The DeKalb City Council on Sept. 22 voted to reconsider a previously decided ordinance tied to a proposed solar farm, then immediately tabled the matter so the applicant could meet with residents of the nearby enclave.

The motion to amend the meeting agenda to add reconsideration of ordinance 2025-039 was made by Alderman Zazada and seconded by Alderman Larson. After procedural votes and legal guidance from the city attorney about who may move and who may vote on a motion to reconsider, council members then voted on a motion to reconsider the ordinance itself and subsequently on a motion to table further consideration.

Why it matters: Council members said they wanted to give residents and the applicant more opportunity for direct communication before any new vote on annexation, zoning or related approvals. Multiple aldermen stressed professionalism and the need to avoid decisions made amid misinformation.

Details of the actions: Alderman Zazada moved to amend the agenda to add reconsideration of ordinance 2025-039; Alderman Larson seconded. A motion to reconsider the ordinance was also made by Alderman Zazada and seconded by Alderman Larson. Following those procedural steps, Alderman Carlson moved, and Alderman Zazada seconded, a motion to table consideration of ordinance 2025-039 until a future meeting after the applicant meets residents of the enclave. Council took roll calls on the procedural motions; the city attorney advised the mayor that under state statute and the city’s rules the mayor may vote on procedural matters, and that vote affected the outcome. The council then voted to table the ordinance.

What was said: Alderman Larson, who had opposed the measure previously, said her earlier “hard no” arose from the community’s response and that she had since spoken with the applicant and wanted more communication between the applicant and neighbors before any new vote. Mayor Barnes and other members emphasized maintaining professionalism and thorough fact-finding before votes.

Next steps: The item will return to a future council meeting after the applicant meets with residents; the council did not take any substantive position on the underlying annexation or zoning during the Sept. 22 meeting.