Siskiyou County on Oct. 7 held the annual public hearing required by Assembly Bill 2561 (codified as Government Code section 3502.3) to report on job vacancies, recruitment strategies and retention efforts. County staff reported an aggregate vacancy rate of 23% across bargaining units for the point-in-time analysis period (August 2025).

Why it matters: AB 2561 requires California public agencies to hold an annual public hearing presenting vacancy-rate data and the agency's efforts to recruit and retain employees. The data can inform budget, recruitment and policy decisions.

What staff presented: Haley Hudson, Deputy County Administrator, presented an updated staff report and vacancy table. Hudson said five positions originally included in the Deputy Sheriffs Association calculation should not have been counted: three were extra-help positions (not included under the statute), one was a correctional court position that is no longer filled when vacated, and one collateral correctional-sergeant position had been vacated by an employee who retired with industrial disability and should have been excluded. With those adjustments, the correct Deputy Sheriffs Association vacancy rate for the reporting period is 16% (improved from an initial 21% figure in the draft report).

Recruitment and retention measures: Hudson listed ongoing county efforts: posting across multiple recruitment platforms and specialized job boards, attending job fairs, evaluating recruitment timelines, career-development and internal mobility programs, training support, tuition reimbursement, employee-recognition awards, expanded employee-assistance programs, and flexible scheduling to support work-life balance.

Board comments: Supervisors noted surprise at the overall vacancy level but acknowledged the county is not alone in facing hiring challenges. One supervisor urged greater investment in training, morale and internal succession planning to reduce reliance on outside hires.

Outcome: The hearing was informational; the board received the report and provided comments. No policy changes or votes were taken at the hearing.

Context: The county chose August as the point-in-time for the report so it could present results before the September adopted budget hearing in future cycles and to align with statutory timing requirements.