[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6572845,"mediaKeyId","3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e","parentId",3151428,"title","Yolo County outlines plan to close near‑$40 million budget gap; proposes reductions, one‑time funding and reserve use","audioSeconds",3052,"startMs",7211000,"endMs",10263000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e&start=7211&end=10263","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e/thumbnail_7211000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572845/Yolo-County/California/Yolo-County-outlines-plan-to-close-near40-million-budget-gap-proposes-reductions-onetime-funding-and-reserve-use","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572845-f84783197136d96467b9ec76e729f4b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161834&Signature=XCXpzFir1kvxbg5GUwatm-XnKibgTPsMMjXkcyH1ahgSQWvp63Tgi3gXbfkI4H1FlbyAIbGFid2LH7R1GK4k~HA19ASrvpRpl-rpQ5OFEOeepqXXOy1LC8wr84STe9Y23FaII1MFgWvRhf~WE4~jovx3ynKc2kjBF8eXD~bHRvHX28i9HEjx-Sym4fJTg8YZrAgH7xkEF-zze4aWLbcEP0yEN-1qk-olBkcAFnRCQznSosMd~gtQPGqM2ofX3I~8SeJ9oJi6IyfWul~SHA49dEk~2KE-DNBJsHj7lSbYPEUPr~DbfD24ql~EiizzlJJC0ClP1I2lmhcDkXOYypkvPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Yolo County","date","2025-04-29T00:00:00Z","article","Yolo County officials told the Board of Supervisors on April 29 that they have nearly closed a roughly $40 million structural budget gap for fiscal year 2025‑26 but still require final board direction to adopt a balanced budget at the June 10 hearing.

Chief Financial Officer Tom Haines and Chief Budget Official Laura Liddicott presented a two‑pronged approach: (1) prepare a legally balanced recommended budget for the June 10 hearing using a combination of departmental reductions, one‑time funding, and limited reserve draws; (2) develop a longer‑term strategic process to address the county’s structural deficit over multiple years.

Staff’s draft balancing scenario included about $13 million in departmental reductions (salary savings, elimination or unfunding of vacant positions, reduced extra‑help and other cuts), $16.6 million in one‑time funding sources, and use of nearly $4 million in smaller reserves. The proposal also incorporated a $2 million repurposing of ARP funds that the board approved earlier in the meeting and projected savings from a lowered OPEB rate and a pause on supplemental pension contributions. Staff highlighted that the General Reserve would not be used and currently stands at about 8.5 percent of the board’s 10 percent policy goal (approximately $25.4 million).

Staff singled out several notable reductions in draft form, including proposed changes to agricultural department programs, reductions to fire sustainability funding related to districts that have opted out, and proposed unfunding/elimination of certain vacant positions countywide. Staff said those proposed reductions were largely developed in collaboration with departments and remain draft recommendations; further refinement and conversation will continue.

Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) leadership presented a separate five‑year forecast showing structural deficits in multiple 1991 realignment streams, MHSA and intergovernmental transfers (IGTs). HHSA said it had used vacancy savings and intergovernmental transfers to balance the short term outlook but that those approaches are not sustainable for the long term. HHSA identified candidate administrative reductions and contract changes and said it would return with a plan to close a MHSA shortfall of roughly $4.7 million.

Board members emphasized preserving public‑safety services and avoiding cuts that would meaningfully impair emergency operations. Supervisors also asked for clearer metrics and a timeline for the longer‑term strategic process; staff said they would return with further analysis, department‑head working groups, and a July workshop as the budget process proceeds to the September adoption deadline.

The county is preparing a recommended budget for release ahead of the June 10 public hearing; staff said additional adjustments are likely over the coming weeks and that any specific contract or program changes affecting community‑based organizations would be returned to the board for action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Yolo County - Board of Supervisors Meeting - Apr 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","County staff presented a draft plan April 29 to close an approximately $40 million structural budget gap for FY 2025‑26 using departmental reductions (~$13M), one‑time funds (~$16.6M), and reserves (almost $4M), and signaled further work and potential use of additional reserves ahead of the June 10 budget hearing.","taxTitle","Yolo County, California","taxId",4567,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572851,"Board approves MHSA innovation plan to join statewide SmartCare EHR; avoids reversion of $473,000",3921,3295000,7216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e&start=3295&end=7216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e/thumbnail_3295000.jpg","/articles/6572851/Yolo-County/California/Board-approves-MHSA-innovation-plan-to-join-statewide-SmartCare-EHR-avoids-reversion-of-473000","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572851-714170536eb01b5003919d2775560ef2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161834&Signature=IZ2Qby5NUldvddDgYeKXtfmiCzd6eewbmNSZ-ZQl3twbCHsaGVHm4zFSAhsHk8kDSKO3jcPMPrXDZ14AGinoqjnM4d38yfncKrtoC1yv85mWtnwlcNOv-cILU~azFJERdz-kVzrmwqNUhKgklTSqgZrVam8vRO~RepippphnP8ta5vR81x9DVz6jnahy8jHSVsyUbZec~G9LLTFEEpjHXnVTyr0DX3MGkdSXtKMvnAiow57RmmfKg~vCHvr-gxpsEbEybpRBhJ0qxhKh7cHCaTwejWCyatHbQFVBGOM6x1x~O0~VZtl~1GSrejK7z~GuOnY033TV8Eypm528uc2zqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On April 29 the Yolo County Board of Supervisors approved a staff recommendation to submit an MHSA innovation plan that would let the county join a CalMHSA (California Mental Health Services Authority) electronic health‑record initiative known as SmartCare. The board vote cleared the way to avoid conditional reversion of $473,000 and to capture a potential shift of existing MHSA administrative costs into capital/technology categories, which staff said could free roughly $1.2 million over two years for direct services.

