County planning fees to rise July 1
Despite protests from some watchdog citizens, the Board of Josephine County Commissioners voted Wednesday, May 30 in Grants Pass to increase planning department fees, including those for appeals, as of July 1.
The increase was part of a larger effort to make many county departments self-sustaining and fee-based.
Commissioner Dwight Ellis moved to adopt the increases, which Vice Chairman Dave Toler seconded. The motion was approved
2-0, as Jim Raffenburg, board chairman, was on vacation.
Hugo resident Mike Walker spoke against the increases during the public hearing on the matter May 30. Walker stated that he was representing Hugo Neighborhood Association and Historical Society, Three Pines Neighborhood Association, and Rogue Advocates.
Walker claimed that the fees are “largely unstable” and that the county charter requires voter approval for the increases. The fees don’t cover many state-mandated land-use planning requirements, and a fee-driven setting increases the potential for corruption and favoritism, it was indicated.
Hal Anthony, saying that he represented the same three groups as Walker, compared the fee-based system to a poll tax in Josephine County’s distant past.
“It almost becomes like a poll tax,” Anthony said. “If you can’t pay, you can’t play.”
Resident Gene Mow called the proposed fee increase for appeals “excessive.” She said that revenues generated from appeals are insignificant anyway, and she had other objections as well.
“Public participation will be discouraged by a large increase,” Mow said. “I think it will leave more people out of the process.”
Bob Hart, a land-use consultant who served for 17 years in the county’s planning office, said that he disagreed with Mow’s statement.
“There is plenty of opportunity for input from citizens of Josephine County,” Hart said.
Hart noted that the cost of developing land has “gone up significantly,” and that a traffic analysis for a recent, small development cost $8,000.
“I think these fees are not out of line,” stated Hart.
However, he added that there “should be some general fund support” for the planning department.
Toler said that the appeals fee was $750 during 2005, and would be increased to $2,000 under the new schedule.
Ellis stated that he was bothered by comments that a fee-based system could lead to corruption.
“I take personal offense to that,” Ellis said.
He said that during his two and a half years on the board, many proposed developments have been denied by the county.
“We don’t always come out in favor of the developer,” Ellis said. He also rejected the poll tax analogy.
“I don’t agree that this is a poll tax,” he said.
Toler said that while having the planning department be completely fee-based is “hugely unstable,” the county’s entire financial situation could be accurately described in the same terms.
“I truly looked at this as stabilizing planning,” he said.
Toler rejected the argument that higher fees paid by developers would encourage favoritism toward those interests. He pointed out that higher appeals fees won’t make the county biased toward appellants in the matter of appeals.
He said that if the county weren’t moving in the direction of a fee-based system, “I don’t know what we’d be looking at.”
Toler acknowledged that appeals fees are rising faster than the others, but that he was willing to look at “potential adjustments” later.
Land-use activist and Hugo resident Holger Sommer said that appeals heard by the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) cost $325. Sommer said that such appeals would be more costly at the state level than locally.
Ellis said that the appeals process has become more complex, which has increased costs, but that “citizen involvement has remained level,” despite prior increases.
There are fewer appeals at the county level now than when he first took office, Ellis said. He credited Anthony, Sommer and other activists for helping the county improve its process.
But Ellis stated that the appeals process is more expensive for the county than for LUBA.
Toler acknowledged that higher fees are a burden on applicants and citizens, and that the system works best when both groups are involved. But although he stated regret regarding the increases, he said that not doing so would lead to a weaker planning department.
