Bureau of Development Services

City of Portland

Bureau of Development Services FROM CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION

Requested Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14

Submitted February 4, 2013

FY 2013-14 Budget Advisory Committee Report Bureau of Development Services

February 4, 2013

In October 2012, the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) convened a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to review and give input to its fiscal year (FY) 2013-14 Requested Budget. In accordance with direction provided by the City Budget Office, we, the members of the BDS BAC, are submitting this summary of our work and our recommendations regarding BDS’s Requested Budget. BAC Members The BDS BAC is composed of representatives from the Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC, the bureau’s standing advisory board), neighborhood/community stakeholders, the City’s Small Business Advisory Council (SBAC), the BDS Labor Management Committee (LMC), and BDS non-represented employees. The following is a list of BDS BAC members and affiliations: • Thomas Badrick, Citywide Land Use Group • Nick Drum, SBAC • Jeff Fish, DRAC • Curt French, BDS LMC (AFSCME) • Dave Humber, DRAC • Paul Scarlett, BDS Director • Keith Skille, DRAC • Eric Thomas, BDS LMC (COPPEA) • Nancy Thorington, BDS Non-Represented Employees • Steve White, Community (Oregon Public Health Institute) Overview of Activities The BDS BAC held several meetings with BDS staff, lasting 1 ½ hours each, on the following dates: • October 31, 2012 • November 28, 2012 • December 17, 2012 • January 16, 2013 • January 29, 2013

Our work in these meetings has primarily consisted of: • Becoming acquainted with the City’s budget requirements and processes and the BDS

Director’s budget goals; • Reviewing BDS’s financial status, including current revenues and expenditures, the

bureau’s reserve fund, and financial projections for the next five years; • Reviewing various budget proposals from BDS; and • Providing recommendations regarding budget decisions.

FY 2013-14 BDS Budget Advisory Committee Report February 4, 2013

BAC Recommendations Regarding BDS’s Requested Budget After reviewing BDS’s mission, strategic goals, financial status, funding sources, and proposed budget decisions, we agreed on the following recommendations related to BDS’s Requested Budget: 1. BDS should strategically add staff in order to meet increased workload demands. From 2009 - 2010, BDS lost over half of its staff due to deep declines in permit revenues. Throughout the bureau, low-priority services were eliminated and most remaining services were significantly reduced. As the economy and development industry have been recovering from the recession, BDS has gradually added staff as revenues have allowed but has struggled to meet increasing workload demands and provide service levels that meet customers' needs. Based upon development trends in Portland, current projections indicate workload increases in FY 2013-14 and beyond, emphasizing the need to ensure that staff levels are matched to workload demands. We therefore recommend approval of decision package DP_01, Improve Overall BDS Service Level, which will add 14 positions to the bureau. BDS is focusing staff additions on their highest-priority services and programs. For each of the proposed new positions, the bureau shared the specific service level target, current service level, and projected service level with the additional staff resources. BDS is proposing to add positions only when performance improvements can be quantified and revenues to support the positions are in place. The positions include: Plan Review & Permitting Services (5.5 FTE) - Adding these positions will improve the speed of commercial building plan review and permit pre-issuance.

• 1.5 Commercial Plan Examiner • 1.0 Development Services Technician III • 1.0 Development Services Project Coordinator • 1.0 Structural Engineer • 1.0 Geotechnical Engineer

Land Use Services (1.5 FTE) - Adding these positions will improve the speed of land use review completeness checks and Planning & Zoning plan review.

• 1.0 Supervising Planner • 0.5 City Planner II Land Use

Development Services Center (1.0 FTE) - Adding these positions will substantially eliminate the need to turn away customers from the Development Services Center.

• 0.5 City Planner II Land Use • 0.5 Commercial Plans Examiner

Page 2 of 5


Inspection Services (4.0 FTE) - Adding these positions will improve the timeliness of inspections and reduce the need to re-schedule inspections.

• 1.0 Inspections Supervisor (Residential Inspections) • 1.0 Combination Inspector • 1.0 Development Services Technician II • 1.0 Commercial Building Inspector

Enforcement Services (1.0 FTE) - Adding this position will improve the ability to respond to zoning complaints.

• 1.0 Code Specialist II Office of Director/Administrative Services (1.0 FTE) - Adding this position will provide programmatic and administrative support for training, recruitment, and selection programs.

• 1.0 Sr. Admin Specialist 2. The City must provide adequate General Fund support for bureau programs that provide

public benefit. The bureau implements programs that are critical to the community as they enhance neighborhood livability and enforce regulations that protect public health, safety, and property values. In addition to its work with State building codes, BDS enforces several sections of City Code, including Zoning, Property Maintenance, Noise Control, and others through its Land Use, Neighborhood Inspections, and Noise Control programs. State law prohibits BDS from using permit revenues to support local code enforcement programs. In addition, the City Council and community advisory groups (Quality Rental Housing Workgroup and Neighborhood Inspection Team Stakeholder Advisory Committee) have recommended against recovering program costs from fees and penalties alone. This leaves the programs dependent on significant financial support from the General Fund, which has been gradually reduced over the last decade. BDS received up to $3.5 million in General Fund support for these programs in the early 2000s, but received only about $1.9 million in FY 2012-13. Also, the Neighborhood Inspections Program lost $750,000 in General Fund support when it returned to BDS from the Office of Neighborhood Involvement in 2006. The loss in funding has led to staff and service reductions with direct impacts on the community. It is important to the community that these programs be sufficiently funded to support a staffing level appropriate to the work. Given the public benefit realized by these local code programs, we strongly urge the City Council to ensure that these programs have on-going and adequate General Fund support.

Page 3 of 5


We therefore recommend approval of the following budget decision packages in BDS’s Requested Budget to continue General Fund support for 6.5 FTE:

• DP_02 – Improve Neighborhood Inspections Program – This package requests the continuation of one-time General Fund support that BDS received in FY 2012-13 to support 3.0 Housing Inspector FTE. These positions greatly enhance the bureau’s ability to respond to housing complaints. Current projections indicate that approval of this package will result in an additional 1,925 site inspections, 1,980 dwelling unit inspections, and up to 2,390 violation citations in FY 2013-14.

• DP_03 – Enhanced Rental Inspections Program – This package requests the

continuation of one-time General Fund support that BDS received in FY 2012-13 to support 2.0 Housing Inspector FTE to implement the Enhanced Rental Inspections Program. This program helps create equitable housing options for Portlanders and is a basic service for the City's low-income renters. The continuation of the program will help provide safe and healthy housing conditions for renters and will continue increased services being offered to vulnerable renters in East Portland. Current projections indicate that approval of this package will result in an additional 1,010 site inspections, 1,555 rental unit inspections, and up to 3,630 violation citations in FY 2013-14.

• DP_04 – Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement Program (EDPEP) – This

package requests the continuation of one-time General Fund support that BDS received in FY 2012-13 to support 1.0 Senior Housing Inspector FTE to implement the program. EDPEP focuses on un-maintained properties (often caused by abandonment due to foreclosures) with chronic nuisance and housing conditions that create risks of fire, generate public health hazards, and encourage criminal activity such as trespass, vandalism, graffiti, drug use and sale, prostitution, and additional serious public safety threats. EDPEP provides a vital city service to relieve pressure on the Police Bureau and other City agencies. EDPEP staff is currently working on 30 enforcement cases, and an additional 50 properties have been referred to the program. If this package is not approved, EDPEP enforcement will cease and these properties will pose an elevated risk to the surrounding community and the City in general.

• DP_05 & DP_06 – These decision packages request the restoration of the required

10% General Fund cut to the Noise Control and Land Use Services programs that BDS (along with other City bureaus) was required to make in its General Fund request. If these funds are not restored:

• 1.0 FTE (Sr. City Planner) will be cut from Land Use Services; this is a position that provides valuable environmental expertise. Response times for some services will also be lengthened, including land divisions, final plats, plan review, land use completeness checks, and response to messages left on the Zoning Hotline.

• 0.25 FTE (Code Specialist II) will be cut from the Noise program. Currently,

staff is able to respond to only 74% of complaints received, and if this position is lost, BDS will be able to respond to only 37% of complaints.

Page 4 of 5


Page 5 of 5

• DP_07 - Citywide Tree Project – This package requests the continuation of one-time

General Fund support that BDS received in FY 2012-13 to support a Program Coordinator position to perform tasks that are critical to enabling BDS and the Parks Bureau to be prepared to implement the new Citywide Tree Code. While we support this request as a necessity to implement the code, we strongly urge the City Council to develop a long-term funding mechanism for the Tree Code that does not solely rely on fees from developers since BDS will be required by the City Code to enforce the Tree Code.

• DP_08 – This decision package requests the restoration of the required 10% General

Fund cut to the Neighborhood Inspections program that BDS (along with other City bureaus) was required to make in its General Fund request. This cut will result in a reduction of $35, 292 in the funds used by Neighborhood Inspections to perform nuisance abatements. Due to existing funding limitations, BDS is able to currently perform abatements only on properties with the most significant health and sanitation issues. If the $35,292 cut is not restored, BDS will be able to abate only one-third of the nuisances eligible for abatement.

3. The City must provide stable, long-term funding for the City’s neighborhood inspections

programs. Currently, most of the funding for the Neighborhood Inspections programs (DP 02, DP 03, and DP 04) is one-time General Fund monies. However, these programs are ones that make a real difference in our community. There is a direct link to public safety as these programs are instrumental in helping to eliminate blight and serious public safety threats to Portland neighborhoods. There is a direct link to equity as these programs provide safe and livable housing options to our lower income residents who are likely to be renters. And there is a direct link to The Portland Plan as these programs enhance access to affordable housing (Portland Plan objective #17) by preserving existing affordable housing and ensuring that it meets minimum code standards. The BDS BAC is acutely aware of the City’s financial situation regarding the General Fund. In order to increase the funding options available for these neighborhood programs, we encourage the bureau and the City to pursue other dedicated funding sources, particularly for these programs. In addition, we urge the City Council to convert the one-time General Fund monies that support these programs into permanent, ongoing funding. This will create stability and consistency in the provision of services that serve some of the City’s most vulnerable residents. If these funds cannot be converted to ongoing for FY 2013-14, we request that the City Council approve a budget note for BDS’s FY 2014-15 Requested Budget to move these programs from one-time to sufficient ongoing funding.

City of Portland Bureau of Development Services

Requested Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14


Bureau of Development ServicesFY 2013-14 Budget

Bureau Revenues $39,161,999

I/A Reimbursements

$887,1252%

Construction Permits & Fees

$34,141,38587%

Line of Credit Proceeds

$1,802,3435%

General Fund $2,331,146

6%

Division Expenses $35,792,655

Land Use $4,555,929

13%

Inspections $11,583,222

32%

Plan Review & Permitting $7,224,875

20%

IS & Technology Advancement

$6,715,33119%

Administration & Support

$5,713,29816%

Bureau Expenditures $37,750,215

Personal Services

$24,523,33065%

Internal Materials & Services $7,079,390

19%

External Materials &

Services $4,189,935

11%

Fund Requirements

$1,957,5605%

____________________________________________________________________________________________________City of Portland, Oregon - FY 2013-14 Requested Budget

Bureau of Development ServicesFY 2013-14 Budget

Community Development Service Area

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner-in-ChargePaul L. Scarlett, Director

Bureau Programs

Plan Review $3,369,050

Neighborhood Inspections $1,634,420

Commercial Inspections $4,218,122

Combination Inspections $3,640,561

Land Use Services

$4,555,929

Development Services

$3,855,825

Compliance Services

$1,173,497

IS & Technology Advancement $6,715,331

Administration & Support

$5,713,298

Site Development $916,622

______________________________________________________________________________________________________City of Portland, Oregon - FY 2013-14 Requested Budget

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Budget Summary Bureau Mission ................................................................................................................................3 Bureau Overview .............................................................................................................................3 Strategic Direction ...........................................................................................................................4 Capital Summary .............................................................................................................................7 Capital Planning & Budgeting.........................................................................................................9 Capital Programs and Projects .......................................................................................................10 Program Summary Reports Administration & Support .............................................................................................................12 Commercial Inspections.................................................................................................................14 Site Development...........................................................................................................................16 Compliance Services......................................................................................................................18 Development Services ...................................................................................................................20 Combination Inspections ...............................................................................................................22 Land Use Services .........................................................................................................................24 Neighborhood Inspections .............................................................................................................26 Plan Review ...................................................................................................................................29 Performance Measures......................................................................................................................31 Summary of Bureau Budget .............................................................................................................33 CIP Summary.....................................................................................................................................34 FTE Summary ....................................................................................................................................35 Fund Overview ...................................................................................................................................37 Significant Changes from Prior Year.............................................................................................37 Summary of Fund Budget .................................................................................................................38 Summary of Program Budgets .........................................................................................................40 Decision Package Summary Decision Package: DS 01 – Improve Overall BDS Service Level ...............................................42 Decision Package: DS 02 – Improve Neighborhood Inspections Program..................................44 Decision Package: DS 03 – Enhanced Rental Inspection Program..............................................46 Decision Package: DS 04 – Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement ................................48 Decision Package: DS 05 – 10% General Fund Add Back Land Use ..........................................50 Decision Package: DS 06 – 10% General Fund Add Back Noise Program .................................52 Decision Package: DS 07 – Citywide Tree Project ......................................................................54 Decision Package: DS 08 – 10% General Fund Add Back NIT...................................................56 Decision Package: DS 09 – 10% Add Back to Interagency Services...........................................58

City of Portland, Oregon – FY 2013-14 Requested Budget 1

Bureau of Development ServicesCommunity Development Service Area

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner-in-ChargePaul L. Scarlett, Director

Percent of City Budget

Bureau Programs

Bureau Overview

Expenditures Revised

FY 2012-13 RequestedFY 2013-14

Change fromPrior Year

PercentChange

Operating 37,517,836 47,642,357 10,124,521 26.99Capital 3,680,172 4,697,127 1,016,955 27.63

Total Requirements 41,198,008 52,339,484 11,141,476 27.04Authorized Positions 207.25 221.67 14.42 6.96

2 City of Portland, Oregon – FY 2013-14 Requested Budget


Bur

eau

Dire

ctor

Pau

l L. S

carle

tt

Adm

inis

trativ

e S

ervi

ces

Insp

ectio

nS

ervi

ces

Land

Use

Ser

vice

s

Pla

n R

evie

w &

P

erm

ittin

gS

ervi

ces

Com

plia

nce

Ser

vice

s

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d In

spec

tions

Site

Dev

elop

men

t

Bud

get &

Fin

ance

Faci

litie

s

Info

rmat

ion

Ser

vice

s

Per

sonn

el

Res

earc

h &

Ana

lysi

s

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Com

mer

cial

Ele

ctric

al

Com

mer

cial

Plu

mbi

ng

Com

mer

cial

Stru

ctur

al /

Mec

hani

cal

Faci

lity

Per

mit

Pro

gram

Focu

sed

Res

iden

tial

Pro

gram

s

Res

iden

tial I

nspe

ctio

ns

Trai

ning

Des

ign

Rev

iew

&

His

toric

Land

Div

isio

n &

E

nviro

nmen

tal

Plan

ning

& Z

onin

g

Rec

ords

Man

agem

ent

Title

33

Bui

ldin

g C

ode

App

eals

Eng

inee

ring

Per

mitt

ing

Ser

vice

s

Pla

n R

evie

w

Pro

cess

Man

agem

ent

Trad

e P

erm

its &

Rec

ords

Dire

ctor

’sO

ffice

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Adv

ance

men

tD

evel

opm

ent &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Com

mun

icat

ions

&

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t

Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent



Bureau SummaryBureau Mission

The Bureau of Development Services (BDS) promotes safety, livability, andeconomic vitality through efficient and collaborative application of building anddevelopment codes.

Bureau Overview

General Description BDS is an integral part of development in the City of Portland. Bureau staff activelyworks with developers, builders, and homeowners to guide them through thedevelopment process. The bureau manages programs that ensure construction andland use codes are followed, and BDS is instrumental in enhancing the safety ofbuildings and the livability and economic vitality of Portland’s neighborhoods. Tothis end, staff reviews construction plans, issues permits, and inspects industrial,commercial, and residential construction to ensure compliance. The bureau alsoprovides assistance to customers from pre-application all the way throughconstruction. BDS is responsible for implementing the City's land use policies,plans, and codes through the review of proposed development, and ensurescompliance with site-related regulations such as erosion control and grading. Thebureau also enforces the Zoning, Sign, Noise, and Property Maintenance codes, aswell as structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical code violation cases. Thisbudget request includes 221.67 FTE and an operating budget of $35.8 million,funded primarily through permit fees and charges .

Balancing ServiceProvision and FiscalResponsibility

The bureau's mission requires being responsive to the development community,neighborhoods, and citizens. BDS’s vision is to be the best development servicesagency in the country by deploying development review systems that meet thetime-sensitive needs of the development industry, and by satisfying neighborhoodorganizations’ and citizens’ concerns about the quality of development and accessto development-related information.

This commitment to providing excellent programs and services is met within thecontext of an equal commitment to operating in a fiscally responsible manner. Thebureau seeks to balance several goals:

Provide excellent programs and services, being responsive to customers and thecommunity's changing needs;

Pursue cost recovery for services whenever appropriate; Maintain prudent financial reserves to cushion the bureau against economic

downturns; Set reasonable fees and keep fee increases as low as possible.



State Statutes andAdministrative Rules

The City of Portland has been regulating construction since the late 1800s, withlocal ordinances passed by the City Council as early as 1892. In 1973 the Statelegislature passed requirements for a State Building Code mandating uniformstatewide enforcement, which required Portland to begin enforcing the State-adopted codes with State-certified personnel. BDS is also responsible foradministering a variety of local regulations adopted within the City Code,including the Planning and Zoning Code under Title 33 of the City Code, FloatingStructures (Title 28), Erosion Control (Title 10), Signs (Title 32), Noise Control (Title18), and Property Maintenance (Title 29).

Strategic DirectionBDS’s commitment to providing excellent services while maintaining fiscalresponsibility is reflected in the bureau’s key issues and budget goals for FY 2013-14. Approximately 94% of the bureau’s revenues come from permit fees andassessments. The remaining 6% comes primarily from the City’s General Fund,and is used to support local code enforcement programs such as NeighborhoodInspections, Noise Control, and Land Use Services.

Adequate StaffingLevels

From 2009-2010, BDS was compelled to reduce its staff by over one-half due to deepdeclines in permit revenues. Throughout the bureau, low-priority services wereeliminated and most remaining services were significantly reduced. Over 160 outof 315 positions were cut.

As the economy and the development industry have continued to recover from therecent recession, BDS has been unable to keep up with the growing workload.Permit and land use revenues have remained strong in the first half of FY 2012-13,continuing a trend that began in FY 2011-12. This revenue growth has allowed BDSto respond to the increasing workload by gradually adding back some of the staffthat was lost during the recession. BDS added 26.6 FTE in FY 2012-13 and isproposing to add 14 FTE in FY 2013-14. Positions are being filled only whereworkloads have increased and where service improvements can be quantified. Ifthese positions are approved, BDS will continue its practice of filling positions onlywhen the revenues to support them are available and only where workloadremains high.

Because plans for development are reviewed by other bureaus, such asTransportation, Water, and Environmental Services, response to customers is highlydependent on all these bureaus having adequate staff who reviews plans. Withoutthese bureaus adding resources, the City’s turnaround times on issuing permitswill not improve. And any reduction in the current staffing levels of the otherbureaus that review plans will also impact service levels negatively.

Program and ServiceEfficiency

On an ongoing basis, BDS reviews its programs and services seeking new ideas,cost saving measures, and ways to make the bureau more efficient and effective.Program structures, processes, innovation, and best practices are all part of thisreview process. In addition, the bureau recently re-started a strategic planningprocess that was put on hold in 2008 due to the recession. Programs and Services isone of the key focus areas of the strategic plan, with the goal of ensuring thatbureau programs and services are efficient and meet customer needs. The bureauis also focusing on customer experience and technology with the goal of improvingBDS's programs and services.



Connections to ThePortland Plan

BDS's work is connected to The Portland Plan in many ways. The bureausdevelopment review and inspection processes support The Plan's goal of EconomicProsperity and Affordability by applying building, land use, and developmentcodes efficiently and collaboratively. A prime example of this is the work BDS hasdone to coordinate land use review, development review, design review,engineering review, building plan review, and inspections for the Oregon HealthSciences University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront.

BDS's programs Elevate the growth and vitality of the city's employment districts,Support the vitality of Portland's neighborhood based businesses, and help MeetPortland's needs for quality, affordable homes for current and future residents.

Considering the impact of regulations and fee structures on competitiveness hasbeen a focus of BDS's annual review of its fees. The first step of the fee-settingprocess is always to consult with customers to ensure that the bureau is providingan acceptable level of service. The fees then support the level of service that isprompted by customer input.

BDS will also have an instrumental role in Supporting the vitality of Portland'sneighborhood based businesses, Elevating the growth and vitality of the city'semployment districts, and developing approaches to grow Portland's share ofregional office development. The bureau continues to be committed to adevelopment review process that is predictable and effective and an inspectionprocess that is helpful and promotes safety.

The bureau also supports The Portland Plan's policies regarding Access toHousing. Besides development review and inspections, BDS has several programsspecifically targeted to Maintain the health, safety, and viability of existinghousing stock. The Neighborhood Inspections Program enforces mini-mumstandards for residential structures and thus prevents deterioration of existinghousing.

The Requested Budget also includes a Decision Package for 0.5 FTE to support theCity's Tree Project, which supports The Portland Plan goal to Revisit and refinetree canopy targets, while continuing in-vestments in planting trees andimplementing new tree codes.

Technology BDS is continuing its progress toward a new web-based system for the City'sdevelopment review process which will replace the current system (TRACS). TheInformation Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) will greatly enhance the levelof technology in the development review process while improving public access toinformation. The bureau issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for vendors inFebruary 2012, and in December 2012 City Council gave BDS approval to enter intoa contract with the selected vendor. Contract negotiation should be completed inspring 2013. In the meantime, BDS is working internally and with otherdevelopment bureaus to ensure that review processes are well-documented andstreamlined in order to support effective ITAP implementation. Project go live isscheduled for the winter of 2014-15.

Workforce Planningand TalentDevelopment

As the bureaus fiscal situation has stabilized, the bureau is refocusing efforts onworkforce planning and talent development. Approximately 80 employees holdcertifications required by the State of Oregon in order to do their job, such asinspections, plan review, and engineering review. The bureau tracks thesecertifications and continuing education requirements. In addition, 26% of BDS



employees are presently eligible for retirement, and 34% will be eligible within thenext three years. The bureau is addressing these issues by maintaining a well-informed, competent workforce while planning for the future. In FY 2013-14, BDSwill continue to reinstate critical training opportunities that were eliminated duringthe recession and will focus on succession planning and developing future talentfor key management, leadership, and technical positions.

Cost Recovery &Moderate FeeIncreases

Achieving full cost recovery for bureau programs wherever possible will continueto be one of BDSs main financial goals. Since 1988, BDS's construction-relatedprograms have been primarily self-supporting through fees. BDS recognizes theimpact that fee increases have on its customers, and as in past budget cycles, thebureau will seek to keep land use and permit fees reasonable for customers whilemaking progress toward full cost recovery and adequate service levels. Severalfees, including building permit fees, will not be raised in FY 2013-14.

General FundSupport for LocalCode Programs

Approximately 6% of BDS's revenues come from the City's General Fund. Thesemonies support bureau programs that provide general public benefit, includingLand Use Services, Neighborhood Inspections, and Noise Control.

Unfortunately, ongoing General Fund support for these programs has beenreduced over the last several years, resulting in significant reductions in servicesand impacts to neighborhood livability. In FY 2012-13, while ongoing GeneralFund support was reduced, the bureau received one-time funds that support fiveHousing Inspectors in the Neighborhood Inspections Program, a Senior HousingInspector focused on addressing chronic un-maintained properties, and a ProgramCoordinator position needed for the launch of the Citywide Tree Code approved bythe City Council.

For FY 2013-14, the City is forecasting a $25 million shortfall in the General Fund.As directed, this Requested Budget reflects a 90% General Fund disbursement. Inaddition, BDS is requesting the restoration of the remaining 10% of ongoingGeneral Fund support and the continuation of the one-time funds received in FY2012-13.

It is critical that BDS's local code programs receive sufficient General Fund supportto ensure that key services can be provided to the community. These services areessential to neighborhood livability and protect the health, safety and welfare ofPortland citizens. Two of the programs in particular address the Portland Plan corepriority of equity:

The Enhanced Rental Inspections Program helps to create equitable housingoptions for low-income renters in East Portland;

The Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement Program (EDPEP) focuses onun-maintained properties with chronic nuisance and housing conditions thatpose serious health and safety risks.

State law prohibits BDS from using construction permit revenues for theseprograms, making support from the General Fund key to their operations.

BDS's Budget Advisory Committee, Labor Management Committee, and theDevelopment Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) have all expressed unanimoussupport for these requests for continued ongoing and one-time General Fundsupport.



Eliminated Programs All City bureaus are required to submit budget requests reflecting 90% GeneralFund appropriations. BDS has only three programs that receive General Fundsupport: Noise Control, Neighborhood Inspections, and Land Use Services. Therequired 10% reduction will directly impact services provided by these programs.

Noise Control - BDS will cut 0.25 Code Specialist II FTE from Noise Control. Theprogram has only two staff and is currently able to respond to only 75% of noisecomplaints received. This additional 0.25 FTE cut will reduce inspection servicesby one-half, meaning that staff will be able to respond to only 37% of receivedcomplaints, creating further negative impacts on neighborhood livability.

Neighborhood Inspections - BDS will reduce its nuisance abatement funds by$35,292. The program's budget for nuisance abatement services has been reducedsignificantly in recent years, leaving staff able to respond to only the most serioustypes of nuisance complaints involving health and sanitation issues. The loss ofthese additional funds would further reduce the number of nuisance abatementsthat could be completed in FY 2013-14, negatively impacting public health, safety,and neighborhood livability, particularly for more vulnerable populations in lower-income areas of the city.

Land Use Services (LUS) - BDS will cut one Senior City Planner position from LUS.This will lead to the loss of a Senior Planner Environmental Specialty position thatprovides the expertise needed to administer specific chapters of the Zoning Coderelated to environmental resource protection, such as Environmental OverlayZones, Greenway Overlay Zones, and the Columbia South Shore Plan District. Thisexpertise is needed to ensure the City's environmental regulations are met by doingplan and land use reviews of construction drawings for sites in environmentallysensitive areas, including projects such as the Columbia River Crossing, theSellwood Bridge, and the Portland-Milwaukie light rail line.

Capital SummaryCIP Highlights Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP)

The Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) is a BDS initiative toupgrade the City's legacy permit and case management system (TRACS) which hasbeen in use since 1999. The goal of the system upgrade and ITAP is to provide theCity of Portland, its development community, and the general public with the mostefficient and effective development review system through the implementation of aweb-based permit application, plan review, and inspection software system. Theweb-based system will be accessible to City review staff, development reviewcustomers, and the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The total two yearproject cost is estimated at $11.2 million.



Major Issues The Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) is BDS's only capitalproject. BDS's current legacy permit and case management system (TRACS) lacksthe ability to process land use cases and permits online. This system is inefficientcompared to web-based digital software systems. ITAP will move the bureau'sland use and permitting processes, from application to inspections, to a web-baseddigital system, creating a variety of benefits:

Thousands of trips to the bureaus downtown permitting offices will be avoidedeach year for customers and community members, since services and recordswill be available remotely. This will create significant efficiencies for customersand BDS staff and will contribute to the City's Climate Action Plansustainability initiatives.

Paper and print cost savings will be realized for BDS and its customers, sinceplan submittal, plan review, permit issuance, and inspections will be performedelectronically.

BDS's need for additional staff will be lessened by an estimated 9 positions inFY 2015-16 and 2016-17, resulting in an ongoing savings of $1.3 million per year.This estimate is based on data gathered from other jurisdictions thatimplemented similar systems and from the bureau's analysis of currentoperations and efficiencies that could be achieved.

Changes from PriorYear

In the past year there have been changes to the ITAP schedule and cost. The initialimplementation schedule predicted that vendor selection would be completed bysummer 2012, with implementation to begin in fall 2012 and be completed by fall2014. However, the comprehensive and thorough RFP (Request for Proposals)vendor selection process took longer than had been originally anticipated. BDSreceived City Council authorization to enter into a contract with the selectedvendor (Sierra Systems) in December 2012, and ITAP implementation is estimatedto begin in spring 2013. The bureau still anticipates that implementation will becompleted by the end of the winter of 2014-15.

As often happens, the original project cost estimate was exceeded by the actualresponses to the RFP. The project cost was initially estimated to be $9.2 million.The bids received through the RFP process, based on a comprehensive andthorough list of BDS deliverables and requirements, were higher than the initialestimate. The total two year project cost is estimated at $11.2 million, whichincludes sierra Systems proposed project vendor costs of $7.8 million. Theirproposal was awarded the highest score for best meeting the RFP requirements,specifically in the areas of project management, understanding of the City's needs,and electronic plan review and permit management. Sierra Systemscomprehensive and thorough proposal will help to avoid future unanticipatedproject costs and schedule changes.

Council Goals andPriorities

ITAP will provide significant positive contributions to City Council goals andpriorities as reflected in the Councils FY 2013-14 budget directions and the PortlandPlan. First, it is estimated that over the next five years, ITAP will obviate the needto hire 9 full-time employees at an annual cost savings of approximately $1.3million. In addition, efficiencies achieved through moving to a fully digital, onlinesystem will potentially save development review customers up to $1 millionannually in time and print costs. Finally, ITAP moves the City closer to meeting thegoals outlined in the Portland Plan and the 2009 Climate Action Plan byeliminating an estimated 33,000 annual customer vehicle trips to downtown.



Criteria ITAP is the only CIP for BDS. This project was moved forward as a CIP because ofthe efficiencies gained for staff, customers, and stakeholders from itsimplementation. The method used to determine whether to move forward withthis CIP included:

Analyzing the solutions available; Discussing automation with the most advanced jurisdictions looking for

advice; Visiting jurisdictions to see how solutions are implemented and how those

solutions may meet the needs of the City of Portland; Analyzing the cost and time associated with implementation of the solutions

available; Analyzing the sustainability of the solutions available for long term benefit; and Coordinating with BTS to ensure the new system can work well with City

systems such as SAP and can be supported by the Bureau of TechnologyServices (BTS).

Capital Planning and BudgetingCapital PlanningProcess

BDS's capital planning process began in fall 2009 and included a host ofstakeholders. Since BDS has only one capital project, the Information TechnologyAdvancement Project (ITAP), the deliberation has focused on this projects impactsto customers, improvements to the coordination and efficiency of the reviewprocess, efficiency of the inspection process, and availability of information to thepublic. The project has been and continues to be reviewed by the Commissioner-in-Charge, the City's Technology Oversight Committee, the Development ReviewAdvisory Committee, and the City Budget Office. Coordination is ongoing with allof the development review bureaus, including Water, Transportation,Environmental Services, Fire, and Parks.

City ComprehensivePlan

ITAP will streamline the development review process, create significant efficienciesand cost savings for City bureaus and customers, and increase access toinformation for customers, neighborhoods, and the community. ITAP will thuscontribute to several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, including:

3.5 Neighborhood Involvement - Provide for the active involvement ofneighborhood residents and businesses in decisions affecting theirneighborhood through the promotion of neighborhood and businessassociations. Provide information to neighborhood and business associationswhich allows them to monitor the impact of the Comprehensive Plan and toreport their findings annually to the Planning and Sustainability Commission.

4.1 Housing Availability - Ensure that an adequate supply of housing isavailable to meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Portland'shouseholds now and in the future.

4.15 Regulatory Costs and Fees - Consider the impact of regulations and fees inthe balance between housing affordability and other objectives such asenvironmental quality, urban design, maintenance of neighborhood character,and protection of public health, safety, and welfare. A. Improve housing affordability by imposing the lowest permit fee, or system

development charge necessary to recover cost of city services delivered in a cost effective manner.



B. Achieve greater predictability in project decision timelines; outcomes, and costs.

Financial ForecastOverview

Revenues for most of the bureau's programs are projected to increase moderately inFY 2013-14. Higher growth in revenues is projected in the next four years of thebureau's Five-Year Financial Plan. The BDS Finance Committee, an advisorycommittee composed of local economic and real estate experts, reviewed thebureau's Five-Year Financial Plan, contributed their advice and were satisfied withthe outcome of the projections. ITAP implementation costs, as well as theassociated ongoing maintenance and improvement expenses, are reflected in thefive-year financial plan.

Asset Managementand ReplacementPlans

BDS currently projects that the vendor costs for ongoing maintenance of ITAP willbe $200,000 annually. The bureaus Five-Year Financial Plan shows that these costscan be paid out of bureau operating funds.

Capital Programs and ProjectsCapital ProgramDescriptions

Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP)

The Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) is a BDS initiative toupgrade the City's legacy permit and case management system, which has been inuse since 1999. The goal of the system upgrade and ITAP is to provide the City ofPortland, its development community, and the general public the most efficient andeffective development review system through the implementation of a web-basedpermit application, plan review, and inspection software system. The web-basedsystem will be accessible to City review staff, development review customers, andthe general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

On December 12, 2012, City Council approved the bureau moving into contractnegotiation with Sierra Systems, the top-scoring vendor selected through a multi-month RFP Process. Contract negotiations between the City and Sierra Systems arecurrently underway and scheduled to be completed by March 2013, with a systemgo-live date of Winter 2014/15.

Throughout ITAP, BDS has been working closely with its interagency partners, thedevelopment review community and the general public to define business needs,make process improvements, and set out a thorough and comprehensive projectmanagement and implementation plan.

The total two year project cost is estimated at $11.2 million, which includes SierraSystems proposed project vendor costs of $7.8 million. The vendor costs areprimarily their services and initial software licensing costs. The bureaus financialsituation is improving and BDS reserves are strong. The current proposal calls forfinancing the project through a combination of a Council-approved $6.6 millionline-of-credit and revenue from BDS's day-to-day operating funds. Currently,financial projections show the bureau paying off the line-of-credit within two yearsof project completion.



Funding Sources ITAP will be financed through a combination of a line of credit and bureauoperating funds (permit revenues). A line of credit secured by the full faith andcredit of the City in the amount not to exceed $6.6 million will provide most of thefunding for the project. Based on the bureaus Five-Year Financial Plan, repaymentof the principal on the line of credit is expected to begin in FY 2015-16 and be fullypaid off in FY 2017-18. The Bureau currently has a healthy reserve, and revenue isprojected to increase through FY 2017-18.

The bureaus Five-Year Financial Plan also includes a worst case scenario. In thisworst case scenario, the bureau is still well positioned to repay the line of credit byFY 2017-18.

Because the line of credit will have no fixed principal repayment schedule, the lineof credit better accommodates BDS's cash flow than fixed rate, fixed term financing.If the bureaus financial situation is even worse than the Five-Year Financial Plansworst case scenario and bureau revenues do not allow full repayment of the line ofcredit prior to its expiration date, it will either be necessary to extend/restructurethe line to reflect the bureau's then-current revenue projections, or funds from theGeneral Fund may be required to repay the obligation.

The remainder of the project will be financed by the Bureau's operating revenues.These revenues are generated through permit fees associated with commercial,residential and trade permits, as well as land use review fees and enforcementpenalties.

Major Projects BDS has only one capital project the Information Technology Advancement Project(ITAP).

Net Operating andMaintenance Costs

The annual vendor costs for ongoing maintenance are estimated at approximately$200,000 per year starting in FY 2015-16 after the system goes live. The bureauscurrent technology team that supports TRACS will be transitioned to support andmaintain the new system.



Administration & Support Administration and SupportDescription The Administration Program provides overall direction to the bureau in order to

meet program objectives. Included within this program's budget are the Office ofthe Director, communications, customer service, budget, emergency management,finance, human resources, training, information technology, loss control/riskmanagement, general reception, and office management.

Relationship toGoals

The Administration Program supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhancethe natural and built environment.

Changes to Servicesand Activities

Service Improvements

Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 1 FTE (funded by bureau revenues)to provide important support for BDS’s training/recruitment/selection, workforcedevelopment, risk management and emergency management functions. Thebureau currently has minimal administrative support devoted to these functions.Approximately 80 employees hold certifications required by the State of Oregon inorder to do their job, such as inspections, plan review, and engineering review. Thebureau tracks these certifications and continuing education requirements. Inaddition, 26% of BDS employees are presently eligible for retirement, and 34% willbecome eligible within the next three years. So it will be critical to focus both onemployee development, recruitment outreach, and external training programs.Approval of the package will enable the Administration Program to meet thefollowing service level goals:

Ensure that employees with State certifications complete their continuingeducation requirements by providing and coordinating training.

Ensure that bureau employees have the opportunity to develop CareerDevelopment Plans and support for training to enhance & broaden their skills;

Provide consistent recruitment outreach, especially into under-representedcommunities; includes outreach into schools and other venues;

Develop an internal training program for inspectors and plans examiners togain additional certifications, or support outside training programs (becausenew hires may not have multiple certifications).

BDS is committed to maintaining a well-informed, competent workforce andplanning for the future by developing leaders and planning for succession to keymanagement, leadership, and technical positions.

Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP)

The Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) will greatly enhance thelevel of automation in development review while improving public access toinformation by providing a new web-based system for the City’s developmentreview process. After a competitive selection process, City Council gave BDSapproval to enter into contract negotiations with the selected vendor in December2012. Contract negotiation should be completed in spring 2013. In the meantime,BDS is working internally and with other development bureaus to ensure thatreview processes are well-documented and streamlined in order to supporteffective ITAP implementation. Project "go live" is scheduled for the winter of2014-15.



BDS Strategic Plan

BDS is re-starting a strategic planning process that was well underway in 2008before the recession. At that time a framework for the strategic planning processwas in place, key focus areas had been identified, and stakeholder groups werereviewing Action Plans that had been drafted by BDS employees. Much of thatwork remains relevant and useful, allowing the bureau to renew the planningprocess without having to completely start over.

The bureau has selected a consultant to facilitate meetings with employees andstakeholder groups and to help produce the final plan documents. Strategic Planfocus areas include:

Customer Experience Programs & Services Technology Workforce Development Community Awareness

The bureau intends to hold several large and small group meetings in early 2013,and will also use social media and online surveys to solicit input. BDS intends toimplement the new plan by early summer 2013.

FTE & Financials Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP


FTE 28.00 33.73 32.90 32.90 33.90Expenditures

Administration & Support 6,618,141 7,343,988 10,787,863 12,000,021 12,428,629Total Expenditures 6,618,141 7,343,988 10,787,863 12,000,021 12,428,629



Commercial Inspections Commercial InspectionsDescription The Commercial Inspections Program performs state-mandated construction

inspections (structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical) on industrial, commercial,and multi-family construction projects in Portland and the urban services area ofMultnomah County. The program also provides plan review services forcommercial plumbing and electrical permits, and a full range of permitting andinspections services in the Facility Permit Program (FPP).

The services provided under the Commercial Inspections Program ensurecompliance with the State's structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical codes,as well as the City's Sign, Planning, Zoning, and Site Development codes. TheCommercial Inspections Program resides in the bureau’s Inspections Division,which also includes Combination Inspections and the Enforcement Program.


The Commercial Inspections Program supports the Citywide goal to protect andenhance the natural and built environment. The Commercial Inspections Programalso works together with both the Portland Fire Bureau and County HealthDivision to provide a safe and healthy work and living environment.

Performance The number of commercial inspections is projected to increase from 38,275 in FY2011-12 to 43,000 in FY 2012-13, then remain the same in FY 2013-14. Commercialinspectors average 13 inspections per day, a slight increase from FY 2011-12. Thisnumber is projected to remain constant in FY 2013-14. The percentage ofinspections made within 24 hours of request is projected to remain constant at 95%in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 (it will increase to 98% if Decision Package DP_01 isapproved).


Service Level Improvements

Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 2.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in Commercial Inspections.Approval of this package will enable the program to meet its goal of completing98% of inspections within 24 hours of request. Currently, only 95% of inspectionsmeet this goal. This improvement will be of great value to bureau customers, wholose time and money when inspections cannot be performed in a timely manner.Approval of this package will also support improved service levels, such as limitedrestoration of field appointments and improved ability to respond to phone andemail messages in a more timely manner.

Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System Upgrade and Inspection LimitationProgram

In early December 2012, BDS implemented an upgraded Interactive Voice Response(IVR) system. IVR is a telephone-based system used by bureau customers andemployees to schedule permit inspections and post and review inspection results.The system upgrade provides enhanced functionality, including support for theInspection Limitation program and the ability to pay certain fees by phone.



Inspection Limitation became effective January 22, 2013 for permits issued on orafter that date. The program limits the number of inspections that can be scheduledon building and site development permits, based on the valuation of the permittedwork. Inspection Limitation provides a fair way for the bureau to charge customersfor the services that they use, reducing the degree to which efficient customers aresubsidizing customers who have numerous correction notices and need extrainspections. The number of inspections allotted to various permit types is basedon historical average numbers of inspections associated with those permits.Additional inspections (if needed) can be purchased directly through the IVRsystem, alleviating the need for customers to visit the Development ServicesCenter. This program enables the bureau to equitably control costs and provide anappropriate level of service, particularly for lower-valuation projects.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Commercial Inspections 3,271,923 3,505,106 3,658,054 3,973,856 4,218,122Total Expenditures 3,271,923 3,505,106 3,658,054 3,973,856 4,218,122

Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EffectivenessNumber of inspections per day, per inspector 15.84 12.26 13.00 13.00 13.00Percent of inspections made within 24 hours of request 92% 95% 95% 95% 98%

Workload Commercial inspections 47,076 38,275 43,000 43,000 44,000



Site Development Site DevelopmentDescription The Site Development Program includes plan review for geo-technical, flood plain,

grading, private street, and site preparation issues, as well as erosion controlrequirements on private property. Staff reviews all applicable land use cases,identifying any land suitability issues and conditions. Field staff performs allrelated inspections, including those required by the Trees and Landscapingrequirements for Titles 10 and 33 and all required erosion control measures.

The Environmental Soils subprogram works with property owners who havesubsurface sanitary systems in need of repair, replacement, or decommissioning asthe City provides public sanitary systems for their use. The City Sanitarian islocated in this subprogram.


The Site Development program supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhancethe natural and built environment.

Performance The number of working days from site development plan submittal to the firstreview is projected to improve from 9.8 days in FY 2011-12 to 8.1 days in FY 2012-13, then to return to 9.0 days in FY 2013-14. The number of site development planreviews performed is projected to increase from 1,554 in FY 2011-12 to 1,600 in FY2012-13 and further to 1,675 in FY 2013-14.



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 1.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in the Site DevelopmentProgram. This package will shorten plan review timelines for commercial projectsfrom the current review 22 - 24 days down to 20 days. The addition will also allowfor more in-depth land use responses.


In early December 2012, BDS implemented an upgraded Interactive Voice Response(IVR) system. IVR is a telephone-based system used by bureau customers andemployees to schedule permit inspections and post and review inspection results.The upgraded system provides enhanced functionality, including support for theInspection Limitation program and the ability to pay certain fees by phone.

Inspection Limitation became effective January 22, 2013 for permits issued on orafter that date. The program limits the number of inspections that can be scheduledon building and site development permits, based on the valuation of the permittedwork. Inspection Limitation provides a fair way for the bureau to charge customersfor the services that they use, reducing the degree to which efficient customers aresubsidizing customers who have numerous correction notices and need extrainspections. The number of inspections allotted to various permit types is basedon historical average numbers of inspections associated with those permits.Additional inspections (if needed) can be purchased directly through the IVRsystem, alleviating the need for customers to visit the Development ServicesCenter. This program enables the bureau to equitably control costs and provide anappropriate level of service, particularly for lower-valuation projects.




FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Site Development 1,273,122 1,427,449 730,466 774,968 916,622Total Expenditures 1,273,122 1,427,449 730,466 774,968 916,622

Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EffectivenessAverage number of working days to first review 12.75 9.77 8.10 9.00 9.00

Workload Site development plan reviews 1,239 1,554 1,600 1,675 1,675Site Development Permit Inspections 291 213 160 160 160Site Development Land Use Cases Reviews 545 643 560 560 560Sanitation Permits & Evaluations Issued 387 354 380 380 380



Compliance Services Compliance ServicesDescription The Compliance Services Program is composed of three code compliance work

groups: Zoning, Construction, and Noise Code enforcement. These three workgroups primarily respond to constituent complaints, investigate potentialviolations, and work with property owners, businesses, and tenants to resolvecompliance issues at the lowest level possible.

The Compliance Services and Neighborhood Inspections programs togethercomprise the bureau's Enforcement Program. The combined section includesZoning Compliance, Noise Control, Work without Permit, Dangerous Buildings,Signs & A-Boards, Nuisance, Housing, Derelict Buildings, Exterior MaintenanceRequirements on non-Residential Structures, and Chapter 13/SystematicInspections. For budgeting purposes, the Neighborhood Inspections Program isstill shown as a separate program.


Compliance Services supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhance the naturaland built environment.

Performance The bureau projects that the total number of zoning code violation cases,inspections, and letters will increase slightly from 3,770 in FY 2012-13 to 3,800 in FY2013-14 (the number will increase to 4,375 if BDS's General Fund related to DecisionPackages are approved). The number of properties to be assessed codeenforcement fees is projected to increase from 290 in FY 2012-13 to 360 in FY 2013-14



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 1.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in Compliance Services.Approval of this package will enable the program to provide more timely andeffective response to complaints of zoning and noise code violations, improvingneighborhood livability. The program’s goal is to investigate all complaints withinfive business days. Currently, staff can respond to only higher-priority complaints,and less than 20% of those are investigated within five business days. Adding thisposition will enable staff to:

investigate all high priority complaints within five business days; and investigate lower-priority complaints.

Impact of 10% General Fund Cut

Compliance Services receives a significant portion of its funding for the NoiseControl Office from the City’s General Fund. In order to meet the City’srequirement to submit a 90% budget for General Fund-supported programs,funding for 0.25 FTE in the Noise Control Office is removed from the bureau’s basebudget. The Noise Control Office is already understaffed (only 2.0 FTE) and isunable to meet its goal of investigating noise complaints within five business days;this additional 0.25 FTE cut will further limit the ability to investigate and followup on noise complaints, negatively impacting neighborhood livability. Therefore,Decision Package DP_06 requests the restoration of this funding.




FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Compliance Services 14,444 14,207 1,045,278 1,026,623 1,173,497Total Expenditures 14,444 14,207 1,045,278 1,026,623 1,173,497

Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

Workload Enforcement cases prepared and presented to code hearings officer

2 4 4 4 4

Zoning code violation statistics (cases, inspections, and letters) 2,501 3,593 3,770 3,800 4,375Home occupation permits 132 123 110 110 110Number of properties assessed code enforcement fees 206 276 290 360 360Noise violation inspections 111 342 300 150 300Noise variances processed 485 644 560 490 490Noise code violation cases 607 828 800 690 690



Development Services Development ServicesDescription The Development Services Program manages the flow of the public permitting

process from early assistance to maintaining the records for completed projects.Trade Permit staff reviewed and issued just over 33,000 plumbing, electrical,mechanical, and sign permits in FY 2011-12. Permitting Services staff performedintakes for 8,000 building permit applications in FY 2011-12, while assigningreviewers, tracking reviews, and issuing permits. Process Managers guidecustomers with large and complex projects through the permitting process; higher-level assistance for complex projects can be provided through the Major ProjectsGroup.


The Development Services Program supports the Citywide goal to protect andenhance the natural and built environment.

Performance The percentage of building permits issued over-the-counter (on the same day aspermit intake) is projected to increase from 58% in FY 2011-12 to 65% in FY 2012-13and FY 2013-14. Total building permits issued (commercial and residentialcombined) is projected to increase from 8,017 in FY 2011-12 to 8,500 in FY 2012-13and to 8,750 in FY 2013-14. In FY 2011-12, 82% of permit pre-issuance checks werecompleted within 2 working days of last review approval; that number is projectedto remain the same in FY 2012-13 and decrease slightly to 80% FY 2013-14 (ifDecision Package DP_01 is approved, the number will increase to 85%). .



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 2.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in the Development ServicesProgram. Approval of this package will improve the ability to provide services toall customers in the Development Services Center (DSC). Currently, an average ofthree customers is turned away each day from the DSC because of limited staffinglevels and availability. Adding these positions will substantially eliminate the needto turn customers away, which will be of great value to bureau customers.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Development Services 534,825 477,393 3,049,447 3,624,117 3,855,825Total Expenditures 534,825 477,393 3,049,447 3,624,117 3,855,825



Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EfficiencyPercent of building permits issued over the counter the same day as intake

61% 58% 65% 65% 65%

Pre-issuance checks completed within two working days of last review approval

71.0% 82.0% 82.0% 80.0% 85.0%

Workload Building permits - commercial 3,060 3,456 3,700 3,800 3,800Building permits - residential 4,430 4,561 4,800 4,950 4,950Total building permits (commercial and residential) 7,490 8,017 8,500 8,750 8,750Electrical permits 14,283 14,121 14,500 14,500 14,500Mechanical permits 10,164 9,188 10,000 10,000 10,000Plumbing permits 8,984 8,895 9,200 9,200 9,200Sign permits 795 811 700 800 800Number of construction code violation cases 420 350 419 419Percentage of pre-issuance checks completed within four working days of last review approval

97.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%



Combination Inspections Combination InspectionsDescription The Combination Inspections Program ensures that new and remodeled one and

two family residences meet building safety codes and requirements. In thisprogram, the goal is for all inspectors to obtain State of Oregon certification in allfour specialties: structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. This approachsaves contractors time and money in scheduling inspections and allows the City toperform more inspections with fewer staff. Cost savings have been realizedthrough this program, and other jurisdictions have recognized the quality ofPortland's training program and are using it as a model. The CombinationInspections Program resides in the bureau's Inspections Division, which alsoincludes Commercial Inspections, the Enforcement Program, and the FacilityPermit Program.


Combination Inspections supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhance thenatural and built environment.

Performance Historically, the percentage of inspections made within 24 hours of request hasbeen from 96-99%. Since FY 2009-10 the percentage has been lower due to impactsfrom the recession. The percentage is projected to decrease from 93% in FY 2011-12to 80% in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 (it will increase to 98% if Decision PackageDP_01 is approved). 71,220 inspections were performed in FY 2011-12; this numberis projected to increase significantly to 90,000 in FY 2012-13, and to remain at thatlevel in FY 2013-14 (it will increase to 95,000 if Decision Package DP_01 isapproved). The average number of inspections per inspector per day is projected toincrease from 21.6 in FY 2011-12 to 26 in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14.



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 2.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in Combination Inspections.Approval of this package will enable the program to make improvements towardits goal of completing 98% of inspections within 24 hours of request. Currently,only 80% of inspections meet this goal. The program has struggled to meet anincreased workload with diminished staff capacity since the recession, andfrequently has to reschedule inspections. The service level improvement will be ofgreat value to bureau customers, who lose time and money when inspectionscannot be performed in a timely manner. Service levels will also indirectly beimproved by the ability to provide a more thorough inspection, increased focus onstaff training, restoration of limited capacity for field appointments, and increasedability for staff to perform permit related research.


In early December 2012, BDS implemented an upgraded Interactive Voice Response(IVR) system. IVR is a telephone-based system used by bureau customers andemployees to schedule permit inspections and post and review inspection results.The upgraded system provides enhanced functionality, including support for theInspection Limitation program and the ability to pay certain fees by phone.



Inspection Limitation became effective January 22, 2013 for permits issued on orafter that date. The program limits the number of inspections that can be scheduledon building and site development permits, based on the valuation of the permittedwork. Inspection Limitation provides a fair way for the bureau to charge customersfor the services that they use, reducing the degree to which efficient customers aresubsidizing customers who have numerous correction notices and need extrainspections. The number of inspections allotted to various permit types is based onhistorical average numbers of inspections associated with those permits.Additional inspections (if needed) can be purchased directly through the IVRsystem, alleviating the need for customers to visit the Development ServicesCenter. This program enables the bureau to equitably control costs and provide anappropriate level of service, particularly for lower-valuation projects.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Combination Inspections 2,500,208 2,833,040 3,179,738 3,308,869 3,640,561Total Expenditures 2,500,208 2,833,040 3,179,738 3,308,869 3,640,561

Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EffectivenessNumber of inspections per day, per inspector 24.52 21.56 26.00 26.00 26.00Percent of inspections made within 24 hours of request 80.0% 93.0% 80.0% 80.0% 98.0%

EfficiencyNumber of inspection trips reduced due to multi-certified inspectors

16,145 15,994 16,000 16,000 16,000

Workload Residential inspections 77,018 71,220 90,000 90,000 95,000



Land Use Services Land Use ServicesDescription The Land Use Services Program (LUS) is responsible for implementing the goals

and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including neighborhood andcommunity plans. This is accomplished through administration of the PortlandZoning Code (Title 33 of the City Code), which includes the City's Land DivisionCode, Metro's Functional Plan, the Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule, andOregon State Land Use Goals. LUS reviews development proposals for compliancewith the Zoning Code (as part of the building permit process); provides publicinformation regarding zoning regulations; performs discretionary reviews ofdevelopment proposals (the land use review process); and supports legally-mandated record-keeping and public notices.


LUS supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhance the natural and builtenvironment.

Performance The number of land use reviews and final plat applications is projected to increasefrom 528 in FY 2011-12 to 560 in FY 2012-13 and further to 600 in FY 2013-14. Thenumber of zoning plan checks is projected to decrease slightly from 4,591 in FY2011-12 to 4,400 in FY 2012-13, then to increase slightly to 4,500 in FY 2013-14.



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 2.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in Land Use Services.Approval of this package will enable the program to meet its goal of performingcompleteness checks for most types of Land Use Review applications within 21days; currently it takes 26 days to perform most completeness checks. Thisimprovement will allow development to proceed in a more timely manner. Theadded staff will also help ensure quality control, mentoring of staff, and improveproblem-solving with development review projects, allowing development toproceed in a more timely manner.


In addition to land use fees, LUS receives a significant portion of its funding fromthe City’s General Fund. In order to meet the City’s requirement to submit a 90%budget for General Fund-supported programs, funding for 1.0 FTE in LUS isremoved from the bureau’s base budget. This reduction in staffing will result in theloss of a Senior Planner Environmental Specialty position that provides theexpertise needed to administer specific chapters of the Zoning Code related toenvironmental resource protection, such as Environmental Overlay Zones,Greenway Overlay Zones, and the Columbia South Shore Plan District. Thisexpertise is needed to ensure the City's environmental regulations are met by doingplan and land use reviews of construction drawings for sites in environmentallysensitive areas, including projects such as the Columbia River Crossing, theSellwood Bridge, and the Portland-Milwaukie light rail line. Therefore, DecisionPackage DP_05 requests the restoration of the funding for this position.



Request for Reinstatement of One-Time General Fund Support for CitywideTree Project

In support of the implementation of the Citywide Tree Project, in FY 2011-12 and FY2012-13 City Council approved one-time General Fund support for a ProgramCoordinator position in BDS' budget. The position has performed tasks that arecritical to enabling BDS and the Parks Bureau to administer the new code,including process mapping; working out areas of responsibility for the twobureaus; developing tools that will be used to train staff; completion of a package ofhousekeeping amendments to the new code; coordination with programmers onincorporating tree permitting and code requirements into the permit databasesystem (underway); coordination of website design. Additional work remains indeveloping website content, forms, and brochures; developing internal andexternal training materials; and doing public outreach.

In order to implement the Tree Code fully, BDS would need an additional 5.5 newpositions, including planners, inspectors, and technicians.

However, it is anticipated that the effective date of the Tree Code (July 1, 2013) willbe postponed to FY 2014-15 or later, given the cost of the program to BDS and theParks Bureau. If that happens, the City Council may want to move forward withthe portions of the Tree Code with incidental cost impacts. Therefore, the bureau isrequesting the reinstatement of $57,456 in one-time General Fund monies tosupport 0.5 FTE for this position. The extension of this position will be needed toproduce a code amendment package to extract those parts of the code from thelarger package, so that they will mesh with existing code. Also, the position isneeded to do outreach and make changes to training materials, forms, brochures,and website information. If the entirety of the tree project is postponed, theextension of this position is not needed.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Land Use Services 2,994,831 3,578,243 3,844,547 4,140,435 4,555,929Total Expenditures 2,994,831 3,578,243 3,844,547 4,140,435 4,555,929

Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

Workload Land Use Review and Final Plat Applications 560 528 560 600 600Zoning plan checks processed or in process 4,286 4,591 4,400 4,500 4,500



Neighborhood Inspections Neighborhood InspectionsDescription The Neighborhood Inspections Program protects the health, safety, and welfare of

Portland residents, prevents deterioration of existing housing, and contributes toneighborhood livability by enforcing minimum standards for residential structuresand exterior maintenance requirements on non-residential properties, outdoorareas, and adjacent rights-of-way.

The Compliance Services and Neighborhood Inspections programs togethercomprise the bureau's Enforcement Program. The combined section includesZoning Compliance, Noise Control, Work without Permit, Dangerous Buildings,Signs & A-Boards, Nuisance, Housing, Derelict Buildings, and Chapter 13/Systematic Inspections. For budgeting purposes, Neighborhood Inspections is stillshown as a separate program.


The Neighborhood Inspections Program supports the Citywide goals to protectand enhance the natural and built environment and to maintain and improveneighborhood livability.

Performance The number of housing units brought up to code is projected to decrease from 1,983in FY 2011-12 to 1,740 in FY 2012-13. This number is projected to fall precipitouslyto 250 in FY 2013-14 if the bureau’s Decision Packages related to General Fundsupport are not approved, due to reduced staff; if the packages are approved, thenumber is projected to remain at 1,740. The number of nuisance properties cleanedup is projected to increase from 2,199 in FY 2011-12 to 2,635 in FY 2012-13, Thenumber will remain there in FY 2013-14 if the bureau’s Decision Packages related toGeneral Fund support are approved; if not, it will drop slightly to 2,600.



Neighborhood Inspections receives a significant portion of its funding from theCitys General Fund. In order to meet the Citys requirement to submit a 90% budgetfor General Fund-supported programs, $36,018 in funding for nuisance abatementservices is removed from the bureaus base budget. The programs budget fornuisance abatement services has been reduced significantly in recent years, leavingstaff able to respond to only the most serious types of nuisance complaintsinvolving health and sanitation issues. The loss of these additional funds wouldfurther reduce the number of nuisance abatements that could be completed in FY2013-14, negatively impacting neighborhood livability. Therefore, DecisionPackage DP_08 requests the restoration of this funding.



Requests for Reinstatement of One-Time General Fund Support for CriticalNeighborhood Services

FY 2012-13, Neighborhood Inspections received three separate one-time GeneralFund appropriations for programs that provide services critical to neighborhoodlivability. BDS is requesting that these one-time funds be reinstated in FY 2013-14,including:

Improve Neighborhood Inspection Program (DP_02) - This request is for$262,116 in one-time General Fund support for three Housing Inspectors. Thesepositions will allow the program to respond to all housing complaintsinvolving exterior maintenance issues on owner-occupied and nonresidentialproperties (to prevent neighborhood deterioration), significantly increaseresponsiveness to fire/life/safety and health/sanitation issues for occupiedresidential rentals, and restore case management duties to facilitate more timelycompliance for violations impacting the community at large.

Enhanced Rental Inspection Program (DP_03) This program identifies rentalproperty owners who are chronically out of compliance with City housingmaintenance codes and unwilling to correct violations in a timely manner. Theprogram advances City equity goals by motivating landlords to maintain safe,healthy rental housing and offering protection to vulnerable tenants who mightfear retaliation by eviction for reporting substandard housing conditions. Thisrequest is for $174,744 in one-time General Fund support for two HousingInspector positions to implement the program.

Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement Program (EDPEP) (DP_04)-EDPEP focuses on un-maintained properties (often caused by abandonmentdue to foreclosures) with chronic nuisance and housing conditions that createrisks of fire, public health hazards, and encourage criminal activity such astrespass, vandalism, graffiti, drug use and sale, prostitution, and additionalserious public safety threats. EDPEP enforces the City's Property MaintenanceRegulations and uses the abatement, vacation, and demolition of property as akey tool. EDPEP provides a vital city service to relieve pressure on the PoliceBureau and other City agencies. This request is for $102,348 in one-timeGeneral Fund support for one Senior Housing Inspector to implement theprogram.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Neighborhood Inspections 942,388 1,453,094 1,458,780 1,059,194 1,634,420Total Expenditures 942,388 1,453,094 1,458,780 1,059,194 1,634,420



Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EffectivenessNumber of housing units brought up to code as a result of Neighborhood Inspection Division efforts (incudes enchanced inspection pilot beginning in 2010-11)

1,249 1,983 1,740 250 1,740

Number of properties cleaned up 2,904 2,199 2,635 2,600 2,635Code Enforcement fee waivers granted 159 301 210 30 210

Workload Nuisance inspections 5,210 7,360 8,470 8,685 8,765Housing/derelict buildings inspections 2,857 4,326 2,790 400 2,790Housing intakes 1,323 1,637 1,633 235 1,635Nuisance intakes 4,400 4,343 4,299 4,170 4,170Code Enforcement fee waiver requests 159 301 210 30 210Number of Housing Units Inspected (includes enhanced inspection pilot beginning in 2010-11)

2,398 3,564 3,430 490 3,430



Plan Review Plan ReviewDescription The Plan Review Program processes and approves building and mechanical

permits for residential and commercial structures. Plans Examiners reviewbuilding projects and provide general information on life safety, energyconservation, accessibility, and related building requirements. Staff helps permitapplicants understand building codes and the review process in order tosuccessfully obtain permits for their projects. Staff in the Engineering Plan ReviewSection reviews structural and mechanical plans to determine compliance withengineering requirements of the Oregon Structural and Mechanical Specialty Code.These reviews are required for any projects that have engineering components.

Goals The Plan Review Program supports the Citywide goal to protect and enhance thenatural and built environment.

Performance Building plan review is performed by staff from BDS and as many as five other Citybureaus. In FY 2011-12, the City as a whole met its plan review turnaround goalsfor 87% of residential plans and 73% of commercial plans. The bureau projects thatthe City will meet its turnaround goals for 87% of residential plans and 70% ofcommercial plans in FY 2012-13 and for 85% of residential plans and 70% ofcommercial plans in FY 2013-14.



Decision Package DP_01 includes the request of 3.0 FTE (funded by bureaurevenues) to address significant gaps in service levels in the Plan Review Program.Approval of this package will enable staff to maintain or improve turnaround timesfor reviews of commercial building plans. Currently, all types of plans arereviewed within 24 days; with the added staff, plans for new construction andadditions will have their first reviews completed within 22 days, while plans foralterations will have their first reviews completed within 15 days. This servicelevel improvement will be of great value to bureau customers, who look forpredictability in review times as they go through the permitting process.

Because plans for development are reviewed by other bureaus, such asTransportation, Water, and Environmental Services, response to customers is highlydependent on all these bureaus having adequate staff that reviews plans. Withoutthese bureaus adding resources, overall turnaround times on issuing permits willnot improve. And any reduction in current staffing levels will also impact servicelevels negatively.


FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP



Plan Review 4,287,038 4,894,219 2,690,094 3,003,200 3,369,050Total Expenditures 4,287,038 4,894,219 2,690,094 3,003,200 3,369,050



Performance Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Yr End Est.FY 2012-13

BaseFY 2013-14

TargetFY 2013-14

EffectivenessPercent of residential plans reviewed by all bureaus within scheduled end dates

87% 87% 87% 85% 85%

Percent of commercial plans reviewed by all bureaus within scheduled end dates

74% 73% 70% 70% 70%



Performance Measures

Commercial Inspections

The number of commercial inspections isprojected to increase in FY 2013-14, reflectinga recovery in local construction activity.

Num

ber o

f Ins

pect

ions

Residential Inspections

Residential inspections are expected toincrease in FY 2013-14 after projectedsignificant increase in FY 2012-13.

Num

ber o

f Ins

pect

ions

Land Use Review and Final Plat Applications

The number of land use applicationsincreased in FY 2012-13 and is expected toincrease in FY 2013-14.

Num

ber o

f Lan

d U

se R

evie

ws



Total Commerical & Residential Building Permits

The number of building permits is expectedto continue increase in FY 2013-14, reflectinga recovery in local construction activity.

Num

ber o

f Bui

ldin

g Pe

rmits


Summary of Bureau Budget Bureau of Development ServicesCommunity Development Service Area

Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13 Requested No DP


ResourcesExternal RevenuesLicenses & Permits 16,275,532 21,932,150 19,748,569 22,854,164 22,854,164Charges for Services 6,008,539 8,293,020 7,256,665 9,057,248 9,057,248Intergovernmental 4,049 90,091 0 0 0Bond & Note 1,500,000 0 3,026,079 1,802,343 1,802,343Miscellaneous 1,896,427 2,277,493 1,707,875 2,229,973 2,229,973

Total External Revenues 25,684,547 32,592,754 31,739,188 35,943,728 35,943,728Internal RevenuesFund Transfers - Revenue 1,907,356 3,031,800 2,310,211 1,561,034 2,331,146Interagency Revenue 1,069,435 842,146 1,004,512 887,125 887,125

Total Internal Revenues 2,976,791 3,873,946 3,314,723 2,448,159 3,218,271Beginning Fund Balance 2,012,806 3,697,636 6,144,097 13,177,485 13,177,485

Total Resources $30,674,144 $40,164,336 $41,198,008 $51,569,372 $52,339,484

RequirementsBureau ExpendituresPersonnel Services 15,727,572 18,363,443 20,805,427 22,167,754 24,523,330External Materials and Services 639,175 971,448 3,175,645 4,083,917 4,189,935Internal Materials and Services 6,062,673 6,133,244 6,398,195 6,659,612 7,079,390Capital Outlay 7,500 58,610 65,000 0 0

Total Bureau Expenditures 22,436,920 25,526,745 30,444,267 32,911,283 35,792,655Fund ExpendituresDebt Service 2,182,106 2,245,529 887,336 1,009,670 1,009,670Contingency 0 0 5,588,627 11,700,529 9,589,269Fund Transfers - Expense 2,357,482 2,172,972 835,401 947,890 947,890

Total Fund Expenditures 4,539,588 4,418,501 7,311,364 13,658,089 11,546,829Ending Fund Balance 3,697,636 10,219,090 3,442,377 5,000,000 5,000,000

Total Requirements $30,674,144 $40,164,336 $41,198,008 $51,569,372 $52,339,484ProgramsAdministration & Support 6,618,141 7,343,988 10,787,863 12,000,021 12,428,629Combination Inspections 2,500,208 2,833,040 3,179,738 3,308,869 3,640,561Plan Review 4,287,038 4,894,219 2,690,094 3,003,200 3,369,050Development Services 534,825 477,393 3,049,447 3,624,117 3,855,825Land Use Services 2,994,831 3,578,243 3,844,547 4,140,435 4,555,929Compliance Services 14,444 14,207 1,045,278 1,026,623 1,173,497Legal Services 0 6 0 0 0Neighborhood Inspections 942,388 1,453,094 1,458,780 1,059,194 1,634,420Commercial Inspections 3,271,923 3,505,106 3,658,054 3,973,856 4,218,122Site Development 1,273,122 1,427,449 730,466 774,968 916,622

Total Programs 22,436,920 $25,526,745 $30,444,267 $32,911,283 $35,792,655


Bureau of Development Services CIP SummaryCommunity Development Service Area

This table summarizes project expenses by capital programs.

Bureau Capital Program Revised Requested Capital Plan Project Prior Years FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 5-Year Total

Special Projects Information Technology

Advancement Project0 3,680,172 4,697,127 3,541,147 0 0 0 8,238,274

Total Special Projects 0 3,680,172 4,697,127 3,541,147 0 0 0 8,238,274Total Requirements 0 3,680,172 4,697,127 3,541,147 0 0 0 8,238,274


FTE Summary Bureau of Development ServicesCommunity Development Service Area

Salary Range Revised



Class Title Minimum Maximum No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount30000062 Accountant I 39,312 56,514 1.00 54,539 1.00 56,520 1.00 56,52030000434 Administrative Assistant 45,074 69,451 1.00 73,128 1.00 75,336 1.00 75,33630000433 Administrative Specialist, Sr 41,974 64,626 4.00 232,152 4.00 241,364 5.00 308,12030000173 Building Inspector II 64,605 74,755 4.00 289,440 4.00 299,040 5.00 373,80030000174 Building Inspector, Sr 72,530 83,928 11.00 884,382 11.00 919,260 11.00 919,26030000442 Business Operations Manager, Sr 93,288 130,291 1.00 130,656 1.00 134,592 1.00 134,59230000448 Business Systems Analyst 57,450 76,586 3.00 218,256 3.00 227,114 3.00 227,11430000447 Business Systems Analyst, Assistant 45,074 69,451 1.00 64,848 1.00 67,032 1.00 67,03230000449 Business Systems Analyst, Sr 63,378 84,635 1.00 84,876 1.00 87,432 1.00 87,43230000184 Code Specialist II 43,722 57,886 5.00 253,128 4.75 252,417 6.00 324,77730000186 Code Specialist III 47,133 61,797 1.00 58,390 1.00 61,800 1.00 61,80030000170 Combination Inspector 68,910 79,810 18.00 1,369,512 18.00 1,414,824 19.00 1,494,63630000492 Community Outreach & Informtn Rep 54,725 72,925 1.00 73,128 1.00 75,336 1.00 75,33630000426 Development Services Director 115,398 165,381 1.00 165,840 1.00 170,832 1.00 170,83230000335 Development Services Project Coord 63,606 81,245 4.00 294,316 4.00 311,008 5.00 392,24830000332 Development Services Technician I 39,083 52,354 2.00 101,376 2.00 104,712 2.00 104,71230000333 Development Services Technician II 52,354 66,810 15.00 841,678 15.00 894,095 16.00 960,91130000334 Development Services Technician III 63,606 81,245 2.00 149,880 2.00 159,618 3.00 240,85830000836 Development Supervisor II 69,826 93,829 1.00 94,092 1.00 96,924 1.00 96,92430000168 Electrical Inspector 64,605 74,755 5.00 351,984 5.00 363,648 5.00 363,64830000169 Electrical Inspector, Sr 72,530 83,928 5.00 406,200 5.00 419,640 5.00 419,64030000680 Engineer, Sr 81,182 108,243 1.00 107,856 1.00 111,757 1.00 111,75730000681 Engineer, Supervising 87,277 116,355 1.00 116,676 1.00 120,192 1.00 120,19230000367 Engineer-Geotechnical 83,616 101,629 2.00 184,080 2.00 194,578 3.00 296,20630000368 Engineer-Mechanical 83,616 101,629 1.00 95,252 1.00 101,628 1.00 101,62830000369 Engineer-Structural 83,616 101,629 5.00 487,236 5.00 506,524 6.00 608,15230000325 Engineering Technician II 52,354 66,810 1.00 50,688 1.00 53,847 1.00 53,84730000567 Financial Analyst 57,450 76,586 1.00 76,800 1.00 79,116 1.00 79,11630000569 Financial Analyst, Principal 75,109 100,048 1.00 100,332 1.00 103,344 1.00 103,34430000171 Housing Inspector 46,426 58,739 1.00 44,952 1.00 46,428 1.00 46,42830000172 Housing Inspector, Sr 60,965 70,554 1.00 68,304 1.00 70,560 1.00 70,56030000736 Inspection Manager 86,840 117,686 2.00 236,040 2.00 243,144 2.00 243,14430000735 Inspection Supervisor 75,109 100,048 3.00 300,996 3.00 310,032 4.00 413,37630000451 Management Analyst 57,450 76,586 3.00 190,188 3.00 196,419 3.00 196,41930000452 Management Analyst, Sr 63,378 84,635 2.00 169,752 2.00 174,864 2.00 174,86430000450 Management Assistant 45,074 69,451 1.00 69,648 1.00 71,748 1.00 71,74830000737 Noise Control Officer 60,341 80,475 1.00 80,700 1.00 83,136 1.00 83,13630000012 Office Support Specialist II 32,552 46,758 7.00 302,268 7.00 313,140 7.00 313,14030000013 Office Support Specialist III 41,642 55,203 4.00 216,400 4.00 220,800 4.00 220,80030000014 Office Support Specialist, Lead 41,642 55,203 1.00 55,200 1.00 55,200 1.00 55,20030000730 Plan Review Supervisor 75,109 100,048 1.00 100,332 1.00 103,344 1.00 103,34430000377 Planner I, City-Land Use 55,682 64,230 3.00 186,516 3.00 192,708 3.00 192,70830000381 Planner I, City-Urban Design 55,682 64,230 1.00 62,172 1.00 64,236 1.00 64,23630000385 Planner II. City-Land Use 61,214 70,720 7.00 479,136 7.00 495,012 8.00 565,72830000389 Planner II. City-Urban Design 61,214 70,720 5.00 333,048 5.00 347,100 5.00 347,10030000375 Planner, Associate 50,502 58,448 1.00 56,580 1.00 58,452 1.00 58,45230000725 Planner, Principal 86,840 117,686 1.00 118,020 1.00 121,572 1.00 121,57230000392 Planner, Sr City-Environmental 63,606 81,245 1.00 78,648 0.00 0 1.00 81,24030000393 Planner, Sr City-Land Use 63,606 81,245 6.00 471,888 6.00 487,440 6.00 487,44030000397 Planner, Sr City-Urban Design 63,606 81,245 2.00 157,296 2.00 162,480 2.00 162,480


Bureau of Development Services FTE SummaryCommunity Development Service Area

30000724 Planner, Supervising 75,109 100,048 3.00 300,996 3.00 310,032 4.00 413,37630000231 Plans Examiner, Commercial 67,621 78,270 10.00 757,800 10.00 782,760 12.00 939,31230000232 Plans Examiner, Sr 73,486 85,072 2.00 164,688 2.00 170,136 2.00 170,13630000164 Plumbing Inspector 64,605 74,755 3.00 217,080 3.00 224,280 3.00 224,28030000165 Plumbing Inspector, Sr 72,530 83,928 3.00 232,704 3.00 240,384 3.00 240,38430000466 Program Manager, Sr 75,109 100,048 2.00 200,664 2.00 206,688 2.00 206,68830000463 Program Specialist 54,725 72,925 3.00 214,296 3.00 222,437 3.00 222,43730000462 Program Specialist, Assistant 45,074 69,451 1.00 69,648 1.00 71,748 1.00 71,74830000179 Site Development Inspector II 64,605 74,755 1.00 72,360 1.00 74,760 1.00 74,760

TOTAL FULL-TIME POSITIONS 182.00 13,419,041 180.75 13,824,570 196.00 15,066,00630000385 Planner II. City-Land Use 61,214 70,720 1.80 123,216 1.80 127,296 1.80 127,29630000393 Planner, Sr City-Land Use 63,606 81,245 0.90 70,776 0.90 73,116 0.90 73,11630000231 Plans Examiner, Commercial 67,621 78,270 0.90 58,908 0.90 65,466 0.90 65,466

TOTAL PART-TIME POSITIONS 3.60 252,900 3.60 265,878 3.60 265,87830000448 Business Systems Analyst 57,450 76,586 1.00 57,612 1.00 61,370 1.00 61,37030000493 Community Outreach & Informtn Rep, Sr 60,341 80,475 1.00 80,700 1.00 83,136 1.00 83,13630000332 Development Services Technician I 39,083 52,354 2.83 146,952 3.00 157,068 3.00 157,06830000333 Development Services Technician II 52,354 66,810 1.83 92,928 2.00 108,759 2.00 108,75930000334 Development Services Technician III 63,606 81,245 1.00 80,292 1.00 80,292 1.00 80,29230000171 Housing Inspector 46,426 58,739 5.00 274,386 0.00 0 5.00 293,70030000172 Housing Inspector, Sr 60,965 70,554 1.00 68,304 0.00 0 1.00 70,56030000451 Management Analyst 57,450 76,586 0.90 69,120 0.90 71,208 0.90 71,20830000452 Management Analyst, Sr 63,378 84,635 1.00 84,876 1.00 87,432 1.00 87,43230000012 Office Support Specialist II 32,552 46,758 2.58 131,595 2.50 129,942 2.50 129,94230000381 Planner I, City-Urban Design 55,682 64,230 0.83 46,030 1.00 59,602 1.00 59,60230000384 Planner II. City-Environmental 61,214 70,720 0.67 45,632 1.00 70,716 1.00 70,71630000231 Plans Examiner, Commercial 67,621 78,270 1.00 78,276 1.00 78,276 1.00 78,27630000464 Program Coordinator 60,341 80,475 1.00 70,608 0.17 12,122 0.67 53,690

TOTAL LIMITED TERM POSITIONS 21.65 1,327,311 15.57 999,923 22.07 1,405,751GRAND TOTAL 207.25 14,999,252 199.92 15,090,371 221.67 16,737,635

Salary Range Revised



Class Title Minimum Maximum No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount


Fund Summary Development Services FundCommunity Development Service Area

Community Development Service Area Development Services Fund

Fund Overview

The Development Services Fund accounts for all revenues and expenditures relatedto activities and services provided by the Bureau of Development Services (BDS).

Managing Agency Bureau of Development Services

Significant Changes from Prior Year

Steadily ImprovingConstructionActivity

Construction activity in the Portland metropolitan area is expected to experiencemoderate but steady growth over the next several years. Beginning in FY 2013-14,new positions are proposed to be gradually added to BDS to meet the anticipatedincrease in workload.

Fee Changes The FY 2013-14 Requested Budget includes fee increases for the followingprograms in FY 2013-14: Plumbing (5%), Environmental Soils (10%), Signs (2.5%),Noise (5%), Neighborhood Inspections (5%), and Land Use Services (5%). No (zero)fee increases are proposed for the following programs: Building, Mechanical,Electrical, Zoning Enforcement, and Facilities Permit Program. A fee decrease of 5percent is proposed for the Site Development Program.

