Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building and planning office keeps staffing steady, trims travel and training in draft 2026 budget
Summary
Tracy Jackson, building and planning, proposed a largely status-quo budget for 2026–27 that cuts travel and training, removes an unfilled co‑tech position, relies on about $1.7 million in cash balance if permit revenue falls, and requests a Wi‑Fi booster for downstairs permitting operations.
Tracy Jackson, building and planning, told county commissioners the department’s preliminary budget request for 2026 and 2027 is largely status quo and emphasizes cuts to discretionary spending while keeping current staffing levels. “We have a very vanilla, budget request. We're really status quo for the next 2 years,” Jackson said during the department presentation.
The budget matter matters because building and planning administers permitting and land‑use reviews that fund a permitting enterprise fund and support inspections and plan review. Jackson said the department manages four funds (community long‑range planning, the boundary review board, GIS, and the permitting—permitting being the enterprise fund) and proposed line‑by‑line suggestions based on historical spending.
Most of the reductions are in travel and training. Jackson said she cut “about 75 to 80% out of my travel and training, and all of the funds.” The finance office’s earlier retreat recommendation to cut travel by 50% was noted; Susie Moon, finance manager, told the group that “one of the recommendations… was cutting travel‑related expenses by 50%,” and that Jackson had cut even more for her department. Jackson said she is not requesting any new personnel and plans to remove an unfilled co‑tech position from the budget “for right now.” She added that if a qualified applicant appears she would return to the board to request filling the position.
Jackson said the department is maintaining professional services lines for plan review and permitting applications and relies on external plan‑review contractors during peak workloads. She described Accela (the permit platform) as a major vendor for permit processing and listed other firms used for plan review when workload requires contracting.
On contingency planning, Jackson said the permitting fund has a cash balance that could be used to cover operations if permit revenue declines: “I have enough cash balance, about $1,700,000 … if we get into desperate times and we don't get any permits in the door, I would use that cash balance to fund my staff.” Jackson said she has not proposed fee changes and does not plan new personnel requests in the draft. She also said the department will explore combining certain permit fees (for example, private‑road related permits) to reduce duplicate charges and to streamline internal processing.
Commissioners asked about succession planning and IT needs. When asked, Jackson said, “We do. We have backup for pretty much every position … except for Mike Wilson and I at this point.” She also requested a Wi‑Fi booster for the downstairs permitting area so applicants can complete and submit online permit applications without leaving the building. Jackson said contractors and customers sometimes must step outside to send materials and that a booster would improve customer service.
The department reported it presented the proposal to the Building‑Planning Advisory Committee (BPAC), which Jackson said generally did not object and suggested the county could consider fee increases in some areas compared with neighboring counties.
The county finance office will include Jackson’s department in the next steps of budget deliberations; Jackson said she will return with any personnel requests if a hiring need arises or if a qualified applicant becomes available.
