Mendocino County adopts proposed FY2026–27 budget while approving roadmap to fix financial system and property-tax backlog

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on June 2 unanimously approved the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget and directed the auditor-controller to prepare final adoption documents.

The board’s action followed a presentation from consultant Ben Rosenfeld and county budget staff laying out a financial roadmap prompted by state audit findings and a growing backlog of property assessment events. Rosenfeld recommended a three-year reimplementation of the county’s core financial system (a Tyler Munis re-implementation was cited as the preferred, lower-risk option), estimating a 3–5 year effort with a budget roughly in the $3 million–$5 million range and a dedicated project team. Staff said the project will require a steering committee, periodic board updates, and additional resources from the executive office and other departments.

Rosenfeld and county staff also described a property-tax processing backlog of more than 5,000 pending events: roughly 2,600 change‑of‑ownership events and nearly 3,000 building‑permit/new‑construction events. The consultant said the backlog creates three operational harms: reduced near‑term revenue flow, high staff time devoted to catch‑up work, and taxpayer uncertainty. He recommended stabilizing assessor staffing, adding limited‑term personnel to speed clearance, producing a quarterly public plan with measurable milestones, and maintaining a small permanent team to prevent recurrence.

Deputy CEO and budget lead Tony Rakes presented the county’s proposed general fund for 2026–27, describing the budget as balanced but reliant on $2,585,536 of one‑time carryforward funds for non‑recurring expenses (short‑term contracts, equipment, extra‑help, and one‑time projects). The board has also adopted a revised reserve policy (Policy 32) that creates contingency, infrastructure & systems, and rainy‑day reserves; staff noted those reserves could be used for large‑scale system work if the board approves.

County officials warned of fiscal uncertainties that could affect future years: pending federal changes around HR1 and federal grants, state budget actions including potential changes to IHSS/CMSP responsibilities, and proposed state changes such as a January 1, 2027 application of sales tax to some digital software. The board and staff agreed these risks are not fully reflected in the 2026–27 figures and will be monitored.

During the public hearing several county employees and SEIU 1021 representatives urged the board to fund cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLAs) and preserve longevity pay, arguing low pay is driving turnover and undermining services. Sheriff Matt Kendall also urged caution about an anticipated municipal annexation by the city of Ukaya, asking the board to assess impacts to call volume and public‑safety staffing.

Auditor‑Controller/Treasurer Shemise Cubbison clarified a frequently cited “$30 million” figure as the seasonal amount of defaulted/uncollected property tax that fluctuates through the year; she noted most revenues have been distributed through the Teeter mechanism and that additional collections do not straightforwardly translate to extra county general‑fund revenue. The board asked staff to return with detailed, quarterly plans for clearing the assessor’s backlog, and the executive office said it will seek resources to support the multi‑year roadmap.

What happens next: the board accepted the proposed budget and directed the auditor‑controller to return on June 23, 2026 with the resolution and final budget documents for adoption. County staff said they will bring a more detailed work plan for the financial system reimplementation and a quarterly backlog‑clearance plan for board review.