[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6609738,"mediaKeyId","2906690-816de1f28c06e9f8778dd315141d33af","parentId",2906690,"title","Board directs staff to draft balanced FY 2025–26 budget; options include hiring freeze and targeted cuts","audioSeconds",6792,"startMs",528000,"endMs",7320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2906690-816de1f28c06e9f8778dd315141d33af&start=528&end=7320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2906690-816de1f28c06e9f8778dd315141d33af/thumbnail_528000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6609738/Mendocino-County/California/Board-directs-staff-to-draft-balanced-FY-202526-budget-options-include-hiring-freeze-and-targeted-cuts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609738-dffbe22c408a3c7595946232734c4633/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171446&Signature=Efl7p7bkPJknnsXCyq1tCzHToftXRrsgGzZQ6232asd8m~taLKiuKq9CObTu3Ai2PSjm0VlW50Pe2Ldxr6p7mZCnRzyamZVjrJTLMEbvryzIR0CLbuzPXygbVqYOwzojjfjw5Uel3F9qaSHv9QSbZukzOBUhpj8ZgIHgBEQ~rB7~6mGkG4KLc3fW2CBaEFwjQJuxWubVgBF4Bmpa~kxPcGMLfnpZgFnI5KaPX11Fy62SfYOTV50fXhOEExEgi6z5uaCGX~OowEpxmR3RkzKHXXk0V6Hp2GW-LxWaKyjnHx7o1PHfT3tSlJNPOuK358YOkasn-lzldXtRoNEzSJkzMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Mendocino County CA","date","2025-04-09T00:48:13.183Z","article","The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on April 8 directed county staff to draft a balanced fiscal year 2025–26 budget that starts from a baseline that does not rely on one‑time funds, and to return with specific options to close a projected $17 million shortfall.

Acting Assistant CEO Sarah Pierce told the board the county is currently projecting a roughly $17,000,000 deficit for FY 2025–26, after accounting for revenue estimates and operating transfers out. Pierce also told supervisors the county learned this week that the federal Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program — for which the county had a multiyear application and a Phase 1 award — has been canceled at the federal level. Pierce said the county has incurred about $77,000 in BRIC project costs to date and is working with state partners to determine whether any federal funds can still be recovered.

Why it matters: Supervisors and staff framed the shortfall as structural — recurring personnel and service costs outpacing flat non‑departmental revenues — and said postponing action by relying on one‑time reserves would only delay harder choices. The board asked staff to show explicitly what a budget would look like if it were balanced without one‑time funds, and to present a set of concrete options that could reasonably be implemented in 2025–26.

What staff will return with: Deputy CEO Tony Rakes and budget staff said they will bring a set of scenarios and supporting detail. The board asked for at least the following to be analyzed and returned to the board for deliberation:
- A baseline budget built per “Scenario A” (no one‑time funding used to balance recurring costs). Staff will show what services and positions would need to be reduced to reach balance.
- A second scenario that uses limited one‑time funds as a gap filler and shows the difference in required cuts.
- Quantified options for staff reductions (hiring freeze impacts, review and removal of budgeted vacancies, and, if necessary, workforce reductions), including dollar amounts tied to each option and the operational impacts.
- A list of budgeted but vacant positions and the estimated savings if budgeted vacancies are removed.
- A review of contracts, conferences and discretionary services and potential reductions, and an estimate of the savings.
- A proposal to evaluate voluntary separation incentives where that could reduce recurring payroll obligations.

Board direction and votes: Supervisor Ted Williams (mover) asked staff to produce the Scenario A baseline and the suite of options to close the $17 million gap; the board voted to direct staff as requested. That directive was recorded on a roll call vote. Supervisors emphasized they wanted options that made clear the tradeoffs: which services would be reduced, which positions would be affected, and which reductions would carry ongoing obligations.

Related budget context discussed at the meeting:
- Revenues: Non‑departmental revenues were presented at about $96.8 million for FY 2025–26; after required operating transfers out (debt service, Measure P commitments, road transfers, and others), the figure available for general fund departments was presented at roughly $81.6 million.
- Salaries and benefits: General‑fund departments’ salaries and benefits (the 1000 series) were presented at roughly $150 million, up from $138 million in the current year; staff said a 7% increase in salary/benefit costs was included in current department submissions.
- One‑time funds: Staff listed roughly $9.1 million of “one‑time” unrestricted or restricted carry‑forward funds (retirement contribution reserve, various PG&E settlement carry forward allocations, drought funds and other one‑time items). The board asked staff to treat those as finite and to show the effect of using such funds as temporary gap solutions versus not using them.
- Federal & state risks: Staff and members of the public warned about larger external risks, including proposals in Congress to cut Medicaid/Medi‑Cal funding that could dramatically affect county health and social services and the cancellation of BRIC. Supervisors requested staff continue to track those developments and the county’s exposure.

