[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,74,86,98],{"_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":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6536650,"mediaKeyId","3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed","parentId",3744641,"title","County explores leasing, plug-in hybrids and charging infrastructure to curb fleet costs","audioSeconds",555,"startMs",7306105,"endMs",7861119,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed&start=7306&end=7861","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed/thumbnail_7306105.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6536650/Madera-County/California/County-explores-leasing-plug-in-hybrids-and-charging-infrastructure-to-curb-fleet-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536650-5eae4fd4f9e6e7c994c64f28edcdbac7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175637&Signature=oaFPkOyBxb69BSk5OCoFay5xaHDNgL1Z5X0vBOV3HaT7ZwxboF2JEkMx54bImPpN3D~FsjhP9Nn971067sxaVDLiT~dBTTY9iYM1PPM1osBzB2oalqNdVUyS0zEevz8VysXSs56J9Dk8m3JaWE6~Hi~6Po1UoL9pisgW8KTS42OsKjy5qsAHVAseGw1nTgMBsLwQKb-1jsp~rt0Sr4-hjl6hYJlDmBBTwiW7Htp9jG49s0rssXyxGgMm2sfb3vChdilIIFVkCHq5~8I9ssclhrsCkxPaGCJYnxSv5r4pHhPY4ulgzUx3APbziS-x0b11BhgXqgU1YW~Cz8YUzjEgoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-10T20:18:15.307Z","article","During the budget hearings, the county's fleet services budget and alternatives to the traditional buy-and-retire vehicle model drew sustained attention.

The Fleet Services recommended budget for FY2025-26 was listed at $9,054,003.18, a reported increase driven largely by equipment purchases. Mike Motts, sheriff civil unit manager and acting fleet superintendent, told the board a shift to leasing or managed-buy/sell arrangements could produce substantial savings on maintenance, residual values and replacement timing.

Motts and County Administrative Office staff said the county already uses some municipal leasing but is evaluating third-party leasing and fleet-management firms that buy, time and resell vehicles in markets where residual value is higher; staff argued that expertise in market timing can preserve equity and reduce total lifecycle cost for many vehicle types.

Electrification and charging infrastructure
Supervisors and fleet staff discussed pilot steps toward electrification. Motts said he has discussed going to plug-in hybrid models for some vehicles and is pursuing grant funding opportunities through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to cover initial costs of plug-in hybrids or charging equipment.

County administration, including Joel Begay, said the county will study options and expects to return later in the summer with a formal presentation, including contract structures and cost-comparison scenarios. Staff noted the county must ensure charging infrastructure is in place before a large-scale switch to fully electric vehicles.

Why it matters: fleet fuel and maintenance are recurring county costs and are vulnerable to volatile fuel prices and market changes in vehicle residual values. Supervisors noted regional refinery closures and potential fuel-supply pressures as a fiscal risk to monitor.

No decision yet
The board did not authorize a specific contract or procurement at the hearing; staff will prepare comparative analyses and vendor presentations for a future regular board meeting.

Ending
Staff said they will return with a detailed proposal this summer that will include leasing options, cost comparisons, and grant opportunities for vehicle electrification and charging infrastructure.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOS Special Meeting 06/09/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Madera County staff told supervisors they are evaluating leased fleet models and pilot plug-in hybrid vehicles to reduce maintenance and fuel costs; administration will study contract options and pursue grant funding for charging infrastructure.","taxTitle","Madera County, California","taxId",4595,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6536654,"Public Works outlines special-district budgets; board questions SR 41 impact-fee accounting and consolidation options",5014,5367305,10381931,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed&start=5367&end=10381","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed/thumbnail_5367305.jpg","/articles/6536654/Madera-County/California/Public-Works-outlines-special-district-budgets-board-questions-SR-41-impact-fee-accounting-and-consolidation-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536654-8a2123b64e7c93f82a1012ed72e0d80d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175637&Signature=Q5CisPKLuHOQyl0sHOBdwVpG9OQU1sTtXrAJWUMw58Ex47doKKShFzSWYVF9N36xoPRJOv2bvxBsQhsYmSNmE9SkxKjTnYCWEQKphrbQysWUa0C3gKpzEu27T1HC3DIbgfOWIzhGqwSB3AiXM2MUOZSuEk7yRnB~HzQcHs~~sX8519IDP5RWf-UImQyUNqf9thjAomlEIcwNNfzyL-BXE~Nw9gz5ZTvHhobEkHi~dXzCg~WVc~3yGXTszSNuNoPSwd1gXnvLLTEf0G6gtkhTvCAkyVBio78dIZt2DoDaOrEiuSRuf3CLdQQG~IUeLvkMD1KtJPNPIIm2yRBwjMo~Pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Madera County Public Works Department presented the proposed FY2025-26 special districts budgets on June 9, describing operations for roughly 120 road districts and 33 water and sewer districts and listing nearly $18 million in road-district fund balances.

