Supervisors debate CIP/supplemental timing and SRO grant uncertainty as budget shortfall narrows

Supervisors used the March 11 budget workshop to debate whether the county should change its process for ranking CIP and supplemental requests and to underscore the risk of funding recurring personnel with one-time monies.

Mr. Bryant and Ms. McBride explained the difference between operating (O&M) budget items and supplemental/CIP requests; staff said they plan to give the board ranked supplemental and CIP requests later in the year (September was mentioned) after actual revenue and operating results are clearer. Mr. Martin and several other supervisors expressed concern about historically using one-time or reserve funds to cover recurring expenses, and Mr. Bryant said he is not recommending funding supplemental positions in the operating budget this year because revenue is tight.

Supervisors also discussed seven school resource officer (SRO) positions that have been dependent on grant funding. Staff said the SRO requests are continuation grants and that the state typically announces awards in May or June; supervisors expressed concern about the late timetable because grant outcomes can materially affect the county's recurring budget obligations.

Board members suggested three practical paths to reduce the current $222,000 shortfall: (1) use a portion of the county's contingency/reserve (minority view), (2) pass a portion of health-insurance increases to employees (5% or 10% options), or (3) identify operating cuts or reclassify certain capital-outlay requests as one-time funded items. Staff said they will return with budget scenarios that model those tradeoffs at the next meeting.

Ending: Board members asked staff to bring back revised operating and supplemental/CIP packages and said they will decide next meeting whether to adopt plan changes, move funds from reserves or ask employees to assume a portion of premium increases.