Pulaski County authorizes execution of economic development agreement with Mammoth solar entities after debate

Pulaski County commissioners authorized a resolution permitting county officials to execute an economic development agreement (EDA) with Mammoth Grazing Wayans LLC and Mammoth Pastures LLC after extended discussion about how photovoltaic acreage would be assessed, how the EDA ties to state law and how the county will be reimbursed for professional and administrative costs.

The EDA was placed before the board after staff presented the terms. An unidentified commissioner moved to "accept as Nathan presented," "approving the agreement for economic development with Mammoth Grazing Wayans LLC and Mammoth Pastures LLC and other certain matters in connection there," and the board voted by voice to authorize execution. Legal counsel told the commission the motion should be adopted as a formal resolution with the specific resolution number to be provided later.

Commissioners and staff focused most of their questions on valuation and contract language. One commissioner said they had seen two different figures for the portion of project land that would be treated as taxable for solar: Baker Tilly’s calculations used about 60% of the fenced acreage (quoted as 5,265 of 8,776 acres) as the basis for assessed value, then suggested only roughly 35% of that fenced acreage would have panels (quoted in the record as about 1,843 acres). That discrepancy, commissioners said, could materially change tax outcomes and should be documented in the EDA to avoid future disputes.

Legal counsel and staff said they revised draft language to avoid explicitly tying assessment to "panels" and instead to reference "anything within the project fencing," because exact panel coverage can change during build-out and assessment guidance comes from state statute and agencies. A speaker representing county staff described the change as aligning the EDA language with the assessment statute but acknowledged there were multiple document versions and agreed to make language consistent across the contract.

The panel also debated how tax revenues flow. A staff speaker summarized that whether the project proceeds or not the county will collect its levy-driven property tax, but an EDA with abatement enables the county to receive "bonus" economic development payments that it would not receive otherwise; the transcript records a staff statement describing those payments as "$5,750,000 for 4 years and then 2.5 for 16 years." The staff explanation emphasized that large increases in assessed value do not translate dollar-for-dollar into new levy revenue for the county because most funds are levy‑driven rather than value‑driven.

Commissioners pressed the developer-reimbursement provisions in sections 26 and 27, which address the decommissioning agreement, road use agreement and drainage repair, and asked that the EDA clearly require the developer to reimburse county professional and administrative fees. Staff said the draft provides that payments "shall be made pursuant to invoices reflecting all such incurred costs and provided by the county to the developer within 30 days of receipt of such invoices by the developer," and noted the county’s approved fee schedule includes a $15,000 application fee, third-party costs plus 10%, $1,000 per megawatt and a $10,000 agreement-development fee meant to cover county costs.

Not every commissioner supported immediate approval. One commissioner called the draft "an incomplete EDA" that "offers more protection to the developer and puts the county at risk," and several members said they had not received adequate time or a complete, consistent packet to review before the vote. Legal counsel and staff agreed to ensure consistent language in the final version, but the board proceeded and authorized the resolution by voice vote.

The agreement and associated documents cited in discussion include the Baker Tilly report, Larson Thornburg (legal counsel) edits and Pulaski County Resolution 2020-16 (referenced in the record as governing certain tax-abatement terms). Commissioners directed staff and counsel to reconcile remaining language inconsistencies before final execution. The meeting then moved to other routine items and public comment.