The confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers.

Long time adversaries in the Delta water wars are weighing in on a State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) draft report released this week. Highly controversial, it contains recommended criteria to establish water flow requirements for the Delta, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and their tributaries. It returns to the SWRCB for action on Aug. 3rd.

Folks who want more water in the Delta for habitat and fish crow that the report is a major indictment of SWRCB’s management of the California water system.  Others who want water for Southern California and Central Valley farms and communities bluster, “Nonsense! Water rights!” Still others point out that just mandating flow won’t solve all the Delta’s problems.

As reported in the Contra Costa Times yesterday, the report is really bad news for areas upstream of the Delta (including watersheds of origin).

“The key finding is that about 75 percent of all the snowmelt and rain that flows or falls into the Delta’s watershed, which covers 40 percent of California, should flow through the Delta into the Bay. Today, about 50 percent of the flow passes through the Delta on average as nearly all of California taps into its tributary rivers and the Delta itself…”

That doesn’t bode well for the water supply up here, that’s for sure. But I’ll post a number of links here over the next week or two so you can make up your own mind.

Most of today’s articles support the report’s conclusion that the Delta needs more, not less water.  I’ll balance perspectives with opposing pieces as I find them.

Click below to read the articles:

No more watered down excuses, Stockton Record (this piece is classified as news, but golly, there’s a lot of opinion in the thing);

Response to article:

It seems as though the writer completely ignored statements by the State Board throughout the report that it will take more than flow changes to fix the problems in the Delta. The Board, in fact, was prohibited by the Legislature from looking at anything BUT flow, effectively tying their hands as they conducted their work.

The approach taken by the State Board in its 181-page report limited its scope to “flow criteria determinations” and did not look at broader issues. Those issues, such as “habitat, water quality and invasive species” should be addressed in more comprehensive processes, such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The report stated that there is a “need for an integrated approach to management of the Delta. This clearly indicates that the State Board understands that fixing the Delta cannot be achieved by simply adding more water.

Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition

California’s ailing water supply needs help, SF Chronicle

Delta flow criteria issued, Legal Planet Blog

The next Delta report, and inevitable spin,  Fresno Bee (don’t bother with all the spin, the Bee says. Just read the Report.)

The San Joaquin flows up and the Sacramento River flows down to the Delta, California Water Projects System Map, Department of Water Resources

A draft State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) report on criteria for establishing instream flow requirements through the Delta was released yesterday. 

While it’s good news for the Delta’s natural environment, it’s not so good for the rest of us. There’s gonna be a rumble, me thinks.

Here are some articles about the report and folks’ responses:

Californians should use less delta water, report says, LA Times

Delta survival requires major cutbacks in water use, state study finds, Contra Costa Times (CCT)

The CCT says, among other things: “The report also details flow requirements for the two biggest rivers flowing into the Delta — the Sacramento and the San Joaquin…”

“Meeting all of those requirements would require San Joaquin farms, Southern California and portions of the East Bay and South Bay that rely on pumps in the southern Delta to cut their Delta water use by one-third in addition to recent cutbacks required to meet endangered species rules.

For other water users upstream, including utilities serving Oakland and San Francisco, the effect could be even worse — up to 70 percent, because the goal to increase river flows would make more water available in the Delta for pumps to export.

But those figures do not take into account water rights laws that say agencies with older rights — including some in the Bay Area — should not have to give up water for newer users, and that agencies closer to water sources also should not have to give up water to those relying on Delta pumps.”

Report: Delta in need of water. Too much is being diverted to reverse lengthy decline, Stockton Record

Here’s a link to the full draft report, due to return to the State Water Resource Control Board on August 3rd.

SWRCB Report

Expect fireworks.

California Attack     

Bear Attack on Eldorado National Forest

New Mexico Attack     

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTD5RsGPa3Q

Public lands managers note such incidents are on the upswing. Cheryl Carrothers, Regional Wildlife Program Leader for the USFS Pacific Southwest Region, issued an email heads up to regional forests and district rangers on July 2nd, just before the holiday weekend:

“I just wanted to make sure you were all aware.  We have had multiple incidents with bears this year and the frequency is increasing.  Please pass on our concerns to your folks and forest visitors.  Keeping safe distances between bears and humans is a priority, restricting access to food and other attractants is the primary way to ensure this happens!”

