HomeMy WebLinkAboutAccept the Planning Department Fiscal Year 2011 second quarter update .pdfPlanning Department Fiscal Year 2011 Second Quarter
Update. Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Tim McHarg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Department 2nd Quarter FY11 (October 1, 2010 – December 31,
2010) Budget Update
MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Move forward with current Planning Department staff levels per
FY11 Adopted Budget; continue to monitor revenue situation closely.
BACKGROUND: Because of the anticipated difficulty estimating current planning
workloads (land use and subdivision applications) and resulting fee revenues in FY11, we
committed to make quarterly decisions regarding staffing levels and operating costs in the
department.
Planning Department highlights for the Second Quarter of FY11 are summarized below:
1. Monthly Planning Fee Revenues. The Department budget for FY11 projected
planning fee revenues of $10,500 per month. The FY11 projected revenue figure
represents a reduction of 33% from the FY10 monthly revenue target of $14,000.
Second Quarter FY11 Planning Fee Revenues were as follows:
Month Application Fee Revenue
(Rounded)
October 2010 $28,491
November 2010 $9,010
December 2010 $12,725
Q2 FY11 Total Fee Revenues $50,226
Average Per Month $16,742
While the application revenues for November did not meet the $10,500 monthly
target, the First Quarter FY11 monthly average of $16,742 exceeds the target for
101
monthly revenues. For the quarter as a whole, revenues surpassed the projected level
by 59%. The following chart compares actual revenues to projected revenues:
2. Revenue Comparisons: In general, the Q2FY11 actual revenues compare positively
to the revenues generated during Q2FY10. For the 2nd Quarter as a whole, FY11
revenues exceeded those of FY10 by nearly 57%. Again, the only exception to this
positive comparison is November, as illustrated in the following chart:
3. FY11 Revenues To Date: The application revenues for FY11 are running nearly
72% ahead of projections, as shown below:
Quarter Projected Fee
Revenue
Actual Fee
Revenue Surplus/Deficit
Q1 FY11 $31,500 $57,900 $26,400
Q2 FY12 $31,500 $50,225 $18,725
Total $63,000 $108,125 $45,125
102
4. Budget Expenditures: The Department’s FY11 budget is approved for an average
of $61,402 in monthly expenditures, or $736,828 annually. The FY11 expenditure
level represents a reduction of 6% from the annual expenditure $784,287 for FY10.
Actual spending through December 2010 averaged $56,640 per month, or
approximately 2% under budget.
5. Applications Received: The following table lists the planning applications that were
received each month of this quarter. In the 2nd Quarter of FY11, the Department
averaged 59 project applications and 35 sign permit applications per month.
Application Type October November December
Q2 FY11
Total
Percent of
Total
Pre-Application 3
3 2%
Prelim. Plat
0 0%
Final Plat 2
2 1%
Sub. Exempt. 4
2 6 4%
Flood Plain
0 0%
BOA (COA-DEV)
1 1%
Admin. Appeals 1 1
2 1%
Master Plan Amend
0 0%
UDO Amend 2 1
3 2%
CUP 1
1 1%
ZMA
1
1 1%
Conservation Update
0 0%
Entryway Update
0 0%
PUD 1
1 1%
PUD Final
0 0%
Re-use 3 5 2 10 7%
Annexation
0 0%
Prel. Site Plan 2 3 3 8 6%
Master Site Plan
0 0%
Final Site Plan 7 4 2 13 9%
Mods to FSP 1 1
2 1%
Informal 1 2 2 5 4%
STUP
0 0%
COA 39 18 22 79 56%
Improvements Agreement 2 2
4 3%
Variance
0 0%
Comp. Sign Plan
0 0%
Condo Conversion 1
1 1%
Monthly Totals 70 38 34 142 100%
Signs 47 16 29 92
6. Application Trends and Comparisons: As illustrated in the chart below, the
volume of project applications in the 2nd Quarter of FY11 compares favorably to the
1st Quarters of FY10, FY09, and FY08.
103
(Please note: Application volumes aggregated by quarter are not available prior to
Q1 of FY08, which would allow comparisons to pre-recession levels.)
While the trend of increased volumes of project applications is a very positive
indicator, it does come with a caveat. The majority (59%) of project applications in
the 2nd Quarter of FY11 were COAs, many of which were the result of hail damage.
In the Conservation and Entryway Corridor Overlay Districts, the UDO does not
require a COA for repair or maintenance, unless materials, size or architectural style
is being changed. So the vast majority of repair to hail damaged properties did not
require a COA. However, because many property owners elected to take the
opportunity to modify or improve hail damaged buildings instead of simply repairing
them as they were, a significant volume of COAs were processed for hail damaged
structures. This resulted in a one-time increase in the number of COA applications,
which has somewhat skewed the total number project applications.
With that being said, this has only strengthened the trend of increasing project
application volumes, which has been established for several quarters at this point in
time. Staff is hopeful that this trend is sustainable moving forward, and we remain
open to ideas to allow the Department to enhance and stabilize the local economic
recovery.
7. Accomplishments and Milestones: A primary focus of the Department in the 2nd
Quarter was current planning review of project applications. This was not limited to
COAs associated with hail damaged structures. The range of applications to which
the Department allocated significant staff resources included several relatively large
scale projects, specifically:
· Kohl’s;
· Billion Auto Plaza;
· Safeway;
· Spring Creek Village PUD;
· Norton East Subdivision;
· Meadow Creek Subdivision; and,
104
· Residential Emphasis Mixed Use District zoning regulations.
A more detailed discussion of completed tasks will be provided in the Quarterly
Update to the Commission’s Work Plan. However, the highlights from the 2nd
Quarter are summarized as follows:
· Adopted UDO amendments delegating broader administrative decision making
authority to Staff;
· Continued work with Planning Board to evaluate and improve the project review
process;
· Supported TIF Boards to implement district plans;
· Held two round-table discussions with local development professionals to identify
opportunities to work through distressed subdivisions;
· Drafted proposed enabling legislation for development agreements;
· Initiated an evaluation of the COA process in the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD);
· Continued evaluation of Workforce Housing Ordinance;
· Completed RFP process for Impact Fee Updates; and,
· Modified procedures for code enforcement activities.
8. Workload for Next Quarter: Given the typical seasonal reduction in project
applications in the upcoming 3rd Quarter, the Department will reallocate a significant
additional amount of staff resources to long range planning efforts and, specifically,
the Commission’s Work Plan.
Highlights of anticipated work items in the upcoming quarter include the following:
· Implement Commission Work Plan items:
o Complete revisions to Sign Code
o Complete Planning Board evaluation of existing review processes:
§ Site Plan/DRC/DRB Review
§ Subdivision Review
§ Incentives for infill development in TIF Districts
o Increase residential densities in CBD and B-3 District
· Continue support of TIF Boards to implement district plans
· Select a consultant to initiate the update to Impact Fee Studies
· Complete evaluation of Workforce Housing Ordinance
· Complete evaluation COA process in NCOD
· Evaluate opportunities for formalizing and expanding over the counter approvals
in partnership with the Building Division
FISCAL EFFECTS: FY11 total expenditures are running slightly under budget, and
application fee revenues are ahead of projected levels in the budget. We are certain that we will
continue to monitor and control expenditures at or below levels projected in the budget.
We are hopeful that the positive trends in revenues will continue into the 3rd Quarter.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Report Compiled: February 3, 2010
105