Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society
|
Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |
|
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS REGULATING FEES FOR LOCAL LAND USE APPLICATIONS, LAND USE APPEALS, AND TRANSCRIPTS Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews. The legislature has adopted several statutes regulating local governments’ discretion to impose fees and related transcript costs, codified in city and county zoning and planning chapters. ORS 215.416(11)(b), 215.422(1)(c), 227.175(10)(b), 227.180(1)(c). See Housing Council, 48 Or App at 538 (noting a possible exception to its holding, where the challenged decision involves financing of the citizen involvement program required by Statewide Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement).Sommer v. Josephine County , __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss); Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003)By
Outline EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION
II. CURRENT STATUTORY LANGUAGE: ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c); ORS 215.416(1); ORS 227.175(1); ORS 215.416(11)(b) and ORS 227.175(10(b) III. ORIGINS OF FEE AND TRANSCRIPT PROVISIONS
IV. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEARINGS ON HB 2295
V. 1991 AMENDMENTS RESULTING IN EXISTING STATUTORY LANGUAGE VI. IMPLICATIONS A. Abuses, Then and Now B. Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees Are Land Use Decisions
C. Analysis to Justify Fees Must Be Substantial
D. What Is "Reasonable" Is Not Separable from the "Actual or Average Cost" Standard
E. Fee Amounts Can Be Less Than Actual Or Average Cost
VII. SUMMARY Appendices Appendix A - Citizen Appeal Of Josephine County’s Increase of Fees: Josephine County Order No. 2006-125 Appendix B -. Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, September 1, 2006, Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss And Motion For Extension Of Time for Filing Record) Appendix C - 1983 Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Hearings on Amending House Bill 2295 (Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2) Appendix D - Authors Exhibits Exhibit 1. Meeting Minutes from Tape 189 A @ 281 for June 17, 1983 Hearing on House Bill (HB) 2295 Before the Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. 14 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 2. Meeting Minutes from Tape 192 A @ 45 for June 29, 1983 Hearing on HB 2295 Before the Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. 2 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 3. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. May 26, 1983. Comments on HB 2295. 1 page. Rockaway, OR. Exhibit 4. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. June 15, 1983. Proposed Amendments to HB 2295. 4 pages. Rockaway, OR. Exhibit 5. League of Women Voters of Oregon Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. June 22, 1983. Proposed Amendments to HB 2295. 1 page. Salem, OR. Exhibit 6. Oregon State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) Memorandum to Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. January 18, 1983. Subject: Item 4.0: committee Report. CIAC investigated the appeal circumstances and found the fee and transcript charges to have been outrageous and unjustified, and one is a series of efforts to restrict citizen input and participation. 1 page. Salem, OR. Exhibit 7. Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. July 12, 1983. Senate Amendments to House Bill 2295. 2 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 8. Oregon Laws. 1983. ORS 92.046(1)(c). LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS REGULATING FEES FOR LOCAL LAND USE APPLICATIONS, LAND USE APPEALS, AND TRANSCRIPTS1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions. Local government decisions to establish or raise land use application fees and land use appeal fees are appealable to LUBA as it has jurisdiction for land use decisions and limited land use decisions. Establishing or raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions, and the process to establish or raise fees is subject to either the quasi-judicial land use proceedings or the legislative process. Land use application fees and land use appeal fees are not "fiscal exceptions" to LUBA’s jurisdiction. Land use application fees and land use appeal fees must be reasonable and must be no more than their average or actual costs. However, the amount of land use application fees and local land use appeal fees are policy decisions and can be less than the maximum actual or average cost. The level of analysis required to demonstrate compliance in determining actual or average costs for individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees requires providing substantial evidence that factually supports the individual costs. If the record included a focused representation by local government regarding the average or actual costs, the local government’s determination of actual or average cost would be reasonable, unless some opposing evidence had been submitted to rebut that representation. Petitioners’ standing can not be resolved until the record is filed. Without the record it is impossible to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether all of the petitioners satisfied the standing requirements. 1. Disclaimer. This paper is as much about providing information and provoking questions as it is about opinions concerning the adequacy land use decisions. It does not provide recommendations to citizens and it is not legal advice. It does not take the place of a lawyer. If citizens use information contained in this paper, it is their personal responsibility to make sure that the facts and general information contained in it are applicable to their situation. I. INTRODUCTION The Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, the Goal One Coalition, and the Rogue Advocates are nonprofit organizations whose missions include providing assistance and support to citizens of Josephine County in matters affecting their communities. They provide this analysis on legislative history and court opinions at the request of, and on behalf of, their membership residing in Josephine County. Land use planning should be conducted by and for the people of Oregon. Citizens should have ample access to be involved in land use decision-making and planning processes, including land use application fees, and land use appeal fees. Oregon Statewide Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement (CI), the backbone of Oregon’s statewide planning goals, is part of the "Oregon System" in which citizens should have a say in the governance of their state and their local communities. Citizen involvement in land use planning is more important than ever, which is exemplified by its being given top priority by our state, and labeled as such - "Goal 1". LUBA explained in Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss) (Web Site: http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml) and in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003):
