Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates short-term draw and policy reserve to avoid PP&D layoffs affecting permitting
Summary
Committee members discussed two related proposals to preserve permit-processing staff in the Bureau of Planning and Development (PP&D): a short-term monthly draw of about $450,000 through September to retain roughly 31 positions, and a separate $4 million policy reserve the committee would need to identify a funding source for.
Councilors focused substantial discussion on amendments intended to blunt layoffs in the Bureau of Planning and Development (referred to in the meeting as PP&D or PPD).
Councilor Avalos asked for clarification after seeing a line in the amendment list described as "$350,000 to preserve 2 88 title compliance positions," and learned the sponsor's intent was to restore positions that were already cut. "I was trying to restore 2 positions that are cut," one councilor said in response. The group acknowledged incomplete details in the spreadsheet and that further department input was needed.
Council President Novick and Chair Zimmerman relayed information they had received from the bureau. The council president said a separate memo proposed a $450,000 monthly draw through September (about $1.5 million total) that would allow PP&D to retain roughly 31 full-time equivalents through that period. Novick summarized the arrangement he had discussed with PP&D: the bureau could use part of its reserves for a three-month bridge and then request releases from a policy reserve depending on economic indicators.
Ruth from the budget office explained contingency line items and the structure of general fund reserves: the proposed general fund contingency totaled nearly $23 million in the mayor's proposed budget, made up of $3 million of unrestricted contingency, about $17.7 million of compensation set-aside, and $2.1 million of policy reserves. She said an additional policy set-aside could be added in the adopted budget but would require identifying offsetting reductions elsewhere in the mayor's budget.
Council members debated two linked design choices: (1) whether to fund a short-term draw that delays some layoffs until September to reassess permit workload and (2) whether to create a $4 million policy reserve earmarked to cover additional PP&D needs longer term. One councilor characterized the $4 million proposal as a "value signal" that risked being set aside and never used if not clearly tied to triggers or near-term needs.
PP&D staff (via memo) advised that a $450,000 monthly draw would allow the bureau to retain about 31 FTE through September and that if permitting volumes improved, the bureau would request release of additional policy reserve funds. Committee members suggested refining the triggers and time frames with PP&D before finalizing any set-aside language and identifying specific funding sources prior to adoption.
