County staff present year‑end budget picture as supervisors consider chip sealer, road repairs and public safety hires

Tuolumne County staff presented a year‑end budget review and a recommended approach to estimated general‑fund ending balances during Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, telling the board they currently estimate roughly $5.7 million in general‑fund ending fund balance.

Liz Peterson and Sean Cole of the county administrator’s office walked supervisors through revenue and expense projections and recommended how to allocate the estimated balance as the county develops the fiscal‑year 2025–26 budget. The budget team recommended using fund balance for a mix of needs: a $1 million allocation to next‑year contingencies, $1 million for capital (deferred maintenance for county buildings), $500,000 reserved as a placeholder for reserves (to be formally transferred once year‑end actuals are finalized), and about $560,000 to help balance next year’s operating budget if needed. Peterson noted these are estimates; the auditor‑controller’s final closing of the books in July/August will produce final fund balances.

Staff also reported downward pressure on revenue projections. Sean Cole described a decline in sales tax trends and reduced forecasts for transient occupancy tax; sales tax was revised down to about $6.5 million for the year and staff recommended assuming no growth for the next year. HHSA staff and the behavioral‑health director warned of a separate revenue issue: reductions in state “realignment” funding tied to sales tax and vehicle license fee bases are producing significant shortfalls for health and human services programs. “This represents a shortfall of $696,000 in behavioral health,” an HHSA representative said.

The presentation touched on several line items and near‑term requests. Community Development requested $120,000 for outside planning and legal services tied to major projects and ordinance work. The grand jury’s operating budget needs an additional $14,000 this year, staff said. Behavioral Health reported a $15,000 extra cost to finish a deck renovation at the county‑operated Cabrini House supportive housing facility; staff proposed funding moves between departmental housing and capital funds to close that gap.

Supervisors and members of the public used the discussion to press for road repairs and capital equipment that could save money over time. Public comment was dominated by repeated, detailed requests to repair Big Hill Road — speakers described long‑running deterioration, safety concerns for school buses and evacuation routes, and repeated incidents of vehicle damage. Public Works director Blossom Scott Heim provided cost estimates for equipment requested during the meeting: the striping machine quote was “about a half a million” and the chip‑seal machine likewise in the roughly $400,000–$500,000 range when paired with required rollers.

Supervisors explored using one‑time fund balance to buy a chip‑seal machine for in‑house work and to fund a discrete Big Hill Road rehabilitation project. Members also proposed using funds to add prosecutorial and investigative capacity focused on crimes affecting vulnerable populations; Tuolumne County District Attorney Cassandra Genicke said an experienced prosecutor would cost about $200,000–$250,000 per year, while the sheriff estimated an investigator position at roughly $156,000 including on‑call and related costs. HHSA and public‑safety leaders discussed possible uses of restricted opioid‑settlement funds for treatment and related responses, but the district attorney noted prosecution is typically not an allowable use of those settlement dollars.

After extensive discussion, supervisors directed staff to return with recommended budget language and to include several board priorities in next year’s recommended budget: (1) cost estimates and procurement options for a chip‑seal machine, (2) a proposal for targeted Big Hill Road repairs, and (3) analysis on funding one or more public‑safety positions (a prosecutor and an investigator) as part of the 2025–26 budget. The board agreed to hold the county’s formal year‑end adjustments (attachment A) for further refinement and to receive a recommended budget that reflects the board’s direction. Several supervisors said they want firm project details and cost‑benefit information before committing one‑time fund balance to projects.

Ending: Staff will prepare a recommended 2025–26 budget that incorporates the board’s direction on contingencies, capital, road projects, equipment purchase options, and public‑safety staffing. Final fund balances will be confirmed once the auditor closes the fiscal year; staff said they will present final figures and a refined budget plan at the adoption stage.