A. Citizens’ View The legislative history of local land use appeal fees is important because several citizens in Josephine County, Oregon, and around the state, have appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) fee increases (Appendix A). In Josephine County the appeal is of the county’s third increase in applicant-driven land use fees and local land use appeal fees in two years without any initial or subsequent analysis of actual or average costs supporting these increases (Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ LUBA No. 2006-150, August 14, 2006, Notice of Intent to Appeal). These citizens believe user fees are required to be no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service and can be less (ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c)). These citizens also believe a change to fees should not be undertaken until some effort has been made to develop a factual assessment study designed to justify the issue of actual or average costs. These citizens believe understanding the legislative history of ORS 215.422(1)(c) and ORS 227.180(1)(c) will help establish the difference between fees to defray local government land use appeal costs (ORS 215.422(1)(c), versus fees for processing land use application permits (ORS 215.416(1)). These citizens believe the Oregon Legislature recognized the difference between user fees for permit applicants with a personal and/or economic interest in the outcome and an engaged public with a sense of civic commitment, shared beliefs that value public objectives, and a sense of stewardship for each other and the places citizens call home. The engaged public has a commitment to a greater common good - a visionary belief that values public ends and civic responsibility. These citizens believe the following about land use appeal fees and land use application fees. 1. Land Use Appeal Fees And Land Use Application Fees Are Land Use Decisions. The citizens believe that land use appeal fees and land use application fees are land use decisions. 2. LUBA Has Jurisdiction over Land Use Appeal Fees and Land Use Application Fees . The citizens believe that LUBA has jurisdiction over land use appeal fees and land use application fees. 3. Land Use Proceedings Required to Raise Fees. The citizens believe that raising land use appeal fees and land use application fees are land use decisions and the process to raise fees is subject to either the quasi-judicial land use proceedings or the legislative process. 4. Land Use Appeal Fees and Land Use Application Fees Are Not Exempt Fiscal Actions. The citizens believe that land use appeal fees and land use application fees are not "fiscal exceptions" to LUBA’s jurisdiction. 5. ORS 215.422(1)(c) Applies To County. The citizens believe that ORS 215.422(1)(c) is a county requirement that land use appeal fees shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal. 6. Analysis Must Satisfy ORS 215.422(1)(c) And Must Be Factual. The citizens believe that the level of the government’s analysis must be factual to justify the requirement that land use appeal fees shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal. 7. Analysis Must Satisfy ORS 215.416(1) And Must Be Factual. The citizens believe that the level of the government’s analysis must be factual to justify the requirement that land use application fees shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average costs or the actual cost. 8. Citizens Have Standing To Appeal To LUBA. The citizens believe that they have standing to appeal to LUBA as they are aggrieved and they participated in one or all three county budget hearing and/or legislative processes to raise the land use application fees and land use appeal fees. 9. Local Land Use Appeal Fees Are Permissive The citizens believe that raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees is permissive and it is not a requirement of the statutes; these fees are policy and can be less than the maximum average or actual costs. B. Josephine County’s View Josephine County’s view is covered in Appendix B -. Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, September 1, 2006, Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss And Motion For Extension Of Time for Filing Record). A summary of the motion to dismiss the citizens’ appeal to LUBA follows. 1. Land Use Appeal Fees And Land Use Application Fees Are Not Land Use Decisions. The county did not view raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees as land use decisions, even if the actions had a direct effect on land use and zoning (Appendix B). 2. LUBA Has No Jurisdiction Over Appeal Fees. The county did not view its decision to raise land use application fees and land use appeal fees to be appealable to LUBA as LUBA’s jurisdiction was limited to land use decisions and limited land use decisions (Appendix B). 3. Quasi-judicial Land Use Proceedings Not Required to Raise Appeal Fees. As the county did not view raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees as land use decisions, it did not have to use the quasi-judicial land use proceedings process. The BCC used the county budget process and legislative process to raise land use application fees and land use appeal fees for the services provided by the Planning Department three times in two years since 2004 (Appendix B).
4. Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees are Exempt Fiscal Actions. The county viewed land use application fees and land use appeal fees to be local government taxation and budget processes and legislative ordinances or regulations which the courts had exempted from LUBA jurisdiction. These were the so-called "fiscal exceptions" to LUBA’s jurisdiction (Appendix B). 5. ORS 215.422(1)(c) Does Not Apply To County. It is assumed by petitioners that the county did not view ORS 215.422(1)(c)’s requirement, that the government body land use appeal fees be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript, to be applicable to the county (not covered in Appendix B as the county’s identified authority was ORS 215.416(1) and ORS 215.422(1)(c) was ignored). 6. Comparative Analysis Satisfies ORS 215.422(1)(c). It is assumed by the petitioners that the county viewed the requirements of ORS 215.422(1)(c) that the governing body establish fees charged for land use appeal fees at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service to be satisfied by a comparative analysis of other local government’s land use appeal fees (not covered in Appendix B as the county’s identified authority was ORS 215.416(1) and ORS 215.422(1)(c) was ignored). 7. Comparative Analysis Satisfies ORS 215.416(1). The county viewed the requirements of ORS 215.416(1) that the governing body establish fees charged for land use applications at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service to be satisfied by a comparative analysis of other local government’s permit costs (Appendix B). 8. Citizens’ Standing To Appeal To LUBA. The county’s position was that the LUBA appeal should be dismissed as to several of the persons named in the notice of intent to appeal (NITA) because it asserted they had no standing to appeal. The county’s rationale was that the NITA identified that the petitioners Mike Walker, Ron and Phyllis Ray, and Herbert and Valerie Neelund were "aggrieved" by the decision appealed from, but they had made no assertion that they appeared or participated in the proceeding before the Josephine County Board of Commissioners (BCC) (Appendix B). 9. Local Land Use Application Fees And Local Appeal Fees Are Required. The county’s position was that raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees under the authority of ORS 215.416(1) was a requirement of the statute (Appendix B). The county’s identified authority was ORS 215.416(1) and ORS 215.422(1)(c) was ignored. C. LUBA’s Order The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals’ (LUBA’s) order concerning the citizens and the county’s positions about land use application fees and land use appeal fees was published on its web site (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml) (Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss)). A summary of LUBA’s order and denial of the county’s motion to dismiss the citizens’ appeal to LUBA follows : LUBA’s Order No. 2006-150 is similar to LUBA’s opinions in Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-039, June 26, 2006); Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005); Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003); and Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 43 Or LUBA 270 (2002). 1. Land Use Appeal Fees And Land Use Application Fees Are Land Use Decisions. LUBA’s order was that land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). ". . .LUBA has consistently declined to apply the fiscal exception to decisions that involve local land use appeal fees or land use application fees." 2. LUBA Has Jurisdiction Over Land Use Application And Land Use Appeal Fees. LUBA’s order was that the county’s decision to raise land use application fees and land use appeal fees is appealable to LUBA as its jurisdiction is land use decisions and limited land use decisions (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 3. Quasi-judicial Land Use Proceedings Or Legislative Process Required to Raise Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees. LUBA’s order was that decisions to raise land use application fees and land use appeal fees and the process to raise fees is subject to use of the quasi-judicial land use proceedings or legislative process. (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 4. Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees Are Not Exempt Fiscal Actions. LUBA’s order was that land use application fees and land use appeal fees are not "fiscal exceptions" to LUBA’s jurisdiction (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006 Orders.shtml). 5. ORS 215.422(1)(c) Does Apply To County. LUBA’s order was that ORS 215.422(1)(c) is a requirement that land use appeal fees shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 6. Analysis Satisfying ORS 215.422(1)(c). Unknown. LUBA’s order did not cover the level of analysis required for land use appeal fees to be in compliance with ORS 215.422(1)(c). This question will be settled during the appeal (http://www.oregon.gov/ LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 7. Analysis Satisfying ORS 215.416(1) Unknown. LUBA’s order did not cover the level of analysis required for land use application fees to be in compliance with ORS 215.416(1). This question will be settled during the appeal (http://www.oregon.gov /LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 8. Citizens’ Standing To Appeal To LUBA Unknown. LUBA’s order did not cover standing as it agreed with petitioners that until the record was filed it was impossible to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether all of the petitioners satisfied the appearance requirement. It dismissed the county’s motion to dismiss some of the named petitioners, but allowed the county to renew the motion after the record was filed (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). 9. Local Land Use Appeal Fees Are Required. LUBA’s order did not cover the county’s position that raising land use application fees and land use appeal fees under the authority of ORS 215.416(1) was a requirement of the statute, or the citizen’s position that raising land use appeal fees under the authority of ORS 215.422(1)(c) was policy and permissive, and not a requirement of statute. (Appendix B). The county’s identified authority was ORS 215.416(1) and ORS 215.422(1)(c) was ignored. These questions will hopefully be settled during the appeal (http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). II. CURRENT STATUTORY LANGUAGE: ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c); ORS 215.416(1); ORS 227.175(1); ORS 215.416(11)(b) and ORS 227.175(10(b) The legislature had adopted several statutes regulating local governments’ discretion to impose fees and related transcript costs, codified in city and county zoning and planning chapters: ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c); ORS 215.416(1); ORS 227.175(1); ORS 215.416(11)(b) and ORS 227.175(10(b). ORS 215.422(1)(c) and ORS 227.180(1)(c) provide:
ORS 215.416(1) provides:
ORS 227.175(1) provides:
ORS 215.416(11)(b) and ORS 227.175(10)(b) provide:
Other applicable statutes include the following: ORS 197.015(10(a); ORS 197.825(1). ORS 197.015(10(a) provides: "(10) Land use decision: (a) Includes:
ORS 197.825(1) provides:
III. ORIGINS OF FEE AND TRANSCRIPT PROVISIONS A. First Appearance of Appeal Fee and Transcript Fee Limitations Legislative language providing for limitations on appeals and transcript fees were first proposed by the Oregon Shores Coastal Coalition in 1983 (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4) in the form of an amendment to House Bill (HB) 2295 (Exhibit 7). The bill had been passed by the House and was before the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment. The offered amendment provided:
B. Reason for Proposed Amendment The legislative history of ORS 215.422(1)(c) and ORS 227.180(1)(c) is interesting, especially the influence of the Oregon Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) during the amendment hearings on the1983 HB 2295 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment. The amendment hearings were prompted by the fact that the City of Newport, in 1981, demanded over $3,600 in filing and transcript fees from local citizens prior to hearing an appeal from the local planning commission. The CIAC investigated the appeal circumstances and on January 18, 1983 found the fee and transcript charges had been "outrageous and unjustified," and "one in a series of efforts by the City to restrict citizen input and participation." The following, in relevant part, is from the CIAC memorandum to the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) (Exhibit 6).
