6.5 26-00621:30 P.M. - a) Consideration of Presentation of Community Development Department Historical Revenue and Expense Analysis; and b) Request for Board Direction Regarding Department Operations and Loan Repayment Plan
During an early 2024 BVAC meeting, the Community Development Director gave a department overview in which she discussed her transition into the role amid staffing instability. In that same presentation, she identified job creation as a primary departmental goal. Given today’s discussion about financial deficits, loan repayment, and declining permit activity, that framing raises concerns for me about alignment between departmental priorities, experience, and the County’s current fiscal and economic realities. With that context, I have the following questions:
1. Given the department’s current deficits and loan obligations, how is staff prioritizing work between core, fee-supported services and long-range initiatives like Lake County 2050?
2. What specific, measurable outcomes have resulted from the Lake County 2050 project to date—particularly outcomes that reduce permitting barriers, shorten timelines, or encourage new development?
3. Since the fires, development activity appears to have remained relatively stagnant. Beyond market conditions, what internal regulatory or procedural barriers has staff identified that may be discouraging builders from moving forward?
4. In comparable jurisdictions, what specific strategies have been effective in cutting red tape and accelerating building activity, and which of those could realistically be implemented in Lake County?
5. Before increasing permit fees, what opportunities exist to improve revenue stability by increasing permit volume through faster, clearer, and more predictable permitting processes?
During an early 2024 BVAC meeting, the Community Development Director gave a department overview in which she discussed her transition into the role amid staffing instability. In that same presentation, she identified job creation as a primary departmental goal. Given today’s discussion about financial deficits, loan repayment, and declining permit activity, that framing raises concerns for me about alignment between departmental priorities, experience, and the County’s current fiscal and economic realities. With that context, I have the following questions:
1. Given the department’s current deficits and loan obligations, how is staff prioritizing work between core, fee-supported services and long-range initiatives like Lake County 2050?
2. What specific, measurable outcomes have resulted from the Lake County 2050 project to date—particularly outcomes that reduce permitting barriers, shorten timelines, or encourage new development?
3. Since the fires, development activity appears to have remained relatively stagnant. Beyond market conditions, what internal regulatory or procedural barriers has staff identified that may be discouraging builders from moving forward?
4. In comparable jurisdictions, what specific strategies have been effective in cutting red tape and accelerating building activity, and which of those could realistically be implemented in Lake County?
5. Before increasing permit fees, what opportunities exist to improve revenue stability by increasing permit volume through faster, clearer, and more predictable permitting processes?