By Mark Scaramella
Item 4c on the October 7 Supervisors agenda called for the Supervisors to “Approve or Deny Requests from Department Heads and Elected Officials Regarding Budget Impacts, Funding and Recruitment of Vacant or New Positions Following the Strategic Hiring Process.”
Mendocino County CEO Darcie Antle introduced the item by saying: “We have some hard decisions here. A handful of departments in front of you today have requested to fill positions. There is no doubt that all these positions are for needed and mandated services…”
That “handful” of departments included the District Attorney, the Library and the Assessor Clerk Recorder.
Antle continued: “The county currently has 68 positions in some form of recruitment not including those in front of you today. As you know, we are operating in the current physical year in a deficit. And we are projecting a $16 million deficit for fiscal year 26/27, not to mention HR-1 [Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”] and the state budget. The fiscal team with the help of the departments will present first quarter financial data on November 4. They will be able to provide more current fiscal information at that time. I expect the Auditor Controller Treasurer Tax Collector to have closed fiscal year 24/25 at that time.”
CEO Antle did not offer any estimate of the budget impact of filling the 68 positions that are “in some form of recruitment,” nor how many of them are expected to actually be filled, and nobody asked about it.
After approving a couple of new Library hires which were not funded by the County’s General Fund, and some very limited hiring requested by the Assessor Clerk Recorder (which was accompanied by detailed budget numbers), the DA’s request to fill vacancies was put off to the November 4 meeting because the Board claimed they didn’t have enough budget info to approve them — despite, as Supervisor Madeline Cline noted — the agenda item specifically calling for the requests to be accompanied by budget impact info. CEO Antle promised that she would provide the necessary budget on November 4.
November 4 arrived and not only was there no budget impact information about the District Attorney’s staffing request, there was no mention of the request from the DA at all.
The latest District Attorney’s office budget vs. actual expenses chart included a note that said, “The District Attorney’s Office has reported that the Office will meet the applied 6% attrition [leaving vacant positions open] savings of $414,341. Executive Office attrition tracking for the Office projects the DA budget will be over budget by approximately $800,000 in Salaries and Benefits by the end of fiscal year based on current trends. The Executive Office will continue to work with the District Attorney’s Office and monitor activity throughout the fiscal year as more information becomes available.” The Executive Office did not mention the DA’s request for new hires, including several relatively expensive staff attorneys.
To summarize: The District Attorney did not return to request that positions be filled; the District Attorney “will meet the applied 6 percent attrition savings” presumably because vacated positions will be left vacant; and yet the DA is expected to exceed his budget by about $800k.
The November CEO Report segment listing budget vs. actual for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025/26 (July-October 2025) shows that the District Attorney “regular employees” line item expense so far this fiscal year (July-October) is about $1.35 million vs. an annual budget of about $3.35 million, or about 40 percent expended for about one-quarter of the year. If the regular employees expense continues at this rate it will be end up at about $5.4 million, about $2 million over budget.
No wonder the Board didn’t know what to do with the District Attorney’s staffing request.
There was no further discussion of the District Attorney’s budget or staffing at the November 18 Board meeting.
For comparison, the Sheriff’s office (excluding the jail) “salaries” budget for the first quarter is about $10.7 million with a reported $3.6 million expended. At that rate the Sheriff’s salary line item would end up at about $14.5 million, some $3.8 million over his annual budget.
The CEO budget note on the Sheriff’s office (and Jail) budgets:
“The Sheriff’s Office and Jail do not expect to meet the applied 6 percent attrition savings – totaling $1,719,765 and $855,128 respectively – for Fiscal Year 2025-26, due to public safety staffing needs for patrol and new Jail staffing expenses. Elimination of positions and cuts to services and supplies have been offered to address, in part, the 6 percent savings. Total combined savings for BU 2310 [the Sheriff’s office] due to cuts … total approximately $225,500. Additional revenue from the Opioid Settlement funds applied to Coroner related expenses may further offset general fund contribution, but this amount will likely not be known until mid-year.
“Total savings to Jail from add/deletes/cuts total approximately $104,000. There may also be additional revenue realized through the Jail Based Competency Treatment Program (JBCT) agreement with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) due to the program’s success and the occupied bed count increasing slightly from what was initially budgeted back in March. We are projecting approximately $100,000 in additional revenue from JBCT activities.”
Of course, these numbers are snapshots, not anywhere near final budget numbers for the fiscal year. The period that the expenses cover in the detailed budget vs. actual report is not entirely clear. (It could be a couple of weeks more than one quarter.) So all of this is guess work, subject to change.
However, whatever the numbers are, the picture is both confusing and problematic.
On November 18, CEO Antle reminded the Board that the carryover from last year — the amount of revenue received minus General Fund expenses — is between $11 million ($12 million if you include inaccessible investment value increases) and $16 million, is “one time funds” and should not to be used for ongoing expenses or to cover this year’s deficits.
On the plus side (if you’re inclined to think that keeping positions vacant is a good way to balance the budget), the CEO reported the week before that her finance team now forecasts that the projected vacancy savings for this year are magically up by almost $2 million compared to her estimate just two weeks prior.
Which brings us to Supervisor Ted Williams’ concluding remarks last Tuesday:
“In just about every conversation I have with constituents it’s about county finances and reporting. I hope the board will give serious consideration to treating it as a number one priority to revamp our financial systems so that we cannot just talk about what happened two years ago, but talk about the year ahead. We don’t seem to have a forecast that we can really believe because in one breath we are talking about a financial crisis and we won’t be able to make payroll and in another breath we find there’s $11 million on the table. Somebody after the fact could make sense of all this, but there’s no way to tell that story looking a year ahead. It makes every effort that the county engages in difficult because we don’t know what we have to work with. I have come to the appreciation that we have good people working diligently but within a really archaic framework. We also have some bad tools. Maybe the tools are fine, but we just need to rethink how we work with them. But that’s where my constituents would like the county to put emphasis: fixing that financial accounting system and the reporting structure so that we can work on dependent projects.”
Which is it then? Is the County’s finance/budget computer system faulty? Is the “thinking” faulty? Is the CEO incapable of using the accounting data to provide meaningful reports? Is the Board incapable of even knowing what the problem is?
None of Supervisor Williams’ colleagues responded to his request to make financial reporting improvements a top priority.
Does that mean they think everything is fine and there’s nothing to worry about?
Funny, four years ago in the run up to the wrongful suspension of Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison the then-Board, led by Supervisor Williams (and former Supervisor Glenn McGourty), was doing everything it could to blame the financial reporting problem on Cubbison. That misguided effort not only fell embarrassingly flat, but is likely to cost the County millions of dollars they don’t have in a settlement of Cubbison’s pending civil suit. (Cubbison’s lawsuit was on the Closed Session agenda again on Tuesday, but the Board again had “nothing to report.”)
Four years later and the Board is still in the dark, questions of staffing and filling vacancies are going unasked and unanswered, and nobody seems to know what the problem is. In fact, they don’t even agree that there is one.
Hence then, the article about another voice follow the bouncing budget was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Another Voice… Follow the bouncing budget )
Also on site :
- Tornado warning issued, and quickly cancelled, over Alhambra
- Governor Hochul: Annual statewide donation drive is complete
- Skier dies in collision with tree at Colorado’s Aspen Mountain, resort officials confirm