Liberty County court authorizes negotiations with Trinity River Solar for 2,400‑acre project
Loading...
Summary
After a detailed presentation, Liberty County commissioners voted to authorize county staff to negotiate general terms for a proposed 2,400‑acre solar project by Trinity River Solar, including a tax‑abatement framework and pilot payment; the court emphasized risk, lease terms and school-district impacts before voting to proceed.
County commissioners on Feb. 24 authorized County staff to negotiate the general terms of a tax‑abatement and pilot program with Trinity River Solar for a proposed utility‑scale solar project covering about 2,400 acres in eastern Liberty County near U.S. Highway 90 and FM 1009.
Representatives for the company — including tax consultant Garrett Peters and Tiffany Wong, identified in the presentation as a vice president for the project team — said the development team is at an advanced stage of engineering and marketing and that securing a tax abatement is a critical step to reach marketable power‑purchase pricing. "This is the final part of whether or not this project is able to move forward," Wong said during the presentation.
The developers presented county revenue projections tied to the change in land use: they said the 2,400 acres has generated less than $65,000 in property tax revenue to the county over the last 35 years, and projected the county would see roughly $7.9 million in revenue from the property over the next 35 years after the project is built, while the local school district could receive more than $20 million over the same period. The team estimated improvements to be placed on the site at about $240 million.
Commissioners pressed developers on several topics before voting to authorize negotiations: whether the project would lease or buy the land (some commissioners expressed concern that leasing leaves the company with less long‑term ownership interest), the local and hurricane wind risk to tracking solar arrays, technology obsolescence and the mechanics of proposed payment‑in‑lieu (pilot) arrangements and abatements. One commissioner asked whether the county would be exposed to significant revenue loss under a multi‑year abatement; developer consultants said much of the value is in the equipment (improvements) rather than the land and that an early‑term abatement would be followed by exposure in later years.
County staff and counsel clarified the action before the court was not final approval of an abatement but authorization to negotiate a development agreement and return with concrete terms, an agreement that would then be presented to the court for formal approval. Commissioners approved the motion to proceed with negotiations by voice vote.
Next steps: staff will work with the developer on draft agreement language, including any pilot payment, abatement schedule and administrative terms; the county indicated it will return the proposed agreement and required notices to the court for formal consideration.
