Pulaski County commissioners voted to adopt a confirmatory resolution (2025-16) that establishes an Economic Revitalization Area (ERA) for a proposed utility-scale solar project and incorporates an Economic Development Agreement (EDA) and its exhibits into the resolution.

County staff presented the package, explaining that the draft abatement would run 20 years at 100% for utility-distributable personal property. The staff presentation said the payment schedule in the EDA called for $3,360,000 per year for 20 years — a cash total of $67,200,000 — and cited a net present value (NPV) calculation performed using a 10% discount rate. Staff also noted the packet includes a signed-clawback procedure (Pulaski County Resolution 2021-06) and an SB-1 statement of benefits required for the project.

Commissioners and staff debated alternatives to the even 20-year payment stream. One staff-proposed compromise included two pre-operational payments (about $735,500 per year), four front-loaded operational years at $5,000,000 per year, then 16 years at $2,500,000, yielding a cash total of about $61,475,000 and a higher up-front cash flow. Staff said that structure improves early cash for county priorities while keeping the NPV in the range of prior expectations; staff offered to recalculate totals and NPV under council direction.

The packet described project scale and fees: the county’s solar permit fee includes a $1,000 per-megawatt charge; with an anticipated 945-megawatt nameplate, that fee component would total $945,000, in addition to a $15,000 base application fee and a $10,000 agreement fee. Staff said earlier permit-fee changes and a separate third-party monitoring fee could provide funding to address road-safety and public-safety impacts during construction, including options to fund additional deputy coverage.

During public comment a resident criticized the process and alleged impropriety, saying the council’s re-opening of the process after earlier votes appeared "crooked" and urging disclosure of any financial relationships between council members and solar interests. County counsel (referenced during the meeting) responded that conflict-of-interest matters are addressed under criminal law and that formal conflict disclosures exist; counsel noted any criminal prosecution would be a decision for prosecutors, not county counsel.

After discussion an attendee moved to approve the resolution as revised with the front-loaded payment numbers presented by staff; another attendee seconded. The motion carried following oral aye/nay votes; a speaker observed that there were several opposed voices on the floor. Staff said final paperwork and signature lines would be circulated after the vote.

The resolution as adopted incorporates the EDA and all exhibits by reference; staff emphasized that a vote against the resolution would also have rejected the EDA. Staff repeatedly said the agreement can be adjusted before signature if the developer agrees and the council directs changes. The packet also included a guarantee agreement that staff said would not be executed until roughly 90 days before construction.

Next steps: staff will finalize the payment schedule language and provide executible documents for signature, and the county will monitor compliance with the EDA and the clawback provisions contained in earlier county resolution 2021-06.