Jefferson County plan commission to study higher fees, consultant use for large solar and battery projects

Jefferson County Plan Commission members on Oct. 7 discussed raising application fees for major solar projects and creating a separate fee for commercial battery facilities, and agreed to convene a small committee and consult engineering firms to recommend specific changes.

The discussion opened after a commission member said outside engineering firms that have assisted on earlier applications provided rough cost estimates that suggested existing fees may not cover the workload. "They gave some rough numbers," the member said, reporting that a third‑party review for a special exception could run $10,000 to $20,000 and that a solar development plan review could cost $5,000 to $10,000.

Why it matters: Commissioners said a recent, large solar application required many meetings, extra staff time and public‑meeting logistics — including use of the county fairgrounds and setup for hundreds of attendees — and that applicants should bear the expense of extensive outside review. Commissioners and staff said the county ordinance already allows the planning commission to hire an external consultant and charge the applicant for the review, but the current fee schedule may be too low to cover typical consultant costs.

Commissioners and staff described several specific issues to address. They discussed whether battery plants should have a separate application category and fee because of higher public‑safety and fire‑response implications, and whether to charge per site when solar developments include multiple, nonadjacent locations. One member said the board should factor in costs that first responders may incur if a battery facility increases fire risk.

Staff reported variability in the current fee schedule as presented in meeting materials and suggested the commission form a small committee to refine fee recommendations and solicit pricing from engineering firms. The chair asked for volunteers: a commissioner said he would serve, and commissioners named several staff members — including the county staff member who handles building permits and the planning staff member who works on development plans — to participate in the committee. No formal appointment vote was recorded at the meeting.

County staff also told the commission that the county commissioners had recently amended and adopted the solar ordinance (including adding pasture land language) and that the updated ordinance text is available on the county website. That adoption took place outside the plan commission meeting; plan commission members noted the ordinance is now in effect.

Next steps: Commissioners directed staff to contact engineering firms for cost estimates and to return with a committee report and recommendations at a future meeting. No fee changes or formal votes on new fee amounts occurred at the Oct. 7 session.

Votes at the meeting included routine procedural actions: the commission approved the minutes for the Aug. 5 meeting and voted to adjourn. No fee ordinance or fee schedule change was enacted.