Interim mental‑health director Tony Kildare told the board that the county’s current electronic health record and billing workflows have created delays in Medi‑Cal billing and reporting, and that the SmartCare product is being adopted by multiple counties. Staff and the county’s behavioral‑health oversight board acknowledged implementation risks, including early software “bugs,” limited customization, and the scale of an IT transition. Kildare said 25 counties have already opted into SmartCare and staff believes the system would better support billing, outcomes reporting, and interoperability with partners.

Kildare and staff explained the timeline: the innovations plan must go through a 30‑day public comment period, local behavioral‑health board approval, and state review by the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (BHSOAC). If the board declined to approve the plan now, staff warned the $473,000 would be subject to reversion. Staff proposed a three‑year funding profile for the EHR implementation and noted estimated total costs for the initiative in the staff presentation (roughly $5.25 million over three years, with some existing electronic‑health costs consolidated into the proposal).

Supervisors asked clarifying questions about risk, customization, procurement and the ability of local partner organizations (including nonprofit providers such as NAMI) to share data or participate. Kildare acknowledged implementation would be challenging, and that other counties have reported problems; he said staff weighed those risks against ongoing billing difficulties and compliance obligations.

The board approved the staff recommendation (moved by Supervisor Villegas, seconded by Supervisor Barajas). The roll call was recorded with Supervisor Ferrigs absent; the motion passed. Staff said the approval would allow county staff to pursue the CalMHSA plan and submit required documents to avoid reversion and to pursue longer‑term savings and service‑reallocation options under MHSA and the forthcoming Behavioral Health Services Act (Prop 1). The plan will still require state approval and additional board oversight as work proceeds.","Yolo County supervisors approved staff’s recommendation to submit a Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) innovation plan that would opt into a CalMHSA‑led SmartCare electronic health record, preserving $473,000 that would otherwise revert and freeing MHSA funds for direct services.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572855,"Board reallocates $3 million set for CrisisNow; $2 million to close budget gap, $1 million to pilot receiving‑center options",2965,2467000,5432000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e&start=2467&end=5432","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e/thumbnail_2467000.jpg","/articles/6572855/Yolo-County/California/Board-reallocates-3-million-set-for-CrisisNow-2-million-to-close-budget-gap-1-million-to-pilot-receivingcenter-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572855-f6b682ff6355e3538bdd3e6a409c9d27/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161834&Signature=cNAkuPOIXcMpYwnvZd6F-RCMHEc4ZTGmycbwZOSaZBPnifNCcTuFN5yEzEnF-eQ0JPAXWjo1UamU~Yk7HJ4Rc02d8EVYw~7AXxBF-IrqyXYg8UVIW6N6U-sQdvDT-XAWQYwyp7kiJi731lX1DFYnkIhGq9FxKDid6Yygg3hZx~jYkfjDjQhrlApvz1aO0MfrK3QAGPvI8uXm8UOQ4tPAy-dPiL25zwejARjdnVf6DgCB99-ZDXVRLljcsRq9IWDBZlBNXVhsDmBi0G-WLF-V2wvJTFFFR5mod-d4S02rAU8dMeb78QrcOqKZGvvxo1KKWQkW1rMbLmsHbb1u-0wMug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Yolo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on April 29 to reassign $3 million that had been set aside for the CrisisNow behavioral‑health receiving‑center project. The board approved staff’s recommendation to direct $2 million of that amount toward the county’s immediate budget gap and to reserve $1 million to evaluate and pursue scaled alternatives to the originally planned three‑year pilot receiving center.

At an item described in staff materials as “board‑directed projects,” County staff led by Alex Tengelwalks (CAO’s office) and Tony Kildare (interim mental‑health director) presented three alternatives for the receiving‑center element of CrisisNow. The county originally planned a three‑year, $3 million pilot that would create a local place for people in behavioral health crisis to go after mobile‑response teams and the crisis hotline. Staff told the board that rising costs, the loss of a federal earmark, and other budget liabilities meant the county could not fully fund the original plan.

Staff proposed three options: keep the original plan (not recommended because of cost); explore a scaled, one‑year pilot in Woodland by partnering with a local contractor (estimated implementation 6 months to a year); or contract with one or two existing, operating facilities in Sacramento (staff said this would likely be faster to implement but would require transportation solutions for Yolo residents). Staff recommended pursuing options 2 and 3 in parallel, while acknowledging neither is guaranteed and each carries tradeoffs.

