How to reduce millions of dollars in expenses from El Dorado County’s General Fund was the topic at the April 8 county Board of Supervisors meeting, with more than a dozen county services up for reductions or removal from the budget.

This is a result of 12 public meetings, said Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Sue Hennike, who along with Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Laura Schwartz, gave the budget presentation. With parks, senior programs, the juvenile detention center and Placerville Aquatic Center funding on the chopping block, the presentation was attended by almost a full house of people who spoke in earnest about their various groups’ needs.

While working with the budget ad hoc committee that included Supervisors George Turnboo and Brian Veerkamp, staff discussed ways to close the gap and spread the burden across departments, Hennike said. Departments had been asked to reduce their collective net county cost by $15.25 million.

---

---

“This has not been a fun process, but departments are really stepping up,” she added.

At the Feb. 11 board meeting, supervisors cut $868,567 in discretionary funding to outside agencies for tourism and economic development, along with reducing funding to Planning and Building and the Department of Transportation for tourism-related programs — a $1.3 million reduction. In addition, they chose to include funding for fire districts for tourism impacts at the fiscal year 2024-25 level, $836,595, and directed staff to ask fire districts about their tourism impacts, according to Schwartz. Requests from the fire districts and the adjusted amounts are as follows: El Dorado County Fire, $92,112 vs. $60,353; North Tahoe, $488,746 vs. $320,231; Lake Valley, $677,131 vs. $443,662; and Georgetown Fire, $18,848 vs. $12,349. The adjusted amount comes to $838,595.

---

---

It was recommended April 8 to cut fire tourism impact funding altogether for fiscal year 2025-26.

“This call reimbursement for these TOT (Transient Occupant Tax) calls, tourism related calls, absent of the TOT dollars that are generated to offset our responses on those, that shifts right to our residents,” EDCFPD Chief Tim Cordero said. “We use their property tax dollars to run these calls … that could be used for other programs, other aspects of our district besides these tourism-related calls.”

Looking at the fiscal year 2026-27 budget, Schwartz said it’s not getting any better, explaining, “In the last couple of fiscal years, you know, year before last, our property tax growth was 6.37%. It’s declined to 4.69% this year and we are projecting 3.5%.

“We want to direct departments to work on scenarios for a 5% and a 10% budget reduction,” she told the board, adding they also want to be informed about service impacts related to these reductions. “The reason we want departments to work on that now, obviously, is so that we have time to plan and make some good decisions.”

This information would be brought back to the board in the fall.

Forebay Park

On the Forebay project, $400,000 from Prop. 68 is allocated to go toward a restroom facility and an environmental analysis, which was done for $200,000.

“So that’s the part that’s already been spent,” Hennike said, adding if the county doesn’t build the restroom, the grant funding already spent would have to be paid back.

Complicating the project is the ADA accessibility needed to get to the restrooms, including parking lot upgrades, which balloons that portion of the project’s cost to $1 million.

“If we took the entire $3 million (needed for) the project, if we took that whole thing away, nothing would get done out there?” District 5 Supervisor Brooke Laine asked.

“Right. We just don’t have any other funding. And, unfortunately, the little pieces of funding that we’ve already gotten through Prop. 68 wouldn’t cover enough to really do any of it,” Hennike replied. 

“I think we need $800,000 to get the bathroom in with ADA accessibility and the parking lot,” said Laine.

District 4 Supervisor Lori Parlin agreed. “I think we really need to do that, after all of this,” she said. “And have you ever used the bathroom before at Forebay? Because I have.”

“I’ve heard about it,” Laine answered.

Parlin described an old wooden potty she said is kind of “scary.”

“I know that we’re hard pressed for money, but gosh that’s one thing you really do need there. So maybe we can get creative somehow,” Parlin added.

Snowline Little League President Ashley Hazlett noted her organization has been footing the bill for a port-a-potty and she lamented the loss of the Forebay Park plans. “I am saddened to see that the funds that were allocated to Forebay Park are being removed in their entirety,” she shared, telling the supervisors she now has to let the children know, “The parks that they were promised, the field that they were so looking forward to seeing next year after construction was supposed to break ground on June 1 of 2025, is in fact not going to happen.”