IV. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEARINGS ON HB 2295 A. Senate Committee on Energy and Environment (Committee) Hearings on HB 2295 A representative of the Oregon Shores Coastal Coalition testified that the City of Newport had required a transcript fee of $3,600 for an appeal. It presented a survey of appeals fees charged by selected jurisdictions, which averaged $75 - $100. The amendment proposed would require that total fees, including filing fees and transcript fees, be reasonable, not exceed average or actual cost, and not exceed $500 (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4). The Committee concurred that the amount charged for preparation of transcripts was outrageous. The committee discussion was focused on how to best address limiting transcript fees, since that was the major part of the appeal fee demanded by the City of Newport prior to hearing the merits of the case. However, transcript fees were not the only issue addressed by the Committee. The Committee eventually compromised and bundled several very important concepts about land use appeal fees and transcript fees as a result of the unreasonable transcript fees (Appendix C; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2). . Split on establishing an flat upper fee ceiling of $500 and compromised with no ceiling for the total fee amounts of an appeal. . Support for actual appeal costs. . Support for actual transcript costs up to $500 and then any amount above that would be split by the local government and the requester. . Acknowledgment there was some kind of local government responsibility to pick up part of the costs for appeals and transcripts as part of what citizens pay taxes for, and public access to government via Oregon Statewide Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. . Fees charged should be reasonable, and should be no more than the actual or average cost of the appeal. . Land use appeal fees and transcript fees should not be unreasonable and a place a chilling effect on citizen involvement (i.e, not put a talon on citizens). . The parties to the action should be allowed to contest the reasonableness of an extraordinary high charge. . Local governments have to justify, if they go beyond. . Appeal and transcript fees should have a formula that justified the costs, whether it be for the costs of the transcripts or the appeal, or the combination thereof (i.e., if the local jurisdiction can show cause, I mean really show actual cost). . Not interested in citizen involvement barriers, but supported reasonableness. . Support for splitting the distinction between transcript fees and appeal fees. Appeal fees themselves were not seen as the immediate problem by the Committee; the testimony had substantiated the fact that it was the transcripts that ran up the cost. However, the testimony among the Committee members, including the eventual statutes, clearly demonstrated that the issue might have been land use appeal fees and that it probably would be in the future. The Committee was split on a ceiling of $500 for appeal fees and compromised with no ceiling, but supported the concept that the fees had to be reasonable and the parties to the action should be allowed to contest the reasonableness of an extraordinary high charge. The Committee was concerned that local jurisdictions be able to set fee structures based upon average costs. Legislative counsel was concerned that it would not be possible to calculate the "average" cost of preparing transcripts. For this reason, the two elements of land use appeal fees and transcript fees were separated. City and county representatives were concerned that ceilings not be imposed. The Committee was determined that transcript fees were not excessive. The solution found was to provide that transcript costs exceeding $500 would be shared on a 50/50 basis by the appellant and the jurisdiction, thus providing incentive for local governments to keep transcript costs down. The Committee felt that fees charged should be reasonable, and should be no more than the actual or average cost of the appeal. Land use appeal fees and transcript fees should not be unreasonable and should not place a chilling effect on citizen involvement (i.e., not put a talon on citizens). The appeal and transcript fees should have a formula that justified the costs, whether it be for the costs of the transcripts or the appeal, or the combination thereof (i.e., if the local jurisdiction can show cause, I mean really show actual cost). The Committee language that emerged and was enacted into the 1983 statutes was permissive (i.e., "may establish"), and ORS 215.422(1)(c) and ORS 227.180(1)(c) provided that appeal fees be no more than average or actual costs:
B. The Courts On Legislative History 1980. The Oregon Court of Appeals in Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 617 P2d 655 (1980) found that the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) did not have jurisdiction to review a city ordinance which imposed a "system development charge"on all new construction in the city. However, its conclusion was that there may be exceptions to what became the "fiscal exceptions" rule
1991. LUBA explained some of the legislative history in DLCD v. Jackson County, 21 Or LUBA 93 (1991). However, its focus was limited to whether ORS 215.416 and ORS 215.422 prohibited the county from establishing a fee requirement for appeals of a planning director’s minor partition and nonfarm dwelling permit decisions made without a hearing. LUBA concluded the county was not prohibited from establishing an appeals fee. According to LUBA, the intent of the legislature at the time of the 1983 amendments to ORS 215.416 and ORS 215.422 were enacted was to limit the costs imposed on appellants in local land use proceedings (DLCD v. Jackson County, page 9). The legislature did not intend to prohibit fees for such appeals (DLCD v. Jackson County, page 10). The concern about excessive fees charged for local appeals was an issue entirely separate from that of allowing initial permit decisions to be made without a hearing (DLCD v. Jackson County, page 12). The concern was to a great degree prompted by a specific instance where appellants of a local decision made after a hearing had been charged allegedly excessive fees for the preparation of transcripts of the hearing (DLCD v. Jackson County, page 12). The issue and the concern expressed by legislators were primarily focused on the transcript fee issue, and no distinction was ever expressed between fees for appeals of local decisions made after a hearing or without a hearing. 1991. LUBA in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003) explained:
1992. LUBA in Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 43 Or LUBA 270 (2002) explained that under ORS 197.825(1), LUBA’s jurisdiction was limited to land use decisions and that land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions under ORS 197.015(10(a):
V. 1991 AMENDMENTS RESULTING IN EXISTING STATUTORY LANGUAGE In 1991, HB 2261 resulted in the removal of provisions allowing for the 50/50 sharing of transcript costs in excess of $500. As a result, the fee that a local government could charge for preparation of a written transcript was capped at $500. This revision was at the behest of a technical committee working on the bill. The objective was to keep costs of local appeal proceedings at a minimum. The bill would accomplish the objective of minimizing the costs of an appeal by allowing an appellant to prepare transcripts of relevant portions of lower proceedings, at his own expense. The provision was uncontroversial, and drew no testimony or comment other than revisions on behalf of the DLCD. VI. IMPLICATIONS LUBA found in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003) that "Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews."
