Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County committee removes land-fee/solar-permit item from agenda after members seek definitions and a fee study
Summary
Committee members found discrepancies between the land-fee schedule and zoning definitions for solar and energy facilities, questioned state fee caps and tier application, and voted to refer the fee schedule back to Land Use for reconciliation and possible fee-study work.
The Will County Land Use Committee pulled the county’s land-fee schedule off its agenda and asked the Land Use department to reconcile definitions and fees after members discovered mismatches between the fee table and the zoning definitions for commercial solar and related energy facilities.
Members noted the fee table lists a single line for “solar farm” at $8,000 while other parts of the schedule divide electric energy-production systems into kilowatt bands (for example, 0–100 kW, 100–499 kW, 500+ kW) with different fees. Committee members warned that without consistent definitions the county could unintentionally charge materially different fees for similarly sized projects and that state law may cap fees at $50,000 per development, an ambiguity the board asked the state's attorney and Land Use to clarify.
“We’re not supposed to pick winners and losers,” a staff member told the committee, arguing the county must be consistent across zoning classifications. Other members pushed for a formal fee study to establish cost-based fees and suggested a rotational review of the fee schedule every two years.
Vice chair Logan and other members repeatedly asked which fee applies to facilities that fall on the edge of size tiers — for example, whether a 501 kW facility should be assessed the $2,100, $4,200 or $8,000 fee line. Staff and members concluded the zoning definitions (the committee was referred to redline language in Chapter 155) must match the fee schedule, and Land Use should bring a reconciled package back to the committee rather than the committee acting on the inconsistent documents.
Action taken: Member Newquist moved, and Member Freeman seconded, to remove the land-fee/solar-permit item from the committee agenda and ask Land Use to reconcile fee and definition language; the motion passed.
Next steps: Land Use staff will reconcile definitions, determine whether the state fee cap applies per parcel or per contiguous facility, and return a matched fee schedule and zoning definitions; committee members suggested a fee study if staff confirms higher processing costs for certain project types.
Votes and actions: Motion to remove the fee-schedule item and refer it to Land Use was made by Member Newquist, seconded by Member Freeman, and carried.