Chili Bar Park

“I’m beyond disappointed at the way that Chili Bar has been allowed to deteriorate,” said Parlin. “We’ve had to demolish a building. For whatever reason we let water get in there for years. We didn’t address it.”

The county has owned Chili Bar since 2007 and American River Conservancy had its conservation easement since 1994, she said.

“I just want to remind everyone, for the maintenance … at Chili Bar we have a partner there. We could use that for our maintenance on site as part of our agreement,” Parlin suggested.

Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Franich said as far as the planned vault toilets in the parking lot go, “We have a joint application into state parks. It was completed with ARC … and the reason we were able to apply for that is because it would be serving those who use the river for recreation.”

ARC currently maintains port-a-potties, but conservancy officials said they could maintain new restrooms, she added.

District 2 Supervisor Turnboo, worrying about the discord in the state and federal government right now, asked, “Is it in the future? I mean, we don’t even know that, correct? If you’re even going to secure those grants, am I right?”

“Yeah, that’s right. We don’t know for sure, especially with anything federal,” Franich agreed, adding staff expects to hear back this spring or summer.

In addition, she said there are “four levels of intensity” under consideration for a Chili Bar campground. Lebek Engineering in Cameron Park is working on cost estimates for each option, which will later be presented to the board.

Turnboo asked if staff looked into privatizing the campground.

“We did look at a concessionaire model. They could probably do tenant improvements at the site. They could give us a portion of their revenue that they make from running the site. So it would be some sort of hybrid,” Franich said.

“It’s a shame to let that place just sit there like it is,” District 1 Supervisor Greg Ferrero said. “It’s a beautiful area.”

District 3 Supervisor Veerkamp said any river fees or TOT for campsites at Chili Bar should be allocated for improvements.

“We have not addressed river use fees in how long — 20 years?” he asked. “We’ve got to get serious about some of these revenues and, I’m sorry, but that’s where it needs to come from.”

Senior programs

On March 4 an updated fee schedule for the Senior Day Care Program hosted in two locations — Placerville and El Dorado Hills — was brought before the board and on April 8 those fee increases were further examined.

“As a reminder, senior day care fees have not changed since 2016 and in the past four years the general fund cost of the senior day program has increased 60%. So it’s up to $800,000 a year for that program,” said Emma Owens, principal management analyst. “Right now, we’re serving 7.5 people at each of the sites. Before the pandemic we were serving 25 people on average at each of the sites.”

CAO recommendations discussed Tuesday:

1. Implement recommended rate increase, spread evenly across three years with Consumer Price Index increases. Approximately 71% of current members who responded to a staff survey said they would continue to participate if the rate increases were spread over three years. The estimated General Fund cost savings with rate increase is $440,864.

2. Combine sites by closing the El Dorado Hills facility and moving all Senior Day Care services to Placerville. Approximately 54% of current El Dorado Hills members who responded to a staff survey indicated that they would continue participation if the program moves to Placerville.

3. After closure of the El Dorado Hills facility staff can explore options to sell or lease the county-owned site and return to the board with recommendations for the fiscal year 2025-26 adopted budget. Potential closure and lease/sale of the site could result in an additional $525,000 in deferred maintenance savings related to the facility.

“It won’t change the capacity of the program because the people from El Dorado Hills could move up to the Placerville site,” Owens shared.

Of the El Dorado Hills site, she added, the El Dorado Hills Community Services District operates some senior services out of that building, which also served as a Senior Nutrition Program site.

“We’d like to come up with a plan of what we do in the interim while the (day care) program is no longer in that facility,” Owen said, adding a long-term plan for senior services is also needed.

“I’ve lost sleep over this one,” Supervisor Ferrero said, asking if the closure would affect the Senior Nutrition Program in El Dorado Hills.

Owens said it would not.

Ferrero asked for confirmation on a waiting list to get into the El Dorado Hills Senior Day Care program.

“There’s a waiting list and that’s a combination of do we have enough staff to accommodate everyone because there’s ratios,” Owens explained. “And then there’s also, it takes time to get someone fully enrolled. So they’re on the waiting list during the process of getting them enrolled.”

