Interim director outlines leaner community development budget, seeks grant support for Phase 2 of comprehensive plan

Interim Community Development Director Petra Sheets and county staff presented a current‑service‑level budget for the Community Development Department that reflects lower fee revenue and a reduced staffing footprint as the division stabilizes after a period of turnover.

Rick (county staff) said the department's current service level is presented as "7.37" (figure as presented in the budget documents) and that fee revenue — including building permits and document recording fees — has declined from earlier levels. "Again, part of that is we, again, have to control expenses," Rick said. County staff described a 1.9% reduction to the department's current service level and a proposed 1.5% increase to the adopted budget after policy packages are considered.

Sheets said staff already implemented organization‑level changes, including cross‑training planners and consolidating some administration, and reported several operational accomplishments: more than 250 land‑use applications processed in the last biennium and completion of Phase 1 of the comprehensive plan and development‑code revision "on time and on budget."

Staff identified key near‑term priorities and requests: - Seek state periodic‑review grant funding for Phase 2 of the comprehensive plan and development‑code update (county staff said the state review process is scheduled for late June); the department also submitted a supplemental request to the budget committee should state funds not arrive. - Continue to implement a regional solid‑materials/solid‑waste plan and pursue local implementation steps. - Build capacity to provide planning and permitting services to neighboring jurisdictions during down cycles in building activity to create new revenue streams.

Sheets and Rick described staff reductions already enacted, including freezing a deputy director position pending hiring of a new director, reducing plan‑examiner headcount through cross‑training and reclassifications, and other administrative consolidations. They told commissioners those reductions were designed to maintain core services while preserving flexibility to re‑expand if permit activity increases.

Commissioners asked about state grant timing for Phase 2 and about strategies to keep staff engaged during low building cycles; staff described plans to offer long‑range planning and other contracted services to other jurisdictions as possible revenue and workload solutions.