Actual

FY 2010-11 Actual

FY 2011-12 Revised

FY 2012-13

Requested No DP


ProposedFY 2013-14

ResourcesLicenses & Permits 16,275,532 21,932,150 19,748,569 22,854,164 22,854,164Charges for Services 6,008,539 8,293,020 7,256,665 9,057,248 9,057,248Intergovernmental 4,049 4,215 0 0 0Bond & Note 1,500,000 0 3,026,079 1,802,343 1,802,343Miscellaneous 1,896,427 2,277,493 1,707,875 2,229,973 2,229,973

Total External Revenues 25,684,547 32,506,878 31,739,188 35,943,728 35,943,728Fund Transfers - Revenue 1,907,356 3,031,800 2,310,211 1,561,034 2,331,146Interagency Revenue 1,069,435 842,146 1,004,512 887,125 887,125

Total Internal Revenues 2,976,791 3,873,946 3,314,723 2,448,159 3,218,271Beginning Fund Balance 2,012,806 3,711,636 6,144,097 13,177,485 13,177,485

Total Resources 30,674,144 40,092,460 41,198,008 51,569,372 52,339,484Requirements

Personnel Services 15,717,621 18,353,847 20,805,427 22,167,754 24,523,330External Materials and Services 635,126 964,258 3,175,645 4,083,917 4,189,935Internal Materials and Services 6,062,673 6,133,244 6,398,195 6,659,612 7,079,390Capital Outlay 7,500 3,520 65,000 0 0

Total Bureau Expenditures 22,422,920 25,454,869 30,444,267 32,911,283 35,792,655Debt Service 2,182,106 2,245,529 887,336 1,009,670 1,009,670Contingency 0 0 5,588,627 11,700,529 9,589,269Fund Transfers - Expense 2,357,482 2,172,972 835,401 947,890 947,890Total Fund Expenditures 4,539,588 4,418,501 7,311,364 13,658,089 11,546,829Ending Fund Balance 3,711,636 10,219,090 3,442,377 5,000,000 5,000,000

Total Requirements 30,674,144 40,092,460 41,198,008 51,569,372 52,339,484

fetters_m

Text Box

37

Summary of Bureau Budget

RequestedFY 2013-14

BudgetYear-End

FY 2010-11Year-End

FY 2011-12Revised

FY 2012-13RequestedFY 2013-14

Actuals Budget Without DP'sActuals

Bureau of Development ServicesExpenditures

3,442,377 5,000,000 5,000,0003,697,636Unappropriated Fund Balance 10,219,090

20,805,427 22,167,754 24,523,33015,727,572Personnel Services 18,363,443

3,175,645 4,083,917 4,189,935639,175External Materials and Services 971,448

6,398,195 6,659,612 7,079,3906,062,673Internal Materials and Services 6,133,244

65,000 0 07,500Capital Outlay 58,610

887,336 1,009,670 1,009,6702,182,106Debt Service 2,245,529

835,401 947,890 947,8902,357,482Fund Transfers - Expense 2,172,972

5,588,627 11,700,529 9,589,2690Contingency 0

52,339,48451,569,37241,198,00830,674,144Total Expenditures 40,164,336

Resources

6,144,097 13,177,485 13,177,4852,012,806Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance 3,697,636

19,748,569 22,854,164 22,854,16416,275,532Licenses & Permits 21,932,150

7,256,665 9,057,248 9,057,2486,008,539Charges for Services 8,293,020

0 0 04,049Intergovernmental Revenues 90,091

1,004,512 887,125 887,1251,069,435Interagency Revenue 842,146

2,310,211 1,561,034 2,331,1461,907,356Fund Transfers - Revenue 3,031,800

3,026,079 1,802,343 1,802,3431,500,000Bond and Note Proceeds 0

1,707,875 2,229,973 2,229,9731,896,427Miscellaneous Sources 2,277,493

52,339,48451,569,37241,198,00830,674,144Total Resources 40,164,336

fetters_m

Placed Image

Summary of Fund Budget

Year-EndFY 2010-11

Year-EndFY 2011-12

RevisedFY 2012-13

RequestedFY 2013-14

Actuals Budget Without DP'sActualsRequestedFY 2013-14

Budget

Development Services FundExpenditures

Unappropriated Fund Balance 3,442,377 5,000,0003,711,636 10,219,090 5,000,000 0

Personnel Services 20,805,427 22,167,75415,717,621 18,353,847 24,523,330 0

External Materials and Services 3,175,645 4,083,917635,126 964,258 4,189,935 0

Internal Materials and Services 6,398,195 6,659,6126,062,673 6,133,244 7,079,390 0

Capital Outlay 65,000 07,500 3,520 0 0

Debt Service 887,336 1,009,6702,182,106 2,245,529 1,009,670 0

Fund Transfers - Expense 835,401 947,8902,357,482 2,172,972 947,890 0

Contingency 5,588,627 11,700,5290 0 9,589,269 0

Total Expenditures 51,569,37241,198,00830,674,144 40,092,460 52,339,484 0

Resources

Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance 6,144,097 13,177,4852,012,806 3,711,636 13,177,485 0

Licenses & Permits 19,748,569 22,854,16416,275,532 21,932,150 22,854,164 0

Charges for Services 7,256,665 9,057,2486,008,539 8,293,020 9,057,248 0

Intergovernmental Revenues 0 04,049 4,215 0 0

Interagency Revenue 1,004,512 887,1251,069,435 842,146 887,125 0

Fund Transfers - Revenue 2,310,211 1,561,0341,907,356 3,031,800 2,331,146 0

Bond and Note Proceeds 3,026,079 1,802,3431,500,000 0 1,802,343 0

Miscellaneous Sources 1,707,875 2,229,9731,896,427 2,277,493 2,229,973 0

Total Resources 51,569,37241,198,00830,674,144 40,092,460 52,339,484 0

fetters_m

Placed Image

Summary of Program Budgets

RequestedFY 2013-14

BudgetYear-End

FY 2010-11Revised


Budget Without DP'sActualsYear-End

FY 2011-12

Actuals

Bureau of Development ServicesAdministration & Support

10,787,863 12,000,021 12,428,629Administration & Support 6,618,141 7,343,988

12,428,62912,000,02110,787,863Total Administration & Support 6,618,141 7,343,988

Combination Inspections

3,179,738 3,308,869 3,640,561Combination Inspections 2,500,208 2,833,040

3,640,5613,308,8693,179,738Total Combination Inspections 2,500,208 2,833,040

Commercial Inspections

3,658,054 3,973,856 4,218,122Commercial Inspections 3,271,923 3,505,106

4,218,1223,973,8563,658,054Total Commercial Inspections 3,271,923 3,505,106

Compliance Services

1,045,278 1,026,623 1,173,497Compliance Services 14,444 14,207

1,173,4971,026,6231,045,278Total Compliance Services 14,444 14,207

Development Services

3,049,447 3,624,117 3,855,825Development Services 534,825 477,393

3,855,8253,624,1173,049,447Total Development Services 534,825 477,393

Land Use Services

3,844,547 4,140,435 4,555,929Land Use Services 2,994,831 3,578,243

4,555,9294,140,4353,844,547Total Land Use Services 2,994,831 3,578,243

Neighborhood Inspections

1,458,780 1,059,194 1,634,420Neighborhood Inspections 942,388 1,453,094

1,634,4201,059,1941,458,780Total Neighborhood Inspections 942,388 1,453,094

fetters_m

Placed Image

Summary of Program Budgets

RequestedFY 2013-14

BudgetYear-End

FY 2010-11Revised


Budget Without DP'sActualsYear-End

FY 2011-12

Actuals

Bureau of Development ServicesPlan Review

2,690,094 3,003,200 3,369,050Plan Review 4,287,038 4,894,219

3,369,0503,003,2002,690,094Total Plan Review 4,287,038 4,894,219

Site Development

730,466 774,968 916,622Site Development 1,273,122 1,427,449

916,622774,968730,466Total Site Development 1,273,122 1,427,449

Legal Services

0 0 0Legal Services 0 6

000Total Legal Services 0 6

Total Programs 35,792,65532,911,28330,444,26722,436,920 25,526,745

fetters_m

Placed Image

FY 2013-14 FY 2013-14 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15Requested Requested Requested Estimated

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18Estimated Estimated Estimated

1 Time DP Ongoing DP Total DP Budget Budget Budget Budget

Bureau:

Decision Package Summary

Priority: 01 Type: Bureau Adds

Program:Decision Package: BureauwideDS_01 - Improve Overall BDS Service Level

Bureau of Development Services

EXPENDITURESPersonnel Services 1,621,482 1,621,482 0 0 0 0 00External Materials and Services 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 00Internal Materials and Services 186,800 186,800 0 0 0 0 00Contingency (1,878,282) (1,878,282) 0 0 0 0 00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

FTEFull-Time Positions 0.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL FTE 0.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:From 2009-2010, BDS was compelled to reduce its staff by over one-half due to deep declines in permit revenues. Throughout the bureau, low-priority services were eliminated and mostremaining services were significantly reduced. Over 160 out of 315 positions were cut.

Because of the deep staff cuts, BDS has been unable to keep up with a growing workload as the economy and the development industry have been recovering. Restoring service levels thatwere reduced during the recession streamlines the development review process and helps the recovery continue. With sustained strong permit and land use revenues, BDS began graduallyadding back staff in FY 2012-13.

The 14 FTE in staff additions in this Add Package will respond to the work projected for FY 2013-14, restore service levels, and improve the bureau's response times and customer service.Positions are being added only where service levels are below goals and where service improvements can be quantified. Projections indicate that there will be sufficient revenues to supportthese positions for the next five years. BDS will continue its cautious practice of filling positions only when the revenues to support them are available.

2/4/13 14:26sap_b_dp_summary

Page 1 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: BureauwideDS_01 - Improve Overall BDS Service Level


Expected Results:• Inspection Services – Response times will improve: • Residential Inspections: The percentage of inspections completed within 24 hours of request will improve from 80% to 98%. • Commercial Inspections: The percentage of inspections completed within 24 hours of request will improve from 95% to 98%.• Land Use Services – The time needed to complete a variety of services will improve: • Type I, IIx, and III Land Use Review completeness checks will shorten from 30 days to 21 days. • Type II Land Use Review completeness checks will shorten from 21 days to 14 days. • Property line adjustments and lot confirmations will shorten from 26 days to 21 days• Residential & Commercial Building Code Plan Review - The length of time from an applicant’s submission of complete plans to the issuance of the first checksheet (request for additionalinformation or corrections) will shorten: • New construction and additions will improve from 24 days to 22 days; alterations will improve from 24 days to 15 days. • 90% of permits which have completed plan reviews will be processed and issued within 3 business days, rather than the current 4 business days.• Facilities Permit Program – The length of time from an applicant’s submission of complete plans to the issuance of the first checksheet (request for additional information or corrections)will shorten from 5 business days to 4 business days.• The need to turn customers away from the Development Services Center (permit center) due to lack of staff will be substantially eliminated (currently turn away average of 2 customersper day).• Percentage of high priority zoning complaints responded to within 5 business days will improve from 20% to 100%, and staff will be able to respond to lower-priority complaints.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Thriving, Educated Youth• Guiding Policy T-11: Focus public investment in community infrastructure including education, recreation, housing, transportation, health and social services to reduce disparities facedby youth of color, families in poverty, youth with disabilities and others at risk of not graduating from high school.

Economic Prosperity and Affordability• Goal: Expand economic opportunities to support a socially and economically diverse population by prioritizing business growth, a robust and resilient regional economy, and broadlyaccessible household prosperity.• Focus on Actions and Policies that:• Elevate the growth and vitality of the city’s employment districts.• Support the vitality of Portland’s neighborhood based businesses.• Meet Portland’s needs for quality, affordable homes for current and future residents.• 2035 Objective #17 (Access to affordable housing): Preserve and add to the supply of affordable housing so that no less than 15 percent of the total housing stock is affordable tolow-income households, including seniors on fixed incomes and persons with disabilities.• 5-Year Action Plan #70 (Office Development): Develop approaches to grow Portland’s share of regional office development and to maintain the Central City’s role as the region’s officeand employment core. Reduce barriers for office development to meet the needs of businesses seeking flexible and low-cost space.• 5-Year Action Plan #71 (Impact of fees on business growth): Evaluate the cumulative impact of City fees, including Systems Development Charges, on location and growth decisions ofbusinesses, especially for businesses seeking flexible and lower-cost Central City space. Develop approaches to mitigate those impacts while meeting fiscal needs of City programs.

•


Page 2 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:


Priority: 01 Type: Unfunded Ongoing

Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_02 - Improve Neighborhood Inspections Program


EXPENDITURESPersonnel Services 0 262,116 0 0 0 0 0262,116

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0 262,116 0 0 0 0 0262,116

REVENUESFund Transfers - Revenue 0 262,116 0 0 0 0 0262,116

TOTAL REVENUES 0 262,116 0 0 0 0 0262,116

FTELimited Term Positions 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL FTE 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:The Bureau's Neighborhood Inspections Program helps protect the health, safety, and welfare of Portland citizens by preventing the deterioration of existing housing and contributing to vitalneighborhoods. The program enforces minimum standards for maintenance of residential structures, regulates derelict buildings, and also addresses exterior maintenance issues fornon-residential structures.

In FY 2011-12 BDS received one-time General Fund support for three additional Housing Inspector positions to address housing complaints throughout the city. Prior to budget cuts in 2009and 2010, these positions had been in the bureau’s budget. The additional positions allowed the bureau to respond to all housing complaints involving exterior maintenance issues onowner-occupied and non-residential properties (to prevent neighborhood deterioration), significantly increase responsiveness to fire/life/safety and health/sanitation issues for occupiedresidential rentals, and restore case management duties to facilitate more timely compliance for violations impacting the community at large.

The program works closely with Portland Police and the City Crime Prevention Office to address property conditions that directly impact public safety, such as unsecured structures, holes,tanks, and child traps; illegal camping and occupation of structures without water, electricity, or heat source. For example, the program has had recent success, where other agencies orprograms have been unsuccessful, at addressing elderly hoarding situations. Some hoarding conditions can be so severe that they prevent the resident from typical uses of space, such ascooking, cleaning, moving through the house, and/or sleeping. In these situations, there is a risk to occupants, emergency responders, and neighbors of fire, falling, poor sanitation, andother health concerns. The application of the City’s Property Maintenance Regulations combined with social services for the resident have been effective tools to improve their housingconditions and provide other assistance as needed.

This package requests the continuation of $262,116 in one-time General Fund monies to support three Housing Inspector FTE in the Neighborhood Inspections Program.


Page 4 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_02 - Improve Neighborhood Inspections Program


Expected Results:This decision package will result in an increase of 1,925 initial site inspections, 1,980 dwelling unit inspections, and up to 2,390 property maintenance violations being cited at rental, owneroccupied, and non-residential buildings. This decision package represents 43% of existing FTE or three of the existing seven Housing Inspector positions in BDS. The increase to this basiccitywide service will result in many more complaints being resolved and a reduction in the number of neglected properties that impact neighborhood livability, safety, and surroundingproperty values. The "broken window" theory suggests that this decision package will help maintain enforcement levels to address neighborhood livability by reducing crime, squatters,vagrants, and service calls to City public safety agencies for neglected properties that have become an attractive nuisance. BDS will be able to investigate owner-occupied andnon-residential property maintenance violations. Response times for initial inspections will be shortened and the number of re-inspections, referral assistance, and code hearings to facilitatetimely compliance will increase.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Thriving, Educated Youth• Goal: Ensure that youth (ages 0–25) of all cultures, ethnicities, abilities and economic backgrounds have the necessary support and opportunities to thrive — both as individuals and ascontributors to a healthy community and prosperous, sustainable economy.• Focus on Actions and Policies that:• Elevate the growth and vitality of the city’s employment districts.• Create complete neighborhoods and communities that support youth success.• 2035 Objective #4 (Healthy Neighborhoods): All youth live in safe and supportive neighborhoods with quality affordable housing. Comprehensive, coordinated support systems existinside and outside of the classroom, including mentors, opportunities for physical activity and healthy eating, affordable transit, public safety, workforce training and employment opportunities• Guiding Policy T-11: Focus public investment in community infrastructure including education, recreation, housing, transportation, health and social services to reduce disparities facedby youth of color, families in poverty, youth with disabilities and others at risk of not graduating from high school.• Guiding Policy T-12: Stabilize housing for homeless and low-income families with young children to reduce student mobility rates and provide educational continuity for studentsthroughout the school year.

Economic Prosperity and Affordability• 2035 Objective #17 (Access to affordable housing): Preserve and add to the supply of affordable housing so that no less than 15 percent of the total housing stock is affordable tolow-income households, including seniors on fixed incomes and persons with disabilities.• Guiding Policy P-30: Maintain the health, safety, and viability of existing housing stock.• Guiding Policy P-31: Produce and preserve housing to meet the needs that remain unmet by the private market.

T


Page 5 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_03 - Enhanced Rental Inspection Program





TOTAL REVENUES 0 174,744 0 0 0 0 0174,744


TOTAL FTE 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:In November 2008, City Council adopted recommendations from the Quality Rental Housing Workgroup on issues of substandard housing, lack of habitability, and environmental healthhazards in Portland rental housing. Since 2009, BDS has been implementing a pilot Enhanced Rental Inspection Program in East Portland. The Enhanced Rental Inspection Programidentifies property owners who are chronically out of compliance with City housing maintenance codes and who are unwilling to make cited repairs in a timely manner. This innovative rentalinspection model focuses resources on additional inspections of rental units with potential violations. The program effectively motivates landlords to provide and maintain safe and healthyrental housing while offering protection to vulnerable tenants who might fear retaliation by eviction for reporting substandard housing conditions.

Since 2009, the Enhanced Rental Inspection Program has generated results that make a compelling case for expanding the program citywide. In FY 2011-12, 878 rental inspectionsoccurred at 1,416 units. A total of 2,712 violations were cited and corrected, including substandard living conditions such as fire dangers, mold, rodents, and pests. Such violations oftendevelop when landlords neglect basic upkeep and maintenance. The Program effectively decreased tenant vulnerability and improved rental housing in East Portland.

This decision package will allow staff to continue to respond to referrals from public health agencies, rental advocacy organizations, and the Portland Police regarding rental properties inEast Portland. The initial inspection of a multi-dwelling property commonly produces hundreds of code violations, including serious fire and health sanitation issues, which trigger theinspection of all remaining units at the property. Often the remaining units are found to contain the same serious code violations and are occupied by immigrant and non-English speakingcitizens who are unaware of the hazards and/or how to access City services for assistance. The Enhanced Rental Inspection Program is a key component to the wellbeing of immigrantsand refugees in East Portland and thus furthers the City’s goals of providing equitable services.

This package requests the continuation of $174,744 in one-time General Fund support for two Housing Inspector FTE to continue with implementation of the Enhanced Rental InspectionProgram.


Page 6 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_03 - Enhanced Rental Inspection Program


Expected Results:This decision package will result in continuation of the Enhanced Rental Inspection Program, which helps provide safe and healthy housing conditions for renters. The continuation of theprogram will result in 1,010 initial site inspections, 1,555 rental units being inspected, and up to 3,630 violations being cited (based on current FY 12/13 projections). This decision packagerepresents 29% of existing FTE or two of the existing seven Housing Inspector positions in BDS.



T


Page 7 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_04 - Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement





TOTAL REVENUES 0 102,348 0 0 0 0 0102,348


TOTAL FTE 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:In fall 2011, the City Council approved one-time General Fund support for one Senior Housing Inspector position to implement the Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement Program(EDPEP). EDPEP has proven to be an effective tool to respond to the substantial impact on some neighborhoods and properties from the prolonged recession and mortgage-relatedforeclosures.

EDPEP is directed towards un-maintained properties (often caused by abandonment due to foreclosures) with chronic nuisance and housing conditions that create risks of fire, public healthhazards, and encourage criminal activity such as trespass, vandalism, graffiti, drug use and sale, prostitution, and additional serious public safety threats. EDPEP enforces the City’sProperty Maintenance Regulations and uses the abatement, vacation, and demolition of property as a key tool. EDPEP provides a vital city service to relieve pressure on the Police Bureauand other City agencies. EDPEP also proactively monitors properties to ensure that conditions are maintained and pursues additional abatements to resolve any recurring conditions.

EDPEP focuses on: abandoned/Foreclosed properties that are illegally occupied; abandoned/foreclosed properties generating multiple complaints to BDS, the Office of Neighborhood (ONI)Crime Prevention, or Portland Police service calls regarding illegal activity; occupied properties without basic utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc); and abandoned/foreclosed properties withchronic, significant, and recurring nuisance and housing maintenance violations, which have resulted in unpaid enforcement lien balances. There are currently 30 EDPEP enforcementcases being pursued and an additional 50 properties have been referred for EDPEP enforcement action.

Examples of EDPEP enforcement case resolution includes:• The demolition of vacant derelict homes, adjacent to a public middle school that served as an attractive nuisance for students to engage in illegal drug use and other activity.• An abatement and vacation order for an illegally occupied home that had generated 109 police service calls within a twelve month period for drug use, assault, and criminal trespassingon neighbor properties.• The removal of illegally-occupied recreational vehicles that had harbored criminal activity on a property; this resulted in arrests for drug use and prostitution.

BDS is requesting the continuation of $102,348 in one-time General Fund support for this critical public safety and neighborhood livability program. This decision package represents 14% ofexisting FTE or one of the existing seven Housing Inspectors in BDS.


Page 8 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_04 - Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement


Expected Results:There are currently 30 EDPEP enforcement cases being pursued and an additional 50 properties have been referred to the program and are awaiting follow-up. In 2012, 10 EDPEPenforcement cases were resolved, 21 Code Hearing actions were held, 15 properties received vacation orders, and six demolition orders were issued. EDPEP is expected to continue toforce corrective action on several chronic properties and expects to receive approval to demolish properties in FY 2013-14. Since lead time is needed in order to establish legal authority topursue abatement action on properties, this decision package is not requesting additional nuisance abatement funding, but is requesting the continuation of dedicated FTE to respond tothese chronic properties and to directly work with agency partners to solve community problems.



T


Page 9 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Land Use ServicesDS_05 - 10% General Fund Add Back Land Use


EXPENDITURESPersonnel Services 115,854 115,854 0 0 0 0 00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,854 115,854 0 0 0 0 00

REVENUESFund Transfers - Revenue 115,854 115,854 0 0 0 0 00

TOTAL REVENUES 115,854 115,854 0 0 0 0 00


TOTAL FTE 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:This package includes adding back the one remaining Senior City Planner Environmental Specialty Position (1.0 FTE) in the Land Division/Environmental Team of Land Use Services (LUS).In the layoffs during the recession, BDS cut the other Senior City Planner positions and the Supervising Planner for this team, losing years of staff experience and technical expertise. Thisis the only senior level position with an Environmental Specialty at BDS and the only Senior City Planner left on the team.


Page 10 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Land Use ServicesDS_05 - 10% General Fund Add Back Land Use


Expected Results:The City's Environmental Overlay Zone regulations and Greenway Overlay Zone regulations will be administered by an employee with the environmental experience, knowledge, skills andabilities to do this work properly.

In addition, BDS will be able to continue its participation on the City's Streamlining Team (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/58878), a group of City, State and Federal environmentalregulators that meets to coordinate development review and permitting for the City's Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), identify and resolve problems early, and keep CIPs on scheduleand on budget.

BDS will continue to have high level environmental staff expertise to:• Answer developer and homeowner questions about how to develop a site while avoiding impacts to environmental resources such as wetlands, streams, and forested areas needed forwildlife habitat;• Assess environmental mitigation strategies, to help the City achieve its environmental goals and policies of conserving natural resources and wildlife habitat in Portland.

Finally, the timeliness of some services will be maintained, including:• Calls to the Zoning Hotline will be returned within 24 hours;• Land Use reviews will be done within the time specified in the Zoning Code.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Healthy Connected City• Goal: Improve human and environmental health by creating safe and complete neighborhood centers linked by a network of city greenways that connect Portlanders with each other.Encourage active transportation, integrate nature into neighborhoods, enhance watershed health, and provide access to services and destinations, locally and across the city.

T


Page 11 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Noise ProgramDS_06 - 10% General Fund Add Back Noise Program


EXPENDITURESPersonnel Services 21,576 21,576 0 0 0 0 00



TOTAL REVENUES 21,576 21,576 0 0 0 0 00


TOTAL FTE 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:This package includes adding back 0.25 FTE of Code Specialist II Position to investigate and noise complaints throughout the City. The Noise program has operated under a reducedservice level since 2009 and in FY 2012-13 180 noise complaints (26% of all noise complaints received) were not investigated. The 0.25 FTE Code Specialist II reduction equals to a 50%reduction in noise inspection/enforcement and 255 complaints (63% of all noise complaints received) not being investigated. If the add package is not approved it would significantly reducethe ability of the Noise Program to respond to noise complaints; virtually eliminate the ability to perform noise inspections and issue citations; and reduce after-hours noise enforcementservices. The elimination of these services will also decrease the limited existing fee revenues the Noise Program receives.

The Noise Control program serves to minimize the exposure of citizens to the potential negative physiological and psychological effects of excessive noise and protect, promote, andpreserve the public health, safety, and welfare. The program operates with 1.0 FTE Noise Control Officer, .5 FTE Code Specialist II-Noise Inspector, and limited support staff to processnoise complaints, process noise variances, and staff the Noise Review Board monthly meeting duties. Since 2009, the noise program has operated under a reduced service level in whichmost noise complaints are not investigated (only 25-29% of complaints were investigated in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12).

Program staff mostly focuses on priority complaints that involve public health issues generated by noise disturbances between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such as:

• Mechanical equipment in operation between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. adjacent to and impacting residential dwelling units and sleep.• Late night electronically-amplified music from “garage” bands, bars, and nightclubs audible inside a dwelling unit.• Construction noise on Sundays and/or between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.• Noise emanating from commercial businesses and activities impacting adjacent residential areas or other commercial businesses.

Due to the intermittent nature of noise disturbances, the intense resources needed to capture the evidence required to legally proceed with formal enforcement action, and the lack of currentresources, noise complaints are often not resolved or are directed to the police or other agencies. Unfortunately, other agencies are usually not equipped with noise measuring equipment oracoustical training, and long-term compliance for ongoing noise disturbances from businesses, such as bars and nightclubs, is difficult to achieve.

This package includes adding back 0.25 FTE of Code Specialist II-Noise Inspector to continue investigating priority noise complaints throughout the City.


Page 12 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Noise ProgramDS_06 - 10% General Fund Add Back Noise Program


Expected Results:Approval of this decision package will result in current noise inspector resources being maintained, with limited ability to respond to citizen noise complaints throughout the City. Staff wilcontinue to focus on priority complaints that involve public health issues generated by noise disturbances between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and will continue to receive limited feerevenues. Approximately 150 noise inspections can be made with the added back .25 FTE.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Thriving, Educated Youth• Focus on Actions and Policies that: o Create complete neighborhoods and communities that support youth success.• 2035 Objective #4 (Healthy Neighborhoods): All youth live in safe and supportive neighborhoods with quality affordable housing. Comprehensive, coordinated support systems existinside and outside of the classroom, including mentors, opportunities for physical activity and healthy eating, affordable transit, public safety, workforce training and employment opportunities

Healthy Connected City• Goal: Improve human and environmental health by creating safe and complete neighborhood centers linked by a network of city greenways that connect Portlanders with each other.Encourage active transportation, integrate nature into neighborhoods, enhance watershed health, and provide access to services and destinations, locally and across the city.• 5-Year Action #94 (Human health Impacts): Establish criteria and methods to assess the human health impacts of public policy and investment, including which types of decisions rquireassessment and which impacts to consider.

A


Page 13 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Land Use ServicesDS_07 - Citywide Tree Project





TOTAL REVENUES 0 57,456 0 0 0 0 057,456


TOTAL FTE 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.000.000.000.00

Description:In support of the implementation of the Citywide Tree Project, in FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 City Council approved one-time General Fund support for a full-time Program Coordinatorposition in BDS' budget (shared by BDS and the Parks Bureau). The position has performed tasks that are critical to enabling BDS and Parks to administer the new code, including processmapping; working out areas of responsibility for the two bureaus; developing tools that will be used to train staff; completion of a package of housekeeping amendments to the new code;coordination with programmers on incorporating tree permitting and code requirements into the permit database system, and coordination of website design. Additional work remains indeveloping website content, forms, and brochures; developing internal and external training materials; and performing public outreach.

BDS is requesting the continuation of approximately $55,000 in one-time General Fund monies to support 0.5 FTE for this position. It is anticipated that the effective date of the treeregulations (July 1, 2013) will be postponed to FY 2014-15 or later, given the cost of the program to BDS and the Parks Bureau. If that happens, the City Council may want to move forwardwith the portions of the tree code with incidental cost impacts. The continuation of this position will be needed to produce a code amendment package to extract those parts of the code fromthe larger package, so that they will mesh with existing code. Also, the position is needed to do outreach and make changes to training materials, forms, brochures, and website information.If the entirety of the tree project is postponed, the extension of this position is not needed.

This package requests the reinstatement of $57,456 in one-time General Fund monies to support 0.5 Program Coordinator FTE for continued work with BDS and the Parks Bureau as thetwo bureaus prepare to implement the new tree regulations. This position is being reduced from full-time to part-time.


Page 14 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Land Use ServicesDS_07 - Citywide Tree Project


Expected Results:a) Customer service improvements, such as: • Staffing a new Citywide Tree Hotline for all tree related questions, complaints, permitting, etc. regardless of whether the tree in question is regulated by BDS or Parks. • Development of a new Citywide Tree website as a central point for the public to get information about trees.b) Regulatory changes for BDS and Parks Urban Forestry staff, such as: • New processes and permit types (this in turn involves new programming in the City's permit tracking database. • New tree regulations for projects where no new development is proposed as well as development sites, on private property as well as in the right-of-way.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Healthy Connected City• Guiding Policy H-25: Preserve and restore habitat connections and tree canopy to link stream and river corridors, landslide-prone areas, floodplains, wetlands, and critical habitat sitesinto a system of habitat corridors.• 5-Year Action Plan #119 (Tree Canopy): Revisit and refine tree canopy targets, while continuing investments in planting trees and implementing new tree codes.

a


Page 15 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_08 - 10% General Fund Add Back NIT


EXPENDITURESExternal Materials and Services 36,018 36,018 0 0 0 0 00



TOTAL REVENUES 36,018 36,018 0 0 0 0 00

Description:Title 29 Property Maintenance Regulations include minimum standards of maintenance for outdoor areas and adjacent rights of way and authorizes BDS to abate nuisance conditions if notcorrected by the responsible party. Property nuisances have a dramatic impact on neighborhood livability and surrounding property values. The Neighborhood Inspections Programmaintains processes to provide notice and assess fees to gain voluntary compliance with most nuisance conditions; however, nuisance abatement is often necessary to protect the health,safety, and welfare of Portland citizens.

Examples of nuisance abatement actions include:• Removing vegetation and obstructions over sidewalks to provide safe routes to schools and maintain fully accessible pedestrian rights-of-way.• Removing or filling holes, wells, excavations, open foundations, unlocked refrigerators, and appliances that may create a hazard.• Boarding and securing open and/or broken exterior doors and windows to prevent access by unauthorized persons at properties.• Removing or repairing conditions that provide a place where rats gain shelter, feed, or breed (as determined by Multnomah County Vector Control).• Removing garbage, offal, dead animals, and human waste when not properly stored on properties.

This package includes adding back $36,018 in funds for nuisance abatement services. Current appropriation levels allow BDS to perform nuisance abatements only at properties with themost significant health/sanitation nuisance conditions (raw garbage, broken sewers, unsecured structures, etc). Current projections indicate that just over 100 critical nuisance abatementswill be performed in FY 2012-13.


Page 16 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:



Program:Decision Package: Neighborhood Inspections ProgramDS_08 - 10% General Fund Add Back NIT


Expected Results:Approval of this decision package will result in maintaining the current nuisance abatement service level provided to neighborhoods. The add back will result in an additional 38 criticanuisance abatements being performed in FY 13/14. If the package is not approved it would reduce the number of nuisance abatements performed by 33%, significantly impacting the health,safety, and welfare of Portland citizens.

Relationship to Portland PlanThis decision package will address the following Portland Plan goals and objectives:Thriving, Educated Youth• 2035 Objective #4 (Healthy Neighborhoods): All youth live in safe and supportive neighborhoods with quality affordable housing. Comprehensive, coordinated support systems existinside and outside of the classroom, including mentors, opportunities for physical activity and healthy eating, affordable transit, public safety, workforce training and employment opportunities• Guiding Policy T-11: Focus public investment in community infrastructure including education, recreation, housing, transportation, health and social services to reduce disparities facedby youth of color, families in poverty, youth with disabilities and others at risk of not graduating from high school.• Guiding Policy T-12: Stabilize housing for homeless and low-income families with young children to reduce student mobility rates and provide educational continuity for studentsthroughout the school year.


A


Page 17 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box




Bureau:


Priority: 01 Type: Realignments

Program:Decision Package: BureauwideDS_09 - 10% Add Back to Interagency Services


EXPENDITURESInternal Materials and Services 232,978 232,978 0 0 0 0 00Contingency (232,978) (232,978) 0 0 0 0 00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

Description:This package includes adding back appropriation to Interagency Agreements and restoring services to acceptable levels for rent, printing and distribution, technology, and communicationsservices.

Expected Results:Approval of this package will result in restoration of interagency agreements for services provided to BDS to 100%. Until BDS receives further clarification on services that will be reducedthe magnitude and the impact on BDS is very difficult to quantify.

A


Page 18 of 18

fetters_m

Text Box

City of Portland

Bureau of Development Services FROM CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION

Five-Year Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2013-14 through FY 2017-18


February 4, 2013 To: Mayor Charlie Hales

Commissioner Nick Fish Commissioner Amanda Fritz Commissioner Steve Novick Commissioner Dan Saltzman

From: Paul L. Scarlett, Director Subject: Five-Year Financial Plan for the Bureau of Development Services FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18 Bureau of Development Services (BDS) staff are currently making inspections on the largest construction project that the bureau has ever seen – the Oregon Health Sciences University/ Oregon University System building in the South Waterfront. This is the most recent of OHSU’s expansion in the South Waterfront. This project, along with an increase in multi-family construction and the modest recovery of the local economy, has had a major impact upon our workload and revenues. The recent recession hit BDS’s revenues and workload exponentially harder and much earlier than the rest of the City. Our finances are highly dependent upon the development industry and the local economy, and so we cut over 50% of our employees and reduced other expenditures in 2009 and 2010. Over the past year, we have seen an uptick in construction and our workload. We have responded by adding staff as we have been able to afford them while at the same time rebuilding our decimated reserve fund. The BDS Five-Year Financial Plan (FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18) provides detailed information regarding the bureau’s current financial status and five-year projections. Based upon the forecasted workload, type of construction and revenues, it is anticipated that the bureau will add 29 staff over the next five years. Financial Forecasting Model We are fortunate to have the talent of the BDS Finance Committee, comprised of local economists and members of the Portland development community. Their advice has been essential for validating our econometric models for forecasting our revenues. As in previous years, these advisors found that our model development and selection process were comprehensive and valid and the forecasts reasonable and defensible.

fetters_m

Stamp

In addition, the bureau has conducted sensitivity analysis and developed a worst case scenario which assumes that the recovery in real estate activity is much more subdued over the next five years. However, the economic advisors believe that this scenario is unlikely to occur and that we can instead anticipate gradual growth in the economy over this period of time. Financial Projection Modest growth in revenues is projected for the next five years based upon the projected modest growth of the local economy. The Financial Plan gradually adds positions to meet critical needs in the bureau’s highest-priority services and programs. The bureau will systematically rebuild staffing to respond to anticipated increases in development activity, but only as workload and revenues are realized. Fees For FY 2013-14, we are able to hold fees to current levels for several programs: Building/ Mechanical, Electrical, Facilities Permits, and Zoning Enforcement. In addition, I am recommending that we reduce the fees for the Site Development program by 5%. Most of the other fees in our portfolio will increase by 5% in FY 2013-14. Fee changes ranging from 0% to +5% are planned for subsequent years for the most of the bureau’s programs. In prior years, we increased fees in some of our construction-related programs by as much as 8%. I am more than pleased to be in a financial situation where we can keep fee increases to a minimum. Funding for Information Technology Advancement Project The Financial Plan also accounts for the costs of the Information Technology Advancement Project, which will replace the City’s existing permit tracking system. The bureau is planning to fund the project with operating funds and a line of credit. Under either the "base" model (Appendix B and C) or the "worst case" model (Appendix D), the bureau would repay the line of credit over a two-year period, concluding in FY 2017-18. Summary The decisions highlighted in the Financial Plan will ensure our ability to achieve our foundational goals over the next five years. We are keenly aware of the impact that these decisions will have on our finances, customers and employees, and we will be working proactively and creatively to ensure that services improve and that employees’ skills and talents are utilized in a way that continues to benefit customers and the community.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1 Overview......................................................................................................... 3 Background .................................................................................................... 5 Significant and Critical Issues ....................................................................... 9 Financial Forecasts and Comparisons........................................................... 15 Financial Analysis of Programs and Fee Study ............................................ 27 Appendices: Appendix A: Summary of Financial Policies .................................... 39 Appendix B: Projected Fee Increases and Inflation Assumptions .... 43

Appendix C: Financial Forecast Spreadsheets - Base Plan .............. 45 Appendix D: Financial Forecast Spreadsheets - Alternative Plan ... 53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Financial Forecast

• The US economy is expected to experience mild to moderate growth over the coming years. • The Bureau of Development Services (BDS) is recovering from the impact of the recession on

its revenues and workload. • Construction development remains one of the most volatile sectors of the economy and it is

difficult to project revenue. However, the bureau has developed improved economic models to better track the construction industry activity.

• Construction activity in the Portland metropolitan area is expected to experience a moderate but steady growth over the next several years.

• Beginning in FY 2012-13, new positions are proposed to be gradually added to the bureau to respond to the current workload and meet the anticipated increase in future workload.

Financial Issues

• Program revenues are expected to experience moderate but steady growth. • Annual fee increases are recommended for several programs to cover inflationary cost increases

and meet reserve and cost recovery goals. • In order to improve the level of technology, transparency, and public access to information at

BDS, City Council authorized BDS to proceed with plans to purchase a new online review and permitting system.

• BDS continues to focus on operating at or above cost recovery and building a healthy bureau and individual program reserves

• On a bureau-wide basis, the cumulative reserve is very close to the goal over the length of the Financial Plan. By the end FY 2017-18, the bureau will repay the line of credit used to partially finance the new online plan review and permitting system.

1

2

OVERVIEW

During FY 2011-12, the Bureau of Development Services’ (BDS) financial situation has improved significantly. Bureau fee revenues increased by 32%, fueled by a multitude of multifamily developments and the Oregon Health Science University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront. The bureau has been able to positively respond to the increased workload levels by recalling laid-off staff to fill vacant positions. For FY 2011-12, revenues exceeded costs and the bureau was able to continue rebuilding its once depleted reserve. BDS ended the fiscal year on June 30, 2012 with a cumulative cost recovery rate of 128%, and more than $10 million in reserves. This trend is in contrast to 2008 when the development industry was hit very hard by the recession, leading to significant impacts for BDS’s revenues, reserves, staffing, and service levels. After using all but $500,000 of its approximate $13.9 million reserve funds to meet operating costs, in 2009 and 2010 BDS lost over half of its staff through layoffs, retirements, and other attrition. The staff losses decreased service levels throughout the bureau, lengthened the development review process, and increased customer dissatisfaction. With financial stability now being achievable, BDS’s Requested Budget proposes to add 14 FTE, bringing the total staffing to 221.67 FTE with an operating budget of $35.8 million. This financial plan reflects BDS’s ongoing financial challenge to find balance between three often-competing goals:

• Pursue cost recovery for services wherever appropriate • Maintain prudent financial reserves • Provide excellent customer service and be responsive to customer and stakeholder needs

BDS projects that revenues will continue to grow moderately but steadily over the next few years. That steady growth, combined with moderate fee increases, will afford the ability to maintain cost recovery, continue rebuilding reserves, and gradually hire back additional staff to address remaining service gaps and workload increases. Even with gradual staff additions, BDS will remain slightly understaffed for the next few years and not quite meet performance goals in some programs. As always, staff positions will be added only as sufficient funds are available. Current projections show bureau reserves being at or very close to the bureau’s 30% overall reserve goal over the next five years. In light of the recent recession, BDS raised the reserve goals for several programs to help ensure that the bureau has adequate reserves in all programs, particularly during difficult financial times. In mid-FY 2015-16, BDS anticipates beginning to repay a line of credit which is being secured to fund the replacement of the bureau’s current permitting system. Full repayment should occur by mid-FY 2017-18 with bureau reserves still meeting the reserve goal.

3

If there are changes in the local economy, these projections may change over the course of the fiscal year. BDS will continue to closely monitor economic indicators, revenues, expenditures, and workload and will make adjustments to this Financial Plan as needed.

4

BACKGROUND

Mission The Bureau of Development Services (BDS) promotes safety, livability, and economic vitality through the efficient and collaborative application of building and development codes. To meet the needs of our community, BDS pursues the following goals: • Promote community vitality and protect life, property, and natural resources by ensuring

compliance with applicable codes and regulations. • Provide cooperative and responsive internal and external customer service. • Process all bureau functions efficiently. • Create a collaborative workplace that promotes mutual respect through trust, fairness, and open

communication. • Support continual professional growth of the workforce and organization through education,

technology, and diversity. Our values include: • Dedication to public service • Pride in our work • Care for the long-term viability of our community • Recognition of the worth, quality, and importance of each employee and member of the

community • Support of continual learning, education, and innovation BDS supports the City Council’s goal to “protect and enhance the natural and built environment”. The Bureau's Work and Sources of Funding BDS has the traditional "building department" functions of inspections, permit issuance, and review of architectural and engineering plans. These programs are currently funded solely through permit fees and charges. State statutes regulate these programs and, in most circumstances, prohibit revenue from these programs being used for other local programs. Fees support the site development, code compliance, signs, zoning, and environmental soils programs. Land use review is also housed in BDS; land use review fees, General Fund monies, and the Development Services Fee support this program. Both the Noise and the Neighborhood Inspections programs are supported by fees and some General Fund dollars.

