Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure Q Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Measure Q concept budget and county allocations; asks staff for more transparency on administrative costs
Summary
Supervisors approved, in concept, the Measure Q implementation budget for FY 2025–26, agreed to increase the board office allocation to $100,000 per supervisor from the staff‑recommended $50,000, and asked staff to return with detailed breakdowns of indirect staffing and administrative costs.
Get email alerts on the Measure Q Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Supervisors approved the concept budget for Measure Q implementation for FY 2025–26 and made several amendments to staff recommendations, including increasing the per‑supervisor allocation and reducing the consultant evaluation line item.
What the board considered Staff presented a conceptual administrative budget for Measure Q (the local sales‑tax measure for water quality, beaches, wildfire risk reduction and wildlife protection). The proposed FY25‑26 administrative and operational budget totals approximately $395,000 (about 5% of the estimated first‑year yield). Key line items include: a dedicated analyst in OR3 to coordinate grant development and administration (approximately half of that analyst’s time allocated to Measure Q), county staff oversight and indirect costs, consulting support for the competitive grant program and a software subscription for grant administration and reporting.
Board amendments and rationale - Board allocations: Staff recommended a $50,000 allocation per supervisor as a board‑directed set‑aside derived from the county’s 20% allocation (roughly $1.2 million). Supervisors voted to increase that set‑aside to $100,000 each (total $500,000), after discussing the administrative implications and the desire by board members for district‑specific project funding. The board acknowledged that increasing per‑supervisor allocations reduces the county pool available for larger, county‑level matching projects but judged the tradeoff acceptable for initial local priorities. - Administrative lines: Supervisors asked for more transparency. The board directed staff to return by the next meeting (June 10) with additional detail on the indirect staffing estimate (hours and department allocation), line‑by‑line administrative costs and the proposed grant‑management software scope and costs. The board also reduced the planned consultant evaluation line item from $40,000 to $20,000.
Why it matters Measure Q is a voter‑approved, multi‑year local revenue source intended to fund environmental protection, water quality and wildfire risk reduction across the unincorporated county. How the county spends its 20% share — and how much each supervisor can allocate for district‑level work — will shape initial project development and grant matches across the county.
Public comment and oversight No online speakers were recorded for the item. Staff emphasized they will closely track staff time and reporting to ensure transparency and auditability; the measure’s language requires reporting and oversight.
Outcome and next steps The board approved the Measure Q concept budget and the amended allocations by unanimous roll call. Staff will finalize FY25‑26 transactional budget actions in the last‑day budget memo, publish a more detailed administrative cost breakdown and return with the requested clarifications on June 10.

