The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBudget Work Session - Special Revenue Funds.pdf Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Budget Work Session *** COVER MEMO*** MEETING DATE: July 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Work Session RECOMMENDATION: Listen to staff presentations, ask questions, give direction, as you see fit. BACKGROUND: Attached are a number of Staff Memos and Budget Information Sheets. This information has been prepared to assist us in developing the City’s Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. The hearing for adoption of the Final Budget is tentatively scheduled for September 13, 2010. During the Work Session, we will cover the information in the following order: 1. Building Inspection Division Memo – Report for the 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010. 2. Building Inspection Fund – FY11 Budget Work Session Sheet. 3. Planning Department Memo – Report for the 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010. 4. Planning Fund – FY11 Budget Work Session Sheet. 5. Street Maintenance Fund - FY11 Budget Work Session Sheet. 6. Street Maintenance Fund - 5 Year Projection. 7. Curb Replacement Memo – Dated August 31, 2009. (Background information) 8. Street Maintenance Memo. 9. Tree Maintenance Fund – FY11 Budget Work Session Sheet. 10. Community Housing Fund – FY11 Budget Work Session Sheet. FISCAL EFFECTS: Although the Final Budget adoption has far-reaching fiscal effects, there are no immediate fiscal effects as a result of this work session. Attachments: Listed Above Report compiled on: July 21, 2010 52 Page | 1 ` Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Bob Risk, Chief Building Official Jason Shrauger, Fire Chief Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Building Inspection 4th Quarter FY10 Update April 1 – June 30, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Accept this report detailing the financial and workload position of the Building Inspection Division for the quarter ending June 30, 2010. Note: Bold/Italicized/Underlined text also represents FY2010 year end numbers. BACKGROUND: Because of the difficulties with estimating Building Inspection revenues and workloads, we committed to make quarterly reports regarding revenues, staffing levels and operating costs within the department. The following sections represent FY10 4th Quarter and FY10 year end numbers. A. REVENUES: Without an increase in current fees, we estimated receiving approximately $71,000/month. This estimate was based on average monthly building permit activity during FY2009 and equals our estimated monthly expenditures for FY10. In FY09, the average monthly revenue was $73,000 with actual monthly revenues ranging between $28,000 and $108,000. For fiscal year 2010, the monthly average was $54,700 with actual revenues ranging between $33,250 and $87,500. 53 Page | 2 Typically, the 4th quarter of the fiscal year is the beginning of the summer building season and the monthly revenues begin to improve over the seasonal winter low. The monthly revenue for the 4th quarter averaged $68,888. The total revenue for the 4th quarter of FY10 was $206,665. Fourth Quarter Monthly Revenues April $70,885 May $66,397 June $69,383 Average Monthly Revenues: $68,888 B. EXPENDITURES: Our monthly expenditures averaged $58,307 for the 4th Quarter. Our total expenditures for the 4th Quarter of FY10 were $175,022. Fourth Quarter Expenditures April $63,350 May $55,567 June $56,105 Average Monthly Expenditures: $58,307 For Fiscal Year 2010, our total revenue amount equaled $656,250 and our total expenditure amount equaled $722,642. 54 Page | 3 Building Division Revenue/Expenditure Comparison- Fiscal Year 2010 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Revenues Expenditures C. CASH RESERVE: The Administrative rules of Montana allow the building division to maintain a “cash reserve fund” derived from building permit fees provided that the reserve amount does not exceed the building division operating costs for a 12 month period. Our estimate of the building division operating costs for FY10 was $816,000. During this fiscal year, due to careful planning and very conservative spending, the building division was able to reduce those estimated costs for the year and our final year end operating costs totaled $722,642. At the beginning of the 4th quarter the Building Inspection Fund Cash Reserve was $528,872. At the end of the 4th Quarter the cash reserve balance was $547,747, an increase of $18,875. This equates to a 2% cash reserve fund increase since the end of the 3rd quarter. At the beginning of this Fiscal Year the Building Inspection Fund Cash Reserve was $625,810. At the end of the Fiscal Year the Cash Reserve balance was $547,747 which is an overall reduction of $78,063 for the year. Currently our Cash Reserve balance represents about 67% of our FY2010 estimated Budget. D. BUILDING PERMIT NUMBERS: There was a total of 908 new permits during the 4th Quarter FY10 which is comparable to the same time period last year. 55 Page | 4 FY09 Quarterly Permit Totals with FY Quarterly Averages Permit Type July, August, September October, November, December January, February, March April, May, June Quarterly Average for FY09 Building 358 298 184 419 314.75 Plan Check 205 141 101 183 157.5 Electrical 181 141 99 125 136.5 Plumb/Mech 259 148 146 158 177.75 Fire Systems 19 21 17 17 18.5 Moving 3 0 0 1 1 Demolition 8 3 7 10 7 Total Permits 1033 752 554 913 813 Permit and Inspection Staffing Level 12 11 8 7 FY10 Quarterly Permit Totals with Quarterly Averages to Date Permit Type July, August, September October, November, December January, February, March April, May, June Quarterly Average for FY10 Building 450 191 176 311 272 Plan Check 183 125 139 196 149 Electrical 157 93 123 168 124 Plumb/Mech 175 184 145 214 168 Fire Systems 20 19 14 13 18 Moving 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 4 7 6 6 6 Total Permits 989 619 622 908 785 Permit and Inspection Staffing Level 7 7 7 7 56 Page | 5 E. INSPECTION WORKLOAD: “Inspections per Inspector Day” has historically been used to measure the workload of building inspectors. The accepted standard for inspections per inspector day is 15. Fiscal Year 2010 – 4th QTR Inspections/Inspector Day Standard 15 April 16.37 May June 17.85 14.43 4th QTR average inspections per day 16.21 The average number of inspections per day for each inspector for FY10 was 16.13. STAFFING PLAN: At this time, the Building Division staff consists of the Chief Building Official, 2 Plans Examiners, 3 Building Inspectors, 1 Code Compliance Officer, and 1 Permit Coordinator. Commercial fire plan review and commercial fire inspections are completed by the Fire Marshal/Deputy Chief/Inspections whose salary and benefits come from the general fund/Fire Department budget. The City of Bozeman Fire Chief serves as the Department Head for the Building Division. Currently, 25% of the Fire Chief’s salary and benefits come from the Building Division budget. Time spent this past year with division staff cross training has paid off by giving us an extremely versatile building division team. At this time, in addition to conducting building permit field inspections, our Inspection Staff is also helping with code enforcement and business license inspections. Our Code Enforcement Staff is helping with building permit issuance, scheduling inspections, coordinating division code enforcement efforts, and field inspections as needed. Our Plan Review Staff is providing office support, helping with building and code enforcement field inspections and conducting commercial and residential plan reviews. Due to the help and support received from other staff, in addition to permit application intake, permit issuance, monthly reports, assisting other city departments, and general Building Official support, our Building Permit Coordinator has been able to function more as a “building permit facilitator”, tracking the status and smoothing the path of a permit that’s “in the works” or out being reviewed by other 57 Page | 6 city departments and also helping to resolve various building permit issues before they become problems to our customers or to us. Even though we are now at the minimum staffing level for our current and anticipated future workload, by working together, the Building Division Team has been able to maintain and improve an acceptable level of service for all of our customers. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Our revenues for the 4th Quarter FY10 averaged $69,266/month while our actual monthly expenditures for the quarter averaged $58,307/month. The total Building Division revenue for Fiscal Year 2010 was $656,250 while our total expenditures for the year were $722,642. The Building Division Reserve Fund balance at the end of the 4th Quarter was $547,747 which is a 2% increase over the final 3rd Quarter balance of $528,872. At the beginning of this Fiscal Year the Building Inspection Fund Cash Reserve was $625,810. At the end of the Fiscal Year the Cash Reserve balance was $547,747 which is an overall reduction of $78,063 for the year. Attachments: None Report Compiled On: July 8, 2010 58 Building Inspection Fund – FY11 Budget Worksheet The Building Inspection Division information begins on page 134 of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget document. Building Inspection Fund - Updated Budget Projections for FY11. The City Manager’s (CM) Recommended Budget estimates Building Inspection revenue of $643,500, or $53,625/month. This estimate, made in April, coincidentally closely mirrors the actual average monthly revenue for all of FY10 ($54,700.) The Recommended Budget includes all of the existing department personnel, and a modest operating budget for the division for the year. The one area of significant increase is the division’s training budget – due to the need to train all staff on newly adopted codes. Total estimated expenditures are $788,500. Building Inspection Fund FY09 Actual FY10 Actual* FY11 Budget Revenues $870,000 $656,000 $643,500 Expenditures $1,021,000 $722,600 $788,500 Surplus/(Deficit) ($151,000)($66,600) ($145,000) $‐ $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000.00 $70,000.00 $80,000.00 $90,000.00 $100,000.00 Q4Q3Q2Q1 Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4 FY10FY09FY08 Average of Monthly Building Fees 59 The resulting deficit would be funded by the current Building Inspection Fund cash reserve, estimated to be $547,750 at the end of FY10. During FY09, the desired level of Building Inspection Fund reserve was discussed at length. We were targeting a reserve no less than 50% of annual expenditures. This proposed budget will leave the FY11 ending reserve amount at approximately $402,750, or 51% of annual expenditures. After review of the most recent quarter’s activity, we feel adopting the recommended budget is appropriate. We will continue to monitor the Building Inspection Division’s activity with Quarterly Reports to the Commission. Unless operational/budget problems are encountered, the report will be put on the Commission’s Consent agenda. 60 Page 1 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Interim Director of Planning and Community Development Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Department 4th Quarter FY10 (April 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010) Budget Update MEETING DATE: July 26, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Work Session RECOMMENDATION: Move forward with current Planning Department staff levels; draw funding from TIF districts in recognition of time being expended; continue to monitor revenue situation closely, consider adjustments to application review fee schedule BACKGROUND: Because of the anticipated difficulty estimating Planning Fee revenues and workloads (planning applications) in FY09, we committed to make quarterly decisions regarding staffing levels and operating costs in the department. The Planning Department is funded by a blend of general fund, dedicated planning mil levy, and application review fees. Page 6 contains the philosophy behind the development of the structure of fees for processing of applications. 1. Monthly Application Fee Revenues of $14,000 minimum. The FY10 Budget was balanced with the assumption that application fees would provide a monthly average of $14,000 in revenue. This estimate is a continuation of the base minimum average used for the last three quarters of FY09, and has been carried forward into FY10. This revenue stream was for the staffing levels as they existed at that time. Presently there is one vacant position for which recruiting has been concluded with a start date in the latter half of August. Fourth Quarter FY10 Planning Fee Revenues were as follows, details of application numbers and types are in Section 2. 61 Page 2 Actual Operational Revenues 1st Quarter FY10 2nd Quarter FY10 3rd Quarter FY10 4th Quarter FY10 Fiscal Year 1st month $19,859 $ 8,987.00 $16,871.86 $12,866.39 $58,584.25 2nd month $10,173 $17,165.10 $11,756.00 $8,689.54 $47,783.64 3rd month $10,933 $11,440.00 $13,462.32 $12,191.85 $48,027.17 Quarter Total Application Fees Revenues $40,965 $37,632.10 $42,090.18 $33,747.78 $154,435.06 Average Per Month $13,655 $12,544.03 $14,030.06 $11,249.26 The 4th Quarter FY10 adjusted monthly average of $11,249.26 is below the $14,000 target for average monthly revenues. For the quarter as a whole, this means that permit revenues were below the $42,000 quarterly target. However, the departmental expenses have been below budgeted levels. Discussion of how these revenues match with the departmental budget is provided in Section 3. Additional work items. The Department processed applications for City property development projects in the quarter. Departmental Project Amount of Fee Waiver Swim Center COA/Sign permit $117.50 Lower Yards FSP modification $250 4th Quarter FY10 total fee waivers $367.50 In addition to the revenue items, the Department assisted in the preparation of various city projects thereby saving consulting costs: 1) Helped prepare FSP modification application for Lower Yards. 2) Help prepare master plan for Library site. 3) The Department continued staffing the North Seventh and Northeast Urban Renewal District Boards which now amounts to approximately ½ FTE. Examples of the work being done include Depot Park, which is now under construction, and development of TIF funded programs to support public/private partnerships encouraging redevelopment in the North Seventh Urban Renewal District. Also underway is the Phase 1 sidewalk improvements on N. Seventh Avenue which will begin construction in Q1 of FY11. This relatively new, and certainly expanding, role is not funded by the TIFs but is being covered by the Department’s budget. 2. Applications Received: The following table lists the planning applications that were received each month of this quarter. In the 4th Quarter of FY10, the department averaged 45 project applications / month (plus a total of 88 sign permit applications). In the previous three months (3rd Quarter FY10), the department averaged 25 project applications per month (plus a total of 97 sign permit applications). 62 Page 3 The type of applications submitted for review varies by month. As described with the previous quarterly report, there has been a shift in the application load away from large subdivisions to smaller scale projects. Individual home related items such as a Certificate of Appropriateness for a remodel or addition now make up a larger percentage of the overall project review workload. When the City Commission adopted the current fee structure , there was a deliberate choice to collect a greater percentage of the cost of review from large commercial and subdivision projects and a lesser percentage of cost from small scale projects. This represented a commitment of greater general fund support for the ‘mom and pop’ projects that did not generate revenue to their owners. As the work load has shifted by project type, this has resulted in lower application fee revenues to a greater degree than is explained solely by a change in the number of applications submitted. Application Type April 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 4th Quarter Total Pre-Application 0 1 1 2 Prelim. Plat 1 0 0 0 Final Plat 0 0 0 0 Sub. Exempt. 