We are back.

And Chair Altenberg will call her committee to order.

Okay.

Good morning.

Welcome to Planning, Building, Zoning, and Environment Committee today, October 22nd, 2025.

I call this meeting to order.

I think we're going to dispense with dispense with the Pledge of Allegiance since we did it earlier today.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Chair Altenberg?

Here.

Member Compost.

Member Frank?

Here.

Member can you say?

Here.

Vice Chair Peterson.

You're here.

Sarah, she's called your name.

Linda.

Oh, I can't hear.

I'm sorry.

Schlick?

Here.

Member Wasick.

I thought she said can you say?

Okay, thank you.

Um, do we have any addenda to the agenda?

No agenda to the agenda.

Is there any public comment?

No.

No public comment.

Thank you.

No chairs remarks today.

Do we have any unfinished business?

No unfinished business.

Okay, we're going to move right into the regular agenda.

We're skipping 8.1.

We're going to 8.1.

Uh joint committee action approving the recommended fiscal year 2026 budget for planning, building, zoning, and development.

And it's on page 110.

And could I get a motion, please?

Motion by member Wasik, second by member Schlick.

Finance motion by Member Hewitt, second by member Bolitink.

We want to welcome Director Wagner and Krista.

Welcome.

So as was mentioned, this budget can be found on page 110.

The planning, building and development department's budget for the upcoming fiscal year continues to focus on maintaining service delivery and supporting the their ongoing IGAs.

Revenue highlights include increases in building permit fee revenue ammin adjudication revenue, which are both based on projected activity trends.

Outside of the general personnel increases that we've seen as a result of the compensation study, uh, another contributing factor to the increase in personnel and benefits here is the addition of one new uh position, a field inspector that was submitted as an MPR.

And with that, I will hand it over to Eric.

Our deputy director and zoning administrator.

And uh on Zoom, we have Eric Stefan Operations Manager.

Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to thank them and the rest of the staff at PBD for their hard work in carrying out innovative planning and policy initiatives, performing work on behalf of our municipal clients in nearly a dozen Lake County communities, ensuring life and safety and new construction and site development, conducting code enforcement activities to help preserve our neighborhood's quality of life and operating one of the most customer-centric integrated permitting processes in the region.

All of the above being carried out with an eye towards maximum efficiency and excellence in our departmental operations.

In the fiscal year 26 budget, I have a few key points on our overall expense and revenue profile.

Um, on the expense side, our position inventory will increase for the first time since 2019 from 33 FDEs to 34.

If our proposed NPR is approved, and I'll talk a little bit about that shortly.

On the revenue side, total revenue from permitting and licenses is uh projected to be higher in uh 2026 compared to recent years, in particular, even with a potential softening in construction overall, which includes anything from residential projects to smaller non-residential projects.

Uh, we do project building permit revenues actually up to 1.8 million um in fiscal year 26, up from this year's budgeted 1.52 million based on several commercial solar projects that are moving through the permitting pipeline next year, as well as a couple of additional high value uh non-residential non-residential projects.

The solar project pipeline is becoming more crowded than we've previously seen and is anticipated to accelerate in the first half of 2026 to take advantage of federal tax credits that will start to level off uh beginning in July of next year based on the federal tax and spending bill that was passed this July.

We've already seen an unanticipated jump in building permit revenue this year, and we'll likely exceed our budgeted building permit revenue by over 200,000 by the end of the fiscal year, coming in over 1.7 million in uh by year's end.

And this is also largely owing to the increased trend in commercial solar projects.

As Nick mentioned, uh, we're also seeing a steady increase in code enforcement cases, hence the collective budget increase of uh of $85,000 in filing fees and fines in our red tag and administrative adjudication programs.

Zooming out, uh, our budget supports the important work that we do in PBD, some key highlights of which I'll now mention for the committee.

Some of our fiscal year 25 accomplishments include wrapping up phase two of our bird-friendly building design program, coordinating with CMAP and our consultants on launching the Lake County Housing Coalition, which work continues today, updating our building codes to the 2024 ICC series in order to continue to receive an anticipated class six rating and CRS, which saves unincorporated policy holders collectively around 150,000 a year on their flood insurance.

Also fully implementing our new streamlined UDO amendment process, which will ultimately save months of time on ordinance amendments going forward.

Looking forward to fiscal year 26, we plan to work to retain our class six CRS rating, which again provides those flood insurance benefits to our policyholders.

We plan to update the majority of our IGA contracts with the newly calculated hourly rate, and that work continues now.

We plan to coordinate with the county administrator's office and the land team departments in implementing any recommended improvements resulting from our current integrated permitting checkup.

We also plan to complete the housing coalition meeting series in February with the goal of developing a housing accelerator toolkit for our communities and other housing stakeholders in the region.

And finally, if approved by the board, we will recruit and train an additional inspector to round out our field team.

Um that we have presentation for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So PBND has submitted an NPR for an additional field inspector position, and I'll spend the next few minutes covering some of the background of our request.

The department proposals proposes this position to address a persistent capacity gap and an increasing workload in our office.

The position would provide additional capacity to allow us to perform multiple types of inspection work in the areas of permitting and code enforcement that the department's obligated to perform in the unincorporated areas and within our IGA communities.

The position will help us improve our violation response time, improve our service to municipal clients with uninterrupted service, and free up more time for staff cross-training as we consistently face an increased workload in our in the field.

Another factor is personnel changes that have resulted in a loss of seasoned staff with the additional knowledge and experience-based efficiency, mostly due to retirements.

So looking at the numbers.

Since 2021, the total number of inspections associated with administrative adjudication, that's our fast track enforcement program has increased by an average of 20% yearly.

This translates to an increasing lag in response time in 2023.

The department's code enforcement case load of 400 and 504 cases yielded an average response time of five and a half days, as the caseload nearly doubled in 2024 to 922 cases.

The average response time also nearly doubled to over 10 days.

Absent an additional inspector in the field, this response time is only going to get worse, creating additional risks to the public and eroding the public's confidence in our services.

An additional field team member that could serve in a hybrid capacity accomplishes a couple of outcomes.

First, it would enable the department to respond to nuisance complaints more quickly.

Second, the position would be adaptable between code enforcement and permit inspections, and it would then enable us to complete uh more inspections per day in the field team by essentially spreading the work out between both groups.

And it would allow each inspection to actually be less rushed, improving quality control.

And finally, adding the staff member would provide increased staff capacity to accommodate more time to cross-trained staff.

This track this cross-training is essential in supplementing staff's experience with new skills and disciplines that they may not already not already possess.

And what that does is it helps them evolve from specialists to generalists, um, which increases their interchangeability in the field, and which in that of course increases our overall efficiency by being able to deploy inspectors throughout the day in different roles.

The position's total approximate salary in year one is $95,000 and a five-year total of just over 500,000.

Not funding the position would carry certain risks.

First, it could negatively impact our municipal contract performance given the increasing workload in all of our field work and the unincorporated areas in our uh IgA communities.

A second risk of not funding the position is staff burnout due to increased pressures from an ever increasing workload.

