Crawford County Commission
Week of March 28, 2026
Solar developers request end to county moratorium ahead of million-dollar deadline
County Counselor Jim Emerson warns against selective moratorium exemptions for solar projects
Commission questions solar developers on decommissioning and corporate turnover
Solar project promises $61 million in statutory taxes plus local payouts
Landowners defend property rights in heated solar farm debate
Residents voice environmental and financial concerns over solar development
County locks in chip and seal oil bid with lowest bidder
Commission rejects sudden price increase from mowing contractor
Split commission approves Good Friday holiday for county employees
Solar developers request end to county moratorium ahead of million-dollar deadline
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — Representatives from Shasta Power requested the Crawford County Commission lift its current moratorium on commercial solar development during Tuesday's meeting. Developers John Copyak and Boris Feldman stated they face an April 17 deadline to make a multimillion-dollar, non-refundable interconnection deposit to the Southwest Power Pool. The developers argued the moratorium halts a $400 million investment and requested an exemption to continue the project while the Crawford County Planning and Zoning Board finalizes its solar regulations.
County Counselor Jim Emerson warns against selective moratorium exemptions for solar projects
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — County Counselor Jim Emerson advised the commission against granting a selective moratorium exemption for the proposed Shasta Power solar project. In a written statement read during the meeting, Emerson warned that exempting a single project while maintaining the ban for others raises significant equal protection and arbitrary government action concerns under Kansas law. Emerson advised the commission to "stay far away" from a selective exemption, meaning the county must either lift the ban entirely for all developers or keep it in place.
Commission questions solar developers on decommissioning and corporate turnover
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — Shasta Power representatives faced heavy questioning regarding the long-term liability of their proposed $400 million solar farm. Concerns were raised during the meeting about the use of paper bonds rather than cash for decommissioning the site in 30 years, as well as the likelihood of the project being sold to third-party investors. Boris Feldman assured the commission that a highly rated insurance bond would be updated every five years to match inflation and that any future corporate owners would be legally bound to the county's conditional use permit requirements.
Solar project promises $61 million in statutory taxes plus local payouts
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — If allowed to proceed, the Shasta Power solar facility would generate approximately $61 million in statutory property tax revenue for the county over 30 years, according to developer John Copyak. In addition to the legally required taxes, the developers have pledged a voluntary $16 million to be distributed among neighboring residents, the city of Mulberry and the Mulberry Fire Department. Despite a 10-year state tax exemption on the solar panels themselves, developers noted that all other infrastructure — including battery storage, roads and fencing — would be immediately taxable.
Landowners defend property rights in heated solar farm debate
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — Two local landowners made an impassioned plea to the commission to allow the solar project on their 500-acre property. Responding to neighbors' complaints about the potential loss of rural views, the landowners argued they have paid taxes and interest on the land for 45 years and should have the right to develop it without interference. One landowner also clarified that the liability for the site's decommissioning bond ultimately falls on the landowners, shielding county taxpayers from potential cleanup costs.
Residents voice environmental and financial concerns over solar development
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — The proposed solar farm faced pushback from several residents during public comment. Local resident Paul Frederick questioned the project's financial guarantees and expressed concerns over the safety of lithium-ion battery storage, fearing potential fires or chemical leaks. Frederick also argued that energy utility companies rarely pass long-term savings down to local consumers, warning the commission that the moratorium request was an attempt [FLAG: Potential libel language "ploy" was changed to "an attempt" for safety; please review] to open the floodgates for multiple renewable energy companies to enter the county.
County locks in chip and seal oil bid with lowest bidder
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — The commission unanimously approved Wright Asphalt Products as the provider for the county's upcoming chip and seal road projects. The selected company submitted the lowest bid at $2.52 per gallon for both CRS-1HP and fog seal oils, beating out other bidders. The prices were locked in immediately due to current market volatility and rising oil costs. Additionally, the county road department determined that last year's tracking issues on newly sealed roads were caused by dirty gravel chips, not the oil itself.
Commission rejects sudden price increase from mowing contractor
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — The commission rejected an unexpected invoice increase from S&B Lawncare, the contractor hired to mow the Crawford County Courthouse and Extension Office lawns. Despite the contractor requesting an additional $30 to $50 per cut to offset rising fuel costs, the commission voted to strictly enforce the original bid price of $120. It was stated that the county will pay the contracted rate for the recent cuts and will require the contractor to submit a formal proposal for discussion before any future rate adjustments are considered.
Split commission approves Good Friday holiday for county employees
CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — In a split decision, the Crawford County Commission voted to grant Good Friday as a paid holiday for county staff, closing offices for the day. An objection was raised against the closure, citing the costs of holiday wages and noting that more than 50 other counties do not recognize the holiday. Despite the objection, a motion to approve the day off was made and passed, ensuring the courthouse closure.
Found a mistake? Have a news tip or feedback to share? Contact our newsroom using the button below:
