Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />participate in the Building Permit Application review of development plans. <br /> <br />Mr. Reed reviewed the activities of the Plan Check Sectionls 7.5 FTEs. With <br />the use of a graph showing building permit volume, permit turnaround time, <br />and plan check staffing, Mr. Reed explained that additional staff allows the <br />division to keep pace with an increase in the number of plans submitted for <br />review. He said plan review turnaround time in January and February 1988 has <br />been longer than average due to the increased permit volume. <br /> <br />Responding to councilors' questions, Mr. Reed said approximately two-thirds <br />of the total value of plans checked in the last year were for <br />government-sponsored projects. Full fees are not collected for City of <br />Eugene and County agenciesl projects, so approximately $16,000 in permit fees <br />was forgiven last year. Some of these are City or County projects and are <br />General Fund-related. Mr. Reed said there is a need for a better policy <br />regulating fee waivers. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer asked about measurement of plan review turnaround time. Mr. Reed <br />said if the application submittal and set of plans are well-drawn, designed <br />to code, and complete, review time is shortened and the time it takes to get <br />a permit is reduced. <br /> <br />B. Field Inspection <br /> <br />Mr. Reed described the work of the 11 FTE employees in the Field Inspection <br />Section. He explained that inspectors are being cross-trained and he <br />anticipated that structural inspectors would be able to perform structural <br />and mechanical, plumbing, and electrical residential inspections. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller asked for more information on response time for inspection <br />requests and the relationship between contractors and inspectors. Mr. Reed <br />responded that between 1982 and 1987, half-day turnaround was being provided <br />for inspection requests. Calls for inspection in by noon could be made by <br />3:30 p.m. In late 1987, because of increased activity and with the support <br />of the Building Construction Advisory Committee, this was a changed to <br />provide same day inspection for inspection requests in by 7:30 a.m. Mr. Reed <br />said the code provides various options. Mr. Sundahl added that problems <br />between inspectors and contractors were fewer than in the past. Inspectors <br />are being trained to trust the contracting industry. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten reported that she had received complaints about field inspectors <br />creating new sets of requirements that had not been made explicit prior to <br />inspection. She said this creates delays in the field instead of at the <br />permit counter or plan review. Mr. Reed responded that this had been a <br />complaint heard in the past but not recently, and is being addressed by <br />having more complete and rapid plan review that catches code violatio~s <br />before construction begins. He emphasized that the City provides a service <br />to the project and building owners by helping individuals meet their legal <br />responsibilities constructing a code complying building. If plans contain a <br />violation that is missed at the plan checking stage and is discovered in the <br />field, the owner or owner1s contractor is ultimately responsible for making <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />Dinner/Work Session <br /> <br />March 14, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />