Starke County hears Baker Tilly analysis of NextEra solar EDA as Senate Bill 1 reshapes abatements

Greg Bolsono of Baker Tilly walked the Starke County Council through how a multi-phase solar project proposed by NextEra would affect county tax rolls and what the county could receive under an economic-development agreement (EDA).

Bolsono said most of the taxable benefit from these projects comes from utility or personal property (the solar panels) rather than land, and he flagged a recent change in state law — Senate Bill 1 — that removes the prior 30% floor for depreciation on new utility and personal property investments made after Jan. 1, 2025. "One big change everyone's probably well aware of is Senate Bill 1," Bolsono said, noting counties are now negotiating contract terms to preserve a minimum assessed-value floor where desired.

Using Starke County's draft numbers for the project's first phase, Bolsono estimated a taxable investment of about $340 million and said a 30% floor would equal roughly $102 million of assessed value. He described a typical negotiation formula that combines a per-megawatt payment plus an amount to offset the difference between a 15-year, 100% abatement and a shorter, declining abatement. For phase 1 he cited an EDA gross figure in current discussion near $8.4 million paid over 15 years and a present-value estimate at about $6.3 million; by Bolsono's calculations the present-value benefit of the assessed-value comparison could be roughly $11.8 million under certain assumptions.

Council members pressed for plain-language tradeoffs: would leaving assessed value on the tax rolls (so homeowners see slightly lower tax rates) be worth more than receiving immediate EDA payments that the county could use now, given Starke County's frozen levy constraints? Bolsono said the comparison is roughly near a one-to-one relationship but not exact because of state circuit-breaker protections and other mechanics. He offered to run parcel-level or per-$100,000 examples to illustrate household impacts.

Members also raised negotiation dynamics. Several recalled prior votes where the project nearly failed and said companies sometimes use the "we'll leave" posture during bargaining. Bolsono emphasized that offers are negotiable, and that agreements can be structured to front-load or stagger EDA payments or to include minimum assessed-value protections.

Councilors and staff asked about compliance and contract assignment: some solar firms have not filed required CF-1 forms by the May 15 deadline, and there was discussion whether NextEra's original EDA remains operative after an apparent ownership change to another entity (discussed in the meeting as NIPSCO). County counsel and staff said assignability and consent clauses in the EDA determine how an ownership change affects tax-abatement obligations and that staff would investigate. The council directed staff to place CF-1 noncompliance on the next agenda for follow-up; staff noted that late or missing CF-1 filings can trigger a public-hearing process that may lead to revocation of tax maintenance if statutory requirements are unmet.

What's next: staff will follow up on compliance, review contract assignability and provide updated financial analyses on EDA options (including parcel or per-household scenarios) before the council makes any final decisions. Several councilors indicated they prefer having negotiation authority and suggested an executive session to discuss contractual strategy.

Ending: The presentation gave councilors numerical comparisons to weigh a 15-year, 100% abatement plus an EDA against keeping assessed value on the rolls; the council scheduled follow-up and will take the CF-1 noncompliance issue to its next public agenda.