Yolo supervisors ask staff to craft options after Clarksburg disputes matching-funds interpretation

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 stopped short of approving ongoing county matching funds the Clarksburg Fire Protection District sought after the district and its supporters said they understood past county guidance to promise full matching up to the program cap.

Alex Tangolz, an administrator in the county executive’s office, told the board the county’s 2023 matching-funds guidelines were intended to reward districts that generated "new additional revenues" from Prop 218 assessments; staff’s reading treats the county match as limited to net new revenue. Under that interpretation, Tangolz said, Clarksburg’s repeal-and-replace assessment produced about $98,000 in revenue compared with a previous $88,000 — yielding a roughly $10,700 match rather than the district’s requested share of the $146,000 cap.

Clarksburg officials and residents pushed back in public comment. Mark Bruner, speaking for the district, said the county’s earlier materials and the engineer’s budget included the full $146,000 apportionment and that the district believed the county would match its full new assessment up to the cap. Multiple residents said the district purposely sized its ballot measure to be acceptable to local voters and to plan for long-term needs such as staffing and equipment; they said a $10,000 match would not justify the election and consulting costs the district paid.

Supervisors divided on the path forward. Some members warned that making an exception for Clarksburg would set an expensive precedent and could prompt other districts to seek similar retroactive treatment. Others expressed sympathy for the district and proposed temporary solutions to avoid immediate harm to local services while preserving fairness.

The board did not approve an immediate increase in ongoing funding. Instead, supervisors directed county staff to work with Clarksburg to craft options to return to the board. Those options should include a one-time grant approach (similar to funds previously provided to districts that attempted and failed a Prop 218), possible county support for a repeat election (including consultant or partial election cost coverage), a limited loan or short-term grant targeted to capital needs, and a request from the district for a clear scope of work for any one-time funding request. Staff were tasked to return with recommendations for the board’s consideration.

The board emphasized that any ongoing matching changes would need to be consistent with the funding formula the county adopted and mindful of impacts on the general fund and other fire districts.