By Tabitha Evans Moore, EDITOR & PUBLISHER

LYNCHBURG — In a move that left Silicon Ranch officials slightly flabbergasted, the Metro Council voted 9-6 to table a Metro Codes solar farm building permit fee structure that would have brought nearly half a million dollars into Metro coffers. 

After several meetings and a working session’s worth of discussions on the subject, the Planning Commission sent the fee structure recommendation to the Metro Council by a unanimous vote last Tuesday. {To read our complete coverage of that meeting, click here.}

Original fee proposed at $25 million

Their first proposed building permit fee was based on $1,500 per every 2,400 square feet of solar panels.  The total estimated footprint of the solar farm is 3,400 acres – 2,000 acres in Moore County and the remaining 1,400 sitting in nearby Coffee County. Of the estimated 2,000 acres footprint located inside our county, Silicon Ranch estimates a total of 1,400 acres will be used for actual solar panels.

Based on those numbers, the building permit fee cost to move forward would come to an estimated $25 million price tag – an amount that Silicon Ranch rebuffed.

After lots of discussion between the Commission and Silicon Ranch officials, the Commission members reduced the original proposed fee to a $350 per acre building permit fee for solar farms in Moore County. With the estimated 1,400 acres of solar farm panels coming to the Moore County side of the project that would put the permit fee at a little less than half a million dollars.

Blackburn, Dye motion to table the issue

On Monday night, Metro Planning Commission Chair  and Metro Council member Dexter Golden presented the fee schedule to the Council as part of the Committee reports at the end of the meeting. Golden explained that both Metro Attorney William Reider and Silicon Ranch lawyers both agreed that a building permit fee can only cover the actual costs of executing the permits. It can include items like lawyer’s fee, engineer’s fees, and administrative costs but cannot act as a de facto bond against the project. 

“What they’re coming back with is basically, we cannot impose a fee such of that nature at that price. As it would be illegal,” Golden stated.  

“The issue that comes back to us with that is, there’s still information lacking. I mean even if there was a set number today, unless something’s changed, we could not issue a permit based on the information given so far. We don’t have a site plan. We still have questions unanswered,” Golden continued. 

“How can we vote on something if we don’t have all the facts?” Peggy Sue Blackburn blurted. “I make a motion to table it,” she followed. Bradley Dye seconded her motion. 

Approve or disapprove the fee structure

At this point Council Chairperson Amy Cashion had to reel her fellow members back in. She reminded the members that their collective job was to approve or disapprove the fee structure being presented by the Metro Planning Commission after hours of discussion, debate, and research on the topic in their meetings. 

“Okay, so from what I understand, that was just committee report. Committee report says they didn’t agree with the permit fee. We got in touch with lawyers and talking about it, and so what I think I’m hearing is that maybe we need to revise our fee schedule, right?” she asked —  looking directly at Golden. 

Later Golden seemed to argue against the recommendation he and the Planning Commission sent to the Council. 

“Not having that information, maybe, we don’t know what it’s going to take to write or issue that permit. We don’t know how many engineers we might have to get to look at their plats. We don’t know any extra large fees. We don’t know what extra capital fees goes into for the roads and other things. So, we did come up with a number, but that was just the number to send here.”

At this point, Blackburn chimed back in, “This number could be way off.”

Chairperson Cashion and Council Member Shane Taylor then spoke over each other but both made the same point: that the Planning Commission wasn’t asking the Council to reinvent the wheel but rather to take their recommendations or not. 

“It could be way off. You’re right,” stated Cashion. “But they have sent forth a number. By the time we vote on it here, all of the required information is already gathered.”

“The issue is the fee schedule, right?” she continued. “We’re trying to work towards an appropriate fee schedule based on communications with lawyers. Whether it’s their company or another company, it doesn’t matter. This is for us, right?”

Burnett pushed to vote on the tabling motion

As the meeting reached the one hour and 15 minute mark, Council Member Gerald Burnett looked to move things along. 

“Hey, Amy,” he said — addressing Chairperson Cashion. “They made a motion to table it. It was seconded. We’ve had discussion. We need to vote on whether we’re going to table it or not.”

This is when Golden asked Cashion to recognize a member of Silicon Ranch’s team who’d been sitting in the crowd. 

 “I would just make sure we understand that we’re not asking for site plan approval for a building permit,” Silicon Ranch’s Morey Hill stated. “We’re just talking about the building permit fee. So, when you say we’re missing information, all of that will come when we go before you to receive a building permit or to receive a site plan approval, but we’re just talking about the fee right now.”

Golden countered, “For us to finalize a permit number, I think everybody would like to see the complete layout plan for us to know what is going to be involved. How many engineers do we need? I understand y’all have engineers, but we want to be covered as well in the county.” 

Silicon Ranch then asserted that Metro was treating their building project differently than any other.

“So basically, what you’re saying here, the logic is, we won’t know how much it’s going to cost us to get a building permanent until we provide the final site plan? I don’t think that’s how a building permanent would work for anything else in this town,” Hill said. 

At this point Council Member Robert Bracewell brought up a recent Sheetz versus El Dorado County Supreme Court case as a cautionary tale. 

“Putting unreasonable stipulations on them like having them jump through literal hoops would be a violation of our governing referred to as our police powers,” Bracewell stated. “We cannot make an income off a fee. They’re only to defray the costs that the county incurs.”

Hearing enough, Chairperson Cashion refocused the group again by calling for a vote. 

“If it comes back here, it needs to come back as a complete fee structure,” she stated. “All in favor of tabling and sending it back to committee, say aye.”

The measure passed by simple majority by a vote of nine to six. 

Yes nine votes included Bradley Dye, Sunny Rae Moorehead, John Taylor, Peggy Sue Blackburn, Amy Cashion, Houston Lindsey, Jimmy Hammond, Marty Cashion, and Gerald Burnett. The six no votes included Robert Bracewell, Douglas Carson, Greg Guinn, Dexter Golden, Shane Taylor, and Arvis Bobo. 

The Metro Planning Commission will now be tasked with going back to the drawing board to decide what the solar farm building permit fee structure will be. The meet next on Tuesday, September 3 at 4:30 p.m. at the County Building. •

{Local news from local folks. The Lynchburg Times is the only newspaper in Moore County that is owned, published, edited, and reported by a Lynchburg native. We offer common-sense, fact-driven stories written by a local with over 20 years of journalism experience.  We are supported by both readers and organizations who value community journalism. Click here to subscribe.}