And finally, for residents, the potential for negative impacts increases if nuisance complaints and property compliance issues are not addressed quickly.

This slide highlights two specific uh performance metrics among them the many measurable effects on staff capacity.

If we see this new position, uh you'll see that in years one and two, we focus here on improving lag time for code enforcement inspections and also gaining capacity for inspector training, both of which are critical for maintaining efficient and quality work performance in the field.

So, as noted before, we plan to hire and train this position as a hybrid role, providing both uh services in our core area of code enforcement, but also functioning as a permit inspector as well upon sufficient cross-training.

So the positional effectively share between the building officials office and the code enforcement office.

I'll conclude my remark remarks by pointing out that again, we've we've kept our uh head count level flat since 2019.

Um, so for the past six years, we've been working in increasing workload with the same people.

We've always striven to keep staffing as lean as possible.

Uh, and this request is unusual given our fiscal discipline over the years, but so are the sort of unprecedented levels of demand on field staff.

And so, in light of these challenging circumstances, we'd ask for your support in funding this NPR position.

That concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

Um, member Schlick.

Thank you, Chair.

And Eric, thank you uh for presenting your budget and jumping off uh with the revenue increase.

Obviously, antennas were up because of some of our permit fee increase discussion earlier in the year.

So I'm happy to hear that that your projection of an increase there is based on more work going on and not fee increases.

So thank you for addressing that.

You know, as a somebody whose district deals with your office a lot because I have a lot of unincorporated area.

I I do see the need for this person.

It seems that you and I have conversations almost on the regular about property maintenance issues and certain other things, inspection issues.

So I I support this movement.

So I would like to see somewhere just down the line, not today, you know.

If there is like a by adding this position, how close to revenue neutral we get just by our fines and fees increasing our revenue from municipalities.

I don't think it's going to be completely revenue neutral, but somewhere down the line, I like to see like how we can correlate some type of dollar figure to that one position.

Um other than that, um thank you.

Thank you for your budget.

It looks great.

Um, I don't really have any major questions.

So thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from committee members?

Okay, we're gonna go to you guys.

Right, right.

Kevin's got Linda's on my committee.

I'm gonna call Linda, and then we'll go and then you'll go to your committee.

And I'm and then Kevin, you're on the list.

All right, Linda.

I have to say, and I'm sure um Eric will agree with me that building planning and zoning is more busier in district one than anywhere else in Lake County.

And I know your district too and uh Kevin Hunter's district.

Um I can't begin to tell you the time that they spend on the phone with me in, and I'm sure with with you too, Adam.

So I'm totally am in favor of them having this additional person.

It's sorely needed.

So thank you.

Thank you, Member Peterson.

Yeah, member Velitic.

Thank you.

Um agree, no-brainer on this position.

I'm glad it was approved.

I have a question about the unfunded request.

Um, the uh where did it go?

Uh workspace improvement project, particularly as it relates to operational functionality and employee productivity.

Can you just give a brief description of what those improv and modifications were and how they would relate to productivity?

So it's um that there were four areas of uh space in our within our office um that we occupy at central permit facility that we were looking to upgrade.

Um particular um we have a space um we we lovingly refer to it as the pit.

Um it was designed um back in the early 2000s um when under a different staffing model where inspectors would go out into the field, um, do their work in the field and then come back and sit down um at a table and and and and do all the data entry and things that they would need to do in the office.

And so there was there was this, it was a kind of group shared space for the inspectors to kind of come in and leave.

Um over time with improvements to technology.

Um, what we've seen is that those inspectors are staying in the field.

Um they don't need to come into the office anymore, they're equipped with iPads, everything can be done electronically.

Um so we we basically have this um space that's that's going on underutilized, unused.

And so we were really looking to how do we um make some improvements and some changes to that space to make it um more to to make it better utilized.

And and then in in doing that, we can make some improvements to other areas um by shifting, you know, storage by shifting um you know, work areas.

Uh it just kind of lifts everything up.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Can you um sorry to put you on the spot, but can you give an example of how uh that would increase say productivity is it in number of cases you can particularly in respect to the productivity?

There was another area um in our space where we have four staff who are basically sharing an open um their desks are all kind of connected with each other.

It's kind of hard to describe visually, you know.

Um, but there's very little separation.

Um, it also happens to be in the uh middle of our work area, and so it's it's high traffic.

There's a lot of people coming in and out.

We have um uh file storage for our permits.

So people everybody in the department is kind of coming and going to the space, walking through the space.

Um, and because the way it's set up, um, with it all being open, it sort of acts as like a water cooler area where we have people that are just uh walking by, oh hey, how are you doing?

Um, or just coming in for questions, and then you know, the three other people sharing the space have to um they they get to listen to the conversation as well.

And so just some minor improvements in that area to sort of reconfigure the desks, put in some um spacers, not not quite cubicle dividers, but at least just some um physical separation so that people the people who are occupying that space can better focus on their work and not have to be distracted by um other conversations going on, other people walking through that area.

Okay, if you have the spacers in particular, that's gonna really bring the sort of ambient noise level down where you have four people on the phone with customers at the same time, it becomes difficult to concentrate.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just have uh a few questions.

I was just wondering for um your revenues.

I was just wondering, and this might be from what that 50,000 in transfers, where what's that?

What's that coming from?

Is it a question for you, Eric?

Let me pull that up here.

It's on it's on page 110.

So this is um a transfer in from CD for their admin expenses.

Okay.

I just because we've talked about fees and other things.

I just wanted a good sense of where that was coming.

In particular, there's a portion of my budgeted to sort of that's perfect paid for by their fund, as well as uh one of our one of our staff members who does mapping work for them.

Okay.

Um and then um my next question is under performance information.

You have the percentage of residential solar reviews.

And that's a percent.

I just wonder what that end value is.

That's a one to two-day turnaround.

No, no, no, no.

How many were you permits?

Oh, I see.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Like 100% of one, a hundred percent of 10.

What is that trend going on over time in terms of number of reviews that have been done?

So um, thank you for that question.

So uh looking back between 22, 23 and fiscal year 24, we were averaging about 150 um solar resident residential solar projects.

Um we're slightly behind this year.

Um, we've done 97 year to date.

So if you would prorate that, it would have to about um, I think 10, you know, slightly less.

It was 10 per month versus 13 per month.

I just think it'd be helpful to have, you know, what your um right, what your denominator is there, so we can see how that changes over time.

The the reason why we have that metric in place is to help us um sort of gauge how we're doing with respect to maintaining our Soul Smart Gold status.

Right.

I I understand that, but I think you can see that for us to see trends up and possibly down is important for us to see where things are happening and to see that there are quite a number of them that are occurring.

So that's great.

And I will say I will add that the um December 31st marks the end of some of those um benefits, some of those subsidies for residential source.

So we might see actually a little bit of a softening in that sure area in fiscal year 26, depending on you know how aggressively homeowners decide they want to continue to try to pursue alternative energy.

Great.

Okay, great.

Um, and then my final point uh uh won't necessarily be surprising, it's a little contrarian, and that is as you know, I have over the years been asking about those IGAs that we keep adding IGAs, and I'm like, how can we keep adding IGAs?

