Yolo County supervisors approve recommended 2025-26 budget relying on one-time funds, reserves and unfunding of positions

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors on June 10 approved a recommended fiscal year 2025-26 budget that uses one-time revenues, targeted reserve draws and the unfunding of dozens of positions to bridge a roughly $40 million baseline shortfall.

County Chief Administrative Officer Mike Webb said the county’s financial outlook is tied closely to state decisions: “as the state goes, so does the county,” and that the recommended budget is intended to buy time while staff and the board develop longer-term options.

Chief Financial Officer Tom Haines told the board the county began the budget process with “an initial base budget gap of nearly $40,000,000” and described addressing the county’s structural budget deficit as a multiyear effort. “Addressing the county’s structural budget deficit will be a multiyear process. Today is step 1,” Haines said.

Nut graf: Why this matters — The recommendation balances a $723 million net operating budget with a mix of temporary solutions that protect most services in the short term but leave open hard choices later. The package reduces staffing levels, taps policy reserves and relies on one-time sources while asking staff to return with reduction principles and revenue-generation options ahead of the final adopted budget in September.

What the board approved and how it balances the books

- Size and balance: Staff presented a recommended net operating budget of about $723 million and an initial base gap near $40 million. The proposed package uses carryover fund balance (about $9 million), other one-time sources ($7.6 million), reserve draws (about $4.1 million total), departmental reductions (about $13 million), and salary savings (about $5.2 million) to reach balance.

- Positions: The recommended budget shows a net reduction of 55 full‑time equivalent positions. The document adds two non‑general‑fund positions (a child support specialist and a clinician) and recommends eliminating 10 currently vacant positions and unfunding roughly 47 others across departments. Haines said staff recommended unfunding rather than immediate elimination for many vacancies so the board and departments can complete a strategic review before permanent cuts are made.

- Reserves and one‑time choices: The budget uses three policy reserves, including HHSA and CIP reserves (each roughly $1.4 million in the staff presentation) and about $1.2 million from an audit‑disallowance reserve (about half of that reserve). Haines stressed the recommendation does not tap the county’s general reserve (the main “break glass” fund), which stands at about 8.5% of general fund currently.

- Other items: The staff package pauses the supplemental pension charge adopted in 2018 (the Section 115 funding approach) for the coming year. The county will continue required CalPERS payments; pausing the supplemental contribution slows the pace of additional pre‑funding but does not create an immediate additional statutory liability, staff said.

Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA)

HHSA assistant director Evis Morales said balancing the HHSA component required measures that are not sustainable long term. “To submit a balanced fiscal year 2526 budget, HHSA had to increase vacancy savings in some program areas beyond reasonable amounts that count on a hiring freeze,” Morales said. He told the board HHSA identified 10 positions proposed for elimination and an additional roughly 30 positions recommended for unfunding, plus contract and service reductions in child, youth and family and aging programs.

Morales and other presenters warned that the recommended HHSA actions rely heavily on continued hiring freezes, realignment fund adjustments and temporary revenues. Staff said they will continue to analyze program impacts, revised state and federal revenue projections, and mandatory versus discretionary services before the adopted budget hearing.

Public comment and frontline services

Two public commenters highlighted the stakes for older residents and people with disabilities. Kate Ladysch, chair of the Yolo County In‑Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, said the program’s goal is to “make it so that older adults and people with disabilities can live safely at home,” and urged the board to guard program capacity. Elaine Roberts Musser, vice chair of the County Commission on Aging and Adult Services, urged the board to fill an open full‑time IHSS manager and to hire frontline staff, adding: “From a fiscal standpoint, it is a heck of a lot cheaper for the county to keep the elderly and disabled at home by providing these critical services rather than shipping them off to an expensive long term facility.”

Capital, maintenance and other program notes

Staff highlighted several capital and maintenance projects included in the recommended budget: Walnut Park library work, Knights Landing levee improvements, agricultural shop work at 120 West Main, courthouse window renovation and various roof replacements. Staff confirmed the Pacifico CalWORKs housing project in Davis remains funded for design and that construction authorization is expected to come back to the board later in the year.

Agriculture program reductions: staff recommended eliminating the county’s organic certification program (staff said private vendors exist to fill that need) and cutting a USDA trapper contract (roughly $50,000). During board deliberations supervisors asked staff to revisit the trapper reduction; the board’s final action restored that funding.

Revenue, cannabis tax and other one‑time moves

Haines acknowledged the county’s heavy dependence on state and federal funds (about 43% of total funding) and noted property tax is the bulk of discretionary revenue (about 63% of general purpose revenue). The recommended budget includes a one‑time transfer of $450,000 in cannabis tax revenue to the general fund; staff noted that cannabis tax is a general tax legally but that transferring it to the general fund departs somewhat from the county’s usual ballot‑measure expenditure framework. The board asked staff to provide clearer documentation of how cannabis tax dollars align with the county’s expenditure framework ahead of the adopted budget.

Key governance and next steps

- The board asked staff to return June 24 with budget reduction principles and to begin a longer‑term, multi‑month process that will include department working groups, an updated five‑year fiscal forecast and a focused set of revenue‑generation discussions.

- Haines said adoption of the recommended budget on June 10 establishes spending authority through September; the adopted budget will be finalized at an October meeting after the board’s fall review and any state revision to projections.

Votes at a glance

- Approved: Motion to adopt the recommended fiscal year 2025‑26 budget and associated budget resolution amending 2024‑25 revenues and appropriations, and to approve recommended equipment list and third‑quarter monitoring report — motion carried. (No detailed roll‑call count provided in the record.) Notes: the board instructed staff to return with budget reduction principles and revenue options; the board also directed that positions recommended for elimination be treated as unfunded vacancies to allow strategic review before permanent elimination.

- Approved: Consent agenda (which included the honorary retirement resolution for the director of community services). Motion carried.

Board direction and provisos recorded in minutes

- The board voted to treat the 10 positions identified for elimination as unfunded rather than permanently removed, so the allocation list remains available while staff completes strategic analysis with department leadership.

- The board restored the $50,000 USDA trapper contract in agriculture after member discussion.

- The board asked for clearer documentation tying any cannabis tax transfers to the county’s previously adopted expenditure framework and requested that staff return with those details at or before the adopted budget.

Recusal

Supervisor Barajas announced a recusal on any appropriations associated with Rise Incorporated because his fiance is the executive director of that organization; that recusal was noted on the record before budget deliberations.

Why this remains a story

Staff presented a balanced recommended budget but repeatedly warned it relies on temporary fixes and further structural work is needed. The board directed immediate follow‑up on reduction principles and on revenue options; both will shape the adopted budget in September and the county’s fiscal position in the years ahead.

Ending: The board set a near‑term schedule: staff will return June 24 with reduction principles and the budget will be reopened for final adoption in September. The board emphasized protecting frontline services — including IHSS and eligibility/benefits staffing — as it weighs longer‑term structural changes.