Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sloopy Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union leaders and residents urge support for Sloopy Solar as commissioners weigh intervention
Summary
At the March 4 Clark County commissioners meeting, union representatives and residents urged approval of the Sloopy Solar project, citing job creation and tax revenue; the board said it is preparing an intervention while economic-benefit figures presented at the meeting differed sharply.
At a March 4, 2026 meeting of the Clark County Board of Commissioners in Springfield, several union leaders and county residents urged the commissioners to support the proposed Sloopy Solar project, arguing it would create local jobs and bring significant tax revenue to Clark County.
The meeting’s public-comment period featured testimony from Jason Lautenslager, who said he represents 1,100 union workers (about 100 of whom live in Clark County) and told the commissioners the county stood to forgo "$1.7 million per year" if the project is rejected — "about $57 million over the life of the project," he said. "By not doing this project, the commissioners do a disservice to their constituents," Lautenslager said.
Commissioner Charles A. Patterson responded that the county’s economic figures differ from Lautenslager’s estimate. Patterson said commissioners received an analysis based on auditor-provided assumptions that shows approximately $1.2 million per year if the project meets its generation targets, and that under a pilot arrangement the Board would receive roughly $360,000 per year. "We got the numbers directly from the auditor based on the assumptions that have been given," Patterson said.
Other supporters who spoke included Clayton Tolliver, a Clark County resident who stressed local hiring and safe construction practices; Kip Siesel of Operating Engineers Local 18 and Tony James (also with Local 18), who said union labor would be used on the project; Aiden Miller, who said the project could keep people in Clark County; and Ron Garder, who described past solar projects as county benefits and clean-energy opportunities.
County staff and officials noted procedural steps. Beau Thompson, the county’s chief legal counsel, said he is awaiting approved minutes from a prior meeting before filing documents related to the County’s intervention in the Sloopy Solar matter. Commissioner Patterson earlier reported that Madison County had voted against the project and decided to intervene.
The meeting record shows disagreement about the size of the fiscal benefit. The meeting did not include a formal vote on the Sloopy Solar project; commissioners continued with a full agenda that included multiple contracts and administrative actions.
Next steps: the county legal team indicated it will proceed with filing once required minutes are finalized; no immediate formal decision on Sloopy Solar was made at the March 4 meeting.