What's happening with the workload?

And you're right, you have managed these things really well.

And uh to me, it's like the chickens have come home to roost, like you kept managing and managing and member Schlick's question of you know, what is the net here?

Um, I've been asking, and I'm glad to see that the goal is looking at the cost of those IGAs.

I think some of them we were not covering our costs, and we're and I hope there's also an administrative fee.

So if we didn't have those IGAs, would you need somebody else?

We could, you know, an alternative to the NPR position.

Right.

You know, would be the sort of drastic step of slowly shedding our IGAs.

But the challenge with that idea is that our department's sort of efficiency model is predicated upon a balance between unincorporated work and municipal work.

That sort of gets to the other metric that we have there, the vehicle miles per inspection.

That's a um productivity measure that um essentially assesses the amount of the sort of idle time spent in the car between inspections and by having these strategically located municipalities in close proximity to our unincorporated work, um, that actually helps us reduce the so-called idle time spent driving and allows for more time inspecting.

And so uh consequently, we have, you know, when you look at the um the unit labor costs for inspection work in the municipalities, which is um with our new uh with our new rate built built into the IGA renewals, gonna keep our costs um at essentially meet our costs along with the revenue that we get for the work in the unincorporated area, that actually you know having those municipal contracts actually helps us stay ahead of the game.

But I'm I'm just gonna point, it's not up there, but you did have in your slide of one of the reasons you needed this person was because of the IGAs.

So it's saving you, but it's costing you at the same time.

And and I just feel that um it, you know, it I feel like if I push to say, hey, you're saying I need somebody because of the IGAs, but then you're like, oh, but really, if you look at this metric, the IGAs are making us more efficient.

And I'm trying to wrap my head around it is both costing you people and time and money, and at the same time, it's making you more efficient.

That that seems a little difficult for me to pull those together, and I just um I just wonder um when you look at these IGAs, um, there's certainly increase in labor costs.

And I think I I've brought up before that I think a lot of them were static and they did not have um an escalator clause in them, such as when we give, you know, there are five-year contract, and over those five years, we are giving our employees raises and benefit changes, and that was not being captured in those because that was frozen at those prices, and our prices have gone up here.

So from a budget, it is policy, but from a budget point of view, I think we need to capture that.

That needs to be that these IGAs are covering their cost, are covering our costs, and that just as that $50,000 is uh covering some of your admin time and other things, there is also time spent reviewing these, time spent managing these.

There are other external costs that are not captured necessarily, and maybe they're in the IGA, and I haven't read it carefully, that are not captured in the simple um cost per hour of um of that person's work.

So, do you envision any or all of those things changing in as you review the IGAs?

So we have uh the the hourly rate that we calculate and work with finance to calculate to cover to essentially assess both the direct cost of the inspector, any plan review associated with that, and administrative costs as well as as indirect.

That when we conduct that analysis, we are essentially uh looking for the number that's gonna fully cover our costs providing the service to that municipality.

And as time goes by, um, you know, we continue to reevaluate that rate uh pursuant to your recommendation at committee three years ago.

We are doing that that updated rate analysis every year with finance.

And so the idea is to continue to keep pace with that gradually increasing rate.

I will point out that it's something that um we're we're proud of because we actually are the I'll call it the cheapest game in town.

We we outperform um the private sector in providing service at a lower cost.

And so that's why we are the um we are really seen as a uh a great partner for our municipal clients.

May I ask a clarification?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um so when you said you're looking each year, does that mean and they're not mutually exclusive?

Does that mean each year, hey, here's a new IGA?

Because they usually run for a couple years, right?

They do.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so a little bit of a lag in there, but not a gigantic yeah.

But so maybe you're jumping at you can read my mind.

Um that hey the cost if I have a contract and IgA in 2026 is X, and if I do it in 2027, it's X plus 0.2% of X.

All right.

So you've built in that.

But in those multi-year contracts, is there any escalator in those?

Are those also present?

So that as people get everything I said, I won't repeat myself.

Not in the older contracts, but that's something that we're looking at in the new wave of renewals that we're gonna be executing.

I strongly encourage that because I think otherwise, you know, we had caught questions before about subsidy.

This is this is a contract, and we should have, especially if they're multi-year, two year, I'm not worrying about, but three, four, five years, we need to be capturing our costs.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So I I understand and appreciate the value of these partnerships and the coverage area as you've described it.

I I don't have a concern about that, but um, just as we've asked similar questions for other IGAs for the sheriff's department and others, we want to make sure we're capturing the revenue appropriately and we're pricing our services appropriately.

So I do agree with you, Member Maine.

I think that's an important thing we need to keep in mind on these contracts going forward.

Chair Hart.

Okay.

Okay, can pose.

Oh right.

Okay.

Member Compose.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um I wanted to say thank you, Eric, for answering my question that you emailed you last night and you took the time to answer the question regarding the building permits and then the discrepancy between going from 15 1.5 million to 1.8 in the budget.

Um, that had nothing to do with the increase of the B.

So glad the projection doesn't have anything to do with uh assuming that we're going to raise the uh building fee um permits.

My question is regarding is on 112, um, I believe charges for services.

So it's going to be four down from intergovernmental uh street vacation fees uh for planning.

I just noticed um just wanted some clarification on in 2022 we've seen one uh uh 1200 and then another 1200 and then 5100, and then we're budgeting in 252,500, but we realized four um uh 4,000, and then we're gonna budget the same.

So I'm guessing we're projecting less than what we received, and the trend is slowly going down.

Why why I guess it seems as though we are under budget, we are under projecting and under budgeting uh based on trend for the projected that we've seen for the last two years.

So these are fees that we um take in when we have an uh a property uh resident, property owner that is seeking to vacate their right of way that's adjacent to their property.

Um we have a general idea of how many we can anticipate based on the number of like early assistance requests we get.

Um that said, I would say the where we were taking in the the 4,000 or whatever it was.

Um it just happened that we had more more applications that were ready to move forward.

Um it's a it's a tricky balance because um, you know, we can kind of like I said, we we try and gauge and predict how many that we could have come in, but um there's a lot of factors that will influence um an application from actually moving forward.

Sure.

Um the residents' ability, property owners' ability to pay the application fee, their ability to pay their property taxes in full by the time the the um application is is presented to the county board, um neighbor involvement, other local governmental um entities involvement.

So there's there's a a myriad of factors that can influence the timing of those applications.

It's just really um it can be a moving target sometimes.

We do our best to predict what we're understanding you don't have a crystal ball, you just so just wanted some clarification.

That particular category.

Just wanted some clarification on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Hunter.

Thanks, Chair.

Um qualify this out of the 38,000 people each of us represent 20,000 are unincorporated in my district.

Uh that's obviously roughly half.

So I'm on the phone with these two every week for something or another, and maybe multiple times.

We have so many phone conversations.

I noticed though that the county administrator, the you guys approved this expenditure, and we spent a lot of time talking about it.

So I I we changed I thought we were talking about the items that weren't approved.

