Klamath County staff propose several fee and process changes: utility permit inspection fees, on-site modification fee, online licensing and an animal-control ‘

County departments presented a package of administrative changes and technology proposals affecting permits, licensing and operations.

Public Works proposed a new fee structure for utility permits under county roads. Staff said Senate Bill “15 66” (as cited in the presentation) now allows the county to recoup certain inspection fees but caps fees at $500. Public Works proposed a three-tier approach: a $150 fee for small utility projects (single laterals), $350 for larger cross-country projects, and an average permit fee around $267. Staff said the county spends roughly $45,000 per year from gas tax funds inspecting hundreds of utility permits and that recovering inspection and plan-review costs would prevent erosion of road-maintenance funds over time. The board indicated support and asked staff to select an effective date (July 1 and January 1 were discussed) with July favored by some commissioners.

County on-site (sewage/site-review) staff proposed a reduced modification fee for commercial site-plan reviews. Stephanie Brown said the existing commercial site-plan review fee is $740 and that when applicants make small changes she is charged the full fee each time. Brown proposed a modification fee of 50 percent of the original commercial site-plan review fee for subsequent changes and recommended an effective date to coincide with other fee changes (November or July were discussed). Commissioners expressed support for the change and staff said on-site can sustain the revenue loss.

Public Health staff (Jennifer Little and Jessica Dale) told the board they had completed the annual fee assessment and proposed no fee increases for the current year; they noted a few fee areas that may need adjustment after process improvements are in place.

IT and animal-control staff asked for approval to contract with a local vendor (Harmony/Marcio) to implement a county-hosted AI hub to automate animal-control processes. Staff said the plan is a one-time ~$3,500 setup for the hub and an additional ~$3,500 estimate for a server that would be housed in county IT (not cloud). The vendor would configure and support the system; staff said the animal-control hub would be the pilot and other departments could add hubs later. Commissioners supported moving forward and directed staff to route a contract through finance.

Licensing staff recommended streamlining liquor licensing recommendations and moving payments online. Staff proposed a flat $25 recommendation fee (new and renewal) and an online portal for payment; the online processing fees would be passed to the payer (debit $1.49, credit ~2.4%). Licensing staff also proposed revisions to social-gaming fees: increasing the per-table fee from $100 to $125 and raising one‑time event fees to $125; staff recommended removing rarely used prorated and nonprofit discounts but offered a possible reduced rate for nonprofit societies.

Finally, a commissioner directed staff to review the county travel policy and how small de minimis benefits from traveler reward programs should be treated; staff were asked to bring recommendations and to coordinate with legal counsel as needed. Commissioners emphasized that a policy update should save the county money without imposing heavy receipt-collection on staff.

In most of these items the board expressed tentative support and directed staff to return with ordinance/code updates or contracts; no final ordinance or contract awards were recorded in the transcript for these items.