Mr. Steimel, Chairman of the Planning and Regulations Committee, called the meeting to order. He noted all Committee members were present with the exception of Mrs. Allen.

Mr. Miller noted that the Committee had been presented two separate memos dealing with different fee issues. The first dealt with the creation of a fee for Building Permits for wind towers, since a wind farm had recently approved by the County Board. The second memo contained a recommendation of an adjustment of fees related to other zoning actions.

The wind tower Building Permit fee issue arose due to the fact that nothing in the current fee schedule clearly would apply to such structures. The last item added to the fee schedule related solely to cell towers, which were set at $500 per tower based on staff time and overhead costs for processing such Building Permits. Using that same cost basis, Mr. Miller did an evaluation of anticipated staff time that will be required to process and inspect each tower, and recommended a fee of $550 per tower. Mr. Miller noted that Lee and Bureau Counties, which also have recently approved wind farms, have elected to adopt a different fee based on their Building Permit fee for cell towers, which are charged at a rate of $25 per foot of tower height. This would result in Building Permit fee of over $5000 per tower. Mr. Miller explained that staff had considered that fee as an alternative, and had discussions with the State’s Attorney’s office over the appropriate standard. The State’s Attorney advice was that fees for Building Permits should be directly related to actual expenses. Mr. Miller stated that, given this directive, he could find no justification for the $25/lineal foot fee.

Mr. Simonson asked why the other counties felt they could charge such a higher fee. Mr. Miller stated that he had spoken with representatives in Lee and Bureau Counties, and confirmed that they simply applied the cell tower Building Permit fee, without a further investigation of the actual costs and differences of processing Building Permits for wind towers. He reiterated that it has been the consistent policy and practice of DeKalb County to correlate permit fees to actual expenses incurred or anticipated. He noted that this approach was much more defensible from a litigation standpoint.

Mr. Sands interjected that he felt projects with the mammoth scope of the wind farm would likely involve a great deal more work that perhaps had been anticipated by staff, and that additional time should more than justify a larger fee. He noted that he felt more than just staff time should be involved, that many of the board members had incurred time and expenses that should be considered in the overall fee as well as the direct staff involved. Mr. Sands went on to say that having a higher fee would allow for the creation of a buffer to cover potential future litigation, and that there would likely be other expenses to obtain outside experts to perform inspections and resource analysis that would be beyond the expertise of the current staff.

Mr. Miller noted that there are already provisions in the code to charge an application for any external expertise needed, and that those costs would be passed on to FPL in addition to the basic Building Permit fee. He also noted that it has not bee the policy or the practice of the County to use Buildng Permit fees to build reserves for purposes beyond recouping the actual expenses incurred. Mr. Sands stated again that he felt a much higher fee should still be considered and that he believed that $5,000 per tower did not sound outrageous. Mr. Miller noted for the Committee’s information that the $550 fee he had calculated reflected almost twice the actual staff time costs. He stated that even if staff’s estimate was off by 100%, the permit fee would be only $1,100.

Mr. MacMurdo asked about the issue of not using the fees to accrue a pool of funds against potential litigation. Mr. Miller noted that the County Board could elect to add to the Tort Fund at the next budget cycle, but again, that permit fees could not be used to create such a pool. Mr. MacMurdo then asked Mr. Slingerland to speak to the issue. Mr. Slingerland responded that Mr. Miller was correct in that the Board can elect to increase the tort fund as part of a line item budget process, or allocate a separate fund, but they cannot elect to generate funds through permit fees. Mr. Sands asked why this couldn’t be considered an impact fund. Mr. Slingerland responded that the County cannot impose an impact fee or tax arbitrarily. Mr. Steimel asked for clarification as to whether all funds for litigation come through only the General Fund or the Tort Fund. Mr. Slingerland responded that it was the Tort Fund.

Mr. Steimel then asked Mr. Miller what had been the fee for FPL’s application for its Special Use Permit. Mr. Miller responded that FPL has actually paid the $525 fee twice because of the notification error that resulted in a second public hearing. He reminded the Committee that fees for the various zoning actions are not set up to be absolutely reflective of actual costs per case, but rather an aggregate assumption is used across all bases. He noted as an example that the Hearing Officer’s fee for the FPL hearing had been $900.

Mr. Steimel commented that there was also the fact that the 30 towers are set to have a 4.5 million dollar assessed valuation. This should put the taxes per tower at approximately $9,000 annually with the County realizing something in the area of $25,000 to $30,000 per tower annually. Mr. Simonson responded that many other states have elected to not tax the wind towers at all, and Illinois could follow suit.