I and but anyway, uh, not only do I wholeheartedly support the one, I think you should have two more.

Um, because it's complaint-based.

Make an amendment.

I'll tell you what, I've had to throttle back on some of the complaints because they just don't have time.

And and and I mean, we all drive by and see things and try to capture the address and give it to these, and then it finally the you end up with a conversation with Eric saying, I need you to take a look at this.

You know how much we're doing right now.

And and and that's hard to hear because we'll bring up, guess what?

I will uh please bring this up when we get to budget time because this is important.

Um it uh I wholeheartedly support it.

I I just didn't know why we were spending so much conversation on it because the county administration already approved this uh short of the committee's approval.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else have any other comments?

Um, yeah, I'm oh member Wasick.

Sure.

Uh sure.

Okay.

So Eric, I according to your schedule, we're we're going to be culminating our housing coalition work in February, correct?

The meeting series, yes.

But the work, the work will continue.

Okay, so maybe I missed it, but um shouldn't there be a line item for implementation of of what we're doing there, or was it baked in the 2025 budget?

So the um the program that we've initiated um for the housing coalition this meeting series that is uh it does involve a cost, and that's a cost of uh that's essentially provided by the consultant, which is paid for by a um by a private grant.

Oh, in total.

Sorry.

Um, and we're absorbing the rest of the work within our existing team, which of course is one of the things that we're tasked to do as part of this the county board strategic plan to essentially both impanel this process, but also to work to to work towards increasing the supply of affordable housing within Lake County.

And so that's some that's a project and program that's very dear to us and one that we're spending time on.

But just for clarification, we've already budgeted for our out of pocket on this that the grant doesn't cover.

Correct.

Okay, good.

Thanks.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Oh, member of Litzek.

I have a quick question.

I was operating it under an assumption that might be wrong.

Um is the workspace improvement project for for their department.

Um, would it be a part of a capital funding list?

Okay, yes, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Just want to make sure.

I just want to say um I I wholeheartedly agree that sounds like we need another inspector, and there's there's a lot of work to do.

And I think that you've been very efficient and diligent and how you manage all your work.

You know, I I don't think you guys ask for a lot of um new FTEs.

So I you know, I think when you do, we know that it's it's it's a real need.

Um and I think you know, your department Eric has been stellar, you know.

We're just really really pleased.

You you guys handle a lot of different things, and we we know how much effort you're putting in.

The housing lake is amazing, and I have so many high hopes that uh we are going to be able to develop a lot of municipal partnerships from this whole program that's happening.

Um I think we can and I think the budget looks really good.

So thank you.

Um let's do a vote uh from the PBZ and E committee.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Comments or questions, you know, hands up all in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

That is eight point B1 is approved.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna go to 8B2 joint committee action approving the recommended fiscal year 2026 budget for stormwater management.

And we'll take at the same time 8B3 joint committee action approving the recommended fiscal year 2026 budget for Lake County Regional Stormwater Management Projects Funds.

Welcome meeting.

So check out one of those.

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

I need a motion.

Motion by member Slick Schleck, second by member compost.

We welcome Kurt Wolford and team.

Um happy to have you.

FNA motion by member Clark, second by member of Litzick.

Yes, Director Wolf says I'm not gonna walk up the way everybody else does.

I'm gonna talk to my own tunes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, and we're on page 187 for anybody who's wondering.

Okay.

All right.

Well, good morning.

Chair Altenburg, Chair Frank, and committee members.

Uh, we are excited to be here to share our successes and our accomplishments and what we are working on in our budget.

And I'll just pass it over to Nick to introduce us.

Thanks, Kurt.

So the FY 2026 recommended budget for stormwater management reflects a 63% decrease in total revenue, uh, which is primarily due to a lower property tax allocation.

And as Patrice has mentioned before, this is just um based on a fund balance analysis that is done.

But outside of the property taxes, revenues have increased just slightly and remain fairly consistent with higher stormwater permit fee revenue tied to continue development activity.

On the expense side, commodity costs have risen slightly just to support operational needs, while contractual services have decreased uh due to adjustments in consultant and engineering expenses.

Consultant consultant costs have been realigned um with prior year actuals and engineering services for state funded projects will now be budgeted as emergency appropriations and managed through the carryover process.

I'd also just like to note that as part of the 12-month vacant position analysis that we that we do during the budget process, there were uh two full-time positions and one part-time positions that were removed from this budget.

And with that, I will turn it back over to Kurt.

Thank you, Nick.

And I do want to thank the rest of the finance team.

Uh Gina.

Gina's been great to work with.

Um Mike Wheeler, uh, and James.

Thank you for your assistance throughout the budget.

And then also from HR, I'd like to thank um Darcy Edcock, Jesse, and Crystal Adams for assistance with an item that I'm gonna request in a second.

But uh with me today, we've got uh Deanna Silber, water resource professional, who this month is celebrating 10 years with SMC.

So I I let her sit up here today.

Uh we also have Mike Priscilla, our watershed uh planning supervisor, and then Brian Frank, our chief engineers in the back on call, and then Christine in the back, our executive assistant.

Uh we did lose um all of our admin staff in 2024, they all retired within two months, and we didn't have admin staff, which was a crisis, and uh we hired Christine.

We focused on our admin staff, and we were not able to focus on our capital improvement project managers.

So those two positions um were not advertised, we're not um recruited because we were focusing on our admin staff, and I saw there was a budget policy change to uh retain positions if they were advertised in the last 12 months.

The capital improvement program managers, they were advertised two years ago.

Um, I'm not asking, I'm not requesting that those positions be re-added back, but I have a different ask, and I I'll get to that.

Um other information I want to mention about our revenues.

Um the wetlands in Lake County, they have jurisdictions, and the federal government has reduced and continue to further reduce their jurisdiction of the waters of the United States, which are under federal jurisdiction.

And I think everyone here knows how important wetlands are to Lake County and the region.

And it's also dramatically increased our revenue because we operate the wetland restoration fund where any development impacts that impact wetlands, and you can impact wetlands, but you need to mitigate that.

And mitigation banks are not out there.

So the option to just pay us a check is the option.

And uh Deanna keeps track of that.

So do you have our wetland restoration fund balances?

And they're higher than we've ever seen.

So what do we got?

Just round numbers.

So today we collected $4 million, and of that amount uh $1.7 million is dispersed.

Uh, and $350,000 is encumbered, and uh non-encumbered balance is $1.8 million.

Okay, thank you, Deanna.

Uh, another uh revenue source that we have been receiving is for the DCO program for all of our infrastructure projects.

Uh last year we concluded the first round of 30 million dollars for 12 projects, and then we also received a second grant for 30 million dollars for 16 projects, and uh we have started that, and we anticipate the round two projects will finish uh substantially next year.

Um part of the capital program with the DCO projects, and in accordance with our policies, we work with local sponsors to put these projects in.

So they will be responsible for long-term ownership and maintenance.

And we also have in our policies where our local sponsors, whether they're municipalities or townships, they pay us a project expense match.

