There's an interesting subtext to the discussion about how the city of Corvallis assesses land-development fees that's worth keeping in mind as the plan is implemented.

At its meeting Monday night, the council adopted a resolution to ratchet up the percentage of land-use application costs paid by developers.

Here's the background, and we're indebted to Ward 9 Councilor Hal Brauner for this explanation: Currently, developers pay all costs associated with processing building permits. The idea is that developers primarily, if not exclusively, benefit from those buildings, and so they should pay all the fees related to those permits.

On the other end of the scale, the city's general fund picks up all the costs related to long-range city planning. The reasoning there is that this planning tends to benefit citizens at large, and so taxpayers should foot the bill.

In the middle, at least for now, is the thinking about who should pick up the tab for land-use application costs - for example, applications for subdivisions or commercial developments. These costs had been split 50-50 between developers and taxpayers, a reflection of the public-private partnership in land-use planning.

So, in other words, the fee structure has hinged on the idea that there is a public benefit as well as a private benefit to these projects.

The new resolutions calls for developers to pay 60 percent of those land-use application costs, with the percentage increasing over the next five years until developers pick up all the costs for land-use permits. (Not all of the council is comfortable with that result, by the way, but future councils will revisit this issue each year.)

Part of the push behind this, frankly, is that Administrative Services is looking for additional sources of money to fund city services. That's actually part of its charge; the committee is just doing its job.

At least for now, though, we're more concerned about the unspoken assumption behind the proposal: That there is no longer any public benefit to subdivisions and commercial developments. We think that's a debatable proposition, at best, and it's one that we'd like to see the council further ponder.

Is there no public benefit to building new housing for Corvallis? Is there no public benefit to creating new places for retail storefronts or offices?

We think there is. Opponents of growth raise principled arguments, but we think most Corvallis citizens welcome measured, careful growth.

We have additional concerns about the resolution - we think, for example, it's likely to increase housing costs and other costs of doing business here.

But before we turn to those details, it's worth spending time on the fundamentals: Deep in its DNA, this is a move that says something about the city's relationship with business. Councilors need to be sure that the message they send is precisely what they intended.

Related

• Critics warn against making developers pay all costs for land-use permits