Pulaski County debates Mammoth solar deal as guaranty term becomes sticking point

Pulaski County commissioners on Dec. 1 engaged in an extended review of a proposed economic development agreement and personal-property abatement for the Mammoth Grazing Lands LLC project, a utility-scale solar development proposed by Doral-related entities.

County counsel and outside counsel from Barnes & Thornburg described the deal as a development-payment arrangement that would produce payments spread over 20 years, with staff citing a total payment stream in the tens of millions of dollars (staff referenced roughly $64.5 million over the full payment term and discussed net-present-value comparisons to several years of traditional property-tax receipts).

The commissioners’ central concern was the length and structure of the developer guaranty. County staff and the developer’s counsel said the agreement includes a guaranty that is front‑loaded to cover construction risk and is limited to an initial five‑year period commencing with construction. Commissioners asked why the guaranty did not run for the full life of the payment schedule and whether a longer guaranty, additional bonding, or alternative protections could better protect county revenue if the developer defaulted after construction.

Jacob Baylor, identified in the meeting as the county attorney for 2026, and outside counsel explained the tradeoffs: without an agreement the county would tax the project under state rules, but the agreement negotiates assessment mechanics (including a negotiated 30 percent assessment floor in the event taxation were triggered). Counsel also said the developer had declined multiple requests to extend the guaranty beyond the offered five years.

Commissioners pressed for explicit protections in several areas: a clearly named guarantor entity (staff agreed to insert "Doral Renewables LLC" into the guaranty language before any signature), a successors-and‑interest provision so payments would transfer if the project entity changed hands, and clearer documentation of bond and decommissioning funding levels. Commissioners and staff discussed current bond amounts and reassessment schedules; during the meeting participants cited approximately $15 million in decommissioning bonds for a phase and a $25 million road‑use bond figure in the project record, and noted bond reassessments occur periodically (discussants referenced a five‑year reassessment cadence).

Outside counsel framed the choice as a business decision for the county: accept negotiated development payments with the negotiated protections (including the 30 percent assessment floor) or decline the agreement and collect property taxes under state law. Counsel also noted Senate-enrolled Act 1 (SCA 1) and related state tax changes affect revenue comparisons between the two options.

No final vote was taken on the Mammoth agreement at the Dec. 1 meeting. Commissioners directed staff to (1) confirm and insert the guarantor name as Doral Renewables LLC in the guaranty exhibit, (2) provide clearer documentation of bond sizing and the decommissioning formula, (3) circulate proposed edits (including options for longer guaranties or alternate protections) and (4) allow time for additional legal and fiscal review before any final action. The board then suspended the session to accommodate other scheduled board meetings and continue the discussion afterward.

Why it matters: The deal would shift how a large renewable-energy project is taxed and paid to the county and could produce substantially different revenue streams than standard property taxation. Commissioners sought to balance revenue potential against long-term risk if the developer or its project entities fail to meet payment obligations.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article appear in the meeting record and were identified during the Dec. 1 session.