And this project expense match is to go to our capital program needs for administration, engineering services, and so those revenues have also been coming in rather large.

So I'd ask Diana what is our project expense match received for this fiscal year 2025 to date.

Uh we have received as of yesterday 2.2 million dollars, close to 2.2 million dollars, and we expect the additional 270,000 to come to the end by the end of the year.

That's the only expected uh revenue project banks revenue for this year.

Thank you, Deanna.

So then with these revenues coming in, and I'll add since I know I heard uh some discussion on permit fees and all that, we've reviewed our permit fees and we've determined at this time there's no need to increase them.

We're gonna hold the line with our permit fees at this time, but we do review them annually, and uh no changes are needed for our permit fees.

Uh the grants that we have received through FEMA, through DCO, through IDNR, through HUD.

Uh, we have not heard of any of them being pulled or paused, and actually we have some extensions that we received.

So uh no red flags yet for the uh the grants out there.

So we anticipate this to continue, and the staff have been doing an amazing job working on all these, and we have a lot of great partners externally that we work with as well.

Um so now I'd like to just point out a few items that are the key differences between the uh county administrator budget and the SMC approved budget that was approved on June.

June.

And uh half the people in this room are on SMC.

Uh thank you for your approval of that budget.

So I'd like to point out the differences between the county administrator budget and the SMC approved budget.

Um because we're receiving all these revenues, um, I think I'm finally learning how the budget policies work, and it takes me a long time because I'm a slow learner, but uh the levy of one million dollars that was approved by this board.

Um, you know, our salaries are two million dollars just for our staff.

So a one million dollar levy is only gonna pay for half of our staff.

But now what I figured out is I think the revenues that we're receiving, since we're receiving a large amount of revenue, we don't need as much levy.

So that sounds great.

Um, but those monies that are coming in from municipalities and townships, those are for our projects and for our future projects.

And so we've worked with the finance team, and we've created or we've expanded another fund.

So this is the first time on the agenda you're gonna see this other action item following up.

And so we're gonna try to get all this funding that is not property tax into this other bucket, and then the budget policies won't pinch us on our levy.

I might not be explaining that correctly, but that's yeah, that's what I'm looking at.

We can just add a couple comments here.

I have one too, but go ahead, Chair.

No, go ahead.

Um I'm I'm really encouraged to hear that uh, you know, collaboration because um when you know, we have you essentially function as a you know semi uh autonomous independent uh agency, just like uh similarly a health department does we need to make sure that we're budgeting on the same page, and we're looking at capital and operations and personnel the same way.

And so I think that's uh important progress.

I appreciate you calling that out, Chair Hart.

Thank you.

So you said some min me think, so thank you.

Um you've got, and then looking in your budget book, right?

Page 189, you've got your revenue for municipalities, it's uh zero for 22, 23, 24.

We've got a year to date recognized 28503.

Do the municipalities how we're covering salary, right?

For SMC and municipalities serve on the stormwater management commission.

Do can you help me understand why municipalities don't also contribute, or if they do, it's captured somewhere there in terms of salaries and expenses for stormwater because certainly much of the work that's getting done is done in the municipalities.

Um I think the answer is because the state statute that requires the county board to create SMC also requires the county board to levy up to 0.2 percent or 0.02 percent of the equalized assessed value for the county.

So the statute says you're required to do that.

Okay, and it's silent on municipalities giving money to stormwater management commission.

Uh it's not silent, but it does say that um intergovernmental agreements are encouraged, so that's how we get a lot of our work done.

But nothing in the statute says municipalities need to um provide for our annual budget.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um, so the uh SMC approved budget.

Sorry.

Sorry, do you have a question?

Yes, uh, just seeing some clarification.

So on page 233, I know we're getting to this.

Uh has 65 million dollar balance, and it it seems like that's a capital is is that another action item or are we doing both?

I'm just okay.

Is that like another capital fund that we have to segregate?

I'm just wondering why it's a separate.

I don't think it's a separate, it's going to be the one and only.

Okay, but it's not directly part of your capital budget.

It is.

Oh, it is okay.

It is, but since we've had everything jumbled in our operational budget, that's been causing problems with these carryover processes, the levy.

Um, I need the funds that the municipalities paid us to do these projects, not to offset the county's budget.

Okay, I'm I'm still a little bit confused here.

So why is the the regional fund separate from your say a capital line item in your budget?

Okay, yeah.

There's the let me say it this way then the new fund, the 743 is gonna be for non-property tax, non-operational.

So we do have some work that we do, like the watershed management board, the stormwater infrastructure repair fund, the piloting of these maintenance projects, these are internal to our operations.

But when we receive an appropriation for 125 million dollars from the state, and we receive um 20 million dollars from FEMA, these are all pass-throughs, and we need those to kind of reside in a different account.

They're just so large, they they just it's always it's just more of a bookkeeping uh mechanism.

Um, I'd say it's a little more than that, it's bookkeeping, but it's also uh you know, ensuring that what's happened in the past, it's just we need to make sure that these funds that we're receiving are being used appropriately for their intended uses.

million dollars from the state and we receive um 20 million dollars from FEMA these are all pass throughs and we need those to kind of reside in a different account they're just so large they they just always it's just more of a bookkeeping uh mechanism um I'd say it's a little more than that it's bookkeeping but it's also um you know ensuring that what's happened in the past it's just we need to make sure that these funds that we're receiving are being used appropriately for their intended uses okay thank you okay so uh I do have some more things to say um the differences between the SMC approved budget and I guess let me look at page one ninety in the budget book the engineering services line item 71170 the commission approved a number of 2.6 million dollars and then the recommended amount is zero so we think that that's okay as long as that funding will reside in this other 743 account the the capital account so that's a a change from the commission approved budget and if we look down the line for all the line items everything is in line so no objections or any concerns from my point of view with any of the items besides ensuring that those funds are utilized appropriately and then the other item I wanted to mention is the salaries and wages and there's a sheet in the budget book that I'd like to look at it's give me a second if you go to if you go to page 34 please 34 this is personnel count by department.

Correct the FY26 personnel count by department and we've we've been faced with a tremendous amount of work and we've been knocking out that work staff's doing an amazing job we've been able to hire consultants to leverage to be able to do this.

That's why we need these engineering funds so we can continue this work but staff's doing an excellent job they're punching above their weight like two levels and we're gonna continue to do that.

And like I said we had some retirements from the admin staff I had to focus on that I didn't have the uh bandwidth to look for the capital improvement program managers.

So yes the stormwater management commission out of the entire organization I think we're losing the most staff uh two full-time positions one full one part-time position and on page 35 that page gives you a little bit of detail and there's the two full-time capital improvement program managers and one part-time accounting specialist um that part-time accounting specialist was advertised in December last year so I think that is within the window of the amended budget policies to retain that position but I'm recommending to remove that position with a caveat um the other request is that the two capital improvement program managers I'm also okay losing those two so I'm not asking for any change in head count on our budget book so we're going from 22 positions 22 full time two part-time to 20 full time and one part-time what I'm requesting is an amendment to the regular salaries and wages five one one zero to put the funding that was in those positions back into the five X category so I can use those funds to accomplish our staffing reorg that we've been working on for years and um I've vetted this through HR and Nick Nick uh just needs to know some information too um but I think we're there we've looked at scenarios and Nick um has these two scenarios and it all depends if I can get the funds from these vacant positions.

