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

Home Browse Search

safety concerns or community values, and at some point the council may need to determine the benefitting party when considering fee levels. Ms. Nathanson said that, if permits cost too much, was there evidence that people would commence construction with a permit? Ms. Osborn said that the City had anecdotal evidence to that effect. Mr. Farmer believed that people would work without a permit, adding it was difficult to quantify precisely. As staff projected fee increases, the calculation included an increase in work without permits and some revenue loss. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the City needed to reexamine those services for which it was not currently compensated. Mr. Pap~ asked if better submittals from architects and engineers would cut down on review time. Ms. Osborn said yes, although the City had succeeded enormously in improving the quality of submittals over the last three years, which had created service efficiencies. In addition, staff had changed how it handled applications at intake, and was much stricter about what was accepted, which helped to reduce turnaround time and follow-up requests for supplemental information. Mr. Pap~ asked if turnaround time was accelerated by better submittals. Ms. Osborn said yes. Mr. Farmer noted that inspectors reported they spent more time on job sites attempting to ensure that approved plans were actually being implemented; contractors were having an increasingly difficult time getting qualified employees, which resulted in more in-the-field training on the part of inspectors. Staff had discussed doing some targeted training with specific groups of applicants. Mr. Farmer added that the development of more difficult sites impacted by wetlands, streams, and slopes also made it more difficult for submitted plans to be accurate. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Osborn stated that most of the permit fees charged by the City were within State guidelines, and they tended to be higher for commercial development. Ms. Taylor asked if it would save money if the City extended the application turnaround time. Ms. Osborn said she supposed so; if the City wanted to slow its response time, it could probably reduce the service and number of staff to cut costs, but that approach had tradeoffs; one tradeoff was that people might bypass the permit process. Ms. Taylor suggested that such instances would be largely confined to additions or interior modifications. Ms. Osborn agreed, but said that such work also could present safety problems. Mr. Fart said that one of the most important considerations in considering the topic was the amount of money it cost a family to get into a new house, and anytime the City Council considered regulation that increased the cost of a residence it needed to determine whether it was doing the right thing. He said that the information provided by staff indicated that Eugene already had the highest permitting fees for a single-family dwelling outside the Portland area. Mr. Fart said that the council needed to consider whether the City was regulating construction in the most efficient manner. He conceded that most regulations were instituted for community livability, but each regulation had the potential to overlap the regulations imposed by another agency, making staf?s job more difficult and complex. Mr. Fart wanted to analyze the City's regulations to determine why its permit fees were higher than those in other communities. He questioned whether the City could afford to push its fees higher than they currently were. Regarding the potential of instituting delays in application turnaround times, Mr. Fart suggested that could add to the cost of housing as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.