Community Development officials told the Lake County Board of Supervisors on Thursday they are preparing a more complete follow-up after presenting midyear budget drafts, a list of unfunded department activities and three loan‑repayment options intended to address a recent shortfall.

The update, delivered by Deputy Administrator Shannon Walker Smith and Deputy County Administrative Officer Casey Moreno, said the building division’s midyear budget is currently balanced after removing prior contributions to planning and code enforcement, but that planning still carries a “significant deficit.” Staff proposed fee‑analysis work and reorganization steps and asked the board to invite a fuller presentation on Feb. 10.

Why it matters: Supervisors and members of the public pressed staff for concrete year‑to‑date numbers to show whether short‑term fixes made since the loan request two months ago have improved the department’s fiscal position. The discussion will affect whether the county raises fees, cuts staff or identifies other revenue sources to close a multi‑year gap between departmental expenses and revenues.

Moreno presented three repayment scenarios for a department loan: a one‑year option requiring a full $390,000 within the fiscal year; a two‑year plan with roughly $195,000 per year; and a three‑year plan at about $130,000 per year. Moreno tied each option to possible staff reductions, more aggressive cost‑recovery and reorganization, and said staff would return with more detailed calculations on Feb. 10.

Staff also identified specific cost pressures. Moreno said collective‑bargaining increases that took effect July 1 added roughly $63,000 to the building division, $95,000 to code enforcement and $105,000 to planning — about $264,000 in total. He noted a recent ARPA‑funded contract (PlaceWorks) and the timing of reimbursements produced sudden year‑to‑year swings in transfers and reserves.

On revenue recovery, staff told the board that code enforcement had issued about $500,000 in citations this fiscal year but recovered only about $13,000 so far; they said OpenGov functionality should allow unpaid citations to be referred to the Franchise Tax Board in the spring, which may increase collections.

Supervisors asked for more transparency on how building permit fees have subsidized other department activities. “If I’m building a house, I shouldn’t be paying for someone else’s project,” Supervisor Sabatier said, pressing staff to separate building‑specific fees from costs that support code enforcement or long‑range planning. Walker Smith acknowledged some subsidies occurred when building contributed salaries and operating support to other divisions and said staff had provided a breakdown to supervisors and would include more detail in the Feb. 10 follow up.

County counsel advised the board on legal limits for adopting and spending fees, telling supervisors the adoption of fees is governed by the “Nolan/Dolan” essential‑nexus and rough‑proportionality tests and that case law allows some flexibility for using surplus fee revenue for related planning expenses where the connection to building regulation is reasonable and proportional.

Public commenters urged staff and the board to quantify unfunded tasks and to prioritize leadership, accountability and accurate tracking of staff time. Tom Lajcik said the problem “is a staffing issue” and asked that the next presentation give clearer measurements of what is being subsidized. A caller identifying as affiliated with Pillsbury Family Farm urged protecting frontline staff and suggested appointing interim leadership to stabilize operations.

Next steps: Staff and the Administrative Office will return on Feb. 10 with a combined presentation including year‑to‑date budget status, a 10‑year fee history for the building division, a code‑enforcement cost‑recovery analysis, a planning division fee analysis using OpenGov time capture, and the legal white paper on fee adoption and expenditure. The board reached consensus to direct staff to prepare that follow up; no formal vote was taken.

Details to watch: how staff quantify unrecovered administrative time tied to grant‑funded programs (such as AVA and ARPA), the specific numbers behind the claimed $500,000 cited by code enforcement and $13,000 collected, and whether the Feb. 10 package contains the year‑to‑date, board‑requested comparisons that supervisors say they need to decide between fee increases and personnel changes.