Ms. Vary asked about the basis for the assumption of eight hours per inspection that was included in the memo. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Petrie, Chief Building Inspector, to respond. Mr. Petrie noted that based on his experience, that eight hours should adequately cover the staff travel and inspection time. He went on to note that there would be third party inspectors that would be hired for specialized functions, but the cost for their time and expertise would be billed from the applicant separately. Mr. Miller added that the County will also employ an outside consultant to review the initial sets of plans submitted and those costs will be passed directly to FPL as well.

Mr. Sands asked the Committee to recognize Mr. Rosemeier for additional comments. Mr. Rosemeier noted that in conversations he had with an FPL representative, Bill Blackmore, they had discussed the Lee County $25-per-lineal-foot charge. He reported that Mr. Blackmore stated that it was his position that whatever fee was determined, FPL would pay it. However, Mr. Rosemeier closed by stating that he felt the proper procedures have been followed to this point.

Mr. Steimel noted that it was his feeling that the recommendation of $550 seemed a bit low, but that $5,000 seemed excessive. Ms. Vary asked what the County currently charged for cell towers. Mr. Miller responded that the fee, after consultation with the State’s Attorney, had been set at a cost recovery amount of $500 per tower. He added that the irony is that these towers often represent more complicated projects, whereas the FPL project conditions are much clearer and up front.

Mr. Slack commented that as he reflected on many fee and license payments that he is familiar with, he highly doubted that all they were doing was recovering costs. He noted that it might prove difficult to argue to our tax payers that there was a benefit to being more fair than other counties were being, if it meant we were taking in less money.

Mr. Miller stated that while the Board should discuss and consider these issues, it was still his stance that the Building Fees cannot be used for things above and beyond the actual expenses related to the permit. He also noted that the County has always striven to do what is right, even if it isn’t the easiest thing.

Mr. MacMurdo asked Mr. Slingerland to expand on his previous advice to keep the costs tied to the expenses. Mr. Slingerland responded that case theory draws a line where regulation becomes taxation. If fees are tied to costs, they are credible. If the fees become excessive of the costs, they begin to look like excess taxation. This causes the courts to look to see if the County has the express authority to tax, and they do not.

Mr. MacMurdo then asked why Lee and Bureau Counties took such different positions on this. Mr. Miller responded that they did not look at the statutes, and instead simply used their previous rationales for cell towers.

Mr. Sands asked how Lee and Bureau had originally justified their cell tower cost decision. Mr. Miller responded that they had used a model from Kane County. Kane County staff looked at provisions under the telecommunications portion of the county zoning authority under the State statutes, considered the standards regarding fences, setbacks, etc., and determined that in order to do a full and thorough job it would take their staff an amount of time that would justify the $25 per foot cost. However, he noted that he has never seen an actual accounting of the costs.

Mr. Slack asked if there had ever been a challenge to the Kane County approach and Mr. Miller responded that, to his knowledge, there had not.

Mr. Steimel commented that it seemed logical that the costs for the wind towers would be greater than the costs associated with cell towers. For instance, he felt that County Engineer Bill Lorence’s responsibilities with the wind towers would be far greater. This could, he felt, justify a higher fee, perhaps in the range of $1,000. However, he closed by noting that the $25 per foot fee still seemed excessive.

Mr. Steimel called for any additional discussion. Ms. Vary asked if cell towers require a Special Use Permit with each tower. Mr. Miller responded that they did not, as they are exempted from county zoning authority by State Statute.

Mr. Sands noted that there was still a tremendous amount of negotiation left to do on the details of the project implementation and that such negotiations will take a great deal of staff time. He again noted that he felt that perhaps not all the potential time and effort costs had been considered.

Mr. Miller noted that it is a valuable point to note that costs considered for the fee had focused on the construction of the towers rather than the administration of the use conditions and perhaps that could justify a higher fee structure. He asked Mr. Slingerland if adding costs associated with enforcing conditions of the Special Use Permit seemed to be an acceptable addition to the "actual costs" policy, and Mr. Slingerland concurred.

Mr. Rosemeier asked if there would have to be staff involvement in issues related to any farm or road damage caused during construction. Mr. Miller noted that damage to farms will be handled between the farmers and FPL. As to other ancillary costs, such as Sheriff’s escorts for the trucks, those would be billed directly from the agency affected to FPL. FPL will be providing security to assure damage to roads is repaired.

