Source: http://hugoneighborhood.org/localappealfees.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:39:03+00:00

Document:
User fees dedicated to the user through the countys "current planning" function are required to be no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service. A change to user fees should not be undertaken until some effort has been made to develop a real assessment study designed to address the legal issue of actual or average costs.
Fee surveys of other adjacent counties does not satisfy the law, nor are they reliable as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at "their" levels. For example, many communities have established their own policies that some services are a benefit to the entire community rather than to special interests: public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression; maintaining and developing public facilities on a uniform, community-wide basis such as streets, parks, and general-purpose buildings; and providing social service programs, economic development activities, and planning services because they are clearly intended to serve the broader community. Where other counties have made these policies their associated services have very low cost recovery goals.
ORS 215.416(1) When required or authorized by the ordinances, rules and regulations of a county, an owner of land may apply in writing to such persons as the governing body designates, for a permit, in the manner prescribed by the governing body. The governing body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service.
ORS 215.422(1)(c) The governing body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearings officer, planning commission or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript. The governing body may establish a fee for the preparation of a written transcript. The fee shall be reasonable and shall not exceed the actual cost of preparing the transcript up to $500. In lieu of a transcript prepared by the governing body and the fee therefor, the governing body shall allow any party to an appeal proceeding held on the record to prepare a transcript of relevant portions of the proceedings conducted at a lower level at the partys own expense. If an appellant prevails at a hearing or on appeal, the transcript fee shall be refunded.
The following is a summary of the what I believe to be the history and the authorities in Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ LUBA No. 2006-150.
"The county does not argue that those cases were wrongly decided, or offer any other basis to conclude that the Board lack jurisdiction over Order No. 2006-125. Accordingly, the countys motion to dismiss is denied."
"The county also argues that several petitioners do not have standing to appeal Order No. 2006-125."
"* * * Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews. The legislature has adopted several statutes regulating local governments discretion to impose fees and related transcript costs, codified in city and county zoning and planning chapters. ORS 215.416(11)(b), 215.422(1)(c), 227.175(10)(b), 227.180(1)(c). See Housing Council, 48 Or App at 538 (noting a possible exception to its holding, where the challenged decision involves financing of the citizen involvement program required by Statewide Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement))." 45 Or LUBA at 415-16."
"Petitioners request, because the Respondent refers to fee increase matters from 2004, the record shall contain all and any information relating to Planning Department Fee changes since January 2004 unit now."
"It is Josephine countys position that the fee increases that are the subject of this pending matter before LUBA are a fiscal matter related to the budgetary process of county government. Even though the fees have some slight impact on land use they do not constitute a land use decision or limited land use decision; LUBA is therefore without jurisdiction to review the budgetary process involved in the increase. Because LUBA is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this matter, the appeal should be dismissed."
Opinion - "The above-emphasised findings, if they were supported by substantial evidence, would likely be adequate to respond to the issue that petitioner raised below and again raises in this assignment of error. For example, if the record included a focused representation by the planning staff regarding the average or actual costs to the county of providing a local appeal to challenge a planning commission or hearings official decision and that explanation supported a conclusion that the costs exceed the existing and proposed increased fee, we would almost certainly be required to deny this assignment of error unless some opposing evidence had been submitted to the county to rebut that representation.3 However, as we explain below, the county does not cite and we are unable to find the "representation" that finding four appears to rely on. The representations that the county identifies in its brief are generally directed at total Land Management Division costs and total Land Management Division fee revenues and make no attempt at all to focus on the three fees that are at issue in this appeal. . . .There does not appear to be any dispute that the total cost of operating the county Land Management Division, both before and after the challenged fee increases, exceeds the aggregate revenues that have been collected in the past and likely will exceed the revenue that will be collected in the future under the increased fee structure. The relevant question is whether a reasonable person would conclude from the fact that the three fees the challenged order adopts for appeals of planning commission and hearings official decisions will not exceed the average or actual costs of such appeals. Based on the present record, we do not believe a reasonable person would reach that conclusion."
Opinion - "Had Land Management Division staff made any particularized effort to explain why it believes the three fees proposed for planning commission and hearings officer appeals do not exceed the average or actual costs of those appeals, it might be appropriate for the county to fault petitioner for not attempting to refute that testimony. However, as far as we can tell, the Land Management Division did not make any particular effort to explain why the three fees that are subject to ORS 215.422(1)(c) comply with the limitation imposed by that statute."
Headnote - "Absent any contravening evidence or need for more detailed analysis, staff testimony that proposed application fee increases accurately reflect increased costs and are less than the maximum amount that cities my charge under ORS 227.175(1) is substantial evidence supporting a finding of compliance with the statute."
Headnote - "Under ORS 227.180(1)(c), the question of whether local appeal fees are "reasonable" is not separable from the question of whether the appeal fees are not more than the average or actual cost of such appeals, absent evidence that the local government spends an unreasonable amount of time or incurs unreasonable expenses in processing appeals." Headnote - That the legislature has capped local fees for providing a hearing under ORS 215.416(11)(b) and 227.175(10)(b) at $250 does not demonstrate that a $500 fee to appeal a planning commission decision to the governing body is unreasonable, for purposes of ORS 227.180(1)(c)."
Headnote - "Where a county order establishes a fee of $700 to, among other things, request a hearing on a permit application or file a local appeal of a permit decision rendered without a hearing, LUBA will remand the order where the $700 fee appears to violate the $250 maximum fees established by ORS 215.416(11)(b), and the county offers no defense of the order."
Headnote - "ORS 215.416 and ORS 215.422 do not prohibit a county from establishing a fee requirement for appeals of decisions on permit application made by the planning director without a hearing." Some legislative history in opinion.
LUBA - Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss) - "In Housing Council, the Court of Appeals held that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) did not have jurisdiction to review an ordinance adopting a system development charge for compliance with statewide planning goals, notwithstanding that such charges have impacts on land use. According to the court, the legislature did not intend LCDC to have the authority to review and ordinance that is primarily a fiscal measure designed to raise and allocate public revenue."
. Jesinghaus v. City of Grants Pass, 42, Or LUBA 477, 483 (2002) Do not have.
. Baker v. City of Woodburn, 37 Or LUBA 563, 568-69, affd 167 Or App 259, 4 P3d 775 (2000) Do not have.
. The Petrie Company v. City of Tigard, 28 Or LUBA 535, 540 (1995) Do not have.
. Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 617 P2d 655 (1980) Do not have.
Land Use Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society & Goal One Coalition. November 28, 2006. Perils of An Applicant-Driven User Fee Funded Planning Office. Hugo, OR.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.