Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1988 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Sousa Room--Eugene Community Conference Center March 14, 1988 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. I. BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES City Council President Freeman Holmer opened the work session. Public Works Building Safety Division Manager Larry Reed said the council had identified several issues as concerns. These included turnaround time for permits, staffing needs, housing moves, and zoning and sign code enforcement. To understand these issues, he said it would be helpful to understand the services and organization of the division. Mr. Reed outlined some of the Building Safety Divisionis service enhancements instituted over the past 2-1/2 years. Service has been improved without compromise to public health and safety by creating a Permit and Information Center, adding more counter staff, instituting predevelopment and issue resolution meetings, and establishing extensive industry outreach and interaction programs. There has been a reduction in initial time required for plan reviews for sign and building permits, and zoning enforcement service requests are being met in a timely manner. An increased work load requires the division to prioritize work in order to meet its goals. In the past, the divisionis mission was to protect the publicls health and safety through enforcement of the State Building Code and local development regulations. The mission has been expanded to include helping clients with the regulatory process and educating clients regarding the divisionis role. Mr. Reed introduced the managers of the four work sections in the Building Safety Division: Roger McGuckin, Plan Check; Kurt Sundahl, Field Inspection; Marsha Miller, Land Use Management; and Terry Fritz, Operational Support. In 1981, the division had 31 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). Between 1982 and 1985, that number was reduced to 25, and currently there are 30 FTEs. ~ A. Plan Checking Mr. Reed referred councilors to a "Plan Check Flow Chart" in their agenda packets. He pointed out that technical staff loaned to the Permit and Information Center from Transportation, Engineering, and Fire Services MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 1 \ - e e participate in the Building Permit Application review of development plans. Mr. Reed reviewed the activities of the Plan Check Sectionls 7.5 FTEs. With the use of a graph showing building permit volume, permit turnaround time, and plan check staffing, Mr. Reed explained that additional staff allows the division to keep pace with an increase in the number of plans submitted for review. He said plan review turnaround time in January and February 1988 has been longer than average due to the increased permit volume. Responding to councilors' questions, Mr. Reed said approximately two-thirds of the total value of plans checked in the last year were for government-sponsored projects. Full fees are not collected for City of Eugene and County agenciesl projects, so approximately $16,000 in permit fees was forgiven last year. Some of these are City or County projects and are General Fund-related. Mr. Reed said there is a need for a better policy regulating fee waivers. Mr. Holmer asked about measurement of plan review turnaround time. Mr. Reed said if the application submittal and set of plans are well-drawn, designed to code, and complete, review time is shortened and the time it takes to get a permit is reduced. B. Field Inspection Mr. Reed described the work of the 11 FTE employees in the Field Inspection Section. He explained that inspectors are being cross-trained and he anticipated that structural inspectors would be able to perform structural and mechanical, plumbing, and electrical residential inspections. Mr. Miller asked for more information on response time for inspection requests and the relationship between contractors and inspectors. Mr. Reed responded that between 1982 and 1987, half-day turnaround was being provided for inspection requests. Calls for inspection in by noon could be made by 3:30 p.m. In late 1987, because of increased activity and with the support of the Building Construction Advisory Committee, this was a changed to provide same day inspection for inspection requests in by 7:30 a.m. Mr. Reed said the code provides various options. Mr. Sundahl added that problems between inspectors and contractors were fewer than in the past. Inspectors are being trained to trust the contracting industry. Ms. Wooten reported that she had received complaints about field inspectors creating new sets of requirements that had not been made explicit prior to inspection. She said this creates delays in the field instead of at the permit counter or plan review. Mr. Reed responded that this had been a complaint heard in the past but not recently, and is being addressed by having more complete and rapid plan review that catches code violatio~s before construction begins. He emphasized that the City provides a service to the project and building owners by helping individuals meet their legal responsibilities constructing a code complying building. If plans contain a violation that is missed at the plan checking stage and is discovered in the field, the owner or owner1s contractor is ultimately responsible for making MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 2 e corrections. The field inspector notifies Mr. Sundahl before the stop work orders are written. In addition, field inspectors contact the City.s code analyst who reviewed the building prior to issuing a field correction notice. Ms. Bascom reported a complaint that the City had added requirements for the Eugene Emergency Housing (EEH) Facility at 780 Highway 99, making the project more expensive. Mr. Reed said he understood the reason for the complaint, but the accusation was absolutely not true and in fact, staff had waived code on some issues in order to accommodate the project. Cost increased and code issues arose because appropriate professional guidance was not sought prior to purchasing the building and beginning the remodel. Mr. Gleason and Mr. Reed said they could review the EEH project in detail with Mr. Uhlhorn. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Reed said the division enforces the State Building Code, which is a minimum and a maximum based upon a uniform national model code. The State Building Code cannot be changed at the local level, except in the area of administration and service delivery. e C. Land Use Management Mr. Reed reviewed the activities of the Land Use Section, and he said the current four FTEs handle the most diverse and greatest volume of duties, including citizen complaints about nuisance violations. He emphasized that the only way the case load can be managed is by prioritizing the work of the section, and he referred councilors to priorities listed in their handouts. The highest priority is given to health and safety issues. Supporting economic development by doing such things as zoning and building code reviews is another priority. The lowest priority is loning, land use, and sign issues. Ms. Ehrman cautioned against putting economic development ahead of people1s complaints of illegal land use activities. Mr. Gleason said the City lacks the capacity to follow up on issues of non-safety nuisance abatement, and on conditions and agreements worked out in