDN’s other article on this meeting.
[Matt Boutcher]
|
