Last week, we told you about the proposed $949.5 million 2025-26 SLO County budget, which, despite the $78 million increase from last year’s budget, came out balanced.  The “balanced” part of that statement meant that expenditures were matched to revenues. 

This week, the Board hears a “request to receive and file the FY 2025-26 Supplemental Budget to the FY 2025-26 Recommended Budget, which publishes the FY 2025-26 Budget Hearing schedule and recommends adjustments to the FY 2025-26 Recommended Budget”.  What that gobblygook statement translates to is an additional $1,308,746 of supplemental requests to add on top of last week’s balanced budget proposal. 

This, along with Supervisor Gibson’s suggestion that county reserves be tapped to provide “gap funding” to several local service providers impacted by cuts in the proposed budget.  Discussion about gap funding ranged from $1,000,000 to $2,500,000, with at least one mention of $7,000,000.

Simple math tells us that when the Board meets on June 3, they will need to figure out increases somewhere in the range of $2,308,000 to $3,808,700 in additional spending (and revenue) if they approve the supplemental budget requests and pursue the gap funding idea.  Should they let the reserve funding just draw down the reserve balance, the revenue requirement will be less.   

COLAB has been commending the Board and county staff for taking a new and much more accountable approach to budgeting.  This new approach involves going through the budget of each department in search of obsolescence, duplications and inefficiencies.

However, we were frankly a bit surprised to see a nearly 9% increase, and we are concerned that after an extensive process, we hear about an extra $1.3 million that shows up after everything was supposed to have been carefully “rebalanced”. 

Those advocating for fiscal responsibility are going to have questions including:  

 If $1.3 million extra shows up after just one week from the proposal, how much extra will be needed in the long run?

 If we tap the reserves this year for a couple million, what happens next year? 

We see the state is experiencing at least $12 billion in budget shortfalls (possibly two or three times that according to some sources) – what will that mean for funding that traditionally flows to counties? 

If we see significant state cuts to SLO County, how will that impact funding to our local programs?  Who will decide what gets cut and by how much? 
 
If trimming is needed, proportional cuts obviously would put a much more difficult load on some categories than on others. The administration of any cuts could be more impactful than the original budget process. 

Under the 2025-26 Budget Proposal, 38 cents out of your county tax dollar is dedicated to Health and Human Services,  27 cents to public protection, 9 cents to reserves & contingencies, 7 cents to land based support, 6 cents to financing, 5 cents to support county departments, 4 cents to fiscal and administrative costs,  3 cents to community services and 1 cent to capital projects and maintenance.  

Stay tuned to see how the budget proposal is addressed in the June 3 Board meeting and especially what happens during the budget hearings June 9-11.

Aside from the budget, a couple additional items on the June 3 Board of Supervisors agenda are worth noting.

Item 10, while probably quite necessary, is especially irritating.  It reads: a request to approve and execute Amendment No. 4 to the Special Services Consulting contract with Aspen Environmental Group, Inc., amending the term of the Contract from July 13, 2025 to July 13, 2027, to complete preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project hearing process for the PG&E Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Project.

Obviously, it’s irritating to have to go through any decommissioning when our statewide grid is already underserved and incapable of providing the reliable electricity that we need for our homes, businesses and industries.

It’s also irritating that the decommissioning is costing our county in terms of lost tax revenue on top of the EIR preparation cost of $2,054,557. The power plant provides a sizeable amount to the county tax base when possessing a reasonable 20 year license. Without the license and permits, its value is much less, thus it is taxed at a lower value. Currently, state regulators have extended operating permits by only 5 years, so PG&E is forced to prepare for a 2030 closure.

We can’t forget that Diablo Canyon is also the biggest employer in SLO County providing jobs that are critical to our economy.

So, with all of that irritation on the table, we see this contract to provide an Environmental Impact Report which is required to complete the decommissioning. The contract is a 249-page document. The following is an organizational chart showing who is in charge of various aspects of the first two thirds of the Environmental Impact Report:

The Org chart does not illustrate the wide range of personnel involved. Here is a half-page (of a three-page list) of job titles and fee rates for Aspen employees’ hourly rates. We count at least 17 positions making over $200 per hour, 6 making over $300 per hour, and one each at $434 and $565 per hour. Gotta wonder if the EIR will include the economic impact of actually preparing the report.

The answer to the question that we should all be asking (how can we fix this ridiculous situation?) is to press Governor Newsom into directing his administration to extend all necessary permits to 20 years. If Diablo Canyon is fully permitted, this decommissioning stuff will stop for the foreseeable future.

Green energy, renewable energy, solar, wind… nothing available in the next decade (at least) will be able to supply the clean and reliable power that our state needs without having Diablo as a cornerstone source.

The ongoing saga over the Paso Water Basin Joint Power Authority has a new chapter. In a shady move, the JPA gave notice of its public meeting on Friday afternoon May 23 (just before the three-day Memorial Day weekend) for their May 28 meeting. At the meeting, they introduced a plan to have the de minimis users’ fees paid by the Groundwater Sustainability Authority, thus relieving de minimis users not only from having to pay water rates on their own wells, but also restricting them from the right to vote on representation of the Paso Basin.

Anybody with a basic expectation of democratic principles being applied to our local government should be wondering:

Why is this new government agency needed – can existing data on basin levels be trusted to be accurate enough for this decision?

At every public hearing, there is a long list of people opposing the new JPA, but no advocates – who is asking for this and why?

When did the GSA decide to pay the rates for de minimis users, and where is the public record of that meeting?

How much will this GSA pay-off of de minimis rate payers (voters) cost, and where are the funds coming from?

Will the GSA pay the de minimis users’ rates indefinitely, and if not, will di minimis users get a vote when they do have to pay?

Wouldn’t it be in everybody’s best interest to have an open 218 election to allow the ratepayers of the new agency to choose their representation, and if not why?

His presence on the Board has always brought a left-leaning point of view - often to the discouragement of the business and agriculture communities, but much to the delight of environmental and civil rights groups.

Naturally, the announcement kicked off the usual rounds of speculation regarding who will run to replace him. While the district is left leaning in voter registration, we can only hope to see a reasonable voice that seeks balance while being open to the economic development that SLO County so desperately needs.