Dominic Tyburski, Public Works, walked supervisors through maps and line-item tables showing lane miles, connections and proposed budgets by supervisorial district. Staff highlighted grant-supported water and sewer improvement projects (about $5.6 million completed recently and $9.1 million underway) and said Measure T has supplemented district work, enabling more miles of road surfacing in recent years.

Board questions: consolidation, right-sizing and evacuation routes
Supervisors asked about opportunities to combine underfunded districts and to 'right-size' maintenance assessments where communities have paid low rates for decades and can't sustain needed upkeep. Supervisor McCauley urged staff to consider maintenance needs that affect evacuation routes and vegetation control as part of any consolidation or rate discussion.

Public comment and SR 41 fee questions
A public commenter, Dan Metz of Sierra Citizens for Sensible Government, questioned a large apparent jump in road-impact fee revenue reported in the proposed budget. Metz said historical annual road-impact fees typically totaled $10'$12 million, but the proposed materials showed $26 million.

County staff responded that the $26.2 million figure reflects actual collections in the current fiscal year driven by development along the State Route 41 corridor; staff said the higher receipts were not an accounting error but current-year actuals. Staff also explained that the road-impact fee program is split between county/regional projects and funds earmarked for the SR 41 improvements. Any inter-fund loan or transfer to move county/regional fee balances into the SR 41 project would require a formal board action and a loan-and-repayment document under county rules.

Staff noted available project funding for SR 41 composed of federal dollars (about $26.9 million cited by staff), existing road-impact fee balances, and other sources such as enhanced infrastructure financing districts; staff estimated approximately $86 million in identified funding toward programming and construction steps but said the total project cost remains substantially larger and will be phased.

Why it matters: special districts manage local roads and water systems for small communities; underfunded districts and fragmented fee structures can produce deferred maintenance and raise public-safety concerns during wildfire and evacuation events. Board members signaled interest in outreach and town halls to gain constituent support for rate adjustments or consolidation.

Clarifying details and next steps
- Public Works said the county oversees about 120 special road districts and 33 water/sewer districts; the presentation included lane-mile and connection counts by supervisorial district.
- Staff said Measure T contributed approximately $2 million to road resurfacing work in the prior year, enabling more miles to be treated.
- County will continue outreach to district residents to seek consent for consolidation or rate adjustments where feasible.

Ending
Public Works said it will continue constituent outreach, pursue grant funding for water and sewer projects and return to the board with findings on consolidation and right-sizing options. The special-district budgets were included in the adopted county budgets the same day; any transfer of impact-fee balances into SR 41 funding requires a separate board action with documented loan and repayment terms.
","Public Works presented proposed FY25-26 special district budgets for roads, water and sewer; supervisors raised consolidation and right-sizing as priorities and a public commenter questioned a jump in road impact fee revenues and how fees will be applied to the State Route 41 project.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_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":56,"_73":56},6536659,"Supervisors press city on animal-services cost-sharing as county fee study proceeds",585,3717540,4302615,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed&start=3717&end=4302","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed/thumbnail_3717540.jpg","/articles/6536659/Madera-County/California/Supervisors-press-city-on-animal-services-cost-sharing-as-county-fee-study-proceeds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536659-dc5c34018334fb2c43a1ff7b039ba31c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175637&Signature=LWY8F06c-bhuCzs-rW3HTirRBRgco5lXCat4s3Gp5zBBQcXQ4iQWF0n6vztOoZ49ug3NqXcxJyRYOnzXTos60e42OPDawz0KSBNZRVaNK2RDEPZYVkyXCv37VOWoOXhsl2G5ww2qW0j23vFXB5d1EXI9GYOs23R9m2bvmFbJv6NTDVI0A-6mIoVaz6P7ma9dFpTEo7g-c~QoinoRfQGPQUBOMvKhEGQQhUnJYH9g656kFe5ZzjnzCigJubJocnS0tZPF3x~fKp60gfS8sAHEAmE8tbl~T6wZjyNe6NSGjo7vbC2ahXqhk750gF2nB-4caJXX6PNMbKdPQ5hSfc9eLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the June 9 budget hearing, Madera County supervisors and Animal Services Director Amy Toller raised concerns about cost-sharing with cities for animal-control services and asked administration to accelerate a fee study to quantify the county's costs.

