Morrow County proposes standard weed-fee for renewables; staff recommends $16 per acre for solar and per-tower charge for wind

Morrow County officials met in a work session to address mounting weed-control demands created by large renewable-energy projects and to consider a standardized fee to cover monitoring and compliance.

County staff said developers’ projects — including a recently discussed 7,000-acre solar project — have increased complaints and operational workload for the weed program, and department staff lack the personnel and equipment to keep up. "We want to be able to tell them upfront," a county leader said, explaining the goal of a consistent, predictable fee developers would pay when a project is permitted.

Staff reported they had negotiated a monitoring figure with a pilot solar developer that equated to about "$16 an acre," and suggested the county could adopt $16 per acre as a baseline for future solar projects. Participants agreed acreage is a simple basis for solar fees; staff cautioned much of that money must go up front to stand up monitoring and administrative infrastructure before maintenance costs decline over time.

For wind projects, staff recommended a different approach: a per-tower cost that captures roads, tower footprints and a small buffer. Janet (soil-and-water/weed advisory speaker) and others noted the U.S. Farm Service Agency (FSA) already provides standard acreage-per-tower figures that could be used to make the per-tower calculation consistent across projects.

Legal and planning staff warned commissioners to be explicit about what the fee covers. Justin (legal adviser) said the county’s existing weed ordinance authorizes monitoring and enforcement actions but does not assign prepayment fees; he recommended drafting a separate agreement that explains whether the fee pays only for monitoring/compliance work or also for mitigation work (actual spraying or mechanical control). "If they think they're buying mitigation, they're totally wrong," one planner said, urging the county to set expectations in writing.

Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement options if monitoring shows noncompliance: the county can notify the company, require fixes, then use county crews or contractors to do the work and bill the responsible party; the ordinance also allows fines and liens where appropriate. Staff also flagged concerns that a prepaid mitigation fee could reduce developer incentive to perform abatement and could raise objections about competing with private contractors if the county performs mitigation work directly.

As next steps, commissioners asked staff to draft a separate agreement to accompany pilot or SIP negotiations, to calculate a per-tower cost for wind projects, and to clarify collection and legal authority for any fee. The county also committed to telling current pilot applicants what the proposed monitoring fee covers before the commission signs an approval.

The work session did not include a formal vote. Commissioners signaled support for pursuing a written agreement that defines the $16-per-acre monitoring fee for solar and a per-tower fee for wind, and asked staff to return with precise language and enforcement mechanisms.