Bend engineering division readies process changes ahead of state’s SB 974 permit 'shot clock'

Colin (engineering staff) briefed the Community Building Subcommittee on Aug. 11 about the role of private development engineering reviews, current review timelines and the department’s preparations for Senate Bill 974.

"The engineering division has 18 staff," Colin said, describing a team that covers pre‑application meetings, plan review, construction inspection and one‑year warranty inspections after acceptance. He said 12 reviewers perform plan checks while five inspectors perform field inspections.

Colin described three permit tiers: tier 1 for right‑of‑way work outside the driving surface (sidewalk panels, minor frontage work), tier 2 for work in the roadway that is relatively minor (driveway aprons), and tier 3 for major projects that the city will accept as public infrastructure (subdivisions, large commercial development).

Using CityView permitting data, staff reported average calendar review times that are consistent with the department’s internal goals: roughly 15 days of staff review for tier 1, 45 days for tier 2 and substantially longer for tier 3 projects (hundreds of calendar days when staff and applicant response times are combined). Colin and others noted much of the total elapsed time for tier 3 projects reflects iterative exchanges and applicant response times.

The legislature’s Senate Bill 974, passed in the 2025 session, creates a statutory review timeline and a 30‑day completeness check similar to the land‑use process. Colin said the law establishes a 120‑day review window that begins once an application is deemed complete; the completeness check period precedes that 120 days and is intended to verify that required documents exist but does not require a merits review. The law goes into effect July 1, 2026.

"Once the application is submitted, before that 120 days starts… there is a period of time where you say, 'Okay, we've checked through your plans. Here's a list of things that you need to provide to us,'" Colin said, describing the 30‑day completeness check.

Staff said the statutory clock under SB 974 applies to the city staff portion of the timeline; the city’s proposed approach will continue to account for applicant response time separately. Colin said the department will use the office of performance management to map processes, unlock CityView data, test workflows and build internal tools to track chronologies so the city can demonstrate compliance if an applicant seeks a mandamus writ in circuit court. He said a kickoff meeting with the office of performance management was scheduled for the week of the subcommittee meeting.

Colin said the city will also use a $150,000 pro‑housing grant (noted as part of broader council efforts) to hire a consultant via RFP to research best practices from other jurisdictions and to recommend customer‑service improvements and process changes that serve both SB 974 compliance and general permitting efficiency.

Council members and staff discussed the differences between the planning 'shot clock' and engineering reviews. Engineering reviews frequently use iterative correction letters; planning decisions typically do not. Under SB 974, Colin said, the city can stop the clock when issuing a correction letter and restart it when an applicant resubmits. The requirement therefore focuses the city on making timely staff decisions while preserving the iterative review needed for complex construction documents.

Colin said the department’s objectives are to stabilize current review consistency, reduce excessive review cycles, and improve upfront communications so applicants address common deficiencies earlier. "If we can keep things at two to three review cycles and eliminate the four, five and six, all the better for us and for our applicants," he said.

No formal action was taken; staff requested direction to proceed with process mapping, CityView data extraction and consultant selection so the engineering division is prepared well before the July 2026 effective date.