San Benito supervisors continue budget hearing, direct CAO to analyze options as $85 million shortfall remains

San Benito County supervisors on June 17 continued a multiweek public hearing on the county's proposed fiscal-year budget, receiving detailed staff briefings and dozens of public comments as they weighed a roughly $85 million structural gap and potential program and position cuts.

The board heard presentations from county administrative staff on revenue projections, one-time funding adjustments, capital projects and recommended position eliminations. County staff said the largest recurring revenue source remains property taxes and that reductions and misstatements in one-time funds had complicated the budget outlook. The board also received public testimony from residents, department directors and community partners about the local impacts of proposed cuts.

Why it matters: supervisors must approve a balanced budget before the adopted deadline; the board's decisions determine whether services are reduced, positions eliminated or one-time revenues and capital projects are deferred. Staff emphasized the scale of the structural shortfall and the tradeoffs involved in preserving operating programs versus maintaining capital repairs and other commitments.

Staff briefings and fiscal picture County administrative staff described the budget process, noting prior meetings and adjustments made since the initial recommended budget. Staff identified accounting errors and overstated one-time funds that required recalculation; they also noted rising costs for contracted services and personnel. The presentation described a strategy to reduce long-term debt in parts, identify vacant positions for potential savings and re-evaluate capital-improvement projects that had been placed on hold or reduced.

Staff said the county's general fund resources include property tax and several dedicated revenue streams; they reported a revised general-fund shortfall target of about $85,000,000 that the county's planning team was using as the baseline for cuts and options. Staff outlined proposed eliminations of several dozen positions across departments and said the sheriff's office and public-safety functions were among the most materially affected by the proposed reductions.

Public comment and department concerns Dozens of speakers addressed the board during public comment. Several department directors and staff asked the board to preserve specific positions and programs or to consider alternative funding approaches. Speakers raised concerns about public safety staffing, road and bridge maintenance, building and permitting functions, and community services such as university extension, animal services and library programs.

Public commenters included an outgoing director from the University of California Cooperative Extension in San Benito County who said the county's proposed reduction to the extension office's county funding would cut administrative support for grant management and community programs. Residents and former employees raised issues such as delayed jury payments and operational impacts at county facilities.

Several commenters urged the board to consider non-general fund sources, grants, federal funds and use of capital or non-recurring funds as alternatives to cutting staff. Other commenters asked the board to preserve a public information position that staff and supervisors said had improved public engagement in recent years.

Board discussion and direction to staff Supervisors discussed potential interim steps including using reserves, reprioritizing capital projects, pursuing grants, and identifying non-general fund capital projects that could preserve certain staff positions. Some supervisors suggested one furlough day per month as a possible option to reduce labor costs; others warned of the operational and service impacts of broad furloughs. Several board members emphasized the risk of deferring facility maintenance and the downstream costs of delayed repairs.

After debate, the board made a motion directing the county administrative officer to continue work with department heads to identify and quantify alternatives, including non-general fund options and potential asset strategies, and to return with an updated package for the board's consideration at a subsequent meeting. The motion also asked staff to analyze and bring back options to reduce the structural gap while minimizing public-safety impacts and preserving critical services. The board recorded a roll-call vote; the motion carried by the tally recorded at the meeting.

Next steps and timing County staff said they would return to the board with a refined recommendation after additional departmental review and further reconciliation of one-time and recurring revenues. The board set a follow-up to review revised materials before final budget adoption. Staff also noted some capital projects remain eligible for external grant funding and that the county will continue to pursue those funding streams.

The continuation of the budget hearing brought into clearer focus the trade-offs facing the board: preserve staff and service levels now and draw deeper on reserves, or reduce personnel and delay projects to narrow a large, multi‑million-dollar shortfall. Supervisors instructed staff to deliver more detailed departmental breakdowns, vacancy analyses and alternatives for board consideration at the next scheduled budget meeting.