Executive committee approves three-month overlap for Jennrich retirement

By a 5-1 vote, the Oneida County executive committee has approved a three-month overlap training period for the successor to longtime planning and zoning director Karl Jennrich, following an extended debate over precedent and how to fund the transition.

The matter now heads back to the zoning committee for further review.

Jennrich notified the county on Jan. 20 of his intent to retire effective August 31, according to a memorandum submitted by human resources director Jenni Lueneburg. The executive committee took up the matter on Jan. 28.

Given the scope of the position and the timing of the retirement, Lueneburg requested a three-month overlap training period prior to Jennrich’s retirement, during which time both Jennrich and the new director would be on the payroll.

The county’s zoning committee had previously reviewed the request and supported it. The overlap, if fully utilized, is projected to cost approximately $34,000.

While a majority of the executive committee concluded that the expense was justified, supervisor Steven Schreier strongly objected, arguing that the funding mechanism lacked specificity and that the decision could create a precedent for future retirements.

Call me crazy but

Lueneburg opened the discussion by emphasizing the complexity of the zoning director’s position.

“This position requires an insane amount of knowledge, not just knowledge, but history on what’s been done in the past and understanding the different resources and the people that this position will need to work with in order to be effective,” Lueneburg said. “Planning and zoning is just a huge topic in our county. So for that purpose, I spoke with the planning and development committee on this, and we felt that a three-month overlap training for this position would be very justified.”

A proposed timeline outlined in Lueneburg’s memo would allow recruitment to begin March 6, with interviews in late April and a county board appointment targeted for May 19. The hire date is projected for June 1, which would begin the overlap period ahead of Jennrich’s August 31 retirement.

Lueneburg acknowledged that the timeline represents a “perfect world” scenario.

“It’s great to think that we’re going to get a candidate that’s going to have all those planning and zoning skills and has lots of other experience from another county,” she said. “And yes, that person would definitely come in and be a lot easier to train, but the chances of that happening are slim, they’re very slim, thus the reason for the three months.”

On the other hand, not all the time might be needed, Lueneburg said.

“We just wanted to have that flexibility that if we found a great candidate who wanted to start June 1, we don’t want to hold off hiring them, and then they’re like, ‘if I have to wait until July 1, I’m going to go somewhere else.’”

Still, supervisor Robb Jensen questioned whether three months was excessive.

“What is the longest overlap training currently that we have provided in switching a department head?” Jensen asked. “Three months is a long time. I don’t know where you’re going to put this person. [School] superintendents take over, and it’s like five days. You’re assuming the person coming into this position has no knowledge base.”

Experience is a prerequisite for the job, Jensen said, adding that someone wouldn’t apply off the street expecting to learn about planning and zoning from scratch.

“You’ve got to have the coursework,” he said. “You’ve got to have the study. You probably have experience.” 

However, Jensen indicated his conditional support if flexibility were built in.

“I’m okay with approving the three months with the understanding that the person coming in might have a lot of experience and only need two months,” he said. “The skill set of the person is going to determine that.”

County board chairman Scott Holewinski strongly supported the overlap, saying the time was needed to learn the local lay of the land.

“What comes with this is history of Oneida County, the zoning of Oneida County, the people that you’re dealing with, the town chairmen you’re dealing with out there, and we’ll educate this guy so he doesn’t have to learn about what our community is made up of,” Holewinski said. 

Someone from outside the area might have broad zoning knowledge, Holewinski said, but won’t have the history of what has happened locally over so many years, and that context was important.

“This training would be part of that is what our committee felt,” he said.

Holewinski also noted the scope of responsibilities.

“But also you have to remember that this position is overseeing two departments,” he said. “So there is a lot more than just zoning. They’re going to have to figure out the land and water and UW Extension department.”

Funding concerns

The estimated $34,000 cost prompted detailed discussion about funding sources. Lueneburg explained that the amount reflected paying the new hire from June 1 through August 31 and assumed hiring somebody that would like to start by June 1. 

She also noted that the incoming director would likely not start at the top of the wage schedule, potentially offsetting some of the expense over time. Holewinski also pointed to increased permit revenues.

“We raised our permit fees in ’25,” he said. “Our budget was like $188,000 above that. Can we use some of that money?”

Finance director Tina Smigielski cautioned that only revenue exceeding the budget would qualify as surplus.

“My only caution with that is that in 2025 when we built the 2026 budget, those revenues were already budgeted once,” Smigielski said. “So to now say we’re going to use those revenues somewhere else… now if we budgeted let’s say $180,000 and he gets $200,000, then yes, that $20,000 that is above and beyond what was budgeted for can be used within his department.”

Another question was whether the funding source should be explicitly stated in the motion, but after a motion was made to specify that the funding would come from the department’s 2026 budget, Schreier said he still wasn’t satisfied.

