Commissioners approve economic-development deal tied to large solar project after Baker Tilly briefing

Decatur County commissioners voted to enter into an economic-development agreement with the developer of a proposed multi‑phase solar project after hearing a tax-impact presentation from municipal advisor Baker Tilly and legal assurances from county counsel.

Baker Tilly municipal financial advisor Greg Balsano told commissioners the project represents roughly $686 million to $689 million in total taxable investment across two phases and would enclose about 5,383 acres inside the project fence. He said the company’s analysis assumes the first phase would be assessed and produce tax receipts beginning in the 2030 tax year and the second phase in 2031. “We are a municipal financial advisor for the county here to kind of present the impacts of the property tax side of things,” Balsano said.

The nut of the discussion was how state law changes to the personal‑property assessment floor (referred to in the briefing as Senate Enrolled Act 1) affect county receipts and how an EDA could secure payments to the county. Balsano presented a 20‑year comparison showing that, without an EDA, the county would see most of the benefit as increased assessed value (and lower tax rates) and roughly $19.2 million in property‑tax receipts attributable to the project over the analysis period. With a proposed 10‑year, 100% abatement on utility (personal) property and an EDA in place, his firm estimated the county would receive approximately $9.9 million in property taxes plus a scheduled economic‑development payment stream totaling about $16.5 million (roughly $8.0 million for phase 1 and $8.5 million for phase 2). Balsano also identified an additional estimated payment tied to the change in the assessment floor; he characterized that number as an estimate to be calculated annually with the assessor’s office.

County legal counsel Hannah (Barnes & Thornburg) told the board the EDA’s payment structure and the included legal protections had been revised in response to the state statute change and county comments. “Given the change in law, this is a very generous and good offer for the county,” Hannah said, describing provisions that require any subsequent owner of the project to assume the EDA and associated supplemental agreements (decommissioning, road‑use, agricultural‑preservation and fire‑safety/response agreements).

Hannah explained timing and security terms in the EDA: the fixed economic‑development payments for each phase (the sums cited in the presentation) would be due no later than 60 days after the project phase reaches commercial operation and then annually for five years per phase; those payment schedules can overlap if the phases come online in succession. The agreement also includes a security requirement for the payments; the developer will provide either a guaranty or a bond (a previous draft had included a letter of credit that was later removed).

Several commissioners emphasized the EDA did not constitute an endorsement of the underlying zoning or project; instead they framed the vote as a financial decision contingent on other approvals. The EDA contains a provision requiring final, executed supplemental agreements (decommissioning, road use, agricultural preservation and fire‑safety/response) to be appended once their forms are agreed, with county counsel saying the form of each would be attached within 14 days of that approval so the documents would “run with the project.” County officials also confirmed the EDA is contingent on the Board of Zoning Appeals vote and the county council’s approval of any tax abatement.

After questions and discussion, a commissioner moved “to enter into the contract with EDA” (motion language as recorded in the meeting). The motion was seconded; commissioners voted in favor. “All those in favor, say aye.” Aye. “Those opposed?” Motion carries.

What this means locally: under the agreement as presented to the board, the county would receive a combination of property‑tax receipts (from real‑property improvements and land reassessment) and multi‑year economic‑development payments that Baker Tilly estimated as materially larger, in aggregate, than relying solely on the long‑term property‑tax receipts that would appear after the personal‑property depreciation schedule finishes. Legal counsel said the EDA is written to transfer with any sale or assignment of the project, and that collection security is required in the agreement.

Questions outstanding noted in the meeting included annual calculation details (to be coordinated with the assessor’s office), the final forms and timing of the supplemental agreements, and clarification of some numeric exhibits and typographical corrections in the draft resolution (a typographical error in the phase‑one investment figure was identified and fixed in the record). The county said it would continue working with the developer and counsel to finalize those documents.

Ending — next steps: Commissioners approved the agreement subject to the conditions discussed. The EDA requires the project developer to make the stated payments after commercial operation dates, and county staff and counsel will attach and finalize the decommissioning, road‑use, agricultural preservation and fire‑safety agreements before the EDA becomes operative for enforcement and record purposes. The project still requires BZA approval and council action on any abatement for the EDA to take effect.