Mr. Slack asked what constraints are on the County related to power plants and if that would add any additional inspection issues that had not been anticipated. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Petrie to comment. Mr. Petrie noted that he had been in conversations with UL (Underwriters Laboratories) and that they have requested involvement as a third party inspector. Any costs billed by UL would be billed to FPL.

Mr. Sands interjected that such inspections would need coordinating and that would fall to County staff. Mr. Slack asked if the obtaining and processing of EPA permits would involve any staff time. Mr. Miller responded that all of that work would have to be handled directly by FPL. Ms. Vary asked if it would be correct that permit costs will be primarily related to construction of the towers. Mr. Miller indicated that was correct, but added that there had also been agreement that some administrative costs could be rolled into the fee as well.

Discussion moved to the consideration of possible fee adjustments for other zoning actions. Mr. Miller began with an overview of the fees and costs currently in place, using Special Use as an example. The current fees are intended to offset the costs of the Hearing Officer at a rate of $350 for the first hour and $50 for each additional hour, which includes the production of a final report for the record. Also included are costs for the Officer to travel to the site. However, increases in the costs of required mailings to surrounding property owners and newspaper publication have rendered the current $525 fee insufficient. A review of the average publication and mailing costs would support a conservative recommendation of between $570 and $600 per case. One recommendation would be to have the applicant fully reimburse the actual costs for the mailing and publications within 30 days of being given those costs by the County. If this were done, then the actual "fee" could be reduced, even with the additional administrative costs associated with the billing.

Mr. MacMurdo asked of all the permit types applied for, how many were for County residents and how many were for others outside the County? Mr. Miller replied that 90% of the applicants were County residents. Mr. MacMurdo asked if these could be accurately characterized then as fees charged primarily to DeKalb County taxpayers. Mr. Miller noted that was correct, but to taxpayers that were demanding services of the County that others were not.

Mr. Sands asked to clarify that the staff recommendation is to reduce the fees. Mr. Miller said that was correct, but that the applicant would also pay for the actual costs of the notice in the newspaper and the mailing to surrounding property owners. Mr. Sands then asked what the fee is that is applied to an individual who wishes to build a house on a 40 acre A-1, Agricultural parcel. Mr. Miller responded that there was no fee attached in that circumstance. However, he added that houses in other zoning classes do carry fees determined by the square footage of the houses or structures proposed. On the average, such costs run about $1,200 per single family dwelling.

Mr. Sands asked if he was correct that a person seeking a Planned Development could do so and receive the benefit of multiple permits for the $600 fee noted, rather than at $1,200 per house? Mr. Miller clarified that the cost for a Planned Development review covered only the review and approval process for the subdivision. Building Permit fees would be charged per house after the planned development were approved. However, he noted that it had been awhile since a review had been done on the Planned Development fee and perhaps it should be looked at as well. Mr. Sands asked if Mr. Miller could bring back a recommendation on that to the next scheduled Committee meeting. Mr. Miller agreed that he would do that.

Mr. Steimel then noted that there seems to be two issues at hand, the adjustment to make petitioners responsible for some of the costs associated with the process, and the question of a fee increase for planned developments. He commented that perhaps the Committee needs additional information. Mr. Miller noted that a final decision could be tabled until the additional information requested by Mr. Sands and that this might be cleaner from an administrative standing.

Mr. Miller distributed an amended memo for the Committee’s review and asked that Mr. Petrie be recognized to discuss the issues presented in greater detail. Mr. Petrie noted that the County Building Inspectors have been working closely with the 2000 International Residential Code (IRC) and had noted some variations from our existing codes that need to be addressed. Items 1 and 2 from residential code R105.2 are simply items that need to removed from the listing of "Work Exempt from permit." He commented that exemption of fences and small accessory structures from requiring Building Permits is not recommended, as these structures require inspection according to the Zoning Ordinance to assure proper enforcement. Item 3 related to residential code R317.2, which permits battery operated smoke detectors in building additions. Mr. Petrie noted that the County preference would be to retain a requirement of a/c powered units.

The final item relates to Chapter 11 of the residential code and calls for a higher exterior wall energy efficiency standard of R-21, and a resulting change to construction requirements from 2X4 walls to 2X6 walls. The recommendation from the staff is that the County amend the code to continue to require an R-13 standard (2x4 construction), as the energy efficiency enhancement to the R-21 standard would not be sufficient to justify the additional building (and consumer) costs. Further, the Federal Department of Energy supports the R-13 standard as well.