The following sections summarize some major themes that continue to evolve in the courts, including the relationship of the legislative history of land use appeal fees and transcript fees to these themes. . Abuses, Then and Now . Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees Are Land Use Decisions . Analysis to Justify Fees Must Be Substantial . What Is "Reasonable" Is Not Separable from the "Actual or Average Cost" Standards . Fee Amounts Are Policy And Can Be Less Than Actual Or Average Cost A. Abuses, Then and Now 1983 Provisions that appeals and transcript fees be reasonable, and not exceed actual or average costs, were adopted in response to a local government imposing an outrageous fee that discouraged or made impossible citizen involvement (1983 Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Hearings on HB 2295; Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). Land use appeal fees were not the focus of previous legislation, because the identified abuse had been with excessive transcript fees. However, transcript fees were not the only issue addressed by the Committee. The testimony among the Committee members demonstrated that the issue might have been land use appeal fees and that it probably would be in the future. The Committee eventually compromised and bundled several very important concepts about appeal fees and transcript fees as a result of the unreasonable transcript fees (1983 Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Hearings on HB 2295; Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). 1995. The City of Portland argued its decision fell within either one of two exceptions to LUBA’s jurisdiction: fiscal exception and/or ministerial exception. LUBA disagreed (Ramsey v. City of Portland, 29 Or LUBA 139 (1995). 2002. Yamhill County argued its decision to increase the fee it charges for certain land use appeals and requests was a "fiscal" decision and not a land use decision which placed the decision and process outside of the jurisdiction of LUBA. LUBA disagreed (Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 43 Or LUBA 270 (2002)). 2003 Abuses with the imposition of excessive appeal fees have a chilling effect on citizen involvement. For example, in 2003 Lane County charged $3,010 for an appeal of a decision by a hearings official. The City of Portland had charged $3,567.50 for an appeal of a decision by a hearings officer. 2003. The City of Lebanon ignored court law and argued its decision to set the fee to appeal any land use action, including planning commission decisions, at a rate equal to the application fee was a "fiscal" decision, not a land use decision, which placed the decision and process outside of the jurisdiction of LUBA. LUBA disagreed (Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003)). 2005. The City of Bandon ignored court law and argued its decision to increase eight types of land use applications was not a land use decision and that it was a ministerial decision which placed the decision and process outside of the jurisdiction of LUBA. LUBA disagreed (Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005)). 2006. Abuses with the imposition of excessive appeal fees and have a chilling effect on citizen involvement. For example, in 2006 Josephine County raised its land use appeal fee, for a decision by the Josephine County Rural Planning Commission for a local appeal to the Josephine County Board of Commissioners, to $1,550 without substantial supporting evidence. The county raised land use application fees and land use appeal fees for the services provided by its Planning Department three times in two years through its budget and legislative processes.
The county was aware of LUBA’s opinions, but argued interpretations contrary to the pattern set by LUBA that land use application fees and land use appeal fees were not fiscal exceptions. It argued its three decisions, to increase all land use application fees and land use appeal fees, were "fiscal" decisions and not land use decisions, which placed the decisions and processes outside of the jurisdiction of LUBA. LUBA disagreed (Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss; http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/2006Orders.shtml). Over 20 years have passed since the legislature passed its first statutes on land use appeal fees and transcript fees. The abuses that initiated the laws are still with us and citizens continue to protest. The courts have become the main vehicle in forcing compliance by local governments in the statues designed to protect the public’s access and opportunity to participate in the land use planning process (Appendix A). B. Land Use Application Fees And Land Use Appeal Fees Are Land Use Decisions Land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions for which LUBA has jurisdiction. 1. Senate Committee on Energy and Environment The Committee was dealing with land use appeal fees and transcript fees (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). 2. Court Orders and Opinions There is a solid set of court rulings that local government decisions regarding local land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction. . Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss) . Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-039, June 26, 2006). . Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005) . Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003) . Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 43 Or LUBA 270 (2002). . Ramsey v. City of Portland, 29 Or LUBA 139 (1995). . DLCD v. Jackson County, 21 Or LUBA 93 (1991). . Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 617 P2d 655 (1980) LUBA found in Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, October 19, 2006, LUBA Order On Motion to Dismiss) that:
LUBA found in Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005):
LUBA found in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408 (2003):
LUBA found in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003) that "Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews."
The Oregon Court of Appeals found in Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 617 P2d 655 (1980) that under statute governing the jurisdiction of the Oregon Land Conservation and Development commission, that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to review, for compliance with statewide planning goals, adoption and administration of local taxation and budget policy that might have an impact on land use, and, therefore, the Commission did not have jurisdiction to review city ordinance which imposed a "system development charge"on all new construction in city. However, its conclusion was that there may be exceptions to what became the "fiscal exceptions’ rule (Section III.B). In a line of opinions, LUBA had determined that two of these exceptions were: land use application fees and land use appeal fees. Local governments continue to embrace the concept that "Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews" by arguing that fees are fiscal matters outside of the land use planning process. They continue this stance despite a solid set of court rulings that local government decisions regarding local land use application fees and land use appeal fees are land use decisions subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction. C. Analysis to Justify Fees Must Be Substantial 1. Senate Committee on Energy and Environment In 1983 the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment was dealing with land use appeal fees and transcript fees. The legislative intent of the Committee was concern that actual or average appeal costs be computed by a formula that actually justified the costs (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). The Committee felt that fees charged should be reasonable, and should be no more than the actual or average cost of the appeal. Land use appeal fees and transcript fees should not be unreasonable and should not place a chilling effect on citizen involvement (i.e., not put a talon on citizens). The appeal and transcript fees should have a formula that justified the costs, whether it be for the costs of the transcripts or the appeal, or the combination thereof (i.e., if the local jurisdiction can show cause, I mean really show actual cost). 2. Court Opinions In Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-039, June 26, 2006 - "Although petitioner’s assignment of error is nominally a challenge to the adequacy of the county’s findings, the argument under that assignment of error also challenges the evidentiary support for the county’s critical findings." page 3. LUBA found in Landwatch Lane County v. Lane County, that actual or average appeal costs had to be supported by substantial evidence.
LUBA found in Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005) that a detailed comparative analysis might be necessary to support a decision that adopts application fees in the first instance:
3. Josephine County Josephine County clearly understood that, "The governing body shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service." Over two calendar years and three budget cycles it quoted ORS 215.416(1) again and again to prove that point.
The county presumably would agree that ORS 215.416(1); ORS 227.175(1) applies for counties and cities whereas the petitioners believe ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c).; ORS 215.416(1); and ORS 227.175(1) apply for counties and cities. Regardless, in 2006 the county provided its "formula" for determining actual or average cost of providing services for land use application permits pertaining to ORS 215.416(1) (June 2006 Josephine County Planning Director worksheets and presentation items for budget preparation - FY 2006-2007; Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, August 14, 2006) - Item 14 of November 13, 2006 record of proceeding, page 116). Petitioners agree that this "formula" would be acceptable in determining actual or average costs for both land use applications and land use appeal fees for ORS 215.422(1)(c); ORS 227.180(1)(c).; ORS 215.416(1); and ORS 227.175(1) if applied to each individual type of land use application and land use appeal. In other words, application of the "formula" would provide substantial evidence that factually supported the actual or average costs for each individual type of land use application and land use appeal fee. The June 2006 presentation by the Josephine County Planning Director included the following "formula" for determining actual or average cost. 1. Total fees cannot exceed total costs 2. Total cost of providing service includes more than planning
4. Calculating Fees
5. Room for Policies
The problem with the county’s last three legislative decisions on fee increases is that it never provided any analysis, let alone the detailed analysis required by the county’s "formula" to provide the substantial evidence that factually supported the decisions to increase fees to amounts not greater than actual or average costs. There is no documentation in the record of this matter of the average or actual costs of handling individual types of land use application and land use appeals. There is no documentation of staff time or the cost of staff time for providing the services needed to process individual types of land use applications and land use appeals. There is no documentation of notice, mailing, copying, or other "formula" costs associated with the processing of individual types of land use applications and land use appeals. It is the petitioner’s position that the required analysis had never been conducted (except for a comparative analysis of other counties’ fees) based upon the void of any evidence in the record. Fee surveys of other adjacent counties does not satisfy the law, nor are they reliable for determining actual or average costs, as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at "their" levels. For example, many communities have established their own policies that some services are a benefit to the entire community rather than to special interests: public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression; maintaining and developing public facilities on a uniform, community-wide basis such as streets, parks, and general-purpose buildings; and providing social service programs, economic development activities, and planning services because they are clearly intended to serve the broader community. Where other counties have made these policies their associated services have very low cost recovery goals. It is common practice for local governments to establish or increase land use application fees and/or land use appeal fees supported by conclusory statements without any substantial evidence beyond simple comparison analysis. This practice does not meet the compliance standards. D. What Is "Reasonable" Is Not Separable from the "Actual or Average Cost" Standard 1. Senate Committee on Energy and Environment In 1983 the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment was dealing with land use appeal fees and transcript fees. The legislative intent of the Committee was that fees charged should be reasonable, and should be no more than the actual or average cost of the appeal. Land use appeal fees and transcript fees should not be unreasonable and should not place a chilling effect on citizen involvement (i.e., not put a talon on citizens). The Committee was split on a ceiling of $500 for appeal fees and compromised with no ceiling, but supported the concept that the fees had to be reasonable and the parties to the action should be allowed to contest the reasonableness of an extraordinary high charge (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). Concerning what constitutes "reasonable," the Committee discussion considered existing local appeal fees, which ranged from $75 to $337.50, with an average of $75 - $100; and the $150 fee for an appeal to LUBA. The fact that the legislature established cost sharing for preparation of transcripts beginning at $500, and that $500 was later set as a ceiling, indicates that costs exceeding $500 might be presumed to be unreasonable (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). The Committee was concerned that local jurisdictions be able to establish fee schedules based on actual or average administrative costs. The transcripts of the Committee hearings indicate that the Committee believed that parties should be able to challenge any excessive fees (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1). 