Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1989 Meeting e - e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Eugene Community Conference Center--Wilder Room April 10, 1989 5:30 p.m. ) COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue (after 6:40). Mayor Jeff Miller called the City Council work session to order. I. STATUS REPORT ON SEWER RATES Public Works Director Christine Andersen briefly reviewed the process that will be used to adopt new local and regional sewer rates. George Jessie, Public Works Department staff, referred to the draft Regional Sanitary Sewer User Rate Study (FY1989-1991), which was prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) by the Lane Council of Governments (L-COG). A year ago, it was anticipated that significant regional rate increases would be needed; this recent study, however, indicates that only moderate increases will be necessary, because of several factors: declining administrative costs; only moderately increasing operational costs; larger than anticipated reserves; and a moderate growth in the customer base. The study indicates that rate increases of about 2.2 percent in FY90 and 2.0 percent in FY91 will be needed. In response to a question, Mr. Jessie said he did not expect that rate increases greater than four to six percent would be needed for the years after FY91. Mr. Jessie mentioned three factors affecting the local sewer rate: moderately increasing operational costs; a great need for infrastructure improvements; and a moderate growth in the customer base. He said the following local sewer rate increases are expected: 6.1 percent for FY90 and 4.4 percent for FY91. Mr. Jessie said that for the typical single-family dwelling, the combined (regional and local) sewer rate increases would be about 4.3 percent in FY90 and 3.5 percent in FY91. Mr. Jessie also mentioned that the L-COG study recommended that a single-year rate structure be used, rather than the current biennial rate structure. Under a single-year rate structure, no over-charging would be required during the first year in order to pay for cost increases in the second year, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 1989 Page 1 e thus there would be a smaller percentage increase during the first year for the majority of users. In response to a question, staff said operational cost increases are due primarily to increases in wage and power costs. Mr. Jessie added that the number of FTEs is being reduced at both the regional and local levels. City Manager Micheal Gleason said a significant issue affecting the local sewer rate is the need for capital improvements. He said the City Council will have to make a policy decision regarding the level of long-term investment that should be made in the local sewer system. Mr. Boles asked whether the current regional sewer reserves are adequate. He wondered whether it would be more prudent to endure somewhat larger rate increases now, rather than reducing the reserves and having, at some point in the future, to raise regional sewer rates substantially. Mr. Bennett said MWMC is concerned about this issue, too, and will be taking it into account when it makes its regional sewer rate recommendations to the City Council. In response to a question, staff said the regional rates are covering the cost of replacing equipment, but not of replacing the sewage treatment plant. - Mr. Rutan asked about the technological state of the plant relative to treatment facilities elsewhere in the world. He also said he has read about new research on water purification techniques. Ms. Andersen said the current plant is at a fairly high technological level; for example, it adheres to the highest effluent standards that are required for new water treatment facilities. Terry Smith, Public Works staff, added that new techniques have been developed for small-scale water purification; however, there has not been a lot of success in applying these new techniques to a large scale. He said the staff at the treatment plant tries to keep abreast of new technological developments and to make modifications whenever they are advantageous. Mr. Rutan asked about the sewer system investments that were made recently in west Eugene. Mr. Gleason said these investments, in a sense, will do double duty: they will serve any industrial development that occurs in the area; and they were a necessary component in the integration of the entire sewer system. He said that even if no industrial development occurs (which is not likely), the investments still would have been necessary. He said the City will recover its costs over the next 20 years or so as development occurs. In response to a question, Mr. Jessie said the flow-based rate structure has worked reasonably well. It has increased administrative costs a little. Mr. Smith mentioned that Eugene has one of the most flow-based of flow-based rate systems; therefore, it has some of the lowest sewer rates at the low-use end of the spectrum, and some of the highest sewer rates at the high-use end of the spectrum. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April la, 1989 Page 2 e II. INFORMATION ON BUILDING PERMIT SERVICES Planning, Development, and Building Director Abe Farkas introduced Bill Johnson, chair of the Building Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC). The BCAC advises the City Manager on the building permit review process. Terri Vanderpool, Planning, Development, and Building Department staff, explained that the building permit review process has two "loopSIl: the site loop, during which issues relating to land use and site development are considered; and the structural loop, during which bUilding construction issues are reviewed. She mentioned the three components of building permit services: customer assistance, plan review, and field inspection. e Ms. Vanderpool provided some information on building permit review activity levels over the past several years. There was an unusually high level of construction from 1977 to 1979. The current permit volume is almost as high. Moreover, commercial development plans (which are much more complex than residential plans) account for a larger share of the volume now than they did from 1977 to 1979; thus, the actual amount of plan review activity is greater than it was from 1977 to 1979. Ms. Vanderpool also compared 1979 and current turnaround times. In 1979, from the time a set of plans was submitted until the time the review by the code analyst (the last stage in the review process) began, four to six weeks had elapsed. Currently, the average time before the code analyst review begins is three to four weeks. In order to realize the current turnaround goal (three "netll weeks, 90 percent of