[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6285545,"mediaKeyId","2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5","parentId",2570730,"title","Board approves midyear budget amendments and updates budget policy; debate over reserve levels continues","audioSeconds",5140,"startMs",9236000,"endMs",14376000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5&start=9236&end=14376","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5/thumbnail_9236000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6285545/Napa-County/California/Board-approves-midyear-budget-amendments-and-updates-budget-policy-debate-over-reserve-levels-continues","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6285545-ed2f1e262b2639e1b4c7d4f1e4930616/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195764&Signature=degt98FYHa8eNwM96gcc5CWT8tHBgLmR4oiPKEOlcFH1u~SOXK-S6ZpkIIaRXxeDaxj96LFbSy1RmtMFANKx~T-3Pb3Batkdb2mmBT5LZBHUnZfZAEyZfL0tPuAwS26B2S~VhXd0aL9-GOFcTszxq1i47-ggcR2CslQV2-wZu0RVZbf5HHJ6S5fFnP9sR8XD15mval1opwufGEIElbiQkAIYaV72Qx1xiVfmFWVXDwSpO1WcpegR8u6ni32mPOmXptHukeyHyp6Kjm~nrBoHIHB6QhY82vDnG0sJR76HyIavp2fmDu-Rwry8335PExzlxVSE3I6xwq9Et~SWEkAnlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Napa County CA","date","2025-03-11T22:13:50Z","article","The Napa County Board of Supervisors on March 11 reviewed the county's midyear fiscal status and approved several budgetary actions, including updates to budget policy and midyear appropriation adjustments. Daniel Sanchez, analyst in the CEO's office, told the board the county's available fund balance at midyear was roughly $52 million and the projected general fund ending balance for the fiscal year is about $23 million.

Sanchez described updates to two documents: the annual budget policy guidelines (a GFOA best practice document the board reviews annually) and the policy for budgetary controls (a resolution the board adopts less frequently). Key technical changes include clarifying general reserve language, recognizing certain revenues earlier in the recommended budget, and tightening rules around transfers and capital asset definitions.

The presentation and subsequent discussion focused largely on reserve policy and how to treat a previously designated 'fiscal uncertainty' balance. Treasurer and Tax Collector John Menahan explained the policy history: the county earlier maintained both a general reserve and a separate fiscal uncertainty designation intended to give the board near‑term flexibility. Menahan noted that past practice had emphasized that separate designation to preserve board flexibility in uncertain times.

Several supervisors and the treasurer debated whether to reclassify the fiscal uncertainty amount into the general reserve now or preserve the separate designation. Supervisor Belia Ramos urged caution and asked that the county not automatically move the entire fiscal uncertainty balance into a general reserve that the board could access only under stricter rules. Treasurer Menahan said the preexisting designations offered the board more flexibility; county finance staff and the CEO said increasing the strategic reserve to align with GFOA practice was a stated objective.

After discussion the board took three related actions: it adopted a resolution modifying the policy for budgetary controls (vote recorded as unanimous), approved the annual budget policy guidelines (board recorded a 3' 2 vote on that action), and approved a set of midyear budget amendments that reclassify portions of fund balance and provide appropriation authority for departments to complete the fiscal year work. The midyear amendments were approved with a motion that also asked staff to form an ad hoc committee to review fiscal uncertainty and reserve levels as the board prepares the coming fiscal year budget.

Votes and fiscal highlights: The county's largest ongoing expense remains salary and benefits; Sanchez said the most material revenue growth continues to be property tax while transient occupancy and sales tax showed some softness in recent collections. The board approved midyear appropriations for department needs, including public safety, corrections and other operating accounts; administrators said departments with projected vacancies would reallocate savings where appropriate to cover anticipated overtime and other needs.

The board asked staff to return with additional written detail for several line items and to convene an ad hoc committee to examine reserve designations and recommended levels as the recommended budget is prepared for the 2025'26 fiscal year.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County of Napa - Board of Supervisors March 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Napa County Board of Supervisors on March 11 approved midyear budget amendments and changes to budget policy after a multi-hour briefing on reserves, revenues and projected year-end balances.","taxTitle","Napa County, California","taxId",5735,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6285550,"Napa County directs staff to revise micro‑winery ordinance, seeks industry input on trade‑visit rules",4795,4372000,9167000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5&start=4372&end=9167","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5/thumbnail_4372000.jpg","/articles/6285550/Napa-County/California/Napa-County-directs-staff-to-revise-microwinery-ordinance-seeks-industry-input-on-tradevisit-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6285550-c645861ad94f7f58259c2bfac423a840/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195764&Signature=fzhXZuEGebuyhQ~1uY24kXgz2BQAYVo7d7NGdr~MLZEIiSrJrLn4XPF8jn3kPrU~Yt2O2lczbnuEvYSKW95e7B9LBRSUDsDcsCFSrTbYj2tfT9DrlVN93f861lJx3sFvzTQLCGH0rYvZAq1~DvFrCh8~b3Yyqmh7U-haCJ8tf97SuHYw9OV4x8MCAXV-Q2UufvuczbkwbTNxhLFXS02k6NeptWp-S2xPxEyPaP7aDPGVj2wl2ifAQWwUa1zeTIR3l3nzOUYkf2ohz96dUyZ2~E16-Z5hP0X0mMhaMeWu0OewO-6znkbG6d6arFZEk7vqcS~5Onq7SJK2sjaDqDEmsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Napa County Board of Supervisors on March 11 directed county planning staff to return with a recommended update to the county's micro winery ordinance that would remove the ordinance's May 5, 2025 sunset and bring forward amendments shaped by stakeholders and the Planning Commission. The board made the instruction by unanimous vote: motion by Supervisor Joelle Gallagher, second by Supervisor John Alessio.