Director Amy Toller presented the animal services recommended budget of $2,166,006.51, saying the department faces spending increases while reducing net county cost by roughly $70,009 compared with the prior year. The budget lists 20 allocated positions, of which two are unfunded.

Toller told the board that the City of Chowchilla largely manages its own shelter and relies on county assistance for some programs, while the City of Madera does not operate a shelter and sends animals to the county facility. She said the City of Madera pays approximately $180,000 per year but accounts for about 40% of animals brought to the county facility; Toller said the county therefore bears a disproportionate share of medical and euthanasia costs. When asked for an exact city-to-county cost breakdown, Toller said a fee study is underway and current detailed cost figures are not yet available.

Supervisor reaction and next steps
Several supervisors urged administration to press the cities for equitable cost-sharing and to consider contractual or termination options in existing agreements. Administration noted a six-month cancellation clause exists in the county's agreement with the City of Madera and said the county could exercise that clause after completing financial analysis.

County administration and Community and Economic Development staff said they are working with consultant NBS on a countywide fee study, with an expected presentation to the board in fall or winter 2025. Joel Begay told the board administration could also update a county 2018 animal-shelter study to avoid duplicative consultant work and provide an interim cost estimate sooner.

Why it matters: supervisors framed the animal-services imbalance as a potential near-term fix for budget shortfalls. Board members suggested that more accurate city-county billing could materially reduce county general-fund pressure and asked for an expedited, data-driven analysis to inform negotiations.

Clarifying details from the hearing
- Animal Services recommended expenditures: $2,166,006.51 (CAO presentation).
- Allocated positions in the animal-services budget: 20, two unfunded (per CAO/department statements).
- City of Madera annual payment referenced by staff: about $180,000; county staff said the city accounts for about 40% of intake volume.
- Fee study vendor: NBS (county staff said goal is board consideration in fall/winter 2025). The county will review and may update its 2018 internal study to provide interim figures.

No formal action taken
The board requested updated fee-study results, asked staff to prepare share-of-cost analyses, and directed administration to begin direct outreach with city officials. No contract changes or formal intergovernmental agreements were approved at the hearing.

Ending
Administration said it would return with the NBS fee-study results and a county analysis that will break down intake volumes, per-animal medical costs and the cost impact of city payments. Supervisors emphasized urgency given the county's narrowed fund balance and asked staff for timelines that could support near-term negotiations or agreement changes.","Board members flagged that the county is carrying the bulk of animal-control costs while the City of Madera pays significantly less; staff said a city-county fee study is underway with results targeted for fall/winter and that the county is updating a 2018 study to determine fair shares.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6536665,"Madera County adopts $578.4 million budget, leaves slim reserve and flags $4M LATCF as contingency",8726,1836516,10562575,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed&start=1836&end=10562","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3744641-35aecee66cf85a101f60973ae6f045ed/thumbnail_1836516.jpg","/articles/6536665/Madera-County/California/Madera-County-adopts-5784-million-budget-leaves-slim-reserve-and-flags-4M-LATCF-as-contingency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536665-65cfbfe50ffa51256e0cfb0e302c66b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175637&Signature=G61jBXpVLj2grffs9Wi7dIr-8UeWqFmf6lV6fqdigaKBow7FDZ69zEYOHKQzQrE3fycHt6U6nJcuW8DzEWxdmo2tbdh33rl1No9ksqElaOmtYXh-rJeHU9L3vdJkpKw0M7ZuqMRYOVs4p2QimG77hBELsnxdvXflAxfBvqV8I6Xk1P5cE9RlM4s-A37gXTT4WUzneP8McEY~kA-ddncZc04zX3d6pBneoJTOJ7enWhTP7CE5jOangMe7duOZyAKwb1JYHJQZKyvYAZ1iVyZdWz7bSWBSVrkDPC2ecwp60ATHoVowqnHWSAE27l-9DJilxfg36SOTya5WkfBhVtVm8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Madera County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on June 9 to adopt the county'wide fiscal year 2025-26 budgets, approving a proposed operating budget of $578,436,287 and a package that includes general, special revenue and special districts budgets.

County Chief Administrative Officer Jay Varney and County Administrative Office staff presented the proposal, which reflects an overall increase of just over $47 million across all funds and projects county revenues just above $108 million for the year.

