Personnel Services presented three budget scenarios and outlined a voluntary option to reduce two senior positions from 40 hours to an average 36 hours per week. The presenter said that, because the department’s budget is largely salary and benefits (about 92.5% of the budget previously), non‑operational cuts alone cannot achieve a 5% reduction without affecting core services.

Under the proposed scenario, reducing the salaries and benefits for the director and assistant director to reflect 36‑hour weeks would lower the department’s salary/benefit costs by approximately $23,000 annually, the presenter said. She noted retirement contributions would decrease proportionally and that employees would accrue service credit proportionally (lengthening the time to full retirement benefits).

Staff emphasized that implementation would require a formal policy change to recognize a reduced‑hour threshold for full‑time status (for example, lowering the county definition of full‑time from 40 hours to a new threshold such as 30 or 32 hours, consistent with ACA guidance). The HR presenter said the county’s retirement system permits full‑time status at an average of 30 hours per week, but changes to county policy and the employee handbook would be required before the shift could occur.

Board members asked about impacts to benefits, retirement and whether other staff would take reduced hours. The presenter said conversations with affected employees indicated mixed interest; some employees would accept reduced hours for work‑life balance while others would not. Several board members suggested piloting the approach or surveying departments about willingness to adopt reduced hours before making a countywide policy change.

Other HR lines discussed included subscriptions (TechNet, SHRM), recruitment and professional services (background checks, pre‑employment screening, and digital performance‑evaluation software). HR reported recurring overspend in the professional services line in prior years and suggested splitting onboarding costs between professional services and recruitment lines. The board asked HR to propose a clearer split and consider an average of historical costs when budgeting recruitment/professional services for 2026.

The HR presenter asked the board whether to assume the 36‑hour scenario for tentative budget preparation and said she would return with details and policy language if the board wanted to pursue the option.