0 0 0 0 Flood Plain 0 0 0 0 BOA (COA-DEV) 2 0 0 2 Admin. Appeals 0 0 0 0 Master Plan Amend 0 0 0 0 UDO Amend 0 0 0 0 CUP 1 0 1 2 ZMA 0 1 0 1 Conservation Update 0 0 0 0 Entryway Update 0 0 0 0 PUD 0 0 0 0 PUD Final 0 0 0 0 Re-use 2 3 3 8 Annexation 0 1 0 0 Prel. Site Plan 2 1 1 4 Master Site Plan 0 0 1 0 Final Site Plan 1 3 4 8 Mods to FSP 2 4 2 8 Informal 1 1 1 3 STUP 0 0 1 0 63 Page 4 Application Type April 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 4th Quarter Total COA 28 26 33 87 Improvements Agree 3 3 1 7 Variance 0 0 0 0 Comp. Sign Plan 0 0 0 0 Condo Conversions 3 1 0 4 Code Enforcement 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 46 45 49 136 Signs 34 26 28 88 3. Budgeted Expenditures: The Department’s FY10 budget was approved for an average of $64,814 in expenditures per month ($777,768 for the year). Actual spending through June 2010 averaged $59,903.60 / month ($718,843.20 for the year), or 7.6% under budget. This includes the recruitment costs associated with the Director search. Vacancy savings in the Director position accounts for most of the reduction in spending. Not all FY10 expenditures have cleared the financial system yet so some minor change to these figures is expected. Anticipated annual application revenue of 14,000 per month for 12 months equals $168,000. The Department collected $154,435.06 in application revenue for FY2010. This leaves a shortfall in anticipated revenue of $13,564.94. The Departmental expenditures for the fiscal year were $58,924.80 below budgeted amounts. The difference in revenues maintains the general proportion to the anticipated revenues to general fund support. The requested Departmental budget for FY2011 shows an overall decrease from FY2010. Possible Responses to Revenue Changes A. Utilize long range planning set aside: In Commission Resolution 4111, a fee was adopted, as authorized by statute to help fund the City’s long range planning activities. These are paid simultaneously with other application fees. The relevant state law sections are provided below. Many of the elements in the Commission’s adopted work plan will carry out policies and goals established in the City’s growth policy and associated neighborhood plans. Staff is working to carry out and complete those work plan elements at this time. For a more detailed description of long range plan related work please see the City Manager’s report on the progress of the work plan. Additionally, in this fiscal year the Department spent considerable time and effort on the finalization of the Downtown neighborhood plan. For these reasons, Staff included the long range planning set aside to fund staff time in this quarter’s revenues shown above. Quarter 4 revenues in this area are $3,450. This is equivalent to funding approximately 124 hours in the quarter. “76-1-410. Planning fees -- limit. (1) Governing bodies that have committed in a resolution to adopting or that have adopted a growth policy that includes the provisions of 64 Page 5 76-1-601(4)(c) may assess planning fees to pay for services that fulfill the purposes of Title 76, chapter 1. The planning fees are in addition to any other fees authorized by law and may be collected as part of either subdivision applications or zoning permits.” “76-1-102. Purpose. (1) It is the object of this chapter to encourage local units of government to improve the present health, safety, convenience, and welfare of their citizens and to plan for the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be carefully planned; that new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life; and that the growth of the community be commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and economical use of public funds.” B. TIF funding As noted above, the Department is providing administrative support (approximately ½ FTE) to two of the City’s urban renewal districts. As requested by the Commission after the prior quarterly report, Staff has verified that the N. Seventh TIF district has $10,829 budgeted and Commission approved for part-time staff and professional services. Funding for staff support has been continued in the FY2011 N. Seventh TIF budget. Staff recommends the Commission direct the use of budgeted urban renewal district funds to help fund this level of staffing through the Department of Planning and Community Development. An exact amount is not recommended at this time. Some of these funds are used for other services besides Department staff. The NURB does not have an existing line item in their 2010 budget for staff services. A line item for staff services was included in the 2011 budget. The funding for TIF support would more than wholly erase the annual application revenue shortfall from FY2010. C. Workforce Housing Work regarding the administration of the workforce housing ordinance is again picking up as the Norton East subdivision is moving forward. At this time the load has been manageable however, as the project continues forward to begin bringing lots to market the time required for administration will increase significantly. Funding for affordable housing previously was used to fund a position to do this work. That position was terminated when development activity hit its steep decline. It is recommended to draw from those funds to support the staff time to manage this program. Alternatively, the administration could be contracted to a third party. D. Utilize set aside for Historic Structures Inventory update The City collects a sum of money with each COA application for a certificate of appropriateness to help fund an update of the 1984 historic structures update. This fee varies between $25-$100 depending on the nature of the application. The funds are deposited in a reserve account and separate from the normal operating funds of the Department. The balance in the fund is now approaching $60,000. The City has to date held the funds with the intention of using them to match grant funding, thereby obtaining greater leverage on local dollars. A federal grant has been applied for which would double those funds. We hope to hear from the funding agency 65 Page 6 before the end of August. If we are successful in obtaining the grant it is expected that an appropriate contractor would be hired to begin the survey update process. This would require staff effort which could be paid for with a portion of the dedicated funds. If the grant is not awarded to the City, the Department has staff with the necessary skills to begin the update process internally. This would mean less rapid progress but would be much better than doing nothing. As the Commission is aware, the age of the current inventory is causing difficulties for administration of the historic preservation program. It is proposed to set aside a certain number of hours per month for historic preservation staff to work on the update to the historic structures inventory. This time would be funded by the COA set-aside. The COA set aside has not been reported as operational income in prior reports. The net financial effect would be similar to an increase in application revenues. This action would materially advance on-going priority five from the department’s section on the Commission Work Plan, as well as supporting items 1(5) and 2(4). E. Increase Planning fee levels based on audit findings, to more accurately cover the costs associated with processing applications. A revised fee schedule went into effect on August 28, 2008. They had a positive