5

History of the Operating Fund In FY 1988-89, the City Council established an operating fund for the Bureau of Buildings. At that time, the bureau was charged with fully supporting its construction functions through fees and charges by the end of a three-year period. In addition, the bureau was to set up a reserve account that would capture revenues from pre-paid work and serve as a countercyclical reserve when the economy was on a downturn. Due to a booming construction industry and some long overdue fee increases in FY 1988-89, the bureau succeeded in meeting the 100% cost recovery goal in just two years. In 1992 a reserve policy was adopted for the fund, and it was updated in 1995. In FY 2004-05 the bureau was directed to work with the Office of Management and Finance (OMF) to review the reserve goals for all programs. As a result of the review, the bureau lowered its reserve goals for several programs. However with the impact of the recent recession in mind, the bureau has raised several of its reserve goals to enable the bureau to better weather future unexpected downturns. The bureau’s reserve policy is outlined in Appendix A. In FY 1999-2000, the Land Use Review Division of the Bureau of Planning was merged with the Bureau of Buildings to create the Office of Planning and Development Review. In 2002, the name was changed to the present Bureau of Development Services. In late FY 2002-03, the Neighborhood Inspections and Noise Control programs were moved from BDS to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement. The Noise Control Program returned to BDS in FY 2005-06, and Neighborhood Inspections returned to BDS in FY 2006-07. In May 2005, City Council enacted a Development Services fee to assist in funding the Land Use Services Program. The fee is charged when building, site development, or zoning permits are issued and is based upon permit valuation. Due to the recession and its impact on the development industry, bureau reserves were spent down to maintain operations from almost $13.5 million in July 2008 to $500,000 in July 2010. Reserves began to recover in 2011 and stood at just over $15.5 million on January 1, 2013. This Financial Plan outlines the bureau’s goal of returning to a more appropriate and fiscally sound reserve fund balance. Financial Planning Process Since FY 1988-89, BDS has made five-year projections of costs and revenues annually to assist in fiscal planning. Costs and revenues are projected based on both historical and current-year patterns, anticipated changes, and inflationary rates suggested by the City Budget Office. In the aftermath of the recent recession and its unprecedented impact on construction activity in the Portland Metropolitan area and on the bureau’s fee-generated revenues, BDS made significant changes to its revenue forecasting model. The model is described in great detail in the Financial Forecasts and Comparisons section of this financial plan, under Revenue Forecast.

6

The bureau shares the intricate details of the financial forecasting model with the bureau’s Financial Advisory Committee. This committee includes local economists with expertise in commercial and residential real estate, as well as members of Portland Development Commission's Small Business Advisory Committee (SBAC) and the City's Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC). Once the Committee approves the model, the bureau prepares its five-year revenue forecast. These revenues are then compared with projected expenditures to determine annual cost recovery rates and to decide whether BDS's reserve will be drawn down or increased. Reserve goals are set for each program and vary from program to program. These goals are maximum reserve levels that the bureau focuses on reaching. When taken together, these reserve goals amount to a 30% reserve goal for the bureau. The bureau has also set a minimum reserve level of 15% below which total bureau reserves should not drop. In proposing the annual budget, BDS management first reviews the level of service to customers to ensure that it meets customer needs. The bureau then compares service levels to the revenue estimates and makes recommendations on whether or not fees should be increased and by how much. Fee rates are reviewed each year to maintain BDS's financial integrity and operational stability.

7

8

SIGNIFICANT AND CRITICAL ISSUES

BDS Reserve Fund and Financial Status BDS is established as an Operating Fund with the goal of being 100% supported by permit fees and charges. This need to be self-supporting, combined with the difficulty in accurately predicting construction activity and fee revenues, makes it important for BDS to maintain a reserve of funds that can be used to ensure a stable and adequate level of service during times when revenues fall below expectations. BDS experienced a sharp decline in permit revenues beginning in the fall of 2008 with the onset of the recession. As permit revenues continued to fall precipitously in 2009, the bureau responded by implementing widespread cost saving measures, spending down bureau reserves, and laying off approximately 50% of its employees. Between FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10, bureau reserves fell from almost $13.9 million to $500,000. In FY 2010-11, reserves rose slightly to $2.2 million. The bureau continued rebuilding its reserves in FY 2011-12. By the end of FY 2011-12, the bureau reserves rose to $10.2 million. In the first half of FY 2012-13, revenues have continued to increase and reserves stood at just over $15.5 million as of January 1, 2013. However, a significant portion of the reserve in FY 2012-13 will be used to pay for the Information Technology Advancement Project. Even so, the bureau is projected to maintain healthy reserves over the next five years. While rebuilding bureau reserves to prudent levels has been a high-priority goal, it must be balanced with the need to meet state and local requirements for bureau programs and services and with the needs of customers and stakeholders who do not have other options for development-related services. During the recession, permit revenues fell further than the workload, with the result that the bureau had to cut staff to levels lower than what the workload required. Service in many bureau programs dropped below minimally-acceptable levels. This Financial Plan seeks to balance these goals by maintaining healthy reserve while gradually adding back staff to bring services up to acceptable levels. In light of BDS’s experiences in the recession, the bureau raised reserve goals in FY 2010-11 for the Building/Mechanical, Facilities Permit, and Neighborhood Inspections programs. In FY 2012-13 the bureau revisited its total minimum reserve level and Building Mechanical Program reserve goal, which were raised from 10% to 15% and from 35%-45% to 45% respectively. BDS will continue to closely monitor revenues and expenditures and make subsequent adjustments to the Financial Plan if necessary.

9

Funding & Cost Recovery BDS operates two distinct types of programs. State-mandated construction programs (Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, etc.) are funded almost exclusively through permit fee revenues. Local programs (Land Use Services, Neighborhood Inspections, Environmental Soils, Signs, Noise Control, Zoning Compliance, and Site Development) implement local regulations or state and federal mandates. Local programs are funded through a combination of fees, fines and charges, and General Fund monies. State-Mandated Construction Programs For several years, BDS has been striving to reach full cost recovery for many of its fee-supported construction programs and services. In some cases, due to the nature of the service or the broader context in which the service is provided, full cost recovery will not be achievable. For other services, full cost recovery is an appropriate long-term goal. To this end, the bureau has been implementing gradual fee increases (to minimize the impact on customers and stakeholders), as well as charging for (or ceasing) some services that were previously provided free of charge. In addition, since the onset of the recession, the bulk of the building permits issued has been for smaller, lower revenue-generating projects. Other Building Departments in the region have experienced the same phenomenon. To help ensure that permit fees for smaller projects are covering the costs of the services that BDS provides for those permits, the bureau began increasing the minimum permit fee and lower-end fees on the building permit fee schedule in FY 2010-11. Local Programs City Council adopted all of the ordinances which serve as the foundation for the Local Code programs. As with most of the State-mandated construction programs, full cost recovery is an appropriate long-term goal; Signs, Zoning Compliance, and Site Development all reach cost recovery in the Financial Plan. In some cases, due to the nature of the service or the broader context in which the service is provided, full cost recovery dependent only on fees and charges will not be achievable. These programs include Neighborhood Inspections, Noise, and Land Use Services programs and have received General Fund support due to the fact that they benefit the public-at-large and the city's livability. Because the General Fund-supported local programs provide a bonafide public benefit, help eliminate blight and serious public safety threats, and enhance access to affordable housing, the bureau’s FY 2013-14 Requested Budget includes requests for the continuation of both ongoing and one-time General Fund monies to retain staffing in local programs, continue some services that were restored in FY 2011-12, and continue rebuilding program reserves. BDS, its Budget Advisory Committee, the Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC), and its Labor Management Committee all believe that ongoing General Fund support for the Neighborhood Inspections, Noise, and Land Use Services programs is appropriate because these programs provide services that are of great benefit to the community.

10

Neighborhood Inspections Program Funding for the Neighborhood Inspections Program has been a challenge for a number of years. In the mid 1990s, General Fund provided approximately 50% of the funding for this program. By the late 2000's, this support had eroded to 25%. There is a direct public benefit from this program enhancing the livability of Portland’s neighborhoods and maintaining the City’s housing stock. In addition these programs are instrumental in helping to eliminate blight and serious public safety threats to neighborhoods and to provide safe and livable housing options to our lower income residents who are likely to be renters. Therefore, the General Fund is an appropriate source of funding for these programs. In addition, most of the program activities do not result in fines and penalties being accessed. In fact, the program strives to bring violators into compliance with the City of Portland codes during the very early stages of complaints and investigations. The Bureau’s enforcement policies are extremely effective and continue to achieve a 90% compliance rate. If voluntary compliance cannot be attained, the Bureau administers enforcement fees and penalties as approved by City Council. Due to a 90% compliance rate, it is not possible to achieve adequate ongoing cost recovery for the basic service provided to the community with enforcement fees and penalties. The nature of all enforcement activities performed by City agencies involves a high degree of education and relationship building, and ultimately protects and maintains the welfare of the citizens of Portland. Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) On November 3, 2010 City Council authorized BDS to move forward with plans to purchase an online plan review and permitting system that would provide much greater access to information and services for customers, staff, and stakeholders. The new system will have the following capabilities:

• Electronic access to all historic permit and land use records for customers and staff • Online land use and permit application and plan submittal • Electronic plan review • Online fee payment and permit issuance • Electronic entry of inspection results and real-time access for field staff and customers

The City issued a Request for Proposal in February 2012. Bids were reviewed, and City Council authorized the City to begin contract negotiations with the selected vendor (Sierra Systems) in December 2012. ITAP implementation will begin spring 2013, and the bureau anticipates that implementation will be completed by the end of the winter of 2014-15. Based on the bid received from Sierra Systems, BDS currently estimates that total ITAP implementation costs will be $11.2 million. This system will save customers and stakeholders time and money by giving them remote access to information and services and decreasing the need to visit the Development Services Center (DSC) or BDS offices. BDS will experience significant efficiency gains in its land use review, plan review, permitting, and inspection processes as it reduces its reliance on paper plans and records.

11

Over the next five years, ITAP is estimated to eliminate the need to hire 9 full-time employees at an annual cost savings of approximately $1.3 million. In addition, efficiencies achieved through moving to a fully digital, online system will potentially save development review customers up to $1 million annually in staff and print costs. Finally, ITAP moves the City closer to meeting the goals outlined in the Portland Plan and the 2009 Climate Action Plan by eliminating an estimated 33,000 annual customer vehicle trips to downtown. ITAP will be financed through a combination of bureau operating funds (permit revenues) and a line of credit. The Bureau's operating revenues are generated through permit fees associated with commercial, residential and trade permits, as well as land use review fees and enforcement penalties. The remainder of the funding will be from a line of credit secured by the full faith and credit of the City in the amount not to exceed $6.6 million. Based on the bureau’s Five-Year Financial Plan, repayment of the principal on the line of credit is expected to begin in FY 2015-16 and be fully paid off in FY 2017-18. The Bureau currently has a healthy reserve, and revenue is projected to increase through FY 2017-18. The bureau has also considered its ability to repay the line of credit under a “worst case scenario”. Appendix D illustrates the worst case scenario which also assumes that ITAP is implemented. Under this financial situation, the bureau is still able to repay the line of credit by FY 2017-18.

Staffing & Service Levels From 2009-2010, BDS lost over half of its staff due to deep declines in permit revenues. However, revenues declined much more steeply than workload, resulting in a bureau that was insufficiently staffed. Bureau services, such as building inspections, plan review, permit issuance, and land use review, are mandated by law and cannot be eliminated. BDS therefore ceased non-mandatory, low-priority services throughout the bureau and significantly reduced most remaining services. With revenues improving significantly in 2012, BDS was able to re-build its reserve and was able to hire 19 staff in the first half of FY 2012-13 to help address some of the most critical customer and stakeholder service needs. However, service levels in many programs remain below optimal levels. To address remaining gaps in services, BDS’s FY 2013-14 Requested Budget includes decision packages adding staff while allowing the bureau to maintain fiscal responsibility. Decision Package 01 (Improve Overall BDS Service Level) would add 14 FTE funded by permit fees and revenues. BDS’s financial projections, which were reviewed by multiple independent economists, show that the bureau will have sufficient revenues to add these staff. Other decision packages request the extension of one-time General Fund support to retain 6.5 positions in the bureau’s Land Use Services and Neighborhood Inspections programs and add back 1.25 FTE in Land Use Services and Noise programs supported by the 10% add-back ongoing General Fund. These programs already receive General Fund support since they provide general public benefit.

12

Financial Plan – Worst Case Scenario For the second consecutive year BDS is submitting two versions of the Financial Plan. The base version of the Plan that is in the main body of the text is found in Appendix C. The bureau conducted sensitivity analysis and developed a second version of the Financial Plan that represents the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is based on Moody’s Analytics’ Below-Trend Long-Term Growth Scenario that assumes that “the U.S. recovery continues in 2013, but the growth rate is below the baseline pace because of the deeper than expected effects of federal fiscal contraction in early 2013, the European sovereign debt crisis, the persistence of foreclosures and weak house prices, and reduced consumer confidence.” In January 2013, the bureau’s Finance Committee reviewed assumptions for the worst case scenario and came to the conclusion that the probability of the worst case scenario occurring is highly unlikely. Lower programmatic growth rates ultimately translate into a lower workload. Therefore, in the worst case scenario only 16 new positions are added to the bureau’s workforce over the next five years, as opposed to 29 new positions added in the base version of the Financial Plan. In addition, both base and worst case scenarios incorporate the repayment of the line of credit. In the worst case scenario, most programs achieve financial outcomes comparable to the base case scenario in terms of cost recovery and reserve goals, but again this is due to adding fewer staff positions. The worst case scenario shows that the bureau would be below its overall reserve goal in FY 2017-18; the bureau is projected to achieve the goal in the base case scenario. The financial outcomes of the worst case scenario are presented in Appendix D.

13

14

FINANCIAL FORECASTS AND COMPARISONS

Comparison of FY 2011-12 Actuals to Previous Financial Plan Last year’s Financial Plan projected an overall cost recovery rate of 113 percent for the bureau in FY 2011-12, with revenues of $30.3 million and expenditures of $29.4 million. Year-end reserves were projected to be $6.1 million. The Financial Plan anticipated a stabilization and healthy growth in construction activity; revenues were expected to be significantly higher than in the previous year. The actual expenditures were very close to the Plan’s projections, revenues on the other hand exceeded expectations. The actual FY 2011-12 year-end revenues were 10.2 percent higher than the Plan’s projections. Actual expenditures were 3.4 percent lower than projected in the Plan. The actual cost recovery rate was 128 percent, as opposed to the projected 113 percent projected cost recovery rate, with expenditures of $28.4 million and revenues of $33.4 million. The year-end bureau reserves increased from $2.2 million to $10.2 million (a $4 million increase was projected in the Plan). Current Revenues Both commercial and residential building activities have been hit very hard by the recession of 2008-2009. Construction activity in the Portland Metropolitan area has been gradually stabilizing and recovering from the trough; however, the overall health of construction industry is still quite fragile. The continued correction in housing markets, tight credit markets affecting both commercial and residential construction markets, overall uncertainty in the financial markets, and a drop in consumer confidence are still exerting pressure on a gradually recovering real estate market. Nevertheless, even given all the constraints, construction activity is no longer a drag on the local economy. The recovery is moderate but steady. The bureau revenues continue to recover, total bureau revenues from July through December 2012 were 18 percent higher than revenues of the same period in the previous year. The significant portion of the increase is attributable to the revenues collected from the Oregon Health Science University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront. The building’s total valuation of $200 million is one of the highest valuations for any project received by the bureau. Excluding this project, overall bureau revenues were 13 percent higher than revenues as of the same period in the previous year. By the end of FY 2012-13, total bureau revenues are projected to reach $37.4 million, a steady improvement over FY 2011-12.

15

The total number of building, site development, and zoning permit applications received from July through December 2012 increased by 11 percent over the same period in 2011. The total valuation of these permit applications is down by 19 percent. The decrease in valuation is attributable to the Oregon Health Science University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront; this project was received by the bureau in September of 2011. The total number of building, site development, and zoning permits issued for the same period is 8 percent higher than in 2010, and the valuation has increased by 28 percent. The significant part of the growth in valuation in both applications received and issued permits is attributable to the unprecedented growth in multifamily construction, specifically small and midsize apartment complexes. The situation is slightly different for Land Use applications received. While the number of land use case applications received from July through December 2012 increased by 26 percent over the same period in 2010, the number of final plat applications decreased by 9 percent over the same period. There is a strong relationship between land use activity and building permit and other bureau revenues; increases in land use activity ultimately result in increases in construction activity. The current trends in land use suggest that the construction activity is still struggling; however the situation is gradually improving and is substantially better than it was several years ago. Economic Outlook The U.S. economy continued to grow despite the external and internal pressures, especially from the unstable situation in European financial markets and the sovereign debt crisis. The economy is growing, but the economic expansion still continues to be a disappointing one by historical standards. The view for Oregon is similar. Oregon’s economic expansion persists, but remains stuck in a low gear. Growth continues to come in fits and starts – a strong quarter or two followed by a weak quarter or two – with the underlying trend remaining slow and steady. Given such weak growth, the economy as a whole, and especially construction related sectors, remain vulnerable to shocks. The last couple of years prior to the recession were extraordinary in terms of the rise in construction activity in the Portland metropolitan area. However, in January 2008 construction activity in the Portland Metropolitan area started to experience the effects of the slowdown, especially residential construction. In calendar year (CY) 2011, construction activity in Oregon started to stabilize and gradually recover from the downturn. Although, the contraction has stopped for most construction firms, the industry is not yet ready to hire many workers. In the first three quarters of CY 2012 relative to CY 2011, construction jobs were up 3.2 percent. However, the forecast moving forward is more robust. Construction employment is expected to increase by 5.3 percent and 6 percent in CY 2014 and CY 2015 respectively.

16

Construction is recovering from the effects of the housing sector collapse. The housing market in Oregon and the U.S. continues to clear out excesses in housing inventory accumulated in the past housing boom. The good news is that the housing recovery is finally here; however it remains in its early stages even some 3 years after the end of the technical recession. Home prices are rising across the country, and prices are increasing in the Portland MSA. Housing permits continue to grow strongly, however from a very low base. Single family building is only at about 50 percent of its long term average. The good news is that the housing recovery is here to help drive economic growth. Even so, housing-related production is just now beginning to improve from its recessionary lows, and has a long way to go before the level of production approaches anything considered a normal year for housing. The situation is drastically different in the multi-family market. Rising rents and low multifamily vacancy rates, especially in Portland’s city core, have created incentives for developers to start building around the metro area. Although the projects are smaller in size and lower in valuation than similar projects during the construction boom, the sheer number of projects makes up for the smaller size. Most projects are midsize 4-5 story developments. However, multi-family construction is still currently building at about 75 percent of the industry’s long-run average, in terms of number of units. This industry, similar to the single family sector, still has a room for growth. The situation in the commercial real estate markets is still uncertain. Grubb & Ellis, a nationwide commercial real estate advisory firm, reports that office vacancy rates in the Portland area continue to stabilize in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2012 at 12 percent, lower than the 13 percent rate for the same period the prior year. However, there is little new office construction in the pipeline. The bureau is currently seeing a different mix of development projects than in the past. When the economy was strong, there were a number of large projects over $10 million in valuation. Not only has the number of large projects decreased dramatically, but also the average size of these large projects has shrunk significantly. The bureau has also witnessed a radical change in composition of large projects. Currently, most of the “large projects” are either funded by the public sector or sectors of economy that were not significantly affected by the economic downturn, such as education and health care. A significant example would be the Oregon Health Science University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront. Although, in the past year the bureau witnessed a significant pick up in multi-family market, most multifamily projects currently in the development pipeline are under $10 million in valuation, with just a few notable exceptions. Population growth in the Portland Metropolitan area is forecasted to increase 1.8 percent in 2013 and 2014, and grow approximately at the same rate in later years. Population growth in Oregon overall has slowed with the economy and is projected to be below the U.S. growth rate in 2013 at 0.9 percent. Population growth in Oregon will remain at approximately 1.0 percent for the next several years, still below rates seen in 2005 through 2008. The unemployment rate for Oregon was down to 8.6 percent in 2012 from 9.5 percent in 2011. The Portland area had an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in 2012, compared with 8.3 percent one year prior. The unemployment rate in the region is now significantly below both the statewide average and the national average.

17

Revenue Forecast BDS’s revenues are directly related to commercial and residential construction activity in the larger Portland Metropolitan area. The revenues are very susceptible to changes in the economic conditions of both the state and the nation. The list of macroeconomic parameters influencing the bureau’s revenues includes but is not limited to: total wage and salary employment; construction employment; housing starts; population; measures of income; short and long-term interest rates; housing prices; loan delinquency and charge off rates for loans secured by residential and commercial real estate; homeownership rates; and inflation. The high susceptibility of the bureau’s revenue to so many volatile macroeconomic parameters makes it difficult to project exact revenues, which is partially the reason for the bureau to have a healthy reserve fund. At City Council’s direction, in spring of 2010, the City of Portland retained Johnson Reid – Land Use Economics, an independent consulting firm, to conduct a review of BDS’s Financial Plan and underlying forecasting model. The review found that “the resulting revenue forecasts appear reasonable and defensible” but also recommended that “BDS pursue ongoing improvement of its forecasting model”. Based on this input, City Council directed the bureau to convene a committee to review the feasibility of repaying a line of credit which would be needed to finance bureau’s Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP). The committee included local economists with expertise in commercial and residential real estate, as well as members of Portland’s Small Business Advisory Committee (SBAC) and the City's Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC). In fall 2010, the bureau received significant input from the committee regarding the forecasting model. Committee members agreed with Johnson-Reid's findings and suggested that the forecasting model could be improved by including more variables from the real estate market. The bureau researched options and resources for data closely related to real estate activity in the Portland Metropolitan area, and has implemented several improvements to the forecasting model. Several criteria were employed in the model development and selection process. The most important ones are the following:

• Utilization of local variables that describe real estate activity in the Portland Metropolitan area

• Overall valid model diagnostics/characteristics (parameters such as Adjusted R-squared, Durbin Watson statistic, F and T statistics)

• High degree of accurate historical performance of the model • Reasonableness of the forecast produced by the model

The bureau went through a rigorous and intensive model development and selection process, testing hundreds of models. The bureau developed models for its major programs such as building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. Final and alternative models for these programs, as well as forecasts produced by models, were presented to the local economists from the Finance Committee and members of BAC and DRAC.

18

The bureau went through the same process this year and presented models to the Finance Committee and members of BAC and DRAC in December 2012 and January 2013. The bureau recommended the continued utilization of the Building, Electrical, and Plumbing program models. The bureau also presented the committee with an alternative model for Mechanical program that better fitted the selection criteria described above and made a recommendation to switch to new model for this program. The committee found that the model development and selection processes were comprehensive and sound, and concurred with bureau’s recommendations. The committee also found the bureau’s projections for development activity in the Portland Metropolitan area to be reasonable and defensible. Revenues for most of the bureau’s programs are projected to increase moderately in FY 2013-14. Higher growth in revenues is projected in FY 2014-15, and steady growth in the next several years after that time period. The revenue growth rates are applied to bureau revenues generated from projects with valuation of under $10 million. The revenue projections are then adjusted to account for bureau’s expectations regarding large projects with valuation of above $10 million. These adjustments are typically made only in the first two years of the forecast. The bureau’s assumptions regarding the size and timing of development of large projects with valuation of above $10 million were shared with the Finance Committee. They reviewed the assumptions; especially ones associated with the eventual slow down in multifamily development. The committee recommended that the timing of the slowdown be in winter/spring of FY 2014-15. The bureau has also conducted sensitivity analysis and developed a worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is based on Moody Analytics Below-Trend Long-Term Growth Scenario that assumes that “the U.S. recovery continues in 2013, but the growth rate is below the baseline pace because of the deeper than expected effects of federal fiscal contraction in early 2013, the European sovereign debt crisis, the persistence of foreclosures and weak house prices, and reduced consumer confidence.” The BDS Finance Committee supported this recommendation for developing this “worst case” scenario; however, they believe that the probability of it occurring is highly unlikely. The financial outcomes of the worst case scenario are presented in Appendix D. The models used to develop the bureau’s five-year revenue forecast are presented on the following pages.

19

Building/Mechanical Program The Building/Mechanical Program is funded through a set of fees. The largest ones in terms of the revenue collected are: Commercial and Residential Building Permits, Building Plan Review, and Fire and Life Safety Review Fee. The fee amounts and revenues collected for the above-mentioned fees are directly related to the total value of construction work to be performed. Therefore, the trends and growth rates exhibited in revenue collections for one of the fee items are very likely to be present in revenue collections for other fee items as well. Several models have been developed that relate the Building Plan Review revenues to the measures of construction activity in the Portland Metropolitan area and the state, such as construction employment and housing starts, as well as interest rates, population, housing prices, personal income, home ownership rates, delinquency and charge off rates, and inflation. The following model was selected as a final model based on its superior diagnostics and past performance. This is the same model that was used in the last year’s Financial Plan for the Building Plan Review Revenues.

Revenue Item Variables used Explanatory

Power

Building Plan Review

• Portland Construction Employment • Homeownership rates for Portland

Metropolitan area • Charge-off rate on commercial real estate

loans1 • Delinquency rate on commercial real estate

loans2

95.3%

To estimate growth rates for the Mechanical revenue of the Building/Mechanical Program, several models were developed that draw connections between Mechanical Permit revenue and macroeconomic variables. The final model is presented in the table below.


Power

Mechanical Permits

• Portland Construction Employment • Homeownership rates for Portland

Metropolitan area • Population Portland Metropolitan area

94.6%

The growth rates derived from the forecast produced by the Mechanical Permit Revenue model are assumed to be valid for the total mechanical program revenue.

1 Charge-offs, which are the value of loans removed from the books and charged against loss reserves, are measured net of recoveries as a percentage of average loans and annualized. 2 Delinquent loans are those past due thirty days or more and still accruing interest as well as those in non-accrual status. They are measured as a percentage of end-of-period loans.

20

The growth rate for the Building/Mechanical program is a weighted average of the growth rates for the Building and Mechanical sections of the program weighted by the respective shares of revenues collected for each program in the last two years. Electrical Program The Electrical Program is funded through a set of dedicated permit and plan review fees. Based on the data for the last five fiscal years, the revenue generated by the electrical commercial and residential permit fees constitutes more than 90percent of the total program revenue. Therefore, electrical permit fee revenues were modeled and several competing econometric models were developed. The final model is presented in the table below.


Power

Electrical Permit Revenue

• Conventional and Conforming Home Price Index for Portland Metropolitan area

• Charge-off rate on commercial real estate loans

• Homeownership rates for Portland Metropolitan area

• Standard and Poor 500 index • Portland Construction Employment • Delinquency rate on commercial real

estate loans

98.7%

The growth rates derived from the forecast produced by the Electrical Permit Revenue model are expected to be valid for the entire Electrical Program. Plumbing Program Similar to the Electrical Program, the revenue generated by commercial and residential plumbing permits represents more than 90percent of the total Plumbing Program revenues in the last five fiscal years. Several econometric models were developed to forecast plumbing permit revenue; the following model was selected as a final model based on its superior characteristics and past performance. .


Power

Plumbing Permits

• Mortgage Originations - Purchase for Portland Metropolitan area

• Portland construction employment • Measure of risk • Homeownership rates for Portland

Metropolitan area

95.8%

The growth rates derived from the forecast produced by the Plumbing Permit Revenue model are expected to be valid for the entire Plumbing Program.

21

Facilities Permits Program The growth rates for the Facilities Permits Program were estimated as averages of the growth rates for the Building/Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing sections weighted by the respective shares of revenues collected for each section in the last two years. Site Development Program The revenue growth rates for the Site Development Program are the growth rates derived for the Building/Mechanical Program revenues due to similar relationships that the revenues of these two programs have with the macroeconomic parameters. Environmental Soils Program The programmatic revenue growth assumptions developed for the Environmental Soils Program are based on the weighted average growth rates in the following variables:

• Portland House Price Index – 25percent • Population Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 75percent

Signs Program The programmatic revenue growth assumptions developed for the Signs Program are based on the weighted average growth rates in the following variables:

• Population Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 50percent • Total Employment Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 50percent

Zoning Enforcement Program The revenue growth rates for the Zoning Enforcement Program are the growth rates derived for the Building/Mechanical Program revenues due to similar relationships that the revenues of these two programs have with the macroeconomic parameters. Noise Program The programmatic revenue growth assumptions developed for the Noise Program are based on the weighted average growth rates in the following variables:

• Population Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 75percent • Total Employment Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 25percent

Neighborhood Inspections Program The programmatic revenue growth assumptions developed for the Neighborhood Inspections Program are based on the weighted average growth rates in the following variables:

• Population Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) – 40percent • Construction Employment Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) –30percent • Total Employment Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (7 counties) –30percent

22

Land Use Services Program The revenue growth rates for the Land Use Services Program are the growth rates derived for the Building/Mechanical Program revenues due to similar relationships that the revenues of these two programs have with the macroeconomic parameters. Summary of All Programs Overall moderate to mild growth in BDS revenues is expected for the forecast period. The bureau is expected to achieve 100% cost recovery and maintain healthy reserves over the next five years. Bureau-wide reserves are projected to remain significantly above the 15% minimum reserve level in FY 2013-14 and in the next four years. For estimates of BDS revenue growth rates for major programs, please refer to Appendix B. Changes in Fees In addition to the programmatic growth rates, several programs include fee increases over multiple years. Prior to proposing fee increases to City Council, BDS will review the need for the increases and seek industry support and approval. In January 2012, BDS received approval from the DRAC, BDS Budget Advisory Committee, and the BDS Labor Management Committee for its budget add package requests and proposed fee increases. For FY 2013-14 due to continued improvement in the construction activity in Portland Metropolitan Area and subsequent improvement in Bureau's financial situation, no (zero) fee increases are projected for the following programs: Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Zoning Enforcement, and Facilities Permit Program. A fee decrease of 5 percent is projected for the Site Development Program in FY 2013-14. Fee increases are included in the Financial Plan for programs which are below cost recovery, need to build reserves, and/or have anticipated inflationary cost increases. Generally these increases are held to 5 percent. If changes to programs’ financial situations occur, the bureau will reassess the need for specific fee increases. If these fee increases are necessary but not adopted, then program services will need to be reduced through budget/expenditure reductions. For estimates of proposed fee increases, please refer to Appendix B. Expenditure Projections Expenditures for FY 2012-13 were projected based on actual spending from July 1 through December 31, 2012, anticipated spending through the end of the fiscal year, and historical spending patterns. The bureau’s total expenditures are projected to increase by 20.9 percent in FY 2012-13, primarily due to the addition of 16.6 FTE to the bureau’s workforce through the FY 2012-13 budget process and 9 FTE added through the fall and winter budget monitoring processes. All additions are funded by revenues from fees. The FY 2013-14 Requested Budget contains a decision package request that adds 14 FTE to the bureau’s workforce funded by revenues from fees, decision package requests that include 6.5 FTE currently funded by one-time General Fund monies in FY 2012-13, and decision package requests that in total add back 1.25 FTE funded by 10 percent Add Back ongoing General Fund monies in FY 2013-14. These additions, if approved, would bring the bureau’s workforce to a total of 221.67 FTE.

23

The bureau expenditures are also affected by the Information Technology Advancement Project. The work on the project is expected to start in the spring of FY 2012-13 and to last approximately two years. Portion of the project cost will initially be funded by a line of credit. The financial plan incorporates expenditures associated with the project net of the reimbursements received from the line of credit. The line of credit is expected to be repaid over two years beginning in the second half of FY 2015-16. At this point, construction activity in the Portland metropolitan area is expected to grow steadily but moderately over the next several years. Beginning in FY 2013-14, new positions are proposed to be gradually added to the bureau to meet the anticipated increase in the workload. Overall, 29 FTE are added over the five-year period of the Financial Plan: 14 FTE in FY 2013-14, 7 FTE in FY 2014-15, 5.5 FTE in FY 2015-16, 1.5 FTE in FY 2016-17, and 1 FTE in FY 2017-18. The efficiencies achieved by the bureau through the implementation of the Information Technology Advancement Project are expected to decrease the need for new positions by 9 FTE in the next two years after the new permitting software is operational. The 29 additional FTE added to the bureau’s work force are net additions after these efficiencies are taken into account. However, the bureau anticipates that these new positions will be slightly less than what may be needed to match the projected increased workload associated with the projected recovery in construction activity in the Portland metropolitan area. This is in part due to the fact that the type of work coming in will continue to include mostly smaller, lower-valued projects. Nevertheless, adding even more positions would have a negative effect on the bureau’s financial stability. At this point, the number and type of positions added in later years largely depend on the timing and magnitude of the projected recovery. The bureau will closely monitor revenues and workload and make adjustments to the plan as updated information is received. So far the bureau has taken a very moderate approach to adding back new positions, and this caution will continue. Threats to the Forecast The revenue and expenditure forecast presented in the Financial Plan is "realistic" (neither optimistic nor pessimistic). However, bureau revenues and expenditures are very susceptible to changes in the political and economic climate of the state, the nation, and the world. Having a prudent reserve helps the bureau weather some of these fluctuations. In addition, being financially conservative also forwards this goal. Although construction activity in the state and in the Portland Metropolitan area continues to stabilize and recover from the effects of the recent recession, it still remains exposed to internal and external shocks.

24

The economic and revenue outlook is never certain. The risks now facing the Oregon economy and this forecast include, but are not limited to: a slower recovery or second dip in the national and global economies; contagion of the credit crunch and financial market instability; prolonged housing market instability; inflation or deflation and Federal Reserve Bank reactions; a sharp fall/appreciation of the dollar; sharp and major stock market correction; geopolitical risks; and a slowdown in the semiconductor, software and communication industries. BDS will continue to monitor its finances and recognize the potential impacts of risk factors on Portland and the construction industry. The bureau has included a “Worst Case Scenario” that accounts for some of the risks listed above. However, in January 2013, the bureau’s Finance Committee reviewed assumptions for the worst case scenario and came to the conclusion that the probability of the worst case scenario occurring is highly unlikely.

25

26

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS AND FEE STUDY

Fee study BDS collects more than 200 fees and charges under various fee schedules, including building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, facility permit, site development, environmental soils, signs, zoning enforcement, noise, land use, and neighborhood inspections. These fees and charges are used by BDS to fund inspections, plan review, permit issuance, land use review, customer assistance, and other functions. Most bureau programs have the goal to be self-supporting; while a few programs receive General Fund support. Fees charged for services delegated from the State Building Codes Division (BCD) must comply with the fee calculation methodologies determined by BCD and described in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 918-050-0000 through 918-050-0170. In 1988-89, the Development Services Operating Fund was established with a policy that construction-related programs in the fund would be full self-supporting. Since that time, BDS has kept these programs self-supporting by providing efficient, effective services and by periodic, moderate fee changes that allow the bureau to respond to increasing costs and to be innovative and proactive in meeting changing customer needs. The same principle is applied to all bureau programs. Any fees charged by BDS, including fees for services delegated by BCD, should cover the costs of providing services. Every year as part of the Five-Year Financial Plan development, BDS evaluates its programs to ensure that the costs are fully recovered and programs maintain full cost recovery and healthy reserves over the next five years. State Mandated Construction Inspection Programs State law allows the bureau to interchange all the funding of the state construction programs (building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing), with the exception that electrical revenues cannot be used to fund the other programs. When viewed together, the state construction programs' reserve is projected to be $11.6 million at the end of FY 2012-13, which is higher than the reserve goal. Overall cost recovery for these programs is projected to be 110%. At the end of the five-year plan, reserves for the state-mandated programs will be above the reserve goal of $10.5 million and the cost recovery rate will be 102%.

27

Building/Mechanical Program The Building and Mechanical programs are combined into one Building/Mechanical Program, because the employees who make these inspections are all cross-certified and make both building and mechanical inspections. Historically, funding has been strong and stable for this program. Fees for building permits and commercial mechanical permits are calculated based upon the valuation of the projects, so as valuation grows, revenues also grow. As a result, this program has been the bureau’s financial foundation over the years. The program has been severely affected by the recent recession. However, the program is gradually recovering from the downturn. The program's cost recovery is projected to reach 114% at the end of FY 2012-13. The program has benefited greatly from revenues collected on one of the largest projects in bureau’s history – Oregon Health Science University/Oregon University System building on the South Waterfront, a $200 million valuation project. The expected gradual recovery in construction activity and projected fee annual increases of 3% from FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18 will help the program maintain cost recovery and healthy reserves. No fee increases are proposed for FY 2013-14, because the cost recovery and reserves are both projected to be strong and customers saw 8% fee increases in this program in the previous years. In FY 2004-05 a promise was made to the construction industry that Building/Mechanical fees would not be raised for the subsequent five years through FY 2009-10. This pledge was part of the implementation of the Development Services fee to fund the Land Use Services program. Building permit fees were decreased by 10% at the end of FY 2004-05 to offset the impact of the new fee to customers. Beginning in FY 2010-11, the program started receiving back $1,272,845 from the Facilities Permit Program in three equal annual installments. This amount was transferred from the Building program to the Facilities Permit Program in FY 2005-06 to eliminate that program’s deficit. And finally the ongoing transfer of $579,848 to the Land Use Services Program for services ceased in FY 2011-12. The reserve goal for the Building/Mechanical Program was raised back to 45% of expenditures (from 25%) in FY 2011-12. This program has always been one of the most volatile in terms of revenues. Previously the reserve goal was set at 35% or 45%. Based on the recent experience of the recession, 45% is a more prudent reserve. However, the actual reserve has always been significantly higher than the various goals that have been set.

28

Electrical Program FY 2003-04 was the first year since FY 1994-95 that the Electrical Program's revenues fully funded program costs. Between FY 1994-95 and FY 2002-03, the electrical permit applicants were not fully paying for the services that they were receiving. FY 2006-07 was the first year since FY 1998-99 in which the program had a positive reserve. However, in FY 2008-09 the program’s cost recovery rate dropped to 76% due to a sharp drop in construction activity. The program’s cumulative deficit reached $1.4 million by the end of FY 2009-10. The bureau took actions to decrease the deficit and bring the program back to the cost recovery. By the end of FY 2012-13 the deficit is expected to be eliminated, and cost recovery up to 122%. The program is projected to maintain cost recovery and continue rebuilding its reserves over the next five years. The program is projected to achieve its reserve goal in FY 2013-14 and maintain healthy reserves. Therefore, no fee increases are proposed for FY 2013-14. Plumbing Program The Plumbing Program drew on its reserves every year between FY 1995-96 and FY 2001-02, causing its reserve balance to be negative $1.7 million in FY 2001-02. During these years, plumbing permit applicants did not fully pay for the services they received. In FY 2002-03 revenues began to cover costs, and they have continued to exceed costs for five years. Much like the Electrical Program, the cost recovery rate for the Plumbing Program dropped to 63% in FY 2008-09 due to the decrease in construction activity. The bureau implemented fee increases and cost savings measures to bring the program back to the cost recovery. The cost recovery rate is projected to reach 103% in FY 2012-13, and the program’s cumulative deficit is expected to decrease to $1.4 million by the end of FY 2012-13.

29

Annual fee increases of 5% are recommended in FY 2013-14 and for each of the next four years to cover the cost of the Plumbing Program and reduce the deficit. The program is projected to maintain cost recovery over the next five years and eventually eliminate the deficit and start rebuilding reserves by FY 2017-18. Facilities Permit Program The Facilities Permit Program (FPP) began in FY 1998-99 as a new, innovative way for BDS to provide services. The program is designed to serve customers with ongoing interior tenant improvements where facility maintenance, upgrade, and renovations are frequent. Instead of paying standard permit fees, businesses and institutions enrolled in the program pay an hourly rate for plan review and inspection services. The program started slowly with a limited number of inspectors, and then was expanded in FY 2000-01 and FY 2004-05. The program recovered costs in FY 2001-02 and again in FY 2005-06. However, because the FPP program had a cumulative deficit of nearly $1.3 million at the end of FY 2005-06, funds were transferred to the FPP reserve from the Building/Mechanical Program reserve to remove this deficit. This loan is being repaid to the Building/Mechanical fund beginning in FY 2010-11 in three equal annual installments. The program is projected to fully repay the loan by the end of FY 2012-13. The program achieved above 100% cost recovery in both FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 due to the shift in the construction economy from new construction to the renovation and remodel of existing commercial buildings. The FPP program did not experience the effects of the recent recession to extent that other state mandated construction programs were affected by it. As a result, with a moderate fee increase of 4% in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, from FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18 the program is projected to recover costs and maintain healthy reserves. No fee increases are projected for FY 2013-14. The reserve goal for FPP was raised to 20% (up from 15%) of expenditures in FY 2011-12. Based on experience with the recent recession, the 20% reserve goal is more prudent and helps shield the program better from revenue fluctuations.

