Lane County delays vote after staff proposes 22.5% permit-fee increase to close $1.3 million gap

Keir Miller, Land Management Division manager for Lane County, told the Board of County Commissioners on March 11 that a consultant study found the division now recovers only about 35% of its costs and that the division faces a roughly $1,300,000 structural budget deficit for the coming budget year.

Miller said the consulting firm FCS Group recommends a 22.5% across‑the‑board increase to base fees for planning, stormwater, sanitation and code enforcement, and county staff presented a parallel ordinance to raise building program fees by the same percentage. Miller said most increases would take effect July 1 if the board adopts them.

The changes, Miller said, are meant to limit further draws on Land Management Division (LMD) reserves and avoid service reductions: “We are looking at a $1,300,000 budget deficit,” Miller said, adding that without fee changes the division would either draw down reserves further or cut services and staff. The consultant estimated the division’s cost‑recovery rate fell from about 65% in 2015 to roughly 35% today, driven chiefly by rising labor and overhead costs.

Why it matters: LMD conducts permitting and land‑use reviews for unincorporated Lane County; slow permit processing has both practical and reputational consequences, while higher fees can affect homeowners, contractors and small developers. Miller said the proposed increases would be “de minimis” to the cost of a typical new home in percentage terms (less than 1% of a $450,000 project in his memo) but acknowledged the timing amid housing affordability concerns.

Details of the proposal and staff clarifications

- Consultant recommendation: 22.5% base fee increase across planning, stormwater, sanitation and code enforcement fee schedules. Building program fees would be raised by the same percentage via ordinance. - Selected adjustments: a $45 fee for building-permit extensions (staff said no extension fee currently exists), and a $110 increase to the $500 special investigation fee in the code enforcement program (raising that specific charge to about $610). Staff also proposed lowering fees tied to rehearings that now return to the hearings official rather than to the board. - Recovery and reserves: staff said LMD receives no general‑fund support and has relied on other subsidies (including video lottery funds) and reserves; staff said reserves are below the division’s 18‑month goal and are nearer 12 months now. Without fee changes, staff said further reserve draws or staff reductions would be necessary.

Public comment and stakeholder outreach

Staff said outreach included a 45‑day posting to the Oregon Building Codes Division website and engagement with the Western Oregon Home Builders Association. Staff reported three written comments in the record: one from a Florence real estate agent, one from the Central Coast Board of Realtors asking for more time, and one from a Florence contractor opposing the building fee increase.

Three members of the public testified at the hearing. Gary Rose, an owner of an excavation business in western Lane County, said “I am here to oppose the fee increase” and urged more internal accountability and faster permit turnaround. Kelly Gustafson, chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the Eugene Realtors Association, said the association is “really opposed to this high of an increase” and urged the board to seek cost‑reductions before a large uptick in fees. Oscar Rigoli, a Florence real estate broker, said the jump could make repairs such as septic improvements unaffordable for some homeowners.

Legal limit on appeal fees

During the hearing, county staff clarified limits on appeal fees. Gary Miller, county staff, said the initial county appeal filing fee is set by statute at $250 and cannot be increased by the county, noting that the county “loses a lot of money on appeals” because the statutory appeal fee does not cover staff and hearing‑official costs.

Board action and next steps

After discussion and requests for additional analysis (including comparative scenarios at lower increase levels and options to phase or “stair‑step” increases), the board voted to continue both items to a later meeting: the board moved the order to amend Land Management Division fees (order number cited in the motion) to a time certain of April 8 at 1:30 p.m.; the motion was made by the Vice Chair and seconded by Commissioner Buck and passed 4‑0 with Commissioner Farr excused. The board also set the second‑reading public hearing on the building program fee ordinance (Ordinance No. 2504) for third reading and kept the hearing open to an April 8, 1:30 p.m. time certain; that motion passed 4‑0 with Commissioner Farr excused.

Staff said it will return with more refined options before the April 8 meeting, including comparisons of different percentage increases (for example 15% or phased approaches), and additional breakdowns showing which permit types would be most affected. Miller and other staff emphasized that some smaller, high‑volume permits drive most revenue and that staff will provide more detail about impact by permit category.

Ending

The board left the record open and asked staff to prepare additional analyses and options for the April 8 meeting; if adopted, staff said the increases would take effect July 1. The board also requested that staff examine targeted relief or alternatives for emergency repairs and lower‑income homeowners, an idea several commissioners raised for further study.