effect on revenues throughout FY09 and continue to do so in FY10. However, the fee structure does not reflect two years of wage and operational cost increases. Therefore, cash revenues have not been consistent with the amount of support intended to be provided by application fees. In addition, the fees charged for the processing of sign permits are presently solely based on building code fee tables, not the Department's adopted fee schedule. Most signs are inexpensive compared to other construction and the present fee structure does not recover reasonable costs for the time and effort involved in processing the applications. When many large projects were being submitted with associated revenues this was not as readily apparent as it is now. The City Commission has given direction for Staff to bring back a revised fee resolution in the Commission’s adopted work plan to adjust for changes in actual costs for application processing and to incorporate a more proportional cost recovery for processing sign applications. This would preserve the balance between general fund support and application revenues executed by earlier Commission action. This will move forward as consistent with the work plan. Past Responses to Revenue Changes A. Reduce FTE’s: Reductions in force occurred early in FY09. Reduced positions were 1 Planner Tech, 0.5 Admin Assistant, and 1 Workforce Housing Coordinator These positions are not proposed to be filled in FY10. Positions for a Planner III and an additional .5 FTE administrative position, both of which became vacant in FY09, are not planned to be filled in FY10. This results in a 4 FTE reduction in overall staffing levels. The Planning Director position became vacant through retirement at the conclusion of the quarter. No vacancy savings were realized in the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year but did occur in the 3rd and 4th quarters. The position will to be filled in the 1st quarter of the 2011 fiscal year. 66 Page 7 Workload for next quarter: While the national credit and finance problems are expected to continue to have a negative effect on overall subdivision and building activity in the City, the overall financial climate appears to be stabilizing. Staff is receiving an increased volume of inquiries about the development process. Several significant reuses of vacant commercial spaces, such as REI, are positive indicators as is the interest by Safeway and Kohl’s stores in locating in Bozeman. Several applications for zone map amendments have been submitted since July 1st to set the stage for subsequent development projects. Overall, much more careful due diligence appears to be the practice, so staff is spending more time consulting with potential applicants before any items are submitted. A number of items will affect workloads in the department in the 1st Quarter of the 2011 fiscal year. · The retirement of the Planning Director temporarily reduced staffing by one FTE. Duties are being covered by the Assistant Planning Director. Adjustment of workloads and responsibilities has been necessary. The new Planning Director will begin in the latter part of August with associated time to become established. · The preparations of RFP for updates for the four impact fees will begin in the 1st Quarter with formal release after adoption of the final budget. · Department staff have been participating in the development of medical marijuana policy. Ordinance amendments should take effect in the next quarter. It is anticipated that there may be additional development applications as a result. · Construction on the new American Legion Building and F&H buildings have commenced and are advancing well. · The Planning Department is now fully engaged in staffing of two Tax Increment Finance Boards. Upcoming construction projects and program preparation are significant work elements. · A number of major subdivisions in various stages of preliminary and final plat approval continue to require a great deal of staff time to process requests for extensions, improvements agreements, re-phasing, re-platting, and, in some cases, working out details of financial guarantees taken over by banks. These subdivisions include: Baxter Meadows; Meadow Creek; Legends II; Flanders Creek; and West Winds to name a few. Staff will especially be dealing with the issue of remaining improvements to be completed in many of these subdivisions throughout FY10. A text amendment in coordination with the City Attorney’s office is a precursor to addressing some of the outstanding items. · Spring/summer is typically a busy season for applications for Certificates of Appropriateness as home owners prepare for and execute summer remodeling projects. · Staff is presently working with interns to create a digital summary of the historic structures inventory. This project will position the City to more efficiently pursue an update to the inventory as well as making the information more available to the public. A grant for funding assistance in the inventory update has been prepared and submitted. If the grant is awarded then grant administration will occupy a considerable amount of time. If the grant is not awarded then an update to the historic inventory should begin using the locally generated fees. 67 Page 8 · Long Range planning activities continue to occupy a significant amount of Department time and resources in FY10. The Bozeman Community Plan, Bozeman Economic Development Plan and the Downtown Neighborhood Improvement Plan were recently completed. Implementation such as UDO text amendments, grants, and other actions will require considerable staff time and resources. Fee schedule philosophy and background: These concepts were originally documented and accepted by the City Commission in March 2006. They were first implemented in Commission Resolution 3904 and have guided fee updates since that initial adoption. These are applicable to determining fees for processing applications. The City hired the accounting firm of Anderson/ZurMuehlen to review the time commitment for processing various forms of applications. The work was done in 2008. This study formed the basis for the most recent fee schedule update, also completed in 2008. 1. Recover general operational costs attributable to development review for Planning Dept. 2. Recognize that costs affect behavior and the City wishes to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. A. Desired behaviors are: Annexation, Property improvements and removal of non-conformities, compliance with generally applicable standards, and timely completion of work. B. Undesired behaviors are: Violations of standards, seeking of special exceptions without compelling reason, and appeals of administrative decisions. 3. Relieve general taxpayer from costs originated by specific requests. 4. Comply with legal requirements affecting fee amounts. 5. Allocate costs throughout the development process so that expenses are distributed to multiple points and reflect, to a degree, the ability of the applicant to recover the costs through value added. 6. Special projects such as neighborhood plans, city-wide long range planning, regulatory development, and code enforcement are to be considered independently and mostly funded by the general tax base. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: To consider whether to consider with the program as presently constituted or to make changes. ALTERNATIVES: Consider options A-E as presented. FISCAL EFFECTS: As described in the memo. Uncertainty in permit activity in future Quarters is a concern as is the shift in the mix of projects submitted, and warrants close monitoring in the FY11 and following years. Alternatives to address a future cash revenue imbalance are suggested and described above in the Response to Revenue changes section. Attachments: None Report Compiled: July 20, 2010 68 Planning Fund – FY11 Budget Worksheet The Planning Department information begins on page 109 of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget document. Note: The FY11 Recommended Budget incorporates Conservation Overlay Fees into the Planning Fund. Because this money is not to be used for ongoing operations of the Planning Department, we will segregate it in a separate fund for Final Budget adoption. For the sake of this discussion, we have removed those amounts in the analysis of operating revenues below. Planning Fund - Updated Budget Projections for FY11. Unlike the Building Inspection Fund, the Planning Fund is supported by a number of different revenue sources, including a substantial transfer from the General Fund. The Planning Fund does not customarily carry a reserve balance, because of its heavy reliance on the General Fund. As you can see in the table below, as Application Fees have declined, the General Fund subsidy has increased. The CM Recommended Budget includes estimated Planning Fee revenues of $126,000, or $10,500/month. This estimate, made in April, is less than was actually collected in FY10. At that time, we also included a General Fund subsidy of $327,000, down from $348,000 in FY10. Planning Fund ‐ Revenues FY07 Actual FY08 Actual FY09 Actual FY10 Actual* FY11 Budget Application Fees $517,000 $245,000 $237,000 $134,500 $125,960 General Fund Transfer 245,000 245,000 476,000 348,000 327,000 Taxes 128,000 136,000 151,000 147,000 159,712 State/Grants 61,400 85,000 85,000 84,500 76,500 Other 15,000 33,500 21,300 20,400 18,000 Total $966,400 $744,500 $970,300 $734,400 $707,172 Unlike the Building Inspection Division, Planning Application Fees have not recently returned to levels seen 12 months ago. They continue to decline on an average monthly basis. This makes it much more difficult to predict that the next 12 months might be close to the activity levels we have seen in the past 12 months. 69 The Recommended Budget proposes to fill the Planning Director position and maintain current staffing levels; Director, Assistant Director, Administrative Assistant, 2 Planner I’s, 2 Planner II’s, 1 Planner III, and the Code Enforcement Officer. The department also has a modest operating budget for the year, with no notable increases over the FY10 levels. Planning Fund FY07 Actual FY08 Actual FY09 Actual FY10 Actual* FY11 Budget Revenues $966,400 $744,500 $970,300 $734,400 $707,000 Expenditures 922,000 1,079,000 746,000 718,850 740,665 Surplus/(Deficit) $44,400 ($334,500) $224,300 $15,550 ($33,665) Options for balancing the Planning Department FY11 Budget include: o Increase in General Fund Contribution. o Funding from Tax Increment Finance Districts (North East Urban Renewal & N 7th Urban Renewal.) o Change in fee structure and amounts. o Reduction in workforce. o Assign Historic Inventory to existing staff; draw funding from set-aside fees. We propose that Quarterly Reports for the Planning Fund continue to be presented for Fiscal Year 2011; unless operational/budget problems are encountered, the report will be put on the Commission’s Consent agenda. $‐ $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 Q4Q3Q2Q1 Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4 FY10FY09FY08 Average of Monthly Planning Fees 70 Street Maintenance Fund – FY11 Budget Worksheet The Streets Department information begins on page 152 of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget document. Street Maintenance Fund – FY11 Expenditure Total $2.4 Million The City Manager’s (CM) Recommended Budget includes a proposed assessment increase for FY11, totaling 5%. a. General Operations: In developing the budget for the Street Maintenance Fund, we customarily look at a 5-year projection of expenditures and revenues. While this is a very “macro” projection, we are able to see the effects of the adopted Capital Improvements plan and general increases in wages and other operating costs. We can also see the effects of the projected rate increases on our Annual Assessments for different lot sizes. This projection is attached as Exhibit A. b. Curbs and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Pedestrian Ramps At the August 31, 2009 Commission Meeting, various scenarios for an improved Curb Replacement Program were discussed (Memo and Curb Condition Map Attached, background information.) At that meeting, the Commission directed the following sources to Curb/Ramp Replacements: • HB645 Local Infrastructure Grants - $90,000 ADA Ramp Replacements • City Urban Funds – Curbs and Ramps on S. Church, S. Willson, and N. Willson; a total of 1.36 miles of “poor condition” curb. We still struggle to find an annual, ongoing source that is dedicated to Curb/Ramp Replacements. I. The 2001 Pavement Management Survey identified 9.78 miles rated in poor condition, and nearly as much (8.24 miles) in fair condition. Curbs have a long useful life, easily over 50 years. II. The proposed budget includes $92,000 for curb/ramp replacement: Source Amount FY11 Street Maintenance Fund – 2% Dedicated to Curb Replacement $42,000 Gas Tax Fund $50,000 TOTAL - FY11 $92,000 For each additional 2% increase in Street Maintenance Assessments, $42,000 will be raised. If an additional 2% were added each year, from FY11-FY15, approximately 10% of the Street Maintenance Assessments would be going 71 towards curb replacements. By FY15, we could annually dedicate nearly $300,000 toward curb replacements. Source Amount FY15 Street Maintenance Fund – 10% Dedicated to Curb Replacement $243,000 Gas Tax Fund $50,000 TOTAL - FY15 $293,000 III. Today, replacement of the curb on both sides of a street width (600 lineal feet) and the associated pedestrian ramps costs approximately $40,000/block. Subtracting out the Willson and Church curb replacements, we will have 8.42 miles of remaining curb rated in poor condition. Curb in Poor Condition: 8.42 Miles 44,457.6 lineal feet of curb $66.66 FY11 cost per lineal foot $2,963,543 Total FY11 cost to repair 12 Years to repair w/o inflation costs Streets and Engineering would suggest focusing on streets that are snow routes or other important arterial, collector or local streets that function like collectors (i.e. Olive, Lamme, Story) that are in need of re-paving. Areas in need of sewer or water re-habilitation would need to be bypassed. Street Maintenance Assessment increases will be noticed in July, with the public hearing scheduled for August 9th. (Statutes require an annual assessment hearing, so we are not able to adopt multi-year rate resolutions.) 72 Street Maintenance District - 5 year ProjectionFY2011 Budget PreparationProposed Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRate Increase3% 3% 4% 4% 4%Customer Increase - sq ftg0% 0% 2% 2% 2%Reserve For Curbs2% 2% 2% 2% 2%FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15Beginning Fund Balance - Projected647,589 349,191 273,663 13,378 (52,433) Estimated Revenues:Assessments 2,116,000 2,223,070 2,405,397 2,602,678 2,816,139 Street Cut Permits 20,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Interest Earnings 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total Estimated Revenues:2,151,000 2,243,070 2,430,397 2,627,678 2,841,139 Proposed Expenditures:Existing Personnel 1,161,487 1,184,717 1,220,258 1,256,866 1,294,572 New! Reserve for Curbs 42,320 86,781 134,889 186,943 243,266 Operations 832,135 857,099 882,812 909,296 936,575 Approved CIP *with adjustments 413,456 190,000 452,723 340,383 200,000 Total Proposed Expenditures:2,449,398 2,318,597 2,690,683 2,693,488 2,674,413 Ending Fund Balance - Projected349,191 273,663 13,378 (52,433) 114,294 Annual Assessments: Small Lot, 5,000 sq ft.59.13$ 62.08$ 65.81$ 69.76$ 73.94$ Average Lot, 7,500 sq ft.88.70$ 93.14$ 98.73$ 104.65$ 110.93$ Large Lot, 10,000 sq ft.118.27$ 124.19$ 131.64$ 139.53$ 147.91$ A. Rosenberry7/20/2010Exhibit A73 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Rick Hixson, City Engineer Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service Anna Rosenberry, Director of