An ordinance regulating solar conversion systems within the 3-mile zone around Great Bend failed to get enough votes to pass at Monday’s City Council meeting. The vote to adopt the ordinance was 3-4, with one abstention. Five votes are needed to adopt a zoning ordinance, City Attorney Allen Glendenning said.

The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the regulation after a public hearing on Nov. 25. Among other things, the recommended ordinance:

• approved language for liability insurance of not less than $2 million per occurrence or as determined by the size of the project, and

• recommended setbacks matching the county setbacks with the solar panels/array and related structures located at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a tract with a residence on it, unless a lesser setback is agreed to by the property owner and approved by the City Council.

Those voting in favor of the ordinance were Alan Moeder, Cory Urban and Davis Jimenez. Those voting no were Kevyn Soupiset, Rickee Maddox, Jolene Biggs and Lindsey Krom-Craven. Tina Mingenback abstained.

Toward the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Biggs asked Glendenning to clarify where the city now stands.

“The fact that we don’t have specific regulations about solar does not mean that anybody can come to town and plunk a solar facility down anywhere they want,” Glendenning said. “They would still have to comply with the other general zoning regulations that apply to all industries. The question would be, what zones would allow solar as a use? That’s a little complicated because we don’t specifically mention solar, so you’d have to fit it within one of the other uses.”

One example is that solar could probably be treated as an accessory use for panels on residential rooftops. For a larger area, such as a manufacturing zone, “you could make arguments either way as to whether or not our current zoning regulations would permit it.”

In summary, he said, “It gets very complicated. It isn’t like it’s totally open season, but there are no specific regulations that will control them once they get here, if they can fit into the zoning regulations.”

Public input

Two individuals were allowed to speak before the council voted Monday.

Jacqueline Augustine, executive director for Audubon of Kansas, emphasized the need for wildlife-friendly fencing, native landscaping and buried transmission lines near Cheyenne Bottoms to protect the endangered Whooping Cranes and other animals. She also highlighted the lack of scientific data specific to this area and suggested collecting before and after data on soil quality, insects and bird mortality.

"The biggest thing I’m hoping the council will either think about tonight or in the future is that we need more environmental monitoring of these solar energy fields,” she said. “Most of our scientific data comes from the East Coast or West Coast or Europe. We have very little data from the Great Plains.” Barton County could become a good case study for future projects, she said.

She added, “You have an opportunity to make this a win-win situation, so that it benefits all citizens, not just those with the leases. Before I took this job four years ago, I was in Ohio and there was a wind energy facility that went up there in a rural community. They use the income from that to have some of the best school systems.”

The second speaker was Leslie Barrett, Great Bend, who cited potential health and environmental hazards from solar panels, including higher temperatures and contaminated rainwater.

“I am trying to stand up for people who are feeling overwhelmed,” Barrett said. The planning commission had recommended following county regulations, which she said were far safer than the city regulations proposed earlier.

“However, I’m going to ask you to take a further step and ban any solar and wind in the 3-mile radius.” She handed out copies of her research and warned the council, “The marketing promises are like a pharmaceutical commercial. You need to find out the side effects.”

She said her research has included talking to people in the Central Plains affected by solar energy complexes.

“I have given proven research of several of these meetings about – even rainwater coming off of these solar panels is loaded with lead, cadmium, a lot of other heaving metals, and now PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) – chemicals which are man-made and used in the manufacturing of (solar panels), and they’re forever. You don’t get rid of them. ...

“I have research showing that the temperatures above the panels is 38 degrees warmer than the ambient temperatures around – the temperatures below the panels in the summer are 86 degrees higher than the ambient temperature. That is cooking out the soil, cooking out all of the ground moisture.”

Barrett concluded that solar arrays violate many of the codes and zoning regulations already on the books, putting people who live in the area at risk of “glare, heat and fire risks.”

As Mayor Cody Schmidt reminded Barrett of the time limit for comments from the floor, she concluded, “I am asking you to do what’s right for the people that live in the 3-mile area. Would you want it in your neighborhood? 

City Administrator Logan Burns then explained the recommended ordinance. Before voting, two council members also had comments.

Jolene Biggs said she attended the public hearing and listened to both sides.

A landowner who lives east of town made the biggest impression on her. “Looking out their windows – and apparently all of his neighbors have leased ground to Acciona, if that should happen. Now, of course, we’re not looking at Acciona, we’re just looking at setting up guidelines, but I just keep thinking, looking out that window, I certainly would not want to look at that. I will be voting ‘no’ for those reasons.”

Burns responded, "These are just the regulations themselves. The conditional use permit (request) would then come in; it would go to everybody within 1,000 feet of the property and then they would come state their case to the Planning Commission and City Council. Obviously, you’d have the ultimate approval or denial of that conditional use permit, so that is another protection that we do have on that.”

Biggs said she won’t be on the city council in a year. There will be new people who have not listened to all of these proceedings.

Councilman Alan Moeder explained why he was in favor of the ordinance.”

“I was at the Planning Commission meeting too; I see the pros and cons but the person that’s paying property tax on their land has the right to do to their land what they want, as long as they’re not endangering their neighbors. At this point, you can go on the internet and find pros and cons of both of them, and who the hell knows what’s right or wrong, what’s the truth and what ain’t the truth – we really don’t know. You could be on the internet for 10 years and you still not know if it’s true or not. So I will be voting yes. I agree with the county’s regulations.”

Moeder then made the motion, seconded by Cory Urban, and when the motion failed 3-4 he asked, “What happens now? We didn’t ban it.”

The meeting went on to other business, but when an audience member asked for clarification on what the vote accomplished or did not accomplish, Mayor Schmidt asked Glendenning to respond. 

“The ordinance was designed to establish regulations for getting a conditional use permit for solar conservation – energy conservation systems. The City is now without any regulation on that kind of thing. I mean, that question is too vague for me to answer. It depends on what other people do and how things progress, but we have no regulations governing solar facilities in the city at this point in my opinion ...”

“... Probably the worst thing that could have happened,” Schmidt said. “We’ll move on and see what comes back. It has to be brought up, back, by somebody that voted against that in order to even talk about it, so right now it’s dead in the water.”

Toward the end of the meeting, Glendenning was asked to clarify his remarks, which is when he explained that other regulations are still in effect.