Anchorage plans new Community Development department as officials warn permit center lacks resources to meet housing goals

Chair Brawley opened debate on a proposed reorganization that would consolidate planning, development services, real estate and the municipal GIS team under a new Community Development director. Lance Wilbur, who outlined the change, said Public Works administration would not move into the new department and both he and public‑works leadership will continue to report to the municipal manager.

Wilbur told the assembly the reorganization aims to improve coordination among land use, transportation and housing functions. “Having a land use and a housing component allows and then a transportation piece, they will never be disconnected,” he said, adding that the structure’s success depends on leadership and resources.

Assembly members pressed administrators on capacity to deliver on the mayor’s stated goal of building 10,000 homes in 10 years. Member Baldwin Day said the city needs a “staffing study” and hard numbers to understand what resource levels would be required to permit sharply higher housing volume. Wilbur and budget staff said the answer depends on what revenue and projects are available: many permit‑center positions are funded through the Building Safety Service Area (BSSA) and bond-funded capital, and those funding streams have not fully recovered from cuts made during the 2008–2010 downturn.

Ona Brousse, director of the Office of Management & Budget, said the BSSA shortfall is decades‑old and that fee and levy adjustments in recent years have partially offset deficits but not restored full, sustained capacity. She urged the assembly to consider whether to change how positions are funded or to add new revenue sources to avoid making the permit center a bottleneck for housing.

Planning Director Babb said the department’s headcount remains at 25 under the proposed budget and noted recruitment challenges: a previously approved senior‑planner position was reworked into an associate planner after repeated unsuccessful recruitments, and a separate $75,000 package for community engagement was treated as nonrecurring.

The administration outlined next steps: staff will provide clearer lists of funded but uncompleted planning projects, potential staffing scenarios tied to various revenue assumptions, and options for shifting review processes to free staff time (for example narrowing discretionary review where appropriate). Several members urged the administration to return with quantified analyses of what additional staff or process changes would be needed to meet specific housing production targets.

What happens next: the reorganization and any associated budget choices will proceed through the municipal budget and assembly amendment process. Officials emphasized the shortfall in dedicated permitting revenue as the central constraint that must be resolved before substantially expanding permit‑processing capacity.