Pulaski County Council on a regular meeting agenda considered two preliminary resolutions — 2025-05 and 2025-06 — that would begin the process to designate additional parcels for the Mammoth Solar project and for a new Mammoth Grazing Lands project. Nathan (staff member) told the council that adoption of a preliminary resolution does not confer ERA (Economic Revitalization Area) status or tax abatements, but starts a process that triggers third‑party economic and tax impact studies, review by the county’s Economic Development Commission and a public hearing before any confirmatory action.

The preliminary resolutions would add roughly 684.56 acres across 11 parcels to the Mammoth project and propose approximately 7,686.7844 acres across 137 parcels for the Mammoth Grazing Lands project, all of the parcel lists and maps are included in the resolution packets provided to council members. "Adopting a preliminary resolution neither confers ERA designation status on any parcel nor awards any assessed value deduction," Nathan said, adding that the council staff would contract with Baker Tilly to complete required studies and notify the Economic Development Commission so it can convene for review.

Why it matters: If the council later confirms an ERA and an economic development agreement (EDA), the projects could receive assessed‑value deductions (commonly described during the meeting as tax abatements) for qualifying equipment. Council staff noted state law and local land‑use rules permit the council to run the tax‑abatement process in parallel with the building‑permit process, and that a building permit cannot be issued if the EDA requires the council’s public hearing and signature first.

Representatives of the petitioner and members of the public addressed the council. Spencer Tanner, attorney at Gootwein Law speaking for the petitioners, said the meeting sought only to start the ERA review process: "All we're talking about tonight is preliminary approval. It kinda starts that process," Tanner said. He clarified that the projects under consideration include both solar generation and planned grazing/agrivoltaic management but that the abatement request being discussed applies to the solar generation equipment on the new parcels.

Several farm and landowner speakers described agrivoltaics and grazing inside solar fences as supplemental farm income and a way to maintain working land. A Stark County participant described a nearby 44‑acre example and said the arrangement paid local landowners and supported sheep grazing under panels. "On that 44 acres, there were $16,000 paid by the company to the county," the speaker said. Jim Perue, a Pulaski County landowner, described solar leasing as a diversification strategy: "Solar is just one of those diversifications that allow our Pulaski County farmers to be financially successful," Perue said.

Opponents and skeptics raised questions about tax fairness, how abatements affect school and library levies, and how assessor and permitting staff are tracking acres and parcel boundaries. Connie Ehrlich asked why an additional abatement was needed when previous Mammoth approvals already included multi‑year abatements; in response Spencer Tanner and Nathan clarified the current requests cover different parcels and that the abatement application under consideration is for solar equipment on additional parcels rather than agricultural activity.

Nathan summarized how local taxes and economic development payments interact under Indiana law, including the county’s maximum levy mechanics and the separate economic development payment funds that are created under prior agreements. He told the council that county staff will require the petitioner to pay the cost of third‑party studies, with a 10% administrative upcharge noted in the packet.

A motion to deny the preliminary resolutions was made and seconded and taken to a vote; the motion did not pass. The council did not adopt a confirmatory resolution at the meeting. Nathan reiterated that if the council decides to proceed with either preliminary resolution, staff would engage Baker Tilly for the economic studies, the Economic Development Commission would review the materials, and the council would schedule a public hearing (the staff recommendation was for hearings in April to allow time for study and EDC review).

Next steps: If the council votes to continue, Baker Tilly will prepare the economic and tax impact analyses, the Economic Development Commission will make a recommendation, and the council will hold public confirmatory hearings before any ERA designation or abatements could be granted. If the council ultimately confirms an ERA and signs an EDA, any abatement would be applied only after the full confirmatory process is complete.