VIENNA — Maries County commissioners met Dec. 22 with representatives of Vesper Energy, a law firm partner and two local landowners to discuss a proposed change to a transmission line route associated with the company’s development of the Vichy Solar project and what process must be followed to get it approved.

Attending on behalf of Vesper Energy were Michael King, senior associate of development, and Edward Shelton, vice president of development. Also present were Ernesto Segura of the law firm Husch Blackwell and Maries County landowners Charlie Hermann and Keith Kilmer.

Commissioners were told the company revised its original route after hearing concerns at a community meeting, aiming to minimize disturbance to county roads. Under the revised plan, transmission lines would be shifted south toward Highway 63 and run overhead along the corridor using private easements from landowners, rather than being placed in the roadway.

Despite the change, the project would still require two county road crossings, which would be completed through directional boring beneath the roads so the surface would not be cut or disturbed.

Commissioners raised concerns about the materials presented, with Presiding Commissioner Vic Stratman noting the maps did not show how different segments connected and lacked a clear overview of the entire route.

A central issue during the meeting was whether Maries County has a legally adopted application or approval process for road crossings.

“There is no application,” Eastern District Commissioner Doug Drewel said, adding the paperwork discussed previously “was never voted on” and “was never passed,” and therefore it is “not a legal document.”

Segura argued the issue is not whether a specific form exists, but whether the county has adopted substantive procedures governing road crossings.

“Approvals like this are not discretionary. It’s not subject to voter approval,” Segura said.

He described the action as a ministerial process, meaning the county’s role is to determine whether an applicant followed established requirements, not whether officials or the public favor the project.

Segura said he possessed a copy of county procedures that state they were adopted June 30, 2025, including requirements related to applications, specifications, access, surety bonding and engineering review. He expressed that, in his view, the absence of a separately adopted form does not negate the county’s intent.

Commissioners disagreed, stating they were unsure the process had been formally completed or properly entered into county records. They wanted to consult the county attorney before taking any action.

“The way I hear this is, it’s already done. You’ve already set the bylaws and what they (Vesper Energy) have to do,” Hermann said.

“Well to a certain extent,” Drewel said. “But sometimes a guy hears what he wants to hear.”

“This guy explained it pretty clearly,” Hermann said, referencing Segura’s recent statements.

“We need to probably run this across an attorney and then see what he comes up with,” Drewel said.

Vesper Energy representatives emphasized they were not requesting final approval at the meeting, but instead wanted clarity on what process applies and assurance that if county requirements are met, permits would be issued.

“We want to make sure that we’re addressing any other concerns, that the information we’re going to provide and that the process is what we want it to be,” King said.

Segura said the company wants certainty before committing additional resources and is seeking clarity on the county’s process now because it does not want to invest millions of dollars in engineering and regulatory work only to have its application rejected later, after those costs have already been incurred.

Commissioners asked about the technical aspects of the proposed crossings, including bore size, depth and structures above ground.

Commissioners were told Vesper Energy would return with precise engineering dimensions, but described the crossings as a single line bored beneath the road, with the transmission line remaining overhead except at the two crossing locations.

“There will be kind of like a last pole, and then the line would go underground, and then it would pop up on the other side,” Shelton said, noting the underground portions would be on private easements.

During the discussion, a minimum depth requirement was referenced.

“The regulations say a minimum 48 inches depth,” Segura said, adding the line would be more than four feet below grade.

Commissioners also asked what the overhead structures would look like. Vesper representatives said the line would likely use single poles rather than lattice towers, estimating poles could be around 80 feet tall, though they stressed final specifications would come from engineers.

Commissioners also discussed public sentiment, referencing a previous community meeting where residents voiced both support for and opposition to the project.

Drewel said the county must represent residents who oppose it.

“You got way more people that does not want this … and we’re supposed to represent the taxpayers, the citizens,” he said.

Hermann responded by defending property rights and questioned why this project was being treated differently than other industrial activity in the county.

“All of us in the county that own our property, we have personal property rights, period. I have a right and you have a right. The people in my neighborhood have a right,” Hermann said. “I don’t care what my neighbor does across the street. He has a right. Why doesn’t Vesper have a right? Why don’t I have a right to lease to whoever I want? If the county and the public are going to decide who I’m going to lease to, then we need to start making codes so everybody that invests in Maries County, millions of dollars on about any piece of property, they need to know what their rights are, wouldn’t you agree?”

Drewel said that the majority of the people in the county were against any kind of solar project of this scale.

Commissioners questioned how the county and other taxing districts would benefit from the project.

Vesper Energy representatives said the project would generate property tax revenue assessed by the county and distributed through existing channels to local entities, including school districts.

Shelton said conservative estimates were used intentionally.

“We looked at the version of the taxes that would be paid that is the least of them all,” he said, referencing figures that showed the school district receiving about $22 million over the life of the project under that scenario.

The group also discussed Chapter 100 arrangement possibilities, which can involve payments in lieu of taxes through a lease structure. Vesper Energy representatives said Chapter 100 can provide predictability through contractual payments but noted the company had moved away from that approach earlier and was focusing on a standard property tax structure, while remaining open to future discussion.

Questions were also raised about how solar equipment would be assessed. Maries County Assessor Dana Simmons said she had not been given clear direction specifying how solar panels should be assessed. Vesper Energy representatives said assessment often falls to county assessors, absent state standardization, and offered to provide examples from other Missouri counties.

Shelton said he would like to have the procedure to apply from the commissioners in January.

“Well, that’s reasonable, right after the first of the year we’ll try to get something going,” Drewel said. “Because you got the holidays screwing us up here a little bit.”