Klamath County planning staff told the Planning Commission the department is operating with about $360,000–$380,000 in annual expenses, a reserve of roughly $233,000 and a current shortfall of about $53,000 per year. To address the gap, staff outlined options including modest application fee increases, changes to the Community Development (CDD) fee, and purchasing online software to reduce staff time answering routine public inquiries.

Planning staff said the department currently operates with roughly 2.5 full‑time equivalent staff dedicated to planning duties, processes roughly 700–720 applications per year (up from about 660 last year), and handles about 500 local land use certificates (LUCs) annually and roughly 60 land partitions per year. The department receives no general‑fund support and is funded almost entirely from application fees and a 0.15% CDD fee on project value; staff said about two‑thirds of revenues come from application fees and roughly $80,000 annually from the CDD fee.

To close an estimated $53,000 shortfall, staff presented several fee options: a full 100% increase to some application fees (for example, raising a typical LUC fee from $150 to about $190), increasing land‑partition fees toward $2,000–$2,500 from lower historic levels, or a combination that would modestly raise both application and CDD fees. Staff emphasized the department’s goal of balancing fiscal sustainability without unduly discouraging development.

The commission discussed investing in an online parcel/permit software product that staff said would cost about $50,000 to create a county‑specific system and roughly $50,000 per year to operate and maintain. Staff estimated that spreading that $100,000 cost across the roughly 1,000 permitting customers for planning and public works would add about $100 per application but would save staff time and help provide more consistent public access to zoning and setback information.

Commissioners also discussed temporary use permits (TUPs) and manufactured/mobile home placements. Staff said the current TUP structure charges an initial application fee of $500 and a historical renewal fee of $200 per year. Staff suggested options to reduce abuse of multi‑year renewals — including a one‑year limit for manufactured home placement (with no extensions unless certain proofs are presented), escalating renewal fees (for example, higher fees for subsequent renewals), or separating TUP types (medical hardship, stick‑built home construction, manufactured home placement) with different time and fee rules. Staff noted about 16–20 TUP applications in the current year and said roughly half of TUP applicants are legitimately progressing toward building a permanent home.

Several commissioners expressed concern about burdening low‑income residents with higher fees or stricter limits while also acknowledging that modest increases — e.g., $40 added to a mortgage for a $400,000 house over 30 years — may be affordable. One commissioner said escalating renewal fees make sense to incentivize timely completion while preserving medical hardship exemptions.

No formal fee changes or TUP rule changes were adopted at the meeting. Staff said the discussion was informational and that they will return with a proposed fee schedule and any regulatory language for commission and Board of Commissioners review. Staff also discussed improving packet distribution by sending digital copies in advance and printing hard copies only on request.

A planning staff member noted recent one‑time revenue the department received: about $200,000 in ARPA funds over the last year and large application fees for specific large projects (an example cited was an application fee of $105,000 and another of $40,000 for battery energy storage systems), which together helped maintain the current reserve level but are not a long‑term revenue solution.

Commissioners requested more detailed proposals ahead of future meetings, including written staff reports and a clearer cost/benefit analysis for the software purchase and proposed fee changes. Staff agreed to return with specific proposals for commission recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.