Finance Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Curb Replacement MEETING DATE: August 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff with respect to updating the City’s curb replacement program. As part of this effort we have prepared and included two possible versions of financing scenarios for the commission to consider. These scenarios would allow the city to re-build 5 miles, approximately $2,750,000.00 worth of the poorest curb in town (today’s costs) over the next 11 or 12 years. The first version finances these projects without support from individual property owners, the second is based on a 50 – 50 split between private property owners and other, community-wide sources such as gas tax money or urban funds. BACKGROUND: Up until January 1990, curb and gutter was treated in the same fashion as sidewalk, that is, it was the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain it. Ordinance 1300 removed curb and gutter maintenance from the property owner’s purview. Later that year, Ordinance 1310 was adopted, creating the Street Maintenance Assessment, the purpose of which was to provide “the method for the maintenance of streets, alleys and public places and providing for the method of paying said costs thereof…” At present every dollar collected under the Street Maintenance Assessment is used to fund the Street Department who sweep, plow, repair and otherwise maintain the city’s 200 plus miles of streets and alleys. Unfortunately, while the Street Department has been able to use some of those funds to replace deficient curbs (see attached summary of “Curb/Ramp Work 2005-2009), we have a significant backlog of curb in poor and fair condition and at our current rate of investment, we will find ourselves falling further behind on its replacement. The other source of funding the city currently uses for curb replacement is Gas Tax money. These dollars are distributed by the state to the cities in proportion to their size. Bozeman currently receives approximately $600,000.00 per year in Gas Tax money. The Department of Transportation notifies the City Clerk each year in June what the actual allocation is going to be. While this money is primarily used to pay for the annual street improvements projects the city bids out every spring, ADA compliant curb ramps and curbing adjacent to those ramps as well as some sidewalks which are in the project area are also replaced. 12674 As was discussed at the July 20th budget discussion, replacement of the curb on both sides of a street width (600 lineal feet) and the associated pedestrian ramps costs approximately $40,000/block. The current budget includes the following for curb/ramp replacement: Source Amount Street Maintenance Fund $20,000 Gas Tax Fund $50,000 TOTAL FY10 Recommended Budget $70,000 Or 1.75 blocks curbs/ramps (1,050 lineal feet) Whichever funding mechanism is used, implementation of a curb replacement program should be done in a way that minimizes disruption to the public. For example, let’s assume for discussion that a decision was made to increase the Street Maintenance Assessment by 2%, generating an additional $42,000.00 and to replace the curb on South Willson Avenue. The total estimated cost of that project as shown on the attached Proposed Curb Replacement Areas list is $240,000.00. It would be disruptive to do the project $42,000.00 at a time, returning to the same neighborhood 6 years in a row. We could either save the money for 6 years or use the idea of selling a General Obligation Bond financed by the increase in the Street Maintenance Assessment, to generate the $240,000.00 and complete the entire project in one year. Potential Funding Sources for Curb Replacement Near Term Gas Tax This is the fund which the city currently uses to pay for the annual Street Improvements project and the annual curbing and sidewalk improvement projects. The lion’s share of the money goes to street improvements with enough reserved to make sure we upgrade all of the intersection corners with ADA compliant pedestrian ramps. It should be noted that this source cannot be used for personnel or equipment. We also try to fill in gaps in the sidewalk network which are in the area of the project since typically it is a good time to make those improvements when the concrete company is already in the area. There are currently 26.6 miles of city streets which are in need of overlay treatments and 25 miles of streets which are in need of chip sealing. At our current rate of investment it would take us approximately 18 years to overlay the streets which need treatments if no further deterioration of the remaining streets took place. However, unlike curb and gutter, which has a useful life in excess of 50 years, the service life of asphalt pavement is no more than 20 years. So 18 years from now when we have taken care of the streets currently on the list, there will certainly be 27 more miles of streets in need of overlays and 25 more miles of streets in need of chip seals. We feel it is in the City’s best interest not to divert any of the current investment in street improvements to curb improvements because of this backlog and because streets in poor condition constitute more of an immediate hazard to the driving public than deteriorated curbs do. 12775 Street Maintenance Assessment Currently this assessment funds the City Street Departments activities. Some of this assessment is already used to fund curb replacement as illustrated above. In order to increase this amount without increasing the annual assessment, services that the Department provides would have to be cut in some other area, such as street sweeping or snow plowing. Increasing this assessment on the other hand would generate revenues which could be used for curb replacement without a reduction in the existing level of service. Attached to this memorandum is a Worksheet from the City Finance Director which illustrates the effect of increasing the assessment by 2% in FY 11 and 2% I FY 12 for the purpose of curb replacement. Urban Funds Informal discussions with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) have indicated that the City’s annual urban fund allocation can be used to rehabilitate curb and gutter on Urban routes. On the attached list of proposed curb replacement areas South Church Avenue and South and North Willson Avenue are Urban routes. For the fiscal years 2007 to 2012 our allocation is $1,240,700.00 per year (see attached Urban Highway Construction Program Summary). We are currently using our entire allocation through FY 2009 to pay for the South 19th Avenue improvements which are under construction at this time. MDT has estimated that upon completion of the South 19th Avenue project we will have a balance of slightly more than $3,000,000.00 for use on urban routes. The City has historically used this allocation to accomplish large projects on major routes in the City. Prior to the South 19th project for example, we used these funds for the South 3rd Avenue improvements done in 1997. Using these funds for curb replacement on South Church (est. $200,000.00) South Willson (est. $240,000.00) and North Willson (est. $80,000.00), the 3 urban routes on our proposed list, would set our timetable back for whatever the next large project will be (West College, Kagy, S. 8th …) by half a year. ARRA Funds - H.B. 645 As the Finance Director discussed at the July 20th Commission Meeting, The City needs to determine where the final $344,000.00 of the HB645 allocation should be spent. It needs to be spent by September 30, 2010 or it will revert to the State General Fund. A good use of these funds would be curb replacement and/or pedestrian ramps. We would do the work in-house and could certainly have a project ready for construction next season which would meet the September 30 deadline. Mid-Term Special Improvement District (SID) It is possible and permissible under MCA chapter 7-12-4102 to create an SID for curb replacement. The issue will no doubt turn on the potential for protest to block the district’s creation. Since all of the curb replacement areas are in older parts of town, the City holds no waivers of right to protest creation of such districts. Therefore, if 51% of the residents in a proposed district funded solely by SID were to protest, the district could not be created. If a combination of funding sources were to be used such that the amount funded by SID was 50% or less, the protest would not be sufficient per MCA 7-12-4113. 