Kossuth County reviews draft solar ordinance; board and outside counsel debate administration, setbacks and decommissioning

Kossuth County supervisors and outside counsel spent more than an hour reviewing a draft county solar ordinance and the board’s options for administration, technical review and decommissioning oversight. The discussion centered on whether to administer solar siting and technical standards as a standalone business-development ordinance (like the county’s wind rules) or fold detailed site controls into the zoning code.

The board’s outside counsel, identified in the meeting as Maria, said the supervisors had previously expressed a priority on decommissioning: "I think the main objective of the board in decommissioning was that we would not be liable or responsible for any part of the decommissioning process, and that would all fall back on the company." That principle underpinned most of the follow-up questions about how the county verifies a developer’s decommissioning plan and financial assurance.

Why it matters: The board is weighing how prescriptive the ordinance should be and who should check technical plans. The choice affects how much technical review the county must fund or require the developer to pay for, and it determines whether decisions are handled by the Planning and Zoning office, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Supervisors.

Key points from the meeting: - Administration and review: Maria and board members discussed two routes. One would place design and siding standards into zoning and have the zoning administrator and board of adjustment administer them; the other would create a standalone ordinance (like the wind ordinance) run by the Board of Supervisors. "If the board's intention is to regulate the siding of structures in the zoning district," Maria said, "the ordinance needs to be structured as a zoning ordinance, which would be administered by the zoning administrator and board of adjustment rather than the board of supervisors." Several supervisors and staff said they prefer the standalone, business-style model used for wind projects so siting, road use and construction agreements can be managed by the board. - Technical and engineering review: County Engineer Doug Miller noted the county’s road and drainage concerns and the need for engineer review of grading, drainage and landscaping plans. Board members and counsel agreed that developers should generally pay review costs. Maria summarized options: the developer could submit certified plans and have the county accept them, or the county could hire a reviewer and bill the developer. Doug said an engineer with drainage and slope expertise would be most useful; the board discussed appointing a third‑party reviewer on a per-project basis and making the developer reimburse the county for actual costs. - Decommissioning and financial assurance: The draft calls for a decommissioning plan and financial assurance (bond, cash, letter of credit or other instrument). The board debated enforcement mechanisms and whether the ordinance should spell out permit revocation for noncompliance. Maria and supervisors indicated they want clear language ensuring the county is not financially liable if a developer fails to decommission. - Setbacks, nuisance concerns and waivers: The draft uses setbacks similar to the county’s wind rules, including a 500-foot buffer from occupied residences, with the option for neighboring landowners to sign waivers. Board members discussed the origin of the 500-foot figure and accepted that it was a negotiated compromise; Maria advised that the county should document the rationale in the record to reduce legal risk. - Landscaping, glare and safety: The draft asks for landscaping plans and screening. Maria and Doug said landscaping plans should be prepared or certified by a qualified designer or engineer and reviewed before permit approval; developers would normally bear those costs. - Ancillary agreements: The draft includes references to county road‑use and repair agreements and drainage protection agreements. Supervisors indicated these would remain required and separate from the ordinance’s siting rules.

Next steps and timing: The board asked counsel to circulate a revised draft and to solicit specific input from agencies the board wanted to consult, including the county engineer and conservation staff. Supervisors scheduled a follow‑up review with counsel for September 2 (start around 8:15 a.m.) to continue drafting and to gather feedback from affected county departments.

Ending: County leaders framed the meeting as a focused policy review rather than a vote. Board members said they want developers to shoulder review costs and to include enforceable decommissioning and financial‑assurance provisions before the county adopts any final ordinance.