Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crook County asks staff to study possible narrow moratorium on large-scale solar development
Summary
Commissioners asked staff to analyze legal grounds, scope and costs for a potential moratorium tailored to large-scale commercial solar projects while the county updates its comprehensive-plan Goal 5 and related code. Staff will return with options, risk analysis, and recommended guardrails.
John (staff) told the board the discussion was preliminary and staff were not asking the board to adopt or endorse a moratorium today; instead, he asked whether the board wanted staff to do additional review and return with recommendations. "Any moratorium needs to be limited in scope and duration and tied to a defined work program," John said, noting the statutory framework under Oregon law requires procedural findings and guardrails.
Commissioners raised several concerns and objectives: protecting agricultural lands and wildlife, allowing rooftop and small-scale solar to continue, avoiding open-ended staff costs, and narrowing any moratorium to large commercial facilities near city limits or substations. One commissioner suggested placing fiscal caps on staff work to avoid an unlimited commitment of county resources.
Staff and commissioners discussed the overlap between a moratorium analysis and the county's Goal 5 comprehensive-plan update. Community development has a DLCD grant to update energy and commercial-use provisions, and staff said the Goal 5 process (about 13 months from the grant's restart) could produce the inventory and mapping that demonstrate "need" for any moratorium. "The moratorium would be a stop gap to allow the public process to happen before additional development comes in," John said.
Financial trade-offs were cited. One commissioner noted anticipated revenues tied to solar projects and urged staff to examine potential tax revenue and fee structures; another warned that a broad moratorium could invite litigation and should be narrowly tailored and defensible.
Action taken: The board directed staff to proceed with an initial analysis of whether a moratorium is warranted, what a narrowly tailored moratorium might look like, the fiscal and litigation risks, and possible guardrails. No moratorium was adopted.
Why this matters: The board is balancing competing interests—economic development and potential tax revenue against farmland protection, wildlife impacts, and community concerns about scale and siting. Legal defensibility and clear public outreach are central to any next steps.
What's next: Staff will prepare a memo with legal and factual analysis, potential geographic and scope definitions, estimated staff cost, and suggested fiscal caps or guardrails and return to the board for further direction.