“That is way still too vague in my opinion,” Schreier said. “If they have vacancy dollars, then that should be designated, and that’s how it should be directed. But to say it’s up to the department to figure out how they’re going to fund the overlap — is this what we normally do with overlap? Do we tell each department, ‘Okay, you figure out how you’re going to fund this, and then you just figure it out amongst yourselves?’”

Schreier said no one had identified how that funding was going to be structured.

“To me, we approve a budget, here’s your budget, and this is what you’ve identified — where your revenues are going, and whether it’s tax or what you’re bringing in,” he said.

But now that process was changing, Schreier said.

“Now we’re saying we want you to factor in potentially another $35,000 into a budget we’ve already approved for your department, which in my mind also changes the budget that we approved in November because you can’t just say, ‘I hope that you find revenue,’” he said. “And then if they don’t, that we’re going to go and retroactively tap it from somewhere else.” 

Budget specificity was missing, Schreier said.

“You are making a motion to increase expenses to a department, but you are not saying this is how you’re going to cover that cost, other than we hope you’ll find the difference in getting revenue somewhere,” he said. “It’s not a very responsible way to fund anything, whether it’s overlap or anything else.”

The best option would be to fund the overlap with contingency dollars, Schreier said.

“If they bring in more funds, then that goes into the general fund, and it’s all good, but you’re creating an unknown within a department to fund something,” he said. “It’s not responsible, in my opinion.”

Lueneburg said there are often unplanned expenses, especially when people retire.

“Besides overlap training, when people retire, there’s sometimes PTO [Paid Time Off] payouts, there’s retiree health that sometimes was not planned for,” she said. “If you don’t know a year ahead of time that someone’s going to be giving their notice for retirement, a lot of times that department’s budget has to work through those additional costs that they didn’t budget for. And I think the understanding was, do the best you can, and then at the end of the year we will see where you are at. And then at that time it’s taken on as contingency or the general fund.”

Lueneburg said she believed that was the strategy the county had used for years for other matters, such as retiree health and PTO payouts.

But Schreier said there was a critical difference between those costs and the overlap proposal.

“Those are costs that you don’t really technically have any control over,” he said. “When someone decides to retire, you have an obligation, and that’s a cost you have to cover, whether it’s within a department’s budget or otherwise. That’s an obligation you have to that employee. That’s by law. We don’t have any way to work around that.”

But there are no legal constraints here, Schreier said. 

“We don’t have any requirement by law to provide the funding for overlap,” he said. “So what I’m saying is, yes, I understand that those things come up, and they are told you need to find that within your budget. And if you don’t have it at the end of the year, it gets made up through contingencies.”

But that’s something the county is obligated to do, Schreier said.

“You don’t have an obligation on this particular funding,” he said. “And I have a responsibility to my constituents to say that when I sit down and put my hat on and bring that budget here in November, this is what we’re anticipating.”

There was precedent to think about, too, Schreier said.

“And all of a sudden it’s like, okay, well, what if we have two or three more retirements here?” he asked. “And they’re all saying, ‘Geez, precedent now is three months overlap regardless of what it costs.’”

That’s likely not going to end well, Schreier said.

“And if I have it, I have it,” he said. “And if I don’t, guess what? It comes out of contingency, ‘no skin off my a — .’ …  It does sound irresponsible to me, and you should either commit to spending down your contingency to cover this cost or not. And if you think that it’s responsible to tell a department that you just need to figure out how to cover that, and don’t worry about it if you don’t, that's not a very responsible way to structure a budget, in my opinion.”

What’s more, other critical positions don’t overlap, Schreier said.

“I chair public safety where only one position is elected,” he said. “They don’t have a luxury overlap. I mean, you either do your job well and then keep your job or you don’t, and they elect someone else. But guess what? The new guy doesn’t get to hang around with the old guy. You’re out the door. You don’t hold that position anymore. You’re unelected.”

Supporters call it an investment

Luenenburg defended the proposal.

“This is an investment in making sure that that department runs smooth,” she said. “It’s the department that gets some of the most public spotlight of any department in the county.”

She emphasized the timing of Jennrich’s departure.

“He’s leaving at the busiest time of the year,” she said. “There is probably enough work if they had two zoning directors.”

Supporters also pointed to ongoing legal matters and complex permitting workloads that demand continuity.

Fried said the overlap could help preserve revenue generation during peak season.

“With the revenues it’s been able to achieve, I think by doing this it’ll allow them to continue moving forward without stalling or delaying things, and that can turn into dollars,” he said.

Ultimately, the committee amended the motion to specify that the overlap funding would come from the department’s 2026 budget.

The final vote on the overall motion was 5-1, with Schreier dissenting and one absent.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.