Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget 2025 26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tentatively adopts $967 million FY 2025–26 recommended budget; final vote set for June 24
Summary
The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to tentatively adopt the county's $967 million recommended budget and continued the public hearing to June 24 for final adoption. Supervisors and staff discussed staffing, capital investment, and constraints from flat revenues and mandated costs.
Get email alerts on the County Budget 2025 26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously June 17 to tentatively adopt the recommended fiscal year 2025–26 budget and to continue the public hearing to 9 a.m. June 24 for final adoption.
County Chief Executive Office staff characterized the recommended budget as balanced at about $967,000,000 across all funds while noting constrained revenue outlooks. "We're building on the progress we've made over the past year. We have some considerable investments that your board has made in our workforce, in our public safety, in infrastructure, and in advancing key capital projects," CEO John Buselich said during an expedited presentation.
The recommended budget contains a $341,000,000 general fund component, and staff said the county will maintain close to $80,000,000 in combined restricted and unrestricted reserves. The presentation highlighted a largely flat revenue picture driven by steady property tax but softer sales and transient occupancy taxes. Staff identified several cost pressures, including a countywide cost‑of‑living adjustment and step increases, rising jail medical and liability insurance, and a $3.7 million allocation related to the replacement jail project.
During the hearing supervisors pressed staff for detail on several items. Audit Controller and budget staff traced increases in services and supplies of $15,800,000 to a mix of items: a $5,600,000 shift of fire administration into the general fund, professional services related to a PATH grant at juvenile services, increased jail medical and liability costs, and property and IT charges to departments. Staff said those shifts reflect accounting and program re‑allocations as well as new or higher costs.
Public safety staffing drew focused questions. Chief Human Resources Officer Christine Briseno said the county increased hiring incentives last year to be competitive with neighboring agencies and had seen early results: "We did have seven that have come in and taken advantage of that incentive, including three that came in as trainees and the other four as lateral transfers," she said. Sheriff’s Office leadership told the board the department had 11 current sworn vacancies and a ‘‘wind‑chill’’ count of 27 positions effectively out of rotation due to training, injuries or academy attendance. The county’s recruitment incentive for experienced officers now can total up to $30,000 (split at hiring and end of probation for many hires), staff said.
Staff also presented a revised approach to capital planning consistent with Government Finance Officers Association best practices: the capital improvement plan now appears in the budget book and staff said appropriations for many projects are being recommended up front to reduce midyear amendments and improve public visibility.
Supervisor Jack Alessio moved tentative adoption of the recommended budget. Vice Chair John Manfrie seconded; the board voted 5–0 to tentatively adopt and set final adoption for the June 24 meeting.

