Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to delay final budget adoption until after special election fails on the board floor
Summary
A motion to suspend county administrative code sections and use a two‑step budget adoption process — to allow the new District 1 supervisor to participate and to wait for state/federal budget clarity — failed after mixed board support and public comment.
A proposal to temporarily suspend the county’s administrative code timing for final budget adoption and shift to a two‑step process failed April 9 after extended debate and public comment.
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp asked the board to adopt a two‑step timeline that would require the board to approve a recommended budget and temporary spending authorization by June 30 and then adopt a final budget after the special election seating the new District 1 supervisor. Montgomery Stepp cited federal and state funding uncertainty and said the change would give the county time to better assess how federal actions could affect local services.
County staff briefed supervisors on the mechanics and legal basis. They cited California Government Code sections that allow a two‑step process: the CAO must present a recommended budget by June 30 (California Government Code §29064), the state must schedule public budget hearings (Code §29080), and the final budget can be adopted by October 2 (Code §29088). Staff said adopting a two‑step process was allowed by government code and that several other counties use two‑step timelines.
Supporters of Montgomery Stepp’s proposal argued it would give District 1 residents a voice in budget adoption and allow staff to incorporate clearer federal and state funding information. Opponents said the county is facing a structural shortfall (staff described an approximate $138 million funding gap) and warned about delaying budget decisions in a tight fiscal environment. Supervisor Joel Anderson said he opposed the motion, citing the county’s fiscal condition and urging attention to the budget’s timely completion; he also asked whether adopted legal action outcomes could yield reimbursed fees if litigation were successful.
After public comment that included both organized labor speakers urging use of reserves for services and members of the public urging an on‑time balanced budget, the motion failed on the board floor. The clerk recorded Supervisor Anderson voting no; other present supervisors voted aye on the motion but the board announced the motion had not carried.
Why this matters: The county’s budget determines services and staffing across public health, safety, and social services. A change in timeline would have shifted when the board adopted final appropriations and how public hearings were scheduled.
Next steps: The CAO said she will bring a recommended balanced budget by May 1 as required by law; the board will proceed with the standard budget schedule unless it takes further action at a later date.
