Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada County adopts fiscal 2025–26 budget totaling $415.45 million; supervisors debate reserves and staffing
Summary
Board adopted the county’s FY25‑26 budget after public hearings and a multi‑week outreach effort. The $415.45 million plan uses one‑time fund balance in places, adds staff positions, and prompted debate about long‑term pension liabilities and use of fund balance.
Nevada County supervisors adopted the fiscal year 2025–26 budget June 24, approving documentation that sets the county’s financial plan for the year beginning July 1.
Deputy CEO and Chief Fiscal Officer Erin Mettler reviewed the budget process and noted that the $415.45 million plan is a planning document that uses fund balance to smooth projects that span fiscal years. She said staff made two corrections since the June 10 public hearing: a clarification in the executive summary about pension outlook and a corrected personnel count in a staffing resolution. The board’s budget subcommittee, staff and department leaders briefed supervisors throughout the budget cycle and the county published outreach materials and a public hearing.
Board discussion focused on long‑term liability and staffing levels. Several supervisors thanked the budget team for work amid federal and state uncertainty; one supervisor urged caution about adding ongoing positions funded in part with one‑time balances and expressed concern about the county’s unfunded pension liability (noting a reported funded ratio near 62.8 percent). Other supervisors highlighted that some staffing increases are grant‑funded or required by state program realignments and said vacancy review policies restrict uncontrolled hiring.
After public comment — which included calls for fiscal restraint and requests for a COLA freeze for elected officials and executives — the board approved a set of associated resolutions: the appropriations limit for FY25‑26, authorized staffing and salary resolutions, adjustments to fund balances for FY24‑25 and FY25‑26 commitments, Prop 172 public‑safety allocations, and final adoption of the fiscal year budget totaling $415,450,064.
Mettler said the county has contingency tools and contract clauses that allow the county to respond to changed funding. She noted that capital projects and mandated services constrain how much the county can quickly reduce spending, but staff will continue fiscal monitoring and can return if material state or federal funding changes occur.
Why it matters: The annual budget sets the county’s priorities for services, capital projects and staffing. While the board adopted the budget, several supervisors signaled ongoing concern about pensions and long‑term sustainability, and staff was tasked to keep the board informed if large external funding changes emerge.