Quotes:
- “We have to have some tough conversations around staffing and salary benefits to right‑size the budget and bring expenses in line with revenue projections,” acting Assistant CEO Sarah Pierce said. “A discussion regarding an immediate hiring freeze across all departments will need to be considered.”
- “We can’t keep balancing the budget year after year with one‑time funds,” Supervisor Ted Williams said. “If this is a structural problem, we need to face it head on.”

What happens next: County budget staff will return to the board with a baseline balanced budget (Scenario A) and a packet of options for closing the gap, with quantified savings and operational impacts. The board’s action was intended to force a clear starting point for public deliberations in coming public budget hearings.

Ending note: Multiple members of the public and several department heads told the board it should prioritize public safety and core services when weighing options. Supervisors emphasized they want transparent, data‑driven proposals that make clear the operational consequences of cuts.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Supervisors 4/8/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on April 8 directed staff to produce a baseline FY 2025–26 budget that does not rely on one‑time funds and to return with concrete options to close a projected $17 million shortfall, including hiring freezes, review of vacant positions and targeted reductions.","taxTitle","Mendocino County, California","taxId",18012,"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},6609733,"Votes at a glance: Mendocino supervisors approve a set of budget and program directions, reaffirm fire funding formula and set cannabis code interpretation",3694,14232000,17926000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2906690-816de1f28c06e9f8778dd315141d33af&start=14232&end=17926","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2906690-816de1f28c06e9f8778dd315141d33af/thumbnail_14232000.jpg","/articles/6609733/Mendocino-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Mendocino-supervisors-approve-a-set-of-budget-and-program-directions-reaffirm-fire-funding-formula-and-set-cannabis-code-interpretation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609733-06305fadffba3287d0f9642faf8d872a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171446&Signature=Mn-cpdXPNW-kXUxrG2oyjlCi86ClAix3rX~dAk2GMq9MG6rSjJVNCDxjnxbocFEg483tdHrBFpQyEJP3S1jPwPmHpWtBbCwFtCTY2wOt5W7mSE-lPBc-qg1IDqxiFaJfd8Sk5bKiiPhgnCNmyy~8TITexhph8CacIA2tlTlpEePQktKTqlwNu6-9Edg51BiNhwI6~AQpsmVpLktQA8rXTQjA05mjwsklZ0Jt9pzefTX2bZ33Twp4~UR3ygkQV04XBg~-ur0zyMPexp8A1RKwWhoYVNUg9lB11WaKp8kjyIyyeOpWci1KttwcXdy8QjjbdOEa2PJytmqC8xfGKIOPtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recorded several formal actions April 8 in Willits. Below are the board’s formal votes and short descriptions of the outcomes and next steps.

1) Consent calendar (Item 3) — Approved, unanimous
The board approved the consent calendar by roll call (unanimous). The consent calendar included multiple administrative approvals and grants. Supervisor Blazey Mulherin clarified on the record that a $2,168,000 airport apron item in the consent calendar represented grant funds (not County general fund) and that the local match was about $5,705. The board recorded the approval with a roll call vote.

2) Measure AJ (cannabis tax) — Direction to staff to provide detailed accounting and allocation plan — Approved, unanimous
Motion summary: Supervisors directed staff to present historic accounting and a plan for allocating Measure AJ cannabis business tax revenues to the four categories laid out in the advisory measure (cannabis regulation/enforcement, roads, mental health services, fire & emergency medical services). Staff are to return with specific accounting of revenues to date and options for moving forward. The motion passed unanimously.

3) Budget directive — Staff to return with a Scenario A balanced budget and options to close a $17M shortfall — Approved, unanimous
Motion summary: The board directed staff to draft a baseline FY 2025–26 budget that does not rely on one‑time funds (Scenario A) and to return with concrete options to close a projected $17,000,000 deficit, including quantified hiring freeze impacts, review of budgeted but vacant positions, targeted services/supplies cuts and, if necessary, workforce reductions. Staff will present dollarized tradeoffs for each option. The motion passed on roll call.

