Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff propose five closure days for FY 2025–26; board asks for four more and coordination with departments
Summary
Staff presented a proposal on county office closure days tied to the FY 2025–26 budget and a recommendation that employees retain contractually required choice days. Commissioners asked staff to identify four additional candidate closure days, coordinate with department heads on staffing and return with a formal order.
County staff presented the Board of County Commissioners with a proposal for office closure days tied to the fiscal‑year 2025–26 budget, recommending five countywide closure days and noting union contract rules that allow employees to select 10 leave days by seniority.
Staff said the recommended five days are concentrated toward the end of the budget year “so that we are able to pull some of those back” if needed during the year. A staff presenter said the county’s union contracts require employees be allowed to choose 10 days, so the proposed schedule is intended to preserve both departmental operations and employee choice.
Commissioners and staff discussed operational constraints in public‑facing departments. The presenter and participants noted that some offices — including the clerk’s office, the assessor’s office and public health — have seasonal or statutory requirements that limit when they can close. The presenter asked department heads to review calendars and identify times they cannot be closed, and to propose how departments would manage staffing if the county adopts the closure list.
Susie, a department representative who spoke during the meeting, said her department prefers flexibility but would need to coordinate with the union president and determine any seniority or draw systems for picking days off. She said Fridays are typically the slowest days in her office.
Commissioner Ben asked the staff to lock in more days to provide clearer expectations; several board members likewise requested staff return with four additional candidate closure days for board consideration and confirmed a desire to coordinate with department heads to avoid unintended service interruptions. Staff noted that the county must give public notice (30 days was cited as the practical lead time for mailing and publicizing closures) and that any closure dates would need to be coordinated with departments that require continuous service.
No formal vote or board order was taken at the meeting. The board directed staff to work with department heads to identify four additional closure‑day candidates, to confirm which dates are feasible for public‑facing offices, and to return with a proposed order and the required notice timetable.
If the board adopts closure days, staff said the county would aim to minimize public impact by scheduling most closures adjacent to holidays and on days departments identified as low volume. The board asked staff to return the list promptly so letters and notices can be issued to meet the 30‑day public‑notice expectation.
The matter will return to a future agenda for formal action; commissioners emphasized that department heads must have a clear plan to cover essential services on any adopted closure dates.