30

Local Programs The local programs implement local regulations or state and federal mandates. Funding for these programs is predominantly from fees and charges. General Fund monies currently support the Land Use Services, Neighborhood Inspections, and Noise Control programs. Site Development Program The Site Development Program was created as a separate program in FY 2000-01 in order to recognize the impact of new responsibilities for the plan review and inspections related to storm water control, erosion control, and tree preservation. In November 2002, BDS restructured the fee schedule for this program. For residential projects, several old fees were consolidated into a Residential Site Development Fee, but overall these fees were not increased. Fees for commercial projects were increased by 5.1%, mirroring inflation over a two-year period. In addition, the bureau reviewed the work done by this section. As a result, work that is more appropriately funded by building inspection and plan review fees is now supported by building permit fees. The cost recovery rate for the program dropped to 50% in FY 2008-09 and to 81% in FY 2009-10. However after position reductions and series of fee increases, the program was able to return to cost recovery and eliminated the deficit by the end of FY 2011-12. In spring of 2010 the bureau transferred the Stormwater Control Program to the Bureau of Environmental Services. The transfer included both the workload and fees supporting the program. In addition, a new Commercial Site Review Fee was created that replaced the transferred revenue and better aligned revenue sources with the services provided. The program is projected to maintain healthy reserves throughout the 5-year forecast period. A fee decrease of 5% is proposed in FY 2013-14, and no fee increases are proposed for the subsequent four years of the forecast.

31

Environmental Soils Program Multnomah County and the City have an intergovernmental agreement that gives the bureau the responsibility for the County’s subsurface sewage program. BDS performs this work and is compensated with revenues that the bureau collects from permit fees for this program. The Board of County Commissioners sets the fees, and no additional compensation is given to the City for this work. Since the end of the Mid-County sewer hookup program in 1998, revenues have dropped substantially in this program. Fee increases were implemented in FY 1999-2000 to bring the fees up to the State of Oregon fee schedule. In FY 2001-02, staffing was reduced to match the workload. Fees were increased by 57% in FY 2004-05 and more modestly the past four years. However, the program still has a significant reserve deficit. In 2005, BDS consulted with Multnomah County and the City's Office of Management and Finance for ideas in resolving the problem of this program's ongoing deficit. At the time, most jurisdictions used their General Fund to help support their subsurface sewage program. Ideas to resolve the funding situation included a one-time fund transfer from Multnomah County, a one-time General Fund transfer, and "writing off" the debt. However, none of these ideas was deemed feasible. Instead, City Council agreed to inflationary fee increases until the reserve deficit is paid off. By the end of FY 2010-11, the program had a cumulative deficit of approximately $1.4 million. In mid-2011, the bureau worked extensively with Multnomah County staff to address the ongoing deficit. Neither the County nor the City was willing to contribute funding to eliminate this deficit. In order to begin to eliminate the deficit and improve program’s cost recovery, the County agreed to raise the fees by 70% in FY 2011-12 and to explore alternatives, including ending the intergovernmental agreement with the City and returning the program to the State of Oregon. The County extensively reviewed the service level provided by the State of Oregon and compared it to BDS’s services. The County’s review concluded with commending BDS on its level of service and deciding to continue the intergovernmental agreement with the City. The Board of County Commissioners voted to raise fees by 10% in FY 2012-13 and agreed to 10% fee increases per year for the subsequent four years. This plan should help the program achieve cost recovery and substantially reduce the deficit to approximately $350,000 by FY 2017-18. The current forecast projects that the deficit should be eliminated by FY 2019-20.

32

Sign Program The Sign Program has had a deficit since FY 1995-96. Sign revenues dropped substantially in FY 1998-99 when litigation prohibited BDS from charging for any “copy changes” on signs. New fees were implemented as of March 2001. However, the revenues from these new fees did not fully fund the program. In 2002, City Council approved a licensing program for A-board and non-illuminated signs. Some operational changes in the sign enforcement program were made in order to carry out this program. Prior to this change, all sign enforcement was carried out by the City’s electrical sign inspectors. Enforcement of the non-illuminated sign requirements as well as the associated program licensing is now being carried out by a non-technical field code specialist assigned to the Compliance Services Section. Responsibility for the enforcement of the City’s electrical sign requirements remains with the State-certified electrical inspectors in the Commercial Inspections Section. The sign permit fees are set at a flat rate; they do not increase based on the cost of living. Only an increase in the number of sign permits would increase revenues. Unfortunately, the program had drawn down its reserve for eight consecutive years through FY 2001-02 and had a negative reserve of over $400,000. Fees were increased in FY 2002-03 to fully fund the program, and the program contributed slightly to its reserve for three years, but by FY 2005-06 the deficit grew to $500,000. OMF included a budget note in the FY 2006-07 budget that BDS was to resolve the funding issue for the Sign Program. The bureau met with the sign industry which agreed to increase fees by 7.5% annually until the program meets its reserve goals. The bureau has been implementing cost savings measures and fee increases to bring the program to financial health. In FY 2012-13 the reserve deficit is projected to be reduced to approximately $290,000. Annual fee increases of 2.5% are needed for the next two years to eliminate the reserve deficit and maintain cost recovery. The program is expected to reach its reserve goal by FY 2016-17.

33

Zoning Enforcement Program Zoning Enforcement Program responsibilities include the zoning enforcement functions in the following programs: Enforcement Services, Building/Mechanical, and Site Development. Zoning inspection fees comprise the bulk of program revenues. It was a long-time practice that Zoning Enforcement Program revenues that exceeded program costs in any given fiscal year were transferred to the Building/Mechanical and Site Development Programs to support zoning inspection functions that are integrated into building and site development inspections. Therefore, the Zoning Program achieved 100% cost recovery in all years. However, since FY 2009-10 the costs of conducting zoning inspections have been directly charged to the Zoning Enforcement Program, thus eliminating the need to transfer any revenues to the Building/Mechanical or Site Development Programs. This housekeeping change brings this program into conformity with the bureau's standard practice of accounting for revenues and expenditures. No fee increases are proposed in FY 2013-14; fee increases of 4% are recommended for the subsequent three years. The Zoning Program is projected to maintain healthy reserves throughout the five year forecast horizon. Noise Control Program In FY 2003-04, the Noise Control Program was transferred to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, and then was transferred back to BDS in FY 2005-06. When it was returned to BDS, there was no funding to cover the program’s administrative overhead in its revenue base, so no overhead was charged to this program in FY 2005-06. Since FY 2006-07, overhead has been charged to this program.

34

Historically, more than two thirds of the program was funded by General Fund monies. With General Fund support projected to dwindle further in FY 2013-14, the program cost recovery is projected to remain below 100% for the next five years even with annual 5% fee increases. And the program’s deficit is expected to grow, reaching more than $300,000 by the end FY 2017-18. It is critical that policy decisions are made regarding this program’s funding and level of service. Under the current funding scheme, the noise program is not financially sustainable. Land Use Services Program The Land Use Services (LUS) Program is partially funded by program revenues and partially by the City’s General Fund. In 1995, when LUS fees were increased, this program was part of the Bureau of Planning, and the recommendation was that program revenues cover 64% of the program’s costs. But, the City Council set the fees to collect only 50% of costs. In FY 1999-2000, the LUS Program was consolidated with the Bureau of Buildings to form the Office of Planning and Development Review, now renamed the Bureau of Development Services. That fiscal year, even though no BDS overhead was allocated to the LUS Program, LUS fees recovered only 60% of program costs. LUS fees were increased in FY 2000-01 and a new cost recovery target was set at 65%. That same year, a one-time allocation of $234,929 in General Fund money from the Housing Program was reallocated to LUS to assist in funding their reserve. Cost recovery was only 63%, but was at least closer to the 65% goal. In FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03, the cost recovery rate dropped to 57%, and the LUS Program drew more than $1 million from its reserves over this two-year period. In FY 2003-04, $579,848 in ongoing General Fund monies was replaced with building permit revenues. In most situations, building permit fees are used to fund building permit functions. However, where implementation of local ordinances is interdependent and intertwined with the State construction codes, building permit revenues are allowed to be used. According to the State Building Codes Division, a portion of planning and zoning review incidental or accessory to the issuance of a building permit falls into this category. However, beginning in FY 2011-12 building permit revenues ceased supporting Land Use Services, because the Building/- Mechanical program no longer had the resources for this transfer. In FY 2003-04, $587,614 in one-time General Fund monies were reallocated to the Land Use Services program from the Neighborhood Inspections Program reserve, when the Neighborhood Inspections Program was moved to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.

35

In May 2005 a new Development Services fee was created to assist in solving the critical funding issue in LUS. BDS worked with stakeholders to craft the fee. Since the new fee dramatically increased LUS’ fee recovery rate, City Council directed BDS to revise the fee schedule for LUS by lowering some of the LUS fees in certain categories, lowering building permit fees by 10% to mitigate the impact of the new fee to customers, and eliminating the Council policy of 65% cost recovery. The Development Services fee is charged at the time of issuance of building, site development, and zoning permits. Revenues from the Development Services fee made a significant positive impact on the financial stability of this program. As a result, the program achieved 100% cost recovery in FY 2005-06, the first time it had done so in five years. However, the program’s cost recovery dropped to 69% in FY 2008-09 due to a sharp reduction in construction activity. The program depleted its reserves in FY 2008-09; the programmatic deficit reached $1.7 million in FY 2009-10. The program is recovering from the effects of the downturn. The program was able to achieve cost recovery in FY 2009-10 and eliminated the deficit by the end of FY 2011-12. Annual fee increases of 5% in FY 2013-14, 3% in FY 2014-15, 2.5% in FY 2015-16, and 2% in FY 2016-17 are necessary for the program to maintain a 100% cost recovery rate and to reach and maintain its reserve goals over the next five years. Neighborhood Inspections Program In FY 2003-04, the Neighborhood Inspections Program was transferred to the City's Office of Neighborhood Involvement, and then was transferred back to BDS in FY 2006-07. That year, the program received about 70% less General Fund support than it had when it was previously in BDS. In addition, funding to cover the program’s administrative overhead was not included in its revenue base, so no overhead was charged to this program in FY 2006-07. In FY 2007-08, the bureau began to fully charge the program for its share of the bureau’s administrative overhead.

36

The program was also experiencing lower revenue collections associated with the decreased activity in the real estate market. As a result, the program faced a significant deficit in FY 2008-09 and fully depleted its reserves; the programmatic deficit reached $1.3 million in FY 2008-09. The Lien Amnesty Program, a special one-time program that offered significant concessions to property owners on payments of liens, implemented in June-July of 2009, led to a significant cash inflow to the program. Subsequently, in FY 2009-10 the bureau established a new proactive lien collection program that resulted in additional cash inflow to the program. The program achieved full cost recovery in FY 2009-10. The bureau has continued this proactive method of lien collection. The program is projected to achieve 94% cost recovery in FY 2012-13. As General Fund support has decreased over the years, there has been much greater reliance on fines, penalties, and liens. Collections of these revenues are very unstable and are dependent upon the economy and collection efforts. In addition, most of the program activities do not result in fines and penalties being assessed; on the contrary, the program strives to bring violators into compliance with the City of Portland codes during the very early stages of complaints and investigations. Most violation cases (80-90%) gain compliance prior to assessment of penalty charges. In FY 2012-13, the program relied heavily on one-time General Fund monies that supported 6 of the 14 positions dedicated to this program. The Five-Year Financial Plan assumes that the bureau will receive ongoing General Fund for 3 positions and that program revenues will fund the balance of the expenditures. On-going General Fund money is an appropriate source of funding for the program. There is a direct public benefit from this program; it enhances the livability of Portland’s neighborhoods, maintains the City’s housing stock, and helps to eliminate serious public safety threats to neighborhoods. There is also a direct tie to equity as the Neighborhood Inspections program provides safe and livable housing options for lower income renters. It is critical that policy decisions are made regarding this program’s funding and level of service. In addition to ongoing General Fund, other dedicated funding sources should be explored. Besides assuming that ongoing General Fund will be forthcoming, annual 5% annual fee increases over the next five year period are recommended to bring the program’s reserve up to its goal. In addition, the reserve goal for Neighborhood Inspections was raised to 25% (up from 20% of expenditures in FY 2011-12). The 25% goal will help ensure the program’s financial stability.

37

Bureau Overview The bureau has a goal of having a total reserve of 30%. In addition, the bureau’s goal is to always maintain a minimum bureau-wide reserve at above 15%. Keeping the reserve level above 15% of total bureau expenditures is critical. It allows the bureau to have enough funds to adequately react to short-term economic fluctuations. If all of the programs’ reserve goals are totaled, the maximum reserve goal for the bureau is 30% of costs. On a bureau-wide basis, the cumulative reserve is very close to the goal over the next five years. Bureau-wide reserves are projected to remain significantly above the 15% minimum reserve level in FY 2013-14 and in the next four years. The bureau has committed to repaying the line of credit for the Information Technology Advancement Project when reserves are above 15%. This repayment will be made in quarterly installments beginning in the third quarter of FY 2015-16 through second quarter of FY 2017-18.

38

Appendix A

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL POLICIES

Reserve Policy In FY 1988-89, the City Council established the Bureau of Buildings as an Operating Fund with the goal of the fund eventually being 100% supported by permit fees and charges. The need to be self-supporting, combined with the difficulty in accurately predicting construction activity and fee revenues, makes it important for the Bureau of Development Services to maintain a reserve of funds that can be used to ensure a stable and adequate level of service during times when revenues fall below expectations. During periods of strong construction activity, the reserve is built up to provide a funding source for times when revenues drop. In this way, the fund is able to weather the ups and downs of construction activity, to remain stable and efficient, and to maintain the staff necessary to provide services on work that has been paid for but not completed. The reserve is not intended to maintain existing budget levels in spite of reduced construction activity and BDS workloads, but rather to allow BDS time to recognize and respond to such downturns. Reserve goals are based upon a percentage of each individual program's annual operating budget. In most cases, the Financial Plan brings each program to its reserve goal by the end of the fifth year of the plan. Fee increases are recommended when workload remains high, costs increase, and the reserve is projected to dip below recommended levels. Rather than increase fees dramatically in one year to bring the program back up to its recommended reserves, BDS phases in the fee increases gradually so that by the fifth year the program reaches its recommended reserve level. In addition, fees are increased as minimally as possible in order to mitigate the negative impact that fee increases can have on the construction industry. In 1992 a reserve policy was adopted for the fund, and it was updated in 1995. In FY 2004-05 the bureau was directed to work with the Office of Management and Finance to once again review the reserve goals for all programs. The bureau completed a survey that gathered information from a number of comparable jurisdictions regarding their development services programs, reserves, and reserve policies. The jurisdictions surveyed were: Eugene, Long Beach, CA, Oakland, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle. In many of these cities, the development services function was part of the General Fund and therefore had no separate reserves. For those cities that did have reserves, the policies and practices varied greatly, and there was no consistent approach to determining how large the reserve should be. Some reserve funds were designed to cover a certain number of months of operating expenses, while others were based on capital spending needs, economic downturns, the ability to maintain core staffing, or the need to cover work in process.

39

As a result of the review, the bureau lowered its reserve goals for several programs, most notably lowering the reserve goal for the Building/Mechanical Program to 25% of annual expenditures. The changes also included a new bureau-wide minimum reserve level of 10%. This provides a baseline below which total bureau reserves should not drop. The other reserve goals were designed to be reached by no later than the fifth year of the financial plan. For the larger programs which are more affected by the construction economy (Electrical, Plumbing, and Site Development), the reserve goal was set at 20% of their annual budget. The table below illustrates the adjustments made to reserve goals:

BDS Reserve Goals

Program Reserve Goal Goal Prior

to FY 2004-05

Goal in

FY 2004-05

Current Goal as of

FY 2011-12

Current Goal as of

FY 2013-14 Building/Mechanical 35-45% 25% 35-45% 45% Electrical 35-45% 20% 20% 20% Plumbing 35-45% 20% 20% 20% Facilities Permits 15% 15% 20% 20% Site Development 35-45% 20% 20% 20% Environmental Soils 20% 20% 20% 20% Signs 20% 20% 20% 20% Zoning 20% 20% 20% 20% Land Use Services 20% 20% 20% 20% Neighborhood Inspections 20% 20% 25% 25%

Bureau Total No goal 10% Minimum Reserve Level

10% Minimum Reserve Level

15% Minimum Reserve Level

In FY 2010-11 with the impact of the recession still fresh, the bureau revisited its reserve goals. The reserve goal for the Building Mechanical Program is being returned to the original 35-45% goal due to recent experience with the significant economic downturn. Since fees for building and mechanical permits are based upon the valuation of the construction project and are the most volatile, the 35% reserve goal for the Building/Mechanical Program is more prudent Smaller programs (Environmental Soils, Signs, and Zoning) have reserve goals of 20% of their annual budget. Likewise, the Land Use Services program has a 20% reserve goal because the program receives General Fund support. The Facilities Permit Program reserve goal was increased from 15% to 20% to be consistent with the reserve goals established for similar programs. The Neighborhood Inspections Program reserve goal was increased from 20% to 25% due to a greater volatility in lien collections, the largest revenue source for the program.

40

In FY 2012-13 the bureau revisited its total minimum reserve level and Building Mechanical Program reserve goal, which were raised to 15% and 45% respectively. Higher reserve goal for the Building Mechanical Program and higher bureau total minimum reserve level will allow the bureau to better manage unpredictable fluctuations in economic conditions. It is important to remember that the goal of the reserve is to allow BDS time to recognize and respond to unanticipated declines in revenues and to maintain the staffing needed to carry out its obligation to provide services on permits for which BDS has already been paid. The size of the reserve determines how much time BDS will have to adjust to change and still provide necessary services. The reserve goals will not insulate the programs from making significant budget adjustments in response to lower revenues and reduced workloads over the long term, but will allow BDS to remain stable and to meet its prepaid obligations, will provide time to respond, and will reduce the severity of budget cuts in the short term. Fee Increase Policy BDS's fee increase policy was adopted by the Bureau of Buildings and the Bureau Advisory Committee in 1992. The policy is to review fees on an annual basis and increase them to cover increases in personnel and interagency costs. This policy of increasing fees slowly and steadily assists permit applicants. It is very difficult for customers to absorb large fee increases, because their operations are based on a fairly stable cost of doing business. They have a much easier time absorbing smaller and more predictable increases. Although the general policy is to increase fees on an annual basis, fee increases may not be necessary every year if a program's revenues are strong and its reserves are at an acceptable level. Fee increases should be avoided only when the bureau has enough excess reserves to operate through two fiscal years without depleting the program's reserves below the target set in BDS's reserve policy. Fee increases should be set at a rate which covers BDS's increased operating costs. BDS's costs of doing business are estimated to increase each year in part because the City’s labor agreements currently contain provisions for cost of living increases based upon the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the City of Portland, with a floor of 1% and a ceiling of 5%. BDS estimates that overall costs will increase between 3 – 5% each year. Fee increases above this figure are necessary when reserves are below acceptable levels, a large capital project is on the horizon (such as improvement to information systems or a major site relocation), or BDS is confronted with other major unforeseen events. Limitations on Use of Revenues from Construction Permit Fees Since the adoption of the operating fund in FY 1988-89, BDS has analyzed expenses and revenues by program. These programs are Building/Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Facilities Permits, Site Development, Environmental Soils, Signs, Zoning, Noise Control, Neighborhood Inspections, and Land Use Services. Revenues collected for each program stay within that program.

41

42

State law requires that “fees collected by a municipality…shall be used for the administration and enforcement of a building inspection program for which the municipality has assumed responsibility” (ORS 455.210(1)(c). This statute applies to the permit and plan review fees for the Building, Mechanical and Plumbing programs. Under state statute, revenues from building, plumbing, and mechanical permits/plan review can be used interchangeably. Building departments are specifically prohibited from using these fees to fund inspection, review, implementation, or administration of local ordinances relating to development, or any other programs that are not related to the construction permit/plan review revenues. However, building permit revenues can be used to fund programs where implementation of local ordinances is interdependent and intertwined with the State construction codes. According to the State Building Codes Division, a portion of planning and zoning review incidental to the issuance of a building permit falls into this category. There is a special provision for electrical permits and plan review. ORS 479.845 (3) states that "fees collected by a city or county for the enforcement or administration of the electrical specialty code and rules under ORS 479.730 (1) shall be used only for the enforcement and administration of those laws."

Bureau of Development Services2013 Financial Plan

Fee Increases and Programmatic Revenue Growth Assumptions

Appendix B

Programmatic Revenue Growth Assumptions1

Program FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Building/Mechanical 1.8% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 3.4% Electrical 2.2% 4.9% 5.2% 5.3% 4.0% Plumbing 2.7% 4.1% 4.7% 3.4% 4.0% Facilities Permits 2.2% 5.6% 5.5% 4.6% 3.6% Site Development 1.8% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 3.4% Environmental Soils 2.5% 2.8% 2.5% 1.9% 1.9% Signs 1.7% 2.4% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4% Zoning Enforcement 1.8% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 3.4% Noise 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% Neighborhood Inspections 1.4% 2.8% 2.9% 2.0% 1.1% Land Use Services (Case Review) 1.8% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 3.4% Land Use Services (Planning & Zoning) 1.8% 5.8% 5.5% 4.6% 3.4%

Projected Fee Increases

Program FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Building/Mechanical 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Electrical 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plumbing 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Facilities Permits 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% Site Development -5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Environmental Soils 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% Signs 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Zoning Enforcement 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% Noise 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Neighborhood Inspections 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Land Use Services 5.0% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 0.0%

Note1. The Programmatic Revenue Growth Rates presented in this table may not necessarily match revenue growth rates presented in Appendix C Program Detail. Growth Rates in Appendix C Program Detail account for projected fee increases, revenue items that are shared by several programs, and interagency revenue transfers.

43

Bureau of Development Services - 2013 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN Appendix C

Program Detail

Change Change InternalFiscal TOTAL From Program From General Program to TOTAL Reserves Program TOTAL Cumulative Fee / Actual Reserve Goals: Excess /

Program Year COSTS Prior Revenue Prior Fund Program REVENUES Add / (Draw) Cost Cost Reserve Revenue Reserve % Dollars (shortage)Year only Year Revenue Transfers Recovery Recovery Increase % vs. goal

FY 90-91 8,984,628 15.1% 9,397,460 11.1% 1,240,348 0 10,637,798 1,653,170 105% 118% 5,367,302 60%FY 91-92 9,750,454 8.5% 8,476,321 -9.8% 1,117,002 0 9,580,642 (169,812) 87% 98% 5,197,490 53%FY 92-93 10,478,370 7.5% 9,261,070 9.3% 1,174,461 0 10,434,308 (44,062) 88% 100% 5,153,428 49%FY 93-94 11,485,672 9.6% 10,811,187 16.7% 1,109,032 0 11,920,046 434,374 94% 104% 5,587,802 49%FY 94-95 12,932,685 12.6% 12,251,729 13.3% 1,223,888 0 13,469,512 536,827 95% 104% 6,124,629 47%FY 95-96 14,310,355 10.7% 13,613,838 11.1% 1,260,219 0 14,874,170 563,815 95% 104% 6,688,444 47% 36% 5,104,744

Bureau of FY 96-97 16,433,262 14.8% 16,859,160 23.8% 1,237,345 0 18,094,276 1,661,014 103% 110% 8,349,458 51% 36% 5,909,351Development FY 97-98 18,120,647 10.3% 17,293,081 2.6% 1,089,402 0 18,380,901 260,254 95% 101% 8,609,712 48% 29% 5,298,890

Services FY 98-99 19,953,684 10.1% 17,378,881 0.5% 1,126,269 0 18,500,671 (1,453,013) 87% 93% 7,156,699 36% 30% 5,925,281Total FY 99-00 26,962,471 35.1% 20,283,611 16.7% 3,285,940 0 23,473,142 (3,489,329) 75% 87% 3,667,370 14% 31% 8,451,651 (4,784,281)

FY 00-01 27,154,738 0.7% 23,844,618 17.6% 3,739,486 0 27,312,336 157,598 88% 101% 3,824,968 14% 33% 8,860,467 (5,035,499)FY 01-02 28,076,901 3.4% 24,965,553 4.7% 3,359,989 0 28,294,996 218,095 89% 101% 4,043,063 14% 33% 9,141,725 (5,098,662)FY 02-03 28,972,590 3.2% 27,100,082 8.5% 2,153,794 0 29,219,474 246,884 94% 101% 4,743,947 16% 32% 9,370,561 (4,626,614)FY 03-04 27,643,694 -4.6% 27,349,541 0.9% 1,143,072 0 28,492,613 848,919 99% 103% 4,740,621 17% 34% 9,408,456 (4,667,835)FY 04-05 29,687,477 7.4% 30,288,167 10.7% 1,153,361 0 31,441,528 1,754,051 102% 106% 6,494,672 22% 34% 10,102,465 (3,607,793)FY 05-06 31,606,913 6.5% 34,496,599 13.9% 1,349,837 0 35,846,436 4,239,523 109% 113% 11,681,009 37% 22% 6,884,853 4,796,156FY 06-07 37,648,184 19.1% 37,951,928 10.0% 1,895,291 0 39,847,219 2,199,035 101% 106% 13,880,044 37% 22% 8,152,668 5,727,376FY 07-08 41,591,917 10.5% 39,315,012 3.6% 2,129,627 0 41,444,639 (147,278) 95% 100% 13,732,766 33% 22% 9,027,380 4,705,386FY 08-09 42,037,209 1.1% 29,318,556 -25.4% 1,882,631 0 31,201,187 (10,836,022) 70% 74% 2,896,744 7% 22% 9,083,261 (6,186,517)FY 09-10 28,924,659 -31.2% 24,632,915 -16.0% 1,907,809 0 26,540,724 (2,383,935) 85% 92% 512,809 2% 22% 6,237,845 (5,725,036)FY 10-11 25,462,507 -12.0% 25,272,181 2.6% 1,889,155 0 27,161,336 1,698,829 99% 107% 2,211,638 9% 25% 6,407,556 (4,195,918)FY 11-12 28,459,247 11.8% 33,434,898 32.3% 3,031,800 0 36,466,698 8,007,451 117% 128% 10,219,089 36% 26% 7,361,398 2,857,691FY 12-13 estimate 34,403,016 20.9% 35,090,201 5.0% 2,271,211 0 37,361,412 2,958,396 102% 109% 13,177,485 38% 30% 10,307,826 2,869,659FY 13-14 estimate 35,658,251 3.6% 35,076,692 0.0% 1,846,034 0 36,922,726 1,264,475 98% 104% 14,441,960 41% 30% 10,832,660 3,609,300FY 14-15 estimate 39,329,397 10.3% 36,629,641 4.4% 1,857,434 0 38,487,075 (842,322) 93% 98% 13,599,639 35% 30% 11,950,592 1,649,046FY 15-16 estimate 41,251,005 4.9% 39,471,284 7.8% 1,869,290 0 41,340,574 89,569 96% 100% 13,689,208 33% 30% 12,558,573 1,130,635FY 16-17 estimate 45,371,240 10.0% 42,279,459 7.1% 1,881,620 0 44,161,080 (1,210,161) 93% 97% 12,479,047 28% 30% 13,795,597 (1,316,550)FY 17-18 estimate 45,328,035 -0.1% 44,645,934 5.6% 1,894,444 0 46,540,377 1,212,343 98% 103% 13,691,390 30% 30% 13,818,998 (127,609)

45


Program Detail



Building / FY 90-91 4,653,765 16.9% 5,607,108 8.8% 0 0 5,607,108 953,343 120% 120% 3,761,142 0% 81%Mechanical FY 91-92 4,726,904 1.6% 4,690,090 -16.4% 0 0 4,690,090 (36,814) 99% 99% 3,724,328 0% 79%

FY 92-93 5,128,071 8.5% 5,276,884 12.5% 0 0 5,276,884 148,813 103% 103% 3,873,141 4.0% 76%FY 93-94 5,583,359 8.9% 6,070,067 15.0% 0 0 6,070,067 486,708 109% 109% 4,359,849 0% 78%FY 94-95 6,198,693 11.0% 6,651,588 9.6% 0 0 6,651,588 452,895 107% 107% 4,812,744 0% 78%FY 95-96 6,834,842 10.3% 7,566,634 13.8% 0 0 7,566,634 731,792 111% 111% 5,544,536 0% 81% 45% 3,075,679 2,468,857FY 96-97 7,976,700 16.7% 9,773,031 29.2% 0 0 9,773,031 1,796,331 123% 123% 7,340,867 0% 92% 45% 3,589,515 3,751,352FY 97-98 9,390,643 17.7% 10,059,867 2.9% 0 0 10,059,867 669,224 107% 107% 8,010,091 0% 85% 35% 3,286,725 4,723,366FY 98-99 10,789,561 14.9% 9,736,993 -3.2% 0 0 9,736,993 (1,052,568) 90% 90% 6,957,523 0% 64% 35% 3,776,346 3,181,177FY 99-00 11,897,225 10.3% 9,877,427 1.4% 0 0 9,877,427 (2,019,798) 83% 83% 4,937,725 15.0% 42% 35% 4,164,029 773,696FY 00-01 10,435,537 -12.3% 11,118,980 12.6% 180,000 0 11,298,980 863,443 107% 108% 5,801,168 4%/15% 56% 45% 4,695,992 1,105,176FY 01-02 10,692,258 2.5% 11,221,954 0.9% 0 0 11,221,954 529,696 105% 105% 6,330,864 0% 59% 45% 4,811,516 1,519,348FY 02-03 10,826,209 1.3% 12,136,022 8.1% 0 0 12,136,022 1,309,813 112% 112% 7,640,677 0% 71% 45% 4,871,794 2,768,883FY 03-04 11,970,227 10.6% 13,543,599 11.6% 0 (579,848) 12,963,751 993,525 113% 108% 8,634,202 0% 72% 45% 5,386,602 3,247,600FY 04-05 12,746,932 6.5% 15,006,710 10.8% 0 (579,848) 14,426,862 1,679,931 118% 113% 10,314,132 0% 81% 45% 5,736,119 4,578,013FY 05-06 13,353,551 4.8% 15,641,159 4.2% 0 (1,852,693) 13,788,466 434,916 117% 103% 10,749,048 -10.0% 80% 25% 3,338,388 7,410,660FY 06-07 14,777,028 10.7% 16,548,057 5.8% 0 (579,848) 15,968,209 1,191,181 112% 108% 11,940,229 0% 81% 25% 3,694,257 8,245,972FY 07-08 16,498,995 11.7% 17,835,165 7.8% 0 (579,848) 17,255,317 756,322 108% 105% 12,696,551 0.0% 77% 25% 4,124,749 8,571,803FY 08-09 15,833,452 -4.0% 12,566,670 -29.5% 0 (579,848) 11,986,822 (3,846,630) 79% 76% 8,849,921 0.0% 56% 25% 3,958,363 4,891,558FY 09-10 11,311,062 -28.6% 10,018,125 -20.3% 0 (579,848) 9,438,277 (1,872,785) 89% 83% 6,977,136 0.0% 62% 25% 2,827,766 4,149,371FY 10-11 9,496,582 -16.0% 9,228,371 -7.9% 0 (155,566) 9,072,805 (423,777) 97% 96% 6,553,359 8.0% 69% 35% 3,323,804 3,229,556FY 11-12 10,346,857 9.0% 13,689,544 48.3% 0 424,282 14,113,826 3,766,969 132% 136% 10,320,328 8.0% 100% 35% 3,621,400 6,698,928FY 12-13 estimate 13,126,435 26.9% 14,571,462 6.4% 0 424,282 14,995,744 1,869,309 111% 114% 12,189,637 5.0% 93% 45% 5,906,896 6,282,741FY 13-14 estimate 14,288,029 8.8% 14,150,257 -2.9% 0 0 14,150,257 (137,771) 99% 99% 12,051,866 0.0% 84% 45% 6,429,613 5,622,253FY 14-15 estimate 15,788,550 10.5% 14,761,555 4.3% 0 0 14,761,555 (1,026,995) 93% 93% 11,024,871 3.0% 70% 45% 7,104,848 3,920,023FY 15-16 estimate 16,671,830 5.6% 15,993,064 8.3% 0 0 15,993,064 (678,765) 96% 96% 10,346,105 3.0% 62% 45% 7,502,323 2,843,782FY 16-17 estimate 18,274,596 9.6% 17,174,348 7.4% 0 0 17,174,348 (1,100,247) 94% 94% 9,245,858 3.0% 51% 45% 8,223,568 1,022,290FY 17-18 estimate 18,488,818 1.2% 18,248,876 6.3% 0 0 18,248,876 (239,942) 99% 99% 9,005,916 3.0% 49% 45% 8,319,968 685,948

Electrical FY 90-91 1,153,243 1.5% 1,716,564 17.5% 0 0 1,716,564 563,321 149% 149% 1,067,598 0% 93%FY 91-92 1,435,194 24.4% 1,520,791 -11.4% 0 0 1,520,791 85,597 106% 106% 1,153,195 0% 80%FY 92-93 1,537,634 7.1% 1,482,310 -2.5% 0 0 1,482,310 (55,324) 96% 96% 1,097,871 0.0% 71%FY 93-94 1,726,109 12.3% 1,750,440 18.1% 0 0 1,750,440 24,331 101% 101% 1,122,202 0% 65%FY 94-95 1,950,025 13.0% 1,898,995 8.5% 0 0 1,898,995 (51,030) 97% 97% 1,071,172 0% 55%FY 95-96 2,101,300 7.8% 1,831,061 -3.6% 0 0 1,831,061 (270,239) 87% 87% 800,933 0% 38% 45% 945,585 (144,652)FY 96-97 2,365,452 12.6% 2,217,832 21.1% 0 0 2,217,832 (147,620) 94% 94% 653,313 5% 28% 45% 1,064,453 (411,140)FY 97-98 2,594,712 9.7% 2,293,287 3.4% 0 0 2,293,287 (301,425) 88% 88% 351,888 16% 14% 35% 908,149 (556,261)FY 98-99 2,733,903 5.4% 2,605,481 13.6% 0 0 2,605,481 (128,422) 95% 95% 223,466 0% 8% 35% 956,866 (733,400)FY 99-00 3,279,131 19.9% 2,671,333 2.5% 0 0 2,671,333 (607,798) 81% 81% (384,332) 15.0% -12% 35% 1,147,696 (1,532,028)FY 00-01 2,994,251 -8.7% 2,709,442 1.4% 0 0 2,709,442 (284,809) 90% 90% (669,141) 5% -22% 35% 1,047,988 (1,717,129)FY 01-02 2,944,226 -1.7% 2,644,588 -2.4% 0 0 2,644,588 (299,638) 90% 90% (968,779) 0% -33% 35% 1,030,479 (1,999,258)FY 02-03 2,939,083 -0.2% 2,805,442 6.1% 0 0 2,805,442 (133,641) 95% 95% (1,102,420) 5% -38% 35% 1,028,679 (2,131,099)FY 03-04 2,809,559 -4.4% 3,196,251 13.9% 0 0 3,196,251 386,692 114% 114% (715,728) 0% -25% 35% 983,346 (1,699,074)FY 04-05 3,151,912 12.2% 3,331,696 4.2% 0 0 3,331,696 179,785 106% 106% (535,943) 2% -17% 35% 1,103,169 (1,639,112)FY 05-06 3,338,567 5.9% 3,794,535 13.9% 0 0 3,794,535 455,969 114% 114% (79,975) 3.0% -2% 20% 667,713 (747,688)FY 06-07 3,721,649 11.5% 3,953,732 4.2% 0 0 3,953,732 232,082 106% 106% 152,108 5% 4% 20% 744,330 (592,222)FY 07-08 4,037,382 8.5% 3,613,217 -8.6% 0 0 3,613,217 (424,165) 89% 89% (272,057) 4.5% -7% 20% 807,476 (1,079,534)FY 08-09 4,028,746 -0.2% 3,046,503 -15.7% 0 0 3,046,503 (982,243) 76% 76% (1,254,300) 5.0% -31% 20% 805,749 (2,060,050)FY 09-10 2,761,511 -31.5% 2,623,454 -13.9% 0 0 2,623,454 (138,057) 95% 95% (1,392,357) 5.0% -50% 20% 552,302 (1,944,660)FY 10-11 2,753,551 -0.3% 2,918,005 11.2% 0 0 2,918,005 164,454 106% 106% (1,227,903) 8.0% -45% 20% 550,710 (1,778,614)FY 11-12 2,672,616 -2.9% 3,402,906 16.6% 0 0 3,402,906 730,290 127% 127% (497,613) 8.0% -19% 20% 534,523 (1,032,137)FY 12-13 estimate 3,001,245 12.3% 3,658,566 7.5% 0 0 3,658,566 657,321 122% 122% 159,707 5.0% 5% 20% 600,249 (440,542)FY 13-14 estimate 3,073,411 2.4% 3,718,967 1.7% 0 0 3,718,967 645,557 121% 121% 805,264 0.0% 26% 20% 614,682 190,582FY 14-15 estimate 3,593,968 16.9% 3,820,251 2.7% 0 0 3,820,251 226,283 106% 106% 1,031,548 0.0% 29% 20% 718,794 312,754FY 15-16 estimate 4,016,945 11.8% 4,018,518 5.2% 0 0 4,018,518 1,574 100% 100% 1,033,121 0.0% 26% 20% 803,389 229,732FY 16-17 estimate 4,388,409 9.2% 4,231,862 5.3% 0 0 4,231,862 (156,548) 96% 96% 876,574 0.0% 20% 20% 877,682 (1,108)FY 17-18 estimate 4,418,232 0.7% 4,399,906 4.0% 0 0 4,399,906 (18,326) 100% 100% 858,248 0.0% 19% 20% 883,646 (25,398)

