Unidentified Speaker 1 opened the meeting by proposing passage of a confirmatory resolution to establish an Economic Revitalization Area (ERA) for a large solar project. Staff (Unidentified Speaker 3) walked the council through the confirmatory resolution (labeled 2025‑16 in the packet), the economic development agreement (EDA) and supporting exhibits, including the SB‑1 statement of benefits, maps and a clawback resolution previously adopted by the county.

The staff presentation laid out key financial terms: the draft EDA proposes a 20‑year, 100% personal‑property abatement tied to the ERA, with an annual payment baseline of $3,360,000 — a cash total of about $67.2 million over 20 years. Using a 10% discount rate, staff reported a net present value (NPV) in the tens of millions (staff cited an illustrative NPV near $27–28 million depending on assumptions). Staff also said the developer projects commercial operation around 2030 and noted the DLGF’s updated commercial‑utility base valuations would materially raise assessed value countywide, with Baker Tilly figures cited for an estimated ~$61 million increase in assessed value across four townships.

Council members pressed staff and the developer on timing and the distribution of payments. Unidentified Speaker 1 urged a more front‑loaded payment schedule — proposing that roughly half the total cash be collected within the first five years so proceeds could be invested for county priorities. Staff described a counterproposal intended to increase early cash while holding NPV near earlier estimates: two pre‑operational payments of $735,500 (total $1.475 million), four front‑loaded operational years at $5 million each (total $20 million), then 16 years at $2.5 million a year, producing roughly $61.475 million in cash under that profile while keeping NPV in the previously discussed ballpark.

Staff also described the project’s non‑tax revenue: a $1,000 per‑megawatt third‑party permit fee and a $15,000 base application fee and other administrative fees; at a projected 945‑MW nameplate capacity, the per‑MW fee alone would produce $945,000 that could be applied to construction‑period public‑safety needs such as additional deputy coverage. Staff cited road‑safety impacts observed on an existing large project to justify higher permit/monitoring fees and said those fees and third‑party monitoring costs would be tracked separately from the EDA payments.

The meeting included a contentious exchange about prior deliberations and potential conflicts of interest. Unidentified Speaker 1 alleged that a council member with a conflict had bowed out and been replaced in a way the speaker characterized as improper, calling the process “the kind of corruption we had in this county.” Staff and other speakers responded by noting the county’s conflict disclosure requirements and the criminal statutes that can apply to failure to disclose; staff invited any members with potential conflicts to state them. No formal conflict disclosure was entered into the record during this segment.

After discussion, Unidentified Speaker 1 moved to approve the confirmatory resolution with the revised payment numbers staff had just presented; the motion was seconded. The council proceeded to a voice vote. The transcript records calls for 'aye' and calls for the opposing side; one participant reports “Looks like 3 down here,” and another says, “So we just lost [the] motion,” indicating the motion did not carry. The record in the transcript does not contain a complete roll‑call tally.

The meeting concluded with staff indicating that signed copies of the EDA with any updated numbers would be made available and with an adjournment motion.

Authorities and documents referenced during the discussion included the confirmatory resolution (packet label 2025‑16), an earlier county resolution on clawback procedures referenced as 2021‑06, and state changes identified in the conversation as 'SB1' that affect the 30% floor on certain deductions. The packet’s SB‑1 forms and Baker Tilly valuation work were cited as the primary financial exhibits.

Next procedural steps recorded in the meeting: because the EDA and its exhibits are incorporated into the confirmatory resolution, a future council vote adopting the resolution in final form would also adopt the EDA and exhibits; staff said signed copies with any final payment schedule would be entered into the record and presented for signature.