We’re posting two videos we found on YouTube below.  Obviously, the views expressed are those of the authors and not this supervisor. Confirm their methods with a ranger before you go and be prepared. And it goes without saying that if you live up here, precautions aren’t just for campers…

Remember, wild things aren’t tame. Be careful, will ya?

A FED BEAR IS A DEAD BEAR: how to take care of your food    

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBvzvfDmzMI

SURVIVAL 101: according to Backpacker Magazine, what to do if you encounter a bear    

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dfd18Zfv2U

There’s an explanation below, but let me give it a try and I think you’ll understand why it’s such a big deal to counties. Be forewarned: my explanation is simplistic.

Farmers and ranchers get a break on property taxes in exchange for a 10-year (in Tuolumne County) commitment to keep their land in productive agriculture or open space. Counties rely on state subvention or subsidy dollars to cover the cost of providing those tax breaks. Unlike Tuolumne County (our subvention is approx. $117,000 a year), in the recent past some counties in the Central Valley have received over a million dollars a year from the state. State subvention dollars go into county general funds to provide public services (police, fire, roads, etc.). No subvention, revenues decrease. Revenues decrease, so must services.

Here’s a good case for saving the Williamson Act as made by the Save the Williamson Act: a Coalition Committed to Protecting the California Land Conservation Act posted on the California Association of Resource Conservation District’s (www.carcd.org) website.

*****

The Williamson Act is the single most-effective agricultural land preservation program in California, and it’s under attack. The Governor suspended subvention payments to local governments in the 2009-10 state budget and is threatening to do so again. Many of the 54 counties that participate in the program will not be able to continue the program without help from the state.

Given the Williamson Act’s statewide benefits to the economy, agriculture and the environment, it is our hope that state leaders will demonstrate their commitment to the program by reinvesting in its long-term success through the restoration of $38 million to the Williamson Act’s subvention program.

Background

Since its adoption 45 years ago, the California Land Conservation Act, commonly known as the Williamson Act, has grown into the state’s most important farmland protection program. The program protects 16.5 million acres of farmland throughout the state by offering property tax relief in return for rolling contracts to keep land in commercial agricultural production for 10 or 20 years.

Enacted in 1971, the Williamson Act subvention program sets forth a state reimbursement formula for allocating payments to local governments based on acreage enrolled in the program. This financial support from the state has provided a tangible incentive for local governments to stay in the program and initiate more contracts by partially replacing property tax revenues lost on enrolled land.

WHAT’S AT RISK?

Farm and Ranchland Conservation

In the most recent poll of landowners who participate in the Williamson Act program, one-in-three landowners said they would be unable to continue farming or ranching without the benefits of the program. It is estimated that the program saves property owners 20-75 percent in property taxes. Without the Williamson Act, large-scale farmland conversions will no doubt reduce the production of California commodities and this in turn will affect local and even international food markets. California is the dominant producer of many specialty crops that provide diversity in our diets. With the loss of production, prices will rise for all consumers, not just those in California.

Environmental and Land Use Benefits

Roughly 16 million of the state’s 29 million acres of farm and ranchland are currently protected by the Williamson Act. In addition to preserving our state’s agriculture, lands under Williamson Act contract help contribute to meeting California’s AB 32 and SB 375 goals through carbon sequestration and effective land-use planning. Counties rely on the program to implement general plan conservation programs which address the growth of urban areas, the expansion of public infrastructure and the conservation of important agriculture and open space resources. The program also helps to maintain open space and critical habitat for many of California’s most sensitive species.

Economy and Jobs

California farmers and ranchers are an essential part of our state’s economy. Agricultural production is large, dynamic, and closely linked to many other industries; for example, the production of farm inputs, the processing of food and beverages, the textile industry, transportation and financial services. Considering the economic multiplier effects, California farm and closely related processing industries employ 7.3 percent of the state’s private sector labor force and account for 5.6 percent of the state labor income. Also, for every dollar of value added in labor income, property income and indirect business taxes, farming and agricultural related industries generate an additional $1.27 in the state economy. For every 100 jobs in agriculture, including the food industry, there are 94 additional jobs created throughout the state. Farm exports, so vital to our nation’s balance of trade, constituted 40 percent of the total export value of $10 billion through the Port of Oakland in 2008 and contributed to 22 percent of the Port’s annual revenue of $135 million.