46


Program Detail



Plumbing FY 90-91 985,338 -13.0% 1,074,871 -15.7% 0 0 1,074,871 89,533 109% 109% 296,699 0% 30%FY 91-92 1,191,950 21.0% 1,029,372 -4.2% 0 0 1,029,372 (162,578) 86% 86% 134,121 0% 11%FY 92-93 1,301,541 9.2% 1,130,975 9.9% 0 0 1,130,975 (170,566) 87% 87% (36,445) 15.0% -3%FY 93-94 1,341,871 3.1% 1,386,390 22.6% 0 0 1,386,390 44,519 103% 103% 8,074 5% 1%FY 94-95 1,626,351 21.2% 1,635,250 18.0% 0 0 1,635,250 8,899 101% 101% 16,973 5% 1%FY 95-96 1,966,489 20.9% 1,703,692 4.2% 0 0 1,703,692 (262,797) 87% 87% (245,824) 0% -13% 45% 884,920 (1,130,744)FY 96-97 2,345,075 19.3% 2,343,148 37.5% 0 0 2,343,148 (1,927) 100% 100% (247,751) 5% -11% 45% 1,055,284 (1,303,035)FY 97-98 2,557,762 9.1% 2,440,282 4.1% 0 0 2,440,282 (117,480) 95% 95% (365,231) 12% -14% 35% 895,217 (1,260,448)FY 98-99 2,604,281 1.8% 2,433,650 -0.3% 0 0 2,433,650 (170,631) 93% 93% (535,862) 0% -21% 35% 911,498 (1,447,360)FY 99-00 2,863,022 9.9% 2,034,281 -16.4% 0 0 2,034,281 (828,741) 71% 71% (1,364,603) 15.0% -48% 35% 1,002,058 (2,366,661)FY 00-01 2,419,038 -15.5% 2,216,978 9.0% 0 0 2,216,978 (202,060) 92% 92% (1,566,663) 7% -65% 35% 846,663 (2,413,326)FY 01-02 2,581,243 6.7% 2,408,106 8.6% 0 0 2,408,106 (173,137) 93% 93% (1,739,800) 0% -67% 35% 903,435 (2,643,235)FY 02-03 2,698,390 4.5% 2,897,048 20.3% 0 0 2,897,048 198,658 107% 107% (1,541,142) 0% -57% 35% 944,437 (2,485,579)FY 03-04 2,562,577 -5.0% 3,091,727 6.7% 0 0 3,091,727 529,149 121% 121% (1,011,993) 0% -39% 35% 896,902 (1,908,895)FY 04-05 2,831,924 10.5% 3,264,194 5.6% 0 0 3,264,194 432,270 115% 115% (579,722) 2% -20% 35% 991,173 (1,570,896)FY 05-06 2,973,317 5.0% 3,789,651 16.1% 0 0 3,789,651 816,334 127% 127% 236,611 0.0% 8% 20% 594,663 (358,052)FY 06-07 3,236,681 8.9% 3,719,734 -1.8% 0 0 3,719,734 483,053 115% 115% 719,664 0% 22% 20% 647,336 72,328FY 07-08 3,609,352 11.5% 3,122,745 -16.0% 0 0 3,122,745 (486,607) 87% 87% 233,057 0.0% 6% 20% 721,870 (488,813)FY 08-09 3,600,192 -0.3% 2,257,355 -27.7% 0 0 2,257,355 (1,342,837) 63% 63% (1,109,780) 5.0% -31% 20% 720,038 (1,829,818)FY 09-10 2,225,247 -38.2% 1,792,563 -20.6% 0 0 1,792,563 (432,684) 81% 81% (1,542,464) 5.5% -69% 20% 445,049 (1,987,513)FY 10-11 2,172,277 -2.4% 2,150,160 19.9% 0 0 2,150,160 (22,117) 99% 99% (1,564,581) 8.0% -72% 20% 434,455 (1,999,036)FY 11-12 2,323,172 6.9% 2,422,941 12.7% 0 0 2,422,941 99,769 104% 104% (1,464,812) 8.0% -63% 20% 464,634 (1,929,446)FY 12-13 estimate 2,711,808 16.7% 2,792,111 15.2% 0 0 2,792,111 80,303 103% 103% (1,384,509) 5.0% -51% 20% 542,362 (1,926,871)FY 13-14 estimate 2,740,447 1.1% 2,958,800 6.0% 0 0 2,958,800 218,353 108% 108% (1,166,156) 5.0% -43% 20% 548,089 (1,714,245)FY 14-15 estimate 2,987,170 9.0% 3,106,296 5.0% 0 0 3,106,296 119,125 104% 104% (1,047,031) 5.0% -35% 20% 597,434 (1,644,465)FY 15-16 estimate 3,051,052 2.1% 3,407,297 9.7% 0 0 3,407,297 356,245 112% 112% (690,785) 5.0% -23% 20% 610,210 (1,300,996)FY 16-17 estimate 3,259,957 6.8% 3,693,012 8.4% 0 0 3,693,012 433,056 113% 113% (257,730) 5.0% -8% 20% 651,991 (909,721)FY 17-18 estimate 3,300,261 1.2% 4,025,578 9.0% 0 0 4,025,578 725,318 122% 122% 467,588 5.0% 14% 20% 660,052 (192,464)

Facilities Permits FY 90-91FY 91-92FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99 351,984 --- 64,992 --- 0 0 64,992 (286,992) 18% 18% (286,992) 0% -82% 15% 52,798 (339,790)FY 99-00 562,240 59.7% 400,033 515.5% 0 0 400,033 (162,207) 71% 71% (449,199) 41.0% -80% 15% 84,336 (533,535)FY 00-01 1,080,889 92.2% 942,330 135.6% 0 0 942,330 (138,559) 87% 87% (587,758) 0% -54% 15% 162,133 (749,891)FY 01-02 1,214,620 12.4% 1,270,656 34.8% 0 0 1,270,656 56,036 105% 105% (531,722) 0% -44% 15% 182,193 (713,915)FY 02-03 1,394,277 14.8% 1,332,364 4.9% 0 0 1,332,364 (61,913) 96% 96% (593,635) 13% -43% 15% 209,142 (802,777)FY 03-04 1,753,383 25.8% 1,438,698 8.0% 0 0 1,438,698 (314,685) 82% 82% (908,320) 0% -52% 15% 263,007 (1,171,327)FY 04-05 2,132,848 21.6% 1,727,992 20.1% 0 0 1,727,992 (404,856) 81% 81% (1,313,176) 5% -62% 15% 319,927 (1,633,103)FY 05-06 2,084,137 -2.3% 2,124,467 22.9% 0 1,272,845 3,397,312 1,313,175 102% 102% 0 0.0% 0% 15% 312,621 (312,621)FY 06-07 2,316,405 11.1% 2,154,024 1.4% 0 0 2,154,024 (162,381) 93% 93% (162,381) 5% -7% 15% 347,461 (509,842)FY 07-08 2,319,064 0.1% 2,911,525 35.2% 0 0 2,911,525 592,461 126% 126% 430,080 4.0% 19% 15% 347,860 82,220FY 08-09 2,317,060 -0.1% 3,137,086 7.7% 0 0 3,137,086 820,026 135% 135% 1,250,106 5.0% 54% 15% 347,559 902,547FY 09-10 2,252,789 -2.8% 2,142,256 -31.7% 0 0 2,142,256 (110,533) 95% 95% 1,139,573 4.0% 51% 15% 337,918 801,655FY 10-11 2,188,656 -2.8% 2,362,136 10.3% 0 (424,282) 1,937,854 (250,802) 108% 89% 888,771 8.0% 41% 15% 328,298 560,473FY 11-12 2,251,270 2.9% 2,875,436 21.7% 0 (424,282) 2,451,154 199,884 128% 109% 1,088,655 8.0% 48% 20% 450,254 638,401FY 12-13 estimate 2,560,112 13.7% 2,413,239 -16.1% 0 (424,282) 1,988,957 (571,155) 94% 78% 517,500 0.0% 20% 20% 512,022 5,477FY 13-14 estimate 2,424,663 -5.3% 2,461,761 2.0% 0 0 2,461,761 37,098 102% 102% 554,598 0.0% 23% 20% 484,933 69,665FY 14-15 estimate 2,601,062 7.3% 2,599,610 5.6% 0 0 2,599,610 (1,452) 100% 100% 553,146 0.0% 21% 20% 520,212 32,934FY 15-16 estimate 2,667,087 2.5% 2,741,813 5.5% 0 0 2,741,813 74,726 103% 103% 627,872 0.0% 24% 20% 533,417 94,454FY 16-17 estimate 3,053,628 14.5% 2,982,428 8.8% 0 0 2,982,428 (71,200) 98% 98% 556,672 4.0% 18% 20% 610,726 (54,053)FY 17-18 estimate 3,063,480 0.3% 3,212,170 7.7% 0 0 3,212,170 148,690 105% 105% 705,362 4.0% 23% 20% 612,696 92,666

47


Program Detail



State Programs FY 90-91 6,792,346 8.7% 8,398,543 6.5% 0 0 8,398,543 1,606,197 124% 124% 5,125,439Subtotal FY 91-92 7,354,048 8.3% 7,240,253 -13.8% 0 0 7,240,253 (113,795) 98% 98% 5,011,644

FY 92-93 7,967,246 8.3% 7,890,169 9.0% 0 0 7,890,169 (77,077) 99% 99% 4,934,567FY 93-94 8,651,339 8.6% 9,206,897 16.7% 0 0 9,206,897 555,558 106% 106% 5,490,125FY 94-95 9,775,069 13.0% 10,185,833 10.6% 0 0 10,185,833 410,764 104% 104% 5,900,889FY 95-96 10,902,631 11.5% 11,101,387 9.0% 0 0 11,101,387 198,756 102% 102% 6,099,645 56% 45% 4,906,184 1,193,461FY 96-97 12,687,227 16.4% 14,334,011 29.1% 0 0 14,334,011 1,646,784 113% 113% 7,746,429 61% 45% 5,709,252 2,037,177FY 97-98 14,543,117 14.6% 14,793,436 3.2% 0 0 14,793,436 250,319 102% 102% 7,996,748 55% 35% 5,090,091 2,906,657FY 98-99 16,479,729 13.3% 14,841,116 0.3% 0 0 14,841,116 (1,638,613) 90% 90% 6,358,135 39% 35% 5,697,508 660,627FY 99-00 18,601,618 12.9% 14,983,074 1.0% 0 0 14,983,074 (3,618,544) 81% 81% 2,739,591 15% 34% 6,398,118 (3,658,527)FY 00-01 16,929,715 -9.0% 16,987,730 13.4% 180,000 0 17,167,730 238,015 100% 101% 2,977,606 18% 40% 6,752,776 (3,775,170)FY 01-02 17,432,347 3.0% 17,545,304 3.3% 0 0 17,545,304 112,957 101% 101% 3,090,563 18% 40% 6,927,623 (3,837,060)FY 02-03 17,857,959 2.4% 19,170,876 9.3% 0 0 19,170,876 1,312,917 107% 107% 4,403,480 25% 40% 7,054,051 (2,650,571)FY 03-04 19,095,746 6.9% 21,270,275 11.0% 0 (579,848) 20,690,427 1,594,681 111% 108% 6,120,044 32% 39% 7,529,857 (1,409,813)FY 04-05 20,863,615 9.3% 23,330,593 9.7% 0 (579,848) 22,750,745 1,887,130 112% 109% 8,007,174 38% 39% 8,150,389 (143,215)FY 05-06 21,749,572 4.2% 25,349,813 8.7% 0 (579,848) 24,769,965 3,020,393 117% 114% 11,027,567 51% 23% 4,913,385 6,114,182FY 06-07 24,051,763 10.6% 26,375,546 4.0% 0 (579,848) 25,795,698 1,743,935 110% 107% 12,771,502 53% 23% 5,433,384 7,338,118FY 07-08 26,464,793 10.0% 27,482,652 4.2% 0 (579,848) 26,902,804 438,011 104% 102% 13,209,513 50% 23% 6,001,955 7,207,558FY 08-09 25,779,450 -2.6% 21,007,614 -23.6% 0 (579,848) 20,427,766 (5,351,684) 81% 79% 7,857,829 30% 23% 5,831,710 2,026,119FY 09-10 18,550,609 -28.0% 16,576,398 -21.1% 0 (579,848) 15,996,550 (2,554,059) 89% 86% 5,303,770 29% 22% 4,163,035 1,140,735FY 10-11 16,611,066 -10.5% 16,658,672 0.5% 0 (579,848) 16,078,824 (532,242) 100% 97% 4,771,528 29% 28% 4,637,268 134,260FY 11-12 17,593,915 5.9% 22,390,827 34.4% 0 0 22,390,827 4,796,912 127% 127% 9,568,440 54% 29% 5,070,812 4,497,628FY 12-13 estimate 21,399,601 21.6% 23,435,378 4.7% 0 0 23,435,378 2,035,777 110% 110% 11,604,217 54% 35% 7,561,529 4,042,688FY 13-14 estimate 22,526,549 5.3% 23,289,786 -0.6% 0 0 23,289,786 763,237 103% 103% 12,367,454 55% 36% 8,077,317 4,290,137FY 14-15 estimate 24,970,750 10.9% 24,287,711 4.3% 0 0 24,287,711 (683,039) 97% 97% 11,684,415 47% 36% 8,941,288 2,743,128FY 15-16 estimate 26,406,914 5.8% 26,160,693 7.7% 0 0 26,160,693 (246,221) 99% 99% 11,438,194 43% 36% 9,449,340 1,988,854FY 16-17 estimate 28,976,589 9.7% 28,081,651 7.3% 0 0 28,081,651 (894,939) 97% 97% 10,543,256 36% 36% 10,363,967 179,289FY 17-18 estimate 29,270,791 1.0% 29,886,531 6.4% 0 0 29,886,531 615,740 102% 102% 11,158,996 38% 36% 10,476,363 682,633

Site Development FY 90-91FY 91-92FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01 765,481 --- 601,783 --- 0 0 601,783 (163,698) 79% 79% (163,698) new -21% 35% 267,918 (431,616)FY 01-02 930,650 21.6% 1,124,324 86.8% 0 0 1,124,324 193,674 121% 121% 29,976 0% 3% 35% 325,728 (295,752)FY 02-03 1,002,527 7.7% 1,245,043 10.7% 0 0 1,245,043 242,516 124% 124% 272,492 10% 27% 35% 350,884 (78,392)FY 03-04 1,126,731 12.4% 1,204,695 -3.2% 0 0 1,204,695 77,964 107% 107% 350,456 0% 31% 35% 394,356 (43,900)FY 04-05 1,248,694 10.8% 1,291,743 7.2% 0 0 1,291,743 43,049 103% 103% 393,505 2% 32% 35% 437,043 (43,538)FY 05-06 1,400,040 12.1% 1,559,809 20.8% 0 0 1,559,809 159,769 111% 111% 553,274 0.0% 40% 20% 280,008 273,266FY 06-07 1,538,797 9.9% 1,617,406 3.7% 0 0 1,617,406 78,609 105% 105% 631,883 5% 41% 20% 307,759 324,124FY 07-08 1,694,750 10.1% 1,624,755 0.5% 0 0 1,624,755 (69,995) 96% 96% 561,888 6.5% 33% 20% 338,950 222,938FY 08-09 1,657,910 -2.2% 833,002 -48.7% 0 0 833,002 (824,908) 50% 50% (263,020) 7.3% -16% 20% 331,582 (594,602)FY 09-10 1,076,820 -35.0% 869,247 4.4% 0 0 869,247 (207,573) 81% 81% (470,593) 7.5% -44% 20% 215,364 (685,957)FY 10-11 736,770 -31.6% 1,025,885 18.0% 0 0 1,025,885 289,115 139% 139% (181,478) 8.0% -25% 20% 147,354 (328,832)FY 11-12 760,307 3.2% 1,372,666 33.8% 0 0 1,372,666 612,359 181% 181% 430,881 8.0% 57% 20% 152,061 278,820FY 12-13 estimate 873,154 14.8% 1,296,645 -5.5% 0 0 1,296,645 423,492 149% 149% 854,373 0.0% 98% 20% 174,631 679,742FY 13-14 estimate 1,038,050 18.9% 1,214,815 -6.3% 0 0 1,214,815 176,765 117% 117% 1,031,138 -5.0% 99% 20% 207,610 823,528FY 14-15 estimate 1,254,181 20.8% 1,274,775 4.9% 0 0 1,274,775 20,594 102% 102% 1,051,732 0.0% 84% 20% 250,836 800,896FY 15-16 estimate 1,428,169 13.9% 1,345,709 5.6% 0 0 1,345,709 (82,460) 94% 94% 969,273 0.0% 68% 20% 285,634 683,639FY 16-17 estimate 1,719,025 20.4% 1,406,841 4.5% 0 0 1,406,841 (312,184) 82% 82% 657,089 0.0% 38% 20% 343,805 313,284FY 17-18 estimate 1,706,752 -0.7% 1,453,586 3.3% 0 0 1,453,586 (253,165) 85% 85% 403,924 0.0% 24% 20% 341,350 62,573

48


Program Detail



Environmental FY 90-91 194,038 0.0% 296,884 0.0% 0 0 296,884 102,846 153% 153% 102,846 0% 53%Soils FY 91-92 199,079 2.6% 312,908 5.4% 0 0 312,908 113,829 157% 157% 216,675 0% 109%

FY 92-93 185,104 -7.0% 311,129 -0.6% 0 0 311,129 126,025 168% 168% 342,700 0.0% 185%FY 93-94 307,602 66.2% 296,731 -4.6% 0 0 296,731 (10,871) 96% 96% 331,829 0% 108%FY 94-95 357,614 16.3% 333,639 12.4% 0 0 333,639 (23,975) 93% 93% 307,854 0% 86%FY 95-96 431,519 20.7% 330,785 -0.9% 0 0 330,785 (100,734) 77% 77% 207,120 0% 48% 20% 86,304 120,816FY 96-97 420,088 -2.6% 349,337 5.6% 0 0 349,337 (70,751) 83% 83% 136,369 0% 32% 20% 84,018 52,351FY 97-98 458,374 9.1% 330,034 -5.5% 0 0 330,034 (128,340) 72% 72% 8,029 0% 2% 20% 91,675 (83,646)FY 98-99 468,261 2.2% 252,764 -23.4% 0 0 252,764 (215,497) 54% 54% (207,468) 0% -44% 20% 93,652 (301,120)FY 99-00 530,010 13.2% 144,419 -42.9% 0 0 144,419 (385,591) 27% 27% (593,059) 225.0% -112% 20% 106,002 (699,061)FY 00-01 468,665 -11.6% 172,280 19.3% 0 0 172,280 (296,385) 37% 37% (889,444) new -190% 20% 93,733 (983,177)FY 01-02 203,107 -56.7% 126,962 -26.3% 0 0 126,962 (76,145) 63% 63% (965,589) 0% -475% 20% 40,621 (1,006,210)FY 02-03 277,972 36.9% 157,545 24.1% 0 0 157,545 (120,427) 57% 57% (1,086,016) 0% -391% 20% 55,594 (1,141,610)FY 03-04 178,387 -35.8% 115,946 -26.4% 0 0 115,946 (62,441) 65% 65% (1,148,457) 0% -644% 20% 35,677 (1,184,134)FY 04-05 207,869 16.5% 221,320 90.9% 0 0 221,320 13,451 106% 106% (1,135,006) 57% -546% 20% 41,574 (1,176,580)FY 05-06 185,712 -10.7% 246,567 11.4% 0 0 246,567 60,855 133% 133% (1,074,151) 5.0% -578% 20% 37,142 (1,111,293)FY 06-07 252,692 36.1% 262,180 6.3% 0 0 262,180 9,488 104% 104% (1,064,663) 4% -421% 20% 50,538 (1,115,201)FY 07-08 274,172 8.5% 237,379 -9.5% 0 0 237,379 (36,793) 87% 87% (1,101,456) 5.1% -402% 20% 54,834 (1,156,290)FY 08-09 236,750 -13.6% 213,497 -10.1% 0 0 213,497 (23,253) 90% 90% (1,124,709) 5.0% -475% 20% 47,350 (1,172,059)FY 09-10 318,346 34.5% 172,906 -19.0% 0 0 172,906 (145,440) 54% 54% (1,270,149) 5.0% -399% 20% 63,669 (1,333,818)FY 10-11 293,927 -7.7% 210,527 21.8% 0 0 210,527 (83,400) 72% 72% (1,353,549) 12.0% -461% 20% 58,785 (1,412,334)FY 11-12 289,836 -1.4% 291,553 38.5% 0 0 291,553 1,717 101% 101% (1,351,832) 70.0% -466% 20% 57,967 (1,409,799)FY 12-13 estimate 345,965 19.4% 382,793 31.3% 0 0 382,793 36,827 111% 111% (1,315,005) 10.0% -380% 20% 69,193 (1,384,198)FY 13-14 estimate 303,948 -12.1% 423,269 10.6% 0 0 423,269 119,321 139% 139% (1,195,684) 10.0% -393% 20% 60,790 (1,256,473)FY 14-15 estimate 326,001 7.3% 477,807 12.9% 0 0 477,807 151,805 147% 147% (1,043,878) 10.0% -320% 20% 65,200 (1,109,078)FY 15-16 estimate 333,970 2.4% 537,719 12.5% 0 0 537,719 203,749 161% 161% (840,129) 10.0% -252% 20% 66,794 (906,923)FY 16-17 estimate 368,596 10.4% 601,503 11.9% 0 0 601,503 232,908 163% 163% (607,222) 10.0% -165% 20% 73,719 (680,941)FY 17-18 estimate 371,361 0.8% 623,506 3.7% 0 0 623,506 252,145 168% 168% (355,077) 0.0% -96% 20% 74,272 (429,349)

Signs FY 90-91 135,260 8.5% 151,714 4.8% 0 0 151,714 16,454 112% 112% 47,635 0% 35%FY 91-92 168,530 24.6% 170,102 12.1% 0 0 170,102 1,572 101% 101% 49,207 0% 29%FY 92-93 170,529 1.2% 150,726 -11.4% 0 0 150,726 (19,803) 88% 88% 29,404 0.0% 17%FY 93-94 179,771 5.4% 179,934 19.4% 0 0 179,934 163 100% 100% 29,567 0% 16%FY 94-95 194,767 8.3% 185,270 3.0% 0 0 185,270 (9,497) 95% 95% 20,070 0% 10%FY 95-96 221,558 13.8% 194,721 5.1% 0 0 194,721 (26,837) 88% 88% (6,767) 0% -3% 20% 44,312 (51,079)FY 96-97 225,941 2.0% 171,282 -12.0% 0 0 171,282 (54,659) 76% 76% (61,426) 0% -27% 20% 45,188 (106,614)FY 97-98 203,409 -10.0% 177,916 3.9% 0 0 177,916 (25,493) 87% 87% (86,919) 0% -43% 20% 40,682 (127,601)FY 98-99 280,723 38.0% 138,469 -22.2% 0 0 138,469 (142,254) 49% 49% (229,173) 0% -82% 20% 56,145 (285,318)FY 99-00 248,444 -11.5% 122,646 -11.4% 0 0 122,646 (125,798) 49% 49% (354,971) 0.0% -143% 20% 49,689 (404,660)FY 00-01 234,758 -5.5% 174,482 42.3% 0 0 174,482 (60,276) 74% 74% (415,247) new -177% 20% 46,952 (462,199)FY 01-02 218,677 -6.9% 173,582 -0.5% 0 0 173,582 (45,095) 79% 79% (460,342) 0% -211% 20% 43,735 (504,077)FY 02-03 180,046 -17.7% 194,894 12.3% 0 0 194,894 14,848 108% 108% (445,494) 30% -247% 20% 36,009 (481,503)FY 03-04 221,260 22.9% 249,693 28.1% 0 0 249,693 28,433 113% 113% (417,061) 0% -188% 20% 44,252 (461,313)FY 04-05 261,552 18.2% 264,412 5.9% 0 0 264,412 2,860 101% 101% (414,201) 0% -158% 20% 52,310 (466,511)FY 05-06 303,718 16.1% 274,298 3.7% 0 0 274,298 (29,420) 90% 90% (443,621) 0.0% -146% 20% 60,744 (504,365)FY 06-07 375,142 23.5% 300,697 9.6% 0 0 300,697 (74,445) 80% 80% (518,066) 0% -138% 20% 75,028 (593,094)FY 07-08 377,668 0.7% 327,561 8.9% 0 0 327,561 (50,107) 87% 87% (568,173) 7.7% -150% 20% 75,534 (643,707)FY 08-09 364,366 -3.5% 340,396 3.9% 0 0 340,396 (23,970) 93% 93% (592,143) 7.5% -163% 20% 72,873 (665,016)FY 09-10 302,932 -16.9% 327,423 -3.8% 0 0 327,423 24,491 108% 108% (567,652) 7.5% -187% 20% 60,586 (628,238)FY 10-11 256,644 -15.3% 360,513 10.1% 0 0 360,513 103,869 140% 140% (463,783) 8.0% -181% 20% 51,329 (515,112)FY 11-12 276,211 7.6% 371,819 3.1% 0 0 371,819 95,608 135% 135% (368,175) 8.0% -133% 20% 55,242 (423,417)FY 12-13 estimate 296,964 7.5% 378,339 1.8% 0 0 378,339 81,374 127% 127% (286,801) 5.0% -97% 20% 59,393 (346,194)FY 13-14 estimate 291,728 -1.8% 391,291 3.4% 0 0 391,291 99,563 134% 134% (187,238) 2.5% -64% 20% 58,346 (245,584)FY 14-15 estimate 314,535 7.8% 410,400 4.9% 0 0 410,400 95,865 130% 130% (91,373) 2.5% -29% 20% 62,907 (154,281)FY 15-16 estimate 322,504 2.5% 422,029 2.8% 0 0 422,029 99,525 131% 131% 8,151 0.0% 3% 20% 64,501 (56,350)FY 16-17 estimate 352,619 9.3% 430,101 1.9% 0 0 430,101 77,482 122% 122% 85,634 0.0% 24% 20% 70,524 15,110FY 17-18 estimate 356,325 1.1% 436,485 1.5% 0 0 436,485 80,160 122% 122% 165,794 0.0% 47% 20% 71,265 94,529

49


Program Detail



Zoning FY 90-91 248,985 117.5% 284,932 20.1% 0 0 284,932 35,947 114% 114% 259,054 0% 104%Enforcement FY 91-92 281,278 13.0% 157,315 -44.8% 0 0 157,315 (123,963) 56% 56% 135,091 0% 48%

FY 92-93 270,658 -3.8% 181,024 15.1% 0 0 181,024 (89,634) 67% 67% 45,457 20.0% 17%FY 93-94 336,650 24.4% 264,909 46.3% 0 0 264,909 (71,741) 79% 79% (26,284) 0% -8%FY 94-95 414,163 23.0% 285,806 7.9% 0 0 285,806 (128,357) 69% 69% (154,641) 117% -37%FY 95-96 339,723 -18.0% 503,848 76.3% 0 0 503,848 164,125 148% 148% 9,484 0% 3% 20% 67,945 (58,461)FY 96-97 354,466 4.3% 454,466 -9.8% 0 0 454,466 100,000 128% 128% 109,484 0% 31% 20% 70,893 38,591FY 97-98 382,212 7.8% 413,891 -8.9% 0 0 413,891 31,679 108% 108% 141,163 0% 37% 20% 76,442 64,721FY 98-99 389,877 2.0% 389,877 -5.8% 0 0 389,877 0 100% 100% 141,163 0% 36% 20% 77,975 63,188FY 99-00 488,512 25.3% 449,183 15.2% 0 0 449,183 (39,329) 92% 92% 101,834 0.0% 21% 20% 97,702 4,132FY 00-01 507,972 4.0% 507,972 13.1% 0 0 507,972 0 100% 100% 101,834 2% 20% 20% 101,594 240FY 01-02 549,695 8.2% 549,695 8.2% 0 0 549,695 0 100% 100% 101,834 0% 19% 20% 109,939 (8,105)FY 02-03 595,380 8.3% 595,380 8.3% 0 0 595,380 0 100% 100% 101,834 5% 17% 20% 119,076 (17,242)FY 03-04 819,773 37.7% 819,773 37.7% 0 0 819,773 0 100% 100% 101,834 0% 12% 20% 163,955 (62,121)FY 04-05 644,175 -21.4% 661,291 -19.3% 0 0 661,291 17,116 103% 103% 118,950 0% 18% 20% 128,835 (9,885)FY 05-06 624,882 -3.0% 624,882 -5.5% 0 0 624,882 0 100% 100% 118,950 6.0% 19% 20% 124,976 (6,026)FY 06-07 790,822 26.6% 790,822 26.6% 0 0 790,822 0 100% 100% 118,950 4% 15% 20% 158,164 (39,214)FY 07-08 682,143 -13.7% 682,143 -13.7% 0 0 682,143 0 100% 100% 118,950 5.0% 17% 20% 136,429 (17,479)FY 08-09 817,986 19.9% 808,169 18.5% 0 0 808,169 (9,817) 99% 99% 109,133 5.0% 13% 20% 163,597 (54,464)FY 09-10 716,252 -12.4% 697,735 -13.7% 0 0 697,735 (18,517) 97% 97% 90,616 5.0% 13% 20% 143,250 (52,634)FY 10-11 615,905 -14.0% 704,404 1.0% 0 0 704,404 88,499 114% 114% 179,115 8.0% 29% 20% 123,181 55,934FY 11-12 776,818 26.1% 922,330 30.9% 0 0 922,330 145,512 119% 119% 324,627 5.0% 42% 20% 155,364 169,263FY 12-13 estimate 877,936 13.0% 1,126,835 22.2% 0 0 1,126,835 248,900 128% 128% 573,527 5.0% 65% 20% 175,587 397,939FY 13-14 estimate 1,222,038 39.2% 1,146,608 1.8% 0 0 1,146,608 (75,430) 94% 94% 498,097 0.0% 41% 20% 244,408 253,689FY 14-15 estimate 1,265,243 3.5% 1,142,337 -0.4% 0 0 1,142,337 (122,906) 90% 90% 375,190 4.0% 30% 20% 253,049 122,142FY 15-16 estimate 1,295,189 2.4% 1,253,138 9.7% 0 0 1,253,138 (42,051) 97% 97% 333,140 4.0% 26% 20% 259,038 74,102FY 16-17 estimate 1,413,639 9.1% 1,362,224 8.7% 0 0 1,362,224 (51,415) 96% 96% 281,725 4.0% 20% 20% 282,728 (1,003)FY 17-18 estimate 1,425,594 0.8% 1,418,569 4.1% 0 0 1,418,569 (7,025) 100% 100% 274,700 0.0% 19% 20% 285,119 (10,419)

Construction FY 90-91 7,370,629 13.6% 9,132,073 10.4% 0 0 9,132,073 1,761,444 124% 124% 5,534,974 75%Programs FY 91-92 8,002,935 8.6% 7,880,578 -13.7% 0 0 7,880,578 (122,357) 98% 98% 5,412,617 68%Subtotal FY 92-93 8,593,537 7.4% 8,533,048 8.3% 0 0 8,533,048 (60,489) 99% 99% 5,352,128 62%

FY 93-94 9,475,362 10.3% 9,948,471 16.6% 0 0 9,948,471 473,109 105% 105% 5,825,237 61%FY 94-95 10,741,613 13.4% 10,990,548 10.5% 0 0 10,990,548 248,935 102% 102% 6,074,172 57%FY 95-96 11,895,431 10.7% 12,130,741 10.4% 0 0 12,130,741 235,310 102% 102% 6,309,482 53% 43% 5,104,744 1,204,738FY 96-97 13,687,722 15.1% 15,309,096 26.2% 0 0 15,309,096 1,621,374 112% 112% 7,930,856 58% 43% 5,909,351 2,021,505FY 97-98 15,587,112 13.9% 15,715,277 2.7% 0 0 15,715,277 128,165 101% 101% 8,059,021 52% 34% 5,298,890 2,760,131FY 98-99 17,618,590 13.0% 15,622,226 -0.6% 0 0 15,622,226 (1,996,364) 89% 89% 6,062,657 34% 34% 5,925,281 137,376FY 99-00 19,868,584 12.8% 15,699,322 0.5% 0 0 15,699,322 (4,169,262) 79% 79% 1,893,395 10% 33% 6,651,512 (4,758,117)FY 00-01 18,906,591 -4.8% 18,444,247 17.5% 180,000 0 18,624,247 (282,344) 98% 99% 1,611,051 9% 38% 7,262,974 (5,651,923)FY 01-02 19,334,476 2.3% 19,519,867 5.8% 0 0 19,519,867 185,391 101% 101% 1,796,442 9% 39% 7,447,647 (5,651,205)FY 02-03 19,913,884 3.0% 21,363,738 9.4% 0 0 21,363,738 1,449,854 107% 107% 3,246,296 16% 38% 7,615,615 (4,369,319)FY 03-04 21,441,897 7.7% 23,660,382 10.8% 0 (579,848) 23,080,534 1,638,637 110% 108% 5,006,816 23% 38% 8,168,097 (3,161,281)FY 04-05 23,225,905 8.3% 25,769,359 8.9% 0 (579,848) 25,189,511 1,963,606 111% 108% 6,970,422 30% 38% 8,810,151 (1,839,729)FY 05-06 24,263,924 4.5% 28,055,369 8.9% 0 (579,848) 27,475,521 3,211,597 116% 113% 10,182,019 42% 22% 5,416,255 4,765,764FY 06-07 27,009,216 11.3% 29,346,651 4.6% 0 (579,848) 28,766,803 1,757,587 109% 107% 11,939,606 44% 22% 6,024,874 5,914,732FY 07-08 29,493,526 9.2% 30,354,490 3.4% 0 (579,848) 29,774,642 281,116 103% 101% 12,220,722 41% 22% 6,607,702 5,613,020FY 08-09 28,856,462 -2.2% 23,202,678 -23.6% 0 (579,848) 22,622,830 (6,233,632) 80% 78% 5,987,090 21% 22% 6,447,112 (460,022)FY 09-10 20,964,959 -27.3% 18,643,709 -19.6% 0 (579,848) 18,063,861 (2,901,098) 89% 86% 3,085,992 15% 22% 4,645,905 (1,559,913)FY 10-11 18,514,312 -11.7% 18,960,001 1.7% 0 (579,848) 18,380,153 (134,159) 102% 99% 2,951,833 16% 27% 5,017,917 (2,066,084)FY 11-12 19,697,087 6.4% 25,349,195 33.7% 0 0 25,349,195 5,652,108 129% 129% 8,603,941 44% 28% 5,491,446 3,112,495FY 12-13 estimate 23,793,620 20.8% 26,619,990 5.0% 0 0 26,619,990 2,826,369 112% 112% 11,430,310 48% 34% 8,040,333 3,389,978FY 13-14 estimate 25,382,312 6.7% 26,465,769 -0.6% 0 0 26,465,769 1,083,456 104% 104% 12,513,767 49% 34% 8,648,470 3,865,297FY 14-15 estimate 28,130,710 10.8% 27,593,030 4.3% 0 0 27,593,030 (537,681) 98% 98% 11,976,086 43% 34% 9,573,280 2,402,807FY 15-16 estimate 29,786,745 5.9% 29,719,287 7.7% 0 0 29,719,287 (67,458) 100% 100% 11,908,629 40% 34% 10,125,307 1,783,322FY 16-17 estimate 32,830,468 10.2% 31,882,321 7.3% 0 1 31,882,322 (948,146) 97% 97% 10,960,483 33% 34% 11,134,742 (174,260)FY 17-18 estimate 33,130,822 0.9% 33,818,677 6.1% 0 2 33,818,679 687,857 102% 102% 11,648,339 35% 34% 11,248,369 399,970

50


Program Detail



Noise FY 90-91 63,251 -5.4% 8,244 49.8% 55,007 0 63,251 0 13% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 91-92 34,270 -45.8% 5,900 -28.4% 28,370 0 34,270 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 92-93 36,487 6.5% 7,102 20.4% 29,385 0 36,487 0 19% 100% 0 0.0% 0%FY 93-94 46,034 26.2% 8,140 14.6% 37,894 0 46,034 0 18% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 94-95 57,945 25.9% 10,095 24.0% 47,850 0 57,945 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 95-96 80,144 38.3% 10,000 -0.9% 70,144 0 80,144 0 12% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 96-97 40,915 -48.9% 10,025 0.3% 30,890 0 40,915 0 25% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 97-98 62,655 53.1% 16,599 65.6% 46,056 0 62,655 0 26% 100% 0 0% 0%

Noise Program FY 98-99 67,212 7.3% 24,170 45.6% 43,042 0 67,212 0 36% 100% 0 0% 0%transferred to ONI FY 99-00 134,438 100.0% 27,400 13.4% 107,038 0 134,438 0 20% 100% 0 0.0% 0%

in FY 2003-04 FY 00-01 260,678 93.9% 83,293 204.0% 177,385 0 260,678 0 32% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 01-02 272,034 4.4% 62,657 -24.8% 209,377 0 272,034 0 23% 100% 0 0% 0%

The program came FY 02-03 283,975 4.4% 47,193 -24.7% 236,782 0 283,975 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%back to BDS FY 03-04 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 - 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%

in FY 2005-06 FY 04-05 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 - 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%FY 05-06 236,240 0.0% 76,867 0.0% 252,394 0 329,261 93,021 33% 139% 93,021 0.0% 39% 20% 47,248 45,773FY 06-07 376,166 59.2% 73,282 -4.7% 240,649 0 313,931 (62,235) 19% 83% 30,786 4% 8% 20% 75,233 (44,447)FY 07-08 357,894 -4.9% 87,652 19.6% 248,696 0 336,348 (21,546) 24% 94% 9,240 5.0% 3% 20% 71,579 (62,339)FY 08-09 354,879 -0.8% 88,284 0.7% 256,300 0 344,584 (10,295) 25% 97% (1,055) 5.0% 0% 20% 70,976 (72,031)FY 09-10 379,202 6.9% 101,445 14.9% 267,251 0 368,696 (10,506) 27% 97% (11,561) 5.0% -3% 20% 75,840 (87,401)FY 10-11 381,483 0.6% 110,555 9.0% 264,098 0 374,653 (6,830) 29% 98% (18,391) 8.0% -5% 20% 76,297 (94,688)FY 11-12 389,301 2.0% 138,166 25.0% 285,282 0 423,448 34,147 35% 109% 15,756 8.0% 4% 20% 77,860 (62,104)FY 12-13 estimate 431,972 11.0% 139,776 1.2% 292,420 0 432,196 224 32% 100% 15,980 5.0% 4% 20% 86,394 (70,414)FY 13-14 estimate 409,096 -5.3% 148,167 6.0% 218,228 0 366,395 (42,700) 36% 90% (26,720) 5.0% -7% 20% 81,819 (108,539)FY 14-15 estimate 438,655 7.2% 158,773 7.2% 218,228 0 377,001 (61,654) 36% 86% (88,375) 5.0% -20% 20% 87,731 (176,106)FY 15-16 estimate 449,827 2.5% 170,215 7.2% 218,228 0 388,443 (61,383) 38% 86% (149,758) 5.0% -33% 20% 89,965 (239,723)FY 16-17 estimate 491,499 9.3% 181,975 6.9% 218,228 0 400,203 (91,296) 37% 81% (241,053) 5.0% -49% 20% 98,300 (339,353)FY 17-18 estimate 496,299 1.0% 194,004 6.6% 218,228 0 412,232 (84,067) 39% 83% (325,121) 5.0% -66% 20% 99,260 (424,380)

Land Use FY 90-91Services FY 91-92

FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99 0FY 99-00 4,237,785 2,541,912 2,034,078 0 4,575,990 338,205 60% 108% 338,205 various 8% 20% 847,557 (509,352)FY 00-01 5,360,475 26.5% 3,384,830 33.2% 2,326,005 0 5,710,835 350,360 63% 107% 688,565 13% 13% 20% 1,072,095 (383,530)FY 01-02 5,744,438 7.2% 3,291,398 -2.8% 2,161,459 0 5,452,857 (291,581) 57% 95% 396,984 0% 7% 20% 1,148,888 (751,904)FY 02-03 6,288,885 9.5% 3,578,681 8.7% 1,917,012 0 5,495,693 (793,192) 57% 87% 57,792 8% 1% 20% 1,257,777 (1,199,985)FY 03-04 6,201,797 -1.4% 3,689,159 3.1% 1,143,072 579,848 5,412,079 (789,718) 59% 87% (144,312) 0% -2% 20% 1,240,359 (1,384,671)FY 04-05 6,461,572 4.2% 4,518,808 22.5% 1,153,361 579,848 6,252,017 (209,555) 70% 97% (353,867) 12% -5% 20% 1,292,314 (1,646,181)FY 05-06 7,106,749 10.0% 6,364,363 40.8% 1,097,443 579,848 8,041,654 934,905 90% 113% 581,038 4.0% 8% 20% 1,421,350 (840,312)FY 06-07 8,246,373 16.0% 7,129,961 12.0% 1,304,383 579,848 9,014,192 767,819 86% 109% 1,348,857 5% 16% 20% 1,649,275 (300,418)FY 07-08 9,245,002 12.1% 7,469,772 4.8% 1,268,959 579,848 9,318,579 73,577 81% 101% 1,422,434 3.8% 15% 20% 1,849,000 (426,566)FY 08-09 9,873,210 6.8% 4,947,978 -33.8% 1,253,289 579,848 6,781,115 (3,092,095) 50% 69% (1,669,661) 4.0% -17% 20% 1,974,642 (3,644,303)FY 09-10 5,920,462 -40.0% 4,049,554 -18.2% 1,253,528 579,848 5,882,929 (37,533) 68% 99% (1,707,194) 7.0% -29% 20% 1,184,092 (2,891,286)FY 10-11 4,991,450 -15.7% 4,294,534 6.0% 1,240,666 579,848 6,115,048 1,123,598 86% 123% (583,596) 8.0% -12% 20% 998,290 (1,581,886)FY 11-12 6,022,456 20.7% 6,058,809 41.1% 1,455,748 0 7,514,557 1,492,101 101% 125% 908,505 8.0% 15% 20% 1,204,491 (295,986)FY 12-13 estimate 7,265,146 20.6% 6,483,598 7.0% 1,090,752 0 7,574,350 309,204 89% 104% 1,217,709 5.0% 17% 20% 1,453,029 (235,320)FY 13-14 estimate 7,286,780 0.3% 6,588,319 1.6% 1,025,178 0 7,613,497 326,717 90% 104% 1,544,426 5.0% 21% 20% 1,457,356 87,070FY 14-15 estimate 8,008,523 9.9% 6,879,031 4.4% 1,025,178 0 7,904,210 (104,313) 86% 99% 1,440,113 3.0% 18% 20% 1,601,705 (161,591)FY 15-16 estimate 8,206,142 2.5% 7,446,526 8.2% 1,025,178 0 8,471,704 265,563 91% 103% 1,705,676 2.5% 21% 20% 1,641,228 64,448FY 16-17 estimate 8,995,282 9.6% 7,948,854 6.7% 1,025,178 8,974,032 (21,250) 88% 100% 1,684,427 2.0% 19% 20% 1,799,056 (114,630)FY 17-18 estimate 9,077,175 0.9% 8,246,675 3.7% 1,025,178 0 9,271,853 194,678 91% 102% 1,879,105 0.0% 21% 20% 1,815,435 63,670