the time), the average time before the code analyst review would have to be reduced to two weeks or less. In summary, Ms. Vanderpool said that roughly the same number of plans--but more complex plans--are being reviewed in a shorter time now than in 1979. Ms. Vanderpool also provided information on customer assistance activity levels and service levels over the last ten years. She explained that customer counts in the PIC were up 20 percent in the 1988 construction season over the previous year. This is significant because the same staff members who provide customer assistance also provide building permit plans review services. With activity levels significantly higher in both service areas, staff members are having a difficult time meeting service level expectations. In order to deal with this issue, staff and the BCAC are working on a staff resource allocation policy. Mr. Johnson said that last fall, City Councilors brought to staff's attention several examples of problematic building permit reviews. These examples and a few others were used by staff to conduct a detailed case study of the building permit review process. Mr. Smith reported on the findings of the case study: inadequate staffing caused some delays; the submission of inadequate, incomplete, or incorrect plans was the most significant cause of delay; there is no policy for allocating resources among the building permit services; and staff does not have an established regulatory profile or philosophy. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 1989 Page 3 e Mr. Smith stressed that the eight permits that were part of the case study are representative of only about one-fifth or one-fourth of the plans that the City reviews. Mr. Smith said the average turnaround time for the eight permits was 97 days, 50 of which were spent waiting for complete plans or corrected plans to be submitted. He said code compliance problems delayed all of the permits. One question, of course, is whether the Building Division is too nit-picky in its enforcement of the code. Mr. Smith found that this was not the case in these eight permits; all of them had fundamental code compliance problems (he cited several examples of structural and life safety deficiencies in the plans). Mr. Smith stressed the need for the City to develop a policy for allocating staff resources among different building permit services--particularly among customer assistance and permit review. He said 45 percent of staff resources for the site review loop, and 25 percent for the structural review loop, were devoted to customer assistance at the time of the study. e Mr. Smith also stressed the need for the staff to establish a clearer regulatory profile or philosophy. This will allow staff members to review plans more efficiently, because they will spend less time wondering how a particular code requirement should be applied; furthermore, it will help the design community know what to expect from the building permit review process. Doug Eveleth, Planning, Development, and Building Department staff, briefly reviewed some of the recent improvements that have been made to the permit review process: a new plans completeness checklist, which will help ensure that complete building plans are submitted; a permit processing guide, which will explain the design review process to the design community and help them to submit more complete plans; a new policy regarding partial permits and phased construction; and a new plans coordination system to improve coordination among the various types of code reviews that are done. Mr. Gleason said some of the biggest permit review problems arise when developers do not use qualified design professionals, or when communication between a builder, developer, and designer is poor. He said it has become fashionable to complain that the permit review staff is purposely trying to thwart economic development; this is simply not true. He said staff wants to receive constructive suggestions about how to improve the permit review process, and has been working hard to make improvements. Mr. Gleason added, however, that building code review is a difficult and often controversial process in all communities; there will never be a time when everyone believes that the City's code reviews are completely correct or fair; attaining this level of satisfaction, therefore, cannot be the City's goal. Mr. Boles raised the possibility of adjusting permit fees to take account of the fact that some members of the design community take up more staff time and resources than others. Mr. Bennett said the City encourages rehabilitation, which is very different than new construction. He said that either the City should develop a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 1989 Page 4 e e e bUilding permit review process that deals effectively and appropriately with rehabilitation projects, or it should not encourage rehabilitation so much. He mentioned that handicap accessibility is a difficult and critical issue relating to rehabilitation projects; at some point, the community needs to address this issue. Mr. Bennett also wondered whether the staff is devoting too large a share of its resources to customer assistance and not enough to actual plan review. Mr. Gleason said staff intends to shift some of its resources away from customer assistance and toward plan review. Mr. Bennett stressed the need for the City to develop a timely process for reviewing building permits that are small and raise no major structural or safety issues (for example, permits for tenant office improvements). He also addressed the issue of regulatory philosophy. He cautioned that some of the worst problems can arise when a consummate philosophy is developed, because it often goes too far and is taken to its absurdly logical conclusions. He said what is needed is a group of people with the field experience--the wisdom--to know where to draw the line in the dirt, so to speak. Mr. Bennett said the City should give a lot of thought to the issue of regulatory philosophy, and should try to develop a staff team that has this sort of wisdom, the ability to strike the right balance. Finally, Mr. Bennett said the City should set a conservative goal for permit review turnaround time and try to be accountable by meeting this goal. Mayor Miller expressed appreciation for the attitude taken by staff--that is, trying to be constructive and solve problems, rather than trying to blame one side or the other. The work session adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respect. fully SUbmit~. ~~. .~ ". , '~~~~ h M i c a 1 G 1 ~1ta son . ' City Manager (Recorded by Monty Hindman) MNCC 041089-530 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 1989 Page 5