Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley County commissioners adopt higher planning and zoning fees after public hearing
Summary
The Valley County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution 2025-08 to raise several planning and zoning fees, including a new Agricultural Protection Area application fee and higher appeal and surveyor charges, after a public hearing that included objections to proposed reconsideration and appeal fees.
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley County commissioners voted to adopt Resolution 2025-08, increasing several planning and zoning fees, following a public hearing and staff presentation on April 14.
County staff presented the resolution and said the board sets planning and zoning fees to cover processing costs and that a public hearing was required because some proposed increases exceed 5%. The staff report described several specific changes: a proposed $150 fee for Agricultural Protection Area applications tied to Ordinance 2025-05-01; a proposed new fee of $1,500 for motions for reconsideration under a proposed addition to Valley County Code 9-5H-13; an increase in appeal fees from $500 to $1,000; and an increase in county surveyor fees from $300 plus $1 per lot to $500 plus $1 per lot. Staff said the last fee update occurred in 2023 and compared the current and proposed schedules in the meeting packet. Legal notice of the hearing was posted in the Star News on March 27; notices went to libraries and post offices in Cascade, Donnelly, McCall and Yellow Pine and were posted to the Valley County website on March 18.
During public testimony, Kathleen Trevor, a property owner in McCall, told commissioners she opposed the proposed $1,500 fee for motions for reconsideration and the increase to the appeal fee. Trevor argued that Idaho law does not require the board to act on a motion for reconsideration and that such a fee ‘‘for something that requires no county action does not appear to be reasonable.’’ She also said motions for reconsideration are part of the path to judicial review for aggrieved parties and that fees should not create an unreasonable barrier to court access. Trevor recommended clarifying the appeal deadline so it is counted from the written decision rather than an earlier verbal action by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioners asked staff clarifying questions about how the appeal deadlines are currently set, how the proposed fee increases relate to staff time already expended on initial applications and extensions, and whether past appeal activity justifies the change. One commissioner said the county had received advice from the prosecutor’s office supporting the proposed increases and noted greater court scrutiny in recent years that has required more staff and attorney time when appeals or judicial review follow local land-use decisions. Another commissioner said the proposed fees appeared to be within the limits of covering costs and were ‘‘fair’’ to taxpayers.
After discussion the board moved to adopt Resolution 2025-08 to increase planning and zoning fees as presented; the motion passed on a voice vote with all commissioners responding "Aye." Commissioners thanked Kathleen Trevor for testifying.
The resolution and the staff report with fee comparisons were included in the commissioners’ meeting packet. Staff also noted that no written comments were received before the hearing.
What the board decided - Resolution 2025-08 (Planning and Zoning Fees) was approved by motion and voice vote; commissioners answered “Aye.” - Specific proposed changes described in staff materials that the board approved include: Agricultural Protection Area application fee proposed at $150; proposed motion-for-reconsideration fee of $1,500 (proposed addition to Valley County Code 9-5H-13); appeal fee increase from $500 to $1,000; county surveyor fee increase from $300 + $1/lot to $500 + $1/lot.
Next steps and context County staff said the fee schedule and the resolution are in the packet and the board may consider ordinance amendments connected to land-use rules in a future meeting. Members of the public asked staff to clarify whether appeal deadlines should be based on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s written decision to avoid premature appeals; staff agreed to review the timing language in existing ordinance materials.