51


Program Detail



Neighborhood FY 90-91 1,550,748 24.2% 257,143 43.2% 1,185,341 0 1,442,474 (108,274) 17% 93% (167,672) 0% -11%Inspections FY 91-92 1,713,249 10.5% 589,843 129.4% 1,088,632 0 1,665,794 (47,455) 34% 97% (215,127) 0% -13%

FY 92-93 1,848,346 7.9% 720,920 22.2% 1,145,076 0 1,864,773 16,427 39% 101% (198,700) 0.0% -11%FY 93-94 1,964,276 6.3% 854,576 18.5% 1,071,138 0 1,925,541 (38,735) 44% 98% (237,435) 0% -12%FY 94-95 2,133,127 8.6% 1,251,086 46.4% 1,176,038 0 2,421,019 287,892 59% 113% 50,457 0% 2%FY 95-96 2,334,780 9.5% 1,473,097 17.7% 1,190,075 0 2,663,285 328,505 63% 114% 378,962 0% 16%FY 96-97 2,704,625 15.8% 1,540,039 4.5% 1,206,455 0 2,744,265 39,640 57% 101% 418,602 0% 15%FY 97-98 2,470,880 -8.6% 1,561,205 1.4% 1,043,346 0 2,602,969 132,089 63% 105% 550,691 0% 22%

Neighborhood FY 98-99 2,267,882 -8.2% 1,732,485 11.0% 1,083,227 0 2,811,233 543,351 76% 124% 1,094,042 0% 48%Inspections Program FY 99-00 2,721,664 20.0% 2,014,977 16.3% 1,144,824 0 3,063,392 341,728 74% 113% 1,435,770 0.0% 53% 35% 952,582 483,188

transferred to ONI FY 00-01 2,626,994 -3.5% 1,932,248 -4.1% 1,056,096 0 2,716,576 89,582 74% 103% 1,525,352 0% 58% 20% 525,399 999,953 in FY 2003-04 FY 01-02 2,725,953 3.8% 2,091,631 8.2% 989,153 0 3,050,238 324,285 77% 112% 1,849,637 0% 68% 20% 545,191 1,304,446

FY 02-03 2,485,846 -8.8% 2,110,470 0.9% 0 0 2,076,068 (409,778) 85% 84% 1,439,859 0% 58% 20% 497,169 942,690The program came FY 03-04

back to BDS FY 04-05in FY 2006-07 FY 05-06 946,813

FY 06-07 2,016,429 1,402,034 350,259 1,752,293 (264,136) 70% 87% 682,677 34% 20% 403,286 279,391FY 07-08 2,495,495 23.8% 1,403,098 0.1% 611,972 2,015,070 (480,425) 56% 81% 202,252 7.0% 8% 20% 499,099 (296,847)FY 08-09 2,952,658 18.3% 1,079,616 -23.1% 373,042 1,452,658 (1,500,000) 37% 49% (1,297,748) 5.0% -44% 20% 590,532 (1,888,280)FY 09-10 1,660,036 -43.8% 1,838,208 70.3% 387,031 2,225,238 565,202 111% 134% (732,546) 5.0% -44% 20% 332,007 (1,064,553)FY 10-11 1,575,262 -5.1% 1,907,091 3.7% 384,391 2,291,482 716,220 121% 145% (16,326) 8.0% -1% 20% 315,052 (331,378)FY 11-12 2,350,403 49.2% 1,888,728 -1.0% 1,290,770 3,179,498 829,095 80% 135% 812,769 8.0% 35% 25% 587,601 225,168FY 12-13 estimate 2,912,279 23.9% 1,846,837 -2.2% 888,039 2,734,876 (177,402) 63% 94% 635,367 5.0% 22% 25% 728,070 (92,703)FY 13-14 estimate 2,580,063 -11.4% 1,874,438 1.5% 602,628 2,477,066 (102,997) 73% 96% 532,369 5.0% 21% 25% 645,016 (112,646)FY 14-15 estimate 2,751,509 6.6% 1,998,807 6.6% 614,028 2,612,835 (138,674) 73% 95% 393,695 5.0% 14% 25% 687,877 (294,182)FY 15-16 estimate 2,808,291 2.1% 2,135,255 6.8% 625,884 2,761,138 (47,153) 76% 98% 346,543 5.0% 12% 25% 702,073 (355,530)FY 16-17 estimate 3,053,993 8.7% 2,266,310 6.1% 638,214 2,904,524 (149,469) 74% 95% 197,074 5.0% 6% 25% 763,498 (566,424)FY 17-18 estimate 2,623,738 -14.1% 2,386,578 5.3% 651,037 3,037,615 413,877 91% 116% 610,951 5.0% 23% 25% 655,935 (44,983)

52

Bureau of Development Services2013 Financial Plan - Worst Case Scenario

Fee Increases and Programmatic Revenue Growth Assumptions

Appendix D

Programmatic Revenue Growth Assumptions1

Program FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Building/Mechanical 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% Electrical 0.5% 1.8% 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% Plumbing 0.7% 2.2% 2.6% 1.9% 2.3% Facilities Permits 1.1% 2.5% 2.7% 2.1% 1.1% Site Development 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% Environmental Soils 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 1.8% 1.8% Signs 1.5% 2.0% 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% Zoning Enforcement 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% Noise 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% Neighborhood Inspections 0.8% 2.0% 2.5% 2.1% 1.1% Land Use Services (Case Review) 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% Land Use Services (Planning & Zoning) 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8%

Projected Fee Increases

Program FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Building/Mechanical 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Electrical 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plumbing 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Facilities Permits 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% Site Development -5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Environmental Soils 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% Signs 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Zoning Enforcement 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% Noise 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Neighborhood Inspections 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Land Use Services 5.0% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 0.0%

Note1. The Programmatic Revenue Growth Rates presented in this table may not necessarily match revenue growth rates presented in Appendix D Program Detail. Growth Rates in Appendix D Program Detail account for projected fee increases, revenue items that are shared by several programs, and interagency revenue transfers.

53

Bureau of Development Services - 2013 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN Appendix D

Program Detail



FY 90-91 8,984,628 15.1% 9,397,460 11.1% 1,240,348 0 10,637,798 1,653,170 105% 118% 5,367,302 60%FY 91-92 9,750,454 8.5% 8,476,321 -9.8% 1,117,002 0 9,580,642 (169,812) 87% 98% 5,197,490 53%FY 92-93 10,478,370 7.5% 9,261,070 9.3% 1,174,461 0 10,434,308 (44,062) 88% 100% 5,153,428 49%FY 93-94 11,485,672 9.6% 10,811,187 16.7% 1,109,032 0 11,920,046 434,374 94% 104% 5,587,802 49%FY 94-95 12,932,685 12.6% 12,251,729 13.3% 1,223,888 0 13,469,512 536,827 95% 104% 6,124,629 47%FY 95-96 14,310,355 10.7% 13,613,838 11.1% 1,260,219 0 14,874,170 563,815 95% 104% 6,688,444 47% 36% 5,104,744

Bureau of FY 96-97 16,433,262 14.8% 16,859,160 23.8% 1,237,345 0 18,094,276 1,661,014 103% 110% 8,349,458 51% 36% 5,909,351Development FY 97-98 18,120,647 10.3% 17,293,081 2.6% 1,089,402 0 18,380,901 260,254 95% 101% 8,609,712 48% 29% 5,298,890

Services FY 98-99 19,953,684 10.1% 17,378,881 0.5% 1,126,269 0 18,500,671 (1,453,013) 87% 93% 7,156,699 36% 30% 5,925,281Total FY 99-00 26,962,471 35.1% 20,283,611 16.7% 3,285,940 0 23,473,142 (3,489,329) 75% 87% 3,667,370 14% 31% 8,451,651 (4,784,281)

FY 00-01 27,154,738 0.7% 23,844,618 17.6% 3,739,486 0 27,312,336 157,598 88% 101% 3,824,968 14% 33% 8,860,467 (5,035,499)FY 01-02 28,076,901 3.4% 24,965,553 4.7% 3,359,989 0 28,294,996 218,095 89% 101% 4,043,063 14% 33% 9,141,725 (5,098,662)FY 02-03 28,972,590 3.2% 27,100,082 8.5% 2,153,794 0 29,219,474 246,884 94% 101% 4,743,947 16% 32% 9,370,561 (4,626,614)FY 03-04 27,643,694 -4.6% 27,349,541 0.9% 1,143,072 0 28,492,613 848,919 99% 103% 4,740,621 17% 34% 9,408,456 (4,667,835)FY 04-05 29,687,477 7.4% 30,288,167 10.7% 1,153,361 0 31,441,528 1,754,051 102% 106% 6,494,672 22% 34% 10,102,465 (3,607,793)FY 05-06 31,606,913 6.5% 34,496,599 13.9% 1,349,837 0 35,846,436 4,239,523 109% 113% 11,681,009 37% 22% 6,884,853 4,796,156FY 06-07 37,648,184 19.1% 37,951,928 10.0% 1,895,291 0 39,847,219 2,199,035 101% 106% 13,880,044 37% 22% 8,152,668 5,727,376FY 07-08 41,591,917 10.5% 39,315,012 3.6% 2,129,627 0 41,444,639 (147,278) 95% 100% 13,732,766 33% 22% 9,027,380 4,705,386FY 08-09 42,037,209 1.1% 29,318,556 -25.4% 1,882,631 0 31,201,187 (10,836,022) 70% 74% 2,896,744 7% 22% 9,083,261 (6,186,517)FY 09-10 28,924,659 -31.2% 24,632,915 -16.0% 1,907,809 0 26,540,724 (2,383,935) 85% 92% 512,809 2% 22% 6,237,845 (5,725,036)FY 10-11 25,462,507 -12.0% 25,272,181 2.6% 1,889,155 0 27,161,336 1,698,829 99% 107% 2,211,638 9% 25% 6,407,556 (4,195,918)FY 11-12 28,459,247 11.8% 33,434,898 32.3% 3,031,800 0 36,466,698 8,007,451 117% 128% 10,219,089 36% 26% 7,361,398 2,857,691FY 12-13 estimate 34,403,016 20.9% 35,090,201 5.0% 2,271,211 0 37,361,412 2,958,396 102% 109% 13,177,485 38% 30% 10,307,826 2,869,659FY 13-14 estimate 35,241,830 2.4% 34,791,242 -0.9% 1,846,034 0 36,637,276 1,395,447 99% 104% 14,572,931 41% 31% 10,758,170 3,814,761FY 14-15 estimate 38,103,482 8.1% 35,379,587 1.7% 1,857,434 0 37,237,021 (866,461) 93% 98% 13,706,470 36% 30% 11,592,281 2,114,190FY 15-16 estimate 39,538,596 3.8% 37,239,672 5.3% 1,869,290 0 39,108,962 (429,634) 94% 99% 13,276,836 34% 30% 12,002,090 1,274,746FY 16-17 estimate 43,345,342 9.6% 39,108,296 5.0% 1,881,620 0 40,989,917 (2,355,425) 90% 95% 10,921,411 25% 30% 13,173,777 (2,252,366)FY 17-18 estimate 43,023,665 -0.7% 40,433,670 3.4% 1,894,444 0 42,328,114 (695,552) 94% 98% 10,225,860 24% 30% 13,096,747 (2,870,887)

55


Program Detail



Building / FY 90-91 4,653,765 16.9% 5,607,108 8.8% 0 0 5,607,108 953,343 120% 120% 3,761,142 0% 81%Mechanical FY 91-92 4,726,904 1.6% 4,690,090 -16.4% 0 0 4,690,090 (36,814) 99% 99% 3,724,328 0% 79%

FY 92-93 5,128,071 8.5% 5,276,884 12.5% 0 0 5,276,884 148,813 103% 103% 3,873,141 4.0% 76%FY 93-94 5,583,359 8.9% 6,070,067 15.0% 0 0 6,070,067 486,708 109% 109% 4,359,849 0% 78%FY 94-95 6,198,693 11.0% 6,651,588 9.6% 0 0 6,651,588 452,895 107% 107% 4,812,744 0% 78%FY 95-96 6,834,842 10.3% 7,566,634 13.8% 0 0 7,566,634 731,792 111% 111% 5,544,536 0% 81% 45% 3,075,679 2,468,857FY 96-97 7,976,700 16.7% 9,773,031 29.2% 0 0 9,773,031 1,796,331 123% 123% 7,340,867 0% 92% 45% 3,589,515 3,751,352FY 97-98 9,390,643 17.7% 10,059,867 2.9% 0 0 10,059,867 669,224 107% 107% 8,010,091 0% 85% 35% 3,286,725 4,723,366FY 98-99 10,789,561 14.9% 9,736,993 -3.2% 0 0 9,736,993 (1,052,568) 90% 90% 6,957,523 0% 64% 35% 3,776,346 3,181,177FY 99-00 11,897,225 10.3% 9,877,427 1.4% 0 0 9,877,427 (2,019,798) 83% 83% 4,937,725 15.0% 42% 35% 4,164,029 773,696FY 00-01 10,435,537 -12.3% 11,118,980 12.6% 180,000 0 11,298,980 863,443 107% 108% 5,801,168 4%/15% 56% 45% 4,695,992 1,105,176FY 01-02 10,692,258 2.5% 11,221,954 0.9% 0 0 11,221,954 529,696 105% 105% 6,330,864 0% 59% 45% 4,811,516 1,519,348FY 02-03 10,826,209 1.3% 12,136,022 8.1% 0 0 12,136,022 1,309,813 112% 112% 7,640,677 0% 71% 45% 4,871,794 2,768,883FY 03-04 11,970,227 10.6% 13,543,599 11.6% 0 (579,848) 12,963,751 993,525 113% 108% 8,634,202 0% 72% 45% 5,386,602 3,247,600FY 04-05 12,746,932 6.5% 15,006,710 10.8% 0 (579,848) 14,426,862 1,679,931 118% 113% 10,314,132 0% 81% 45% 5,736,119 4,578,013FY 05-06 13,353,551 4.8% 15,641,159 4.2% 0 (1,852,693) 13,788,466 434,916 117% 103% 10,749,048 -10.0% 80% 25% 3,338,388 7,410,660FY 06-07 14,777,028 10.7% 16,548,057 5.8% 0 (579,848) 15,968,209 1,191,181 112% 108% 11,940,229 0% 81% 25% 3,694,257 8,245,972FY 07-08 16,498,995 11.7% 17,835,165 7.8% 0 (579,848) 17,255,317 756,322 108% 105% 12,696,551 0.0% 77% 25% 4,124,749 8,571,803FY 08-09 15,833,452 -4.0% 12,566,670 -29.5% 0 (579,848) 11,986,822 (3,846,630) 79% 76% 8,849,921 0.0% 56% 25% 3,958,363 4,891,558FY 09-10 11,311,062 -28.6% 10,018,125 -20.3% 0 (579,848) 9,438,277 (1,872,785) 89% 83% 6,977,136 0.0% 62% 25% 2,827,766 4,149,371FY 10-11 9,496,582 -16.0% 9,228,371 -7.9% 0 (155,566) 9,072,805 (423,777) 97% 96% 6,553,359 8.0% 69% 35% 3,323,804 3,229,556FY 11-12 10,346,857 9.0% 13,689,544 48.3% 0 424,282 14,113,826 3,766,969 132% 136% 10,320,328 8.0% 100% 35% 3,621,400 6,698,928FY 12-13 estimate 13,126,435 26.9% 14,571,462 6.4% 0 424,282 14,995,744 1,869,309 111% 114% 12,189,637 5.0% 93% 45% 5,906,896 6,282,741FY 13-14 estimate 14,319,897 9.1% 14,071,282 -3.4% 0 0 14,071,282 (248,615) 98% 98% 11,941,022 0.0% 83% 45% 6,443,954 5,497,068FY 14-15 estimate 15,332,043 7.1% 14,261,556 1.4% 0 0 14,261,556 (1,070,487) 93% 93% 10,870,535 3.0% 71% 45% 6,899,420 3,971,115FY 15-16 estimate 15,810,801 3.1% 15,058,236 5.6% 0 0 15,058,236 (752,565) 95% 95% 10,117,970 3.0% 64% 45% 7,114,860 3,003,109FY 16-17 estimate 17,403,622 10.1% 15,833,370 5.1% 0 0 15,833,370 (1,570,252) 91% 91% 8,547,718 3.0% 49% 45% 7,831,630 716,088FY 17-18 estimate 17,442,488 0.2% 16,421,396 3.7% 0 0 16,421,396 (1,021,093) 94% 94% 7,526,625 3.0% 43% 45% 7,849,120 (322,495)

Electrical FY 90-91 1,153,243 1.5% 1,716,564 17.5% 0 0 1,716,564 563,321 149% 149% 1,067,598 0% 93%FY 91-92 1,435,194 24.4% 1,520,791 -11.4% 0 0 1,520,791 85,597 106% 106% 1,153,195 0% 80%FY 92-93 1,537,634 7.1% 1,482,310 -2.5% 0 0 1,482,310 (55,324) 96% 96% 1,097,871 0.0% 71%FY 93-94 1,726,109 12.3% 1,750,440 18.1% 0 0 1,750,440 24,331 101% 101% 1,122,202 0% 65%FY 94-95 1,950,025 13.0% 1,898,995 8.5% 0 0 1,898,995 (51,030) 97% 97% 1,071,172 0% 55%FY 95-96 2,101,300 7.8% 1,831,061 -3.6% 0 0 1,831,061 (270,239) 87% 87% 800,933 0% 38% 45% 945,585 (144,652)FY 96-97 2,365,452 12.6% 2,217,832 21.1% 0 0 2,217,832 (147,620) 94% 94% 653,313 5% 28% 45% 1,064,453 (411,140)FY 97-98 2,594,712 9.7% 2,293,287 3.4% 0 0 2,293,287 (301,425) 88% 88% 351,888 16% 14% 35% 908,149 (556,261)FY 98-99 2,733,903 5.4% 2,605,481 13.6% 0 0 2,605,481 (128,422) 95% 95% 223,466 0% 8% 35% 956,866 (733,400)FY 99-00 3,279,131 19.9% 2,671,333 2.5% 0 0 2,671,333 (607,798) 81% 81% (384,332) 15.0% -12% 35% 1,147,696 (1,532,028)FY 00-01 2,994,251 -8.7% 2,709,442 1.4% 0 0 2,709,442 (284,809) 90% 90% (669,141) 5% -22% 35% 1,047,988 (1,717,129)FY 01-02 2,944,226 -1.7% 2,644,588 -2.4% 0 0 2,644,588 (299,638) 90% 90% (968,779) 0% -33% 35% 1,030,479 (1,999,258)FY 02-03 2,939,083 -0.2% 2,805,442 6.1% 0 0 2,805,442 (133,641) 95% 95% (1,102,420) 5% -38% 35% 1,028,679 (2,131,099)FY 03-04 2,809,559 -4.4% 3,196,251 13.9% 0 0 3,196,251 386,692 114% 114% (715,728) 0% -25% 35% 983,346 (1,699,074)FY 04-05 3,151,912 12.2% 3,331,696 4.2% 0 0 3,331,696 179,785 106% 106% (535,943) 2% -17% 35% 1,103,169 (1,639,112)FY 05-06 3,338,567 5.9% 3,794,535 13.9% 0 0 3,794,535 455,969 114% 114% (79,975) 3.0% -2% 20% 667,713 (747,688)FY 06-07 3,721,649 11.5% 3,953,732 4.2% 0 0 3,953,732 232,082 106% 106% 152,108 5% 4% 20% 744,330 (592,222)FY 07-08 4,037,382 8.5% 3,613,217 -8.6% 0 0 3,613,217 (424,165) 89% 89% (272,057) 4.5% -7% 20% 807,476 (1,079,534)FY 08-09 4,028,746 -0.2% 3,046,503 -15.7% 0 0 3,046,503 (982,243) 76% 76% (1,254,300) 5.0% -31% 20% 805,749 (2,060,050)FY 09-10 2,761,511 -31.5% 2,623,454 -13.9% 0 0 2,623,454 (138,057) 95% 95% (1,392,357) 5.0% -50% 20% 552,302 (1,944,660)FY 10-11 2,753,551 -0.3% 2,918,005 11.2% 0 0 2,918,005 164,454 106% 106% (1,227,903) 8.0% -45% 20% 550,710 (1,778,614)FY 11-12 2,672,616 -2.9% 3,402,906 16.6% 0 0 3,402,906 730,290 127% 127% (497,613) 8.0% -19% 20% 534,523 (1,032,137)FY 12-13 estimate 3,001,245 12.3% 3,658,566 7.5% 0 0 3,658,566 657,321 122% 122% 159,707 5.0% 5% 20% 600,249 (440,542)FY 13-14 estimate 3,061,535 2.0% 3,659,790 0.0% 0 0 3,659,790 598,255 120% 120% 757,962 0.0% 25% 20% 612,307 145,655FY 14-15 estimate 3,514,243 14.8% 3,649,579 -0.3% 0 0 3,649,579 135,336 104% 104% 893,299 0.0% 25% 20% 702,849 190,450FY 15-16 estimate 3,566,232 1.5% 3,747,100 2.7% 0 0 3,747,100 180,868 105% 105% 1,074,167 0.0% 30% 20% 713,246 360,920FY 16-17 estimate 4,090,054 14.7% 3,840,039 2.5% 0 0 3,840,039 (250,014) 94% 94% 824,152 0.0% 20% 20% 818,011 6,142FY 17-18 estimate 3,985,044 -2.6% 3,923,260 2.2% 0 0 3,923,260 (61,784) 98% 98% 762,369 0.0% 19% 20% 797,009 (34,640)

56


Program Detail



Plumbing FY 90-91 985,338 -13.0% 1,074,871 -15.7% 0 0 1,074,871 89,533 109% 109% 296,699 0% 30%FY 91-92 1,191,950 21.0% 1,029,372 -4.2% 0 0 1,029,372 (162,578) 86% 86% 134,121 0% 11%FY 92-93 1,301,541 9.2% 1,130,975 9.9% 0 0 1,130,975 (170,566) 87% 87% (36,445) 15.0% -3%FY 93-94 1,341,871 3.1% 1,386,390 22.6% 0 0 1,386,390 44,519 103% 103% 8,074 5% 1%FY 94-95 1,626,351 21.2% 1,635,250 18.0% 0 0 1,635,250 8,899 101% 101% 16,973 5% 1%FY 95-96 1,966,489 20.9% 1,703,692 4.2% 0 0 1,703,692 (262,797) 87% 87% (245,824) 0% -13% 45% 884,920 (1,130,744)FY 96-97 2,345,075 19.3% 2,343,148 37.5% 0 0 2,343,148 (1,927) 100% 100% (247,751) 5% -11% 45% 1,055,284 (1,303,035)FY 97-98 2,557,762 9.1% 2,440,282 4.1% 0 0 2,440,282 (117,480) 95% 95% (365,231) 12% -14% 35% 895,217 (1,260,448)FY 98-99 2,604,281 1.8% 2,433,650 -0.3% 0 0 2,433,650 (170,631) 93% 93% (535,862) 0% -21% 35% 911,498 (1,447,360)FY 99-00 2,863,022 9.9% 2,034,281 -16.4% 0 0 2,034,281 (828,741) 71% 71% (1,364,603) 15.0% -48% 35% 1,002,058 (2,366,661)FY 00-01 2,419,038 -15.5% 2,216,978 9.0% 0 0 2,216,978 (202,060) 92% 92% (1,566,663) 7% -65% 35% 846,663 (2,413,326)FY 01-02 2,581,243 6.7% 2,408,106 8.6% 0 0 2,408,106 (173,137) 93% 93% (1,739,800) 0% -67% 35% 903,435 (2,643,235)FY 02-03 2,698,390 4.5% 2,897,048 20.3% 0 0 2,897,048 198,658 107% 107% (1,541,142) 0% -57% 35% 944,437 (2,485,579)FY 03-04 2,562,577 -5.0% 3,091,727 6.7% 0 0 3,091,727 529,149 121% 121% (1,011,993) 0% -39% 35% 896,902 (1,908,895)FY 04-05 2,831,924 10.5% 3,264,194 5.6% 0 0 3,264,194 432,270 115% 115% (579,722) 2% -20% 35% 991,173 (1,570,896)FY 05-06 2,973,317 5.0% 3,789,651 16.1% 0 0 3,789,651 816,334 127% 127% 236,611 0.0% 8% 20% 594,663 (358,052)FY 06-07 3,236,681 8.9% 3,719,734 -1.8% 0 0 3,719,734 483,053 115% 115% 719,664 0% 22% 20% 647,336 72,328FY 07-08 3,609,352 11.5% 3,122,745 -16.0% 0 0 3,122,745 (486,607) 87% 87% 233,057 0.0% 6% 20% 721,870 (488,813)FY 08-09 3,600,192 -0.3% 2,257,355 -27.7% 0 0 2,257,355 (1,342,837) 63% 63% (1,109,780) 5.0% -31% 20% 720,038 (1,829,818)FY 09-10 2,225,247 -38.2% 1,792,563 -20.6% 0 0 1,792,563 (432,684) 81% 81% (1,542,464) 5.5% -69% 20% 445,049 (1,987,513)FY 10-11 2,172,277 -2.4% 2,150,160 19.9% 0 0 2,150,160 (22,117) 99% 99% (1,564,581) 8.0% -72% 20% 434,455 (1,999,036)FY 11-12 2,323,172 6.9% 2,422,941 12.7% 0 0 2,422,941 99,769 104% 104% (1,464,812) 8.0% -63% 20% 464,634 (1,929,446)FY 12-13 estimate 2,711,808 16.7% 2,792,111 15.2% 0 0 2,792,111 80,303 103% 103% (1,384,509) 5.0% -51% 20% 542,362 (1,926,871)FY 13-14 estimate 2,726,793 0.6% 2,902,151 3.9% 0 0 2,902,151 175,358 106% 106% (1,209,151) 5.0% -44% 20% 545,359 (1,754,510)FY 14-15 estimate 2,901,351 6.4% 2,991,690 3.1% 0 0 2,991,690 90,339 103% 103% (1,118,812) 5.0% -39% 20% 580,270 (1,699,082)FY 15-16 estimate 2,978,601 2.7% 3,218,458 7.6% 0 0 3,218,458 239,857 108% 108% (878,955) 5.0% -30% 20% 595,720 (1,474,675)FY 16-17 estimate 3,168,624 6.4% 3,440,116 6.9% 0 0 3,440,116 271,492 109% 109% (607,463) 5.0% -19% 20% 633,725 (1,241,188)FY 17-18 estimate 3,100,706 -2.1% 3,690,179 7.3% 0 0 3,690,179 589,473 119% 119% (17,989) 5.0% -1% 20% 620,141 (638,130)

Facilities Permits FY 90-91FY 91-92FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99 351,984 --- 64,992 --- 0 0 64,992 (286,992) 18% 18% (286,992) 0% -82% 15% 52,798 (339,790)FY 99-00 562,240 59.7% 400,033 515.5% 0 0 400,033 (162,207) 71% 71% (449,199) 41.0% -80% 15% 84,336 (533,535)FY 00-01 1,080,889 92.2% 942,330 135.6% 0 0 942,330 (138,559) 87% 87% (587,758) 0% -54% 15% 162,133 (749,891)FY 01-02 1,214,620 12.4% 1,270,656 34.8% 0 0 1,270,656 56,036 105% 105% (531,722) 0% -44% 15% 182,193 (713,915)FY 02-03 1,394,277 14.8% 1,332,364 4.9% 0 0 1,332,364 (61,913) 96% 96% (593,635) 13% -43% 15% 209,142 (802,777)FY 03-04 1,753,383 25.8% 1,438,698 8.0% 0 0 1,438,698 (314,685) 82% 82% (908,320) 0% -52% 15% 263,007 (1,171,327)FY 04-05 2,132,848 21.6% 1,727,992 20.1% 0 0 1,727,992 (404,856) 81% 81% (1,313,176) 5% -62% 15% 319,927 (1,633,103)FY 05-06 2,084,137 -2.3% 2,124,467 22.9% 0 1,272,845 3,397,312 1,313,175 102% 102% 0 0.0% 0% 15% 312,621 (312,621)FY 06-07 2,316,405 11.1% 2,154,024 1.4% 0 0 2,154,024 (162,381) 93% 93% (162,381) 5% -7% 15% 347,461 (509,842)FY 07-08 2,319,064 0.1% 2,911,525 35.2% 0 0 2,911,525 592,461 126% 126% 430,080 4.0% 19% 15% 347,860 82,220FY 08-09 2,317,060 -0.1% 3,137,086 7.7% 0 0 3,137,086 820,026 135% 135% 1,250,106 5.0% 54% 15% 347,559 902,547FY 09-10 2,252,789 -2.8% 2,142,256 -31.7% 0 0 2,142,256 (110,533) 95% 95% 1,139,573 4.0% 51% 15% 337,918 801,655FY 10-11 2,188,656 -2.8% 2,362,136 10.3% 0 (424,282) 1,937,854 (250,802) 108% 89% 888,771 8.0% 41% 15% 328,298 560,473FY 11-12 2,251,270 2.9% 2,875,436 21.7% 0 (424,282) 2,451,154 199,884 128% 109% 1,088,655 8.0% 48% 20% 450,254 638,401FY 12-13 estimate 2,560,112 13.7% 2,413,239 -16.1% 0 (424,282) 1,988,957 (571,155) 94% 78% 517,500 0.0% 20% 20% 512,022 5,477FY 13-14 estimate 2,341,376 -8.5% 2,435,682 0.9% 0 0 2,435,682 94,306 104% 104% 611,805 0.0% 26% 20% 468,275 143,530FY 14-15 estimate 2,512,202 7.3% 2,495,579 2.5% 0 0 2,495,579 (16,624) 99% 99% 595,182 0.0% 24% 20% 502,440 92,742FY 15-16 estimate 2,580,182 2.7% 2,562,054 2.7% 0 0 2,562,054 (18,127) 99% 99% 577,055 0.0% 22% 20% 516,036 61,018FY 16-17 estimate 2,815,885 9.1% 2,721,196 6.2% 0 0 2,721,196 (94,689) 97% 97% 482,366 4.0% 17% 20% 563,177 (80,811)FY 17-18 estimate 2,825,623 0.3% 2,859,315 5.1% 0 0 2,859,315 33,692 101% 101% 516,058 4.0% 18% 20% 565,125 (49,067)

57


Program Detail



State Programs FY 90-91 6,792,346 8.7% 8,398,543 6.5% 0 0 8,398,543 1,606,197 124% 124% 5,125,439Subtotal FY 91-92 7,354,048 8.3% 7,240,253 -13.8% 0 0 7,240,253 (113,795) 98% 98% 5,011,644

FY 92-93 7,967,246 8.3% 7,890,169 9.0% 0 0 7,890,169 (77,077) 99% 99% 4,934,567FY 93-94 8,651,339 8.6% 9,206,897 16.7% 0 0 9,206,897 555,558 106% 106% 5,490,125FY 94-95 9,775,069 13.0% 10,185,833 10.6% 0 0 10,185,833 410,764 104% 104% 5,900,889FY 95-96 10,902,631 11.5% 11,101,387 9.0% 0 0 11,101,387 198,756 102% 102% 6,099,645 56% 45% 4,906,184 1,193,461FY 96-97 12,687,227 16.4% 14,334,011 29.1% 0 0 14,334,011 1,646,784 113% 113% 7,746,429 61% 45% 5,709,252 2,037,177FY 97-98 14,543,117 14.6% 14,793,436 3.2% 0 0 14,793,436 250,319 102% 102% 7,996,748 55% 35% 5,090,091 2,906,657FY 98-99 16,479,729 13.3% 14,841,116 0.3% 0 0 14,841,116 (1,638,613) 90% 90% 6,358,135 39% 35% 5,697,508 660,627FY 99-00 18,601,618 12.9% 14,983,074 1.0% 0 0 14,983,074 (3,618,544) 81% 81% 2,739,591 15% 34% 6,398,118 (3,658,527)FY 00-01 16,929,715 -9.0% 16,987,730 13.4% 180,000 0 17,167,730 238,015 100% 101% 2,977,606 18% 40% 6,752,776 (3,775,170)FY 01-02 17,432,347 3.0% 17,545,304 3.3% 0 0 17,545,304 112,957 101% 101% 3,090,563 18% 40% 6,927,623 (3,837,060)FY 02-03 17,857,959 2.4% 19,170,876 9.3% 0 0 19,170,876 1,312,917 107% 107% 4,403,480 25% 40% 7,054,051 (2,650,571)FY 03-04 19,095,746 6.9% 21,270,275 11.0% 0 (579,848) 20,690,427 1,594,681 111% 108% 6,120,044 32% 39% 7,529,857 (1,409,813)FY 04-05 20,863,615 9.3% 23,330,593 9.7% 0 (579,848) 22,750,745 1,887,130 112% 109% 8,007,174 38% 39% 8,150,389 (143,215)FY 05-06 21,749,572 4.2% 25,349,813 8.7% 0 (579,848) 24,769,965 3,020,393 117% 114% 11,027,567 51% 23% 4,913,385 6,114,182FY 06-07 24,051,763 10.6% 26,375,546 4.0% 0 (579,848) 25,795,698 1,743,935 110% 107% 12,771,502 53% 23% 5,433,384 7,338,118FY 07-08 26,464,793 10.0% 27,482,652 4.2% 0 (579,848) 26,902,804 438,011 104% 102% 13,209,513 50% 23% 6,001,955 7,207,558FY 08-09 25,779,450 -2.6% 21,007,614 -23.6% 0 (579,848) 20,427,766 (5,351,684) 81% 79% 7,857,829 30% 23% 5,831,710 2,026,119FY 09-10 18,550,609 -28.0% 16,576,398 -21.1% 0 (579,848) 15,996,550 (2,554,059) 89% 86% 5,303,770 29% 22% 4,163,035 1,140,735FY 10-11 16,611,066 -10.5% 16,658,672 0.5% 0 (579,848) 16,078,824 (532,242) 100% 97% 4,771,528 29% 28% 4,637,268 134,260FY 11-12 17,593,915 5.9% 22,390,827 34.4% 0 0 22,390,827 4,796,912 127% 127% 9,568,440 54% 29% 5,070,812 4,497,628FY 12-13 estimate 21,399,601 21.6% 23,435,378 4.7% 0 0 23,435,378 2,035,777 110% 110% 11,604,217 54% 35% 7,561,529 4,042,688FY 13-14 estimate 22,449,602 4.9% 23,068,906 -1.6% 0 0 23,068,906 619,304 103% 103% 12,223,520 54% 36% 8,069,895 4,153,626FY 14-15 estimate 24,259,839 8.1% 23,398,404 1.4% 0 0 23,398,404 (861,435) 96% 96% 11,362,085 47% 36% 8,684,979 2,677,106FY 15-16 estimate 24,935,816 2.8% 24,585,849 5.1% 0 0 24,585,849 (349,967) 99% 99% 11,012,118 44% 36% 8,939,863 2,072,255FY 16-17 estimate 27,478,185 10.2% 25,834,722 5.1% 0 0 25,834,722 (1,643,463) 94% 94% 9,368,655 34% 36% 9,846,543 (477,887)FY 17-18 estimate 27,353,861 -0.5% 26,894,150 4.1% 0 0 26,894,150 (459,711) 98% 98% 8,908,944 33% 36% 9,831,394 (922,450)

Site Development FY 90-91FY 91-92FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99FY 99-00FY 00-01 765,481 --- 601,783 --- 0 0 601,783 (163,698) 79% 79% (163,698) new -21% 35% 267,918 (431,616)FY 01-02 930,650 21.6% 1,124,324 86.8% 0 0 1,124,324 193,674 121% 121% 29,976 0% 3% 35% 325,728 (295,752)FY 02-03 1,002,527 7.7% 1,245,043 10.7% 0 0 1,245,043 242,516 124% 124% 272,492 10% 27% 35% 350,884 (78,392)FY 03-04 1,126,731 12.4% 1,204,695 -3.2% 0 0 1,204,695 77,964 107% 107% 350,456 0% 31% 35% 394,356 (43,900)FY 04-05 1,248,694 10.8% 1,291,743 7.2% 0 0 1,291,743 43,049 103% 103% 393,505 2% 32% 35% 437,043 (43,538)FY 05-06 1,400,040 12.1% 1,559,809 20.8% 0 0 1,559,809 159,769 111% 111% 553,274 0.0% 40% 20% 280,008 273,266FY 06-07 1,538,797 9.9% 1,617,406 3.7% 0 0 1,617,406 78,609 105% 105% 631,883 5% 41% 20% 307,759 324,124FY 07-08 1,694,750 10.1% 1,624,755 0.5% 0 0 1,624,755 (69,995) 96% 96% 561,888 6.5% 33% 20% 338,950 222,938FY 08-09 1,657,910 -2.2% 833,002 -48.7% 0 0 833,002 (824,908) 50% 50% (263,020) 7.3% -16% 20% 331,582 (594,602)FY 09-10 1,076,820 -35.0% 869,247 4.4% 0 0 869,247 (207,573) 81% 81% (470,593) 7.5% -44% 20% 215,364 (685,957)FY 10-11 736,770 -31.6% 1,025,885 18.0% 0 0 1,025,885 289,115 139% 139% (181,478) 8.0% -25% 20% 147,354 (328,832)FY 11-12 760,307 3.2% 1,372,666 33.8% 0 0 1,372,666 612,359 181% 181% 430,881 8.0% 57% 20% 152,061 278,820FY 12-13 estimate 873,154 14.8% 1,296,645 -5.5% 0 0 1,296,645 423,492 149% 149% 854,373 0.0% 98% 20% 174,631 679,742FY 13-14 estimate 1,045,032 19.7% 1,207,879 -6.8% 0 0 1,207,879 162,847 116% 116% 1,017,220 -5.0% 97% 20% 209,006 808,214FY 14-15 estimate 1,260,739 20.6% 1,230,140 1.8% 0 0 1,230,140 (30,598) 98% 98% 986,622 0.0% 78% 20% 252,148 734,474FY 15-16 estimate 1,438,728 14.1% 1,263,971 2.8% 0 0 1,263,971 (174,757) 88% 88% 811,865 0.0% 56% 20% 287,746 524,119FY 16-17 estimate 1,539,489 7.0% 1,292,317 2.2% 0 0 1,292,317 (247,172) 84% 84% 564,693 0.0% 37% 20% 307,898 256,796FY 17-18 estimate 1,538,484 -0.1% 1,302,464 0.8% 0 0 1,302,464 (236,019) 85% 85% 328,674 0.0% 21% 20% 307,697 20,977

58


Program Detail



Environmental FY 90-91 194,038 0.0% 296,884 0.0% 0 0 296,884 102,846 153% 153% 102,846 0% 53%Soils FY 91-92 199,079 2.6% 312,908 5.4% 0 0 312,908 113,829 157% 157% 216,675 0% 109%