The action follows several hours of public comment from small vineyard owners, winemakers and industry groups who said the current micro winery pathway has not eased the regulatory or financial burdens they face. Michael Parker, senior planner in the county's Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department, explained the rules staff built into the ordinance and noted its sunset clause: “No application for a new micro winery use permit . . . shall be considered 3 years after 05/05/2022, unless the provisions . . . are extended, readopted, or amended by the Board of Supervisors.”

Supporters of keeping and improving the ordinance said it was intended to help small family farms keep producing and to provide a smaller, direct‑to‑consumer sales channel. “Microproducers are still in a state of crisis,” Elise Nurlov, vice president of Save the Family Farms, told the board. “We support option 1, but we need a sense of urgency.” Speakers urged changes that would reduce costs, clarify vineyard requirements, and speed approvals.

Some commenters warned that proposed clarifications could unintentionally block new entrants. Rachel Lenahan read a letter from attorney Catherine Filopakis urging the board not to require vineyards be already producing at the time a micro winery application is filed: “If you force vineyard and permitting proceeds to be run sequentially rather than in tandem, it could take almost 10 years for a landowner to have a micro winery approved and built.” Several other growers, including Hannah Ron and Ken Nurlov, described challenges getting through the current application process and said the ordinance should be made permanently available and more usable.

Planning Director Brian Bordona responded to industry concerns raised separately about county interpretation of rules for trade or industry visits at wineries, saying staff is taking the questions seriously and will continue outreach: “It's important to note that on this matter, there have been no changes in staff's interpretation or application of these regulations.” Bordona told the board he has met with speakers and trade groups and will continue that outreach while staff prepares a recommended ordinance update.

Board members pressed staff to focus amendments on items the county can control — for example, the micro winery application process, production and visitation caps, and administrative streamlining — rather than state‑level requirements such as road or fire standards. Supervisors said they wanted the update to be thorough but timely; staff estimated a public outreach and Planning Commission process would take roughly three months and expected to return to the board in the summer with proposed ordinance language.

The board's directive sends staff back to draft a detailed ordinance update, incorporating stakeholder feedback and Planning Commission review, aimed at removing the sunset clause and making county‑level improvements. The motion also included an instruction to prioritize amendments under county jurisdiction.

Votes and next steps: Motion by Supervisor Joelle Gallagher, second by Supervisor John Alessio. Vote tally: 5–0 in favor. Staff said it will hold stakeholder meetings and Planning Commission hearings and return with a proposed ordinance (staff estimated a 3–6 month process).","The Napa County Board of Supervisors on March 11 directed county planning staff to return with a recommended update to the county's micro winery ordinance that would remove the ordinance's May 5, 2025 sunset and bring forward amendments shaped by stakeholders and the Planning Commission.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6285540,"Board reports settlement in Cassie McKee litigation; no reportable action on PBES evaluation",0,10828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5&start=10828&end=10828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2570730-07fd740c1d248427004caeb800072cb5/thumbnail_10828000.jpg","/articles/6285540/Napa-County/California/Board-reports-settlement-in-Cassie-McKee-litigation-no-reportable-action-on-PBES-evaluation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6285540-477fe04aa5e2bc83026215eb8687199b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195764&Signature=Lpk2cYzPqs43KINaDeiAtbt8qLq1H~EZdE7REtxx6IlQ~Akvmnog7xdr6D551G5ZNVG3vo0FQ9l1OI03ZIYjQgkWC0paze5MMeuZQkLlQpQYWXPddxn2vdGgJaZv-EJf4VOkIwoBiudJ4IqyA-z-KH4zhQ7wXFzm8s6G3zAF2YoYAwIKGae80Rbpbc3Ttq4gE1oPi-qUm7YS47R-I~Z5FQGOZIS9aQuPgBrV7hxMwHGemu9B6DK-TQyOJNqFHalYEZiYTqCKuf4yNtY8l2NZSE2msGVAeTOEWsSqTYvI1yM7JSGvJHoSuFC8oPDoO-clANFl-YpvH1qCvJUsGhV9vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Napa County Board of Supervisors reported out March 11 that during closed session the board voted on February 25 to approve an offer of $148,500 to settle pending litigation with Cassie McKee. County counsel reported the other side has accepted the settlement and the matter will be resolved.

County counsel (reported by Exempt Staff) said the board's February 25 vote approved the settlement offer; the March 11 report out confirmed acceptance and completion of settlement paperwork. The board also met in closed session for a performance evaluation of the director of the Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department and gave no reportable action on that evaluation.

The board adjourned following the report out; the settlement will be handled through the county's normal claims and settlement procedures for closed civil litigation matters.","After closed session the board reported it unanimously approved a $148,500 settlement to resolve Cassie McKee v. County of Napa; the board also conducted a closed‑session performance review of the Planning, Building and Environmental Services director and reported no reportable action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves midyear budget amendments and updates budget policy; debate over reserve levels continues

Napa County directs staff to revise micro‑winery ordinance, seeks industry input on trade‑visit rules

Board reports settlement in Cassie McKee litigation; no reportable action on PBES evaluation