San Benito County continues budget hearing as officials weigh layoffs, reserve shifts and library funding

San Benito County supervisors continued a special budget hearing on county finances, reserve allocations and potential personnel reductions, with staff presenting numbers for library project funding, longevity and step-pay costs and members of the public urging alternatives to layoffs.

County staff told the board the county would account for about $7,670,000 in identified project funds, with roughly $7,000,000 designated for library improvements and an additional $100,000 for a separate library-related item, and described reclassifications of some previously shown general-fund amounts into restricted accounts. Human resources staff presented estimates on longevity and step increases affecting county payroll, and multiple commenters — including union leaders and private-sector representatives — urged the board to avoid cuts that would remove experienced employees.

The hearing matters because supervisors are considering actions that would reduce payroll or change benefit and step structures while also using one-time reserves and grant-match funds to cover capital projects. Those decisions, speakers said, could have lasting effects on county services, institutional knowledge and employee retention.

County staff and outside presenters walked supervisors through several spreadsheets and system reports used to track fund sources and restricted accounts. Presenters said some items originally shown as available in the general fund had in fact been restricted by grant rules or transferred into designated accounts; staff asked for additional time to reconcile entries in the county finance system (referred to in the hearing as the ERP) and to return with updated line items. At one point staff said the hearing would continue on Tuesday to provide updated detail and to address several contested transfers.

Human resources staff presented a payroll analysis that separated longevity pay, step/grade increases and other recurring compensation drivers. The staff presentation identified approximately 120 employees currently receiving longevity increments and listed a longevity total (presented in the spreadsheet) of about $430,411. Human resources also provided scenarios for the cost of proposed step changes through October 2026 and a broader salary-impact tab that the presenter said would show multi-million-dollar totals depending on implementation choices.

Public commenters included union leaders, private-sector managers and individual residents who described likely impacts if positions were eliminated. Denise Kana, president of a CIO chapter, asked supervisors to “look over the past concessions for our members’ longevity pay, salary freeze, furloughs” and urged preservation of longevity and other negotiated pay elements. Ricky Ariola of Prenton Management Group said cuts to staffing and pay would harm service delivery and institutional knowledge and said, “We fully and fully urge the board to reject any efforts or reductions” that would remove employees providing core services.

Deputy county counsel Billy Moore reminded the board of prior legal advice about which fund sources and positions could be used or altered without additional cost or third-party approvals, and he noted legal and administrative limits on shifting certain restricted funds into operations. Staff and counsel both emphasized that some line items shown in public spreadsheets were snapshots and that the ERP uploads may not reflect the most current post-audit balances.

Supervisors repeatedly framed the decisions as painful and emphasized the need for a long-term plan rather than one-time fixes. One supervisor said the board must consider revenue strategies and structural reforms in addition to any short-term personnel changes. A staff presenter reviewed several potential reserve designations and grant match commitments (including ARPA-related funds and a state grant match that staff said carried a partial local cash-match requirement).

No final layoffs or permanent personnel reductions were approved at the meeting. The only recorded formal action in the transcript was an early procedural motion that the board approved (the transcript does not specify the exact item voted on). Staff were directed to provide updated reconciliations and to continue the budget hearing on Tuesday so supervisors could consider revised figures and options.

The board and staff agreed to return to the item with updated financial reconciliations and clearer identification of restricted versus available funds before taking any final votes that would eliminate positions or change the county’s compensation plans.