Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss permit compliance, ask staff to draft $50,000 "goodwill grants" program
Summary
Klamath County commissioners debated enforcement of long-running permit requests and agreed to have staff develop a transparent "goodwill grants" program, proposed at $50,000, to handle community requests that don't fit current tourism or economic-development grant categories.
A Klamath County commissioner raised concerns about a long-running variance and the absence of the applicant, saying the county has to balance empathy for personal circumstances with the need to enforce permitting rules.
"I have empathy for what’s going on and how the rules are hard to navigate," the commissioner said, "but at the same time there are rules and I sit in a position where I can’t just say you don’t have to follow the rules." The speaker urged applicants to obtain building permits and said the county should reward people who complete the TF process.
After discussing two specific recreational-vehicle situations and timelines for permits, the board turned to a broader funding proposal. One commissioner proposed a small, discretionary program — called "goodwill grants" in the meeting — to cover proposals that do not fit the county’s tourism or economic-development grant categories, citing examples such as stadium lights and monuments. "Maybe we could start out with $50,000," the commissioner said, adding that a committee should advise on requests to keep the board removed from direct decision-making and avoid accusations of favoritism.
Another participant supported creating a "catchall" with a formal vetting process so all applicants have a fair shot and staff can offer alternatives before matters come to the full board. The discussion referenced recent local projects as reasons a pre-vetting step would be useful.
Board members asked staff to draft a one-page guideline outlining the program concept, committee roles, application procedures and how requests would be posted publicly. Staff were also directed to clarify that requests must go through the new process rather than be placed on a public agenda ad hoc. No formal motion or vote on funding was recorded; the instruction was to return with a fleshed-out proposal for the board to consider.
The meeting concluded with the chair noting there was nothing further for the good of the order and adjourning at four.