So it's okay we'll lose two and a half positions but can I utilize that funding and put that back into our fund put that back into our salaries so I can accomplish our staffing reorg because staff is definitely doing a lot more than we were five years ago and we're managing a lot of consultants and we have a lot more work to do.

But they're doing a great job and I think uh I need to just bring our organization to what they're doing today and that's what the staffing re-org would accomplish um that was a major item the other request is just that I guess we didn't get our goals in the book.

So if we want to add goals that's fine but I just want to point out that um the the comprehensive stormwater management plan in the county strategic plan we were targeting to have that finished by the end of this year.

It's going to stretch out a few more months so we're looking at first quarter second quarter to finish up that comprehensive stormwater management plan.

The plan will include the future development of this maintenance program.

So what is our future of maintenance and how broad is that and what roles are we going to play and what funding is needed for that and what resource they're in it.

But we're not there yet that'll be in the comp plan um the other item I want to mention is we are looking at efficiencies by using technology enhancements for electronic plan reviews for our uh regulatory staff.

So Brian reviews lots and lots of permits and our regulatory staff do and we already gotten rid of paper we're all digital but then the ability to use digital tools to mark up plans and communicate and streamline the process we're looking at enhancements to make that even faster for applicants and um more friendly for our permit reviewers and the applicants that come in.

And then the other item I just want to end on is that uh Mike had applied for a grant through the three nine IEPA 319 program and also a new program that is new to us a 604 B program to receive additional grant funds to initiate the Fox River watershed based plan and this is a this is the entire Fox River in in Lake County we've also met and discussed this with McHenry County most of the Fox Rivers is in McHenry County and watersheds don't follow political boundaries so we want to look at this holistically so we're gonna be working with McHenry County we're excited about that and we're excited that hopefully we get this grant to do this this work.

And with that I'd happy to answer any questions.

Do you have a question?

Member composed thank you chair um couple questions uh regarding those two positions um maybe this is for Patrice um how many days in advance does an employee need to give uh in order to retire I know for our pension fund we require 60 to 90 days um I don't know off the top of my head but I will find out uh if you want to move on and I'll I'll hopefully be able to answer the question very shortly.

Okay I I appreciate it yeah and then my second question for follow-up regard once when I have that answer um regarding these two positions you you mentioned that they weren't advertised for 12 months is there a requirement that it needs to be advertised for 12 months in order to be included in the budget or within 12 months of the budget on that.

So um the policy originally said that if the position was vacant for 12 months it would be automatically eliminated and then because we did have so many departments that had proven efforts of um you know giving offers and just having them not accepted or whatever the you know there was valid efforts there.

So we came back to the finance committee and amended the policy to state that as long as there was um recruitment activity then they wouldn't be eliminated.

Okay.

Now once when I have so thank thank you for that and in this particular instance it just wasn't advertised.

It was advertised within the last 24 months okay it was not advertised in the last 12 months because of the admin staff exodus from SMC and I needed to manage that.

Okay.

All right once when I have the answer to the my my first question I'll go and continue my comment.

Okay member slick thanks chair I got just a couple items here I'll address the the big ask first I I'm certainly sympathetic to you know the wanting to pay your staff more for you know more work more money I get that I'm a little hesitant with just giving that dollar amount without seeing what reorganization plan was in place how that would be administered and you know would we worry about some type of classification increase or a new classification of employee and compensation I'd really like to see that plan before I would be all right approving any type of fund increases.

I'd really like to see that plan before I would be all right approving any type of fund increases.

Um, but I'm certainly sympathetic and I'd I'd love to see how it would work out, but I don't know that that can be done here in this budget cycle right now.

I think we can maybe amend it, modify it down the road.

And then the only other thing is I know this was discussed on the fund balance page.

Um, I know that's from 24, and I get why we can't increase it.

If we could just see maybe a trend somewhere along the line of what fund balance is done over the last two or three budget cycles, just so we can see if there's that spend down, it would help kind of and I I just in the future budget, we don't got to do it today.

I trust staff that the fund balance is being spent down appropriately and why we're limiting the levy, but just something for next time.

So and I'll continue to ponder that step increase.

If I may go ahead, Kurt.

I'll just say um as the executive director for the stormwater management commission, it is my uh request that we fund this to accomplish our re-org.

The human resources department has signed off and waived this or vetted it.

Um I understand your comment, and I guess if the decision is to not add anything, then I'm gonna be um asking to comply with your budget policies and put the part-time position back in because I did advertise that, but I don't want that.

Okay, well, what uh Paul and I oh we just wanted to clarify though.

When you're saying you want to take those two positions and put them back in this fund, are you saying you want to use that sp those specific dollar amounts for other people's salaries to increase other people's salaries or uh yeah?

So the the two CIP managers and let's put dollars on these, they're um through the compensation study, they were determined to be a level 10, and that's about 100,000 a year.

And um an engineer is not gonna manage multi-million dollar capital programs for 100,000.

But if we take both of those two capital improvement program managers and we merge them and consolidate them and turn them into a director of capital improvement and maintenance, because maintenance is now picking up with the dissolution of the drainage districts.

We're doing more work there.

We are um needing some additional people, and I'm requesting a director of capital improvement programs and maintenance to be created from the consolidation of these two capital improvement program managers, and I'm going to promote somebody into that position from our existing organization.

So, did you turn up anything into Patrice along these lines that's written out what you what your proposal is to do?

Uh Nick, that was part of our budget submittal, I believe.

I never received a vetted uh reorg um by HR as part of the budget submission.

Um, it's been an ongoing work in progress.

Um that I don't have currently.

Okay.

Right.

And I think that the questions that Chair Aldermer was asking some that I have as well, which is just some clarity around, hey, that you you said reorg or staffing plan, which I think you know, we want to support it, but oftentimes if you're talking about an existing position that gets upgraded to something else that works through the HR process and then comes to FNA committee if required to.

Um, but you know, you're talking about essentially adding a new position.

I understand that you've identified a source because you're like, hey, I'm shedding these two.

Um, but I think that's you know, that similarly, uh adding any position has to come through the through the whole uh budget process.

So I think we just want to make sure we understood what the goal is for for the use of those funds.

Vice Chair Perak and then Chair Hart.

I think you helped clarify, Chair.

I just want to I wasn't seeing this in the new program request this head count.

I'm just confused.

Like, are you do we is is your bud do we need to discuss this or not?

I guess that's the part I'm confused on.

Do do is this a new program requirement?

It's not, if I if I may, yeah.

At the commission meeting and county administrator representatives were there.

We had that discussion, and the um plan was to maintain budget neutral, head count neutral, and then we would not need to submit it as a new program request.

So that was discussed at the SMC meeting.

And so those are the limits that I was given.

And I'm always reminded of those limits from the chairman of the SMC.

