Yuba City council reviews proposed FY2025–26 budget, directs staff to advance plan using one-time funds and targeted cuts

Yuba City held a special budget workshop in which Interim City Manager Robert Bindorf presented the proposed fiscal 2025–26 operating budget and capital improvement program and described a multiyear approach to address a multi‑million dollar structural deficit.

Bindorf told the council that the city “has a structural deficit,” and walked members through recent actions (including midyear reductions adopted in February) and the set of revenue and expenditure assumptions that produced the proposed 2025–26 budget. He and staff proposed using a mix of one‑time funds and modest ongoing reductions to stabilize operations while developing longer‑term solutions.

The presentation said the city used about $2.4 million in reserves in fiscal 2023–24 and faced roughly a $5.5 million structural deficit in 2024–25. Council action in February produced roughly $2.34 million in cost savings or cost avoidance, and departments were instructed to present additional options. Bindorf said the net effect of actions taken to date and updated cost assumptions reduced the initial 2025–26 projection by about $700,000 compared with earlier estimates, but added that significant cost pressures remain from pensions, utilities and other inflationary increases.

Bindorf outlined the city’s one‑time sources and constraints: vehicle‑replacement and equipment funds (noted at about $9.4 million before debt obligations), a total of roughly $25 million in one‑time balances across multiple accounts and separate accounts set aside for pension (a PARS 115 trust) and OPEB liabilities. He recommended limited, targeted draws from those accounts to bridge the upcoming year while staff and council pursue structural solutions; the presentation proposed a $500,000 draw from the PARS 115 trust and roughly $55,000 from an OPEB account as part of the plan. Bindorf cautioned against relying on one‑time money long term: “If you try this overnight … it’ll be too rushed and we need to make sure we again develop that proper cadence,” he said.

Staff also identified specific near‑term cost changes the ad hoc committee and departments had recommended or implemented: a hiring freeze with an exception process, a recommended July 1, 2025, authorization path for filling police officer and firefighter positions, a proposed 50% reduction in community sponsorships and events funding, and elimination of a $12,500 request for the film commission. The presentation said department budgets were largely held flat and that the general‑fund proposed expenditures for 2025–26 were roughly $62.1 million.

Bindorf emphasized the imbalance between discretionary revenue and public‑safety costs. He asked the council to consider that the combined net city cost for police, fire and community services approaches $41 million, while the city’s largest discretionary revenue buckets (sales tax, property tax, franchise fees and related categories) total roughly $38 million, meaning limited discretionary dollars must fund many other departments.

Council members and ad hoc committee members said they want to avoid layoffs where possible because of training, recruitment and service impacts. In response to a question about station closures as a cost‑saving measure, the Fire Chief said the department is operating under a SAFER grant that “does not allow us to drop below 51 personnel operational,” and explained that temporary station closures only produce savings if vacancies can be used to reduce minimum daily staffing; otherwise the savings are limited. The chief summarized: “If you are back filling, behind those vacant positions on a daily basis, you do save money … but it is a cost savings,” and noted operational constraints tied to grant requirements.

Council discussion emphasized revenue‑side work as well as continuing to evaluate expenditure options. An ad hoc committee member told the council that expense reductions have largely been implemented by departments and that future focus must include revenue generation. Council members requested staff provide more detailed departmental budgets and quarterly (or more frequent) fiscal reviews to monitor the city’s position.

Bindorf and staff said they will proceed with the budget approach presented, incorporate council feedback, and return with a formal budget presentation for council consideration on June 17. The council gave general assent to that direction; no formal vote on the budget occurred at the workshop.

Ending: The workshop closed after council comments and staff confirmation of next steps; staff will deliver a refined budget package and supporting departmental detail ahead of the June 17 meeting for formal consideration.