Blackford County Council approves 10‑year, 75% tax abatement for Prairie Creek Phase 2 amid fierce public comment

Blackford County Council members voted to approve a 10‑year, 75% personal property tax abatement for Prairie Creek Phase 2, a 103.5‑megawatt wind project with 23 turbines, after an extended public comment period in which residents pressed for financial figures, questioned possible nondisclosure agreements and raised conflict‑of‑interest concerns.

The council’s motion to accept the abatement passed on a roll call after presentations from county financial advisers and the developer. Jason Sendler of Baker Tilly told the council that a roughly $250 million capital investment translates into substantially higher assessed value over time, but that a 10‑year, 75% abatement would reduce near‑term tax receipts; the company modeled a scenario in which an EDA payment tied to the abatement would provide $7,837,500 to the county over the agreement period.

Supporters, including local farmer Mark Townsend, argued the project would bring investment, construction jobs and immediate EDA dollars for local projects. “They’re willing to invest $250,000,000 in this county and $8,000,000 upfront for economic development activity,” Townsend said, urging approval so phases could be developed concurrently.

Opponents pressed the council for transparency and long‑term protections. Public commenter Deb Bridal urged the council to decline the abatement, saying the county already faces revenue losses tied to recent state law changes and asking for a pause until records and minutes for prior project hearings are verified. Several speakers asked for side‑by‑side numbers showing projected revenue the county would receive versus revenue foregone under the abatement and asked whether any nondisclosure agreements limit what officials can disclose.

Developer Will Colvin described the project specifics and a voluntary “good neighbor” payment program. Colvin said neighbor payments would start near $1,000 per signatory and escalate annually (with a stated escalation mechanism), and that the company had set aside about $4 million in lifetime neighbor payments for Prairie Creek Phase 2. He also reiterated the EDA payment amount and described the project as a 30‑year facility.

Baker Tilly’s analysis framed tradeoffs the council weighed: lower near‑term property‑tax receipts during the 10‑year abatement, but higher long‑term assessed value after abatements expire and periodic EDA payments that the county can allocate. Sendler also explained that abatements reduce the immediate assessed value added to local tax rolls, while an abatement with an EDA payment can provide an upfront revenue stream the county may use for capital or other projects.

The council discussed transparency and access to documents during and after public comment. County negotiators said the presentation materials are available on request and that packets distributed to the council contain the numbers used in the presentation. Several residents disagreed about how and when those materials were posted or made available.

The motion to accept the abatement as presented passed in a roll‑call vote recorded at the meeting; members who registered a vote during the roll call were recorded affirming the motion. After the vote the council moved to other agenda business, including a municipal vehicle trade and routine reports.

Why it matters: The abatement will shape the county’s tax receipts over the next decade and binds the local government to negotiated EDA payments and neighbor agreements; residents and local officials told the council they expect long‑term consequences for land use, local revenues and community character.

What’s next: County staff said the Baker Tilly materials and the EDA documents are available through the auditor’s office on request; residents asked for clearer, earlier public posting of negotiation records and for formal assurances about recusal when officials have potential conflicts of interest.

(Reporting note: Quotes and figures are drawn from public comments and presentations at the Blackford County Council meeting. The council and developer presented an EDA payment figure of $7,837,500 and described neighbor payments totaling roughly $4 million over the project lifetime.)