Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Klamath County reviews new public-works fees for road vacations and no-spray signs
Summary
County staff proposed a new fee schedule for roadway vacation requests, including a $4,250 nonrefundable deposit for county-performed work and $2,800 for review-only cases, and recommended a $265 charge for installing no-spray signs; commissioners asked for a hardship clause and a reduced renewal fee.
Public works staff (S2) presented proposed fees intended to recoup county costs for two recurring services: roadway vacation processing and installation of roadside "no-spray" signs.
S2 told the board the roadway-vacation process can take "6 to 12 months," and that "If Public Works performs all the work, it's between 4 and $8,000 of of costs." The draft schedule in the staff memo sets a nonrefundable deposit of $4,250 when the county performs the work and $2,800 when the county acts in a reviewer capacity for privately contracted design and survey work.
The staff memo cites the Oregon Revised Statutes as authority to charge fees for these services and said the proposal aims to avoid subsidizing private benefits with gas-tax or general-fund dollars. Commissioners discussed whether the county should continue performing detailed turnaround or cul-de-sac design work or instead require applicants to hire private engineers and submit plans for county review. S2 said the memo can include an option allowing applicants to hire private engineering and have the county act as reviewer.
On the no-spray program, S2 explained that most requests come from organic farmers who want to use the roadside shoulder as a buffer and asked the board to approve a proposed $265 installation fee to cover sign cost (cited at $60 per post), time for utility locates and sign installation, and staff travel. S5 said the fee "will drive away some of the organic growers that are requesting numerous in those gray zones," but asked the board to add a hardship exemption for residents with medical concerns; S5 gave the example of an elderly household that does not want herbicides sprayed near their home and questioned charging them the full fee.
Board members discussed a lower renewal charge for subsequent years; staff suggested a $100 renewal since signs remain in place and renewals are primarily paperwork. Commissioners also asked staff to include a medical-hardship application form in the revised fee language and to clarify whether landowners who install county-approved signs themselves could reduce labor costs.
The board directed staff to revise the fee language to add a hardship clause and a renewal option before scheduling a public hearing on the fees.
