Laserfiche WebLink
pointed out that every community in the state had regulations. He called for a comprehensive <br />analysis of the issue, relative to the experience of other cities. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor wanted to move forward with implementation of the Land Use Code Update. He was <br />concerned about Ballot Measure 7, and thought the City would know more in a month than it <br />knew now. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said the staffing analysis presented by Mr. Farmer was not adequate for him. It did not <br />address economic conditions in Eugene and how many people actually sought permits. <br />Construction activity was slowing down, and Mr. Rayor wanted more of a sensitivity analysis <br />related to permit volumes. He was very concerned about the budget and very concerned about <br />the number of FTEs employed by the City. He said that the City needed to determine if there was <br />any extra capacity in the organization that was not being utilized. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said the land use permitting process was different than the building permit process in <br />that the building permit process was tied to interest rates and other national factors. The land <br />use process was a little "lumpier" than the building permit process, and it was a challenge to <br />ensure that staff was available when people come to the Permit and Information Center counter, <br />and were managed so that they have something to do when applications were not coming in. He <br />said that staff was working hard to realize efficiencies, and pointed out the department had <br />eliminated 25 positions last year in Building and Permit Services. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked for discussion of Option 3, specifically (A). Senior Planner Teresa Bishow <br />said that the option suggested a different way to administer the standards. The standards <br />themselves would remain. The key change in A was no public notice component. There would <br />be no "watch dog" role for the public in checking the staff consistency in code interpretation, for <br />example. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she was interested in Option 3(C) and asked about its workability. Ms. <br />Bishow believed that the approach could be used, and the listed professional certifications were <br />those most likely to be familiar with the type of review involved. She suggested that there may <br />be inconsistency between professionals regarding code interpretation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of housing affordability, saying that the index referred to by Mr. <br />Farmer was always produced in the context of local wages. She believed Eugene's ranking was <br />as much a reflection of the fact the local labor force was not being paid very highly as it was of <br />the cost of housing. She did not want to use the index as a reason not to regulate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if it was reasonable for the department to raise its cost recovery target from <br />fees. Mr. Farmer did not think it was realistic. He said that realizing 85 percent to 90 percent of <br />the cost of services from fees was not feasible, particularly because of the City's approach to <br />recovering the costs of administrative overhead through the Central Services Allocation. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Johnson confirmed that there had been some <br />downsizing in the Planning and Development Department following the completion of the Hyundai <br />plant, but those positions had been completely supported by the fees assessed to Hyundai. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Kelly's earlier remark regarding claims against existing regulations, Mr. Klein <br />disagreed with Mr. Kelly regarding the potential of such claims, pointing out that in that case, the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />