The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 7 heard a legislative briefing on the final days of the 2025 California legislative session and how signed bills and budget actions could affect the county. Karen Lang of Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Smeltzer & Lange (via Zoom) and Kelly Hansen, county legislative liaison, summarized bills of particular county interest and flagged a set of near‑term budget and program risks.

Key takeaways: The governor had roughly 431 bills pending at the time of the briefing; two measures signed that immediately drew local attention were legislation to delay certain cannabis tax increases (AB 564) and a statute regulating intoxicating hemp products (AB 8) that places them behind age gates and into licensed retail channels. The county’s lobby team said AB 564 “provides tax relief going forward, for growers and the industry that’s really been struggling to stay in the regulated market” and AB 8 was intended to address public‑health concerns and marketplace imbalances.

Bigger fiscal context: Lobbyists and county staff warned that federal action (referred to in the meeting as “HR 1”) and the state’s fiscal reliance on capital‑gains and personal income taxes could strain the state budget and, by extension, county operations. Karen Lang told the board that potential changes to federal subsidy programs could push medically indigent adults back onto county safety‑net rolls and that the County Medical Services Program (CMSP) has limited reserves. “If all of the population comes back to CMSP that is currently, at Covered California because they’re gonna lose their subsidy, that statewide amount for all the CMSP counties is it would be over a billion dollars a year,” she said, urging counties to prepare for increased program costs.

Other bills: The report noted enactment of SB 707 (remote‑meeting rules changes), passage of AB 531 (geothermal CEQA streamlining) and AB 518 (a low‑intensity camping bill), among others. Supervisors asked about roads funding and the brief concluded that state formulas and declining gas tax revenues tied to electric vehicles pose a continuing challenge for rural county road budgets.

Board action: The board accepted the presentation. Supervisors asked staff to continue monitoring the bills that could affect local revenues, public‑safety obligations and county program responsibilities. The county’s legislative liaison said the county’s legislative platform will be revisited during the annual platform drafting cycle and that the county coordinates with statewide organizations and local stakeholders on positions.

Ending: Lang and Hansen recommended continued monitoring and active follow‑up on federal and state program changes that could create new county costs, noting a near‑term window (mid‑October) when the governor signs or vetoes outstanding measures that will shape county planning ahead of the January budget process.