Board members pressed staff on implementation timing and coverage. Supervisor Allen said a long‑unused receiving‑center model in Yolo County had been “highly underutilized” and urged caution about choosing a Sacramento‑based option as the only solution. Several supervisors — including Barajas, Villegas and Farix — emphasized the value of having at least a scaled presence in Yolo County, particularly for after‑hours coverage and to reduce transports to distant facilities. Tony Kildare said the county intends to address embedded co‑responder staffing across the county regardless of which receiving‑center option is pursued.

The board approved staff’s motion — moved by Supervisor Barajas and seconded by Supervisor Fredericks — to reallocate the funds as described, and asked staff to continue short‑term exploration of the two scaled options. The vote was recorded as unanimous.

Staff and board members said any subsequent contract awards would return to the board for approval. The reallocation follows the board’s broader budget‑gap discussion at the same meeting; staff said the $2 million directed to the budget gap would help the county reach a balanced budget for the June 10 hearing.","The Yolo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously April 29 to reallocate $3 million originally set for the CrisisNow behavioral‑health receiving center: $2 million was directed to close the county budget shortfall and $1 million to pursue reduced or contracted receiving‑center alternatives.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572861,"IHSS caregivers press Yolo County supervisors for contract, living wages during public comment",318,130000,448000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e&start=130&end=448","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151428-6e866b8e21a427e275c184b7b402284e/thumbnail_130000.jpg","/articles/6572861/Yolo-County/California/IHSS-caregivers-press-Yolo-County-supervisors-for-contract-living-wages-during-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572861-be50ae521fd731fc9ff871bdfc75835a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161834&Signature=dmuo-xFVbUA5veprog0y-1rNEpOpkcX0mXWRgU6RWiBKT6W9zaB9Urpt0krXGZxsMgMJjFG-nkU1~eQVz8t40And5q5dqRG9xvfgOpee5WWx7wju9xhX5lRNxWiYgx4ofsRRSqnoZkBcNyVubFLQr4JYvC5mXG0ZAwen20cgKRb6nn9oSu1eFmnvAUcRXLXzFXZ7iKmApyhjOdKmcEKxXIxgMiIAUuVg2cHJdm8nTwhAF4~gGbWoC8~xu-IR9Xm4errj89HlbIQlIAOHVNAMvX~~Ip2vF-b-EMThEZvRShp0qDMSPSk9KdlhMo1dNN8dxahu-W4cMnoEdSJlY4DEAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Speakers at the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting on April 29 used the board’s public-comment period to press county leaders to finish stalled contract talks and raise wages for in-home caregivers.

The speakers said the county contract for In‑Home Supportive Services (IHSS) has been expired for more than a year and caregivers are struggling to keep up with rent and other living costs. Steven Payan, who said he is a caregiver and a single parent, told the board the caregiver workforce “saves the county millions by keeping people out of expensive living facilities” and represented roughly 3,000 members. “We want to continue to work with y’all so we can work towards a living wage,” Payan said.

Union representatives urged the board to treat IHSS as a budget priority. Leticia Guerrero, who said she works with caregivers and providers in Yolo County and was at the bargaining table, asked supervisors to review the caregivers’ latest proposal seriously and close the contract. “Our wages have not kept up with the cost of living, and these wages are not competitive enough to keep workers in the industry,” Guerrero said. She warned that caregivers were leaving for higher-paying entry-level jobs such as fast food.

Long‑term‑care provider and SEIU member Lorna Schroeder framed the dispute as a broader labor and equity issue, saying that care work historically performed by women and women of color has been undervalued. “They’re doing a job that many others don’t want to do. So we hope that you will respect them for the essential work that they do provide for this county and pay them a livable wage,” she said.

Board members did not take immediate action on the contract during the public‑comment period. Supervisors thanked the speakers for their testimony and moved on to the agenda. The county’s staff and negotiators were referenced by speakers as parties to ongoing bargaining, but no new timeline or specific board direction on the pending contract was recorded during the meeting.

The caregivers’ appeals put pressure on supervisors as they simultaneously grappled with a countywide budget shortfall discussed later in the same meeting. Caregivers and their supporters argued that investing in home‑based care is a cost‑saving strategy for the county and urged supervisors to prioritize contract settlement in upcoming budget decisions.

Looking ahead, the transcript shows speakers asking the board to consider the caregivers’ most recent proposals and work with county staff to finish negotiations. There was no recorded vote or motion tied to the public comments; any change to wages or contract terms would require further action by the board or County staff.","At the April 29 Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting, IHSS caregivers and SEIU representatives urged the board to close a year-old expired county contract and raise wages so caregivers can remain in the workforce.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Yolo County outlines plan to close near‑$40 million budget gap; proposes reductions, one‑time funding and reserve use

Board approves MHSA innovation plan to join statewide SmartCare EHR; avoids reversion of $473,000

Board reallocates $3 million set for CrisisNow; $2 million to close budget gap, $1 million to pilot receiving‑center options

IHSS caregivers press Yolo County supervisors for contract, living wages during public comment