Board directs budget cuts, pares some capital work and tables major housing changes after full-day discussion

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors spent most of its April 8 meeting on a sprawling budget review, approving a set of staff-recommended savings and asking for follow-up on several expensive capital projects and housing-policy options.

In a series of votes late in the day the board approved staff directions that together reduce discretionary spending, shift or postpone several county facility projects and continue work on a longer-term list of revenue and policy options. Chief Administrative Officer Sue Henneke described the county’s situation as a “budget gap” that staff and departments had been working to close since November and asked for direction to finalize a recommended budget for the 2025–26 fiscal year.

Why it matters: County staff said a combination of declining revenue growth and rising costs has created a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall. The board’s decisions on which capital projects to delay, which programs to restructure and which outside partners to pause affect county services, parks and grants and will shape how staff builds the budget it returns to the board in June.

Board action and key directions - The board voted (voice) to adopt the package of budget directions brought by staff covering multiple project- and program-level changes. That package included reassigning or deferring discretionary funding tied to a number of facility and park projects and directing staff to pursue revenue options and further departmental reductions. (Board action recorded; formal vote recorded in minutes.) - The board voted 3–2 to discontinue a one-time supplementary contribution to the city-run Placerville Aquatic Center for 2025–26; two supervisors opposed the removal and argued for keeping at least the prior-year level. (Record: motion passed 3–2.) - On a separate item the board approved, 5–0, staff’s motion denying an appeal of a county decision to refuse a card‑room employee permit; that matter proceeded as an administrative appeal and the board upheld the sheriff’s licensing determination. - In closed session the board approved a personnel step increase for the agricultural commissioner/sealer of weights and measures; the board reported a 5–0 approval on that personnel action.

What the staff package does (high-level) - Facilities and parks: Staff recommended delaying or discontinuing several discretionary projects and redirecting some funding toward urgent building needs, including designation of funds for a Spring Street facility replacement and reconsideration of multi‑phase park projects. The board directed staff to reallocate limited discretionary funds away from projects that would add ongoing maintenance liabilities and toward higher-priority needs. - Deferred maintenance and leases: Staff outlined an inventory of county-owned and leased facilities and identified roughly $7.8 million in ACO (accumulative capital outlay) fund projects, prioritized for life/safety and asset preservation. The board asked staff to continue work on lease consolidation where feasible and to prioritize life/safety spending. - Parks: The board directed staff to pursue a narrowed scope at Fort Bay/4 Bay Park — focused on an ADA-compliant restroom and parking access — and to return with estimates and grant-status details. A larger build-out discussion, including previously allocated ARPA funds for wider development at Fort Bay and Chili Bar, will be revisited as staff develops options and grant outcomes. - Juvenile Treatment Center and Spring Street: Staff recommended deferring a match for JTC facility work and instead begin designating funds to address the county’s most urgent facility — Spring Street — for which longer-term replacement planning is under way. - Wildfire preparedness: The board kept the county’s Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience operating but asked staff to pursue greater grant coverage and to explore alternative inspection models for Tahoe‑Basin inspection work so that the county’s general‑fund exposure is reduced; staff will examine whether code‑enforcement or other staff can support some basin inspection duties during peak seasons. - RCD and partner funding: Staff recommended holding the recently enlarged Resource Conservation District contributions at current levels through June 2026, then renegotiating the formula for future years; the board asked staff to pursue federal/state funding avenues as possible.

Senior day programs Health and Human Services presented options for the county senior day program in Placerville and El Dorado Hills. HHSA proposed consolidating two small sites by closing the El Dorado Hills day program and expanding the Placerville site, accompanied by a phased fee increase to help reduce the program’s $800,000 annual general‑fund subsidy. HHSA Director Timlin James told the board the program has not increased rates since 2016; attendance remains well below pre‑pandemic levels. The board asked staff to return on April 22 with more detailed implementation steps and a public‑engagement plan; supervisors indicated concern about service access and asked HHSA to develop transportation options for affected participants.

Transit and joint powers The board discussed two regional transit efforts: a South Tahoe transit JPA and a Sacramento–Placerville corridor JPA. Supervisors asked staff for a separate, focused discussion of the South Tahoe transit JPA before committing county startup funds; the board voted to suspend the county’s planned startup contribution for that JPA and asked staff to present options to reduce general-fund exposure or secure alternate funding streams. The board also voted to continue participation in the Sacramento–Placerville corridor JPA.

Affordable‑housing workshop and next steps The board heard a staff workshop and public comments on affordable‑housing tools and the newly formed task force. Staff and task‑force members reviewed tools that jurisdictions commonly use — density bonuses, fee waivers or reductions, in‑lieu fees, expedited permitting and surplus‑land programs — and noted no single approach is a silver bullet. Task‑force members and several public commenters urged the board to avoid mandatory inclusionary zoning for market‑rate subdivisions, arguing it often fails in lower‑density rural markets; others urged fee‑and‑surplus‑land approaches with a managed housing trust to seed projects and leverage state funding. Board direction on housing: supervisors asked staff and the task force to return with a more detailed set of options (a short menu of feasible approaches), including: (a) a clear in‑lieu fee model tied to housing preservation or production; (b) a surplus‑land policy and implementation plan; and (c) options to consolidate or adjust impact‑fee practice across special districts where feasible. Staff will return with those proposals for further board discussion; the board asked for the follow‑up within the coming months to enable staff to fold any decisions into later budget planning.

Quotes (selected) - “We don’t have a deficit. We have a budget gap,” said Sue Henneke, Chief Administrative Officer, urging the board to combine departmental reductions, project pauses and revenue options to balance the fiscal year 2025‑26 budget. - “The request [on Item 17] was to add Erin Mount to the list of authorized designees,” Rob Peters, deputy director of Planning and Building, said while describing the timber‑conversion notification process the county coordinates with the State Board of Forestry. - “Senior day rates have not increased since 2016,” said Timlin James, Health and Human Services, arguing a phased fee increase and consolidation of small sites would reduce the program’s general‑fund subsidy by roughly half.

What’s next Staff will return with a budget update and any additional required actions at the board’s April 22 meeting and continue preparing the recommended budget for formal adoption in June. Staff will return with a follow‑up work plan on affordable‑housing options and with more detailed proposals on the Fort Bay restroom/parking scope, Chili Bar and 4‑Bay Park costs and grant statuses.

Ending note Supervisors emphasized the limits of local authority on some housing and forestry matters; several asked staff to seek state and federal funding where appropriate and to pursue cross‑agency partnerships that reduce general‑fund exposure while advancing the county’s priorities for wildfire mitigation, senior services and affordable housing.