Committee adopts new building-permit fee schedule for community solar and storage; members debate residential fees

The Development Committee approved an ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the Kane County building and building regulations (Article 4: fees) to add fee language addressing community solar projects and energy storage consistent with recent state statute.

Staff said the ordinance’s changes implement state guidance that defines “reasonable fees” for community solar and storage, citing a per-megawatt figure referenced in the meeting as $5,000 per megawatt for the fee cap. Mark Van Kerkhoff told the committee the changes are intended to align county permitting fees with the state statute and to recover county review, inspection and plan-review costs associated with high-capacity projects and energy-storage installations.

Why it matters: the change alters how the county calculates fees for community solar and storage projects — a potentially significant increase for larger projects — and prompted debate about the impact on small residential systems. Several committee members and commenters said small residential installations and plug-and-play rooftop systems should face lower fees or a higher kilowatt threshold to avoid discouraging residential adoption.

Discussion highlights: Dr. Iqbal and other members argued that the $250 fee listed for 0–10 kW residential systems is too high and proposed raising the threshold or lowering the fee; staff emphasized that many of the non-bolded fee figures are already adopted and that the new section primarily addresses commercial and community-scale projects. Chair Richard Williams and others said fees should reflect staff time and costs and that the county should not subsidize permit work. Staff noted the ordinance is staff-recommended and that the state's attorney’s office is still reviewing the exhibit; edits may be made before subsequent executive or full-board consideration.

Outcome: the committee called the question and adopted the fee ordinance on a roll-call vote with a majority in favor and at least one recorded dissent. Staff said the ordinance will proceed subject to the state's attorney’s final review and any necessary technical edits before full board action.

Ending: committee members directed staff to continue working with the state's attorney and to return draft zoning-ordinance amendments that address screening and other elements of state law within the timeline established after the state statute takes effect.