planning conditional uses and variances. Mr. Reed reported that the backlog of complaints and sign plan reviews has been reduced with the filling of one vacant position, but at the same time, overall complaint volume has increased and it is impossible to staff enforcement of sign code violations or violations of special land use permits. Ms. Wooten expressed the opinion that site reviews are important. She asked who would follow up on conditions of development if not the Building Safety Division. Regarding enforcement capability, Mr. Reed said developing a citation system is on the division long-range work program. Two years ago, the council changed the ordinance, giving the division authority to send notice of non-compliance and to hire a contractor to abate the nuisance. Ms. Miller said four such notices were sent in February, and peak months would be April through November. Mr. Reed said Public Works Maintenance was responsible for situations involving weeds, but there would be coordination if health issues were part e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 3 e of the problem. In response to Ms. Schue's question about a property on Portland Street that had come to the councills attention, Mr. Reed said removing the rodent problem and removing unsafe injury potentials are the divisionis concern, but the normal standard of care that involves aesthetic considerations is not addressed. Mr. Gleason added that enforcing an aesthetic standard would require a separate code (Housing Code) and different system. Mr. Miller asked whether the solar ordinance is having an impact on the backlog of violations. Mr. Reed answered that an increase in the number of professionally-drawn single-family house plans could be a positive result of the solar ordinance. Regarding Sign Code violations, Mr. Reed said after updating the Sign Code two years ago, the division initiated a systematic inspection and identification of sign violations. After sending letters of notification that the division intended to enforce the Sign Code, building construction picked up again and there was insufficient staff to follow up. D. Operational Support Mr. Reed reviewed the activities of the 5.7 FTEs in operational support. He pointed out the invaluable service provided to the development community in the area of microfilm and file plans. e E. Staff Recommendations on Four Issues Mr. Reed reviewed the four issues raised by the council. Simply adding staff to the Building Safety Division does not accomplish the goals of permit turnaround because Engineering, Transportation, Planning, and the Fire Marshal are also involved in the plan review process. Additional staffing resources need to be added uniformly to all areas to keep the whole process in balance. Mr. Reed anticipated the development of a comprehensive proposal requiring council action by mid-spring or early summer. Mr. Gleason added that consideration of that proposal would be separate from the budget process. Ms. Bascom brought up the case of a zoning violation for property at 24th Avenue and Hilyard Street. She observed that the City may be acting in a heavy-handed manner in its interpretation, and she recommended that staff de-emphasize issues that are not health- and safety-related. Mr. Reed said staff strives for reasonable code interpretations. Appeals of staff determinations can be made through the management staff and on to the formal hearings officer review process. Mr. Reed described the issue of house moves as part of a larger problem related to land use and conditional uses. A permit to move over public streets is a Transportation Division concern and setting a house on a new foundation requires a building permit. Adding a time limit for completing e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 4 e this type of building would require the addition of a time limit regulating how quickly all houses must be finished. Though this could be done, Mr. Reed was reluctant to recommend that the council interfere in this non-health- and safety-related area. The final issue raised by the council was zoning enforcement. Mr. Reed maintained that the current priority on health and safety is appropriate. If complaints continue to increase, the service level will drop for some of the other lower priority activities. If the Riverfront Research project is successful, Mr. Reed anticipated a continuation of the current rate of growth for the next three to four years. He also predicted a shift away from the public side projects and more private money over the next two to three years. If interest rates remain fairly stable, he forecast sustained growth. Mr. Gleason offered his opinion that the building permit/inspection system has the potential for creating the most animosity from the business community toward the City, and conversely the inability to adequately enforce and abate nuisance zoning issues creates animosity from neighborhoods. Removing resources from the permit and regulation systems results in dislocations within the regulations. Mr. Reed stated that the Building Safety Division is approximately 65 percent funded by fees. While Mr. Holmer suggested the permit program could be entirely fee-funded, Mr. Reed said the State sets a cap on the rate that fees can be charged. e Ms. Ehrman expressed a concern about the complaint backlog and she reiterated her concern that economic development is assigned a higher priority than the complaints of individual property owners. She encouraged the division to direct its attention to satisfying citizensl complaints. Mr. Rutan asked how many lawsuits presently involve the City. Ms. Miller answered that approximately ten zoning and nuisance violations are being litigated. Mr Rutan continued that although there are opportunities for fee increases, it is important to remain sensitive to the fact that the division is providing a public service. He observed that if complaints are not about things detrimental to the health and safety of the community, there is less cause for concern about a backlog. Ms. Wooten commented that Mr. Reedls presentation indicated instances of staff vacancies which might have resulted in the backlog accumulation. Mr. Reed explained that the divisionis efforts to eliminate one-of-a-kind positions and cross-training were responsible for the staff vacancies he reported. Ms. Schue noted that in view of the current budget situation, staffing increases are unlikely. She said this made it especially important for staff to be helpful and to educate the public to understand the process and to have realistic expectations. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 5 e e e Mr. Miller said that shifting resources may be necessary to facilitate the process and he said he looked forward to the comprehensive proposal and report. Mr. Rutan suggested posting the current turnaround time for residential and commercial permits at the Permit and Information Center. This would provide a status report as well as communicate to the public that its concerns are shared. Mr. Holmer thanked members of the Public Works Department for their presentations. The work session was adjourned at 7:10 p.m., and councilors moved to the Council Chamber for a regular meeting. Respectfully submitted, J"!t .~..,~: ..p ,f'ft_:.., ~!:'~-? ./~:~.f~4.'~:i.';/':,~~~ Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 031488-530 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session March 14, 1988 Page 6