Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff propose 15% cuts to non‑public‑safety departments; board directs refinement and holds fire funding steady
Summary
Tuolumne County staff presented a mid‑year budget plan that prorates a 15% reduction for non‑public‑safety departments in FY2024‑25 (about $1.8 million). Supervisors directed further refinement, asked departments to seek efficiency and revenue options, and signaled they intend to treat county fire services as a public‑safety priority.
Tuolumne County administration presented a mid‑year budget package Feb. 4 proposing permanent, prorated reductions equivalent to 15% of selected general‑fund departments for the remainder of fiscal year 2024‑25 and the 2025‑26 budget year. The presentation by Deputy County Administrator Liz Peterson estimated about $1.8 million in prorated reductions for the current fiscal year across non‑public‑safety departments.
Peterson said the directive given by the board on Jan. 14 asked that non‑public‑safety departments develop 15% reductions while public‑safety departments — defined to include the sheriff’s office, district attorney, public defender, probation, juvenile hall and animal control — be excluded from those cuts. Departments were reminded to prioritize public safety and to propose permanent structural savings for the coming fiscal year, not one‑time measures.
Peterson told the board that department heads had met repeatedly since the Jan. direction and that managers had agreed to work collaboratively to minimize service impacts, explore consolidated fiscal or administrative work, and pursue revenue or grant approaches where feasible.
Supervisors discussed specific department proposals, expressed concern about process clarity, and asked staff to refine the submitted departmental reductions. Supervisor Campbell and others raised Brown Act and public‑meeting concerns about an earlier January session in which budget directions were discussed; the board emphasized future steps must include public transparency.
Board members agreed on several points: keep county fire services funded at current levels (the board noted five engines as the existing service baseline), direct staff to continue refining the cuts and return to the board with a recommended package for the current fiscal year on March 4 (the board’s scheduled mid‑year review), and include the 15% structural reductions in the FY2025‑26 proposed budget for board adoption on June 17. The board also asked staff to pursue longer‑term cost‑efficiency options, enterprise or regional service models and revenue growth measures between March and May.
Peterson said staff will work with departments to refine reduction proposals, examine potential reorganizations and identify revenue and grant opportunities for FY2025‑26. The board left open the prospect of exploring possible structural changes for specific programs — including animal control and office of emergency services (OES) arrangements — but asked staff to return with options and impacts before making transfers or reassignments.
No layoffs, specific position eliminations or final budget cuts were approved Feb. 4; the board set a March 4 deadline for staff to present refined proposals for action on the current fiscal year budget.
