Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors weigh risks and benefits of new state 'siting agreements' for solar projects; request staff follow‑up
Summary
County staff briefed the board on state code allowing negotiated 'siting agreements' with solar developers and an optional ordinance to charge up to $1,400 per megawatt per year; supervisors requested additional data and directed staff to prepare work‑session materials and draft language for further review.
County staff introduced state code that permits localities to negotiate siting agreements with solar developers and to adopt an ordinance to collect up to $1,400 per megawatt annually from new facilities.
Administrator Rogers framed the issue as a new tool and asked whether the board wanted to "entertain this" and what priorities staff should include in draft agreements. He said the instrument allows off‑site mitigation or capital funding for the locality in exchange for facilitating a project.
Board concerns and clarifications: Members asked whether such measures would be retroactive (staff: "None of this is retroactive. It's all going forward."), whether accepting funds creates liability (legal counsel noted sovereign immunity and advised political, not legal, reputational risks), and where the dollars come from (staff explained payments are effectively passed through ratepayers via utilities). A county attorney cautioned that entering an agreement can create an expectation that a project conforms to the comprehensive plan and urged careful drafting.
Outcome: The board did not adopt an ordinance that night but directed staff to bring draft materials and data for a work session and to prepare a sample siting agreement for review. Several supervisors said they prefer more information about impacts, mitigation options and examples from other counties before deciding whether to negotiate agreements or adopt a revenue ordinance.
Why it matters: The statutes allow localities to capture mitigation funds or ongoing revenue from solar projects in exchange for negotiated approvals, which can alter the balance of land‑use negotiations and raise questions about planning, community impact and long‑term revenue vs. land‑use compatibility.
Next steps: Staff will compile model agreements and examples, outline potential uses for revenue (broadband, CIP projects, offsite mitigation) and present options at a future work session.
