Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hinsdale board moves to authorize up to $92,000 for interim community development services

Village Board of Trustees · May 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Trustees introduced and moved to place on consent an authorization of up to $92,000 to MGT Impact Solutions to fund an interim community development director and plan review services through July 2026; staff said permit fees will offset plan-review costs.

The Hinsdale Village Board on May 5 advanced a proposal to authorize up to $92,000 for professional services from MGT Impact Solutions to provide an interim community development director and plan review services through July 2026.

Trustee Postma, who introduced the first-reading item, said the proposal would fund interim director Ellen Weber for up to 32 hours per week at $130.50 an hour and cover plan review work by Jose Torres at $141.88 per hour for up to 20 hours per week. "This proposal would pay for her for up to 32 hours a week...and this is, at a $130.50 an hour, which would be just a little over $54,000 through the July," Postma said. He added the plan-review portion would be just under $34,000 through July.

Staff told the board that plan-review fees can be passed through to permit applicants, reducing net budget impact. Postma also noted that if a permanent community development director is hired before July, the village would not need the full scope of the MGT engagement; staff estimated roughly $52,000 in salary and benefits would otherwise have been incurred during the vacancy period.

A trustee remarked that the community development department carries a significant backlog and welcomed the temporary support. Postma asked that, if appropriate, the board place the item on the consent agenda.

The item was presented as a first reading; trustees discussed the staffing rationale and financial pass-through for plan-review fees. No final separate vote on this individual first-reading item was recorded apart from its placement on the consent calendar in the subsequent consent process.