Public Services

The subvention program assists counties in dealing with numerous other responsibilities and public services. The loss of one of the last sources of discretionary revenues for the counties equates to further erosion of county services including: public safety, land use, elections, road maintenance and various health and human services.

###

As you know from this blog, the closure of the mill (along with two other SPI mills) last year was devastating to the local economy. MANY jobs (direct and indirect) were lost here and a number of folks moved away to find work.

This is great news from an economic standpoint alone. But we have the added benefit of once again having  a local facility where forest products can be processed – important from a fire fuels management perspective. That’s major!

Thanks, SPI and TCEDA and county staff for the elbow grease it took to make this work.

Go Team Tuolumne!

***********

For Immediate Release Contact: Larry Cope, 209-989-4058

PRESS RELEASE

Sierra Pacific Industries to Retool Sawmill at Sonora: Will Create 130 Jobs

In a Joint Announcement, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) and the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) today announced that SPI is making a major investment in Tuolumne County by retooling its sawmill in Sonora, updating an older mill that closed there in 2009. This facility, when completed, will incorporate state-of-the-art technology to produce lumber from a wider array of log sizes than was possible under the older configuration. Remodeling of the old plant is expected to begin by mid-July, and the updated facility is planned for operation in May of 2011. This announcement does not impact the SPI cedar fencing mill in Chinese Camp, which currently employs about 80 people.

“We are investing in the future of this community,” said SPI area manager Ryan Land. “Lumber markets have improved modestly and by increasing the range of acceptable log sizes we will be able to bring family-wage jobs back to this area,” he added. SPI continues to invest in its forests and mills to grow more trees and enhance productivity while protecting the environment and creating jobs,” Land went on to say. He added that Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority director Larry Cope has worked cooperatively with SPI to retool the mill and restore jobs to the community.

The Sonora mill closed in July 2009 amid weakness in the lumber market, reduced timber harvests on nearby national forest lands, and increasing state regulatory burdens. In addition, the plant was configured to only accept larger-diameter logs. “When combined, these factors left us no choice but to close the plant,” said Land. At that time about 130 employees were affected by the closure. About that same number of employees will be hired when the retooled plant begins production in 2011.

SPI spokesman Mark Pawlicki stated, “Retooling this mill will help California meet its own demand for wood products, rather than importing lumber from faraway places with lower environmental standards.” “The time has come when more of the lumber needed in this state can be produced in California’s mills,” he added.

Retooling of the mill will be managed by Sierra Pacific Industries. It is anticipated that SPI will hire local workers to help with the project.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Sierra Pacific Industries is a third-generation family-owned forest products company based in Anderson, California. The firm owns and manages nearly 1.9 million acres of timberland in California and Washington, and is the second largest lumber producer in the United States. Sierra Pacific Industries is committed to managing its lands in a responsible and sustainable manner to protect the environment while providing quality wood products and renewable power for consumers.

The Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) promotes the County of Tuolumne, including the City of Sonora, as a dynamic business location and provides business with essential information needed when locating or expanding business in the Sierra – Mother Lode Area of California.

TCEDA’s mission is to facilitate a local economy that is innovative, resilient and diverse, by assisting in business formation, developing a skilled workforce, supporting local businesses, and attracting innovative companies to Tuolumne County.

###

Nansea Arquette and the folks at Dawn’s Light Center for Children & Adults in Grief have announced the formation of teen and children’s groups this summer to connect them with others who can relate to what they’re going through.

Click on the flyers below for details and please print out copies to post on bulletin boards in your neighborhood. If you are an grieving adult, that sucks too. Dawn’s Light has a group for you, as well.

Give them a call at 532-9001.

Senate Majority Leader Steinberg, your proposal to shift $3-4 billion a year in ongoing programs AND costs to counties as a way to solve the state budget deficit is a whole new way to play the shell game.

Do you think we’re stupid? Do you think the public is?

[Read about it here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/06/senate-democrats-outline-plan.html]

Puhleez!