2. Court Opinions The local government is in the best position to provide estimates of staff time costs and other significant costs to support the determination of average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. When local governments provide a particularized effort to explain why the fees do not exceed the average or actual costs, it might be appropriate for the government to fault petitioner for not attempting to refute that testimony. However, without a focused representation, the relevant question is whether a reasonable person would conclude that fees will not exceed the average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. If the governing body does not cite, and are the courts are unable to find the "representation" that findings rely on, the courts will rule that a reasonable person would not reach the conclusion that fees will not exceed the average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. LUBA found in Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408 (2003) that reasonableness of an appeal cannot be determined in a meaningful way independently of the average or actual cost of the appeal:
LUBA found in Ramsey v. City of Portland, 29 Or LUBA 139 (1995):
LUBA found in Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005):
It is common practice for local governments to establish fees for appeals based upon an initial application fee. There is no established relationship between the cost of processing a land-use application and the cost of an appeal of an application, and local governments make no attempt to establish such a relationship when setting fee schedules. The legislative intent that local governments be made to justify appeal fee charges has not been fulfilled. What is "reasonable" is not separable from the "actual or average cost" standard. Local governments continue to abuse the reasonable standard by not providing actual or average costs to support their conclusory statements that the establishment, or increase in land use application fees and land use appeal fees, are lower than actual or average costs. E. Fee Amounts Are Policy And Can Be Less Than Actual Or Average Cost 1. Senate Committee on Energy and Environment In 1983 the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment was dealing with land use appeal fees and transcript fees. The legislative intent of the Committee was split on a ceiling of $500 for appeal fees and compromised with no fee ceiling being legislated, but supported the concept that the fees had to be reasonable and no more than the average cost or the actual cost of the appeal. The parties to the action should be allowed to contest the reasonableness of an extraordinarily high charge (Section III.A.; Appendix C; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2). The Committee’s work resulted in laws which provided that local governments "may" prescribe appeal fees and that they should be reasonable and "no more than" the average cost of such appeals. ORS 215.422(1)(c) and ORS 227.180(1)(c) provide, in relevant part: "The governing body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearings officer, planning commission or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript. 2. Court Opinions LUBA found in Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005):
3. Josephine County Josephine County used the potential loss of the O & C revenues and paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) using its inference as a battering ram that, with its paraphrasing, misled its citizens: "The County is mandated by Oregon Revised Statue 215.416(1) to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost of providing such services by Josephine County." [Emphasis added]. The way the county translated ORS 215.416(1) concluded that the county was mandated by law to charge actual or average costs. Over two calendar years and three budget cycles it quoted ORS 215.416(1) again and again to prove this point, but it ignored ORS 215.422(1)(c), which on the surface of the statute was more permissive.
ORS 215.416(1) provides:
The county’s paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) and the actual ORS 215.416(1), in relevant part, are provided. County: to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost Statute: shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost ORS 215.422(1)(c) provides:
July 26, 2006 (Josephine County Order No. 2006-125): "The cost of the proposed fees is calculated to cover the actual or average cost of providing the services and administration of the programs directly related to the proposed fees." The proposed fees were identified in Exhibit A to Order No. 2006-125 which identified "The County is mandated by Oregon Revised Statue 215.416(1) to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost of providing such services by Josephine County." [Emphasis added]. The way the county paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) inferred that the county was mandated by law to charge actual or average costs. The county’s paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) and the actual ORS 215.416(1), in relevant part, are provided. County: to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost Statute: shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost June 1, 2005 (Josephine County Resolution No. 2005-041): "WHEREAS, the County is mandated by Oregon Revised Statue 215.416(1) to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost of providing such services by Josephine County. . . ." [Emphasis added]. The way the county paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) inferred that the county was mandated by law to charge actual or average costs. The county’s paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) and the actual ORS 215.416(1), in relevant part, are provided. County: to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost Statute: shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost June 30, 2004 (Josephine CountyResolution No. 2004-045): "WHEREAS, the County is mandated by Oregon Revised Statue 215.416(1), to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost of providing such services by the Josephine County Planning Office. . . ." [Emphasis added]. The way the county paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) inferred that the county was mandated by law to charge actual or average costs. The county’s paraphrased ORS 215.416(1) and the actual ORS 215.416(1), in relevant part, are provided. County: to adopt fees for the processing of permits up to the actual or average cost Statute: shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost The LUBA ruling on the city fee statutes ORS 227.175(1) and ORS 227.180(1) clearly considered land use application fees and land use appeal fees to be permissive (Doty v. City of Bandon, 49 Or LUBA 411 (2005)). Under its ruling LUBA readily viewed a range of fees for land use applications and land use appeals as "policy" that can range from zero to the maximum of average or actual costs. Josephine County violated ORS 215.416(1) with its paraphrasing of the statute that misled its citizens. The statute is clear in its expression that fees charged for processing permits are to be at amounts no more than the actual or average cost rather than that fees must be adopted for the processing of permits up to the actual or average costs (i.e., inferring that the county was mandated by law to charge actual or average costs). The permissive nature of fees for land use applications and land use appeals is straightforward when reviewing ORS 215.422(1)(c) which provides the permissive "may" for fees charged "no more than" the actual or average costs.
