Reno County planning commissioners debate draft Article 26 for commercial solar, focus on decommissioning and project limits

Reno County planning commissioners continued a months-long review of proposed rules for commercial solar energy systems on Dec. 19, 2024, focusing discussion on decommissioning requirements, financial sureties and possible project-size limits.

The draft, identified in the meeting as Case 2023-10, would create Article 26 of the Reno County zoning regulations to govern commercial solar projects and a linked planning commission resolution listing topics the county would recommend for developer agreements. Planning staff presented a revised packet and a draft resolution that moves many topics from the regulations into a resolution that the county commission would consider when negotiating developer agreements.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the rules will determine what developers must do at the end of a project'for example, removing equipment and restoring ground'and how the county protects taxpayers and landowners if a project is abandoned. The debate touched on which items should be mandatory regulatory requirements, which should be suggested items in a resolution for county commissioners, and which items could be handled as conditions in conditional use permits.

Staff update and redraft plans

Planning staff told the board the packet included a draft regulation and a draft planning commission resolution that contains items previously in Article 26 but moved into the resolution for clarity and to avoid making every item a regulatory "shall." Staff said they highlighted more complex suggested changes for commissioner review and that the resolution is intended to list items the county commission could consider in developer agreements. "Those are items that were previously in the regulations and they were taken out of the regulations and put it into this resolution format," staff said during the presentation.

Commissioners asked staff to rework language they said was causing confusion: two paragraphs of the current draft mix mandatory language ("shall") for decommissioning and indemnification with discretionary language ("may") for developer-agreement topics. Several commissioners said decommissioning and indemnification should be required elements of the regulations rather than optional items in development agreements.

Decommissioning, surety and enforcement

Commissioners discussed a set of decommissioning items the board wants to require: a recorded decommissioning agreement, a financial guarantee or surety acceptable to the county, removal of equipment and fencing, and restoration of the site to a specified depth and soil profile. Commissioners and staff discussed whether the decommissioning agreement should be separate from a developer agreement and placed clearly into the regulations so it is not negotiated away project to project.

Commissioners asked staff to add specifics the board can review, including: - A separate regulatory article for decommissioning and a separate article or subsection for indemnification. - A requirement that decommissioning sureties or financial guarantees be provided and periodically reviewed (staff suggested a five-year review of estimated decommissioning costs and surety adequacy). - Timelines for removal after abandonment or project cessation; members discussed examples of 12 months, 18 months and similar time frames and asked staff to propose specific intervals.

Several commissioners emphasized enforcement tools already available: violations of the regulations or of conditions in a conditional use permit (CUP) can lead to notice of violation and ultimately revocation of a CUP. Commissioners directed staff to preserve enforcement through the existing CUP process while adding clearer regulatory language about required decommissioning and surety.

Developer agreements and resolution topics

The board discussed retaining a required developer agreement as part of the land-use approval and using the planning commission resolution to recommend topics the county commission may include in that agreement. Commissioners said the resolution could remain a flexible, non-regulatory list of suggested topics and that the regulations should clearly state which items are required.

Topics commissioners told staff to include in the planning commission resolution (examples): - Lists of topics county commissioners may require in a developer agreement (e.g., community benefits, operational plans, reclamation funding mechanisms) - Examples and guidance for county staff and the county commission to consult during negotiations with applicants

Project size, separation and siting

Commissioners also discussed whether to limit the maximum size of an individual project and whether to require separation between commercial projects to prevent sequential limited-scale proposals from creating a single large commercial installation. One commissioner proposed using 640 contiguous acres (one square mile) as a starting point and a five-mile separation between large projects; commissioners described that as a preliminary number to test and asked staff to research what acreage or market threshold would be necessary for projects to be financially viable and to report back.

Other technical and process items

The board raised other topics staff should refine for the next draft, including: - Definition and acceptance criteria for a "qualified third-party" reviewer or engineering consultant (the draft includes a definition; staff was asked to ensure it is clear and specific). - Whether and how landfill acceptance of decommissioned materials should be handled; commissioners said this is largely an operational/County Commission decision and can be addressed during CUP review. - Notification and agency coordination: staff will require applicants to provide documentation showing they contacted relevant agencies (for example, Groundwater Management District No. 2 where applicable); staff will also send notices to local agencies and districts as a courtesy and to solicit technical comments. - Extraordinary expenses for public hearings (e.g., rental of large venues, audiovisual services) and whether applicants should reimburse the county; commissioners asked staff to clarify what constitutes "unusual and extraordinary" expenses and to propose clearer wording. - Limits on lighting: commissioners agreed to prohibit general site lighting except for necessary security lighting associated with structures. - Construction-start and completion expectations: the draft regulation includes a 2-year requirement to commence construction after CUP approval; commissioners asked staff to add clearer language about construction schedule expectations and how phased construction would be treated.

Next steps and schedule

Planning staff agreed to rewrite the relevant regulatory paragraphs (notably the section identified as current 26-1-10) to separate mandatory regulatory "shall" requirements (decommissioning and indemnification) from discretionary topics to be listed in the planning commission resolution. Staff said they will produce a revised draft for the commission to review at the next meeting and said they will run the draft by the county counselor before forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners. The planning commission has a moratorium in place through March 1, 2025, which commissioners referenced while discussing the schedule for final action.

Outcome

No formal action was taken on Article 26 at the Dec. 19 meeting; commissioners continued discussion and directed staff to prepare a redraft that clarifies which items are required in regulation and which will remain suggested topics in a resolution. Staff committed to providing a revised draft for the commission's next meeting and to consult the county counselor before the regulation/resolution moves to the Board of County Commissioners.

Ending

Commissioners closed the discussion and moved on to other agenda items; staff will return a revised Article 26 and resolution for the commission to review in a subsequent meeting.