Knott County fiscal court backs resolution for proposed lithium plant bond over one dissent

Knott County Fiscal Court approved a resolution supporting a bond related to a proposed lithium plant after members said the county would not be held financially responsible, while one member registered a formal dissent.

The resolution was introduced by a court member who said the county had consulted the Department for Local Government and retained legal advisers to reduce liability and ‘‘covered all the bases that we think is necessary to partner on this project, but still us not being held, liable financially for, for these bonds,’’ according to court discussion.

Another member supporting the measure said the court had done due diligence and emphasized potential local benefits, including jobs and economic development. ‘‘I think this would be a great project. We have a lot of jobs for the community once this is projects get rolling,’’ the member said.

During the vote, Brent Smith moved to approve the resolution and Paul Craft seconded. An unidentified court member opposed the motion, saying, ‘‘I think that there needs to be a little more, investigating of this, this company there. . . I don't think it panned out. I vote no,’’ and raised concerns about outstanding debts and past ventures. The chair announced the motion carried by voice vote with dissent recorded.

Court members said they had obtained multiple legal opinions and were relying on an attorney who specifically represents counties on utility and bond matters to protect the county’s interests. Supporters described the counsel as ‘‘highly recommended’’ and said staff had met with state officials to ensure appropriate safeguards.

The resolution does not commit county funds directly; court discussion framed the action as authorizing the county to partner on the project while seeking contractual and statutory protections that, according to speakers, would limit county financial exposure. No formal financial guarantee or appropriation was announced during the meeting.

Next steps announced by the court included finalizing language reviewed by counsel and returning any follow-up documents as needed; the item will proceed under the court’s normal review and contract processes.