4) Prop 172 public safety sales tax — Reaffirm established formula for distribution to fire agencies — Approved, unanimous
Motion summary: The board reaffirmed its commitment to the previously agreed distribution of the county’s share of Proposition 172 public safety sales tax to local fire agencies: 5.46% of annual Proposition 172 revenues plus a fixed $87,521, allocated to Mendocino County’s 22 fire agencies per the formula the county has historically used. Staff were directed to apply the 2017‑era formula to FY 2025‑26 allocations and to document the distribution for transparency. Roll call recorded unanimous support.

5) Roads: $1,000,000 pilot / one‑time allocation to county road crews (Option 3) — Approved, 4–1
Motion summary: The board directed staff to incorporate a $1,000,000 one‑time pilot (Option 3) into the FY 2025‑26 budget proposal to fund targeted pavement repairs and hot‑mix treatments distributed to county road yards to address localized failures. The motion directed use of one‑time funds (including potential carryforward/reserve sources) to fund the pilot; it did not appropriate the money immediately but asked staff to model it in the budget packet. The motion passed with a 4–1 vote (Supervisor John Haschak voted no).

6) Cannabis cultivation limits — Affirmation of existing county code interpretation (two different CCBL types allowed; up to 22,000 sq ft gross where applicable; up to 10,000 sq ft for flowering on a single license type) — Approved, 3–2
Motion summary: The board voted to affirm support for the county’s existing code interpretation that permits two different CCBL license types on eligible parcels (for example a 10,000 sq ft mature canopy plus a 12,000 sq ft nursery footprint, consistent with the county’s earlier environmental analysis), and to retain the current plain‑text reading while staff proposals for legislative changes can be developed through public process. The motion passed 3–2; Supervisors Madeline Klein and John Haschak voted no. Staff were directed to return with ordinance amendment options if the board wants to adopt different language; the board also asked staff to evaluate grandfathering/transition options for applicants affected during the review period.

7) Fort Bragg Library expansion — MOU / ad‑hoc — Approved (direction)
Motion summary: The board accepted an update on the proposed Fort Bragg Branch Library expansion and appointed an ad‑hoc board subgroup (Supervisors Norvell and Williams) to work with county library staff and the Friends of the Fort Bragg Library on drafting a memorandum of understanding that would document responsibilities and conditions for property transfer and future facility operations; the board reiterated that the county would not obligate general‑fund monies without future board action.

Why this roundup matters: Together these decisions address three near‑term fiscal priorities (the FY 2025–26 structural gap, a small one‑time roads pilot, and the mechanics for distribution of targeted revenue streams such as Prop 172 and Measure AJ), clarify the county’s present legal posture on cannabis cultivation limits, and advance a community facility project for Fort Bragg. Several decisions were unanimous; others were split along policy lines, indicating issues that may be revisited in ordinance or budget hearings.

Verbatim item examples (short):
- “Please correct this oversight and recommit to supporting fire agencies,” public commenter Emily Castillo said in urging enforcement of the historic Prop 172 allocation formula.
- “We can’t keep balancing the budget year after year with one‑time funds,” Supervisor Ted Williams said when urging a clear baseline for recurring costs.

Actions summary (selected):
- Consent calendar approved (unanimous roll call)
- Staff directed to present Measure AJ accounting and allocation options (unanimous)
- Staff directed to produce Scenario A budget and options to close $17M deficit (unanimous)
- Prop 172 fire funding formula reaffirmed (unanimous)
- $1,000,000 one‑time roads pilot added to staff budget options (4–1)
- Board affirmed current cannabis code interpretation; asked staff to return with ordinance amendment options (3–2)
- Ad‑hoc (Supervisors Norvell, Williams) named to work on Fort Bragg Library MOU (direction)

What’s next: Staff will return with detailed budget scenarios, an AJ accounting and allocation report, and options related to cannabis code language if the board requests amendments. Several items will appear again in future budget workshops and regular agenda items.

","The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recorded multiple formal actions April 8, including unanimous direction for staff to produce a baseline FY 2025–26 budget without one‑time funds and a 4–1 vote to model a $1,000,000 one‑time roads pilot; the board also reaffirmed the countys Prop. 172 formula for fire funding and affirmed the current cannabis code interpretation while asking staff to return with amendment options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board directs staff to draft balanced FY 2025–26 budget; options include hiring freeze and targeted cuts

Votes at a glance: Mendocino supervisors approve a set of budget and program directions, reaffirm fire funding formula and set cannabis code interpretation