So what I'm presenting and proposing is a budget neutral and a head count reduction.

And that's was decided at the commission mean that a new program request would not be required.

I apologize, member Peterson.

I skipped over you.

Go ahead.

But I just wanted to say that it's a little unusual for us to hear that you're willing to give not you, but anybody to give anything up to gain something.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Did you have a follow-up?

Well, I just I just I guess my question if it's budget neutral and we're reducing head count, what is the what is it that we're asking or needing to vote on exactly other than his budget overall?

Which he's saying is neutral.

I'm just trying to clarify what we're I'm just trying to clarify what we're what we're needing to agree to because he's reducing his head count and he's maintaining budget neutral.

So if he's just changing his position, isn't that something we'll just go through normal channels of HR and we'd approve an FA?

So my understanding is, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that the budget recommendation does not include funding for a new position, it's just based on the reduction in head count.

And he's saying he needs an additional position because there's more responsibilities coming off of these two positions that are being eliminated.

And so that's not that accurate reflected in here.

Okay.

I did I not describe the request accurately.

It's I I need a new position, but I have people doing the work right now, and they're doing work multiple levels above them.

So it's putting the people in the right spot for what they're doing.

So do we need to approve anything?

If he's shifting people, he's he's gonna promote somebody.

Does that need to be under our approval, or can he just do that?

Right.

So that goes back to my original point.

Could that be accomplished by upgrading those two existing positions to a different level?

Or are you saying you need to hire someone else?

There will there will not be any hiring through this.

It'll just be a re-org.

Okay.

Chair Hart and then member Maine.

Thank you.

And I we can talk later about drainage districts and whether or not that actually has more work for you, because I I think I would argue that it doesn't.

Um I I guess I feel like you know, oftentimes in the board meeting, we say, wow, I feel like we're doing committee work on the board floor.

You know, I think an extensive amount of time was spent.

I personally am a little leery of us trying to um figure all of this out if if we need to come back to this at a later time, or I I guess I'd be interested in hearing from Patrice and Michael on their thoughts about why they did it, you know, why they put set it up this way from my perspective, if she's willing.

Um the reorg finality or the the final reorg has never been presented to me.

Um, so you know, I I do have some work to do to kind of figure out whether or not that should have been brought forward.

Um we do ask for reorganizations as part of the budget process and generally want to talk about those very early on in the process so that we can actually build um the reorg in if it's um you know budget neutral or even if it needs to be kind of tweaked a little bit.

So um I guess my recommendation at this point uh with regard to the personnel is that we get the final blessing from both the human resources and the budget team, and then that gets submitted to the county administrator, which is what our normal process is, and then we'll come back to you even before the FNA committee next week with um a final answer on whether or not there is it whether it is truly budget neutral.

Great.

I do have a a couple of other answers, if I may.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead.

So to member Campos's question, um, the county policy actually says that retiring employees should be directed to human resources six months prior to their expected date of retirement.

Um we don't require that, it's just a should.

And from an IMRF perspective, it generally is best that they give eight weeks notice so that there's no interruption in their pension payments um upon retirement.

So informally it's six months from a county policy perspective, and from a pension perspective administratively, it's about two months.

And then if I can answer or address one other point, um I I do want to recognize the work that Stormwater, you know, Kurt has alluded to this.

He is working with our finance department.

Um we really do want to make sure that he has access to the funds for their specific purpose.

And so he is working very closely with the finance department to ensure that we're putting the money in the right places.

Um, if it is capital related money, we don't want that in the operating budget.

So they are working diligently to try and make sure that we have an operating budget for stormwater and then all of this stuff that is related to capital, which I would like to flush out more because I'd like to know whether the reorg has any aspect of the capital and should be included in those funds.

So I do have some questions, and I think that we'll be ready to come back to you with some possible um transfers of funding because we may have put some stuff into their property tax funds that we believe needs to be in a different fund.

So we will have an opportunity to um have the a deeper conversation to true up what we've already seen in like the retrospective perspective and then um try to get the the future perspective much cleaner so that we don't have this confusion.

I will say that there is a very significant fund balance right now in the stormwater fund, but I do suspect that it is inflated because there's potentially some PEM revenue that may not really belong.

Uh what does PEMS stand for again?

Project expense match.

Thank you.

There's some revenue that's related to those DCEO projects that perhaps should not be in that operating fund.

Likewise, there is some work that is being done by his employees that maybe should be, you know, absorbed by some of those funds.

So there is a lot to work through here, and we've got the right people working on it.

We're just not ready right now.

Great.

Thank you for highlighting that.

And I also want to say thank you for the collaboration.

I think the partnership with the administration team, finance and HR continues to strengthen.

And I think that's uh a good thing for all of us in terms of budgeting process.

I saw a couple of hands over here.

Member Maine wasn't member of Let's Tech.

Do you have a question too?

No, okay.

Member Maine.

Um thank you.

So my question has changed a bit because of uh county administrator Sutton's um suggestion here.

And so my first question is to her.

Is there enough clarity in these existing budgets and where money is that we can be confident voting on them today?

I guess I'll just put stop voting on them today.

I mean, it sounds like there's money here, there's money here, there needs to be more clarity.

Um is there enough clarity outside of the um reorg?

Is there enough clarity in where the monies are in funds and line items here that we can vote with confidence on this?

Because let's say nothing came back next week.

I feel confident.

Uh oops, thank you.

I I do feel confident there was the 2.6 million dollars that the department request had in it in engineering services.

You can see that on line A71170 on 190.

Um, Kurt mentioned that at the in his opening comments.

Um I don't know for sure that he agrees that that needs to be taken out.

I would like to emergency appropriate that though in fiscal year 25 for its immediate use, because if we include that in the fiscal year 26 budget, then we'll have to find offsetting revenue for it.

And I believe that they've already received the revenue.

So these are unfortunately are the things that I've asked the finance team to really look into.

Uh the remainder of the budget, though, aside from that, you know, large spike there, I do feel confident is consistent with their annual operating budget.

So may I continue?

Yeah, so process-wise, what I'm hearing is yes, vote for this, but next week, again, outside of reorg, but next week, hey, we're gonna take this out and make it a 2025 emergency appropriation.