12876 So in order to use an SID to pay for curb replacement it would probably be necessary to keep the amount financed by the district under 50%. It is possible that residents of a street or streets may be willing to fund curb replacement entirely by SID, but this does not seem likely. General Obligation (G.O.) Bond This may be an effective way to aggregate smaller segments into larger, less disruptive projects. It is important to note that a G.O. Bond must be approved by a vote of the public. It could be used in conjunction with one or all of the short term options. Here’s an example of how it could work. We decide that the way to raise funds is to increase the street maintenance assessment by 2%. This generates $41,000.00 per year. As discussed above, it is too disruptive to do these projects forty or eighty-thousand dollars at a time. So, we identify a street to rehabilitate, South Church for example, and sell G.O. bonds for the entire replacement project, estimated to be $200,000.00. We then use the revenue generated by the 2% street maintenance assessment increase to pay off the Bond. This method could be used in conjunction with any or all of the other options. It could also be used by itself, but it would probably be difficult to get the community at large to support this option as a stand-alone method. Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) While we cannot use CTEP funds for curb repair, ADA compliant Pedestrian ramps are eligible for CTEP funding at either new or existing sidewalks. There is an application process, a "public input" process as well as a local match requirement of 13.42% to obtain CTEP funding. The City Commission needs to solicit public input on how the CTEP funds should be used, and decisions should be recorded in meeting minutes. The Commission ultimately decides how the funds will be used, but the public must be given the opportunity to comment. Bozeman currently has a balance of $293,564.73 available, exclusive of the College pathway project. The required match for that amount is $39,396.39. We are bringing this issue up in this memo because it makes sense to replace the curb ramps at the same time that we are replacing the adjacent curbing. Long Term Urban and Collector Assessment The idea of a city-wide Urban and Collector Assessment to provide funding for street improvements to those two functional classifications of streets has been briefly discussed before. The City of Billings has just such an assessment. In Billings it is a per-square-foot assessment based on a property’s zoning designation. These funds could be used to maintain city arterials and collectors which are not on the MDT urban route list. These are streets like Koch, Grant, Lincoln, Tamarack, Fowler and many others. None of the streets on our suggested list of proposed curb replacement areas would fall into this category at the present time. Stormwater Utility The EPA’s Phase 2 Stormwater regulations will, in the relatively near future, force the city to find some way of paying for mandated stormwater improvements. Creation of a stormwater utility and funding it with an assessment of some sort (impervious surface, zoning designation, a combination of those…) may become a necessity. 12977 We are not suggesting that that day is today, but once such a utility is created, it will be possible to use that money to pay for curb and gutter since it is integral to stormwater management. Local Option Gas Tax (City/County 2¢) Montana counties have the option of levying up to 2¢ per gallon of gas to use for such purposes. This would have to be done in conjunction with the county with whom we would divide the revenues. Such a levy would have to be approved by both City and County Commissions and must be approved by a vote of the public. We have attached to this memorandum a Proposed Curb Replacement Area list. This list is in order of priority from our point of view, although all of the projects on the list merit the investment. The highest priority from our perspective is South Church Avenue, due to MDT scheduling a chip seal project on that street for next summer. If we were able to replace the curbs on this street before the Department chip seals it, the finished project would be seamless. This would be quite beneficial in terms of the street’s service life. We believe that some discussion of the issues involved in improvements to South 8th Avenue is warranted as part of this presentation. South 8th Avenue is in need of re-construction from Harrison Street to Main Street. Because South 8th has a median, it has more than twice as much curb and gutter as a typical street. In addition to the pavement, base layers, storm drains and curb and gutter, we also need to replace the water main. If we were to replace the curb and gutter before we replace the water main, we would be digging through, then replacing that new curb when the main is replaced and all of the service lines are re-established. For this reason it is wise to replace the water main first. That project is scheduled for the summer of 2011. We believe that once the water main is replaced it does make sense to go ahead and replace the curb and gutter, leaving the street reconstruction as the last element of the South 8th project. We will be looking for direction from the commission as to how to fund that project at that time. As discussed under the Urban Funds section above, at the end of the South 19th Avenue project the City will have approximately $3,000,000.00 available in Urban Funds. Three of the projects on the Proposed Curb Replacement Area list are urban routes – South Church, South Willson and North Willson. Our total estimated cost for those 3 projects is $520,000.00. In general I think that the best use of these funds is on large, expensive projects which benefit the community at large and can’t be paid for easily, projects like South 19th Avenue or West College Street. However, I do think it would be beneficial to replace the curbs on the three urban routes on our list in one larger project next summer, financed with urban funds. A lot of curb could be replaced in the near term and we would still have a good start on saving for the next big urban project. FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of any program will depend on the method the Commission chooses to use to finance it. Using existing methods, we have prepared two scenarios that could begin funding curb replacement within a relatively short period of time. Proposed Scenario #1 approaches curb replacement as entirely a “community-wide” responsibility, using collective street maintenance resources: gas taxes, current and increased street maintenance assessments, HB645 allocation and urban funds (where eligible). The results are: 13078 Scenario #1: 1 10 projects completed by FY20 (within 11 years.) 2 Street Maintenance Assessment increases by 2% in FY11 and an additional 2% in FY12 for continued t Fund. 3 Urban Funds of $1.27M are utilized for curbs on urban routes. 4 No SID's are created or assessed. Proposed Scenario #2 assigns 50% of the costs of curb replacement to the adjacent property owner by creation of a Special Improvement District assessment, payable over 20 years. The remaining 50% is funded by community-wide resources for street maintenance: gas taxes, existing street maintenance assessments, and urban funds (where eligible.) Scenario #2: 1 These 10 projects completed by FY21 (within 12 years.) 