FY 92-93 185,104 -7.0% 311,129 -0.6% 0 0 311,129 126,025 168% 168% 342,700 0.0% 185%FY 93-94 307,602 66.2% 296,731 -4.6% 0 0 296,731 (10,871) 96% 96% 331,829 0% 108%FY 94-95 357,614 16.3% 333,639 12.4% 0 0 333,639 (23,975) 93% 93% 307,854 0% 86%FY 95-96 431,519 20.7% 330,785 -0.9% 0 0 330,785 (100,734) 77% 77% 207,120 0% 48% 20% 86,304 120,816FY 96-97 420,088 -2.6% 349,337 5.6% 0 0 349,337 (70,751) 83% 83% 136,369 0% 32% 20% 84,018 52,351FY 97-98 458,374 9.1% 330,034 -5.5% 0 0 330,034 (128,340) 72% 72% 8,029 0% 2% 20% 91,675 (83,646)FY 98-99 468,261 2.2% 252,764 -23.4% 0 0 252,764 (215,497) 54% 54% (207,468) 0% -44% 20% 93,652 (301,120)FY 99-00 530,010 13.2% 144,419 -42.9% 0 0 144,419 (385,591) 27% 27% (593,059) 225.0% -112% 20% 106,002 (699,061)FY 00-01 468,665 -11.6% 172,280 19.3% 0 0 172,280 (296,385) 37% 37% (889,444) new -190% 20% 93,733 (983,177)FY 01-02 203,107 -56.7% 126,962 -26.3% 0 0 126,962 (76,145) 63% 63% (965,589) 0% -475% 20% 40,621 (1,006,210)FY 02-03 277,972 36.9% 157,545 24.1% 0 0 157,545 (120,427) 57% 57% (1,086,016) 0% -391% 20% 55,594 (1,141,610)FY 03-04 178,387 -35.8% 115,946 -26.4% 0 0 115,946 (62,441) 65% 65% (1,148,457) 0% -644% 20% 35,677 (1,184,134)FY 04-05 207,869 16.5% 221,320 90.9% 0 0 221,320 13,451 106% 106% (1,135,006) 57% -546% 20% 41,574 (1,176,580)FY 05-06 185,712 -10.7% 246,567 11.4% 0 0 246,567 60,855 133% 133% (1,074,151) 5.0% -578% 20% 37,142 (1,111,293)FY 06-07 252,692 36.1% 262,180 6.3% 0 0 262,180 9,488 104% 104% (1,064,663) 4% -421% 20% 50,538 (1,115,201)FY 07-08 274,172 8.5% 237,379 -9.5% 0 0 237,379 (36,793) 87% 87% (1,101,456) 5.1% -402% 20% 54,834 (1,156,290)FY 08-09 236,750 -13.6% 213,497 -10.1% 0 0 213,497 (23,253) 90% 90% (1,124,709) 5.0% -475% 20% 47,350 (1,172,059)FY 09-10 318,346 34.5% 172,906 -19.0% 0 0 172,906 (145,440) 54% 54% (1,270,149) 5.0% -399% 20% 63,669 (1,333,818)FY 10-11 293,927 -7.7% 210,527 21.8% 0 0 210,527 (83,400) 72% 72% (1,353,549) 12.0% -461% 20% 58,785 (1,412,334)FY 11-12 289,836 -1.4% 291,553 38.5% 0 0 291,553 1,717 101% 101% (1,351,832) 70.0% -466% 20% 57,967 (1,409,799)FY 12-13 estimate 345,965 19.4% 382,793 31.3% 0 0 382,793 36,827 111% 111% (1,315,005) 10.0% -380% 20% 69,193 (1,384,198)FY 13-14 estimate 305,952 -11.6% 421,874 10.2% 0 0 421,874 115,922 138% 138% (1,199,083) 10.0% -392% 20% 61,190 (1,260,273)FY 14-15 estimate 327,991 7.2% 474,543 12.5% 0 0 474,543 146,552 145% 145% (1,052,531) 10.0% -321% 20% 65,598 (1,118,129)FY 15-16 estimate 336,619 2.6% 533,827 12.5% 0 0 533,827 197,208 159% 159% (855,323) 10.0% -254% 20% 67,324 (922,647)FY 16-17 estimate 366,814 9.0% 596,834 11.8% 0 0 596,834 230,020 163% 163% (625,303) 10.0% -170% 20% 73,363 (698,666)FY 17-18 estimate 367,338 0.1% 618,164 3.6% 0 0 618,164 250,826 168% 168% (374,477) 0.0% -102% 20% 73,468 (447,945)

Signs FY 90-91 135,260 8.5% 151,714 4.8% 0 0 151,714 16,454 112% 112% 47,635 0% 35%FY 91-92 168,530 24.6% 170,102 12.1% 0 0 170,102 1,572 101% 101% 49,207 0% 29%FY 92-93 170,529 1.2% 150,726 -11.4% 0 0 150,726 (19,803) 88% 88% 29,404 0.0% 17%FY 93-94 179,771 5.4% 179,934 19.4% 0 0 179,934 163 100% 100% 29,567 0% 16%FY 94-95 194,767 8.3% 185,270 3.0% 0 0 185,270 (9,497) 95% 95% 20,070 0% 10%FY 95-96 221,558 13.8% 194,721 5.1% 0 0 194,721 (26,837) 88% 88% (6,767) 0% -3% 20% 44,312 (51,079)FY 96-97 225,941 2.0% 171,282 -12.0% 0 0 171,282 (54,659) 76% 76% (61,426) 0% -27% 20% 45,188 (106,614)FY 97-98 203,409 -10.0% 177,916 3.9% 0 0 177,916 (25,493) 87% 87% (86,919) 0% -43% 20% 40,682 (127,601)FY 98-99 280,723 38.0% 138,469 -22.2% 0 0 138,469 (142,254) 49% 49% (229,173) 0% -82% 20% 56,145 (285,318)FY 99-00 248,444 -11.5% 122,646 -11.4% 0 0 122,646 (125,798) 49% 49% (354,971) 0.0% -143% 20% 49,689 (404,660)FY 00-01 234,758 -5.5% 174,482 42.3% 0 0 174,482 (60,276) 74% 74% (415,247) new -177% 20% 46,952 (462,199)FY 01-02 218,677 -6.9% 173,582 -0.5% 0 0 173,582 (45,095) 79% 79% (460,342) 0% -211% 20% 43,735 (504,077)FY 02-03 180,046 -17.7% 194,894 12.3% 0 0 194,894 14,848 108% 108% (445,494) 30% -247% 20% 36,009 (481,503)FY 03-04 221,260 22.9% 249,693 28.1% 0 0 249,693 28,433 113% 113% (417,061) 0% -188% 20% 44,252 (461,313)FY 04-05 261,552 18.2% 264,412 5.9% 0 0 264,412 2,860 101% 101% (414,201) 0% -158% 20% 52,310 (466,511)FY 05-06 303,718 16.1% 274,298 3.7% 0 0 274,298 (29,420) 90% 90% (443,621) 0.0% -146% 20% 60,744 (504,365)FY 06-07 375,142 23.5% 300,697 9.6% 0 0 300,697 (74,445) 80% 80% (518,066) 0% -138% 20% 75,028 (593,094)FY 07-08 377,668 0.7% 327,561 8.9% 0 0 327,561 (50,107) 87% 87% (568,173) 7.7% -150% 20% 75,534 (643,707)FY 08-09 364,366 -3.5% 340,396 3.9% 0 0 340,396 (23,970) 93% 93% (592,143) 7.5% -163% 20% 72,873 (665,016)FY 09-10 302,932 -16.9% 327,423 -3.8% 0 0 327,423 24,491 108% 108% (567,652) 7.5% -187% 20% 60,586 (628,238)FY 10-11 256,644 -15.3% 360,513 10.1% 0 0 360,513 103,869 140% 140% (463,783) 8.0% -181% 20% 51,329 (515,112)FY 11-12 276,211 7.6% 371,819 3.1% 0 0 371,819 95,608 135% 135% (368,175) 8.0% -133% 20% 55,242 (423,417)FY 12-13 estimate 296,964 7.5% 378,339 1.8% 0 0 378,339 81,374 127% 127% (286,801) 5.0% -97% 20% 59,393 (346,194)FY 13-14 estimate 293,702 -1.1% 390,391 3.2% 0 0 390,391 96,689 133% 133% (190,112) 2.5% -65% 20% 58,740 (248,853)FY 14-15 estimate 314,890 7.2% 407,871 4.5% 0 0 407,871 92,981 130% 130% (97,131) 2.5% -31% 20% 62,978 (160,109)FY 15-16 estimate 323,363 2.7% 418,349 2.6% 0 0 418,349 94,987 129% 129% (2,144) 0.0% -1% 20% 64,673 (66,817)FY 16-17 estimate 352,787 9.1% 426,186 1.9% 0 0 426,186 73,399 121% 121% 71,255 0.0% 20% 20% 70,557 697FY 17-18 estimate 351,972 -0.2% 432,379 1.5% 0 0 432,379 80,407 123% 123% 151,662 0.0% 43% 20% 70,394 81,267

59


Program Detail



Zoning FY 90-91 248,985 117.5% 284,932 20.1% 0 0 284,932 35,947 114% 114% 259,054 0% 104%Enforcement FY 91-92 281,278 13.0% 157,315 -44.8% 0 0 157,315 (123,963) 56% 56% 135,091 0% 48%

FY 92-93 270,658 -3.8% 181,024 15.1% 0 0 181,024 (89,634) 67% 67% 45,457 20.0% 17%FY 93-94 336,650 24.4% 264,909 46.3% 0 0 264,909 (71,741) 79% 79% (26,284) 0% -8%FY 94-95 414,163 23.0% 285,806 7.9% 0 0 285,806 (128,357) 69% 69% (154,641) 117% -37%FY 95-96 339,723 -18.0% 503,848 76.3% 0 0 503,848 164,125 148% 148% 9,484 0% 3% 20% 67,945 (58,461)FY 96-97 354,466 4.3% 454,466 -9.8% 0 0 454,466 100,000 128% 128% 109,484 0% 31% 20% 70,893 38,591FY 97-98 382,212 7.8% 413,891 -8.9% 0 0 413,891 31,679 108% 108% 141,163 0% 37% 20% 76,442 64,721FY 98-99 389,877 2.0% 389,877 -5.8% 0 0 389,877 0 100% 100% 141,163 0% 36% 20% 77,975 63,188FY 99-00 488,512 25.3% 449,183 15.2% 0 0 449,183 (39,329) 92% 92% 101,834 0.0% 21% 20% 97,702 4,132FY 00-01 507,972 4.0% 507,972 13.1% 0 0 507,972 0 100% 100% 101,834 2% 20% 20% 101,594 240FY 01-02 549,695 8.2% 549,695 8.2% 0 0 549,695 0 100% 100% 101,834 0% 19% 20% 109,939 (8,105)FY 02-03 595,380 8.3% 595,380 8.3% 0 0 595,380 0 100% 100% 101,834 5% 17% 20% 119,076 (17,242)FY 03-04 819,773 37.7% 819,773 37.7% 0 0 819,773 0 100% 100% 101,834 0% 12% 20% 163,955 (62,121)FY 04-05 644,175 -21.4% 661,291 -19.3% 0 0 661,291 17,116 103% 103% 118,950 0% 18% 20% 128,835 (9,885)FY 05-06 624,882 -3.0% 624,882 -5.5% 0 0 624,882 0 100% 100% 118,950 6.0% 19% 20% 124,976 (6,026)FY 06-07 790,822 26.6% 790,822 26.6% 0 0 790,822 0 100% 100% 118,950 4% 15% 20% 158,164 (39,214)FY 07-08 682,143 -13.7% 682,143 -13.7% 0 0 682,143 0 100% 100% 118,950 5.0% 17% 20% 136,429 (17,479)FY 08-09 817,986 19.9% 808,169 18.5% 0 0 808,169 (9,817) 99% 99% 109,133 5.0% 13% 20% 163,597 (54,464)FY 09-10 716,252 -12.4% 697,735 -13.7% 0 0 697,735 (18,517) 97% 97% 90,616 5.0% 13% 20% 143,250 (52,634)FY 10-11 615,905 -14.0% 704,404 1.0% 0 0 704,404 88,499 114% 114% 179,115 8.0% 29% 20% 123,181 55,934FY 11-12 776,818 26.1% 922,330 30.9% 0 0 922,330 145,512 119% 119% 324,627 5.0% 42% 20% 155,364 169,263FY 12-13 estimate 877,936 13.0% 1,126,835 22.2% 0 0 1,126,835 248,900 128% 128% 573,527 5.0% 65% 20% 175,587 397,939FY 13-14 estimate 990,889 12.9% 1,139,743 1.1% 0 0 1,139,743 148,854 115% 115% 722,380 0.0% 73% 20% 198,178 524,203FY 14-15 estimate 1,060,817 7.1% 1,102,130 -3.3% 0 0 1,102,130 41,313 104% 104% 763,694 4.0% 72% 20% 212,163 551,530FY 15-16 estimate 1,347,158 27.0% 1,177,577 6.8% 0 0 1,177,577 (169,581) 87% 87% 594,113 4.0% 44% 20% 269,432 324,681FY 16-17 estimate 1,424,641 5.8% 1,251,557 6.3% 0 0 1,251,557 (173,084) 88% 88% 421,029 4.0% 30% 20% 284,928 136,100FY 17-18 estimate 1,428,308 0.3% 1,270,366 1.5% 0 0 1,270,366 (157,942) 89% 89% 263,086 0.0% 18% 20% 285,662 (22,576)

Construction FY 90-91 7,370,629 13.6% 9,132,073 10.4% 0 0 9,132,073 1,761,444 124% 124% 5,534,974 75%Programs FY 91-92 8,002,935 8.6% 7,880,578 -13.7% 0 0 7,880,578 (122,357) 98% 98% 5,412,617 68%Subtotal FY 92-93 8,593,537 7.4% 8,533,048 8.3% 0 0 8,533,048 (60,489) 99% 99% 5,352,128 62%

FY 93-94 9,475,362 10.3% 9,948,471 16.6% 0 0 9,948,471 473,109 105% 105% 5,825,237 61%FY 94-95 10,741,613 13.4% 10,990,548 10.5% 0 0 10,990,548 248,935 102% 102% 6,074,172 57%FY 95-96 11,895,431 10.7% 12,130,741 10.4% 0 0 12,130,741 235,310 102% 102% 6,309,482 53% 43% 5,104,744 1,204,738FY 96-97 13,687,722 15.1% 15,309,096 26.2% 0 0 15,309,096 1,621,374 112% 112% 7,930,856 58% 43% 5,909,351 2,021,505FY 97-98 15,587,112 13.9% 15,715,277 2.7% 0 0 15,715,277 128,165 101% 101% 8,059,021 52% 34% 5,298,890 2,760,131FY 98-99 17,618,590 13.0% 15,622,226 -0.6% 0 0 15,622,226 (1,996,364) 89% 89% 6,062,657 34% 34% 5,925,281 137,376FY 99-00 19,868,584 12.8% 15,699,322 0.5% 0 0 15,699,322 (4,169,262) 79% 79% 1,893,395 10% 33% 6,651,512 (4,758,117)FY 00-01 18,906,591 -4.8% 18,444,247 17.5% 180,000 0 18,624,247 (282,344) 98% 99% 1,611,051 9% 38% 7,262,974 (5,651,923)FY 01-02 19,334,476 2.3% 19,519,867 5.8% 0 0 19,519,867 185,391 101% 101% 1,796,442 9% 39% 7,447,647 (5,651,205)FY 02-03 19,913,884 3.0% 21,363,738 9.4% 0 0 21,363,738 1,449,854 107% 107% 3,246,296 16% 38% 7,615,615 (4,369,319)FY 03-04 21,441,897 7.7% 23,660,382 10.8% 0 (579,848) 23,080,534 1,638,637 110% 108% 5,006,816 23% 38% 8,168,097 (3,161,281)FY 04-05 23,225,905 8.3% 25,769,359 8.9% 0 (579,848) 25,189,511 1,963,606 111% 108% 6,970,422 30% 38% 8,810,151 (1,839,729)FY 05-06 24,263,924 4.5% 28,055,369 8.9% 0 (579,848) 27,475,521 3,211,597 116% 113% 10,182,019 42% 22% 5,416,255 4,765,764FY 06-07 27,009,216 11.3% 29,346,651 4.6% 0 (579,848) 28,766,803 1,757,587 109% 107% 11,939,606 44% 22% 6,024,874 5,914,732FY 07-08 29,493,526 9.2% 30,354,490 3.4% 0 (579,848) 29,774,642 281,116 103% 101% 12,220,722 41% 22% 6,607,702 5,613,020FY 08-09 28,856,462 -2.2% 23,202,678 -23.6% 0 (579,848) 22,622,830 (6,233,632) 80% 78% 5,987,090 21% 22% 6,447,112 (460,022)FY 09-10 20,964,959 -27.3% 18,643,709 -19.6% 0 (579,848) 18,063,861 (2,901,098) 89% 86% 3,085,992 15% 22% 4,645,905 (1,559,913)FY 10-11 18,514,312 -11.7% 18,960,001 1.7% 0 (579,848) 18,380,153 (134,159) 102% 99% 2,951,833 16% 27% 5,017,917 (2,066,084)FY 11-12 19,697,087 6.4% 25,349,195 33.7% 0 0 25,349,195 5,652,108 129% 129% 8,603,941 44% 28% 5,491,446 3,112,495FY 12-13 estimate 23,793,620 20.8% 26,619,990 5.0% 0 0 26,619,990 2,826,369 112% 112% 11,430,310 48% 34% 8,040,333 3,389,978FY 13-14 estimate 25,085,176 5.4% 26,228,792 -1.5% 0 0 26,228,792 1,143,616 105% 105% 12,573,926 50% 34% 8,597,010 3,976,917FY 14-15 estimate 27,224,276 8.5% 26,613,088 1.5% 0 0 26,613,088 (611,188) 98% 98% 11,962,739 44% 34% 9,277,866 2,684,873FY 15-16 estimate 28,381,683 4.3% 27,979,573 5.1% 0 0 27,979,573 (402,110) 99% 99% 11,560,629 41% 34% 9,629,037 1,931,592FY 16-17 estimate 31,161,917 9.8% 29,401,616 5.1% 0 1 29,401,617 (1,760,300) 94% 94% 9,800,329 31% 34% 10,583,289 (782,960)FY 17-18 estimate 31,039,963 -0.4% 30,517,523 3.8% 0 2 30,517,525 (522,438) 98% 98% 9,277,891 30% 34% 10,568,615 (1,290,723)

60


Program Detail



Noise FY 90-91 63,251 -5.4% 8,244 49.8% 55,007 0 63,251 0 13% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 91-92 34,270 -45.8% 5,900 -28.4% 28,370 0 34,270 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 92-93 36,487 6.5% 7,102 20.4% 29,385 0 36,487 0 19% 100% 0 0.0% 0%FY 93-94 46,034 26.2% 8,140 14.6% 37,894 0 46,034 0 18% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 94-95 57,945 25.9% 10,095 24.0% 47,850 0 57,945 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 95-96 80,144 38.3% 10,000 -0.9% 70,144 0 80,144 0 12% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 96-97 40,915 -48.9% 10,025 0.3% 30,890 0 40,915 0 25% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 97-98 62,655 53.1% 16,599 65.6% 46,056 0 62,655 0 26% 100% 0 0% 0%

Noise Program FY 98-99 67,212 7.3% 24,170 45.6% 43,042 0 67,212 0 36% 100% 0 0% 0%transferred to ONI FY 99-00 134,438 100.0% 27,400 13.4% 107,038 0 134,438 0 20% 100% 0 0.0% 0%

in FY 2003-04 FY 00-01 260,678 93.9% 83,293 204.0% 177,385 0 260,678 0 32% 100% 0 0% 0%FY 01-02 272,034 4.4% 62,657 -24.8% 209,377 0 272,034 0 23% 100% 0 0% 0%

The program came FY 02-03 283,975 4.4% 47,193 -24.7% 236,782 0 283,975 0 17% 100% 0 0% 0%back to BDS FY 03-04 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 - 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%

in FY 2005-06 FY 04-05 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 - 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%FY 05-06 236,240 0.0% 76,867 0.0% 252,394 0 329,261 93,021 33% 139% 93,021 0.0% 39% 20% 47,248 45,773FY 06-07 376,166 59.2% 73,282 -4.7% 240,649 0 313,931 (62,235) 19% 83% 30,786 4% 8% 20% 75,233 (44,447)FY 07-08 357,894 -4.9% 87,652 19.6% 248,696 0 336,348 (21,546) 24% 94% 9,240 5.0% 3% 20% 71,579 (62,339)FY 08-09 354,879 -0.8% 88,284 0.7% 256,300 0 344,584 (10,295) 25% 97% (1,055) 5.0% 0% 20% 70,976 (72,031)FY 09-10 379,202 6.9% 101,445 14.9% 267,251 0 368,696 (10,506) 27% 97% (11,561) 5.0% -3% 20% 75,840 (87,401)FY 10-11 381,483 0.6% 110,555 9.0% 264,098 0 374,653 (6,830) 29% 98% (18,391) 8.0% -5% 20% 76,297 (94,688)FY 11-12 389,301 2.0% 138,166 25.0% 285,282 0 423,448 34,147 35% 109% 15,756 8.0% 4% 20% 77,860 (62,104)FY 12-13 estimate 431,972 11.0% 139,776 1.2% 292,420 0 432,196 224 32% 100% 15,980 5.0% 4% 20% 86,394 (70,414)FY 13-14 estimate 411,672 -4.7% 147,996 5.9% 218,228 0 366,224 (45,448) 36% 89% (29,468) 5.0% -7% 20% 82,334 (111,803)FY 14-15 estimate 441,792 7.3% 158,298 7.0% 218,228 0 376,526 (65,266) 36% 85% (94,734) 5.0% -21% 20% 88,358 (183,092)FY 15-16 estimate 453,805 2.7% 169,507 7.1% 218,228 0 387,735 (66,070) 37% 85% (160,804) 5.0% -35% 20% 90,761 (251,565)FY 16-17 estimate 495,009 9.1% 181,214 6.9% 218,228 0 399,442 (95,567) 37% 81% (256,371) 5.0% -52% 20% 99,002 (355,372)FY 17-18 estimate 496,934 0.4% 193,203 6.6% 218,228 0 411,431 (85,504) 39% 83% (341,874) 5.0% -69% 20% 99,387 (441,261)

Land Use FY 90-91Services FY 91-92

FY 92-93FY 93-94FY 94-95FY 95-96FY 96-97FY 97-98FY 98-99 0FY 99-00 4,237,785 2,541,912 2,034,078 0 4,575,990 338,205 60% 108% 338,205 various 8% 20% 847,557 (509,352)FY 00-01 5,360,475 26.5% 3,384,830 33.2% 2,326,005 0 5,710,835 350,360 63% 107% 688,565 13% 13% 20% 1,072,095 (383,530)FY 01-02 5,744,438 7.2% 3,291,398 -2.8% 2,161,459 0 5,452,857 (291,581) 57% 95% 396,984 0% 7% 20% 1,148,888 (751,904)FY 02-03 6,288,885 9.5% 3,578,681 8.7% 1,917,012 0 5,495,693 (793,192) 57% 87% 57,792 8% 1% 20% 1,257,777 (1,199,985)FY 03-04 6,201,797 -1.4% 3,689,159 3.1% 1,143,072 579,848 5,412,079 (789,718) 59% 87% (144,312) 0% -2% 20% 1,240,359 (1,384,671)FY 04-05 6,461,572 4.2% 4,518,808 22.5% 1,153,361 579,848 6,252,017 (209,555) 70% 97% (353,867) 12% -5% 20% 1,292,314 (1,646,181)FY 05-06 7,106,749 10.0% 6,364,363 40.8% 1,097,443 579,848 8,041,654 934,905 90% 113% 581,038 4.0% 8% 20% 1,421,350 (840,312)FY 06-07 8,246,373 16.0% 7,129,961 12.0% 1,304,383 579,848 9,014,192 767,819 86% 109% 1,348,857 5% 16% 20% 1,649,275 (300,418)FY 07-08 9,245,002 12.1% 7,469,772 4.8% 1,268,959 579,848 9,318,579 73,577 81% 101% 1,422,434 3.8% 15% 20% 1,849,000 (426,566)FY 08-09 9,873,210 6.8% 4,947,978 -33.8% 1,253,289 579,848 6,781,115 (3,092,095) 50% 69% (1,669,661) 4.0% -17% 20% 1,974,642 (3,644,303)FY 09-10 5,920,462 -40.0% 4,049,554 -18.2% 1,253,528 579,848 5,882,929 (37,533) 68% 99% (1,707,194) 7.0% -29% 20% 1,184,092 (2,891,286)FY 10-11 4,991,450 -15.7% 4,294,534 6.0% 1,240,666 579,848 6,115,048 1,123,598 86% 123% (583,596) 8.0% -12% 20% 998,290 (1,581,886)FY 11-12 6,022,456 20.7% 6,058,809 41.1% 1,455,748 0 7,514,557 1,492,101 101% 125% 908,505 8.0% 15% 20% 1,204,491 (295,986)FY 12-13 estimate 7,265,146 20.6% 6,483,598 7.0% 1,090,752 0 7,574,350 309,204 89% 104% 1,217,709 5.0% 17% 20% 1,453,029 (235,320)FY 13-14 estimate 7,148,377 -1.6% 6,550,480 1.0% 1,025,178 0 7,575,659 427,282 92% 106% 1,644,992 5.0% 23% 20% 1,429,675 215,316FY 14-15 estimate 7,665,942 7.2% 6,633,830 1.3% 1,025,178 0 7,659,008 (6,934) 87% 100% 1,638,058 3.0% 21% 20% 1,533,188 104,870FY 15-16 estimate 7,869,692 2.7% 6,988,043 5.3% 1,025,178 0 8,013,222 143,530 89% 102% 1,781,588 2.5% 23% 20% 1,573,938 207,650FY 16-17 estimate 8,612,343 9.4% 7,293,594 4.4% 1,025,178 8,318,773 (293,570) 85% 97% 1,488,017 2.0% 17% 20% 1,722,469 (234,451)FY 17-18 estimate 8,858,931 2.9% 7,373,639 1.1% 1,025,178 0 8,398,818 (460,113) 83% 95% 1,027,904 0.0% 12% 20% 1,771,786 (743,882)

61


Program Detail



Neighborhood FY 90-91 1,550,748 24.2% 257,143 43.2% 1,185,341 0 1,442,474 (108,274) 17% 93% (167,672) 0% -11%Inspections FY 91-92 1,713,249 10.5% 589,843 129.4% 1,088,632 0 1,665,794 (47,455) 34% 97% (215,127) 0% -13%

FY 92-93 1,848,346 7.9% 720,920 22.2% 1,145,076 0 1,864,773 16,427 39% 101% (198,700) 0.0% -11%FY 93-94 1,964,276 6.3% 854,576 18.5% 1,071,138 0 1,925,541 (38,735) 44% 98% (237,435) 0% -12%FY 94-95 2,133,127 8.6% 1,251,086 46.4% 1,176,038 0 2,421,019 287,892 59% 113% 50,457 0% 2%FY 95-96 2,334,780 9.5% 1,473,097 17.7% 1,190,075 0 2,663,285 328,505 63% 114% 378,962 0% 16%FY 96-97 2,704,625 15.8% 1,540,039 4.5% 1,206,455 0 2,744,265 39,640 57% 101% 418,602 0% 15%FY 97-98 2,470,880 -8.6% 1,561,205 1.4% 1,043,346 0 2,602,969 132,089 63% 105% 550,691 0% 22%

Neighborhood FY 98-99 2,267,882 -8.2% 1,732,485 11.0% 1,083,227 0 2,811,233 543,351 76% 124% 1,094,042 0% 48%Inspections Program FY 99-00 2,721,664 20.0% 2,014,977 16.3% 1,144,824 0 3,063,392 341,728 74% 113% 1,435,770 0.0% 53% 35% 952,582 483,188

transferred to ONI FY 00-01 2,626,994 -3.5% 1,932,248 -4.1% 1,056,096 0 2,716,576 89,582 74% 103% 1,525,352 0% 58% 20% 525,399 999,953 in FY 2003-04 FY 01-02 2,725,953 3.8% 2,091,631 8.2% 989,153 0 3,050,238 324,285 77% 112% 1,849,637 0% 68% 20% 545,191 1,304,446

FY 02-03 2,485,846 -8.8% 2,110,470 0.9% 0 0 2,076,068 (409,778) 85% 84% 1,439,859 0% 58% 20% 497,169 942,690The program came FY 03-04

back to BDS FY 04-05in FY 2006-07 FY 05-06 946,813

FY 06-07 2,016,429 1,402,034 350,259 1,752,293 (264,136) 70% 87% 682,677 34% 20% 403,286 279,391FY 07-08 2,495,495 23.8% 1,403,098 0.1% 611,972 2,015,070 (480,425) 56% 81% 202,252 7.0% 8% 20% 499,099 (296,847)FY 08-09 2,952,658 18.3% 1,079,616 -23.1% 373,042 1,452,658 (1,500,000) 37% 49% (1,297,748) 5.0% -44% 20% 590,532 (1,888,280)FY 09-10 1,660,036 -43.8% 1,838,208 70.3% 387,031 2,225,238 565,202 111% 134% (732,546) 5.0% -44% 20% 332,007 (1,064,553)FY 10-11 1,575,262 -5.1% 1,907,091 3.7% 384,391 2,291,482 716,220 121% 145% (16,326) 8.0% -1% 20% 315,052 (331,378)FY 11-12 2,350,403 49.2% 1,888,728 -1.0% 1,290,770 3,179,498 829,095 80% 135% 812,769 8.0% 35% 25% 587,601 225,168FY 12-13 estimate 2,912,279 23.9% 1,846,837 -2.2% 888,039 2,734,876 (177,402) 63% 94% 635,367 5.0% 22% 25% 728,070 (92,703)FY 13-14 estimate 2,596,604 -10.8% 1,863,974 0.9% 602,628 2,466,602 (130,003) 72% 95% 505,364 5.0% 19% 25% 649,151 (143,787)FY 14-15 estimate 2,771,472 6.7% 1,974,371 5.9% 614,028 2,588,398 (183,074) 71% 93% 322,290 5.0% 12% 25% 692,868 (370,579)FY 15-16 estimate 2,833,417 2.2% 2,102,549 6.5% 625,884 2,728,433 (104,984) 74% 96% 217,305 5.0% 8% 25% 708,354 (491,049)FY 16-17 estimate 3,076,073 8.6% 2,231,872 6.2% 638,214 2,870,086 (205,987) 73% 93% 11,318 5.0% 0% 25% 769,018 (757,700)FY 17-18 estimate 2,627,837 -14.6% 2,349,305 5.3% 651,037 3,000,342 372,505 89% 114% 383,823 5.0% 15% 25% 656,959 (273,136)

62

Customer Service Advisory Committee Page 1 of 5 Customer Service Improvement Status Report (FY 2013-14) Bureau: Bureau of Development Services Staff Contact: Mark Fetters, Sr. Management Analyst Phone: (503) 823-1028 Date: February 4, 2013 Bureau Mission and Goals: Please attach copies of your bureau’s mission, goals, and any workplans or other policy documents that specifically address customer service improvement efforts. Please describe how your strategic plans include customer service, and any plans for improvement. 1. Bureau of Development Services (BDS) Mission The Bureau of Development Services (BDS) promotes safety, livability, and economic vitality through efficient and collaborative application of building, development, and property maintenance codes. BDS is an integral part of development in Portland and the safety and livability of our citizens and the structures and neighborhoods they inhabit. BDS serves professional developers, consultants, and builders, as well as homeowners, citizens and neighborhood associations. 2. Customer Service Culture Over the last several years BDS has successfully integrated a customer service ethic into the fabric of the organization. The bureau’s mission requires being responsive to the development community, neighborhoods and citizens. BDS’s vision is to be the best development services agency in the country by deploying development review systems that meet the time-sensitive needs of the development industry and by satisfying neighborhood organizations’ and citizens’ concerns about the quality of development and the need for access to information. Service to customers and stakeholders is reflected in several of the bureau’s key planning documents, including the Mission, Goals, and Values; Management Principles and Expectations; Customer Service Solutions; Diversity Committee Charter; and the BDS Employee Handbook. Copies of these documents are attached, including chapter three of the Employee Handbook (Customer Service and Communication with the Public). BDS remains committed to these goals as it continues to recover from the impacts of the recession on the development industry and the overall economy. Its commitment to excellent customer service is met within the context of an equal commitment to operating in a fiscally responsible manner. BDS seeks to balance several goals:

- Provide excellent programs and services, being responsive to customers’ and the community’s changing needs;

- Pursue cost recovery for services whenever appropriate; - Maintain prudent financial reserves to cushion the bureau against economic

downturns; - Set reasonable fees and keep fee increases as low as possible.

The Customer Service Advisory Committee is helping to implement Bureau Innovation Project #7 recommendations to improve the City of Portland’s customer service. www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=44196 Contacts: John Dutt, Office of Neighborhood Involvement, CSAC Chair, 503-825-2625 or Jenny Scott, CSAC Staff 503-823-3538

http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=108968

Customer Service Advisory Committee Page 2 of 5 3. Match Staffing to Workload From 2009-2010, BDS was compelled to reduce its staff by over one-half due to deep declines in permit revenues. Throughout the bureau, low-priority services were eliminated and most remaining services were significantly reduced. Over 160 out of 315 positions were cut. As the economy and the development industry have continued to recover from the recent recession, BDS has been unable to keep up with the growing workload. Permit and land use revenues have remained strong in the first half of FY 2012-13, continuing a trend that began in FY 2011-12. This revenue growth has allowed BDS to respond to the increasing workload by gradually adding back some of the staff that was lost during the recession. BDS added 25 FTE in FY 2012-13 and is proposing to add 14 FTE in FY 2013-14. Positions are being filled only where workloads have increased and where service improvements can be quantified. If these positions are approved, BDS will continue its practice of filling positions only when the revenues to support them are available and only where workload remains high. The bureau’s Land Use Services, Neighborhood Inspections, and Noise Control programs provide a benefit to the public and have historically been supported in part by the City’s General Fund. LUS enhances the City's livability through implementation of the Zoning Code. Neighborhood Inspections prevents the deterioration of existing housing and neighborhoods. The Noise Control Program improves neighborhood livability. The benefits of their services go well beyond their fee-paying customers. Through one-time General Fund support received in FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, BDS was able to add staff to several programs that provide direct customer services: • Enhanced Rental Inspection Program – This program identifies properties in East

Portland that are chronically out of compliance with City housing maintenance codes and whose owners are unwilling to make cited repairs in a timely manner. This innovative rental inspection model focuses resources on additional inspections of rental units with potential violations. The program effectively motivates landlords to provide and maintain safe and healthy rental housing, while offering protection to vulnerable tenants who might fear retaliation by eviction for reporting substandard housing conditions.

• Extremely Distressed Properties Enforcement Program (EDPEP) - EDPEP focuses

on un-maintained properties (often caused by abandonment due to foreclosures) with chronic nuisance and housing conditions that create risks of fire, public health hazards, and encourage criminal activity such as trespass, vandalism, graffiti, drug use and sale, prostitution, and additional serious public safety threats. EDPEP enforces the City’s Property Maintenance Regulations and uses the abatement, vacation, and demolition of property as a key tool. EDPEP provides a vital city service to relieve pressure on the Police Bureau and other City agencies. EDPEP also proactively monitors properties to ensure that conditions are maintained and pursues additional abatements to resolve any recurring conditions.

• Neighborhood Inspections – Added staff has allowed the bureau to respond to all

housing complaints involving exterior maintenance issues on owner-occupied and non-residential properties (to prevent neighborhood deterioration), significantly increase responsiveness to fire/life/safety and health/sanitation issues for occupied residential rentals, and restore case management duties to facilitate more timely compliance for violations impacting the community at large.


Customer Service Advisory Committee Page 3 of 5 In its FY 2013-14 Requested Budget, BDS is asking that the one-time General Fund support for all of these positions be continued so the bureau can provide these vital services into the future. 4. BDS Strategic Plan BDS is re-starting a strategic planning process that was well underway in 2008 before the recession. At that time a framework for the strategic planning process was in place, key focus areas had been identified, and stakeholder groups were reviewing Action Plans that had been drafted by BDS employees. Much of that work remains relevant and useful, allowing the bureau to renew the planning process without having to completely start over. The bureau has selected a consultant to facilitate meetings with employees and stakeholder groups and to help produce the final plan documents. Strategic Plan focus areas include:

• Customer Experience • Programs & Services • Technology • Workforce Development • Community Awareness

The bureau intends to hold several large and small group meetings in early 2013, and will also use social media and online surveys to solicit input. BDS intends to implement the new plan by early summer 2013. 5. Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) The Information Technology Advancement Project (ITAP) is a BDS initiative to upgrade the City’s legacy permit and case management system (TRACS) which has been in use since 1999. The goal of ITAP is to provide the City of Portland, its development community, and the general public with the most efficient and effective development review system through the implementation of a web-based permit application, plan review, and inspection software system. The web-based system will be accessible to City review staff, development review customers, and the general public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Customers and stakeholders will be able to perform much of their land use review, permitting, inspection, and research work online, including submitting applications, retrieving inspection results in real-time, and being notified of issued checksheets electronically. This system will save customers and stakeholders time and money by giving them remote access to information and services, decreasing the need to visit the Development Services Center (DSC) or BDS offices. BDS will experience significant efficiency gains in its land use review, plan review, permitting, and inspection processes as it reduces its reliance on paper plans and records. The bureau issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for vendors in February 2012 and received authorization from City Council to begin contract negotiations with the selected vendor (Sierra Systems) in December 2012. ITAP implementation will likely start in spring 2013, with the system going live in the winter of 2014/15. ITAP will be a key to BDS's ability to provide services effectively and efficiently into the future.


Customer Service Advisory Committee Page 4 of 5 Customer Service Assessment: Please attach a copy of your most recent customer service survey and survey results. Please indicate how your bureau assesses timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, and available information. If you do not currently survey bureau customers, please explain any future plans. For many years, BDS has made brief written surveys available to customers in the Development Services Center. These surveys provide insight into individual customer experiences. In addition, BDS conducted large-scale annual customer telephone surveys from 2002–2008 using contracts with outside vendors. Each year approximately 675 customers were surveyed regarding BDS land use review, plan review and permit issuance, and inspection services. The survey measured customer satisfaction with the timeliness and quality of bureau services, the adequacy and quality of information provided, and the knowledge, helpfulness, fairness, and availability of both BDS staff and development review staff from other bureaus. BDS has used survey results and analysis over the years to guide decisions regarding services, programs, staff training, and budget expenditures. BDS did not conduct large customer surveys from 2008-2012 due to budget and staffing cuts. However, the bureau has set aside funds for a survey in its FY 2013-14 budget request and anticipates conducting a large-scale customer survey in mid-2013. A summary analysis of the 2008 survey results is attached; the full 2008 survey report is available from Mark Fetters, BDS Sr. Management Analyst, at 503-823-1028 or mark.fetters@ portlandoregon.gov. Workforce Development: Please describe any efforts you have made to develop customer service competency within your workforce in the areas of recruitment, training, and evaluation. Please share any details you can provide regarding progress in these areas over the past year (training program information, key bureau contacts, recruitment/evaluation material examples, etc.). Most of the bureau’s specific efforts to develop customer service competency in the workforce have focused on recruitment and training. As the bureau’s financial picture has improved, BDS has begun conducting recruitments for open positions again, and the bureau will continue to emphasize staff training and development in FY 2013-14 and beyond. Recruitment For any open position, the bureau develops a recruitment plan. Recruitment plans include methods for reaching diverse populations, such as advertising on minority-oriented web sites, explain, using personal and professional contacts with underrepresented communities to disseminate recruitment information, and conducting Information Sessions which explain in detail each step of the selection process. BDS interview panels are given training and provided with guidelines for interviewing and communicating with people from diverse backgrounds. Interview panels are encouraged to include an interview question related to customer service, and this is done in most interviews. Much of the bureau’s work involves providing direct services to customers, both over the phone and in person. Because of BDS’s commitment to providing outstanding customer service, the bureau places emphasis on candidates with customer service experience, communication and problem-solving skills, and cultural competency.


mailto:mark.fetters@%20portlandoregon.gov

Customer Service Advisory Committee Page 5 of 5


Training In 2003 BDS worked with a consultant to develop and deliver tailored customer service training to all employees, with additional training for supervisors and managers. The training covers internal as well as external customer service, and focuses on the unique customer service challenges in code enforcement work. The attached “Customer Service Solutions” document is a product of the training. A training binder is available upon request. The bureau will be restarting its customer services training in mid-2013. Approximately 48% of BDS employees will be eligible to retire within the next 5 years. In order to prepare effectively for the future, BDS will focus attention in FY 2013-14 and beyond on developing future leaders; planning for succession to management, leadership, and technical positions; upgrading the skills of current employees; and re-affirming the bureau’s commitment to diversity.

Documents

Bureau of Development Services