CC Minutes - 12/06/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She said that making comparisons between communities could be difficult because the comparison was not always an "apples to apples" comparison given the differences in regulations between communities. Mr. Meisner was unsure about the need for a new department advisory committee given the work already done. Regarding the proposal for interim funding, he said that would be a challenge. Mr. Meisner said that the information provided to the council did not include a comparison of total program costs between communities, and he would be interested in that information. Were other communities facing such shortfalls, and what did Eugene do differently from those communities? He said that he would want that information before making a final decision on the staff proposal. Mr. Kelly was generally supportive of the staff proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the fees captured for unfunded development assistance, Ms. Osborn concurred that there were land use fees associated with site review and planned unit developments, but the permit fees were insufficient to cover the costs of referral to the appropriate staff. She said that there may be room in that fee structure to seek more revenues. Mr. Kelly asked if there were a way to recover the costs of planning services through the systems development charge. Ms. Osbom said no. Mr. Kelly supported the proposed department advisory committee if the time line developed by staff could be maintained. Mr. Kelly indicated willingness to consider an 80-20 split in recognition of the community benefit provided by Construction Permit Services. Mr. Rayor believed the staff proposal was generally taking the right approach. He asked for more information about the use to which the reserve fund could be put, and whether the council could avoid directing General Fund money to the service. Mr. Farmer noted the negative impact of the rate of growth on the reserve fund and indicated he believed the funding was essential to avoid the fund going into the red. He said it was not a long-term fix, but would buy the City some time to develop a permanent solution. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson said that the fund had some reserves above those representing services already paid for, but the use of those dollars were restricted by council policy regarding the amount of the fund. Ms. Osbom said that when building activity for large commercial and industrial projects was strong, the City had been able to build up some reserves, but the department had been spending those reserves on current costs. Ms. Nathanson asked if it continued to be true that large commercial and industrial projects to some degree subsidized smaller scale projects. Ms. Osborn said yes, to some degree; part of the reason was because State fees were based on tables adopted by the State, and the City was constrained for what it could charge for different projects. The fees were not always directly related to the costs of reviewing the project. Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that 100 percent cost recovery may not be feasible or appropriate. She suggested that the council needed to take a step back and ask what the purpose of all the permits the City issued was: were permits for the benefit for the person getting the permit, the community at large, or the person who may purchase or occupy a dwelling later? She said that many regulations were compelled by MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.