VII. SUMMARY Court ruling have established the following court law for land use application fees and and use appeal fees.
The level of analysis required to demonstrate compliance in determining actual or average costs for individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees requires providing substantial evidence that factually supports those costs. If the record included a focused representation by local government regarding the average or actual costs, the local government’s determination of actual or average cost for individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees would be reasonable, unless some opposing evidence had been submitted to rebut that representation. The local government is in the best position to provide estimates of staff time costs and other significant costs to support the determination of average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. When local governments provide a particularized effort to explain why the fees do not exceed the average or actual costs, it might be appropriate for the government to fault petitioner for not attempting to refute that testimony. Without a focused representation (i.e., cost analysis), the relevant question is whether a reasonable person would conclude that fees will not exceed the average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. If the governing body does not cite, and if the courts are subsequently unable to find the "representation" that findings rely on, the courts will rule that a reasonable person would not reach the conclusion that fees will not exceed the average or actual costs of individual land use application fees and land use appeal fees. Petitioners’ standing cannot be resolved until the record is filed; without the record it is impossible to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether all of the petitioners satisfied the standing requirements.
Several citizens in Josephine County, Oregon have appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) the county’s third increase in user and permits fees, in as many years, without any analysis of actual or average costs supporting the increases (S ommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ LUBA No. 2006-150, August 14, 2006, Notice of Intent to Appeal).
A Petitioners’ settlement proposal dated December 2006 is based on their core interest of reducing land use appeal fees from the current $1,500 level to the 2003 level of $250 (Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, December 2006, Petitioners’ Settlement Proposal). Without a settlement Petitioners plan to appeal to LUBA all land use application fees and land use appeal fees. Petitions made the following informal settlement proposal to initiate dialogue between the parties; they will agree to dismiss their appeal to LUBA if Josephine County agrees to the following: 1. the County will roll back all land use appeal fees to its 2003 level of $250, 2. the County will reimburse difference in fees it collected since the first fee increase, 3. specifically the County will reimburse fees in full it collected for appeals which move to the Circuit Court through Write of Mandamus Action because the County failed to meet the statutory deadline and did not incur the cost of an appeals hearing, and 4. the County will hold all land use appeal fees at $250 as a sign of its support for Oregon Statewide Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement and its own citizen involvement program (Josephine County Ordinance 93-13). User fees dedicated to the user through the county’s "current planning" function are required to be no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service. A change to user fees should not be undertaken until some effort has been made to develop a real assessment study designed to address the issue of actual or average costs. Fee surveys of other adjacent counties does not satisfy the law, nor are they reliable, as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at "their" levels. For example, many communities have established their own policies that some services are a benefit to the entire community rather than to special interests: public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression; maintaining and developing public facilities on a uniform, community-wide basis such as streets, parks, and general-purpose buildings; and providing social service programs, economic development activities, and planning services because they are clearly intended to serve the broader community. Where other counties have made these policies their associated services have very low cost recovery goals. The following is the history of the Josephine County LUBA appeal as it has evolved to this point follows.
A County Decision Regarding Local Land Use and Appeals Fees Is a Land Use Decision Subject to LUBA’s Jurisdiction - Court Rulings
Appendix B - Sommer v. Josephine County, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2006-150, September 1, 2006, Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss And Motion For Extension Of Time for Filing Record)
Exhibits Exhibit 1. Meeting Minutes from Tape 189 A @ 281 for June 17, 1983 Hearing on House Bill (HB) 2295 Before the Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. 14 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 2. Meeting Minutes from Tape 192 A @ 45 for June 29, 1983 Hearing on HB 2295 Before the Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. 2 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 3. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. May 26, 1983. Comments on HB 2295. 1 page. Rockaway, OR. Exhibit 4. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. June 15, 1983. Proposed Amendments to HB 2295. 4 pages. Rockaway, OR. Exhibit 5. League of Women Voters of Oregon Letter to Members of Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. June 22, 1983. Proposed Amendments to HB 2295. 1 page. Salem, OR. Exhibit 6. Oregon State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) Memorandum to Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. January 18, 1983. Subject: Item 4.0: committee Report. CIAC investigated the appeal circumstances and found the fee and transcript charges to have been outrageous and unjustified, and one is a series of efforts to restrict citizen input and participation. 1 page. Salem, OR. Exhibit 7. Senate Committee On Energy And Environment. July 12, 1983. Senate Amendments to House Bill 2295. 2 pages. Salem, OR. Exhibit 8. Oregon Laws. 1983. ORS 92.046(1)(c). |
|
© 2012 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |