01/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e - In response to questions on the building permit process, Ms. Vanderpool stated that the current turnaround for the permit process is approximately 10 days for residential appl ications and 15 days for commerci al appl ications. She said these times are standard as compared with the processing times for other communities. She said the delay in moving the Building and Engineering staff into the DAC is due to the lack of space. Ms. Smith.encouraged staff to make the move as soon as possible. . In response to a question on the incentives as outlined in the January 3, 1984, EDD memorandum, Ms. Vanderpool stated that the two-for-one parking permit will be a one-time offer to give a permit for March for those individuals who purchase a permit for February. She said staff hopes this will help people learn of the permit sales relocation and become more familiar with the downtown parking program. Councilor Holmer commented that he was satisfied that the Planning regulations revi si ons hav-e resulted OJ n reduced appl icati on processi ng time, bllt he questi oned if the 30-percent reduction is in the regulation time intervals or in applica- tion to authorization. Ms. Vanderpool stated that the 30-percent figure repre- sents a consolidation of all types of applications and a reduction of the gross processing time. She said that some of the application processing times have been reduced by more than 30 percent while others have been reduced less. She said the new regul ations have been in pl ace only since January I, 1984, and therefore no figures have been tabulated for the time reduction in individual applications. Mr. Holmer stressed that he wanted the DAC to get the full recognition of the reduced application processing times. Mr. Gleason commented that there may be more dramatic time cuts since some of the application processes will be run in parallel. In response to Ms. Smith's comments, Mr. Gleason said that staff could move faster in relocating the Building and Engineering sections to the DAC but that staff is moving slowly in an attempt to keep the cost down. He said that the Finance Department is the likely candidate for relocation. He said the relocation involves costs for remodeling as well as relocation and that the issue will come before the City Council and the Budget Committee. Mr. Obie commented that stopping the process now will achieve less than what is desired. He suggested that staff move rapidly in performing the relocation. Ms. Smith encouraged the City Manager to bring details on the relocation to the City Council and the Budget Committee. She said she wants the City to be ready to facilitate the process when the building industry begins to increase. Ms. Schue agreed with the other councilors, stating that the process should be completed now that it has begun. She also stated her desire to see the relo- cation details. Mr. Gleason explained that the Building Division requires 2,000 square feet while the Finance Department needs 10,000 square feet in which to relocate. He said one option is to relocate the City Manager's Office from City Hall I but added that it does not appear practical. Mr. Obie commented that the City Manager's complex needs to present a better image to the public and that a relocation could facilitate that change. Mr. Gleason said he understood the council's desire for the relocation to be achieved quickly. He said he will present details on the relocation to the council as soon as possible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 25, 1984 Page 3