The adopted plan reduces the number of funded positions to 11,754.75, a net decrease of 22.25 positions from the prior year; administration said 41 positions were unfunded to meet net county cost targets and that the unfunded positions are currently vacant. The budget continues a long-standing allocation of discretionary funds to public safety; staff reported 73% of discretionary spending is dedicated to public protection.

Why it matters: supervisors and staff said the county is close to fiscal balance but still faces a small operating deficit and a near-depleted reserve. The county'wide fund balance reserve would fall to an estimated $319,000 at year-end under current projections, and staff identified roughly $4 million in Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funding (LATCF) from the American Rescue Plan Act as a flexible source the board could use to plug shortfalls.

Key figures and drivers
- Proposed operating budget: $578,436,287 (across county funds).
- Projected county revenues: just over $108,000,000 (a projected increase of about $5.1 million, or 4.6%).
- Net funded positions: 11,754.75 (net decrease of 22.25); 41 positions were listed as unfunded and described as currently vacant.
- Projected operating deficit in the proposed budget: $1,200,000; conservative salary-savings assumptions reduce projected year-end deficit to $748,000; projected year-end fund balance reserve $319,000.
- LATCF (described by staff as ARPA-authorized flexible funding): just over $4 million available as an option to offset deficits; staff did not recommend its use at adoption but discussed it as a contingency.

Staff and board briefing
CAO Jay Varney opened the presentation, and Joel Begay, County Administrative Office, provided slides and analysis. Begay and Jay Varney told the board they have reduced the budget deficit from an adopted $6.8 million in FY2024-25 to the figures before the board through hiring freezes, selective unfunding and efficiencies.

Begay highlighted several cost drivers: retiree health premiums (a roughly $1.1 million year-over-year increase, attributed in part to national-level Medicare/prescription benefit changes), timing differences in election reimbursement, and a reversion to higher CAL FIRE cooperative agreement costs (roughly $700,000 increase compared with a one-time state reduction in the prior year).

Policy choices and board discussion
Supervisors pressed staff on the fund balance, how and whether LATCF should be treated as part of reserves, and on longer-term revenue prospects. Begay explained LATCF is budgeted as a special revenue fund and, under county practice and the LATCF rules, is not automatically included in the general fund reserve; the board can authorize loans or transfers between funds following a formal process.

Multiple supervisors urged continued hiring freezes and strategic use of attrition to keep payroll cost growth manageable. Several supervisors also asked that administration pursue contract renegotiations for specialized services and examine organizational consolidations where possible.

Items called out by staff and supervisors included:
- The county anticipates only modest revenue growth in sales and property taxes, noting declines in agricultural property valuations offsetting residential gains in some areas.
- A substantial portion of budget increases is non-discretionary or subvented (state/federal pass-through) spending, including health and mental-health programs.
- The county's retiree health and liability insurance premiums are rising and materially affect the general government budget.

Public engagement and next steps
The board opened public comment during the hearing and left the public hearing on some special revenue items open while other hearings continued. Administration noted the county will not finalize all budgets until special districts hearings conclude; the board adopted the county budgets after the day's hearings.

Vote and formal action
On item 5(a) the board adopted a resolution approving the FY2025-26 county budgets, including general, special revenue and special districts budgets. The motion passed on a 5-0 roll-call vote. The resolution text was filed with the clerk as part of the meeting record.

What the budget does not decide
Staff cautioned the board that using LATCF to plug recurring operating shortfalls would reduce the flexibility of those one-time funds. Begay said any transfer or loan between special revenue and general funds requires a separate, documented action by the board with repayment terms. No such loan or transfer was adopted as part of the budget vote.

Ending
With the resolution adopted, staff said departments will continue quarterly revenue monitoring and that administration will bring recommendations later in the fiscal year if the board wants to authorize use of LATCF or other one-time funds to cover structural shortfalls. Supervisors asked administration to pursue contract renegotiations and to accelerate fee studies and other measures to shore up recurring revenue.
","The Madera County Board of Supervisors on June 9 approved the county'wide FY2025-26 budgets, adopting a $578.4 million operating plan while projecting a small operating deficit and a dramatically reduced fund balance; supervisors discussed use of $4 million in LATCF funds and unfunding 41 positions to reduce net county costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County explores leasing, plug-in hybrids and charging infrastructure to curb fleet costs

Public Works outlines special-district budgets; board questions SR 41 impact-fee accounting and consolidation options

Supervisors press city on animal-services cost-sharing as county fee study proceeds

Madera County adopts $578.4 million budget, leaves slim reserve and flags $4M LATCF as contingency