Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2002 Adjourned Meeting 454 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2002 - 7:30 A.M. 129 NORTH 2 ND STREET - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Lynn Buchanan, Paul George, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development; Doug Maples, Code Administration and Planning Manager; Rita Anson, Director of Finance and Budget; and Karen Roberts, City Clerk Absent: Council Member Larry Mattson (excused) 2. BUILDING PERMIT FEES In addition to the material that was provided to Council in their packets last Friday and Monday, Mr. Cook distributed information on how the proposed increase would affect a building permit fee for a 2000 square foot house. He also distributed information relating to Code Administration and Planning Divisions' revenue vs. expenditures. • Bill Cook describes why this study session was scheduled Bill Cook reminded Council that during the budget review, staff had submitted a policy issue for a building permit revenue modification. At that time, Council made a decision not to go forward with a $20 fire inspection fee and to defer three issues: 1) Increase building permit fees; 2) Hire a third fire inspector; and 3) Charge a fee for fire plan reviews. • Proposal to increase building permit fees is discussed Mr. Cook stated that the proposed policy included three options: • Option 1: Use the April 2001 ICBO Building Standard Valuation Data table to raise the cost per square foot for each occupancy and type of construction • Option 2: Withdrawn by Council Member Barnett • Option 3: Use the April 2001 ICBO Building Standard Valuation Data table to raise the cost per square foot for each occupancy and type of construction. In addition, the Building Permit Fee Table in Ordinance No. 3484 -1, 1992 would be modified to a similar level as the Yakima County Permit Fee Table. He advised Council that the 1991 ICBO Building Standard Valuation Data table is still in use. The calculation from that table is used to determine the permit fee value, which determines the building permit fee. There is also an .88% local modifier that is used for Washington State. 455 • Council members discussed the difference in the permit fee that would be generated by these two options, and a suggestion to use a modifier of .80% used by Idaho. Discussion ensued about the revenue generated by the permit fees versus the operating expenses of the office and how much is subsidized by the General Fund. Council Member Barnett spoke about how he could not reconcile the figures in this report with what is in the budget. He was advised that the calculation for the permit fee includes a percentage of staff time from other divisions, e.g. a city attorney and a planner, but does not include expenses for other Code Administrative staff that is not involved in the development review process, e.g. fire inspectors or code compliance officers. Mayor Place pointed out that another goal is to improve our permit process and the timeliness of issuing permits. Council discussed using a different permit fee structure for commercial and residential permits (one fee for residential dwellings 1800 square feet or larger and another one for under 1800 square feet. Another idea discussed was to guarantee a plan review completion date and if not completed by that date, a portion of the permit fee would be returned; the City of Tacoma does this. Council also discussed giving a contractor the choice of sending their plan to an outside plan review firm rather than utilizing city staff. This option could be beneficial to the contractor if the city plan reviewer is swamped with plans to review or is out of the office for a period of time. One drawback pointed out by staff is that the city staff would still have to be familiar with the plans in order to respond to questions about the development; therefore, staff is suggesting that the permit fee be increased if the contractor uses that option. • Council hears comments from the audience Dave Ranger, Tri -Ply Company, 106 W. Pine Street, commented that although the city staff bends over backwards to accommodate the contractor in the plan review process, there is a shortage of trained staff to handle residential permits, let alone the commercial work. He stated that when a large project is being financed, the contractor is paying interest charges while the plans are in the review process. He stated he wants to see changes made to improve services and is willing to pay for another plan review or technical permit staff member. Doug Rich, Yakima Association of Realtors and a member of the Sub - Committee for Yakima Friendly, asked if we could do more with what we have? We need to focus our attention on how we can expand and encourage business to go through the permitting process. He stated he disagrees with a two -tier system. Joe Walsh, speaking on behalf of the nearly 600 members of the Central Washington Homebuilders Association, pointed out that most of the work done by their members is located in the valley, while the Associated General Contractors is a state -wide association. He stated that the contracting out of plan reviews is a viable option; however, he felt the city could look at efficiency issues also. He suggested that Doug Maples set aside some time to also perform plan reviews. Mr. Cook acknowledged the Central Washington Homebuilders Association's cash contribution spent to purchase a computer located in the lobby to provide access to code information on -line. 2 456 • Council discussion continues • Council members discussed the merits of the special provisions Council Member Barnett suggested in his memo, e.g. fees for the "shell" of a building and fees for non - structural initial tenant alterations. Council Member Barnett asked Council to consider a local modifier in addition to the statewide .88% modifier. He stated he also favors a two -tier permit fee structure. Council Member Buchanan expressed concern that if the fees are not generating sufficient revenue, then the expenses of the Division will have to be subsidized by the General Fund. In response to a question about the 1% limitation for property tax revenue, Rita Anson enlightened Council members on how property tax distribution is calculated by the County. • Council decisions By consensus, Council made the following decisions: • Staff was asked to prepare legislation to accept the ICBO table (with state modifier of .88 %, and include the special provisions in Council Member Barnett's 2/27/02 memo ♦ Fees for the "shell" of a building where tenant spaces are not included as being authorized by the building permit, shall be charged, at a rate based on 80% of the square footage evaluation listed in the ICBO Building Standard Valuation Data table (Tacoma). ♦ Fees for non - structural initial tenant alterations, which were not included in the building permit for the new building, will be charged at a rate based on 50% of the square footage evaluation listed in the ICBO Building Standard Valuation Data table. Fees for all tenant alterations for old or previously occupied buildings will be computed on the basis of evaluation. • There will be a one-time increase for building permit fees. At budget time, staff will prepare revenue and expenditures for Council to review and decide whether an increase is warranted for the next year. • Council will consider a two -tier rate schedule, as follows: ♦ Residential permit fees will use a two fee structure for dwellings based on the size of the dwelling or a valuation of the work to be done on a dwelling as indicated below: 1. Dwellings 1800 square feet or larger of gross floor area (including basements and garages), would be charged the normal square footage fee 2. Dwellings under 1800 square feet of gross floor area would be charged the established lower square footage fee. ♦ Staff will communicate with the County and if the County adopts a two -tier system, then staff will advise Council for their consideration to adopt a similar fee structure. • Council will consider a separate rate for plans not reviewed on time, similar to Tacoma's provision, in which a portion of the permit fee would be refunded. Staff will research the City of Tacoma's refund policy and bring back additional information. • Staff will research contracting out plan reviews and bring back information with the possibility of placing a 35% surcharge on the contracted out plan review. 3 457 • Staff will continue to research the regional and local modifiers as it relates to the ICBO Building Standards Data table. • Staff was authorized to hire a new commercial plans examiner to help improve predictability and timeliness. • Provide Council information on service improvements provided due to the fee increase. Staff will build into the development review process benchmarks and reports to show how the process has improved. • Staff will ask Yakima County to have a city representative attend their. meetings on permit fees to monitor their fee structure process and report back to Council the County's progress. Following this discussion, Lola Franklin, Central Washington Homebuilders Association, stated that not all of the members believe that an increase in fees is justified. Since codes are put in place to protect the public, many members believe that a subsidy for the permit fees is justified. If the fees are to be increased, their members would like to participate in the development of the fee schedule. Leanne Liddicoat, Associated General Contractors, stated that the County operates their Code division as an enterprise fund. Many of the Association's members in the construction field feel that the building department should not be subsidized. 3. FIRE INSPECTION AND PLAN REVIEW Due to the time and the complexity of this subject, it was the general consensus of Council to direct staff to refer this issue to the Council's Public Safety Committee. Council needs additional information on the staffing level to conduct fire inspections. Mayor Place commented that new construction should have an appropriate fee to cover the cost of plan review. 4. ADJOURNMENT SIMS MOVED AND GEORGE SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 A.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Mattson absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY 'i�i� // _ .. , 1z: D 2-- CO ME R'fI DAT • Jr 4A i . I ' c b.* / . / *--: --(9 2- ' I AT CIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: ci<aiu2,7„ ,d ,e6-62-0. L., _ ,, CITY CLERK / MAR PLACE, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 4