County development staff presented the department’s 2026 budget framework on Sept. 12 and described how staff propose to offset modest increases in personnel and commodity costs with targeted fee changes and internal fund reallocations.

The presentation compared 2024 actuals, 2025 budget and the 2026 proposed figures and showed a net increase of about $11,235 versus 2024 largely attributable to cost-of-living adjustments. To cover the gap, staff proposed three revenue changes: increase stormwater fees (last updated in 2019) with a conservative projected revenue increase of $5,000; add a zoning review fee for staff time (projected $2,500 revenue); and increase the electric-aggregation contribution to the general fund by about $6,185. Staff said those figures are conservative and actual revenue could be higher, particularly because of increased solar permit activity.

Staff also said they plan to move $70,000 in sustainability salary and benefits from the general fund to the riverboat fund (fund 650) to lower the general-fund expense line. That move, coupled with the other revenue adjustments, would result in the proposed 2026 general fund being roughly $2,450 less than 2024 levels. Staff stressed the stormwater fee increase would apply to developers seeking stormwater permits and the zoning fee would apply to parties requesting zoning changes.

Committee members asked for percentages and who bears the increases. Staff said the stormwater budget is typically $20,000 and the proposal raises it conservatively to $25,000 (around a 25% relative increase versus that typical figure). The zoning fee is a new revenue line, and the electric-aggregation transfer would increase from about $30,000 to $36,000.

The presenter noted larger variance in special revenue funds this cycle because of ARPA funding and capital projects; staff provided an itemized explanation of funds including the stormwater fee-in-lieu account (for regional detention projects), a wetland fee-in-lieu fund, the electric-aggregation 4-21 fund and riverboat (4-05/650) funds. The committee did not vote on the budget at this meeting; staff said the development committee previously reviewed the materials on Aug. 28.

Why it matters: the proposed fee changes shift some costs to developers and applicants rather than to the general taxpayer base and reallocate existing special-fund resources to cover program salaries and activities. Committee members requested more detail on projected revenues and cautioned about placing additional fees on residents.