“But if we could staff more, we could accept more,” Ferrero suggested. 

“I’m just really torn,” he added. “El Dorado Hills has got to have the highest concentration of seniors in the county, especially with our two large age-restricted communities. But I also realize that we’re not serving a lot of people from El Dorado Hills.”

Supervisor Lori Parlin asked where senior meals will be served and Owens said they will stay at the El Dorado Hills location for now. Meals are currently brought down from Placerville.

Timalynn Jaynes, assistant director of Health and Human Services, said 15-20 seniors are served daily in El Dorado Hills. But there are seven congregate sites in all where meals are driven to, with about 200 volunteers in the program who help deliver meals. The program serves about 3,000 congregate meals monthly and 10,000-12,000 home delivered meals monthly.

Jaynes said she believes El Dorado Transit could drive seniors to the Placerville site, but has to confirm. “And then there’s also a program where family members can be reimbursed mileage for driving them to and from the program,” she added.

For those seniors who can’t leave their homes, drivers deliver their meals and check in on them.

Chair Turnboo asked if churches could run the program.

“They would have to be able to receive the federal funding unless we were to contract with the churches to provide the service,” Jaynes replied.

Turnboo suggested the El Dorado Community Church, because they have a kitchen. “(They) would probably be on board with that.”

Staff also explored potential for cost savings and revenue generating opportunities in Community Services programs, including Senior Nutrition and Senior Legal. 

“There’s some oversight of those programs, so it’ll take some time to implement, maybe six months if we do implement any changes,” Owens Shared

Senior Nutrition reductions:

• The Senior Nutrition Program is currently budgeted with 6.62 mealsite coordinators. HHSA has identified operational efficiencies that will allow for the elimination of one vacant position.

• HHSA will increase efforts to generate community donations.

Senior Legal reductions:

• Staff will continue to explore opportunities for cost savings.

• HHSA will increase efforts to generate community donations.

Joan Fuquay, chair of the Commission on Aging, said, “With 31% of the county’s population being over age 60, the influence and concerns of the seniors holds a significant weight regarding the services by the county.”

Fuquay said the commission supports exploring alternative funding sources.

“The COA is committed to collaborating with the county in this endeavor, seeking grants and charitable donations from the community,” she said.

John Tomko, a senior who volunteered at the senior center for 25 years, said it was the first board meeting he has attended and commended supervisors for their thoughtfulness.

“Your sensitivity to the issues of the senior center are commendable,” he said. “Greg, you said earlier when this topic came up that you had trouble sleeping at night. So I know the compassion and empathy that you have is shared by every one of your board members.”

Animal Services

Changes were also proposed to Animal Services to help close the budget gap. HHSA requested conceptual approval to review current county ordinances to identify revenue generating and cost saving opportunities. That includes reviewing the current fee structure and exploring opportunities to increase revenue through grant opportunities and public donations.

“Our animals ordinance largely hasn’t been updated since 1997,” Owens said. “So we’d like to take some time to go through that ordinance and see if there’s any efficiencies there or changes in how fees are applied.”

Juvenile Treatment Center

El Dorado County’s Juvenile Treatment Center is a mandated service. The county operates a 40-bed, medium-security facility, but only has an average daily population of 10-16 youth, according to Hennike. The average annual cost over the last three years was about $3.7 million, which, she said, could potentially be reduced by contracting with another county to use its facility.

The CAO recommendation is to “explore alternative service models for juvenile detention with regional partners for incorporation into future budgets.” 

“Whether we do that through our own juvenile treatment center or if we contract with another county who has a facility, it’s yet to be seen which one might be more efficient,” Hennike said. 

“We have met with all the internal stakeholders at the county to see how restructuring, how that service is provided might affect them,” she continued. “Now we need to reach out to some regional partners and some other counties to see what might be available out there in terms of contracting and how that cost would compare with doing it in-house.”

Fire funding

A 47% reduction in General Fund financing in the Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience could be achieved through a series of program modifications, according to the presentation.

