LASSEN COUNTY — After years of warnings from local financial insiders that the well of one-time monies would eventually run dry, that day has officially arrived for Lassen County.
Following two intensive, day-long sessions last Tuesday and Wednesday, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors approved a $166.7 million budget early Wednesday evening in a 4-1 vote. District 3 Supervisor Tom Neely cast the lone dissenting vote.
The vote capped a rigorous review process where the board heard directly from department heads on Tuesday and debated line items throughout Wednesday, ultimately canceling a tentative Thursday session after reaching a resolution.
According to the official budget agenda item prepared by county staff and signed by Lassen County Administrative Officer Maurice Anderson, the final approved package balances projected revenues of $152,410,675 against projected expenditures of $166,671,393 by utilizing anticipated fund balances and aggressive cost-cutting measures. Department heads had initially requested $149,787,841 in revenues and $173,194,319 in expenditures.
”As with most Northern California counties, it is getting harder and harder to pass a balanced budget due to significant changes in state and federal administrations and funding streams, the lack of one-time monies previously used to balance, and the increasing cost of goods and services,” Anderson noted in his report. “Although a deficit was identified, departments and the administration team were able to identify areas to cut in order to reach a balanced budget.”
To close the deficit without resorting to employee layoffs, county leadership eliminated most vacant positions entirely from the budget, leaving open roles unfunded across various county departments.
Leadership Reacts to ‘Austere’ Budget
In a statement following the vote, Anderson emphasized that while the county successfully adopted a balanced budget, it was a “difficult and very tight process.”
”In recent years, the county has utilized one-time funds to help bridge budget gaps and maintain services. Those resources, however, are becoming increasingly limited and are not a sustainable source of ongoing funding,” Anderson said. He added that wage increases have added to operational pressures, leading the county to implement a temporary hiring freeze while requiring department heads to monitor mid-year spending closely.
Members of the Board of Supervisors shared mixed feelings of frustration with state mandates and relief over avoiding layoffs:
- District 1 Supervisor Michael Scanlan described the package as an “austere budget” designed to balance fair wages with essential services. “We were facing a deficit, and we were trying really hard to not lay off any employees,” Scanlan said. “Given the climate with the economy and other obligations, we’ve done the best that we can.”
- District 2 Supervisor Gary Bridges placed the blame on state policies, stating, “It’s a tight budget and everybody paid a price for it, but the state is just killing the rural counties. They dump so much stuff on us, and it’s almost impossible to comply.”
- District 4 Supervisor Aaron Albaugh voiced similar frustration over state funding constraints, pointing out that out of a $160 million total budget, the board only holds discretion over roughly $40 million. “Our discretionary funds went up like 1 percent. How much has everything else gone up? We’re not even keeping close to inflation,” Albaugh said. “We’re dying on the vine. We’re going broke because of the state and their stupid policies.”
- District 5 Supervisor Jason Ingram expressed gratitude toward county staff for making the necessary sacrifices to reach the finish line. “All the different departments really tightened everything down. We have multiple employees wearing multiple hats,” Ingram said. “I think moving forward, the county is in a good position. We’ve just got to be really tight with our money at this point because we’re out of the one-time funds that have kept us afloat.”
District 3 Supervisor Tom Neely, who cast the lone vote against the budget, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
County officials warn that department heads will need to monitor their line items rigorously throughout the fiscal year, with potential budget adjustments expected at the mid-year review.
