03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman williams expressed concern with a motion adopting the fee schedule and at the ~ame time calling for a public hearing, but the Mayor suggested tentative ~ adoption with final action taken after public hearing on the 22nd. .., Vote. was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, reviewed background information with regard to the proposed increase (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was opened. David Benton, locI builder representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, read a prepared statement expressing concern about the increased costs in building construction because of government regulations. He compared valuation of construc- tion in Eugene with that in Springfield, saying Eugene's far exceeded the actual value of the buildings although its construction was the same type as in Springfield. He referred to a November 1975 memo from Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, in which she questioned why Eugene's permit valuation increased ten times more than Springfield's in 1975 over 1974. He referred to correspondence between the company for which he worked - TransWestern Investors - and the building depart- ment with regard to actual costs for specific buildings on which they had certified the costs in accordance with fee schedule requirements for possible refund. After revision to include overhead and profit figures, he said, the building department maintained the position that valuations the department had placed on the buildings were correct, that they would equal the sales price, minimum land values, real es- tate fees, etc. He cited one house as an example which was completed in August 1975 and on which the sale price was $24,250. Total replace cost, he said, after taking ~ out land value, closing costs, real estate fees, etc., was $15,166.49. He claimed '" the permit fee should have been $121.20 whereas actual fee charged by the city was $163.62. To date, he said, no response had been received with regard to this charge (filed in January 1976) yet further increase in permit fees was being proposed. He cited a further example of identical cuplexes constructed, both with retail prices of $8,000 including land. Yet, permit fee value was set at $46,796 on one, $53,749 on the other. He questioned the equity and claimed overpayments were not bein~ worked out according to the fee schedule requirements. Mr. Benton asked that this issue be tabled until Council appointment of a task force made up of builders and other persons in related inductries to undertake a study to bring Eugene's valuations into line with those placed by the State speciality code. He thought the purpose of the State code was to equalize costs but he felt that was not being done. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Nolte said there was no proposal to increase building permit fees - the State preempts those regulations. He said the valuation schedule is reviewed annually in relation to increases in building costs. The schedule used is that published by the International Conference of Building Officials and is derived from a nationally recognized appraisal organization. Regional modifications apply to Oregon, he said. Although it does not get down to finite detail of any particular jurisdiction, he felt the figures were reasonably accurate. He said that figures quoted by Betty Niven in past Joint Housing Committee meetings were within 50~ of the per-square-foot valuation, so he didn't understand the disparity there. With ... regard to the correspondence referred to by Mr. Benton, Mr. Nolte said the valuation ~ mentioned came within a few dollars of the amount that would have been arrived at with methods used by registered appraisers and based on data published by the State Department of Revenue. He cited figures on the four buildings mentioned by Mr. Benton. 3/22/76 - 4 " ;.\Lif .\ ':*,