The revised net county cost would be about $486,000 with the implementation of the following changes:

1. Reorganization and reassignments of administrative/management staff to other non-General Fund roles within the CAO’s Office — $175,380 savings.

2. Removal of supplemental requests like county-owned parcel clearing and community assessments/wildfire behavior modeling — $100,000 savings

3. End the Lake Valley contract and move defensible space inspection workload from Strawberry to the Tahoe Basin region to west slope staff — $82,700 savings

4. Strategic utilization of grants — $38,487 savings

5. Reduction of staff assigned to biomass — $10,000 savings

Also included in the agenda item was to discontinue fire tourism impact funding in fiscal year 2025-26, and to defer the El Dorado Hills Fire for Latrobe Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund equivalent contribution to the adopted budget, in alignment with Resolution 151-2024.

In regards to item No. 2, Schwartz clarified, “I don’t want to suggest that we won’t do county-owned parcel clearing if we need to, but what we will do is many of those requests come in and they end up being in the DOT’s right-of-way. And so they do have some funding in DOT that they can use to take care of those parcels.”

In an emergency, the board would be asked for a contingency, Schwartz added. But the CAO would not be allocating the funding upfront.

Supervisor Brooke Laine, District 5, said she thought the elimination of the Lake Valley contract was “enormous.”

County inspectors on the west slope could head up to Tahoe a couple of times a month to take care of complaints, Schwartz explained, but would likely not be able to do proactive county emphasis area inspections.

“I don’t see an inspector coming up twice a month mainly to deal with complaints … I think we will lose a lot of momentum,” Laine said, adding that the vegetation management ordinance and safety of the Basin would be in jeopardy if the one inspector is removed. “I’m not sure that that’s a hit that we can afford to take.”

Chair George Turnboo, District 2 asked about Fire Safe councils doing the work.

Schwartz said the assessments done by council members are totally voluntary.

“They are not inspectors under the ordinance for purposes of enforcement of the ordinance,” she said.

“Safety of our public, that’s our priority. We need help. We need more to provide these services to the influx populations we see,” chimed in LVFD Chief Chad Stephen.

“The assistance also helps us fund fire prevention programs and fire safety education,” he added. “There’s an increase in demand for services. These funds will help ensure that we are adequately staffed and equipped for these emergencies.”

Placerville Aquatic Center

The Placerville Aquatic Center in fiscal year 2023-24 received $77,555, according to the presentation.

“Last year, I guess for the 2024-25 budget, the board did find some one-time funding,” Schwartz said. “They had some savings in your community benefit program account and you decided to allocate that toward the pool.”

The County Administrative Office’s recommendation is to discontinue funding the aquatic center for fiscal year 2025-26.

The county’s contribution was set up to cover expenses related to county users. “I think the estimate is 75%-76% of the users are from out of the city,” Hennike said.

Placerville Community Services Director Denis Nishihara said the annual cost for operating the pool is $674,630. He said there were approximately 4,000 users in 2023-24 and around 3,113 of them were from outside the city limits.

“I’m a huge proponent of what we can do together,” Nishihara said. “Closing down facilities are never easy. I know it’s a very difficult thing to do, especially for our aging active adults, but we want to be able to provide that.”

He asked for .004% “to help save 3,100 lives from outside our city limits.”

“We are better together,” he added.

Placerville City Manager Cleve Morris said he understands budget issues because the city is going through the same thing. 

“But, it could mean completely closing down the aquatic center this year; it’s that big of a factor and a cost in our budget that comes just from General Fund budget,” Morris said, adding that closure is a safety issue because youth swimming lessons would be canceled, as well as recreational activities as they are a “deterrent to crime.”

He indicated that the county’s contribution last year is what is needed to fund the swimming lessons.

Additional proposals

• Implement the clerk of the board’s two-year plan for the Records Center, resulting in an approximately 85% General Fund cost reduction after two years

• Continue to fund the Missouri Flat Master Circulation and Financing Plan until phase one obligations are complete.

• Renegotiate 2026-27 resource conservation district agreements.

• Incorporate the South Tahoe Transit Joint Powers Authority, Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor JPA, and Board of Supervisors’ travel into the fiscal year 2025-26 budget.