So while the media and sages are mulling this one over, let me point out  just a few teensy weensy problems I have with your plan to realign programs and costs:

1. Been here, done that. The state likes to transfer its responsibility to local governments. Sometimes you give us money to pay for new or existing responsibilities, but after a few years guess who is left holding the bag?
2. Get some guts. The Legislature has spent years creating huge behemoth programs. You want to cut your costs by inflating our costs with programs we didn’t create and don’t want?
3. Look us in the eyes and promise on your honor that once you divest the state of responsibility for these programs, you won’t create new ones as soon as  you have a smaller deficit. Yeah, right.
4. Do you think you’ve got public support to raise taxes on things like oil production, permanently extend the higher vehicle license fee rate, and delay corporate tax breaks? You must be pretty confident you can do that and get your majority re-elected. Good luck with that one.
5. You want to give counties  ”greater authority to seek local tax hikes from voters”? Are you proposing to erode Prop 13 and the required 2/3 majority vote required to raise taxes? Seriously, dude. I mean, Senator Dude.
6. If you cut the deficit by offloading state costs, you’re not erasing the deficit. You’re just pushing it downhill to us. Don’t want it, Senator.

I sure hope the minority party doesn’t think duty stops with  a vigorous fight against tax hikes. They’d better fight just as hard to insure you take care of the problems you created.

I’m not buying this plan to “plant the flag next to a long-term plan to restructure government in California”  and sure I hope my colleagues in local government aren’t either. We’re not stupid. Neither is the public.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that. Today.

The Merced River below Snelling, photo by Andrew Shun, Dept. of Conservation, 2004.

Congratulations to the East San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition (Coalition) on demonstrating water quality improvement in area waterways – including in two of its three targeted problem areas: the Dry Creek, Duck Slough/Mariposa Creek, and Prairie Flower Drain watersheds. Despite the initial frustration and the challenges of coordinating and funding a large regional coalition of landowners, industry, and watershed interests to insure compliance with strict regulatory guidelines, the Coalition’s hard work is paying off.

In 2003, the sunset of the Ag Waiver (a water quality-related exemption from the state requirement to obtain a water discharge permit for irrigated agriculture runoff) alarmed farmers and ranchers who would be tasked with funding and implementing the state’s water quality monitoring and management standards for agricultural lands. Fortunately, the state provided for conditional waivers of permitting requirements under conditions that irrigated Ag landowners could live with, though barely.

As the lower Merced River watershed coordinator for a Valley resource conservation district in 2003, I worked with others to form the Coalition and meet new requirements established in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Board) new Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP).

Under the ILRP, agricultural dischargers into waters of the state had to choose to Œ 1. file regular reports with the Regional Board to obtain a permit and insure all discharges meet water quality objectives,  2. join a coalition of Ag landowners and obtain a waiver, monitor, and manage water quality in area waterways, or Ž 3. obtain a waiver, monitor, and manage their own individual discharge – an expensive and highly technical undertaking.

The Coalition has grown to cover irrigated Ag lands east of the San Joaquin River in Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties and portions of Calaveras County. It contains 550,470 irrigated acres and has 2,378 members. Since 2003, the Coalition and other Central Valley agricultural efforts have collectively spent over $15 million to assess and address the impacts of farm runoff on regional waterways.

Over the last four plus years, the Coalition has conducted baseline monitoring in 40 different locations in the region. Beginning with baseline monitoring in 2004, it determined there were numerous locations in the region where Ag discharges were a problem and developed an overall management plan for 27 waterways and identification of the three problem watersheds above.

According to the Coalition’s recently released 2009 Annual Report, the initial management plan focuses on chlorpyrifos among several others, “an insecticide widely used in the region due to its cost effective control of invertebrate pests on many crops, particularly almonds, walnuts, and alfalfa”.

After aggressive outreach and education to members in targeted watersheds in 2008 and subsequent monitoring in 2009, water and sediment quality sample results showed no exeedance of water quality standards in two of the three watersheds. The third watershed continued to exceed standards for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, but further investigation identified the source as a farmer enrolled in a different program who was uninformed about the Coalition’s efforts. Coalition leaders note in the Report that additional years of monitoring will follow to scientifically validate the results, however 2009 outcomes are highly encouraging.

While it’s great news that water quality has demonstrably improved in the key Central Valley watersheds above, why am I blogging about it?

For starters, Tuolumne County has irrigated Ag land covered by the Coalition. Since water runs downhill, their success is ours too. Agriculture is not a villain or the source of widespread willful and egregious pollutant discharges into this region’s rivers and streams as some would have you believe. To be sure, there are still some who discharge polluted runoff, but the Coalition is catching up with them and helping them mend their ways.

Coalition farmers and ranchers have gotten on board with the conditional waiver. They’re educating each other, monitoring and planning to improve water quality, using best management practices and they’re policing themselves. They demonstrate the Coalition model works.

So once again, congratulations to the Coalition and its leaders Executive Director Parry Klassen and Wayne Zipser of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau. They’re doing their part to insure the San Joaquin River and its tributaries have good water quality. Thanks, folks!

To learn more about the Coalition and its efforts, go to www.esjcoalition.org or contact them at 209-522-7278.

We’re not a large county. Our total budget is around $143 million. Perhaps our numbers don’t seem too bad, but proportionally, these are major setbacks. They’re going to hurt.

Over the last five years, the General Fund has dropped by almost $11.7 million and revenues are down 7.1% from last year.  Board policy is to maintain a minimum of $1 million in a contingency fund, however this year it is proposed to contain just  $750,000 and will likely be all that stands between us and draconian cuts that will have to be made after the state budget is approved.

While the cuts are being couched in terms of employee positions to be eliminated, what that actually means is a reduction in service levels to the public. These are just some of the actions being proposed: the “high” points, if you will.

Due to the privatization of Tuolumne General Hospital, the Visiting Nurses Association, and other cost-cutting actions, the Board has eliminated 270+ permanent positions over the time I’ve been in office. This year’s budget proposes to further reduce the workforce by 70 permanent employees (26 employees will be moved under a tri-county Child Support Services Department).

Staff is asking the Board to consider allocating the yet-to-be received Transient Occupancy Taxes approved by the voters this month to restore some positions slated to be cut (including restoring the 4-H Program manager  and Public Defender’s attorney to full time, adding back an on call Animal Control officer, and a half-time Director of Library Services, the Public Health Officer (to .8), and restoring a Road Department and housekeeper position.

Some of the significant proposed reductions include the elimination of the Board’s Assistant Clerk (necessitating consideration of a reduced Board meeting schedule), back-filling the Board Clerk’s workload with a portion of the CAO’s executive assistant’s time, eliminating three full-time positions in the Assessor-Recorder’s office, eliminating four employees from the Facilities Management Department (and relief positions, as well), transferring the Film Commissioner to the Tuolumne County Visitor’s Bureau, reducing the Information Technology Department by two employees, delaying hiring of a District Attorney’s investigator, a reduction in hours for two Public Defender’s attorneys, eliminating three employees from the Sheriff-Coroner’s budget, not replacing ten Sheriff’s vehicles, demoting two positions, and eliminating a Jail Commander position.

The Probation Department is slated to lose a position, the Community Development Department four positions, and Environmental Health, one.  The Library is proposed to lose its 1/2 time Library Director as well as operating hours and Bookmobile days, although all branches will remain open. The Recreation Department is proposed to operate seasonally rather than year-round and two full time positions could be eliminated.

In the Public Works Department, Engineering is proposed to lose one full-time position. Road Maintenance revenues will be down almost $1.2 million due to reductions in state and federal funding. Road funds will be used to supplement the Department and one position is proposed to be cut. It goes without saying that this may impact both construction projects AND snowplowing. Please take it easy on Evan this winter – it’s not his fault (nor is it mine!).

County Fire has reduced permanent positions by two (resulting in paperwork processing delays, but not a reduction in fire services). The County proposes to continue staffing two Amador Contract stations (seasonal), Mono Village (full-time) and Jamestown (six months). The Solid Waste Department will lose one position. Solid Waste fees are being proposed to be increased significantly to cover repayment of an internal loan from the Traffic Mitigation Fund ($1.7 million).

