Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Benito supervisors accept FY 2025-26 budget update, approve new budget policies
Summary
At a special meeting April 15 the board received an update on the FY 2025-26 budget showing a current general fund shortfall of $6.6 million and adopted a set of budget policies (5-0) including a rule that the general fund not subsidize grant programs, vacancy budgeting, and incorporation of certain one-time funds into operating budgets.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors on April 15 received a fiscal-year 2025-26 budget update and unanimously approved a package of draft budget policies the county will use to shape the recommended budget.
County staff presented preliminary figures showing a projected general fund gap of $6.6 million for FY 2025-26, after accounting for current revenues, projected fund balance and requested departmental budgets. The board then voted 5-0 to adopt operating policies that staff will reflect in the county administrative officers recommended budget.
Interim County Administrative Officer Henning Ring and Deputy CAO Rebecca Campbell walked the board through the budget timeline and key assumptions: the administration will present a recommended budget May 13, a human-resources vacancy report will be part of that hearing to satisfy the new reporting requirements described in the meeting as "SB 25 61," and the board will hold budget hearings June 3.
Key numbers and fiscal assumptions reported - General fund snapshot (as presented): expenses/uses "a hundred and $7,000,000," revenues of "70,600,000.0," and a fund balance available of "29,800,000.0," yielding a reported gap of $6,600,000 (figures quoted from the April 15 presentation by Rebecca Campbell). - Revenue growth: property-tax growth projected at 6% by the assessor; sales tax was described as essentially flat in the near term. - Noted liabilities and cost increases: workers' compensation and liability (reported +$1,400,000), other post-employment benefits (+$1,800,000), and technology upgrades (new ongoing IT costs described as $1,000,000 plus $200,000 for two years). - One-time items and corrections: a reported franchise-fee correction of approximately $1,600,000 will require follow-up, and staff flagged a $5,000,000 rollover for the Hazel Hawkins Hospital joint-powers project.
New or highlighted budget policies the board adopted - General fund shall not subsidize grant-type programs (county staff added language that the general fund will not pick up grant-funded programs unless the Board authorizes it and that notice of grant cancellation must go immediately to the CAO). - Vacancy budgeting: vacant but funded positions should be eliminated unless funding is identified and approved; public-safety positions are exempt from the vacancy rule; positions vacant over 120 days require written justification to hire and CAO review. - Incorporate Proposition 172 allocations into operating public-safety budgets for transparency. - Incorporate Mello-Ross/community facilities district revenues into operating budgets as allowed by law and aligned with a service-level analysis.
Public comment and additional clarifications Public speakers urged fiscal transparency and recommended additional audits and hiring freezes. A commenter who identified herself as a county auditor clarified that a pars ring trust cited by one commenter does not contain $39 million; county staff later confirmed the trust balance is not that amount. Auditor or staff comments at the meeting clarified existing OPEB funding discussions and noted the board previously has acted on funding actuarially determined contributions.
Next steps and timing - May 13: CAOs recommended budget presented; Human Resources will present required SB 25 61 vacancy reporting and recognized employee organizations may present if thresholds are met. - June 3: Budget hearings on the recommended budget and further board review. - Staff asked for feedback from supervisors and said they will prepare a redline of policy language to show changes from the prior year.
Why this matters: structural budget decisions The board and staff framed the policy package as the start of multiyear fiscal discipline: limiting use of the general fund for grant shortfalls, applying vacancy controls, and accounting transparently for dedicated public-safety funds. Staff and supervisors said the county faces a challenging year, and the policies are intended to guide deeper review and follow-up before final adoption of appropriations.
