The March 11 meeting of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (BOS), though largely procedural, carried an undercurrent of urgency as discussions about the County’s budget and code enforcement unfolded. Although numbers and policies were the ostensible focus, the real drama lay in the looming financial shortfalls and the political dynamics at play.
With fiscal challenges on the horizon and the threat of potentially staggering federal budget cuts, the supervisors grappled with how to balance essential services, while relative newcomer Garry Bredefeld (District 2) further established himself as the board’s histrionic gadfly.
Budget Uncertainty
In preparation for a recommended budget to be presented to the BOS on June 24, and final budget hearings on Sept. 15‒16, County Administrative Officer Paul Nerland and Budget Director Paige Benevides presented an overview of the current County budget. Main concerns were an anticipated $15 million shortfall and—despite no explicit mention of “Trump” or “Musk”—fears about what could be the “devastating” effects of possible cuts to the County’s federal funding.
Benevides described the general outlook for fiscal 2025‒26: As of March 11, revenue growth (from sales tax and property tax) was estimated at about $26 million. Total estimated appropriations (including salary/benefits, IHSS [In-Home Supportive Services], jail medical, animal services, illegal-dumping management) were about $41 million, leaving an estimated shortfall of about $15 million.
To mitigate the projected shortfall, Benevides offered possible solutions, such as limits on hiring and overtime, elimination of “non-mandated” services and departmental budget reductions.
Benevides also noted that a decline in sales tax revenue will likely continue, concerns about inflation will persist and internal service costs will likely increase.
Nerland mentioned that the state budget was “roughly balanced” and did not seem to have concerns about it having an impact on the County, but he expressed significant worry about the federal budget and the potential local effect of cuts to funds despite having been already appropriated and, until now, fully expected.
Following a recent visit to Washington, D.C., Nerland and other staff spoke with the county’s lobbyists, among others, who said that the proposed Medicaid cuts could be “staggering,” with even small changes to the program having a “massive impact.”
If the County were forced to cover the costs of these services, it would be “devastating,” Nerland added. Nerland tried to smooth over this bad news by pointing out that some of the other proposed cuts to federally funded agencies and services “didn’t occur” because of what he euphemistically called “feedback,” alluding to public protest, constituent anger and successful legal action. He offered a meaningless platitude: “Challenging times are good for government.”
During the ensuing discussion, Bredefeld remarked that he wanted to see department heads come before the board to describe their budget needs because “the public” needs to hear them, though he didn’t say how or if the public’s input would be incorporated into any decisions. He gave an ultimatum: If department heads don’t show up individually and make presentations to the board, he would not support any budget proposal.
In response to Bredefeld, District 3 Supervisor Luis Chavez said he was “supportive of having a conversation” about budget presentations. Referring to the threat of cuts to federal funding, he said that there was “a lot at stake.” In contrast to Bredefeld’s demands for departmental input, Chavez said that he will be holding community meetings in his district about services and other urgent budget concerns—no other supervisor responded or made a similar announcement.
Chavez turned to Nerland and asked what could be done in a fiscal emergency. Nerland replied that they might need to “break glass” and use emergency reserves, adding somewhat obliquely that “stories of real people” are more effective than numbers, and if supervisors hear from constituents, there could be an “impact,” but he didn’t say how such stories would be communicated to federal decision makers.
When the very person tasked with making the federal budget cuts believes that empathy is a failing, as Elon Musk has said publicly, what effect can tales of human suffering really have?
District 5 Supervisor Nathan Magsig, who was in D.C. with Nerland, said that there was support “on the Republican side” for increasing the debt ceiling, adding that “the President” has “expressed an interest” in “reining in spending” and that Trump has “made it clear” that he wants to “protect” Social Security and Medicare, which, of course, does not appear to be true. Then Magsig repeated the lie, perpetrated by Musk and Trump, that 150-year-old people were receiving Social Security payments before conceding that “we are very reliant on federal funds for Medicaid.”
Electric Vehicles: A Tangential Distraction
Magsig pivoted to the state’s 35% EV (electric vehicle) sales goal for model-year 2026 vehicles because he feels that state laws regarding these goals would have a dire impact on the general economy and therefore the County budget. To make the case, he invited a local car dealer to address the matter.
Darkly invoking Governor Gavin Newsom, former President Joe Biden, and CARB (California Air Resources Board), Mike Gibson of the Central California New Car Dealers Association spoke in grave tones about what he considered onerous and economically devastating laws regarding electric vehicles, but he was not very convincing and offered little evidence. “We are not anti-EV,” protested Gibson; he just wants the laws repealed.
Magsig referred to Gibson’s three-minute summary as “testimony.” Mendes was heard to remark sotto voce, “CARB is out of control.” In the end, the argument for EV sales laws negatively affecting the County budget failed to gain traction.
Code Enforcement and the Battle over “Teeth”
Pulling an item from the consent agenda regarding code enforcement, Bredefeld, as he attempted to grandstand about insistence on higher fees for dumping violations, managed to put the spotlight on his own ill-informed nagging, while failing to offer solutions. District 1 Supervisor Brian Pacheco pushed back firmly, clearly laying out the history and background of the County’s code enforcement policies, knowledge Bredefeld clearly lacked.
Bredefeld has made a point of pulling items from the consent agenda (typically a list of routine or administrative items, not requiring individual attention, all approved with a single vote) to nitpick, quiz staff, challenge colleagues and showboat on matters for which he could easily get answers by perusing the agenda materials.
Sometimes he ends up looking foolish because he hasn’t done his homework. At a previous meeting, Bredefeld was admonished by District 4 Supervisor Buddy Mendes to read the information included in the agenda before asking questions, an exchange that resulted in a juvenile shouting match.
The item Bredefeld pulled at the March 11 meeting concerned the resolution of a long-standing illegal dumping case at a property in Riverdale. The erstwhile accountability hawk’s eye was likely drawn by the seemingly low $5,000 fine charged to the property owners—why was the penalty so small, and why didn’t the County simply “take” the property instead?
County Counsel Daniel Cederborg’s reply was a dry, “Because there is only so much blood you can get out of a turnip.” Bredefeld insisted that the County needed greater “teeth,” a metaphor he used repeatedly.
A deputy County attorney assured Bredefeld that an injunction was in place and that costs incurred by the County would be recovered via legal recourse; he advised Bredefeld that “litigation takes time.” Mendes pointed out that the site has remained debris-free for the last two years and that no further complaints about the property ensued. But Bredefeld wanted to know what “teeth” the County had to ensure that it won’t happen again—the “teeth” image evoking the aggression of a wild animal.
In a related matter regarding an update on the county’s code-enforcement policies, staff said that there were about 1,800 violations on the books, still to be fully resolved. Bredefeld seized on what he felt was an unusually high number of unresolved cases, calling it “embarrassing” and touting the superiority of the code enforcement department of the City of Fresno, where he was previously a member of the City Council. “Financial deterrence has not been enough to reach compliance! Over 1,000 cases—that needs to change!” he complained.
Pacheco, who normally speaks with restraint and brevity, appeared to have had enough of Bredefeld’s complaints and said firmly but politely, “It’s easy to throw rocks when you don’t know where you come from.” Pacheco explained that the County’s current code enforcement policies are new and that prior boards had long been reluctant to establish code enforcement guidelines for private property.
Without specifying or naming individuals who had served as supervisors in the past, Pacheco explained that, in the cumulative history of the BOS, more supervisors than not were the type who, if you entered their property, would “meet you with a shotgun.”
Hence, regarding code enforcement, more recent supervisors had “started with nothing,” Pacheco said. Yes, he added, the City of Fresno has a larger code enforcement staff, but it also has a budget deficit—something the County has managed to avoid.
Stiffer fines might be in order, but the County is limited by state statute, Pacheco explained, noting that though the number of pending cases is now about 1,800, it was many times higher until only recently. Budget hearings would determine where this issue falls on the list of County priorities, Pacheco noted. Magsig reiterated that in past years there had been no code enforcement whatsoever, and Mendes, ever the charming rube, said that in the past, in the absence of any ordinance, “we had a hen-house way o’ doin’ things.”
The exchange gave the appearance that Bredefeld, who was elected to the BOS in November 2024, knew surprisingly little about recent County business.
Bredefeld protested that he “was not pointing fingers” and hoped to address his concerns in the budget hearings.
Looking Ahead
As budget hearings approach, the Board of Supervisors will face tough choices. The county’s financial health is dependent on federal funding, and potential Medicaid cuts threaten to disrupt essential services. Meanwhile, code enforcement remains a work in progress, with questions over balancing accountability with fiscal constraints. Bredefeld continues to posture as a champion of transparency but has thus far offered more spectacle than substance.
