Should a proposed solar and battery storage project, which is projected to be the largest east of the Mississippi and would to be one of the top five property taxpayers in the county be given a break in taxes?

That’s the question Chautauqua County officials are currently wrestling with.

Mark Odell, a Republican county legislator from Brocton and a member of the county Industrial Development Agency, has been a consistent “no” vote on large-scale solar projects in the county. This past week, he coordinated a lengthy discussion during the county’s Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, which was held on the county’s Facebook page.

Before the meeting began, legislative clerk Kathy Tampio read 10 letters to committee members. It took her more than a half an hour. Six of the letters were from individuals vehemently opposed to the project, citing concerns about a loss of farm land, questions about safety, and asking if these types of projects should be given a PILOT — or Payment In Lieu Of Taxes — agreement.

Two letters were written strongly in favor — one was by a representative from ConnectGen, the company behind the solar project, and one was by a representative from Labors International Union North America Local 621, which would construct the solar project.

The other two letters, one which was by Mike Rowe, Ripley deputy town supervisor, and Doug Bowen, member of the Ripley Planning Board, did not take a specific stand, but rather focused on caution before making a final determination.

PROS AND CONS OF SOLAR PROJECTS

After the letters were read, Mark Geise, county IDA chief executive officer and deputy county executive for economic development, discussed some of the pros and cons for solar projects.

Some of the pros Geise noted were as follows:

¯ solar projects provide funding to local tax jurisdictions through PILOT payments if approved, including towns, schools and county, along with sales tax revenue, in addition to local special district taxes, if any, are paid;

¯ they provide funding to landowners and neighbors in the form of land lease and good neighbor agreements;

¯ they decrease dependence on more polluting non-renewable energy sources;

¯ they’re unobtrusive if done correctly;

¯ the panels can be recycled;

¯ decommissioning agreements, typically with financial security arrangements, are in place to return the land to its original state at the end of the project’s useful life;

¯ they create local temporary jobs during the construction phase in the form of land clearing, grubbing, installation, wiring, building construction, etc;

¯ they create permanent jobs for the life of the project;

¯ any out of town workers contribute to the local economy through spending and accommodations at restaurants and hotels, retail establishments, gas stations, etc. They involve direct spending for the initial and ongoing purchase of materials;

¯ they are a sustainable, renewable source of energy. They help to achieve energy independence;

¯ they enhance the resiliency and reliability of the electricity supply;

¯ the land around solar farms is a safe habitat for animals and plants;

¯ they cause no direct noise or air pollution;

¯ they reduce carbon emission verses creating energy using fossil fuels and they require very little maintenance;

Geise then went over some of the “cons” of solar projects. They included:

¯ solar projects occupy a large footprint, which could be an issue if land is at a premium, if land is removed from active and productive agricultural use, if forest areas are cleared and not replaced, or if the project is located on prime soils;

¯ panels contain the same materials as electronics, although they are encapsulated;

¯ the process of manufacturing and installing the components does cause pollution;

¯ they often require subsidies to make them economically feasible;

¯ battery storage can be dangerous without the proper detection and suppression systems, separations of elements, fireproof building materials and training; and

¯ they alter the landscaping in practical and aesthetic ways during the lifespan of the project and they are expensive to build.

After sharing the pros and cons, Geise said he didn’t want to take a stand on solar projects. “My point of view is I’m kind of agnostic on all of these projects, but I really feel like … the process should unfold through the planning process,” he said.

LOCAL SOLAR PROJECTS

The Ripley solar project was the main focus of the committee meeting, although it is not the only solar project under consideration in the county. Next week, the county Industrial Development Agency is expected to vote on a PILOT agreement for proposed solar project in Hanover. There have been as many as a dozen other inquiries as well.

Geise said it is not the intention of the county IDA to force communities to accept solar projects. “The IDA supports these projects only if the municipality does,” he said.

The Ripley project is expected to create up to 220 jobs at the peak of construction and when completed would have two to four full-time positions. Right now, ConnectGen wants to start construction in the middle of 2022 and be finished by the end of 2023. The project currently involves more than two dozen land owners and covers around 2,000 acres. It is a 270-megawatt project.

By comparison, the Hanover solar project is a 5-megawatt project.

According to ConnectGen, the Ripley solar project would be a $350 million investment which would bring “significant, dependable revenue to the town of Ripley, the Sherman and Ripley school districts, and Chautauqua County.” Early estimates, should a PILOT be approved, show the development could generate $16 million in property tax revenue, 40% of Ripley’s annual property tax levy and $4.7 million to the Ripley and Sherman school districts.

Legislator John Hemmer, R-Westfield, whose district includes Ripley, said he has met with concerned residents and volunteer firefighters. “They have a lot of environmental concerns and a lot of safety concerns,” he said.

Legislator Jay Gould, R-Ashville, who has been an active member of the county Soil and Water Conservation District for many years, questioned the concerns about land loss for farming. “There’s no prime soil in that area,” he said.

Legislator Kevin Muldowney, R-Dunkirk, asked Geise that if ConnectGen didn’t get a PILOT, would that stop the project. Geise wasn’t certain but thought it may. “I would imagine that it would probably not be economically feasible because there’s a razor thin edge of profitability, even with a PILOT,” he said.

Legislator Ken Lawton, R-Lakewood, said it’s important that solar projects that come to Chautauqua County benefit everyone.

“It can’t just be the land owner benefiting, it can’t just be the developer benefiting. The whole county, the whole community of Ripley or Hanover — we all need to benefit. We all need to be protected with a bond from future demolition or decommissioning of the project. That all has to be rolled into the project cost,” he said.

Odell thanked the many legislators and others who spoke and asked questions during the committee meeting. He again questioned the benefit of large solar fields to county residents. “I also believe the tax credits for these projects are huge in comparison to the number of jobs created,” he added.

To close out the meeting, Odell played a video by state Sen. George Borrello, who opposes PILOTS for both wind and solar projects.

“I think they’re going to put these things up, they’re going to gobble up all of the tax subsidies and all of the other taxpayer money that supports them, they’re going to sell them off and the first time that these falter, they’re going to either let those things rot or they’re going to sell off the mineral rights to the highest bidder and those people will now be seeing gravel pits, and gas wells and everything else on their properties that they didn’t bargain for before because quite frankly they didn’t have enough assistance when it came to signing these contracts,” Borrello said in the video. “We should not be giving these tax credits. They are wasteful, they are huge compared to the number of jobs they create, and it’s not good use of taxpayer money.”

No final decisions were made following the committee meeting. The legislature is expected to continue to discuss the topic further, but is not expected to pass any legislation before Tuesday’s IDA vote on the PILOT for the Hanover solar project.