Shauna Jazi, a project presenter identified as vice president of Progressive Business Solutions, told the council the city competitively solicited proposals for community solar and is recommending Community Power Group to develop a 25‑acre site on city land (referred to in materials as the Boyd/Bowie parcel). Jazi said the proposal would require no up‑front capital from the city: the developer would fund construction and the city would lease the land.

The presenter described proposed lease economics of about $2,000 per acre annually with a 2% escalator and said that, for a 25‑acre installation, the annual lease payment was estimated at roughly $50,000. He presented two term structures: an initial 20‑year contract with options out to 40 years, and lifetime revenue summaries projecting higher average per‑acre returns when viewed over longer terms. Jazi said subscription savings for participating customers typically range from about 10% to 15% off utility charges for the kilowatt‑hours they subscribe to.

Why it matters: staff framed the project as a way to generate recurring revenue for the city without capital outlay, provide a municipal subscription option, and expand renewable generation in MidAmerican territory. The council also heard the project’s timeline is constrained by federal tax‑credit safe‑harbor and construction deadlines described by the presenter: construction should begin by a specified summer date and be completed by 12/31/2027 to maintain a full investment tax credit, making timely interconnection and permitting critical.

Council members pressed for details on how customer credits and subscriptions would work and who bears upfront costs. Jazi said subscriptions are “opt‑in” and that the developer — Community Power Group, based in Maryland — would front capital and assume tax obligations tied to the facility. On subscriber billing, he described credits as a full utility credit with a separate developer charge (his example: a $100 credit reduced to $90 in total cost, yielding a $10 savings), and said the city could subscribe some municipal accounts if the council chose.

Questions also focused on infrastructure: Jazi said MidAmerican would need to partner on interconnection upgrades and billing/crediting procedures, and acknowledged Illinois Shines program capacity and MISO/utility backlog as project risks. He said staff performed initial due diligence with MidAmerican and that further engineering, single‑line diagrams and final surveys would be required before contract execution.

Other details and uncertainties: the presenter described alternate ground covers proposed by bidders, including agrivoltaics and native pollinator plantings, and mentioned non‑chain‑link perimeter fencing that allows wildlife passage. The presentation listed four proposals from three bidders and noted Community Power Group’s prior projects in Illinois and other states. A number of numeric totals in the materials were unclear in the transcript (for example a 20‑year aggregate number and a 40‑year aggregate were given but portions of those figures are garbled in the record); staff committed to provide clearer written revenue projections when the agreement is brought back to council.

Next steps: staff and the presenter said they will finalize a draft lease and return to council for legal review and formal approval, after completing interconnection applications and detailed engineering. The council asked staff to include clearer subscriber savings projections and the city’s potential subscription allocation when the lease returns.

Representative quotes from the meeting include the presenter’s recommendation: “We are recommending that the city move forward with Community Power Group.” From the emailed public record and council Q&A: “It’s an opt‑in…you’ll save 10 to 15%” (presenter), and a council member’s concern about oversight: “My concern is when it exceeds the administrator’s authority…there’s no time frame we’re notified” (Schmidt).