• Direct staff to develop a retirement incentive plan as soon as feasible.

• Direct staff to begin working with departments on 5% and 10% budget reduction scenarios for the development of the fiscal year 2026-27 budget.

• Direct staff to work with the Budget Ad Hoc to explore revenue-generating options.

Board action

At the end of an hours-long meeting, a motion was made by Parlin, seconded by Veerkamp, to:

1) Receive and file a presentation and supporting documentation on the fiscal year 2025-26 budget development as directed by the board;

2) Direct staff to incorporate the following into the FY 2025-26 recommended budget:

a) Reallocate General Fund discretionary funding for the Chili Bar site, the Forebay Park project except for the bathroom and parking lot and the Transportation Tahoma Building to county operations, reallocate the funding for the Juvenile Treatment Center update to a Spring Street replacement designation, and return to the board for consideration of the reallocation of Forebay Park funding for the bathroom and parking lot;

b) Return to the board on April 22 for consideration of combining the Senior Day Care sites by closing the El Dorado Hills location and retaining the Placerville location and direct staff to return to the board with a fee increase for full cost recovery within three years, including a Consumer Price Index annual increase;

c) Direct staff to table the exploration of options to sell or lease the county-owned El Dorado Hills Senior Center site with the intention of maintaining the site for senior services and return to the board with recommendations for the FY 2025-26 adopted budget at this time;

d) Explore potential for cost savings and revenue-generating opportunities in the Senior Nutrition, Senior Legal and Animal Services programs, including amendments to Ordinance Code Title 6 – Animals for inclusion in the FY 2026-27 budget;

e) Direct staff to explore alternative service models for juvenile detention with regional partners for incorporation into future budgets;

f) Implement the Clerk of the Board’s two-year plan for the Records Center, resulting in an approximately 85% General Fund cost reduction after two years;

g) Implement program modifications to the Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience, resulting in an approximately 47% General Fund cost reduction, while exploring other options to conduct inspections, including the ability of code enforcement officers to conduct inspections;

h) Continue to fund the Missouri Flat Master Circulation and Financing Plan until phase one obligations are complete;

i) Discontinue fire tourism impact funding in FY 2025-26 and direct staff to explore how to use CSA 7 funding to support EMS;

j) Renegotiate the FY 2026-27 RCD agreements to be comparable to Tahoe RCD and explore other funding sources; and

k) Include the El Dorado Hills Fire for Latrobe Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund equivalent contribution to the recommended budget, in alignment with Resolution 151-2024.

The motion unanimously passed.

A motion was made by Veerkamp, seconded by Laine, to provide funding for the Placerville Aquatic Center in FY 2025-26 in the amount of $37,500 and ensure the funding is not provided unless the center is opened.

After the main motion was made, a subsequent motion was made by Ferrero, seconded by Turnboo, to discontinue funding for the Placerville Aquatic Center in FY 2025-26. Parlin, Turnboo and Ferrero supported the motion with Laine and Veerkamp voting no.

A motion was made by Veerkamp, seconded by Parlin, to not provide funding for the South Tahoe Transit Joint Powers Authority. That passed 4-1, with Laine dissenting.

A motion was made by Veerkamp, seconded by Turnboo, to continue funding the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor JPA. That passed 4-1, with Laine dissenting.

A motion was made by Veerkamp, seconded by Turnboo, to direct staff to reduce the Board of Supervisors’ travel in the FY 2025-26 budget to reflect only traveling to conferences where the member has been designated by the board as a representative and maximize use of county vehicles rather than mileage reimbursements for personal vehicles. That passed 5-0.

A motion was made by Veerkamp, seconded by Laine, to:

1) Direct staff to develop a retirement incentive plan as soon as feasible;

2) Direct staff to begin working with departments on 5% and 10% budget reduction scenarios for the development of the FY 2026-27 budget; and

3) Direct staff to work with the Budget Ad Hoc to explore revenue-generating options.

That motion passed 5-0.

The entire budget discussion, item 25 on the agenda, can be viewed on youtube.com by searching for EDC Board Meeting 4-8-2025.