Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate building fee increases, taxpayer exemptions and fair event center costs; topic tabled
Summary
Harney County commissioners discussed a recently updated building fee schedule, concerns about charging county‑funded projects and an apparent contractor surprise over permit valuations for the Fair Event Center. The court voted to table further decisions on fee waivers until the next session.
Harney County commissioners spent substantial time on March 19 discussing the county’s recently updated building fee schedule, whether to waive fees for entities funded by county tax dollars, and the immediate implications for the Fair Event Center project.
Building Official Rick Stoffer told the County Court that the county’s permit fees are derived from state statute, administrative rules (ORS/OAR) and International Code Council valuation tables; he and staff said the county’s fee schedule had not been substantially updated for about 22 years and that updates were intended to align fees with the work required and to build a self‑sustaining enterprise fund for the building and environmental services program.
Commissioners debated whether the county should waive or discount fees for projects funded by county tax dollars (schools, county departments, special districts) on the grounds that doing so would effectively tax the same dollars twice. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to broadly exempt county‑funded projects; one commissioner recalled offering a one‑time 10 percent reduction for the Fair Event Center because of time‑sensitive needs. Another commissioner argued that high permit valuations can materially reduce the amount of construction funded by a fixed tax‑funded appropriation: meeting discussion included an estimate that charging the higher valuation could reduce the Fair Event Center’s scope by roughly $150,000 in completed work.
Legal and budget questions came up about whether enterprise fund revenues can be transferred back to the general fund; county staff and the treasurer advised that fees must be tracked and that the county had structured the recent building fund adjustments as a loan/transfer with the intent to repay from future departmental revenues. Commissioners discussed building a reserve in the enterprise fund to smooth revenue fluctuations and the practical difficulty of waiving fees consistently without creating audit risk.
After more than an hour of debate, Judge Hart moved to table the building fee schedule topic to the next county court session to allow further research and to gather more information. The motion to table was seconded and carried by voice vote with one abstention recorded. No policy change or fee waiver was adopted at the March 19 meeting; commissioners asked staff to research statutory and audit constraints and to report back.
Ending: The court formally tabled fee‑waiver policy discussion to a future session; staff were asked to provide more legal and budget analysis before the court considers any targeted exemptions or permanent policy changes.