Mr. MacMurdo noted that he was quite familiar with this issue and it was his understanding that the only reason the Federal government had agreed to the R-13 standard was as the result of concerted pressure from the mobile modular home industry to avoid enhanced costs. Mr. Sands noted that Cortland has opted to adopt the R-21 standard. Mr. Simonson noted that recalled that homebuilders used to follow a 2X6 construction standard and, in his opinion, the homes were more solid and trustworthy during storms.

Mr. Steimel commented that this seems to be an issue that will have great significance to people building homes and perhaps it would be prudent to take additional time to consider all the ramifications of the issue. He asked Mr. Petrie to speak with the local building community and see if there are substantive arguments for either side of the issue. Mr. Miller noted that it might be additionally helpful to get a sense of what the individual towns and villages are doing to assure consistency. Mrs. Dubin asked if it would be possible to get some firm idea of what additional costs this would add to a typical house.

Mr. Miller noted that a copy of the Department’s Annual Report was being provided for the Committee’s information. Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Slingerland to comment on the violations process and procedures. Mr. Slingerland noted that since the creation of the Code Hearing Unit two years ago, things have been working quite well. Mr. Miller added that this has greatly reduced the cases being forwarded to the State’s Attorney’s office for processing. There have been only two items that have come to the Code Hearing Unit, one resulting in a determination by the offender to cooperate prior to the Hearing beginning and one ending in a plea bargain and fine.

Mr. Miller reported that the RPC has been meeting monthly, and that the attendance from the 13 participating communities has been very good. The RPC has made substantial progress on the Unified Comprehensive Plan (UCP)/Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) project, wherein each municipality is updating their comprehensive plans, which will then be combined with the County’s plan to create a Unified Comprehensive Plan. Many of the communities are using the services of the consultant, LandVision, while some like DeKalb and Cortland are doing their own. The current schedule calls for the consensus plans for each community to be mostly completed by this April, and then to have the Unified Comprehensive Plan prepared by the end of the year. The hope is that, in the end, all the communities are essentially on the same page regarding development standards and processes.

Ms. Vary asked if Maple Park had any involvement in this process, considering the rapid expansion occurring from the East. Mr. Miller responded that they had not responded to the County, but had instead done a comprehensive plan with assistance from Kane County. He hopes to go back to Maple Park after the finalization of the County-wide UCP and see if it would be possible to achieve an intergovernmental agreement with them. He added that it was the hope to have several intergovernmental agreements at the completion of the project wherein the communities essentially endorses the County plan and the County endorses theirs. In the end, the RPC will continue to meet to coordinate, cooperate and communicate on issues of regional interest.

Ms. Dubin asked if there had been any further discussions on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mr. Miller noted that he has been asked to be on the Technical Committee for the MPO, but they have not met yet. He noted that Bob Pritchard is representing the County on the Policy Committee for the MPO.

Mr. Simonson reported that the Kane County Board Chairman would be the featured Speaker at the DeKalb County Farmland Foundation at the Afton Hall in Elva from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on March 22, 2003.

Mr. Sands noted that the Village of Malta is extremely happy with the Regional Planning Commission efforts and the assistance that has been provided to them from Mr. Miller. He noted that this assistance will be tremendously helpful to the Village as it faces its development challenges.

Mr. Miller passed out a draft ordinance which had been constructed with the assistance and input of State’s Attorney Ron Matekaitis and Mr. Slingerland. After the Committee reviewed the document, Mr. Steimel asked Mr. Miller to discuss the contents of the ordinance. Mr. Miller noted that the intention is to frame the intentions of the Board with regard to a moratorium on any further wind tower development beyond what had been approved by the Board recently. The purpose is to provide the County time to evaluate the real impact that will occur from the approved project without committing to any further development.

Mr. Miller went on to discuss specific reference points in the document. One item of note is the final "whereas" clause appearing on the top of page two of the document. This item makes clear that while the County cannot prohibit anyone from making application for further wind tower development, the staff will not be obligated to act on the applications until the moratorium expires. This lead to a discussion of the appropriate expiration date to be set for the moratorium. Mr. Miller noted that in his discussions with Mr. Matekaitis, he had indicated that a two-year expiration might prove difficult to defend if an applicant brought suit against the County.

Mr. MacMurdo asked Mr. Slingerland what he felt would be a legally defensible date. Mr. Slingerland responded that he had not been involved in the discussions on the expiration date with Mr. Matekaitis, and therefore could not speak to alternative date options. Mr. Slack noted that if two years was not an option, would one year really be sufficient to assess the project impact.

Ms. Vary commented that she thought perhaps two to three years was the most reasonable time frame.

