Laserfiche WebLink
commitment to its citizens. For the same reasons that it would be bad policy to remove <br />local control over police and fire services, it is bad policy to remove local control over <br />public safety within the built environment. • We disagree with the bill's premise that the <br />desired outcomes are best achieved at the state level. The City is better positioned than <br />the State to provide efficient, effective administration of the building codes for capital <br />construction projects. Our one-stop permitting provides streamlined services and local <br />coordination of reviews and inspections by Building, Land Use, Fire, Public Works, and <br />others. If the State were to assume the authority for building review and permitting, this <br />coordination would be extraordinarily difficult and delays would undoubtedly occur. • <br />The bill would have a significant impact on BPS funding. Permit fees for larger projects <br />at UO, for example, would go to the state rather than the City. Total permit fees for some <br />recent UO construction (Matt Knight Arena, Jaqua Academic Learning Center, Casanova <br />Center Expansion, PK Park, Alumni Center, East Campus Residence Hall) were in excess <br />of 2.3 million dollars. It is our understanding that the bill is intended to address problems <br />with a specific state project in a smaller jurisdiction that contracts with a third party to <br />administer the building inspection program. The bill should be amended to exclude <br />jurisdictions such as Eugene that provide complete permitting services, and are best- <br />equipped to oversee important capital construction projects. <br />9 | Page <br />March 20, 2013 IGR Committee Meeting <br />