2 Street Maintenance Assessments do not increase over their current rate as a result of this plan. 3 Approximately $1.7M in SID's are issued over 12 years (not including finance costs). 4 Estimated annual SID assessment for 100' of curb = $270 ($22.50/month) 5 $635,000 of Urban Funds are spent on curbs on urban routes. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. Attachments: Curb Replacement Areas Map Proposed Curb Replacement Areas List Curb/Ramp Work Summary 2005-2009 Curb Condition Map Curb Plan Version 1 Curb Plan Version 2 Report compiled on: August 21, 2009 13179 S 6TH AVE S 4TH AVE S 5TH AVE S 3RD AVE S 8TH AVE S GRAND AVE S TRACY AVE S CHURCH AVE S WILLSON AVE S BLACK AVE W MAIN ST S 9TH AVE W KOCH ST W OLIVE ST W BEALL ST W STORY ST W LAMME ST S 7TH AVE W CURTISS ST W COLLEGE ST W BABCOCK ST E MAIN ST W HARRISON ST E OLIVE ST W DICKERSON ST E LAMME ST W ALDERSON ST W MENDENHALL ST W CLEVELAND ST S BOZEMAN AVE E BABCOCK ST E STORY ST E GARFIELD ST W GARFIELD ST E MENDENHALL ST N 9TH AVE N 5TH AVE N 7TH AVE E BEALL ST N TRACY AVE N BLACK AVE N ROUSE AVE N GRAND AVE N 8TH AVE N CHURCH AVE N WILLSON AVE S ROUSE AVE LINDLEY PL ICE POND R D DELL PL PERKINS PL E ALDER S O N ST E COLLEGE ST E HARRISON ST BONNER LN S 5TH AVE N 7TH AVE S 3RD AVE S 8TH AVE S ROUSE AVE P r o p o s e d C u r b R e p l a c e m e n t A r e a sProposed C u r b R e p l a c e m e n t A r e a s 825 0 825412.5 Feet ¯L e g e n dLegend Proposed Curb Replacement TEXTTEXT DATE 8/13/09 * THIS MAP IS FOR ENGINEERING DEPARMENT PURPOSEST ONLY, FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 13280 Proposed curb replacement areas Estimated costs are for curb replacement only. 1. South Church, Story to Babcock (urban route, collector) MDT has proposed a chip seal, possibly next year. It would be good to get curb replaced prior to that. Minimum to do would be west side, Story to south approach to Bogert Park, this is about 625 lf. Install valley gutters at Story and Bogert Place and ADA ramps for better access to Peets Hill. Est. cost: $41,000. Could replace all curbing on this street segment, est. cost: $200,000. 2. S. Willson, Koch to Harrison (urban route, arterial) Pavement is in relatively good shape, but due to the many overlays the gutters are steeply sloped and impossible to clean good with street sweepers. Curb fair to totally gone. Est. cost: $240,000. 3. S. Tracy, Story to ½ block south of Harrison Snow route with a school. Curb fair to poor, pavement poor. Replace curb to facilitate future mill/overlay. Install valley gutters or storm drains to get rid of shallow drain pipe crossings at College. Est. cost: $220,000. 4. Olive, Grand to 8th Snow route, higher than normal traffic load for a local street. Curbs poor, pavement poor, replace curbs to facilitate mill/overlay. Watermain replacement may still be needed in 600 block. Est. cost: $270,000. 5. Olive, Black to Church Snow route, higher than normal traffic load for a local street. Curbs poor, pavement poor, replace curbs to facilitate mill/overlay. Watermain replacement needed at Bozeman and Lindley Place. Est. cost: $175,000. 6. S. Bozeman, Olive to Koch Water main replacement needed. Curbs poor, pavement poor. Could possibly combine into one project (main replacement, new curbs, re-paving). Est. cost: $110,000. 7. N. Willson, Mendenhall to Beall (urban route) Curbs fair to poor, pavement fair. Replace curbs to facilitate mill/overlay. Install valley gutters at Lamme to get rid of shallow drain pipes. Est. cost: $80,000. 13381 8. S. Grand, Olive to Garfield Bike route. Curbs fair to poor. Pavement poor. Replace curbs to facilitate mill/overlay. Full reconstruction may be necessary on some blocks. Est. cost: $475,000. 9. Story Street, Church to Tracy Snow route. Curbs poor to totally gone. Full street reconstruction may be necessary. Est. cost: $230,000. Water main work needed at Bozeman and Dell Place. 13482 Curb/Ramp Work 2005-2009 Description Total Cost (curbs/ramps only) LF of Curb Replaced Ped. Ramps installed (# of corners) FY 2004 Curb/Ramp Project $68,546 590 20 (E. Olive/S. Black) FY 2006 Curb/Ramp Project $77,962 1332 10 (Westlake Park, S. Tracy, W. Cleveland) (Note: 740 LF was new curb along N. 5th) FY 2007 Curbs and Walks Project $58,920 724 4 (Curtiss St.) FY 2009 Curb/Ramp Project $78,575 1526 9 (S. 9th and Alderson) 2009 Misc. Curbs/Ramps $27,167 240 10 (S. Black, S. Bozeman, E. Lincoln) S. Willson $18,136 286 0 (Downtowner Mall) W. Olive/Tamarack & Wallace $20,126 247 3 Miscellaneous Spot Repairs 2005-2008 $ 6,090 118 2 Totals $355,522 5,063 58 13583 84 85 86 87 88 Tree Maintenance Fund – FY11 Budget Worksheet The Forestry Department information begins on page 201 of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget document. Tree Maintenance Fund (Forestry Division) – FY11 Expenditure Total $433,000. The CM Recommended Budget recommends a 4% increase for Tree Maintenance Assessments. In developing the budget for the Tree Maintenance Fund, we also customarily look at a 5-year projection of expenditures and revenues. Tree Maintenance Assessment amounts will be noticed in July, with the public hearing scheduled for August 9th. (Statutes require an annual assessment hearing, so we are not able to adopt multi-year rate resolutions.) Tree Maintenance District - 5 year Projection FY2011 Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Proposed Rate Increase 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% Estimated Growth in Assessable Sq Ftg 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Beginning Fund Balance - Projected 66,484 49,858 (28,117) (25,084) (29,818) Estimated Revenues: Assessments 400,000 420,000 449,820 481,757 515,962 Interest Earnings 7,000 3,000 - - 3,000 Sale of Cost-Share-Trees 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total Estimated Revenues: 417,000 433,000 459,820 491,757 528,962 Proposed Expenditures: Existing Personnel 315,202 321,506 331,151 341,086 351,318 Operations 118,424 121,977 125,636 129,405 133,287 Capital - 67,492 - 26,000 - Total Proposed Expenditures: 433,626 510,975 456,787 496,491 484,606 Ending Fund Balance - Projected 49,858 (28,117) (25,084) (29,818) 14,539 Annual Assessments: Small Lot, 5,000 sq ft. 11.24$ 11.80$ 12.39$ 13.01$ 13.67$ Average Lot, 7,500 sq ft. 16.87$ 17.71$ 18.60$ 19.53$ 20.50$ Large Lot, 10,000 sq ft. 22.50$ 23.62$ 24.80$ 26.04$ 27.34$ 89 Community Housing Fund – FY11 Budget Worksheet Community Housing Fund (Fund 120) is included in the Community Development Expenditure Information on page 219. Community Housing Fund – FY11 Expenditure Total $40,000 The CM Recommended Budget includes tax revenue of 1 mill (estimated at $79,856) for Workforce Housing efforts. We have received one request for funding from Road to Home, in the amount of $40,000 (letter attached.) For a number of years, the City has set aside general fund dollars/tax dollars for Workforce Housing efforts. Revenues set aside have always outstripped expenditures. At the end of Fiscal Year 2010, we estimate the available balance to be $298,739. The FY11 Recommended Budget would bring that ending balance to $338,595. Workforce Housing Funding Within the Community Housing Fund Proposed 1.0 Mill 2.0 Mills 2.0 Mills 1.46 Mills 1.0 Mills 1.0 Mills FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Beginning Balance - 28,000 94,248 182,514 255,449 298,739 Revenues: General Fund Transfer 58,000 126,500 137,962 Dedication of Tax Revenue 105,600 78,290 79,856 Interest Earnings - 6,285 8,166 7,335 5,000 Total Estimated Revenues: 58,000 132,785 146,128 112,935 83,290 79,856 Expenditures: Road to Home - Administration 30,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Habitat for Humanity - 4 Lots 60,000 Workforce Housing Ordinance Development 6,537 7,837 Workforce Housing Administrator 20,025 Total Proposed Expenditures: 30,000 66,537 57,862 40,000 40,000 40,000 Ending Balance 28,000 94,248 182,514 255,449 298,739 338,595 90