Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners defer decision on utility‑scale solar permit fees after staff review
Summary
County staff presented a new solar‑farm fee proposal (proposed $1.50/kW + $100 per transformer) but commissioners asked staff to collect actual inspection‑time costs and peer comparators before adopting a final schedule; vote postponed to December.
Stokes County planning and inspections staff told commissioners Nov. 24 they had reworked a draft fee schedule for utility‑scale solar after initial calculations produced an implausibly large figure.
Inspector/department staff explained the recommended schedule of $1.50 per kilowatt for a facility plus $100 per transformer was based on peer county comparisons and a review of typical inspection and plan‑review tasks. Using the example project discussed at the meeting (about 43 MW), staff said the proposal would yield roughly $67,000, a figure they described as mid‑range when compared to other counties.
Staff and commissioners discussed legal constraints: local fees must be reasonably tied to the county’s cost to provide plan review and inspections, and excessive fees invite legal challenge. Rick (inspections) said the county currently has two level‑three inspectors qualified to oversee utility‑scale work and emphasized variability in inspection time — some site visits take 30 minutes, others half a day — which makes an accurate, defensible fee schedule important.
Commissioners asked staff to gather actual staff‑time and cost data from the current project and to return with an audit of actuals so the board can adopt a fee that will both cover county costs and withstand scrutiny. The board agreed to revisit the item in December rather than approve the schedule at the Nov. 24 meeting.
What’s next: Staff will document time and resources spent on the current large project, compare peer county schedules and propose an adjusted fee schedule at the next meeting; commissioners signaled they prefer a defensible, cost‑based fee rather than a punitive 'price‑out' approach.