The Health Department will be hit particularly hard due to a large reduction in H1N1 funding and other grant funds that are not available in the coming year. Clinic staff and the Public Health Officer positions are proposed to be eliminated to balance the fund budget. Obviously, such a reduction would be catastrophic should a pandemic or other major health crisis emerge. A significant amount of Behavior Health one-time contingency funds will be required to balance the budget and the recently established Crisis Stabilization Program will be retooled (but actual coverage will increase).

The Welfare Fund is proposed to lose four full-time employees due to retirements, vacancies, and layoffs. This despite the fact that there will surely be an increase in demand for services. Ambulance Fund revenues will be down by over a quarter of a million dollars and the budget is balanced without contingencies or capital improvement allocations. The Airport Department staff is proposed to be reduced by one full-time position and the Airports Director position will be transferred into the Public Works Department  to begin to oversee a new Fleet Management division.

Like I said, those are some high points… Yeah, right.

We anticipate a crowd at Tuesday’s meeting. Folks will come out in support of the Departments and positions they feel are indispensible and the Board will try to make the best of a very, very bad situation. We need to hear from you, but please realize that every Department is important to someone. The Board will need to make some difficult decisions.

The hardest part is that Tuesday will not be the end of the cuts and readjustments, but merely another difficult day of our work in process.

Over the last four years, in order to live within our means, the Board has adhered to critically important key principles: 1) don’t spend more than we take in; 2) maintain reasonable reserves and contingencies; and 3) minimize and promptly repay debt. These actions have enabled us to look beyond the immediate future to the long term. It’s a good thing.

Among precautionary measures taken were the closure of Tuolumne General Hospital, the establishment of the Tuolume County Economic Development Authority with the City of Sonora, projecting multi-year budgets, and being proactive to  identify and eliminate unnecessary costs.

These have been both necessary and helpful, although in and of themselves they will not be enough to close a yawning gap between revenues and spending.

Beginning in March, the Board heard a number of presentations from Chief Administrative Officer, Craig Pedro. Here’s what we were told and how we responded:

• Mar. 16: FY 2010/11 multi-year budget projections - Craig forecasted the economy wouldn’t see a notable and sustained change for 2-3 years, more cuts and cost shifts would be made by the state, local revenues won’t rebound for 2-3 more years, and all the County’s major operating funds  would experience operational deficits if the Board did not authorize immediate corrective action;
• Apr. 6: FY 2010/11 budget strategies – he recommended and the Board adopted nine specific actions to be taken (see below) to prepare the upcoming draft budget;
• Apr. 27 – May 11: Craig made reorganization proposals – six of them – which ranged from moving Behavioral Health into the Human Services Agency to moving Recreation and Libraries under the CAO’s office (not a popular option with supporters of either agency). This will result in the elimination of 10 full time employee positions;
• May 11: 2010 Early Retirement Program – his plan would eventually allow 14 employees to retire and should save the County $1.3 million over the next five years; and
• Jun. 1: the Board directed him to close gaps and balance each of the County’s major funds. We selected priorties for balancing the budget.

The following nine strategies were adopted to develop the budget:

1. Implement a selective hiring and expenditure freeze in order to build fund balances to be carried over to next fiscal year;
2. Economize where possible (all non-essential funding requests were limited by department heads);
3. Reduce staffing where work volume indicated a reduced workload (Human Resources, the Community Development Department, Public Works, and Environmental Health);
4. Stop providing services that can be provided by the private sector (previous years have seen more aggressive action on this front, although the Tuolumne County Film Commission and some County services are being spun off to be provided by Avalon Healthcare);
5. Evaluate the elimination of some existing services  that are unfunded state mandates (not much cost savings can be realized here);
6. Implement streamlining and cutting costs via reorganization of internal departments;
7. Negotiate cost savings via bargaining with the County labor unions (pension reform, benefit concessions, furloughs, etc.);
8. Offer an early retirement program (40 people came forward); and
9. As a last resort, implement staff reductions and  reductions in services via extending the payoff of some debt, utlize $1 million in cash reserves to preserve jobs and services, and prioritize public safety and roads services, while implementing common sense measures in other departments.

In Part II, we’ll summarize the results of the impending draft budget. Guaranteed you’re not going to like it much.

Over the next few months the budget may get better… but more likely, it will get worse. Far worse.

Until the state approves their budget, ours is just a work in progress.