Mining permit applicant and board debate permit fees as county considers per-acre, flat and project‑cost options

A representative for BNI Cole asked the Oliver County Planning and Zoning board what the new fee schedule would require for a conditional-use permit to expand a mining operation by 160 acres.

The applicant, Greg, said Mercer and McLean counties use per‑acre or flat-plus-per‑acre schedules and that the board’s recent shift to a percentage-of-project-cost formula has created uncertainty for mining projects where infrastructure costs are not easily defined. Staff explained the board’s current written conditional‑use fee reads as “one‑tenth of one percent of the total cost of the project plus $1 for every acre over 10 acres,” which can be difficult to apply to mining expansions where project cost is not clearly itemized.

Board members proposed alternatives used in other counties — for example, a Mercer-style flat fee plus a small per‑acre charge (one member suggested $100 plus $2 per acre as a model for mining) — and emphasized that fees should cover county administrative expenses (packet preparation, staff time, public hearings, and any special meetings). Staff agreed to compute the county’s real administrative cost per hearing and bring concrete fee options back at the January meeting so the board can decide whether to create a specialized mining fee category or adapt the industrial fee structure.

The board also discussed whether to permit phased payment schedules (an upfront administrative deposit followed by a larger payment if/when approvals proceed) and whether existing operators should be treated differently than new applicants. The applicant was advised to expect a revised, clarified fee schedule at the next meeting.