into uh the remainder of the budget though aside from that you know large spike there i do feel confident is consistent with their annual operating budget so may i continue yeah so process wise what i'm hearing is yes vote for this but next week again outside of reorg but next week hey we're gonna take this out and make it uh 2025 emergency appropriation so we would be voting with the intent to modify what we voted on today next week if i may well i'm okay with the i think what patrice is saying that's that's not my question uh that's not my question i'm asking process wise with her that is correct okay that seems a little unusual and and we had a long discussion yesterday a very long discussion yesterday about monies being in 2025 or 2026 so uh my question then is why why would we why would we do it that way why why would we vote for something today knowing next week you're gonna come change it we are not changing the fiscal year 26 budgets next week at the FA committee what we would be doing is asking you to appropriate revenue in fiscal year 25 that was received in 25 but is listed here in the department request budget but it was zeroed out okay and the county administrator okay okay all right thank you that that helps um yeah we're spending it twice yeah yeah okay that's that was my concern um you know we did talk about this um repeatedly and extensively at SMC so from budget wise I can understand and support that we will have a look at that reorganization um next week before we get something final because I think all you need to do is look at on page 187 the FY2025 modified budget where intergovernmental the adopted budget was just under 8700 and the modified budget was over 26 million dollars so everybody here has probably been to ribbon cuttings and groundbreakings on dozens of projects that are are going on and we have all these literally tens of millions of dollars of more projects going on and the um the staff has has been the same and and uh I am concerned that if those two were kept in those two positions that were removed following policy that they hadn't been advertised that I understand in a small agency you can only go out and manage so many hires at a time I think any ever everybody here who's been in a business or something like that you can only manage so many job searches at a time and if you don't have admin how can you manage those next ones so I I think in this case there was a really valid really valid reason for that and we've seen here at the county with um technical expertise and SMC relies on that you're you're not gonna get an engineer for a hundred thousand dollars it's not you know they start out of college at way more than that and they can go private so um I'm um I'm concerned about our the ability of SMC to keep using effectively the monies that we have been that we've been promised by the state to get those projects on the ground because if they stop getting on the ground in a timely fashion then those monies are going to go away and the reputation the great reputation is damaged and part of the reason we got all those monies again look at that column is because things got done yeah member main I just want to say I think there's a lot of us here who are in agreement with the fact that we we really need to ensure that we have the appropriate level of professionals supporting the work that um in partnership with our legislature it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to make some of these investments that continue and uh I think there's a commitment from all of us to to look at that and to support that staffing when we have appropriate information about the funding sources and where they're allocated between operations and capital uh some of the questions that administrator mentioned so I think we will revisit that when we get that information absolutely um do you have another question member compost no I just wanted to continue my comments from so I'm not sure I understand the thinking outside of the box hey we're gonna be losing these two people we can move money around this this is uh an opportunity to um uh to do something I I commend you for thinking outside the box but in absence of a formal reorganization plan right I wouldn't feel comfortable not you know not voting on this um

I understand the thinking outside of the box.

Hey, we're gonna be losing these two people, we can move money around.

This is uh an opportunity to um uh to do something.

I I commend you for thinking outside the box, but in absence of a formal reorganization plan, right?

I wouldn't feel comfortable not, you know, not voting on this.

Um I would vote on it as is.

We're going off policy.

Um you're gonna lose those two people.

I would rather see those two people come back.

Um in a perfect world, increase the the wage for for the engineer.

Um, but I'm not I'm I'm not that has to go through the proper channels.

Um, I think you have to go back to FNA and go through committee.

Um, but I think in 2026, I think we're gonna have to uh I wouldn't feel good not voting on as is the way it was presented to us since it's gone through its proper um through the proper process.

So any other questions?

Any other I think the plan is to vote on it as is and we're able, we have time and we're able to ask.

He made an ask.

The ask is uh my request would be to reduce our head count by two full-time positions and one part-time position, but then to use those funds to accomplish our reorg that I submitted to finance already.

Okay, and I've talked to HR about.

And if the um ultimate decision is gonna be no to everything, I guess I would request a conditional approval to reinstate the part-time position in compliance with your budget policies.

Okay.

So as I see here in our budget, we're the recommended budget is does include that recommendation that for the reduction of the two and the one part-time.

And I think I heard the administrator say that um working through the process with HR and finance department, we're gonna get some additional details about what that staffing rear looks like, and and we'll have the opportunity to make a decision about going forward on that.

But I feel like um those two departments don't think they're ready to sign off on that yet.

And for our process, I think we want to make sure that they have all their questions answered before we go forward.

That's my perspective.

Is anybody from HR here?

Yeah, I'm speaking to Darcy.

Um, Crystal Adams ran these positions through the SAFE report.

Yeah.

Uh HR has confirmed that they did send the grade recommendations over to budget on October 15th.

So that's where it's at.

Okay.

So we'll wait for your recommendation on that.

Member Maine.

And this is uh specific.

I'm hearing um exe executive director Wolford say that that one halftime position did meet our requirement to not essentially be swept out, and yet it is still being swept out.

Is can I have that's what I'm hearing.

You say, can I have clarity on then did it in fact meet our requirements is being advertised?

Yes, no, and I guess if yes, then why are we sweeping it?

I'll I'll jump in.

It's it was to be swept, and the finance staff prepared the budget in compliance with the budget policies, but then the budget policies were just amended recently.

So that recent amendment now gave us a foot foothold in the okay.

So could you please clarify what head count did the commission put forward in your budget?

If you could just clarify that for me, please.

What was the head count in terms of full-time equivalents as well as part-time that you believe that the stormwater management commission put forward?

Is it 20 or 22?

And is it one or zero?

The stormwater management commission did not focus on.

Can you tell me how many dollars was it this one nine seven one nine thirteen?

Um or was it a lower number because you didn't have the three percent in there?

I'm not sure about that.

All I was given was you need to maintain budget neutral and head count neutral.

Those are the guiding limits that I was given from the commission.

Yeah, I understand.

So I as I said, Director Wolfford, I I think a lot of us, especially those of us who serve on your board, are interested in supporting the goals.

But it's hard for us to vote on an amendment when our team that puts our budget together doesn't have all the pieces of the information at this point.

So that that's where I'm at.

I don't I don't know if members are interested in doing an amendment.

I don't think so at this point, but I I know that we're committed in revisiting it.

So we will.

Yes, it sounds like we're gonna look trees.

We're gonna look at it, but to follow the proper process.

That's what I'd like to do.

So we'll get the process and then we can see what happens.

But I I do not feel comfortable changing it right now.

Yeah, I think a lot of effort was put into getting to this point.

We all support your goals.

I I feel everybody here, we know you're doing a fantastic job.

We've been so fortunate to get all these millions of dollars from the state to do with these incredible flood uh projects, you know, reducing flooding all over the county.

You you guys have worked so hard.

We've we've been blessed with all this extra money.

We are gonna do our level best.

I know Patrice is gonna do her level best to work with you and try to get your reorg to where we're all comfortable voting for it.

I I feel that way.

Um, I feel if we vote for this today, they put a lot of effort into where we're at now.

Um, it's not in stone that we're not gonna make these changes.

And I think you have to have I have faith in everybody here.

We are we're all so happy with SMC, and we know you're doing your best to uh do right by your people, and we want to do right by your staff.

We do.

So I think we should vote on this today.

You'll have a budget, and then we're gonna work this week very hard to try to sort through things with you.

Our finance people will work with you and and see if we can bring something to FA to make some kind of amendment next week.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

But you have some right questions regarding the process.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So we are gonna take eight dot b two and eight dot b three together in one vote.

Okay.

Okay, all in favor for aye.

Okay, thank you.

Finance, all in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, those two items are approved.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank all of you.

Okay, do we have a county administrators report?

No county administrators report.

Do we have executive session?

No executive session.

Any member remarks?

Okay.

All right, we are adjourning the PBZ and E meeting until October 29th.

Thank you.