Mr. Steimel asked if the County Board could elect to rescind the moratorium before the expiration date if they found they had sufficient information. Mr. Slingerland responded that they indeed could rescind if they so chose. Ms. Vary again noted that it would seem reasonable to need at least two or three years for a full assessment of impact on lifestyles, property values and the other issues raised by wind tower opponents. Mr. MacMurdo noted that there was also an issue of seeing at least two seasonal cycles to assess the weather related concerns.

Mr. Slack asked if the County were accepting applications during the moratorium, would they then be deluged with requests for action the day after the expiration and would they have to be given a "first come, first served" response. Mr. Miller responded that would likely be the case, however, as they had seen with the FPL project, there was a great deal that the companies would have to do with local property owners and their own assessments before being able to proceed with the County. Discussion followed regarding how specific the expiration date would have to be. Mr. Slingerland responded that there would have to be a clear public declaration of when the clock starts and ends on the moratorium.

Mr. Slack raised the question of whether or not a farmer who wished to have a wind tower for their private use would be prohibited from having one by the moratorium. Mr. Miller responded that they would not be as long as the private use is maintained and all appropriate setbacks are observed. If the tower were ever put into commercial usage, it would be prohibited without a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Simonson asked if FPL had any kind of deadline for completion of the towers in the current project. Mr. Miller noted that they had stated an intention of completion of all towers by 12-31-03. Mr. Steimel noted that it then seemed even more appropriate to look to a two year moratorium, as the real, full impact would not begin to be felt until 1-1-2004 at the earliest.

Mr. Steimel noted that some Board members and other public officials had been receiving complaints about signs for two housing developments that have been placed along County road ways. He asked Mr. Miller to bring the Committee up to speed on the rules and regulations that would apply. Mr. Miller reported that the County regulations make off-premise signs illegal in the County. They are further prohibited if they are placed in the roadway. However, the administration of the rules falls to only one Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Anderson. On occasion, the Sheriff’s department will notify the office about signs posted illegally. One practice that has been occurring is that some of the offenders have been placing the signs on a Friday evening and removing them on a Sunday evening, knowing that the Planning Department is closed during that time. The Sheriff’s Department has agreed to try to handle weekend violations. Mr. Miller noted that if anyone else observes the signs, and can obtain information about who are the sign owners, the office can make contact and begin the process of establishing a violation file that could be taken to the Code Hearing Unit. Currently, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miller have spoken to two of the sign providers involved in the recent complaints and informed them of the illegality and the potential for fines. Discussion followed regarding the responsibility of the developers and the landowners who allow signs to be placed on their property. Mr. Slingerland noted that the County Zoning Ordinance specifies that it is the erection of the sign that is illegal, and if the landowners is not putting the sign up, they may not be subject to any fine. However, the County can process a violation against whomever installed the sign.

Mr. Sands asked at this time to recognize Mr. Mel Hass, a guest in the audience to make comments on this situation. Mr. Hass wanted to express his encouragement to the County to take this sign issue very seriously as he had seen the outcome in some of the farther eastern suburbs. In these areas, the signs had become an extreme eyesore and he was quite happy to hear that DeKalb had ordinance provisions that addressed this. He then asked Mr. Miller what a citizen can do to assist the County in handling this situation. Mr. Miller noted that anyone observing the violation should provide as much detail about placement, and sign ownership as they can to the Planning, Zoning and Building Department. He closed by noting that they would be moving through the notification process with the current group of offenders. Mr. Steimel noted that perhaps further discussions on making the policy more stringent might be in order. Mr. Miller noted that the ordinance seems adequate, but the difficulties come in on the enforcement and the evidence required to bring about a negative finding at the Code Hearing Unit.

Mr. Lyle asked if the roadside memorials that are often erected would also be illegal. Mr. Miller noted that they were, but that staff rarely is called upon to remove them. Mr. Sands added that some road commissioners might respect their placement for a short time and then encourage their removal or replacement to private property.

Mr. Sands asked if one other issue could be addressed before adjournment with respect to cell tower regulation. He noted that the recent wind tower discussions brought up concerns related to fees and setbacks that might well be equally applicable to cell towers. Mr. Miller noted that while fees could be reviewed, the setbacks are established by State law and would not be in the County’s jurisdiction. Mr. Sands asked to be provided a copy of the applicable law.

Ms. Vary closed by noting that she had obtained a copy of a very informative PowerPoint presentation given by Roger Hopkins at the annual meeting of the DeKalb County Economic Development Corporation. She offered it to any of the Committee members who might find it useful.